Laraque... the prophet

[Kriss E]

Corncob

Nicklas Grossmann, that big ole goon with 4 fights in his entire NHL career.

To get the full impact, close your eyes and simply listen.



Myth.....................blown!!

That fight was in response to a boarding hit Grossman did 10min earlier in the game. He fought Parros. Kept hitting after finishing with 4 hits. Dallas won 2-1.

Amazing impact of Parros I must say...

 

[Corncob]

Corncob

Nicklas Grossmann, that big ole goon with 4 fights in his entire NHL career.

To get the full impact, close your eyes and simply listen.



Myth.....................blown!!

I'm not really sure what your definition of 'no choicing' someone is, but that video shows both players voluntarily dropping the gloves. Not really sure how that contradicts my view that the most we could expect if Parros had been on the roster against Boston would be for him to skate up to Miller at some point and put in a polite request for a fight.

 

[sandysan]

And yet Prust is more injured than last year, and also less productive. All in all, he's had a worse year.

There's zero proof that Parros's presence changed anything.

Yeah that's great evidence, because parros has been a regular scratch when healthy, and was out from the orr fight, the fact that he cant protect prust from running into the boards, yeah that means he's useless.

and looking at prust's fight card this year vs last, i dont see a lot of michalek's two years ago.

if parros is dressed he will play 5 min, hes not taking time from anyone and if a heavy comes calling, prust shoulder doesnt get tapped.

and this insistence on proof is juvinile, the gm signed parros. You think its for his defensive prowess? when he signed parros he mentioned that prust was always a willing guy even when told to lay off and that parros takes on some of that responsibility. But i guess a direct quote from the gm, that is exactly the same as my position, well thats not proofy enough for you. Because really what do the gms words mean compared to your beleif that "it does nothing"?

 

[JAVO16]

Also, I can see that Parros had terrible balance even back then.

 

[Kriss E]

Yeah that's great evidence, because parros has been a regular scratch when healthy, and was out from the orr fight, the fact that he cant protect prust from running into the boards, yeah that means he's useless.

and looking at prust's fight card this year vs last, i dont see a lot of michalek's two years ago.

That's the point. Parros doesn't change anything.

if parros is dressed he will play 5 min, hes not taking time from anyone and if a heavy comes calling, prust shoulder doesnt get tapped.

Funny, because Prust never shied away from fighting over his weight class with or without an enforcer. Nor did Prust shy away from fighting in an under class despite there being someone in his weight class on the other side either.

and this insistence on proof is juvinile, the gm signed parros. You think its for his defensive prowess? when he signed parros he mentioned that prust was always a willing guy even when told to lay off and that parros takes on some of that responsibility. But i guess a direct quote from the gm, that is exactly the same as my position, well thats not proofy enough for you. Because really what do the gms words mean compared to your beleif that "it does nothing"?

Ya, it's so juvenile to ask to someone that claims something to actually have proof. Such a silly thing. I could own Murray on a 1 on 1, but hey, don't ask for proof. Moen is a great 2nd liner, but no need for proof.
Enforcers have an impact on the game, but hey, don't ask for proof.
There's evidence showing that teams perform the same with or without an enforcer. But let's just ignore that, and refuse to give evidence to counter that fact.

Ya sure buddy. People should just shut up and take your word for it.

The GM excuse is a strawman, you can drop that already. And it's been countered a million times. It's been proven that the NHL is a very slow league at evolving and making changes. Fighting has always been part of the game. We're talking about it happening during the great depression, WW2, racial segregation, JFK assassination, and so on and so on. Needless to say, it's been part of the game since forever.
For almost 100 years. So ya, in an old timer's league, they won't just quickly get rid of that. However, we are starting to see some change, Yzerman and a couple more GMs have come out to say they wouldn't be opposed to see it gone from the sport.
So you can just throw your argument out of the window.



I'll say it again for the millionth time, I have no issues with people that enjoy fighting in hockey. I just find it ridiculous when they try to make a case that it actually influences the game. Say you like the spectacle, say you like the possibility of having a guy on the bench that can avenge another, say you think it can increase the rivalry between teams. I'm fine with all that. But don't say it influences the end result of the game. Don't say Plekanec will have a better game because Parros is sitting on the bench. That's just not true, and there's zero evidence for it.

 

[Andrei79]

Fighting 100% influences the game.

The Boston Bruins are a team who's entire team identity has revolved around fighting abilities since Julien and Lucic arrived. Without that identity, they neither win the cup or get to the finals last year.

