[GDT] New Jersey (25-35-9-59) @ Calgary (42-20-7-91) 7:00pm (SNW)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There was a big article on the Athletic this year about the dressing room, and pecking order. This isn't a new way of hurting Kylington's feelings; it's the process that's been in this and probably every NHL room forever.

Yep. I assume Rasmus sits higher in the pecking order because of more NHL games played.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yep. I assume Rasmus sits higher in the pecking order because of more NHL games played.

I think it also has something to do with RA's place on the depth chart. He is unambiguously the Flames's #5 defenseman right now; Kylington is not clearly in the top six.

[johnnyhockey13]

Let’s go! Need the 1st line to break out tonight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by johnnyhockey13

Let’s go! Need the 1st line to break out tonight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have decided that Monahan will score five goals tonight.

[Itse]

If you put the youngest guy on the worst seat, it also guarantees nobody has to hold the worst seat long. And it's clearly not personal. It's really not a bad way of doing it.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Love

How dare he voice his opinion?

Such a weak response. Opinion gets voiced, opinion of opinion gets voiced. Love shows fake outrage.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think it also has something to do with RA's place on the depth chart. He is unambiguously the Flames's #5 defenseman right now; Kylington is not clearly in the top six.

I don’t think that matters for this kind of thing, which I believe is more about tenure and seniority than importance to the team.

Although at some point it does I suppose. A full time playing rookie isn’t getting kicked out of a stall for a random black aces type of callup in the playoffs.

But in this case I think it’s really just a tenure type pecking order so there’s no judgment involved. So no reason for Ollie to get his feelings hurt.

Did you write Flames’s? How would you pronounce that?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

...Did you write Flames’s? How would you pronounce that?

Yes. It is pronounced just as it appears—just like one would pronounce "James's."

I don't usually use genetic forms when I write "Flames," so this is rare. I tend to prefer using "Flames" in such expressions as a substantive modifier of the subject or predicate.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. It is pronounced just as it appears—just like one would pronounce "James's."

I don't usually use genetic forms when I write "Flames," so this is rare. I tend to prefer using "Flames" in such expressions as a substantive modifier of the subject or predicate.

You would probably know better than me (I'm a STEM type) but IIRC when converting a plural noun to possessive you add only an apostrophe, not both an apostrophe and an s?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You would probably know better than me (I'm a STEM type) but IIRC when converting a plural noun to possessive you add only an apostrophe, not both an apostrophe and an s?

I am a stickler for British spelling since graduate school. Both are grammatically acceptable, but the apostrophe + "s" is more common in the UK.