What's Your Most Controversial Hockey Opinion?

[domiwroze]

I have a controversial rule change that seems like a no-brainer to me, but of course will never come to fruition. A game cannot end when a team losing by 1 goal has a man advantage. In basketball, if you foul a guy at the buzzer he gets foul shots. In football, if you interfere with a passer with time on the clock, they get the yardage. Why, in Hockey, do we allow the opposing team the ability to commit egregious penalties in the final seconds of a game with no repercussions? So many times I see games end with the losing team getting held, cross checked and all kinds of obvious penalties occurring, yet who cares because there are two seconds left on the clock.

Change the RULE! If the team that has the lead by one goal is penalized then the team behind should get the advantage of trying to score on that full PP.

That's my favorite post on this thread. Now that you mention it, it does sound like a no brainer.

NHL wants to favor more goals yet in the last minute of a game leading team always hold like crazy and there's 6-7guys in front of the net holding each others while the rest pass the puck around looking for a shooting lane which is hard with 6-7 fat boys 6'3 200lbs+ guys in front of a small net.

 

[shello]

That the NHL will never be as popular as the other big sports nor does it need to be. Furthermore, that growing the game isn’t really that big of a deal. While bringing in new fans is always nice, taking care of the NHL’s current fans should be more of a priority.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Kerry Frasier got the call right.

 

[SnizzMitch]

Kerry Frasier got the call right.

It’d be more controversial if you were a Kings fan saying it was the wrong call.

 

[HFBS]

What if they split the NHL into two leagues? Winner of each league plays for the Stanley cup.

Not like the eastern and western conference though. Each league plays their season and playoffs within that league.

No, there are too many teams because there are too many teams, not because there are too few leagues.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Well since I'm an indigenous person, don't forget that you sent it over first :p

I can't remember that I sent anything over.

 

[MoreMogilny]

Kerry Frasier got the call right.

Uh no, that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, and the fact is the high stick happened, and he missed it.

Frasier’s own words tell us that you could “clearly” see the high stick in the replay and that it was “missed, period”. So there’s no opinion there.

 

[FerrisRox]

Playing the game of hockey at some **** level doesn’t make you a better hockey fan than those who never played.

You seriously don't think people that spent several years playing the game, particularly at levels above house league aren't more knowledgeable than people that never played?

How would it even be possible for them not to be more knowledgeable?

If you haven't played, you don't know how it feels to be stuck on the ice for a long shift and sucking wind. You don't know how it effects you if you take - or throw - a few big hits in a shift. You don't know how quickly decisions need to be made before someone closes in on you. You don't know how little time you have to find an opening and thread a pass. You don't know how difficult it is to get off a one timer and any number of other things.

Of course people that have played the game, particularly those that have played it a higher levels will be more knowledgable. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Sean Monahan is the most underwhelming #1C in the NHL.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Uh no, that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, and the fact is the high stick happened, and he missed it.

Frasier’s own words tell us that you could “clearly” see the high stick in the replay and that it was “missed, period”. So there’s no opinion there.

But if he didn't see it. He couldn't call it. Sure on replay, but there's a lot of things you can catch on replay and it happens every game.

 

[FerrisRox]

Even if Wayne Gretzky got the high stick call and the Leafs won, the Leafs were not beating Patrick Roy in the finals.

I don't think that's very controversial. Outside of Leaf fans, I doubt many would have taken Toronto in that series. The Leafs couldn't beat the Kings, who didn't put up much of a fight against the Canadiens and the Leafs team was one-line and dog-tired. The would have limped into the Final after three straight seven game series and faced a well-rested and with the exception of Denis Savard fully healthy Canadiens team. They would have got steam-rolled.

 

[FerrisRox]

I guess these days it’s controversial to call a player like Nylander soft. Cause he’s generational at things like skating towards the opponent’s blueline, away from their net, and lobbing in soft shots or dumps into the corner.

I have actually seen some Leaf fans say he has "elite zone entries."

 

[FerrisRox]

Actually, most people who use them don't understand what they mean.

This is so true.

 

[MoreMogilny]

But if he didn't see it. He couldn't call it. Sure on replay, but there's a lot of things you can catch on replay and it happens every game.

Wouldn’t that just be him thinking he’s doing the right thing? Rather than getting the call right? Especially considering he openly admitted to not getting the call right. I mean I guess you could say he made the best decision possible but he also went against his instincts.

Refs can’t see everything and miss calls all the time, but it is their responsibility to watch the play, and I just can’t see how it’s possible to say he made the right call when it’s one of the most infamous rulings of all time, and again, the very man himself said it wasn’t the right call.

 

[Kamiccolo]

I have actually seen some Leaf fans say he has "elite zone entries."

