Jump to content

WorkingOvertime's Photo


Member Since 13 May 2009
Online Last Active Today, 10:54 AM

#2135881 Pavel Datsyuk optimistic he'd skate today

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 25 March 2011 - 12:11 PM

On the M-Live article, Dat's had a (typical) funny quote- I hope so I play a few games before the playoffs. I watched too much this season. I'm tired of watching TV. I want to be on TV.''

#2134096 3/21 GDT: Penguins 5 at Red Wings 4 (SO)

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 21 March 2011 - 09:05 PM

Dumb and Dumber showing who is in fact the dumbest (almost).

#2132796 Abdelkader

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 20 March 2011 - 01:25 PM

Lidstrom is a +1. Rafalski is a +14. What do you expect to learn from +/- by itself?

And hey, I would like the player who people around here anoint as one of the tougher players on the team to act like it.

This thread isn't about Eaves. Don't deflect. If Abdelkader is going to get praise for taking boxing lessons in the offseason, maybe he should do something with that skill. Also you don't have to be the enforcer to fight other players. When it comes to Abdelkader specifically, I would think he would try to give hell to the opposition if he was getting stepped on. He didn't do that last night.

Is plus/minus the definitive stat? Absolutely not, but it is a good measure for a third/fourth liner whose main objective is to play solid, defensive hockey.

Abby has always been a big hitter who will back up his play when challenged. He has 153 hits on the season, which is 29 more than the second biggest DRW hitter with only 64 gp. Because people on LGW have anointed him the toughest player doesn't mean he will be. I'd like to anoint Dats to be 100+ point player every year, but I'm not going to ***** when he doesn't score each game.

The bowing lessons have been taken so out of context on this forum. He stated that he wouldn't go looking for fights. If you ask Eaves (or anyone else on the team), I bet he would say the same thing.

Bringing up Eaves isn't deflecting. Abby has one more NHL fight than Eaves (equal if you don't include preseason). Abby is a hitter, and therefore I expect him to take hits and not fight afterward unless they are blatantly dirty. Eaves was repeatedly punched in the back of the head- I don't know about you, but I'd be more likely to fight after being punched than questionably hit.

Would I like to see Abby fight more? Absolutely. Do I expect Abby to fight more? Probably. Do I think Abby should be expected to fight while other players shouldn't? No. If you're going to expect Abby to fight, I see no reason why you shouldn't also expect E, Bert, or Eaves to fight.

#2132779 Abdelkader

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 20 March 2011 - 12:07 PM

Maybe if Abby could do something useful and valuable.

Jeez, he gets targeted in the head twice and doesn't seem to care. That was just ridiculous.

3 point in his last five games, and a +12 rating- what more do you want?

Are you thinking of Eaves or Abby? I saw Abby hit a few times, but Eaves was punched in the back of the head at least three times by Franson within one shift. I don't know why everyone on here rags on Abby for not fighting when Eaves, Miller, E, Bert, etc can all fight. Would I like to see Abby fight more? Yes, but Holland or Babcock has never anointed him the Wings' enforcer and he has never expressed an interest in being the Wings' enforcer. Therefore, don't expect it to happen.

#2132694 Abdelkader

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 19 March 2011 - 09:48 PM

He's useless.

Guy never stands up for his teammates, especially in a game like tonight.

I understand where you're coming from, but why does it have to be Abby? There were 17 other players on the Detroit bench that could have stood up for their teammates, and E, Miller, Bert, Eaves are just as good (or better) at fighting.

I'd like to see someone stand up for the team, but I don't know why Abby has magically inherited the role. He is just the scapegoat for the team not having Boll, Prust, Rosehill, etc that I (and other posters) advocated signing/trading for in the off-season. I don't know why posters here think Abby should be this team's enforcer.

#2132146 Recent suspensions

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 18 March 2011 - 08:29 PM

These hits used to happen all the time and went unpenalized. I'm glad they are trying to do away with plays like these, but I'm not shocked, angry, etc. after seeing this stuff happen for years.

