walksalone
Heisman Trophy Winner
Gives them some punch...Vanek to the Habs
I love the Moulson to the Wild, and a bit puzzled by the Halak to the Caps move...Moulson to Minnesota
Halak to Washington
Gives them some punch...Vanek to the Habs
I love the Moulson to the Wild, and a bit puzzled by the Halak to the Caps move...Moulson to Minnesota
Halak to Washington
Pretty well nailed it didn't they.
Simmonds is such a POS
That sucks, glad they're gonna be ok
The shootout doesn't appear to be going anywhere—though there's a large portion of fans who don't see what's wrong with ties—but there's growing momentum among GMs to institute some sort of rule change to at least decrease the frequency of them. And there seem to be two main options on the table.
The first is some version of three-on-three in overtime. Ken Holland's been banging this drum for a long time, and the logic is impeccable: Fewer players on the ice means more goals, and a better chance of ending the game in OT. Holland's long supported five minutes of four-on-four, followed by five minutes of three-on-three, but according to Bob McKenzie he's softened that to four minutes of each, perhaps as a compromise.
The second option being considered by GMs is more subtle, and therefore more likely to be instituted: Switching sides for OT to make line changes more difficult. This is the pet project of Damian Echevarrieta, the league's VP of player safety and hockey ops, and he believes that forcing teams to make the long change will increase scoring by forcing players to stay out longer, and raise the risk of teams getting caught on a change.
I was fine with ties...What Will The NHL Do About Shootouts?
The shootout doesn't appear to be going anywhere—though there's a large portion of fans who don't see what's wrong with ties—but there's growing momentum among GMs to institute some sort of rule change to at least decrease the frequency of them. And there seem to be two main options on the table.
The first is some version of three-on-three in overtime. Ken Holland's been banging this drum for a long time, and the logic is impeccable: Fewer players on the ice means more goals, and a better chance of ending the game in OT. Holland's long supported five minutes of four-on-four, followed by five minutes of three-on-three, but according to Bob McKenzie he's softened that to four minutes of each, perhaps as a compromise.
The second option being considered by GMs is more subtle, and therefore more likely to be instituted: Switching sides for OT to make line changes more difficult. This is the pet project of Damian Echevarrieta, the league's VP of player safety and hockey ops, and he believes that forcing teams to make the long change will increase scoring by forcing players to stay out longer, and raise the risk of teams getting caught on a change.
more like, typical hockey player..."First thing Rich asked me when I spoke to him was, 'How much time left in the period?' You know, typical athlete," said Coach Lindy Ruff.
I saw that, and as an Av's fan, I'm too embarrassed to watch...