Discussion in 'Boston Bruins' started by Gee Wally, Dec 2, 2018.
Keep it ALL in here.
Keep it absolutely civil.
This is the only warning that will be given.
Shockingly I disagree with every word and one of the reasons we are where we are us because reporters who never played the game got all hissy when people fought and when intimidation was used. They were forced to cover hockey, hated it, and cried and whined to change it to something they could enjoy while waiting to cover another sport they understood. Was this every media member, no, but far too many, especially Americzn writers and broadcasters, neither understood or played hockey. There constant whining and the NHLs sad NBA envy syndrome have led to a boring, passive game.
Wouldn't you just prefer to watch chess at this point? The game STILL isnt wussified enough for you, maybe something with no chance of contact or injury.
You got me. I bow to your intellectual superiority. I should have known better than to tangle with someone of such masterful acuity. I am going to somehow have to find a way to pick up the pieces and move on. I hope I can.
that dude in this thread is this dude in good will hunting
So reporters are wusses. Fine. I still have no idea what your point is, or how it pertains to this article.
I like the sport of hockey, which is played at many levels, in many leagues, in many places without fights. In fact, most NHL games I watch don't have fights. So, I'm good, but thanks for caring.
Perhaps you would prefer just to watch fights.
BTW I don't consider a concern for the health of other people to be "wussiness" or anything of the like. Nor have I ever said that there should be no contact or no chance of injury.
As I've said many times- a body check is a legal play that is a defense to the possession and advancement of the puck. It happens with the clock running and the puck in play. It happens 100 times during the game without injury. That injuries sometimes happen is an unfortunate event, but it is an acceptable risk (Much like injuries happen in the shower, but it's an acceptable risk to take one daily).
A fight is designed to injure. Otherwise this mythical deterrent wouldn't be asserted. There is no other point but to injure. If you or anyone else is entertained by watching someone injured, that's your choice. If you aren't seeing enough of that in hockey today, there are other sports you can watch where you can see people injuring themselves so that you don't feel like the world is too wussified.
Matt Damon? Nah, I'm much taller, but thanks.
The Hockey News had him ranked as 13th,and then he got injured!!! You either were too young back then or weren't following closely enough. BTW,my post was a collection of 4 other voices from the History of Hockey. LB had a PPG of 1.53 and the next highest on your goon list was Kordic at 1.17. LB is the only player on that list whose potential was that of a hard nosed scorer,and not a policeman or enforcer.
A wonderful retort. You still like wimpy hockey.
Sure, if that's what makes you feel extra supery dupery manly, go for it. It sure beats trying to have an actual rational debate.
possibly the most rational post in this thread, well done Sir
The Bruins have at least 5 concussions this season, none from fighting. Marc Savards career was ended from concussions, none from fighting.
I don't know what the numbers say, but we seem to have less fighting in today's game, but plenty of concussions.
also, fighting is and has been a part of the game. It's a penalty just like hooking, holding and slashing.
He actually said everything but that.
I don't care where the hockey news had him rated. There's a huge list of players who were picked top 10 and didn't make it in the NHL. Scouting was awful back then.
So his knee injury didn't stop him from scoring in junior the next season but prevented him from being a good NHL player.....ok. I'll admit he was better in junior then those guys I listed and he had the potential to be a hard nosed scorer but he didn't live up to it and your making up a bunch of excuses for him. How come he couldn't score in the AHL?
Maybe his numbers in junior had something to do with the two guys on his line who both had over 140 points compared to LB's 89. How closely did you watch the Regina Pat's?
There were other reasons LB wasn't successful. A lot of enforcers in the 80's had the same issues. He also was very injury prone once he made the NHL.
His 87-88 season when Taz had him on the Burridge-Kasper line he was very good, then he got injured and was moved to the Miller-O'Dwyer line. 88-89 management decided that he was going to be the lone enforcer on the team and traded Miller. He couldn't handle it physically and started to break down. 89-90 Satan's handicapped child Milbury took over, decided to play turn the other cheek hockey and that was the end of LB.
His 87-88 season is still one of my favorite years from a player
I’ll admit that I loved the old days of scraps. Thursday night matchups with Habs in the Byers, Miller, Korcic, Nilan days were fun.
