View Single Post
01-07-2012, 10:45 PM
Registered User
DG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,741
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ziploc View Post
So Vancouver's "bad dirty" is bad because it angers people, and isn't effective, ie. it doesn't lead to victories? Is this your point?

Meaning that the Bruins' "good dirty" does not, in fact, piss off other teams (manifestly false), and that the Canucks brand of hockey doesn't produce wins (manifestly false).
That is one way of reading what I said, though it is an extreme reach.

Boston plays intimidating hockey. Dirty, but effective.

Vancouver plays an effective brand of hockey. However, the dirtyness isn't really a factor in that. Unless you're trying to tell me biting and poking opposing players in the neck with your stick is central to that.

Originally Posted by nowhereman View Post
Hard hits, fighting, and all-around tough play is the right way to play hockey. That is what leads to victories.

Ramming a player's head into a stanchion and taking out a defender's knees does not.

There's nothing "good" about the Bruins' antics. Vancouver's pests are like bratty pre-teens who set off firecrackers on your front-porch and annoy the hell out of you. The Bruins are like the hardened criminal who takes thing just too damn far and puts you in the hospital.
I'm not going to keep arguing this with people. Replace the word "good" with "effective" if it makes you feel better.

As far as the Chara incident, I don't think that was intentional, so I think citing it is irrelevant.

I do think the way you described the Canucks is accurate though. The Bruins have only "gone too far" once imo. Unless there's something other than the Chara (non) incident or the Marchand hit today that I'm missing?

DG is offline