Around The League LXXXIV - All Non-Playoff Talk Here

[Bougieman]

The most important thing to know about dump-ins is, what % of pucks dumped in do you recover? If your recovery rate isn't good, it's a strategy that will be tough to succeed with. You will be hurting your possession game. Some players are better suited to retrieve dump-ins, while some are excellent at keeping possession crossing the offensive blue line. You shouldn't have a 1 size fits all system, you should determine which lines dump the puck in based on the individual lines effectiveness in these 2 different areas.

The problem is, too many coaches try to make the personnel fit their system. A smart coach will make the system fit the personnel. Doesn't sound like that was at the forefront of Bylsma's thought process - which probably isn't good.

This is a great point, and a lesson I wish Tortarella had learned before we signed him to coach the team.

 

[vanuck]

Meh, Chicago turned the tide vs the Ducks by going to more dump ins.

I think you're opinion is too simplistic. Which one creates more scoring chances, not all shots are chances to score.

I think generally the team who gets more shots will score more. Beyond that, it's up to systems and sometimes just individual talent. All a coach can do is tailor his system to maximize offense from his group of players, really. But generally it seems that it's easier to create chances by skating it in and puck movement rather than cycling and trying for shots from the point when the defenders are already all set up. I remember there was a Flyers fan who tracked zone entries manually for a few seasons ago and found there was a difference between carry-ins and dumping in terms of shots and chances (goals too IIRC).

 

[Tim Calhoun]

That Petry contract is ugly.

Makes Garrison's contract look fantastic, yet we gave him away for nothing.

 

[Nuckles]

That Petry contract is ugly.

Makes Garrison's contract look fantastic, yet we gave him away for nothing.

Considering his age, how well he played for Montreal, and what other/worse guys got in previous years (and will get this year) it's not that bad to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it's too much for a guy who has been a career 2nd pairing d-man, but that's what to expect from free agency.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

That Petry contract is ugly.

Makes Garrison's contract look fantastic, yet we gave him away for nothing.

Beat me to it.

Still boggles my mind that some people still think Garrison was a contract dump.

 

[CherryToke]

apparently he has a full NTC too. not good for the Habs

 

[MS]

apparently he has a full NTC too. not good for the Habs

Meh.

Good player, young UFA. Will only be 33 when the contract runs out.

He's probably a $4.5 million player but losing a top-4 defender over $1 million isn't worth it.

The really bad UFA contracts are the ones paying guys huge money at age 35+. That Brooks Orpik contact last year is just astonishingly bad.

 

[Intoewsables]

Meh.

Good player, young UFA. Will only be 33 when the contract runs out.

He's probably a $4.5 million player but losing a top-4 defender over $1 million isn't worth it.

The really bad UFA contracts are the ones paying guys huge money at age 35+. That Brooks Orpik contact last year is just astonishingly bad.

Basically this. I think the term's a little more concerning than the money, but either way, it's not that bad of a deal. The guy was poorly utilized in Edmonton (shocking, I know) and finally seems to be getting the ice-time he deserves in Montreal. IMO, he's a legit #3 who could probably fill in on a top pairing just fine. $5.5M isn't too bad for a player of that caliber.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Little pricey. That's FA I guess.

 

[vancityluongo]

Overpaying good players by a lot > paying for mediocre players.

Barring injuries and other unforeseen circumstances, Petry is a solid bet to be a top-4 defenseman for the life of the contract. Even if he pulls a Bieksa at the end, it will be about equivalent to what we're paying Bieksa now assuming the cap rises somewhat.

Top-4 defenseman are the rarest commodity in the league. Petry probably would have gotten closer to 6M in UFA.

 

[Nuckles]

I do hope they change up OT, I have come to despise the shootout in recent years.

 

[Addison Rae]

I do hope they change up OT, I have come to despise the shootout in recent years.

but we're finally good at it

 

[ugghhh]

I do hope they change up OT, I have come to despise the shootout in recent years.

I don't mind the shootout, but I'd much rather see a 5 minute 3 on 3 period.

 

[Samzilla]

but we're finally good at it

classic canucks timing

 

[MS]

I do hope they change up OT, I have come to despise the shootout in recent years.

The coach's challenge is utterly idiotic.

