The Greek

If a player gives up when down by 1 or 2 goals in the first period, he should not be in the NHL. This series, Howard has six goals against, the team has scored two, one of which was a flukey bounce. Goaltending is the only area that has been half-way decent. There's no denying that Howard was pretty awful throughout the season. However, he's been much more consistent since the Olympic break. Without him, we're down 3-0. Arguably, he's plaid well enough for us to be up 2-1.

First, I would like you to go through my posts and find where I singled you out and called you a racist. In the very post you quoted, I acknowledged it is unfair to accuse someone of racism when I do not know what truly motivates him.

Admittedly, My paramaters for Kenny's firing were a bit too broad (he should be fired if iron hook plays a single game for preds). However, unless he bolts to Europe after this season, it's still a bad trade. If he plays for the preds next year, and does well, OR if he stays in the minors for a short stint and is called up, then holland should be fired. Under those scenarios holland either severely misjudged iron hook's talent or he shipped the kid off for trying to take a stand against being kept in the minors until he was out of options.

I didn't say everyone who dislikes pk is a racist. I did say that a lot of the PK hate is due to racial prejudice. I also said that there are people who dislike arrogance across the board, and that is a consistent and legitimate viewpoint to have. I didn't want to single out your post, because I didn't want to seem like I'm picking on you and it's not fair to accuse individuals of racism when I don't truly know their motivations. But, You really should have left this one alone. If you really think all showboating is the same, you PROBABLY would have agreed when someone brought up ovechkin as an example of an nba attitude. Instead, you said he has more of a soccer attitude. Now you're saying that NBA/NFL/Soccer attitudes are all the same, because it works with your argument. Your reaction to my post (everyone who disagrees with you is racist) is exactly why I hate discussing race with other white people. It is exactly what I was talking about when I said many people stop listening once the "race card" is played. The fact of the matter is that racism is still a problem. When guys show up to the Olympics in blackface and subban jerseys, and a player gets suspended for asking PK if he slipped on a banana peel, it becomes hard to argue that there is no race-based resentment towards subban.

All this talk about iron hook having a deal with brynas; has it occured to anyone that it was leverage to force the wings to do something like this? Honestly, I'm not sure how I would handle it if was a GM. There is definitely something to be said about not getting bullied at the negotiating table, but I'm not sure. Kenny has a better idea of iron hook's true intentions than any of us. However, if iron hook plays a single game for the preds, holland has to go.

It's really sad that Kenny's job is in no danger.

I wasn't calling everyone racist, but I was, indeed, saying that MUCH of the PK hate is race based. I just don't like throwing the word around, because a lot of white people refuse to believe that racism is still a problem, and many people may not be aware of their own prejudices. I prefer to let people confront the issue themselves, because it is the only way some people will realize what truly influences their opinions. There are people who really don't like arrogance or showmanship. I have no issue with that. There were several people who hated Tatar and mursak's goal celebrations. But I do remember most posters not having a problem with it. I just find it strange that his "arrogance" is enough for some people to not want one of the game's Best defenseman on their team. Admittedly, with the arrogance stuff, it's a bit of a wash. Nonetheless, there is still an undoubtable amount of PK hate that is race based. Saying he is a hockey player with the attitude of a football player is a clear illustration of this. I just really wish I could find the article, because something very similar was said In this thread.

The blind hate for subban is really weird. I know the Norris is not the end-all be-all when rating defensemen, but if we had an opportunity to pick up any other Norris winner, from the last several years, I can't help but feel there would be at least a little more support behind the idea. It's also really weird how people discuss PK in a manner that is just not seen when discussing other players. I don't want to point to anyone in particular, so I'll just refer to an article in which they said PK is a hockey player with the attitude of a football player. What the hell does that mean? Why is pk's arrogance any worse than Ovie? Why is it harder for people to get over subban than chelios? Why do we love Bert, who ended a guys career, but PK's character is irradeemable? The worst things PK has done, according to some of you, are barely related to hockey. He's a young kid with the audacity to have a skill-set possessed by very few other people, and he's arrogant about it. Guess what? He has a right to be arrogant. When he started playing mini-mites, every kid in the same situation had the same dream to make it to the show. The comments hating on subban are exactly why this place has become borderline intolerable. So much of the opinions of subban either have nothing to do with his play or are so vague, they can't really be debated. (Lazy, stupid penalties). A lot of you keep throwing around the word arrogant when I think you mean uppity.

I wouldn't be offended in the least, but this isn't about me. This about the type of society in which we want to live. If at your age, you don't see what's wrong with that kind of behavior in a public place, especially one in which children are present, then there's nothing I can do to help you. As far as decency in bars go, that wasn't the best analogy in my part, but don't equate being a Midwesterner with being crass. I see us in a different light. I see Midwesterners as hardworking, salt of the earth types. We're not Neanderthals.

