Hockey Minus Stupidity

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     



    You don't want your first line winger going off  for 5 minutes with the opposing team's 4rth line center on any occasion.....

     



    OK, so does it matter if he is the "3rd line" center?, because he gets the 2nd most minutes of active centers on the team.  Once again, nobody seems to like "skating clowns"  or staged fights, but everybody seems to have their rules as to whom someone should fight.  If Horton is on the ice with with a "player" and not a "skating clown" and he is ticked off at that said player and wants to go, he should go. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    OK, so does it matter if he is the "3rd line" center?, because he gets the 2nd most minutes of active centers on the team.  Once again, nobody seems to like "skating clowns"  or staged fights, but everybody seems to have their rules as to whom someone should fight.  If Horton is on the ice with with a "player" and not a "skating clown" and he is ticked off at that said player and wants to go, he should go. 

     



    Maclean would kill for a Horton/Smith tradeoff tonight which is kind of the point. By the way, Smith only has that many minutes this season due to injuries. In a normal season, he is their 4rth line center and PK guy.

    I hear what you are saying about supposed arbitrary, unwritten rules about who should fight who.....though.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    Hockey without the staged fights is fine. Fights off of raw emotion are terrific, even if it is between two "goons"..But two of them fighting just because the two of them happen to be on the ice, is something that happens still, but nearly as much. I would say they are getting weened out and eventually it will be players like Ryan Clowe and Milan Lucic doing the majority of the fighting, which is how it should be.

    Thornton since he has come back has been useless. Not saying he has to fight, but his overall game is real bad right now. Something tells me, Lane MacDermid coming up and getting in a couple of scraps made him come back sooner than he should have.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     

    I don't care how many minutes of ice Smith sees. Horton shouldn't bother with him because it's an awful trade off. Of course he'd like to fight Horton because Smith's career high is 26 points. Let him fight 4th liners if he wants to go.

     

     



    So a fight should be based on points and not emotion?  Are you saying that you are in favor of the "skating clowns" then?  Obviously Smith is not in Horton's caliber of talent, but if Smith is on the checking line, matched up against Horton's line at times during the contest, and he takes a run at Horton, you want him to walk away?  I stated that I don't believe that Ottawa has any "skating clowns" and that all their guys seem to be "real players", so if Horton wantsto go with Smith he should.  I didn't say Horton should go with Smith just because Smith wants to go with Horton.  It's not like Smith is Orr, Scott, Parros, etc...

     




    That's quite a stretch isn't it? Most fights are between guys who play similar roles. When you see guys like Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla fighting, it's rarely against goons. It's more likely they fight with each other. I'm saying that Smith should be trying to goad Horton all night because it's a bad trade off for Boston. Also, if Horton gets "run" by Smith then someone other than Horton should fight him. Smith's job is to throw people off their game. If Horton drops the gloves with him, then Smith has already won. Trust me, if Smith takes a run at DK or Lucic, then Horton will go after him. If not, Horton needs to keep his gloves on.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     



    That's quite a stretch isn't it? Most fights are between guys who play similar roles. When you see guys like Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla fighting, it's rarely against goons. It's more likely they fight with each other. I'm saying that Smith should be trying to goad Horton all night because it's a bad trade off for Boston. Also, if Horton gets "run" by Smith then someone other than Horton should fight him. Smith's job is to throw people off their game. If Horton drops the gloves with him, then Smith has already won. Trust me, if Smith takes a run at DK or Lucic, then Horton will go after him. If not, Horton needs to keep his gloves on.

     



    Exactly.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     

     




    That's quite a stretch isn't it? Most fights are between guys who play similar roles. When you see guys like Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla fighting, it's rarely against goons. It's more likely they fight with each other. I'm saying that Smith should be trying to goad Horton all night because it's a bad trade off for Boston. Also, if Horton gets "run" by Smith then someone other than Horton should fight him. Smith's job is to throw people off their game. If Horton drops the gloves with him, then Smith has already won. Trust me, if Smith takes a run at DK or Lucic, then Horton will go after him. If not, Horton needs to keep his gloves on.

