Jump to content


kipwinger's Photo

kipwinger

Member Since 31 May 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 05:50 PM
-----

#2462270 Shawn Thornton attacks Orpik (leaves game on stretcher)

Posted by kipwinger on 07 December 2013 - 10:19 PM

Or maybe you should use your god given eyeballs and watch the replay. It didn't look like it was serious enough for anyone to get injured. His head didn't hit the ice so its not that...his shoulder did so maybe its an injury related to that but why a stretcher? The 2-3 hits weren't that hard either....I'm sure orpik has been hit harder.

 

My god, I can't imagine the kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to come to the conclusion that Thornton did nothing wrong and Orpik "shouldn't" be hurt.  It's incredible.  Forget about us taking your posts seriously, how do you even type this stuff with a straight face.




#2462194 Shawn Thornton attacks Orpik (leaves game on stretcher)

Posted by kipwinger on 07 December 2013 - 09:31 PM

Orpik should've fought him the first time two cheap shots on bruins players led to it...Thornton will get a suspension but I don't blame him.

 

Why should Orpik have to fight for a clean hit?  He didn't cheap shot anyone. 




#2460140 Retaliation

Posted by kipwinger on 02 December 2013 - 02:17 PM

This whole thread is reactionary, and at the same time premeditated.  It's hard to be both at once; in fact, it's almost impossible.  Yet here we are.  Some people obviously want the Wings to play a "more physical" type of game, which typically boils down to more fighting.  So we wait, and when we finally lose a game in which we're physically dominated, they jump up and say "See!  If we were just tougher then this wouldn't happen."  It's opportunistic, and at the same time utterly predictable. 

 

Here's the problem with this thread in a nutshell.  We lost seven games in a row before the last Ottawa game, and physicality and fighting played no role in any of those losses.  Yet, I didn't see people jumping up to start "the Wings need to get faster" threads, or "the Wings need a better positional goalie" thread, or "the Wings need a better transition game" thread.  But sure as s***, the first time we get hit a little bit there will be a "the Wings need to get more physical" thread.

 

This isn't about the Wings playing better.  It's a post hoc way of justifying your desire to see the Wings get in more fights.  If that's how you feel just say so, but don't try to manipulate the truth.  And don't make it seem like this is some glaring need because it has barely been a factor this season. 

 

The argument is a cheap, unsophisticated attempt to pull the wool over our collective eyes.  It would be insulting if it weren't so glaringly obvious. 




#2460093 Brendan Smith

Posted by kipwinger on 02 December 2013 - 09:56 AM

I was not able to watch last Wednesday or Sunday's games.  However, I've been told that Smith played quite well in both.  I did see Friday's game and didn't think he looked bad.  I've always been quite vocal about how bad Smith was playing, and he was playing quite terribly at one point, but if he's turned the corner on that then he deserves to be recognized for that as well.  So "atta boy" Smith.




#2458576 Quincey

Posted by kipwinger on 27 November 2013 - 03:39 PM

Quincey makes 3.775 mil, and with his ice time his points should be much higher, and his +/- should not be nearly as bad as it is

 

Well just to play devil's advocate, given how bad our offense is and how hard it is for us to score, one could argue that Quincey (along with everyone else on the team) has an artificially inflated +/-.  Also, he's being utilized as a defensive defenseman and doesn't see PP time at all.  Therefore, he's not expected to score much.  In 2009-2010 Brad Stuart got lots of ice time, scored 20 pts. (with a much better offensive team), and was -12.  Yet nobody would ever have said he was our worst defender...let alone our worst player (as some are mentioning).  Why? 

 

Mostly because people hate Quincey and liked Stuart based on his style of play.  And a little bit because sometimes people fail to realize that unlike most other positions in most other sports, defensive defensemen don't have too many individual indicators of success.  Their team can make them look REALLY good (2009 Stuart) or REALLY bad (2013 Quincey). 




#2458371 Quincey

Posted by kipwinger on 26 November 2013 - 08:18 PM

Kyle Quincey is perhaps the worst "trade" Holland has ever made... he has signed some questionable UFA's, but when it comes to trades he usually makes pretty good decisions.  I hated this trade from day one, hated the re-signing and will kick Holland in the nuts (if I ever see him) if he re-signs him again.

