Jump to content


toby91_ca's Photo

toby91_ca

Member Since 28 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:56 PM
**---

#2204259 Crosby's 2012 Season now in Question

Posted by toby91_ca on 17 August 2011 - 05:05 PM

Crap I just wrote a long response and the kitten hit refresh on the keyboard.

So here is the abridged version.

Many writers believe class counts for something in getting into a hall of fame. I believe fame should be dependent upon how they hold themselves as a person.

He dives, he whines, he acts in a way that if my son did that I would scold him. He does things that non-marquee players would be called cheaters for... It isn't all on him, it is the superstar culture but he does act poorly, especially for a hockey player.

Do I think that will keep him out? No.

It might if he retires now. Also he really hasn't the numbers to get in, the reverse Osgood argument.

I put it this way.
Hypothetically, if he plays 10 more years and because of his concussion he has balance issues that lead to him never getting more than 30 pts again. Would he get in the hall with 16 years and about 900 pts?

I don't think he does. Based on that rational, I don't think he gets in if he were to retire now. His entire career, albeit impressive, is not complete therefore you wouldn't bestow that lock upon him.That is all I was saying about your statement about him being a lock no matter what happens. I think it premature.

Honestly, I will use every argument used against Osgood and others because I only think it fair to be consistent. I might be wrong about him being a lock, but that is my viewpoint.

I am however quite confident that beyond skill, there is nothing impressive about Crosby as a human being and I dislike his attitude. That should count for something when there are people looking up to him.

I think your views of him as a person are pretty skewed and mostly based on what year hear people saying (whether there is anything to back it up or not). I'd challenge you to spend a week following him around everywhere and actually get to know what the guy is all about and then come back and tell me what you think about the guy as a person, his character, etc.


#2183294 Aaron Rome

Posted by toby91_ca on 07 June 2011 - 12:24 PM

I'm well aware of what a charge is and I think they got the call wrong - It sure looked to me like he took more than 3 strides, also, Horton wasn't "watching his pass", he was checking to make sure he was onside and the hit was way later than "just a second" -

If you are well aware of what a charge is, then you know there is nothing in the rule or definition of a charge that says anything about 3 strides, I'm not sure where you are getting that. For fun, let's assume there was some rule about 3 strides, could you point out where in the video Rome took 3 strides to make the hit?

Maybe I'm thinking about a different hit.....the hit I saw has Rome skating backwards as Horton is carrying the puck through the middle of the ice in the neutral zone. Horton passes the puck and then Rome comes to a stop at the blue line to lay the hit on Horton. By my count, there were approximately ZERO strides.

Regarding checking to make sure he was onside....I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that. He passed the puck ahead to a player receiving it just before the blue line. That player was a few strides ahead of him....there is no possible way he could have ever gone offside, so if he is checking to make sure he stays onside, he doesn't belong in the game of hockey, let alone playing at the NHL level.

Back to the actual suspension....4 games...wow, that surprised me. You have to believe that if it wasn't a star player from the Bruins that got hurt or if it was as star player from the Canucks making the hit, the suspension would have been less.


#2183267 Aaron Rome

Posted by toby91_ca on 07 June 2011 - 11:16 AM

No way he'll get that much and he shouldn't. Far worse hits have gotten way less.

It wasn't a blindside hit as defined by rule 48. If Horton wasn't hurt, I doubt he'd get anything, but because he was, he'll be suspended, but I doubt for very long, I'm guessing 1-2, perhaps 3 games (but I doubt it).

The league will take into account the fact that he essentially already missed a game because of the game misconduct and the fact that he has a pretty clean record. The fact really going against him is Horton's injury though.


#2183226 SCF: Boston Bruins vs. Vancouver Canucks

Posted by toby91_ca on 07 June 2011 - 08:05 AM

Yeah that was pretty funny :cool:

But imo, if goalies are to be immune to checks, they shouldn't be allowed to throw hits either.

Yeah, I agree. That play really, really pissed me off, especially coming from Thomas. Thomas is the type of goalie that wonders way out of his crease, purposely looking for the slightest bit of contact to catch a call, which he has gotten several of during these playoffs....most of the time he's the guy initiating the contact.

