| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 03/21/2011 : 09:18:35
In Saturday's game between the Bruins and the Leafs, Dion Phaneuf accepted Nathan Horton's challenge to fight. Phaneuf smartly, or cowardly (depending on your bent) declined an invitation to fight Zdeno Chara earlier in the game. (It is important to note that the Phaneuf-Horton fight took place when the Leafs were leading 5-1, with about 8 minutes to go in the 3rd period.)
As the fight was about to start, Horton motioned to take off his helmet (which he did), and Phaneuf appeared to think about it, but he made the decision to fight with his helmet on. Phaneuf was not a passive participant. He definitely wanted to fight Horton, and shoved aside a linesman to do so. After the fight, you could see that Horton was upset with Phaneuf, probably because he kept his helmet on. (And maybe because Phaneuf edged him in the fight.)
It's worth noting that these two players fought each other in October. Back then, both players took off their helmets before they fought, and Phaneuf actually appeared to do so first. (Horton handily won that fight by the way.)
So the question is: what is the "code" with players taking off their helmets when fighting? If both players did so in a previous fight, is it expected that both should do so when they fight again?
Was Horton foolish to think that Phaneuf would take off his helmet the second time they fought? Was Phaneuf smart (especially with the rate of concussions taking place) to keep his helmet on?
Should a player who wears a visor take off his helmet before fighting? And if not, should players who wear visors just not fight?
I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject of removing your helmet when fighting. Or comments specifically related to the two fights between Phaneuf and Horton. (But not about fighting in the game.) The topic about "whether we need fighting in the game" has been discussed many times before in this forum, and while it's anyone's prerogative to discuss it again, can you kindly do so in another thread. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 20:44:24
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8149
"They are all Caucasian.". What??
What?, what?
Sorry.....they are all white dudes.
Better?
 |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 20:11:39
"They are all Caucasian.". What?? |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 18:55:28
Fat Elvis,
You, my man, are on a roll. Not a roll like the one hanging over your belt, or the jelly roll you have in your hands - but a roll on your argumentation.
Thankfully, it's easy to agree with you here on what you're sayin'. 
This topic is cooked . . . we are so far away from the thrown away helmet of Horton Hears a Who and the helmetted head of That's Pha-neuf! that this topic almost needs locking.
Except for the amusing posts, however. More entertainment than a goon fight, that's for darn sure!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 14:53:23
Lol, me stretching?
Sure.
You said some pig latin nonsense about boys and men, and how I was comparing this, that, and everything regardless of whether it made sense, but when I disprove your rhetoric about how one can't do this and that cause we're dealing with million dollar men, you tell me I'm stretching? Really?
"Seriously it is allot easier to suspend a guy getting paid nothing "Liambis" for 40 games compared to a player making a few million dollars."
Liambis was suspended for the rest of the year, that was the suspension.
McSorley was suspended for the remainder of the season, effectively ending his career.
Bertuzzi was suspended for the rest of the year and playoffs.
All three, same suspension, the suspension you said was so much tougher to do at the NHL level.
All three incidents ended up in injuries to the violated players.
They are all men. They are all Canadian. They are all caucasian. How much further must I show the relativity to ensure you don't pull some more straw out of your patootie, and make more scarecrows?
I inferred that I liked that Branch initiated the helmet rule, and made bold rulings in favor of player safety. I also inferred that since Campbell can't seem to think in those terms that maybe Branch should be, or at least someone who has player safety in their forethoughts, considered to replace Campbell.
Now, if you're going to take on any more trips to the country of Irrelevance, let me pack first. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 14:22:40
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
T-bar,
Of course it's different, and I would be surprised if any NHL'er got suspended for the remainder of the season like that since they are million dollar.......wait a sec...........getting a text message here.........Marty Mcsorley and Todd Bertuzzi just asked me to pass on the message, that yes, they can be suspended like that.
My nod to Branch comment is only due to the fact that he at least is not afraid to make change if it brings better safety conditions to players and has the chutzpah to send a harsh message if a player plays with no respect for another players safety, how could that possibly be a bad thing?
Campbell et. al. just seem to be at times, spinning their wheels, trying to determine consistency, much less positive change.
Now your comparing Liambis hit to the bertuzzi/Mcsorely incident? how far you gona stretch here? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 12:27:59
Forgive my assumption here but what I am hearing from some posts is that at least Branch has the stones to actually do something meaningful. Might be right, might be wrong, but in the end the decision has a noticable impact.
