Bettman: ''Pacioretty injury is horrible, but part of the game.''
View Single Post
03-10-2011, 01:57 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
I disagree with just about everything you said here. I know from the Bruins side of HFboards, a large majority of our fanbase thought Chara deserved a fine and suspension. We disagree about the intent, but lets face it, you guys aren't ever going to agree that Chara didn't want to hurt Pacioretty and I'm never going to agree that he did want to. At the same time, a lot of us, myself included, thought that intent or not, Chara deserved to be suspended simply because this is the kind of play we don't want in hockey. Can things be done to prevent these hits in the future like modifying stanchion design, etc? Yes. Should they be done? Yes. Does this make what Chara did, accidentally or otherwise, ok? No.
Oh and by the way, about the last line of your post, get over yourself. No group is without their detractors, there are Habs fans that you wouldn't want representing the way you think, the same way there are Bruins fans who don't represent the way I think, or the rest of the fan base. Dirty plays happen, and 99.9% of the time their accidents (otherwise how do you explain Pacioretty's hit on Eaton back in December?), that doesn't mean we hate the Bruins and start rooting for a different team. You support your home team, and try to see things objectively when things like this happen.
Your team's fan base and record speak for themselves.
There's a reason Orr, Neely, Bergeron and Savard have all suffered career-threatening/ending injuries. You build a team that plays a certain way, and other teams will take liberties on them.
Your fans scream for blood, pumping up guys like Lucic and Thornton, calling it 'old-time' hockey. They're right, it is 'old-time' hockey, only it's from the 1940s and 50s. Somewhere along the way people forgot to tell teams like the Bruins that the game changed, and so you had 'the Big Bad Bruins' of the 70s who people claimed were playing a new style of in your face hockey. They weren't, they were a relic that other teams passed by. And they still are a relic. That's why they haven't won anything since 1972.
The Canadiens of the 70s showed how to beat teams like the Bruins and Flyers: By playing hockey. The influx of European talent into the league only further highlighted this with the Oilers in the 80s, the Penguins in the 90s, and the Devils and Red Wings after them. All teams built to play hockey. Yes, they had their tough customers, but that wasn't their identity. It was window dressing. The Bruins, however, decided to keep this identity. And look where it's gotten them. Out of the playoffs at the worst of times and chokers at the best.
And it's not like they don't have talented players. Bergeron, Krejci, Savard... But they decide to force this ridiculously archaic team identity onto them so you end up having little ******* like Brad Marchand shooting off his mouth in the media when he couldn't box his way out of a wet paper bag. Just to rile things up, to make the guys in the locker room feel like big men, and to make their fans feel like big men.
It doesn't work. Maybe they'll fluke their way to a Cup one of these days, they certainly have the talent to, but it isn't a recipe for success. All it does is create bad blood, and when other teams retaliate it costs them the Orrs of the world, and the Neelys and now the Bergerons and the Savards. And the fans don't care, and the team doesn't care.
Last edited by PyrettaBlaze: 03-10-2011 at
View Public Profile
Bill McNeal's albums
Find More Posts by Bill McNeal