| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest4629
( )
|
 Posted - 09/22/2009 : 12:10:48
|
Ok so now that Beans15 has withdrawn himself from the discussion we can continue on topic.
Didn't Phaneuf leave his feet? |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 12:25:10
|
Mr. Guest, I did not remove my self from anything. I simply said that Alex and I would agree to disagree and that the debate was good. I think the 3000+ posts should tell anyone that I am never at a lose for words!!
And no, I didn't see Phaneuf leave his feet until after contact was made. As said before, defined within the rules it was a clean hit. Some might argue that it was close to charging and some might argue that Phaneuf lead with his elbow. But the charging is very close and the elbow did not make contact with Okposo. |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 13:03:27
|
Wow good debate guys. As I was reading I thought adding my two cents but then the other guy would say it. So I kept reading and Beans you wrapped it up pretty good when you definitly point out that this was just YOUR OPINION. Just like anybody else here has opinions on many subjects.
Although my opinion leans towards Alex, Slozo or Leigh's point of views, where I think you can't take hits away from the game and therefore hits to the head will happen. Because of size or players skating with there head down, or somebody giving a suicide pass to his teamates or another cutting across center. They will get caught. And if we take hits to the head away, players will go on purpose with there heads down, and therefore take away the talent in a lot of players who can make plays with there heads up. I never like to see a guy going down, but many other hits, harder and more dangerous then the one Phaneuf did, didn't put the other guy in the hospital. So for this hit, it was clean, legal and it should stay legal.
As for the Scott Stevens debate that was just ridiculous, even though there hitting is simular and yet still different, there play was not the same at all because Stevens was a defensive defenseman and Phaneuf is an offensive defenseman who runs the powerplay. So we can't compare both. |
|
|
|
Guest4629
( )
|
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 13:05:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ultimately, I don't like it. I'll argue it until I am blue in the face because I don't think these guys need to get hurt to play the game. I'll never disagree in it being a clean hit. But you will never convince me that it was A) a good defensive play, B) not a dangerous hit, and most importantly C) had to happen at all.
We'll agree to disagree.
Good Debate Gents.
Sorry about that Mr. Beans. Sounded definitively like closure to me at the time. But then again my command of the English language has deminished in the 40 years since high school so I could have misunderstood.
You were saying? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 15:17:46
|
I'm not sure where to wade in on this one...there seem to be fairly staunch supporters for both sides and I can only speak from experience. I had never played at a level near the NHL, but I did play at some fairly high levels, culminating in interest from more than one WHL team.
My game was predominantly physical, as I was a fairly punishing 6' 240lb. defenceman. If the hit is there, and you can make a fairly quick judgement on how it affects your positioning, you take it, with malice, you can't judge how soft to hit someone, only that the hit is there, take it.
I broke my share of opponent's collarbones, ribs, and gave a few concussions, but always clean....hard, but clean.
Your job as a physical defenceman is to ensure that any future activity in your zone by the opposition is done with care, taking away some of their creativity and security, if you let up, you let the oppostion know they have space and time with little in the way of repercussion.
Of course you don't intend to injure, but, at the higher levels, you aren't playing for who buys beer after, you are playing with the intent of helping your team win, period. A huge hit can be every bit as effective as a goal, if not moreso, and can change the flow of the game in your team's favor.
Pre-season is every bit as competitive as players are either trying to make their mark or prepare for the regular season, and to say any player at that level should let up is...ridiculous...sorry Beans.
Scott Stevens could have let up on many of his punishing checks, ie: see Ron Francis or Paul Kariya, but if that's your game, that's your game, the onus is on the opposition to be extra cautious, again, taking their ability to freewheel away when he was on the ice, what could be more effective?
Yes, Phaneuf MAY have put himself out of position. Yes, he is overtly aggresive at times, making questionable defensive plays because of it, but in this case, a game changing CLEAN hit..
PS. Over the years since junior hockey, I have run into more than one ex-opponent, who I at one time or another punished, and to a T, they all liked me, but hated playing against me, but not one ever said I was a dirty player, just not much fun to play against, isn't that what the physical game is all about?
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 15:39:49
|
Beans, i guess we're both just stubborn with our opinions but that's no biggie. The only part of your reply i really question is the following:
quote:
[i]
You can't say that because it's a line change it's a good defensive play. Indirectly you are saying if it wasn't a like change it was a bad defensive play. I am saying that the situation is irrelevant. A good play is always a good play and a bad play is always a bad play. The result might not always show it, but that doesn't change anything.
