Agree with all except Kane and Eichel are horrible with each other. They both like to have the puck and Eichel does not shoot when Kane is on his line he always tries to feed him the puck and then Kane shoots high and wide. Rather see Kane with ROR
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Just playing devils advocate.. who has played well with eichel?
He a young player still adjusting and it should click soon

Agree with all except Kane and Eichel are horrible with each other. They both like to have the puck and Eichel does not shoot when Kane is on his line he always tries to feed him the puck and then Kane shoots high and wide. Rather see Kane with ROR
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

In a perfect world Kane is playing with Reinhart.

Just playing devils advocate.. who has played well with eichel?
He a young player still adjusting and it should click soon
- yen6d1

Honestly like him with Mcginn. I just don't think Kane and Eichel will every work based on there playing styles. Both guys want the puck. They want to bring it up and make the play, they can't both do that at the same time, so then they look to feed each other or over think instead of shooting or making a move they would normally make.

In a perfect world Kane is playing with Reinhart.
- dadeadhead

https://youtu.be/NKd6z6RLdT0?t=8

Agree with all except Kane and Eichel are horrible with each other. They both like to have the puck and Eichel does not shoot when Kane is on his line he always tries to feed him the puck and then Kane shoots high and wide. Rather see Kane with ROR
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Kane-ROR-Ennis/Moulson
Reinhart-Eichel-Girgensons
McGinn-Larsson-Gionta
Deslauries-Legwand-Foligno


I just don't know where to put Ennis/Moulson?

Do we use Ennis as a trade chip to get defense?

Honestly like him with Mcginn. I just don't think Kane and Eichel will every work based on there playing styles. Both guys want the puck. They want to bring it up and make the play, they can't both do that at the same time, so then they look to feed each other or over think instead of shooting or making a move they would normally make.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Kane's surprisingly more of a dump and chase player and if they can both adjust i think it can work. I love Eichel but he's not going to be the forechecking animal. I agree McGinn would work. But yesterday Eichel Ennis and Larsson/moulson would get it deep and generate nothing

I don't see the complaining, it works both ways and some will go the other way


offside is offside


don't go offside, the goal counts


my bigger beef, is they should be allowed to challenge all goals/non goals, which I assume will be added this off-season
- homiedclown

Kane-ROR-Ennis/Moulson
Reinhart-Eichel-Girgensons
McGinn-Larsson-Gionta
Deslauries-Legwand-Foligno


I just don't know where to put Ennis/Moulson?

Do we use Ennis as a trade chip to get defense?
- ImThatGuy

Honestly I think Ennis will start to produce soon...the talent is there...give him time to realize he needs to settle down with the puck (i think scratching him for a game would help) and the points will come

No, I'm not comparing apples to oranges, as the spot of the ball also can have consequences on scoring plays as well. If a referee rules a player down before the goal line, the team still has to challenge if it feels the player was in the end zone. So, whether you are talking about a first down or a touchdown, the same principal applies.

And if you think referee error in the NFL is less likely to impact a game than a referee error in the NHL, then you haven't been watching the NFL very much over the past decade.
- buffalofan19

you're trying to take a hypothetical event from another sport and somehow relate it to my statement about how video review is taking an offside rule to a level of scrutiny that i think was unintended by the NHL.....WOW.

You're right, I'm not watching the NFL...........this is a hockey site.

Agreed, even though I prefer The Bastard Executioner.
- kingcong39

1 season and done

Kane's surprisingly more of a dump and chase player and if they can both adjust i think it can work. I love Eichel but he's not going to be the forechecking animal. I agree McGinn would work. But yesterday Eichel Ennis and Larsson/moulson would get it deep and generate nothing
- yen6d1

Eichel was very predictable to me the last two games. Gets to zone and takes that long high shot. I would like to see him create more opportunities by passing it in those situations.

Honestly I think Ennis will start to produce soon...the talent is there...give him time to realize he needs to settle down with the puck (i think scratching him for a game would help) and the points will come
- feetontheair22

Ennis has been the most consistent Sabre the last two years. He just hasn't found his spot yet, which is odd to me.

Nice write up. What happened to the fast paced, puck possession team that we had a couple weeks ago? They seem to have disappeared the last 3 or 4 games, unless I'm imagining things.

A point I heard earlier was in the case of an obvious offsides that isn't called. Defending team would be smart to maybe release two players out of the zone to cherry pick. If goal is scored against it will be disallowed. If they clear the zone and score, it's good.

The rule is flawed. It should have been tested. They are vigilant to correct 1% of offsides and the rest don't matter.

you're trying to take a hypothetical event from another sport and somehow relate it to my statement about how video review is taking an offside rule to a level of scrutiny that i think was unintended by the NHL.....WOW.

You're right, I'm not watching the NFL...........this is a hockey site.
- nikel

There is absolutely zero difference in the level of scrutiny of offsides in the NHL as there is ball-spotting in the NHL. And there is absolutely zero difference in the impact that both can have on their respective games. That's the point being conveyed here.

