Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

WORLD JUNIORS - Toronto/Montreal - DEC 25/JAN 5


AZSIOUX

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately this is a lot like reading a Maple Leafs thread following most of their games which in summary typically read: "It must have been the officiating because there is no way that giving up 41 shots should have cost us the game". Some of you might not like my opinion; however I would offer that your D is not as strong as in past years and some of the forwards are not playing good two way hockey. Unless the forwards can compensate a bit so that the US plays less time in their own zone you will have a tough time getting through both the Russians and Swedes.

U.S. boys did give up 41 shots and overall they were outplayed. But this game could have gone either way. Unfortunately the deciding factor was a ref's call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey, it worked in Sega's NHL94...

Love that game. Used to make my own Red Wings lineup based on phony Russian names like Boris Badinov, Chuck Checkov, and Sergei Slapshotov...just killed the league leader board in goals and assists.

Back on topic, yes, the US gave up 41 shots, but that's an absolute huge goal that should not have counted. It's not like folks are complaining of a slash or nasty cross-check that happened away from the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this is a lot like reading a Maple Leafs thread following most of their games which in summary typically read:  "It must have been the officiating because there is no way that giving up 41 shots should have cost us the game".   Some of you might not like my opinion; however I would offer that your D is not as strong as in past years and some of the forwards are not playing good two way hockey.  Unless the forwards can compensate a bit so that the US plays less time in their own zone you will have a tough time getting through both the Russians and Swedes.   

Agree.  The US dmen and wingers looked overmatched in their own zone.  Canada simply had more drive.  The US is a young team, hopefully they learned from that game and get another shot at them.  I believe the Canucks are a relatively old team this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is up with this dumb outside NHL game - well I guess they can sell the seats - I would not go if it were free

I'm sick of it as well - primarily because the idea stemmed from the Heritage Classic game played between Montreal and Edmonton several years ago. The NHL jumped in and saw $$$$ almost immediately and had to practically be dragged kicking and screaming to include a Canadian team in the Winter Classic (Toronto last season). There was a second Heritage Classic game played a couple of seasons ago - of course, the NHL didn't bother covering it at all. Despicable. Plus, they hype this game more than the Stanley Cup Finals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.si.com/nhl/home-ice/2011/02/02/nhls-curbed-enthusiasm-for-heritage-classic

Fetch, the above link talks about the NHL and its "meh" attitude toward the 2011 Heritage Classic game (Montreal at Calgary). I'll bet you didn't even know that Ottawa and Vancouver played a Heritage Classic in 2014 as well. The NHL couldn't care less about it, that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love that game. Used to make my own Red Wings lineup based on phony Russian names like Boris Badinov, Chuck Checkov, and Sergei Slapshotov...just killed the league leader board in goals and assists.

Back on topic, yes, the US gave up 41 shots, but that's an absolute huge goal that should not have counted. It's not like folks are complaining of a slash or nasty cross-check that happened away from the play.

Its a goal that decided an important game and its just going to be tucked away somewhere and never talked about again. But the refs will be sure to blow the whistle anytime an opposing player playing canada gets in the blue paint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This outdoor game stuff will end the day an owner loses a key player for the season due to questionable ice conditions.

You're not very bright, but opionionated Ice conditions are great. A star will not get injuryed, in addition, a star could get injured in a normal game too. Take your risk for the reward.

Also outdoor games generate buzz for the NHL. They've done a great job. It gets better every year.

It's called marketing. What would you do to differentiate the NHL from the rest of sports? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not very bright, but opionionated Ice conditions are great. A star will not get injuryed, in addition, a star could get injured in a normal game too. Take your risk for the reward.

Also outdoor games generate buzz for the NHL. They've done a great job. It gets better every year.

It's called marketing. What would you do to differentiate the NHL from the rest of sports? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Outdoor ice conditions have been questionable at points in the past (see: LA, or Wrigley Field, heck, see Omaha but that wasn't pro). Stars can get hurt walking out from the tunnel, but why put them in conditions (poor ice) that increase the risk? As far as "buzz", look even at this site: the luster of "winter classic" isn't what it was.

I'll say it again: The minute this costs an owner a player you'll see teams staying away from the gimick.

PS - Playing outdoors, on an outdoor football or baseball field, differentiates ... how?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...