|
|
|
|
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:17:05 PM | Leaf stagNation Weekly Watch
as of Mon Nov 17 2007
Goals Per Game Leaders
1. Carolina Hurricanes 3.36
2. Detroit Red Wings 3.25
3. Tampa Bay Lightning 3.41
4. Montreal Canadiens 3.10
5. Ottawa Senators 3.09
5. Toronto Maple Leafs 3.09
Goals Against Per Game
1. NY Rangers 1.82
2. Ottawa Senators 2.04
3. San Jose Sharks 2.06
9. Montreal Canadiens 2.48
29. Toronto Maple Laughs 3.37 | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:52:05 PM | well agent 86, wan't it you in the habs thread that pointed out an incorrect date. Your post makes no sens as Mon November 17, 2007 isn't on this planet. Must be in a similar galaxy far far away that you're talking about.
Toskala shaved a half a goal off his goals against with Saturday nights shutout...and career wise he's never been above 2.53 or something like that, so fasten your seatbelt folks. Saturday nights game is one of those TSN turning points we so often hear about.
The momentum off that win should carry us forward for awhile. The battle of Ontario is officially back on....and ah ha...some coaching dissention out of ottawa:
"""Giveaways alarm Paddock
Senators coach says some players can expect reduced ice time if they keep turning over puck..."""
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Brennan/2007/11/19/4668302-sun.html
I must be nice guy at heart. here I'm giving my two Sens chums a chance to get thier money back from saturday night with a double or nothing on tonights game against the Habs. Every team loses two in a row at some point. Might as well be tonight. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 1:00:40 PM | LOL
oops excuse me Mon Nov 19th.
Leafs with a Bullet!
Engrave that Cup now. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 1:27:59 PM | to island jokester
gerber plays FOR ottawa
sheesh
read what he posted before you comment erroneously on it
the poster said
ottawa hasn't been shut out | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 4730 | |
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 3:44:04 PM | ^^^lol,
thanks for pointing that out...i new i wasnt that hung over. i am pretty sure it was since last december that Ottawa had not been shut out in a game. The Leafs did it though. blanking the high scoring team including the Big 3, Allfie, Speeza and Healty.  | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 5:17:30 PM | ^^^dude dont get so excited over 1 game, Sens also lost by 3 goals to lowly Capitals, so what any team can have a bad night, I didnt see you post any comment after that 5-1 loss just a couple of weeks ago but your team wins 1 game finally against the Sens and here you are thinking you have won the cup... lol
The Sens have taken 3 out of 4 so far this season and my guess is they will have a 7-1 or 6-2 record when this season is done. | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 4732 | |
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/19/2007 5:58:59 PM | ^^^dude, where did i say that they have won the cup. i did not. All i was doing was commenting on a good performance by the leafs as they beat the top team currently.
The cups not won in November by a mediocore team or the team with the best record at this point. Thats just wishful thinking if you believe that. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 3:31:35 AM | "ottawa hasn't been shut out"
My bad. Sorry pucks
as for new guy's posting "read what he posted before you comment erroneously on it"
I followed your instructions to a T :)) | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 7:03:40 AM | | tothemax you asked "I didn't hear you comment on the Leaf's loss to Ottawa 5-1 a week ago". If you watched that game it wasn't 5-1 it was 3-1. The 3rd goal never went in, it went off both posts and out I have no idea why it wasn't reviewed and the 4th goal was offside. So the score really was 3-1 despite what the scoresheet says and 3-1 is a close game. Also the Leafs outshot Ottawa 31-27, they lost because Gerber stole the game. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:21:54 AM |
, it went off both posts and out I have no idea why it wasn't reviewed
Now that is interesting that you say that. Yes mesaroz was clearly outside the line with the puck with the last goal. As for the other one, I agree about the both posts.
I watched that game over at my chums on his big screen hi-def tv and I told him again last night that I'm still not convinced that goal of Alfie's was in. We watched it over and over again that night, as well as the one with the puck outside the line, and all I could say was I'm still not convinced Alfie's goal was a goal. Glad I'm not the only one that was thinking that.
