Is this **** ing awesome or what??
I TOLD you! Play physical against this team!
(I think Arturo actually thought I was serious)
Is this **** ing awesome or what??
(I think Arturo actually thought I was serious)
arturo7 said:dvmn mj, you got a cliff notes version of that post?
Bulls Beers said:+1000..." Get rid of the violence"???? The hitting is more violent than the fighting. Does he want to get rid of the hitting?? C'mon, this is Hockey for Christ sake...
I dunno, but the actual "fighting", even in this series, is much less than I remember even a decade ago. Although I DO know people who think a game is boring until there's a fight, and I think they're idiots.
However, you got big guys, playing close quarters in a small rink, at very high speeds. Pair those facts with human nature, and things are going to get physical, and sometimes even violent. For the VERY SAME REASON that it's such a fast and exciting sport, there's going to be an element of violence in the game whether you like it or not, so you can enjoy the game knowing that's how it is, or just don't enjoy it. Complaining about how physical hockey is, and that it can even turn violent, is like complaining that there's too much violence in the UFC. I don't mean to say that violence is an objective or should even be part of the draw of hockey, but unless you make the rink the size of a soccer field, and/or take away the skates (slowing down the pace), it's going to be an inherent part of the game that can't be removed without changing the sport to such a degree, you might as well stop calling it hockey. It's not about saying "F you" to potential fans who might watch the game if it were somehow less physical - it's just that it's simply not possible, if you want to keep the elements that make hockey "one of the fastest and most exciting sports on TV".
With that being said... these past few games have featured a lot sneaky, underhanded, and dirty playing, by both sides. Obviously some are going to disagree with me because nobody wants to think their team won any way but fairly, but Boston has really been piling it on with a bunch of dirty moves, too small to get much attention from the refs, but frequent enough to make Vancouver play frustrated and angry, rather than calm and collected. Don't get me wrong, Vancouver is hardly innocent, but it seems to be almost central to Boston's game plan. Marchand is probably the worst offender, and I'm not even talking about that stack of penalties he managed to earn himself all at once. He's especially been targeting Vancouver's key players in the Sedin twins, and despite the fact he's a tiny guy, the Sedins have a reputation of being pushovers, and they're certainly allowing him to continue to get away with that crap. Funny thing people keep bringing up the counterproductiveness of the instigator rule - if players were able to police themselves a bit more, that little **** would be too injured by now to keep playing.
Ultimately though, despite the massive amount of penalties being handed out, the refs are giving players FAR too much leeway, and allowing the games to get way too emotional. They need to start calling every little thing and regain control of the games - only then do we have a chance of seeing some good, and fairly balanced hockey, rather than these mindgames (and eventual explosion of tempers) that have dominated the last few games.
What happened in the B's game? I was busy brewing 80 proof cough syrup so I can try to one up my portly hero.
I missed the game too. Wednesdays are my night to host my post-op tranny support group. We get together inmy fruit-beer brewing shed and talk about our feelings. I love those guys... I mean GIRLS. Ooooo I'm all silly this morning. Must be the estrogen shots! Gotta run! Toodles!!!
paulthenurse said:Maybe they ought to consider putting on some glitter.
PTN
The "warm weather" stuff has failed miserably
cclloyd said:That's why Tampa Bay ... consistently have 15K plus in attendance. That number goes over 20K
per game when there's something at stake.
75% capacity is considered successful?
Cape Brewing said:You're forgetting the exchange rate... 75% down here is like 110% up your way.
I dunno, but the actual "fighting", even in this series, is much less than I remember even a decade ago. Although I DO know people who think a game is boring until there's a fight, and I think they're idiots.
However, you got big guys, playing close quarters in a small rink, at very high speeds. Pair those facts with human nature, and things are going to get physical, and sometimes even violent. For the VERY SAME REASON that it's such a fast and exciting sport, there's going to be an element of violence in the game whether you like it or not, so you can enjoy the game knowing that's how it is, or just don't enjoy it. Complaining about how physical hockey is, and that it can even turn violent, is like complaining that there's too much violence in the UFC. I don't mean to say that violence is an objective or should even be part of the draw of hockey, but unless you make the rink the size of a soccer field, and/or take away the skates (slowing down the pace), it's going to be an inherent part of the game that can't be removed without changing the sport to such a degree, you might as well stop calling it hockey. It's not about saying "F you" to potential fans who might watch the game if it were somehow less physical - it's just that it's simply not possible, if you want to keep the elements that make hockey "one of the fastest and most exciting sports on TV".
With that being said... these past few games have featured a lot sneaky, underhanded, and dirty playing, by both sides. Obviously some are going to disagree with me because nobody wants to think their team won any way but fairly, but Boston has really been piling it on with a bunch of dirty moves, too small to get much attention from the refs, but frequent enough to make Vancouver play frustrated and angry, rather than calm and collected. Don't get me wrong, Vancouver is hardly innocent, but it seems to be almost central to Boston's game plan. Marchand is probably the worst offender, and I'm not even talking about that stack of penalties he managed to earn himself all at once. He's especially been targeting Vancouver's key players in the Sedin twins, and despite the fact he's a tiny guy, the Sedins have a reputation of being pushovers, and they're certainly allowing him to continue to get away with that crap. Funny thing people keep bringing up the counterproductiveness of the instigator rule - if players were able to police themselves a bit more, that little **** would be too injured by now to keep playing.
Ultimately though, despite the massive amount of penalties being handed out, the refs are giving players FAR too much leeway, and allowing the games to get way too emotional. They need to start calling every little thing and regain control of the games - only then do we have a chance of seeing some good, and fairly balanced hockey, rather than these mindgames (and eventual explosion of tempers) that have dominated the last few games.
If Bill Laimbeer,
How are those rose colored glasses treating you?
For every shot that Marchand has taken, Burrows has out done him on the cheap shot scale. I made a comment to my girlfriend last night that Burrows must be public enemy number 1 for sports athletes in Boston right now.
If Bill Laimbeer, Bucky Dent, ARod and Burrows were walking through southy, I am relatively certain that the first three would walk out unscathed.
I am not going to sit here and look like a complete jackass and say that the Bruins are innocent here. However to say that the Bruins are the exclusive issue, or even the majority of the problem, here is asinine and outrageous.
75% capacity is considered successful?
bosdave said:How are those rose colored glasses treating you?
bosdave said:How are those rose colored glasses treating you?
For every shot that Marchand has taken, Burrows has out done him on the cheap shot scale. I made a comment to my girlfriend last night that Burrows must be public enemy number 1 for sports athletes in Boston right now.
If Bill Laimbeer, Bucky Dent, ARod and Burrows were walking through southy, I am relatively certain that the first three would walk out unscathed.
bosdave said:I am not going to sit here and look like a complete jackass and say that the Bruins are innocent here. However to say that the Bruins are the exclusive issue, or even the majority of the problem, here is asinine and outrageous.
Cape Brewing said:and then the announcers basically say... "something HAD to have happened for Thomas to do that".
They re-wind the tape and sure enough... as Burrows is coming through the crease he slashes Thomas' goalie stick out of his hands.
Cape Brewing said:I'm going to refuse to see it and hold my breath until you stop your big mean words!"
It would be worth the argument if the situations you bring up actually happened the way you see them.
Burrows did not skate through the crease, he was positioned in front for a shot from the point.
Peverly did not hook Bieksa, he turned his stick over and spiked him in the back of the legs, not once but twice.
.
LOL don't flatter yourself. I don't really care if you don't want to take off the blinders. It's only going to make it that much more hilarious when reality eventually mouthphucks you and you're forced to swallow every last gooey drop of Canuck victory.
I'm buying the jersey of the team who wins. I've got an old Canucks jersey but I like the new ones, and if Boston wins I get another Original 6 jersey.
Enter your email address to join: