NHL Playoff Pool (Make Finals Picks)

[flyingelvii]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

Well considering he, or his owner for that matter, hasn't shut his mouth to the media since Game 3 ended, talking about all the slights and ills and liberties taken against them, I feel safe in saying he's crossed into bitching. It is so damn transparent that all he's trying to do is lube the refs up for Game 4 that it's become quite pathetic. The more pathetic thing is that it'll probably work.

And, yes, national writers are aware of this and it is not just a Boston conspiracy. See the front page of Puck Daddy for proof of that.

[pick6pedro]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

Well considering he, or his owner for that matter, hasn't shut his mouth to the media since Game 3 ended, talking about all the slights and ills and liberties taken against them, I feel safe in saying he's crossed into bitching. It is so damn transparent that all he's trying to do is lube the refs up for Game 4 that it's become quite pathetic. The more pathetic thing is that it'll probably work.

And, yes, national writers are aware of this and it is not just a Boston conspiracy. See the front page of Puck Daddy for proof of that.

So in other words coaches shouldn't do everything they can to tilt the ice in their favor because it bothers opposing fans?

And for the record mentioning a bad call and players attacking a formerly concussed head isn't excessive although it's possible I've missed some of the other topics.

[flyingelvii]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

I don't think that's the case even remotely. If you come out and mention EVERY single missed call in a game, from a missed offsides to a quick whistle to whatever else, even if it had pretty much no bearing on the game and was by the very definition inconsequential, you're bitching.

[flyingelvii]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

Well considering he, or his owner for that matter, hasn't shut his mouth to the media since Game 3 ended, talking about all the slights and ills and liberties taken against them, I feel safe in saying he's crossed into bitching. It is so damn transparent that all he's trying to do is lube the refs up for Game 4 that it's become quite pathetic. The more pathetic thing is that it'll probably work.

And, yes, national writers are aware of this and it is not just a Boston conspiracy. See the front page of Puck Daddy for proof of that.

So in other words coaches shouldn't do everything they can to tilt the ice in their favor because it bothers opposing fans?

No, just don't throw a hissy fit when opposing fans call a spade a spade.

[pick6pedro]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

Well considering he, or his owner for that matter, hasn't shut his mouth to the media since Game 3 ended, talking about all the slights and ills and liberties taken against them, I feel safe in saying he's crossed into bitching. It is so damn transparent that all he's trying to do is lube the refs up for Game 4 that it's become quite pathetic. The more pathetic thing is that it'll probably work.

And, yes, national writers are aware of this and it is not just a Boston conspiracy. See the front page of Puck Daddy for proof of that.

So in other words coaches shouldn't do everything they can to tilt the ice in their favor because it bothers opposing fans?

No, just don't throw a hissy fit when opposing fans call a spade a spade.

Wait, who's throwing a hissy fit?

[pick6pedro]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

I don't think that's the case even remotely. If you come out and mention EVERY single missed call in a game, from a missed offsides to a quick whistle to whatever else, even if it had pretty much no bearing on the game and was by the very definition inconsequential, you're bitching.

Ok, so who has done that?

[flyingelvii]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

Well considering he, or his owner for that matter, hasn't shut his mouth to the media since Game 3 ended, talking about all the slights and ills and liberties taken against them, I feel safe in saying he's crossed into bitching. It is so damn transparent that all he's trying to do is lube the refs up for Game 4 that it's become quite pathetic. The more pathetic thing is that it'll probably work.

And, yes, national writers are aware of this and it is not just a Boston conspiracy. See the front page of Puck Daddy for proof of that.

So in other words coaches shouldn't do everything they can to tilt the ice in their favor because it bothers opposing fans?

No, just don't throw a hissy fit when opposing fans call a spade a spade.

Wait, who's throwing a hissy fit?

Okay, get annoyed, whatever. It's semantics. The Caps, as an organization, have been working the media with the whole "Woe is us" line of thinking while managing to throw out some blatantly wrong and misleading things coupled with other stuff. It's annoying. Just play the fucking game.

