Edmonton is No Good X: Up and Down Like a Toilet Seat

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I thought the play was completely incidental. Edler tried to hit him clean, and McDavid tried to avoid it causing them to catch each other's knees.

The way McDavid plays, I am surprised that he hasn't been injured more in his career. I suspect it is only a matter of time until he gets a serious injury.

His ability to go full speed into traffic is probably the main thing that makes him successful, but it is also high risk. Good for him for being able to mostly avoid situations like the one that happened with Edler, but one day he isn't going to be so lucky.

he seems to have trouble with posts .... too bad they can't call penalties on inanimate objects

I hope his head gets taken off with the a sarich on marleau like hit that is obviously clean yet hard

soiler fans will find a way to cry about it being dirty, just like the imaginary kneeing from edler that never happened

they all need a trip to specsavers apparently

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Ah, yes. The old tried and true mantra of Oilers fans: "McDavid draws a penalty on every shift."

I think McDavid is often a dirty player... his elbows are always flying into opposing player's faces.... so I think on every shift, he does draw a penalty, both for him and against.


There are a lot of weak penalties being called... for example in the last couple of Flames and Oilers games.... all the teams playing, I don't pick favorites, just trying to judge a game like the referees should - impartial. I've seen many plays where a defensive player will put his stick in front of another player trying to get the puck, where his stick never touches or impedes the opposing player yet a penalty is called... for what??? Then I've seen a play where Mangiapane was skating towards the net and taking a shot, where he sees that the goalie has it and was about to turn away when the defensive player takes him hard into the boards behind the net... he never touched the goalie, he never had the puck and the play was being whistled down - and no penalty - this is at least interference. I Can't remember what game.... but I saw a great defensive play where the defensive play dives down and hits the puck first away from the player and a penalty is called... I remember the good old days when if you touched the puck first, no penalty.


I think the league is being too strict on some things (like sticks in front of players where it never touches them) and not going after things that should be penalties like contact after the whistle where there was no reason - no goalie contact for example, there was no reason at all for running Mangiapane into the boards, he was clearly looking to see if there was a lose puck and was already pealing the other way when he was hit.



I also hate the offside challenge.... when it's so close you need a microscope to see it, that's not what the challenge was for, it was for egregious missed calls. It's a simple fix.... make the blue line bigger and once the puck touches any part of the blue line, the zone is open for entry and same thing when it exits the zone, it must fully cross the line with no blue under the puck. Or..... give the coach a buzzer that he has 10 seconds to press and stop play once the video coach sees the offside, it follows the challenge rule and if it wasn't offside, delay of game penalty. Games can go on for 30 seconds or more where the video coach knows it was offside, and as long as the offense teams doesn't score, no challenge.... this is troublesome at the end of a game where one team is pressing for the tying goal... they communicate down to the bench coach that it was offside and the coach just hopes his team keeps it in their zone so they can waste the remain time off the clock (I have no idea if there is a way to communicate this to the players, but I think it's only a matter of time that there is a way - everyone is looking for an advantage).

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

I think McDavid is often a dirty player... his elbows are always flying into opposing player's faces.... so I think on every shift, he does draw a penalty, both for him and against.


There are a lot of weak penalties being called... for example in the last couple of Flames and Oilers games.... all the teams playing, I don't pick favorites, just trying to judge a game like the referees should - impartial. I've seen many plays where a defensive player will put his stick in front of another player trying to get the puck, where his stick never touches or impedes the opposing player yet a penalty is called... for what??? Then I've seen a play where Mangiapane was skating towards the net and taking a shot, where he sees that the goalie has it and was about to turn away when the defensive player takes him hard into the boards behind the net... he never touched the goalie, he never had the puck and the play was being whistled down - and no penalty - this is at least interference. I Can't remember what game.... but I saw a great defensive play where the defensive play dives down and hits the puck first away from the player and a penalty is called... I remember the good old days when if you touched the puck first, no penalty.


I think the league is being too strict on some things (like sticks in front of players where it never touches them) and not going after things that should be penalties like contact after the whistle where there was no reason - no goalie contact for example, there was no reason at all for running Mangiapane into the boards, he was clearly looking to see if there was a lose puck and was already pealing the other way when he was hit.



I also hate the offside challenge.... when it's so close you need a microscope to see it, that's not what the challenge was for, it was for egregious missed calls. It's a simple fix.... make the blue line bigger and once the puck touches any part of the blue line, the zone is open for entry and same thing when it exits the zone, it must fully cross the line with no blue under the puck. Or..... give the coach a buzzer that he has 10 seconds to press and stop play once the video coach sees the offside, it follows the challenge rule and if it wasn't offside, delay of game penalty. Games can go on for 30 seconds or more where the video coach knows it was offside, and as long as the offense teams doesn't score, no challenge.... this is troublesome at the end of a game where one team is pressing for the tying goal... they communicate down to the bench coach that it was offside and the coach just hopes his team keeps it in their zone so they can waste the remain time off the clock (I have no idea if there is a way to communicate this to the players, but I think it's only a matter of time that there is a way - everyone is looking for an advantage).

