Why Thornton was right.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to stevegm's comment:


    Perhaps you're asleep now JM?  The game was certainly rowdy in the 70's, and I'd agree more volitile than now, but that didn't equate to the serious injuries we're seeing so often now.  I remember it quite vividly thanks.  




    There were serious injuries aplenty, the only difference being how they resulted. Today you have football issue shoulder pads, hard plastic elbow pads, and pent up masculine frustration (like ST last night). In the 70's there was just the classic stickwork, streetfighting and knuckles wrapped in tin foil. Same relative results, just different means.

    Actually, it would be wonderful if there were stats showing the number of injuries relative to team and correlated to being the direct result of an opposing player's action per year or decade. However, they probably don't exist so we are all left to muse and use anecdotal evidence as you and I are doing right now. And, perhaps that's all that can be definitely said about what we are talking about: we are both guessing.

    At any rate, enjoy the game tonight.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    Perhaps you're asleep now JM?  The game was certainly rowdy in the 70's, and I'd agree more volitile than now, but that didn't equate to the serious injuries we're seeing so often now.  I remember it quite vividly thanks.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There were serious injuries aplenty, the only difference being how they resulted. Today you have football issue shoulder pads, hard plastic elbow pads, and pent up masculine frustration (like ST last night). In the 70's there was just the classic stickwork, streetfighting and knuckles wrapped in tin foil. Same relative results, just different means.

     

    Actually, it would be wonderful if there were stats showing the number of injuries relative to team and correlated to being the direct result of an opposing player's action per year or decade. However, they probably don't exist so we are all left to muse and use anecdotal evidence as you and I are doing right now. And, perhaps that's all that can be definitely said about what we are talking about: we are both guessing.

    At any rate, enjoy the game tonight.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's my point.  As stated earlier, "injuries from quasi hockey plays".  It's not anecdotal.  The only argument one could come with, is that "medically speaking", diagnosis is better, so we can't really say.

    Well, we can say.  Diagnosis has nothing to do with it.  Just means the game needs to react.  It's not doing enough.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I put this in another thread, but I'm putting it here too, because so many people are taking this as an isolated incident!

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dollar ST was the one who said it. 

    3. Orpik has a chance to take "his medicine like a man", but instead acts like a coward! Having said this, I don't believe every hit there needs to be a fight, but as I mentioned above, there's a BIG history between these 2 teams & concussions. This isn't an isolated incident here! 

    4. Neal then knees Brad, to the head.... BOOOM now it's WAR & ST is in Mount St. Helens mode. And Orpik takes the high road, because ST gave him the perfect scene to take it, because ST did the construction for him. 

    5. Thorts will get 5-10 & Shanny will FINALLY use ST as the example instead of using Jon Scott!

    6. Neal gets 2 even though he's a repeat offender, but all the Bruin haters won't care about that

    7. Orpiks gets nothing but a pat on the head & all the apologies in the world. While the rest of the hockey world including so called Bruin fans give ST the "throw the book at the skating clown!" 



    ST wasnt a hockey play.  Orpiks hit was.  Neal play was garbage.  Marchand is a rat and you live and die by the sword.  I can see marchand doing the same play.  Ive seen numerous players and bruins skate away from fights.  Orpik didnt deserve what he got.  I absolutely hate Brashear and love Marty but Marty was in the wrong.  ST play is criminal.  Hes a bum who i hate wearing a Bruins jersey.  

    ST should have the book thrown at him.  If ST wanted to act revenge he grabs him right away.  It was a chicken poopp play and he hits a guy after he slew foots him.   How did Orpik act wrong here.  I hope they do make an example of him.  No issues.   I agree Neals rat play should get more as well.  Scotts wasnt worthy of making an example of.   This certainly isnt even in the same  league as what scott did.  Id compare it to what marty did.  Possible bertuzzi.  To say Orpik is faking is funny.  Everyone is faking but Bruins right?   Loui faking?  Savard still faking?   

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    Just stop it shupe.  Loui wasn't fair game to be lit up - he never had the puck.  Orpiks's sole purpose was to injure.  Period.

