HardCoreBlue

Yup your probably right from a financial point of view. I just think having the Quebec rivalry back in the league would be a great thing for NHL fans experience. I can hardly wait for Golden Knights versus the Blue Jackets rivalry.

I'm just more amazed they got in before Quebec.

Personally I would protect him. I've come to better appreciate what he brings to this team. He'd be one of those guys you'd wish you'd have back if he left.

Yup. We do though need to stop the bleeding. We've been managing nicely until this 3 game losing streak. Go five hundred from here until Little and company get back and we'll be okay.

Therein lies Trouba's risk with signing a two-year deal. I'm not sure what, if any, long term deal was rejected but if he doesn't perform the way we hope he does, he may have left some money on the table.

Buff's my man but wow, short memory time for him. He did not play well, looked disinterested almost, skating in mud. Patrik laine's defensive game needs work, but hey he's only like 12 so that should improve. I'll state the obvious, to make the playoff's we have to limit consecutive losses in a row. Stop the bleeding now against the Canes who btw have won 2 in a row.

That would be called stand-up wrestling. :-)

Yup because money can't guarantee everything, i.e, a starting position, a loyal headcoach, a great supporting cast, familiarity with management, a previously successful season to work off, an understanding of the city and it's fans etc etc.

Yup read the same thing but also read that's he's been cleared to play so I assume they're resting him till game time.

I'm actually quite surprised by this. It looked like (can't confirm) that he was knocked out cold. When that happens, the trend is the show usually gets shut down longer than a week. I do assume though they are not putting him at any risk other than the potential of getting clocked again which all other players do anyways.

It will be interesting to see if Petan has shown enough to the coaches to stick with the big club once these guys check back in.

I would think it's Matt Nichols job to lose. That's what I've seen with with MOS during his Tenure here. Unless of course Management overrides him which I don't see happening.

And I'd add, we will see an increase of this slashing/hacking/cross checking sh*te as we try to take out the body aggressiveness in sport. In a way, it's a bit ironic.

Watched Calgary's game last night (because the NHL forbids me to watch the Jets on TSN3 as I live in Alberta) and he was hacked and slashed two to three times last night with no calls. If I'm a Flames fan, I'm incensed. It was ridiculous.

A tale of two halves, that's for sure. It's a game, for me at least, in a very long time where I didn't think we were going to lose right to the moment we were 3rd and four with 36 seconds left. Then, the feeling crept in.

Makes sense for both teams. When he is on, EK is a quality on-ice player. Evander's style of play may free up some of their other offensive players, give them that spark they need. To quote the President-Elect, what do they have to lose?

Well the person that counts who currently makes that argument is Paul Maurice. The rest of us don't count. :-)

Bingo Bango Bongo.

Well, your opinion does not seem to jive with Paul Maurice. My evidence? He's not forced to dress Thorburn at all, but sometimes he does. He has the available depth to never dress him.

We had more than 10 seconds. Go and get the first down. Next play, run the ball to the centre hashmarks. Third play, kick the field goal for the win. Fourth play, celebrate. Fifth play, prepare for the Stamps.

Because, when matching up with who they are playing that day, Paul Maurice sometimes inserts him to the lineup that he believes helps the team. When he's not needed, he scratches him. He seems to be one of those players that will be in and out of the lineup throughout the year not just because of injuries.

Shocking, an athlete having confidence he can do something, whether it's realistic to achieve in a game or not. In this particular case a 61 yard field goal that you have to hit perfect as a line drive and because of that, risk it will be blocked at the line of scrimmage going at game speed. Would Nichols have been given the benefit of the doubt? How many times do you see a QB 'encouraging' his coach to go for it on 3rd down and how many times do you see a coach ignore it? I'm wondering if Nichols had any type of conversation with MOS to go for it on 3rd down? What's done is done, I was over it the same day it happened. 2017 will be our year.

Is that true? If so, I would find that surprising.

Nowadays, regardless of who it is, it's called 99% of the time. I just think the pendulum has swung where we are witnessing a drastic change in how this game is being played. I understand why but . . .

One can be disappointed in the play call and not be a armchair coach. It can happen.