sprig Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Yawn, he isn't exactly a clean player either, he has had a few minutes of thuggery during the stanley cup playoffs. The fact that the Pen stars, Malkin and Crosby, resort to butt-end/elbows and viscious two handers was way over the top for me. What a total melt-down. While I wish both teams could lose, I've become more of a Wings fan for just this series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 The fact that the Pen stars, Malkin and Crosby, resort to butt-end/elbows and viscious two handers was way over the top for me. What a total melt-down. While I wish both teams could lose, I've become more of a Wings fan for just this series. Last night I thought the Pens snapped last night and lost their composure. There was a lot of bushleague moves from both ends of the ice but Cindy Crosby and Malkin did their fair share dirty stuff and they kind of stuck out more than others. I thknk Kunitz learned his trade from the Ducks. I just like watching davek get himself all tied up in knots falling all over himself trying to pooh pooh his team's antics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Here is my take away from last night. Unless Datsyuk comes down with food poisoning or is otherwise ill, this thing's over in six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Here is my take away from last night. Unless Datsyuk comes down with food poisoning or is otherwise ill, this thing's over in six. I think it's going to be a 7 game series with the final game in Detroit and all bets are off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Couple of things: 1. In response to my own question stated earlier, I think Abdelkader's goal was weaker. Cleary, to this point, mostly missed the net with all his shots. So it would go without saying that Fleury would see Cleary had the puck and naturally assume it would be going wide or harmlessly bounce off a pad or his chest if it did go on goal. I can see that being confusing for the guy. Abdelkader's goal was a defensive meltdown, sure, but he was screen for 1% of the shot, that would be the 1% where the puck was on Abdelkader's stick moving to shoot the puck. The entire shot from stick to net was unscreened. Fleury should have had that one easy. 2. I don't think Boogaard is a cheap player. I think he's a worthless fighter. There's a difference. Boogaard doesn't skate around trying to injure players like Pronger did the other year or like Downie does. Boogaard can fight. Most fights are started verbally with something like "do you want to go?" Boogaard is no exception to the rule. He still is a waste of roster space, especially when grit is all that the Wild have and lack scoring behind Koivu. Kunitz is a gritty player. And, truth be told, I saw a lot more cheap hits made by Malkin than I did from Kunitz. And there is indeed something to the fact that it was the Ducks influence on Kunitz because, if memory serves, he started playing a much cleaner game when he got to Pittsburgh. 3. This series will not be over in 6. Detroit won't win in Pittsburgh. I just don't see it happening. 4. It is interesting to see what was different between when Detroit was down a goal or two in Game 4 and when Pittsburgh was down a goal or 2 in game 5. When Detroit went down 4-2, Detroit folded. They started skating lackadaisically, stopped really exerting themselves, and looked rather tired. Sure, they had a few chances and put some pressure on at times, but overall, a very sad effort. Pittsburgh resorted to bad behavior. And I say this knowing that they weren't especially cheap in Game 1 and 2 (excluding of course the Cooke elbow in Game 1 and the entire scrum at the end of Game 2... I don't think either team acted very well in that scrum). 5. The telling thing in the after game analysis was sated by the NHL On The Fly program analysts. "The special teams advantage for Pittsburgh ended in Game 5." So, yeah.... 6. Add another tidbit to my Crosby distaste: His behavior in Game 5 was absolutely embarrassing. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the Maltby slash in Game 4 because I couldn't see where Maltby's stick ends up due to the camera being screened. Many people are calling it a dive. If it were Zetterberg and not Maltby, I'd believe them. However, history of Maltby's actions produces doubt. 7. I now am convinced that it will be Detroit in 7. Fleury is a bleeding sieve at the Joe (Heh, .857 Save% at the Joe). Also, this is the game of the final change. It seems like that rule has really helped Detroit and Pittsburgh so far. 8. I like Babcock and Bylsma as coaches. Bylsma is straight forward and comes across to me as a likeable guy. Babcock I admire because he both likes and dislikes the media at the same time. I respect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I don't get what point you think you're trying to make. The Penguins didn't do anything last night that I have ever crusaded against. I don't mind the rough stuff, in fact I actually like it. I draw the line only when gloves are dropped and punches thrown. Once the game was out of hand last night the only thing left to do was set the tone for Game 6. The Penguins sent a message that they are not going to just roll over and let the Red Wings walk all over them, and they did it without resorting to fisticuffs. So butt ends, vicious two slashes are ok then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 This just in, hockey is a physical game. I don't understand how those of you who love the fights are often the first to start crying about somebody playing too rough. Seems hypocritical to me. Physical is hitting, Dave, not using your stick like a weapon; there is nothing physical or message sending about using a weapon to hurt your opponent. You have a warped code, DK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyZL Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 This just in, hockey is a physical game. I don't understand how those of you who love the fights are often the first to start crying about somebody playing too rough. Seems hypocritical to me. Let me just make sure I have this right: A butt-end/slash by someone is ok. That's just physical play. A butt-end/slash by someone who then is subsequently asked to fight for their said actions is unacceptable. That's too rough. Am I correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Edit, the computer went out. No Dave there is a code in hockey and slashing someone with your carbon fiber stick is a guttless and cheap act. It's unacceptable! Fighting based on the code is more acceptable. Cindy Crosby slashing his opponent on the skate after the game is over is like considered outside the code and hockey and worthy of a beat down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Let me just make sure I have this right: A butt-end/slash by someone is ok. That's just physical play. A butt-end/slash by someone who then is subsequently asked to fight for their said actions is unacceptable. That's too rough. Am I correct? Don't forget kneeing too. That's acceptable and part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 If somebody swings a stick at an opponent I'll be appalled regardless what color jersey he wears. So you were appalled by Crosby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Did Sid swing his stick at somebody McSorely style? I'll confess I wasn't watching as closely after it got to 4-0, so I may have missed it. But if it happened you'd think NHL On The Fly would have shown it. A nasty two hander, just not to the head; Malkin's butt end to the face was worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Did Sid swing his stick at somebody McSorely style? I'll confess I wasn't watching as closely after it got to 4-0, so I may have missed it. But if it happened you'd think NHL On The Fly would have shown it. Ahm, no they wouldn't. NHL Network is the #1 place for Crosby led PR propaganda. No way would they show that. The only time Crosby is shown in NHL on the Fly in on-ice action is one of the following: 1. Involved in a play that results in a goal (such as what would warrant an assist) 2. Scores a goal (any setting, regulation, ot or shootout) 3. Has a penalty (called or otherwise) committed on him. For example, the Maltby slash. I've never seen Crosby put in anything other than what even the most daft idiot would consider a positive light. Hell, I'm almost to the point where Crosby could pull a McSorely or a Bertuzzi and it still wouldn't get much airtime. And as for the stickwork argument: If a penalty is warranted? Have you watched these games? The officials are just bystanders (Game 5 was an f-ing anomaly). So, when the stickwork warrants a penalty and it isn't called, it's still good? I don't see the stickwork as being "ok." Nor do I see elbows (Cooke), tackles (Holmstrom), or dives (Osgood). Judging how good something is by whether or not the officials find fault in it is purely subjective as it assumes the officials are going to go by the rulebook. Even NHL on the Fly acknowledges that the officials aren't calling even 10% of the overt penalties on the ice for either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Whatever. The fact of the matter is that I am not now rationalizing anything that I have crusaded against in the past. If the Penguins start going Derek Boogard on everybody in sight I'll be the first to badmouth them for it. Your missing the point you won't see Derek Boogard doing bush league stick swingings and butt ends. Boogard has more honor than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 After years of watching DaveK make stupid posts on SS.com, I've now come to the very safe assumption/conclusion that he never played hockey as a kid and does not play men's league as an adult. To say that slashing, butt-ending and kneeing are OK, and the ONLY way someone can cross the line is to drop their gloves is F'ing IDIOTIC. That's cool that people are hockey fans whether or not they played hockey as a youth or even picked it up in their elder years - but there are just some things that people won't get if they've never played. Dave, I would love to play hockey against you and slash the $h!t out of you all game and then tell you "Well, at least I didn't drop my gloves". Then at the end of the game if my team was losing I'd come at you with a nice knee-to-knee check "in the context of the game", only I'd be prepared for it and you wouldn't. After the game we could shake hands and say good game, as all of those actions were done during the game in within the context of the game, so it's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 After years of watching DaveK make stupid posts on SS.com, I've now come to the very safe assumption/conclusion that he never played hockey as a kid and does not play men's league as an adult. To say that slashing, butt-ending and kneeing are OK, and the ONLY way someone can cross the line is to drop their gloves is F'ing IDIOTIC. That's cool that people are hockey fans whether or not they played hockey as a youth or even picked it up in their elder years - but there are just some things that people won't get if they've never played. Dave, I would love to play hockey against you and slash the $h!t out of you all game and then tell you "Well, at least I didn't drop my gloves". Then at the end of the game if my team was losing I'd come at you with a nice knee-to-knee check "in the context of the game", only I'd be prepared for it and you wouldn't. After the game we could shake hands and say good game, as all of those actions were done during the game in within the context of the game, so it's all good. Holy $$$$ one of the Hanson Brothers posts here! To be fair, I can somewhat see what DaveK's saying. Physical play is an integral part of the game. To limit it would be to turn it into women's hockey, which would effectively put the last name in the coffin for the sport. For you women's hockey enthusiasts, I've long been a proponent of interpretting Title IX to mean "equality" in sports. That means, that checking should be allowed in women's hockey. In any case, in order to have effective physical play in the NHL, two things must be a given: 1. "Goonish" acts can be policed by the teams*. 2. The officials must recognize goonish acts and act accordingly. There are no gray areas when stickwork or goonish acts are involved. It either is a penalty, or is not a penalty. Continuously neglecting to call what they'd opine as "borderline" calls would result in escalation (as ANYONE who watched this series would undeniably notice). I agree with the analysts that a series where everything is called would kill the game. However, I would say that it isn't how many penalties you call that makes the difference. It is how you call the game in the first period and how consistent you are thereafter that dictates how the game is going. You can still control the game and prevent escalations without calling everything. These officials aren't doing their jobs. Period. * - Let it be known that I understand fighting as a part of the NHL, but I am vehemently opposed to Boogaard type players whose only real contribution to the team is said act. BTW- Boogaard was recently interviewed and expressed concerns about his future in the NHL. I think he should be proud to be in the NHL for as long as he has. But hopefully he planned from day one to accommodate for the fact that his days are numbered. As years progress, the true enforcer has become more and more of a rarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Holy $$$$ one of the Hanson Brothers posts here! To be fair, I can somewhat see what DaveK's saying. Physical play is an integral part of the game. To limit it would be to turn it into women's hockey, which would effectively put the last name in the coffin for the sport. For you women's hockey enthusiasts, I've long been a proponent of interpretting Title IX to mean "equality" in sports. That means, that checking should be allowed in women's hockey. In any case, in order to have effective physical play in the NHL, two things must be a given: 1. "Goonish" acts can be policed by the teams*. 