HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

And the dirtiest team in the league is.....

View Poll Results: The dirtiest team in the league is....
Vancouver 227 25.53%
Boston 549 61.75%
Chicago 3 0.34%
Anaheim 14 1.57%
Rangers 5 0.56%
New Jersey 1 0.11%
San Jose 5 0.56%
Nashville 3 0.34%
Dallas 10 1.12%
Washington 1 0.11%
Philly 27 3.04%
Pittsburgh 14 1.57%
Los Angeles 3 0.34%
Colorado 5 0.56%
Other 22 2.47%
Voters: 889. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2012, 10:19 PM
  #26
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
By good dirty, I meant effective. It leads to victories. Good didn't mean because they injure people, though I'm not sure what people are talking about in terms of injuries.

Vancouver's brand just pisses the whole league off.

DG is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:37 PM
  #27
ziploc
Registered User
 
ziploc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
By good dirty, I meant effective. It leads to victories. Good didn't mean because they injure people, though I'm not sure what people are talking about in terms of injuries.

Vancouver's brand just pisses the whole league off.
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).

ziploc is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:38 PM
  #28
vezna*
Canada's Team
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,666
vCash: 500
Boston did well trading for Campbell

vezna* is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:41 PM
  #29
First Ballot
Registered User
 
First Ballot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rinkside
Country: United States
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
Easily Boston.

First Ballot is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:45 PM
  #30
nowhereman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
By good dirty, I meant effective. It leads to victories. Good didn't mean because they injure people, though I'm not sure what people are talking about in terms of injuries.

Vancouver's brand just pisses the whole league off.
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.

nowhereman is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:45 PM
  #31
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:48 PM
  #32
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
By good dirty, I meant effective. It leads to victories. Good didn't mean because they injure people, though I'm not sure what people are talking about in terms of injuries.

Vancouver's brand just pisses the whole league off.
Their brand has also made them successfull...not sure what you're getting at.

Boston's brand of hovering like a pack of thugs trying to start brawls is what pisses the rest of the league off.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:49 PM
  #33
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
the boston bruins AINEC

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:50 PM
  #34
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Their brand has also made them successfull...not sure what you're getting at.

Boston's brand of hovering like a pack of thugs trying to start brawls is what pisses the rest of the league off.
Fine hitting, intimidation and fighting are equal in terms of effectiveness compared to diving, biting and generally being a ******. You win.

DG is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:52 PM
  #35
ephmrl
#tanknation
 
ephmrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,966
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ephmrl Send a message via Skype™ to ephmrl
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
By good dirty, I meant effective. It leads to victories. Good didn't mean because they injure people, though I'm not sure what people are talking about in terms of injuries.

Vancouver's brand just pisses the whole league off.
Other than Burrow's bite and hair pulling, which were seperated over a few years, there has been nothing i can think of that could warrant them being labeled as dirty.


And you labeled them "bad dirty", which, according you you doesn't win games. Can you explain how they got to the stanley cup finals and were first in basically every statistic last season?

ephmrl is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:55 PM
  #36
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booth7 View Post
Other than Burrow's bite and hair pulling, which were seperated over a few years, there has been nothing i can think of that could warrant them being labeled as dirty.


And you labeled them "bad dirty", which, according you you doesn't win games. Can you explain how they got to the stanley cup finals and were first in basically every statistic last season?
bruinsstanleycup.jpg

DG is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:56 PM
  #37
ziploc
Registered User
 
ziploc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
Fine hitting, intimidation and fighting are equal in terms of effectiveness compared to diving, biting and generally being a ******. You win.
No, you are talking about dirty play. Chopping and butt-ending and slashing. Hard hitting, fighting, etc... is fine. But most people on this thread are acknowledging that the Bruins go far beyond that, and are dirty. It is effective, you are right. So is the Canucks' strategy of drawing teams into penalties, both through fast solid play, and through agitating, which certainly can be seen as dirty. It is also effective. The Bruins' strategy (which also employs diving and whining, it should be noted), injures people. The Canucks' strategy causes certain players and media personalities to ***** on air. You call one good, the other bad. That is questionable, to say the least, but you are entitled to your opinion. But both have proven effective, and hated.

ziploc is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 10:58 PM
  #38
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 新香
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,788
vCash: 500
Poll might as well be renamed "which team the HF Boards currently dislike the most". Haha, this thread is jokes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
bruinsstanleycup.jpg
Oh great, so reaching the Stanley Cup Finals - or doing better than 28 other teams - plus dominating the regular season is a non-accomplishment? You make so much sense.

VinnyC is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:01 PM
  #39
Moore Money
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,865
vCash: 500
good dirty


Moore Money is online now  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:07 PM
  #40
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't more "rah rah", old time hockey people in here supporting this. Anaheim used this too and some of the greatest Flyers teams of all time did too.

Again, typical HF, read term "good dirty", assume poster means something, read no other posts, and just harp on the specific word used.

