Toggle sidebar

Tidbits: Around the League: NHL News - 2022-23

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m gonna put our playoff sloppiness and competitiveness more on the coaches simply because I can’t fathom have no practices in the playoffs. I get taking time off here and there for the regular season, the playoffs however.. you need to stay sharp and keep practicing.
 
DeagleJenkins said:
I’m gonna put our playoff sloppiness and competitiveness more on the coaches simply because I can’t fathom have no practices in the playoffs. I get taking time off here and there for the regular season, the playoffs however.. you need to stay sharp and keep practicing.
Click to expand...

For me it still comes down to going to Fleury in game 2. If they did it because they thought Dallas would come back hot in game 2, and wanted to protect Gus' confidence, they already lost the mental game. If they did it because they thought Gus needed a rest or because they really believed Fleury was as good as Gus, they already lost the coaching game. Regardless, the coaching staff was not equipped to win that series. They tipped their hand with that move and let their foot off the gas pedal. Dallas was the more confident team, Dallas was the better coached team from the moment the game 2 starter was announced onward. It was over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fgobuzz and TaLoN
AKL said:
For me it still comes down to going to Fleury in game 2. If they did it because they thought Dallas would come back hot in game 2, and wanted to protect Gus' confidence, they already lost the mental game. If they did it because they thought Gus needed a rest or because they really believed Fleury was as good as Gus, they already lost the coaching game. Regardless, the coaching staff was not equipped to win that series. They tipped their hand with that move and let their foot off the gas pedal. Dallas was the more confident team, Dallas was the better coached team from the moment the game 2 starter was announced onward. It was over.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. So many decisions make zero sense. I don’t get how you can suck so much at many key aspects and thing oh we need time away. I don’t see it.. I hope BG is so far ahead in thinking Evason will be the scape goat after this year..
 
AKL said:
For me it still comes down to going to Fleury in game 2. If they did it because they thought Dallas would come back hot in game 2, and wanted to protect Gus' confidence, they already lost the mental game. If they did it because they thought Gus needed a rest or because they really believed Fleury was as good as Gus, they already lost the coaching game. Regardless, the coaching staff was not equipped to win that series. They tipped their hand with that move and let their foot off the gas pedal. Dallas was the more confident team, Dallas was the better coached team from the moment the game 2 starter was announced onward. It was over.
Click to expand...
It still beats me, what the hell was he thinking? After Gus first playoff game, where he played a bit nervous at the start but once he found his game he was fantastic. Only to be benched the next game to an old and cold has been. Talk about ruining a young players confidence.
And sit Sundqvist for all but one game was also a weak call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobinOvian and DeagleJenkins
Either way the last two years we were up 2-1 and then managed to lose 3 in a row, I don't know what you call that other than kind of falling apart. I do wish we had last year's Gus on the team from two years ago but whatever, keep plugging along and see what happens.
 
12D56B90-2216-4EA8-B336-6D56260DD497.png

Some interesting stuff going on with the flames
 
DeagleJenkins said:
View attachment 720055
Some interesting stuff going on with the flames
Click to expand...
TaLoN said:
They can't keep anybody anymore it seems. Two seasons in a row now.
Click to expand...

They need a rebuild but they already screwed the pooch by by signing Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar to big extensions. They should have bit the bullet the last couple years and they could have gotten a haul of good futures for Gaudreau and Tkachuk, and maybe even competed for Bedard.

At this point, you trade Lindholm and Backlund and Hanifin and you'll get some decent pieces, but you won't get anything like a Gaudreau or Tkachuk or the 1C they need in return unless they get real lucky at the draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeagleJenkins and TaLoN
NHL1674 said:
No specialty jerseys in warm-ups next year, which is fine. But it better include ALL jerseys. No exceptions. Zero.
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't care either way. Those warmups get auctioned off and it goes to charity (IIRC).

I'm waiting for the Fanatics sweater deal to start (24-25 season) to see what warmup jerseys they come up with. They have some crazy concepts on their website.
 
Wabit said:
Meh, I don't care either way. Those warmups get auctioned off and it goes to charity (IIRC).

I'm waiting for the Fanatics sweater deal to start (24-25 season) to see what warmup jerseys they come up with. They have some crazy concepts on their website.
Click to expand...
Just make all the jerseys optional. I know this stems from the pride jerseys, but even the military ones don’t make sense for everyone to wear. Not everyone is pro American military and that’s fine.

Maybe they should have a night where players can pick the optional jersey they want to wear for warmups (with a requirement that each jersey type has at least one player). I think that’s better for the players and it helps everyone feel included.
 
