2003/2004 NHL Season

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i haven't been keeping up with this thread too well, but let me see if i have the drift:
griffiths fights with cujo (or vice versa), cujo counteracts, griffiths counteracts, etc. mainly over the point of what is and is not an elite team. because being elite guarantees cups (right canucks!?!).


i do like the argument about the dump and chase, a Wild team favorite (which is getting us so far, so fast). dump and chase should really be used solely out of complete desperation, not as the go-to play. but as we slowly regroup from getting gabby and dupuis back and finding the new players a home in the lineup, the dump and chase is happening less and less. perhaps we'll get back to using our best asset soon. that being our speed.
 
Ok Griffiths, I didn't say that no-touch icing would entirely eliminate the dump and chase... but because many systems out there stress center-ice lock, it would effect how a lot of teams gamble before the red line. Sure, with new rules they'd be more careful about the location from which they dump the puck in... but if there's a greater chance for an icing, it's less likely a forechecker will engage the offensive zone. Take a look at international leagues for example... do the Swedes dump and chase?

:wink:

That isn't necessarily a fair analogy, as most international leagues have no red line... but that seems to only allow for the fundamentals of boredom to pervade further... see the Czechs. Then why don't all teams/nations play this way? The Americans ostracized the system at the Salt Lake City Olympics, citing that it was the Canadians who employed the boring no-frills system.

It's really a question of philosophy. Do I necessarily agree with the assessments I made above... no, I'm just presenting an alternative view to the north of the border cynicism prevalent in this thread (which is unfortunate). Will no touch icing repair the flawed hockey dogma? Maybe not. But it definitely begins to limit the avenues of monotony and injury in the current defunct iteration of the nhl.

So why did I say it would almost eliminate the dump and chase? Simply for the reason that it would force players to read exactly where they are on the ice... a step of hesitancy that hopefully would result in a Scott Stevens type blow... knocking the system right out of the player.

:up:

That's a joke griffiths.
 
Last edited:
The best thing the NHL could do is start playing the game on Olympic sized ice. Ever notice the Europeans seem to be better skaters? Sure, why not...they have a bigger rink all the time. Meanwhile here, we ram these guys onto a smaller rink, and then expect them to be able to keep up and skate faster, farther when required. It doesn't makes sense.
 
this year is black and gold , what a game , what a team , what a CITY !!!!!!!!
this is the year , cause if not success , Thornton , samsonov , Murray or rolston will go away ......
 
They have not the 'tender to do it, in more ways than one.

As for increasing the ice surface... only in conjunction with other rule changes could that be effective. European skatesmanship has nothing to do with rink size... it's system and amateur development. Just ask the Russians.
 
WinnieThePoo said:
this year is black and gold , what a game , what a team , what a CITY !!!!!!!!
this is the year , cause if not success , Thornton , samsonov , Murray or rolston will go away ......



seriously the perfect game for DKM to play after.
 
The_Sweetest_Thing said:
The best thing the NHL could do is start playing the game on Olympic sized ice. Ever notice the Europeans seem to be better skaters? Sure, why not...they have a bigger rink all the time. Meanwhile here, we ram these guys onto a smaller rink, and then expect them to be able to keep up and skate faster, farther when required. It doesn't makes sense.
Judging by how exciting the olympic gold medal game was last year, one would think you have a solid argument. However, that game was an anomoly based on the fact it was basically a really competitive all star game. Normally, the games that are played on the large ice are just as trap oriented. In fact, they rely on it even more (as hard as it is to believe) because of the extra room and no red line. It forces teams to clog up the neutral zone to prevent the opposion of taking advantage. Having no 2 line pass forces the defending team to stay deeper in the defensive zone. As a result, forechecking goes down to about zero, and we're left with Anaheim Mighty Ducks type teams playing on "the ocean" instead of "The Pond" (the Ducks' arena). The Czech's beat Canada in the '98 Olympics because of 1) Hasek, and 2) the trap (oh, and 3), because Crawford left the greatest clutch perfomer in the history of the game on the bench during the shootout).
 
it gave newbies such as myself something to read

not saying it meant anything to me, but i read it anyway
 
I don't think the moose is playing in the legends game.

Oh and one more thing...ADAM OATES IS AN OILER!!
 
Actually, the Moose is almost certainly playing in the legends game, according to many reports (including Sportsnet, TSN, and The Score). Even Gretzky said he'll most likely play. Glen Sather is being flown by the Rangers to Edmonton to coach the game anyway. Messier will likely join him.
 
Yeah, it's almost unfair - not only are the Oilers much younger than the Canadiens, but now have an active NHL player (who's leading the Rangers in scoring) to boot! The Canadiens are going to get crushed. This is why Patrick Roy should have played to make it more fair.
 
ha ha

Michael Griffiths said:
we're left with Anaheim Mighty Ducks type teams playing on "the ocean" instead of "The Pond" (the Ducks' arena)

that was clever.
the succinct explanation to conclude drew from the overall effect somewhat, but overall clever.
 
Re: ha ha

kobayashi said:


that was clever.
the succinct explanation to conclude drew from the overall effect somewhat, but overall clever.
LOL, I thought the exact same thing about the explanation. But I also knew many people wouldn't have known what I was talking about! Thank-you, though. :) Ah, life's dilemmas...
 
Back
Top Bottom