For any poker players out there, it's like saying that going all in with pocket KK's is good play when the other player has pocket AA's and a king comes on the flop. Obviously, hind sight is 20/20 and one can always say after if it was right or wrong. However, percentage wise, the pocket AA's are a 95% favorite to beat pocket KK's. Even though that time it worked out, in the long run, you will go broke because it's a bad play.
Now, i'm not saying this is the case, but from the replays i've watched (over and over and over again), Phaneuf might have seen that the others were heading off on a change and at that split second, decided he could attempt that hit? I don't think you can say because it's a bad defensive play in one situation that it's ALWAYS a bad defensive play. For example....dman at the point pinches to try to keep a puck in and misses it resulting in a breakaway. Is this ALWAYS a bad gamble? What if, for instance, there's 10 seconds left in a 2-1 game with his team trailing? See where i'm coming from? |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 18:27:17
|
| Although, it was a questionable play, if Phaneuf ever plays without the tenacity which makes him hit like this, he will be on the employment line. After breaking down every possible vantage point in slow motion and real time speed, and after discussing if it was maybe too high or intent to injure another player, he was put on the ice to level the best players on the opposing team. That is his job, that is why he plays in the NHL and we talk about him playing in the NHL. Some might say its because of his tremendous shot and they could be right, but in my opinion if he ever loses the physical part of his game he will see a tremendous loss in playing time, period. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 04:38:22
|
1st off, cut out the references to Scott Stevens and Phaneuf - it's disrespectful to a player who I think was the best hitter/checker of all time. Scott Stevens was one of the toughest players I have ever seen, and he almost always made his big checks as a player was coming over the blueline into his zone . . . a solid defensive player first, big hitter second. Stevens was also offensively gifted as well, he just decided to concentrate on his defence and checking later in a tight NJ system, and he was as great a team player as any coach could dream of. I can't say enough about a defenceman like that, and to even have him in the same sentence as Phaneuf is not right, so let's just cut that out please. If you doubt anything I say, look up Stevens top ten hits on utube, and only look at where the hit is actually made . . . 8 out of ten of those monster hits stop the guy from entering his zone with the puck.
Phaneuf, like a lot of young defencemen out to make a name for themselves, goes for the dramatic big hit. It usually presents itself in the neutral zone on a chippy play where a player is looking down too long or is caught in an awkward position fighting to gain control of the puck or just having made a pass. I am not fond of Phaneuf, but he is an excellent open ice hitter, and those plays do have an important place in hockey at times. Like in the game that Okposo got laid out in, it was a momentum changing, and as it turned out, game changing event. Just like one of your leaders who generally doesn't fight scrapping with the opponent's tough guy, it inspired the team to pick it up, and they did.
We cannot lose sight of this: a big clean hit in the open ice most certainly IS a hockey play.
The only thing that has no place in NHL hockey is guys without the hockey sense to keep their head up in the neutral zone when playing a team with a hitter like Phaneuf on the ice.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 08:07:39
|
Slozo, we agree on a lot around here but to not compare these two players is tough. As far as overall all around dmen go, Stevens wins hands down. I'd give him the nod defensively and even the physicality (not by a huge margin though) but not defensively. This is all at an early stage of Phaneuf's career as well. All i'm saying is that some of Steven's hits were questionable when compared to those that Phaneuf has thrown. I know you more or less agree with me on the Okposo hit but many of Stevens were just like that one, maybe a little closer to the blueline, but very similar nonetheless
In the following clip you'll see 2 or 3 that look a lot like the recent Phaneuf hit, where Steven either caught a guy up high or caught him with his head down (or both).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7jUbKQYdw
BTW, beans, when you read this, have a look at some of Stevens' hits and tell me that they're "good defensive plays" as you define it. The Lindros hit is just one example. Compare it to your views on Phaneuf taking himself out of position to make the hit and watch as Stevens completely abandon's his man to crush Lindros at the line. Had he been able to get that puck over to the suddenly open right winger, then what?
Oh and BTW, i'd say he meant to hurt him! 
