Doc Holiday 0 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 Boll establishes himself early in the game all up in Datsyuk's face, Avery was big for NY the other night, Montreal vs Boston features some tough guy chess work with Laraque out on early shifts against Lucic and Chara. But hey, nobody plays fighters in the playoffs. They're not important. esteef 4-1. Face. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozen-Man 144 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 Boll establishes himself early in the game all up in Datsyuk's face, Avery was big for NY the other night, Montreal vs Boston features some tough guy chess work with Laraque out on early shifts against Lucic and Chara. But hey, nobody plays fighters in the playoffs. They're not important. esteef Nobody is saying guys like Chara, Lucic, and Avery don't play in the playoffs. The conversation is usually related to guys like Downey whose almost exclusive use is fighting. There is a reason those guys make $4-7.5 MILLION (I don't count Lucic because he is a draft pick/RFA guy) and Downey doesn't get picked up off waivers at a little over $1/2 million. Of course those guys play. BTW Boll got in Dats face but he didn't back down and Boll still got outplayed by a "soft" guy like Flip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManLuv4Clears 7 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 I do say, I was pleasantly suprised with how the team as a whole stepped up the physical play tonight. Dats was a stud, and Kronner and Stewart were both looking for the big hit. I'll eat a small bowl of crow. I really questioned whether they would be able to do 180 and turn up the intesity and they did. I was happy with the crowd too, they were very into it, and players can feed off it as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 I do say, I was pleasantly suprised with how the team as a whole stepped up the physical play tonight. Dats was a stud, and Kronner and Stewart were both looking for the big hit. I'll eat a small bowl of crow. I really questioned whether they would be able to do 180 and turn up the intesity and they did. I was happy with the crowd too, they were very into it, and players can feed off it as well. They literally did the exact same thing last season. Did Kronwall or anyone else lay anyone out in the '08 regular season? I guess Hasek did. The Wings didn't, then or now, need to lay it all on the line to win a regular season game. The hitting and shot blocking tonight was from another universe, better than 82 games of regular season hockey, and for a reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManLuv4Clears 7 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 They literally did the exact same thing last season. Did Kronwall or anyone else lay anyone out in the '08 regular season? I guess Hasek did. The Wings didn't, then or now, need to lay it all on the line to win a regular season game. The hitting and shot blocking tonight was from another universe, better than 82 games of regular season hockey, and for a reason. I think I was used to Drake running around trying to take everyone's head off last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 I do say, I was pleasantly suprised with how the team as a whole stepped up the physical play tonight. Dats was a stud, and Kronner and Stewart were both looking for the big hit. I'll eat a small bowl of crow. I really questioned whether they would be able to do 180 and turn up the intesity and they did. I was happy with the crowd too, they were very into it, and players can feed off it as well. Me too, I was very happy with the way the Wings played. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Ah yes. The Broad Street Bullies. Weren't they the team that was supposed to take us out in four in '97? Do the words "puck possession" ring a bell? I saw everyone of those games and they were a frickin' work of art. Big ol' Lindros could do NOTHING because he was forever and constantly harrassed. At the time, the Flyers thought that he would have to deal mostly with Konstantinov. Wrong, puck breath. It was Lids, et al, who mostly corralled and frustrated him. LOL, do you really think that he was talking about the '97 Flyers when he said "Broad Street Bullies"? New to hockey are ya? This is what a bully looks like. Edited April 17, 2009 by micah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wombat 26 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 Me too, I was very happy with the way the Wings played. I agree. I said in this thread that I was cautious because the team did look soft most of the year, and while I knew they'd step up physically in the playoffs, I didn't know how much. They REALLY stepped up. That is the sort of overall team physicality that I want to see out of them. It wouldn't suck to have another 1 or 2 guys in there that can blow guys up with hits, but from this group, that was great. They took the physical play to Columbus and did not let up. Give me 20ish more games like that in this playoff season and the Wings are probably champs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reds4Life 51 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 LOL, do you really think that he was talking about the '97 Flyers when he said "Broad Street Bullies"? New to hockey are ya? This is what a bully looks like. And guess what team beat Broad Street Bullies? A finesse team. Go figure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManLuv4Clears 7 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 And guess what team beat Broad Street Bullies? A finesse team. Go figure. You might really want to use the term "finesse team" loosely when you are talking about this era. