yes management and coaching staff deserve a lot of credit, they just didn't take the best players available they decided what type of team and style of play they wanted and chose the players that fit their game strategy.
I'd wouldn't define these players as castoffs, the NHL tightened the rules on how many players teams could protect and Vegas had a better selection of talent to choose from than in any other previous expansion draft...regardless of the easier draft the management still had to pick the best team they could and they did an exceptional job.
Winnipeg vs Vegas...should be excellent viewing two very quick evenly matched teams...I'd pick Winnipeg just because they have more goal scoring potential...
I'd tend to agree. They just look so fast out there too. I'm rooting for the Caps. I want OV8 to get one win. I don't care much for Washington DC and their lack of a cup...I just like OV. He's just been pinned down by bad defense in the playoffs. He's too great not to have a championship.
Will the Golden Knights live up to their reputation gained from a stunner of a first-year? I do expect a strong come-back against the Jets, although the 'Peg is very motivated after that first playoff victory against Vegas. I haven't really followed the Capitols at all but, man, they do look like strong contenders for the Cup!
What a Stanley Cup first game! No doubt about it, Vegas is very, very good -- and so are the Caps. That 'broken stick' really screwed things up for the Caps, because they could have tied the game easily if the stick hadn't broken. But, on to Game 2. Both teams are very highly energized!
Kinda sloppy game at times, but was exciting. First time in history that the lead changed hands four times in a SC final series. Great start tho. Wait till the hitting gets serious -
Agreed. In the next game I hope the refs see just HALF the infractions. I thought the refs did a pretty piss-poor job in Game 1, honestly. And, no, I don't want for hockey to turn into a tedious, boring pain in the ass with constant interruptions, like football has become, but really, some of the stuff that went on in Game 1 should have resulted in at least minor penalities.
I've no favorites for the final but it be nice if the Caps win so Ovie can get his cup ring, he's too great a player not to have won a Championship...but Vegas winning would be a great story too...
That's the playoffs for ya. Way more is let go during the playoffs and in the finals, ya often have to basically maim the guy to get a call. Its the toughest team sport championship to win, imho, and its impossible to win it without a large amount of pain.
Hockey has certainly become my favorite spectator sport! I doubt I'll ever take much interest in pro football again. What a bore. And, I never could get into basketball in the first place. Little more than a ritualized ghetto brawl as far as I'm concerned. But hockey! Now, that's REAL athletic ability, real skill, real strength, and mental coordination on a higher plane. Let the best team win. I can't wait for Game #2.
toughest championship to win?...that would have to go to the World Cup...just qualifying is difficult and then when a country does it only happens once every four years...if you play for country that has a lot of talent just getting on the team is very difficult ...an exceptional player on a great team that qualifies often may only get 3 maybe 4 opportunities...only 8 of some nearly 200 countries have ever won the WC
Sorry, I am not dissing football in any way, but just because there's way more teams competing, or that the total number of games is almost a season itself, that doesn't qualify it for the toughest championship to win, imho. Only a handful of nations have a chance if the list of finalists since its inception is any indication. When I say toughest, I mean the physical effort required to play the game at such intensity every other day for almost two months and potentially 28 games played to win it. (not counting a game or two of overtime).
hey it's all good I'm not offended by your opinion I just disagree.. the physical effort to play football at the highest level puts football players at the top of the pile for fitness...lets not forget hockey players play short shifts with rest for 60 minutes...football players play 90 minutes over a larger surface with no breaks other than half time and in knockout matches a match can go 120minutes...hockey players don't have a similar energy output which is why they can play more games with fewer rest days... this isn't a criticism of hockey it's just a different game with different requirements, I love both games...
I agree that footballers are have great cardio, but they burn about 550 calories per hour while a hockey player burns 700. Then add in the hitting, with bodies and sticks. Then add the pace of play. Then add hockey players carrying around 15 pounds of equipment. There is no comparison of the physical punishment between hockey players and footballers. Hockey players travel average about 5 miles in a typical game. Footballers about 7. Footballers may have more cardio stamina, but when weighing all the other factors I can't say its even close in determining which championship is the toughest to win.
