Post-Game Talk: Duck Tenders

[noncents]

???

I'm talking about the players on PP1. What does that have to do with our 3rd line?

he's saying zib kreider smith is the rangers 3rd line. try and keep up with the discourse.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

 

[mas0764]

Imagine if we had a legit high end 1C.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

What did you guys think about Cuylle's goal? I think Machinehead is right that the bar to overturn a goal for it for getting kicked in is high so not surprising. But kind of looked iffy.

I’ve seen less egregious stuff called back
And more egregious stuff stand.

I don’t understand the rule at all.

 

[Machinehead]

What did you guys think about Cuylle's goal? I think Machinehead is right that the bar to overturn a goal for it for getting kicked in is high so not surprising. But kind of looked iffy.

He kicked it but what the NHL considers a kick is pretty much a Premier League PK.

 

[Machinehead]

I’ve seen less egregious stuff called back
And more egregious stuff stand.

I don’t understand the rule at all.

I'm always reminded of the David Clarkson goal against us (that stood!) where he ran up and did a full Frank Lampard, and the league said it was a redirect.

 

[smoneil]

he's saying zib kreider smith is the rangers 3rd line. try and keep up with the discourse.

Well this was a needlessly dickish response.

He ignored the entirety of a long post that was 99% about the issues with Zib and Kreider's performance on the PP1 unit, and reacted solely to the last sentence that referred to Zib as our supposed 1C. Pretty sure I'm not the one having difficulty tracking the discourse.

Again, Zib (and to a SLIGHTLY lesser extent Kreider) has been a gaping black hole on the PP for nearly 20 straight games. It directly cost the team the series against Florida, and it's something that will stand in the way of the team winning a Cup. Considering the team HAS options (Laf, Chytil), it's stupid to keep rolling out the same old thing just because it used to work.