I'm very curious how when a player from an opposing team gets mentioned, posters who have never posted here ever before somehow know and they come into the thread. Am I missing some function on this board that alerts you when opposing fanbases are talking about your players?
I'm very curious how when a player from an opposing team gets mentioned, posters who have never posted here ever before somehow know and they come into the thread. Am I missing some function on this board that alerts you when opposing fanbases are talking about your players?
He's not gonna change. He's played like this throughout his career, before he met his wife, before any of these excuses were applicable.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I don't think your second sentence supports your first sentence at all. Now that these excuses ARE applicable, how do you know what he'll do?
The guy has a lengthy history, it's been well documented and mentioned on numerous occasions. Hell, it is summed up quite nicely as "you have Matt Cooke." I'm not gonna say he is a clean player, that would be delusional. But for people to continually preach about his sins, but look the other way when it is a different player is frustrating.
This news just blows. Shouldn't happen. While I know he's no Gillies / C. Lemieux, and hope he makes good on his last chance, I don't blame anyone in Boston for hating Cooke with a furious passion that burns like 1000 suns. I would. Savard was a very good player and had a lot of good years ahead of him. Hopefully he can at least have his symptoms subside when he's not doing any physical exertion so he can have a normal (other) career / life.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I don't think your second sentence supports your first sentence at all. Now that these excuses ARE applicable, how do you know what he'll do?
I don't think a player just stops playing his style just like that. How many times have we seen one incident change the way a player plays? I can think of Bertuzzi, but that was a little different and a little more serious than Cooke's on ice history.
Hits like what Cooke does are split second decisions. It's not like he does it every time he's out there. IMO it's a natural instinct for him, it's a part of that fiery drive that got him into the NHL. If he loses that "edge", he's no longer an NHL player, no longer part of a team, no longer making NHL money.
IMO the article makes Cooke look worse. Almost like he is saying "I was cheapshotting people because my wife was sick so its not my fault". Almost like when u read about how some idiot ***** and murders 4 people and uses an excuse like "Well my Momma never told me she loved and when I was 6 I got beat up once so its my Mom's and societys fault" Now the article is being viewed as a joke on other teams boards because he was cheapshotting people looooong before his wife was sick. I hope he does change but I dont see it happening.
Also the definition of irony.... A team who may of lost its best player for a season or longer due to a couple headshots has fans defending a player who basically has a headshot rule named after him.
I remember when a ton of pens fans of this and another Pens board were making fun of and mocking Savard because he was upset and vocal about players like Cooke being allowed to have free reign cheapshotting players. Sayng he should just get over it because its hockey and hits happen. Now a guy that was a 80-90 point guy had his career ended because "Hey thats Cookes game.. He plays on the edge" I even read on here in a thread "Cookes game is playing on the edge, antagonizing player and yes some cheapshots so not allowing him to play his game is like telling Crosby he's not allowed to score goals or MAF he cant make saves"
Last edited by KingCrosby: 09-01-2011 at 10:27 PM.
I just hate the "Hands Across America" mentality some Pens fans have for Cooke when its marginal players like him that end careers or great NHL players. Everytime he is on the ice I truely believe he is looking for an opportunity to end someones season. If he cant hit them clean he improvises and cheapshots them.
I just hate the "Hands Across America" mentality some Pens fans have for Cooke when its marginal players like him that end careers or great NHL players. Everytime he is on the ice I truely believe he is looking for an opportunity to end someones season. If he cant hit them clean he improvises and cheapshots them.
Your general points are correct, but you are quite the exaggerator. If Cooke wanted to end someone's season every time he was on the ice he could do just that. The cheap shots are occasional because he doesn't want to end someone's season. He is a dirty player and should be accountable for his actions, but I doubt his motives are to go around permanently hurting people.
I just hate the "Hands Across America" mentality some Pens fans have for Cooke when its marginal players like him that end careers or great NHL players. Everytime he is on the ice I truely believe he is looking for an opportunity to end someones season. If he cant hit them clean he improvises and cheapshots them.
Thats kind of bull. I don't see any Pens fans saying that Cookes not dirty. Some don't even like him.
