canadianguy77
Registered User
- Apr 20, 2006
- 20,742
- 10,589
Yeah, I don't understand why the jackets slowed the pace down in the 2nd OT. They do better when they're skating. Maybe their team isn't in shape.
lol he still sucks but atleast he sucked and had that go in off him. Almost found a way to make it not go in. If it landed on his stick he would have shot the boards.Playoff Eller is a different kind of beast
Milbury talking about changing playoff overtime format... I want to throw up. Don't touch perfection. Yes the quality of play goes down in multiple OTs but the effort doesn't and that's what makes it compelling. Leave the game alone.
What did he say? Turn it into a boxing match?
all that means is it is a coin flip series like a lot of fans from both teams said before it started. could be 3-0 either teamAs much as I want to say this is a potential series changing moment..... winning game 3 in OT down 2-0 doesn’t guarantee a series comeback (Kings/Sharks 2 years ago)
As much as I want to say this is a potential series changing moment..... winning game 3 in OT down 2-0 doesn’t guarantee a series comeback (Kings/Sharks 2 years ago)
He said that at some point they should go 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. Kind of hinted at them dropping to 4 on 4 in 2OT and then 3 on 3 in 3OT.
Panarin makes the rest of his team look slow.Yeah, I don't understand why the jackets slowed the pace down in the 2nd OT. They do better when they're skating. Maybe their team isn't in shape.
Agreed. Playoff OT is the best as is. 3v3 is barely hockey.Milbury talking about changing playoff overtime format... I want to throw up. Don't touch perfection. Yes the quality of play goes down in multiple OTs but the effort doesn't and that's what makes it compelling. Leave the game alone.
Do not change OT.He said that at some point they should go 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. Kind of hinted at them dropping to 4 on 4 in 2OT and then 3 on 3 in 3OT.
His argument was that extra 5 on 5 periods make games after it less interesting since it wears players out more. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it's part of the game for teams to want to win in regulation to keep their players fresh.
After the first overtime change it to 4on4 or 3on3 because it turns into a "slog" with tired players. He's right it's not as pretty to watch (unless it's Breadman). But to me nothing epitomizes playoff hockey more than that war of attrition in the late hours of the night. Not to mention all the great game winning moments because of it. 4 periods of 5on5 hockey and then the Stanley Cup to be decided on a 3on3 goal, yeah sounds wonderful.What did he say? Turn it into a boxing match?
I missed the game.
On this goal, was Ovechkin at the end of a shift?
Do you mean Orlov? He blew the receipt of the pass and dogged it back up ice.
I heard that too and chuckled. He was entertaining an idea to play 4 on 4 and even 3 on 3 after a certain number of OTs. And by the fourth OT it would be 2 on 2, and finally, a goalie against a goalie in the fifth. ;-)Milbury talking about changing playoff overtime format... I want to throw up. Don't touch perfection. Yes the quality of play goes down in multiple OTs but the effort doesn't and that's what makes it compelling. Leave the game alone.
Oh god, I meant Orlov. They both start with O!!
So same question.
Was Orlov at the end of a shift??
He said that at some point they should go 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. Kind of hinted at them dropping to 4 on 4 in 2OT and then 3 on 3 in 3OT.
His argument was that extra 5 on 5 periods make games after it less interesting since it wears players out more. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it's part of the game for teams to want to win in regulation to keep their players fresh.