I hear from others that money, power, the NHL, and being a 'man' makes it impossible to do something meaningful.
I guess some people that actions are possible that will have an impact while others prefer to sit on the hands and make excuses as to why something won't work. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 09:36:44
T-bar,
Of course it's different, and I would be surprised if any NHL'er got suspended for the remainder of the season like that since they are million dollar.......wait a sec...........getting a text message here.........Marty Mcsorley and Todd Bertuzzi just asked me to pass on the message, that yes, they can be suspended like that.
My nod to Branch comment is only due to the fact that he at least is not afraid to make change if it brings better safety conditions to players and has the chutzpah to send a harsh message if a player plays with no respect for another players safety, how could that possibly be a bad thing?
Campbell et. al. just seem to be at times, spinning their wheels, trying to determine consistency, much less positive change. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 06:56:12
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
T-bar.....That's your take on what?
A comparison you made?
I made no mention of comparing the two. I made no mention of money.
The thread was started about 'the code', and whether Phaneuf should have taken on Chara, and taken his helmet off to fight Horton.
We all agree that Phaneuf fighting Chara wouldn't have helped anything.
I am referring to the helmet toss nonsense. To me, it wouldn't matter if it's men, boys, girls, women, or even Utemin, my opinion is that taking off the helmet to fight is not a good thing. David Branch actually took it a step further as commissioner of a league, any league, in this case, a major Junior hockey league, and made a rule pertaining to the safety of the players.
I used the David Branch article to show that there are changes that can be done to keep the safety of the players paramount.
You say fighting is part of the game? Great!, I'll even agree that it is. I simply question the intelligence of voluntarily taking your helmet off to do it.
That has nothing to do with your lame comparison insinuations.
The OP asked about the 'code' relating to this, I am giving my opinion to his post, how about you?
FE I have stated what I think on the helmet issue, if you go back to the start of the thread it is one of the first replies. My comment was directed to your Branch for Campbell comment. Seriously it is allot easier to suspend a guy getting paid nothing "Liambis" for 40 games compared to a player making a few million dollars. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 05:34:48
FatElvis,
You made me snort tea out my nose this morning as I read the line with Utemin in there . . . oh, that silly monkey! rofl
I am all for Branch as NHL VP of Ops, and head disciplinarian. He is A ok in my books . . . I don't always agree with him exactly, but his head is in the right place.
Plus, his son doesn't play in the NHL, he knows how to give proper suspensions, he speaks intelligently, and I have no knowledge of him swearing ilke a sailor while exhibiting extreme unprofessional language about the players he is supposed to ultimately judge.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 16:33:58
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
I am referring to the helmet toss nonsense. To me, it wouldn't matter if it's men, boys, girls, women, or even Utemin, my opinion is that taking off the helmet to fight is not a good thing.
Another classic!!! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 15:09:47
T-bar.....That's your take on what?
A comparison you made?
I made no mention of comparing the two. I made no mention of money.
The thread was started about 'the code', and whether Phaneuf should have taken on Chara, and taken his helmet off to fight Horton.
We all agree that Phaneuf fighting Chara wouldn't have helped anything.
I am referring to the helmet toss nonsense. To me, it wouldn't matter if it's men, boys, girls, women, or even Utemin, my opinion is that taking off the helmet to fight is not a good thing. David Branch actually took it a step further as commissioner of a league, any league, in this case, a major Junior hockey league, and made a rule pertaining to the safety of the players.
I used the David Branch article to show that there are changes that can be done to keep the safety of the players paramount.
You say fighting is part of the game? Great!, I'll even agree that it is. I simply question the intelligence of voluntarily taking your helmet off to do it.
That has nothing to do with your lame comparison insinuations.
The OP asked about the 'code' relating to this, I am giving my opinion to his post, how about you?
|
| tbar |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 13:45:06
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Thought I'd add an article from Jan. 2009, when the Ontario Hockey League instituted it's helmet rule. Interesting coincidence, one of the players cited for being suspended for removing his helmet during a fight is the same guy I provided a video of! Strange.
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/ohl-to-announce-new-helmet-rule-on-fighting/
Kinda makes David Branch sound like a visionary to me. Someone who is truly trying to get hockey to a safe, yet still physical, place.