IMO Cookes more reckless than dirty. Unlike Gillies, there are rules against what he does because its been happening for years. Also some of these players need to understand that this isn't their local adult non contact league. If you see Matt Cooke coming don't put your face to the boards, if you're an NHL player you don't go into center ice with your head down. if you take an extra few secs to watch your pass... you're gonna get popped. Those are habits that an NHL player needs to know and when a player used to get popped it was almost always because he put himself in danger.
I definitely think Cooke is a dirty player. I just don't think he's nearly as cheap as some like to believe. His situation is much like Crosby's. Whenever Crosby even does so much as speak to the ref...he's whining. When Cooke does so much as to hit somebody hard...he's dirty.
People can say they don't want him on their team, but fact is, if 29 other teams were to sign him, their fans would like him as much as most Pens fans do.
The sad thing is, he's seen as a piece of **** hockey player, but reality is, he's actually quite good.
Your general points are correct, but you are quite the exaggerator. If Cooke wanted to end someone's season every time he was on the ice he could do just that. The cheap shots are occasional because he doesn't want to end someone's season. He is a dirty player and should be accountable for his actions, but I doubt his motives are to go around permanently hurting people.
This is the part I don't get. If you believe the unwashed masses of HF, every hit of every shift has the intent to take someone out, permanently. So, why has it happened once, in 11 years? If he's really trying, he'd have succeeded more than once by now.
And that one successful attempt, is only after said player sits out 6+ months, is cleared to return, suffers another concussion, and 9 months later announces he'll sit out the next (and probably subsequent seasons). The only person who had any impact in this retiremnt is Matt Cooke.
By the same standards, Scott Stevens forced a player better than Marc Savard to retire.
He wasn't even punished for the Savard hit. I think the McDonaugh hit had a vast amount more intent to injure than the Savard hit.
Again, HF group think will point out that while rule 48 didn't exist then, he should have been called for intent to injure. Because, well just look at it!! HE INTENDED TO INJURE SAVARD.
Other cases like Booth/Richards or Chara/Pacciorrety...no intent. Why? Well, just look! I DON'T SEE IT! Therefore, it's not there, cause I said so.
The NHL ruled no intent in the Cooke hit and was dead wrong, but ruled no intent in the Chara hit and were spot on.
That article is crap because Rossi mixes two different issues and makes it look like Cooke is using his wife's illness as excuse even when the player explicitly states he is not. Shoddy piece of journalism by a bad sports writer.
As for Cooke, from his POV it's understandable that he thinks he needs to re-learn how to hit. He and other reckless players have been doing this for many years, some were celebrated for knocking people senseless with headshots. Now in a relatively short time it's become totally wrong. I'm not defending Cooke, he deserves this reputation, and 90% of the players don't have to change their game because they never tried to rip vulnerable players' heads off in the first place. But I think that's where his confusion is coming from.
It's a bit overblown that everyone solely blames him for ruining Marc Savard's career (and hopefully only that and not his later life) considering he was only one of at least 5 players who gave Savard a concussion. Yet no one is going after Matt Hunwick who did him in for good. Why didn't the league act earlier on this entire topic? Why did the majority of the GMs turn down repeated suggestions by Shero and others to ban head hits altogether? On the other hand I'm not exactly sympathetic to Cookie. He never treated his opponents with respect and his selfish penalty and suspension probably cost us a playoff round. Now he gets what was coming to him.
I'm giving him one last chance. He's a veteran player, consequences have been preached, rules have been set in place, he has common sense (we hope). One more brain fart and he's deserved of the ridicule he's already receiving.
I'm giving him one last chance. He's a veteran player, consequences have been preached, rules have been set in place, he has common sense (we hope). One more brain fart and he's deserved of the ridicule he's already receiving.
I have followed hockey for 40 years and this is not the first time that the Pittsburgh connection has ended a Bruins career. Mario has never spoken out about Ulf Samuelson and his dirty play, or Kasparaitis and now he signs Cooke's checks. I am a huge hockey fan and miss seeing Sidney on the ice but if you believe in Karma this was coming. Savard was an All Star (though I will admit a whiner) and Cooke is a talented but replaceable player. Understand that he is not a good person and in the end its hard to cheer for someone like him.
.
