I think Spurgeon is a much better player than he's currently showing. I also believe that he's nowhere near the player that he gets credit for being from the Wild and the fanbase. He's a decent #4 defenseman who can't kill penalties and is terrible on the PP. He's also one of the softest players I've ever seen and the fact that he's the captain is just embarrassing.Good to know. Didn’t realize he’s been split from Spurgeon that much. Definitely proves the vets are struggling.
I agree Buium should be on PP1 for the record. His 5 on 5 likely just needs to be sheltered/limited due to defense. He is the future though there’s no disputing that.
You probably disagree with me, but I still feel more comfortable with Spurgeon in bigger 5 on 5 minutes than Buium. I think he’ll regress closer to where he’s historically been than this bad start.
That being said, if there’s a market, I’m also ok moving on from Spurge.
IMO-There is no trade of Spurgeon that doesn't require the Wild to pay significant assets just to move him.
I mean I think that goes a little far on him. We can agree on decent #4 defenseman though. Which is where he should be at this point in his career.
Faber needs to up his PK game. Buium will handle the PP in the foreseeable future. Not sure why we’re sticking with Spurge today. Suppose it makes unit 2 more dangerous but the first unit never changes so what’s the point.
It’s finally working. Just in time for the end of the wild game. 🙃
@cowgirl it's working fine here in Eagan.
Tv works fine. The app and website aren’t working. Won’t let me login with my tv provider credentials. If it even gives you an option to choose the provider.
A similar thing happens to me all the time--I try to enter the TV provider, and it just cycles back to requiring me to put in my TV provider credentials.
The two things that seem to work are clearing the cache from the browser (or, if you are using Chrome, finishing any updates and restarting it, which happens a lot), and more recently I've found that if you enter your TV provider credentials, one you enter them, going back to the main page and just letting it sit there for a minute seems to finally let the game load (it seems like it doesn't kick me back once the faint game preview loads on the main page before I click to actually load the game in the page, if that makes sense).
@cowgirl it's working fine here in Eagan.
Tv works fine. The app and website aren’t working. Won’t let me login with my tv provider credentials. If it even gives you an option to choose the provider.
A similar thing happens to me all the time--I try to enter the TV provider, and it just cycles back to requiring me to put in my TV provider credentials.
The two things that seem to work are clearing the cache from the browser (or, if you are using Chrome, finishing any updates and restarting it, which happens a lot), and more recently I've found that if you enter your TV provider credentials, one you enter them, going back to the main page and just letting it sit there for a minute seems to finally let the game load (it seems like it doesn't kick me back once the faint game preview loads on the main page before I click to actually load the game in the page, if that makes sense).
It was decidedly a FanDuel problem. It wasn’t working on my computer or phone despite clearing data several times. Oh well. At least I got logged in in time to watch another fantastic OT loss. 🤦♀️
Yeah, I hadn’t run into the particular issue I saw last night before. It was strange.
It did it again, but tonight the “Get new code” button actually gave me a new code, which then worked.
It did it again, but tonight the “Get new code” button actually gave me a new code, which then worked.
I haven’t tried on my laptop yet tonight but the issue I had the other day was it telling me that due to too many attempts I had to wait 30 minutes to re-try to enter my tv provider log-in credentials (after one try with proper credentials). That is if the tv provider options page even loaded. I gather FD is just a hot mess. 🫠
24 goals given up in the last 5 games.
2 more games on the homestand; versus the (currently) 5-6 Canucks and 4-6-2 Predators.
If the Wild go winless on this 6 game homestand, does Guerin's seat get a little warm?
How about Hynes? The coach he wanted to sign to a multi-year deal who is 6-19 in the playoffs and never advanced out of the NHL first round. Is Leipold going to have to buy-out another coach? When does he get sick of the buy-outs and nothing to show for any of it on the ice?
I guess the Wild have 'Chose their Hard' early this year...
Craig has to be feeling the itch to do something soon…
I don't think Hynes makes it to Thanksgiving. Guerin seems to be bulletproof.24 goals given up in the last 5 games.
2 more games on the homestand; versus the (currently) 5-6 Canucks and 4-6-2 Predators.
