Official 2010/2011 NHL Thread

As much as I like Thornton, the Bruins need to limit his time on the ice tonight...he is, at best, an emotional uplift. When he nailed Burrows in the first period, it gave the Bruins a tremendous shot in the arm. The guy has experience and knows how to communicate with his team. He is not a goal scorer, he just needs to kill people out there and get the team in the right mindset to play. I think we will see Seguin tonight, although it will most likely be in a limited capacity. The kid lit it up against the Lightning, but he is so young and inexperienced that I don't see him playing on the first two lines. Who knows though, I'm guessing it will be a game-time decision, even more likely an in-game decision so that Julien can monitor where exactly the Bees need him in the lineup.
In terms of best defensemen of all time, how can you pass over Ray Bourque or the exalted Bobby Orr? Orr is arguably the best all-around player of all time. Sure, Gretzky was fucking amazing and had incredible finesse, but I think Orr's multifaceted game was perfect. He was a defenseman for crying out loud, and he played in a much more physical era. Gretzky played in an extremely offensive era where he didn't really have to worry about getting slammed around like Orr did. I think it's a tossup, both guys were gods.
 
I woudln't even call one better than the other. They were both great players in different periods. They'll always be remembered as hockey gods
 
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/amateur/university/Canucks+need+held+accountable+lack+discipline/4908396/story.html

note: "In one moment, the few Canuck players made available to the media were decrying Aaron Rome’s suspension for knocking Boston Bruins forward Nathan Horton from the National Hockey League final. It wasn’t the stern four-game term issued by NHL vice-president Mike Murphy, sitting in for Judge Colie because outgoing justice czar Colin Campbell’s son plays for the Bruins, that flabbergasted the Canucks but that Rome was burned at all.

Yet, in their next breath, Daniel and Henrik Sedin and Manny Malhotra all agreed Vancouver needed to be more disciplined and the Canucks had betrayed their play-between-the-whistles philosophy against Boston. These two positions don’t appear harmonious."

discuss?

 
well the person writing that article doesnt sound too smart. pretty easy concept to understand from what you've quoted, they (the canucks) felt the suspension was really harsh, which no doubt it was. But they also felt that that they as a team need to stick to their game plan and not get caught up in scrums between whistles because that only distracts you from the actual hockey. The two things are not related, one hard hit compared to scrums after every whistle.
 
I think that if the Bruins win tonight, the series will go to 7 with a final game that could go either way. But, if the Canucks win tonight, I think they'll close it out at home in game 5.
 
so what? is it supposed to suddenly make sense and not bring up contrasting points on subjects that dont really have to do with eachother?
 
"Rich Peverley’s unpenalized slash from behind on Kevin Bieksa’s knee was the dirtiest, most malicious act of the series"

hahaha I got a kick out of that one. There have been quite a few unpenalized slashes from behind to people knees by both teams this series and to pick one of them out and call it the "dirtiest" and most "malicious" act among all the other stuff is kinda ridiculous IMO.
 
It was among the 'dirtiest' and most 'malicious' though, because Bieksa nowhere near the puck, and not even in a strategic position that would have affect the play, he was just turning to skate up the ice...

Unpenalized slashes on players in front of the net or ones with the puck is one thing. In my opinion Peverley's slash was in a league of its own.
 
Anyone see the news about Vigneault complaining to the NHL suits about Tim Thomas's aggressive playing style? I don't think I have ever seen a bigger bunch of crybaby pussies in my entire life. The Canucks are so despicable that it's almost pathetic. Bunch of classes whiners who run away scared with their dicks up their asses and complain to the NHL after the get demolished. The Bruins need to keep up the intensity. The Sedin Sisters are nonfactors when you get in their faces. Did you see Daniel Sedin with that bullshit headlock? I'm sure he did that just to get a DQ so that he wouldn't have to get smacked around anymore. Also, what the fuck was he grabbing his head for on that check? The hit was NOWHERE near his head. Bunch of diving pussies.
 
images
 
Did you see Hansens on Krecji right before he scored that goal? It was strikingly similar to Peverly's. But I dont really want to keep talking about last game. Lets hope this game lives up to all its hype! Go Bruins!
 