I have that in the back of mind my mind and then you see him steam roll Sedin and it's completely legit? I know by the rules it's okay, but it pisses me off.

I should make it absolutely clear that I have no rooting interest in these Finals and I'm definately not a fan of the Sedins...I don't dislike them like some, I think they are great players, but I also think they dive too much.

I've always been a guy (I'm a non-goalie by the way) that has defended goalies being untouchable when they are out of the crease since they can get injured if they are knocked over more easily due to their equipment. HOWEVER, I think it must go both ways, if they can't be hit, they can't be hitting.


#2182963 SCF: Boston Bruins vs. Vancouver Canucks

Posted by toby91_ca on 06 June 2011 - 12:52 PM

I've seen several other examples of biting incidents in the NHL that have gone unpunished...why is this incident any different?


#2181262 What can be done to go East?

Posted by toby91_ca on 31 May 2011 - 12:31 PM

I live in Toronto, so I'd love to see the Wings back in the East, but other than specific reasons like that, why would the fans care if the team is in the East or the West? I know why Management would want the team in the East (specific business reasons), but what about the fans? Is it because you want to see more games against Toronto, Montreal, Boston and New York?

I think part of the problem is going to be the level of interest in the West for games against the Wings. I think there is a good chance that moving the Wings to the East would hurt the league financially.


#2177060 (1) Vancouver Canucks vs. (2) San Jose Sharks

Posted by toby91_ca on 19 May 2011 - 08:17 AM

He wants any flashing women to report to his suite.

What's interesting is a few things.

1) Look at Eager's board on Sedin. He saw Eager coming, and purposely faced the boards. This mirrors the Pavelski board in Game 1 Wings/Sharks. It's a very pathetic and stupidly dangerous method of trying to get a penalty call one's way. I don't think Eager will or should get suspended for that. On the other hand, that hit followed the Marleau/Bieksa fight, Eager went up to the glass toward the Canucks bench following that and started yelling s*** at them something about going after skill guys, so he might have intended to run Sedin as payback. If this is the case, suspension deserved.

"Might" have intended?? I think it was prettey obvious.

In terms of Sedin seeing him coming and turning his back, I'm not so sure about that, he lost the puck in his feet and turned and looked to find it. I could be wrong, but that's what it looked like to me. Either way, I wouldn't lump this into those plays where the guy turns at the last second.....there is a decent amount of time where Eager could have very easily avoided the hit....not only did he not do that, he actually drove through the hit pretty aggressively.

Personally, I'd suspend, but they probably won't. Bob MacKenzie suggested the hit isn't suspendable due to similar hits in the past not being suspended, but he went on to say that the league may look at it closer due to all the other idiotic things he did during the game.

I'm not sure how this is "significantly" different than the Matt Cooke hit that got 4 games. I know one is "Matt Cooke" and that plays into it, but Eager isn't exactly a non-idiot.


#2176530 Subliminal Sidney Crosby Messages in NHL commercials?

Posted by toby91_ca on 17 May 2011 - 03:28 PM

Do we have this much penis envy over the attention he gets? :violin:

Around here? Yes, and the some.


#2172400 Is there a quick way to get the current roster's

Posted by toby91_ca on 11 May 2011 - 11:00 AM

Actually, here you go, all in one spot:

http://www.tsn.ca/nh...e=nhl-red_wings


#2166942 Remember When 3rd Period Leads Were Safe?

Posted by toby91_ca on 05 May 2011 - 01:15 PM

A part of me is glad that 3rd period leads are not as safe as they used to be. Can get pretty boring the way it used to be.


#2133153 Brule crushes Letang

Posted by toby91_ca on 21 March 2011 - 12:40 PM

I would argue they were in a race for the puck, given that Moore went after THE PUCK instead of Naslund, and then tucked his elbow IN when he realized he was probably going to collide with Naslund.

Calling that an elbow, an intentional knee-on-knee, or an intentional head shot is about the last place I'd go. Moore pulled both his elbow and knee in to try and avoid Naslund; so much so with the knee that he himself went into the boards. He's not lunging towards Naslund. He's trying not to take out Naslund's knee because Naslund is sticking it out to the world saying "wreck my career!"

People say Moore was just another Matt Cooke. Had it been Cooke instead of Moore on that hit, Naslund doesn't get up. And possibly doesn't play another game in the NHL.