If the Wild go winless on this 6 game homestand, does Guerin's seat get a little warm?
How about Hynes? The coach he wanted to sign to a multi-year deal who is 6-19 in the playoffs and never advanced out of the NHL first round. Is Leipold going to have to buy-out another coach? When does he get sick of the buy-outs and nothing to show for any of it on the ice?
I guess the Wild have 'Chose their Hard' early this year...
What does Guerin have over Leipold? How is he not on the hot seat for this mess?
Well…Hynes is cutting his own throat with his HC decisions!
Fning Spurgeon is ineffective QB the 1st PP. He SUCKS. If you’re not going to put 8 in that spot (which is just stupid to not) then put 7
And that fricken coward Spurgeon sends out Vinny H to talk to Gorg post game. Freaking no accountability
Pete Debour is the logical guy to hire at this juncture, tremendous track record as a regular season coach, modern era Bruce B! lol
I don't think Hynes makes it to Thanksgiving. Guerin seems to be bulletproof.24 goals given up in the last 5 games.
2 more games on the homestand; versus the (currently) 5-6 Canucks and 4-6-2 Predators.
If the Wild go winless on this 6 game homestand, does Guerin's seat get a little warm?
How about Hynes? The coach he wanted to sign to a multi-year deal who is 6-19 in the playoffs and never advanced out of the NHL first round. Is Leipold going to have to buy-out another coach? When does he get sick of the buy-outs and nothing to show for any of it on the ice?
I guess the Wild have 'Chose their Hard' early this year...
Is Deboer available? He seems like a good step-in.
I think Leipold is a great owner in the sense that he's willing to pay for whatever is needed and he stays out of the way of the guys making decisions. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know how to pick the guys who make the decisions. The fact that they still don't have anyone with even a basic understanding of the salary cap is unbelievable. Guerin could probably be a decent GM if he had the proper level of people around him to help out. As it is now, he so far over is head that all he can do is give pointless sound bites.What does Guerin have over Leipold? How is he not on the hot seat for this mess?
When Guerin came in, he talked about the "cozy country club" that he walked into.
How is this any different?
This is the exact same situation with different names on the jerseys. Old vets, not getting it done, locked into roster spots and playing time.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
At some point someone is going to hire David Carle to an NHL head coaching job, if I were the wild management I would give serious consideration to him.
At some point someone is going to hire David Carle to an NHL head coaching job, if I were the wild management I would give serious consideration to him.
i think he's been given serious consideration the last 3 offseasons and has been pretty adamant his young family really likes what they have in Denver, which makes sense from a travel standpoint comparatively
The Wild are picked by Vegas to win again today. I feel like I could make a fortune betting against the Wild. 🤣😂
Wild give up an 0.3 to send it to OT against the Preds. 💩🤦♀️
Wood scored the Preds first goal.
Well that is the weirdest end to a game I've maybe ever seen.
Not sure it was the right call but since the ref blocked a clearing chance about 3 seconds before Nashville tied it up I guess Karma remains undefeated?
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preds goalie kicks net off and refs rule puck would have gone in; even after a rebound off the net already in motion, Preds not happy… Crazy ending, find the video. 😂
He tried to knock it before that, finally succeeded. Got caught.
Could it be that they ruled he knocked it off on purpose, so when the Wild player tossed it in the opening after bouncing off the side, that's enough?
They changed the rule to give Refs the discretion to allow a goal if they deem the player would have scored regardless of the net coming off. I'm not sure that this goal really fits that criteria, but it would be very on brand for the league to just make it up as they go.Could it be that they ruled he knocked it off on purpose, so when the Wild player tossed it in the opening after bouncing off the side, that's enough?
The refs have to theorize the trajectory, that if the net was in place, would it go in? That trajectory is very probable on the shot in question.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
The initial shot I don't think would have gone in, the flip after certainly would have.
What I'm wondering is if there's a rule that they can award a goal when something like this happens in OT, similar to with an empty net, a penalty that may just be a penalty shot otherwise it's called as a goal.
