cprice12

Somebody gets it.

Ahh...the 'ol fixing of posts. Why do you keep bringing up Pronger? It's like you have absolutely nothing in this debate so you are trying to discuss other things. That's a desperate tactic in debate speak...just so you know. Why don't you bring up the number of cups Detroit has won too? Haven't heard that in this thread yet...which is strange. And nah, while the '91 series was great, as I do remember it vividly...there is more recent satisfaction. Such as the 10-3 drubbing the Blues put on the Wings in Detroit last year and beating the Wings the first two games this year. No, that's not playoffs...just baby steps...but I'll take what I can get...it was still fun to watch. Good luck during our next debate. Maybe I'll let you win the next one so you won't feel so bad.

Dude, there was no jumping back and bouncing off the boards embelleshment by Jackman. He was stunned by the shoulder to the face. I know Datsyuk is more of a figure skater than a checker, but a shoulder to the face in the NHL isn't usually a love tap...but I can see why you may think that since it was Dainty Datsyuk who delivered the hit. You need to stop talking. It's one thing to debate if the Datsyuk hit was suspension worthy, but it's quite another to say he barely tapped him and Jackman was faking the whole thing. That's absurd. If Jackman had a well known history of faking and diving, you'd at least have history on your side, but he doesn't...and you don't. Sorry to break that to you.

Wow...and I'm the one who was accused of "spinning"? Well done.

You would be correct if an elbow were in question...but it didn't look like an elbow to me...it's a shoulder to the face...which would be a fine or suspension for most players on most teams. And that picture shows the contact. But I guess because Pierre McGuire said the hit was clean after seeing it once on a replay at ice level, that's all she wrote. And hey, psst...get this...between you and me, there are some people in this very forum (won't name names) that honestly feel that Jackman wasn't hit in the face at all (NO, I WON'T GET OUT OF TOWN!!) and actually threw his head back ACTING like he was hit (shhh, let me finish), in other words, gasp...faking it (I know, I can't believe it either...but I read it myself, a couple times actually)...even though the picture clearly shows shoulder on face.

That image shows the puck being shot in by Abdelkader. My question to you is, why is he shooting the puck into the zone? If he never saw Cole, he had a clear lane to the net...so why slide it into the zone? He did so to either get rid of the puck before the hit to dump it in, meaning he saw Cole coming at the last moment, or he was going to try to side step Cole but ended up not having enough time. That's my opinion on how the play looked like it was developing to me. And again...I'm not saying Cole shouldn't have been suspended...I think he could have gotten a fine or a suspension, but not more than a game or two. Three seems excessive based on other suspensions that Shanahan has dished out. The one website I linked to listed a few examples of hits that didn't even get a suspension that looked worse than the hit on Abdelkader. Only took me a minute. ...ok, here you go... written by George Malik (an admitted biased Red Wings fan in his bio) for KuklasKorner.com... the uber biased Red Wing slanted site itself: So there you go. Funny that that's pretty much what I have been saying. Thoughts? That's Stewart, who was behind Abdelkader. He didn't have him tied up, exposing him/making him vulnerable to possible injury from another check. There is no penalty there for Cole coming over to check Abdelkader, had the check been a full body check. In that situation, Cole would never be called for...whatever you want to call it...roughing or whatever because Stewart was a stride behind Abdelkader with his stick on Abdelkader's shins. Not gonna happen.

I'm not spinning anything...just probably over analyzing the two plays. I'm not bitter. I just hate the Wings like I hate the Hawks. It's a sports rivalry thing. I don't care to be jealous of something I hate. The difference in Turek and Elliot is that, while Turek put up some very good numbers in one season as a Blue, he never looked THAT solid. His success was in large part due to the team in front of him. Brent Johnson also put up great numbers that year as the backup. Elliot looks very, very good and it has little to do with the team in front of him. It's easy to tell the difference when you watch every Blues game, every year. Which I have, and no offense, but you have not. Turek was a basket case and had weight issues. Now, I'm not saying Elliot won't suffer a slump or revert to bad habits, but based on his play so far, to put it simply, he just looks really, really good. Tracking the puck extremely well, few rebounds and stopping everything he should along with 99% of the ones he shouldn't. He looked really good in the games vs. Detroit, but Detroit is a good team and they scored a few on him in both games. I don't recall any of the goals being goals "he should have had". Detroit had some nice goals. He's going to have some bad games...every goalie does. I'm really curious and hopeful he can keep it up in the 2nd half...because I am not confident at all in Halak.

