Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 07:11 AM

#2067268 Marc Staal destroys Matt Stajan

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2010 - 11:50 PM

perron wasn't paying attention either

Perron was paying attention to the pass he was about to receive, Stajan was carrying the puck with his head down. Huge difference.

This hit looks pretty clean by the rules. Still, Staal could have easily aimed for the near shoulder instead of the chest and the hit would have been just as effective, but less injurious.

#2062936 Welcome to Detroit

Posted by Buppy on 14 November 2010 - 12:50 AM

Statistic's tend to sharpen with the amount of information gone in, using a hockey season is a lot different than judging hundred's of thousands of people. I probably should have used "practically" instead of "literally", that's my fault on the word usage concerning third world countries. But the amount of corrupt behavior I've seen in the active government, the lack of law-enforcement, the lack of basic modern human needs in the area just left me with very few comparisons. The homeless/crime etc. rate are worse in Detroit than those other cities, and there ARE less people, which makes it that much more depressing. It's not a matter of too many people for shelter, it's a matter of basic human survival needs for an area with room too support a large number of people, it's just been a complete mismanagement of local government.

I'm not making light of a third world control as I'm focusing the light on the real problems of the city, and to say I'm trolling about a situation that I care so much about is offensive.

I applaud my friends for their efforts, but I almost feel it's wasted energy when the real matters of the city lie in the government and schools. Sure having a nice downtown is great, but I almost see the problem spreading outwards from the city. Lincoln Park, and Dearborn for example have become even more dangerous the last 10-15 years, it's not just Detroit, it's spreading to surrounding border area's. Warrendale for example has been completely trashed, I went to a Catholic school right off Warren, and it's now just a complete disaster area. I just feel the pockets of perfection have no impact on the roots of the problems, I suppose it doesn't hurt, but to act like it's a gigantic leap and a huge victory for the city is sad and hurting the city more than it's helping it.

To think that Detroit isn't as bad as it's made out to be because you can walk a couple blocks in the downtown to me is besides the point, and almost masks the major problems within the city. That's all I mean by that, I'm sincerely not trying to be offensive, but basing this on my experiences and observations from growing up in the city. I'm not being a hater, I'm being realistic, and doing what I feel needs to be done so the area can become what it once was.

Highlighting the positives is a lot less damaging than those who act like stepping across 8 mile is akin to storming the beaches of Normandy.

Statistically speaking, there are far more safe areas in the city than there are dangerous ones. And even in the most dangerous areas, it is statistically unlikely that you'd be victimized, assuming you take the same simple precautions you'd take in any public place, and assuming you're not engaged in any shadiness yourself. In 2008, there were about 20,000 violent crimes reported, and about 60,000 property crimes. 900,000+ live in the city and who knows how many of the 5 million+ from the greater metro area visit or work there every day. Statistically, the danger is similar to driving a car.

I know several people who are afraid to go to the city, even in the day time. People who wouldn't even consider something like a hockey game at night. Accentuating the negative aspects of the city only serves to foster the stigma of fear attached to the city, and keep away the people and money that could help improve the area. Bad politicians are a problem, sure. But even the best politicians couldn't help anything if people are too afraid to visit.

The root cause of Detroit's problem is poverty, same as pretty much every 'bad' place on the planet. We need people with money to invest in the area. We need those people to not be afraid of making the investment. For that we need the regular people to not be afraid of visiting or relocating downtown. We need people to realize that while it may be relatively dangerous compared to some suburban areas, it isn't all that bad, and with more people and more money infused into the area it will improve. There's evidence of that in Foxtown, several riverfront communities, the new condos and townhomes along Woodward...and most of that happened under the reign of one of the worst mayors/city councils Detroit has ever had.

We don't need people visting the projects or sight-seeing around abandoned buildings or touring vacant lots and parks at night. Unless you're looking for crack or a $5 BJ there isn't any reason to anyway. So the worst areas are largely irrelevent. We want people coming to the best areas, the safest areas. The more people that visit and spend money in those areas, the more those areas expand and as a matter of consequence the worst areas shrink and are driven farther away.

Sorry for getting so political, and yeah, this thread should probably be moved now.

#2057834 Get ready folks, hitting is about to exit our game

Posted by Buppy on 05 November 2010 - 03:29 AM

Are we really going to have one of these threads for every penalized hit this season?