I honestly think they decided that the rebound going right back to Johansson the way it did was because of the net being knocked off, so screw it good goal, sucka.
They changed the rule to give Refs the discretion to allow a goal if they deem the player would have scored regardless of the net coming off. I'm not sure that this goal really fits that criteria, but it would be very on brand for the league to just make it up as they go.Could it be that they ruled he knocked it off on purpose, so when the Wild player tossed it in the opening after bouncing off the side, that's enough?
The part of the net that the puck bounced off in the initial attempt didn’t really move because the peg on that side stayed in place. Not sure if that had anything to do with it as he would had a second whack at it regardless. Although the less “discretion” the refs are allowed, the better. 😂
I liken it to the NFL and PI:
Would he have caught it? Can't know for sure, but he never got the chance. Advantage: offense.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
The only questionable aspect of their decision on this play was how long they let the play continue after the net was dislodged. I'm not sure this is how they intended for the rule to play out, but I don't really care because their should be consequences for intentionally pushing the net off.They changed the rule to give Refs the discretion to allow a goal if they deem the player would have scored regardless of the net coming off. I'm not sure that this goal really fits that criteria, but it would be very on brand for the league to just make it up as they go.Could it be that they ruled he knocked it off on purpose, so when the Wild player tossed it in the opening after bouncing off the side, that's enough?
The part of the net that the puck bounced off in the initial attempt didn’t really move because the peg on that side stayed in place. Not sure if that had anything to do with it as he would had a second whack at it regardless. Although the less “discretion” the refs are allowed, the better. 😂
Tommy Nappier and the PSU goalie Jones from a few years back would like to disagree about punishment for kicking nets off. 😂
I wonder had this happened in the middle of the game if there would have been a little more scrutiny. The refs probably wanted to go home. 😬
I did not see last nights game but how could the refs allow the winning goal the puck never crossed the goal line
Aloha!
May I suggest reading the 13 posts prior to yours to see our speculation on the topic?I did not see last nights game but how could the refs allow the winning goal the puck never crossed the goal line
Having done some digging, I'm guessing this was rule 63.7? Obviously, as noted earlier the "it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts" is going to depend on the question of, how long after the net is dislodged is that allowed to happen? The initial flip wouldn't have, but the second clearly would have (may not have, if they had continued playing rather than just assuming play was dead instead of playing to the whistle, but that's pure speculation)
63.7 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either
deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck
crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,
the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have
been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the attacking
player must have an imminent scoring opportunity prior to the goal
post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would
have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
EDIT: Alternately, maybe 25.2?
25.2 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is On the Ice – A goal will be
awarded when an attacking player, with an imminent scoring
opportunity, is prevented from scoring as a result of a defending
player or goalkeeper displacing the goal post, either deliberately or
accidentally
I think it's pretty clear that the Wild had "an imminent scoring opportunity" with a player with the puck at the corner of the net and the goalie kicking the net off on the other side.
of course it didI did not see last nights game but how could the refs allow the winning goal the puck never crossed the goal line
yeah, the only real debate is what you consider "imminent" and if what Johansson does during that play would qualify as such.Having done some digging, I'm guessing this was rule 63.7? Obviously, as noted earlier the "it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts" is going to depend on the question of, how long after the net is dislodged is that allowed to happen? The initial flip wouldn't have, but the second clearly would have (may not have, if they had continued playing rather than just assuming play was dead instead of playing to the whistle, but that's pure speculation)
63.7 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either
deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck
crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,
the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have
been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the attacking
player must have an imminent scoring opportunity prior to the goal
post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would
have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.EDIT: Alternately, maybe 25.2?
25.2 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is On the Ice – A goal will be
awarded when an attacking player, with an imminent scoring
opportunity, is prevented from scoring as a result of a defending
player or goalkeeper displacing the goal post, either deliberately or
accidentallyI think it's pretty clear that the Wild had "an imminent scoring opportunity" with a player with the puck at the corner of the net and the goalie kicking the net off on the other side.
