Yea because their failure was because of fighters.
Minnesota never had the horses period. They have been incredibly bad at drafting. And when they had a talented guy in Gaborik, the guy just never had the heart.
Come on, Kimota. The point was pretty obvious: you were trying to use Minnesota as an example, and I said that Minnesota's not a model for building a team. How was that lost on you?
lol saying Parros isn't a heavy + saying that Parros, Rupp, Shelley, Janssen can't win again real heavy just show that you don't know mutch about it.
And put your homer glasses off, Neil edged Prust
Neil edged prust, how? This was a draw. Bear hug fest.
Sure they can win, it's a damn fight. I could win a fight against GSP for all we know.
Parros is not a heavy weight. He's a damn plug. He's no better than Moen at fighting.
Neil edged prust, how? This was a draw. Bear hug fest.
Sure they can win, it's a damn fight. I could win a fight against GSP for all we know.
Parros is not a heavy weight. He's a damn plug. He's no better than Moen at fighting.
no, Parros is a welter weight and DD is better at fighting than him
You clearly don't know what you're talking about!!!!!
Parros is surely a big man. But he ain't no Probert.
I don't have to bring solid arguments, its just pure logic. Parros fight other heavyweight and got a respectable record at doing it. Show me a middle weight who only fight heavy that have a record as good as Parros. Go on the fighting board and start a new thread and just call him " Is Parros a middleweight?" peoples will just lol at you
......IF you think games are won / players less injured by putting bigger FIGHTERS on the ice ...... go back and continue watching WWE (By the way it's scripted!) .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TennisMenace
For when we play big physical teams like the Bruins? After all, do we really want a pair of 190 pound guys to fight thugs like Chara, Lucic, Thorton, or McQuaid? Can't we sign Rosehill just to dress up in games like these?
Clowe is realy one of the few fighters i'd add to this team. He's a second liner who can take on most heavyweight in the league and play an intimidating game. He's in his last year of his contract, the Sharks fans all want to trade him away, so that might be a indication he's available.
EDIT: there is two goons on waivers at this moment, McLaren and Janssen. It seems heavy-weight goons will always have problems sticking in the NHL.
Clowe is realy one of the few fighters i'd add to this team. He's a second liner who can take on most heavyweight in the league and play an intimidating game. He's in his last year of his contract, the Sharks fans all want to trade him away, so that might be a indication he's available.
EDIT: there is two goons on waivers at this moment, McLaren and Janssen. It seems heavy-weight goons will always have problems sticking in the NHL.
Cam Janssen is by far the worst player in the NHL. It's not even close. Ellen Etchingham wrote a fantastic article on how completely useless he is and how anyone of his skill level is here: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/0...ith-the-stars/
Someone mentioned the Boston Bruins and Shawn Thornton. I know it gets easy for us sometimes to forget but Thornton can play hockey. He rarely ever plays under 10 minutes for the Bruins and he's a defensively responsible player. The Bruins are not getting burned every time he's on the ice because he can't keep up with anyone and is always coughing up the puck. That's why Bergevin brought in Brandon Prust and why the Senators rely on Chris Neil. That's toughness that can play hockey.
Somewhere in the fighter narrative people forgot that Bob Probert didn't just fight. Probert was a scoring leader (3rd) on the Detroit Red Wings in 87-88 and even represented the team in the All-Star game and was their top scorer in the post-season. Probert could play hockey. He didn't make his teams look bad.
Yes, there have been goons who do little on the scoresheet and still play when making their teams look bad. The other half of the Bruise Brothers was Joey Kocur and he got cups with New York and Detroit. But if Montreal is worried about an arms race, they better find a heavyweight who can play before worrying if he can fight.
Get a big mean fighter signed for $1 million per year. Let him sit in the press box for most games. When we face Boston, dress him and put him on the ice and have him drop the gloves immediately with Thornton to get it out of the way. Let him sit on the bench to be used as needed.
After the Bruins game, back to the pressbox.
seems like an optimal use of a million dollar, roster spot, and contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion
The pacioretty hit... And then nobody stood up to chara.
strawman. he asks how many fights in the bruins cup run, and you answer with something that happened mid-season. it's a ******** argument and you know it
Last edited by MasterDecoy: 01-31-2013 at 02:42 AM.
seems like an optimal use of a million dollar, roster spot, and contract.
strawman. he asks how many fights in the bruins cup run, and you answer with something that happened mid-season. it's a ******** argument and you know it
To quote sun tzu, a powerful kingdom does not need to fight.
