Static Burn

Now that he's retired I feel like his accent has already gotten more Swedish.

I'm confused. When does he get to the part where he says he's pleased to announce they've signed Suter, Weber, Doan and Parise and he's really looking forward to playing alongside them next season?

He's widely regarded as one of the biggest divers in the game, by many people, not just me. I didn't wish injury on him, either. I said he's gonna get a bit of a pummeling for the running around he does. You don't think a Coyote is going to go after him next season? This is also the first time I've discussed Brown on the forums. Stop putting words in my mouth and making s*** up.

I saw it all. I don't like his flopping/embelishment. Never have. Do I have to like him?

So quick to jump on the hatewagon..
I wonder if these people saw how much Brown was being given the business earlier in the series.

Amongst straw men, I don't think I've seen such a retarded attempt at parodying a rather sincere opinion. The discussion you are replying to had to do with intent. It was obvious as day Bert had the intent of injuring a guy by following him around the ice hitting him in the back of the head, which somehow compares to this incident. I'm only awaiting your trifecta of stupid with an invocation of Godwin's law.
Let me try a b.shanahan14 analogy.
Lucic almost KILLED Miller! He should be sued worse than the fake lawsuit against Chara and the po-po should "charge" his ass in return! Overreaction über alles!

Haha you don't actually read anything, do you? Quit picking a sentence and applying your own foolish context so that it fits your argument loosely, and address the conversation as a whole. Like I said previously, this does not apply and should not apply to deciding if a clean hit receives a penalty. And to continue to compare this to a skater on skater incident is the most ridiculous thing in this thread. This is intending, and doing a damn good job of achieving a hard open-ice hit on a goaltender without the puck.
By your argument, the Bertuzzi-Moore incident (since apparently we're just making whatever wacky, unrelated, irrelevant references we can since we don't have any hard precedents, right) was a roughing penalty and nothing more, because hey, he got penalized right? And he didn't mean to crumple him like a piece of paper. Sure he meant to hit him, but come on, would he mean to do that? And then all the Avs jumped in on him and Moore, he couldn't control that. That was all just a misunderstanding, he should have served his two and been back out there.
"That's good tough hockey, just like any other hit! Quit being a wimp. There was no intent to injure, therefore he is fine hitting a protected, unhittable player who just so happens to be the most important to the opposition's season. And if he is injured and misses a few games, that's not my fault, I didn't intend for it." - Shoreline (since you did such a good job at putting words in my mouth )
As far as I'm concerned, you're probably closer if you're comparing it to a hit on a linesman then you are a skater on skater hit.

Injuries should not have bearing on whether a clean play gets a penalty or a suspension (Kronwall on Havlat). However, in instances like this one, where a play is at the very least stupid and reckless, at its worst cheap and dirty, and considered by all to be a penalty both in the moment and afterwards, the goal of disciplinarians should be to determine the extent to which the player is penalized. More times than not they will decide (correctly) that, while the play was illegal, it was not of an apparent attempt to be 'dirty' or malicious.
In this case, however, the play was unnecessary, borderline cheap on a protected player (a goaltender), and moreover, a player whose talents and position as the franchise goaltender for his team, more than any in the league decide the success or failure of that teams season or beyond. Put it this way: Crosby received his concussion on two plays, one not yet penalized, the final one a seemingly harmless hit. Those were in the bounds of the rules on a skater used to taking hits. People called for suspensions post-injury on even the initial hit. He has been out for the better part of a whole season, and he only plays half to a third of each game.
Miller on the other hand was hit without reason to expect it, outside the bounds of the rules. He plays more than 99.9% of the league's players (even among goaltenders), sixty minutes minutes per game, 65-70 games a year. Concussions (and yes, the NHL's definition of concussions in particular) can happen subtly and linger for months. Lets say at the very least Miller misses 2-3 games with some lingering affects thereafter, that puts 4-6 points in jeopardy for the Sabres plus any diminished performance afterward. How many points separated the 6th best team in each conference from the 10th best team last season?
The Bruins can survive losing Lucic for even 10 games (though 3-5 is probably more appropriate) far better than the Sabres could losing Miller for 3. Set a precedent now, save the league in the long run. Stupid (cheap), unnecessary play ends in injury to a goaltender? Take a seat.
And not to use this as an argument against those who think there should be no suspension, or even those (shockingly enough) who think Miller should shoulder half or more of the blame, but if Howard left the crease, cleared a puck, and then afterwards was bulldozed by a goon like Lucic (completely avoidable), this board would be calling for blood. And Howard is a much sturdier guy the Ryan Miller (210lbs. vs. 175 lbs.).

