Skating Tripods wrote:Throwbacks to the 70s. Same as what Buffalo wore.
As for the game, it was great for a while, but then it just got annoying for me because Buffalo's my favorite team. I wanted them to just get the two points as the game went on, especially with how they dominated the second period.
I hate shootouts as well. It's not an accurate gage of determining a winner. If you're going to give a point for an OTL, might as well just bring back the tie.
I don't have a real favorite among NHL teams, but I do spend a fair lot of time watching both Buffalo and Pittsburgh on Centre Ice.
Conklin has had two dynamite games in a row against Buffalo and hasn't looked this good since he was in Edmonton.
Crosby is someone who bears watching. He is already at an elite level
and will still improve as he moves into his prime. He may well match or eclipse all of Lemieux's accomplishments if he remains in Pittsburgh his entire career.
I do expect Pittsburgh and Buffalo to be around for the playoffs this year. I figured Buffalo would be much tougher down the stretch that at the outset. I also figured they would need time to build chemistry after losing Drury and Briere. They seem to be rounding into form and are starting to get some good minutes out of Campbell and Connelly.
Pittsburgh may well round into form, but there are question marks in goal and with Crosby not really having a legit first-line winger to work with. He works as well as can be expected with Armstrong and Malone, but neither of those two are really more than second-liners.
NHL overtime would work so much better if they did the following:
1) Have
two five-minute four-on-four periods instead of one.
2) Have shootouts be best 3-of-5 instead of best 2-of-3.
3a) Only guarantee the point to the loser if they lose in the shootout. Either that or,
3b) Award three points for a regulation win and two for an OT or SO win
I don't mind the SO, but best 2-of-3 isn't enough. If you shoot first and score, then stop the other team and score with your next shooter, you win if you stop only one more. That doesn't seem right after playing for 65 minutes.
Also, if you had two 5-minute 4-on-4 OTs I'd bet that you would have fewer SOs because the 4-on-4 format would force teams to have lines specifically geared toward shorthanded scenarios and would force defensemen to be geared more for the defense than trying to always be more of a blue-line forward. It is also much more wide open and would allow for a more offensively oriented game at that point.
Not that being an offensively minded D is necessarily bad, but I don't see as many Ds in the NHL really steeling themselves as much as they should for that role. The D in the NHL is looked to more often as it should as an all-purpose role instead of letting the wings and centers do the bulk of the scoring.