448 replies to this topic

[NJDevs4978]

Oh come off it already! I am so sick of this garbage about how the Rangers didn't deserve it. What the hell did they do last time there was hockey? Did you deliberately rid that out of your memory banks because of your insane hatred for them? Of course ya did. They sold off a ton of their players and basically were losing more games by the end of the year than any other team outside Washington. And you just want to focus on all the spending they did in the past.

And they already GOT a high pick for that, you want to give them two for it?

I never said the Rangers deserved to win. God. Some of you go read one site and basically label an entire fanbase as thinking that way. Nice to see such generalizations.

And who said 'you' said they deserved to win? I was referring more to Clown's post above and he's not a Ranger fan. Talk about generalizations...

And you have the nerve to say that the NHL would never want Crosby in New Jersey or Ottawa? Why not? They're bigger markets than Pittsburgh! I know a levelheaded poster who would agree with me. Cause that's what a SMALL MARKET is.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this to you but Ottawa's a CANADIEN market, bigger than Pittsburgh is irrelevant in their case. The NHL does not need to sell the game to Canada and having Crosby in Canada won't do much in terms of selling it to the US. As for us, we're supposed to be what's wrong with the game according to the so-called experts. You think the NHL wants Crosby going to a place that will never go out of its way to market individuals as long as Lou is here? Plus Pittsburgh has the Lemieux factor they can at least play it up as a passing of the torch.

I just want to say thank you to Dew, Rowdy, bruins and 7' for having my back and understanding what I meant and not ripping me apart and dismissing me as an NHL fan like I was beneath them. I'm every bit a fan. I just felt a little disheartened after a long day. Doesn't mean I'm jumping ship. There are others who feel the exact same way.

Nobody's questioning your fandom but honestly there's something wrong when you or anyone is 'disheartened' after the only two good days the NHL has seen in the last year and a half. It's like a Boston Red Sox fan complaining about Grady Little leaving in Pedro against the Yankees and moaning about 86 years of misery the day AFTER they won the World Series last year.

Edited by Hasan4978, 22 July 2005 - 11:05 PM.

[Satans Hockey]

In a way I wouldnt have minded the Rangers getting Crosby cause it would have been just as sweet to see them fail with him.

[Don]

CANADIEN

(...psst.... "Canadian"; "Canadien" is french)

Why, if someone is on ignore, can you still see their messages in the roll-back when writing a message?

Derek: Apparently you can't read. Because I've answered your question TWICE before you even asked the question.

And no, I wouldn't be whining anywhere near as bad as you are if we were given the lottery deal. YOU ALREADY GOT YOUR ONE DRAFT PICK FOR FINISHING NEAR LAST. YOU DON'T GET TWO. BUT OF COURSE, THE NEW YORK ENTITLEMENT FACTOR KICKS IN AND AND WAH, WAH, WAH.... give it a rest. This was a weighted lottery, but I don't think it should have been weighted at all. The teams that finished poorly over the last 3 years have ALREADY been rewarded with high draft picks for their miserable play. You don't get rewarded TWICE. And only those with an exaggerated sense of importance think they deserve it.

LOTCB has already called me a liar. I'm sure you will too. But that's my word and I'm sticking to it.

[LizDevil30]

It is an strange coincidence how Tampa got the 30th pick.

[David Puddy]

Football - Their changes have been more subtle in recent years at least to my knowledge, though the Thursday opener was a bit of a radical change (one I still don't like).  And expansion's been just as much a part of football as it has been every other sport, though the NFL's best equipped of all the sports to handle it. 

There have been quite a few.... especially pushing off. Micheal Irvin made a career out of something that would certainly get called a penalty today.

Instant replay is actually relatively new to the NFL (2000 or therabouts)

Let's see what I can find. Okay between 1999 and 2003:
- Instant replay with a challange system.
- Clipping is now illegal around the line of scrimmage just as it is on the rest of the field.
- Celebrations limited to one player. Fines will be assessed for celebrations by two or more players.
-Anyone wearing an eligible number (1-49 and 80-89) can play at quarterback without having to check in with the referee.
-umble recoveries will be awarded at the spot of the recovery, not where the player's momentum carries him.
- Taunting rules will be tightened, with 15-yard unsportsmanlike-conduct penalties flagged.
- Bandannas and stocking caps are out, but skullcaps with the team colors and logos are OK.
- player who touches a pylon remains in-bounds until any part of his body touches the ground out-of-bounds
- continuing-action fouls now become dead-ball fouls and will result in the loss of down and distance;
- any dead-ball penalties by the offense after they have made the line to gain will result in a loss of 15 yards and a new first-and-10 series;
- the act of batting and stripping the ball from player possession is legalized;
-the chop-block technique is illegal on kicking plays;
-it is illegal to hit a quarterback helmet-to-helmet anytime after a change of possession;
- after a kickoff, the game clock will start when the ball is touched legally in the field of play;
- the two-minute exception is eliminated;
- inside of two minutes, the game clock will not stop when the player who originally takes the snap is tackled behind the line of scrimmage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of those rules are artificially limiting the skills of players. People like to compare the goalie rule with pitcher rules in baseball, but those weren't artificial.
Imagine if they changed baseball to say any pitches over 85 mph don't count...