[flyingelvii]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

I don't think that's the case even remotely. If you come out and mention EVERY single missed call in a game, from a missed offsides to a quick whistle to whatever else, even if it had pretty much no bearing on the game and was by the very definition inconsequential, you're bitching.

Ok, so who has done that?

It's a hypothetical. It is bitching when your owner states that the "defending Stanley Cup champion always gets the calls" though. Which is what Ted Leonsis said. And is not true. In like any sense.

[pick6pedro]

I get your point. To be fair, I haven't been privy to all they've said and Teddy's latest was unknown (although not shocking) to me.

To reiterate, I don't see anything wrong with Hunter pointing out the one call and the headhunting on Backstrom and without more than that or a history of such, am not going to call it bitching just because your hypothetical is bitching. Nick still has yellow tints on his lips from last summer.

[flyingelvii]

To use the headhunting example, there's been headhunting all series though. There are like three separate occasions where a Capital crosschecked a Bruin in the face. I'm not hearing anything from Claude. Not to mention I see Backstrom get in a lot of scrums around the net. Some of that is just a product of being a forward but others are him getting into a scrum and then trying to back out. If you're going to play the type of game when you're in front of the net, don't complain when you get touched up in a scrum a couple times during the game. Bergeron doesn't exactly have the greatest head history, to say the least yet I don't really see him in any of these scrums. Again, part of that is because of his style of play and part of that is because he's been able to alter his game so he doesn't put himself in those situations. The onus is not solely on the refs, especially once players get a sense of how a game or series is going to be called. Therein lies the inconsistencies.

[pick6pedro]

To use the headhunting example, there's been headhunting all series though. There are like three separate occasions where a Capital crosschecked a Bruin in the face. I'm not hearing anything from Claude. Not to mention I see Backstrom get in a lot of scrums around the net. Some of that is just a product of being a forward but others are him getting into a scrum and then trying to back out. If you're going to play the type of game when you're in front of the net, don't complain when you get touched up in a scrum a couple times during the game. Bergeron doesn't exactly have the greatest head history, to say the least yet I don't really see him in any of these scrums. Again, part of that is because of his style of play and part of that is because he's been able to alter his game so he doesn't put himself in those situations. The onus is not solely on the refs, especially once players get a sense of how a game or series is going to be called. Therein lies the inconsistencies.

Well there's a couple things here. Partially it's a defense/justification because Backstrom is serving a suspension for "retaliating" to it. And he was out 40-some games very recently for concussions and that's very well known. So it's not like this is just out of nowhere. Factoring that all in makes it far less bitchy.

Yes, there have been crosschecks to the face and no I haven't heard from Claude. But that's because it's exactly the Bruins type of game and what they want. So why go on about it?

I'm not saying the onus is on the refs or Backstrom couldn't avoid these issues more easily. And to be fair, Backstrom's not the one saying these things, so I don't get the logic that "If you're going to play the type of game when you're in front of the net, don't complain when you get touched up in a scrum a couple times during the game."

[eagle9903]

Yes, there have been crosschecks to the face and no I haven't heard from Claude. But that's because it's exactly the Bruins type of game and what they want. So why go on about it?

yep.

[flyingelvii]

I'll be honest, I wasn't even sure what point I was trying to make by the end of that. I just wanted to talk about a guy with head problems crosschecking a guy in the head.

[flyingelvii]

Yes, there have been crosschecks to the face and no I haven't heard from Claude. But that's because it's exactly the Bruins type of game and what they want. So why go on about it?

yep.

Isn't that the same game Zac "Disciplined" Rinaldo plays?

[eagle9903]

Yes, there have been crosschecks to the face and no I haven't heard from Claude. But that's because it's exactly the Bruins type of game and what they want. So why go on about it?

yep.

Isn't that the same game Zac "Disciplined" Rinaldo plays?

Its the kind of game the Flyers played every year until this year. I actually mean that, they are pretty much a finesse team now in part because of all the young players but also because Holmgren seems to be purposefully changing the philosophy. The problem is when the Flyers played the game on the edge or dirty well, they never had the benefit of even officiating, ever. The Bs play like any number of the better Clarke assembled teams but they are, for some reason, league sweethearts or at least their reputations have not caught up to them yet.

