GDT: # 13 Flames @ Ducks | November 6th | 6.30(?) Pacific

[Godzlaf]

From doing years of veterinary work on the CIA bomb dogs and the Burke police dogs in northern Virginia. The handlers must have lied to me.

Edit - and I didn't say it was dangerous. I said it was bad form.

2nd edit - And you're incorrect. Any time the dog is in public with his handler, as far as the dog is concerned, he is working. Dogs don't have switches that let them know this is just a hockey game. Flip flopping back and forth is bad for the dog's training.

If you don't think dogs can tell the difference, spend some time around a police station sometime and watch the way the canines play with the officers during the briefing then go
nuts at anyone who gets near their unit 2 minutes later when they are inside (including those people that just pet them). It's not just about the handler being there. They know the difference, they are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. If they didn't, they wouldn't do things like go to elementary schools or city events where all the kids pet them relentlessly. It's not as black and white as you (and dogs) see it.

Long story short, Giordano is an evil man who hates dogs.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

He was awful but the last 3 games I've seen improvements and he's been playing smarter still obviously not what he once was but definitely better

is it b/c he's on the third pairing?

 

[Dirk316]

is it b/c he's on the third pairing?

No just his overall game, if anything Holzer is playing atrocious and hindering that pair. If he continues to play like he is now he will be OK with Lindholm but I doubt he does

 

[Arthuros]

Heard Hayward babble something last night about how Carlyle prefers having one puck-mover and one physical guy on every pairing.

So...Lindholm's not gonna be happy with his partner.

 

[mightyquack]

It would be nice if Bieksa stopped pushing players into his own goalie for one game.

 

[Paul4587]

Heard Hayward babble something last night about how Carlyle prefers having one puck-mover and one physical guy on every pairing.

So...Lindholm's not gonna be happy with his partner.

I think Carlyle is going to want to ice the best 6 guys he has available and will overload the top 4 like he always has. I'd say if Lindholm is given a stay at home partner it will be Manson who he's already got chemistry with, not Bieksa who did not compliment him at all.

 

[Duck Off]

Carlyle won't split up pairs that are working meaning until proven otherwise fowler Manson and Vat/Stoner are staying.
He also likes to pair offensive dmen with physical dmen so unless we can close Manson Lindholm will be playing with Bieksa
But hopefully Carlyle can fix some of the holes in his game and turn him into a stay at home only type

I agree somewhat. I think Carlyle will prefer to not break up pairs that are working, which is why I think Fowler-Manson will stay together. However, Stoner is clearly playing a top 4 role because of a lack of options right now. There's no question he and Vatanen have chemistry though so maybe RC does prefer to keep those two together. If that happens, and we see Vatanen get 3rd pairing matchups, again; this better shove it down Murrays ****ing throat that Vatanen is nowhere near as important as Fowler.

Lindholm and Bieksa may get a game or two, but I guarantee it will be short lived. If Carlyle just insists on keeping Vatanen and Stoner together; Fowler will be the one who will have to baby sit Bieksa. I see two likely scenarios once Lindholm has been here for a week or so:

Option 1:
Lindholm-Manson
Fowler-Bieksa
Stoner-Vatanen

Option 2:
Lindholm-Vatanen
Fowler-Manson
Stoner-Bieksa

My ideal pairings:
Lindholm-Vatanen
Fowler-Manson
Stoner-Theodore
Bieksa: moon

I think option 2 is the most likely outcome though.

 

[Duck Off]

He was awful but the last 3 games I've seen improvements and he's been playing smarter still obviously not what he once was but definitely better

What you call improvements, I call less noticeable ****ups. He and Holzer were awful, and although I think Holzer is a big reason why; Bieksa is just as much to blame. He hasn't made as many mental errors lately, but that's what happens when you start seeing easier matchups. It simply stuns me how a veteran with his experience can get so lost out there.

 

[Sojourn]

I'm not a fan of Bieksa, but he wasn't the only factor in how bad Lindholm and Bieksa looked as a pairing to start last season. I think that's worth remembering. Lindholm was pretty trash too. Just because they looked awful together for that short time doesn't automatically mean the pairing would be a failure again, assuming Lindholm plays like Lindholm.

No, it isn't what we want, but if Carlyle is happy with the Fowler and Manson pairing, it may just be what happens. If it does, let's at least wait and see before we start assuming it's going to be a disaster. Fowler was able to drag his pairing to competence when he was with Bieksa. I think Lindholm can do the same.