Next, take out the instigator and let players handle their frustrations in a safer way. I'd take a punch to the face over a elbow to the head any day.

#2130569 Bettman 5 step plan

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 15 March 2011 - 06:53 PM

There should be no hits to the head at all. How come the NFL can ban head shots and the NHL can't?

Also I think fighting is a 1970's thing. There's no need for it. Again, why can you fight in hockey and not in the other sports? Just like other sports, if you fight, you're out of the game.

The issue here is concussions, head hits and fighting causes concussions. Both should be eliminated.

If the NHL doesn't address concussions seriously, like I said, they're going to face huge lawsuits. Look at this public outcry from the Chara hit, it's just the beginning of what could happen.

I agree that concussions and head-shots are a problem, but your analysis is reaching.

Hits to the head happen in hockey because you cannot wrap your arms around another player to remove them from the puck (like you can in football). As I asked, have you ever tried to make a north-south hit on someone with their head down without making head contact? It's not possible to do consistently, and protecting these players would result in them skating with their head down through the center of the ice because they can't be hit. I don't think this is explainable to someone who hasn't played the game at a competitive level (if you haven't), but it is one of the first things you learn in peewees. If you skate with your head down, you will get nailed. The Kronner- Havlat hit is an example of this. I would hate to see those hits removed.

Fighting was around in hockey since the beginning of the sport, not since the 70's. Fighting is significantly down since the lockout. This is a totally different discussion, but I will never support the removal of fighting from hockey. Orr received a bad concussion from fighting earlier this year, and I don't see him calling for fighting to be removed either. I also never heard any comments suggesting the removal from Probert. If I drop my gloves and ditch my lid, I know the risk I'm taking- so do the NHL players. Just because other sports don't allow fighting, why shouldn't hockey? Fighting is a sport, so why do we need pucks or skates or sticks? I am being sarcastic, but it shows your logic is flawed.

No one should bring a lawsuit on hockey for anything that happens on the ice (within reason). Hockey is a dangerous sport, and when the players suit up and sign their contracts they no this. The need is to minimize the risk of dangerous plays while keeping the integrity of the game. I agree with the blind-side rule, making shoulder pads smaller, removing seamless glass, removing the instigator, increasing helmet tech., etc. but not degrading the game. Speaking of dangerous sports (to use a comparison like yours), cheerleading is one of the most dangerous, but I don't think throws (or whatever they're called) are outlawed. The key parts of the game, like hitting, need to be kept.

#2130369 Lines

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 14 March 2011 - 09:01 PM

helm is the s*** and i think he should be 2nd line the way he's playing...depending on if first line is dats or Z...

hudler - dats - cleary (that line is badass together)
helm - Z - flip (helm could get Z and flip going and this line could put up points)
homer - franzen - bert (franzen used to be centre. he's been useless for 17 games, make him skate)

Helm could get Flip and Z going? I'm a big Helm fan but IMO he is not a second line player right now. The line would work well, but so would putting anyone with Flip and Z. Your third like would be a 'the third line is lazy and sucks' thread after the first shift. They are all slower and not great defensively.

#2129910 Ville Leino Scores Hat Trick

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 13 March 2011 - 11:25 AM

He was on a pretty long slump before the hat-trick if that makes it any better.

#2127464 Chara's hit on Pacioretty

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 09 March 2011 - 08:11 AM

He was against the boards, he could have just rubbed him off, but as soon as the stantion came up he literally shoved him into it. Chara is not a dirty player, but clean players have been known to have mental lapses.

But this thread is going to go the same way as all dirty hit threads go, pro enforcers don't see anything wrong, anti-enforcer see's the world falling down and then the general masses see it as dirty (the poll on HFboards is 60% to 40% calling for a suspension).

