Jump to content

May 8, Montreal vs Toronto, 7 PM


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

The remnants of last game came back to bite them.  Allen was terrible on the first goal not tracking the shot and letting in a major softie and didn't track the puck well off the draw on the third goal.  Tired goalies aren't sharp when tracking pucks.  Why is he tired?  Ducharme's stupid decision to put him in when the game was over on Thursday, taking away his rest day.  I know the goal support wasn't there but I honestly believe if Primeau stays in on Thursday, Allen tracks one of those shots (probably the first one) and we're possibly looking at overtime at this point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Similarly, I really liked Roenik and thought he might get really big in the US.   I'm not sure what happened to him but I dont think he lasted very long because of 1 of his views.  

 

He got fired after talking about Kathryn Tappen's boobs and wanting to have a three way with her. And then he sued NBC because he said he was fired because he was straight, since Johnny Weir got away with risque commentary during the Olympics. I think at one point he also claimed his support of Trump got him fired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

The remnants of last game came back to bite them.  Allen was terrible on the first goal not tracking the shot and letting in a major softie and didn't track the puck well off the draw on the third goal.  Tired goalies aren't sharp when tracking pucks.  Why is he tired?  Ducharme's stupid decision to put him in when the game was over on Thursday, taking away his rest day.  I know the goal support wasn't there but I honestly believe if Primeau stays in on Thursday, Allen tracks one of those shots (probably the first one) and we're possibly looking at overtime at this point.

 

I agree with the exception of the 3rd goal.  The release on that shot was so fast that none of the Habs saw that go in.  They were all looking around puzzled as to what just happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sir_Boagalott said:

I agree with the exception of the 3rd goal.  The release on that shot was so fast that none of the Habs saw that go in.  They were all looking around puzzled as to what just happened. 

 

That's why I said the first goal was the likelier that he'd stop.  From watching his head movements before the puck even dropped, he just didn't look like he was ready and he was lost as soon as the puck went down (like pretty much all of the forwards were).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

That's why I said the first goal was the likelier that he'd stop.  From watching his head movements before the puck even dropped, he just didn't look like he was ready and he was lost as soon as the puck went down (like pretty much all of the forwards were).

 

It happened super fast because the puck travelled a short distance from the faceoff dot.  The puck was lose in a manner that the Leafs player was able to do a form of a 1 timer type of wrist shot with it.   As soon as he touched it he was able to rip it right at the net. 

 

They should have rested Allen in that other game and this game likely would have went into OT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, sbhatt said:

Ducharme keeps playing guys who are clearly not going well tonight...he's a horrible coach.

 

He has not shown himself to be anything special at all. Zero reason to believe in him whatsoever. Whether there are any superior options who are also bilingual is a different question. 

 

Petry looked terrible with the extra man, for some reason. I enjoyed Bilbo’s smart and shifty play, Anderson’s jam, the major minutes for Kulak, KK’s massive hit (he needs to do so much more of that!!), and that Suzy continues to look good. But on the whole this was an uninspiring and deflating effort - losing to a Leafs team that was only half-motivated. Gawd. 

 

I agree re: Bieksa the commentator. Sure, I think he was dead wrong regarding Wilson, but he is both witty and insightful, far from the buffoon that Cherry was, and definitely brings the perspective of a smart and independent-minded player to the table. He’s been a huge addition to the broadcast and a key part of the reason why I no longer tune out the first intermission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

He got fired after talking about Kathryn Tappen's boobs and wanting to have a three way with her. And then he sued NBC because he said he was fired because he was straight, since Johnny Weir got away with risque commentary during the Olympics. I think at one point he also claimed his support of Trump got him fired. 

 

It's impossible now to be like Cherry with todays cancel culture because as soon as 1 person complains you could be fired.  Bieksa could be fired for his views tonight regarding Wilson and he was likely reprimanded or warned.

 

Thats too bad about JR because I thought he could have become very big in the US.  His views could have helped make hockey more popular in similar way that Cherry did.  However, it sounds like JR's canning was deserved. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

It's impossible now to be like Cherry with todays cancel culture because as soon as 1 person complains you could be fired.  Bieksa could be fired for his views tonight regarding Wilson and he was likely reprimanded or warned.

 

Thats too bad about JR because I thought he could have become very big in the US.  His views could have helped make hockey more popular in similar way that Cherry did.  However, it sounds like JR's canning might have been deserved. 

 

 

I seriously doubt Bieksa received any negative consequence at all. There is a big difference between defending reprehensible play on the ice and having a #metoo moment or slagging immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

It's impossible now to be like Cherry with todays cancel culture because as soon as 1 person complains you could be fired.  Bieksa could be fired for his views tonight regarding Wilson and he was likely reprimanded or warned.

 

Thats too bad about JR because I thought he could have become very big in the US.  His views could have helped make hockey more popular in similar way that Cherry did.  However, it sounds like JR's canning might have been deserved. 

