This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

There could be more... by Kbyrnes

...This is an issue, I suppose, when anyone posts their conclusions--they have a head full of thoughts justifying what they feel, but rarely are those thoughts laid out in a careful analytic manner. Here's the main substance of what you posted:

"Our line changes throughout the entire game were head-scratching, the 2 goals given up were incredibly soft, and the offensive scheming, especially, in the 3rd period, was, well, awful. We managed 5 shots in the most important period of hockey in the history of the program (and really only 1 of those shots had a prayer of a chance of going in), and that was with being down 2-1 with our backs against the wall and nothing to lose."

That text provides plenty of opinion, but I don't believe it has plenty of content. It could, if you'd supply it. It would be interesting to know exactly what about the line changes made them head-scratching, and what about the offensive scheming was awful. It's not that I think you're wrong--it's that I don't know exactly what you're referring to and thus there's nothing of substance to respond to.