Kristian

Stupid yes, but without good gameplay, even the coolest feature is useless anyway :-/

I must admit, I'd much rather the development team focused their energy on delivering a nice "on-ice" experience, rather than a half-assed game, loaded with different game modes. IMHO, the AI in next-gen NHL 15 is vastly superior to that of NHL 14, and the new player and puck physics really make for an enjoyable game, so far. Also, the teammate AI in Be A Pro, is vastly improved, and your teammates actually attempt to create plays in the offensive zone, plays a shutdown game if you're up by 2 in the third, and on some nights, just make plain bad decisions. Just like they would in real life.

The Current Gen and Next Gen titles, are only similar in name. Effectively, NHL15 for the PS3/X360 are closer to NHL14 v.2, than a new game. Not an entirely bad thing IMHO, as NHL15 for the X1 lacks a few of the game modes from NHL14, such as "Live the Life", and "GM Connected", and NHL 14 was quite good.

Hey all, Just thought I'd mention it, NHL 15 is available for early release on EA Access. You can sign up to a EA Access for a 1 month subscribtion for 4.95, then cancel it. This allows you to play the full version of the game until release day, to see if it's worth getting. My gamertag is Ado173, in case somebody wants to have a quick go, online.

I don't recally exactly who it was, but when Mario made his second comeback, one broadcaster said something along the lines of "boy, looking at Mario makes you realise how many average hockey players there are in the NHL". To chich the color guy said something like "No, he's just that much better than everyone else". I forget the actual wording, but the meaning was pretty clear to me - A generational player, IMHO, is someone who makes everyone else look bad to average.

Must admit I really don't follow the Pens enough to tell, so I'll take your word for it. I guess I'm old-fashioned, I expect generational players to be head and shoulders above their peers, for at last one or two seasons. But I also think those days are gone, where single players would stand out so much.

I agree, which is why I added the "and paying for" remark - My point being that a generational player, in a very short timespan will be signed to a contract so huge, it could hamper your ability to build a proper team around him. We have an owner who likes to spend crazy cash, but for a Buffalo fan, this is something we rarely see and there's also a salary cap to consider. Do we have a generational player in the game today? Is Crosby, or Ovechkin that player? If not, then will there ever *be* another generational player?

I'm in the camp that says having, and most importantly paying, for a generational talent, is not a healthy thing when it comes to winning it all. If you look at the last 20-30 years of Stanley Cup champs, apart from Mario's Penguins, and Wayne's Oilers, none of those teams has a "generational player". And both those teams were stacked on talent, besides Gretzky and Lemieux. My point being : I'll take a team of Kane's, Hossa's, Keith's, Seabrook's, Sakic's, Forsberg's, Messier's, etc. any day, over a team of Grosek's, Sillinger's, Stillman's and a Gretzky.

This.

I agree, he wasn't a disappointment, cause who really expected more from him than he delivered? Darcy did, but who else? Kid had some tough breaks, and probably lacked a little grit and personal discipline here and there, but I could name at least 20 players I was more disappointed in than Connolly.

Connolly was what he was, it's not his fault Regier kept resigning him, and didn't bring a safe guard center on a team thin down the middle. When healthy, he was alright, but he was always put in a position where he needed to lead the team somehow, and he was just not that kind of player. Yet another example of Regier not being able to recognize players for what they were, instead of what he thought they should become.

Couldn't agree more. This is exactly why I keep saying Darcy was clueless when it came to building a hockey team. He was good at identifying talent, and good at getting value for his assets (at least early in his tenure), but he was utterly and completely LOST when it came to team-chemistry. Add to this, that he never understood *why* his teams didn't work out, and kept insisting the "core" needed to "mature" and things would be much better, tells you that he wasn't only clueless - He was also stubborn, and pig-headed.

I don't like losing. Which is why I'm perfectly on board with another year of tanking and a guaranteed McDavid or Eichel. THEN we can shove losing up the rest of the leagues backside.

Amerk6 old buddy, where are ya? :-)

There goes McDavid....

Still pretty damn decent no.'s for a 3rd liner center, I'd take that any day.

Boy, let's hope so.

Man, I half-way forgot Zadorov was in the organisation. This day just turned a whole lot better. *Big smile. Big smile. Biiiiig smiiile..... BIIIIIIIIIIIIG SMIIIIIIIIIIIILE!!!!!*

Bob Essensa, Jocelyn Thibault, Ty Conklin, Patrick LaLime - All backups who stunk it up, ROYALLY, in their tenures here. All backups to Ryan Miller. The backup goalie problem was a big issue ever since Marty Biron left. The general concensus seemingly being, that the backups themselves weren't entirely at fault, but Lindy Ruff's managing of them had something to do with it, but who knows?

Just to nitpick, this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEylfgdwEnQ ... happened in the no-touch years. Hitting was legal as always, clutching, grabbing and stick infractions, were not. The game was never pussified, it just wasn't slowed down either. Just my 2 cents.

I never understood why they reverted back, part from several big market teams crying about not being succesful immediately out of the gate. The NHL's plan was to appeal casual viewers, you cannot seriously tell me the casual viewer finds the game more watchable today? ....Do they? Yeah, they also had Briere playing for the better part of a month with a sports hernia, before diagnosing him correctly.

Fair enough, but things get so boring when we do :P

And yet, most of us will agree the 'Canes lucked into the cup. I'll tell you right now, I'm firmly in that camp. And just to clarify, I never said I was disappointed. But to me "succesful" constitutes some kind of plan being executed, and I just didn't see that plan anywhere in the Sabres organisation. At the first possible chance, they let key players go, and expected to keep on keeping on. McKee, Dumont, Grier, Drury, Briere. Not saying there weren't circumstances that made retaining these players impossible, but choosing scoring (Kotalik), over hard work, playmaking and a little less scoring (Dumont), on a team loaded on offense? That never sat well with me, I'll admit. As an example, if the Sabres tank another season, land either McDavid or a second overall, then move forward to 7th-12th place the next season, I'd call that succesful, at least short term.

Fair enough, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And I agree, *any* team year, would've been in trouble against the Sabres - They were a damn good team, when not dressing an AHL defense. That said, the ´06 Sabres had difficulty holding a lead against both the Sens and especially the Canes, which is mainly what I remember from the 06 playoffs.

No, I just find it funny when I'm being told I should be praising a team that never won anything, let alone made the finals. Funny thing is, that Sabres team wasn't all that fast. Sure, they had some great skaters like Afinogenov, Briere, Roy, Drury, and others, but guys like Kalinin, McKee, Vanek, Teppo, Grier, Pyatt and Dumont were never all that fast. The Sabres for some reason that year just gelled, which is why I believe it was luck - I simply don't believe anyone could've had the foresight to get all those pieces into place, before even knowing how the game would be called, I'm sorry. Call me a pessimst, call me whatever, I just don't believe anyone is hockey genious enough to build that team on purpose.