New Jersey Devils Slip Up at End; Lose to New York Rangers in a Shootout, 4-3
by John Fischer on Mar 26, 2010 12:20 AM EDT
in Devils Game Recaps
Email
PrintSo close, yet so far.
The New Jersey Devils didn't play a poor game against the New York Rangers. The New York Rangers didn't play a great game against the New Jersey Devils. Both teams had their moments of strength. Both teams scored three excellent, hard-to-stop goals in regulation. Both Martin Brodeur and Henrik Lundqvist were excellent all game long. What doomed both teams to overtime was that neither team took full control of the game. The Devils were dominant in the first period and for parts of the next two periods. The Rangers were surging in the first 10 minutes of the second period and very late in the game with the extra skater.
Alas, with 17 seconds left in the game, Chris Drury scored an equalizer to force overtime. I don't know who you want to blame there. That it was an iced puck before the faceoff? Patrik Elias, lost the crucial faceoff allowing the 6-skater Rangers to set up? Mike Mottau, who was stuck between a rock in a hard place? Jacques Lemaire, for not telling all three forwards to clog the slot? Martin Brodeur, because you may think he apparently can stop point-blank one-timers from the slot? I originally was going to say the faceoff, but thinking about it, it was the perfect storm for the Rangers.
A standstill there led to the shootout where only Erik Christensen became the hero of the day as his shot off the post just went inside the net enough to count. His was the only goal in the shootout and the Rangers get a vital two points for their still-bleak playoff hopes. The Devils did come out of the game with something and honestly, that's fair because the Devils did play a fairly good game. Am I unhappy that the Devils lost to the Rangers? Of course. Especially because of how close they were to finishing the game at 3-2. But will we lament this loss, say, a week from now? I doubt it.
I'll go into short, brief details into what I liked and didn't like after the jump. NHL.com has their recap up with the official stats. Check out Blueshirt Banter for a Rangers' perspective on their win.
First, here are the highlights to tonight's game; featuring gorgeous goals and pretty saves from both teams.
A few bullet points on tonight's game:
- The Ilya Kovalchuk-Travis Zajac-Brian Rolston was unreal tonight. They combined for 17 shots on net! Brian Rolston played one of his best games of his tenure as a Devil; he was taking shots, he was seemingly in open spaces when that line rushed up, and he set up the first goal of the game as Kovalchuk pounded his rebound in the slot. Kovalchuk was fierce and challenging Rangers defenseman over and over - he was a force. Zajac ended up with no points, but he was strong on faceoffs (10-for-16) and was just as effective on that line when it came to possession, especially down low. I know I said in my preview that I didn't want Rolston on this unit, but if they're going to play more like they did tonight, then I'm happy to eat my words.
- Patrik Elias had an amazing night with 6 shots on net as well, a shorthanded breakaway, and a fantastic one-timer in the slot. His only downfall? His weakness, faceoffs. He had his lunch eaten there, going 8 for 20, including the fateful one down in his own zone late in the third period.
- Jamie Langenbrunner's goal was great, the set-up was slick, and it was all helped because the Rangers (I think) were nearly caught with too many men and so Lundqvist had to deal with an uncontested shot. He actually ended up with 4 shots on net and just missed the net 3 times on other great scoring chances.
- Actually, overall, the Devils offense had a fine game with 38 shots, 3 excellent goals, and many chances where Lundqvist was forced to be great - and he was. No shame in that (other than that Andrew Peters got a roster spot and winded up playing less than 2 minutes so he can have his one night and leave a top-six forward double shifting for most of the night).
- I have to emphasize how well the goaltenders did tonight. Martin Brodeur was big when the Rangers surged at different points in the game; and Lundqvist had to be massive when the Devils kept slicing through the neutral zone for great chances. Were Lundqvist just even a little bit off his game tonight, then the Devils would have won this easily. The Rangers were set up in a 1-2-2 early. 38 shots on net alone showed that the trap didn't catch the Devils in anything.
- Special teams were mostly good. The power play put 6 shots on net in their 3 chances, putting on some good pressure on their last one. Yes, the PK unit conceded a goal - Brandon Dubinsky's shot went through a huge screen, not much you can do there - but they also generated some offense of their own on later chances.
