Stanley Cup! 2025

[inkman]

9 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

McDavid is one of the best I've ever seen.

Huh.  Never heard of him. 

10 hours ago, OverPowerYou said:

I’m getting the feeling that sabrespace is split on who we want to win the series 

If you aren’t rooting for Edmonton, you might have daddy issues or something. 

[That Aud Smell]

I couldn't make it until the end last night. I watched until the game was tied.

Holy sh1t balls is that some good ice hockey.

[That Aud Smell]

9 hours ago, Thorny said:

Imagine allowing your championship to be decided by a “puck over glass” call in an overtime format where the refs swallow their whistles for every other call. Absolute embarrassment of a league 

Lol

 

[Archie Lee]

On the puck over the glass thing, I agree with those who think it is a stiff penalty for what is now something that only happens by accident. I also agree that it is a bit absurd to watch players get away with physically assaulting the opposition, and then there is a penalty for an accidental stick stuck in the skates, or a puck over the glass.

I've thought for some time that the NHL should experiment in pre-season with 60 second penalties for the non-violent "accidental" infractions. That would probably be too far "out of the box" in itself, but I would actually go a step further. I would experiment with the powerplay team starting the powerplay with possession. You could have a small semi-circle on the walls in the offensive zones and the start of a PP (just the start) would begin similar to an inbound pass in basketball. This would make the shorter PP's still critical as the defending team would not simply be able to kill the first 15 seconds with a face-off win and an icing. It's a little out there, I know. 

 

      

 

[Pimlach]

Puck over glass is a delay of game penalty - intentional or not it cannot be accurately determined by refs in real time, so you either call it every time or not at all.  

You should have seen the crap the Flyers got away with in 1975.   The refs put away the whistles and gave a distinct advantage to one team.  There were no instigator penalties or 3rd man in calls back then.   Every fight typically led to 2 or more simultaneous fights which put our best players in the box while Philly trotted out their best players after the fact.  

That was far more egregious than yesterday.  Yesterday was nothing, the call was correct, the debate is the rest of the way the game was called.  

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:52 PM by Pimlach

[Jorcus]

30 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

On the puck over the glass thing, I agree with those who think it is a stiff penalty for what is now something that only happens by accident. I also agree that it is a bit absurd to watch players get away with physically assaulting the opposition, and then there is a penalty for an accidental stick stuck in the skates, or a puck over the glass.

I've thought for some time that the NHL should experiment in pre-season with 60 second penalties for the non-violent "accidental" infractions. That would probably be too far "out of the box" in itself, but I would actually go a step further. I would experiment with the powerplay team starting the powerplay with possession. You could have a small semi-circle on the walls in the offensive zones and the start of a PP (just the start) would begin similar to an inbound pass in basketball. This would make the shorter PP's still critical as the defending team would not simply be able to kill the first 15 seconds with a face-off win and an icing. It's a little out there, I know. 

 

      

 

 

I like the 60 second power play for delay infractions. I think I would include a failed review in that as well, but could go either way as less reviews the better. The fact that the power play starts in the offensive zone is enough for me. There was a clear high stick penalty committed by Florida about half way though the overtime. That should not have been let go. I was not going to stay up for OT number 2 if it got there. There is point where not calling penalties backfires.      

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Lol

 

Was gonna tweet at him but then I realized he’s being sarcastic 

42 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Puck over glass is a delay of game penalty - intentional or not it cannot be accurately determined by refs in real time, so you either call it every time or not at all.  

You should have seen the crap the Flyers got away with in 1975.   The refs put away the whistles and gave a distinct advantage to one team.  There were no instigator penalties or 3rd man in calls back then.   Every fight typically led to 2 or more simultaneous fights which put our best players in the box while Philly trotted out their best players after the fact.  

That was far more egregious than yesterday.  Yesterday was nothing, the call was correct, the debate is the rest of the way the game was called.  

