2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs Discussion Thread

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

They should get rid of the rule altogether. Either allow all or none. These refs are obviously terrible at making judgement calls, so remove as much of that from them as possible. Simplify the rule book. I've watched a lot of those "distinct kicking motion" rulings and they appear to be completely arbitrary based on the individual ref making the determination. That's a terrible way to officiate imo. Last night's call was one of the more glaring examples of it. Intent to score? A far more likely thought process was the player was trying to redirect the puck back toward his stick and regain control of it than bank it off the goalie's pads into the net billiards style. I'm sure glad NHL refs can read minds, though.

I mean, it was a distinct kicking motion, but it certainly wasn't an attempt to kick it into the net. I'm surprised that they didn't let it stand... but I'll be honest, that play was not an example of a judgement call. Letter of the law, kicked puck, goes in net, no goal.

 

[DetroitRed]

They should get rid of the rule altogether. Either allow all or none. These refs are obviously terrible at making judgement calls, so remove as much of that from them as possible. Simplify the rule book. I've watched a lot of those "distinct kicking motion" rulings and they appear to be completely arbitrary based on the individual ref making the determination. That's a terrible way to officiate imo. Last night's call was one of the more glaring examples of it. Intent to score? A far more likely thought process was the player was trying to redirect the puck back toward his stick and regain control of it than bank it off the goalie's pads into the net billiards style. I'm sure glad NHL refs can read minds, though.

The basis for the rule is to prohibit kicked goals. The referee's decision was no doubt advised by that understanding. The only problem is that the rule was written poorly. The way the rule is written it should have been allowed.

It's not a complicated judgement call just to decide whether a puck was kicked with intent to score a goal. I mean, you could just say no kicked goals, but that would also nullify honest mistakes (possiblyy even by defenders). I think it's directly comparable to the rules for handling the puck: the referee has to make an opinion as to whether the puck was intentionally directed or whether it was deflected into the net. So, it's basically something they already do.

 

[Red Stanley]

The wings were wrong trading him and keeping Howard. Howard blew a 3-1 in the 2nd round. That's his best playoff performance.... that's with Z , Datsyuk and Lidstrom btw

"The past doesn't equal the future."
A few posts later, on the same page of the same thread: "Howard blew a 3-1 in the 2nd round."
Also, not nearly enough people give an honest shit about Mrazek for him to have "millions" of haters.

 

[Red Stanley]

The basis for the rule is to prohibit kicked goals. The referee's decision was no doubt advised by that understanding. The only problem is that the rule was written poorly. The way the rule is written it should have been allowed.

It's not a complicated judgement call just to decide whether a puck was kicked with intent to score a goal. I mean, you could just say no kicked goals, but that would also nullify honest mistakes (possiblyy even by defenders). I think it's directly comparable to the rules for handling the puck: the referee has to make an opinion as to whether the puck was intentionally directed or whether it was deflected into the net. So, it's basically something they already do.

The problem I have with the rule itself is the inconsistency with which it is applied, which stems directly from giving the refs the power to determine not only what a distinct kicking motion is (it's applied very inconsistently), but also to make a judgment call for intent. I have seen blatant "kicks" that went directly in and were deemed "redirections" and allowed to stand. And I've seen "redirections" that were called "kicks" and disallowed. That brings me to the Islanders' goal, which in my opinion as a long-time soccer player was more of a redirection than a kick.
The other problems I have with this call in particular are that it was 1. not directed at net and was in fact well below the goal line and 2. it banked off the goalie's pad before going in. It should've been treated like a hand pass. If the opponent touches it first, it's not a hand pass.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

"The past doesn't equal the future."
A few posts later, on the same page of the same thread: "Howard blew a 3-1 in the 2nd round."
Also, not nearly enough people give an honest **** about Mrazek for him to have "millions" of haters.

Taking two sentences out of context to fit your narrative? Foreign concept here for sure.

 

[Goalie guy]

He did. groin, I think.

And even if that's the case... If you, as a rookie goalie, feel it is your place to do that... you need to have your play back it up. And for his first season and change, he did. Once he didn't, the Wings moved on. If you're going to criticize the roster building, you have to back it up with your play. From late season 15-16 on, he didn't. He was given the ball to run with and he fumbled it.

He did but so did the whole team like every player was below what they could should do. Gus was starting to look good for the Sharks the last game I watched.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Trading Mrazek and keeping Howard clearly was the wrong move. I swear some of you disagree just for attention...

 

[Ezekial]

Revisionist history is dope.

 

[TCNorthstars]

Niemi won with a superstar lineup. Mrazek is the reason they would win this year. And die on this hill all you want. Wouldn't be the first time.....

Seems like you are the one dying alone on this hill.

 

[Red Stanley]

Taking two sentences out of context to fit your narrative? Foreign concept here for sure.

Your context was "Mrazek GOOD! And don't you use examples from the past to disprove my narrative! Howard BAD! Here are some past examples of why I'm right about this." But I'm happy Carolina is barely eking out wins so you have something else to rave about other than just Holland and AA. This playoffs has effectively doubled your topics of conversation.