[LOTCB]

Geez I guess you were ready to go off either way, though if the Rangers had won the lottery you would have had to pipe down when people said it was fixed.  I thought you'd be happy that the lottery proved there was no fix.  And why is it just a Ranger argument anyway?  They're hardly the only team that drafted below where people thought they would and the Rangers deserved it less than the other crappy teams because of their mismanagement

The reason I cite the Rangers is because So many people here almost seemed convinced it was going to be a fix, but where was the evidence? maybe all this fix talk shoud have been brought up AFTER the draft, because now those who were ranting and yelling about that before the draft, without any facts to backup their claim (other then citing a possible Ewing lotto fix in the NBA, but that is not within the realm of hockey, so I dont see how its realted), now look somewhat foolish for yelling about a fix.

We now live in an "instant gratification" sports world, with everyone yearing to be the first to make the bold prediction, the first to come up with that angle to a story. Its getting nauseating if you ask me. I wish these sports radio and media folks would just let the event happen FIRST and then assess the sitation based on the results instead of speaculating what MIGHT happen with ZERO evidence.

Maybe Devils fans were afraid that the Rangers would get Crosby and he will be great, much like I was afraid Toronto would get him too. The thought of seeing that makes me want to

So teams dont deserve high picks because of mismanagement? Since when has that been a factor used to determine whether a team should have a high pick? If that were the case, the LA Clippers in the NBA should be picking #30 overall eveyr year

Edited by LOTCB, 23 July 2005 - 06:33 AM.

[LOTCB]

I've changed my mind. LOTCB has made me see the light. However, I think that the lottery should have been ranked, not on where they finished two years ago, but rather on a larger scheme of things. I think it should have been ranked by when they last won the Stanley Cup. Team that joined since expansion but have yet to win a cup would be started at the year that they joined the league. That way longest suffering team would be granted Crosby to help end their drought. I think that only fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice sarcasm and a nice jab at the Sabres...dosent bother me one bit, so the Sabres havent won a Cup so they should get a top pick, wow you should be a comedian

Edited by LOTCB, 23 July 2005 - 06:47 AM.

[NJDevs4978]

Well Bettman was once employed by Stern, so there's the NBA-NHL connection. Plus SO MANY writers, media types, even frigging Roenick WANTED the draft to be rigged to the Rangers' favor, which probably bugged me more than anything. The NHL's desperate for positive PR so of course there was thought that a fix might be possible since putting the most hyped prospect in years in the biggest market in the US and have him be their savior after seven years of missing the playoffs would be a natural fit, but to the NHL's credit they didn't take the easy way out like baseball did when they looked the other way with the steroid devil in the late '90's. Granted, the Rangers could have won the lottery on merit anyway but there would have always been the cloud hanging over them that was it somehow fixed.

And in the Ranger$ case I should have said mismanagement of epic proportions with money, not merely mismanagement Other than being a 'big market' I don't see how they deserved the top pick more than Pittsburgh, who was after all a three-ball team. Should they be picking higher probably but that's what a lottery does sometimes.

Edited by Hasan4978, 23 July 2005 - 06:47 AM.

[Don]

Nice sarcasm and a nice jab at the Sabres...dosent bother me one bit, so the Sabres havent won a Cup so they should get a top pick, wow you should be a comedian   

I was writing a system that would *GIVE* Crosby to the Maple Leafs. Wasn't thinking of the Sabres at all when I wrote that....

[Don]

None of those rules are artificially limiting the skills of players. People like to compare the goalie rule with pitcher rules in baseball, but those weren't artificial. Imagine if they changed baseball to say any pitches over 85 mph don't count...

Well, they did tighten the rules around spitballs in 1968.

In 1977 the NFL said that defenders cannot touch receivers 5 yards past scrimmage. So defenders that had made their living defending the player now had to defend the ball.

