Feel very bad for Jiri. I lost my old man when he was only 56 years old when he succumbed to AML Leukemia. He was diagnosed around Halloween 2002 and passed away just after new years 2003 after going through horrific chemotherapy to prepare for a bone marrow transplant. It was really shocking how he could go from playing men's hockey and in what seemed to be great shape to passing away in less than 3 months time. Unfortunately, he never got a chance to meet his two grandsons, but his legacy lives on in me, my brothers, and my sons. My oldest who is 8 now(in my avatar pic) even sports #9 in soccer for his Grandpa, who was as big a Wings fan there ever was and idolized Gordie Howe growing up playing river hockey in Detroit.
My heart goes out to you T.Lowe & your family. Since you are younger & still physically fit, with the exponentially increasing advancements in technology & medicine there is ever increasing hope of slowing the progression in the future. Hopefully your progression will mirror that of Stephen Hawking, who this year will mark his 50th year since he was 1st diagnosed with ALS. I wish you the best.
I honestly think there is zero chance we get Yandle, Ryan, or Nash via trade. When was the last time a star player was even moved in the same conference? Kenny has zero leverage right now when it comes to trying to acquiring a star player. As much as I would love to have Yandle, he is a pipe dream at this point.
I'm enjoying reading the comments at the Tennessean and the Star Ledger and both have often touched on the meme they took the cowards way out.
I can understand Parise's choice(kind of) of wanting to go home, but Suter IMO made a dumb decision. He's not even from MN. He played all those years in Nashville and never sniffed a cup. Had a chance to see our top notch organization multiple times a year. He had the chance to join Detroit for great money/term. He knows they will always try to field a great team each year. None of those things have been demonstrated in Minny.
I'm seeing a lot of irrelevant hate for Crosby here. Yes I remember back in 08 and 09 when we beat him then he beat us, but how does this take away from his skill? He was out forever then came back like nothing happened and put up numbers at the same pace as before his concussion. Sure the media hypes him all the time, but with good reason.
No one is saying he's not a great player. The problem is he is a documented ******-bag. The hate isn't irrelevent. Plenty of other players are/have been great without being complete douches the likes of Crosby. Sakic, Yzerman, Toews, Stamkos, Chara, Iginla, Richards, etc.etc.......Just to name a very few that popped into my head.
No one here honestly thinks the Wings would be shooting for anything but the top seed they could possibly get, do they? The whole concept of sandbagging is the most un "Redwing" of things you could possibly bring up. We're not Pittsburg for Christ's sake!
They will play to win and look to beat whatever opponets they happen to draw. Hopefully with home ice for as long as we can get it. Have we even won any of the previous 4 cups or made the 6 finals having to play more then 1 series without the advantage of home ice?
freshy, you are basically trolling as you are unwilling to listen to an entirely rational counter argument. you do realize people can have a differing opinion than yours and not be morons for doing so, right?
Huh? Since when does not agreeing mean an unwillingness to listen? Who called anyone a moron?Doomsdayers and Goon have been thrown around, but not by me. How bout you post something about the thread topic or go back to lurking.......
Obviously you're not willing to be reasonable. However, it's not really relevant as I already conceded that I don't think the hit should have been a penalty.
Reasonable? Tell me on what time stamp of the video Ramage's shoulder contacts Oliver's facemask and then you would have a reasonable argument for it being a blow to the head. To be honest I'm not really sure what your position is. On the one hand you agree with me that they should have erred on the side of Ramage, but then you feel the need to call me a reactionary doomsdayer when I say that's the type of hit that needs to be kept in the game.
But how many big, clean hits have not resulted in a penalty/ejection? I'd say a far greater number, even in cases where head contact is made. You are vastly over-stating the problem. Bad calls happen. How many times have you seen a blatant high-stick go uncalled? Yet I can't recall any threads about how hockey is doomed or that slashing guys in the face is now legal.
I suspect that your issue is not with the bad call, but rather the rules themselves. You see a new rule restricting hitting, and you're afraid it's going to ruin the game. You see a call like this where there probably shouldn't have been a call, you get all frantic, jumping up and down, pointing and screaming "See! See! See!" as if this is the rule rather than the exception. There's been what, 700-some-odd NHL games this year, and who knows how many college or AHL; God knows how many big hits... and how many really bad calls? 20-ish? Even borderline calls aren't all that frequent. It's an aberation, not a trend. You're argument is based on your fear of what might happen rather than a reasonable analysis of what actually is happening, or logical prediction of what might happen.
Correct. I disagree with a rule that penalizes a player for any incidental contact to the head. It's overkill and will change the physicality of the game in a negative way IMO. How much we don't know obviously, only time will tell. Like Harold commented the pendulumn has swung way over to the side of protection. If it is such an abberration why are the commentators talking about the need for a balance after the hit happenning?
You're the one saying hockey is dying over what has been a very few calls in one part of the game. So either you can admit your own hyperbole, or I have to question whether you are actually a fan of the sport, or just a fan of seeing guys "get rocked".
The rule is against targetting the head, not against hard checks. It doesn't make any sense to infer that the handful of bad calls equates to an implied rule against hard hitting. Here I have to assume you're either an illogical panic-monger, or that what you really want to say is that headshots should be legal. That combined with your vehemence in defending these hits leads me to beleive you really like seeing guys get their bells rung. It's human nature to find that sort of violence exciting.
But it is just a sport, with many, many other entertaining aspects. It does not need headshots to be exciting. Players are people. They may be willing to put their health at risk to compete, but that doesn't mean the risks shouldn't be tempered. Also, the players are investments. Sometimes multi-million-dollar investments. Owners have a right to protect them.
If you can make a reasonable argument for why hockey needs headshots, I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll just say that the incident you're whining about is just an acorn. Relax.
My initial post was "hockey died a little bit tonight". Sure it was a little hyperbole. So what? You're the one that has their panties in a bunch saying that it is doomsday talk, which I would hardly characterizes it as. The rule, by your own admission, will most likely curtail those open ice hits. Players will start to hesitate before they make any hit, just like they now hesitate before hooking or grabbing. Players will feel more comfortable going up the middle with their heads down because they will have that advantage.
That Boston hit was an exciting hockey play. But I have to wonder, if he goes down hurt like Oliver or fakes an injury, would there have been a call?