 

Cherry did NOT make hockey popular. I did not watch hockey because Cherry, if anything the longer he was on the more I stopped watching the 1st intermission portion of the broadcasts.

Too bad about Roenick????Saying you want a threesome with a coworker would be grounds for getting fired anywhere!! Milbury, Cherry, and the Roenicks of the world are the kind of people that prevent the game from growing and I can’t see anyone outside of the WWE or hillbilly crowd that would take anything they say seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I seriously doubt Bieksa received any negative consequence at all. There is a big difference between defending reprehensible play on the ice and having a #metoo moment or slagging immigrants.

 

I think they would say something to him for sure and not entirely for his views but also for how he said them.  i.e. he'd say something and then she would talk but numerous times he would start talking while she was speaking and interrupt her.  However, its also perspective because in that scenario who was really interrupting who?  I'd say she was really interrupting him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I seriously doubt Bieksa received any negative consequence at all. There is a big difference between defending reprehensible play on the ice and having a #metoo moment or slagging immigrants.

Agreed ordinarily I’m usually on board with Bieksa. Bieksa’s argument was bl basically that a harsher penalty would have been warranted if the outcome had been worse, or if what could have happened did happen. So if an unhelmeted Panarin lands on his skull, Wilson gets suspended. But since he was LUCKY, amd landed on his shoulder and ONLY had a minor injury that required him to miss the remainder of the season, a suspension his warranted. That is just stupid, ludicrous logic. But that is how the NHL governs itself, in the best of times, in other situations like the maxpac incident they do squat.

 

I think his views are a perfect example of why you need a cultural change in the leadership of the DOPS and have to stop with the old school goon squad from being put in charge of player safety. You would think that would be pretty logical - but it is the NHL we are talking about. 

 

I think the NFL made changes to protect players - and the hole game is centred in tackling the opponents physically to stop them. You would think hockey would have an easier time evolving with the times. The issue is until they stop putting dinosaurs in positon of power governing the direction of the game there won’t be any changes. There is zero reason to have fighting in the game, if they just friggin have better enforcement of the rule book and harsher penalties fir cheap shots. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

I think they would say something to him for sure and not entirely for his views but also for how he said them.  i.e. he'd say something and then she would talk but numerous times he would start talking while she was speaking and interrupt her.  However, its also perspective because in that scenario who was really interrupting who?  I'd say she was really interrupting him. 

Why, because you agree with him more than her?  They were both giving a view and challenging it. He gave his view and she challenged it. Isn’t that what a panel is for??,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Why, because you agree with him more than her?  They were both giving a view and challenging it. He gave his view and she challenged it. Isn’t that what a panel is for??,

 

Ya, that's not what happened at all and I haven't said anything about agreeing with him.  I actually disagree with him.  However, I like him because he has a wildly different view point then the rest of them. 

 

He sorta said 1 thing, and then she started talking, but then he'd start talking and interrupt her.

 

You do realize that when somebody is speaking its ignorant to just begin speaking yourself?  Well, he did that numerous times - and specifically only to her.  The ignorance of doing that is amplified when a man does it to a woman.  Thats typically viewed for being incredibly sexist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I seriously doubt Bieksa received any negative consequence at all. There is a big difference between defending reprehensible play on the ice and having a #metoo moment or slagging immigrants.

 

Agreed, I enjoy Bieksa. An intelligent guy, expresses him well and brings the viewpoint from a guy who has been in a few scrums. I don't necessarily agree with him regarding Wilson but I do respect his opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Ya, that's not what happened at all and I haven't said anything about agreeing with him.  I actually disagree with him.  However, I like him because he has a wildly different view point then the rest of them. 

 

He sorta said 1 thing, and then she started talking, but then he'd start talking and interrupt her.

 

You do realize that when somebody is speaking its ignorant to just begin speaking yourself?  Well, he did that numerous times - and specifically only to her.  The ignorance of doing that is amplified when a man does it to a woman.  Thats typically viewed for being incredibly sexist.

 

Right - if he is chronically cutting her off, then that should definitely be addressed by management; but their approach should be "formative," i.e., non-disciplinary. He is, after all, still learning the gig, and is probably unaccustomed to working with female colleagues as equals, considering that pro hockey is an all-male milieu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Ya, that's not what happened at all and I haven't said anything about agreeing with him.  I actually disagree with him.  However, I like him because he has a wildly different view point then the rest of them. 

 

He sorta said 1 thing, and then she started talking, but then he'd start talking and interrupt her.

 

You do realize that when somebody is speaking its ignorant to just begin speaking yourself?  Well, he did that numerous times - and specifically only to her.  The ignorance of doing that is amplified when a man does it to a woman.  Thats typically viewed for being incredibly sexist.