As for my double or nothing on the habs last nite, I have no idea why i would ever put money on those habs. A fool and his money are soon parted they say...whoever they are
Anyways, Gerber gave them clutch goaltending, especially early in the game, and while Montreal carried the play in the first half of the first period it was the Sens that posted up a 2-0 lead. Again I notice a strong physical forecheck on the Sens and they cough up the puck just like any other team. You have to play a physical game with the Sens and you'll throw off their timing. | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 4736 | |
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:49:10 AM | ^^^hope yu did not lose too much.
"again i notice a strong physical forcehck on the Sens and they cough the puck just like any other team"
yup indeed. When i was watching the Leafs successful game against the Sens the last time around, i also noticed how well the Leafs were clogging up the neutral zone. This was critical i think because the Sens are a fast team and they are wicked on transition. They also love the odd man rushes and bury many goals this way. I only counted a couple odd man rushes a key for the Leafs giving them the big win against the Sens last game. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 1:35:24 PM | What does Toronto have that Montreal and Detroit don't?
Black and white photographs of their last Stanley Cup. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 2:05:58 PM | where did i say that they have won the cup. i did not.
You didnt exactly say they won the cup but the excitement in your posts since last saturday
is almost same as mine if my team wins the cup
tothemax you asked "I didn't hear you comment on the Leaf's loss to Ottawa 5-1 a week ago". If you watched that game it wasn't 5-1 it was 3-1. The 3rd goal never went in, it went off both posts and out I have no idea why it wasn't reviewed
So if you wanna go against officiating then how about that goal back in cup final 2004 game 6 when the flames clearly scored the third goal which would have been the winning goal! the video replay showed it clearly the puck had past the line but it did not count! | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 2:58:07 PM | | Hi tothemax, I didn't say this game was decided by the officials. I said the score was really 3-1 not 5-1. The two goals that I mentioned shouldn't have counted and video replay confirmed this. I think that the worse bad call was the 1999 Sabres vs Stars Stanley Cup. The winning goal by Brett Hall was allowed after video replay showed his foot was in the crease. All year these kind of goals were disallowed, but not this one. I think it was because it was an excellent goal and the winner for the Stanley Cup. The toe in the crease rule was coincidently gone by the next year. If I were a Sabres fan and someone asked me the last time they won I would say 1999. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 6:19:52 PM | The Hull goal was good because he had control of the puck.
He had kicked the puck up to his stick and that constitutes possession there fore his skate in the crease is not an issue. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:55:41 PM | "Looks like i picked a bad week to try and give up sniffing glue..." (Airplane. Oh sorry, wrong thread)
One guy on a sports blog got it right. Rask just gave the Leafs the finger,lol.
Meanwhile:
It was a game Toronto seemingly had in hand. For nearly 50 minutes they played the same boring but effective style that beat the Ottawa Senators on Saturday.
Then the Leafs' sore spot, defensive zone coverage, resurfaced just in time for...
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Games/2007/11/20/4672166-cp.html
...just in time for the Leafs to fall to 2 and 7 against backup goalies. Feck. These two new defencemen Wosnewski and White are just not getting it. Wosnewski makes a ton of bad decisions on when to pinch, and White just can't seem to make enough unforced errors in his own end to suit him. Maybe Maurice was trying to send Ferguson a message saturday by going with 4 Dmen most of the night...
We need a defenceman. You can score all the goals you want, but if the other team keeps scoring more, then you're just not going to the big dance at the end of the season. Maybe it's time to trade off some of this offense. This inconsistency every night in our own end is going to be the death of this hockey club. Toskala didn't look sharp, but bad bad defensive giveaways again. Leafs are 4-2 -2, or in other words 4 wins and 4 losses when heading into the third with the lead, and they're again under 500 at home.
