You can't forget something that never really happened. Thornton was not injured.
ORLY
Quote:
***Rob Blake — foot contusion, 10 days, MRI possible.
***Jonathan Cheechoo — MCL sprain, left knee, 22 days.
***Travis Moen — hip contusion, 8 days.
***Douglas Murray — left shoulder may need MRI, acts like mild rotator cuff strain.
***Evgeni Nabokov–strained hip muscle (gluteus medius), 13 days.
***Joe Pavelski — knee contusion, 4 days.
***Devin Setoguchi — mild ankle swelling by Achilles tendon.
***Jody Shelley — possible MRI for neck and shoulder soreness.
***Joe Thornton–groin/hip flexor, 63 days.
Oh, and TMAC's comments on Patty. I guess his injury wasn't that bad either.
Quote:
“He was capable of skating and he wasn’t the poorest player in the series,” McLellan said. “We were told he could fight his way through it, and he was prepared to do that and away we went.”
The difference between the two was that Marleau missed time prior to the playoffs because of it. If Thornton's was anything remotely serious, he would've sat when they had everything wrapped up. There's a difference in the sports world between playing hurt and playing injured. Thornton was playing hurt and Marleau was playing injured. I also find it funny you took it that Marleau's wasn't serious when your own link has Marleau's injury is the most serious on the list.
The difference between the two was that Marleau missed time prior to the playoffs because of it. If Thornton's was anything remotely serious, he would've sat when they had everything wrapped up. There's a difference in the sports world between playing hurt and playing injured. Thornton was playing hurt and Marleau was playing injured. I also find it funny you took it that Marleau's wasn't serious when your own link has Marleau's injury is the most serious on the list.
I think you said Thornton wasn't injured. You stand corrected. And you have no way of knowing how serious it was.
Thornton was observed going back to the boards almost exactly the time the injury first occurred and his overall level of play changed at the same time. People can make of that what they will.
I think you said Thornton wasn't injured. You stand corrected. And you have no way of knowing how serious it was.
Thornton was observed going back to the boards almost exactly the time the injury first occurred and his overall level of play changed at the same time. People can make of that what they will.
Don't patronize me. He wasn't injured. He was hurt. If you can't understand the reality that there is a difference between the two in the sports world, then just end this conversation now because it will be pointless talking to you.
And Thornton being observed going back to the boards thing is a flat out lie. He didn't go back to the boards starting in February. It was actually a lot later than that.
Injured mean bodily hurt, hurt mean physical pain. Pain is a result of being injured. I think you just don't like to admit Thornton was hampered by something.
Don't patronize me. He wasn't injured. He was hurt. If you can't understand the reality that there is a difference between the two in the sports world, then just end this conversation now because it will be pointless talking to you.
And Thornton being observed going back to the boards thing is a flat out lie. He didn't go back to the boards starting in February. It was actually a lot later than that.
So were down to a semantics game now huh? I posted the Injury List not the Hurt list.
i think what LZ is getting at is that thornton was hurt enough for the team to include him on the list of injured players. if he was "hurt" for 63 days, he should have been sitting out AT LEAST a couple of games. i'm tired of thornton playing every game. we're tops in the league right now... he can afford to sit out a couple of games. i don't care what ironman streak he has, it's just plain selfish for him to be playing hurt in this scenario.
Injured mean bodily hurt, hurt mean physical pain. Pain is a result of being injured. I think you just don't like to admit Thornton was hampered by something.
Again, the preface of the sports world is crucial here. Everyone from players to coaches to front office understands that there is indeed a difference. If only a few fans want to argue semantics and not the point then go for it. There is a difference in the sports world. I'm not saying Thornton wasn't hampered by something. I'm saying that Marleau was injured and Thornton was hurt and that there is a big difference.
So were down to a semantics game now huh? I posted the Injury List not the Hurt list.