Many, many, many people disagree with you. It's kind of been the talk amongst Blues nation for a couple days now. They are very comparable in that they were both hits to the head. One got a suspension, the other got nothing. One was a lesser known younger player, the other is a superstar. Blues fans have reason to question the inconsistencies. And Red Wings fans agree completely with the suspension to Cole and the no-call on Datsyuk? Shocker! Which is why I mentioned agreeing to disagree earlier.

That didn't make any sense...but then again, neither does most of your post. I guess you missed it where I said the crosschecks by Jackman on Datsyuk should have been called and how it was a bad no-call? Yeah...thought so. And on Hitchcock... So, you are assuming something completely different than what Hitchcock is implying with that comment? Ok. The Blues writers and members of the press have stated the Blues are not at all happy with the inconsistencies of the suspensions and length of suspensions being handed out to the Blues when compared against other suspensions this year across the league... and part of that is wondering why Datsyuk's hit wasn't looked at. This isn't just me. This is coming from folks who have a lot more contacts in the Blues organization than I do. 1) I NEVER trash talked Howard this year. All I said was all of his numbers at the time, except wins, were not as good as Elliot's and in some categories, not as good as a few other goalies. I was just posting stats. 2) I said Elliot has played better so far than any Blues goalie I have ever seen...am I wrong on that too? Or do you have a better goalie that I HAVE SEEN PLAY for St. Louis? Elliot by far had the best GAA and Save % in the league for crying out loud. I also said it wasn't even halfway through the season yet and things could change...but so far, Elliot should be a Vezina candidate. The only thing holding him back is games played. If you guys had a capable backup, Howard would have a few less starts as well...granted, he wouldn't be splitting time like Elliot, but still. How are you qualified to say what Cole & Datsyuk's intentions were when they dished out their hits? Did you talk to both of them after the game? I wasn't aware you had press credentials. Different results? Both players are/were fine after the hit. No injuries. How were the results different? Again, I'm not the only one questioning the consistency/inconsistency here. You act like this is some crazy thought by one fan, when it's a very legitimate question being asked by a lot of folks...but apparently not in Detroit. I've been here and posting occasionally off and on since 2002...a year before you got here. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. For your reading pleasure... Others who aren't happy with or are questioning the NHL's inconsistencies on suspensions surrounding the Blues: Belleville News-Democrat: http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/03/2000605/blues-not-fond-of-coles-suspension.html St. Louis Post Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hockey/professional/cole-s-suspension-frustrates-blues/article_14fe64f4-49cd-5869-93e9-4f61c86c4c4c.html Lets Go Blues: http://www.letsgoblues.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29401&sid=3674818e08bfc2e7f84d217fa9d70505 Frozen Notes: http://frozennotes.com/2012/01/01/ian-cole-suspended-three-games-consistency-eludes-nhl/ The Blue Note Zone: http://bluenotezone.com/2012/01/02/blues-news-nhl-suspends-cole-for-3-games-warning-rant-inside/ St. Louis Game Time: http://www.stlouisgametime.com/2012/1/1/2675549/ian-cole-has-been-suspended-three-games-for-his-hit-on-justin#comments

