| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
inspector gadget
Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Location: jeollanam-do in the boonies
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: Carolina Huricanes and Lord Stanley |
 |
|
For all of those hockey fans out there, (no not you JINJU) after an amazing rush to draw the series even home ice advantage was too much for the Edmonton Oilers to overcome.
3-1 in the seventh game, that saw Cam Ward not Brindamour, Staal or Stillman win the Conn Smyth as playoff MVP.
My question to you is
Do you like the new NHL after the rule changes?
Is it better now that it was two seasons ago? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Carolina Huricanes and Lord Stanley |
|
|
| inspector gadget wrote: |
For you JINJU)
My question to you is
Do you like the NHL?
|
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjrm
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i think the new rule changes suck. i honestly think it actually made the game worse, because the players don't have to work as hard to score. the old way made the players use more of their abilities. on a side note, i think they should contract the league by at least 4 teams, possibly eight to make it more competitive and have the best possible players duke it out to make it into the league. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the salary cap helped the cup winners
go young: have supercheap very talented youngsters (Stall 27 pts, Williams 17 pts, Ward Conn Smythe, plus Ladd, Cole as nonfactors but youngcheap)
go old: add in OLD talented vets through free agency or trades (Weight, 16 pts, Recchi 15 pts, Whitney 15 pts) with old cheap guys already (Brind'amour, Hedican, Wesley)
and have almost no midcareer talents (Kaberle, Cullen)
and they won DESPITE the new nhl style on the ice... Carolina is NOT fast, downright turtle slow with a few exceptions, they don't play run and gun, they don't get many breakaways... that said, they don't have a top 2 defenseman, in fact the team only has 3rd and 4th slot guys on the blueline, a formula for failure in the old nhl but hasn't stopped teams like buffalo and san jose and rangers from having great seasons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sjrm wrote: |
| i think the new rule changes suck. i honestly think it actually made the game worse, because the players don't have to work as hard to score. the old way made the players use more of their abilities. on a side note, i think they should contract the league by at least 4 teams, possibly eight to make it more competitive and have the best possible players duke it out to make it into the league. |
The new NHL is much better. The problem with the old NHL rules is that it didn't allow the talented players to use their talent because guys were just following them around the ice holding onto them. The rules regarding penalties needed to be changed. Guys that could skate were never able to because you could just hold them and hook them to stop them. Maybe not all the rules were better but I think mot of them were and were really needed as the NHL was getting out of hand.
Salary cap was the best thing they did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
also helps small market teams...edmonton would NOT have been in the finals had it not been for the caps.
the on ice rul changes....mooolllaaaah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I_Am_Wrong
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: whatever
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the game is exciting again due to the rule changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
One nasty holdover from the old NHL to the new is that 97% of the teams still qualify for the playoffs. Stupid, but the ticket-crunchers arent about to let that go.
No way a mediocre team all season long should catch a lucky late-season trade & a couple lucky bounces & take it all. Carolina put on a good season & deserved to win, but Edmonton? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tweeterdj
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Location: Gwangju
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SCHWA!!! did you watch the games? and you can tell me the guys on that team didn't deserve to win? if it was meant that the best team in the season should win the cup, wouldn't they just give it out when the season's done? why bother with playoffs? the fact is that this is professional sports: any team can win on any given day. it's all about desire, and admittedly, sometimes a little luck. you really can't say "that team didn't deserve to win" unless you see MAJOR flaws in their game, and the other team makes more mistakes.
| Quote: |
| One nasty holdover from the old NHL to the new is that 97% of the teams still qualify for the playoffs. |
perhaps you should check your math here. 30 teams, 16 in the playoffs, i'd say that's just over half. what's wrong with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tweeterdj wrote: |
SCHWA!!! did you watch the games? and you can tell me the guys on that team didn't deserve to win? if it was meant that the best team in the season should win the cup, wouldn't they just give it out when the season's done? why bother with playoffs? the fact is that this is professional sports: any team can win on any given day. it's all about desire, and admittedly, sometimes a little luck. you really can't say "that team didn't deserve to win" unless you see MAJOR flaws in their game, and the other team makes more mistakes.
