NHL December |OT| The Team You Cheer For is Not Good Compared To Our Team
- Thread starter Spire
- Start date
- Status
sazabirules
Unconfirmed Member
Let's see if Ovechkin can play decent for a third game in a row. I doubt it. Jagr's comments about having bad luck in the Verizon Center are funny.
Can't wait until Don Cherry leaves Canada forever and starts doing segments for the Bruins instead.
CrazedArabMan
Member
That means we are already going to lose.
What does that even mean?
Sanjuro, bruce,
The media and NHL ramped up the concussion discussion (and hits to the head generally) well before Crosby suffered his own. There was an increased prevalence and that's what people were responding to. When Crosby went down, it was given a "must protect star players" wrinkle and taken even more seriously.
To act like the foundation of the NHL is being threatened is fucking retarded.
The media and NHL ramped up the concussion discussion (and hits to the head generally) well before Crosby suffered his own. There was an increased prevalence and that's what people were responding to. When Crosby went down, it was given a "must protect star players" wrinkle and taken even more seriously.
To act like the foundation of the NHL is being threatened is fucking retarded.
Who is talking about the foundation of the NHL? I'm talking about people who clearly are unaware of what league they are viewing.
I'm happy with the NHL in it's current state. Grill me and my pet peeve is the selection of teams available.
You sound like you'd appreciate him a lot more.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Foundation? No. I'm just saying people are screaming about something they've been watching for years. It's dumb. And the decisions made based on the conversation hurt the game because the largest driving force behind it is the lowest common denominator of hockey fans, those who watch the game casually and have no concept of the type of coaching these players have had on what the hell they're supposed to be doing on the ice.
Edit: For example, just checked ESPN. Next to the story on Giroux is a story titled "Concussions a problem for the league." Giroux's concussion is not indicative of any problem with the league whatsoever. It's an eye catching story for the casual fan that turns to ESPN for hockey analysis. Also, and this is anecdotal obviously, all of my friends who have spent any significant amount of time playing organized hockey are FAR less passionate about the issue than the media would have you believe many fans are.
So you are saying you wish there were no fighing/hits in hockey? What is your point?
I live in the states. I don't see Don Cherry other than someone plastering a screen capture of his outfits.
ZeroGravity
Member
Was a pretty useless signing to begin with. They can have him.
The reason we're screaming about something we've been watching for years is because data is just now being made available on what multiple concussions have done to hockey players in the long term. Three enforcers died this summer, and it was determined that multiple concussions could have led to depression and other mental issues. The New York Times just reported on Derek Boogaard's death and said that he had a condition that mimicked some of the symptoms of Alzheimer's.
What do you expect people to do?
I'm saying I wish you wouldn't consider "the league needs to do better to protect their players from head injuries up to and including stricter suspensions for players who injure them" to be the same as "NO HITS OR FIGHTS EVER". Don Cherry is notorious for his all-or-nothing crap. It's embarrassing to the league and you come across sounding, as Manics said, like a bully.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
If you're just now learning 1.) that concussions aren't an irregularity in hockey and 2.) that they can cause noticeable brain damage then I don't know what planet you've been living on. The fact that there was a cluster of deaths doesn't seem particularly relevant other than as a means to stir the pot. Three people in terms of all the enforcers the league has had is pretty insignificant, statistically speaking. Hockey is a physical game. The occurrence of concussions is not exclusive to the sport. It is also a very clearly KNOWN risk. I'm not saying some rule changes MIGHT not be appropriate, but earlier this year there was talk of suspending people for ANY contact to the head, even when blatantly unintentional. This is stupid. Incidental conduct CANNOT be changed, because the players are ALREADY aware. Punishing them for actions they're never realistically going to change is stupid and will only make players overly cautious when the SHOULD be making a big play.
Yeah, I guess you'd have to be crazy not to think there was a link between degenerative brain disorders and concussio--
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2011/12/06/sp-nhl-boogard-reaction.html
brucewaynegretzky
Member
When did I say that? I've been saying we've known concussions have caused brain damage for YEARS. People were talking about what Lindros would face later in life when he was still playing in Philly. THAT WAS OVER 10 YEARS AGO.
I'm the person who posted the Boogaard article here, advising everyone on this board to read. The article sheds a interesting light not only on the constitution of the NHL player, but on the league itself and the organization's practices.
The way people have been reacting here and elsewhere is not unlike a surprised toddler. They are using general knowledge from the league's current exposure and applying it incorrectly to practically anything.
You are obviously more conflicted, so I ask you back "What do YOU expect the league to do?" Personally as a fan of the NHL, I'm happy with the overall product of the game as it currently is. Otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you now.
Causing brain damage and causing degenerative brain disorders are completely different. The data we have now suggests that concussions can cause BOTH. This is the new data I was referring to. This is the real issue at hand.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
10 years ago it sucked. Now it REALLY sucks. WE MUST CHANGE EVERYTHING. NOW.