I don't think this one is so black and white (enforcer v. anti-enforcer). The play was certainly dirty, but it is largely a question of intent. I think McKenzie has it correct in saying, "The hit was late. It was interference. It caused injury and while the design configuration of the boards and glass played a pivotal role in the severity of the injury, the responsibility is still with the hitter. So two games is my call. No one will like it. Works for me.". Full link here- http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=357203

#2126017 Trevor Gillies

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 04 March 2011 - 04:02 PM

Ten games.

This hit gets 4 games and Gillies gets 10. To me, Gillies' suspension is based on him being an enforcer more than the hit itself.

#2125423 Trevor Gillies

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 03 March 2011 - 07:28 PM

Leino just tripped Schenn on an icing, sending him in to the boards. I thought the league was trying to come down on this dangerous play a few years ago. There will be no suspension or anything (shouldn't be IMO) but the play is easily as dangerous as Gillies. The difference is no one here would call for a suspension because Leino is a "skill player".

The Gillies hit was dirty, there is no arguing that. My problem is that he will get a big suspension from it while similar hits will happen with no league intervention. This is targeting the name on the sweater and not the offense. This is evidenced by Cal getting the benefit of the doubt for his hit from behind.

If anyone sees any homerism in my posts, please point it out.

This situation is similar to Malkin having his instigator recinded in the playoffs a couple years ago. People complained because they thought the league recinded the penalty because Malkin is a star player. To me this falls under the same argument but posters here are less likely to support a lesser suspension because Gillies is an enforcer.

#2125236 Trevor Gillies

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 03 March 2011 - 11:26 AM

Point taken. But when it's your first game back for concussing a guy by throwing a dirty elbow to the head (then yapping at him as he's down on the ice) and you do the same thing in your first game back, it sends a pretty clear signal you've not learned anything from your suspension.

I agree. It was a stupid play throughout. If the Isles player were seriously injured would we be having this discussion? The hit was certainly dirty but I think there are similar hits almost nightly in the NHL. There are a lot of players leaving their feet to hit high in many games. I think anything more than 5 games is unfair and based on Gillies' reputation more than the hit. Gillies is an old-school enforcer that gives retribution to the offending player. I think he went about it in the wrong way (again) but I can see his intention.

#2125167 Trevor Gillies

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 03 March 2011 - 09:57 AM

Personally, I don't think there should be a big suspension here. Cooke is a repeat offender and his last suspended hit was much worse IMO and I believe he only got four games. I don't like seeing suspensions levied on players because of their skill level. Plenty of people on here complain when skill players aren't given as big of suspensions, but giving bad players longer suspensions only perpetuates the cycle. Anything more than four games is too much and less is better. It was a dirty hit, but he has already sat out a game and worse hits have gone unpunished.

#2116821 Isles vs Pens

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 15 February 2011 - 08:21 AM

I was more going off the basis that Cooke hadn't done anything nearly as bad as what Martin and Gillie did. Sucker punching someone from behind/side to a completely unsuspecting victim, then continuing to try to pummel them or charging a player from clear across the ice and laying into a guy who doesn't fight, then ripping his helmet off as he laid on the ice in pain an agony then blasting him in the ehad is wayyy worse than anything that Cooke has done.

Cooke plays on the line and crosses it from time to time obviously, but he's never blatantly done anything this bad. The blindside hits were legal at the time and his knees to knees have never taken anyone out for anytime (or at least i don't think so, please correct me if I am wrong!), he's never sucker punched someone or hit a downed opponent. This is all on top of Cooke being a 35 point player as well.

That is why i said he wasn't worse than those two.

As I said on the last page, the actions taken by Martin aren't as dangerous as the actions taken by Cooke. Gillies hit was very similar to Godard's hit, and I don't think the ensuing 'fight' (jumping) was the cause of the concussion.

Why does it matter that Cooke is a 35-point player? I don't know why fans, let alone the league, believe that points are important when it comes to discipline. IMO you compare incidents based on the severity of the rule broken only, not on who the player is.