 

No you didn't.  Here's what you actually said when Quincey was traded for...

 

"I may be in the minority here, but I think this is a nice deal. Kyle is a big upgrade over Kindl, he is much better (maybe not tougher) than Commodore, he will be a nice addition here. Welcome back Kyle!

and for those who think a first was too much, not only is the first gonna be at least in the bottom 4, it may be #30 overall, just like everyone is saying, but consider this, when was the last time Holland even used his first? The first is so low every year he usually trades it away for another 2nd round pick. Which he has done at least the last two season's. This could mean Holland isn't done, he has said Smith will be coming up soon to get some playing time, maybe Kindl is on his way out, who know's. But as minor as this deal was, it is a little exciting. Quincey will make an impression, trust me. Where are all the folks that were complaining just last week about how we lost him to waivers a few years ago. They should be happy!"

 

And here's where you said it...http://www.letsgowin... trade quincey

 

You are aware that when you say things on a forum, and then flip flop later, people can look it up right?




#2458245 CBC partners with Rogers in landmark NHL rights deal.

Posted by kipwinger on 26 November 2013 - 08:17 AM

From CBC:

 

I can't think of a reason why this won't be approved. It's a shame NBC doesn't follow the lead of the CBC and make the same kind of commitment to broadcast more games on their free main television network.

 

 

 

I wish, and if Americans watched hockey like Canadians they would.




#2458244 10 former players sue NHL for concussions

Posted by kipwinger on 26 November 2013 - 08:12 AM

 

Hear me out:

 

I am all for employee rights and that stuff (i.e supporting players in the lockout) but I think if someone is a professional hockeyplayer they know what to expect. Like someone else mentioned, it is the players themselves who just can't keep their ellbow down and heck (ie. Lupul) some are going into practise without the proper safety gear on. This is of course a difficult matter and if there is even the slighest possiblity of reducing concussion and keeping the players safer without making hockey into soccer, I am all for it.

 

Granted, I haven't read the lawsuit but one also has to keep in mind the different technology nowadays and back then. Should it come out, that some teams wanted the players to play WITH a concussion well then nothing to talk about and the lawsuit claims hopefully win. Toying around with players health should and can never be an option, no matter how important the points are health > hockey.

 

That's my stance on it.

 

Sure, and you've made some reasonable points.  But as someone else said, it's kind of a misnomer to suggest that concussions are only the result of elbows and dirty hits.  Plenty of concussions are simply the result of how fast the game is, which is something the NHL can control for the safety of the player.  Furthermore, the "they know what to expect" argument may or may not be true, but it doesn't really matter.  Just because you knew your industry is dangerous doesn't mean your employer doesn't have to do everything necessary to mitigate danger.  I was in the Army for a long time, deployed overseas and all that.  Pretty dangerous job obviously, and I knew it was.  But because I knew it was dangerous doesn't mean the military doesn't have to enforce safety policies, or protect soldiers from each other (e.g. sexual assaults), or conduct investigations into long term side effects of military career (e.g. veteran suicide rates), etc.  Saying "you knew what to expect" doesn't matter in the most dangerous industry on earth, and it shouldn't matter in hockey either.


  • Nev likes this


#2458220 10 former players sue NHL for concussions

Posted by kipwinger on 25 November 2013 - 10:42 PM

This isn't bloodsport, it's a business.  If your employer doesn't do absolutely everything in their power to keep you safe on the job, they're liable to get sued.  Put it this way, just because you work in a coal mine doesn't mean your employer doesn't have to give you a gas mask, or pump clean air into the mine.  Have we seriously taken such a step back in terms of labor relations that we think employees have no rights just because they "chose" to work in a particular industry?  

 

Would any of you be ok with it if your coworker gave you a concussion at work and your employer said "you knew it was a tough job when you took it"?  Obviously not.   