I'm drifting in and out of seriousness. Below is something I think about but am not really sold on.

Post lockout the league has taken active steps in trying to steel up the markets in recently shitty NHL towns, of which Boston is one (I know there are legitimate reasons for it, but its true), Pens are another, Nashville gets calls for the same reason and Buffalo last year.

[eagle9903]

Elvii, you're really going to tell me this guy lacks discipline:

[bignick33]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

Of the three factors that led to that goal (the missed offsides, the Bruins' offensive play, and the Caps' defensive play), the latter two were much more significant than the former. The Caps had control over exactly one of those factors. You're still missing the point that by emphasizing the missed offsides, the organization is marginalizing the role of their five players (it was a 4x4) who were on the ice in the end-result. That's the main reason I don't really like whining from anyone (and, fortunately for my own sake, whining comes from the team I root for far less than it comes from many of the other teams in the league). Unlike Don Cherry, I was all for Ference's and the front office's public criticism of Paille for an hit last year that results in (if anything) heavy-handed suspension.

Also, does anyone else hear a screeching noise coming from somewhere south of NYC but north of Washington.

[eagle9903]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

Of the three factors that led to that goal (the missed offsides, the Bruins' offensive play, and the Caps' defensive play), the latter two were much more significant than the former. The Caps had control over exactly one of those factors. You're still missing the point that by emphasizing the missed offsides, the organization is marginalizing the role of their five players (it was a 4x4) who were on the ice in the end-result. That's the main reason I don't really like whining from anyone (and, fortunately for my own sake, whining comes from the team I root for far less than it comes from many of the other teams in the league). Unlike Don Cherry, I was all for Ference's and the front office's public criticism of Paille for an hit last year that results in (if anything) heavy-handed suspension.

Also, does anyone else hear a screeching noise coming from somewhere south of NYC but north of Washington.

I'd like to point out again that the Bruins were as whiny as any team prior to when they started playing thug hockey in the 2010-11 season.

[0J1969]

I've got more visible evidence of the inappropriate activity obviously ignored by the refs and the league

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ted-leonsis-capitals-vs-bruins-officiating-stanley-cup-150131628.html;_ylt=AmfdR9FgUd0WaZdT_vVuOn57vLYF

[flyingelvii]

Considering their best offensive player got chicken-winged in the head and nothing happened and their best young forward nearly broke his neck and the opposing player got 2 games, I feel it was slightly more justified than this stuff.

On a more serious note, I have read/heard from multiple writers that, specifically after the Savard event, the Bruins realized that the NHL wasn't going to do shit for them and decided it would be best if they started doling out justice in their own manner. It certainly hasn't hurt them.

[bignick33]

I'd like to point out again that the Bruins were as whiny as any team prior to when they started playing thug hockey in the 2010-11 season.

You just contradicted yourself.

[pick6pedro]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

Of the three factors that led to that goal (the missed offsides, the Bruins' offensive play, and the Caps' defensive play), the latter two were much more significant than the former. The Caps had control over exactly one of those factors. You're still missing the point that by emphasizing the missed offsides, the organization is marginalizing the role of their five players (it was a 4x4) who were on the ice in the end-result. That's the main reason I don't really like whining from anyone (and, fortunately for my own sake, whining comes from the team I root for far less than it comes from many of the other teams in the league). Unlike Don Cherry, I was all for Ference's and the front office's public criticism of Paille for an hit last year that results in (if anything) heavy-handed suspension.

Also, does anyone else hear a screeching noise coming from somewhere south of NYC but north of Washington.

Neither of the latter two factors come into play if the first one does not. Case closed. And it's all very direct. This isn't a case of "well, if there had been a stoppage of play 45 minutes before, a butterfly would not have landed in that exact spot."

Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.

[bignick33]

Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.

If they succeed in eliminating the occasional missed offsides from the game of hockey, I will tip my cap to them.

