Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2023 Off-season

[twabby]

You ignored my core point, which is that the reason guys get rid of the puck quickly is because the hit is coming. If they aren't worried about the hit, then they'll hold onto the puck longer. Thus will the puck still be there and the hit will come anyhow. Checks get finished because the line between puck possession and not is so very thin. The league has set a rule based on a reasonable amount of time to bail out once the puck is gone. They understand that it can't be instant and that the fear of the check is a strategic advantage. Clutterbuck and Reaves aren't dullards. They're weapons. And good ones. Their skill sets just aren't the ones you value.

Checks get finished because the risk is low and the reward is high. You can potentially knock an opponent out of a game/series by “finishing a check” and there is very little risk of incurring a penalty given the way interference is enforced.

It’s a bit weird to hear that the best athletes in the world can’t make snap judgments or can’t see the puck clearly because their vision is obscured by their helmets/visors or whatever other contrived reason it is that players need to get pasted after they get rid of the puck. Again the NFL doesn’t let pass-rushers off the hook and penalizes players for late hits all the time.

 

[twabby]

How do you define "has the ability to bail out"? Some amount of time has to be allowed for normal reaction and flow of play.

This is why finishing the check is allowed. People can't just re-route physically and mentally immediately. And the closer you get to a player the less ability you may have to see where the puck is due to narrowing of field of vision. Additional complications come from the nature of skating and the proportions and constraints of a rink with 2 nets and continual walls, refs, other players, etc.

So guys are going to get hit after the puck is gone.

What you want is no hitting at all.

Football players re-route and hold up on delivering hits all the time! Whether it’s pass-rushers holding up on nailing the QB if the ball is thrown or a safety bailing out of a big open-field hit after the ball sails over the WR’s head football players avoid hitting when it’s unnecessary all the time. And rule-changes are what made this happen.

It should be no different in the NHL. Change the interference rule to include “finishing checks” and I give you the twabby Guarantee™ that players will be able to adapt. You may not have faith in these gifted athletes, but I do!

 

[HTFN]

Checks get finished because the risk is low and the reward is high. You can potentially knock an opponent out of a game/series by “finishing a check” and there is very little risk of incurring a penalty given the way interference is enforced.

It’s a bit weird to hear that the best athletes in the world can’t make snap judgments or can’t see the puck clearly because their vision is obscured by their helmets/visors or whatever other contrived reason it is that players need to get pasted after they get rid of the puck. Again the NFL doesn’t let pass-rushers off the hook and penalizes players for late hits all the time.

No, checks get finished because safe is better than sorry and easing up on a guy just to let him dummy you is how you see the bench forever. It's tactically better to hit that guy legally and occupy him than to waste all your momentum and skate around him while he jumps up in the play and leaves you behind. You wanting to make it about intent to injure is crazy.

None of those other sports are played on ice. NFL players can't reach nearly 30mph, and the format of the sport is such that their jobs are very specific and stop every few seconds to reset. You have specialists doing very isolated jobs, thinking about nothing but specific cues and reads, and then when they go whizzing by a guy they could have hit they get to walk back to a huddle and go try again, they aren't now 10 extra yards behind the play trying to catch up.

People who race cars make mistakes and crash and their job is to literally not do that. The NHL also penalizes late hits, you just don't like the definition of late and want to see the flag football version of hockey.

 

[g00n]

Football players re-route and hold up on delivering hits all the time! Whether it’s pass-rushers holding up on nailing the QB if the ball is thrown or a safety bailing out of a big open-field hit after the ball sails over the WR’s head football players avoid hitting when it’s unnecessary all the time. And rule-changes are what made this happen.

It should be no different in the NHL. Change the interference rule to include “finishing checks” and I give you the twabby Guarantee™ that players will be able to adapt. You may not have faith in these gifted athletes, but I do!