 

[Sojourn]

It would be nice if Bieksa stopped pushing players into his own goalie for one game.

No kidding. What is that ****? Not only is it stupid, and dangerous to the goaltender, but it also means he's going to have poor body position if the puck happens to end up there.

What kind of defense does he think that is? Have you ever heard of defense being taught that way? My coaches would have ripped me a new one if I pulled that nonsense.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

He's behind the play vast majority of times, thus reactionary. He has not been better than his usual. Someone needs to compile all his shifts from last night, they were mostly crap.

 

[Duck Off]

I'm not a fan of Bieksa, but he wasn't the only factor in how bad Lindholm and Bieksa looked as a pairing to start last season. I think that's worth remembering. Lindholm was pretty trash too. Just because they looked awful together for that short time doesn't automatically mean the pairing would be a failure again, assuming Lindholm plays like Lindholm.

No, it isn't what we want, but if Carlyle is happy with the Fowler and Manson pairing, it may just be what happens. If it does, let's at least wait and see before we start assuming it's going to be a disaster. Fowler was able to drag his pairing to competence when he was with Bieksa. I think Lindholm can do the same.

This is my biggest complaint about it. Yes, Fowler still played well when paired with Bieksa, despite Bieksa clearly being in over his head in that role. We see what Fowler can do when he's not playing with a ****** partner. I think the same thing will go for Lindholm. His playoff performance was downright excellent. He may do fine with Bieksa, but there's no question it will most likely always hinder him. It's been nice having a coach who knows Bieksa is not top 4 material. That shouldn't change with Lindholm coming back, IMO.

 

[Ducks DVM]

If you don't think dogs can tell the difference, spend some time around a police station sometime and watch the way the canines play with the officers during the briefing then go
nuts at anyone who gets near their unit 2 minutes later when they are inside (including those people that just pet them). It's not just about the handler being there. They know the difference, they are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. If they didn't, they wouldn't do things like go to elementary schools or city events where all the kids pet them relentlessly. It's not as black and white as you (and dogs) see it.

Long story short, Giordano is an evil man who hates dogs.

No, it is that black and white. They respond to the commands their handler gives (which were being given pretty strongly after everyone petted the dog last night). They don't "know" whether or not here working. They know what they are "told" , and have learned behaviors linked to certain circumstances. Many dogs have commands that let them know it's ok to be petted. It's always bad form to pet without explicitly asking, because it can confuse the dog, and with some be quite dangerous, and many people know that.

Google "is it ok to pet a service dog". If you can find a link on the first page that says "yes, absolutely" get back to me.

Guordano is a bad man period. No dogs required for confirmation. Most likely he knew a bomb dog would just detect the Flames play.

 

[Kalv]

Heard Hayward babble something last night about how Carlyle prefers having one puck-mover and one physical guy on every pairing.

So...Lindholm's not gonna be happy with his partner.

Lubo and Lydman was one of the best PAIRINGS Carlyle has ever had. Lydman wasn`t soft but wasn`t a tough guy either.
I honestly think Lindholm-Vatanen can work under Carlyle just fine

 

[Godzlaf]

No, it is that black and white. They respond to the commands their handler gives (which were being given pretty strongly after everyone petted the dog last night). They don't "know" whether or not here working. They know what they are "told" , and have learned behaviors linked to certain circumstances. Many dogs have commands that let them know it's ok to be petted. It's always bad form to pet without explicitly asking, because it can confuse the dog, and with some be quite dangerous, and many people know that.

Google "is it ok to pet a service dog". If you can find a link on the first page that says "yes, absolutely" get back to me.

Guordano is a bad man period. No dogs required for confirmation. Most likely he knew a bomb dog would just detect the Flames play.

You're missing the point. And the dogs are fine to be pet, so long as they are not being given commands to do something else and the handler is ok with it, which he clearly was. The petting is a positive reinforcement for doing something good... in this case, dropping the puck. If the handler didn't want the dog to be pet, there'd have been a discussion before the dog was even in the building. And sorry, but it's laughable to even suggest googling that very vague question will settle anything... since "service dogs" encompasses a pretty broad range, for example, seeing eye dogs who are always on duty and shouldn't be pet. See the grey yet? And furthermore, you place way too much trust in the internet if that's the final word on debates for you.