I guess the agree to disagree thing went out the window. What Cole did wasn't dirty, it was a bang-bang play. He's not a dirty player...or at least he hasn't shown to be one in his hockey career yet, but hey, maybe you're right...maybe he just started being a "dirty player" the moment he hit Abdelkader. It's possible. How many times do I have to say I was fine with Cole being suspended? I'm more annoyed with: 1) The length of the suspension and... 2) The inconsistencies with Shanahan's suspensions that he is handing out. This wasn't a fight and a 3rd man in. You can hit a guy who "has a guy on him" already, skating through the neutral zone. No, it doesn't...unless of course, Abdelkader is hit. Seems like when he gets hit, the player who does the hitting gets a suspension for an illegal hit to the head. That's two this year. Maybe he needs to play with his head up a little more. Just a thought. Not "near the head". Try..."in the face". I see you have taken the neutral, unbiased, mature stance to try to make your point. Bravo. He flopped his head back because he was hit in the face with an elbow/shoulder. It's one thing to say the head wasn't the principal point of contact, that's a debate I can have, but it's another to say Jackman didn't get hit in the head and was faking contact. That's just ridiculous. I think you just showed your cards there...Jackman isn't known for diving. I can't recall a play where he has dove or badly embellished a play to get a call. I'm not saying he has never done it, but he isn't known for it and he doesn't make a habit of it. But hey, you probably see the Blues play, what, 8 times a year? ... I see them play 82...so maybe you know more about Jackman's tendencies on the ice than I do. Very, very doubtful...but there is a chance I guess. Cheap shots are a different story...Jackman will dish out cheap shots, but he's not a diver. Shanahan has taken the word "blindside" out of the rules for illegal hits. Just so you know. So, legally, I don't think you can use that word anymore when talking hockey. ...continuted on next post due to quoting limit...

Hitchcock not happy with Cole suspension... BND.com Like I said...agree to disagree. Abdelkader saw it coming at the last moment, hence what he did with the puck. Not sure what else I can say without just repeating myself...so again, agree to disagree.

As I mentioned, I'm not overly upset with the suspension as it was a hit to the head. And if Abdelkader did slow down at the last moment, like Cole said, it's still a dangerous play. But again, if Abdelkader didn't see Cole, then what was he doing with the puck? It looked to me like he slid the puck past the defense when he picked up Cole at the last moment, and was going to go get it after slipping past Cole...or he was just getting rid of the puck before getting hit. Obviously I'm reading into it some, but from playing hockey for 20 years, that's how I saw that play developing. If Abdelkader never saw Cole, he wouldn't have given up the puck like he did. From experience, I say Abdelkader saw Cole at the last moment and had enough time to react with the puck...and logic would also tell you that Abdelkader may have changed speeds as well. Anyway, like I said, what I'm more annoyed with is the lack of a call on Datsyuk. You guys can spin that hit however you like, but Datsyuk lunged up and into Jackman's face on the hit. That's how I saw it. It should have at least been reviewed. If Shanny reviews it and deems it a legal hit, then ok...but at least review it as it was a hit to the head. And I'm not sure why anyone is surprised or upset that Jackman was upset...he was hit in the face and wanted a call, and was pissed when he didn't get one. Not shocking there at all. And as far as the crosschecks that Jackman gave Datsyuk, if you guys had read what I said earlier in the thread, or in the GDT...forgot which one...I said I have no idea why Jackman wasn't penalized for that..he should have been...bad no call. But that's not really the issue as what he did wasn't suspension worthy anyway. But if you want to get into "should have been penalties that aren't suspension worthy", we can go back to when Howard wrongly jumped on Perron a couple games back and gave him a shot or two to the face with no penalty at all. We can debate this all day...maybe I'll just agree to disagree with you guys.

According to Cole, he had Abdelkader lined up but Abdelkader moved at the last moment, exposing only his head to the check. Those are Cole's words...and the replays back that up as it looks like Abdelkader tries to slide the puck by Cole and slip by him. That should also be an important detail when discipline is applied. Which brings me back to my statement of the game being too fast to eliminate those types of hits, which is the goal by using suspensions against players who commit those hits. Players need to be aware of where they are on the ice. Abdelkader had his head down as he received a pass from behind in the neutral zone. He has to expect a hit there, like Shanny said. That's a suicide pass. But whatever, I don't have a problem Cole being suspended as it was a hit to the head and that is the rule...I do have an issue with the number of games. Three seems excessive based on other suspensions this year for the same amount of games or less. And until there is the same standard for suspensions on star players as there is for lesser known players, the system is severely flawed. The fact it was Datsyuk (annual Lady Byng candidate and superstar player) that threw the hit had a lot to do with him not getting a penalty and not getting a suspension. If Jackman hits Datsyuk like that, he gets a penalty and probably suspended. And don't tell me that an elbow or shoulder to the head is ok as long as you get the body too. That's simply not the case. If the head targeted and the principal point of contact, it doesn't matter if contact with the body is made. Datsyuk lunged up into Jackman's face, hitting his head with his shoulder. I fail to see how Jackman's head wasn't targeted on that play. The Detroit announcers even said he threw a shoulder to his head. He had his head down, but picks up Cole at the last second as he tries to slide the puck by Cole and slip by him. That's how it looks to me. If not, what was he trying to do with the puck if he never saw Cole?