Well you may not be correct but you're persistent.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Football players re-route and hold up on delivering hits all the time! Whether it’s pass-rushers holding up on nailing the QB if the ball is thrown or a safety bailing out of a big open-field hit after the ball sails over the WR’s head football players avoid hitting when it’s unnecessary all the time. And rule-changes are what made this happen.

It should be no different in the NHL. Change the interference rule to include “finishing checks” and I give you the twabby Guarantee™ that players will be able to adapt. You may not have faith in these gifted athletes, but I do!

I think high-level women’s hockey might be more for you….none of the senseless physicality you dislike.

 

[Rayquaza64]

This is how we know it’s truly the offseason for washington

 

[Calicaps]

Checks get finished because the risk is low and the reward is high. You can potentially knock an opponent out of a game/series by “finishing a check” and there is very little risk of incurring a penalty given the way interference is enforced.

It’s a bit weird to hear that the best athletes in the world can’t make snap judgments or can’t see the puck clearly because their vision is obscured by their helmets/visors or whatever other contrived reason it is that players need to get pasted after they get rid of the puck. Again the NFL doesn’t let pass-rushers off the hook and penalizes players for late hits all the time.

I notice you ignored my edit that was made immediately after the original post and hours before your reply.

But also you are assigning an intent to checking that doesn't hold up. Yes, sometimes guys get hurt but the point of checking isn't to knock a player out of a game or series, it's to instill fear and doubt.

 

[pman25]

I notice you ignored my edit that was made immediately after the original post and hours before your reply.

But also you are assigning an intent to checking that doesn't hold up. Yes, sometimes guys get hurt but the point of checking isn't to knock a player out of a game or series, it's to instill fear and doubt.

To be fair, USA Hockey disagrees.

“The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. By accelerating through the check and causing the opponent to be thrown dangerously into the boards, the focus of the check is to punish or intimidate the opponent and must be penalized under the Standard of Play for Body Checking.

What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to be thrown dangerously into the boards?

The onus is on the player delivering the check to not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent.

The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. Any time a player delivers a check for the purpose of intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards (uses the boards to punish the opponent), a boarding penalty must be assessed”

Now those aren’t NHL Rules but this was a fairly recent change to USA hockey so it’s fair to say hockey minds disagree about the purpose behind checking. And kids are no longer taught to play that way

 

[crazy8888]

I notice you ignored my edit that was made immediately after the original post and hours before your reply.

But also you are assigning an intent to checking that doesn't hold up. Yes, sometimes guys get hurt but the point of checking isn't to knock a player out of a game or series, it's to instill fear and doubt.

Yes exactly this. It also takes away time and space. Almost all players start to finish their checks more when playoffs roll around. No, they are not all out there trying to injure people.

 

[twabby]

To be fair, USA Hockey disagrees.

“The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. By accelerating through the check and causing the opponent to be thrown dangerously into the boards, the focus of the check is to punish or intimidate the opponent and must be penalized under the Standard of Play for Body Checking.

What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to be thrown dangerously into the boards?

The onus is on the player delivering the check to not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent.

The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. Any time a player delivers a check for the purpose of intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards (uses the boards to punish the opponent), a boarding penalty must be assessed”

Now those aren’t NHL Rules but this was a fairly recent change to USA hockey so it’s fair to say hockey minds disagree about the purpose behind checking. And kids are no longer taught to play that way

Get out of here with that sissy nonsense.

 

[HTFN]

To be fair, USA Hockey disagrees.

“The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. By accelerating through the check and causing the opponent to be thrown dangerously into the boards, the focus of the check is to punish or intimidate the opponent and must be penalized under the Standard of Play for Body Checking.

What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to be thrown dangerously into the boards?

The onus is on the player delivering the check to not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent.