Miller is one of my favourite goalies here but f*** it, I like what Lucic did. Goalies get enough protection in the crease and around it. They don't deserve to go for a skate that far up the ice and expect to be protected as they aren't protecting the net at that point (otherwise the argument is the goalie being anywhere on the ice is considered protecting the net), they're playing the puck as any other skater. Lucic doing that, while infuriating him, lets him know that next time the puck is that far up the ice, Miller is taking a risk by going for a skate so far up the ice, and he just might think twice. I don't think goalie interference applies to that, even less do I think it's charging the goaltender. Lucic is finishing a hit on a player skating far away from his net to play the puck and not playing goal.
The reaction by Miller and Ruff is over the top.

Oh wait, they still have 69 games left.
But good lord, Leafs in 1st, Florida 5th, Boston dead last, and out west Edmonton 1st, Minnesota 4th, Vancouver 10th, San Jose 11th, Red Wings 13th. (Edit: As I was typing this the standings were updated, San Jose went up to 5th and Vancouver dropped to 10th)
What a oddly interesting dozen'ish game start to the season.

And saying
isn't pointless fluff? You can apply that to every single season in which they don't start well and it wouldn't matter. Because, well, what happened in 2007-08 doesn't matter. This just in: It's 2087-2088 and the Wings are off to a dreadful, slow start but are poised to win the Stanley Cup because they did in 2007-08.All you have been able to do is make, what you think, funny little quips towards me without actually responding to anything I say.
You can still try "to make me eat my words." Again, those words were the past doesn't matter, especially 5 years ago, but if history does matter then the Red Wings will lose in the playoffs, probably to San Jose, because that's what's happened in the past two years. Have at it. You won't though. Instead of admitting defeat you'll find some smart ass comment to say to me.
You are aware that when you were talking with Eva about Samsonov it was me that suggested it first, right? Thought all I had to say was "pointless fluff." In case you skipped over it I said that he comes into my work quite a bit and no teams are after him. He won't be the 70 point player he was but I think he can be a smaller, quicker Danny Cleary and help spark the offense.
How's Ford doing again? That's another topic you will yet avoid and rather try to blast me because you know you are wrong, you just don't know how to deal with it. Instead, the most you'll come up with is something along the lines of "stop playing in the snow piles Whitney har har har har har har."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls
Sit down and shut up

Ouch. That hurt. It's sad you don't realize they are nearly one in the same.
Line combinations = roster. Pretty simple concept. Again, I'm not stating there is a problem. But if Babcock is hinting at it then maybe there is some truth to it. He's obviously trying to juggle the ROSTER to find some combination to spark the team becuase we all know they aren't playing the best hockey as of late, he's said so himself. Just because "it's been the most said statement by him" doesn't make it any less true. However I'm more inclined to think it could have been the month in between games they had. But if that spark, down the road, is waiving Brunnstrom and Emmerton and putting in Murask and Tatar, both of whom have more upside than the former, then so be it. Tatar is nothing but passion and hustle. Look at his first goal, kid wants to be a Red Wing. That's not saying the rest of the players don't. I have to try and be as clear as possible here.
I remember when nobody was safe from Bowman. Even Stevie was in Bowmans dog house. It's unfortunate everyone has gone soft.
I always find it humorous when people make references to the past, especially in sports and when it's five years ago. See, the thing about the past is, well, it's the past. It has little to no relevance to the team in the PRESENT. I *think* there is a saying about not living in the past, I'm not entirely positive though. Yes, it's virtually the same team in terms of the 'core' but you're talking about a Zetterberg, Datysuk, Lidstrom, Rafalaski, etc etc five years younger. There's a little difference there.
But I forgot they won the cup that year so surely they are destined to this year! But wait, I can live in the past as well. Didn't San Jose knock us out the past two years? Not quite sure I want that to repeat itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol, -4, am I not kissing the Red Wings ass enough for you guys? I remember when this forum used to be good and someone could have a strong opinion. Now that's living in the past.

