Re: NHL Thread
Posted: Sun December 08, 2013 11:06 pm
i see.Peeps wrote:elliseamos wrote: Who made that statement?
TSN boards....
At least Cooke would face the music.
At least Cooke would face the music.
i see.Peeps wrote:elliseamos wrote: Who made that statement?
TSN boards....
elliseamos wrote:i see.Peeps wrote:elliseamos wrote: Who made that statement?
TSN boards....
At least Cooke would face the music.
I dont think Orpik's hit was dirty. Sure the incident could have been avoided if he fought Thornton, but he's not obligated to fight because he laid someone out, and what Thornton did to him was way over the line. I will say though that the Penguins' years of defending and employing Matt Cooke buys them no sympathy when these kinds of things happen in games involving them.Peeps wrote:elliseamos wrote: Who made that statement?
TSN boards....
i agree neal should be suspended (im guessing around 5) and yes what duper did was stupid but that seems to be all that is being pointed out. lets not talk about the crosscheck to connor or charas butt end of kunitz...
it all boils down to orpik (they claim he is the pens enforcer) not fighting thorton and neal being dirty. they also claimed the bruins lost three guys, 1 for a broken leg (dupis responsible) and eriksson and marchand.
never mind marchand was back in a shift or two or that orpiks hit was clean.
crosby got lit up by giroux almost the same way...yet everyone cheers cause they hate crosby...but orpik does it and its a crime cause orpik plays for the pens
thats what irritates me so much with yinzers...a columnist is actually going all montreal and calling it a crime.numbers wrote:I dont think Orpik's hit was dirty. Sure the incident could have been avoided if he fought Thornton, but he's not obligated to fight because he laid someone out, and what Thornton did to him was way over the line. I will say though that the Penguins' years of defending and employing Matt Cooke buys them no sympathy when these kinds of things happen in games involving them.
I think the hit was illegal.Peeps wrote:elliseamos wrote:i see.Peeps wrote:elliseamos wrote: Who made that statement?
TSN boards....
At least Cooke would face the music.
what music has to be faced, for making a standard hockey play?
im sorry mr toews, you made a pass, you must now fight
That was a really bad hit. How did the refs NOT call that one?elliseamos wrote:Although, after watching phanuef's hit just now I have no idea what's legal and illegal.
MattA75 wrote:I heard Neal's comments after the game for the first time this morning...I don't think I've ever heard someone be so full of shit in my life
Yes. At least Thornton was half honest.Peeps wrote:MattA75 wrote:I heard Neal's comments after the game for the first time this morning...I don't think I've ever heard someone be so full of shit in my life
even more full of shit saying i didnt mean to hurt him, i just slew footed him, threw and elbow/forearm into his head then punched him but fully expected a flowerbed to spring up and cushion the blows?
I'm glad Neal got 5. I think they could have given him more as there was no losing it involved. It was flat out a cheap shot meant to harm.philpritchard wrote:Yes. At least Thornton was half honest.Peeps wrote:MattA75 wrote:I heard Neal's comments after the game for the first time this morning...I don't think I've ever heard someone be so full of shit in my life
even more full of shit saying i didnt mean to hurt him, i just slew footed him, threw and elbow/forearm into his head then punched him but fully expected a flowerbed to spring up and cushion the blows?
I still think Thornton will get exactly ten games. But if Neal gets five, I think Thornton's should be more than ten.
In the meantime, Phaneuf is probably looking at a couple games, too.
Phaneuf is a first time offender, and I feel like he'll get 2-3. I actually find it kind of impressive that it's taken him ten years in the league to make this kind of suspendable hit, considering he plays such a physical game.surfndestroy wrote:I'm not sure what to give Phaneuf. We see the replays in slow motion, so it always look deliberate. If he's a first offender, I'd give Phaneuf 3 but if he's a repeat offender, double it to 6 games.
I feel bad for players on this type of hit. I'm sure Phaneuf is thinking Millar's goig to turn and get his shoulder into the boards. But when Millar stumbles, Phaneuf has got to try and wrap him up instead or try to miss the hit.philpritchard wrote:Phaneuf is a first time offender, and I feel like he'll get 2-3. I actually find it kind of impressive that it's taken him ten years in the league to make this kind of suspendable hit, considering he plays such a physical game.surfndestroy wrote:I'm not sure what to give Phaneuf. We see the replays in slow motion, so it always look deliberate. If he's a first offender, I'd give Phaneuf 3 but if he's a repeat offender, double it to 6 games.
I don't think it fits into the "vicious" or "intent to injury" categories, but it was definitely a dumb and reckless play.
Toronto played in Ottawa the night before...it just sounded like a home game...but your other points are validsurfndestroy wrote:I feel bad for players on this type of hit. I'm sure Phaneuf is thinking Millar's goig to turn and get his shoulder into the boards. But when Millar stumbles, Phaneuf has got to try and wrap him up instead or try to miss the hit.philpritchard wrote:Phaneuf is a first time offender, and I feel like he'll get 2-3. I actually find it kind of impressive that it's taken him ten years in the league to make this kind of suspendable hit, considering he plays such a physical game.surfndestroy wrote:I'm not sure what to give Phaneuf. We see the replays in slow motion, so it always look deliberate. If he's a first offender, I'd give Phaneuf 3 but if he's a repeat offender, double it to 6 games.
I don't think it fits into the "vicious" or "intent to injury" categories, but it was definitely a dumb and reckless play.
Phaneuf is impressing me with his defensive play but it seems to be coming at the cost of his offence. Is that really the case?
Toronto has to win that game against Boston. Two call ups playing on defence, a forward down a minute into the game and basically three forwards down for half the game and Hamilton gone before first period ends. And Boston had played the day before and was the travelling team.
Toronto had played the day before too and are playing without two of their top three centers, but I agree with pretty much all your points.surfndestroy wrote:I feel bad for players on this type of hit. I'm sure Phaneuf is thinking Millar's goig to turn and get his shoulder into the boards. But when Millar stumbles, Phaneuf has got to try and wrap him up instead or try to miss the hit.philpritchard wrote:Phaneuf is a first time offender, and I feel like he'll get 2-3. I actually find it kind of impressive that it's taken him ten years in the league to make this kind of suspendable hit, considering he plays such a physical game.surfndestroy wrote:I'm not sure what to give Phaneuf. We see the replays in slow motion, so it always look deliberate. If he's a first offender, I'd give Phaneuf 3 but if he's a repeat offender, double it to 6 games.
I don't think it fits into the "vicious" or "intent to injury" categories, but it was definitely a dumb and reckless play.
Phaneuf is impressing me with his defensive play but it seems to be coming at the cost of his offence. Is that really the case?
Toronto has to win that game against Boston. Two call ups playing on defence, a forward down a minute into the game and basically three forwards down for half the game and Hamilton gone before first period ends. And Boston had played the day before and was the travelling team.