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 10:06:43
|
Couple of things. Firstly, in 15 years if Phaneuf was a Norris Contender, a multiple Cup winner, he's aknowledged by his peers as one of the best defensive players of his generation, and he's a first ballot HOFer then compare him to Stevens all you want. Until then, there is ZERO comparison. As I said, take away Phaneuf's big hits and you have a PP specialist, maybe #4 defensemen today. Take away Stevens hits and you still have one of the most brilliant defense players of his time. A player comparison is a lot more than one part of the game being compared.
And I also pointed out that the reasons I like Steven's is not his hitting. It was a small piece of his game. Ultimately, it's the popular part of the game and shutting down the oppositions best players for 15 years is not very sexy. Above that, for every hit you show me that he was out of position, I will show you 10 that he was not out of position. The vast, vast majority of his hits were with defensive support. This one, Phaneuf's, his defensive partner was engaged with the guy he hit?? How many coaches tell a player to engage with an man on the rush when your defensive partner already has his engaged??? BAD DEFENSIVE PLAY!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 13:25:49
|
| Can you say, line change. There was no player to pass to Phaneuf took a guy out who just didnt know what was going on. How do you say a crushing blow which changed the game and may have won the game was bad defensively. Can I borrow your crystal ball? It was his job, and in this instance probably won his team the whole game. Call it what you want after seeing the replay, but that was a game changing play. Keep your head up and armchair ref's this is how the game is played today. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 09/23/2009 13:29:20 |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 13:38:51
|
I do understand those who disagree with the hit. I felt the same about Stevens hit to Lindros's head. Didn't see Steven's in chains after that hit. By the way I was a huge Lindros fan at the time and think I threw whatever I had in my hand at the time. Too much force or not Lindros shoulda been looking, especially with Steven's on the other team.
Sarich's hit on Marleau in playoffs was a lot like that one. It might not have been the same placement but it was the same message. It wasn't dirty it was a message hit which changed the game. A hard hit is pretty normal in the playoffs. Do you think they should stop short then too. Why is the preseason any better or worse to see this type of play? Because no points are on the line. Most managers pay heavy for a player who never lets up. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 13:55:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Can you say, line change. There was no player to pass to Phaneuf took a guy out who just didnt know what was going on. How do you say a crushing blow which changed the game and may have won the game was bad defensively. Can I borrow your crystal ball? It was his job, and in this instance probably won his team the whole game. Call it what you want after seeing the replay, but that was a game changing play. Keep your head up and armchair ref's this is how the game is played today.
Borrow my crystal ball??? Are you friggin kidding me?? The only things that could have happened that didn't negatively impact Calgary on this play is both things that happened. The whistle blew and the play was called(because the player getting hit got hurt) and the Islanders happened to be on a line change. That's it! Every single other posibility was an automatic odd man rush the other way.
Game changing play, exactly. Phaneuf misses that hit and the Islanders go on an odd man rush, potentially score, and ice the game.
Hindsight is 20/20. The play worked this time. However, an open ice hit is one of the riskiest plays a defenseman can make because every time it doesn't work, it is an odd man rush.
If Phaneuf missed the hit, you would be saying it was a bad play. He made the hit so it's a good play??? Either it's good or bad regardless of the outcome. It's like saying fighting is bad when people get hurt but it's ok when people don't get hurt.
What a joke. I seriously consider sometimes if I am watching the same game that others are watching. Why is it so hard to comprehend that a poor hockey play is still a poor hockey play even if it worked???? In the long run, engaging a player that is already engaged with your defensive partner through the neutral zone is stupid. Plain and simple. Sometimes it might work. Most times it won't.
I don't need a crystal ball to tell me that! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 14:17:08
|
How does (if he missed its a bad defensive play) arguement stand up when a guy is #1 in open ice with no support #2 his team is on a line change #3 with his head down #4 when playing one of the most amazing checking teams and/or players, equate to me being wrong and must be watching a different game. It was a rockin hit which taught a young player the cardinal rule, dont mess around in Phaneuf's kitchen. If it was against Spezza I might fight the other side of the battle here but Spezza would never play suicidal like that, especially against a great checking team like Calgary.
It aint Ringette. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 14:26:47
|
If there is no line change, is it a good play???
If Phaneuf misses the hit, is it a good play???
You are completely missing the point. I agree, it worked THIS TIME!! However, if this play happened 1000 times, more times it creates an odd man rush for the other team than it does anything else. That is a low percentage play.
