2003/2004 NHL Season
- Thread starter Edgeman
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Re: credit where credit is due...to canadas best team.
That's a bit of a technicality there, kobayashi. The 5th goal was an empty netter. But since it's the Leafs, we'll give it to them!kobayashi said:
Pinball Wizard
Refugee
Re: Re: credit where credit is due...to canadas best team.
You're worse than a government sub committee trying to explain the benefits of driving with your eyes closed.
By the way how is your phd in spin coming?
Michael Griffiths said:
You're worse than a government sub committee trying to explain the benefits of driving with your eyes closed.
By the way how is your phd in spin coming?
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Empty net goals are nothing to be proud over (unless the team in question finds it difficult to score with a goalie in net)... and they're not so much a part of the grind of game competition as simply formalities used to seal the deal. Nothing more, nothing less. Spin that and wash it.
Pinball Wizard
Refugee
Michael Griffiths said:
They obviously don't have that much trouble if their team is winning.
Argue all you want about the merit or insignificance of empty net goals... the bottom line is the team employing a 6th attacker is down a goal; they're losing. The goal just solidifies that.
of course if a canuck scored an empty netter we'd have a link to a video of it with the thread titled "The Greatest Empty Net Goal Ever Scored!" and then have Griffey compare the empty net goal to the encore of a rock concert saying its the perfect ending to a perfcect performance.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Of course!
Gretz used to score the best empty net goals. I think he holds the record for the most empty net goals in a season (maybe even career)... which makes sense of course since he also holds the record for most goals, season and career. I still remember game 7 vs. the Oilers in 1989 - the year after he got traded. He blew right past Jari Kurri, who was trying to chase him and the puck, and went in with Jari practically trying to hold on to him for dear life, and scored on the empty net, giving the Kings the series win. It must have been the biggest empty net goal scored in the history of all civilization... at least, going by his reaction and the mob scene.... Hockey Night in Canada used it in their montage intro from then on. It was great.
Gretz used to score the best empty net goals. I think he holds the record for the most empty net goals in a season (maybe even career)... which makes sense of course since he also holds the record for most goals, season and career. I still remember game 7 vs. the Oilers in 1989 - the year after he got traded. He blew right past Jari Kurri, who was trying to chase him and the puck, and went in with Jari practically trying to hold on to him for dear life, and scored on the empty net, giving the Kings the series win. It must have been the biggest empty net goal scored in the history of all civilization... at least, going by his reaction and the mob scene.... Hockey Night in Canada used it in their montage intro from then on. It was great.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I forgot to reply to this post... I didn't argue empty net goals were insignificant, and nor did I say they didn't solidify the win. In fact I said the opposite - I said they "sealed the deal"...in other words, I said exactly as you did, using different words. Further, I simply said the empty net goal, itself, is nothing to be proud over. By that I mean, it's not that difficult to score one since there is no goalie in the net, and to use a goal such as this in determining how badly a team got beat is a bit of a stretch. Some would argue that its difficulty is evened out because the team trying to tie the game has 6 attackers instead of 5, but such an argument is fallacious. Why you ask? Put it this way, if you look at the stats, situation for situation, between the number of goals scored with an extra attacker vs. the number of empty net goals scored, you'll see more empty net goals are scored by a landslide. Clearly proof that it isn't evened out at all, and that empty net goals are much easier to score than goals with an extra attacker.Pinball Wizard said:
Last edited:
this is the best hockey decision ever.
the fact that the empty net goal is 'nothing to be proud over' doesnt change the fact that the canucks had previously been beaten by two or more.
maybe instead of focusing on the ease with which empty net goals are scored, griffiths-canuck enterprises should focus on the underlying causes for the empty neat.
the fact that the empty net goal is 'nothing to be proud over' doesnt change the fact that the canucks had previously been beaten by two or more.
maybe instead of focusing on the ease with which empty net goals are scored, griffiths-canuck enterprises should focus on the underlying causes for the empty neat.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I agree Kobayashi, but that's a separate issue - an issue I've already addressed by asking why the Canucks aren't showing up for these recent games against sub par teams. There's something wrong with the Canucks' collective effort/play recently, and that's all I was getting at. I was simply contradicting Cujo's claim that the Canucks simply "got beat". They got beat, yes, but it was through a lack of collective effort. Sorry, but I've been watching this team long enough to know the difference.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Re: this is the best hockey decision ever.
Oh, I forgot to add...
Oh, I forgot to add...
