Around The NHL V

[Punxrocknyc19*]

 

[Raspewtin]

Rangers have been better than the Bolts the past 2 years......

Well this year they aren't.

 

[Raspewtin]

He has less points than St. Louis has goals. I'm so tired of people making excuses for Nash his whole career. Tampa's a "much better team"? They're over performing on the back of the hottest goalie in the league. And St. Louis is keeping them afloat. Bishop and St. Louis are carrying them to where they are in the standings. Nash isn't carrying us anywhere. And St. Louis is doing it without Stammer. If anyone asked before the season who would be better, NY or Tampa, NY would win hands down. And if Nash was performing like St. Louis we'd be right there with them in the standings.

I don't recall saying Nash is a better player than MSL.

I am saying that Nash is better than his point totals.

 

[egelband]

torts was legit mad. that wasn't a put-on, at least in my mind. i don't know the 'unwritten rules' of the nhl but it seems to me calgary's coach started off things with a bush move. torts overreacted but maybe it's something he felt had to be done. i appreciate someone standing up for whats right. whether it's taking an instigator penalty to stand-up for a teammate or saying something in a press conference regardless of getting fined. this looks like a guy - right or wrong - who (literally) fought for something he believes-in. fine. no big harm done.

 

[Raspewtin]

That line brawl was hilarious.

Happy hockey day friends!

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I don't recall saying Nash is a better player than MSL.

I am saying that Nash is better than his point totals.

Of course he's better than his point totals. Who would debate that? If he wasn't he'd be a interchangeable career second liner making ~4M and no one would be talking about him. Nash isn't playing up to his talent, his potential, his contract or his competition and while I do take the injuries this year into account, and acknowledge that he played very well when he first arrived here, I've always felt that Nash is a passenger and a floater who will pile on points when it's easy, disappear when it's tough and rarely be the guy to put his team on his back and win them a hockey game, despite possessing a skillset that would allow him to. Nash is just wants to be a passenger on a bus that's going to the playoffs. St. Louis is a guy whose going to take over and drive the bus. Nash could be that guy, easily, with his size and ability, but won't ever put in the effort, and that's why I've never liked him.

 

[truebluegoalie]

Red Wings get the luckiest goal ever to tie the Kings in the final minute, the puck hit the netting then fell hit Quick in the back and in the net, it's not reviewable either, just terrible officiating how do they miss that?

That was ridiculous. I can't believe that the rule states if it goes unnoticed play continues. It makes some sense because if it hits the net and comes back down into play and play continues without anyone noticing it is hard go back to that point especially if play continues for a good amount of time. But the rule should be amended to avoid another instance like this. The puck went off the net (which btw if the net wasn't there it would be out of play and whistled) then hits quick in the back and goes in? At the very least that should be reviewable.


On the other subject, torts is a clown and I am glad he is gone. Second time he has done this recently.

 

[Ola]

torts was legit mad. that wasn't a put-on, at least in my mind. i don't know the 'unwritten rules' of the nhl but it seems to me calgary's coach started off things with a bush move. torts overreacted but maybe it's something he felt had to be done. i appreciate someone standing up for whats right. whether it's taking an instigator penalty to stand-up for a teammate or saying something in a press conference regardless of getting fined. this looks like a guy - right or wrong - who (literally) fought for something he believes-in. fine. no big harm done.

But this don't hold up. After the NJ debacle someone showed stats how we under Torts several times started our 4th line. As a checkin unit.

Does anyone seriously believe that Westgarth and co would have jumped the Sedins? I've never seen that happen in the NHL.

Torts is fully aware of what he is doing, and he is usually good at these things. They got 2pts last night. Lost Hank Sedin, but might not be that serious.

 

[Ola]

Vancouver is 2-5-3 in their last 10...Part of me wouldn't be at all surprised if this was jsut Torts trying to get his players going.

The guy is a very smart guy and motivator. sometimes the guys need to rally behind their coach...

