Posted by toby91_ca
on 22 September 2011 - 08:41 PM
Actually, Richards is supposed to be second. I was throwing around what I felt the order should be, and forgot to change it. As for Howe, he was as good as Bourque or Coffey through the 1980s, and retired in the mid 1990s Parent had two great seasons, and was otherwise a very good goaltender. But he was not one of the top three goaltenders in the NHL during his career; Ken Dryden, Ed Giacomin, Tony Esposito, Gump Worsley, Jacques Plante all played through a significant portion of Parent's career and were considered better goaltenders. Parent was excellent, but ranking him based on his 74 and 75 runs would be equivalent to saying that Tim Thomas is one of the three best Bruins based on his two Vezina years and one Conn Smythe. Howe was one of the top three defensemen in the NHL during his career, and should have won the 1983 Norris. Parent was named First Team twice, and Second Team no times. Howe was named First Team three times, with no Second Team selections. As for other Flyers, I also thought about Tim Kerr and Ron Hextall in addition to Parent as guys who were left off. I was tempted to add Brad McCrimmon as well as a tribute, as well as the fact that he made up the second half of the best defensive pairing of the 80s.
You know, I knew you had a lot of love for Mark Howe. There's is absolutely no question he was a great player, but I think you may be the only person on the planet that actually think he's a better Flyer than Bobby Clarke, that's just insane.
I won't bother mentioning anything about your comment that he was as good as Bourque in the 80s.
Posted by toby91_ca
on 22 September 2011 - 11:49 AM
He wasn't better than Chris Chelios. He wasn't better than Mark Howe. He wasn't better than Frank Brimsek. He wasn't better than Pat LaFontaine. I'd probably put him fifth though, just ahead of Beezer and Barrasso. Ryan Miller is quickly moving up that list though.
What I find interesting is how you pretend that your "opinions" are facts, it's strange.
By the way, no love for Brett Hull? Or do you consider him Canadian and not American?
Posted by toby91_ca
on 14 September 2011 - 01:20 PM
The problem is when will the cap hit look good? It's only a 3 year deal, so he better get better quickly, otherwise, the cap hit may look okay later, but that doens't mean it was a good deal. Kronwall's was a 5 year deal, so if you overpay for the first year or 2, that's okay if you are getting a good deal in the remaining 3 or 4 years. You don't have that situation with this deal.
It's not that Holland knows more than most, he knows he's taking a risk here, he's just hoping it pays off. Some work, some don't, but if you don't take those risks, you remain average.
"Because Crosby showed no immediate signs of a concussion after being drilled by a blindside hit from the Capitals' David Steckel during the Winter Classic on Jan. 1 at Heinz Field, he stayed in the game."
Bias? Where's the bias? The statement is "fact." I suppose it depends on what you are reading into it. I don't think the writer was trying to say that Steckel went out and drilled him with a vicious hit, otherwise, the writer would have gone on to say more about. I know there are some out there that think the contact was on purpose, but the vast majority think it was accidentaal contact...but either way, he was "drilled by a blindside hit."
If you step back and think about things now though, you have to really question the Pens medical staff, reasons as follows:
- When I was watching the game on TV, after seeing that hit, I was thinking concussion immediately, surely the medical staff must have had concerns as well. Regardless of what Crosby may have said to them, why on earth wouldn't they keep him out of the rest of the game? One period of a regular season game...keep him out just for precaution. Perhaps he continued to play just because of the nature of that game.
- I've read that he did experience some symptoms before the TB game, which was somehow explained away, but again, combining the fact he took that headshot, had some sort of headaches/illness afterwards, surely you think you'd hold him out of hte next game for precautionary reasons.
- Then, in the TB he takes the hit from behind into the glass. If you watch that play, he doesn't look well at all after the hit. Again, I'm pretty sure he finished the rest of the game....what? How is that possible.
Anyway, my line of thought is to take a lot of caution when you see something that could be potentials for concussion. Knowing everything we know now and don't know, why wouldn't you be as cautious as possible. There is a lot of people out there that think he would have been back playing last year if they had just kept him out after the Steckel hit. Not playing the next game, but definately not out this long.
What are you talking about? Why are you posting a video from 2006 (it's now 2011), get it wrong and say the video is from 2004 and then question whether the rules are different because there was no evidence there was a goal???? The was clearly a goal, but even if it wasn't clear at all, it would still have been a goal, even 20 years ago and even today.
Did they have player polls when yzerman played and how many times did he win the biggest whiner by his peers? Yzerman was pretty much respected in all aspects of the game so thats a non argument. Theres a difference in complaining and just flat out whineing.
No idea on player polls, but he did make #4 on a referrees list of biggest whiners of ALL-TIME.
It's mostly in nhl player polls that have ask the question to the players "Which player complains the most on the ice?" and so on. And crosby wins by wide margins most all the time. I would have to look them up but i have seen them. He gets hated because how good he is? Thats used a lot in defending him. my hate is more along the lines of im tired of seeing him and having him rammed down my throat when there are players all over the league that should be pushed as well. To pick one player out of so many great players and make a poster child out of him in a sport like hockey where fans are so passionate about their own team you will get a ton of strong hate for that said player no matter how good he is. I just think they messed up when picking one person to try and sell hockey. I think thats why they started pushing the whole crosby vs ovechkin thing because they started seeing how much hate crosby was getting. But as far as wishing him ill will im not even about that. I hope he does play. That would totally suck to go out like that with that much skill and being so young. Oh and i don't want any excuses for the pens fans when we beat the snot out of them hehe
Please look up the results of these polls and share them with us. There is a big difference between complaining to officials on the ice and having bad character or being a bad person/poor role model. Yzerman complained with the best of them and I think most would hold him in high regard as a human being.
Just to give another example, similar player polls show players "RESPECT" Crosby way more than Ovechkin...what does that mean?
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.
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.
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.
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.