And we're done with this conversation. I'm not even going to get into the source of your list. It seems like certain fans are the only ones that refuse to acknowledge the difference that even players and managers acknowledge is there.
no, you're trying to pin more blame on thornton because marleau is your golden boy. face it, man... both players sucked and we lost because of it.
I've never had a problem acknowledging that both sucked and is a big reason why they lost. It's not the only reason. My deal is that everyone knew Marleau was injured going into the post-season. There was a reason why he was sitting for two weeks prior to the season ending and that he wasn't right in the two games leading up to the playoffs and the playoffs themselves.
Thornton wasn't injured enough to even force him to sit one meaningless regular season game. Do you honestly think Marleau wouldn't have been playing along with Thornton if it was felt by him or the staff that he could?
There are people who still won't acknowledge Thornton's injuries in 2004 that were indeed injuries because he missed two games prior to the playoffs with them.
I don't blame Thornton anymore than I blame the 2nd line who was M.I.A. or Vlasic and Blake who sucked. There was a lot of it to go around but to say Thornton was injured w/o missing any games and try to equate it to Marleau's or even Grier's or Roenick's is just ridiculous.
I've never had a problem acknowledging that both sucked and is a big reason why they lost. It's not the only reason. My deal is that everyone knew Marleau was injured going into the post-season. There was a reason why he was sitting for two weeks prior to the season ending and that he wasn't right in the two games leading up to the playoffs and the playoffs themselves.
Thornton wasn't injured enough to even force him to sit one meaningless regular season game. Do you honestly think Marleau wouldn't have been playing along with Thornton if it was felt by him or the staff that he could?
There are people who still won't acknowledge Thornton's injuries in 2004 that were indeed injuries because he missed two games prior to the playoffs with them.
I don't blame Thornton anymore than I blame the 2nd line who was M.I.A. or Vlasic and Blake who sucked. There was a lot of it to go around but to say Thornton was injured w/o missing any games and try to equate it to Marleau's or even Grier's or Roenick's is just ridiculous.
Find the post where I equated Marleau's Injury with Thorntons.
I understand that Marleau's injury was more serious and affected his play more. You simply posted Thornton was not injured and I provided proof that was not true.
Find the post where I equated Marleau's Injury with Thorntons.
I understand that Marleau's injury was more serious and affected his play more. You simply posted Thornton was not injured and I provided proof that was not true.
and if you don't think that jumbo was trying his damnedest to convince the staff that he was healthy enough to play, then we might as well just end this conversation now, because it would be pointless. i guarantee you, had thornton missed just one game, back at the beginning of that 63 days.. he'd have missed at least another one after that. guys take ironman streaks with pride. once it was broken, chances are he would have sat again.
what i also don't like is that he wasn't hurt enough to sit a game out, but he was hurt enough to be put on the list of injured players? what gives? so either he 1) WAS injured, or 2) WASN'T injured, yet the team was chicken **** enough to use his fake injury as a scapegoat.
and if you don't think that jumbo was trying his damnedest to convince the staff that he was healthy enough to play, then we might as well just end this conversation now, because it would be pointless. i guarantee you, had thornton missed just one game, back at the beginning of that 63 days.. he'd have missed at least another one after that. guys take ironman streaks with pride. once it was broken, chances are he would have sat again.
What i also don't like is that he wasn't hurt enough to sit a game out, but he was hurt enough to be put on the list of injured players? what gives? so either he 1) WAS injured, or 2) WASN'T injured, yet the team was chicken **** enough to use his fake injury as a scapegoat.
This is what this whole thing boils down to, and I think there is only two persons whom we can ask about that.
So please stop the arguing and let's all be friends.
I think it just shows that Thornton is a bigger warrior and actually still played despite one of the more serious injuries. He also never jumped to avoid a shot.
I think it just shows that Thornton is a bigger warrior and actually still played despite one of the more serious injuries. He also never jumped to avoid a shot.
That would be because he never gets in front of a shot in the first place.