Leafs are back in 9th place. Everyone else has multiple games in hand except the Panthers. Unusual scheduling this year. leafs have a two week road stretch over Christmas. They seem to play better on the road most nights anyway. Strange team. World beaters one night, peasants the next. Remember that old story of feast or famine (?), chicken kiev tonite, chicken feathers tomorrow night.
Flames have gone 3 and 6 while buddy sits out his 3 week suspension. Looks like they could use him back. The Hull goal was good that night, erm, that early morning in Buffalo. Buffalo's names weren't on the Cup for '99 that i saw in Azilda this summer when coach Carlyle brought it thru town...it was the Stars names engraved on it.
| |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 6:42:14 AM | I'm not a Sabres fan, I was just pointing out one of the MANY mistakes officials make.
The noncall for Gretzky highsticking Gilmour in 1993 would have many Leaf fans say that their last Stanley Cup was in 1993 not 1967. My point is the officials need to be held accountable for their mistakes as much as the avg Joe worker. There are many officials Fraser and Magoo most obvious that aren't good enough to ref a pee wee game. I understand it's not an easy job, but they still need to take responsibility when they make mistakes. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 7:23:14 AM |
The noncall for Gretzky highsticking Gilmour in 1993 would have many Leaf fans say that their last Stanley Cup was in 1993 not 1967.
Not really. i hear what you're saying. If i could have gone thru the tv that night on the gretzky highstick and throttled Kerry Fraser I would have, believe me. I would have beaten that dweeb to within an inch of his life. In South america some referees have been known to get shot after a biterr game. I'm not sure if that's the accountability you had in mind.
But you're putting the cart way out in front of the horse. True we had the habs number that year in the regular season, and i was eagerly anticipating a set-to with the habs. But there's nothing to say we would have beaten them in the final.
We went thru hell and back that year in the playoffs first knocking off the Dead Things and then Cujo and his St. Luey Blues. Truth be told, we really should have made short order of the Kings. It should never even have gone to the 6th game if you want to know the real truth of the matter. The fact that we didn't put them away and left ourselves at the mercy of things like referreeing is our own fault. Any 'true' sportsman will tell you that. We can complain about the reffing, but to pin a teams lack of success on poor reffing is just being a wimp...and Lindy Ruff does this more than any other coach I've ever seen.
UFC is a prime example. If you don't kn0ck the guy out and leave it in the hands of the judges, you've lost control of your own destiny.
As for the Hull triple overtime goal, again, even had it not counted, the Sabres still had to win that particaular game, and a game 7 as well. So saying that the Sabres would have won the Cup had it not been for that call, is presumptious and an illogical tautology. It was Game 6. had the Sabres won the game they still had to go back to Dallas to win game 7. To say the Cup was theirs is a bit immature really. They still would have a couple of bridges to cross before just brushing it all off by saying oh we woulda won it all if it hadn't been for a bad ref's call.
If if's and but's were candies and nuts...Oh what a wonderful Christmas we'd have.
I just don't like refs stepping in and taking the game away. For example, the other night the Habs were playing hard to get the game tied up. Then the ref calls this bogus, phantom hooking call with two minutes left on the habs. That kind of stuff outrages me and i can't stand the habs. it's taking the game out of the players hands with a lot of these chintzy calls. My chum didn't understand what my point was, but he's one of your prototype Sens fans that didn't know who kevin Lowe had played hockey, or who John Ziegler were. They still think Bettman should be Prime Minister because he brought them a franchise. he didn't bring them sh1t. Ziegler, who neither of which of my chums with the seasons tickets had ever heard of, brought them their franchise. more money than brains i guess.
Referees come with all sports and bad referreeing has been going on as far back as I can remember. Houston Oilers got a sure touchdown called back against the mighty Steelers in 80 or 79 or whenever and the Oilers were never the same franchise after that for a long time. I sat watching the game wih a roomful of Steeler fans and their point was correct in that championships bounce back from adversity. The other week a touchdown was called back on the Colts in the Chragers game. It really mattered in the overall outcome of the game. All the ref did was tell the crowd that due to an inadvertent whistle, the ball would be spotted at the Colt's own 20 yard line. But the Colts still had ample opportunity to win the game.