IMO, they should make the time for a coach to challenge one minute. Refs get another 1 minute to review the play. If they can't determine a result in that time, then the call on the ice stands

[McG]

I’ve long suspected that Friedman is incapable of objective analysis or unbiased thinking.

What happens to the “star treatment rule” when one team, let’s say one with quite a few stars, plays against a team that is a collection of players? So now we have an nhl/nhlpa/referee decided game even more than now? So now have mandatory advantages? And now it’s individuals getting the advantage over teams.

It’s typical Mavi fanboy speaking without awareness beyond stinktown.

[Ullr]

Can't wait for the scandals when certain camera footage isn't available in those 60 seconds. God forbid there is an unforseen delay and the call on the ice is incorrect when reviewed properly a few minutes later.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

But the last 8 seasons are the lowest in terms of pps per game in the last 50 years.

The NHL is pushing less pps not more.

The refs are already deciding, and aren't calling the game fairly.

If the refs would just call the rules as they are written consistently it would benefit the better players.

With that being said, the game is probably as clean as its ever been.

The goons are gone, and while old school fans said those guys were needed to police the game, it was those guys more than anyone typically committing egregious cheap shots.

So which is it?

Is the game cleaner or is the NHL meddling in power plays?

Or… maybe… players adjust to officiating standards?

Judging by my personal experience with season tickets its a lot easier to sell games like Pittsburgh/Washington than it is to sell Arizona.

People want to go watch teams with stars in person. They'll watch the "boring" games on TV.

This seems highly empirical, not at all anecdotal.

It’s almost as if they're priced differently too.

But I’m sure when you sell your Pittsburgh/Washington tickets you also offer refunds when the stars are hurt & don’t play. You know, that’s “the meal ticket”, and completely supports the protect McDavid narrative.

Oiler fans are just sensitive to the topic and wil twist any and all logic to get a double standard of officiating for (their) “stars” because when both McDavid & Draisatl get hurt they are paying a lot of money to watch an elite AHL team.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

IMO, they should make the time for a coach to challenge one minute. Refs get another 1 minute to review the play. If they can't determine a result in that time, then the call on the ice stands

I get your point.... but it's not taking too much time for offside calls anymore with the line camera that we don't get to see.... but the linesman has to look past legs and other body parts and equipment as he's often jumping out of the way and still making the call at live speed. How many times do they make an offside call when it's not - there is no remedy for that. My point is to make it easier to call, take the precision away where it's easy to tell either way, this would also eliminate the offside whistle when it wasn't - allowing for more scoring. Right now, it's hairline precision, and any angle that the lineman is off makes it harder to see - if they aren't right on the line for some reason (players in the way) - now..... I understand that some players (hell... most or all) will live on the edge and try to still cut it close, it will always be the case (any advantage)... but it will be easier to detect and fewer missed calls by the linesman.



OR



There are certain aspects of the game that make it fun.... the strike zone in baseball for example... where each umpire has their own zone and where even two pitches in the exact same spot get called differently on back to back pitches.... it sort of makes it fun - but baseball is making a challenge system for that next year and I don't think it will make the game better.... same thing with offside in hockey.... either they make it easier to call or they ignore close calls... meaning, it the challenge is made and the call is within a certain threshold.... the call on the ice stands....if it was clearly onside - a penalty is given for delay of game.


That Lucic goal against Tampa.... that offside gave no advantage, it wasn't the reason the goal was scored.... yet it being overturned could have possibly changed the whole outcome and complexion of the game - I think it did, for a millimeter.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Does that mean the refs are letting things go or the players are making less infractions. Also there are much less fighting infractions.

Hey, hey, hey... let's not let good critical thinking ruin a bad narrative.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

I think McDavid is often a dirty player... his elbows are always flying into opposing player's faces.... so I think on every shift, he does draw a penalty, both for him and against.


There are a lot of weak penalties being called... for example in the last couple of Flames and Oilers games.... all the teams playing, I don't pick favorites, just trying to judge a game like the referees should - impartial. I've seen many plays where a defensive player will put his stick in front of another player trying to get the puck, where his stick never touches or impedes the opposing player yet a penalty is called... for what??? Then I've seen a play where Mangiapane was skating towards the net and taking a shot, where he sees that the goalie has it and was about to turn away when the defensive player takes him hard into the boards behind the net... he never touched the goalie, he never had the puck and the play was being whistled down - and no penalty - this is at least interference. I Can't remember what game.... but I saw a great defensive play where the defensive play dives down and hits the puck first away from the player and a penalty is called... I remember the good old days when if you touched the puck first, no penalty.


I think the league is being too strict on some things (like sticks in front of players where it never touches them) and not going after things that should be penalties like contact after the whistle where there was no reason - no goalie contact for example, there was no reason at all for running Mangiapane into the boards, he was clearly looking to see if there was a lose puck and was already pealing the other way when he was hit.

Mangiapane is not a star, therefore, not a penalty. If this was McDavid, you're damn right it would have been called. The league has already adopted this nonsensical idea of different rules for the stars.

[FusionX]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Judging by my personal experience with season tickets its a lot easier to sell games like Pittsburgh/Washington than it is to sell Arizona.