PS. Branch is the same commissioner that suspended Liambis for the remainder of the season a year or two ago for a dangerous play. Maybe he should get the nod for Colin Campbell's job?
One thing too remember FE is Branch is dealing with "boys" Campbell is dealing with "men" and a leauge where the goal is making money. I dont think you can compare the OHL to the NHL, but thats my take on that. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 13:29:25
Thought I'd add an article from Jan. 2009, when the Ontario Hockey League instituted it's helmet rule. Interesting coincidence, one of the players cited for being suspended for removing his helmet during a fight is the same guy I provided a video of! Strange.
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/ohl-to-announce-new-helmet-rule-on-fighting/
Kinda makes David Branch sound like a visionary to me. Someone who is truly trying to get hockey to a safe, yet still physical, place.
PS. Branch is the same commissioner that suspended Liambis for the remainder of the season a year or two ago for a dangerous play. Maybe he should get the nod for Colin Campbell's job? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 11:44:33
FER....FWIW, not sure as i don't know the guy and can't tell from the link, but one of the Youtube comments says that Mashinter wears a visor and that's why he removed it? I know there's a lot of guys out there who fight with visors so whether it's right or wrong, is a whole different discussion. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 09:58:22
I started this post a number of weeks ago, and while the discussion strayed somewhat from the original theme, I've enjoyed the dialogue.
I used the word "code," in my original posting, not because I think there's a "code," or that there should be "code" regarding the removal of helmets in hockey fight. I introduced the term to see if others felt there was a "code."
Thanks Fat Elvis for passing along the link from the recent fight between Parros and Mashinter. Seeing this fight clearly demonstrates the risks involved when removing your helmet in a hockey fight. (Let alone the risks which already exist in a hockey fight, even when the combatants keep their helmets on.)
I don't want to bring up the "code" word again, but fighters usually let up when a player is falling to the ice. In this fight, Parros appeared to give Mashinter an extra nudge as he was falling to the ice, which looks to have caused Mashinter to be dazed when his head hit the ice as the fight ended.
An interesting sidenote was Teemu Selanne tapping Mashinter as he left the ice, a classy gesture on his part. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 01:20:53
Guest4270 is exactly right, this is a thread about helmets being taken off, at least partly, and I stated my views at the beginning about just how assinine of a practice this is......
http://youtu.be/eHQVYSzG3C8
Just to enhance my point....how stupid.
If Mashinter doesn't go the sideshow route and toss off the lid, it's 5 and back in, instead, stitches and a headache, brilliant, Parros is a Princeton grad I do believe, certainly smart enough to keep his lid on. Against the "code"? Nope, just that much smarter for it! |
| Guest4270 |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 17:52:18
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4178
In Saturday's game between the Bruins and the Leafs, Dion Phaneuf accepted Nathan Horton's challenge to fight. Phaneuf smartly, or cowardly (depending on your bent) declined an invitation to fight Zdeno Chara earlier in the game. (It is important to note that the Phaneuf-Horton fight took place when the Leafs were leading 5-1, with about 8 minutes to go in the 3rd period.)
As the fight was about to start, Horton motioned to take off his helmet (which he did), and Phaneuf appeared to think about it, but he made the decision to fight with his helmet on. Phaneuf was not a passive participant. He definitely wanted to fight Horton, and shoved aside a linesman to do so. After the fight, you could see that Horton was upset with Phaneuf, probably because he kept his helmet on. (And maybe because Phaneuf edged him in the fight.)
It's worth noting that these two players fought each other in October. Back then, both players took off their helmets before they fought, and Phaneuf actually appeared to do so first. (Horton handily won that fight by the way.)
So the question is: what is the "code" with players taking off their helmets when fighting? If both players did so in a previous fight, is it expected that both should do so when they fight again?
Was Horton foolish to think that Phaneuf would take off his helmet the second time they fought? Was Phaneuf smart (especially with the rate of concussions taking place) to keep his helmet on?
Should a player who wears a visor take off his helmet before fighting? And if not, should players who wear visors just not fight?
I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject of removing your helmet when fighting. Or comments specifically related to the two fights between Phaneuf and Horton. (But not about fighting in the game.) The topic about "whether we need fighting in the game" has been discussed many times before in this forum, and while it's anyone's prerogative to discuss it again, can you kindly do so in another thread.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 10:12:50
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4746
Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
There most certainly is extra disciplinary action in the playoffs - see the rules we already posted in the "Fans Love Fighting" thread.
