2025-2026 NHL Regular Season

nautical_disaster

Elimination game Vasy is automatic. Like 2004-2007 era Federer, forget about it, don't even bother playing haha.

pjhawks

If the Lightning win it all again it's one of the most impressive feats in sports in a long long time. They will have basically won 3 cups in like 20 months since the 1st one was in Sept. of 2020.

josevolution

pjhawks said:

If the Lightning win it all again it's one of the most impressive feats in sports in a long long time. They will have basically won 3 cups in like 20 months since the 1st one was in Sept. of 2020.

Dynasty! 

mrussel1

Lightning are killers

Johnny Abruzzo

Happy the Panthers lost. They practically ruined hockey in 1996 and yeah I still hold a grudge.

mpedone

pjhawks said:

If the Lightning win it all again it's one of the most impressive feats in sports in a long long time. They will have basically won 3 cups in like 20 months since the 1st one was in Sept. of 2020.

And Pat *ing Maroon will cap off a run of 4 in a row. Dude's now won 14 consecutive playoff series.

mrussel1

mpedone said:

pjhawks said:

If the Lightning win it all again it's one of the most impressive feats in sports in a long long time. They will have basically won 3 cups in like 20 months since the 1st one was in Sept. of 2020.

And Pat *ing Maroon will cap off a run of 4 in a row. Dude's now won 14 consecutive playoff series.

And scored the winning goal last night. 

mpedone

mrussel1 said:

mpedone said:

pjhawks said:

If the Lightning win it all again it's one of the most impressive feats in sports in a long long time. They will have basically won 3 cups in like 20 months since the 1st one was in Sept. of 2020.

And Pat *ing Maroon will cap off a run of 4 in a row. Dude's now won 14 consecutive playoff series.

And scored the winning goal last night. 

And a beauty, too! Well, not so much a beautiful goal as a heads up play to both not interfere with Bobrovsky and to hit the puck below the crossbar. He got some luck, but that's just Pat Maroon. It will be interesting to see if the Pat Maroon Magic is enough to overcome the Corey Perry Curse (I know he has a Cup, but if they make the finals, we'll either see a guy win 4 in a row, or a guy lose 3 in a row).

HughFreakingDillon

why are people so upset about Kadri's "I can't hear you" taunt to the crowd? the guy and his family have been getting racist threats and Ron McLean decides to blame Kadri for taunting "an already hostile crowd"? really?

a5pj

HughFreakingDillon said:

why are people so upset about Kadri's "I can't hear you" taunt to the crowd? the guy and his family have been getting racist threats and Ron McLean decides to blame Kadri for taunting "an already hostile crowd"? really?

Don't know much about this situation, but I always felt that taunting the crowd was in poor taste.
Racist threats, no place for them anywhere...

mpedone

HughFreakingDillon said:

why are people so upset about Kadri's "I can't hear you" taunt to the crowd? the guy and his family have been getting racist threats and Ron McLean decides to blame Kadri for taunting "an already hostile crowd"? really?

Even had there been no racist/threatening tweets, you boo a guy every time he touches the puck because of an unfortunate play, he's going to respond. Given everything else (including Blues players targeting him all game), McLean should be praising Kadri for his restraint.

nautical_disaster

nautical_disaster said:

I have no idea what will happen in that series. They both got out of the first round after years of disappointing results. They will both want to take advantage of this opportunity. I prefer the flames goaltending in this one, so you might be right!

This didn't age well lol. What's funny is that Smith has been solid in the series. Mostly. The times where he wasn't (game 1 and that hilarious 3rd goal last night)...he really wasn't. The Pat Maroon series stat is insane.

F Me In The Brain

Yeah I thought Calgary would thrash Edmonton. 
Wrong!!!

pjhawks

This Calgary Edmonton series is wild.  Fastest 4 goals in nhl playoff history tonight,  4 goals in just over a minute.  Nuts 

nautical_disaster

I'm no hockey expert, but I don't know how you can call that a "no goal"

mrussel1

nautical_disaster said:

I'm no hockey expert, but I don't know how you can call that a "no goal"

Do you mean Coleman's kick? 