Just to save time, here's the Reader's Digest quotable quotes:
"End of hockey as we know it"
"Blindside headshot, what's the problem?"
"Clean hit, should have kept his head up"
"Clear elbow, 2 games"
"Soandso is dirty"
"Players today have no respect"
"Get rid of the instigator rule, problem solved"

There, that pretty much sums up the 200 threads we'll have on this subject throughout the season.

It's a new rule, there's going to be a period of adjustment for the refs, the players, and the fans. Deal with it.

#2057547 How about these lines?

Posted by Buppy on 04 November 2010 - 02:20 PM




No offense, but that's stupid. Relying far too much on goalie chemistry for that third line. I know Ozzie is tied for third all-time in goals by a goalie, but he can't carry a line by himself. Swap Stuart and Howie, and McCollum needs top-line minutes in GR to develop. Salei is a stud, no idea why you left him out. And why on earth would you have a dinosaur like Homer starting in goal when we have Miller? Do you not know who Miller's brother is?

#2046286 Hjalmarsson Cheap Shot on Jason Pominville

Posted by Buppy on 14 October 2010 - 04:40 AM

...As for the Hjalmarsson hit. It was called boarding on the ice. If it was a hit from behind, why wasn't checking from behind called? I don't know how you can hit someone from behind with your feet in front of the player while playing the puck at the same time. Pominville looked at him coming twice(TWSS). But he didn't brace for the hit at all which caused his dome to bounce off the glass. Which btw, is seamless and I'm sure didn't help... And he clearly didn't charge or leave his feet or elbow him. There is no way in hell this was a dirty hit, btw. Not af****** chance. No malice whatsoever. It is quite obvious that Hjalmarsson is not a dirty player, with no previous notorious behavior. I don't see how it is anything but a knee jerk reaction. I'm not trying to sound biased(I know I though) but it honestly just doesn't look like a hit that is worthy of a 2 game suspension. ...

His upper arm was squarely between Pominville's numbers. Pominville wasn't wearing his jersey backwards, so that is a hit from behind. It wasn't called checking from behind because it was called a boarding major. Checking from behind is rarely called in the NHL, since it is normally superseded by a boarding call. I'm not sure why you seem to think boarding can't happen on a hit from behind. Checking from behind and a boarding major both have the same on ice penalties, and both are subject to suplementary discipline. Both are among the most serious penalties. This hit could have been called either way, not that it makes any difference. Boarding is still a dirty hit worthy of suspension.

And just because Pominville saw Hjalmarsson coming (assuming he actually noticed him) doesn't mean he knew the hit was coming. Perhaps the reason he didn't brace himself is because Hjalmarsson was coming from behind him, and he knew he shouldn't have been in danger of being hit like that. 'He should have protected himself' is not an excuse for a cheapshot.

It was a dirty hit. That's why everyone outside Chicago has been calling it a dirty hit. That's why he was suspended.

#2045819 10/12 GDT: Avalanche 5 at Red Wings 4 (SO)

Posted by Buppy on 13 October 2010 - 07:00 AM

There is no fantastic irony. My argument was and is for shared blame. Guess you shouldn't have intruded.

Janik plays a little defense and the game does not end up tied.

Your initial response called out only Janik. Exactly the same thing as Doc calling out only Howard. That's irony.

That you chose to infer something from Doc's post but not apply the same standard to your reply does not make them different. Your reply wasn't an accurate representation of your full opinion on the subject. Why then assume that Doc's post was of his, and even insist that it was despite Doc's later clarification?

#2045805 10/12 GDT: Avalanche 5 at Red Wings 4 (SO)

Posted by Buppy on 13 October 2010 - 02:06 AM

...The facts are simple: you posted about how Howard was solely at fault, ...