| Quote: |
| One nasty holdover from the old NHL to the new is that 97% of the teams still qualify for the playoffs. |
perhaps you should check your math here. 30 teams, 16 in the playoffs, i'd say that's just over half. what's wrong with that? |
Its stupid. Look at the world Cup. over 100 teams in the world, only 32 qualify. Thats under 30%. Thats how it should be. personally though I find the whole idea of playoffs ridiculous. The champion should be he best team over the regular season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tweeterdj
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Location: Gwangju
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| tweeterdj wrote: |
SCHWA!!! did you watch the games? and you can tell me the guys on that team didn't deserve to win? if it was meant that the best team in the season should win the cup, wouldn't they just give it out when the season's done? why bother with playoffs? the fact is that this is professional sports: any team can win on any given day. it's all about desire, and admittedly, sometimes a little luck. you really can't say "that team didn't deserve to win" unless you see MAJOR flaws in their game, and the other team makes more mistakes.
| Quote: |
| One nasty holdover from the old NHL to the new is that 97% of the teams still qualify for the playoffs. |
perhaps you should check your math here. 30 teams, 16 in the playoffs, i'd say that's just over half. what's wrong with that? |
Its stupid. Look at the world Cup. over 100 teams in the world, only 32 qualify. Thats under 30%. Thats how it should be. personally though I find the whole idea of playoffs ridiculous. The champion should be he best team over the regular season. |
so you think that the world cup format is stupid? it is basically a large playoffs. or maybe we should just give the world cup trophy to Brazil, since they are the first ranked nation according to soccer's governing body, FIFA? cause that would be SOOOOO exciting  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tweeterdj wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| tweeterdj wrote: |
SCHWA!!! did you watch the games? and you can tell me the guys on that team didn't deserve to win? if it was meant that the best team in the season should win the cup, wouldn't they just give it out when the season's done? why bother with playoffs? the fact is that this is professional sports: any team can win on any given day. it's all about desire, and admittedly, sometimes a little luck. you really can't say "that team didn't deserve to win" unless you see MAJOR flaws in their game, and the other team makes more mistakes.
| Quote: |
| One nasty holdover from the old NHL to the new is that 97% of the teams still qualify for the playoffs. |
perhaps you should check your math here. 30 teams, 16 in the playoffs, i'd say that's just over half. what's wrong with that? |
Its stupid. Look at the world Cup. over 100 teams in the world, only 32 qualify. Thats under 30%. Thats how it should be. personally though I find the whole idea of playoffs ridiculous. The champion should be he best team over the regular season. |
so you think that the world cup format is stupid? it is basically a large playoffs. or maybe we should just give the world cup trophy to Brazil, since they are the first ranked nation according to soccer's governing body, FIFA? cause that would be SOOOOO exciting |
How can you compare a LEAGUE like the NHL to an international competition? Thats just plain stupid. Compare leagues to leagues. I prefer the format of soccer leagues where the champion is decided during a regular season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I prefer the format of soccer leagues where the champion is decided during a regular season. |
it's just half as exciting me thinks.
| Quote: |
| Look at the world Cup. over 100 teams in the world, only 32 qualify. |
but that's basically like a tournament from the regional qualifying?
and besides:
| Quote: |
| How can you compare a LEAGUE like the NHL to an international competition? |
you STARTED the comparison!
| Quote: |
| No way a mediocre team all season long should catch a lucky late-season trade & a couple lucky bounces & take it all. Carolina put on a good season & deserved to win, but Edmonton? |
are you kidding me? If they'd done that, Detroit would have won but what happenned? Edmonton kicked their asses! And you describe the Oiler's playoff run as " a couple of lucky bounces?".