- I felt the defense was OK in the big picture but they were bent too much in the first half of the second period and the last minute or so of the third. On some of those shifts then, even the normally calm Paul Martin seemed overwhelmed at points. The Rangers were surging then and managed to pick up two important goals for them in the process. Also, now that I think about it, where was anyone in red in the slot when Artem Anisimov scored his goal? If there was a big gaffe that cost the Devils, then that was it - though Langenbrunner bailed that out with his goal.
- Marian Gaborik played tonight. Really. To be fair, Zach Parise had a quiet night with only 2 shots on net, though he had one goal disallowed as he apparently knocked a puck in with his arm. But Gaborik only had one shot on net. If anything, a big plus for the Rangers for scoring three goals without leaning on Gaborik.
- In contrast, Brandon Dubinsky was the big shooter for New York: 8 on net, including the one through the screen for the Rangers' first goal. He also played 26:48 tonight. Yikes.
- Hey, Ranger fans, Michel Roszival didn't crap the bed while playing 30:24 tonight! Enjoy seeing him in the top 4 for another season! I know you will!
- So what did Sean Avery do tonight again? Other than get trucked by Kovalchuk and once out-muscled by the mighty Andy Greene
- If anything, I'm still a bit stunned that the Rangers got that last goal. Sure, it was great that the Devils didn't fall flat in overtime. Perhaps they did when shooting in the shootout. But I can't help but think that it never should have gone to that. It was one of those situations where you don't want the players to dwell on it because they'll lose their focus. But I'm not a player, so I'll dwell a bit. Why didn't Elias defer on the faceoff? Why didn't they try taking a penalty to at least get some different guys out there? Maybe it was just a good play by the Rangers with little to be done about it after the faceoff? Etc. Etc.
- The atmosphere was great tonight - a sellout crowd and the Devils fans continually out-chanting and out-cheering the Rangers fans over and over. The only time Devils fans were silent were after Ranger goals, shortly before a ton of booing.
Above all, I can't say the Devils played a bad game or only parts of the game. I can say it was disappointing that the game was tied up so late and that the Rangers ended up taking the extra point in the shootout. Can I honestly suggest anything different given the circumstances? No. Do I think we'll even consider this game by April 11? Not at all. Still, losing to a rival sucks. The season series with Our Hated Rivals ends with 3 wins (one in the shootout) and 3 losses (one in the shootout).
Going back to the bigger picture, even if the Devils held on to win or won in overtime/shootout, I think it's this weekend's games that are more important going forward. They are road games, a type of game in which the Devils have only won once in this month, against potential playoff opponents: Montreal and Philadelphia. Back to back. Both will be seen as possible playoff previews - and both will be difficult games. We can dwell and grouse about the loss, but the Devils have to get back on the proverbial horse and do better next time. They need to win at least one of those games - if only to break the road losing streak, much less clinch a playoff berth.
As always, thanks to Steve for the GameThread and thank you for reading. Please leave your thoughts, concerns, complaints, complements, corrections, and other feelings in the comments.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think this is the best the Devils have looked in a loss this year. They had a tone of great chances but The Queen was great tonight.
I still don’t like Rolston on the 2nd line. I don’t know why he just looks out of place. I think putting Elias back on wing would be best though. Him taking faceoffs will hurt us in the playoffs. Zubrus should go back to centering one of the top 2 lines.
I hope this was Peters last game. I don’t see why he needs to be wasting a roster spot. I was also unimpressed by Pando. I’d much rather have Pelley out there.
Well, Pandolfo got less than 6 minutes of ice time; I don’t think he was poor – just limited.
Regarding Elias’ faceoffs, but he is just not good at them. At everything else he’s fine, but he really needs a hybrid winger like Zubrus to take some draws. So, I agree.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Mar 26, 2010 7:30 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Spot on about the weekend games
John, solid point in the 2nd to last paragraph. Yes, it sucked losing to the Rangers in that fashion. But the bottom line is that the two points would really not mean much if the Devils followed it up with two losses in a row.