Again, i'm not a Colts fan, so yes i do agree that refs need to be accountable, but to take the leap that we would have gone the Cup had it not been for the noncall on gretzky's slash/highstick, or that the sabres would have automatically won the Cup had Hulls goal been disallowed is illogical.
Leafs still had game 7 back at maple leaf gardens to close out the Series but didn't. It's all history now.
ooops, bars not open yet. Shouldn't be passing out beers too early in the day
I remember years ago serving Larry Robinson dinner in a restaurant in halifax. He was in with Turgeon, Sylvain i believe, back in the early 80's, maybe 82. Team canada was playing a tune-up game against Sweden or something before a Canada Cup or something. He gave me a huge tip after dinner and said he appreciated not being bothered by other guests and me not bothering him with an autograph and stuff. Nice chap, but i handed him his tip back. He looked at me in wonderment. i said you can keep your tip, because all i would like is an honest answer. He said regarding what?
i said, do you remember the year you guys were dropping like flies in the injury department against the leafs in a second round matchup ( i think it was 78). You had us 4-0 in game4 and we came roaring back to tie it all up in the third period and force overtime. Then a couple of minutes into the Overtime Bruce Hood called a chintzy chintzy bogus boarding penalty on the Tiger on you out at the blueline while he was trying to get the puck from you. of course they scored and we were eliminated.
He looked at me a little pissed. Didn't say nothing for a minute or two and then finally looked me square in the eye, and said, it's ancient history now and it was a long time ago. With that he took his tip back and thanked me for the excellent service and wished me good luck. lol | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 7:34:21 AM | | It was 84...and Turgeon ended up not making the squad | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 8:07:30 AM | | Sly, the Hull goal in 99 where his foot was in the crease shouldn't have counted. I do agree his foot in the crease didn't help him score and had nothing to do with the goal, but it was a bogus call that was being enforced ALL YEAR until that particular play. The league saw that this rule was stupid and changed it the following year. As for Gretzky's highstick on Gilmour, that DID cost the Leafs the Cup because there was blood and it would have been a 5 min powerplay and most likely the winning goal. The winner was scored by Gretzky who should have been in the penalty box at the time. You said they had game 7 , but there shouldn't have been a game 7. I just like to see the correct team win the Cup. In 99 it was the Sabres and in 93 it was the Leafs. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 8:31:16 AM |
In 99 it was the Sabres and in 93 it was the Leafs.
Maybe the next time the Cup's in your town you might want to have another look at it. You seem to enjoy deluding yourself. As a matter of fact you sound very much like a friends kid i used to babysit all the time with his fantasy that the leafs won the Cup that year. The Dallas Stars names are on it for 99 and the habs of 93 are on it for that year. We didn't win anything that year and the Sabres didn't win anything in 99. That's the bottom line. And that's real world. Sports 'fans' are usually 'fan_atical', not delusional.
"No Goal!"
In 1999, Miroslav Satan scored 40 goals. The Sabres would add centers Stu Barnes from the Pittsburgh Penguins and Joe Juneau from the Capitals. Michal Grosek had the best season of his career, and the team finally returned to the Stanley Cup Finals, this time against the Dallas Stars.