2. The officials must recognize goonish acts and act accordingly. There are no gray areas when stickwork or goonish acts are involved. It either is a penalty, or is not a penalty. Continuously neglecting to call what they'd opine as "borderline" calls would result in escalation (as ANYONE who watched this series would undeniably notice). I agree with the analysts that a series where everything is called would kill the game. However, I would say that it isn't how many penalties you call that makes the difference. It is how you call the game in the first period and how consistent you are thereafter that dictates how the game is going. You can still control the game and prevent escalations without calling everything. These officials aren't doing their jobs. Period. * - Let it be known that I understand fighting as a part of the NHL, but I am vehemently opposed to Boogaard type players whose only real contribution to the team is said act. BTW- Boogaard was recently interviewed and expressed concerns about his future in the NHL. I think he should be proud to be in the NHL for as long as he has. But hopefully he planned from day one to accommodate for the fact that his days are numbered. As years progress, the true enforcer has become more and more of a rarity. Yeah, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I like the thugs that all they do is fight, either. I can't stand when a player delivers a clean, hard check and then someone on the other team feels the need to challenge them to a fight. However, I do believe that fighting does have a place in the game. When Jarome Iginla drops the gloves - I love it. He's dropping them for a reason... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Dave, I would love to play hockey against you and slash the $h!t out of you all game and then tell you "Well, at least I didn't drop my gloves". Then at the end of the game if my team was losing I'd come at you with a nice knee-to-knee check "in the context of the game", only I'd be prepared for it and you wouldn't. After the game we could shake hands and say good game, as all of those actions were done during the game in within the context of the game, so it's all good. That is a top ten post right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 1. "Goonish" acts can be policed by the teams*. Heh, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Hey, somebody who gets it. Congratulations, redwing77, unlike a few others around here you have a clue. Nice. Not sure what he got, since he talked out of 3 sides of his mouth, but it appears his post supported fighting to clean up cheap shots when they occur. So far, I haven't seen anyone who gets it, according to your standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 i have to believe this is going 7 games. the way each goalie has played on the road vs home seems to be the trend of how the games play out. unless detroit jumps on pitt early and get get up a couple i look for the pens to get this back to detroit for the whole damn thing for a great game 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Yes, that is fine. I would get over it. Drop the gloves and I'll hold a grudge for life and vow revenge one way or another. To punch somebody in the face is to rob them of their dignity. I find it funny that you don't condone the act of striking another human being, yet revenge for said act is perfectly ok with you. Do you even think before you start typing? I'm so tired of reading davek's spewing's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 ... what I typed makes perfect sense to me. That's the scary part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Of course I think before I start typing, and what I typed makes perfect sense to me. Anybody who assaults another human being deserves to be on the receiving end of a massive beatdown. The only time I condone violence is in retaliation for something done to hurt somebody outside of the context of a contact sport. If you don't agree, so be it. Get over it and accept the fact that I have some opinions that are not the same as yours. This just in... the rest of the world doesn't think exactly like you do. Deal with it. And the funny thing is...fighting is within the context of the sport of hockey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Of course I think before I start typing, and what I typed makes perfect sense to me. Anybody who assaults another human being deserves to be on the receiving end of a massive beatdown. The only time I condone violence is in retaliation for something done to hurt somebody outside of the context of a contact sport. If you don't agree, so be it. Get over it and accept the fact that I have some opinions that are not the same as yours. This just in... the rest of the world doesn't think exactly like you do. Deal with it. And no one thinks like you. Your whole "I'm right and have the right to defend all of the stupid crap I say," is getting very old. At the same time when people point out inconsistencies in your ramblings you take the victim role. Every time I read one of your posts I say "why can't this guy just shut his mouth!" You may be right, not everyone thinks as I do, but if you were to take a pole there are a hell of alot more people around here that would agree with me than would with you. I would guarantee that. Just curious dave, as far as your revenge goes. How far would you go if someone were to strike you? Simply just punch them back? Give them the beatdown you describe? Possibly, would you go so far as to mame, or otherwise permanatly injury them? How about it dave, would you be driven by rage to go completely off the deep and and kill to extract your revenge? Justifiably of course, at least in your mind. Please tell me dave I just have to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.