In fact, I would direct you to comment on that thread further, as it may mean that you read it, and all your questions will be answered, and you might finally see reason! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 09:59:13
Last one was me! plus its in the wrong topic anyways, I have re posted that question in the original discution. |
| Guest4746 |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 09:52:57
Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 16:08:57
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
By the way Alex, instead of picking holes in everything i say...have you got an opinion on anything ?? Except for agreeing on everything Beans sez.
Why do you think there are so many Concussions in hockey ?? Don`t put too much pressure on your brain now .
Yeah, actually i do, and if you were intelligent enough to comprehend it, you'd already know what it is. But, clearly you're not. I've stated my opinion on this in the various different threads in which you continue to make a fool of yourself, i cannot help the fact that you can't understand it.
Does my opinion mirror Beans? Pretty similar, yes. I love when you borderline trolls think you will irk me by claiming i just go along with Beans and everything he says. Fact is, and if you were intelligent enough to realize it, he and i have differing opinions on many things. Have a read through some of the threads on this forum and you'd see that. But no Duke, you're too busy embarrassing yourself with your silly arguments about how goons can't protect their team mates because of the instigator penalty! I'm still waiting for you to show me some old clips of a heavyweight pummelling a guy not known for hitting, for hitting one of his teammates?
Good luck in your search...... |
| Pushrod |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 11:58:33
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Yes Pushrod thats very true. If the game has to change so dramatically to rid itself of these injuries...well, who knows what end product we would have to watch.
If huge changes are made and the traditional landscape of the game is affected so, well viewers may turn away.
I don't necessarily think things have to change greatly, because I agree, that may turn viewers away. Unfortunately I can't offer a lot of wonderful ideas to change things though and don't know how feasible they could all be anyways. And it would be silly to think that all injuries are going to disappear, that's just not possible. I do think consistent suspensions/fines may help to an extent. I also think making the ice surface bigger would also be helpful, but logistically probably the hardest thing to do out of any possible solutions.
Just saw this article on espn website. Maybe part of the change can come from outside of the game. Obviously not a large solution to the problem, and doesn't help in eliminating head injuries in the first place, but it's nice to see video games jumping on board, even if it is football and not hockey 
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6286127 |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 10:02:56
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
All you guys are soooooo smart...i got guts enough to make a statement on what i think is a solid reason ( along with others ) as to why there are so many concussions in the game.
What do you all do ?? Just smugly pick apart my points.
What do you all not do ?? Give one single FK`in reason as to why you think there are so many concussions. ( Equipment is a no brainer ). If you all were so good in giving your own opinion as you are picking apart mine...you would be very smart men.
As Alex sez...right Beans
Firstly, let me say that I just read the entire thread again and specifically all of Duke's post and they all said much of the same thing. Fighting protects players from getting taken advantage of. Well Duke, for all us smart people that are picking apart your argument, let me be clear. Every single piece of information that is available speaks to the ineffectiveness of fighting and that fighting causes injuries and do not prevent them. Here are just a few of the articles I have found:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/03/hockey-legend-bob-proberts-post-mortem-shows-severe-brain-trauma/
http://thesheaf.com/sports/2011/03/07/does-fighting-still-have-a-place-in-hockey/
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/2011/02/most-canadians-want-hockey-fights.html
So that is just a snap shot of the information many of us 'smart people' are using. Although I doubt you will even open one of the links, Duke why don't you take a read through these articles. When you are done, find something that is reputable (news report, scientific study, etc) that has anything at all that speaks to how fighting polices the game and protects players. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 09:24:09
Yes Pushrod thats very true. If the game has to change so dramatically to rid itself of these injuries...well, who knows what end product we would have to watch.
If huge changes are made and the traditional landscape of the game is affected so, well viewers may turn away. |
| Pushrod |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 13:07:01
I don't think it's all that unclear why there are so many concussions nowadays, and like most things it's multifactorial.
- Bigger players (even 2 inches and 15 pounds is a lot when you travel at the speed players do on skates).
- Different equipment (already said, but to elaborate, the quality of it adds to the speed players have, and you throw in the rock hard quality of it = damage).
- Different training. Many now train for explosive strength in addition to the standard cardio and basic weights, which likely were focused on in the preceding decades.
