Adidess - (Adler Aristilde)Member since January 10, 2012
Habs fan since: 1990s
Favorite current player: PK, Pricey, Pleks & the Gals
All-time favorite player:
- Comment on Bouillon an insurance policy at Habs’ training camp (2014-09-18 16:36:42)
Hehe, I knew my brain needed continuous improvement, but thought it was working ok. I take it that you disagree with the idea of eliminating late hits. Cheers!
- Comment on Bouillon an insurance policy at Habs’ training camp (2014-09-18 16:04:32)
bwoar, very strong points. I should clarify, I know why players finish their checks and why their coach wants them to. This isn't about 'finishing checks is a useless strategy that will make your team lose'. The point is there isn't a sport where you wouldn't gain an advantage on the opposing team by hitting players who don't have the ball. We just happen to allow it in hockey. You could make the same intimidation arguments in football and make sure quaterbacks can have no impact on the game being so scared of being killed by a 400-pound defensive linemen. We're talking about whether finishing checks on players without the puck (which adds to the toll of shoulder injuries and concussions) is necessary for the sport to thrive, whether it enhances the game or hinders it.
- Comment on Bouillon an insurance policy at Habs’ training camp (2014-09-18 15:33:45)
Neumann and Burly, I could not agree more on the 'finishing your check' idea. In any sport, an opponent wants the player with whatever the key object is (the ball, or the puck in this case) to get rid of it and fast. By pressuring the player who has possession, you hope to force an uncomfortable pass into a space where the puck becomes up for grabs - a key, sensible strategy for the opposing team to gain possession. There should be no justification for hitting hard at somebody who no longer has the puck, other than intent to hurt or injure (which the NFL calls unnecessary roughness) or at the very least attempt to interfere with the player's movement. People will say, yeah but hockey is a different game, it is played into a confined space to allow body checks, whether players have clear possession or not. I disagree, but do recognize until the rule book eliminates finishing your checks, it will remain part of the game. I definitely foresee a time in the near future where they'll eliminate or drastically reduce any lapsed time between possession of the puck and the body check. Now, what we really gets to me is this. The idea that the player on the receiving end of a body check needs to accommodate the checker, to make sure the checker doesn't hurt himself. Like... make your chops and your vulnerable body available for the checker to ram through you so that you can be seen as playing the game the right way. I am sorry, if you're crazy and reckless enough to take a run at me after I pass the puck and I can see you coming from afar to get to me, good luck completing your stupid move safely. I'll get out of the way or protect my head with my stick. Self-defense is a situation where I totally condone violence.
- Comment on Bouillon an insurance policy at Habs’ training camp (2014-09-18 15:01:26)
Where do I sign? I like these rules.
- Comment on Stubbs is all wet (don’t say it) for ALS research (2014-08-23 22:54:21)
Yeah, but this is an old debate right? Hockey teams aren't drawing from public funds to pay player salaries. We're talking about a self-generating business here (although there sometimes are government subsidies involved in the venture at some level). You pay for attending games, watching on TV, and acquiring merchandise and that's the money being used. Surgeons do a heck of a job, but those playing one on TV makes more money precisely because you and/or your wife can't get enough of watching Private Practice, Grey's Anatomy, etc. on the tubes. And btw surgeons get paid handsomely, in comparison with say first-responders. The other key thing is the posters I'm referring to are talking about teammates being resentful, not necessarily those of us not making millions who are ponying up to make them rich. For what it's worth...
- Comment on Stubbs is all wet (don’t say it) for ALS research (2014-08-23 22:18:22)
I find this emerging debate over potential resentment in the locker room against Subban - as a result of the contract he just signed - quite interesting. Aren't players used to dealing with the fact that everyone has a different salary? Don't players know salaries result from negotiations between agents and team management based on joint assessment of performance and worth by the two parties? Doesn't every professional team, or every workplace for that matter, have somebody who is the highest paid? I believe the team had a highest paid player last year and every year before that. Are they normally resentful toward that player? Did anything like that happen to Price, Stamkos, Doughty, Ovechkin, Tyler Myers when they signed their respective contracts? Every time somebody gets paid, there's less money left for everybody else, especially in a salary-cap structure. There's nothing new here in that sense. The only way this is a debate is if one believes Subban's salary is so out of whack with norms in the NHL that even players themselves are shocked or up in arms over it. As opposed to being happy for their buddies as they tend to be or at least to show they are... I remember when Gomez was by far the highest paid player on the team and going through a catastrophic 2-year slump. Every teammate had his back, they encouraged him, they defended him, they protected him. We'll have to see, I guess, but I thought this fraternity had a tendency to rally around teammates whenever they feel they're too heavily scrutinized/criticized in relation to their salaries.
- Comment on Stubbs is all wet (don’t say it) for ALS research (2014-08-23 21:32:20)
On PK being a target, I don't know if that will be a CHANGE from previous seasons. I particularly feel PK was in everyone's sights during the last playoffs and was our best player (along with Price). Subban was definitely in every Bruins player's sights during that series (water bottle and all), and I like how that series turned out for the Habs.
- Comment on Stubbs is all wet (don’t say it) for ALS research (2014-08-23 21:23:20)
Timo mentioned DD in the same way Timo brings up anything. He was probably less than 0,000001% serious. Punkster responded totally in jest too I find, so nobody was truly suggesting DD has any chance of becoming Captain, or that he could/should be in consideration for the role. The Bouillon "era" has ended, we need to move on. We would have to be absolutely devastated by injuries on D to be in position where we'd need Bouillon. And even then, I'd say next guy down in Hamilton please, until there's no D prospect left. Chances are if Bouillon becomes the answer, we're not winning the Stanley Cup anyway.
- Comment on Stubbs is all wet (don’t say it) for ALS research (2014-08-23 16:20:04)
A playoff series would be a cake-walk, but we're talking one game here. Operative words: COULD BE.
- Comment on Stubbs is all wet (don’t say it) for ALS research (2014-08-23 16:01:46)
Give DD a break, Timo. How do you know he didn't grow a few inches in the off-season? :) Seriously, I think DD has his rightful place with the team and that may take a year or two to change. He will be expendable the day we have a better playmaker on the roster. Maybe some people have not realized, he's the best offensive C on the team at this point, in terms of honed skills, vision, and production. Only Pacioretty had more points than him last year among forwards (and we all know what he does for Patches).