Man you are just on a roll blasting the Leafs. But in all serious do you know what that means? It means he is really good at skating the puck in and maintaining control to set up a play or cycle. It comes in handy when facing elite teams who defend the blue line well and average players can't deke out.

 

[ItWasJustified]

[mod]

Sean Monahan is the most underwhelming #1C in the NHL.

Probably because he's an elite #2C.

 

[Kreegz2]

The game was more entertaining during the era of goons and legal headshots.

 

[FerrisRox]

Not true at all. I check the schedules for every team every year when they come out.

So who had the most games against tired teams the last three years?

 

[FerrisRox]

Man you are just on a roll blasting the Leafs. But in all serious do you know what that means? It means he is really good at skating the puck in and maintaining control to set up a play or cycle. It comes in handy when facing elite teams who defend the blue line well and average players can't deke out.

I'm not blasting the Leafs at all. I was blasting the lunatic fringe of their fan base that would make a claim like a player has "elite zone entries" which is a patently absurd thing to say.

And if you were to say it, you should at least point out that Justin Holl has elite chip outs along the glass too.

 

[FerrisRox]

defence first hockey is boring
fighting should be banned
playoff hockey is disgusting

A Leaf fan who thinks defence, fighting and playoff hockey are all bad?

You must be the happiest Leaf fan around cause your team doesn't play defense, wouldn't fight if their lives depended on it and spends, at most, a week competing in the playoffs.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

You seriously don't think people that spent several years playing the game, particularly at levels above house league aren't more knowledgeable than people that never played?

How would it even be possible for them not to be more knowledgeable?

If you haven't played, you don't know how it feels to be stuck on the ice for a long shift and sucking wind. You don't know how it effects you if you take - or throw - a few big hits in a shift. You don't know how quickly decisions need to be made before someone closes in on you. You don't know how little time you have to find an opening and thread a pass. You don't know how difficult it is to get off a one timer and any number of other things.

Of course people that have played the game, particularly those that have played it a higher levels will be more knowledgable. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

I respect your posts quite a bit. And I hope my tone doesn’t offend, it’s more towards me elaborating my thoughts rather than your post.

But I can honestly say, playing some shit tier of hockey doesn’t make someone a better hockey fan. I’m not questioning about knowledge of the game itself, but the obnoxious train of thought that they automatically have more authority when discussing hockey.

f*** that noise. It doesn’t make someone a hockey “purist” or that their opinion has more weight. Just because someone had more opportunity to play doesn’t make them have more credence than someone who is more knowledgeable about the game but didn’t play.

It invites this toxic as hell gatekeeping. No, I don’t think someone who played a year or two of junior C hockey 20 years ago has more hockey authority.

 

[member 300185]

So who had the most games against tired teams the last three years?

No sure. I have 3 places and that info could be anywhere. Just go check for yourself. It might reveal something very interesting.

 

[Clayonator]

Analytics are closer to correlational than causational of a given team’s success/failure than most people think.

 

[Kamiccolo]

I'm not blasting the Leafs at all.

Literally the next post

You must be the happiest Leaf fan around cause your team doesn't play defense, wouldn't fight if their lives depended on it and spends, at most, a week competing in the playoffs.

You can't make this shit up

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You seriously don't think people that spent several years playing the game, particularly at levels above house league aren't more knowledgeable than people that never played?

How would it even be possible for them not to be more knowledgeable?

If you haven't played, you don't know how it feels to be stuck on the ice for a long shift and sucking wind. You don't know how it effects you if you take - or throw - a few big hits in a shift. You don't know how quickly decisions need to be made before someone closes in on you. You don't know how little time you have to find an opening and thread a pass. You don't know how difficult it is to get off a one timer and any number of other things.

Of course people that have played the game, particularly those that have played it a higher levels will be more knowledgable. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

They'd have a better understanding of the physical toll certain things have on you that a non-player would have, but I'm not sure I agree they'd know more about hockey, period. Someone who was a more physically gifted athlete and thus was able to play Junior C hockey doesn't automatically understand systems they're watching NHL teams employ and what flaws the rosters have than someone who never played hockey.

I've got a bunch of friends who played around that level of hockey and at the risk of sounding like I'm bragging, I know a tonne more about analyzing what I'm seeing in an NHL game than they do. I literally had a discussion with a buddy who played junior (tried out with an OHL team, but didn't make it) recently about how the Pens are playing the same way they did last year, but he just felt they're getting better goaltending. That was his breakdown based on his "experience" as a former junior hockey player.

So I think it's flawed to say that playing at a higher level than someone who didn't reach that level automatically means you're more knowledgeable about the game. You may have better insights into the physical side of the game (ie how much energy hard shifts take out of you, how much getting hit really hurts, how difficult it is to get a proper shot off when you're being rushed, etc.), but I don't think that applies to all "knowledge" of the game.