- More recognition of concussions based on advancing medical research and increased awareness of potential long term consequences.
Now it's a matter of what will be done to combat them....in a traditionalist sport like hockey it seems almost impossibly hard to do as no one wants to make the difficult changes. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 11:43:45
By the way Alex, instead of picking holes in everything i say...have you got an opinion on anything ?? Except for agreeing on everything Beans sez.
Why do you think there are so many Concussions in hockey ?? Don`t put too much pressure on your brain now . |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 11:41:06
All you guys are soooooo smart...i got guts enough to make a statement on what i think is a solid reason ( along with others ) as to why there are so many concussions in the game.
What do you all do ?? Just smugly pick apart my points.
What do you all not do ?? Give one single FK`in reason as to why you think there are so many concussions. ( Equipment is a no brainer ). If you all were so good in giving your own opinion as you are picking apart mine...you would be very smart men.
As Alex sez...right Beans |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 09:15:14
Oh no Slozo (hey that rhymes )....don't get him going any more than he already is! In the "HEADSHOTS" thread, he's trying to blame the instigator penalty on why goons can't protect their team mates!
It's amazing that everytime his ass is handed to him in a debate, he keeps coming back for more and just slightly twists an opinion or argument to try to favour his!
Wrap THAT in tinfoil! |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 05:38:38
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
So what are you saying now ?? you like tough guys ?? i `m very clear where i stand....where you really stand, i just don`t know.
Is that the best you can do after your argument is handed back to you, wrapped in tinfoil, burnt to a crisp? More ridiculous strawman arguments?
Where is your comeback for how your tough guys with NO SKILL - Rosehill, and I included Hanson in there - did not show up to defend their teammate? Where is your comeback for how those tough guys kept a guy like Chara in line for his liberties taken on our skill players?
I can see I have wasted my time.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 16:34:45
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
So what are you saying now ?? you like tough guys ?? i `m very clear where i stand....where you really stand, i just don`t know.
I like tough guys, I don't like goons. A guy who plays 5 minutes of hockey a night is far different than a guy who skates around for 5 minutes looking for a useless fight. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 16:16:53
So what are you saying now ?? you like tough guys ?? i `m very clear where i stand....where you really stand, i just don`t know. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 05:35:42
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Exactly right Toxx, ( you the man ) at least some-one is paying attention. All these know - it alls are ripping me up for saying what Orr brings .....and they all mention ( counter with) the Chara / Graboski incident....Orr wasn`t even in the Fk`in lineup .
If he was i`m sure he would have at least sent Chara some kind of message ...not saying he can take Chara, maybe no-one can, but al least he would have guts enough to try.
Slozo you keep saying your a leaf fan and don`t like Orr / Rosehill, don`t want to see them. Do you remember the last couple of seasons without Orr ? Do you remember when Jason Blake received that black eye with his team-mates standing around looking on ??...no - one helped...gutless team-mates...the poor guy getting over cancer getting treated like that with no help ?? What did you think of that ??
Do you think the Flyers would re-act the same way if some-one did that to Daniel Briere ??
Do you think the Bruins would re - act the same way if some - one did that to Marc Savard ??
Whats your opinion ??
This is why my friend the Flyers and Bruins are winners .....the leafs were a bunch of LOSERS....leafs attitude is changing now and a lot of it is because of team spirit and looking out for one and another.....no team spirit...no team.
So, if Orr wasn't in the line-up, which tough guy took his place? Oh, did you miss the part when I put Orr/Rosehill there? Did ya?
Ok, let's go back in our hottub time machine and see what happened when one of our skilled guys got mashed badly, with a totally missed call that should have been made by the ref. What tough guys were in the line-up - guys whose ONLY job is to defend their teammates?
