Jump to content

jackp

Member
  • Posts

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jackp

  1. Well, you won't need to skip my posts anymore. I just knew I would draw a flurry of negative responses when trying to defend Halak. You guys seem to miss all the positive posts about Price. (There were at least *5* after the San Jose game). You're fed up of the argument only after I post. Why wasn't there any comments directed at Bar when he went on and on about how great Price played? If sociologists ever needed any proof of the herd instinct, they just have to come here.
  2. One thing he said is true: we need every damn point we can get. This is it. They are either starting their run to the playoffs now, or it's "see ya next year." We can't afford any more losing streaks. We need to win most of our games.
  3. He looked shaky?????!!!!! Not according to Hrudey and Healy in the postgame. They absolutely love him and don't understand why he didn't get a star. No 3 goalposts tonight and still only 2 goals allowed. While they praised Price for his last 2 games, they out and out said that Halak was the better goalie. Two former NHL goalies - I think they know what they're talking about. BTW that move by Kopitar almost always ends up in a goal. The guy is skating faster and beats the goalie to the far side. i saw Glen Anderson score a goal like that against Patrick Roy in the forum once. The only possible defense against it is the poke check, and then you can get beaten like Miller was by Crosby in the Gold Medal overtime. (I've watched that goal in super slo-mo on my PVR a few times and I'm convinced Miller thought Crosby was going to the net a la Kopitar tonight. He was completely "not ready" for Crosby's shot.) The 2nd goal was not the greatest, that I admit. But Halak made the saves when he had to. And just like you, I'd probably go with Halak but for a different reason: because he gives us the best chance to win. (Now that Halak is no longer our Olympic enemy, I'm back in his corner.)
  4. And you guys call me a pessimist! Gomez singlehandedly steamrolls 5 Kings... Gionta grows 5 inches... Lapierre performs a double axle... (in the stands of course) Jacques Martin grows a beard and starts calling his players "dude"... Golden nickles start coming out of Halak's a-- And Habs win by 2.
  5. I agree. If they're gonna allow fighting (something I'm against BTW), then they should get rid of this stupid instigator rule. You push someone from behind into the boards, then you should have to be prepared to answer for it.
  6. If you hit a guy legally, then that's part of the game, even if you hit him hard enough to hurt him. Legal hits give the guy being hit a chance to defend himself. Illegal hits (like hitting from behind or clipping in football) do not give the victim a chance to defend himself and the nature of the hit is in itself inherently dangerous (which is why the rules of the sport ban it). If I'm in a game, and the opposition is constantly hitting me legally, then it's up to me to "suck it up" and play through it. But if someone slashes at my ankle or pushes me from behind head first into the boards, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. And anyone can do an illegal hit. It takes talent and grittiness to perform legal hits. That's why, as mentioned, Lapierre seems to always miss when the guy is facing him. (How many times have you seen him slamming into the boards right beside the guy.) Yet he's great at slamming someone from behind.
  7. Years later, when I found out Clarke had purposely broken Kharlomov's ankle in '72, it took a lot of satisfaction out of what I had gotten out of that series. After the '76 (?) series, H. Richard refused to shake Clarke's hand. He said something to the effect of that what Clarke was playing wasn't hockey. I've always thought that when someone has to cheat in order to win, then they don't believe that they can win fairly. And I don't understand what satisfaction anyone can get, knowing that they cheated in order to win. Hey, if this is what you believe in, then let's bring it to its logical conclusion. If we play Pittsburgh in the playoffs, let's get a 4th liner like Maxwell, to swing his stick and break Crosby's ankle. Is this what you want? Would you get satisfaction out of winning the series afterwards?