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reds4Life 51 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 You might really want to use the term "finesse team" loosely when you are talking about this era. Compared to Flyers, Canadiens were definitely finesse team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 And guess what team beat Broad Street Bullies? A finesse team. Go figure. Depends what year you're talking about. Nonetheless, the Flyers of '97 are not what most people thing of when people speak of the BSBs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 LOL, do you really think that he was talking about the '97 Flyers when he said "Broad Street Bullies"? New to hockey are ya? This is what a bully looks like. Yes. I admit it. I am new to hockey. That was my grandma that was watching the '97 Wings/Flyers games. Oh, woe is me for being shown up like that. You don't think anybody, including sports afficianados, touted the term "Broad Street Bullies" during the '97 playoffs? You don't think that phrase was promoted by Philly fans themselves when talking about the upcoming series? You don't think EVERYone East of Detroit thought that the big bad Flyers would beat the crap out of the Wings? You didn't read EVERYwhere where sports "experts" were picking the Flyers to take it all? Oh. Whoops. You probably weren't even born then. Yeupp. The "reality" was that even then - just like fans like you incessantly insist on now - the Wings were a bunch of soft Euros who couldn't take out a peewee hockey player. It was Lidstrom and the Russian Five who had a large part in taking out the Flyers in '97. (Of course, Shanny, et al, had a nice part in all that too.) And from what I read about last night's game, it was Lidstrom and other soft Euros who kept Nash TOTALLY controlled. And I suggest to you that your new look-up word for today is "perspective". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 17, 2009 The reverence for the BSB is just because of they managed to win and beat a lot of people up. Big deal. It's just as meaningful to long for players not wearing helmets. There's really nothing logical about harping on an old method of intimidation like it's supposed to mean something today. Fights are a bonus, but if someone just wants to watch people get beat up rather than watch a bunch of skilled hockey players play hockey I'd suggest boxing or the UFC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Yes. I admit it. I am new to hockey. That was my grandma that was watching the '97 Wings/Flyers games. Oh, woe is me for being shown up like that. You don't think anybody, including sports afficianados, touted the term "Broad Street Bullies" during the '97 playoffs? You don't think that phrase was promoted by Philly fans themselves when talking about the upcoming series? You don't think EVERYone East of Detroit thought that the big bad Flyers would beat the crap out of the Wings? You didn't read EVERYwhere where sports "experts" were picking the Flyers to take it all? Oh. Whoops. You probably weren't even born then. Yeupp. The "reality" was that even then - just like fans like you incessantly insist on now - the Wings were a bunch of soft Euros who couldn't take out a peewee hockey player. It was Lidstrom and the Russian Five who had a large part in taking out the Flyers in '97. (Of course, Shanny, et al, had a nice part in all that too.) And from what I read about last night's game, it was Lidstrom and other soft Euros who kept Nash TOTALLY controlled. And I suggest to you that your new look-up word for today is "perspective". LOL. So you did or did not think that the guy you replied to was talking about the '97 flyers? You mention perspective (though I don't get why), a relative of perspective is context. The Flyers of '97 were not beating teams by sheer force and intimidation like their the Flyers of the early '70s were. If a sports fan mentions the dominance of the Monsters of the Midway, everyone knows they're talking about the Bears of the early '40s, not last years' Chicago Bears, even though they're sometimes also called the Monsters. Edited April 17, 2009 by micah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 The reverence for the BSB is just because of they managed to win and beat a lot of people up. Big deal. It's just as meaningful to long for players not wearing helmets. There's really nothing logical about harping on an old method of intimidation like it's supposed to mean something today. Fights are a bonus, but if someone just wants to watch people get beat up rather than watch a bunch of skilled hockey players play hockey I'd suggest boxing or the UFC. Is there anyone who has ever posted on this board that you suspect "just wants to watch people get beat up rather than watch a bunch of skilled hockey players play hockey"? I love tough, fearless hockey. I don't like the UFC at all and I'm pretty meh on boxing. I like tough hockey and I wish the Wings would play tougher. I am not opposed to skilled players, but I don't believe that the Wings including one tough guy on their 4th line would make them any less succesful. There's a reason why Bruin and Cap games are so much fun to watch this year, they have a bit of everything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) LOL. So you did or did not think that the guy you replied to was talking about the '97 flyers? You mention perspective (though I don't get why), a relative of perspective is context. The Flyers of '97 were not beating teams by sheer force and intimidation like their the Flyers of the early '70s were. If a sports fan mentions the dominance of the Monsters of the Midway, everyone knows they're talking about the Bears of the early '40s, not last years' Chicago Bears, even though they're sometimes also called the Monsters. LOL backatchya. Naw, I'd be lying if I said I was sitting here smiling. *sigh* Yes. I understood he was talking about the 70's teams. And I tied them into the '97 Flyers because that's all we heard back in the old days of the late 90's. How these Flyers were very much like the 70's Flyers. Doesn't matter if they were or not. That's what we Wings' fans heard over and over and over. That's what I mean by "perspective". I was there. I know what happened, whether the connection being hyped was reality or not. And my question to you is, did you watch the '97 playoffs and if so, were you aware of that constant connection everyone was making between the 70's Flyers and the '97 Flyers? If you were there, you'd understand why I tied that old description to the 97 Flyers. Wasn't my doing. Wasn't any Wings' fans' doing. Didn't matter that they were not that tough. What mattered and why I responded the way I did was because in 1997, that connection was made over and over and we Wings' fans were up to here with it, and ecstatic when they got it back in their faces and up their butts. THAT was the real reality. And all of it happened the way I describe it here, and even now when I hear the term "Broad Street Bullies", I think back with fondness on what actually happened in 1997. And that's my perspective. Peace out. Edited April 17, 2009 by Vladifan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 Of course the 90s Flyers were "The Legion of Doom" built by Bobby Clarke of the 70s "Broadstreet Bullies". Injuries kept LeClair, Lindros and Renberg from playing together too often but that did not prevent Clarke from trying to build almost an entire team of power forwards. Lidstrom was just unbelievable in the 97 series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Is there anyone who has ever posted on this board that you suspect "just wants to watch people get beat up rather than watch a bunch of skilled hockey players play hockey"? I love tough, fearless hockey. I don't like the UFC at all and I'm pretty meh on boxing. I like tough hockey and I wish the Wings would play tougher. I am not opposed to skilled players, but I don't believe that the Wings including one tough guy on their 4th line would make them any less succesful. There's a reason why Bruin and Cap games are so much fun to watch this year, they have a bit of everything. What I suspect is these few "people" are not content with their team winning, are fault-finding, and/or rather self-absorbed, and want things the way they want it, rather than accept the team is winning regardless of one's personal philosophy. This is the only rationale one can come to when the team wins and people still *****. It's especially prevalent in people so gripped with nostalgia they can't enjoy the team today. This team has NOT been tough in the 4 cups they won in recent years, yet have won more than anyone else, so while this complaining about not having a tough team is not a new revelation, it's a complete waste of time since the team will not magically become a tough team overnight just because a couple fans can't be content with the winning team they already have. As for the Bruins/Caps, the reason they are exciting has to do with the intensity in their game, and the drive they have. The Caps have never won a cup in their franchise history, and the Bruins last cup was around the same time the Caps came into the league, so figure over 35 years. The Wings have won these 4 cups in a span of 12 years, averaging one every 3 years. The JLA crowd is now just as spoiled as fans that complain all the goddamn time about not having their perfect Wings who do "everything" and get perfect "stats". Can't just be content with winning and scoring lots, eh? Sux4u. I'm perfectly happy with this team and glad it's doing things methodically. The true style of play of a dynasty. Saw it with my 49ers, and not surprisingly, they had a lot of bitchy ass people when they changed to the West Coast Offense and kept winning. Now that they aren't winning, those whiners now wish the 49ers would even make the playoffs, or, they left to other teams. Edited April 17, 2009 by Shoreline Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Of course the 90s Flyers were "The Legion of Doom" built by Bobby Clarke of the 70s "Broadstreet Bullies". Injuries kept LeClair, Lindros and Renberg from playing together too often but that did not prevent Clarke from trying to build almost an entire team of power forwards. Lidstrom was just unbelievable in the 97 series. Thank you for the reminder! Ah, yezzz. The Legion of Doom! Heart, keep beating! *cough* *retch* *gag* And now I can recall that too now and then on my bad days and smirk juuust a wee bit. And oh god. I still remember how quietly and forcefully Lidstrom just went about his business... Thanks again! Edited April 17, 2009 by Vladifan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 What I suspect is these few "people" are not content with their team winning, are fault-finding, and/or rather self-absorbed, and want things the way they want it, rather than accept the team is winning regardless of one's personal philosophy. This is the only rationale one can come to when the team wins and people still *****. It's especially prevalent in people so gripped with nostalgia they can't enjoy the team today. This team has NOT been tough in the 4 cups they won in recent years, yet have won more than anyone else, so while this complaining about not having a tough team is not a new revelation, it's a complete waste of time since the team will not magically become a tough team overnight just because a couple fans can't be content with the winning team they already have. As for the Bruins/Caps, the reason they are exciting has to do with the intensity in their game, and the drive they have. The Caps have never won a cup in their franchise history, and the Bruins last cup was around the same time the Caps came into the league, so figure over 35 years. The Wings have won these 4 cups in a span of 12 years, averaging one every 3 years. The JLA crowd is now just as spoiled as fans that complain all the goddamn time about not having their perfect Wings who do "everything" and get perfect "stats". Can't just be content with winning and scoring lots, eh? Sux4u. I'm perfectly happy with this team and glad it's doing things methodically. The true style of play of a dynasty. Saw it with my 49ers, and not surprisingly, they had a lot of bitchy ass people when they changed to the West Coast Offense and kept winning. Now that they aren't winning, those whiners now wish the 49ers would even make the playoffs, or, they left to other teams. So that's a "no" to the question I asked, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 17, 2009 So that's a "no" to the question I asked, right? No, that would be a "yes". The same few people complaining so often about a team being soft or European obviously can't be confused for enjoying the skilled hockey team before them. Hope that clears it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Oh. Okay. I think you're wrong, I'm quite certain that most or all of the people on this board who call this team "soft" also enjoy the teams' skills and the fact that they're winning. Let's do this to see if I'm right or you're right. Being that pweople know more about thelselves than you or I know about them, let's ask them, okay? My guess is that mopst people in the "grit club" appreciate skills and wins, but would also enjoy the game a lot more if the Wings would add a toughguy to the 4th line. I suspect most of us also believe that suich a guy could sit on the 4th line without costing the Wings a bunch of games....or any games, for that matter. Attention posters who think this Wings team should get tougher: Do you enjoy watching players diasplay hockey skills? Do you enjoy watching your team win? Edited April 17, 2009 by micah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 17, 2009 Actually, I've suggested on an occasion the team should be tougher in front of the net. There's situations where toughness would be better, but notice how I'm going after people who complain all the time while you're engaging in some childish "I'm right, you're wrong" nonsense, regarding "people know more about themselves", than something of actual substance. That's quite an admission that your argument about this team has no leg to stand on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Actually, I've suggested on an occasion the team should be tougher in front of the net. There's situations where toughness would be better, but notice how I'm going after people who complain all the time while you're engaging in some childish "I'm right, you're wrong" nonsense, regarding "people know more about themselves", than something of actual substance. That's quite an admission that your argument about this team has no leg to stand on. Umm, I'm having a hard time following you, so I'll just repeat my oppinion so that you know what it is. People who want a toughguy on the 4th line generally also like winning and pretty plays. I'm not sure what "argument" you think I'm making, and I'm not sure exactly what you think I'm admittiting to. And did you just call me childish and admit to "going after people" on the internet in the same paragraph? Lol. Edited April 17, 2009 by micah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
