toby91_ca

There is no question for me that the best player has been Datsyuk, but I pretty much disqualified him for MVP voting simply because he's missed 26 games. That's way too many games and in my mind, he can't even be considered. I voted for Lids.

I have no facts, but I would be aboslutely shocked if that were true. How in the hell can you impose such a rule on a team? Sorry, you can't fly into the city on Friday, you don't play until Saturday. There is no way that is true. How could the other teams agree to such an arrangement?

They also recently taunted a player leaving the ice with a knee injury, can't remember who or what team (Calgary maybe?)

ok, that's kind of out of blue, what's the point? This has been discussed here before. Even though he may have "statistically" earned it once, it's named after him more because he was a big (in his era), tough customer, who could score goals and also set up plays (all around guy). Howe could have zero "Gordie Howe Hattricks" but that's not really the point.

I don't really have an opinion on this as I really don't tend to focus too much on coaches and what they are doing unless I notice things glaringly that I would disagree with. I can't say I've seen much of that this year out of him. For what it's worth, Hodgemail over at TSN asks who might win coach of the year...Babcock gets a mention as a potential (probably a lot in part due to injuries though).

They are actually gradually moving towards referring to these injuries as "brain injuries" Does that make is less annoying for you?

I haven't "seen" stats, but I have heard that there have been, so far, about 80 concussions this season. Not sure stats from prior years, but I understand that the nubmer is up signficantly. It's up for various reasons, 3 of which would be: - better detection - this is a no brainer, it wasn't that long ago that no one really knew what a concussion was, someone would get their bell rung, they'd throw up on the bench, get some smelling salts and go back out to play....some retired players now suffer from lingering effects of concussions they've endured that went undetectd. - faster game - players are not only bigger and faster, the game itself has opened up in terms of speed...there's no clutch and grab to slow players down. People think of the 80s as wide open, run and gun, which it was, but it was a much slower game. There was tons of hooking and holding back then, the reason for the offense wasn't lack of hooking and holding, it was more to do with less defensive schemes being employed and less skilled goalies, smaller equipment, etc. - equipment - hard shoulder pas and elbow pads are killer...

Conceptually, I'm not sure how that happens. He's almost 33, he's not all of a sudden going to get more skilled because he plays more years in the league. There might be players that are extremely skilled and left of the list for now until they develop longer into their career, but Dats has been around long enough, I don't think much would change with him and this list. I think some people are confused about what this list means. Someone wondered why Howe wasn't on the list, but if I think of Howe, "ton of skill" isn't the first thought that comes to mind. All around great player, one of the best, but that doesn't mean he's one of the most skilled. Same way the most skilled guy in the world may not be anywhere near the best player. Kovalev oozes skill....but that hasn't translated into him being a great player, he's been good, but not great.

The video is actually fairly old now, I think there is even another thread on here somewhere when it first came out.

There's at least 2 problems with that: 1 - Cooke's hit on Savard was legal (what Bertuzzi did was not) 2 - Savard has a long history of concussions, Cooke's hit was not the sole cause of his problems. Wonder why Cooke is so villified by his hit on Cooke and Richards escapes any discussion at all for the carbon copy hit.....WARNING, WARNING.....this is not a defense of Cooke, just wondering why Richards gets a free ride.

The only reason I can think of to force players to wear visors is $$$. I agree that if someone wants to take the risk, it's his life, etc. but a player not wearing a visor is going to cost the team more money in insurance. With the amount of money invested in some of these players, the last thing you want is an injury that could have been avoided with a visor.

Hmmm, I looked at it completely differently. I thought Kronwall was trying to get Eaves off the ice so the officials WOULD NOT blow the wistle. I don't think the Wings want a wistle in that situation as it would result in a face off in their end, the last thing you want when killing a penalty.

I've heard a lot of people suggesting it wasn't long enough, but this is one of the most severe suspensions I've seen. Sure, there were suspensions of 20 or more games, but you have to consider that this is potentially 17 games, 7 of which are playoff games. The NHL has shown in the past that a 5 game suspension in the regular season might get you 1 or 2 games in the playoffs. The NHL could have given him the easy 10 games, rest of the regular season, which would have also equalled what Gillies got for his second head shot in less than a month. So, they came down way, way harder on Cooke than Gillies, not much to argue about. Who knows of the Pens will even insert him in the lineup if they get past the first round. I'd be willing to bet that they really aren't sure about that yet.

It's fascinating how I can see that hit completely differently than you. I could care less about whether it was an elbow or not, that's not the point. It was a hit where the head was targeted. In terms of it being a race for the puck, I truly believe you are fabricating something that doesn't exist. When I watch that, I see Moore as a guy who has absolutely no interest in the puck at all, in fact, in preparation for the hist, he lightly brushes the puck aside with his stick to get it out of the way....he didn't want it, he wanted the hit.

Just for fun, if the Moore hit on Naslund happened today, how many games do you think he'd get? I'm thinking all lot. Looks like a bigger, more intential head shot than the Richards and Cooke hits and Naslund looked to be in a very vunerable position as well.

Really? That's all I got......

I really didn't want to reply in here about the consussion/headshot hysteria becuase I don't think it has anything to do with why Brule got a "penalty.", but I will anyway. It has absolutely nothing to do with being wimpy, headshots and concussions are very serious. We're talking about people's lives here, we're not talking about people complaining about a hit hurting and maybe giving them a bruise. People's lives have been cut-short or completely changed by concussions. No one is suggesting anyone is more tough than someone else because they can take a headshot....anyone who thinks along those lines is simply ignorant. The big issue with trying to ban headshots all together isn't that people think it isn't a big issue and if it happens, it happens. EVERYONE and I mean 100% of EVERYONE involved with the game, would love to eliminate head shots all together. The issue though is how can you do that without impacting the game. You may end up having players avoid delivering hits all together so as to avoid delivering a head shot (things happen at high speed, sometimes you are not fully in control of the outcome when you intend to make a clean hit).

I 100% agree with everything you said until your last comment that Brule did nothing wrong. You forgot to mention that he jumped into the hit, which you can't do and has been a rule for quite awhile. I like the rule because it can be dangerous. In most cases, jumping into a hit is no big deal, but because it can be dangerous, you'll get a penalty for it. No big deal, just a 2 minute penalty. The way this is being debated, you'd think Brule was suspended for 5 games or something.

Was the media actually debating whether it should be a suspension or not? Or was everyone simply talking about it and all agreeing there should be a suspension? Honest question, I haven't paid attention to what the media had to say, I simply saw the play and figured it was automatic suspension. Regarding Hall, why the reference, isn't he out with an ankle injury?

Amazing achievement, yes, but I won't go as far as to say one of the greatest dynasties in professional sports. There are certainly greater dynasties in hockey without even looking at different sports. I guess is depends on how you define a dynasty. They have certainly been one of the most consistent teams over the past 20 years, consistent contenders, but they never dominating to the point where they won 4 cups in a row, or 4 in 5 years, so something like that. Anyway, I don't think anything compares to the Montreal Canadiens from the 70s (maybe the Canadiens of the 50s?). Between 1971 and 1983, they achieve 100pts or more 8 times in a row, but if you prorate to 82 games (they didn't play that many then), you'll get 13 years in a row. They also won the cup 6 times (including 4 in a row). If they had of earned 1 more point in 1970, they would have put together a string of 16 years in a row with 100pts (pro rated to 82 games) and 8 cups.

1999, this will be the 11th year in a row.

Pretty sure they only won 44 games last year.

This quote doesn't suggest whether Yzerman agrees with what Lemieux is saying or not, but shows the respect Yzerman has for Lemieux and the respect that Lemieux appears to command from most. I've heard almost the same comments from other guys within the NHL. It's because of stuff like this that I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he was a player though, I couldn't stand him. This last quote though, I took as Yzerman "agreeing" with what Lemieux had to say. Now, I guess just because he suggests the points were valid, doesnt mean he agrees completely, but then you are getting into semantics. My whole point was that a lot of letsgowingers are ripping Lemieux apart as a hypocrite, a joke, whatever, while someone like Yzerman is clearly supporting what Lemieux is doing.

Definite suspension worthy. There was absolutely no need for it and Heatley clearly went out of his way to deliver it. Not sure what he was thinking. Looks like Ott sold it really well, I doubt he was hurt at all because it looked like a very soft hit, but that's not the point, still should be suspended. I saw a terrible video of the Marchand hit and it's really hard to tell what actually happened. From what I saw, I can see where a suspension would be worthy, but if I saw a better and more full video, it may show that it was incidental contact...not sure.

Yes, I'm defending the plan. I think it's a great idea. Don't just punish the player, punish the teams that employ such players. The hope is that the teams will not come down hard on these players and deter such actions in the future. I do understand what you are saying, it's not copmletely illogical, but I just don't think you'll have teams not willing to employ such a player, but another team, because they have more money, will be willing to do so. The issue is that you may have players prone to taking suspensions or are repeat offenders. The idea is to remove that from the game. It's not necessarily removing the player from the game, but changing the player in some respect. Of course, I think there are some players that simply don't below in the game (Gillies for example). I'm not against enforcers at all, I have no problem with a guy who may play 2-5 minutes a night, who can't really do much well other than fight, but if that player decides he's going to start delivering head shots on the side....well, what's the point?