Avs/Habs fan here, I like where your team is going in terms of toughness, I loved Buffalo back when Barnaby (one of my favourite players) and Ray played for you guys.
Thank you, Zip, for summing up my sentiments to a tee - I don't mind the signing as much as the overblown anger/paranoia many still have from that Lucic incident. It's as if those people are expecting a sequel this year where Scott atones for all of the past cowerings by the Sabres.
Scott sounds like a more feared fighter than Peters ever was but nearly everyone lamented the waste of dressing Peters at the time for enforcing only to play him 2-3 minutes per game because he couldn't contribute on any other level. Does anyone really believe Scott would be used any differently?
Peters was a not a terrible fighter and had issues embracing the role. Scott's reputation seems to be as a scary guy to tangle with, something Peters never had. It's a step up from Andro's days and while I would've prefered a guy who can take a regular shift and hit like Glass or Asham, Scott does give them someone who's shown he can be dynamic at something, even if that something isn't actually hockey.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Thank you, Zip, for summing up my sentiments to a tee - I don't mind the signing as much as the overblown anger/paranoia many still have from that Lucic incident. It's as if those people are expecting a sequel this year where Scott atones for all of the past cowerings by the Sabres.
Considering its the talk of many outlets that have commented on his signing, as well as Ott bringing up the Bruins games on his own. Its a bigger issues than you think.
I felt like you until reading/hearing comments from Ott/Scott and various folks on NHL network,etc. The Lucic incident made a much bigger impact around the league than I ever gave it credit for doing. I used to think all the talk was overblown as well.
As a Sabres fan it was painful to listen to my team described as it was.
Quote:
Scott sounds like a more feared fighter than Peters ever was but nearly everyone lamented the waste of dressing Peters at the time for enforcing only to play him 2-3 minutes per game because he couldn't contribute on any other level. Does anyone really believe Scott would be used any differently?
Peters was a waste because he was reluctant to do it and wasn't feared. As in why waste a roster spot on someone that can't even do what they are there for.
I also think you're complete out to lunch on your take on this. For starters you obviously have no clue about his fighting history or ability. He is feared in a way that peters never was. Second in another thread you speculated that he would be in Rochester with the occassional call up. There isn't a chance in hell that happens.
..... Scott does give them someone who's shown he can be dynamic at something, even if that something isn't actually hockey.
could it be that the side of you that loves the beautiful played game of hockey is in conflict with the more archaic side that just loves to finally see some sabres delivered knock-outs?
Peters was a not a terrible fighter and had issues embracing the role. Scott's reputation seems to be as a scary guy to tangle with, something Peters never had. It's a step up from Andro's days and while I would've prefered a guy who can take a regular shift and hit like Glass or Asham, Scott does give them someone who's shown he can be dynamic at something, even if that something isn't actually hockey.
Peters had 0 issues with the role, that's why he stuck around so long and would have stayed if offered another contract. In fact, Scott is probably less comfortable in the role than Peters ever was, just look at their fight cards.
Peters had 0 issues with the role, that's why he stuck around so long and would have stayed if offered another contract. In fact, Scott is probably less comfortable in the role than Peters ever was, just look at their fight cards.
Where are you getting this?
Andrew Peters has said spoke multiple times about this very thing on local radio.
Andrew Peters was a mild mannered hockey player trying to prove he had the skill to play in the NHL. Andro Peters knew his skill wasn't good enough and was willing to knock some heads to earn a pay check.
Andrew Peters was a mild mannered hockey player trying to prove he had the skill to play in the NHL. Andro Peters knew his skill wasn't good enough and was willing to knock some heads to earn a pay check.
He did well...I respect the guy... Did what he had to do to make some decent bank then said enoughs enough... I hope his role on K-Slys show gets expanded and he works his way into a bigger role... He's entertaining to say the least.
Fighting Parros and Koci once eachin half Peter's career worth of games... and no other real heavyweights, compare that to Peters.
EDIT: The two years that they coincided with each other, bulls**t Beerz
The body of work isn't huge, but it's not like his resume is devoid of heavies. He's gone with Reaves, Westgarth, and Staubitz. Who else does he need to drop them with to end the debate? Carkner? Thornton? Rupp? Bisnasty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot
Back on topic folks. This guy has nothing to do with Andrew Peters. If you want a Petey thread, go make one.
Agreed, but this is a debate that has surrounded both Chara and Scott. The results are convincing, but their records are more limited. Judging by what was in the fights section on the main board the last couple of seasons, we'll see "what would happen if Scott had done that when ____ was on the ice" will discussions pop up a lot.
The body of work isn't huge, but it's not like his resume is devoid of heavies. He's gone with Reaves, Westgarth, and Staubitz. Who else does he need to drop them with to end the debate? Carkner? Thornton? Rupp? Bisnasty?
Agreed, but this is a debate that has surrounded both Chara and Scott. The results are convincing, but their records are more limited. Judging by what was in the fights section on the main board the last couple of seasons, we'll see "what would happen if Scott had done that when ____ was on the ice" will discussions pop up a lot.
I'm sure that he'll get his chance against Thornton. Shelley didn't look great last year. MacIntyre is certainly big, but played a dozen games without fighting once last year. I'm not sure what's up with Carkner. He was a beast in 09-10, and didn't play or fight much last year. Assuming that he won't have problems staying in the Isles lineup and that he doesn't have an injury, we'll probably get to see something there.
could it be that the side of you that loves the beautiful played game of hockey is in conflict with the more archaic side that just loves to finally see some sabres delivered knock-outs?
I love physical hockey. It's a contact sport and I'm a firm believer that it's easier to gain possession of the puck (or maintain it) if your opposite number is picking himself up off the ice time after time. It's a territorial game -- time and space are big factors and if someone like Scott gives some of the guys like Ott, Kaleta, Gerbe, and Weber a bit more confidence to go knock hell out of their check with a hit... I'm all that much happier.
The Muckler era teams were some bad, bad hombres. That era sticks out to me because they had some awesome skill guys but they had multiple guys who could chuck the mitts. Teams didn't **** with that era team, they knew the **** would meet the fan -- and this is pre-Nolan, he inherited the team Muckler put together and coached. There is a place for grace and skill and artistry.
And there is also a place for force, power, and the delivery of pain.