I think the Philly game in particular is critical. Philly is reeling, they have a serious goalie issue. In addition, we have not done great against them this year. They are a possible round 1 opponent. Devils need to make statement.
by Devilssection21fan on Mar 26, 2010 7:49 AM EDT reply actions
Seems everyone has the same sentiments as I came to express.
Peters in the line-up hurt the team in a tangible way last night, as the Rangers fourth line was often their best line, and it’s easy to imagine that that might have been different if the Devils had iced a solid fourth line to match up.
And, I’m absolutely baffled why Elias was out there for the most important face-off of the game. He’s not just the team’s worst face-off guy, he’s among the worst in the league. And it was a defensive situation. I love Patrik and know he’s got a great two-way game, but surely there was a better option at forward in a purely defensive 6-on-5 situation?
Of course, neither of those two things were solely responsible for the loss, so we can’t be too hard on Elias or Peters in that respect, though little things like these kinds of coaching decisions have to give us pause because they can cost a team a series.
In the end, the point was big because it recaptured the division, still with a game in hand. The team played very well, and with a few bounces or better finishes could have run away with the game… and the team is showing signs of not just finding their groove, but staying in it.
Allow me join the Greek Chorus demanding that we don’t see Andrew Peters anywhere but the press box. I don’t know that having PL3 in the line-up would have helped, although he is capable of playing a “regular” 4th-line shift. And frankly, I don’t object to double-shifting some of the Top 6 forwards in that spot during the game — if Kovalchuk or Parise is having a good night, with energy and all that, there’s no good reason not to have them out there more if they can handle the extra time.
Here is hoping that Lou makes amends for the mistake of signing Peters this off-season, by simply waiving him and being done with it. No need to buy him out and spread a small cap hit over two years; the number is small enough to just get it over with in one dose. And if he clears waivers, bury him at Lowell and pray someone shows interest later.
Elias was out there for that particular face-off because (if I recall correctly) the Devils just iced the puck — which means no line change. I’d rather have just about anyone else out there to take that kind of draw, but Parise and Langenbrunner aren’t your answer for that spot, and they were the other forwards trapped out there.
Ah, you’re right about the icing. That explains that, though, with 20/20 hindsight I have to wonder if Langs or Zach should have taken the face off. Elias is just plain bad in that spot and either one of them couldn’t have done any worse. C’est la vie, I guess.
Leblond may not have been a huge upgrade, but he does have at least some offensive upside. He’d most likely have played more than the 2 minutes Peters did (I’m not a big fan of double shifting except in certain spots). Personally, I’d rather they both have sat and Zharkov or Pelley played. Their speed and energy would/could have made a difference, instead of trying to out goon their goons. If that’s the mentality Lemaire is going to take into the playoffs, and the team draws Philadelphia, are we going to see both Peters and Leblond? Perish the thought.
I realize we’re just fans and Jacques is a brilliant hockey mind, but it sure seems like we’re able to see an obvious thing he’s overlooking…
How many games have we given up a goal in the last couple minutes?
I can think of this one, the LA Kings game, the Toronto OT win, but I’m sure there are many others.
Do you take this as a mixed blessing? This team has given up these late goals which will make them be wary of this come playoff time and thus prepared for the “crunch final minutes” (and avoid a Game 7 Carolina repeat) or do you see this trend carrying over into the playoffs?
I have respect for most sports fans with 2 exceptions: NY Ranger fans who grew up in New Jersey, and Dallas Cowboy fans who can't name the capital of Texas.
An interesting topic to research. But does one focus on just goals for/against in the final two minutes or throughout a game? Do we worry about leads becoming ties or leads becoming deficits?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Mar 26, 2010 11:16 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think those are the only 3 games that this has happened all year. Considering the amount of 1 goal games that we have won I don’t think that giving up late GWG or GTG in 3 games is that big of a deal.
by C.J. Richey on Mar 26, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Late Game Goals
Yes the trend of giving late goals in games continue despite having the record of giving up the least amount of goals for the season. Let’s hope this trend does not continue in the play-offs or it will be ANOTHER early exit for this team. To everyone smiling for the Devils good effort last night let’s remember that we had a chance to bury the Rags for good and we could not beat the Queen.
