An look at #22 without gloves

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

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

       Keep the 4th line on the bench? That would really help the development of Marchand.
    If Thornton was a pacifest, and had more goals than players getting more ice time, I wonder if you would be on here saying he should be given more ice time?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]   Keep the 4th line on the bench? That would really help the development of Marchand. If Thornton was a pacifest, and had more goals than players getting more ice time, I wonder if you would be on here saying he should be given more ice time?
    Posted by biggskye[/QUOTE]

    The development of Marchand?  Is that a joke? The kid barely made the team and is in his rookie year.  Give me a break.

    If Thornton didn't fight, he wouldn't be on the team.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BuzzardBoots. Show BuzzardBoots's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : The development of Marchand?  Is that a joke? The kid barely made the team and is in his rookie year.  Give me a break. If Thornton didn't fight, he wouldn't be on the team.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    NAS, some posts are just better left alone to wither on the vine...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : The development of Marchand?  Is that a joke? The kid barely made the team and is in his rookie year.  Give me a break. If Thornton didn't fight, he wouldn't be on the team.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Your right. The bruins may as well keep Seguin on the bench as well.

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

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]It's clearly defined, Isla.  I'll help you, however, as you don't seem to understand. Skating Clown (n):  a man who is on an NHL team that cannot play NHL standard offense or NHL standard defense but can skate and fight.  The fights are staged, sometimes planned days before the game.  The Skating Clown will ask the other for permission to engage, and when permission is granted, the two Clowns will skate to an open part of the ice, slowly remove their gloves (and sometimes helmets) and skate in circles, sizing each other up.  When they finally do engage, which can take up to 30 seconds, there is a lot of jersey grabbing and jockeying for position.  In the "fight" very few punches are generally landed.  When they both decide that the "fight" has come to an end, they will just stop swinging, allowing the linesmen to get in between them.  If one of the Clowns gets in a compromising position, the other will generally ease up or stop the fight completely.  The end of these "fights" will commonly have one Clown give congrats to the other for a good show.  Normally they can been seen smiling on the way to the penalty box. And then the hockey game resumes.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    NAS you will not get a debate from me on "your" definition.  I think the issue is whether or not Thornton actually performs such staged fights.  Buzzard did have some decent points though on Thornton and those fights, he in fact disagreed with "your" definition.  

    To be clear, I thought the retaliation against Atlanta was the perfect storm. Thornton's dancing bear fight at the beginning of the game was a joke.  Later, the Ference defense just made me smile.  Sooo many dish on Ference.  I remembered the Dallas game a few years ago when Ference was the not recognized for his reaction/hit etc. whereas Savard gain undo recognition by the media.  The best was the other day was the Horton and Kane fight. Horton I think was doing what many of us want the Bs to do, if you are overly aggressive or do injustice there will be consquences shortly.  Kane is not a light weight either.   That cannot be done every game but when the season flatlines it is very important for the players to remember why they are a team. Don't start fights but certainly hold other teams accountable.  Cheers btw enjoy your point of view.   

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

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : Your right. The bruins may as well keep Seguin on the bench as well.
    Posted by biggskye[/QUOTE]

    If you think Seguin and Marchand are similar, you're going on ignore.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]Downey had 200 plus penalty minutes last year, Thorton had 141.   Plus, Downey has a grand total of 3 goals this year, again with more PIMs.  Who's the goon?
    Posted by hangnail[/QUOTE]

    and Probert had 29 goals one year.  He was still a goon, albeit one who was also able to score at the time. Not all goons are 4th-liners, though obviously most (barely) are.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : and Probert had 29 goals one year.  He was still a goon, albeit one who was also able to score at the time. Not all goons are 4th-liners, though obviously most (barely) are.
    Posted by Dave24[/QUOTE]
    I don't think Probert was a goon.Offensive contribution is all that seperates a goon from a power forward(Probert,Tocchet,Neely,O'reilly,etc.).
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    A goon is someone whose primary (but necessarily only) attribute is fighting. Probert definitely fits the bill, whereas someone like Neely and Tocchet do not.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    Probert also is a legend and made the allstar game.  He blended fists with 1st line ice time.  Touch Yzerman and die.  Plus I will also pop in 20 goals.  I would take Bobby Probert anyday. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    Probert is known for his fists.  Lets call him a fighter.  A goon is someone who only was paid to fight.  Probert protected and also could produce.  The difference between Probert and todays goons like Boogieman is that he could play the game.  29 goals and an allstar birth is not a goon. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    I'd take Probert any day too, but his #1 asset was still his fighting. The problem with many of today's goons is that all they can do is fight. We'd all rather see spontaneous fights that resulted from play instead of a pair of talent-deprived boxers plan a "meeting" out by the blue line.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]A goon is someone whose primary (but necessarily only) attribute is fighting. Probert definitely fits the bill, whereas someone like Neely and Tocchet do not.
    Posted by Dave24[/QUOTE]
    Probert didn't score as often as Cam and Tocchet but was,in no way,a goon.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : If you think Seguin and Marchand are similar, you're going on ignore.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
       Didn't think I had to the state the obvious. I was just pointing out that what you said about Marchand, could also be said about Seguin, at their current stage of development.
    I will remember to make every point clearer for you in the future.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]Probert is known for his fists.  Lets call him a fighter.  A goon is someone who only was paid to fight.  Probert protected and also could produce.  The difference between Probert and todays goons like Boogieman is that he could play the game.  29 goals and an allstar birth is not a goon. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    I don't think I'd call him a goon either.  He was the epitome of the enforcer.  People throw that term around these days, but the guys they use it on don't enforce anything but their stupid code.

