Doc Holiday

Good one Kenny.

I don't know why, but the MAD version of Jason Williams wasn't very funny the first time I saw it. After seeing it a second time, I can't stop laughing.

This is probably the best copypasta in the NHL. When did the old age thing come out? 1999?

You must be riding the short bus if you think Chelios had any positive impact on the team last season. Also, Draper scored Detroit's only goal in game six.

Yes, I was aware of that. However it had to be pointed out to me, and the distinction is so small that it is barely noticable as a C.

Classic doesn't make it good. Classic never makes anything good. And sure, it is sharp, but it isn't a good logo. It would be like using a Skate as a logo for the Canadiens in 1917 and saying that is a classic sharp logo. Okay, but why is it good? Because it was an original logo? A good logo is a logo that is pleasing to the eye and represents the team or the tema name. The Stick in Rink MAY be pleasing to the eye, but it isn't Canuck. It is hockey. Lets go Vancouver hockey team! Honestly, you could even argue that the rink is a swimming pool and the stick is a broken diving board. I apologize for my abrasiveness, but that is possibly the one logo where I cannot believe people actually think it is decent. And no one has ever given me a reason why, except that it is simple and classic. Neither of those are reasonable reasons, because a square is simple, and if it was used in the early 1900s then it would be classic.

Cern expressed my opinion of the logo quite nicely. Sometimes personal opinion can't be used to hide the fact that a logo is ******* horrible.

We don't have Kopecky, and isn't Malby's salary on the books till his contract expires? Or is that just Draper. Everyone knows both of them are useless anyways. I would have preferred Downs over both of them.

Damn, I wish I had been paying attention when the first batch was on sale. I'm tempted to sell my Osgood and Fedorov jerseys, though they are seriously small.

Because the Wings logo is more than simple shapes. That is my point. The Canucks logo is a square and stick. Man, ******* groundbreaking isn't it?

There is a difference between liking different logos and thinking a rounded square with a stick in it is an acceptable logo.

Pronger will probably beat him to it.

Oooopppssss.

And Bowman got swept against a weaker New Jersey team in the finals. What was his excuse? Babcock won a cup within three years of being a coach in Detroit, then went to the finals the next year, taking it to seven games. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's not. Really, really not. Too simple of a design (first graders could have designed that), doesn't represent the team in any way shape or form. What can you get out of that logo that is positive?

Classic, but stupid. They are not the vancouver hockey rink. Their logo doesn't represent the team, city, or history of the franchise. It represents hockey. Good on the flames for picking a good jersey NOT influenced by Reebok. My idea for a Hurricanes third. Also NOT influenced by Reebok.

Osgood wins. Who cares how bad he is in the regular season?

You weren't really talking to anyone. That was a general post. And no. I will not shut whatever kind of mouth I have.

1. A dirty play (running at the goaltender) is much different than a missed shot. EVERY player has missed shots. 2. My argument that Downey did have a dirty play once in his career is not disproven by this statement.

Atlanta is probably the one NHL team where you would want to kill yourself playing with. Not the best environment for Manny.

Cheered? Possibly, but not incredibly likely. Standing ovation? Hardly. Was Dmac cheered after his first return to the Joe (as a flame)? McCarty was a much bigger piece in Detroit than Downey was.

Not really. It's just hockey, folks.

I do not approve of that.

Has Mac ever kicked a guy in the nuts? That seems to be the missing link.

Whatever you say, padre.