I already conceded that both Vancouver and Boston can be equally effective with their different brands of hockey. I'm fairly sure no one has bothered to register that though.

DG is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:08 PM
  #41
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
bruinsstanleycup.jpg
A little more Eastern jealousy of Vancouver...I love it.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:10 PM
  #42
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
A little more Eastern jealousy of Vancouver...I love it.
Oh yes, you got me, this is totally an "east vs. west" issue. I'm so jealous.

BTW, what am I jealous of, just so I know?

DG is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:14 PM
  #43
ziploc
Registered User
 
ziploc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't more "rah rah", old time hockey people in here supporting this. Anaheim used this too and some of the greatest Flyers teams of all time did too.

Again, typical HF, read term "good dirty", assume poster means something, read no other posts, and just harp on the specific word used.

I already conceded that both Vancouver and Boston can be equally effective with their different brands of hockey. I'm fairly sure no one has bothered to register that though.
But you also said that "good" meant "effective". So you think the Bruins are less dirty than, say, the Canucks, because they are effective. That actually was your argument in one of your posts. If you are backing off from that, I suppose you are saying that you just prefer one style of dirty play over another, but then are open to the criticism that the style you prefer leads to FAR more injuries. It is still effective, and the Canucks' tactics can still be argued to be dirty, but they are far less dangerous. Hence, why most people on this (obviously entirely subjective and unscientific) poll agree that the Bruins are the dirtiest team in the league.

ziploc is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:14 PM
  #44
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
Oh yes, you got me, this is totally an "east vs. west" issue. I'm so jealous.

BTW, what am I jealous of, just so I know?
Well you seem to be on a mission to argue against everything Vancouver, just a hunch on my part.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:15 PM
  #45
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredMan View Post
Did I miss something? O_o



ballard now plays for vancouver.

nik jr is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:16 PM
  #46
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziploc View Post
But you also said that "good" meant "effective". So you think the Bruins are less dirty than, say, the Canucks, because they are effective. That actually was your argument in one of your posts. If you are backing off from that, I suppose you are saying that you just prefer one style of dirty play over another, but then are open to the criticism that the style you prefer leads to FAR more injuries. It is still effective, and the Canucks' tactics can still be argued to be dirty, but they are far less dangerous. Hence, why most people on this (obviously entirely subjective and unscientific) poll agree that the Bruins are the dirtiest team in the league.
Yes, this is exactly what I realized I was saying. I concede that. Stand down Canucks fans!

I do like how it did turn it to an inferiority complex real quick with "WE WON THE WEST AND YOU'RE JEALOUS" coming out instead of proper debate, like I expect from good 'ol HF.

(Don't mean you ziploc)

DG is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:17 PM
  #47
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowhereman View Post
Boston takes out players' knees, dishes out headshots to goaltenders, rams player's heads into the stanchion, pitchforks players into the boards (breaking their back), and suckerpunches you after the whistle.

Vancouver has a player who bit someone.


That's the first time I've heard someone refer to potential season/career-ending cheapshots as "good dirty".

People who call Vancouver "dirty" don't even watch the team play. They have a few pests and a couple of divers but they're no more dirty than any other team in the league. Unless you're really afraid of thugs like the Sedins, Kesler, Edler, Hamhuis, Raymond, Malhotra, Hodgson, Hansen, etc.

Boston CONSTANTLY crosses the line. Anyone who votes for any option in this poll, except Boston, is kidding themselves.
Savard did too.

Canucks aren't a dirty team. You can say they dive and such, but actually dirty? Nope. You are just being a blind hater to vote for them in this poll.

serge2k is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:19 PM
  #48
ziploc
Registered User
 
ziploc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
Yes, this is exactly what I realized I was saying. I concede that. Stand down Canucks fans!

I do like how it did turn it to an inferiority complex real quick with "WE WON THE WEST AND YOU'RE JEALOUS" coming out instead of proper debate, like I expect from good 'ol HF.

(Don't mean you ziploc)
I stand down. And I appreciate the logical concession, and the defensible position you take. It is obviously fine to prefer one style to another.

ziploc is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:20 PM
  #49
asdfman
Weeeee
 
asdfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,274
vCash: 500
Canucks are the dirtiest team because **** the Canucks, amirite?

asdfman is offline  
Old
01-07-2012, 11:21 PM
  #50
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't more "rah rah", old time hockey people in here supporting this. Anaheim used this too and some of the greatest Flyers teams of all time did too.
.
Probably because your definition of old time hockey is what others consider stupidity and cowardice. Especially when guys like Pouliot all of a sudden play tough because they have 4 tough guys on the team. Ditto with Marchand? Why didn't he fight today? Even Lappierre did.

Anaheim wasn't as dirty or dishonorable as Boston. Not even close. They didn't run their mouths to the media and then contradict themselves on the ice either.

I'm not sure you know what Old time hockey is.

LiquidSnake is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.