Was referring to this kind of talk:
"Crosby is worth a ton to the league. He isn't worth more than the league itself." (bruce echoed that sentiment, correct me if I'm wrong)
Mixed with you addressing people here, who have hardly been unreasonable, it seems like you're saying our concerns, if met by the league, would destroy the NHL.
Maybe it would help if you actually used examples. Because imo you've only been using hyperbole and vague allegations.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
How would the NHL meet your concerns? I think my unintentional headshots talk was a pretty concrete example...
EDIT: There seems to be a general lack of knowledge around here about what coaches are teaching these players at ALL levels of the game, starting as squirts. These players KNOW the dangerous hits, know the dangerous positions they can put themselves in, and have learned how to TAKE a hit as well as receive one. All of these things should be kept in mind, but are largely ignored by most people in here even, and this is a pretty knowledgeable community.
I don't expect the league to do anything. I would like the league to institute harsher penalties for head contact if it causes severe injury. I'm not saying people are going to stop watching. Nobody ever said that. The NHL is the only professional major league we have in North America. But nobody has to agree with 100% of the league's policies to enjoy watching the game. Otherwise, Bettman's fingers in the pot would've turned people off months ago.
What you're suggesting is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the new data that people have been giving us in favour of good old fashioned rough and tumble hockey. But we're the toddlers.
I don't think you get it. The current system of fighting and level of hits are exactly what these articles are poking around at. They are being directly linked as well by Chris Nowinski's foundation. If you think handing out petty suspensions is going to alter the current style of play than you are delusional. Possibly on the right page if you are talking about offenders missing 50+ games or so, but then you are going to have a whole new argument on your hands.
Don't you get it? It's always sucked. Concussions didn't magically start causing degenerative brain disorders when we found out about it. But when we get new data that suggests that concussions could be a hell of a lot more dangerous than we ever thought possible don't you think it benefits us to take a second look at the rules that allow this to happen?
I don't understand the appeal to "tradition" or the appeal to "the way it's always been". Otherwise, we'd still have doctors prescribing cigarettes to alleviate stress.
Oh right, it's only the choice between 2 games and 50+ games. That's sound reasoning.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Stupid. Punishing injury over intent is just dumb. Punish players who intentionally do things they know are dangerous. Going by your suggestion is only going to make them play scared, which just isn't good, and also unfair. These players have been raised being taught how to make the right hits. Punishing them for acting correctly and having bad luck, or because the moron he hit was dumb and didn't attempt to take a hit like a professional hockey player won't fix anything.
My point is you pretty clearly fall in the crowd of people who didn't have a problem with it when we ALREADY knew that there were potential problems for these players down the road. Listening to this crap NOW, just makes it seem like it's parroting the storyline that's being thrown about now. EVERYONE knew hits like Scott Stevens were causing RECOGNIZABLE brain damage in players around the league. It was accepted as a known risk that players take and that style of play was ENCOURAGED. Now, we have much stricter standards to prevent a good amount of what was going on then and people are STILL complaining. At some point people need to accept that shit happens. It sounds callous but these things will never completely go away and going stricter than what the NHL already has will be harmful to the game.
SuperSonic1305
Member
Finally a Leafs game tonight
Yeah, because punishing intent has been going so well so far. Shanahan just throws a dart at a board to determine intent. The "intent" punishment is why so many people are complaining about inconsistency.
I'm glad you asked. This is the problem. You're conflating my concerns about headshots with an apparent desire for the NHL to gimp the league. They're already doing a lot to get rid of headshots and hits while players are vulnerable. I'm happy with the progress and I recognize that it'll take some time for everyone to truly adjust.
Can you provide some posts of people here asking for the league to do more and what that would entail? Asking for consistency can't possibly be what you guys are complaining about. I think we'd all like to see consistency.
Can you provide any examples of this supposed lack of knowledge? Not sure what you mean.brucewaynegretzky said:
Socreges,
I can search around and find random examples, quotes, potential troll posts, etc. It's a forum. I'm getting the discussion rolling. If "Poster X" joined in and shared his opinion then of course I would have a better understanding of beliefs than random post which could mean various things. Not looking for a witch hunt here. It's a subject which I feel on here and off, people are all over the place.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
There was a post just a few up asking for suspensions based on injury. There are your proposed steps and I've said numerous times why I think that's beyond stupid.
I'm basing my belief on the lack of knowledge on the fact that it is VERY rare around here to see people talking about how players are COACHED not to do things like take passes two feet away from the boards or cross the blue line with their head down. Those types of plays that I would expect someone in middle school to know are dumb.
Emelin out for Diaz? Yep Martin is still a giant fucking idiot. Diaz doesn't bring anything to the D corps we don't have, and doesn't play physical at all, what horse shit, what happens when Markov comes back? Wouldn't be surprised to see him bolt back to Russia, he's too good to be screwed around like this.
