It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:20 pm

Board index » Let's Go Blues » St. Louis Blues Discussion

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:22 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
This thing is cool

Hockey highlight creator from Corsica hockey

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:09 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Looked at every goal last night with time of possession in mind. Interestingly, it isn't time of possession that really matters - at least it didn't last night.

16 goals scored
11 were scored with 10 seconds or less of possession time. (Time in seconds: 9,7,6,6,5,10,5,4,6,10,8)
2 were good cycles off of extended possession.
2 were extended PP possessions
1 was extended possession with the goalie pulled.

So this puck possession concept being what's needed to generate offense we are hearing from one Blues player, who is likely regurgitating the coach's philosophy, is hogwash. Focus on denying the other team chances and converting those turnovers with quick transition - not methodical, grinding, puck possession. Just look around the league. It's evident that attacking quickly is more important than grinding.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:47 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oaklandblue wrote:
theohall wrote:
Quote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line


Clearly, you can't read, Oakland.

Define "motion towards the opponent's goal line" and things that are not "motion towards the opponent's goal line."

And
Quote:
must
eliminates exceptions - such as those not specifically mentioned, which is your supposed case, because it wipes out all of them.

Admit it. You are still wrong. Or is it that beneath you?


There are NO stated exceptions, which is why this rule is a bad one; it is too broad. It makes a statement without a clear explanation on what the words means.

The rule states that the "Puck MUST be moving TOWARDS the opponent goal line. Not just must, but also towards.

Pay attention to the words MUST and TOWARDS.

If I get in a car and drive to the Scottrade and then drive around the building, say, to find parking. I'm not driving towards it, but also I am NOT driving away from it, keeping with both the MUST and the TOWARDS parts of the rule...

The TOWARDS part seems to follow the conditions I just mentioned, that moving parallel/sideways = towards the goal because...

If a player skates towards the box and then moves the puck left or right, whether parallel or sideways of themselves to set up a shot at the corners, your rationale is that the action of the puck moving paralle or sideways to the goal would break the rule and the play would be dead, even though we see hundreds of examples of this in shootouts, some of which by players in the HOF, of which the ones that were shot in were called a goal.

I'm not going to agree I'm wrong because you feel your point is superior and you're trying to bully/shame me into it and that kind of behavior. It says more about you as a person than myself.

What I will agree with you on, as I did before, is that it is a gray area, because the rule is too broad. What it SHOULD say, in my opinion, is that if a player's body moves past either of the pipes of the goal box, the puck is dead. That would make more sense and would stop this goal from being allowed again.

But under the rules as stated, with the reasons I said above, which might or might not be part of the rationale the Refs had under review of it, that goal is good and they called it good. So I can't be wrong about that.

Now about the ideology about why it was called wrong, however, I can absolutely be wrong and you can too. Unless the Refs gave some rationale about it after the game via media, which they might have, I haven't seen any of that, though, then there is no way to tell, and if you want me to admit I'm wrong with something like that after you have demanded I 'admit I am wrong' while I made a statement that you should learn to read, made points to show I was right IN MY OPINION and in no way demanding ANYTHING of you?

Think about that.


The managers also discussed the legality of shootout goals, paying particularly close attention to the one scored by Florida Panthers center Vincent Trocheck on Oct. 18, a goal that led to a 4-3 win against the Tampa Bay Lightning.

Trocheck lost control of the puck as he got in close, but the puck never stopped moving, he regained control of it and scored. The question is whether the puck kept moving forward, which is part of the rule.

"We ALL thought it shouldn't have been a goal," Chiarelli said. "Hindsight is 20/20, but we talked about it and I think we're straightened out on that one."


So there you go - EVERY GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NHL thought it shouldn't have been a goal. Is that enough for you??

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:27 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Vancouver Canucks record when leading after 1 period this season. 0-0-0. Don't even ask me how that is possible.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1409
theohall wrote:
Oaklandblue wrote:
theohall wrote:
Quote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line


Clearly, you can't read, Oakland.

Define "motion towards the opponent's goal line" and things that are not "motion towards the opponent's goal line."

And
Quote:
must
eliminates exceptions - such as those not specifically mentioned, which is your supposed case, because it wipes out all of them.

Admit it. You are still wrong. Or is it that beneath you?


There are NO stated exceptions, which is why this rule is a bad one; it is too broad. It makes a statement without a clear explanation on what the words means.

The rule states that the "Puck MUST be moving TOWARDS the opponent goal line. Not just must, but also towards.

Pay attention to the words MUST and TOWARDS.

If I get in a car and drive to the Scottrade and then drive around the building, say, to find parking. I'm not driving towards it, but also I am NOT driving away from it, keeping with both the MUST and the TOWARDS parts of the rule...

The TOWARDS part seems to follow the conditions I just mentioned, that moving parallel/sideways = towards the goal because...