Correct, it doesn't change the fact that the Canucks haven't had previously bean beaten by two or more, technically speaking. I had forgotten about that empty net goal because it's really a moot point, since it's not indicative of most regulation time play (unless pulling the goalie throughout the entire game suddenly becomes the norm). But like I said, techinically you're in the right.... however moot it is.kobayashi said:
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I was referring to the "dumb" the leafs are!
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Man, I haven't been able to type/spell all day. The above should read: "I was referring to how "dumb" the leafs are!" A perfectly great comeback ruined by a missed word. Griff, you disappoint me.
Back to the Canucks, it's funny how many in Vancouver are jumping off the bandwagon. I found this on the Canucks' message board:
They're still leading the Western Conference and are tied for 3rd overall in the NHL, yet people are already jumping ship. Typical.
Back to the Canucks, it's funny how many in Vancouver are jumping off the bandwagon. I found this on the Canucks' message board:
They're still leading the Western Conference and are tied for 3rd overall in the NHL, yet people are already jumping ship. Typical.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
No one is denying the Flames haven't put on a great run the last 10 games. The last three seasons on the other hand.... now that's a different story.
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Lord knows there's no improving between seasons.
Justified
Refugee
Go Thrashers! 
Lilly said:
Don't you know..."elite" teams just pop up sometime just before the season starts...no building...no training....no drafting.....they just pop up overnight and start converting regular hockey fans into mindless drones, slaves even, who try (and I stress try) to convert the rest of the world into thinking that their "elite" team is the best ever "created"....in the history of hockey.
*Passes out from sarcasm overload*
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Of course there's improving between seasons. My point is that 10 games of playing good hockey doesn't automatically make them Stanley Cup contenders. Sheesh, you guys are hilarious.Lilly said:
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Sarcasm or not, your post still makes no sense. When did I ever say anything remotely close to that? Thanks for putting words in my mouth.Edgeman said:
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Uhm, no. Now you've opened up a big can of worms...Chizip said:he's got ya there griffey
"'elite' teams just pop up sometime just before the season starts...no building...no training....no drafting.....they just pop up overnight..."
When did I EVER say anything remotely close to this bullshit? Find me where I said that, and then maybe we can give you some credibility. Take the Canucks. They have drafted extremely wisely (just look at Ohlund for example...heck, even look at Bure!)...and they've traded and built their team into a contender. It's taken about 5 seasons. The bulk of the process started under Mike Keenan, and the Bure trade (for Jovanovski, players, and a 1st round pick) was symbolic of that change in direction. However, the changes began even before that. For example, Trevor Linden (who, ironically, would come back through another trade) was traded for Todd Bertuzzi and Brian McCabe! Talk about a steal. Later, Burke spun some magic at the '99 NHL draft, trading McCabe and a couple picks for the 2nd and 3rd overall picks (hence the Sedins). He also got Brendan Morrison for Mogilny (and Morrison's now part of the best line in hockey, and Mogilny has never been the same since being exposed to the trap in NJ). Of course, the current edition of the Canucks goes even further back than all of this. Did you know that Pat Quinn got Markus Naslund by trading Alex Stojanev for him? Alex, freakin' Stojanev???!!! The guy isn't even in the NHL anymore, and never did anything when he was here. And he was traded for Markus ("the top scorer over the last 3 seasons") Naslund!! Anyway, as you can see, the Canucks are not an overnight success. I never said they were, and it's rather ridiculous for people to accuse me of not understanding the concept behind buiding a team. Have a good night, hope you enjoyed the history lesson.
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
That doesn't change the fact he only scored 7 points in 107 games in the NHL. Here's an excerpt from Sports Illustrated that sort of drives the point home:kobayashi said:
"...Naslund, meanwhile, was developing slowly in Pittsburgh, and in '96 he was part of perhaps the dumbest deal in NHL history. The Penguins traded him to the Canucks for Alex Stojanov, who went on to score two goals in 107 games before retiring."
I rest my case. It was an amazing trade for Vancouver - just another key component they added to the team they have assembled in about 5 seasons.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
You don't have a leg to stand on, Chiz. Just admit you're totally off base and be done with it.Chizip said:
im not disputing the trade. just pointing out some history.
doesnt come close to russ courtnall to the habs for john kordic going to the leafs. kordic would die of a cocaine overdose a matter of months later. if i remember correctly.
doesnt come close to russ courtnall to the habs for john kordic going to the leafs. kordic would die of a cocaine overdose a matter of months later. if i remember correctly.
Michael Griffiths said:
Okay buddy...calm down! A little ribbing at your expence (valid points or not) is just plain fun because you fly off the handle like this...just cool your jets kid. I didn't say that you said anything like that, just making some (i guess not so) harmless fun at your Canuck loving expense.
Similar threads