 

[Sojourn]

If you don't think dogs can tell the difference, spend some time around a police station sometime and watch the way the canines play with the officers during the briefing then go
nuts at anyone who gets near their unit 2 minutes later when they are inside (including those people that just pet them). It's not just about the handler being there. They know the difference, they are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. If they didn't, they wouldn't do things like go to elementary schools or city events where all the kids pet them relentlessly. It's not as black and white as you (and dogs) see it.

Long story short, Giordano is an evil man who hates dogs.

When I was growing up, my Dad used to defend police dogs in court. There were a lot of times I was around them, because hey, I was a kid and I liked seeing him work. In all that time, it was always frowned on to pet the dogs, and believe me, as a kid, that's all I wanted to do. It was always about the handler, not the location. I was never with the dogs in their actual home, so I can't comment on their actions there, but everywhere else the dog was on the job. It didn't matter if we were in a place that should have been safe. It still wasn't "safe" for the canine officer. This was true even when the animal was acting playful, or friendly, and I was warned a few times by their partners that you can't make those assumptions, because those dogs don't have an off switch. When they are out, they are on the job. Always.

That's my experience. The handlers were always polite about it, but they were pretty firm that unless they (the handler) gives you the okay, you shouldn't attempt to pet them. It wasn't about intelligence. It's about training. They are remarkably intelligent animals, but conditioned responses don't have off switches. They were fuzzy warriors, with big teeth.

 

[Godzlaf]

When I was growing up, my Dad used to defend police dogs in court. There were a lot of times I was around them, because hey, I was a kid and I liked seeing him work. In all that time, it was always frowned on to pet the dogs, and believe me, as a kid, that's all I wanted to do. It was always about the handler, not the location. I was never with the dogs in their actual home, so I can't comment on their actions there, but everywhere else the dog was on the job. It didn't matter if we were in a place that should have been safe. It still wasn't "safe" for the canine officer. This was true even when the animal was acting playful, or friendly, and I was warned a few times by their partners that you can't make those assumptions, because those dogs don't have an off switch. When they are out, they are on the job. Always.

That's my experience. The handlers were always polite about it, but they were pretty firm that unless they (the handler) gives you the okay, you shouldn't attempt to pet them. It wasn't about intelligence. It's about training. They are remarkably intelligent animals, but conditioned responses don't have off switches. They were fuzzy warriors, with big teeth.

This is true, and like I said if the handler had a problem with anyone petting the dog, he would have expressed that prior. Also, it should be noted that bomb sniffing dogs don't attack as part of their job, which greatly reduces the risk of "misunderstanding".

 

[Ducks DVM]

You're missing the point. And the dogs are fine to be pet, so long as they are not being given commands to do something else and the handler is ok with it, which he clearly was. The petting is a positive reinforcement for doing something good... in this case, dropping the puck. If the handler didn't want the dog to be pet, there'd have been a discussion before the dog was even in the building. And sorry, but it's laughable to even suggest googling that very vague question will settle anything... since "service dogs" encompasses a pretty broad range, for example, seeing eye dogs who are always on duty and shouldn't be pet. See the grey yet? And furthermore, you place way too much trust in the internet if that's the final word on debates for you.

Is it as laughable as suggesting that a vet with over 20 years of experience and actual experience with the types of dogs you're referring to knows nothing about dog cognition? Because that's what you're doing.

I said it was considered poor form. It is. You've yet to provide anything other than your opinion to disprove that. You have no idea if the Samuelis and Getzlaf asked him or not if they could pet him, and if it was discussed prior to the event or if they just assumed it was cool. The handler wasn't exactly beaming as he gave hand signals to the dog after they did it.

I'm out. You're entitled to your own opinion.

 

[Godzlaf]

Is it as laughable as suggesting that a vet with over 20 years of experience and actual experience with the types of dogs you're referring to knows nothing about dog cognition? Because that's what you're doing.

I said it was considered poor form. It is. You've yet to provide anything other than your opinion to disprove that. You have no idea if the Samuelis and Getzlaf asked him or not if they could pet him, and if it was discussed prior to the event or if they just assumed it was cool. The handler wasn't exactly beaming as he gave hand signals to the dog after they did it.

I'm out. You're entitled to your own opinion.