If a player skates towards the box and then moves the puck left or right, whether parallel or sideways of themselves to set up a shot at the corners, your rationale is that the action of the puck moving paralle or sideways to the goal would break the rule and the play would be dead, even though we see hundreds of examples of this in shootouts, some of which by players in the HOF, of which the ones that were shot in were called a goal.

I'm not going to agree I'm wrong because you feel your point is superior and you're trying to bully/shame me into it and that kind of behavior. It says more about you as a person than myself.

What I will agree with you on, as I did before, is that it is a gray area, because the rule is too broad. What it SHOULD say, in my opinion, is that if a player's body moves past either of the pipes of the goal box, the puck is dead. That would make more sense and would stop this goal from being allowed again.

But under the rules as stated, with the reasons I said above, which might or might not be part of the rationale the Refs had under review of it, that goal is good and they called it good. So I can't be wrong about that.

Now about the ideology about why it was called wrong, however, I can absolutely be wrong and you can too. Unless the Refs gave some rationale about it after the game via media, which they might have, I haven't seen any of that, though, then there is no way to tell, and if you want me to admit I'm wrong with something like that after you have demanded I 'admit I am wrong' while I made a statement that you should learn to read, made points to show I was right IN MY OPINION and in no way demanding ANYTHING of you?

Think about that.


The managers also discussed the legality of shootout goals, paying particularly close attention to the one scored by Florida Panthers center Vincent Trocheck on Oct. 18, a goal that led to a 4-3 win against the Tampa Bay Lightning.

Trocheck lost control of the puck as he got in close, but the puck never stopped moving, he regained control of it and scored. The question is whether the puck kept moving forward, which is part of the rule.

"We ALL thought it shouldn't have been a goal," Chiarelli said. "Hindsight is 20/20, but we talked about it and I think we're straightened out on that one."


So there you go - EVERY GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NHL thought it shouldn't have been a goal. Is that enough for you??


And yet it was and nothing you say is going to change that, and if you decide to continue this, all you're doing is making yourself out to be vindictive and petty. But that's your choice.

I gave my point of view which is neither right or wrong, but MY point of view and YOU can feel whichever way you wish about it and feel free to continue this. I don't have to agree with you, but the facts remain and frankly, the President of the US, Canada, UK and China could agree with you, Gary Bettman could agree with you, but three Refs made the call as a goal and none of them change THAT call, ok?

I'm not going to back down from my point of view, nor am I going to sit here and blast you and do what you're trying to do to me, to you. I looked down that road, tapped a foot in it earlier and decided it was against my better nature to travel it, as a Blues fan, a hockey fan and human being in general. I didn't ask you to agree or disagree but looked at what happened and gave me opinion on why it happened that way, what the refs, plural prolly saw and decided was why the goal was called as good.

What you do here, is up to you and reflects on you, not me or anyone else and changes nothing. You act as if me doing as you wish and admitting something YOU agree with makes you the better man. All you've done by this is prove you're a bully. And that's sad.

_________________
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:58 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
So every general manager in the NHL was wrong, too?? Got it. Everyone is wrong, but you and the refs who blew the call. No worries. :okman:

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:14 am 
Offline
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:59 pm
Posts: 584
Image

_________________
2016-2017 LGB sponsor of your boy, goaltender Jake Allen and a center for Vladi Tarasenko.
2017-2018 LGB sponsor of a damn fine rearguard, Capt. Alex Pietrangelo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:03 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1409
theohall wrote:
So every general manager in the NHL was wrong, too?? Got it. Everyone is wrong, but you and the refs who blew the call. No worries. :okman:


See previous post and actually read it.

_________________
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:56 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
So your point of view insists that it isn't a goal and it is a goal, if it's neither right nor wrong. Way to actually have an opinion on whether something actually is or isn't, instead of taking the wishy-washy way out. :aaaa:

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:03 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Don't be surprised if 2019 sees a new CBA thing arise.

How Escrow is Becoming a Growing Concern in the NHL

Apparently, the Maple Leafs are benefiting from this in some way that is ticking off players. Still trying to find a link explaining this, but the only thing found thus are Twitter notes from Leafs reporters.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:09 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Great paragraph from Elliot Friedman's 30 Thoughts:

Quote:
Florida’s Vincent Trocheck had a great line about teammate Jaromir Jagr. Trocheck’s first NHL goal was an empty-netter against the New Jersey Devils in March 2014. There is a photo of the future Hall-of-Famer chasing the young centre as he scores. When Trocheck told him that, he said Jagr replied, “What were you doing on the ice in a one-goal game?”

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1409
theohall wrote:
So your point of view insists that it isn't a goal and it is a goal, if it's neither right nor wrong. Way to actually have an opinion on whether something actually is or isn't, instead of taking the wishy-washy way out. :aaaa:


Your opinion and my opinion are on two radically different things.