The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. Any time a player delivers a check for the purpose of intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards (uses the boards to punish the opponent), a boarding penalty must be assessed”

Now those aren’t NHL Rules but this was a fairly recent change to USA hockey so it’s fair to say hockey minds disagree about the purpose behind checking. And kids are no longer taught to play that way

The grey area of this rule will always be that you can't predict how much counter-pressure you'll encounter unless the opponent is truly unaware. Throwing 50% of your effort into a check only to pinwheel off is no less dangerous near the boards and you have to commit to a certain level of finish to account for your own safety and momentum.

There is a point of no return where it's just simply too late. What's happened has happened, and when one of the two parties has misjudged the contact something's going to happen but it's not, and never should be, 100% up to the hitter to bail.

Shit, make a "protect yourself" rule where you get two counted seconds to look into your feet for the puck and then need to look up and brace regardless. You want to look for the puck, do it, but you can't hold everyone else hostage based on what you're aware of. Would prevent about as many violent contacts and keep people from playing with their heads lodged straight up their assholes.

 

[pman25]

I don’t really buy the point of no return. Checking is a skill and if you do it wrong, you should get penalized for it. I’m okay with that.

But until then, I am a Caps fan so I WILL defend Tom Wilson when he needlessly smokes another St. Louis Blue in preseason!

 

[Ridley Simon]

The bolded is correct. If the puck is there then the player should be eligible to be checked. But if the puck isn’t there and the hitter has the ability to bail out of the hit, then they should have to bail out of the hit or else be penalized. That’s how the THL (twabby Hockey League) would be run. Along with eliminating the draft and restricted free agency, and implementing a soft salary cap.

It’d make for a better game not seeing skilled defensemen have to duck out of the way of heat-seeking dullards like Cal Clutterbuck and Ryan Reaves well after the puck is gone.

Ya lost me at the bolded. The draft is one of the few functions that allows for the bad teams to get better.

Humour me please. How would you allow for new/unassigned “talent” to enter the league, without a draft? I think I know the answer, but I’d like to understand your stance here?

 

[HTFN]

I don’t really buy the point of no return. Checking is a skill and if you do it wrong, you should get penalized for it. I’m okay with that.

But until then, I am a Caps fan so I WILL defend Tom Wilson when he needlessly smokes another St. Louis Blue in preseason!

You don't have to, it's written in the rule book. The whole provision about players turning away from contact at the last second in boarding situations is already tacit acknowledgement of the fact that at some point the hitter has to commit to the hit and there's a period of time where the only hope for a good result is for the player being hit to recognize and embrace the situation because the point of no return is already here and trying to duck it is going to get somebody hurt.

I believe there's a similar rule about dropping to the ground to avoid oncoming committed hits

 

[Calicaps]

To be fair, USA Hockey disagrees.

“The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. By accelerating through the check and causing the opponent to be thrown dangerously into the boards, the focus of the check is to punish or intimidate the opponent and must be penalized under the Standard of Play for Body Checking.

What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to be thrown dangerously into the boards?

The onus is on the player delivering the check to not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent.

The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. Any time a player delivers a check for the purpose of intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards (uses the boards to punish the opponent), a boarding penalty must be assessed”

Now those aren’t NHL Rules but this was a fairly recent change to USA hockey so it’s fair to say hockey minds disagree about the purpose behind checking. And kids are no longer taught to play that way

What a horribly written rule! So if I do all the things noted above and gain possession than the hit is ok. But if I or a teammate don't come away with the puck then it's a penalty.
Further, if I want to intimidate my opponent and hit him without causing him to be "driven excessively into the boards" then it's OK that I've intimidated him. And this applies whether or not the hittee has the puck at the moment of contact. Ultimately this is just a badly constructed boarding rule.

But it also doesn't affect my primary point which is that the purpose of checking is NOT to knock opponents out of a game or series as @twabby asserts.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Ya lost me at the bolded. The draft is one of the few functions that allows for the bad teams to get better.

Humour me please. How would you allow for new/unassigned “talent” to enter the league, without a draft? I think I know the answer, but I’d like to understand your stance here?

Im guessing its like how the MLB does international prospects and is why the Dodgers have had a #1 ranked farm system for over a decade.