Tues. Feb 15, 2011
Toronto 4 - Boston 3
Skaters TOI G A +/- SOG PIM
K. Aulie 22:26 0 0 0 0 4
D. Boyce 11:24 0 0 0 0 0
T. Bozak 20:56 0 0 -2 2 0
T. Brent 09:34 0 0 0 1 0
J. Crabb 08:17 0 0 0 1 0
M. Grabovski 18:32 2 0 +2 3 2
C. Gunnarsson 14:55 0 1 0 0 0
C. Hanson 11:24 0 0 0 0 0
T. Kaberle 19:54 0 1 +1 0 0
P. Kessel 18:37 2 0 -2 4 0
M. Komisarek 12:24 0 1 0 0 0
N. Kulemin 17:05 0 0 +2 3 0
J. Lupul 17:46 0 2 -2 3 0
C. MacArthur 16:25 0 1 +2 1 0
D. Phaneuf 25:15 0 2 -2 6 2
J. Rosehill 05:21 0 0 0 2 0
L. Schenn 26:02 0 0 +1 1 0
F. Sjostrom 16:00 0 0 0 1 0
Is that clear enough for you? I mean, with those big fat zeros for PIM at the end there, you don't even have to watch the game . . . I mean really, do you think Wilson/Burke would let the Leafs go in against the big bad Bruins without some size and toughness, with Orr out?!?
The reason you like the Leafs and the way they aren't pushed around anymore is because they push back now . . . and they have a bit more skill. The reason is that, in a game like this one, Grabo (who has one of the biggest hearts in the league) responded to Chara's mashings not with his fists, not with one of his teammate's fists, but with a magical effort for the game winning goal.
Boo-yah.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 17:10:34
Exactly right Toxx, ( you the man ) at least some-one is paying attention. All these know - it alls are ripping me up for saying what Orr brings .....and they all mention ( counter with) the Chara / Graboski incident....Orr wasn`t even in the Fk`in lineup .
If he was i`m sure he would have at least sent Chara some kind of message ...not saying he can take Chara, maybe no-one can, but al least he would have guts enough to try.
Slozo you keep saying your a leaf fan and don`t like Orr / Rosehill, don`t want to see them. Do you remember the last couple of seasons without Orr ? Do you remember when Jason Blake received that black eye with his team-mates standing around looking on ??...no - one helped...gutless team-mates...the poor guy getting over cancer getting treated like that with no help ?? What did you think of that ??
Do you think the Flyers would re-act the same way if some-one did that to Daniel Briere ??
Do you think the Bruins would re - act the same way if some - one did that to Marc Savard ??
Whats your opinion ??
This is why my friend the Flyers and Bruins are winners .....the leafs were a bunch of LOSERS....leafs attitude is changing now and a lot of it is because of team spirit and looking out for one and another.....no team spirit...no team. |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 06:44:28
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by ToXXiK1
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Duke - Beans said ti best,
If Rosehill couldn't fight well - a pugilistic, non-hockey play, to put it in better terms - he would not be on the Leafs roster. In fact, he probably wouldn't have made the farm team.
Getting back on topic here, Phaneuf didn't take off his helmet in a second fight with Horton . . . does that mean a Boston goon will straighten him out on "The Code" next time they meet? It would be the perfect time this Thursday . . .
I will eagerly anticipate Orr/Rosehill straightening out Chara for liberties taken on Grabovski in the past; and will love watching Thornton straighten out Phaneuf.
Ooohh, the excitement those tough, non-skilled players bring! Stopping the game, taking the place of a more skilled player . . . wow man, that's the way hockey should be played!! *
* please note, for the literary disinclined: this is a form of humour called sarcasm
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Attention "Leaf Fans":
Being fans of Toronto, you all obviously know that Orr is and was out with conc in Bos / Tor game and since.........
Being a HOCKEY FAN, I actually barely notice when guys like Orr are out of the lineup, actually . . . lol. I did know that Orr was out with a concussion, for instance, but I wouldn't remember when or which game he was out on. What's the point of remembering something that trivial, when it has nothing to do with hockey?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
For the record, I didn't start the thread on Orr, I just watch every Bruin game and that's how I know he wasn't there. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 06:01:07
quote:
Originally posted by ToXXiK1
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Duke - Beans said ti best,
If Rosehill couldn't fight well - a pugilistic, non-hockey play, to put it in better terms - he would not be on the Leafs roster. In fact, he probably wouldn't have made the farm team.
Getting back on topic here, Phaneuf didn't take off his helmet in a second fight with Horton . . . does that mean a Boston goon will straighten him out on "The Code" next time they meet? It would be the perfect time this Thursday . . .
I will eagerly anticipate Orr/Rosehill straightening out Chara for liberties taken on Grabovski in the past; and will love watching Thornton straighten out Phaneuf.