Abdelkader had his head down as well.

If that is suspension worthy, then Datsyuk should have been suspended for his targeted hit to the head on Jackman. Personally, I don't think either are suspension worthy on their own...but if Shanny deemed Cole's hit suspension worthy, then so was Datsyuk's. Both were shoulders that targeted the head. End of story. Both Cole and Datsyuk's hits will never be taken out of the game. The game is far too fast and it is a rough, contact sport. These kinds of hits will always happen in the heat of the moment during play as players move at the last second when a check is coming and a shoulder hits a head. The only way these hits can be taken out of the game is if they slow the game down by allowing clutching and grabbing, bring back the two line offsides pass, etc. I understand the need to protect players from concussions, but I can't see these hits going away even with suspensions looming, because they aren't preventable with how the game is played now.

The injury report in the first post is outdated. Oshie, Sobotka and Langenbrunner are all playing. Steen is out with concussion-like symptoms. Is Howard in net tonight? Elliot is playing for St. Louis.

I hope it's as good as the last game, with a slightly different outcome. Will Howard be in goal against Chicago and St. Louis on Friday and Saturday? Seems like a lot of games in a short amount of time for him. He sure is playing a lot of games. I wouldn't be shocked if Howards plays vs. Chicago and sits vs. the Blues. He has to rest sometime, right? I hope Howard plays though...I hope he plays 70 games and gets worn out down the stretch.

Every team has guys who play that way. Detroit is no exception. Jackman is one of those guys you like to have on your team when he is playing well (he has his periods of shoddy play...but has played much better this year) because he plays the roll of badass quite well, but obviously he's the kind of guy you hate if you are an opposing fan. His crosschecks to the back of Datsyuk should have been a penalty...not sure why the ref didn't call it. But really, don't be upset at Jackman...be upset at the ref for that one. Backes isn't so much cheap, as he is very physical...but he takes his fair share of penalties. He likes to throw his weight around and stir stuff up...sometimes it leads to things that opposing fans may see as cheap, but it's usually in retaliation to something. He leads by example on the ice, and doesn't take any crap. Great defensive forward, great hitter, very good offensive player, good fighter, doesn't take crap from anyone...love having him as captain. Maltby and Draper were two of the best at being an agitator/throwing a cheap shot and then hiding. What about Bertuzzi? He has one of the biggest cheap shots in the history of the game with his name on it. What about Konstantinov? Great player who was known for going after guys knees with dirty low checks? Like I said...every team has a good player or two that an opposing fan will say is dirty or cheap. That's what fuels rivalries.

Why would Datsyuk's hit on Jackman be suspension worthy? It looked like a shoulder to the head hit, which is what Jackman was upset about as it probably smarted pretty good...but it wasn't viscous or intentional...and it was a minimal hit at that. It probably should have been a 2 minute penalty though as it technically was a shoulder to the head hit. Datsyuk didn't mean to do it...he didn't target his head on purpose. But whatever. I never said Yzerman purposely hurt Pronger. But he ducked a check and went low on Pronger, taking out his knees. Did he mean to hurt him? No...I'm guessing not. He was just trying to get out of the way, but he did go low on Pronger, taking out his knee...can't really argue that. Anyway... Real good game on Tuesday night. And from a Blues fan's point of view, the Blues really should have won the game. A 2-0 lead late in the 2nd and a 1 goal lead with less than 10 minutes to go in the game. Teams should hold on to those kinds of leads...and the Blues had so far this year. They hadn't lost a game in regulation in which they led going into the 3rd, and only lost one in OT...going something like 15-0-1 when leading after two periods heading into Tuesday's game. But...you can't win them all. A good team is going to comeback on you sooner or later during the season...it happens. I didn't expect the Blues to sweep the season series from Detroit. After winning the first two games this year, I was hoping the Blues could win 1 of 2 games in Detroit this week. If they can win on Saturday, I'll be happy. Howard was a wall and was the primary reason Detroit won the game...obviously. Elliot was the same...very good, as usual. The only goals to get by Elliot were a flukey goal on a shot going well wide that deflected off Polak in front and went just inside the post...and the redirect out of mid-air by Datsyuk. Very nice goal, but that kind of deflection goes in...what...1% of the time? Blues were just unlucky there. And the final goal Elliot was screened by a, ahem, slight interference play in front where Carlo was cross checked in front when the shot was taken, disrupting the sight line of Elliot. Carlo wasn't too happy about that play...but it happens all of the time and rarely gets called. None of the goals were on Elliot. He played very well. To be honest, if Howard isn't on top of his game 100%, I agree with the VS announcers, the Blues could have easily been up 4 or 5 to nothing after the 2nd period. Howard was very good. Looking forward to Saturday's game. Elliot will be in goal again. Oshie might be back in the lineup (missed him on Tuesday), Langenbrunner is supposed to play. So the Blues may have a couple more weapons in the lineup that they didn't have on Tuesday.

