MDtoGF Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Random question, with the fact that the Capitals are currently inviting a new d-man to play like every other day and just had Backstrom get hurt, any chance we see Genoway up there this year? Saw him and Watkins at Hershey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 It was PB (see my earlier posts on the benefits of playing with him) #top5 I actually had to look that up. I was a tad harsh on BM, I just hate the guy because he is a trash talker, he turtles and I do not like the Bruins (from a team standpoint). I love the way PB plays though. Agreed. Bergeron is a stud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The higher seed lost, therefore it was in fact an upset by definition. Considering that three of the four games were very close and the Penguins hit the post about 19 times in those three games combined, I would consider your use of the word "thrashing" to be an excessive exaggeration. PS - ...and, yes (before you ask), it will be an upset this year if the Penguins (as a #2 seed) beat the Bruins (as a #1 seed). Once again I am consistent in my arguments, unlike most Bruins fans I know who usually try to have it both ways. Thrashing is exactly what it was, whether you admit it or not...the Bruins totally shut down above-average players like Crosby and Malkin and the games were not as close as your scoreboard would indicate. As far as consistency in an argument,you have to be joking...good one Dave K! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Note to self : 90siouxfan is not an individual who should be taken seriously. Maybe, maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 19 times? Hmmm.....that sounds a little high...you know those don't count as a shot on goal right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Yeah, you exaggerated a lot. Boston shut the Pens down, pure and simple...why can't you admit it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle_Rico Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 As for consistency, I challenge you to prove that I am not consistent. Your were inconsistent when you said if and when the Sioux was retired you would stop posting here. Then again, maybe your consistent at lying which would make you consistent I guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 You're delusional if you think it was a thrashing. Three of the four games were tightly contested battles that easily could have gone either way. Fortunately for Boston the Penguins hit the post about 19 times in those three games combined. Sorry if that reality ruins your little idea of what you think it was. Be happy your team won, but don't exaggerate and try to make it out to be more than the reality of what it actually was. As for consistency, I challenge you to prove that I am not consistent. I already have given an example of how I am consistent. Your were inconsistent when you said if and when the Sioux was retired you would stop posting here. Then again, maybe your consistent at lying which would make you consistent I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle_Rico Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I never said that, but as you are one of the more clueless people here I am not surprised that you would think something that isn't true. I recall saying that I would probably not post as much as I did before, but I didn't say that I would never ever make another post here ever again. You are the liar, not me. Now if you can go back and find a post that states otherwise I will stand corrected, but until then I'm going to ask you to stop making stuff up. Why the F*** would I want to read through 2 years worth of your horse s*** posts. It's hard enough to read them once. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Why the F*** would I want to read through 2 years worth of your horse s*** posts. It's hard enough to read them once. That's funny right there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Steven Stamkos with an own-goal on a delayed power player...d'oh! Check out the video. Yikes. http://nhl.si.com/20...-gif/?eref=sihp Lightning still won, 4-3, over Buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Orpik hurt Toews...looks like it may be a serious shoulder injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Orpik hurt Toews...looks like it may be a serious shoulder injury. Without seeing the hit, I'm sure it was within the context of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Orpik hurt Toews...looks like it may be a serious shoulder injury. Hawks have been reeling without Kane. Now Toews as well; they better get both back by the playoffs or they are toast against any of the western teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Hawks have been reeling without Kane. Now Toews as well; they better get both back by the playoffs or they are toast against any of the western teams. Well maybe not the Wild... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Mike Milbury, Brooks Orpik and the idiocy of retribution http://sports.yahoo....-143725598.html I haven't seen Orpik's hit yet, however assuming it was clean as this article says, I agree 100%. I think there's a place for fighting in hockey, but I hate it when a guy delivers a clean hit and someone goes after him - it makes no sense. I'm curious as to how you feel about this comment from the article that you decided to link to here, DaveK: When does an NHL player have to “answer the bell” and fight to atone for his sins? If he takes liberties with a goalie, like when Milan Lucic freight-trained Ryan Miller? Sure. If he takes out a player with a hit that crossed the line of illegality, and you don’t believe the NHL’s punishment fit that crime? OK, fine, that’ll work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I haven't seen Orpik's hit yet, however assuming it was clean as this article says, I agree 100%. I think there's a place for fighting in hockey, but I hate it when a guy delivers a clean hit and someone goes after him - it makes no sense. I'm curious as to how you feel about this comment from the article that you decided to link to here, DaveK: OK - I just went out and watched the hit. Now I can see why Chicago would have went after Orpik, and I don't have a problem with that. Orpik clearly launched himself into Toews. I don't think it was a viscous elbow to the head or anything, however Orpik also clearly made contact to Toews head after launching into him, and that's what they're trying to take out of the game - the contact to the head. According to the rules (linked below) that should have at least been a 2 minute minor. Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head I like how in this clip Brian Engblom says, and I quote..."Yes, his shoulder does make contact to the side of the head, too, but that's a good check in my mind". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgIgat2GBRI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 OK - I just went out and watched the hit. Now I can see why Chicago would have went after Orpik, and I don't have a problem with that. Orpik clearly launched himself into Toews. I don't think it was a viscous elbow to the head or anything, however Orpik also clearly made contact to Toews head after launching into him, and that's what they're trying to take out of the game - the contact to the head. According to the rules (linked below) that should have at least been a 2 minute minor. Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head I like how in this clip Brian Engblom says, and I quote..."Yes, his shoulder does make contact to the side of the head, too, but that's a good check in my mind". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgIgat2GBRI So leaving your feet to deliver a head shot is clean? Yeah, ok. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 So leaving your feet to deliver a head shot is clean? Yeah, ok. I'm guessing that was directed at Brian Engblom and not me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I'm guessing that was directed at Brian Engblom and not me? Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Mike Milbury, Brooks Orpik and the idiocy of retribution http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/mike-milbury--brooks-oprik-and-the-idiocy-of-retribution-143725598.html So based on this writer's opinion, Sidney Crosby better keep his head on a swivel the next time these teams play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Hey, the Wild have won two in a row on the road. Have a tough schedule to finish it out, but their last three games are at home. Thursday they're at Chicago with Chicago minus their two best forwards. Should be a game Minnesota finds a way to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 OK - I just went out and watched the hit. Now I can see why Chicago would have went after Orpik, and I don't have a problem with that. Orpik clearly launched himself into Toews. I don't think it was a viscous elbow to the head or anything, however Orpik also clearly made contact to Toews head after launching into him, and that's what they're trying to take out of the game - the contact to the head. According to the rules (linked below) that should have at least been a 2 minute minor. Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head I like how in this clip Brian Engblom says, and I quote..."Yes, his shoulder does make contact to the side of the head, too, but that's a good check in my mind". If that is a good hit, what do people think of this one... (warning... college game highlight): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 If that is a good hit, what do people think of this one... (warning... college game highlight): Frattin got a penalty for that, correct? Again, I don't think that Orpik completely obliterated Toews, however he launched and made contact to the head, deserving of a penalty. I don't have any issue with Chicago taking umbrage to Orpik's hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 The hit against the Gofs? Couldn't happen to a nicer team. . Didn't that happen to Wehrs two years in a row? 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.