|
Post by IslandersHKY on Oct 31, 2008 9:45:03 GMT -4
If I heard correctly last night I am not sure if the Q will recognize this as a record because Chouinard's old Remparts team have something like 15 or 16 wins in a row to start the season. Back then they didn't have ties or shootouts. I think the Q will continue to recognize that as the record not Moncton's which has some 2 OT losses. Maybe that is why Hodge is now calling it a Franchise record. Well it isn't clear to me what Quebec's record was back in 72-73 ... but I was under the impression that they had a few ties in there. Correct me if I'm wrong ... but in 72-73 there was no OT at all ... games ended after 60 mins ... and last night's game would have been a tie. Sorry I said no ties or shootout I meant no OT or shootout. And the difference is that the Official Q record is longest undeated streak to start the season which 1972 Quebec has with 16 straight wins. Moncton has 2 OT losses. I see what you mean though technically back then your 2 OT losses would have been just ties. But the offical record is "Undeated Streak" which Moncton suffered two defeats and there no official record for most games with a point. They may promote it on the Q page because it is a great accomplishment but it doesn't sound like the Q will recognize it as a record.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Oct 31, 2008 9:45:39 GMT -4
If I heard correctly last night I am not sure if the Q will recognize this as a record because Chouinard's old Remparts team have something like 15 or 16 wins in a row to start the season. Back then they didn't have ties or shootouts. I think the Q will continue to recognize that as the record not Moncton's which has some 2 OT losses. Maybe that is why Hodge is now calling it a Franchise record. Well it isn't clear to me what Quebec's record was back in 72-73 ... but I was under the impression that they had a few ties in there. Correct me if I'm wrong ... but in 72-73 there was no OT at all ... games ended after 60 mins ... and last night's game would have been a tie. So ... while we've been past 60 mins 4 or 5 times now already this year ... 2 OT losses ... 2 SO wins (over PEI) ... and one OT win I think. Back in 72-73 ... that would actually be a 12-0-5 record (W-L-T). So if Quebec was 14-0-2 (or whatever it was) then I really see no difference when comparing the two. Except .. Quebec's record is being called an undefeated streak ... our's is not an undefeated streak. But we are still setting a record of a 17 game streak to start the season with at least one point in each game. It doesn't excite me too much either ... The Q is recognizing it some what as there is a new link on the Q website on the main page. The real streak for me is the current 8-0 record on the road ... tying the record set by Cornwall in 76-77. We'll have a chance to break that next week when we head to Halifax for our next road game. Even that last one was done without going to OT while the Cats went to OT/shootout twice.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Oct 31, 2008 9:47:39 GMT -4
Well it isn't clear to me what Quebec's record was back in 72-73 ... but I was under the impression that they had a few ties in there. Correct me if I'm wrong ... but in 72-73 there was no OT at all ... games ended after 60 mins ... and last night's game would have been a tie. Sorry I said no ties or shootout I meant no OT or shootout. And the difference is that the Official Q record is longest undeated streak to start the season which 1972 Quebec has with 16 straight wins. Moncton has 2 OT losses. I see what you mean though technically back then your 2 OT losses would have been just ties. But the offical record is "Undeated Streak" which Moncton suffered two defeats and there no official record for most games with a point. They may promote it on the Q page because it is a great accomplishment but it doesn't sound like the Q will recognize it as a record. Hodge is making a big campaign about it. To me it is an "unofficial" record. It is an amazing start to the season though.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Oct 31, 2008 9:50:30 GMT -4
The Q site is incorrect in it's mention of it though. It's not 17 games without a loss.
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Oct 31, 2008 9:55:21 GMT -4
Hodge is making a big campaign about it. To me it is an "unofficial" record. It is an amazing start to the season though. A tremendous accomplishment especially for a team not consider a "Contender" heading into the season. In no way am I downplaying the accomplishment. But to me it isn't a Q record either.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2008 10:07:40 GMT -4
Hodge is making a big campaign about it. To me it is an "unofficial" record. It is an amazing start to the season though. A tremendous accomplishment especially for a team not consider a "Contender" heading into the season. In no way am I downplaying the accomplishment. But to me it isn't a Q record either. Well it is a record ... whether the Q recognizes it or not ... it is the longest streak to the start the season with at least one point in each game. Just because the Q doesn't have a category for it in the record books ... that doesn't mean it isn't a record. If the Quebec streak was a 16-0 record it would have been called a winning streak ... but they had ties in there so it is called an undefeated streak. I'd still like to see what that official record was over that 16 game stretch. I dislike records and streaks personally ... they become a distraction for the players ... and they place added pressure on the players. I'll be glad when they are over and we can go out and play without worrying about that stuff. I'm not hoping we lose ... but when we do I'll take consolation in the fact that the streak is over.