NHL1674 said:
The NHL Board of Governors made that decision today. Having exceptions would make them hypocrites of the worse kind. Saying teams can wear these jerseys for warmups, but not those ones would look pretty damn bad.

Click to expand...

The NHL shutting everything down just because a few players decided not to wear a jersey they don’t agree with is such a massive L.

-L for the NHL.
-L for not accepting people in the LGBTQ community for who they are.
-L for not accepting Christian/Muslim/other religious people for who they are.
-L for every person or group that wasn’t involved and had their jersey canceled
-L for shutting down any sort of dialogue to be had between conflicting groups
 
Digitalbooya said:
The NHL shutting everything down just because a few players decided not to wear a jersey they don’t agree with is such a massive L.

-L for the NHL.
-L for not accepting people in the LGBTQ community for who they are.
-L for not accepting Christian/Muslim/other religious people for who they are.
-L for every person or group that wasn’t involved and had their jersey canceled
-L for shutting down any sort of dialogue to be had between conflicting groups
Click to expand...

I think the NHL made the correct call. The fact of the matter is we're all here for hockey. I'd suspect the number of people who are going to stop watching the NHL because of this decision is small, because in the end we're not here for the themes, we're here for hockey. The only jerseys a player needs to wear for the NHL product are the teams official on-ice jersey. Having players wear theme night jerseys just opens the door to too much potential for controversy. Too many people have too many strong feelings on which themes were good and bad and what participation should look like. And even in the future, which new themes do you introduce and which do you decline? It's very clear by now that wearing those jerseys wasn't leading to any increased acceptance for anyone of any creed, and wasn't leading to any meaningful dialogue either.

In the end, they're still having theme nights, and they're still making the jerseys to auction off (as far as I know), so it's not really a big deal.

I would have been good with making all the jerseys optional too, but that doesn't remove the potential for controversy, which is the NHL's primary goal. It's like a parent saying "if you can't figure out how to share the toy, neither of you get to play with it". Yeah, it's maybe an unpopular move for the kids right away, but ultimately it does make it so the kids can't fight over the toy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildabeast, Wild11MN and DigitalBoldy
AKL said:
I think the NHL made the correct call. The fact of the matter is we're all here for hockey. I'd suspect the number of people who are going to stop watching the NHL because of this decision is small, because in the end we're not here for the themes, we're here for hockey. The only jerseys a player needs to wear for the NHL product are the teams official on-ice jersey. Having players wear theme night jerseys just opens the door to too much potential for controversy. Too many people have too many strong feelings on which themes were good and bad and what participation should look like. And even in the future, which new themes do you introduce and which do you decline? It's very clear by now that wearing those jerseys wasn't leading to any increased acceptance for anyone of any creed, and wasn't leading to any meaningful dialogue either.

In the end, they're still having theme nights, and they're still making the jerseys to auction off (as far as I know), so it's not really a big deal.

I would have been good with making all the jerseys optional too, but that doesn't remove the potential for controversy, which is the NHL's primary goal. It's like a parent saying "if you can't figure out how to share the toy, neither of you get to play with it". Yeah, it's maybe an unpopular move for the kids right away, but ultimately it does make it so the kids can't fight over the toy.
Click to expand...
While I agree on most points made, I also think there are plenty of theme nights that are not controversial at all. For instance, Hockey Fights Cancer.
 
Digitalbooya said:
While I agree on most points made, I also think there are plenty of theme nights that are not controversial at all. For instance, Hockey Fights Cancer.
Click to expand...

Won't deny that, but picking and choosing which nights are controversial and need to be gotten rid of and which nights can stay only adds fuel to the fire for people whose favorite (controversial) theme night got the boot. Like the post in here that originally brought this up said they can't even make an exception for the HFC night, and I doubt she's pro-cancer. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

I think the important thing, again, is that they're still having these nights and still auctioning off the jerseys for charity. The only thing changing is the players aren't wearing them first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DigitalBoldy
DeagleJenkins said:
Dubas allegedly willing to trade pits first for a goalie. Think Gus would strike his interest?
Click to expand...
It’s funny the last Russo LaPanta pod they basically laughed a Gus trade off but if value is there imo it makes sense. Gather picks, Fleury gets his last ride and Wallstedt gets a couple games, work into the cap free years and either feel confident in what you have with your goalie of the future or use the plethora of cap to get one. Being a bridge deal for Gus just to get him to his next contract and the team to Jesper doesn’t make much sense. Use an asset that’s agent is likely overvaluing his performance last season, and add elsewhere. Otherwise I think this deal is heading to arbitration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom