903 replies to this topic

[GoWings1905]

that is babcocks way of saying he was bad in the game.

babcock didn't work in sports psychology for nothing.

Exactly. Babcock was clearly implying he didn't think too highly of Jimmy's performance before the shootout.

[Howard He Do It?!]

Ouch. You know it was a rough night when even Babs talks bad about his favorite goalie ever.



The tying goal to Jones was awful. It went between Howard's legs - Janik being in front of him doesn't excuse a goal like that. I'm sure Jimmy himself would admit he has to stop that puck.

It excuses him when he can't see the puck to make the save. It only looks bad because it beat him five hole.

[skyphoenix]

Janik's fight came at probably the worst possible time. I don't know what he was thinking when he decided to go at it. We were up a goal and in their zone.

[Heaten]

that is babcocks way of saying he was bad in the game.

babcock didn't work in sports psychology for nothing.

Cool story bro. What is Babcock's way of saying he's constipated? His death stare?

[Broken 16]

It excuses him when he can't see the puck to make the save. It only looks bad because it beat him five hole.

Wrong. It WAS bad. Janik screwed up and Jimmy was lazy in keeping his 5-hole covered. Just because Janik screwed up doesn't mean that Howard is exonerated. His form was bad, that's why the goal went in. It's fairly common to have a goal against be the result of more than one bad play.

He had a bad game... get over it already.

Edited by Broken 16, 13 October 2010 - 04:17 PM.

[Howard He Do It?!]

Wrong. It WAS bad. Janik screwed up and Jimmy was lazy in keeping his 5-hole covered. Just because Janik screwed up doesn't mean that Howard is exonerated. His form was bad, that's why the goal went in. It's fairly common to have a goal against be the result of more than one bad play.

He had a bad game... get over it already.

Whether it was bad or was not bad is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. You can think that it was a bad goal, that's fine, but don't sit here like a jackass and pretend that there is only one point of view. Just like there is more than one point of view on whether Howard had a bad game or not. Get over yourself.

[GSBrooks13]

Whether it was bad or was not bad is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. You can think that it was a bad goal, that's fine, but don't sit here like a jackass and pretend that there is only one point of view. Just like there is more than one point of view on whether Howard had a bad game or not. Get over yourself.

Are you saying that their can be more than one point of view!? That certainly wont fly in these forums.

[Broken 16]

Whether it was bad or was not bad is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. You can think that it was a bad goal, that's fine, but don't sit here like a jackass and pretend that there is only one point of view. Just like there is more than one point of view on whether Howard had a bad game or not. Get over yourself.

Do you always resort to name calling? How old are you?

Fact of the matter is, that goal was bad. Was it the worst? Nope. We can sit here all day and bicker over the many shades of grey when it comes to bad goals. I'm not interested. I think it was bad, you think it wasn't quite so bad... but still kinda bad. Whatever.

[Howard He Do It?!]

Do you always resort to name calling? How old are you?

Fact of the matter is, that goal was bad. Was it the worst? Nope. We can sit here all day and bicker over the many shades of grey when it comes to bad goals. I'm not interested. I think it was bad, you think it wasn't quite so bad... but still kinda bad. Whatever.

How can you say it is a fact that the goal was bad and then go on to say how it is debatable? When someone's opinion is dismissed so easily over something that is debatable, no where near close to factual, then I am going to call it out. It's not like I said Datsyuk shoots right handed. If I said that and tried to defend it then I would be wrong because it is a fact that he shoots left handed. Saying the goal wasn't bad is a matter of opinion and is an acceptable answer because the answer is debatable, not factual. Yeah, you're right, whatever.

[best poster in LGW history]

Cool story bro. What is Babcock's way of saying he's constipated? His death stare?

it's alright man...you got owned. happens to the best of 'em.

don't let it get you down.

[SpIkE]

Actuall, we're averaging a fight per game this season.

When Ericsson and Abby come back, we'll hopefully have a few more. Janik will do the fighting now, even though he's not great at it.

Saying not great is being a little lenient after last night's performance.

Edited by SpIkE, 13 October 2010 - 05:45 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Can you honestly consider it a screen when the only thing that could be blocking Jimmy's view of the puck is Janik's legs?

[Howard He Do It?!]

Can you honestly consider it a screen when the only thing that could be blocking Jimmy's view of the puck is Janik's legs?

Really? This is highly scientific. The camera angle distorts the actual view Howard had of the puck. This is just sad. Last Word Doc everybody.

Edited by Howard He Do It?!, 13 October 2010 - 06:01 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Really? This is highly scientific. The camera angle distorts the actual view Howard had of the puck. This is just sad.

Yeah, we could always just make statements without ANYTHING to back them up.

That sounds better.

Do you honestly think the view distorts that actual sight line so much that it raises up an entire foot?

Edited by Doc Holliday, 13 October 2010 - 06:04 PM.

[Howard He Do It?!]

Yeah, we could always just make statements without ANYTHING to back them up.

That sounds better.

At least I'm not lying by providing some screen shot from a camera angle that proves nothing. The red line doesn't make you right either.

This is a matter of opinion but seeing as I don't share your opinion I must be wrong.

[Crymson]

Yeah, we could always just make statements without ANYTHING to back them up.

That sounds better.

Do you honestly think the view distorts that actual sight line so much that it raises up an entire foot?

It isn't a head-on view. It's impossible to tell how Howard's sight lined up with the puck.

Inconclusive evidence.

[Howard He Do It?!]

It isn't a head-on view. It's impossible to tell how Howard's sight lined up with the puck.

Inconclusive evidence.

Shhh. Logic doesn't work around here.

[Doc Holliday]

At least I'm not lying by providing some screen shot from a camera angle that proves nothing. The red line doesn't make you right either.

Shows it to be more likely that Howard saw the puck than not, however.

This is a matter of opinion but seeing as I don't share your opinion I must be wrong.

That's what I said.

Now could you kindly cut out the sarcasm and attempts to attack and give me a reason why you think Howard was screened?

Edited by Doc Holliday, 13 October 2010 - 06:14 PM.

[Howard He Do It?!]

Shows it to be more likely that Howard saw the puck than not, however.

Your little red line proves nothing. This is just sad. This camera angle is completely inconclusive and you know that. Keep playing the "my opinion is more right than yours" game though.

Look! I drew a red line too. I must be more right than you now.

Now could you kindly cut out the sarcasm and attempts to attack and give me a reason why you think Howard was screened?

You and these little edits.

Uhh, because Janik is literally standing right in front of him. You provided the picture that proves it.

Edited by Howard He Do It?!, 13 October 2010 - 06:18 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Your little red line proves nothing. This is just sad. This camera angle is completely inconclusive and you know that. Keep playing the "my opinion is more right than yours" game though.

Once again, you rant and rave about how Howard didn't see the shot, but why? What leads you to believe Howard couldn't see that? Cause you just thought so?

I see a camera angle and see that Howard likely saw the puck through Janik's legs. You see a camera angle, think it i inconclusive to anything, and make your opinion.

Look! I drew a red line too. I must be more right than you now.

Cute, but meaningless. Though with the line you drew we can infer that Howard likely didn't see Jones's elbow due to Janik being in front of him.

You and these little edits.

Uhh, because Janik is literally standing right in front of him. You provided the picture that proves it.

Yeah, it proves Janik is standing in front of him but that doesn't automatically cause Howard to be unable to see anything that is in front of him at that point.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 13 October 2010 - 06:20 PM.