     



    It's not a stretch.  At least not as much as it is to put Horton in the category of Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla.  I don't agree that if Horton drops the gloves with Smith that Smith has already won.  It depends on the flow of the game.  It could mean that Nathan is more engaged and pots  more points following the dust up.  It could mean that the B's bench gets fired up and takes their game up a notch or two.  The Bruins are the deeper team right now, and missing Horton for 5 minutes should not have a significant impact.  Again, Smith is not John Scott!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to MeanE's comment:

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     

     

     




    That's quite a stretch isn't it? Most fights are between guys who play similar roles. When you see guys like Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla fighting, it's rarely against goons. It's more likely they fight with each other. I'm saying that Smith should be trying to goad Horton all night because it's a bad trade off for Boston. Also, if Horton gets "run" by Smith then someone other than Horton should fight him. Smith's job is to throw people off their game. If Horton drops the gloves with him, then Smith has already won. Trust me, if Smith takes a run at DK or Lucic, then Horton will go after him. If not, Horton needs to keep his gloves on.

     

     



    It's not a stretch.  At least not as much as it is to put Horton in the category of Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla.  I don't agree that if Horton drops the gloves with Smith that Smith has already won.  It depends on the flow of the game.  It could mean that Nathan is more engaged and pots  more points following the dust up.  It could mean that the B's bench gets fired up and takes their game up a notch or two.  The Bruins are the deeper team right now, and missing Horton for 5 minutes should not have a significant impact.  Again, Smith is not John Scott!

     

     


    I didn't so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that. I used those 3 as examples of  similar caliber players who also fight occasionally. I'm not sure what your fascination with Smith is all about. I've seen at least half of his games with the Sens. The guy's a meathead with a very limited skill set. I couldn't care less about what might happen emotionally if Horton fights Smith. I care more about Horton playing a smart, disciplined game. Jesus, imagine what would happen if Chara and Lucic fought every time someone made them mad. They'd each have 600 pims a year and Zee would no longer be a Norris candidate.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    Hockey without the staged fights is fine. Fights off of raw emotion are terrific, even if it is between two "goons"..

    Something tells me, Lane MacDermid coming up and getting in a couple of scraps made him come back sooner than he should have.



    Yep and yep

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

    I didn't so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that. I used those 3 as examples of  similar caliber players who also fight occasionally. I'm not sure what your fascination with Smith is all about. I've seen at least half of his games with the Sens. The guy's a meathead with a very limited skill set. I couldn't care less about what might happen emotionally if Horton fights Smith. I care more about Horton playing a smart, disciplined game. Jesus, imagine what would happen if Chara and Lucic fought every time someone made them mad. They'd each have 600 pims a year and Zee would no longer be a Norris candidate.

     

    I am not fascinated with Smith.  I am not the one who brought him up.  Smart, disciplined game doesn't necessarily eliminate Nathan fighting fill in the blank Ottowa Senator.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    I don't think you ever really strategize to have Horton, Lucic, or Chara fight.  Its gonna happen and that's fine, but your top scorers need to worry first and foremost about winning games.  Let them fight when they want to, not when they're called out by opposing tough guys as a side show.  That's the sole reason for having Thornton in the lineup, and it's part of the value in having McQuaid and Campbell in the lineup.  So if the Bruins go up by two goals and Zach Smith starts bumping Rask or looking for a fight to change the momentum, we have a 3rd/4th line player who can handle that without taking a top player off the ice (and risk injury).  Like dez said, if Horton goes with Smith, Ottawa has already won the tradeoff.

    If I'm Julien, I let Chara, Lucic, and Horton drop the gloves if they've really got a beef with someone, or if they're fighting another teams top line players, but not to have a meaningless throw down with other teams 4th line tough guy.  That hurts the team.  That stuff is Thornton's job.  Same reason Lucic didn't fight Laraque.

    I wasn't too happy about the outcome of the Horton-Sestito exchange last year.  That stuff is garbage.  Like it or not, Horton is now one solid punch away from a career ender.  If I'm Thornton, I would tell anyone who looks crosswise at Horton that they're getting me instead.