Agreed and he is really good at it.

In the end, it's a side show though. You can't brawl yourself past Ana, STL, Chi and co. He needs to ice a team with a game plan that holds up in this era too.

It helps him a lot to have the Sedins, that's 20 minutes of a game that he don't have to coach. If he can add a decent 2nd line to that, you know a typical Hags-Step-Cally / Dubi-AA-Cally line, it's 40 minutes of hockey.

But I just don't get why he hangs on to that pre-lockout BS boards out style of play, he isn't a fanatic Renney like thinker. He should just look around the league and adopt. What is wrong with the way Boston is playing for example? Take a few risks in the transition game, you will win it back by playing a lot less defense...

 

[Ola]

I am on the phone and can't quote, but Adam Proteau's tweets on Torts was hilarious.

 

[egelband]

But this don't hold up.

my point is that i believe torts was honestly angry...as opposed to him contriving to bring out some emotion in his team.

 

[truebluegoalie]

The really sad, (but expected I suppose) thing is that this is what led on sportscenter this morning. And all they showed was the brawl, and the shootout winner. Pathetic. I guess they would never lead with some good hockey right? Like the two natural hattricks in Tampa yesterday. Only the fourth time that has ever happened, but hey no big deal.

 

[nyr2k2]

The line brawl doesn't bother me. The stuff after the game does. What a joke.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Torts was mad because Hartley forced him to match the 4th line. Hartley opened the game with the goons of goons, and made Torts match it. Torts didnt want to roll the dice and put one of his top-9 out there only to see a guy like Sedin or Burrows hurt.

The Canucks have had a lot of injuries this tear, so Torts had a legit beef. Why start a game with a 4th line, especially a team like Calgary who cant score?

It was obvious Hartley wanted to energize his team with fighting. Fine by me, but Hartley is to blame on this one.

 

[Raspewtin]

The line brawl doesn't bother me. The stuff after the game does. What a joke.

What stuff?

 

[NYR94]

What stuff?

 

[Raspewtin]

Oh, I didn't know that was after the game.

Yeah, I don't know what he was thinking there.

 

[truebluegoalie]

Torts was mad because Hartley forced him to match the 4th line. Hartley opened the game with the goons of goons, and made Torts match it. Torts didnt want to roll the dice and put one of his top-9 out there only to see a guy like Sedin or Burrows hurt.

The Canucks have had a lot of injuries this tear, so Torts had a legit beef. Why start a game with a 4th line, especially a team like Calgary who cant score?

It was obvious Hartley wanted to energize his team with fighting. Fine by me, but Hartley is to blame on this one.

So I guess it wasn't obvious that Hartely maybe wanted to put a checking line out against a scoring line because that isn't a common strategy or anything. By your (and Torts') view a visiting coach is only allowed to start one of the lines as long as it isn't a checking line? bull

Hartley didn't force anything. Torts starts any other line, and calgary is forced to make a quick line change or get scored on. Instead he sends out Bieska to take the faceoff. Not to mention this is the 2nd time he has pulled this bs. It is ridiculous that a visiting coach can't start a checking line because the other coach is a huge baby.

 

[truebluegoalie]

Oh, I didn't know that was after the game.

Yeah, I don't know what he was thinking there.

He was thinking it is too cold in vancouver this time of year and wanted a nice vacation so he could come back when it is warmer.

 

[NYR94]

So I guess it wasn't obvious that Hartely maybe wanted to put a checking line out against a scoring line because that isn't a common strategy or anything. By your (and Torts') view a visiting coach is only allowed to start one of the lines as long as it isn't a checking line? bull

Hartley didn't force anything. Torts starts any other line, and calgary is forced to make a quick line change or get scored on. Instead he sends out Bieska to take the faceoff. Not to mention this is the 2nd time he has pulled this bs. It is ridiculous that a visiting coach can't start a checking line because the other coach is a huge baby.