    And if the refs aren't going to do their jobs and call Orpik for interference and a match penalty for intent to injure, then Thornton has no choice but to hunt him down.  Now, yes, the outcome was ugly, but Orpik deserved to be confronted.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I put this in another thread, but I'm putting it here too, because so many people are taking this as an isolated incident!

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dollar ST was the one who said it. 

    3. Orpik has a chance to take "his medicine like a man", but instead acts like a coward! Having said this, I don't believe every hit there needs to be a fight, but as I mentioned above, there's a BIG history between these 2 teams & concussions. This isn't an isolated incident here! 

    4. Neal then knees Brad, to the head.... BOOOM now it's WAR & ST is in Mount St. Helens mode. And Orpik takes the high road, because ST gave him the perfect scene to take it, because ST did the construction for him. 

    5. Thorts will get 5-10 & Shanny will FINALLY use ST as the example instead of using Jon Scott!

    6. Neal gets 2 even though he's a repeat offender, but all the Bruin haters won't care about that

    7. Orpiks gets nothing but a pat on the head & all the apologies in the world. While the rest of the hockey world including so called Bruin fans give ST the "throw the book at the skating clown!" 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ST wasnt a hockey play.  Orpiks hit was.  Neal play was garbage.  Marchand is a rat and you live and die by the sword.  I can see marchand doing the same play.  Ive seen numerous players and bruins skate away from fights.  Orpik didnt deserve what he got.  I absolutely hate Brashear and love Marty but Marty was in the wrong.  ST play is criminal.  Hes a bum who i hate wearing a Bruins jersey.  

     

    ST should have the book thrown at him.  If ST wanted to act revenge he grabs him right away.  It was a chicken poopp play and he hits a guy after he slew foots him.   How did Orpik act wrong here.  I hope they do make an example of him.  No issues.   I agree Neals rat play should get more as well.  Scotts wasnt worthy of making an example of.   This certainly isnt even in the same  league as what scott did.  Id compare it to what marty did.  Possible bertuzzi.  To say Orpik is faking is funny.  Everyone is faking but Bruins right?   Loui faking?  Savard still faking?   

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    Just stop it shupe.  Loui wasn't fair game to be lit up - he never had the puck.  Orpiks's sole purpose was to injure.  Period.

    And if the refs aren't going to do their jobs and call Orpik for interference and a match penalty for intent to injure, then Thornton has no choice but to hunt him down.  Now, yes, the outcome was ugly, but Orpik deserved to be confronted.

    [/QUOTE]
    He sure did.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to stevegm's comment:


    That's my point.  As stated earlier, "injuries from quasi hockey plays".  It's not anecdotal.  The only argument one could come with, is that "medically speaking", diagnosis is better, so we can't really say.

    Well, we can say.  Diagnosis has nothing to do with it.  Just means the game needs to react.  It's not doing enough.



    Please review the definition of anecdotal evidence (especially in scientific context):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

    Now please reconsider your assertion that you are not using anecdotal evidence to back up your claim that "there are more serious injuries now than in the past."  Unless you have some hard evidence, this is what you are doing....this is what we are both doing.

    Thank you.

     

    Go Bruins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Unreal.  I gotta stay off here.  If boychuk lays out crosby all is bliss.  people in here have gone mental.  Orpik did what he has done his entire career.  

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

     

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dol


    ST wasnt a hockey play.  Orpiks hit was.  Neal play was garbage.  Marchand is a rat and you live and die by the sword.  I can see marchand doing the same play.  Ive seen numerous players and bruins skate away from fights.  Orpik didnt deserve what he got.  I absolutely hate Brashear and love Marty but Marty was in the wrong.  ST play is criminal.  Hes a bum who i hate wearing a Bruins jersey.  