"The dominant defensive athletes the Steelers put on the field shut down the wide-open passing attacks that had developed in the previous era. By 1977 scoring was the lowest it had been since 1942, while offensive touchdowns had fallen to their lowest levels since 1938. The rulemakers enacted serious measures after this low-scoring 1977 season, fearing a loss of public interest in the defense-dominated game. They established a zone of only five yards from the line of scrimmage in which a bump by a pass defender was permitted. Offensive linemen could extend their arms and open their hands on pass blocks."

Leagues are always doing what they can to limit defence and promote offence. Whether it be eliminating illegal defenses, or limiting what an individual player can or cannot do on defence, or reducing strike zones so pitchers used to hitting the corner have to adjust.... it's done all the time. Except that when other sports do it, the fans don't tear down the game for it.

I'm against the trapezoid because I think it actually HURTS offense because it helped our transition game and got us a LOT of goals. Not because I'm against limiting a player's skill for a more offense-oriented game.

[SueNJ97]

One point - In the last few years, it's only the last actual season that the Rangers have finished low enough to get an actual lottery pick, I think. I know the last years of the Smith regime produced the Brendl/Lundmark drafts, and the Malhotra draft, but that was a while ago and we all see what they didn't do for the franchise. But otherwise, the Rangers have really wound up being just competitive enough to NOT get a lottery pick, and just bad enough to miss the playoffs. Derek, was Blackburn a lottery pick? I don't remember. In any case, his injury certainly wasn't their fault. Whatever you think about how they developed him, his injury was in the offseason and it wasn't anything to do with how he was handled by the Rangers.

You can argue for the umpeenth time over whether the Rangers' strategy was correct, whether they should have scrapped the team sooner & built through the draft by really going for high draft picks. But this idea that they have been picking somewhere from 1-8 year-in and year-out is just not true. Have they done a good job when they have picked high? I'd say no...but drafts are a crap shoot. But I also have the feeling that they were trying to go with players they felt would have the most immediate impact (again, with the 'now' rather than building for the future, and it bit them).

As for this lottery, it was, as many people have pointed out, not designed to simply do what drafts in the past have done, because there was no season. You don't know what this season would have looked like had it been played. Those teams that needed to be helped because of poor performance in the past seasons, already had that happen through the last draft.

So what do you do? Some people wanted a straight, one ball per team lottery to determine draft order. Some people (from teams that had done more poorly over the years) wanted all the playoff teams thrown out and only the non-playoff teams from the last 3 years in there, with the playoff teams to be drawn later. The NHL came up with a compromise solution with the weighted lottery. As in politics, when you have 2 sides that disagree, the compromise really pleased neither side. And I've found in politics, usually, when nobody is happy with the compromise, it's usually the best decision.

Did it require luck? Yes. Did some teams appear to get 'shafted'? Yes. And some teams got 'lucky'. But since there was no season last year, there is not anything real to base this on. Everyone has already been rewarded or penalized based on their past performance for every single draft that has already happened. There was a chance for some teams to be helped a little more for past bad performance but there was no guarantee that it would happen with this lottery. What some people seemed to want was a guarantee. These teams already got their guarantees in the drafts that happened before.

As for the rule changes, I'm no shootout fan, I never have been. And I want to see the research that anyone has that says that the so-called casual fan will suddenly come to the sport because this gets rid of ties. The casual fan still has to sit through the rest of the damn game first. Which they have no intention of doing because they don't understand it and they don't want to understand it. The shootout will change nothing in terms of viewership.

As for the goalie not being able to play the puck except within narrow bounds, well, Clarke got his wish. Marty is tethered. I still want an explaination from Colin Campbell on how this brings back the shot from the wing, which is what he swore would happen when he said this rule change needed to be implemented. That's not what happens, Colin, you idiot. What happens is the puck stays in the attacking zone and teams like Philly can cycle. If anything, it stop teams like NJ from starting a break-out pass that might lead to a shot from the wing.

[sykkie15]

BTW, the Penguins are holding a press conference today at 3pm. TSN.ca will be cybercasting it for those interested.

[David Puddy]

A small tweak they didn't consider if they want to limit offense: Why not get rid of the hand pass in the defensive zone? Is it more beneficial to the attacking team to have play continue than there be a faceoff?

Edited by David Puddy, 23 July 2005 - 11:51 AM.

[sykkie15]

Press conference being held by the Penguins right now, they say they've been getting tickets sold from 10 different areas including Ontario and California...damn!

[StarDew]

Yeah. There were no important rule changes in the 60s or 70s.

Like setting the number of players at 16.
Like making penalty shots to be taken by the person the infraction was against.
Like not allowing body contact on face-offs.
Like requiring teams to have back-up goaltenders.
Limiting the curvature of the blade of the hockey stick and the width of the stick.
Substitution allowed on coincidental majors (play 5 on 5).

I can list many more if you want. That's just a sample.

The 4-on-4 and shootouts and the points that go with them are gimicks, but if the game is settled in 60 minutes we don't get to the gimmicks.

I, like Lou, am a traditionalist and would prefer to do away with the trapazoid behind the net and all of the OT gimmicks, But I, like Lou, am willing to look past the imperfections and see that this is still the best game on earth in the league with the best players on earth. I love the game and the league and it pisses me off to see so many willfully try their best to tear it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go list what you want...anyone can do research...watching how these changes have affected the game over the years holds more for me than some essay...watching the changes since long before you were born allows me an opinion that, stars above, differs from yours...you think you are so high and mighty well guess what...you aren't...people are allowed their opinions and if they don't agree with yours they are either wrong or hate the game...stuff it...folks are allowed not to like something...if you want to be a plastic soldier of the NHL then go ahead...just don't try to tell me that if one doesn't agree with it all or is disappointed that means they hate the sport...free thinkers are allowed whether you like it or not.

[StarDew]

Chill out, Don, you're getting a bit too extreme here.  You have to like every single thing Bettman's trotted out this week or else you hate hockey?  You think that since the NHL's back, it's all gravy?  Come on, you know better than that.  If this was any other year, you'd probably be bashing at least one of the rule changes as well.

What I said above to 'Dew. I have said earlier this afternoon, in this thread and in others that I think the trapazoid thingy behind the net is stupid. That doesn't mean that I hate the NHL. However, if I posted something that said that the league has decided to turn the sport into a mockery and that the league screwed us royally and that the league turned it's back on the fans, I think that would suggest a hatred for the league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh so you can think it would suggest a hatred of the game yet someone is not allwed to think it suggests a mockery of the sport....doubled standard. Go ahead and spin it anyway you want...this logic shows your bias to your way or the highway.

[StarDew]

What I said above to 'Dew. I have said earlier this afternoon, in this thread and in others that I think the trapazoid thingy behind the net is stupid. That doesn't mean that I hate the NHL. However, if I posted something that said that the league has decided to turn the sport into a mockery and that the league screwed us royally and that the league turned it's back on the fans, I think that would suggest a hatred for the league.

I can definitely see where one would think the shootout turns the sport into a mockery, etc. I might be able to see where one would get that from the goalie trap, too, though it's quite a stretch. Does that suggest a hatred for the league? I don't think so. I highly doubt Derek will let the shootout ruin his love of hockey. As for '7'... well, he's been a lost cause for years. If your sanity is helped by keeping him on ignore, go for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are smart beyond your years Rowdy

[StarDew]

Don, this gets my vote for post of the year. 

Last time I checked, hockey was at best the 5th most popular sport.  You can either do one of two things:

- Cater to the traditionalists, take no chances and keep the status quo, or
- Try some new wrinkles to help the sport grow

Shootouts are a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.  Say someone goes to their first hockey game, and it ends up in a tie.  How are they supposed to feel?  "Well, it was fun, but they tied.  Is that good?"  Having a winner gives fans more for their enterainment dollar.  And when it matters most (playoffs), they're sticking with the traditional format.  So what's the problem?

Some people need to open their minds.  ITS STILL HOCKEY!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Post of the year...catagory questionable...5th most popular sport...wooohooo...like other sports don't end in ties??? Whoopie...they saw a tie...it is the end of the world...it is not sport or competition it is entertainment...how silly of me to thing differently...some people need to allow others an opinion that does not agree with theirs or the majority....I mean free will and choice still exist...correct????

[sammyk]

Press conference being held by the Penguins right now, they say they've been getting tickets sold from 10 different areas including Ontario and California...damn!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about Ontario, California? Any from there?

[StarDew]

Ahhh thank you Don!  I was read Dews post and thinking ... welll...I'm not an old chestnut or anything but it seems to me my earliest memories of hockey were the fall out from expansion...(I should add this was 1971 (I think -- I wasn't sure what year was what back then heeheehee)  I didn't quite get what the hubbubb was about -- and then  just all the adults whining... but honest all their whining combined didn't reach the fever pitch of this thread -- ever think it was fan tolerance that's changed for the worse guys?  and players being all outspoken and self righteous and 

wow am I just glad the nHL is back I... I just had no idea how very much I missed having something CONCRETE and real and active to talk about --- I'm so happy!    and I love you all and I love how Don keeps dinging people off his lordly tree!  Keep up the good work my Virgo friend

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DD/PK dinging people...puleez...but whatever