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Oct 31, 2008 10:17:05 GMT -4
Well it is a record ... whether the Q recognizes it or not ... it is the longest streak to the start the season with at least one point in each game. Just because the Q doesn't have a category for it in the record books ... that doesn't mean it isn't a record. This isn't the Guiness Book of world records where anyone who does something first gets a record. The Q recognizes the historic hockey records and most games with a point isn't one of them even though it is a great accomplishment. Having said that in this case I agree with them. Quebec's winning streak was 16 games, Moncton's was 7. Quite a difference. If the Quebec streak was a 16-0 record it would have been called a winning streak ... but they had ties in there so it is called an undefeated streak. I'd still like to see what that official record was over that 16 game stretch. Quebec's record was 16-0. They hold the record for most wins to start a season and longest undefeated streak to start the season. www.lhjmq.qc.ca/navcache/getcontents.php?currentpath=/root/Stats_records/GUIDE_SECT5_RecEQ_de1969a2007.pdf
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2008 10:31:43 GMT -4
Well it is a record ... whether the Q recognizes it or not ... it is the longest streak to the start the season with at least one point in each game. Just because the Q doesn't have a category for it in the record books ... that doesn't mean it isn't a record. This isn't the Guiness Book of world records where anyone who does something first gets a record. The Q recognizes the historic hockey records and most games with a point isn't one of them even though it is a great accomplishment. Having said that in this case I agree with them. Quebec's winning streak was 16 games, Moncton's was 7. Quite a difference. If the Quebec streak was a 16-0 record it would have been called a winning streak ... but they had ties in there so it is called an undefeated streak. I'd still like to see what that official record was over that 16 game stretch. Quebec's record was 16-0. They hold the record for most wins to start a season and longest undefeated streak to start the season. www.lhjmq.qc.ca/navcache/getcontents.php?currentpath=/root/Stats_records/GUIDE_SECT5_RecEQ_de1969a2007.pdfIf it is a 16-0 streak then that is a "winning streak" and Moncton's current streak is not a "winning streak". Moncton's current streak isn't an "undefeated streak" either ... the one on the road is ... but we aren't debating that. Do you think that if Moncton was to go 34 games (half the season) from the start of the season ... with at least a point in each game ... that the Q would create a category to suit it ? And if so ... at what point does the streak deserve a category ? If it was 16-0 ... Quebec's streak was 3 things ... longest winning streak to start the season ... longest undefeated streak to start the season ... and longest streak with at least a point in each game to start the season. PS. ... I can't get your link to work ... takes me to a blank page.
|
|
|
Post by kcs247 on Oct 31, 2008 11:06:59 GMT -4
Quebec's record in that 16 games was 16-0, and according the the Q site there was OT back then. They won their 9th game against Drummondville 8-7, the winner being scored at 5:35 in OT. The rest they all won in regulation, some by ten goals or more.
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Oct 31, 2008 12:51:36 GMT -4
PS. ... I can't get your link to work ... takes me to a blank page. It should work it just takes a minute to load. If not the Q records can be found under the Statistics Category on the Left side.