Sorry, it ai in sounded more like you agreed with him. I thought he interrupted her more, but they both interrupted her. If anything he’s treating her as an equal- so I don’t see it as being sexist. I find that usually happens all the time, as they tend to interrupt each other when they disagree, it’s not a structured debate (and the USA presidential structured debates had way more interruptions), it’s a panel that is limited by time and McLean eats away at that time more than he needs to (certainly a lot more than I have any interest in listening to him!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Sorry, it ai in sounded more like you agreed with him. I thought he interrupted her more, but they both interrupted her. If anything he’s treating her as an equal- so I don’t see it as being sexist. I find that usually happens all the time, as they tend to interrupt each other when they disagree, it’s not a structured debate (and the USA presidential structured debates had way more interruptions), it’s a panel that is limited by time and McLean eats away at that time more than he needs to (certainly a lot more than I have any interest in listening to him!!)

 

It's apparently well-documented (although I haven't seen the data myself) that men disproportionately interrupt women. I get the whole "he's treating her as an equal" idea, but we have to be attuned to the gendered dimension here. Is she getting cut off more than the other guys on the panel? That would be the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Right - if he is chronically cutting her off, then that should definitely be addressed by management; but their approach should be "formative," i.e., non-disciplinary. He is, after all, still learning the gig, and is probably unaccustomed to working with female colleagues as equals, considering that pro hockey is an all-male milieu.

 

I could be wrong but I don't believe that they generally cut each other off like that. 

 

Like I've said its all about perspective.  i.e. we understand that he's and ex fighter and was passionate about what happened and wanted to defend Wilson vs being sexist. 

 

The 2nd time he interrupted her I laughed and couldnt help but jokingly think holy just start talking over her, it doesn't matter what she thinks.  I'm sure some women that saw it would have got that impression and viewed it like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

I could be wrong but I don't believe that they generally cut each other off like that. 

 

Like I've said its all about perspective.  i.e. we understand that he's and ex fighter and was passionate about what happened and wanted to defend Wilson vs being sexist. 

 

The 2nd time he interrupted her I laughed and couldnt help but jokingly think holy just start talking over her, it doesn't matter what she thinks.  I'm sure some women that saw it would have got that impression and viewed it like that. 

I actually think she got her points across really well and I agreed with her - not him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It's apparently well-documented (although I haven't seen the data myself) that men disproportionately interrupt women. I get the whole "he's treating her as an equal" idea, but we have to be attuned to the gendered dimension here. Is she getting cut off more than the other guys on the panel? That would be the question.

I think the biggest interruptor is Ron Maclean and he usually has the least interesting things to say. But I guess that comes after 30 years or whatever it was being a dummy to a dummy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I seriously doubt Bieksa received any negative consequence at all. There is a big difference between defending reprehensible play on the ice and having a #metoo moment or slagging immigrants.

Agreed, she was the one cutting into his time to speak, the others were cutting Bieksa off more than he was interrupting others.

The female (Jen) was sitting there shaking her head the whole time Bieksa spoke as though she was on Fox News and was obviously (same as Hrudey) not prepared to listen to any opinion other than her own, and Bieksa has a whole lot more knowledge on the subject than her or Hrudey. 
Good on Kevin for saying something on that didn’t just tow the party line, Hrudey is a shot commentator who has no place shaping opinions and otherwise nobody else on the panel really deserves a spot.

Media making way too much about that story, can’t believe they rehashed it almost a week after the fact and after we’d already heard enough talking heads go on about it.

Bieksa has some good points, if Wilson had really wanted to hurt Bread man he would have taken his gloves off and pummelled him.

did he deserve punishment for his infraction, yes. But this wasn’t some one sided blind side attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think the biggest interruptor is Ron Maclean and he usually has the least interesting things to say. But I guess that comes after 30 years or whatever it was being a dummy to a dummy.


Agreed, man he ruins the broadcasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It's apparently well-documented (although I haven't seen the data myself) that men disproportionately interrupt women. I get the whole "he's treating her as an equal" idea, but we have to be attuned to the gendered dimension here. Is she getting cut off more than the other guys on the panel? That would be the question.

Good point, and no she is not.

her and Cassie Campbell whatever are often handed key points to discuss on silver platters.

I don’t get the justification for having non NHL players commenting on NHL plays.

There is no shortage of ex players with personality and enough brains to entertain and educate the masses (Bieksa can so...) .

Does NFL have commentary from people who never played in the league? Does NBA have WNBA players become commentators? Do softball players become MLB commentators?  
This is why I start the game delayed and skip the BS chatter that is more cancel culture and Ron McLean talkin on like a senile fool than anything useful. Even player interviews are crap these days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I actually think she got her points across really well and I agreed with her - not him.


Sad for you, hockey is a men’s game in NHL.  Her and Hrudey are just playing the millennial pleasing stance.

The game is safer than ever and may become overly sanitary and politically acceptable to the point of unwatchable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...