Hartley wasn't matching anything because he doesn't know who Tortorella is putting out there to start the game until he sees the Vancouver players on the ice. The visiting coach submits a starting lineup to the ref that the home coach gets to see and then the home coach decides on his starting lineup. So it's not like Hartley saw that Tortorella was starting the Sedins and then matched with his fourth line (the Sedins would skate circles around a line of McGrattan-Jones-Westgarth anyway so it would be a dumb coaching move). Besides, that line is really a fourth line, not a defensive checking line that you would use to shut down another team's top line.

Hartley was obviously trying to set a tone and his players understood that. Westgarth, who has taken a whopping 3 faceoffs in 10 games with Calgary, lost that faceoff to a defenseman cleanly. They knew what they were doing. Bieksa knew it too, that's why he stepped in to take the draw instead of the rookie Kellan Lain playing his first game.

Tortorella wasn't happy about what he did, but Hartley was the one who started it because that's the way the NHL rules are. Visiting team submits lineup first. Tortorella and the Canucks have too much to lose by putting the Sedins or Burrows who was coming back from a broken jaw out there against Calgary's fourth line. Even if the Flames' players were out there to just finish their checks hard and not fight, one big hit on a Vancouver skilled player could mean more time lost to an injury. Fighters vs. fighters is at least a fair matchup. Tortorella was protecting his skilled players.

 

[bmoak]

So I guess it wasn't obvious that Hartely maybe wanted to put a checking line out against a scoring line because that isn't a common strategy or anything. By your (and Torts') view a visiting coach is only allowed to start one of the lines as long as it isn't a checking line? bull

Hartley didn't force anything. Torts starts any other line, and calgary is forced to make a quick line change or get scored on. Instead he sends out Bieska to take the faceoff. Not to mention this is the 2nd time he has pulled this bs. It is ridiculous that a visiting coach can't start a checking line because the other coach is a huge baby.

Some fourth lines are checking lines. I don't think too many coaches would fear their stars being roughed up by Moore-Boyle-Carcillo off the opening faceoff. However, when your fourth line has Brian McGrattan and Kevin Westgarth on it (and Westgarth lined up to take the faceoff and then immediately challenged Bieksa), you can't claim that you were putting out your checking line to play good defensive hockey.

 

[Raspewtin]

Igor Eronko ‏@IgorEronko 6m
Evgeni Kuznetsov to Rsport.ru: 'I won't stay in #KHL even if they offer me 10 or 15 mln per season'

Looks like Kuzo is coming over after all. Amazing player. He'll make the Caps a lot better.

 

[truebluegoalie]

Hartley wasn't matching anything because he doesn't know who Tortorella is putting out there to start the game until he sees the Vancouver players on the ice. The visiting coach submits a starting lineup to the ref that the home coach gets to see and then the home coach decides on his starting lineup. So it's not like Hartley saw that Tortorella was starting the Sedins and then matched with his fourth line (the Sedins would skate circles around a line of McGrattan-Jones-Westgarth anyway so it would be a dumb coaching move). Besides, that line is really a fourth line, not a defensive checking line that you would use to shut down another team's top line.

Hartley was obviously trying to set a tone and his players understood that. Westgarth, who has taken a whopping 3 faceoffs in 10 games with Calgary, lost that faceoff to a defenseman cleanly. They knew what they were doing. Bieksa knew it too, that's why he stepped in to take the draw instead of the rookie Kellan Lain playing his first game.

Tortorella wasn't happy about what he did, but Hartley was the one who started it because that's the way the NHL rules are. Visiting team submits lineup first. Tortorella and the Canucks have too much to lose by putting the Sedins or Burrows who was coming back from a broken jaw out there against Calgary's fourth line. Even if the Flames' players were out there to just finish their checks hard and not fight, one big hit on a Vancouver skilled player could mean more time lost to an injury. Fighters vs. fighters is at least a fair matchup. Tortorella was protecting his skilled players.