Knowing what I now do about CTE im glad the goons days are over. My point above notwithstanding. Reading stories about the mental anguish most of these guys — who are 100 fold tougher than me — went through before games is pretty harsh.
I still don’t mind a good scrap based on emotion, but am not a fan of guys “having” to fight for throwing a good, clean hard check.
I AM a fan of the fools on the Main Boards who are currently losing their minds over Marchand not fighting Eller the other night.
Fair enough. If things had went right for him he could've been like Burridge but tougher. Things didn't work out for him tho, happens to a lot of players.
My issue is with BNHL saying he got suckered into the enforcer role and that's part of the reason he didnt score more. Guys like Tocchet, Clark, Neely etc fought and scored. No way the Bruins would've prevented him from being like those guys if they thought he could. He probably was told to be an enforcer but so were guys like Probert, Jonathan, Mcsorley etc and they were all still somewhat productive. Being an enforcer didn't mean you couldn't be a good player still and while LB wasnt terrible, he didnt do enough to earn a top 9 role.
Byers was hurt a lot and I don't think his commitment level was good enough. He enjoyed life off the ice.
That's a very good point. A lot of guys back then let their partying get in the way of reaching their potential.
Byers off ice issues were what I was referring to when saying other enforcers had the same problem. LB wasn't Probert but he wasn't an angel. A committed Byers would probably have been a solid third liner who could fight, instead he wound up as an injury prone fighter who liked to party.
A much better fighter than Steve Leach but pretty similar offensive totals wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Pure conjecture on my part but there was wasted talent there
Fighting is at an historic low in today’s NHL - The Boston Globe
The fight game isn’t dead, and perhaps it will linger for decades, but in the overall scheme of NHL entertainment it has been reduced to a bug rather than a feature.
By the looks of it, the bug is in the throes of extermination. Bruins fans need only look at the construct of the current Black and Gold roster for proof. Nope, Shawn Thornton (career penalty minutes: 1,103) is not walking down that runway, folks.
True, a few guys on the Boston roster are perfectly capable of handling themselves, none better than team captain Zdeno Chara, but it is no longer an essential part of the club’s DNA or marketing approach — one, admittedly, that Causeway Street customers embraced lovingly for decades. A few still pine for the smell of blood that permeated the old Garden, the way old North Enders swear they can still smell the molasses from the great flood of 1919.
But have heart, Bruins fans, it’s not just your favorite team that has all but given up the sweet science sur glace.
Shade your eyes, Terry O’Reilly and Milan Lucic fans, here are the numbers, as measured by fighting majors (five minutes each) per game over the last 10 seasons:
2017-18 — 0.44; 2016-17 — 0.61; 2015-16 — 0.56; 2014-15 — 0.63; 2013-14 — 0.76; 2012-13 — 0.96; 2011-12 — 0.89; 2010-11 — 1.04; 2009-10 — 1.16; 2008-09 — 1.19.
As of the middle of this past week, slightly more than halfway through the 2018-19 season, the number was down again, to 0.38 fighting majors per game. Given that it typically takes two to tango, the current 1,271-game season will produce 482 fighting majors, or a mere 241 fights. That works out to about 16 fights per team over the course of the season. If you’re paying those high ticket prices in hopes of witnessing a fight, you might want to consider waiting for the UFC to make its way back to the Garden.
Do teams usually post comments on fights?
I’m down from a dozen games paid for to maybe 4 per season now and I have three options. You’re honestly lucky to catch a really exciting game with hitting and a fight. Most games are boring overall, with loud music and annoying people sitting around you
No but they should
Full season tickets from 87_88 to 93-94, split with someone until 98-99. Had Providence season tickets their first few seasons and would go to AHL or NHL road games on weekends when no Bruins game or when I opted to stop giving JJ my money.
Now I go to 2 games a year my wife gets free tickets for and have done so over the past 10 years. This year I am not all that excited to go to the games.
I used to live to go to games or play. Now it is pure apathy and for the first time in my life I consider myself more of a baseball fan than a hockey fan, something the 20 year old me would never have believed. It is all due to the wussification of the game.
Separate names with a comma.