JustJoe2k5 Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Great game, great series. I love the fact that Rod Brind'Amour scored the game-winner. All we need now is for Glen Wesley to score a goal in the Stanley Cup Finals.
JustJoe2k5 Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 I am shocked. This may have been the first press conference of the series that Lindy Ruff hasn't taken a shot at Carolina, guess he doesn't have much of a reason to anyway.
Guest Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Almost every good coach does that in the first place, whether it be a slam or them making an ass of themselves. They just want to take the attention off their team.
CanadianGuitarist Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 As my grandfather and I discussed, the delay of game is a stupid rule. Â But a rule is a rule. HOWEVER, it DID NOT SCREW THE BUFFALO SABRES, as we're expecting to hear a lot of on Buffalo radio tomorrow. If the game was a 3-2 final, that's a whole other debate. Even if the fourth Canes goal had been empty net, some bets could have been off. Â Ultimately, I say get rid of it. The 'referee discretion' seems like even more headaches eventually for NHL bigwigs.
Guest Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Like I heard someone else on another board say, they should make the delay of game rule a rule like icing where you can't change your players.
Guest Felonies! Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Here's a sig for bandwagoners like me to use for the finals.
Guest Princess Leena Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Like I heard someone else on another board say, they should make the delay of game rule a rule like icing where you can't change your players. Â That would be much better. Â The rule never made sense to me, because in most cases, it's just as easy to ice the puck than launch it over the glass. Plus, when you try to bank it off the glass, many times it's to do a soft clear, and NOT to ice the puck and stop play. Â And the Sabres probably would have lost anyway. It's a shame they had to play so defensively.
Brush with Greatness Posted June 3, 2006 Report Posted June 3, 2006 It'll be interesting to see if Carolina's great forwards can get through on Edmonton's great defense.  Whoa there Oilers fan! Easy on the great defense talk. There's not really any way to spin the fact that they give up 32 shots per game. Let's take a look at the following stats.  Shots Against Per Game  Detroit 22.8 Carolina 25.4 Dallas 25.6 Anaheim 25.6 Rangers 26.3 San Jose 27.1 Buffalo 27.9 Calgary 28.3 Ottawa 28.7 Jersey 29.3 Colorado 31.0 Tampa 31.2 Philly 31.8 OILERS 32.3 Montreal 33.0 Nashville 34.7  Now just how exactly do you justify this "great defense" allowing the third most shots against per game in the playoffs? It's tough to argue that it's the quality of the opponent because Buffalo played against Ottawa, Carolina, and Philly, and they only give up 28 per game. And let's not forget that was with a patchwork defense.  Oh, I should also add that by per game, I mean, per 60 minutes.  EDIT: I would be remiss if I did not mention that on offense, the vaunted attack averages 24.7 shots for per game.
Guest Posted June 3, 2006 Report Posted June 3, 2006 I wouldn't call myself an Oiler fan or anything near to the sort. In fact, I'm changing my avatar so I don't give that impression. Â The Oilers scheme allows teams to take bad shots, but not get great opportunities. I haven't seen Roloson need to make very big saves. Â Carolina passes a lot and passes up some opportunities. They also have too many playmakers, but that doesn't mean that they have skill up front, which is what I was originally trying to state. Â I see you pop in here sometimes, but I have no idea what team you're a fan of. I'd like to know.
CanadianChris Posted June 3, 2006 Report Posted June 3, 2006 King makes a good point. A better stat to look at would be scoring chances against. I can't believe Edmonton isn't near the top in that category.
Red Baron Posted June 4, 2006 Report Posted June 4, 2006 Also, Rollie hasn't gave up large rebounds. Â Edmonto should win easily the first game against the slower defence of the Hurricanes.
Star Ocean 3 Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 gentlemen, it's the end of an era. Â Â The best logo/team name combination will be no more next season. Â Â They say they want to seperate themselves from their Disney roots. Â Â I say NEVER FORGET. Â Â Thus, my search for a Mighty Ducks jersey in this crazy town continues. It'll be the Anaheim Ducks next season. Their colors could even be black and orange. Â Â Even the Pond could have a name change. Â Â Hold me, I'm going in.
naiwf Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 *clutches original Mighty Ducks jersey* Â It doesn't fit my arms properly anymore, but it's now a collectible. Woo.
Guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 The colors are orange, black and green. The logo is space-like. Â I'll post the link to the leaked version shortly. Â http://hfboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15503
JustJoe2k5 Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 The colors are orange, black and green. The logo is space-like. I'll post the link to the leaked version shortly.  http://hfboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15503   I think this   Would've been much better.
RepoMan Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 The leaked Ducks logos looks like what I would imagine an arcade version of Duck Hunt would look like. Laterial move in my opinion.
the max Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 Game 1 tonight... Â who's got who? Â I like Edmonton to win, even though as a Bruins fan, I'd prefer to see Carolina win (draft pick reasons). Â I'll say Edmonton in six.
CanadianGuitarist Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 Oil in six. Â Pre-game is just starting. HNIC brought out "The place'll be rockin, it's Saturday night", which I don't recall hearing for years.
CanadianChris Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 Why would they bring it out for a Monday night game? I'd rather hear "The Chance May Never Come Again," personally. Â I have the Hurricanes in 6, although I'm obviously hoping otherwise.
CanadianGuitarist Posted June 5, 2006 Report Posted June 5, 2006 Well, that's plausible. My props have to go to a lot of the Oilers not getting awe-struck as they progressed. Even their vets haven't really been this far before, save maybe Smyth's Olympic/World success.
the max Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 Great period. Edmonton doesn't look rusty at all and they seem to be targeting Wesley's legs. At this rate, Wesley will be the only defenseman using crutches during a game.
Brush with Greatness Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 Is that a "HEMSKY SUCKS" chant? Â That's what I thought originally. But, they were also chanting if after Dvorak's dive/fall. Â I think what they were actually saying was "Ref you suck!" Â How much better would this series be if the Whale were, you know, still the Whale?
CanadianGuitarist Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 And Pat Verbeek was still playing, while we're getting nostalgic? *Sheds wistful tear
CanadianGuitarist Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 Even with the return of the Sandman, I regret turning to Raw for a bit. This is ridiculously good hockey.
CanadianChris Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 Oh my God, it's a PENALTY SHOT!! Â Pronger scores! 2-0 Oilers.
CanadianGuitarist Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 From a scramble? Â That's a pond hockey compromise. EDIT: Waiiiiiiiiiiiting: Â SCORES! Pronger, no less!
CanadianChris Posted June 6, 2006 Report Posted June 6, 2006 The chant is definitely "Ref, you suck!" I've heard it in this arena before.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now