Having done some digging, I'm guessing this was rule 63.7? Obviously, as noted earlier the "it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts" is going to depend on the question of, how long after the net is dislodged is that allowed to happen? The initial flip wouldn't have, but the second clearly would have (may not have, if they had continued playing rather than just assuming play was dead instead of playing to the whistle, but that's pure speculation)
63.7 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either
deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck
crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,
the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have
been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the attacking
player must have an imminent scoring opportunity prior to the goal
post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would
have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.EDIT: Alternately, maybe 25.2?
25.2 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is On the Ice – A goal will be
awarded when an attacking player, with an imminent scoring
opportunity, is prevented from scoring as a result of a defending
player or goalkeeper displacing the goal post, either deliberately or
accidentallyI think it's pretty clear that the Wild had "an imminent scoring opportunity" with a player with the puck at the corner of the net and the goalie kicking the net off on the other side.
It is really interesting to me that he was given a 'second chance' at it. As the net was displaced prior to the initial shot that hit the side of the net. I didn't watch the game, but assume the Preds goalie was at least warned about once earlier in the game.
The really damning evidence is his glove arm/hand coming up and pushing against the post. There is no intent to play the puck, or try to stop his momentum there. His leg had sealed off the post, and he is going to push off which is likely going to take the net off, but he brings his arm up to make sure.
Johansson gets a pretty favorable bounce to come right back to him, as the net is swinging open that puck could've easily kicked to the corner and play would be dead. That's part of the reason I am surprised play was allowed to continue that long.
Goalies casually (but still intentionally) knocking the net off has just become a new norm, and it is frustrating. I swear it must be a technique taught by goalie coaches now. "When you're stuck out of position, just slide into the post..."
I know there is a lot of consternation about allowing officials to determine intent, and people not liking that. But what else can you do in a situation like this? SOMEONE has to determine intent. Otherwise goalies would just constantly kick the net off, which is what has started to happen pretty regularly now.
In the case of a goal like this, it doesn't matter if it was deliberate or not. Both of the rules that cover this say "either deliberately or accidentally"I know there is a lot of consternation about allowing officials to determine intent, and people not liking that. But what else can you do in a situation like this? SOMEONE has to determine intent. Otherwise goalies would just constantly kick the net off, which is what has started to happen pretty regularly now.
As J22 points out, the only question is what constitutes an "imminent scoring opportunity" I'd argue that a guy alone with the puck at the post of the net opposite the one that the goalie just knocked off the peg has that opportunity. And the immediate flip on the rebound from the first attempt really should count too. Either way, the intent of the goalie doesn't matter.
In the case of a goal like this, it doesn't matter if it was deliberate or not. Both of the rules that cover this say "either deliberately or accidentally"I know there is a lot of consternation about allowing officials to determine intent, and people not liking that. But what else can you do in a situation like this? SOMEONE has to determine intent. Otherwise goalies would just constantly kick the net off, which is what has started to happen pretty regularly now.
As J22 points out, the only question is what constitutes an "imminent scoring opportunity" I'd argue that a guy alone with the puck at the post of the net opposite the one that the goalie just knocked off the peg has that opportunity. And the immediate flip on the rebound from the first attempt really should count too. Either way, the intent of the goalie doesn't matter.
Correct. I was just wondering if it being intentional was the reason it was allowed to continue a little longer than a 'normal' net off situation. Just the fact that he shot it once, and regathered the puck, then shot/flipped it again. Being in OT, I am guessing if that was an accidental net coming off, it may have been killed sooner. All a guess on my part. That just might be one of the longer examples I have seen of a play being allowed to continue in that circumstance, especially in OT.
Well, that's how you get goalies to stop doing that garbage. Let them lose a game because of it.He’d knocked the net off previously in the game, and appeared to at least try to earlier in OT. I bet he was warned, and the officials let the play go longer than usual to punish the goalie for ignoring them.
He’d knocked the net off previously in the game, and appeared to at least try to earlier in OT.
Funny, I don't remember him playing at u-mi. 🤔 😎
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm disappointed in everyone. All these posts and no one brings up Portillo. Someone mentioned Napier, but Portillo is the one that really pissed everyone off by kicking off the net consistently.
Wasn't it him and Dobes?