People want to go watch teams with stars in person. They'll watch the "boring" games on TV.

I'll bite.

You know, I will admit there have been times where I've chosen/seriously thought about whether or not I'm going to a game based on who on the Flames is playing. Happened just this year actually... but in the bloody pre-season! I wanted to see the shiny new players and actively sought out a game where I thought they would be playing.

But in the regular season, the playoffs? I go to see my team win. I don't care if Huberdeau is playing or not, I pay to go and hopefully walk out with a Flames W. You want to know why people don't go to watch Arizona? That's because their team sucks and has done so for years. Drop meal ticket McDavid in there, and ya, you may get an uptick for a bit, but continue to lose and suck, I'm not betting on them suddenly drawing more people than Pitt/Wash.

What could happen however is, all of a sudden Arizona starts to win more, not solely due to McDiver's skill but also because he's handled with training wheels, that could certainly increase viewership/people coming out. But is that truly because they want to see him, or because the team is winning with him and his preferential treatment?

I'm not coming after you specifically but your statement reflects the underlying issue with all this and frankly, if you/others can't see the issue with even entertaining this idea, you're part of the problem.

Now, for a more broad-strokes and certainly a direct jab at a certain city, all this pandering has made them all so delusional that as a fan-base, they don't think there's an issue with this, and in fact, seem to think it is only just. Makes me want to vomit.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FusionX

But in the regular season, the playoffs? I go to see my team win. I don't care if Huberdeau is playing or not, I pay to go and hopefully walk out with a Flames W. You want to know why people don't go to watch Arizona? That's because their team sucks and has done so for years.

This.

This is one of the topics mentioned in Moneyball (the book, not the movie). Billy Beane spent years analyzing the value of stars in selling tickets. He concluded that, in baseball at least, they basically have none.

If you have a winning team, fans will take interest, and your top players will be recognized as stars. If you bring in a bunch of expensive stars and then have a losing team, fans will lose interest, and your stars will be regarded as has-beens.

In his earlier days as GM, before other teams caught on, Beane accumulated a lot of assets by pumping and dumping. By having a no-name team that won a lot of games, the A's turned nobodies into stars. Then Beane traded those stars for more than they were worth because other teams thought their names would sell tickets.

What sells is winning.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This.

This is one of the topics mentioned in Moneyball (the book, not the movie). Billy Beane spent years analyzing the value of stars in selling tickets. He concluded that, in baseball at least, they basically have none.

If you have a winning team, fans will take interest, and your top players will be recognized as stars. If you bring in a bunch of expensive stars and then have a losing team, fans will lose interest, and your stars will be regarded as has-beens.

In his earlier days as GM, before other teams caught on, Beane accumulated a lot of assets by pumping and dumping. By having a no-name team that won a lot of games, the A's turned nobodies into stars. Then Beane traded those stars for more than they were worth because other teams thought their names would sell tickets.

What sells is winning.

To take this back to the Flames...

In 20/21 the Flames had a off year and missed the playoffs. Many fans were saying that the Flames had no stars, no talented players. Then in 21/22, the same group of players played well and won the division, and as a result, they were rewarded with finalist positions for hardware (i.e. they had stars again). And now in 22/23, they are struggling out of the gate and many posters have gone right back to the 'we have no talented players' mantra.

Fans think they want stars, and to be entertained. But the most entertaining thing is winning. that's what fans really want, and what sells tickets.

[Buff]

Here in Lethbridge I haven't been out to watch the Lethbridge Hurricanes game all year. They don't have a good team right now so I'm not going to rearrange my busy schedule to attend a game.

I thought about going when Connor Bedard is in town in February, but I'm not going to try until the week of when I know that he will be playing. Bedard is different though because I can't think of any other time I went to a WHL game specifically to see a certain player.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Judging by my personal experience with season tickets its a lot easier to sell games like Pittsburgh/Washington than it is to sell Arizona.

Judging by my personal experience with season tickets, once you've bought them, the team has its money and doesn't care how easy it is for you to resell them.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Judging by my personal experience with season tickets, once you've bought them, the team has its money and doesn't care how easy it is for you to resell them.

It's far easier to buy single game tickets for the games you want to attend, often for less than face value. Take advantage of it.

[Radio]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Judging by my personal experience with season tickets, once you've bought them, the team has its money and doesn't care how easy it is for you to resell them.

Judging by my personal experience it's a lot easier to sell tickets when the team is winning. When the team is winning "I am so lucky to have seasons tickets", when they're losing "I can't believe you're wasting your money on that ####e." Before 20-21 I had 1 guy drop out of my ticket group because he didn't see value in it. This season I've had 2 guys join because of all the winning that went on last season. It makes a huge difference.

[FlamesAreOne]

Lol

https://twitter.com/hayyyshayyy/stat...62202128842753

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlamesAreOne

Lol



https://twitter.com/hayyyshayyy/stat...62202128842753

RoOkIe Of ThE yEaR.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[AC]

Somehow Stauffer looks more and more like sweaty Mayor Quimby everytime he pops up on the Oilers broadcast.


From today's game:

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I think stauffer is slowly melting