    ST should have the book thrown at him.  If ST wanted to act revenge he grabs him right away.  It was a chicken poopp play and he hits a guy after he slew foots him.   How did Orpik act wrong here.  I hope they do make an example of him.  No issues.   I agree Neals rat play should get more as well.  Scotts wasnt worthy of making an example of.   This certainly isnt even in the same  league as what scott did.  Id compare it to what marty did.  Possible bertuzzi.  To say Orpik is faking is funny.  Everyone is faking but Bruins right?   Loui faking?  Savard still faking?   

     



    Considering your a ST hater your biased opinion is invalid in this discussion. 

     

    And if you would\ve read my thread properly. I WAS NOT comparing Scott to Thornton at all. I was saying that Shanny had the opportunity to ake an example of someone who did something stupid when Scott was in front of him, but he didn't.  Where did I say everyone is faking? I said Orpik is & considering how he's healed so quickly I think it's safe to say he is! Is Erikkson playing today? Is Savard back! What a dumb statement you made right there!

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    Unreal.  I gotta stay off here.  If boychuk lays out crosby all is bliss.  people in here have gone mental.  Orpik did what he has done his entire career.  



    BS. A shoulder to the head? That's what Orpik has done his eniter career is it? 

    Another thing. ST DID NOT slew foot! He put his leg behind both of Brooks & cradled him down with his arms guiding him down to the ice. A slew foot is when you use your foot to take out both feet of the other person and you let him free fall! ST didn't allow that to happen at all. He was there the whole time. 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    BS. A shoulder to the head? That's what Orpik has done his eniter career is it? 

    Another thing. ST DID NOT slew foot! He put his leg behind both of Brooks & cradled him down with his arms guiding him down to the ice. A slew foot is when you use your foot to take out both feet of the other person and you let him free fall! ST didn't allow that to happen at all. He was there the whole time. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh man.

    Orpik threw a big check.  Yeah, it ended up being shoulder to head, but we've seen plenty of B's do the same thing.  Checks are perfect.  This one ended badly.

    Slew foot:  Kick a guy's feet forward while pulling him backwards.  Thornton's move was absolutely a slew foot.  It wasn't as dangerous as a classic Subban, but it was a slew foot.

    Come on, nite.  You're off your rocker with the rosey black and gold.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    BS. A shoulder to the head? That's what Orpik has done his eniter career is it? 

    Another thing. ST DID NOT slew foot! He put his leg behind both of Brooks & cradled him down with his arms guiding him down to the ice. A slew foot is when you use your foot to take out both feet of the other person and you let him free fall! ST didn't allow that to happen at all. He was there the whole time. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh man.

    Orpik threw a big check.  Yeah, it ended up being shoulder to head, but we've seen plenty of B's do the same thing.  Checks are perfect.  This one ended badly.

    Slew foot:  Kick a guy's feet forward while pulling him backwards.  Thornton's move was absolutely a slew foot.  It wasn't as dangerous as a classic Subban, but it was a slew foot.

    Come on, nite.  You're off your rocker with the rosey black and gold.

    [/QUOTE]

    No I'm not! And ST didn't slew foot! ST DID NOT allow Brooks to lose his balance at all! He guided him to the ice! Again as Shupe your biased opinion is not valid! 

    1. slew foot Web definitions
      1. (Slew Footing) A tripping penalty in ice hockey is called by the referee when a player trips an opposing player with their stick, or uses their skate against the other players skate, causing them to lose balance and fall. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_Footing
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Nite, just because he caught him, doesnt mean he didnt slew foot him. He used his skate against Orpiks skate to cause Orpik to lose balance. Thornton just catches him afterwards.

    If your on a break a away and I trip you, causing you to lose your balance and robbing you of the scoring oppurtunity, Are you telling me I won't get called for tripping if I catch you on your way down?

    C'mon!

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    causing them to lose balance and fall

    [/QUOTE]

    Sort of how Orpik lost his balance and fell?

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    I wish this forum was around years ago. I wonder how many of these people would blame Brashear for McSorley hitting him in the head with his stick. Brashear wouldn't answer the bell, so he had it coming.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I put this in another thread, but I'm putting it here too, because so many people are taking this as an isolated incident!

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dollar ST was the one who said it. 