Normally I wouldn't intrude on a nice argument, but I just had to post my appreciation of the fantastic irony of your complaint when your initial response to him was to do the exact same thing, just calling out a different player. Bravo. :clap:

#2045801 Kirk Maltby to announce he is retiring

Posted by Buppy on 13 October 2010 - 01:34 AM

i want to respond to this in hopefully a thoughtful and respectful way. let me first say, i am not as far out as many of the people that were sick of maltby. however, i was against the signing this summer. also, i definitely do not advocate any bashing of lidstrom because he is still very important to the team. if anything, i think any negative comments were over the summer wishing he had taken a bigger pay cut.

to me, the reason many people get upset when these guys keep hanging on is because it is not for the good of the team. had maltby stuck around this year it would have meant losing another player. while someone like drew miller might not be the key to stanley cup success, he has more long term and short term upside than maltby.

the problem is that the wings organization will be loyal. so if players aren't willing to accept their best days are behind them, then they linger on for longer than they need to. when this happens, many fans can turn against the player. chelios lingered, maltby lingered, and draper is getting pretty darned close.

i am appreciative of what kirk maltby has done to help the wings over the last 15 years. it doesn't mean i had to be happy over his contract this summer. to say anyone who disagreed with your opinion is a moron is just silly and juvenile.

with all that said, i wish maltby a happy retirement. there ended up being no negative impact to the signing, so no ill will on my part going forward. (not that maltby or anyone cares about my ill will!)

Sorry, but anyone coming into a retirement thread to bash the retiree is a moron. Regardless of your opinion of the player, now or in the past, this isn't the right place to express it. Maltby played a significant role in establishing the standard of excellence to which so many Wings fans now feel entitled. We should all repect the man enough to wish him well now, or at the least, not say anything bad about him in his retirement thread.

#2044524 Wisniewski makes obscene gesture towards Avery

Posted by Buppy on 11 October 2010 - 11:39 PM

I don't really want to make this any more political, and for the most part I agree that the NHL shouldn't be suspending people for gestures, but in this case I wouldn't mind.

If I were to make a similar gesture at my work, I'd be fired on the spot. The same is probably true for anyone who works in an even semi-professional atmosphere. He'd for sure be suspended if he called someone a ****** or made any other racist remark, and this is really no different. I understand it was a joke but it's also hateful at its core. Consider that the city of New York just recently saw three men tortured and beaten for essentially the same homophobic sentiment. Pretty sad that in this day insinuating that someone is *** is still considered an insult.

I guess I'd still say the NHL shouldn't suspend him, but the Islanders should.

[Case in point. The N-word is apparently considered so offensive it has to be auto-censored on an internet forum. But you all think ***-bashing is appropriate for live TV.]

#2043847 Merchandise ?

Posted by Buppy on 10 October 2010 - 01:57 PM

Hockeytown Authentics in Troy. Badass store.

Kind of a long drive from California though... :P

#2041880 10/8 GDT: Ducks 0 at Red Wings 4

Posted by Buppy on 08 October 2010 - 08:29 AM

I was doing fine for the 5 months since the last meaningful Wings game, why does it now seem like 7:30 will never get here?

Is it too late to petition the league for a matinee start?

#2041802 Hawks vs. Avs GDT

Posted by Buppy on 08 October 2010 - 01:07 AM

Wings fans celebrating an Avs win. I guess the Mayans were a couple years off. :P

#2040184 Wings release Aaron Downey

Posted by Buppy on 03 October 2010 - 07:02 PM

I stopped reading after this line because you clearly haven't read any of my posts or are intentionally ignoring any of the points I've made several times in this thread.

So there's really no reason to bother reading yours as I'm guessing you're refuting the fictional argument you've invented for me.


I'm not gonna argue that you need an enforcer to win a Cup, but your reasoning doesn't prove anything. Because in your opinion the Wings had a team capable of winning the Cup and they didn't have an enforcer, that somehow proves that you don't need an enforcer to win the Cup??

They didn't win the cup, so it proves nothing. It's all just speculation on your part.

So you're not saying an enforcer is needed, but you're saying it hasn't been proven that an enforcer is not needed either. What's the point of that argument other than maintaining of the possibility that enforcers are needed.

One or the other is true, either you need an enforcer or you don't. If you don't beleive an enforcer IS needed, you have to believe that an enforcer is NOT needed.

But for some reason you're just not willing to commit to either answer, or at least, not willing to say the words. Instead you just pussyfoot around it, saying 'well, we don't need one, but we haven't won without one so maybe we do'. If you want to argue just that having an enforcer can be valuable, just do that. You countered my specific point asserting that enforcers are not needed. Why do that if you agree with it?

#2040153 Wings release Aaron Downey

Posted by Buppy on 03 October 2010 - 06:19 PM

Abby wiLl never be anything more than a grinder. He'll never be an enforcer. That's just silly.