  8. Granted. But Joe, can't we expect the refs to call the game properly? After the lockout, they started calling interference and hooking properly and, despite braindead protests from knuckleheads like Cherry, the game improved immensely. If they started calling the thuggery properly, we'd see more skilled play and the game would improve even more. Bar says he likes feisty play. So do I. Legal feisty play, like that check Robinson put on Dornhoeffer when he broke the glass with the force of the check. No one is advocating removing hitting from the game. Hell, I liked to hit, having also played football. But hits from behind, which require no guts and can seriously injure a player, have no place in the game. Anyone can hit from behind. A guy 5'2" can hit Chara from behind. It doesn't take guts; it takes a mean, cowardly spirit. Didn't Grabowski hit Markov from behind and kill any hope we had in last year's playoffs? Can anyone seriously advocate this?
  9. "Misplaced romantic ideals"?!!!! Like good sportsmanship? Fair play? Good, solid clean hits? Take a lesson from Team Canada and Team USA. That's how hockey should be played.
  10. Couldn't have said it better myself. Terrific post...
  11. In a different thread, I agreed with you about the Moore hit - should've earned a suspension too. You know, there is some truth in your argument about dirty play, but the good skilled teams still win more than the goon teams. When is the last time a Boston or a Philly won the Cup, as opposed to Pittsburgh or Detroit? I think the last time was Anaheim, and that's why I laugh when I see the goon-master, Burke, trying to build another Anaheim in Toronto. When I played, I was a scorer and was therefore subject to "goonery." I settled it with my fists which is why, though I'm generally opposed to fighting in hockey, if they're going to have it, then get rid of that stupid instigator rule. It only protects thugs like Lapierre. And finally, let me ask you a question: didn't you prefer that beautiful hockey displayed in the Olympics to the garbage you usually get in the NHL? Good clean hitting, along with great skating and playmaking. A guy like Lapierre would never get within a country mile of making teams like those. This is what hockey should be like. This is what it could be if the NHL started calling all penalties and not just hooking and interference.
  12. This quote makes me happy that I'm usually at odds with you. I guess it's corny to demand good sportsmanship and winning by out-skating and out-playing your opposition? The Habs of the mid 70s showed the goons from Philadelphia how hockey should be played. 4 straight in the final and "goon hockey" was dead. It's truly sad to see some modern-day Habs fans cheering this kind of roller derby hockey. You think this kind of hockey is fine? Great! I don't. As far as Lapierre is concerned, it's sad to see a guy who almost always "just misses" when the opponent is facing him, but manages to hit him bang on when his back is turned.
  13. Whereas I think he got what he deserved. I hate p----- who hit you when your back is turned, yet don't have the guts to face you when you're not. Mike Milbury when he played was a prime example of a dirty player who loved to hit people from behind into the boards. The guy that Lapierre hit could've broken his neck on that hit. I think the NHL should start giving more than a paltry 4 games for blatant attempts to injure like that. In this particular case, the play was already going the other way, when Lapierre decided to perform his thuggery. And for those of you who think it's okay, you'd probably be screaming bloody blue murder had it happened to someone like Markov. (And yes, that hit on Moore into the post should also have been punished by the NHL.)
  14. Simply a great post! Thank you, Brobin!
  15. Certainly dramatic. Gave us the record for Gold medals (14). And... it's current. People have short memories. They were just as excited after 2002. ("First Olympic hockey gold in 50 years", yada, yada, yada) 1972 remains the penultimate. Henderson still a hero after38 years...
  16. The old nationalism VS internationalism debate. Again... politics, or more accurately, political philosophy. You'll never get anyone to change their political beliefs, so we should just stick to hockey.
  17. Okay, this is a hockey forum. Let's leave politics out of it...
  18. Well, for one, it just happened. Secondly, it was very dramatic - being tied in the last 24 seconds, and then winning in OT. The game in 2002 was not that close or dramatic. Having said that, the country was still pretty hysterical in 2002... and even more in 1972. The game will be put into proper perspective as the years march on...
  19. The yahoos always try to ruin a good thing. Good for you, calling the cops... 680news.com is running a poll as to your favourite Olympic moment - Crosby's goal is there as well as Joannie Rochette. It was a close thing, but I took Rochette.