Boston cleared the riad in the season, then in the playoffs, they were fine.
Vancouver never fought boston, they just playrd scared and lost.
To quote sun tzu, a powerful kingdom does not need to fight.
Boston cleared the riad in the season, then in the playoffs, they were fine.
Vancouver never fought boston, they just playrd scared and lost.
again, you're ignoring reality: there's no fighting in the playoffs. period. i don't care who wins, whether it's the wings, bruins, hawks or kings, there simply is no fighting in the playoffs. shawn thornton had not a single fight the year they won the cup
the bruins beat vancouver because they played a hard, physical game, the same type of game the kings played and vancouver turtled like the *****es they are - like they do every year. vancouver played scared because they are vancouver. you think the kings intimidated everybody in the regular season with all their fighters so they had it easier in the playoffs?
does your logic "Boston cleared the riad in the season, then in the playoffs, they were fine." only apply to one cup winning team and not the kings, hawks, pens, wings and every other cup winning team?
your reasoning is faulty
as it's been correctly stated before, bruins have a roster of guys that can play the game and throw down. getting one enforcer won't change anything beside play into their hand, get into a staged fight with thornton, then go sit the rest of the game.
enforcers are not the right debate to have. having a big, tough roster with plenty of skills is the right debate to have. for all the talk about the bruins being big and tough, they also have tons of skills.
and i have had i up to here with the inferiority complex some of you guys have toward the bruins. it's embarrassing...
Last edited by MasterDecoy: 01-31-2013 at 04:28 AM.
again, you're ignoring reality: there's no fighting in the playoffs. period. i don't care who wins, whether it's the wings, bruins, hawks or kings, there simply is no fighting in the playoffs. shawn thornton had not a single fight the year they won the cup
the bruins beat vancouver because they played a hard, physical game, the same type of game the kings played and vancouver turtled like the *****es they are - like they do every year. vancouver played scared because they are vancouver. you think the kings intimidated everybody in the regular season with all their fighters so they had it easier in the playoffs?
does your logic "Boston cleared the riad in the season, then in the playoffs, they were fine." only apply to one cup winning team and not the kings, hawks, pens, wings and every other cup winning team?
your reasoning is faulty
as it's been correctly stated before, bruins have a roster of guys that can play the game and throw down. getting one enforcer won't change anything beside play into their hand, get into a staged fight with thornton, then go sit the rest of the game.
enforcers are not the right debate to have. having a big, tough roster with plenty of skills is the right debate to have. for all the talk about the bruins being big and tough, they also have tons of skills.
and i have had i up to here with the inferiority complex some of you guys have toward the bruins. it's embarrassing...
Bottom line is they wiped out Pacioretty and got past the Habs. If Steve McYntire had been a Hab, Chara might have thought twice about deliberately injuring our player. He did not. Pacioretty was wiped out and that is how the Bruins got past the first round and thus won the Stanley cup.
Again, listen to Sun Tzu. He knows more about wars than you do. He is very clear:
The greatest general is the one who wins without fighting - Sun Tzu
From this, it follows that you know Shawn Thornton is maximally useful if he doesn't even need to fight.
as it's been correctly stated before, bruins have a roster of guys that can play the game and throw down. getting one enforcer won't change anything beside play into their hand, get into a staged fight with thornton, then go sit the rest of the game. ...
enforcers are not the right debate to have. having a big, tough roster with plenty of skills is the right debate to have. for all the talk about the bruins being big and tough, they also have tons of skills.
No, your reasoning is faulty. There is in fact no debate about whether or not we want guys like Prust, Thornton, Neil who can both intimidate and play hockey. Everybody agrees we need them. However, given that they are hard to obtain to the extent we need, the debate is instead whether or not we should settle for pure enforcers where hybrid player-enforcer types are not available.
Bottom line is they wiped out Pacioretty and got past the Habs. If Steve McYntire had been a Hab, Chara might have thought twice about deliberately injuring our player. He did not. Pacioretty was wiped out and that is how the Bruins got past the first round and thus won the Stanley cup.