In the sixth game, Dallas Stars winger Brett Hull's triple-overtime goal — one that still remains controversial, as Hull's skate was visibly in Hasek's crease — ended the series, and the Stars were awarded the Cup. In 1999, it was illegal to score a goal if an offensive player's skate entered the crease before the puck did. At the time, even Dallas Morning News hockey writer Keith Gave questioned the legality of the goal. NHL officials, however, maintained that Hull's two shots in the goal mouth constituted a single possession of the puck since the puck deflected off Hasek, and their ruling stood, citing that they "were going to change the rule the following year anyway." It is widely speculated that, by the time the Sabres mentioned the foul, the red carpet had already been unrolled at center ice, and the officials refused to acknowledge the non-call. ESPN's "Page2" staff has ranked the call as the fifth worst officiating call in sports history.[1] Conversely, Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun wrote "There should have been no controversy whatsoever. When Hull first kicked the rebound on to his stick, he had neither foot in the crease. At the instant he kicked the puck, he became in control of it. It was only in the follow-through of that kick that his left foot moved into the crease."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_sabres
If you ever pick up Gordie howe's autobiography he talks about the Game 7 overtime goal against the Habs to win the Cup in 1954. The play was not only clearly offside, but the ref was also considering an interference call against Ted Lindsay. The puck went in the net, Fats Delvechio yelled at his teammates to clear the benches and start celebrating. The ceremonies caused by the Red Wings caused the refs to put their whistle in their pocket and award the Red Wings the Cup there in detroit.
Again, I'll say it again, anyone who claims they won a cup and didn't and then blame it on the refs, are not sports fans. They may think they are. but they probably have not competed at any real level themselves. They obviously have not an iota of sportsmanship in their soul.
Again you have no idea that the Kings wouldn't have scored a shorthanded goal. You can not dispute this because you are dealing in hypothesis and crystal balls. That's why they play the game and that's why we watch. If you seriously think the leafs should have been awarded the Cup because of a bad call in a game 6 of a semifinal, or the Sabres should have been awarded a Cup in game 6 when they were down 3 games to 2, then, with all due respect, you need to get another hobby because sports is just not your bag.
Bad calls are a way of life in sports. Controversies will come and controversies will go. I'm a leaf fan, but the extent to which I talk about the 93 season when i watch the highlights of the final with the call on the McSorley curved stick and whatnot, is to say "We should've been in that final" To say we should have won the Cup in 93 because of a bad call would in my opinion, not only make me look like a bigger idiot than what i really am in real life, it would also suggest that I'm a very poor sport. Not to mention one that lives and dwells in the past.
Every night in every sports venue in every sport around the world you get bad calls. My grandpa lost the English soccer championship in the 20's on a bad call, but he still never confused himself with who really won the premiereship. You need to build a bridge and get over it to the other side. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 9:27:18 AM | Sly blaming the ref for losses doesn't make me or anyone "a non sport's fan" as you claim. If that were the case the NFL wouldn't have brought in the challanges for possesion calls. They want to get the calls right for their "fans" and the team. Some may still say they get it wrong, but atleast they are trying. I understand there are bad calls every day in sports, but it does seem like certain teams get more calls than others.
eg. Yankees of baseball, Patriots of football, Senators of hockey etc. These teams don't need the help from the officials, they are good enough, but they DO tend to get the close calls in their favour. Why is that? Shouldn't the close calls even out over the course of the season? It rarely does. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 9:53:21 AM | honestly bud, you sound a bit jaded. Go back and reread the thread about the big Cowboys gaem with the patriots and see who got all the calls.
We had a Sens fan earlier this summer try sheepishly to blame the refs on the Ducks resounding and emphatic triumph over Spazza and the gay caballero's.
bel;ieve me, i'm still bitter with the call in 93 on gilmour. But it doesn't change the fact that we lost. Would we have won the Cup that year? I bleieve so. But i'm a leaf fan. my theory at the time was it was a fixed call in order to promote the sport of hockey out on the American west coast.