Of course he isn't. But if we happen to win the Cup just watch the revisionist history. This will somehow become a tough team.

The 97 and 98 Cup teams were soft compared to the rest of the league. There were debates exactly like this back then. Kocur was too old. McCarty wasn't a real heavyweight. We never should have gotten rid of Probert or Grimson. Lapointe and Primeau didn't fight enough, etc. But from the talk about them now you'd think it was one of the toughest teams in NHL history. People talk like McCarty was a fearsome enforcer in 02. The 08 team had the mighty Drake who apparently won us the Cup all by himself.

The Wings are a soft team. We've been a soft team for years and years, and we've won despite that.

I'm not gonna argue that you need an enforcer to win a Cup, but your reasoning doesn't prove anything. Because in your opinion the Wings had a team capable of winning the Cup and they didn't have an enforcer, that somehow proves that you don't need an enforcer to win the Cup??

They didn't win the cup, so it proves nothing. It's all just speculation on your part.


Last season the Wings had 19 fights. 10 of which were from Brad May. If Holland knows what he's doing and apparently doesn't believe in enforcers, it's odd how he keeps trying to add guys like May and Downey to the lineup.

And as I said before, it's ridiculous to measure adding an enforcer against whether that one element will win us the Cup. Hockey is obviously a more complex game than that. And this is pretty much the only debate that the standard for adding that kind of player is there has to be definitive proof it will lead the Wings to the Cup. It's absurd.

You are saying we need an enforcer to win the Cup. And that is your only argument. You say we need one, I say we don't. I think it's hilarious that you all are so terrified to admit even the possibility that a team can win without an enforcer. I bet you were all relieved when we lost in 09.

And that's the difference. I have no problem admitting that having an enforcer can have its usefulness. I'm just not going say it's an absolute necessity. It isn't. Games are won on the scoreboard. Fighting may help, but it is far from the only way to score or prevent goals. Simple kindergarten logic tells you then that it is absolutely possible to win without fighting. But you all act like making that simple concession would be like admitting that fighting has no value.

As for Holland, let's see what he's really done. He had McCarty when he became GM. McCarty happened to also be a pretty good hockey player. Always a regular in the lineup. Maybe if Holland didn't have that luxury he would have signed someone else. Or maybe not.

McCarty left after the lockout. We didn't carry an enforcer in 05-06. Didn't carry one in 06-07 either. 07-08 we added Downey. 08-09 we had nothing. Downey and McCarty spent the majority of the year in GR. 09-10 we added May, but he was originally signed to play in GR, but got a spot due to injuries. Once the team got healthy, he was waived and sent back to GR. That year we were also jammed against the cap and could only afford a minimum wage player. Thus far this season we have no one.

So, 4 of 6 years with no enforcer, 1 with an enforcer for half the year only because of injuries, and 1 year with an enforcer as the 13th forward, who wasn't taking a spot from anyone better. Yeah, Holland really gives that role a high priority.

We already have a full roster. Too many players in fact. We don't have any room for an enforcer. We don't need an enforcer. An enforcer won't put us over any edge. We have one of the best teams in the league, and we are capable of winning the Cup. With no enforcer. Come back next season when we have a couple spots open.

#2039690 Wings release Aaron Downey

Posted by Buppy on 02 October 2010 - 09:57 PM

Well I think the wings have proven they can win without an enforcer is an absurd statement because they never actually have. EVER. but anti enforcer people love to say it when its not true. I never said that they can't win a cup without one but its just fact that they never have so you can't really use that argument.

And its different then saying that Maltby thing because Maltby is a person but an enforcer is a role on the team. I don't think we would've won those 4 cups without players like Maltby because he used to be physical, ******* that filled an important role on the team.

If you really think Downey or McCarty were the difference between 2008 and 2009 you are certifiably insane.

While the team has almost always had someone capable of fighting, the majority of our teams have featured no one better than McCarty, who wasn't scaring anyone even in his prime. And again, consistently at or near the bottom of the league in fighting majors every year for the duration of our current reign as perennial contenders, and over that time posting more Cups, more wins, more points, more playoff wins, and more playoff series wins than any other team in the league. I haven't actually added it up, but I'll bet we have the fewest fights over that time period.

But if you really want to believe that the 10-20 fights we usually have in a year have been the lynch pin of our success, I guess no one can help you.