Jump to content

WorkingOvertime's Photo


Member Since 13 May 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 04:34 PM

#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

#2104806 Wings Have To Toughen Up Soon

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 25 January 2011 - 11:17 AM

another thing is we need guys like ott or clutterbuck, the problem is they are worth as much as filppula or kronwall, thus we can't have them unless we give up something significant

miller is only 50,000 mroe than konopka, konopka is useless, miller is an awesome penalty killer, neil is waaaay more expensive, and prust is more expensive and at the moment more valuable to his team

Have you ever seen Konopka play? How many Isles games have you watched this year or Lightning games last year? I'd post his stats but I'm on my phone. To say Konopka is useless shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

#2104768 Wings Have To Toughen Up Soon

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 25 January 2011 - 09:42 AM

Punching people and being punched...that does not make you tough. A goon with no skill might be tough, but not because he fights. Toughness is being able to overcome adversity in the forms it manifests itself as. For the Wings, it often seems to be an opponent where many of you guys start flipping out because we don't have an enforcer. But the Wings get through, because they have tough players like Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Holmstrom, Draper, Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, Osgood.

You can have your team full of Colton Orrs and Derek Boogards. I'll take a team full of Zetterbergs, Datsyuks, Lidstroms, or Kronwalls.

You're off base here. No poster in this thread suggested we have a pure enforcer, or a team of them. The argument is, and has been, why not have a Neil, Konopka, Prust, etc in the lineup in place of someone like Miller?

#2101387 1/20 GDT: Red Wings 4 at Blues 3 (OT)

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 20 January 2011 - 10:40 PM

Only had 1 hit tonight, creates very little chances, and hasn't been putting up the points lately. It would have been pointless but his play as of late has been pointless. I get that he is the hometown boy but he has to earn his ice time.

He got robbed of the game winner. While his play has suffered he certainly is not the weak link in the team. Would you play Miller above Abby?

Fighting would have been pointless. He was tired and likely would have lost. I'm one of the more pro-enforcer posters here but fighting in the last minute of a game when nobody has wronged your team is pointless.

#2101359 1/20 GDT: Red Wings 4 at Blues 3 (OT)

Posted by WorkingOvertime on 20 January 2011 - 10:33 PM

Because he is useless. Doesn't fight and hasn't been putting up points. If it wasn't for all the injuries he would be up in the press box.

Really? Really? He hits, creates chances, and can put up points. If you were watching, he was at the end of his shift after coming within two inches of scoring the game winner. It would have been pointless for him to fight a better fighter with thirty seconds left in the game.