your cal count is debatable, web sources are all over the place and many of them are for amateurs and not professional. Using your cal output doesn't include the extra half hr of playing time so 775cals per game. I've seen soccer rated right behind the endurance sports for cal output (up to 1,400 per hr), and footballers play for an extra half hr for a normal game and another half hr for extra time. There's a reason why footballers play fewer games than hockey players, they're physically depleted their bodies need time to recover. I've played both games physical punishment is about the same, I've had far more injuries and surgeries playing football than hockey. A giant ****** defender putting his boots threw your knee hurts as much as anything you'll encounter in hockey, an elbow to the face in football hurts the same as when a hockey player does it. Extra equipment is a burden in hockey the average hockey player carries more upper body strength than a footballer so it's a wash...the counter claim is footballers use a minimum amount of protection. I've been run in to the boards in hockey and feels the same as some of my collisions with the hard ground. And despite what many detractors would say about football theatrics what often appears to be minor contact, it does actually hurt.
Interesting. As for calorie burn, the tour de france (5,000) blows most other sports away. And they only take off 5 days with 21 race days. So I don't buy the argument about "recovery time" being the reason they play fewer games. As for physical punishment it isn't even remotely comparable. No debate about an agressive feet first tackle can and does break bones and will definitely leave a mark. But actually hitting the other opponent in order to stop his progress or relieve him of the puck is an INTEGRAL part of the game and is done with focused intent repeatedly during the course of play. Then of course is the lethal weapons in their hands. Crosschecks to unprotected parts of the body really hurt (and can easily break something) and they ain't so pleasant on the pads either. Try getting a stick between the legs sometime - cups don't help much. AS for getting hit by a check and hitting the ground feel about the same, I can only say I've never seen a piece of turf with an armored elbow pad. Add the fact that hockey requires a far greater athletic skill set than football. Add to that the fact that there is a physical intimidation factor in hockey that simply doesn't exist in football.
so all those highly trained professional Kinesiolgy expert are wrong about recovery time and you are right, yeah I don't think so....cycling is a very different(we won't even talk about the chemical aids and blood doping), cycling is also irrelevant because all the competitors are on the same footing as far as fatigue they're all, a football team on one rest is not going to able to compete with a team on a weeks rest... someone targeting ankles and knees is focused intent repeatedly during the course of play... Knees, elbows to the quads, ribs, head really hurt...try getting kicked, kneed, punched in the balls think it hurts any less then a stick, yeah they don't wear cups... impact from the ground or a bare elbow hurt the same, I've suffered both blunt force is blunt force, no difference nah...hockey doesn't require anything that we all have from birth, hand eye co-ordination...no one is born with foot-eye, shin-eye, thigh-eye, chest-eye, head-eye, the entire body must be trained and mastered as control surfaces, every body part except what we normally use, our hands and arms... really then you played in ***** leagues if you've played...I've dreaded playing many teams knowing there were many players who were intent on doing damage to knees, ankles, heads at any opportunity...my sister-in-law an ER nurse confirmation, winter time hockey players are in the ER, footballers come in winter and summer
yeah not many teams have come back from 3-1, only 10% have recovered from 3-1 to win to win a series...the actual final series I think it's only happened once in 1942...
Exactly. Down 3-1 is a tough road to come back from. Especially factoring in that Vegas would be returning home for game 5 riding a 3 game losing streak. That said, if Vegas wins game 4 they will be back in the driver's seat.
Mea culpa. I learned something thanks. I don't believe that a bare elbow to the head can hurt the same as an elbow sheathed in ballistic armor. Not to mention a crosscheck to the side of the head with a carbon fibre stick. I agree hitting the ground can hurt when running full tilt. Getting hit in the chest with a shoulder from a 200 lb guy travelling at 15 miles an hour or so is not even remotely the same. Energy transfer being what it is an all. I am aware of the array of "athletic" skills inherent in our basic humanity. Football players require excellent foot/eye coordination. Hockey players require excellent hand/eye/foot coordination. Yes, beer leagues can be like that. All those failed superstars playing like everything is on the line, not to mention the guys that play because of the mayhem. I see where there is a disconnect. I was comparing the highest levels of the sport. I still say the set of skills required to be a professional hockey player are greater than those of the professional footballer. Not that they are better athletes. My original point was that the Stanley cup is the toughest championship to win in professional team sports from a physical perspective.
I completely agree with you on both points, Jonsa, and the physical nature of hockey as a full-contact sport takes it to a level that soccer doesn't even reach. And it's all done on ice skates, which makes it exponentially more difficult...
