Pittsburgh Penguins get first pick - Page 4

Offsprung · #31 07-24-2005, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<I>Become</I> the 2nd most popular team in Pittsburgh?

I understand they've fallen on tough times, but you seriously overestimate the popularity of the Pirates... unless you're talking about the Pitt Panthers, which is a marginally acceptable answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even that... we can't even sellout Heinz field for 6 home games unless it's Miami, VaTech or WVU. Of course scheduling home games against teams like Ohio and Youngstown State don't help much.

Pitt isn't as huge as it should be because a lot of Pittsburgh is made up of PSU fans also who could care less about Pitt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] Pitt. VaTech baby!

I still don't see what this has to do with the Pens and Crosby.

Offsprung · #32 07-24-2005, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I don't know the exact ranking of professional teams in Pittsburgh. Do research? It was a rhetorical point, give me a break.

As for the arena, I didn't know that. That kind of money has a way of disappearing, so I won't believe it until they break ground on the new building. Which I think they definitely will, as a result of today's draft lottery.

Evgeni Malkin and Crosby are going to be unstoppable. They could put Kris Beech at center on that line and he'd get 60 points.

[/ QUOTE ]

*crosses fingers* With Marc-Andre Fleury as well, we might put together a power house. Hopefully.

IggyWH · #33 07-24-2005, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] Pitt. VaTech baby!

I still don't see what this has to do with the Pens and Crosby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering we won the last 3 matchups, you got no room to talk until maybe when they play again (like 2010).

razor · #34 07-24-2005, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shoot-outs are not hockey. That is all there is to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's important enough to have non-tie results, then it's important enough to do right. Deciding the result of a hockey game based on something that isn't hockey is not doing it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you don't know hockey because the XVII Winter Games Gold hockey match between Sweden & Canada had one of the best endings EVER in sports.

Couple guys you may have heard of were involved in the last shots of the shootout, Forsberg scored and then Kariya was stopped for the Sweden win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your 'argument' is nonsense.

Deciding any hockey game, much less, a championship or Gold medal game on shootouts is about as stupid as deciding basketball games with free throws or soccer games with free kicks.

Play the game to completion or don't play it at all.

IggyWH · #35 07-24-2005, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Play the game to completion or don't play it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you to say that game wasn't played to completion? Personally, I'll take the international view over yours anyday.

So I guess World Cup soccer got it wrong too?

razor · #36 07-24-2005, 04:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play the game to completion or don't play it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you to say that game wasn't played to completion? Personally, I'll take the international view over yours anyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well when you stop playing hockey and decide the result on something that isn't hockey than the game hasn't been played to completion. It's an artificial result.

And why a shootout? Why not a relay between each teams 4 fastest skaters? Or have a fight between each team's tough-guy? Or flip a coin?

If it is important that a HOCKEY game has a winner and a loser than HOCKEY should be played until there is a winner. The same thing applies to any other game.

It is your right to prefer a shootout but that doesn't change the fact the result is a fraud.

Anyway, we'll see how exciting shootouts are when there is one every other day rather than one every 9.75 years.

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess World Cup soccer got it wrong too?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

Triumph36 · #37 07-24-2005, 09:02 AM

With soccer, I think it is in the interest of the game to have penalty kicks - I believe teams are only allowed two substitutions during a game, and the longer a game goes, the more fatigued the players will be, and therefore a goal will be less likely.

So there, as in hockey now, shootouts will be purely convenient.

And the strawmen about fastest skater contests, etc. are nonsense. The essence of hockey is a shooter and a goaltender - that is its most primal form. The comparisons to home run derbies or free throw shooting contests are fallacious because there are other ways to score in those sports. In hockey there is one way - through the goaltender.

I'm excited for shootouts. I won't like it against division rivals, but a February game against Edmonton? Sure, let's end it with a shootout.

Zurvan · #38 07-24-2005, 11:08 AM

The major reason to have a shootout in hockey for the regular season, instead of endless overtimes, is because of how exhausting hockey is. To have a team play 20 or 30 minutes of overtime, and then turn around and play a game the next night is totally unrealistic. If you do that a few times in an 82 game season, and you will end up with unnecessary injuries, and fatigue. Fatigued players do not put out their best effort, which makes for a damn boring hockey game.

razor · #39 07-24-2005, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With soccer, I think it is in the interest of the game to have penalty kicks - I believe teams are only allowed two substitutions during a game, and the longer a game goes, the more fatigued the players will be, and therefore a goal will be less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure they have 'legitimate' reasons for a free kicks to decide the game. BUT, free kicks are not soccer, never was, never will be. The games are being decided by something that is NOT soccer. Most everyone seems ok with that, but it DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY.

[ QUOTE ]
So there, as in hockey now, shootouts will be purely convenient.

[/ QUOTE ]

convenient but leads to an artificial result.

[ QUOTE ]
And the strawmen about fastest skater contests, etc. are nonsense. The essence of hockey is a shooter and a goaltender - that is its most primal form. The comparisons to home run derbies or free throw shooting contests are fallacious because there are other ways to score in those sports. In hockey there is one way - through the goaltender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shootouts bare but a small resemblance to some aspects of what hockey is about and the participants use only a small subset of the skills needed to play the game at a high level.

repeat after me... SHOOTOUTS are not HOCKEY.

You can consider them the preferred way to determine the result of a game, you can enjoy them all you want. but shootouts are nothing like hockey.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm excited for shootouts. I won't like it against division rivals, but a February game against Edmonton? Sure, let's end it with a shootout.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your right and no doubt many will be excited by them, heck I might even find myself excited by them. BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY. It's an artificial result.

razor · #40 07-24-2005, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The major reason to have a shootout in hockey for the regular season, instead of endless overtimes, is because of how exhausting hockey is. To have a team play 20 or 30 minutes of overtime, and then turn around and play a game the next night is totally unrealistic. If you do that a few times in an 82 game season, and you will end up with unnecessary injuries, and fatigue. Fatigued players do not put out their best effort, which makes for a damn boring hockey game.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a variety of reasons why shootouts are convenient, including crowd and tv considerations, I understand these reasons. But I go back to my original statement.

If it is important enough to have a winner, than it is important enough to determine the winner the right way.

Shootouts are simply a way of saying, we want a winner but we don't care enough about the integrity of the game and result to actually play the game out.