Toronto vs. Los Angeles
This exciting and very heated seven-game series has long been remembered by hockey fans. The Toronto Maple Leafs iced a highly competitive team for the first time in years and were hoping to break their 26-year Stanley Cup drought; they had not even been to the Final since their last Cup win in 1967. The Los Angeles Kings, led by captain Wayne Gretzky, also had high ambitions. During Game 1 (a dominating victory for the Leafs) Los Angeles blue-liner Marty McSorley delivered a serious open ice hit on Toronto's Doug Gilmour. Leafs captain Wendel Clark took exception to the hit and went after McSorley for striking their star player. Toronto coach Pat Burns tried scaling the bench to get at Los Angeles coach Barry Melrose because he thought he ordered the hit on Gilmour (McSorley later remarked in interviews that he received dozens of death threat messages on his hotel phone from angry fans). Toronto would take a 3-2 series lead after five games. Game 6 went back west to the Great Western Forum in Los Angeles; it too was not without controversy and was also decided on an overtime goal.
During the 1992-93 season, there was a league-wide crackdown on high-sticking infractions, whether they were accidental or not. In Game 6, Gilmour was part of controversy once again. With the game tied at 4 in overtime, Wayne Gretzky accidentally clipped him in the face with the blade of his stick. Many thought that referee Kerry Fraser should have called a penalty on the play, but Gretzky was not penalized, and he went on to score the overtime goal moments later, evening the series at 3-3. He would score three goals in the deciding game to give Los Angeles a berth in the Stanley Cup Final for the first time in franchise history and also the first time the Kings win a playoff series against an Original Six team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992-93_NHL_season
Do i believe the pats get favorable calls? Not a chance in hell. And i've watched every game they've played this year. Do I think the Leafs get called a lot. Not since Roberts left. His constant moaning about the refs brought on dire consequences. The man in the striped shirt is the ref. Do they get it right all the time? hell no. Do you in your profession? Or in your life? Probably not.
So now what are you suggesting? That we review every noncall? or we review every penalty call? Let 'em play and let 'em play knowing that there's gonna be bad calls all the time. Like Cher's old song "If i could turn back time..." The worlds not perfect and it's not fair. Life's not fair. Why would sports be any different? There's a human element and hopefully there always will be.
What about the coaches and the tennis players that are wasting their timeouts on challenges when the ref and the umpires did get it right. Last week a coach screwed his team by not having any challenges or timeouts left to challenge a call that should have been challenged. So based on your, i guess you would call it, arguement, he lost the game because the refs got it right.
Shouldn't the close calls even out over the course of the season? It rarely does
If you follow sports long enough, you will realize that your statement is completely incorrect. The leafs had a number of very favorable calls go their way in the Sens game saturday night. Ask any and all professional athletes if they think the calls even out over the course of a season. That's why i say i don't think you've ever competed for anything at any level. What goes around does always come back around. that's part of what being a sportsman is about. Humble in victory and grace in defeat is what it's all about. Not whinig some 15 years after the fact. because that's really all that it is. Whining. Not winning; whining. Only baby's get what they want all the time by crying.
As for the reffing today. Yes i think it stinks. But you either play or you don't play. But come on. To say these teams should have had their names engraved on the Cup when they still had lots of further ground to cover regardless of the bad calls is unrealistic and silliness. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 9:58:48 AM | | Sorry. I also forgot to mention the Colts Patriots recent game. Go read that thread and come back and tell me the Pats got all the calls. | |
|
| Hockey anyone?
Posted: 11/21/2007 11:25:39 AM | | Ok the Pats didn't get the calls. I was really referring to the Yankees and Senetors, especially the Yankees. They are a great team, but get ALL the close calls. Over a season there are far more favourable calls than bad ones for them and they don't need help. Also I have played baseball at a high level and sorry but the calls don't even out. In 92 we had a good team and with the help from the umpires won the championship. That year we had many calls in OUR FAVOUR, we WON because of favourable calls. I admit it. It didn't feel as good as our 87 championship because it wasn't earned completely on our own. Winning with the help of umpires or officials just isn't as rewarding.(kind of like the Rolyals 85 world series after the umps screwed the Blue Jays, and then worse the Cardinals. I'm trying to remain objective and unbiased and personally I don't think close calls even out. I will agree that they should, but for some teams they just don't. | |
|
|
| Page 190 of 258
|
176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 |
|
Home
login 