I just don't understand why people don't see that????
The outcome is irrelevant. Good plays can result in a bad outcome. Bad plays can result in a good outcome. The outcome of the play is irrelevant of the play being smart or stupid. An open ice hit is risky to say the least. There are far more bad outcomes that can happen than good outcomes.
Why is it so hard to realize that it was a poor defensive play that Phaneuf got lucky on??? If it's such a brilliant defensive play, why do the best defensive player rarely open ice hit??? Nick Lidstrom has been the Norris winner what 6 times, and I would think you could go through every game he has ever played and never has he hit anyone at open ice when his defensive partner was already engaged in the player!!
Now, before you post an arguement, go back and read this again. Although it's doubtful that will happen as the 3 previous post I said the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 14:32:22
|
Beans, by no means am i saying Phaneuf's in the same boat as Stevens as far as defensmen go. Not even close at this point. However, i don't care what Steven's resume has on it, Phaneuf's physical play will continue to draw comparisons to his as they are similar.
As for Stevens and his hits, have a look at this clip, which i'm sure you've seen plenty of times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7jUbKQYdw
Now, tell me what these ones below have in common....
#9 on Kevyn Adams
#8 on Bob Bassen
#7 on Kris King
#5 on Daymond Langkow
#3 on Slava Kozlov
If you answered "Stevens hit a guy who was already being checked by one of his teammates" you'd be correct...... BAD DEFENSIVE PLAY?
Mixed in there are some hits which were "high" (Bassen / Lindros), one borderline late (Kariya) and one where the other defenseman (Niedermayer) was so "engaged" already that Stevens even took HIM out!
Guess what i'm trying to say is not only were not all Stevens' hits totally clean, i have to think he was trying to do more than just knock the guy off the puck, aka hurt the guy to some degree.
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 14:56:51
|
Wow....how quickly things digress sometimes. 
I think the original question was regarding Phaneuf's hit. Take away comparisons to other players, take away what ifs, was it a good hit/play?
In this particular instance, yes, it was clean, he did what his bread and butter is, he hit the man....hard.
Too much armchair analysis going on, was it a game changing play? Emphatically, yes.
Again as I stated earlier, the reason to take the hit, when available, has nothing to do with intent to injure, and everything to do with making the statement. I'm here, I'm watching, play in my zone with your head down at your own risk. That in and of itself makes good hockey sense. Anyone who's played competitively should understand the reasoning.
To include all the extraneous variables regarding good defensive play, positioning etc. is irrelevant. Hockey is a fast game, you make snap decisions, some good, some not so much, some work, some not so much.
Beans, my esteemed co-Oiler fan, if all the decisions were thoroughly thought out, we could have seen our 5 cups, instead...Steve Smith 
Back to the original post, yes it was a good clean hit, unfortunate that the guy got crushed, if he had gotten up and skated to the bench to have someone reinflate his lungs, it would be nothing more than a highlight reel play...
Should Phaneuf have to drop the mitts after that big of a hit, maybe, but in this case? Against some crazy minor leaguer who has to commit a suspendable offence to challenge him? No.
Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 15:02:56
|
And, for the 3rd time, for every bad defensive play Stevens did, 10 good plays happened. Even the best of the best are not perfect. Stevens made his share of mistakes but he made significantly more great plays. s far as the comparisons to Phaneuf, physically I can agree. But that's where it end. Agreed???
Listen to any of the hockey insiders and the biggest knock on Dion Phaneuf is that positionally, he is below average defensively. He makes the common young defensemen mistake of putting himself out of position to make a hit. As I said above, many good and great defensemen do that sometimes. Phaneuf does it often. I'm not the only one saying this. It's the only real knock against the guy. Many consider that the NHL as a whole started making Phaneuf make decisions at the blue lines, which he's not great at, and that made him have a weaker season last year compared to his other seasons. Ultimately, I agree with Willus when he said Sutter will get that fixed and could make Phaneuf a Norris type defenseman. But until I start seeing that, he will remain almost a defensive liability to his team.