[eagle9903]

Considering their best offensive player got chicken-winged in the head and nothing happened and their best young forward nearly broke his neck and the opposing player got 2 games, I feel it was slightly more justified than this stuff.

On a more serious note, I have read/heard from multiple writers that, specifically after the Savard event, the Bruins realized that the NHL wasn't going to do shit for them and decided it would be best if they started doling out justice in their own manner. It certainly hasn't hurt them.

and that's what bothers me. I'd prefer my team just dole it out themselves, they did it from roughly 1972-2010, but they paid a heavy price every post season from a ridiculous PIM standpoint. The Bruins may eventually get the preemptive game misconducts and never ever get the benefit of the doubt when an opposing pussy is diving(like marchmont) but I kind of doubt it.

[eagle9903]

I'd like to point out again that the Bruins were as whiny as any team prior to when they started playing thug hockey in the 2010-11 season.

You just contradicted yourself.

no. i'd never do that.

[pick6pedro]

Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.

If they succeed in eliminating the occasional missed offsides from the game of hockey, I will tip my cap to them.

Ya can't succeed if you don't try. You didn't listen to that marriage counselor at all, did you?

[eagle9903]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

Of the three factors that led to that goal (the missed offsides, the Bruins' offensive play, and the Caps' defensive play), the latter two were much more significant than the former. The Caps had control over exactly one of those factors. You're still missing the point that by emphasizing the missed offsides, the organization is marginalizing the role of their five players (it was a 4x4) who were on the ice in the end-result. That's the main reason I don't really like whining from anyone (and, fortunately for my own sake, whining comes from the team I root for far less than it comes from many of the other teams in the league). Unlike Don Cherry, I was all for Ference's and the front office's public criticism of Paille for an hit last year that results in (if anything) heavy-handed suspension.

Also, does anyone else hear a screeching noise coming from somewhere south of NYC but north of Washington.

Neither of the latter two factors come into play if the first one does not. Case closed. And it's all very direct. This isn't a case of "well, if there had been a stoppage of play 45 minutes before, a butterfly would not have landed in that exact spot."

Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.

classic eggshell skull case. you take your victim as you find them. in this case the Caps can't play defense, so the Bs slight cheating had the same traumatic effect on the result as a more serious Penguins like form of cheating on a great team like the Flyers.

[bignick33]

Since I just won all hockey arguments, ever, I'd like point out that the Flyers might or might not be looking to trade JVR to move up in the draft.

[claver2010]

Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.

If they succeed in eliminating the occasional missed offsides from the game of hockey, I will tip my cap to them.

Ya can't succeed if you don't try. You didn't listen to that marriage counselor at all, did you?

Lulz

[bignick33]

How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...

I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.

As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.

I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.

It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).

So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.

And here is where the line is so razor-thin.

It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.

Of the three factors that led to that goal (the missed offsides, the Bruins' offensive play, and the Caps' defensive play), the latter two were much more significant than the former. The Caps had control over exactly one of those factors. You're still missing the point that by emphasizing the missed offsides, the organization is marginalizing the role of their five players (it was a 4x4) who were on the ice in the end-result. That's the main reason I don't really like whining from anyone (and, fortunately for my own sake, whining comes from the team I root for far less than it comes from many of the other teams in the league). Unlike Don Cherry, I was all for Ference's and the front office's public criticism of Paille for an hit last year that results in (if anything) heavy-handed suspension.

Also, does anyone else hear a screeching noise coming from somewhere south of NYC but north of Washington.

Neither of the latter two factors come into play if the first one does not. Case closed. And it's all very direct. This isn't a case of "well, if there had been a stoppage of play 45 minutes before, a butterfly would not have landed in that exact spot."

Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.

classic eggshell skull case. you take your victim as you find them. in this case the Caps can't play defense, so the Bs slight cheating had the same traumatic effect on the result as a more serious Penguins like form of cheating on a great team like the Flyers.

Do you buy into Philly's theory that Bobrovsky has sucked in the playoffs because he's inexperienced?