    3. Orpik has a chance to take "his medicine like a man", but instead acts like a coward! Having said this, I don't believe every hit there needs to be a fight, but as I mentioned above, there's a BIG history between these 2 teams & concussions. This isn't an isolated incident here! 

    4. Neal then knees Brad, to the head.... BOOOM now it's WAR & ST is in Mount St. Helens mode. And Orpik takes the high road, because ST gave him the perfect scene to take it, because ST did the constr


    ST wasnt a hockey play.  Orpiks hit was.  Neal play was garbage.  Marchand is a rat and you live and die by the sword.  I can see marchand doing the same play.  Ive seen numerous players and bruins skate away from fights.  Orpik didnt deserve what he got.  I absolutely hate Brashear and love Marty but Marty was in the wrong.  ST play is criminal.  Hes a bum who i hate wearing a Bruins jersey.  

    ST should have the book thrown at him.  If ST wanted to act revenge he grabs him right away.  It was a chicken poopp play and he hits a guy after he slew foots him.   How did Orpik act wrong here.  I hope they do make an example of him.  No issues.   I agree Neals rat play should get more as well.  Scotts wasnt worthy of making an example of.   This certainly isnt even in the same  league as what scott did.  Id compare it to what marty did.  Possible bertuzzi.  To say Orpik is faking is funny.  Everyone is faking but Bruins right?   Loui faking?  Savard still faking?   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Considering your a ST hater your biased opinion is invalid in this discussion. 

     

    And if you would\ve read my thread properly. I WAS NOT comparing Scott to Thornton at all. I was saying that Shanny had the opportunity to ake an example of someone who did something stupid when Scott was in front of him, but he didn't. 

    [/QUOTE]

    and your bruin glasses are fogging your mind and vision.  ST himself said what it was.  The guy who did it.  It was a gross non hockey play.  It was premeditated.  Orpik didnt get a penalty, i dont believe its under review.  Orpik skated away from him bc he doesnt have to fight this guy.  If ST wanted to drop his gloves Orpik at least could have defended himself.  He slew footed him and knocked out a guy who was defenseless.  If you see it any other way you need your head examined.  ST agrees with me.  The guy who did it.  He crossed the line, he said it, his coach said it...yet you are saying orpik is faking.  Wow. His medicine like you say is gonna cost ST a lot of games.  He had numerous options on how to react.  He took the worst option.   

    when did you make the rules on here for who's opinion is valid or not?   I missed the memo that was sent out. 

    Shanny could have set an example with lots of guys.  Scott had no priors and got what he deserved.  Why didnt our clown do something then?   Why didnt anyone?  

    As for Neal, he definitely deserves more then a slap on the wrist.  It was a greasy play.  

    The Bruins arent angles.  When you play a physical brand with questionable plays they catch up with you sometimes.  ST messed up.  Now he has to get his medicine from Shanny and be known for a very brutal incident.  You think anyone is gonna remember the loui hit?  

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    He craddled him.  I just snorted pepsi outta my nose.  Did he sing him a lullaby as well.  

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    If Orpik doesn't get rolled off, no one would be talking about this.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Orpik doesn't get rolled off, no one would be talking about this.

    [/QUOTE]


    Correct.  If Thornton didn't knock him out while he was lying on his back and defenseless, it would have just been a player that got pushed down.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Please review the definition of anecdotal evidence (especially in scientific context):

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

    Now please reconsider your assertion that you are not using anecdotal evidence to back up your claim that "there are more serious injuries now than in the past."  Unless you have some hard evidence, this is what you are doing....this is what we are both doing.

    Thank you.

     

    Go Bruins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm fairly familiar with the term thanks, and it's really unacademic to consider the above merely andecdotal.

     If YOU don't have evidence my statement is non-representative, or cherry-picked...you really have no business calling it "anecdotal".

    And...since when did it become necessary to  introduce "hard evidence" to support something everyone knows...on an internet chat forum.

    Please refer the definition of common sense(not Aristotleian)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

    Now please get off your portentous high-horse.    