 

[DetroitRed]

The problem I have with the rule itself is the inconsistency with which it is applied, which stems directly from giving the refs the power to determine not only what a distinct kicking motion is (it's applied very inconsistently), but also to make a judgment call for intent. I have seen blatant "kicks" that went directly in and were deemed "redirections" and allowed to stand. And I've seen "redirections" that were called "kicks" and disallowed. That brings me to the Islanders' goal, which in my opinion as a long-time soccer player was more of a redirection than a kick.
The other problems I have with this call in particular are that it was 1. not directed at net and was in fact well below the goal line and 2. it banked off the goalie's pad before going in. It should've been treated like a hand pass. If the opponent touches it first, it's not a hand pass.

That's a good way to look at it. Treat it just like a hand pass!

Actually, the only concern I would have in that situation is that making an intentionally deflected pass off a defender is not really done. Whereas intentionally trying to set up a deflected goal is something we see several times per game. The reason for both obviously is that deflections are hard to react to in time. So, if they did the rule the way you suggest, we could then see players trying to kick in deflections off defenders or off goalies.

 

[Winger98]

His problems came with Holland LONG before any trade talk of Howard! He called out how the team was being built or rather lack there of, and said the locker room did not like Blash that's where it started. He came out and said what him and other young players on the team felt. He never not one time put blame on his team, where did that come from? He might still flop on the Cains but we don't know yet right? People bring up his price tag JB is not better than him and got 3.5. But I was out of town the last few days did he get hurt in the last game?

I thought there was also talk that Mrazek wasn't putting the work in outside of the games. He was a talented but problematic goalie with his inconsistency and lousy attitude. He wasn't playing well enough to put up with or change the locker room over or to be worth the $4m price tag he would have required. After bombing his abbreviated run with Philly, there's a reason he had to take the one year, $1.5m contract from Carolina. It should also be pointed out that while he's had a nice run this year, his play before the AS game break was not exactly stellar.

Hopefully the guy's play the second half of the season is indicative of him getting his head on straight and turning his career around. He wouldn't be the first really talented guy who needed to be kicked around the league a bit before he got his act together. At the same time, it wouldn't be surprising if this turns out to be just another streak and Mrazek is back to being the ~.900 sv% goalie he was here, at Philly, and the first half of this season.

Lastly, Bernier wasn't what I think any of us really hoped for this season. But his splits on the year aren't that far off Mrazek's. In the end, the whole Mrazek/Howard thing is unlikely to be of anything of consequence with the Wings' rebuild efforts.

 

[Red Stanley]

That's a good way to look at it. Treat it just like a hand pass!

Actually, the only concern I would have in that situation is that making an intentionally deflected pass off a defender is not really done. Whereas intentionally trying to set up a deflected goal is something we see several times per game. The reason for both obviously is that deflections are hard to react to in time. So, if they did the rule the way you suggest, we could then see players trying to kick in deflections off defenders or off goalies.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. I'm not suggesting deflections off your own players into the net shouldn't count. All I want is for them to get rid of the "distinct kicking motion" rule as it doesn't appear to be very distinct in its application. In my opinion the only goals scored with your body that shouldn't count are ones where the player grabs the puck and throws it into the net, or takes his hand off the stick to directly bat it in. Everything else should be fair game. I'm certain every single hockey player would prefer to score using his stick, but if you are good (or lucky) enough to score with your skate, then more power to you. I just don't think it happens often enough for it to warrant the controversy of those kinds of calls/reviews.

 

[Goalie guy]

I thought there was also talk that Mrazek wasn't putting the work in outside of the games. He was a talented but problematic goalie with his inconsistency and lousy attitude. He wasn't playing well enough to put up with or change the locker room over or to be worth the $4m price tag he would have required. After bombing his abbreviated run with Philly, there's a reason he had to take the one year, $1.5m contract from Carolina. It should also be pointed out that while he's had a nice run this year, his play before the AS game break was not exactly stellar.

Hopefully the guy's play the second half of the season is indicative of him getting his head on straight and turning his career around. He wouldn't be the first really talented guy who needed to be kicked around the league a bit before he got his act together. At the same time, it wouldn't be surprising if this turns out to be just another streak and Mrazek is back to being the ~.900 sv% goalie he was here, at Philly, and the first half of this season.

Lastly, Bernier wasn't what I think any of us really hoped for this season. But his splits on the year aren't that far off Mrazek's. In the end, the whole Mrazek/Howard thing is unlikely to be of anything of consequence with the Wings' rebuild efforts.

I'm okay with JB, I was just point out to the people that did not want to pay to keep Mrazek but are okay with Jb's price tag. And I am good with keeping Jimmy on a year by year as well.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'm okay with JB, I was just point out to the people that did not want to pay to keep Mrazek but are okay with Jb's price tag. And I am good with keeping Jimmy on a year by year as well.

We wanted Lehner or Hutton. And I figured Bernier would be a better option than he turned out to be. But Bernier is actually getting 3.0, not 3.5. And Mrazek was going to have to be tendered at 4.0M.