Ooohh, the excitement those tough, non-skilled players bring! Stopping the game, taking the place of a more skilled player . . . wow man, that's the way hockey should be played!! *
* please note, for the literary disinclined: this is a form of humour called sarcasm
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Attention "Leaf Fans":
Being fans of Toronto, you all obviously know that Orr is and was out with conc in Bos / Tor game and since.........
Being a HOCKEY FAN, I actually barely notice when guys like Orr are out of the lineup, actually . . . lol. I did know that Orr was out with a concussion, for instance, but I wouldn't remember when or which game he was out on. What's the point of remembering something that trivial, when it has nothing to do with hockey?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Mario 66 |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 10:09:52
Thanks alot guys, even though i have to study you took away the three most exciting minutes of the game jam packed with bone crushing hits & mesmerizing fights
If i could why would I now tune into watch 57 minutes of talented players actually playing the game?
The two of you should be written up as you just crushed all those who love the fast skating Colton Orr & Rosehill who by no means is a goon, because he can hit you through the boards.
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 08:59:12
What i'm saying is.............. Orr can't (not that he would) do squat from his livingroom. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 08:27:02
quote:
Originally posted by ToXXiK1
Attention "Leaf Fans":
Being fans of Toronto, you all obviously know that Orr is and was out with conc in Bos / Tor game and since.........
So what you're saying is, Chara et al should be keeping their eyes out for Rosehill instead? |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 08:20:28
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Duke - Beans said ti best,
If Rosehill couldn't fight well - a pugilistic, non-hockey play, to put it in better terms - he would not be on the Leafs roster. In fact, he probably wouldn't have made the farm team.
Getting back on topic here, Phaneuf didn't take off his helmet in a second fight with Horton . . . does that mean a Boston goon will straighten him out on "The Code" next time they meet? It would be the perfect time this Thursday . . .
I will eagerly anticipate Orr/Rosehill straightening out Chara for liberties taken on Grabovski in the past; and will love watching Thornton straighten out Phaneuf.
Ooohh, the excitement those tough, non-skilled players bring! Stopping the game, taking the place of a more skilled player . . . wow man, that's the way hockey should be played!! *
* please note, for the literary disinclined: this is a form of humour called sarcasm
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Attention "Leaf Fans":
Being fans of Toronto, you all obviously know that Orr is and was out with conc in Bos / Tor game and since......... |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 08:17:37
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Look, I'll say again for the record that todays fights are nonsensical.
Goons fighting goons is ridiculous. No argument there.
Let's talk about fights born of anger. Yes they are "illegal" but should they be removed from the game? Fights are penalized just like every other infraction. Why no talk of eliminating slashing or tripping? They are also "illegal". What is this huge issue with fighting some of you have? Clearly it isn't fighting itself as I'm sure most of you follow the UFC where they beat the living snot out of one another.
Other than the staged fights I really don't get the issue with fighting in hockey.
I've said it once Willus, and I'll say it again: you can't take fighting out of any game, but if you penalise it appropriately, you can diminish it greatly.
Slashes and trips are, for the most part, dealt with appropriately (not always called as well as they should, but that's another topic!).
And if we are comparing things like slashes and trips to fighting as infractions . . . where are those fourth line players who specialise in slashing? The Slashers, hunh - is there a special player like that on the team? A guy who everyone respects, and says they are a great guy, and every second game, he starts slashing another slasher, and the game stopss, and they take their sticks and square up and slash each other until the other falls down, and the refs pick them up and they each take a 5 minute penalty. Each slasher plays only 4 minutes a game, but the fans love the brutality and threat of severe injury when they slash away like crazy at each other.
Sounds pretty crazy, eh?
Kind of puts the whole fighting penalty in perspective, when you imagine what a real "slashing fight" would result in in terms of suspension length.
'nuff said.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
You're preaching to the choir Slozo. You're talking about goons. As I've already stated, I have no use for them.
In my day you took care of things yourself. So when someone slashed you, you addressed that in your own way. Slash back, hard check, fight whatever it may have been. If you weren't tough you didn't last , that simple. The Semins' and Tanguays' just wouldn't be playing in the league.
I still struggle with understanding the leagues logic of employing goons today. It doesn't make any sense to me. Complete waste of a roster spot. It at least made some sense back when the goon actually protected the star player. I don't understand why it's taking the GM's so long to realize this.
Which raises a question. Are there any teams that don't employ a goon now?
Detroit, Buffalo, New Jersey, San Jose........... |
|
|
