On this week’s show we’ll talk about more controversial hits and the punishment handed down for them. We’ll also tell you about a coach providing some extra incentive to his players for a milestone win and Doug and I will conduct our very own NHL All-Star game draft. We’ve also got all the latest injury news and more on this edition of the Puck Podcast.
MP3 File
Check out our new sponsor at: www.glassbangers.com
A quick note from last weeks show. The play before Stamkos fell, he went skate first into the boards. There may have been a problem with his blade.
Congrats on getting a sponsor!!!
Doug,
Listening to the show (Just started) and got to the point where you’re talking about Thornton. It’s hard to really disagree with what you said, but that might have been a little Harsh. I wouldn’t go as far to say he’s a coward. He does take questions from the media (At least on the postgames I’ve seen) but I agree he’s not a leader. After watching 24/7, I wonder if he’s the antithisis of Matt Cooke. What I mean is if you saw Cooke, you see him as a family man, bringing his kids to the locker room. Then you see him play and he is one of the dirtiest players in the game. With Thornton, he’s a good guy, probably fun to be around, but he seems to be bringing that to the Ice and that’s not good. He’s lost the swagger, and I think the passion to play the game. Is he a coward? I don’t think that’s fair, but I agree, he’s not a leader and probably shouldn’t be captain.
With respect to the hit on Brad Stuart, first, it’s important to remember that Kostopoulos is a repeat offender. Second, as you both stated, both of you agreeing on this hit as harmless makes your joint conclusion suspect. Third, as you both noted, when the entire hockey world agrees that it was a bad hit, and you two don’t, you should rethink your conclusions. Fourth, as Doug aptly noted, whenever you find that Mike Milbury agrees with you, you have a problem–he is a categorical buffoon.
Lastly, for Doug to say that Mike Babcock “coaches this stuff (how to hit and harm) to his players” is complete nonsense and Doug is out of line (play back the tape). For Doug to state that an NHL head coach takes even 30 seconds out of his schedule to explain how to hurt another player on the ice shows how little you know about hockey–despite the oft noted fact that you now play once a week. You’re just wrong.
Gee, someone from “Hockey Town” has a problem when someone dares to insinuate that maybe Detroit is not God’s Gift To The Sporting World. What a surprise…
🙂
Mark,
I did not mean to imply that Mike Babcock coaches people to hit dirty or hurt players but that he coaches players who do those things and he does not speak out against them. Sorry for the confusion and hope that clears it up. Can you tell me which rule you think Kostopoulos violated with that hit?
Greg,
I should have clarified – Thornton is a coward with regards to leadership. He is not a guy that is going to hold his team accountable either face-to-face or through the press as Ryan Clowe has done in recent weeks. He’s also not a guy that will stand up and face the tough questions after a big loss as Dan Boyle has done. Those guys are assistant captains on the Sharks, as you know, but they are better leaders by far than is Thornton who is the captain.
Thanks to all of you for supporting the show.
Doug
Doug: I admit that I can’t quote any rule that says it was a bad hit, I just feel, as most do, that it was a situation where Stuart was vulnerable and that he should of left the guy’s head out of it. I can’t state this enough, the guy is a repeat offender. If you have ever agreed with him being suspended in the past, then you should now.
This “old time” hockey mentality that many have about hitting (like Milbury) is ridiculous. When players did not wear titanium-laced pads and helmets and cages, hits were not nearly as ugly. Only now when players are in space-age materials with helmets and shields have standards of play declined, and it will only continue, mark my words.
Enjoyed the show this week…
Doug- the Knicks of the NBA do indeed have cheerleaders, known as the Knick City Dancers. I know the Jets have a cheerleading squad, but I do not think the Giants do. And though u said every team in the NFL has a cheerleading squad, I know, offhand, that the Packers and the Browns do not. Much to the chagrin of their young male fan base, I am sure. I, for one, love the ice girls or cheerleaders or fan squads or whatever teams want to call them. And so does most of the female hockey fans I know. The Kings employ lovely ladies as well as some dorky dudes (who, of course, have the last laugh as they get to hang out with the girls all the time) and they do alot not only during the games, but in the community as well. The annual Tip-A-King usually features lots of fans wanting to meet the girls as much as they want to meet Willie Mitchell and Brad Richardson.
And, to any fan that says that sex appeal has no part in the game, talk to a female fan and get her to reveal how “cute” she thinks her favorite player is. My ex-girlfriend STILL follows Mike Cammallerri’s career, all because she saw a picture I took of him at the 2007 Tip-A-King and thought he was “hot.”
In regards to Doug’s analogy of the punishment for robbing a bank being the same no matter how much was stolen, it’s important to remember that, though this is true, one may also be sued for damages and monies stolen, etc. with rewards being roughly equivalent to damage done.
Let’s consider someone who had been assaulted. If the motive of the crime was robbery, than no matter the extent of injury (save for death) the charges will be the same, as well be the guidelines for punishment. However, the victim is also likely to file a civil suit, and sue for medical bills incurred and other damages. In this instance, it very much matters what the extent of the injury was.
Just a philosophical argument for punishment based on injury.
I still don’t get why people are for punishment based on injury. There is NO logic to it. Your punishment is based all on random chance rather than the act itself.
Take two hits both identical. Should have identical punishments, right?
Now say the guy hit in each case comes out of it differently. Say guy one gets right back up because he takes the hit better. Now guy two catches an edge or something and goes in awkwardly and ends his career with a concussion. Perhaps the two players hit go in the exact same way but one has a history of injuries and the other never seems to get injured from anything.
You still want to say that the same exact hit resulting in two completely different outcomes based on chance is deserving of completely different punishments? Heck, using that logic a borderline hit resulting in a concussion would be more heavily punished than the dirtiest hit we’ve ever seen in which the guy just pops right back up. Is that right either?
I have yet to hear anyone ever counter that point when arguing that a player’s punishment should be tied to the length of the injury they cause.
May I just point out the general ridiculousness of a Ducks fan talking about other coaches encouraging dirty hits? Have you not see not seen your team play, Doug?
In regards to sex appeal and hockey, I’ve been saying for about a year now that I know the secret to the Caps sucess. Young, hot players. All the Capitals stars are young and unmarried. Before games the caps display fan texts on the television and invariably there will be “Marry me Carlson” and “Marry me Ovechkin” texts. I had a hilarious expirience last year at a Mike Green autograph session. It was freezing cold and we were waiting outside. I was wearing a coat and was cold, but that would pale in comparison to how cold all the young women wearing skinny, hole filled jeans and flip flops must have been.
Wedge,
I understand that point but I would be just as upset if the Ducks players, management or coaches complained about a dirty hit against them and said that the league should get that stuff out of the league. If you can point out such quotes from Carlyle, Getzlaf or any other Ducks I’d like to see them.
Thanks for listening to the show and for taking the time to write in. Both are very much appreciated.