I know what the NHL rules are for lines and opening faceoffs. But it could be a safe assumption that the Sedins would start. In addition there is nothing wrong with starting an energy line on the road. TBH I was still reading up on the whole thing and was basing the idea of it being a line on Hartley who claimed that he started that line because they scored a goal last game, and he wanted some energy. But I have also read that it isn't an actual line so now his claim sounds like BS. I do think Hartley will be fined, but I don't like the pandora's box that opens. Now the league will dictate who starts what games?

I do agree that it would have been stupid to put the Sedins out there or any other "skill" players, but it still could have been mitigated some. How about a third line with Sestito on it to fight Westgarth or McGratton? There are lot of things Tortorella could have done there that would have avoided this.

I think there is a lot of blame to go around, but IMO most of it lies on Tortorella. There are also a lot of what ifs that I don't think any of us can answer. Like I said what if he had put Sestito out there instead of all five guys to fight. Maybe you get a 1v1 fight instead of a complete line brawl.

Also, I really think that the fact that the last time (IIRC) there was a full line brawl to start the game it was under the same circumstances with the same coach. Maybe Torts needs to stop assuming that everyone is out to get him.

Anyway, I think it is probably one of those things where it is better to agree to disagree because there are going to be people on both sides, and honestly I don't feel much like arguing about it.

I think the real shame in the whole situation is that it overshadowed Hockey Day in Canada, which I have always enjoyed and it once again brought negative light to the game. I would have much rather seen sportscenter lead with the SJ-TB game and the incredible performances there. Unfortunately it seems like the NHL only gets exposure for negative things.

Some fourth lines are checking lines. I don't think too many coaches would fear their stars being roughed up by Moore-Boyle-Carcillo off the opening faceoff. However, when your fourth line has Brian McGrattan and Kevin Westgarth on it (and Westgarth lined up to take the faceoff and then immediately challenged Bieksa), you can't claim that you were putting out your checking line to play good defensive hockey.

Like I said, lots of what ifs. Would he have jumped Sedin like that? Some fans say no. I don't know, I honestly don't follow that team enough. But even if he did that is why you put a guy or two out there who could jump in. I just think there were ways it could have turned out different, mostly based on Tort's reaction.

 

[OverTheCap]

This is what Hartley does and it's widely considered a bush league tactic by other coaches. He used to do this all the time when he coached the Avs, and he did it against the Rangers and Muckler freaked out:

Harking back to his wild and crazy days as a player-coach with the Long Island Ducks of the lawless old Eastern Hockey League, Rangers coach John Muckler nearly came to blows with Colorado coach Bob Hartley as the two walked across the ice at the end of last night's game in McNichols Arena. Incensed that Hartley had deployed his enforcers Scott Parker and Jeff Odgers against Wayne Gretzky's line late in the Rangers' 6-3 victory, Muckler got in the Avalanche rookie coach's face after the final buzzer as both teams' players and coaches came together. After order was restored, Muckler was asked if he had thrown a punch at Hartley. "No, I wouldn't do that," he replied. "You know I have done that. But I wouldn't do it now.

" Muckler's explanation of the scrum: "It was just a discussion between Hartley and myself.

" Asked again who was involved, Muckler said: "Hartley is that the coach's name?

" As for the source of his anger, Muckler said: "He put his . . . he put Parker and Odgers out to play against Gretz' line and then Parker ran Gretz. The game is over with. I don't mind if it wasn't. I just think it was a cheap shot, which it was. It was a minor-league move

.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/muck-rakes-avs-coach-article-1.834920#ixzz2qrH4GhnG

I don't have a problem at all with Torts countering by putting his 4th line out there instead of the Sedins. If Hartley's goons took a run at Gretzky in the past, I don't think they would hesitate to go after the Sedins.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I absolutely loved everything about the Vancouver-Calgary game. So many talking heads in the media spouting off about something they will never have a clue about.

Nice to see a coach who gets his group to stand up for themselves.