It will ultimately be the downfall to him not making the Olympic team. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 15:21:01
|
| If that had been my guy Chris Neil knockin Iginla's doors off, ida cheered like crazy. If it was Iginla doing the same to Alfredson I'd be pissed. Right or wrong, that was a rocken hit which on its own was a game changer. Wish my team had more character players like Phaneuf. Actually I heard prior to Suttor signing to coach, Calgary was in the running for the Heatly sweepstakes and Phaneuf was the trade bait. Thought I'd throw that out there |
|
|
|
fanoleaf
Rookie
143 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 16:05:27
|
Fat Elvis I agree with your comments.
I could not believe the comments that I read stating that Phanuef should have let up on his hit. Players get hurt when they "let up". I know it is just pre season, however players need to play at the level that got them into this league, they need to remain hungry or there will be some other taking thier spot.
If the hit was not clean, then I think this would be a totally diff. argument. It was unfortunate that Okposo was injured. However that is the risk that these players assume, when they play at this level. |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 18:12:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
If there is no line change, is it a good play???
If Phaneuf misses the hit, is it a good play???
You are completely missing the point. I agree, it worked THIS TIME!! However, if this play happened 1000 times, more times it creates an odd man rush for the other team than it does anything else. That is a low percentage play.
I just don't understand why people don't see that????
The outcome is irrelevant. Good plays can result in a bad outcome. Bad plays can result in a good outcome. The outcome of the play is irrelevant of the play being smart or stupid. An open ice hit is risky to say the least. There are far more bad outcomes that can happen than good outcomes.
Why is it so hard to realize that it was a poor defensive play that Phaneuf got lucky on??? If it's such a brilliant defensive play, why do the best defensive player rarely open ice hit??? Nick Lidstrom has been the Norris winner what 6 times, and I would think you could go through every game he has ever played and never has he hit anyone at open ice when his defensive partner was already engaged in the player!!
Now, before you post an arguement, go back and read this again. Although it's doubtful that will happen as the 3 previous post I said the same thing.
You're saying you can't compare Phaneuf and Stevens and then you bring Lidstrom into the mix. Also, like you said, Phaneuf's game is far from perfect and still needs adjustments. But his hitting IS a strong part of his game, so if he lets up on a chance like this to make a big hard CLEAN hit, then he would lose his job. So he needs to keep what he does best intact and then improve the rest.
Taking risk is also part of any sport. You don't do it all the time but at times you have to. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 18:40:53
|
I love a good debate at much as the next guy, but when people can not take their blinders off to see another opinion then their own for one second, it's a complete waste of my time.
Seriously, it's frustrating to come on these forums some times because of this. People are clearly not seeing my points and I am not wasting my time to go through them all again. But I feel like I have to summarize before I depart.
1) Huge hits are part of the game. Always have been, alway will be. But Today's NHLer's seem to believe that if they don't hit to hurt, they don't make the team. That is simply wrong.
2) A bad defensive play always is just that. Regardless of the outcome. Like my friend Fat Elvis eluded to. Passing the puck in front of your net is a bad play. Sometimes it works, more often it does not. Sometimes it costs your team the Cup. You don't get to choose when it's right and when it's not. It's alway wrong.
3) I never once compared any player to any other player in this thread. My point, think of the best defensemen of all time. Now, how many of those guys EVER hit a guy so hard he was taken off on a stretcher??? I can think of 2. I bet you can't think of more than 5. Point is that the huge, injury creating (intentional or not) hits have NOTHING to do with being a good defender or a good hockey player. NOTHING!!!
Now I am done. I have never disagreed with anyone who said the hit was clean. Never disagreed that Okposo's head was down and he has responsibility in it. Never argued that the hit changed the momentum of the game.
However, ask yourself this.
What does an avoidable injury bring to the sport or the game????
I bid this debate adieu. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 19:37:56
|
Clean or not, I don't like this play because there was clearly intent to shake the living daylights out of Okposo.
Think about the scenario, guys. It's a nothing game. Phaneuf is a guy that's definitely on the team, probably on the top pairing, there are absolutely no questions about it. Not to mention, as Beans pointed out, the play was a bad choice defensively. I'm going to bet Phaneuf realized Okposo had his head down or at least that he was putting himself in a vulnerable position.
Not think about it from Okposo's point of view. A young kid with lots of promise, been the only light out of Long Island for a LONG time (until of course this year...) The fans went nuts when he got his break last season. This isn't a Dion Phaneuf guy who made it straight off the draft floor. He had to work very hard to get where he is.Not to mention how much he means to the Islanders organization (OK, I know Tavares is their man, but this guy was their man for a few years before JT came into the picture.)
