The Greek

Did the first pp unit have four forwards?

Datsyuk and zetterberg were drafted in '98 and '99 respectively, roughly fifteen years ago. It isn't a secret that we have had trouble drafting/developing top 6 forwards. We do have some promising guys in the pipeline, but potential is no guarantee of success.

I agree. It seems we have been doing a far better job of drafting and developing defensemen than forwards.

Awesome

Damn Props to niemi. The Todd had niemi right where he wanted him. That was the definition of a desperation move. It pays to be persistent.

It really looked worse than it was, and Kronwall did put himself in a vulnerable position. However, mckleod has a duty to anticipate Kronwall's change in direction. Furthermore, he didn't let up or attempt to change direction, himself. Two games would be the right call. Then again, I'm not familiar with mckleod's history. If he has been in this situation before, then he deserves more. It is important that you anticipate a pkayer's change in direction. At this level, a guy is not going to stay in a position that opens himself up for a hit. A player may make a mistake, but he will typically compensate by turning or moving. The onus is on the player making the hit to anticipate such a move.

You're right about Quincey. I just figured that Quincey and smith should rotate because they play a similar style. I don't want lash out of the line-up because we don't have many defence minded defenseman.

I would like to see smith and Quincey rotate the 6/7 spot. With the way lash is playing I see no good reason to sit him unless something changes.

When a 16-18 year old is given a choice between fighting or giving up his dream of playing hockey, I posit that he's not able to rationally weigh the consequences of such decision. I highly reccomend that you read the blood on Ice article mentioned in the other fighting thread.

Are you trolling me right now? Like I said, when you take away hitting or the puck, you drastically alter the way the game is actually played. When I say how the game is played I'm talking about between the whistles. Taking away fighting takes nothing away from the game. They stop the damn clock during a fight. If you were to only watch footage of hockey games while the clock is running, a game with fighting will look almost identical to a game without fighting. The only difference is you would see the guys drop the gloves before the clock stops.

Again, the injuries you refer to result from activities that are necessary parts of being a soldier or a firefighter. Fighting is by no means essential to the game of hockey. Furthermore, junior elligibabity starts at age 16. There are a lot of naive, young players who are pigeonholed into a fighter role because of their size or other factors. If they don't go with the role they're given, their career is pretty much over. A naive person, with little formal education will almost always make the choice that allows them to keep playing. I'm usually all for allowing people to make their own mistakes. But the situation here is coercive, plain and simple. The junior hockey clubs rake in the cash, while players are usually paid nothing except for the chance to be drafted.

Or you could keep those necessary elements while just banning the unnecessary element; fighting. Skating on ice is an integral part of gameplay in ice hockey. Fighting is not.I get that you're just playing devil's advocate. But it's only a matter of time before someone says, "people will still get hurt from hits, so you want to ban hitting too?" I hate those arguments because all they do is obscure the point, which should be the minimization of UNNECESSARY risk. Hockey will always be dangerous. I just don't see the benefit of making it more dangerous than it needs to be.

But we need fighting to keep the players safe.

/quote]That's kind of awesome. Nothing against emmerton. But, We are able to make an improvement, as minor as it may be, without losing anything.

Screw you newberry, you punk He doesn't deserve to have his name spelled correctly.

Thanks joshy, you answered every question I could pissibly have on the matter. You should post around here more often.

Smith, wtf?

Can you please elaborate? I don't understand what you're getting at. For the context of my post, see the post that I quoted. I was merely saying that the demands of dekeyser's agent have no bearing on the team's decisions, unless those demands were in the contract. I wasn't referring to Tatar or Nyquist at all. I think it is inexcusable for either of them to not be regulars on the team.

It doesn't matter what was said before the contract is signed. DD got to stay because he has proven that he belongs on the wings.

Clearly not, when you consider last season. If anything, the young guys were vital to us making the playoffs.

Nev, I saw that commercial. It just further proves my point. Babs and Kenny read LGW and they hate us. If that commercial isn't trolling, then I don't know what is.

Do you really not see the inconsistency in your logic? You flip flop back and forth between saying that reducing fights would make hockey more dangerous and that it dilute hockey to the point that it is dancing on ice. Your position is so untenable you need to do these mental backflips in order to justify it in your mind. When someone says that removing or reducing fighting would make the game safer you respond that it waters the game down. When it's argued that the integrity of the game will be preserved even without fighting you just come back and say it would be dangerous. The problem is, your scenarios are incompatible. What the "anti-fighting crowd" (soccer moms as you also call them) wants is to reduce unnecessary injuries while preserving the other, necessary physical aspects that are actually part of the game.

I don't hate it. I really like the idea of having a fast, high energy third line.

Is this a joke? Your pro-fighting stance is due to your concern for the players' safety? I'm sorry, but that does not make any sense. Look at the amount brain damage these guys sustain. For enforcers, drug abuse and alcoholism are common ways to cope with the the crippling depression that often accompanies such brain damage. Read that Boogard article. It features several players who talk about the long term effects, such as the onset of dementia. You cannot say that your position is in the interest of player safety. Despite your denial, your position is based on you being entertained. You even say so in your other posts where you say how you love hockey much more than sports that are less tolerant of fighting. If you really are motivated by player safety, then I encourage you to do some research on the effects of sustaining repeated punches to the head, or you just read some of the stories of former enforcers who have to deal with a severely dimished quality of life due to their lifestyle choice. You will see that hockey does nothing to make the make the game any safer.

I would say he's earned a shot at playing on the wings. From there, he would have to prove that he deserves to stay. If you think he has had ample chance to do so, and has failed, then I can't disagree with you. That would be your opinion. I'm not saying that's what you really think. I'm just sayin that's the only way you can legitimately say he hasn't earned a spot on the team. Otherwise, he's not being afforded the chance he's earned.