    I know that you get what we're saying...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dirt Clod Jams. Show Dirt Clod Jams's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    It seems the shortened season has made most teams a bit timid regarding fighting.  I think most players realize that with fewer games to play, and playing them in such a short amount of time, even a small injury could derail your season.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    Okay, because I hate watching ballroom dancing where things just keep going around in circles -

    We're confusing two scenarios.  Scenario 1 is Lucic v. Weaver.  That is, one of the Bruins's top players initiates a fight with a player on the other team regardless of who that player is to his squad.  We had the bulk of this conversation about whether Lucic's retaliation on Weaver was dumb or not.  I think concensus (including his coach) was that it was warranted and part of Lucic being a force.  The same would be true if Zach Smith slashes Horton across the achilles and Horton turns around and fights him. Bruin player reacting on emotion gets into a fight that hopefully keeps the opposition honest even if it means Horton is off the ice for 5 minutes.  Assume Bruins roll four lines for that 5 minutes and each shift is 40 seconds - 300min/40 = 7.5 shifts/4 lines = Horton misses two shifts.  If you're not willing to support this, then you probably also don't want players blocking shots because they might miss a couple of shifts walking it off in the tunnel.

    Scenario 2 is Lucic v. Laracque.  Remember Laracque chasing Lucic all over the ice trying to goad him into a fight and Lucic telling him flat out: I'm under coach's orders not to fight you.  That's the scenario where you don't want your top guys fighting Neil or Dziurzynski or Smith just because they come calling with a facewash and a nasty comment about Horton's wife.  It's a calculated provocation and strategically, it's what the opposition is trying to goad you into doing.  So...don't do that.  But if they escalate to attempts to injure - injure them with rights to the face.

    Incidentally, I support Lucic fighting Neil ever game, all game.  He routinely opens that guy up like a can of tomato soup.  Love it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    I don't think you ever really strategize to have Horton, Lucic, or Chara fight.  Its gonna happen and that's fine, but your top scorers need to worry first and foremost about winning games.  Let them fight when they want to, not when they're called out by opposing tough guys as a side show.  That's the sole reason for having Thornton in the lineup, and it's part of the value in having McQuaid and Campbell in the lineup.  So if the Bruins go up by two goals and Zach Smith starts bumping Rask or looking for a fight to change the momentum, we have a 3rd/4th line player who can handle that without taking a top player off the ice (and risk injury).  Like dez said, if Horton goes with Smith, Ottawa has already won the tradeoff.

    If I'm Julien, I let Chara, Lucic, and Horton drop the gloves if they've really got a beef with someone, or if they're fighting another teams top line players, but not to have a meaningless throw down with other teams 4th line tough guy.  That hurts the team.  That stuff is Thornton's job.  Same reason Lucic didn't fight Laraque.

    I wasn't too happy about the outcome of the Horton-Sestito exchange last year.  That stuff is garbage.  Like it or not, Horton is now one solid punch away from a career ender.  If I'm Thornton, I would tell anyone who looks crosswise at Horton that they're getting me instead.

    I know that you get what we're saying...



    My point is that they don't have a 4th line tough guy!  If you consider Neil a "real player", than so is Smith.  I wasn't happy about the outcome of the Horton-Sestito exchange last year either.  You never answered my question.  If you are afraid of one of your power forwards dropping the gloves because of concussions, would you re-sign him?  If you take the "power" out of Nathan's game, is he worth the money?  Is he skilled enough to warrant $4 million a year?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Okay, because I hate watching ballroom dancing where things just keep going around in circles -

    We're confusing two scenarios.  Scenario 1 is Lucic v. Weaver.  That is, one of the Bruins's top players initiates a fight with a player on the other team regardless of who that player is to his squad.  We had the bulk of this conversation about whether Lucic's retaliation on Weaver was dumb or not.  I think concensus (including his coach) was that it was warranted and part of Lucic being a force.  The same would be true if Zach Smith slashes Horton across the achilles and Horton turns around and fights him. Bruin player reacting on emotion gets into a fight that hopefully keeps the opposition honest even if it means Horton is off the ice for 5 minutes.  Assume Bruins roll four lines for that 5 minutes and each shift is 40 seconds - 300min/40 = 7.5 shifts/4 lines = Horton misses two shifts.  If you're not willing to support this, then you probably also don't want players blocking shots because they might miss a couple of shifts walking it off in the tunnel.