I'm not saying he hasn't played well. He's played very well. But wins ALONE don't mean squat when judging how good a goalie is. Wins are a team stat. He could win every game 6-4 and have a horrible GAA and Save%, but be 25-0. Based on stats, who wins the Vezina? Goalie A: 58 starts, 39 wins, 2.25 GAA, .919 Save%. Goalie B: 50 starts, 34 wins, 1.70 GAA, .940 Save%. Young or not, every player gets fatigued at some point. And a young goalie starting significantly more games in a season than he ever has before, might be a cause for concern just because it's uncharted waters...especially if a long, grinding playoff run is the goal.

It's been a few years...but good Lord. What are you, 14? You act like the Blues haven't had a good in your lifetime. A team underachieves/sucks for a few years, then starts a rebuild, and some people quickly forget the great teams they had in the late 90's and early 00's. The Blues are relevant this year and so far look like a solid playoff team, running neck and neck with Detroit. It's exciting because it's been a few years. Lots of hockey left, so we'll see what happens. Excuse me for talking about it. I thought you guys talked hockey here?

A few years ago the Blues were off to a nice start and were one point down to Detroit with a game or two in hand...something like that. I was mocked and ridiculed here for even bringing up "games in hand", like it was some ridiculous, wacky theory. Interesting.

I'm not sure what stats from 15 years ago have to do with this year...but whatever floats your boat. You know, it's funny... Quite often when I get into a discussion about blues vs. wings with a Wings fan, the Wings fan almost always brings up past stanley cup wins from years ago as some kind of trump card to win any discussion, as if that somehow means anything when discussing this season. It's no Stanley Cup prize, but I guess I could bring up the 1991 1st round playoff series between the Blues and Wings when the Blues overcame a 3 games to 1 deficit to win 4 games to 3. I can play that game too...but I'd rather not. I'm kind of more interested in this season right now. But if you want to talk about how successful a franchise has been, then you've got me. Detroit has had tons of playoff success and the Blues have not. What else do you want to hear? Do you want a congratulations from me? Yay you. Happy for you and your team. Congrats. Now that the ridiculous, obligatory tangent conversation is out of the way...maybe we can talk about this year now? Oh, and I'm not a troll. I've been here longer than you have...just an FYI. With the Blues taking the first two vs. Detroit this year, I'm very much looking forward to the two games the Blues have against the Wings next week. Both teams are pretty much dead even in the standings. I can't remember the last time the Blues started off the season 4-0 against the Wings. I'd be very happy with a split though...we'll see how it goes.

Wins alone say very little about how well a goalie is playing. A goalie can rack up the wins with a 2.75 GAA as long as the team in front of him is scoring in bunches. Howard's GAA and Save % say a lot more about his play. Elliot has been the best goaltender in the NHL this year (leads the league in shutouts, GAA and Save %) and he's not on the ballot, nor is he getting any love from write in votes either...which is crazy and says a lot about how it's not about how good you are playing but how popular you are... but that's something I'm fine with...I'd rather he rest up. You guys should probably be hoping Howard doesn't make the ASG. He's started 28 out of 32 games so far and is on pace to start 72 games this season...that's a lot...one could say that's too many. That would be far more than he has ever started in a season. He could use the rest I am sure.

Maybe you should worry about passing St. Louis in the standings before concentrating on Chicago.