Now with that in mind,think about if what Phaneuf did was right. I don't approve. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 20:38:26
|
I really feel the need to pipe in again.
The hit was excellent and obviously well-timed (in both execution and timing within the game) I think people need to give Phaneuf a little more credit, he's been in the game long enough to know what a big hit can do for the game. I would agree that Phaneuf often puts himself out of position to make a big hit and that he has a lot to learn before he becomes a Stevens or a Lidstrom (although I don't think he ever will - he's always been more offensive-minded and there is nothing wrong with that) but in this case there was nothing wrong with cutting across and taking the hit. I can't agree that it was a bad play - ever! He had support from his team mates, it was in the neutral zone, the opportunity arose, he took it, and it was a success. Great play - all around - in any season. More please. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 22:28:46
|
Beans, this debate is clearly about opinions. I appreciate the fact that you agree that the hit was legal. That's basically the debate that started this thread and of course, as always, it opens up other points for debate thus resulting in opinions.
My opinions on your points are this:
#1. I dont feel there are any more players today than there were yesteryear attempting to injure another player with a hit. We can debate this with our "opinions" forever as there's no way to prove it and therefore we should just leave it at that.
#2. A bad defensive play is always a bad defensive play? Hmmm, seems logical, and if that's the case, so be it, but every player takes chances here and there and depending on the time of game, the score, importance of the game, etc it may be worthwhile, no? You never commented on my scenario of a defender pinching to keep the puck in. Might be a bad defensive play but what if there's 10 seconds left and his team is down 1. Is that not a good time to make a bad defensive play or should he retreat, try to get the puck back, let his team clear the zone, come back in and try to score (within 10 seconds?).
3. Completely agree that a defender need not destroy a guy EVER with a hit to be a good / great dman. Absolutely no argument here, however, some of the best dmen ever did throw their weight around.
Bottom line is this, your suggesting that he could have simply bumped him off the puck or just taken it a little easy on him would be changing part of the game we know as hockey. NO different than taking fighting out of it. Guys can get hurt in a hockey fight, see Nick Kypreos. Should Ryan VandenBussche have punched him a little softer so as to not risk ending his career? BTW, that fight that ended Kypreos's career, was in a PRE-SEASON GAME!
Regardless of my opinion vs yours, we agree on the main point of this thread and i see no need to continue, at least not with you, we've made our points clear......HOWEVER, Alex, i'm not done with you
Alex.... Agreed, the intent was to "shake the living daylights" outta Okposo, as long as by that you mean, give him a good shot that he'll remember and make sure he is a little more tentative every time he comes into the Flames end of the rink! If, by that comment, you meant to put him in the hospital, i'd like to think that's not the case. Having said that, who knows? Maybe Phaneuf had that intention? I don't know the guy and from what i've seen and heard of him as a person, he's an a-hole. So, who knows?
I hate to repeat myself, but i will, in case you didn't read my other posts here on this thread. How anyone can call this a bad defensive play is beyond me. Go back and watch the clip. He leaves his side of the rink, yeah, but so too did his check a few seconds earlier as he peeled off on a line change. Could Phaneuf have stayed his ground and either taken on Okposo if he got by the other dman or turned to collect the likely dump in? SURE! But, could he have delivered a bone crushing hit, without risking leaving an open man, one which unfortunately put a guy out of commission, and changed the momentum of the game??? YUP, and he did. He had no one to check. Sorry for the comparison, but considering Scott Stevens is considered one of the best hitters of all time, go back and look at his hits and you'll see many that are damn near identical to this one!
As for Phaneuf already having a spot on the team, so what? To me, that's the worst possible argument here. He's coming off a horrible season, hoping to make Team Canada and is playing preseason games to get up to speed as well as anyone else. I've asked this before, but lemme ask again in case you missed it. Would your feelings about this hit be ANY different if it were a rookie who delivered it who was fighting for a spot on the Flames blueline??? If you answer no, then don't bring up the fact that Phaneuf's already established! If you answer yes, then you're creating different rules or "codes" for different players and that just can't be done.....
I hate to see ANY player, even a Leaf, carried off the ice and have his career affected as much as the next guy. Unfortunately, it's a part of the game!
I'm hoping this is my last comment on this thread, but i somehow doubt it....i'm just too stubborn |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 04:35:47
|
Good comments and discussion all around . . . but I just wanted to reiterate what Leigh said:
More please!