Here's the thing: Your argument has been how that could not have been a goal. You've brought up the rules, every GM in the league saying it's not a goal and so on and so forth but you're wrong: It's a goal. It will always be a goal. On the Stats for that game, it will show up and will always show up as a goal.

Here's another thing: You were making an argument over what is and isn't a goal. I was discussing trying to understand what the Ref and then the Refs saw that convinced them it was a goal. Because they all skated to the side and obviously read the rules, viewed video from all angles and discussed the situation before calling it a goal. My question was why did they? I have yet to read anything about why they called it that way and I would love to see an article about that if one exists.

Frankly, in this situation, I personally don't care how it was called, but they did call it a Goal and I tried to play Devil's Advocate and tried to see it in their perspective as to how they called it with the rules as such and a ridiculous amount of popular opinion being against it.

See, you have sat there for pages and tried to make me admit something that is a lie. I agree to the fact. You may not like the fact, you may not agree with it and that's entirely your right, but your opinion or the opinion of others does not, has not and will not, change the call.

The funny part is that, I wasn't arguing if the goal counted or not, but why.

_________________
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:19 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
The point is it shouldn't have been a goal based on the rules. And every GM in the league agrees.

No, it won't change that is still counts. So what? The point is it shouldn't have.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:10 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1409
theohall wrote:
The point is it shouldn't have been a goal based on the rules. And every GM in the league agrees.

No, it won't change that is still counts. So what? The point is it shouldn't have.


Fair enough, your point is that it shouldn't have counted and everyone who is anyone agree with your opinion. Why did a group of Refs, who hold the rulebook second to the Bible and know it as well as a religious zealot knows their 'book of law' call this one a goal? Aren't you curious at all on why they called it one when the rules and those who share your viewpoint agree that the rule says it isn't? (And I'll go this far, for your benefit and for the sake of argument to say the rule states it's not even though my opinion is that I feel the rule is inherently vague.)

Because that's what interests me in this. One Ref didn't make this call. An entire group did, after viewing video and looking at the rule.

_________________
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:48 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oaklandblue wrote:
theohall wrote:
The point is it shouldn't have been a goal based on the rules. And every GM in the league agrees.

No, it won't change that is still counts. So what? The point is it shouldn't have.


Fair enough, your point is that it shouldn't have counted and everyone who is anyone agree with your opinion. Why did a group of Refs, who hold the rulebook second to the Bible and know it as well as a religious zealot knows their 'book of law' call this one a goal? Aren't you curious at all on why they called it one when the rules and those who share your viewpoint agree that the rule says it isn't? (And I'll go this far, for your benefit and for the sake of argument to say the rule states it's not even though my opinion is that I feel the rule is inherently vague.)

Because that's what interests me in this. One Ref didn't make this call. An entire group did, after viewing video and looking at the rule.


Toronto didn't review this goal. It was made by the on-ice refs who were the only ones to review it. And every GM in the league still says, based on the rules, it shouldn't have been a goal. The on-ice refs at the game blew the call, because they aren't infallible. Mistakes happen.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:43 am
Posts: 3989
I'm not entirely sold on the Blue Jackets. But, that 16 game winning streak was impressive as hell.

_________________
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:18 am
Posts: 894
cardsfan04 wrote:
I'm not entirely sold on the Blue Jackets. But, that 16 game winning streak was impressive as hell.


Agreed - my thought is all those games they have in hand just means they will have a heavy load of games at the end of the season. I thought it hurt the Blues a few years ago for that very reason - you guys were rolling but had 4 in hand the whole season and then an overpacked list of games in March. The team burnt out, lost the last 6 regular games and Colorado took the division. If the schedule was more balanced you guys win the division that year and have a possibly different path. For the past several years my team always seems to have a front loaded schedule and I hate that too. I'd rather be right in the middle of the pack.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Has anyone ever seen a team play 3 straight pairs of games on back-to-back nights? This is TB's schedule over the next 11 days.

1/7 TB @ PHI
1/8 TB PIT
1/12 BUF @ TB
1/13 CBJ @ TB
1/16 TB @ LA
1/17 TB @ ANA

Granted, there is the 4 days off after the Penguins matchup, but 4 games in 6 nights with the front and back end being games on consecutive nights?? Nuts. This is with Bishop out with an injury and Vasilevskiy recently struggling.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:43 am
Posts: 3989
Vermette got 10 games. Wideman got 20. Isn't what Vermette did worse than what Wideman did? Or at the least, shouldn't they fall into the same category of hitting an official?

_________________
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5855
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Vermette barely tapped the guys butt - more of an excuse me, pay attention kind of thing. Wideman ran square into the official. Different situations.

The guy who should have gotten 10+ games, vice 8, was Nyquist. He stops, looks at the guy that cross-checked him, then square on uses his stick to damn near put the guy's eye out. I don't care what he said afterwards. He clearly intended to do what he did.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Brayden Schenn 2017-2018 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Board index » Let's Go Blues » St. Louis Blues Discussion

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group