2010-2011 NHL season

Anybody see the line brawl in Boston last night with the Thrashers? Awesome stuff here.

 

I love you. As much as a Caps fan could love a Pens fan.

 

Best part of that whole thing is Jack Edwards. Makes Joe Bowen sound like a mild-mannered accountant.

What a friggin' homer.

 

Once you've had time to fully come to grips with Ovechkin's lower-back tats and Mike Green's Vespa, you'll hop on our bandwagon. ;D

 

Haha yeah I loved Ovechkin's tramp stamp. Oh and also the fact that he lives with his mommy

 

I've noticed that Alex Semin hasn't even made as much as a cameo in this thing.

It's almost like he doesn't exist. Kind of like in the playoffs.

 

Me, too. As to the second statement: LMAO. Very good.

 

Brian Elliott stood on his head for 55 minutes, but BBJ extends his scoring streak with a shot that rebounded off Elliott and then bounced one of his defensemen.

 

In lieu of the Pens/Caps shootout game on Thursday and the marathon shootout in the Rangers game that same night, a friend and I had a debate about shootouts this weekend. This is my idea for something instead of a shootout. Wanted to kick it around to some other puck fans for feedback.

1.) You can keep the 4-on-4 session if you like or scrap that too. Still on the fence about that. But to get to the meat of it....

2.) Give the visiting team a 5-on-4 power play and put 2 minutes on the clock. Allow the visiting team to choose where to have the faceoff. If they score, then the home team gets a 2-minute power play and a choice of faceoff circle for a chance to tie it up to force another 2-minute overtime period (visitors would win if home team fails to score). If the visitors don't score, the home team gets a power play, their choice of a faceoff circle and 2 minutes to score a "walkoff" goal.

3.) If after x number of 5-on-4 sessions it is still tied (by virtue of neither or both teams scoring) go to a 5-on-3 power play. Same format.

I think this is a much more fair way of determining a winner. A shootout can be exciting, especially for the casual fan, but it does nothing to prove who had the better team that night and who played the better hockey that night. (See the article in latest ESPN magazine)

You could argue that this power play format only proves who has the better special teams. But aren't many games decided by special teams anyway? It's a good bet that a significant chunk of the goals scored in any given game are power play goals. And just how many games are decided by a breakaway (such as a shootout)?

I don't think the element of excitement would be any less. Power plays are exciting and when they happen in overtime they are even more exciting. Could you imagine the visiting team firing shot after shot during a frantic 5-on-3 and the home goalie standing on his head? Then the home team notching a walkoff goal on their own power play to win it? (Or how about a walkoff shorthanded goal?) Each game would end with the home team on a power play, either scoring or frantically trying to score. So the action at the end of the game would always (theoretically) be in front of the visiting goalie, which is great for the home fans.

I don't think the extra time would be too significant and I think it would be worth it. Even if you did 3 full rounds of power plays it's only an extra 12 minutes. Sure you would have the occasional marathon game just like the occasional 15-inning baseball game or triple overtime basketball game. But I think most would be settled within a few rounds. Especially if you go to 5-on-3 after say 2 rounds of 5-on-4. And maybe you could chop the intermission time down from 20 minutes to 16 minutes. That buys you 8 more minutes (equivalent of 2 of these overtime periods).

So it would be almost similar to college football's overtime, which is a huge hit.

What say you puckheads?

 

I've never understood the problem with a game finishing in a tie.

Win: 3 points
OT loss: 1 point
Tie: Both teams get 1 point

Play a 10-minute OT period if tied at the end of regulation. Each team is guaranteed a point, so nobody's going into a shell in OT. I could maybe be talked into dropping the win value to 2 points for an OT win.

 

A tie should be worth a point, but you should get nothing for an overtime or shootout loss. A reward for losing really doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm halfway with you on this.

To me, a lost in OT should be like a loss in regulation, i.e. a loss. As in NO standings point.

HOWEVER, I look at the shootout as being basically a tie game, with the SO determining the extra point.

So, in summary, I'd go all or nothing for OT, two points for the winner and one for the loser in the SO.