    Scenario 2 is Lucic v. Laracque.  Remember Laracque chasing Lucic all over the ice trying to goad him into a fight and Lucic telling him flat out: I'm under coach's orders not to fight you.  That's the scenario where you don't want your top guys fighting Neil or Dziurzynski or Smith just because they come calling with a facewash and a nasty comment about Horton's wife.  It's a calculated provocation and strategically, it's what the opposition is trying to goad you into doing.  So...don't do that.  But if they escalate to attempts to injure - injure them with rights to the face.

    Incidentally, I support Lucic fighting Neil ever game, all game.  He routinely opens that guy up like a can of tomato soup.  Love it.



    Well stated Book!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Okay, because I hate watching ballroom dancing where things just keep going around in circles -

    We're confusing two scenarios.  Scenario 1 is Lucic v. Weaver.  That is, one of the Bruins's top players initiates a fight with a player on the other team regardless of who that player is to his squad.  We had the bulk of this conversation about whether Lucic's retaliation on Weaver was dumb or not.  I think concensus (including his coach) was that it was warranted and part of Lucic being a force.  The same would be true if Zach Smith slashes Horton across the achilles and Horton turns around and fights him. Bruin player reacting on emotion gets into a fight that hopefully keeps the opposition honest even if it means Horton is off the ice for 5 minutes.  Assume Bruins roll four lines for that 5 minutes and each shift is 40 seconds - 300min/40 = 7.5 shifts/4 lines = Horton misses two shifts.  If you're not willing to support this, then you probably also don't want players blocking shots because they might miss a couple of shifts walking it off in the tunnel.

    Scenario 2 is Lucic v. Laracque.  Remember Laracque chasing Lucic all over the ice trying to goad him into a fight and Lucic telling him flat out: I'm under coach's orders not to fight you.  That's the scenario where you don't want your top guys fighting Neil or Dziurzynski or Smith just because they come calling with a facewash and a nasty comment about Horton's wife.  It's a calculated provocation and strategically, it's what the opposition is trying to goad you into doing.  So...don't do that.  But if they escalate to attempts to injure - injure them with rights to the face.

    Incidentally, I support Lucic fighting Neil ever game, all game.  He routinely opens that guy up like a can of tomato soup.  Love it.



    Agreed! I'm all for Horton (or anyone else) fighting for the right reasons.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to MeanE's comment:


    My point is that they don't have a 4th line tough guy!  If you consider Neil a "real player", than so is Smith.  I wasn't happy about the outcome of the Horton-Sestito exchange last year either.  You never answered my question.  If you are afraid of one of your power forwards dropping the gloves because of concussions, would you re-sign him?  If you take the "power" out of Nathan's game, is he worth the money?  Is he skilled enough to warrant $4 million a year?

     

     



    I think your a bit off regarding what makes Horton a good player. He fought as much in his 1st year in Boston as he did in the rest of his career combined. Horton wasn't really a "fighter" until he became a Bruin but he was still well worth the contract he was signed to. He doesn't need to fight to be worth his contract. At least not as long as he continues to score big goals and forecheck with the best of them. I have to ask if you think Franzen is worth his salary? I only ask that because he basically never fights (zero in the last 5 years) but still manages to play a power game. He's getting basically 4 for another 7 years.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Okay, because I hate watching ballroom dancing where things just keep going around in circles -

    We're confusing two scenarios.  Scenario 1 is Lucic v. Weaver.  That is, one of the Bruins's top players initiates a fight with a player on the other team regardless of who that player is to his squad.  We had the bulk of this conversation about whether Lucic's retaliation on Weaver was dumb or not.  I think concensus (including his coach) was that it was warranted and part of Lucic being a force.  The same would be true if Zach Smith slashes Horton across the achilles and Horton turns around and fights him. Bruin player reacting on emotion gets into a fight that hopefully keeps the opposition honest even if it means Horton is off the ice for 5 minutes.  Assume Bruins roll four lines for that 5 minutes and each shift is 40 seconds - 300min/40 = 7.5 shifts/4 lines = Horton misses two shifts.  If you're not willing to support this, then you probably also don't want players blocking shots because they might miss a couple of shifts walking it off in the tunnel.

