The point is that even if you disagree with his idea, you will not call him a moron.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Wow Powerplayer, you're a moron for even suggesting that in that game.

The Hurricanes were outskating the Sharks to every loose puck that game, they had so many shorthanded chances you'd be a fool to pull your goalie and try to score, because the score would have easily been 6-2 if they did that.

The coach was smart for not pulling the goalie and trying to score, there was no way they would have scored anyways, Ward made 41 saves that game anyways. The Hurricanes played a great game and were the much much faster team.

Anyway, the MORON is the one who doesn't understand the concept of "nothing to lose" when you're down 3 goals in the closing minutes.

And as another poster smartly pointed out, an extra attacker DOES give you a better chance. Common sense.

The SHarks had NOTHING to lose by trying that, only goals to gain.

How can you not understand the concept of "nothing to lose" when you're down 3 goals in the closing minutes.

And as another poster smartly pointed out, an extra attacker DOES give you a better chance. Common sense.

The SHarks had NOTHING to lose by trying that, only goals to gain.

Or goals against

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Whatever, it would have been stupid, one extra attacker was not going to help the Sharks out, they were already get to loose pucks on their own powerplay.

If they had good control on the PP maybe it could have worked, but they weren't even keeping the puck away from 4 guys with 5 on the ice.

"Whatever" is right.

The Sharks had nothing to lose by pulling the goalie. Nothing. You're assuming the team will not go into a frenzy at the end with the goalie pulled, which is interesting, since the Sabres have shown a penchant to do exactly that after a poor game.

Nothing. To. Lose.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

But did you watch that particular game?

Had you it would have been stupid to do so. If it had been different where the Sharks might have been closer to tying the game, maybe it would have worked. But being down 3 goals is too hard to overcome most of this time.

The only real counterargument is not wanting to hurt your goal differential for a potential playoff tiebreaker, but I can't find any evidence that goal differential has ever been necessary as a tiebreaker.

But did you watch that particular game?

Had you it would have been stupid to do so. If it had been different where the Sharks might have been closer to tying the game, maybe it would have worked. But being down 3 goals is too hard to overcome most of this time.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Well I was saying in that game it is stupid because of how the game went, had the game not been as fast paced and slowed down I would say try it, but because I watched that game, and the Sharks were not the better team, what's the point, if you don't see what I'm saying then fine, I'm done arguing this point.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.