And you have no idea that they DIDN'T ask permission. Things go both ways if you want to play that card. It's not "poor form" if the handler oks it. If you want to speak in absolutes you will paint yourself into a corner 9 times out of 10 in this world. And did I say you know "nothing"? Again with the hyperbole. I'm telling you that it's not black and white. And I have provided plenty to support that. And did you really expect a member of the armed services to "beam" while he is giving his dog commands. Seriously? Do you "beam" when doing everyday activities? You want to act like you are omniscient on this matter, and that your word is the final, absolute, end all of the argument. So I guess we will see if you are really "out" on this matter or if you want to keep riding your fallacious argument into the sunset.

 

[duckaroosky]

When I was growing up, my Dad used to defend police dogs in court. There were a lot of times I was around them, because hey, I was a kid and I liked seeing him work. In all that time, it was always frowned on to pet the dogs, and believe me, as a kid, that's all I wanted to do. It was always about the handler, not the location. I was never with the dogs in their actual home, so I can't comment on their actions there, but everywhere else the dog was on the job. It didn't matter if we were in a place that should have been safe. It still wasn't "safe" for the canine officer. This was true even when the animal was acting playful, or friendly, and I was warned a few times by their partners that you can't make those assumptions, because those dogs don't have an off switch. When they are out, they are on the job. Always.

That's my experience. The handlers were always polite about it, but they were pretty firm that unless they (the handler) gives you the okay, you shouldn't attempt to pet them. It wasn't about intelligence. It's about training. They are remarkably intelligent animals, but conditioned responses don't have off switches. They were fuzzy warriors, with big teeth.

Is this your dad?

 

[Ducks DVM]

And you have no idea that they DIDN'T ask permission. Things go both ways if you want to play that card. It's not "poor form" if the handler oks it. If you want to speak in absolutes you will paint yourself into a corner 9 times out of 10 in this world. And did I say you know "nothing"? Again with the hyperbole. I'm telling you that it's not black and white. And I have provided plenty to support that. And did you really expect a member of the armed services to "beam" while he is giving his dog commands. Seriously? Do you "beam" when doing everyday activities? You want to act like you are omniscient on this matter, and that your word is the final, absolute, end all of the argument. So I guess we will see if you are really "out" on this matter or if you want to keep riding your fallacious argument into the sunset.

This argument started with you categorically stating that Giordano was a bad person for not petting a service dog, and me pointing out that he might simply know that he might be aware that it was considered poor form to do so.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Godzlaf]

This argument started with you categorically stating that Giordano was a bad person for not petting a service dog, and me pointing out that he might simply know that he might be aware that it was considered poor form to do so.

Pot, meet kettle.

And you really think I was being serious when I said that? I didn't think the was necessary for such an obviously facetious statement. And if you think I "categorically" made that statement then either you don't know the meaning of "categorically", or you need to reread the original post.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Primary Meanings of
categorical
1.
adj
relating to or included in a category or categories
2.
adj
not modified or restricted by reservations

Late to the party but did anyone else get offended that Giordano made no effort to pet the dog after the puck drop? TF is that.

That dog was getting pet by everyone and loving it. I don't trust a man that doesn't like dogs.

And you really think I was being serious when I said that? I didn't think the was necessary for such an obviously facetious statement. And if you think I "categorically" made that statement then either you don't know the meaning of "categorically", or you need to reread the original post.

Well, one of us doesn't. Unless you can somehow use sophistry to explain how you consider someone who offends you and that you don't trust to be good, ok, acceptable, or any other adjective not synonymous with "bad" people.

The became necessary when you doubled down on multiple people responding to your first quote with your second. Because the first one didn't seem obviously facetious in any way shape or form.

 

[ohcomeonref]

Well, one of us doesn't. Unless you can somehow use sophistry to explain how you consider someone who offends you and that you don't trust to be good, ok, acceptable, or any other adjective not synonymous with "bad" people.

The became necessary when you doubled down on multiple people responding to your first quote with your second. Because the first one didn't seem obviously facetious in any way shape or form.

If you couldn't tell that what he was saying was tongue-in-cheek that's on you.

 

[Godzlaf]

Well, one of us doesn't. Unless you can somehow use sophistry to explain how you consider someone who offends you and that you don't trust to be good, ok, acceptable, or any other adjective not synonymous with "bad" people.

The became necessary when you doubled down on multiple people responding to your first quote with your second. Because the first one didn't seem obviously facetious in any way shape or form.

So you think it is completely normal and unambiguous when someone says they are offended by an athlete not petting a dog. Sure thing guy. Like I said, ride it into the sunset. Kettle, meet pot.

If you couldn't tell that what he was saying was tongue-in-cheek that's on you.

Exactly.