    Scenario 2 is Lucic v. Laracque.  Remember Laracque chasing Lucic all over the ice trying to goad him into a fight and Lucic telling him flat out: I'm under coach's orders not to fight you.  That's the scenario where you don't want your top guys fighting Neil or Dziurzynski or Smith just because they come calling with a facewash and a nasty comment about Horton's wife.  It's a calculated provocation and strategically, it's what the opposition is trying to goad you into doing.  So...don't do that.  But if they escalate to attempts to injure - injure them with rights to the face.

    Incidentally, I support Lucic fighting Neil ever game, all game.  He routinely opens that guy up like a can of tomato soup.  Love it.



    How could we forget. Habs fans are still crowing about that one....

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:




    That's quite a stretch isn't it? Most fights are between guys who play similar roles. When you see guys like Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla fighting, it's rarely against goons. It's more likely they fight with each other. I'm saying that Smith should be trying to goad Horton all night because it's a bad trade off for Boston. Also, if Horton gets "run" by Smith then someone other than Horton should fight him. Smith's job is to throw people off their game. If Horton drops the gloves with him, then Smith has already won. Trust me, if Smith takes a run at DK or Lucic, then Horton will go after him. If not, Horton needs to keep his gloves on.

     



    I don't know why people have a hard time understanding this theory.  Losing a first line player to a fighting major with an opponent's third liner is just bad news.  Toews fights Thornton.  Two first liners to the box.  Fair and good.  Iginla fights, let's say, Chris Kelly.  Huge win for Boston, regardless if (and when) Iginla pounds poor Kelly through the ice.

    Great points.

    On a side note, I love to see the first liners with a chip on their shoulders go.  That's as close as we will get to old time hockey.  You know when Vinny drops the gloves, it's a real fight and it's awesome.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:





    On a side note, I love to see the first liners with a chip on their shoulders go.  That's as close as we will get to old time hockey.  You know when Vinny drops the gloves, it's a real fight and it's awesome.



    Throw in Crosby VS Giroux in playoffs last year. That's pure emotion. Old time hockey indeed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to jmwalters's comment:

    In response to MeanE's comment:

     

     

     So a fight should be based on points and not emotion?  Are you saying that you are in favor of the "skating clowns" then?  Obviously Smith is not in Horton's caliber of talent, but if Smith is on the checking line, matched up against Horton's line at times during the contest, and he takes a run at Horton, you want him to walk away?  I stated that I don't believe that Ottawa has any "skating clowns" and that all their guys seem to be "real players", so if Horton wantsto go with Smith he should.  I didn't say Horton should go with Smith just because Smith wants to go with Horton.  It's not like Smith is Orr, Scott, Parros, etc...

     

     




    You don't want your first line winger going off  for 5 minutes with the opposing team's 4rth line center on any occasion.....

     



    If Horton is on the ice w/ the fourth line, that also implies that Krejci and Lucic are on the ice with the other teams fourth line.

    We should be looking to score in that situation, not fight.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Dreski 

     



    If Horton is on the ice w/ the fourth line, that also implies that Krejci and Lucic are on the ice with the other teams fourth line.

     

    We should be looking to score in that situation, not fight.