    I wouldn't want Probert on any team I cheered for however, because I couldn't support a coke head.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    Disappointed that Thornton or someone else did not go after Hordichuk last night.  He took a run at Seguin and nobody "stuck up" for the kid.  Those are the types of situations where I believe the fighters need to step in and let players know that they can't run the "future".
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]Disappointed that Thornton or someone else did not go after Hordichuk last night.  He took a run at Seguin and nobody "stuck up" for the kid.  Those are the types of situations where I believe the fighters need to step in and let players know that they can't run the "future".
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]
    I thought the exact same thing when I saw Seguin get hit.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    I find it sad that N-A-S wouldn't cheer for Probert because he battled coke addiction off the ice. Probert and Neely are the two legends in my household even with it being well known Probert battled an addiction. He was a monster on the ice. It is a complete lie that you wouldn't cheer for him. I take it you're not a C's fan?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]I find it sad that N-A-S wouldn't cheer for Probert because he battled coke addiction off the ice. Probert and Neely are the two legends in my household even with it being well known Probert battled an addiction. He was a monster on the ice. It is a complete lie that you wouldn't cheer for him. I take it you're not a C's fan?
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]
    I certainly  still liked probert after his drug bust.People make mistakes and he's no different.His on-ice persona(as with most players)had little to do with his battles off the ice.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : I certainly  still liked probert after his drug bust.People make mistakes and he's no different.His on-ice persona(as with most players)had little to do with his battles off the ice.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Cocaine isn't a mistake.  You don't mistakenly sniff a pile of white powder. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : Cocaine isn't a mistake.  You don't mistakenly sniff a pile of white powder. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    I obviously don't mean he tripped and fell into a pile.I'm only saying he was a person that made some bad decisions in his personal life.He was punished with some jail time for it so I figure he paid his debt.I just don't think it changes the on ice contributions he made.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : Cocaine isn't a mistake.  You don't mistakenly sniff a pile of white powder. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I think you're confusing 'mistake' with 'accident'.  Cleary he did coke on purpose.  But, like any other addiction, it was a mistake in his life.  I would have rooted for him if he was on the Bruins for sure.  I have no illusion that the professional athletes that I root for are saints off of the ice.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    I once cheered for Derek Sanderson . Should I have not because of what he was doing off the ice ?
    Having an addiction doesn't make someone a bad person. And booing or cheering for someone on the basis they have an illness like this ? Please !
    A part of my new job has me around patients who have had these past problems . They are good people who have made bad decisions. Having a heart to recognize this does help.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]I once cheered for Derek Sanderson . Should I have not because of what he was doing off the ice ? Having an addiction doesn't make someone a bad person. And booing or cheering for someone on the basis they have an illness like this ? Please ! A part of my new job has me around patients who have had these past problems . They are good people who have made bad decisions. Having a heart to recognize this does help.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    People can choose to do whatever they want, and I never stated anywhere in this thread any different.

    I detest drug addicts.  I wouldn't cheer for one or support one...ever.  Coke addicts are coke addicts because they did coke.  No sympathy for me.  That's like giving sympathy to a one armed man for being an one armed man, even though he cut his own arm off.

    To each their own, of course.  I've never said differently.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: An look at #22 without gloves

    In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An look at #22 without gloves : People can choose to do whatever they want, and I never stated anywhere in this thread any different. I detest drug addicts.  I wouldn't cheer for one or support one...ever.  Coke addicts are coke addicts because they did coke.  No sympathy for me.  That's like giving sympathy to a one armed man for being an one armed man, even though he cut his own arm off. To each their own, of course.  I've never said differently.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Your sympathy wasn't what anyone was looking for in this discussion. Understanding that people make mistakes. Yes . Sympathy. From you ? HA !

    BTW, when did cutting one's arm off become an addiction or illness ?  
     

Share