#2458151 Babcock's system

Posted by kipwinger on 25 November 2013 - 03:38 PM

I think my biggest problem with Bab's "system" is his stubborn insistence that every player is a perfect substitute stylistically (or at least could be) to every other player.  Because of this, you get specialized players playing in the wrong roles, because "hey, why not".  Why not put Datsyuk on Zetterberg's wing with Brunner (beginning of last season)? Why not put Filppula on Zetterberg's wing in spite of the fact that Filppula likes to pass and Z likes to shoot?  Why not play Abby on every line from first to fourth?  Why not make Smith and Kindl play away from their strengths?

 

Babs' system runs utterly contrary to a couple hundred years worth of evidence that specialization works really well in most facets of life.  You'd be a fool to try and grow corn in an area more suited for coffee production.  You'd be a fool to build a textile factory in Silicon Valley.  You'd be a fool to tell Stamkos to pass more and shoot less.  But for some reason Babs disagrees with this logic.  He must have skipped Econ 101 for Sports Psych 10...who gives a damn.




#2457837 11/24 GDT: Red Wings 3 @ Sabres 1

Posted by kipwinger on 24 November 2013 - 06:12 PM

We have no killer instinct...says the guy with the best shot on the team right before chooses to pass to Helm on a 3 on 1 rather than take a shot from the high slot with nobody around.




#2457789 11/24 GDT: Red Wings 3 @ Sabres 1

Posted by kipwinger on 24 November 2013 - 05:47 PM

I just came in to check on the comedic meltdown in here today?? Everyone ok?

 

Generally, I agree that any loss meets with utter doomsday reactions around here.  But if you haven't noticed, we're losing an awful lot of games.




#2457604 What Does This Team Need More/Most?

Posted by kipwinger on 24 November 2013 - 11:44 AM

 

I agree about Bert, but it also says a lot when the Wings rely on a 38 year-old with a bad back to be a deterrent of any kind.  Like when he dropped the gloves to go with Weber after the head smash on Z.  Good on Bert for doing it, but I also felt kind of bad for him.

 

As I've mentioned before, it'd be nice to have someone like Jordan Nolan on the 4th line like the Kings do.  He's 6'3" 227 lbs, will drop the gloves with anyone and is a pretty effective grinder who will score a few.  You know when the Kings 4th line is out there.  And Nolan is only 24 years old, drafted in the 7th round.  Dwight King is another one, taken in the 4th round. He has more offensive upside than Nolan. 

 

It's not like the Kings got them because of high draft picks.  There are guys out there.  You occasionally have to pick them instead of a non-physical skill guy.

 

To try and head off the inevitable enforcer argument, I'm not talking about the Wings getting a John Scott.  But it would be nice if they at least had a 4th line with some size and grit, and would make people answer for playing against the Wings like the Sens did last night.   Even before last night many of us have been saying how the bottom 6 are a collection of spare parts instead of one that has a mission and identity when they're out there.

 

I have no problem with what you're saying, but I think it obscures the fact that we didn't lose last night because Ottawa was physical.  We lost because we could score on any of the three 5 on 3 powerplays we had.  Hell, forget about scoring on them, we couldn't even get any shots on goal.  Three shots on three 5 on 3 powerplays.  Pathetic.




#2457601 Datsyuk concussion: To Return Tuesday

Posted by kipwinger on 24 November 2013 - 11:39 AM

 

Todd McLellan and Paul MacLean know exactly how to beat us.  Play physical and intimidate, it's worked for years.

 

esteef

 

Apparently there are lots of ways to beat this team, since we can't seem to buy a win no matter how the other team plays.  Last night was the first really physical game we've played and we lost.  But the zillion games we lost before that really didn't hinge on physicality.  I agree that we got beat up last night, but it's not like that's a sure fire way to beat us.  We lose no matter what style the other team plays.




#2457584 What Does This Team Need More/Most?

Posted by kipwinger on 24 November 2013 - 11:22 AM

We had three five on three penalties last night and didn't convert on any of them. and only got three shots on goal during that time.  We don't need to be bigger and tougher, we need a team that's not full of scrubs.  Oh yeah, and we need a new coach.