    [/QUOTE]

    Players should always be looking to score and not fight. Thats what seperates them from goons. But, sometimes things happen and the fight comes to you. When it does, you have a decision to make.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Okay, because I hate watching ballroom dancing where things just keep going around in circles -

    We're confusing two scenarios.  Scenario 1 is Lucic v. Weaver.  That is, one of the Bruins's top players initiates a fight with a player on the other team regardless of who that player is to his squad.  We had the bulk of this conversation about whether Lucic's retaliation on Weaver was dumb or not.  I think concensus (including his coach) was that it was warranted and part of Lucic being a force.  The same would be true if Zach Smith slashes Horton across the achilles and Horton turns around and fights him. Bruin player reacting on emotion gets into a fight that hopefully keeps the opposition honest even if it means Horton is off the ice for 5 minutes.  Assume Bruins roll four lines for that 5 minutes and each shift is 40 seconds - 300min/40 = 7.5 shifts/4 lines = Horton misses two shifts.  If you're not willing to support this, then you probably also don't want players blocking shots because they might miss a couple of shifts walking it off in the tunnel.

    Scenario 2 is Lucic v. Laracque.  Remember Laracque chasing Lucic all over the ice trying to goad him into a fight and Lucic telling him flat out: I'm under coach's orders not to fight you.  That's the scenario where you don't want your top guys fighting Neil or Dziurzynski or Smith just because they come calling with a facewash and a nasty comment about Horton's wife.  It's a calculated provocation and strategically, it's what the opposition is trying to goad you into doing.  So...don't do that.  But if they escalate to attempts to injure - injure them with rights to the face.

    Incidentally, I support Lucic fighting Neil ever game, all game.  He routinely opens that guy up like a can of tomato soup.  Love it.



    To add: if LaRoque is chasing Lucic around, then hes not focused on the game.  That means that they have 2/3 of their fourth line in the game while we have our first line out there.  Mismatch city.

    If you accept the bait, and fight.  Both teams go to 4 on 4, and both change lines.  Mismatch immediately ends.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

     

    If Horton is on the ice w/ the fourth line, that also implies that Krejci and Lucic are on the ice with the other teams fourth line.

     

    We should be looking to score in that situation, not fight.



    Bingo...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    On a side note, I love to see the first liners with a chip on their shoulders go.  That's as close as we will get to old time hockey.  You know when Vinny drops the gloves, it's a real fight and it's awesome.




    Good point.  I love watching real fights.  When something happens during the game that has somebody fuming mad.  Usually when top 6 forwards fight, this is the reason.

    Its much better than two Thornton-esque guys skating around in circles, jersey grabbing, and asking each other if they are done.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRgN0NYq1cY

    The above is a four second fight.  But much better than , say, a full minute "rehearsed/staged/scripted/skateincircles/stopthegame" Thornton fight.

    The difference is the emotion, abruptness , and anger.  Proof is in Jack's voice.  He doesnt scream like that for scripted Thornton fights that you can see coming a mile away.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Hockey Minus Stupidity

    In response to MeanE's comment:

     


    My point is that they don't have a 4th line tough guy!  If you consider Neil a "real player", than so is Smith.  I wasn't happy about the outcome of the Horton-Sestito exchange last year either.  You never answered my question.  If you are afraid of one of your power forwards dropping the gloves because of concussions, would you re-sign him?  If you take the "power" out of Nathan's game, is he worth the money?  Is he skilled enough to warrant $4 million a year?

     



    Yeah, I don't really know what you mean about suddenly being afraid to let Horton drop the gloves because of concussions.  The strategy has never really changed on that one, although I would certainly hope that he's less likely to fight goons now than he was two years ago.

    The point you're missing is that Horton was signed to score and play the power forward game.  He was never a fighter.  He had a handful of fights in his career before coming here.  The power forward game is about driving to the net, battling in front, being heavy on the puck, scoring rebounds, ect.  That's Horton.  His game has never, and should never, be about slugging it out with goons on the other team.  That is not Horton's "power"

    When he came to Boston, he bought into Bruins hockey and fought a little more than he had.  That was fine.  But after missing significant time with two major concussions, let's just focus on being an effective power forward again.  

    And if the time is right to risk dropping the gloves every now and then, fine.  But that time shouldn't against Zach Smith when he comes out to disrupt the Bruins top line and get some momentum going for Ottawa.  Let Thornton deal with that nonsense.

     

Share