Jump to content

WorkingOvertime's Photo


Member Since 13 May 2009
Online Last Active Today, 06:54 PM

#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.

#2130708 Lemieux proposes fines to teams for player suspensions

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 16 March 2011 - 09:50 AM

I think that instead of an actual fine, the team is docked that amount on the next season's cap space.

This is a terrible idea. That would force more skilled players to the AHL when a team is suddenly below the cap. The GM and owner have no control over what the players do and sometimes suspensions result from unintentional plays. An example is kneeing- it is one of the dirtiest plays, but sometimes there is a natural reaction to stick your leg out when you're beat on a play. The play should be considered for a suspension, but I think most players on here (and the NHL) can support that kneeing isn't always intentional.

IMO the increasing lengths of suspension are enough deterant.

#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.

#2116538 Isles vs Pens

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 14 February 2011 - 04:35 PM

Not at all. One player doesn't make a team. If they Wings had Cooke (ewwww) and he continually was doing dirty stuff, the Wings wouldn't be known as goons, just for having a goon. Mario didn't call out goons, he called out a team playing with the intent to take a pound of flesh from their opponents during that night.

If I had a problem child, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to call out a family of O'Doyles. It's hypocritical, but it doesn't invalidate my argument. Smokers are right when they say smoking is bad, alcoholics are right when they say alcoholism is wrong.

Mario was right, and Matt Cooke is completely irrelevant. Cooke has never tried to Bertuzzi anyone and never began to pummel a guy he just blindsided that was clearly hurt. All of Cooke's cheapshots, you can find identical hits delivered by highly reputable players, but again, he's never suckerpunched or hit a down opponent who was obviously injured.

Plus, Cooke can continually pot at least 10 goals a season and put up 30 points. Gillies has 9 goals in his entire 12 year career. Matt Martin, thus far in his early early career is a goon. Cooke is a dirty version of Steve Ott basically.

So no, it really doesn't pertain to what Mario was saying. Matt Cooke walks the line and crosses it sometimes, but what Mario is arguing is that an entire game shouldn't be all about cheap shots. So either you (not specifically you) cannot see that or your (not specifically you) pure unadulterated hate for everything Penguins and Crosby is getting in your way. I hate Crosby and the Penguins as the next person, but at least I can see it from mario's/an owners point of view.

Which do you think is more likely to cause an long-term injury, sucker punching someone or hitting them in the head? IMO a blind-side shot with a shoulder traveling at 15+ mph is more dangerous than a single punch. I would argue the same for knees and hits from behind. What happened to Moore was a tragedy, but in my years of playing and watching hockey I've seen many more dirty hits cause injury than sucker punches. As I said before, I would have preferred the player take an instigator and fight someone than a sucker punch though. However, I would have had the Isles start fights the way they did than make dirty plays. To me Godard's hit was as bad as Gillie's hit, and I believe (read somewhere?) that each hit caused a concussion.

#2115348 Isles vs Pens

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 12 February 2011 - 10:23 AM

We need to remember that the statement was more seen by more than just the Penguins. In an interview on TSN, Konopka said that they want teams to know that their star players are going to be protected.

I liked what I saw from the Isles last night. Did Martin and Gillies go over the line? Yes. However, I don't believe either of them should be suspended longer than Godard (10 game minimum for leaving the bench). Also, Haley was okay in going after Johnson. Johnson was clearly willing to fight and it looked like he was expecting it.

The next game between these two teams will be over-hyped IMO. It is right before the playoffs and I don't think the Penguins will want to expose their players to another game like this in April.

#2105017 Enforcer Poll

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 25 January 2011 - 06:07 PM

I'd like to see this kinda poll:

Enforcer - yes/no ?

Post a picture of yourself.
What level of education do you have?

Just out of curiosity.

Currently in first year of PhD program.
Pic attached.
Your turn.Attached File  Hockey 2.jpg   28.87KB   26 downloads