  20. And that was the 2nd game he won - remember the shootout against the swiss:
  21. WOW! What a game! Best game I've EVER seen, and I was at the New Years game against the Soviets. I started to get a bad feeling about this game when we hit the 2 posts early in the 3rd. (Couldn't curse lady luck though because one of my friends brought his 8-year-old along. This was the most "swear-free" game I've watched in a long time!) LOL Then the US scores with 24 seconds left. Again, no swearing, but it took quite an effort. Tense, tense, tense and pessimistic. (Why am I assuming this is no surprise to you guys out there.) Miller VS Luongo - geez, big advantage to USA, especially if it goes to a shootout. And all the momentum has to be with the US after that dramatic tying goal (and those 2 damn goalposts). Then... CROSBY... euphoria. Kenny brought Champagne and we all toasted after the yelling died down. Final thoughts... Despite the negativism some posters put on here during the game, I actually thought we played quite well. (Outshot them too: 39-36.) Luongo was a very pleasant suprise. But the most suprising thing was how we came out in that overtime after such a devastating goal. We definitely outplayed them then (and for most of the 3rd). Our 2 best periods - 3rd and overtime. Lots of kudos to the USA. They certainly showed a lot more heart than the Russians. They had a great tourney BUT TALENT WON OUT IN THE END. We were definitely the better team. Even in our loss to them, they were badly outshot. Miller won the game over Brodeur, simple as that. 14 gold medals - a new Olympic record. Joannie Rochette, Bilodeau, et al. What started off as a terrible Olympics, sure turned it around in the end. How in hell am I ever gonna be able to watch the NHL after hockey like that?!!!
  22. About an hour to go... Let's hope Luongo is up to the task... Another thought occurs to me... Has Miller ever played in a championship game at a significant level? We're all assuming he'll be his regular great self but these games sometimes bring out the worst in a goalie (ie. Kiprisoff).
  23. You are right. l stand corrected. (Though they were on the ice together sometimes. Maybe because of a line change?) My apologies to Lassiter and Ghost. I always turn off my center speaker so I don't have to listen to McGuire and the other inane announcers, and that's how I made the mistake - not having the "advantage" of listening to the commentary. (I still get the sounds of the game. It's more like actually being live at the game. Those of you who have control of your center speaker, I strongly recommend you trying this. All of my friends [save one] like this way of watching a game much better than having to listen to the announcers. And when an interesting interview comes up, you just turn the center speaker back on. Of course this only works when the broadcast is in Dolby 5.1)
  24. Still have it on my PVR so I'll watch it again... but not now. (I can barely stay awake long enough to watch the last period of Slovakia/Finland). Seems to me it was Getzlaf, Nash, and Perry. I seem to remember 51 and 61 buzzing around together but now you have me doubting my memory. Still, you originally said they weren't together at all, and that was wrong, so until I re-watch the Russian game, I'll suspend judgement.
  25. "End of discussion" meaning you're not gonna respond. Great. Hopefully, you're not trying to control me. Read my posts more carefully. The one line was a big factor. Never did I say it was the only factor. Here are some examples of what I wrote: "... and one of the reasons is that we did not have a big, dominating line..." "I'm sure that in most hockey areas, Babcock does indeed know way more than me." "I can guess why Babcock has broken up that line. He wants to add more balance to the team." "And splitting up our most effective line is not smart." Everyone realizes hockey is a team sport, as do I. One recognizes that Shutt-Lemaire-Lafleur would not have been as effective without, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson, Dryden, et. al. But here's my question for you: would the Habs of that era been as effective had they split up the Lafleur line? Anyway, look, Joel, you're right. It's pointless to go on with this thread. We have a fundamental disagreement on this Getzlaf line idea, as I suspect we have on personal philosophy. You seem to be saying that anything Babcock does is good and based on sound ideas beyond the pale of a mere high school coach. Whereas, I constantly question everything, even if it comes from authority. Sometimes I'm wrong, and sometimes I'm actually right. In this case, I would dearly like to see the Nash-Getzlaf line put back together. I think the Americans would have a horrible time trying to contain them. And any time spent in their zone, as opposed to ours, is good... right?
×
×
  • Create New...