His elbow may not have been "tucked" as if he were actually throwing a hit. But the primary point of contact was still not the elbow. Just because his arm wasn't tucked in to his gut doesn't make it an elbow; the elbow never factored into the contact. And the contact wasn't even an intentional hit. Chara on Pacioretty is fifty times worse than Moore on Naslund, even if Max had come up with no injuries.

EDIT: Moore would probably have gotten around 5 games, because his shoulder hit Naslund's head and Naslund was a star player. Even though Moore was trying for the puck and not Naslund, the NHL would have looked at the injury and said "Sorry dude, you get to sit."

It's fascinating how I can see that hit completely differently than you. I could care less about whether it was an elbow or not, that's not the point. It was a hit where the head was targeted. In terms of it being a race for the puck, I truly believe you are fabricating something that doesn't exist. When I watch that, I see Moore as a guy who has absolutely no interest in the puck at all, in fact, in preparation for the hist, he lightly brushes the puck aside with his stick to get it out of the way....he didn't want it, he wanted the hit.


#2130730 Is anyone else expecting the Wings to hit 100?

Posted by toby91_ca on 16 March 2011 - 10:29 AM

I've been watching for the 50-win season. I believe it would be the 5th season in a row. IIRC, Babcock is one of a few coaches who have had four 50-win seasons (in a row?), but no one has had five. They can do it if they really buckle down on the consistency.

Pretty sure they only won 44 games last year.


#2130691 Lemieux proposes fines to teams for player suspensions

Posted by toby91_ca on 16 March 2011 - 09:13 AM

You didn't answer my question. You had an issue with me saying enforcers would become essentially a luxury for teams with money. Are those not players you would consider enforcers (in general)?

My point was less about fighting and more about players considered enforcers. The term goon might fit as well.

I didn't even know what your question was....I looked for it. I think your original comment was that often suspensions are the result of fighting, which is completely false. Fine, you've clarified what you were talking about. You are talking about goons, enforcers, whatever you want to call them, as being the guys that are responsible for most of the suspensions.

Well, if you want to look up who has been suspended so far this year, you'll find the following:

- Total suspensions = 30
- By enforcers = 11
- By others = 19

If you want to add cheapshot artist into your list, that will only get a couple more (Cooke and Eager) into the list, so it's still only 13 vs. 16.

Slice it however you want, I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make. No team purposely wants players on their team to take suspensions, so suggesting only the rich teams can do it is silly. The teams that have players who are prone to suspension probably haven't come down on them as hard as they might if the team had to cough up $$$ when they get suspended, that's the idea.


#2130526 Lemieux proposes fines to teams for player suspensions

Posted by toby91_ca on 15 March 2011 - 02:35 PM

k... lemme try this from a different angle.

How would you classify these players?
Matt Cooke, Trevor Gillies, Jody Shelly, Eric Godard, Rick Rypien, Tom Kostopoulos

They are the worst offenders of the year.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though. Let's take those players as examples:

- Cooke - suspended for hitting from behind
- Gillies - suspended for head shots, two separate times
- Shelley - suspended for hit from behind and for sucker punch
- Godard - suspended for leaving the bench to fight
- Rypien - suspended for altercation with fan
- Kostopoulos - suspended for head shot

I think the idea is that you'd try and get the teams to influence their players not to engage in this type of activity. I doubt you'd have many teams have issue with trying to ensure it's players don't: hit from behind, deliver head shots, sucker punch people or fight with fans. It's a tough sport and sometimes things happen so fast it is tough to avoid, but a lot of the times, it's the matter of making a good decision rather than sucker punching someone or purposely take a shot at someone's head, etc.


#2130440 Brule crushes Letang

Posted by toby91_ca on 15 March 2011 - 08:23 AM

"You CAN GLIDE into a guy, but you can't stride into a guy" - Bill Clement in NHL 11.

Brule didn't stride. He glided. That's not a charge.

I'm assuming you are joking, but just in case, did you really just quote NHL 11 to try and explain a rule?

Gliding vs. striding into a guy has nothing to do with charging or not. Almost all hits happen from a guy "gliding" in as he needs to get his balance set. If you don't glide in, it probably won't work out to well for you.