I love watching great body checks delivered, it is very difficult to execute well at this level of hockey with the size and speed of the players these days. We should be CELEBRATING big clean hits, no? To me, it's another step forward for Phaneuf on a long road back to Olympic consideration. And, obviously, a lesson for Okposo he is not likely to forget for some time.
And let's keep the fighting out of it, and play some good and rough, hard-nosed, clean hockey.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 09/24/2009 11:19:50 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 11:07:30
|
I know I said I was out, but I have to ask something.
To the guys saying 'more please' to the big hits. Do you also enjoy watching a guy leave on a stretcher?? I know your answer already and I am not trying to elude that either Leigh or Slozo want to see players injured. But, would the game be any less entertaining or would you be any less passionate if the hitting was toned down one level?? I mean, I like watching Steve Staios hit players. He's good, solid, and clean. But I have never watched Staios hit a guy harder than he has had to in making a hockey play. I have never seen a hit laid by Staios warrant a stretcher. Maybe he's just not good enough or big enough to do that, I don't know.
Does changing a huge injury potential hit into a still big but not an injury potential hit make the game less exciting?? And I know that there is a potential for injury in all hits, but I don't think anyone can argue that the hit that Phaneuf laid on Okposo had a far higher likelihood of injury than a less aggressive Staios style of hit.
Maybe I am being naive and I will admit to that. I just can't ever agree in having to hit a player so hard that his career is put in jeopardy. His health is put in jeopardy. If that can be avoided, why not???
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 11:39:11
|
Do people who love slapshots like seeing someone lose an eye?
Do people who love a race for the puck like to see a guy get carried off in a stretcher with a broken leg?
Do people who love to see a booming shot on net like to see the goalie get carried off the ice with a concussion?
The list goes on and on . . . and the questions are ridiculous, as is the one about loving to see people carried off on stretchers because we would love to see more big open ice hits.
The game of hockey does not come without risk; it is a very physical game, with hard physical contact well within the rules, and with many pieces of equipment and play involved (the rock-hard puck, skates, stick) that can cause grievous bodily harm even when used properly. Sometimes, because of bad luck or uncommon circumstances, a player gets badly injured on a seemingly fair play.
Every hockey player knows that risk. And as fans, it does make it exciting to watch with bigger hits, harder skating, harder slapshots . . . it is undeniable. And I do know the risk for player injury increases with all that.
But I still want it. And, the players are the ones that control that destiny in the end, by later becoming adjudicators and rule makers in a league where people do generally care about each other's welfare, and try to keep the rules from doing serious harm to others.
Phaneuf's hit was not even that hard, sorry. Okposo just got caught badly, with his head down. I've seen bigger hits with the other players just shaking it off after getting up from the ice.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 09/24/2009 11:47:12 |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 13:10:43
|
Completely agree here Slozo. If players start second guessing there checks because the other player makes a stupid, suicidal mistakes, like keeping there hit down in the neutral zone, the checker will just as likely be injured or may miss the check altogether. Without openice hitting or with players letting up from there checks to avoid injuring a player, we will all be watching the allstars game with a smaller roster of allstar players.
Your question of whether or not it would affect the game and if it would be just as enjoyable without the openice hits. I'll be honest I love watching a player on my team make a openice hit on an opposing player. Stretcher or no stretcher some of the best memories I have of early international play for the canada cup were not the goals but the Canadian players like Messier, Roberts lining up a Russian or USA player. Regretably I have cheered for a check or 2 which may have shortened or ended a potential hall of famers career. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 14:06:33
|
| Beans, if it were possible, i'd love to see no injuries from any hitting but i just don't see how you'd regulate it. If it were made to be "code" among players, that code would occasionally get broken as every other one does. Then, there'd be retaliation, etc. If not made "code", then they'd have to make a penalty out of it? Then you'd have ref's deciding which hit was taken a step too far? I can't see how that would work. I think everyone's in agreement here that we'd love to see hit's like Phaneuf's but would prefer that it didn't result in a guy getting carried off the ice. IF, for instance, Okposo had seen the hit coming and was able to brace for it and keep his head up, he'd have skated away and we'd all be happy here discussing the great hit (even though i don't like Dion). It's such a fine line, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Phaneuf on Okposo 