And last time they smoked him. Sometimes goalies stand on their heads. It happens.
There is always room to improve, but so to is there reason to be optimistic. The Devils can play like that every night; Lundqvist can’t bail them out as often, and if it were a 7 game series played like that, it’s nearly impossible not to believe the Devils would overcome.
good points John
I was at the game, and I saw things the same way as John’s recap. (thought it was beer goggles and optimism until I read John’s thoughts) For me, what really hurts about the loss was that the Devils really were the better team out there. I just had this feeling in my mind that we weren’t going to lose. Even when the rags tied the game after 2 periods. Of course the rag goal with 17sec left crushed that feeling.
However, I didn’t leave the arena feeling all that bad because:
• our power play wasn’t that bad (although no scoring)
• we put up 3 goals (better than 1 and done)
• we played a very competitive game (at times clearing the zone and attacking immediately)
• Kovy seems to be getting better each game (don’t have stats to back that up, I just “see” him more on the ice and you could not miss him in this game) I hope we get to re-sign him.
What will hurt the team about this loss is if they take it with them into their next game. Stay focused Devils and keep improving. This is not the January/February team anymore, I think we have turned a page and the ship is starting to head back on course. If we keep improving, tonight’s game will be only a minor speed bump.
Don't mess with the Devils, buddy. We're number one, we beat anybody! We're the Devils! The Devils!! Aaaaaa!!
by Devil_Hard_Core on Mar 26, 2010 10:53 AM EDT reply actions
All of the above is true...
but other than giving up the late tying goal, my biggest concern was the shootout.
Parise and Elias have been successful all year by deking in the shootout, why change that now and just shoot? Lundqvist is too good a goalie to be beating on straight shots like that.
But more importantly, where does Lemaire get off putting Zajac out there? It sounds like hindsight but it’s definitely not: I knew from the second he put Zajac out there over Langenbrunner this game was over. Zajac is not good on shootouts, but Langer is clutch in those situations. Lemaire can say whatever he wants that Langenbrunner was next, but when your two best shootout men just failed, how do you not put out your third best and put all that weight on poor Zajac?
Players Currently in My Doghouse: Mike Mottau, Andrew Peters
by thejerseydevil on Mar 26, 2010 10:58 AM EDT reply actions
yeah, I thought that was wierd, too, but Langs hasn’t had much success against Lundqvist, so I guess maybe Lemaire thought to give somebody else a go. However, Zajac has had precisely ZERO success against Lundqvist, so who knows. I think Langs would have been a better choice, especially after seeing Zach and Patty denied, Jamie’s good at reading those and adjusting.
Which game was that, where he faked a shot and the goalie bit? Was it against Buffalo? Anybody remember what I’m talking about?
If Andrew Peters ever plays again it will be too soon.
by LangsForPres on Mar 26, 2010 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t get a chance to see the third period and overtime but I wasn’t necessarily surprised by the results: the rangers were fighting for their post season lives last night, and although the Devils seemed to be the better team for the majority of the game, we all know how a game could change in the final minutes of the third period.
And I agree with thejerseydevil in regards to putting out Zajac for the shootout attempt. Why not Kovy? Especially since he scored in this game already?
"We aim above the mark to hit the mark." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I want to say it was Pittsburgh but against Brent Johnson not Fleury
Players Currently in My Doghouse: Mike Mottau, Andrew Peters
by thejerseydevil on Mar 26, 2010 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
close
It was the other black and gold team we have pwned this year. This was also the game we lost clarkson.