Again, listen to Sun Tzu. He knows more about wars than you do. He is very clear:
The greatest general is the one who wins without fighting - Sun Tzu
From this, it follows that you know Shawn Thornton is maximally useful if he doesn't even need to fight.
as it's been correctly stated before, bruins have a roster of guys that can play the game and throw down. getting one enforcer won't change anything beside play into their hand, get into a staged fight with thornton, then go sit the rest of the game. ...
enforcers are not the right debate to have. having a big, tough roster with plenty of skills is the right debate to have. for all the talk about the bruins being big and tough, they also have tons of skills.
the **** you keep quoting sun tzu for? what's it supposed to prove exactly?
mcyntire wouldn't have been able to do anything because he would have never been on the ice the same time as chara and would have neither deterred, nor avenged what happened to pacioretty. you think chara would oblige steve for a bout of staged fighting after the incident? no way in hell.... he'd fight thornton and chara would still go about his business like nothing happened. as much as some of us would like it to be true, this isn't the 80's and those times are never coming back
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion
No, your reasoning is faulty. There is in fact no debate about whether or not we want guys like Prust, Thornton, Neil who can both intimidate and play hockey. Everybody agrees we need them. However, given that they are hard to obtain to the extent we need, the debate is instead whether or not we should settle for pure enforcers where hybrid player-enforcer types are not available.
yes. everybody agrees we need them. your problem is you lump* the thorntons, neils and prusts together with the parros, mcyntire and scotts. the former are useful and always in demand, the latter are beyond ****ing useless and have no spot on any team in the moderm NHL.
you like sun tzu? here's one:
“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight”
play the bruins' game, you're gonna get ****ed and that's been proven time and time and time again
* edited for clarification: lump as in put them in the same galaxy. these two types of players should not even be mentioned together...
Last edited by MasterDecoy: 01-31-2013 at 07:45 AM.
You don't need an enforcer -- you need a big strong player who can be mean and hurt people, a la Tinordi who doesn't say no to fight invitations, not a big tall teddy bear like Hal Gill. With such player, it's less about actual fighting and more about a deterrent.
Not if the only thing that player has to offer is to drop the gloves.
If you look at the recent stanley cup winners/finalists, you'll see that not all of them had a true heavyweight enforcer, but they all had a rat or two.... except maybe detroit, I'm drawing a blank there.
the **** you keep quoting sun tzu for? what's it supposed to prove exactly?
mcyntire wouldn't have been able to do anything because he would have never been on the ice the same time as chara and would have neither deterred, nor avenged what happened to pacioretty. you think chara would oblige steve for a bout of staged fighting after the incident? no way in hell.... he'd fight thornton and chara would still go about his business like nothing happened. as much as some of us would like it to be true, this isn't the 80's and those times are never coming back
yes. everybody agrees we need them. your problem is you lump* the thorntons, neils and prusts together with the parros, mcyntire and scotts. the former are useful and always in demand, the latter are beyond ****ing useless and have no spot on any team in the moderm NHL.
you like sun tzu? here's one:
“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight”
play the bruins' game, you're gonna get ****ed and that's been proven time and time and time again
* edited for clarification: lump as in put them in the same galaxy. these two types of players should not even be mentioned together...
Good job! The useless and irrelevant quotes ended!
To quote sun tzu, a powerful kingdom does not need to fight.
Boston cleared the riad in the season, then in the playoffs, they were fine.
Vancouver never fought boston, they just playrd scared and lost.
When i read your post i just have this in my mind.
I am on the fence in this issue. Our current line up (even if we added a pure fighter) would not beat boston to a brawl. That's just the plain truth. I do remember a time when we would beat them with a scary pp though.
When i read your post i just have this in my mind.
I am on the fence in this issue. Our current line up (even if we added a pure fighter) would not beat boston to a brawl. That's just the plain truth. I do remember a time when we would beat them with a scary pp though.
That gif is Marchand telling Sedin that he is a *****.
That gif is Sedin admitting that he is a *****.
The Bruins had a definite psychological advantage over the Canucks.
That gif is Marchand telling Sedin that he is a *****.
That gif is Sedin admitting that he is a *****.
The Bruins had a definite psychological advantage over the Canucks.
You know who else is a ****? Marchand. He's still crying about Jeff Skinner.
Crediting the Bruins toughness for beating the Canucks ignores that the Bruins have been knocked around by some of the softest teams in the league, such as the Capitals and us.
Yes you can't let them push you around, but you aren't going to beat them in a brawl without blowing up the team and drafting nothing but power forwards for the next decade. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