 

[usiel]

Im guessing its like how the MLB does international prospects and is why the Dodgers have had a #1 ranked farm system for over a decade.

Have to say I never understood how the Dodgers are always so high on the farm system despite picking no where near high. Never heard anything that they have some magical dev system or draft wizardry otherwise people would have poached front office personnel or methodology.

 

[bacchist]

Every check should be finished. All skaters should be fair targets, regardless of puck possession. Each forward line should have at least one guy whose role is to just knock over defenders.

 

[g00n]

To be fair, USA Hockey disagrees.

“The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. By accelerating through the check and causing the opponent to be thrown dangerously into the boards, the focus of the check is to punish or intimidate the opponent and must be penalized under the Standard of Play for Body Checking.

What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to be thrown dangerously into the boards?

The onus is on the player delivering the check to not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent.

The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. Any time a player delivers a check for the purpose of intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards (uses the boards to punish the opponent), a boarding penalty must be assessed”

Now those aren’t NHL Rules but this was a fairly recent change to USA hockey so it’s fair to say hockey minds disagree about the purpose behind checking. And kids are no longer taught to play that way

Yes those aren't NHL rules and as you said they're also meant for kids. That kind of phasing and filtering of risk is true for all major sports. The top pro leagues are always less Nerfed than the developmental stages.

What kids are taught is usually based on not getting sued and preventing serious injury to minors who are not fully developed or coordinated. It's not what grown men in a professional contact sport played at the highest level and speed are going to do.

 

[pman25]

What a horribly written rule! So if I do all the things noted above and gain possession than the hit is ok. But if I or a teammate don't come away with the puck then it's a penalty.
Further, if I want to intimidate my opponent and hit him without causing him to be "driven excessively into the boards" then it's OK that I've intimidated him. And this applies whether or not the hittee has the puck at the moment of contact. Ultimately this is just a badly constructed boarding rule.

But it also doesn't affect my primary point which is that the purpose of checking is NOT to knock opponents out of a game or series as @twabby asserts.

No it’s not a penalty if you don’t come away with the puck. Sometimes you lose puck battles and that’s okay! It’s a penalty if no attempt is made at playing the puck. Player making hit has to have their stick below the knees with an effort to win possession.

It’s rule meant to teach kids good principles around hitting. So it’s not NHL rules at least not yet, but it might head that way eventually

 

[twabby]

Ya lost me at the bolded. The draft is one of the few functions that allows for the bad teams to get better.

Humour me please. How would you allow for new/unassigned “talent” to enter the league, without a draft? I think I know the answer, but I’d like to understand your stance here?

Everyone who enters the league is an unrestricted free agent.

 

[twabby]

But it also doesn't affect my primary point which is that the purpose of checking is NOT to knock opponents out of a game or series as @twabby asserts.

I think this is pretty naïve. Once a player decides to finish a check they absolutely are trying to take a player out and inflict pain and injury. Otherwise why would they be feared?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Snowflake snowflaking today still?

 

[Kalopsia]

Have to say I never understood how the Dodgers are always so high on the farm system despite picking no where near high. Never heard anything that they have some magical dev system or draft wizardry otherwise people would have poached front office personnel or methodology.

The Dodgers legitimately have a great scouting and developmental system. But also, the MLB draft has some wonky rules about bonus pools that I don't fully understand but often leads to teams intentionally taking guys who're nowhere near the BPA because they'll sign "under slot," which dilutes the importance of draft position. Then there's international signings that go to the highest bidder, though there's limits to spending there too. Of the four major sports, baseball is far and away the one in which tanking is the least important to finding talent. Most of the teams that are tanking in any given year are doing it because they have cheap owners who're just in it to collect revenue sharing money, not because they're trying to rebuild.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Everyone who enters the league is an unrestricted free agent.

So you’re ok with the top revenue teams always getting the best of everything? Much like baseball?