If Andrew Peters ever plays again it will be too soon.
by LangsForPres on Mar 26, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Frustration again
i dont know how all of you can be saying oh well we played well. This Rangers team is awful besides Hendrik and Gaborik. I know the icing hurt but maybe a time out could have settled things down for the Devils. We don’t have a shutdown defenseman, I would argue a small case for Salvador, but the icing screwed us. This is just another loss to a non, maybe soon to be playoff team, where we salvaged one point. They have to do something to stop giving up late goals, watching last night all four people I was with knew it was coming and I am sick of it. We can beat the Penguins six times but blow leads to a team like the Rangers, they are not good and I am sick of them getting any credit in this area, but if you beat the Devils that helps. The Rangers could possibly be our first round opponent, if we finish 2nd they are in decent shape to if they play well be 7th, this is why this loss is unnacceptable. You have to put Langs in the shootout also. Sorry but I had to went I am still sick of blowing leads this late.
by Padraic Jenkins on Mar 26, 2010 11:48 AM EDT reply actions
Calm down. Take a breath. Look at the big picture.
To address your points:
We can say the team played well because they did. They carried play for most of the game against a hungry, fighting for their playoff lives team that always plays the Devils tough, regardless of how good or bad they are at the time.
The team lacks a shutdown defenseman, yet has yielded the fewest goals in the league. Defense is a team effort and the sooner you realize that, the easier it will be to be a fan of this team because that was, is and will be how this team operates.
That one point they “salvaged” got them the division lead again. It’s all about context.
Late goals are of course a concern and, as you pointed out, the icing made it more difficult. It was a 6 on 5 where they got the matchup they wanted, in the offensive zone and with lots of time. Give some credit to Christensen (I think it was) for his great, and ultimately lucky, no look pass from behind the net right to Drury. Think he could execute that pass as perfectly again if he tried it 100 times?
The Rangers are an average team, tis true, but it’s a rivalry and rivalry games are almost always crapshoots that throw oddsmakers into fits because of the emotion involved and the lack of predictability.
They could be the first round opponents, but it’s unlikely. If they get in, it will be as the 8th seed, which would give them a date with Washington. I personally don’t think they’re going to get in anyway. But if they do, and if the Devils draw them in the first round, so what? The regular season records don’t count for anything at that point, and if the Devils play like they did last night, do you really think Lundqvist can win the Rangers 4 games out of 7 like he won it for them last night?
I’d tend to agree about Langenbrunner in the shootout, but I have my doubts he’d have beaten Lundqvist anyway.
Which other leads are you referring to? Teams give up late goals sometimes. It happens. It’s part of the sport. It sucks and you don’t want it to happen, but you make it sound like it’s a continuing problem.
by elesias on Mar 26, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Response
I know we will win the Jennings, but games like this one and the other that sticks out is the Kings, and of course the playoffs last year (different team i know). The games that frustrate me are like the last Islander game, we get to within one gain confidence and then give up another goal. And both home and home games with the Flyers where short breakdowns cost the game. Part of the string we went on where we would give up two or even three (against the sharks) in a short time which thank God I think we are over. I dont like to harp on the past but when you had a guy like Stevens, Niedermeyer, Rafalski, there was less worry when the pressure was on. Last night I think it is more the icing but it stings when you only get one point being that close. And i am aware defense is a team effort Ive played the game as a forward, and you asked me when I uniderstand that it will be easier to be a fan of this team?, I dont need to say this my family had season tickets since 85 ive been a fan of all there teams, Ive seen the good, bad, and ugly like a lot of people and you have too. When you have a regular season this well and go out in one round like has happened the last couple of years it makes no sense and thats what I fear, but I would never stop supporting them. The Rangers are in striking distance of 7th especially playing the Flyers twice more, i dont believe they can do it but it is a possibility. thanks
by Padraic Jenkins on Mar 26, 2010 12:46 PM EDT reply actions
It’d make it easier if you used the “reply” function at the bottom of the post you wish to reply to.
It would also make it easier if you used paragraphs. I’m not trying to be a jerk, it’s just hard to want to read through, never mind reply to, something that just goes on and on like that.
To your points, it was a tough loss to take. No one is saying it wasn’t, but there is no reason not to still be able to take away some positives from it. 38 shots, 3 goals, a pretty good job overall in the face off circle (that last one notwithstanding), three largely successful lines, diverse scoring and strong special teams are all things that have, at one time or another during this season, been bones of contention. Now, they’re all coming together at once… just in time for the playoffs.
