That overhead angle shows Chara grabbing him with his free hand, probably trying to slow him down from getting to the puck so his defensive partner would have time to make a play. If not for the stantion it should've been two for interference.
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).
More than pro-enforcer or anti-enforcer (I don't consider myself either), two better categories to determine how people view this hit is probably "I dont like Chara" and "I like/have no opinion about Chara."
Or maybe even "I'm bitter he won the Norris over Lidstrom."
Exactly. The wings blow a 3 goal third period lead, and he is making up excuses like that? And this is the heir to the captaincy? Doesn't sound good at all, oh well I guess those big contracts will do that too you
You get that from one quote? He's not motivated because of his big contract?
I think Zetterberg is overly optimistic in a lot of the quotes I read from him in the press, but in principle I agree with him. The Wings are a puck possession team. When that's working, being "fancy" is the right play. But when they're off, it suddenly seems cute and lazy. It's not that simple to just say they were being too cute with the puck.
My main thing is when the puck possession isn't working, particularly when they're being aggressively forechecked, they need to be able to transition to a successful grinding game like Babcock is talking about. It's why in a lot of their off games, the 3rd and 4th lines ending up looking the best because they tend to play that style anyways. When the skill play isn't working, their persistence in trying to rely on talent does seem like they're not willing to compete highly to win.
Babcock is a firm believer in keeping the defensive pairings constant. That's why the pairings are the way they are.
Look what happened when Rafalski went down, Big E is failing pretty bad out there. Past 6 games, where Kindl turned the corner, Kindl has 2 points and is a minus 1 while E has been w/o a point since early November and is a minus 2. Without Rafalski's elite puck moving skills, we can clearly see that Big E is not better than Kindl. Kindl has out performed him lately and will out perform him through the playoffs.
Yes, Ericsson is playing more minutes than Kindl, but that more has to do with Babcock liking to keep his D pairings constant and about who Ericsson's D partner is. Ericsson lucked out to be paired with Rafalski when he did because Ericsson was in deed higher on the depth chart and the better player at the time. Now, not so much.
Kindl > Ericsson. No matter how many times you refute that equation, you won't be able to get it to be false.
Actually, it already is. The sections you made up or are completely unsupported are highlighted in bold.
The only actual evidence to support your case is a -1 difference in plus minus, which is an incredibly weak stat. What's Lidstrom's +/-? Yet you dismiss the 5 minutes difference in ice time out there between E, Salei, and Kindl. 5 minutes is a huge difference in TOI.
You're seriously arguing that in spite of Kindl clearly outplaying Ericsson, Babcock is continuing to give 5 minutes more icetime to an inferior player and limit Kindl's TOI just because he likes to keep his pairings consistent? That's absurd.
Your argument is weak. You have the opinion that Kindl is better than Ericsson. I have the opinion he isn't. The thing is, the games and evidence support my argument.
And to be clear, I'm not in any way saying Kindl is bad. But he's not playing the same role as Ericsson, and he's not as far along. But he looks very promising and has a ton of potential. Hopefully he keeps it up.
I think Kindl sees the ice better than Big E, and this is why some of you are saying he is a better player. Ericsson has more of the physical tools needed to be a defenceman, and that is why he plays a better game currently. As long as Kindl keeps learning and improving, he should end up a better player than Big E IMO.
Agreed. Maybe it's because E's development seems to have stalled a bit, but I think Kindl does have the potential to be a better D man the Ericsson. He already seems to play more physical than Ericsson and is looking more and more comfortable out there.
This is the same guy that gave up a ton to get Dustin Penner. He's just pissed because he thought he built the Kings to contend for the Cup this year and that were getting killed by one of the best teams in the West and it showed just how far the Kings still have to go before being a serious contender. "Its Detroit". Whatever. How about, "why are the Kings losing?" "Well it's the Kings".
The Kings beat the Wings 5-0 and 3-2 earlier this season, and I think split the regular season series with the Wings before that.
Yes, the Kings have further to go compared to the Wings, but one 7-4 win to show that is cherrypicking their matchups a bit.
I'd love for the Wings to make the defensive effort the Kings do game in and game out. Just like I'd like the Kings to have even half the offensive talent the Wings possess.
I think Stevie said the 97' team mostly because he didn't have a big part in the 02' season.
He scored 23 points in the playoffs in 02.
'02 was hailed as one of the greatest teams all time even before they stepped on the ice. To me, it's not really an argument. As for that fan bracket on Sporting News, I'm not surprised that it comes down to the '70s Canadiens and '02 Wings. However, I remember a lot of experts at the time saying Montreal was better so I'm betting that is the team that will win that particular vote.
I think an interesting debate would be the '52 or '02 Wings, though. Had the team not been dismantled the Wings could've gone on to challenge or even beat Montreal in total Cups won. Those 50's Wings teams were among the greatest ever in my mind.
EDIT: Some people are mixing up "best team" with "best storyline" I think. '97 was great, but there's no way it can stack up to the '02 team in talent, which is what "best" generally means in my mind.
And others are mixing up "most HOFers" with "best."
To me "best" is mostly likely to win playoff games and the Cup. That doesn't necessarily mean the same as talent level.
Like I said, the 97 team won again in 98, minus their top defenseman. That's a pretty strong team.
Easy choice for me, and not just because I'm agreeing with Stevie and Shanny.
I'll go with the team who had the burden of 40 years of losing on its back when it won the Cup, then came back with basically the same lineup and won it again the next season after tragically losing their top defenseman. '02 was ridiculously stacked with talent and was basically an all-star team, but 97 was talent, heart, guts and grit.
If we're talking about not just who had the most talent but who was better, it's 97 all the way.
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.
I do agree, though, his comments were melodramtic. But having Cooke isn't the same thing and it isn't hypocritical since Cooke can pot you 40 points a season if he really tried. he does the same stuff OV does and same stuff Briere does, and hell, even Mike Richards throws those exact same hits.
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.
His comments may have been about this specific type of game, but they were also about player safety and the integrity of the game so, yes, employing Cooke is absolutely relevant. And Cooke is much worse than any of those other current players you listed. He has a career full of incidents where he deliberately tries to injure players. We're not talking about a Bertuzzi moment, or a questionable hit or two. He's done it over and over and over.
It's not just that he plays for the Pens (though now more people are probably exposed to what a dirty player he is). He was a famous knee on knee artist in Vancouver.
And honestly, I don't hate the Pens, or Mario, or even Crosby (shocking on this forum, I know). But overall Mario comes off like a drama queen for threatening to leave the league. And when you re-sign Cooke, it's going to taint the message when you're lecturing the league on how they should protect players.
Heaven forbid an owner stands up for his team. It was clear on the intentions of the Islanders, and Mario called them out on it. He'll get fined, but the whole fallacy of "But they have Matt Cooke and Cindy Crysby blah blah blah" doesn't pertain to Mario's argument or comments, so why even bring them up? Just because the Pens have Cooke, that doesn't mean Mario can't complain when a game turns into a goonfest.
I think Mario was overly dramatic with the James Harrision "I'm out" comment, but it was good to see an owner stick up for his team.
It absolutely pertains to Mario's comments. Mario releases a sanctimonious statement about protecting players and the integrity of the game, then he walks into his office and signs Cooke's paycheck. The Pens lead the league in major penalties. They lead the league in PIMs.
It's not that his comments were wrong, they were just hypocritical and melodramatic ("I'm taking my puck and going home!").
If he wants to improve player safety and the integrity of the game, start by not giving dirty players like Matt Cooke a job. Use the Pens franchise as an example of how to improve the integrity and safety of the game, rather than sitting from on high and chastising the NHL for it and threatening to quit (again).
i saw kindl win some nice battles that period. hell be okay. he was pretty good when he first got called up. now hes just being dumb. too bad he cant be sent down once wings are healthy to have some more playing time
It is too bad for his development. Sitting in the press box is not going to help his progress.