I hope nobody on this page earns a living - or loves anybody that makes a living - as a high school guidance counselor in suburban Rochester.

Cause if you do, you may very well be a (frank)ing idiot - or love one. I gotta believe these bumhole morons all wear loafers, because the dumb pieces of poop don't seem smart enough to tie their own (frank)ing shoes.

what if the shoe was on the other foot and you were the team that negated the goal?
- Michael Pachla

yes, that's a very good point.

For me, I can see the call last night, it was a more obvious offside call, I can live with that. But the FL and OT calls, i can't get behind those, I don't like the thought of coaches (ours or any) challenging goals late in a game, "just because, hey it's worth a shot"....and I get the feeling that's where we are headed. And i call BS that the coaches definitely saw the offside infraction because the ref standing 3' away didn't see them.

I will always enjoy hockey more than any other sport because of the speed and constant action. This rule, in my opinion, will only slow the game down and introduce doubt to on ice calls being made in the context of a high speed game.....meaning that yes, the rules dictate it is offside if player X gets over the blue line first, I just don't think there was ever an intent that video review would ever be used to provide scrutiny down to the level a few inches.

So to answer your question, no, I wouldn't want my coach using this as a tool unless he's confident of the outcome......we Buffalo fans have been tortured so long with a lack of a sports championship, when that day finally does come, I sure as He#ll don't want it tainted by stooping to that level.

1 season and done
- stashu

Yes because he is going to put all of his energy into the SOA "spinoffs"

yes, that's a very good point.

For me, I can see the call last night, it was a more obvious offside call, I can live with that. But the FL and OT calls, i can't get behind those, I don't like the thought of coaches (ours or any) challenging goals late in a game, "just because, hey it's worth a shot"....and I get the feeling that's where we are headed. And i call BS that the coaches definitely saw the offside infraction because the ref standing 3' away didn't see them.

I will always enjoy hockey more than any other sport because of the speed and constant action. This rule, in my opinion, will only slow the game down and introduce doubt to on ice calls being made in the context of a high speed game.....meaning that yes, the rules dictate it is offside if player X gets over the blue line first, I just don't think there was ever an intent that video review would ever be used to provide scrutiny down to the level a few inches.

So to answer your question, no, I wouldn't want my coach using this as a tool unless he's confident of the outcome......we Buffalo fans have been tortured so long with a lack of a sports championship, when that day finally does come, I sure as He#ll don't want it tainted by stooping to that level.
- nikel

My 2 cents last night. Hit the challenging team with a 2 minute penalty for unsuccessful challenges to cut down on the times a coach tries to challenge hoping to get lucky (and give his team a longer break).

My 2 cents last night. Hit the challenging team with a 2 minute penalty for unsuccessful challenges to cut down on the times a coach tries to challenge hoping to get lucky (and give his team a longer break).
- Khymlev13

I read/heard that suggestion a couple of weeks ago. This really is no different than the illegal stick measurements that were called for in the 90s. I can get on board with that.

I read/heard that suggestion a couple of weeks ago. This really is no different than the illegal stick measurements that were called for in the 90s. I can get on board with that.
- buffalofan19

Imagine being up by 1 goal late in the game, other team ties it up. You challenge and lose. Other team get's PP and wins

Imagine being up by 1 goal late in the game, other team ties it up. You challenge and lose. Other team get's PP and wins
- sbroads24

The reason it's being suggested is because there have been teams that have used the challenge after a goal just to get a time out but have it be longer than the standard 30 seconds. The coaches fully know they're going to lose the challenge, but all that's happening is they're losing their time out, which is really the purpose of them challenging the goal at that point in time anyway. They want a time out to rally the troops, but get an extended one since it takes the refs time to review the goal.

The reason it's being suggested is because there have been teams that have used the challenge after a goal just to get a time out but have it be longer than the standard 30 seconds. The coaches fully know they're going to lose the challenge, but all that's happening is they're losing their time out, which is really the purpose of them challenging the goal at that point in time anyway. They want a time out to rally the troops, but get an extended one since it takes the refs time to review the goal.
- HonkFortheGoose

Exactly but instead of 30 seconds they are getting 5-6 mins and killing all momentum for the other team.

Imagine being up by 1 goal late in the game, other team ties it up. You challenge and lose. Other team get's PP and wins
- sbroads24

Yep. And that's good because they'll either be challenging a more obvious offsides like last night or trying to get lucky on one that might be mere inches. And if they gamble and lose they get hit with what should be called a Delay of a Game penalty. It's an accurate call, right?

Exactly but instead of 30 seconds they are getting 5-6 mins and killing all momentum for the other team.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Yup. So by penalizing a team for challenging something that is in actuality a good goal, you prevent teams from challenging just for the sake of it.