    I never brought up the 70's, you did.  My only reference to any particular decade was the 60's.  Even though the 70's would be considered a more violent decade in pro hockey, I didn't argue because it didn't have any bearing on the above statement.

    Second, I'm certain I can find plenty of independant data to support my statement, however, since you called me on it,...you should be providing the research to impeach, as opposed to merely suggesting my position is as flimsy as yours.

    Thank you too.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Orpik doesn't get rolled off, no one would be talking about this.

    [/QUOTE]


    Correct.  If Thornton didn't knock him out while he was lying on his back and defenseless, it would have just been a player that got pushed down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Or, if Orpik didn't deliver a cheap, potentially career ending illegal hit, Thornton wouldn't have been after him.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    Nite, just because he caught him, doesnt mean he didnt slew foot him. He used his skate against Orpiks skate to cause Orpik to lose balance. Thornton just catches him afterwards.

    If your on a break a away and I trip you, causing you to lose your balance and robbing you of the scoring oppurtunity, Are you telling me I won't get called for tripping if I catch you on your way down?

    C'mon!

    Apples & Oranges in your comparison & he didn't slew foot him! You're another ST hater, so again you're bias like the other 2 bulls! 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

                      "But if the coach says he was out cold then he had too be"

    Yah because Bylsma says Orpik was out, he's out. But Orpik makes the trip back too Pittsburgh the same night.

    That will be the logic for Miller hit tonight "there was no penalty called".

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    causing them to lose balance and fall

    [/QUOTE]

    Sort of how Orpik lost his balance and fell?

    [/QUOTE]

    Listen Ferniand! These are slew foots

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKr2Et0THzM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOWUohS0nbM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l9iUP_YQ-4

     

    This Isn't.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzZvG5O9Rg0

    Thornton has a hold of him the whole way down. That's not considered a slewfoot. Orpik doesn't even fall at the speed of gravity for gawd sakes! 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

                      "But if the coach says he was out cold then he had too be"

    Yah because Bylsma says Orpik was out, he's out. But Orpik makes the trip back too Pittsburgh the same night.

    That will be the logic for Miller hit tonight "there was no penalty called".

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly Sandog! That hit is 100x worse compared to ST's love taps! The only reason the "Big 3" on here is going mental over what ST did is because they want ST gone! Nothing more!! If this was Chara that did this would they be saying? "Throw the book at him" Get him off the roster! I don't condone what ST did, but I certainly don't see it as a reason to get him out of hockey for good. ST is one of the most code ethical guys out there. He had a total meltdown & lost his head on this one, but it's not as bad as these 3 blowhards are making it out to be! Brooks Orpik is a pansy if those little pokes knocked him out! 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

                      "But if the coach says he was out cold then he had too be"

    Yah because Bylsma says Orpik was out, he's out. But Orpik makes the trip back too Pittsburgh the same night.

    That will be the logic for Miller hit tonight "there was no penalty called".

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly Sandog! That hit is 100x worse compared to ST's love taps! The only reason the "Big 3" on here is going mental over what ST did is because they want ST gone! Nothing more!! If this was Chara that did this would they be saying? "Throw the book at him" Get him off the roster! I don't condone what ST did, but I certainly don't see it as a reason to get him out of hockey for good. ST is one of the most code ethical guys out there. He had a total meltdown & lost his head on this one, but it's not as bad as these 3 blowhards are making it out to be! Brooks Orpik is a pansy if those little pokes knocked him out! 

    [/QUOTE]

    He punched a defensless guy while he was on the ground. Thats ugly no matter who does it.

    If Chara or Bergeron or anyone else slew foots someone and then continues to punch him in the head knocking him out while hes on his back, i would want the book thrown at him too. Thats ugly hockey no matter what name is on the jersey. 

    If someone does that to anyone on our team we'd be calling for blood.

    Thornton defintely isnt known for being cheap or dirty by any means but i dont see this is him doing what he had to do or just him playing his role. He lost his cool and did something really stupid.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    no matter what Hew ill be out for a minimum of 5 games

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share