Jump to content

Shoreline's Photo


Member Since 03 Aug 2003
Offline Last Active Sep 12 2012 01:02 PM

#2221650 This team screams for a trade

Posted by Shoreline on 02 November 2011 - 03:00 PM

Detroit Red Wings = new Toronto Maple Leafs:( trade Franzen, Filppula, Hudler, Bertuzzi, Abdelkader, Cleary

The difference is the Wings don't actually go after pretty much any trade/FA bait imaginable, unlike the Leafs.

And dallas27, I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but if you are (probably should use names instead of this girly passive aggressive method as I tend to skip over your posts due to them being full of pointless fluff), I find it pretty hilarious how easily you get mad over pixel debates. Lay off the huffing OxiClean there, Billy Mays, and maybe you'll find yourself throwing less pixel temper tantrums.

#2221138 Celebrating with a member of the other team gets you a..

Posted by Shoreline on 01 November 2011 - 08:46 PM

Just ask Henrik Eriksson:

Even though it was probably more of a smile of embarrassment, he still took it like a man.

#2220048 10/29 GDT: Red Wings at Minnesota Wild

Posted by Shoreline on 29 October 2011 - 09:30 PM

4 straight losses... wow this sucks. :/

#2220027 10/29 GDT: Red Wings at Minnesota Wild

Posted by Shoreline on 29 October 2011 - 09:19 PM

Oh this board is really gonna hate on Bert now...

Clutterbuck needs his skates inspected, just in case he accidentally skates around on a banana peel. Otherwise, he had spent that shift trying to draw penalties by falling all over the ice.

#2219699 This team screams for a trade

Posted by Shoreline on 29 October 2011 - 08:33 AM

Last time I checked Filppula was leading the team in points...

Wow, he's so terrible leading the team in points and +/-. Trade him!

#2219595 10/28 GDT: Sharks 4 at Red Wings 2

Posted by Shoreline on 28 October 2011 - 09:01 PM

I see Penguins fans, and I'm so jealous. I wish we had a team that good. *kicks the ground, looks sad*

Almost any team is better than the Red Wings. They're awful.

#2219452 10/28 GDT: Sharks 4 at Red Wings 2

Posted by Shoreline on 28 October 2011 - 07:54 PM

Wait.. no penalty? :yowza:

#2219137 Assistant Captain - Tomas Kopecky

Posted by Shoreline on 28 October 2011 - 10:34 AM

One man's trash is another's.. Assistant Captain?

#2219081 Who would you pick to have back on this team?

Posted by Shoreline on 28 October 2011 - 02:31 AM

98-99/01-02 Uwe Krupp
03-04 Derian Hatcher
02-03 Dmitri Bykov
98-99 Ulf Samuelsson

#2219015 A Goalie is Needed

Posted by Shoreline on 27 October 2011 - 06:59 PM

Steve Yzerman had 137 points in his 92-93 season and it dropped down to 82 points in 93-94, it has to be because he had that daughter of his! Nevermind him playing 30 games less and switching to a more defensive style. Damn those babies! :rolleyes:

Evidently someone took a dump on their sarcasm detector.

#2218986 A Goalie is Needed

Posted by Shoreline on 27 October 2011 - 03:43 PM

I'd also like a burger with a side of extra large PANIC.

#2218895 NHL Press Confrence Tomorrow at 3

Posted by Shoreline on 27 October 2011 - 05:36 AM

Hmm it's definitely not the announcement of the 2012 NHL Entry Draft in Pittsburgh.

It's the announcement that Crosby had a full contact annual elective colonoscopy (Dr. Bettman is his proctologist/gastroenterologist), and all was a-ok.

#2218798 This team screams for a trade

Posted by Shoreline on 26 October 2011 - 06:39 PM

The thing is...we played uninspired hockey in the 5 victories too, imo. We showed up for a period here and there, and won games against bad teams (except Vancouver, which was playing its 3rd road game in 4 nights). The lethargic play just didn't get exposed until we faced an opponent that has as much talent as we do, if not more.

I don't believe "uninspired" play for a period here and there allows for 5 goals in total for the first 4 games.

The typical remnants of the type of uninspired hockey you speak of, that does in fact sometimes plague the Red Wings, is the team winning a 1 goal game when they were up far more than that, or off to a typical slow start, getting behind, and coming back to win by a goal or two, or coming one goal short. The first 5 games were decisive victories played with a stifling defence and playing for a full 60+ minute game. The last two games were very uncharacteristic of the Red Wings, but that s*** happens to teams during the regular season as they're not robots. Maybe you confused the lethargic Wings with the lethargic crowds in the lower bowl at the Joe? I'm not sure but you certainly aren't shooting anywhere near on target with your assertion of how the Wings played the first 5 games.

#2218787 Veterans Players Choosing to Wear visors/ Younger Players Going Withou

Posted by Shoreline on 26 October 2011 - 05:47 PM

I can't recall ever having witnessed that scenario, and I'd also love to hear about their construction. However, that's only one possible cause of facial damage. Sticks to the face are a far more likely and common occurrence than slapshots, and 99% of them you'd be hard pressed to notice when a visor stops the stick from inflicting potentially permanent damage.

EDIT: I'm likely in the minority here, but I'm not in favor of mandating visors for pros. They are, indeed, grown ass men, and can make their own decisions. That said, I'm strongly in favor of them wearing them and think anyone who doesn't is likely overestimating the size of their own testicles. You only get two eyes. It's ok to be frugal with them.

High sticks to the face are still a common occurrence with visors, and are, overall, not much protection for the eyes, and obviously no protection below them.

I also think this should be left up to the player and for insurance purposes (Gord knows there needs to be insurance for every-*******-thing) if they elect not to wear a visor they should not be eligible for benefits to be compensated through injury should they get injured in that fashion and electing not to wear PPE.

Truthfully the issue is a tough one if you can't take a stance on a single side. I understand from a player perspective visors and cages are limiting and can be reallyf****** irritating to wear. I understand from a business perspective that part of your financial investment into a player is their well-being and obviously you aren't getting much from your investment if the player gets KO'd by a somewhat preventable injury. I understand from a litigation perspective (unfortunately this bulls*** rears it's head too often) that businesses in the U.S. and Canada are required PPE where there are specific job-related hazards but the NHL is a business (like other professional leagues in North America) exempt and allowed to largely self-regulate as far as PPE goes.

Then, there's the issue of.. if NHL teams were so much about safety, why are they encouraging players to put themselves in a situation of being injured by throwing themselves in the path of an 80-110mph vulcanized semi-frozen rubber puck? Why are fights allowed? Why is so much physicality allowed? At some point one has to understand that, regardless of the "side" you wish to take, there are risks involved with playing hockey. The impression I got about visors followed a number of facial related injuries and media attention, just like the arena netting issue followed a death and a few injuries plus media attention. The issue relating to concussions, head shots, blind side hits, etc., all followed more media attention. If you notice, logical or not, hypocritical or not, the league often acts swiftly following media attention, and people are unfortunately far too susceptible to the grandiose nature of an issue the media tends to magnify. Understanding from at least 3 perspectives, I don't believe visors or cages are a necessity, and players should both elect which they want to use, and take responsibility in every aspect for the choice they made.

#2218760 What's up with Zetterberg?

Posted by Shoreline on 26 October 2011 - 03:45 PM

Now's the time to trade Lids and Dats, Kenny, they're both getting older! Quick! Before I have to pop another Xanax or Ritalin!