 

 

Then review it. Your argument doesn’t hold up. They debate intention all the time: kicking motion, high stick or follow through, etc etc 

[Pimlach]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Was gonna tweet at him but then I realized he’s being sarcastic 

Then review it. Your argument doesn’t hold up. They debate intention all the time: kicking motion, high stick or follow through, etc etc 

Yes, they review goals.  I  would be all for reviewing over the glass penalties.  

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Yes, they review goals.  I  would be all for reviewing over the glass penalties.  

Should be easy enough. If unclear go with call on ice but looking at yesterday and determining intent would be super easy

anyways, much as I don’t like it oilers seem they could be team of destiny here 

Edited yesterday at 03:07 PM by Thorny

[...]

Personally, I didn't have a problem with the officiating last night. Except for that one prolonged face-off where any other player not named McDavid would have been tossed.

Weak or not, it's firmly established that sending the puck over the glass results in a delay of game penalty.

[inkman]

This is the kind of player the Sabres need.  *****.  The Sabres need *****.  And probably some balls too. 

 

[...]

4 minutes ago, inkman said:

This is the kind of player the Sabres need.  *****.  The Sabres need *****.  And probably some balls too. 

 

This kind of stuff is endearing. Too bad Walman is on Edmonton.

[Archie Lee]

42 minutes ago, inkman said:

This is the kind of player the Sabres need.  *****.  The Sabres need *****.  And probably some balls too. 

 

Incredibly, Detroit included a late 2nd rd pick (Tampa’s) to get San Jose to take Walman last off-season. San Jose then traded Walman for a conditional 1st in 2026.  Nice work Mike Grier.  

 

[inkman]

1 hour ago, ... said:

This kind of stuff is endearing. Too bad Walman is on Edmonton.

What’s wrong with the Oilers?

[Gatorman0519]

13 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This Oilers team is handling the physicality better than last year's version did. If Florida is going to win this Tkachuk and Reinhart are going to have to be better. I suspect Tkachuk is playing injured all playoffs but those guys are big guns they need to step up. 

Tkachuk will be first in surgery line when this series ends, I bet.  The same with Sam. 

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

Incredibly, Detroit included a late 2nd rd pick (Tampa’s) to get San Jose to take Walman last off-season. San Jose then traded Walman for a conditional 1st in 2026.  Nice work Mike Grier.  

 

Better than what the Habs did with Scandella.

[Night Train]

Heck of a rally by the Oilers. Seems some are pissed they failed to follow the Panthers win script. 

[...]

4 hours ago, inkman said:

What’s wrong with the Oilers?

They all look like my daddy.

[PerreaultForever]

16 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Then you must be purposely ignorant. 

We have a handful of players whom have already played well in the playoffs with other teams.

Dahlin has most certainly shown up in big games, the Carolina game from the close year being a perfect example

Thompson shows flashes

We can't truly know until we actually make it.

No. Big no. At this time we do not have any of the leadership or experience required for the playoffs. They would be so far over their heads so fast they'd exit faster than the Leafs did when they first got back in. Look at Ottawa. They even had some playoff experience on the roster and they showed they were way out of their depths. You are dreaming if you think they will do well.

 

Unless they add veteran leaders of course. But they have not shown any desire to do that so far. 

[thewookie1]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No. Big no. At this time we do not have any of the leadership or experience required for the playoffs. They would be so far over their heads so fast they'd exit faster than the Leafs did when they first got back in. Look at Ottawa. They even had some playoff experience on the roster and they showed they were way out of their depths. You are dreaming if you think they will do well.

 

Unless they add veteran leaders of course. But they have not shown any desire to do that so far. 

I'm sorry but again, we do have some playoff vets on our team. It's not feasible to make this team brimming with playoff experience and rarely do first time playoff groups have half-plus their roster as playoff vets.

 

[PerreaultForever]

13 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I'm sorry but again, we do have some playoff vets on our team. It's not feasible to make this team brimming with playoff experience and rarely do first time playoff groups have half-plus their roster as playoff vets.

 

I see nothing in Sabres style of play or character that would indicate playoff success if they got there. What is it you are seeing?