 

[plymouthmi]

I wonder if the Red Wings could go after Tyson Barrie next off season if the Avs don't resign him. I've been impressed with him this year. People on HF tend to talk about him like he's a total trainwreck defensively, which I'm not sure is true, and even if it is maybe I'd be willing to take that in exchange for someone who had more points this year than any Red Wings defenseman since Lidstrom. He should be cheaper than Karlsson. I think the only defensemen with higher PPG since Barrie came into the league are Karlsson and Burns.

Random side note: Brent Burns is a workhorse. In looking up defenseman stats I realized he's played 82 games a year for 5 years straight.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I wonder if the Red Wings could go after Tyson Barrie next off season if the Avs don't resign him. I've been impressed with him this year. People on HF tend to talk about him like he's a total trainwreck defensively, which I'm not sure is true, and even if it is maybe I'd be willing to take that in exchange for someone who had more points this year than any Red Wings defenseman since Lidstrom. He should be cheaper than Karlsson. I think the only defensemen with higher PPG since Barrie came into the league are Karlsson and Burns.

Random side note: Brent Burns is a workhorse. In looking up defenseman stats I realized he's played 82 games a year for 5 years straight.

Hmm. If they’re going after a defensively suspect, offense only guy, I want the top guy on the market.

I would probably be alright with Gardiner though at a reasonable price

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Your context was "Mrazek GOOD! And don't you use examples from the past to disprove my narrative! Howard BAD! Here are some past examples of why I'm right about this." But I'm happy Carolina is barely eking out wins so you have something else to rave about other than just Holland and AA. This playoffs has effectively doubled your topics of conversation.

Don't forget Yzerman.

 

[YpsiWings]

I wonder if the Red Wings could go after Tyson Barrie next off season if the Avs don't resign him. I've been impressed with him this year. People on HF tend to talk about him like he's a total trainwreck defensively, which I'm not sure is true, and even if it is maybe I'd be willing to take that in exchange for someone who had more points this year than any Red Wings defenseman since Lidstrom. He should be cheaper than Karlsson. I think the only defensemen with higher PPG since Barrie came into the league are Karlsson and Burns.

Random side note: Brent Burns is a workhorse. In looking up defenseman stats I realized he's played 82 games a year for 5 years straight.

Barrie has a year left on his contract, and Trouba is potentially an UFA too. In a perfect world sign both, Barrie is really underrated. The guy produces points every year, would love to pair him with DeKeyser. They would be perfect for each other, just an excellent 2nd pairing. The problem is Yzerman has to find a top pair, if Karlsson is interested in two months, sign him as fast as possible.

 

[Red Stanley]

Don't forget Yzerman.

That's true, actually. Point taken

 

[Oddbob]

Trading Mrazek and keeping Howard clearly was the wrong move. I swear some of you disagree just for attention...

What is different if we kept Mrazek and Howard got moved? Nothing would be the answer! We would still be a bottom 5 team, and all the ragging you do on Howard is ridiculous as he kept us in a ton of games that we had no business being in. Also bringing up that Howard blew a 3-1 lead in a series as if it is all up to one player on any team on whether they win or not. Talk like that shows a complete lack of any credibility from you, when it comes to hockey. NHL hockey is a team game, you don't win or lose on one guy alone. So Howard didn't blow a 3-1 lead, the Wings blew a 3-1 lead, just at Mrazek didn't put Carolina past Washington, the Carolina Hurricanes as a team got past.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Someone start a petition to remove Lindell from the NHL permanently. What a disgusting display of diving.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

What is different if we kept Mrazek and Howard got moved? Nothing would be the answer! We would still be a bottom 5 team, and all the ragging you do on Howard is ridiculous as he kept us in a ton of games that we had no business being in. Also bringing up that Howard blew a 3-1 lead in a series as if it is all up to one player on any team on whether they win or not. Talk like that shows a complete lack of any credibility from you, when it comes to hockey. NHL hockey is a team game, you don't win or lose on one guy alone. So Howard didn't blow a 3-1 lead, the Wings blew a 3-1 lead, just at Mrazek didn't put Carolina past Washington, the Carolina Hurricanes as a team got past.

We would have a starting goalie in his 20's instead of late 30's that's injury prone that's the difference.

 

[Ezekial]

Get real.

 

[lomekian]

Mrazek has the higher ceiling, and is more capable of stealing a game/series. Howard is more consistent and is more likely to keep you in a game/series. If Mrazek's relationship with some of the staff hadn't broken down, and had he not had to receive such a big offer to be qualified, I'd definitely have preferred him for where we are at as a team...but ultimately neither are good enough to mask the deficiencies of the team, and unless Howard finds a fountain of youth, he'll be gone before it really matters. Mrazek may yet use this season as a rebound towards his earlier potential, but its clear that wasn't happening here. A shame because at his best he is both a more entertaining and better goalie than Howard, but the one time they tried to give him the job, his play fell off a cliff.