Ward

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobby774. Show bobby774's posts

    Ward

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

    Re: Ward

    Yah just read that on the Bruins Blog. Too bad his legs went on him good guy. He'll do well for whatever network he works for he's got the quick wit, gift of gab, real knowledgeable n funny. Versus should pick Aaron up then can Englom!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NumbaFouwer. Show NumbaFouwer's posts

    Re: Ward

    Yup, he's got some good hockey insight and Versus should pick him up.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobby774. Show bobby774's posts

    Re: Ward

    Yeah i cant stand Egoblom
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]Yah just read that on the Bruins Blog. Too bad his legs went on him good guy. He'll do well for whatever network he works for he's got the quick wit, gift of gab, real knowledgeable n funny. Versus should pick Aaron up then can Englom!
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, Versus will grab him if they have any sense, but I'd love to see him workd for NESN. The guy is smart and hilarious. He'd be so much better than Milbury.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Ward

    Milbury is and always will be controversial. In addition, he is not a quality announcer, but, must have a few gotchas to be the commentator on NESN and other networks. He and Pierre are boring
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]Milbury is and always will be controversial. In addition, he is not a quality announcer, but, must have a few gotchas to be the commentator on NESN and other networks. He and Pierre are boring
    Posted by Bogie6[/QUOTE]

    Milbury is a meathead. AFAIK, he was the only voice in hockey who actually supported Cooke in the Savard incident. I lost any modicum of respect I had for the guy after that.

    The best studio analyst NESN employs is Barry Pederson, and he doesn't do "gotchas." He's just intelligent and gives good analysis. I'd rather listen to that than Milbury and his "look at me, look at me!" crapola.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Ward : Milbury is a meathead. AFAIK, he was the only voice in hockey who actually supported Cooke in the Savard incident. I lost any modicum of respect I had for the guy after that. The best studio analyst NESN employs is Barry Pederson, and he doesn't do "gotchas." He's just intelligent and gives good analysis. I'd rather listen to that than Milbury and his "look at me, look at me!" crapola.
    Posted by duinne[/QUOTE]

    He did not support Cooke.  He supported Campbell.  Big difference.

    Even Campbell told Thornton (through millbury) to "do what (he) must". 

    Did you see the interview between Millbury and Campbell?  Millbury went in livid, and came back humbled.  I did the same.  It takes an open mind to 180 an opinion.  Both mine and Millbury's 180'd on Campbell after he did the interview.

    Nothing to do w Cooke.  Campbell hates Cooke too.  "I looked and looked for a an established reason to suspend Cooke, but couldnt find any rule violations.  There will be modifications to the rules from this, but I couldnt find a specific/existing rule that Cooke directly violated." Millbury: "so you didnt like the hit?" Campbell: "I hated the hit, especially from (a player who Ive had to discipline before)"

    Millbury can be dull, and a meathead.  Im not his biggest fan, myself.  But he absolutely did NOT back Cooke.  The closest he came was admitting that he could see the rationale for the non-suspension.  And if you cant, re-watch the interview.

    Colin Campbell is absolutely the right guy for the job (and im as big a savard fan that you'll find).  I hated him for the period in between the savard hit and the interview w millbury.  Immediately following the interview w millbury, I (like millbury himself) felt that I owed Colin an apology.

    Millbury took back a lot of the things he said against campbell.  he didnt take back a single thing he said against cooke. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Ward

    Plus, you have to look at him.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Ward : He did not support Cooke.  He supported Campbell.  Big difference. Even Campbell told Thornton (through millbury) to "do what (he) must".  Did you see the interview between Millbury and Campbell?  Millbury went in livid, and came back humbled.  I did the same.  It takes an open mind to 180 an opinion.  Both mine and Millbury's 180'd on Campbell after he did the interview. Nothing to do w Cooke.  Campbell hates Cooke too.  "I looked and looked for a an established reason to suspend Cooke, but couldnt find any rule violations.  There will be modifications to the rules from this, but I couldnt find a specific/existing rule that Cooke directly violated." Millbury: "so you didnt like the hit?" Campbell: "I hated the hit, especially from (a player who Ive had to discipline before)" Millbury can be dull, and a meathead.  Im not his biggest fan, myself.  But he absolutely did NOT back Cooke.  The closest he came was admitting that he could see the rationale for the non-suspension.  And if you cant, re-watch the interview. Colin Campbell is absolutely the right guy for the job (and im as big a savard fan that you'll find).  I hated him for the period in between the savard hit and the interview w millbury.  Immediately following the interview w millbury, I (like millbury himself) felt that I owed Colin an apology. Millbury took back a lot of the things he said against campbell.  he didnt take back a single thing he said against cooke. 
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]

    Drew,
    I agree with your take on milbury here, but that interview left me feeling completely different.. Enraged? disgusted, or just feeling Campbell is a complete idiot.

    While I can "give" the benefit of the doubt that he did not see an elbow, ok fine.. I can concede that sure, the idea that the "intent to inure" penalty could only be assessed from a player intending to deliver injury through some other form of penalty" was ridiculous, and cowardly. The intent to injure (much like the "circumventing the cap") is just that an open penalty subject to interpretation.. Further more his examples were far more horrid, he penalized ovechkin for being a  "repeat offender" as opposed to cooke? NHL good guy?

    Or similarly with the Avery incident, he made a judgement, that he could not wave his hands/arms etc, in screening the goalie because it was "unsportsman like conduct"  I would love to see how what avery did was more specifically descibed by the NHL rule book..

    It would have been easy enough to say it was intent to injure because he contacted a players head while in a vulnerable position..