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Oct 31, 2008 15:54:57 GMT -4
Since I was criticial of some of the shootout decisions last season I feel the need to come on here and recognize a good decision made by Flynn last night. When Cameron came out to take the 3rd shot for the Cats I said "hmmm I don't know about this"...thankfully I had no clue what I was talking about I know we didn't win a shootout at home all last season so I felt compelled to look up when we last did. It was December 30th, 2006 against the Titan when Sniderman stopped Perrault, Masse, and Beauregard while Matt Marquardt had the lone goal in the shootout. Did you know that following last nights result the Cats are now an incredible 3-10 in shootouts at home
|
|
|
Post by Rocky Saganiuk on Oct 31, 2008 19:00:57 GMT -4
The Cats took a few bad penalities, but the call on Sill was brutal, he comes in to hit the guy and the guy turns when he's 2 feet away and they call checking from behind. That was horrible. On the whole I thought they tried to be too fancy tonight, after PEI got up 2-0 they started playing a bit more basic hockey. The Sill call, as with numerous 'hitting from behind' calls I've seen this year, indicates a different debate in my mind. The referee had no choice but to make that call. It was a hit from behind, no question. What I can't understand is where players have developed this feeling of invincibility going to the boards completely defenseless, even though they can see (or hear) that a player is clearly seconds behind them. In a perfect world, Sill's penalty should have been offset with a 2 minute call on Tousignant for stupidity. I'm beginning to think players are stupid enough to sacrifice their spinal cords trying to draw 'hitting from behind' penalties. Guys are actually going to the boards correctly (where their shoulders are at an angle to the boards) then..... SURPRISE... they turn into the boards straight on, literally seconds before they are hit. There is no way players can predict that kind of stupidity. Nevertheless, it results in a hit from behind, and the referees have little option but to call it as such. Any idea what we can officially call a 2 minute minor for failure to protect oneself from a possible permanent injury? Wait, how does this sound? And to the Rocket, number 7, Mathieu Tousignant, 2 minutes for "failure to protect oneself from a possible permanent injury". Time of the penalties, 14:56.
|
|
|
Post by qfan on Oct 31, 2008 19:11:19 GMT -4
LOL!!! that is hilarious. Good post! It should be called 2 minutes for wanting it from behind!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dalkiel on Oct 31, 2008 19:22:04 GMT -4
The Cats took a few bad penalities, but the call on Sill was brutal, he comes in to hit the guy and the guy turns when he's 2 feet away and they call checking from behind. That was horrible. On the whole I thought they tried to be too fancy tonight, after PEI got up 2-0 they started playing a bit more basic hockey. The Sill call, as with numerous 'hitting from behind' calls I've seen this year, indicates a different debate in my mind. The referee had no choice but to make that call. It was a hit from behind, no question. What I can't understand is where players have developed this feeling of invincibility going to the boards completely defenseless, even though they can see (or hear) that a player is clearly seconds behind them. In a perfect world, Sill's penalty should have been offset with a 2 minute call on Tousignant for stupidity. I'm beginning to think players are stupid enough to sacrifice their spinal cords trying to draw 'hitting from behind' penalties. Guys are actually going to the boards correctly (where their shoulders are at an angle to the boards) then..... SURPRISE... they turn into the boards straight on, literally seconds before they are hit. There is no way players can predict that kind of stupidity. Nevertheless, it results in a hit from behind, and the referees have little option but to call it as such. Any idea what we can officially call a 2 minute minor for failure to protect oneself from a possible permanent injury? Wait, how does this sound? And to the Rocket, number 7, Mathieu Tousignant, 2 minutes for "failure to protect oneself from a possible permanent injury". Time of the penalties, 14:56. Good theory but if that were a penalty then Moorehouse would never have seen icetime
|
|
|
Post by mboyan on Oct 31, 2008 20:16:56 GMT -4
The Cats took a few bad penalities, but the call on Sill was brutal, he comes in to hit the guy and the guy turns when he's 2 feet away and they call checking from behind. That was horrible. On the whole I thought they tried to be too fancy tonight, after PEI got up 2-0 they started playing a bit more basic hockey. The Sill call, as with numerous 'hitting from behind' calls I've seen this year, indicates a different debate in my mind. The referee had no choice but to make that call. It was a hit from behind, no question. What I can't understand is where players have developed this feeling of invincibility going to the boards completely defenseless, even though they can see (or hear) that a player is clearly seconds behind them. In a perfect world, Sill's penalty should have been offset with a 2 minute call on Tousignant for stupidity. I'm beginning to think players are stupid enough to sacrifice their spinal cords trying to draw 'hitting from behind' penalties. Guys are actually going to the boards correctly (where their shoulders are at an angle to the boards) then..... SURPRISE... they turn into the boards straight on, literally seconds before they are hit. There is no way players can predict that kind of stupidity. Nevertheless, it results in a hit from behind, and the referees have little option but to call it as such. Any idea what we can officially call a 2 minute minor for failure to protect oneself from a possible permanent injury? Wait, how does this sound? And to the Rocket, number 7, Mathieu Tousignant, 2 minutes for "failure to protect oneself from a possible permanent injury". Time of the penalties, 14:56. Normally, Tousignant gets a penalty for diving...... ;D
|
|