...

Yeah, I think the timelines will be different. I'll have to wait until this one is streaming so I can see it again and figure out if they are trying to tie that timeline to the current one, or if now we're going to have to suffer through multiple timelines so they can do in these things what they want rather than keep them all connected.

"That was a difficult winter. A blizzard had trapped half our battalion behind the German line. Steve... Captain Rogers, he fought his way through a HYDRA blockade that had pinned our allies down for months. He saved over a thousand men, including the man who would... who would become my husband as it turned out." ―Peggy Carter

I did not say "all of the changes create their own universe" I said "each timeline is its own universe". Which, I admit, is probably splitting hairs when it comes to the mechanics of realities. In other words, there is only one timeline per individual. You can not go back and alter the current timeline - the timeline you're on already contains the alterations made in the past. The Rogers thing at the end was a bit sloppy - it's not possible for Rogers et al to have been on the same timeline before he went back to marry Peggy, conveniently showing up to put a "Cap" on the movie (see what I did?). In the Rogers (et al) timeline we've been following, Peggy married someone else as far as I recall. Of course, if we had old Cap'n A on the timeline we had been following all along, he could have advised and helped to avoid a lot of tragedy, so I think the timeline we were on at the end of the movie was different than what it was at the beginning. So, that's a long way of saying we might be agreeing on this more than I think. You're right, the Rogers thing at the end spoiled the certainty that Loki is back in whatever timeline we left at the end of the movie. Good question, I forgot about that one.

You all will note that Steve Rogers did not "come back" with Mjolnir. I think the next Thor movie is him getting back on the path we saw him on at the end of Infinity War (while Quill searches for Gamora). Loki, obviously, is back, so look for him in this one. I agree with those who thought the Thor arc went too far. I did find it funny that when they were in the Asgardian Palace, all of the Asgard guards were referring to Rocket as "rabbit" like Thor does, which always gave me a chuckle in the other movies. I'm not happy the Tony Stark era has passed by, but I thought that arc was very nicely done, totally the best part of the movie aside from the main plot. I wonder if we see Marvel trying to strengthen Spider Man's importance to the MCU based on how much he meant to Stark. The Cap'n America arc was fine, I thought. Predictable. I don't see how Falcon can become a replacement for Cap'm America unless he undergoes the same treatment Rogers and Bucky had. I am disappointed in how Dr. Strange was used to forward, or, more accurately, not used to forward the End Game. This is actually the most disappointing part of the movie, IMHO. Essentially, the only thing Strange did was keep Stark alive at the end of Infinity War, and, thus, put them on the 1/14,000,605 road to success. Having sucked up all of the pre-movie theories, I would have preferred something about manipulating the Time Stone or something. However, they shot that down when Hulk was talking with the Ancient One where she explained (rightfully) whatever thread of time you're on is your only present and your actions on that timeline, no matter where you jump on, do not affect the future of that timeline. because those actions are the future of that timeline. Lacking in that explanation, and therefore leading to some of confusion in this thread, I think, is a reinforcement of the concept that each timeline is its own universe. Each individual is on their own timeline and regardless of whether you go forward or backward in time, it is always still the individual's present. I won't say I'm disappointed with it, but I think @TrueBlueGED and I are about 95% in agreement on the film overall.

OMG. BEAT HIS ASS!

It shouldn't be underrated in Buffalo by now. Our problem with this goes back to at least Lindy.

Only a fool would not look at a tattoo artist as an actual artist.

Seriously, the thread should have ended at "Buffalo gets Nazem Kadri from Toronto."

This place will be insufferable for the next year.

Thankfully they called that. The ref close by couldn't be bothered.

Bob's awake!

I respect that Columbus always seems to take the opportunity to go after the short-handed goal.

So, I have the Columbus game volume muted and I'm listening to this while watching the game. Sort of meshes...

I don't know. I already stated I'd like to watch some of his teams. Have you watched his teams? His reputation precedes him somewhat, though, as illustrated by the article that started this conversation. And I already stated earlier in this thread I doubt he would go P1-P5 on the ice per shift, that those players would have to revert to some comfortable area. It's ludicrous to think we're going to find 18 players per night who are all so well rounded they're going to be trusted in any zone, with any assignment, playing any role. All I know is that the systems we've been seeing aren't likely the only way to play the game. There has to be a better way to enter zones than dump and chase. There has to be a better way to capitalize on possession while using the neutral zone and your own zones. I think we caught a little flavour of that with the Sabres during the streak and they would routinely use Hutton as a sixth player (as opposed to just a goalie). I bet you that stuff drove Housley crazy and it's why we saw a lot less of that from January on. In their attempt to implement Housley's system, they were chaotic, but we saw some interesting things happening with the D coming up and forwards dropping back but not into a completely defensive position.

Love this guy.

Can these people figure out how to move a L or R signal into both sides?

Mmm, I dunno. I'd like to watch some of his teams to see if we can really ascertain what it is he's talking about. See the quote from him I'm focusing on below... Who in the NHL is coaching the way Gronborg spelled it out? “We involve all five players in the defense as well as the offense,” he said. “The game is not as static anymore. Everyone needs to go outside the box a little bit. Forwards are not always forwards, and defensemen are not always defensemen. It’s the situation that steers that and dictates it. That’s how you raise the pace of the game.” I don't see how you can have a static system and accomplish what he's talking about here. I think he's talking about more than offensive D men jumping up into the play. I think he's talking about taking that concept a step further. Yes, we do see some five-men unit plays on entries from time to time, especially on the PP, but we're not seeing a sustained approach using this concept. Add to that allowing the players freedom to create on the ice instead of playing a manner outside of their personal style, I do think this guy is taking a fresh look at the game and we haven't seen it here unless you watch pee-wee games.

If you've never been there, you might not understand. There were similar things happening when my brother was dying in Roswell last month. It IS tawdry, but that's okay. It's better than being a miserable wreck, and being alive and tawdry is better than being dead...and unable to be tawdry.

You know what you're being? It's a joke, BTW.

Of course.

You know, this is a valid point. There will clearly be a learning curve for all involved here. I do not agree that Gronberg should be AC to a vet's HC. I doubt you get a veteran HC to agree to such a setup and I wouldn't doubt Gronberg would be frustrated by being told he can't or shouldn't do this or that. There would be way too much tension in this relationship. I think the solution here is a vet coach as AC, or as coach-adviser or some setup where the vet is explicitly hired to advise.

I think this takes the concept to the extreme. If the players are left to do what they feel they need to do in the moment, they will revert back to their comfortable and "proper" roles in response to the game. Allowing more creativity on the ice doesn't just mean figuring out ways to score, it also means figuring out ways to keep leads.

His view on how to approach the game is waaaaayyyyy different than what North America is used to? Not that it's a bad thing, at all. If done correctly, it might utterly confuse the other teams - especially since it's no set system where the patterns could eventually be discerned. The idea is very tempting.

I think it was late in the first or early in the second. I was busy so had the game on in the background.