We have one of the most capable rosters in the whole league that can deliver in each and every game and all we get is clear lack of effort. I'm getting tired of all these after game quotes "We though we were prepared", "We just got beat, 7-1, so to start like that tonight, to me, is lack of preparation," "It was a disappointing effort. The coaching staff didn't do a good enough job; the players didn't do a good enough job."
We've heard such things so many times during the last two/three years. Where are the consequences? I think the real reason is that everyone on the roster feel too safe. They known that no matter how bad they play they'll never be traded. Starting from 4th line plug Miller to "superstar" Zetterberg. When intensity of the game is rather low we often win on a pure skill, when it gets higher like in the last two games we simply give up. To me this is pure lack of effort. If Bertuzzi or Zetterberg don't like to compete in games like this scratch them and call up Nyquist or Tatar.
PS For those saying that it is only two games (there are always a plenty of such guys) I recommend to watch some other teams. No team in this league gives up games so easily.

In 2007-08 the Red Wings' first 7 games were 4-2-1 (9 pts) -- pretty sure we remember how that season ended.
So far they have 5-2-0 (10 pts) and are on pace for 117. So, following a horrendous 5-2 start, without reservation, we begin another season episode of Panic time!

If that's your thought process, than you truly don't understand depression.
That's not a knock on you, as you claimed ignorance about the disease. I'm just confirming the fact that you don't know enough about it.
RIP Rick.

Sarcastic?
Bottom line is that if you're mad at someone for taking their life when the individual never was able to get control of his/her depression shows you simply don't understand how the disease can fully consume them.

I love a shootout. Honestly, I'm with martyrme19, I think the shootout has attracted new fans. But the 4v4 needs to go. I think they should do a 5v5 for 10 min and then go to a shootout. Shootouts almost always make the highlights and it needs to stay. The 4v4 for 5 min is just silly and waste. I like 5v5 hockey, that's why I watch. Keep the shootout, the 4v4 needs to go.

I am a big fan of the shootout as well. At the same time, I would rather see a 4v4 5 minute OT followed by a 5 minute 3v3 OT. In some games 5v5 isn't going to cut it. I believe that a 4v4 is more exciting and a 3v3 would be even more exciting to watch. Just my .02 cents.

am i the only person here who actually doesnt mind the shoot out? i mean its the best option in my eyes to end a regular season game with excitement without dragging the game on where either people may leave or perhaps a player gets injured. Im good with the shoot outs in the regular season. Maybe a small addendum to the current role, play one 10 minute OT and then shoot out? is this being tossed around? no silly 3-3 to 2-2 , just 5-5 hockey , and if it gets past the 10 minute OT, give me the shoot out.

I'm not much of a fan of these changes, except the removal of the trapezoid as it actually addresses an error and corrects it instead of makes it worse.
The touch/no-touch icing and OT issues are just being continuously mangled. Either keep icing as it is, or implement no-touch. Simple. For OT, either make OT continuous 5 on 5 or 4 on 4, or extend it to something more reasonable like 20 minutes, before throwing the game into a shootout. The 5 minute 4 on 4 and the 4 on 4/3 on 3 hybrid is stupid as hell.

OLN Versus NBC SN.

I said his sole purpose was to complain about people complaining about Bettman. Everybody else here came to this thread to complain about Bettman. See the difference?

And once again my point goes over your head. There is a difference between commenting on a thread and complaining about the people that are commenting on the thread. I never complained I was just stating the simple fact that if you are tired of the same threads just don't comment. He wanted to sound superior and put down the people that were commenting.

and the problem is????? u like to complain but not be complained about?

ur original comment was...wait for it... a complaint! lol. u complain, i complain, we all complain. dont paint urself as not guilty of it.