is anyone surprised
hammarb...@comcast.net
i've been saying for about 3 years the flyers are the worst oddman
rush team in the league, at both ends of the ice. today was no
exception. they missed 4093 2 on 1's. and that's what you get.
-j
Rick Y
wrote in news:8b316c90-c8ed-40dd-a14d-5aed4c339891
@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Yup. Today it had a lot to do with the ice conditions and how it was
messing with the timing of passes, but with shots not taken, bad pass
decisions, and just bad shots that went off net, this game could've easily
ended 5-0.
Nice of the officials to offer this game up in the final three minutes to
the Bruins instead of just letting the boys play, but it's nothing new for
the FLyers. The Flyers do slip down to the ninth spot in the conference,
but I'm not overly concerned after this performance. A great defensive
effort for 60 minutes along with some solid goal-tending that was lost on
wasted chances mostly due to some pretty shoddy ice. For all the talk from
the league about all the measures they took to have the best ice
ever...they can stop patting themselves on the back. It was easily the
worst ice I've seen in a long time but hey, dispite the circus atmosphere
along with the obvious omission of a glowing puck, this is just one game in
which the Flyers took a point against a very good Bruins team. Now they
can go out as a team and get themselves a Boston Lager or Winter Brew and
think about the next game on the schedule.
Rick
hammarb...@comcast.net
> "pukstpr31isback@nofriggin'goalforyou.com" <hammarbydes...@comcast.net>
overall, the flyers played well, but got hemmed in their own end in
the final 5 minutes of the second in what was reminiscent of some of
their worst games under stevens and i think sat back a bit too much in
the third. it's a shame the officiating destroyed the end of the game
on 2 poor calls. but in the end, the flyers bad decision making and
execution cost them the game. too many point blank chances to either
miss the net or miss the rebound or whatever. asham. carter. briere.
giroux. it was endless.
the annoying thing too is that yes it keeps them in 9th place for the
time being. but they're finally on the upswing.
and that ice was fucking horrendous.
Au Revoire
"pukstpr31isback@nofriggin'goalforyou.com"
<hammarb...@comcast.net> wrote:
The 18th time they had a 2-on-1, my body didn't even bother to heat
that usual additional few degrees. The game felt scripted, out of
whack, and a bit boring. Last year's Chicago/Detroit game was the
best I've seen and this came no where near it. Snaps to the peeps who
had to keep the ice intact for the past week, and the rink area in
good shape. There were some good interviews with the old school guys
too. All of that was worth more than the game itself, including the
cheezy-ass USA team proclamation.
Also, I got pretty sick of announcers saying "extra innings" for the
OT win, and/or "this is where hockey originated." Yes, you
uninteresting fucks, hockey was born in the middle of a @#$!&'ING
BASEBALL DIAMOND, in Bahhhston!
Does anyone else think this entire thing should be reversed to having
the MLB play two teams(Al vs NL) on the ice in Minnesota?
"This is where baseball originated. Indoors, Minneapolis, and ice. It
all makes sense, right?"
--
Complaining? WHO'S complaining?
Au Revoire
hammarb...@comcast.net
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:19:30 -0800 (PST),
> "pukstpr31isback@nofriggin'goalforyou.com"
>
the game felt scripted with the 1-0 lead into the waning minutes.
everyone knew the flyers would get hit with some cheap, ridiculous
penalty, and of course it was against one of their top pk defensemen,
and that boston would score. it made me fucking sick. the bad ice, the
bad refs, whatever, they had a billion chances to bury this game with
all of their oddman rushes and they couldn't finish. it's their own
fault.
it's also probably the end of the line for leighton, and not because
he played poorly. he didn't. he was fine. but he lost. and boucher is
probably ready to go, and unless something weird happens to boucher
again quickly, or emery gets derailed in his recovery or also gets
reinjured quickly, leighton probably won't see another nhl game this
season unless the flyers move him.
the comparisons to baseball and boston history etc is annoying, but
it's just part of the deal given the context. what else are they going
to talk about. at least there was enough fodder to talk about the two
rivals and their past. imagine if the caps had been their opponent, as
the league supposedly wished. what would they talk about? that peete
peeters played for both teams in the 80s? it would have been very one
sided, and frankly, there is no rivalry between the two clubs so it
made sense to pit the bruins against the flyers. could have been the
rangers or the habs too.
it's a cool event, but it still feels like they don't know how to
televise the actual game and promote it properly before and during.
maybe in 10 years they'll have it figured out, and by that point,
nobody will care.
