SwampD Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) I actually thought it looked like two pretty average, one line teams going at it last night. The only time Florida looked even remotely dangerous was when Jagr was on the ice. The officiating was what I expect in the playoffs and didn't think it was that big of a deal. Hey Panthers, you want us to think you deserve to move on, score more than 1 goal against a backup goalie in an elimination game. Tavares is ligit. Edited April 25, 2016 by SwampD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallawaySabres Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Right. That's why the Rangers are out and the Islanders just won their first playoff series since Bill Clinton's first year in office. I'm saying I'm glad the bigger market won so I can sell more suites ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I'm saying I'm glad the bigger market won so I can sell more suites ;) Oh. I totally missed the back story. Sell on. I actually thought it looked like two pretty average, one line teams going at it last night. The only time Florida looked even remotely dangerous was when Jagr was on the ice. The officiating was what I expect in the playoffs and didn't think it was that big of a deal. Hey Panthers, you want us to think you deserve to move on, score more than 1 goal against a backup goalie in an elimination game. Tavares is ligit. Greiss has been really good too. The Isles could be dangerous. Not only Tavares, but they have a whale of a fourth line. With the proverbial monkey off their back, they could surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Next year: NHL expands coaches challenge to allow for a determination of a penalty before a goal is scored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) ...as long as profits are strong league-wide, it'll stay the same boring defensive game decided by a lucky bounce or two. Edited April 25, 2016 by Potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I actually thought it looked like two pretty average, one line teams going at it last night. The only time Florida looked even remotely dangerous was when Jagr was on the ice. The officiating was what I expect in the playoffs and didn't think it was that big of a deal. Hey Panthers, you want us to think you deserve to move on, score more than 1 goal against a backup goalie in an elimination game. Tavares is ligit. Reilly Smith was pretty dominant, the Panthers were the better team. Panthers take this is 6 without Greiss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Reilly Smith was pretty dominant, the Panthers were the better team. Panthers take this is 6 without Greiss. I would say without someone in the Islanders' crease, the Panthers would take it in four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Florida is a young team learning to win. It's a whole different animal in the playoffs. The refs are human and imperfect but I highly doubt they are making calls for the benefit of the NHL. I could be wrong I suppose, I hope I'm not though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) I would say without someone in the Islanders' crease, the Panthers would take it in four. Seems the refs proved last night that they can even prevent teams from scoring with an open net. Edited April 25, 2016 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I don't know why I torture myself by listening to WGR. This has been a great start to the playoffs for the NHL and all I am hearing is complaints about seeding and reseeding. There is no system that is going to make everyone happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I don't know why I torture myself by listening to WGR. This has been a great start to the playoffs for the NHL and all I am hearing is complaints about seeding and reseeding. There is no system that is going to make everyone happy. Agreed. I kind of like this system. It's more likely to generate rivalries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I kind of like the system, but certainly understand the arguments against it. On the one hand, it's making the two best teams in the East face off in round 2 instead of for the right to go to the Cup, while lesser teams face an easier path. Not ideal, I get that. On the other hand, we're getting the two best teams in the East to at least play one another, whereas it may not have happened under the old system (hey, upsets happen), and it gave us premier matchups in round 1 in the West. The theoretical arguments against it make a lot of sense to me, but I think it's actually producing a very interesting product for the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Agreed. I kind of like this system. It's more likely to generate rivalries. This. I kind of wish they did away with the wildcard teams. Just go top 4 in each division makes it period. You want rivalries? That'll guarantee a whole pile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I kind of like the system, but certainly understand the arguments against it. On the one hand, it's making the two best teams in the East face off in round 2 instead of for the right to go to the Cup, while lesser teams face an easier path. Not ideal, I get that. On the other hand, we're getting the two best teams in the East to at least play one another, whereas it may not have happened under the old system (hey, upsets happen), and it gave us premier matchups in round 1 in the West. The theoretical arguments against it make a lot of sense to me, but I think it's actually producing a very interesting product for the fans. Though i realize almost nobody here agrees, I still think the best system would be for 1st round to be w/in division, 2nd w/in conference, 3rd cross conference, & then last 2 standing meet in the finals. (Higher ranked team coming out of each round hosts lower ranked team across from it throughout.) You'd be guaranteed 8 intradivisional playoff games & if the 2 best teams in the league were to be from the same conference / division they would be able to meet in the finals rather than an earlier round. (Assuming the 'best' teams actually played thst way in the 1st 82. If they didn't, sucks to be them.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 This. I kind of wish they did away with the wildcard teams. Just go top 4 in each division makes it period. You want rivalries? That'll guarantee a whole pile. Worked for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Agreed. I kind of like this system. It's more likely to generate rivalries. Napoleon is trying to force rivalries, that just doesn't happen. If he wants to create rivalries, go back to playing division teams 7-8 times a year and make it so there isn't 4 months off in between. Players create rivalries. With free agency running rampant, rivalries are short lived if they exist at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Napoleon I'm not sure if referring to the commissioner as one of history's most lauded commanders is getting your point across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I'm not sure if referring to the commissioner as one of history's most lauded commanders is getting your point across. If you can think of a better example of an arrogant, ego-maniacal tyrant with little man syndrome....... I'd love to hear it. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 If you can think of a better example of an arrogant, ego-maniacal tyrant with little man syndrome....... I'd love to hear it. :P Trump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Trump? Now that's low.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 If you can think of a better example of an arrogant, ego-maniacal tyrant with little man syndrome....... I'd love to hear it. :P Napolean wasn't little, and though I don't know enough about history I'm not sure his actions were driven by his ego I'm not sure if referring to the commissioner as one of history's most lauded commanders is getting your point across. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Napolean wasn't little, and though I don't know enough about history I'm not sure his actions were driven by his ego Agreed You should brush up on your history then. Napoleon was 5'6". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 You should brush up on your history then. Napoleon was 5'6". 3 inches taller than the average Frenchman of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 You should brush up on your history then. Napoleon was 5'6". Which was average height Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Which was average height No, it was tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.