- Oct 9, 2012
- 33,351
- 32,277
He's basically more developed Petey. Frustrating, but then.Barkov can be an unreal player
We have more fans in this thread than the Blues. Just sayingThe team with no fans wins!
Sasha FN Barkov!!!
We have more fans in this thread than the Blues. Just saying
The Cats had some good chances. The Blues got away with clutching sticks and blocked a good deal of chances. This was playoff hockey with a 3 on 3 finish.That was a brutally boring game up until the last 2 minutes of OT.
What a faking joke. Officials giver the game to the Panthers. St Louis is crap and refs still had to help out.That was a brutally boring game up until the last 2 minutes of OT.
Obviously you didn't watch this one. That's fair, I don't watch Habs games for obvious reasons.What a faking joke. Officials giver the game to the Panthers.
Shirley you can’t be seriousWhat a faking joke. Officials giver the game to the Panthers. St Louis is crap and refs still had to help out.
I didn't see the game but anything other than puck over glass shouldn't be called with 40 seconds to go. And there was no need. Blues would have effed up the shootout anyway.Shirley you can’t be serious
He's neither Shirley nor Serious, he's El Jefe!Shirley you can’t be serious
Shirley you can’t be serious
LoL, how about a guy getting tripped as he starts to walk in towards the net?I didn't see the game but anything other than puck over glass shouldn't be called with 40 seconds to go.
I'l,l better the same damn penalty was ignored several times during the game.This is the Boss Man Hughes experience.
Nope.I'l,l better the same damn penalty was ignored several times during the game.
Refs ignore almost any infraction all the time. And just because there was no immediate scoring chance doesn't mean there wouldn't have been. The situation should not be relevant.LoL, how about a guy getting tripped as he starts to walk in towards the net?
They only ignore them against certain teams though, right?Refs ignore almost any infraction all the time. And just because there was no immediate scoring chance doesn't mean there wouldn't have been. The situation should not be relevant.
it is very likely if the situation was revered there would have been no call.
Pointing out a simple fact isn't "analysis". Like somebody pointing out how it's unusual for a good team like the Panthers to be shut out for 2 games in a row wouldn't mean they have analyzed it and are saying the Panthers will never score again. It's pointing out the occurrence that has already happened. And it doesn't require "a sample size" because it has already happened. Comprendo?Like I said, one week is bad analysis. I'm saying that's a small sample size to call any team anything.