-j
greg's public option
> it's a cool event, but it still feels like they don't know how to
> televise the actual game and promote it properly before and during.
> maybe in 10 years they'll have it figured out, and by that point,
> nobody will care.
maybe next year they can have a canadian team or two in it? can you
imagine habs-leafs in one city or the other?
g
Luke
"greg's public option" <an...@anon.org> wrote in message
news:hho27f$b1g$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
is just too much pressure to place the game in a Canadian city after three
years in the U.S. Winnepeg, Quebec City would be the favorites. It is
tough to come up with an outdoor facility in Canada that has any kind of
other sport nostalgia similar to Fenway or Wrigley Field so it will just be
a rink constructed for the game a la Edmonton from a few years ago.
greg's public option
> "greg's public option" wrote in message
>>maybe next year they can have a canadian team or two in it? can you
>>imagine habs-leafs in one city or the other?
> I would assume it is a given that next year's game will be in Canada, there
> is just too much pressure to place the game in a Canadian city after three
> years in the U.S. Winnepeg, Quebec City would be the favorites. It is
> tough to come up with an outdoor facility in Canada that has any kind of
> other sport nostalgia similar to Fenway or Wrigley Field so it will just be
> a rink constructed for the game a la Edmonton from a few years ago.
the edmonton game was in commonwealth stadium, the football stadium. the
first of the current series was in ralph wilson stadium in buffalo, the
bills stadium. so in essence no different from the last two games, just
bigger surrounding venues. i don't think having a fenway or wrigely type
place is a necessary condition for the game. as you sort of say, there's
not that many.
so they can put it in the blue jays stadium and leave the roof open. not
sure what's comparable in quebec. in montreal there's an outdoor stadium
but it seats 20,000 for football, so could likely do at last that for
hockey. if winnipeg i'm guessing in what is the blue bombers stadium.
though given the balsille episode, and that bettman was arguably
responsible for getting the jets to move in the first place, i doubt
it'd be winnipeg. or quebec, for similar reasons. it's have to be
montreal or toronto. maybe vancouver though chances of upper 40s are
good there too.
other us possibilities would be one of the new outdoor stadia in
minneapolis, or comerica in detroit. philly is so iffy in january -
could be 50 degrees or 20 degrees.
g
Wayne
I would be shocked if they had it in Canada any time soon. In my
opinion, the outdoor game is something they are trying to target to the
casual US sports fan, hoping that they will finally like hockey. That's
why Wrigley and Fenway worked so well for it.
In Toronto, you've got BMO Field, which is really too small and there's
why too much wind down there. SkyDome could work with the roof open,
but I don't see that happening. Rogers and MLSE aren't exactly the best
of friends.
In Montreal, you've got where the Alouettes play - again too small.
Olympic Stadium could work, but I can't remember if they put the roof on
for good. I'm thinking they did after about 500 years of trying to make
it retractable, which would take it out of the running.
Ottawa's football stadium has basically been condemned, so they're out.
Calgary could do it at their football stadium (it had the opening and
closing ceremonies for the 1988 Winter Games), but I don't see the NHL
going there. Edmonton has done it and Vancouver's biggest/only stadium
is a dome.
So yeah, don't see it happening in Canada.
Wayne
Poppa Chubby
>
>
> Well the Big Owe in Montreal has had several "Grey Cup" games played there. The "Grey Cup" is the oldest professional trophy played for. other than the "World Series". The "Grey Cup" might not mean much to Americans. (But then, if the U.S.A is not involved nothing much does, to Americans) But, the "Grey Cup" game is taken quite seriously in Canada. Also the football stadiums in Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg Have many "Grey Cup" games played in them. P.S....The first out-door game IMHO, was the best. Everything since has been carbon copy of the first.