I can hardly wait for the stalling delays on every single goal while teams have their coaching staffs going over each play.

I could really care less if like 5 goals all season were offside. It's just not a big enough problem.

 

[PM]

The coach's challenge is utterly idiotic.

I can hardly wait for the stalling delays on every single goal while teams have their coaching staffs going over each play.

I could really care less if like 5 goals all season were offside. It's just not a big enough problem.

Doesn't each team only get one challenge per game though and it would use their timeout? I like it just for the goaltender interference calls which got completely out of hand this year. Sick of seeing dmen knock opposing forwards into their own goalie, nullifying legit goals. Even worse is when a goalie just trips like Howard earlier this year and the ref falls for it somehow.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

Coaches challenge is long overdue, glad they finally got it in, benefits far outweigh any negatives.

 

[Addison Rae]

Coaches challenge is long overdue, glad they finally got it in, benefits far outweigh any negatives.

Yeah, I agree with this. Why settle for the chance of error? I really don't see any negatives in bringing this in.

 

[Wilch]

Unless the challenge burns the timeout, I can see coaches abusing it to the max to buy his players time if they're gassed, or to throw the opposing team off.

 

[KeninsFan]

Unless the challenge burns the timeout, I can see coaches abusing it to the max to buy his players time if they're gassed, or to throw the opposing team off.

2 minutes for delay of game if the challenge doesn't result in an infraction being called/overturned.

 

[me2]

The coach's challenge is utterly idiotic.

I can hardly wait for the stalling delays on every single goal while teams have their coaching staffs going over each play.

I could really care less if like 5 goals all season were offside. It's just not a big enough problem.

there needs to be a penalty for using it and being proven wrong. 2 mins for delay of game. Still teams will use it, you are down a couple of goals with 3 mins left, other team scores why not use it, 2 min penalty well you are screwed anyway.

 

[me2]

Coaches challenge is long overdue, glad they finally got it in, benefits far outweigh any negatives.

agree so long as there are consequences to stop stupid or cynical time buying challenges.

 

[Nuckles]

The coach's challenge is utterly idiotic.

I can hardly wait for the stalling delays on every single goal while teams have their coaching staffs going over each play.

I could really care less if like 5 goals all season were offside. It's just not a big enough problem.

Doesn't each team only get one challenge per game though and it would use their timeout? I like it just for the goaltender interference calls which got completely out of hand this year. Sick of seeing dmen knock opposing forwards into their own goalie, nullifying legit goals. Even worse is when a goalie just trips like Howard earlier this year and the ref falls for it somehow.

Coaches challenge is long overdue, glad they finally got it in, benefits far outweigh any negatives.

Unless the challenge burns the timeout, I can see coaches abusing it to the max to buy his players time if they're gassed, or to throw the opposing team off.

there needs to be a penalty for using it and being proven wrong. 2 mins for delay of game. Still teams will use it, you are down a couple of goals with 3 mins left, other team scores why not use it, 2 min penalty well you are screwed anyway.

I believe the rule they proposed is that you can only use a challenge if you have your timeout. If the call on the ice stands then your one challenge AND timeout are burned. If the call is overturned then you use your one challenge but still have a timeout, and you can't call a challenge again for the rest of the game (though I'm not 100% sure on this, they may be able to keep on challenging as long as they have their timeout and the call is overturned).

 

[Nuckles]

A new faceoff rule was also proposed

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=769919&cmpid=nhl-twt

Face-Offs - The Committee recommends a change to the face-off rule, whereby, for all face-offs in the defensive zone, the player from the defensive zone team must put down his stick first. For face-offs at center ice, the rule will remain the same, requiring that the visiting team player put his stick down first.

 

[me2]

I believe the rule they proposed is that you can only use a challenge if you have your timeout. If the call on the ice stands then your one challenge AND timeout are burned. If the call is overturned then you use your one challenge but still have a timeout, and you can't call a challenge again for the rest of the game (though I'm not 100% sure on this, they may be able to keep on challenging as long as they have their timeout and the call is overturned).

I would rather just extend the powers of the video review on goals/no goals. Too often a goal gets reviewed and we hear "that's not reviewable", if it obviously wrong then allow the review guys to fix it - there should be no need for a challenge in such circumstances.