BOllocks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I prefer the format of soccer leagues where the champion is decided during a regular season. |
1. it's just half as exciting me thinks.
| Quote: |
| Look at the world Cup. over 100 teams in the world, only 32 qualify. |
but that's basically like a tournament from the regional qualifying?
and besides:
| Quote: |
| How can you compare a LEAGUE like the NHL to an international competition? |
2. you STARTED the comparison!
! |
1. No, its more exciting as the games actually mean something. In NA sports the regular season doesnt mean anything. They need to artificially crate excitement with this stupid playoff system. A team can be crap all season, barely make it into the playoffs and then win. Thats not only stupid, its idiotic and makes the whole regular season boring. Its also dishonest.
2. Thats YOUR interpretation. The regular seasons in European leagues are far more exciting because the games mean something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeju Rocks
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see one team that just got into the playoffs and won the cup.The '95 Devils were ranked 9th overall and won the cup, which is pretty low, but they were not ranked 16th.
Get your "stuff" together.
P.S stick to taking pictures
Champions' Regular Season Record
Year Team Place GP W L T(OT) Pts Pct.
2006 Carolina Hurricanes 4th Overall 82 52 22 8 112 0.634
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning 2nd Overall 82 46 22 8 (6) 106 0.646
2003 New Jersey Devils 4th Overall 82 46 20 10 (6) 108 0.659
2002 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 82 51 17 10 (4) 116 0.707
2001 Colorado Avalanche 1st Overall 82 52 16 10 (4) 118 0.720
2000 New Jersey Devils 2nd Div/3rd 82 45 29 8 103 0.628
1999 Dallas Stars 1st Overall 82 51 19 12 114 0.695
1998 Detroit Red Wings 2nd Div/3rd 82 44 23 15 103 0.628
1997 Detroit Red Wings 2nd Div/5th 82 38 26 18 94 0.573
1996 Colorado Avalanche 1st Div/2nd 82 47 25 10 104 0.573
1995 New Jersey Devils 2nd Div/9th 48 22 18 8 52 0.542
1994 New York Rangers 1st Overall 84 52 24 8 112 0.667
1993 Montreal Canadiens 3rd Div/7th 84 48 30 6 102 0.607
1992 Pittsburgh Penguins 3rd Div/6th 80 39 32 9 87 0.544
1991 Pittsburgh Penguins 1st Div/7th 80 41 33 6 88 0.550
1990 Edmonton Oilers 2nd Div/5th 80 38 28 14 90 0.563
1989 Calgary Flames 1st Overall 80 54 17 9 117 0.731
1988 Edmonton Oilers 2nd Div/3rd 80 44 25 11 99 0.619
1987 Edmonton Oilers 1st Overall 80 50 24 6 106 0.663
1986 Montreal Canadiens 2nd Div/ 7th 80 40 33 7 87 0.544
1985 Edmonton Oilers 1st Div/2nd 80 49 20 11 109 0.681
1984 Edmonton Oilers 1st Overall 80 57 18 5 119 0.744
1983 New York Islanders 2nd Div/6th 80 42 26 12 96 0.600
1982 New York Islanders 1st Overall 80 54 16 10 118 0.738
1981 New York Islanders 1st Overall 80 48 18 14 110 0.688
1980 New York Islanders 2nd Div/5th 80 39 28 13 91 0.569
1979 Montreal Canadiens 1st Div/2nd 80 52 17 11 115 0.719
1978 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 80 59 10 11 129 0.806
1977 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 80 60 8 12 132 0.825
1976 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 80 58 11 11 127 0.794
1975 Philadelphia Flyers 1st Overall 80 51 18 11 113 0.706
1974 Philadelphia Flyers 1st Div/2nd 78 50 16 12 112 0.718
1973 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 78 52 10 16 120 0.769
1972 Boston Bruins 1st Overall 78 54 13 11 119 0.763
1971 Montreal Canadiens 3rd Div/4th 78 42 23 13 97 0.622
1970 Boston Bruins 2nd Div/2nd 76 40 17 19 99 0.651
1969 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 76 46 19 11 103 0.678
1968 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 74 42 22 10 94 0.635
1967 Toronto Maple Leafs 3rd Overall 70 32 27 11 75 0.536
1966 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 70 41 21 8 90 0.643
1965 Montreal Canadiens 2nd Overall 70 36 23 11 83 0.593
1964 Toronto Maple Leafs 3rd Overall 70 33 25 12 78 0.557
1963 Toronto Maple Leafs 1st Overall 70 35 23 12 82 0.586
1962 Toronto Maple Leafs 2nd Overall 70 37 22 11 85 0.607
1961 Chicago Black Hawks 3rd Overall 70 29 24 17 75 0.536
1960 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 70 40 18 12 92 0.657
1959 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 70 39 18 13 91 0.650
1958 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 70 43 17 10 96 0.686
1957 Montreal Canadiens 2nd Overall 70 35 23 12 82 0.586
1956 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 70 45 15 10 100 0.714
1955 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 70 42 17 11 95 0.679
1954 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 70 37 19 14 88 0.629
1953 Montreal Canadiens 2nd Overall 70 28 23 19 75 0.536
1952 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 70 44 14 12 100 0.714
1951 Toronto Maple Leafs 2nd Overall 70 41 16 13 95 0.679
1950 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 70 37 19 14 88 0.629
1949 Toronto Maple Leafs 4th Overall 60 22 25 13 57 0.475
1948 Toronto Maple Leafs 1st Overall 60 32 15 13 77 0.642
1947 Toronto Maple Leafs 2nd Overall 60 31 19 10 72 0.600
1946 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 50 28 17 5 61 0.610
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs 3rd Overall 50 24 22 4 52 0.520
1944 Montreal Canadiens 1st Overall 50 38 5 7 83 0.830
1943 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 50 25 14 11 61 0.610
1942 Toronto Maple Leafs 2nd Overall 48 27 18 3 57 0.594
1941 Boston Bruins 1st Overall 48 27 8 13 67 0.698
1940 New York Rangers 2nd Overall 48 27 11 10 64 0.667
1939 Boston Bruins 1st Overall 48 36 10 2 74 0.771
1938 Chicago Black Hawks 3rd Div/6th 48 14 25 9 37 0.385
1937 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 48 25 14 9 59 0.615
1936 Detroit Red Wings 1st Overall 48 24 16 8 56 0.583
1935 Montreal Maroons 2nd Div/4th 48 24 19 5 53 0.552
1934 Chicago Black Hawks 2nd Div/3rd 48 20 17 11 51 0.531
1933 New York Rangers 4th Div/4th 48 23 17 8 54 0.563
1932 Toronto Maple Leafs 2nd Div/3rd 48 23 18 7 53 0.552
1931 Montreal Canadiens 1st Div/2nd 44 26 10 8 60 0.682
1930 Montreal Canadiens 2nd Div/3rd 44 21 14 9 51 0.580
1929 Boston Bruins 1st Div/2nd 44 26 13 5 57 0.648
1928 New York Rangers 2nd Div/5th 44 19 16 9 47 0.534
1927 Ottawa Senators 1st Overall 44 30 10 4 64 0.727
1926 Montreal Maroons 2nd Overall 36 20 11 5 45 0.625
1925 Victoria Cougars N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1924 Montreal Canadiens 2nd Overall 24 13 11 0 26 0.542
1923 Ottawa Senators 1st Overall 24 14 9 1 29 0.604
1922 Toronto St.Pats 2nd Overall 24 13 10 1 27 0.563
1921 Ottawa Senators 2nd Overall 24 14 10 0 28 0.583
1920 Ottawa Senators 1st Overall 24 19 5 0 38 0.792
1919 No Decision N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