Doctor West
Member
It looks like Darryl Sutter will be the new Kings coach. I think it's good that he'll whip the prima donnas like Doughty into shape, but I was hoping Lombardi would have taken a chance on a younger coach. Oh well, if this doesn't work out Lombardi will be fired.
Fair enough, but without any examples I feel like you're "getting the discussion rolling" by exaggerating what everyone is saying to the point where you lament a debate that doesn't exist.
Did I say that everyone has to agree with all of the league policies? Clearly I haven't as I already stated there are other issues I have with the game.
I'm ignoring new data. So the several occasions I've posted links educating the topic must have been a fluke.
Again? That isn't what I said, but okay. What about six games? Seven? Twenty? You didn't specify either.
You are just trying to find points that don't correctly stick and create some sort of argument.
Do you suggest punishing the injured players for not being hit correctly?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Doesn't mean you go and find the only standard that's stupider. Look at the elbow Leino put on Read (hate to use Philly examples but they're what I'm most familiar with). Leino knew damn well that was a dangerous play. Anyone who has played knows you only extend your arm that far out intentionally. Read wasn't hurt. Basing things on injury is an AWFUL idea.
No but I do expect them to take some of the blame for their injuries. I've seen guys limp off the ice after a hit on a breakout pass only to see the coach say, "What the fuck were you thinking. Get your ass on the boards next time, moron." I'm willing to bet almost every NHL players has had similar experiences. These are PROFESSIONALS. It's time people expected them to be somewhat accountable for their own safety.
That's not what we're talking about. It's just a difference in method, and besides a few days ago you and I just talked about Shanahan not punishing Leino severely because there was no injury. The NHL has always punished based on injury (with some mixture of intent), but normally it's not so explicit. So I'd just say that Stet is off-base.
Everyone knows that's dumb. We just refuse to take any onus off the hitter.bruce said:
I like how we each have two debates going. I'm gonna bow out. Hopefully I've been clear enough.
Talking about the new data and then saying, "oh well, this is the way it's always been" is not listening to the new data. You might as well be talking about hypothetical data at that point.
And that's why neither of us are handing out suspensions. We don't have all the data about what kind of suspensions work. Shanahan does. That's his job. If, as you say, petty suspensions don't amount to much, then why bother doing it? Why go through the whole rigamarole of releasing a video explaining why he's suspended someone if, in the end, all it affects is the league scoreboard?
Here, let me throw out a number: if you seriously injure somebody by hitting their head, whether as a result of a fight or a hit, you're suspended for at least five games.
There, arbitrary enough, right? But just as arbitrary as what we're doing now, which you seem to think works "well enough."
Who said it should be only based on injury? I'm saying that if there is an injury, there should be punishment. I never said that if intent is obvious, it shouldn't be a discretionary call.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
You and I also had a conversation (I think over the summer) about punishing all INCIDENTAL head shots without consideration of intent. That was actually a proposed rule change. I also explained why I think that's very dumb a few posts up.
There's a difference between not taking any onus on the hitter and placing no responsibility on the person taking the hit. I think a decent amount of the latter goes on around here, and especially in the media.
Well I could leave that out and still get a discussion out of the topic. It's relevant. That is how I feel though personally. I understand your point. While you may have not had issues with any of them you have passed by comments towards Shanahan, the league, the hits, which the tone (or possibly lack of) and nature just keeps building in my head.
Again, it's off this thread as well. I've gone to the bar and generated discussions as well. Usually with either a homer or uneducated fan. Sometimes the feedback surprises me, other times I'm just talking to a lump of meat.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
If you punish someone because they gave a hit that caused an injury it is dumb. If it was a penalty then they got called. Suspensions are for flagrant VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES. "Don't injure someone" is not a rule.
*waits patiently*
You're right, it's not a rule. I guess that means it never should be? If you give someone a concussion, you should be held responsible in some way.
...I'm losing you. I haven't said anything close to that. Players used to not wear helmets as well. Let's get back to that way!
brucewaynegretzky
Member
You have fun with that. Go tell GM's that you're gonna start suspending their players because they took a questionable boarding penalty where the winger was accepting a breakout pass just inside the circle and when he went down hit his head on the boards. Good luck with hat.
Why would I? I'm not the league. That's the most retarded thing about all of this -- people say they want stricter penalties and they want the league to do something about concussions and apologists reply "WELL WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO" and then bitch about every idea they come up with. We're not the league. Don't ask us. We don't make the rules or enforce the rules. Tell THEM to fix it, since THEY'RE the ones allowing it in the first place.
"At this point I would say most of you are hockey fans, not NHL fans. If you have a "Soccer Mom" mentality, great. There is college hockey for you to watch. If you feel that strongly against watching this brand of hockey, choose another. There are plenty of other sports and variants of ice hockey out there for you."
"Don't watch the NHL if you don't like the way it's played" is pretty damn close to "this is the way things work and the way they should work, if you don't like it, don't watch it."
That has nothing to do with the way it used to be played. I'm talking about at this current moment. 2011, soon to be 2012.
- Status