Sure it sucks to lose. And it sucks even more to lose on a late goal when you were winning. And it sucks even more to lose to a rival. And it sucks even more than that to lose to a suck team like the Rangers. But it’s just one game among 82.
Im done
Sorry I am at work, just trying to be quick.
thank you
by Padraic Jenkins on Mar 26, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Well said and I agree as always, elesias. Certainly suffering a loss against our most hated rivals is never easy to swallow, especially in the circumstances that occured last night within the last 30 seconds of the game. But alas, I think that 1) this loss was much different than, say, the loss against the LA Kings a couple of weeks back and 2) The Devil’s played their butts off throughout the entire game, so it wasn’t an issue of effort. Ultimately, I think the positives outweighed the negatives when all is said and done. And most importantly, it’s necessary to realize that the rangers entire season was on the line and the “perfect storm” of sorts was created when it was up to Elias being forced to stay on the ice after an icing and relying on someone who isn’t a natural center to win what was the biggest faceoff of the night (and perhaps the season for the Rangers).
When all is said and done, I think what is the most important is not that the Devils were only able to get a point out of this game, but that Saturday and Sunday’s games against the Canadians and Flyers (two highly potential 1st round playoff matchups) will ultimately determine how this club is able to bounce back after this loss.
"We aim above the mark to hit the mark." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I agree with most of what has been said already…
Peters played less than 2 minutes. That’s a waste of a roster spot. I know he had and completed his job as goon, but seriously, 5 shifts, 1:44 TOI is stupid. Let Clarkson fight. He and Avery would have been a fun scrap. (but Avery wouldn’t b/c he’s well…(finish that one in your head).
I love Jay Pandolfo, but he’s been struggling. I don’t know if it’s the lack of play or his age, but a 5:37 night hurts when another player plays not even 2 minutes. I would like to see a Pelley-McAmmond-Zharkov 4th line.
I don’t understand Zajac taking the last shootout chance. Why not bring that superstar..what’s his name?..Koval-something? If you are saving him for the later rounds, that’s again, stupid. This team has plenty of power if sudden death were to come (Zajac, Langy, Rolston, Clarkson, Zubrus).
Rags blocked 13 shots, Devils blocked 4. Devils also had 15 giveaways to the Rags 7. Take that as you will…
Mike Mottau played a great game (minus that delay of game penalty). He saved a open net goal which ultimately lead to Jamie’s goal. Without that play, it would have been a 3-2 Rangers lead in the 3rd, and who knows what we would be talking about then. He was 2nd (:07 behind White) in ES TOI.
I’m upset about the loss (and about another loss in a different sport with my other beloved team), but the 1 point put us in the 2 spot and closer to a playoff berth. Next 3 games are important (all potential playoff match-ups).
by Matthew Ventolo on Mar 26, 2010 4:08 PM EDT reply actions
I don’t understand Zajac taking the last shootout chance. Why not bring that superstar..what’s his name?..Koval-something? If you are saving him for the later rounds, that’s again, stupid. This team has plenty of power if sudden death were to come (Zajac, Langy, Rolston, Clarkson, Zubrus).
How stupid is it? Kovalchuk’s 2 for 7 this season in shootouts, despite his history of scoring goals. Zajac was 1 for 4 prior to last night’s game. While one has been more prolific in scoring goals, it hasn’t been during the shootout.
If anything, Jamie Langenbrunner should have gotten the call as he’s 3 for 8 this season; which is better than both Kovalchuk and Zajac.
But overall, it shouldn’t have come down to a shootout, so I’m really not up in arms on Lemaire’s selection. It’s not like he threw someone completely out of place out there.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Mar 26, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
can someone educate me about the procedure for coaches choosing shootout participants? I know in soccer the coach is required to physically write down the 5 shooters in order and submit them to the referee prior to the shootout, which would keep a team from changing the order/participants in the middle. Is this the same for hockey? The NHL rulebook says ‘in the order the coach selects’ but doesn’t get more specific than that.
Just wondering if Zajac’s participation/placement in the shootout was an in-the-moment decision or pre-planned…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The Chicago Blackhawks’ losing streak is bad for everybody
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