    I am not arguing with you, but we got completely different takes out of that interview..
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Ward

    Anything to get rid of bland borum at the forum Kluzak. I could see Ward doing fun skits with the Bruins players an such. I'm sure NESN wouldn't have a problem with Aaron doing the dual duties with Versus.

    If Ward still had his legs under him I wouldn't mind him on this Bruins team but 839 games 3 cups is quite a nice career.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2p5ABw8cw&feature=player_embedded#!

    Ward scores on breakaway!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Ward : Drew, I agree with your take on milbury here, but that interview left me feeling completely different.. Enraged? disgusted, or just feeling Campbell is a complete idiot. While I can "give" the benefit of the doubt that he did not see an elbow, ok fine.. I can concede that sure, the idea that the "intent to inure" penalty could only be assessed from a player intending to deliver injury through some other form of penalty" was ridiculous, and cowardly. The intent to injure (much like the "circumventing the cap") is just that an open penalty subject to interpretation.. Further more his examples were far more horrid, he penalized ovechkin for being a  "repeat offender" as opposed to cooke? NHL good guy? Or similarly with the Avery incident, he made a judgement, that he could not wave his hands/arms etc, in screening the goalie because it was "unsportsman like conduct"  I would love to see how what avery did was more specifically descibed by the NHL rule book.. It would have been easy enough to say it was intent to injure because he contacted a players head while in a vulnerable position.. I am not arguing with you, but we got completely different takes out of that interview..
    Posted by rolerhoky19[/QUOTE]

    Milbury was simply playing up to the national media, you would not see Don Cherry in the NFL/America.  I would agree Campbell would have liked Cookie banished but want to enforce the rules as dictated.  The problem is his inconsistency in handling those decision dating back a couple years.  

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

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Ward : He did not support Cooke.  He supported Campbell.  Big difference. Even Campbell told Thornton (through millbury) to "do what (he) must".  Did you see the interview between Millbury and Campbell?  Millbury went in livid, and came back humbled.  I did the same.  It takes an open mind to 180 an opinion.  Both mine and Millbury's 180'd on Campbell after he did the interview. Nothing to do w Cooke.  Campbell hates Cooke too.  "I looked and looked for a an established reason to suspend Cooke, but couldnt find any rule violations.  There will be modifications to the rules from this, but I couldnt find a specific/existing rule that Cooke directly violated." Millbury: "so you didnt like the hit?" Campbell: "I hated the hit, especially from (a player who Ive had to discipline before)" Millbury can be dull, and a meathead.  Im not his biggest fan, myself.  But he absolutely did NOT back Cooke.  The closest he came was admitting that he could see the rationale for the non-suspension.  And if you cant, re-watch the interview. Colin Campbell is absolutely the right guy for the job (and im as big a savard fan that you'll find).  I hated him for the period in between the savard hit and the interview w millbury.  Immediately following the interview w millbury, I (like millbury himself) felt that I owed Colin an apology. Millbury took back a lot of the things he said against campbell.  he didnt take back a single thing he said against cooke. 
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]

    When I saw Milbury talking about the hit (don't recall if it was NESN or NBC, sorry), he said he was a "hockey play" and it's too bad Savard got hurt, but it's part of the game. I wanted to throw up. Flat-out assault is not a "hockey play." I don't know if that was before or after the interview with Campbell, and frankly I don't care. I'll never listen to that a**wipe again. He can go to hell.

    As for Campbell, as rolerhockey pointed out, there IS a rule in the NHL rule book he could have used to suspend Cooke. It's the Intent to Injure rule:

    //21.1 Match Penalty - A match penalty involves the suspension of a player or goalkeeper for the balance of the game and the offender shall be ordered to the dressing room immediately.


    A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner. [emphasis added].//


    You'd have to be absolutely, willfully, totally blind not to see that Cooke deliberately attempted to injure Savard. I don't care if he used his elbow, shoulder, knee, foot or a tire iron to do so. He went for Savard's head. There's no "gray area," and Campbell crying his damn crocodile tears over not being able to suspend Cooke is, in a word, despicable. Eff him, and eff Milbury too. Hockey play my a**.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from beantowngm15. Show beantowngm15's posts

    Re: Ward

    In Response to Re: Ward:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Ward : He did not support Cooke.  He supported Campbell.  Big difference. Even Campbell told Thornton (through millbury) to "do what (he) must".  Did you see the interview between Millbury and Campbell?  Millbury went in livid, and came back humbled.  I did the same.  It takes an open mind to 180 an opinion.  Both mine and Millbury's 180'd on Campbell after he did the interview. Nothing to do w Cooke.  Campbell hates Cooke too.  "I looked and looked for a an established reason to suspend Cooke, but couldnt find any rule violations.  There will be modifications to the rules from this, but I couldnt find a specific/existing rule that Cooke directly violated." Millbury: "so you didnt like the hit?" Campbell: "I hated the hit, especially from (a player who Ive had to discipline before)" Millbury can be dull, and a meathead.  Im not his biggest fan, myself.  But he absolutely did NOT back Cooke.  The closest he came was admitting that he could see the rationale for the non-suspension.  And if you cant, re-watch the interview. Colin Campbell is absolutely the right guy for the job (and im as big a savard fan that you'll find).  I hated him for the period in between the savard hit and the interview w millbury.  Immediately following the interview w millbury, I (like millbury himself) felt that I owed Colin an apology. Millbury took back a lot of the things he said against campbell.  he didnt take back a single thing he said against cooke. 
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]

    Can you post a link to that interview?  I can't find it.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share