Some of you guy should not be allowed out in public. It's really embarrassing that a group of grown men think wanton violence is acceptable, especially as a response to a non-violent act. @eirotwins: good for you. You should be proud of the fact that you would violently attack someone that has never done anything to you. @F. Michael: you don't have to be quoting Shakespeare in order to act like a decent person. Calling for a violent attack on another person falls outside the realm of decency. Most people try to act decently when not hiding behind a screen-name. That was the point of the sports-bar analogy. You can substitute a sports bar with any other public setting in which people discuss sports. @GMR: I wasn't sticking up for pavelski, I hate the guy. However, he hasn't done anything that warrants an elbow to the face.

Have you ever watched pavelski play? Cleary elbowed Hannan. Even if it was pavelski, it's pretty sad that you think repeated dives deserve to be met with violence. Think about it for a moment. Is that something you would say to me if we had just met in a sports bar? I doubt it.

Oops

So a dive deserves an elbow to the head?

I think osgood feels uncomfortable criticizing his friend and former counterpart. You could argue that it's osgood's professional responsibility to be impartial. Nonetheless, it's hard to be critical of someone you see regularly, especially when you're close with that person. It's usually the national writers and commentators that really criticisize players. Either way, you can't pin this all on Howard. The first goal was a onetimer in which zetterberg let pavelski get away from him and get open. Howard played really well until the second goal, which was awful. The third goal was a rebound, but it's not like Howard kicked it out. It bounced right into pavelski's pants. He just handled it perfectly. The fourth goal looks as if Kronwall was screening Howard. If that's not the case then it's a pretty bad goal. I didn't mean for this post to turn into a defense of Howard. He has not been playing well enough to get the majority of starts. However, it's premature to run him out of town or declare Gus the new starter. It seems like most of Howard's issues are mental. Furthermore, it's not like we're losing a bunch of games by one goal. There are many games where the offense, defense, or both fail to show up. Edit: I didn't think about all the shootouts. We've totally lost a bunch of one goal games. Still, before this season, Howard was really good in the shootout. Which brings me back to my point that Howard's issues seem to be mental.

Holy crap...

It's kind of lame how they only took a picture from one vantage point. I was excited about buying one until I found that I was completely obscured by the glass.

Seriously, it was a madhouse. That place was not meant to handle that many people in that kind of weather. Especially when so many were drinking. Still, it was pretty awesome.

That was helpful. Are we supposed to be jealous? You do realize everyone that is going to the game had the option to do what you're going to do. I'm going to avoid parking on campus, if you think parking is going to be bad, leaving will be even worse.

I don't think you can blame poor training for this type of injury. It's not like it's an injury to a joint or muscle. Nonetheless, the teams training regimen should be reexamined.

I just want to say, phaneuf came across as a total dweeb. Who wears a pre-tied bowtie?

Since Neal got less than he deserves, Thornton should get less than he deserves? Is that how you approach punishment for crime? Since one person has gotten away with murser, we shouldn't punish anyone for it.

C'mon, you can't just say things that aren't true. This season, jimmy has definitely been bad in the shootout. But, that doesn't mean Howard was never good in them. He actually still has a decent career save percentage in the SO despite saving less than half of the attempts, this season. That means his SO numbers were actually good, once upon a time.

Maybe it's not an age or a generational thing. The more I know and learn, it just becomes harder for me to be entertained by naked violence. If Lemieux turned out like Moore, would you still feel the same way? It doesn't matter why McCarty did it. Bert was doing it to stick up for naslund. It shouldn't be allowed because you run the unnecessary risk of severely injuring someone. Although I don't support fighting, it would have been far better to pummel Lemieux face to face, when he's consenting. Not some blindside punch he wasn't expecting. If Lemieux doesn't want to fight, put him into the boards, hard, every chance you get. Also, you could just win. How much does mccarty's fight mean if we ended up losing to the Av's in the playoffs?

There are a couple things that I think are very odd, when I read this thread. Everyone brings up the knee by Neal. I don't get what that has to do with anything. One suspension-worthy offense doesn't validate another. Also, I don't understand the focus on the result of the incident. It shouldn't matter if orpik was hurt or if he jumped up and started river dancing. Thornton assaulted someone, on the ice. It's the same reason emery should have been suspended. Before anyone brings up McCarty, if a wings player did that now, I would say he should be suspended. When I was 8, McCarty turtling Lemieux was the most awesome thing ever. Now, I'd be troubled by it, especially if it was done the same way. What Bert did to Moore is a perfect example of why there should be no tolerance for this stuff. He never intended for the result to be what it was. But, stuff happens. Especially when you attack someone when he's not expecting it. I think the proper punishment for this kind of attack is an automic 20 game suspension. A subsequent offense should be a year or more. This isn't like an illegal hit, for which it is harder to determine the intent. When you attack someone or swing for the head, it's pretty clear what you're trying to do.

Looking back at the interview with mick, this makes a lot of sense. If he never intended to play and the team knew that, I don't think they would have put so much emphasis on the AG during the interview. In hindsight, it looks like a ploy to drum up discussion. I know mick is not employed by the team, but that's just splitting hairs. Either way, I don't care. This game is going to be awesome. I'm not even excited about the WC itself. The league pretty much ruined it.