3. Wayne Gretzky is, without question, the greatest hockey player of all time.

To suggest otherwise is blasphemy. Hell, we're practically forbidden by international law from even discussing it.

But there's no way you're going to convince me that a guy with a concave chest who couldn't knock Michelle Kwan off stride was a more dominant player than Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux or, for that matter, Mark Messier.

All the pro-Gretzky arguments are about numbers. Offensive numbers. Well, hockey is a physical game, and just because a guy was the greatest offensive player in a cartoonish offensive era does not mean he's the greatest hockey player of all time.

Just to give you a sense of what NHL hockey was like in the early 1980s, in the1982 series opener before Gretzky's Oilers were shocked 6-5 on six unanswered goals by the L.A. Kings in the Miracle on Manchester, the Kings won 10-8. Think about that. An NHL playoff game with 18 goals. So Gretzky's crazy numbers need to be looked at with some sense of perspective.

But let's look at another number: Gretzky's plus/minus. After leaving Edmonton, where he was surrounded by a bunch of Hall of Famers in their primes, over the last 11 years of his career, he was a net minus. That's right, from 1988-99, when Gretzky was on the ice at even strength, the Great One's teams were outscored by 33 goals. In his last eight seasons, he was a woeful minus-86. You see, backchecking — it turns out — actually helps your team. Crunching a guy into the boards helps your team. Clearing guys out of the crease helps your team. In all these ways and more, Gretzky did not help his teams. Sure, he put up mind-boggling numbers, but wouldn't you rather have your mind boggled than your bones jarred?

Now no one would suggest with a straight face that Gretzky was as good in his own zone as any of the other nominees for greatest hockey player of all time. The case for Gretzky is that he was so much better offensively that it made up for his defensive limitations.

Is this true?

(Sports Nerd Alert: Stat-heavy analysis ahead.)

In his best offensive season, Gretzky tallied a record 215 points. The league average for goals was 7.94 per game. Gretzky's 2.69 points per game average represented 33.8 percent of average goals per game. In his best season, Orr averaged 1.69 ppg, or 24.6 percent of the total goals per game. Do you suppose Orr made up for this gap in his own zone as the best defenseman of all time?

A comparison with Lemieux invites the possibility that Gretzky wasn't even the best offensive player of his generation. In 1988-89, when he scored 199 points, Lemieux's point per game total as a percentage of league average goals was even higher than Gretzky's best year (35 percent to 33.8). So Lemieux not only matched Gretzky as a scorer, but he also lugged the puck from end to end with guys hanging all over him and made goal scorers out of Warren Young, Terry Ruskowski and Rob Brown. Lemieux also had a higher career points per game average than Gretzky before his last two injury-plagued seasons, despite having a career that bridged a high-scoring era and a low-scoring one. As it stands now, Gretzky's career points average (1.92 ppg) is one one-hundredth better than Lemieux's (1.91).

But Orr and Lemieux each won only two Stanley Cups as compared to four for Gretzky. It's hard to argue about the bottom line, which is, after all, winning championships. Given that criterion, however, Gretzky might not have been the best player on those Oilers teams. After Gretz went to L.A., the Oilers' amazing two-way center Mark Messier led them to a fifth Cup. Then, in one of the coolest, most incredibly clutch runs in NHL history, Messier carried the Rangers to their drought-ending title in 1994. So that's six rings for Messier (two without Gretzky) and four for Wayne (zero without Mess).

So if Gretzky might not be the best offensive player and is certainly below-average defensively and didn't win as many Cups as Messier, by what measure is he the greatest player ever?

He's not. It's a lie.
 
i like how that's the first time the CBC announcers have discussed embellishing/diving all series. When a Boston player does it, for once. Fuck you guys.

Also, Ference, don't play that way.
 
At first I thought that was a super sick shot then I realized Luongo forgot how to use his glove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top