I think it probably was,  but I don't think the evidence was clear enough.  I feel like Toronto is really taking liberties and making decisions based on what it thinks happened rather than what the evidence clearly shows.   In game 4 of the lighting panthers series, they called back a goal because they said it went into the mesh right before.  It probably did,  but you NEVER saw it.  And it wasn't called on the ice.  Very different than football reviews. 

nautical_disaster

Yeah that's my problem with it, the evidence is shaky at best. If he's not making that motion with his skate AKA stopping, he's flying into the net. And i'm saying this as a neutral fan that has no stakes in Calgary or Edmonton.

mpedone

mrussel1 said:

nautical_disaster said:

I'm no hockey expert, but I don't know how you can call that a "no goal"

Do you mean Coleman's kick? 

I think it probably was,  but I don't think the evidence was clear enough.  I feel like Toronto is really taking liberties and making decisions based on what it thinks happened rather than what the evidence clearly shows.   In game 4 of the lighting panthers series, they called back a goal because they said it went into the mesh right before.  It probably did,  but you NEVER saw it.  And it wasn't called on the ice.  Very different than football reviews. 

That call was odd. I do wonder if Toronto has access to other camera angles; I'm 99% sure it hit the netting just based on Palat's body language, but that's not conclusive evidence. Part of me also wonders if someone making these decisions is too worried about backlash; it's almost as if they've been instructed that if it's close, just call the play back. It doesn't make sense (as you then get outrage from the other side), but then again, neither do some of these calls.

mrussel1

mpedone said:

mrussel1 said:

nautical_disaster said:

I'm no hockey expert, but I don't know how you can call that a "no goal"

Do you mean Coleman's kick? 

I think it probably was,  but I don't think the evidence was clear enough.  I feel like Toronto is really taking liberties and making decisions based on what it thinks happened rather than what the evidence clearly shows.   In game 4 of the lighting panthers series, they called back a goal because they said it went into the mesh right before.  It probably did,  but you NEVER saw it.  And it wasn't called on the ice.  Very different than football reviews. 

That call was odd. I do wonder if Toronto has access to other camera angles; I'm 99% sure it hit the netting just based on Palat's body language, but that's not conclusive evidence. Part of me also wonders if someone making these decisions is too worried about backlash; it's almost as if they've been instructed that if it's close, just call the play back. It doesn't make sense (as you then get outrage from the other side), but then again, neither do some of these calls.

I think Palat's did as well, but we didn't see it.  Maybe they have extra angles, but it almost as if their charge is to re-officiate the play from teh booth, using judgment (like the on ice official).  Maybe someone knows if that's the case.  In football and baseball, the replay must be indisputable.  Maybe that isn't the bar in hockey replays and I just never noticed. 

mpedone

mrussel1 said:

mpedone said:

mrussel1 said:

nautical_disaster said:

I'm no hockey expert, but I don't know how you can call that a "no goal"

Do you mean Coleman's kick? 

I think it probably was,  but I don't think the evidence was clear enough.  I feel like Toronto is really taking liberties and making decisions based on what it thinks happened rather than what the evidence clearly shows.   In game 4 of the lighting panthers series, they called back a goal because they said it went into the mesh right before.  It probably did,  but you NEVER saw it.  And it wasn't called on the ice.  Very different than football reviews. 

That call was odd. I do wonder if Toronto has access to other camera angles; I'm 99% sure it hit the netting just based on Palat's body language, but that's not conclusive evidence. Part of me also wonders if someone making these decisions is too worried about backlash; it's almost as if they've been instructed that if it's close, just call the play back. It doesn't make sense (as you then get outrage from the other side), but then again, neither do some of these calls.

I think Palat's did as well, but we didn't see it.  Maybe they have extra angles, but it almost as if their charge is to re-officiate the play from teh booth, using judgment (like the on ice official).  Maybe someone knows if that's the case.  In football and baseball, the replay must be indisputable.  Maybe that isn't the bar in hockey replays and I just never noticed. 

The announcers always say that's the rule, but I'm not sure. I know on goals the refs have the leeway of "intent to blow the whistle" (which I used to detest, now I kinda get), so I wonder if there is some aspect of that at play? The ref realizes he should have blown the play dead, even though it's not 100% clear?