 

[HabsRockBruinsChoke]

We're going to need a new fighter

Prust has been out twice before because both of his shoulders got injured consecutively, which are crucial components of a fighter, and now he is out because of a rib injury...

Now I know he is our #1 fighter but seriously, this guy should worry more about whether he can stay healthy enough to play as a regular player. Even without his fighting skills he is still a pretty decent 3rd line LW.

Out of the UFAs this off-season, I think Ott is our best target. $3mil caphit is not bad, hes got great face-off percentages, has SIZE, and is a well rounded enforcer. We could replace White to make room for him or even make Ott the 3rd line center.

Any thoughts?

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

We should have never expected him to be the primary fighter. I'm hoping we can go after a guy in the Neil mold (a legit fighter who can play)....but I guess a fighter of his caliber is pretty rare.

 

[sandysan]

That's the point. Parros doesn't change anything.


Funny, because Prust never shied away from fighting over his weight class with or without an enforcer. Nor did Prust shy away from fighting in an under class despite there being someone in his weight class on the other side either.



Ya, it's so juvenile to ask to someone that claims something to actually have proof. Such a silly thing. I could own Murray on a 1 on 1, but hey, don't ask for proof. Moen is a great 2nd liner, but no need for proof.
Enforcers have an impact on the game, but hey, don't ask for proof.
There's evidence showing that teams perform the same with or without an enforcer. But let's just ignore that, and refuse to give evidence to counter that fact.

Ya sure buddy. People should just shut up and take your word for it.

The GM excuse is a strawman, you can drop that already. And it's been countered a million times. It's been proven that the NHL is a very slow league at evolving and making changes. Fighting has always been part of the game. We're talking about it happening during the great depression, WW2, racial segregation, JFK assassination, and so on and so on. Needless to say, it's been part of the game since forever.
For almost 100 years. So ya, in an old timer's league, they won't just quickly get rid of that. However, we are starting to see some change, Yzerman and a couple more GMs have come out to say they wouldn't be opposed to see it gone from the sport.
So you can just throw your argument out of the window.



I'll say it again for the millionth time, I have no issues with people that enjoy fighting in hockey. I just find it ridiculous when they try to make a case that it actually influences the game. Say you like the spectacle, say you like the possibility of having a guy on the bench that can avenge another, say you think it can increase the rivalry between teams. I'm fine with all that. But don't say it influences the end result of the game. Don't say Plekanec will have a better game because Parros is sitting on the bench. That's just not true, and there's zero evidence for it.

im not asking you to take MY words, take the freaking GM's words and his action. If there is someone here who wants others to take their word for it, look in the mirror.

the gm signs an enforcer
the gm offers up the rationale for this signing is to take weight off Prust
Prust is ecstatic at signing
Parros has already dealt with one enforcer getting handsy with subban

vs

your argument it does nothing.


yeah the ledgers seem pretty equal. Nice job.

 

[Hoople]

That fight was in response to a boarding hit Grossman did 10min earlier in the game. He fought Parros. Kept hitting after finishing with 4 hits. Dallas won 2-1.

Amazing impact of Parros I must say...

Kriss, there's nothing wrong with Grossmann simply having to eat a few fists for taking runs at Parros' teammates.

It was nothing about whether Dallas won the game or not. Just some punishment handed out. It was up to Parros' teammates to win the game with their talent.

That's the concept lost on so many people. You hit, prepare to be hit.

 

[Hoople]

im not asking you to take MY words, take the freaking GM's words and his action. If there is someone here who wants others to take their word for it, look in the mirror.

the gm signs an enforcer
the gm offers up the rationale for this signing is to take weight off Prust
Prust is ecstatic at signing
Parros has already dealt with one enforcer getting handsy with subban

vs

your argument it does nothing.


yeah the ledgers seem pretty equal. Nice job.

That's why I enjoy threads like this. Some people think their opinion trumps reality.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

You're going to have a hard time proving how Parros influences the game he's played in, and in a positive way no less.

Parros is a shell of his former self. An effective enforcer changes games just like any other player that a team has to worry about.

 

[overlords]

Kriss, there's nothing wrong with Grossmann simply having to eat a few fists for taking runs at Parros' teammates.

It was nothing about whether Dallas won the game or not. Just some punishment handed out. It was up to Parros' teammates to win the game with their talent.

That's the concept lost on so many people. You hit, prepare to be hit.

Nothing wrong with it. But the point is that it didn't affect anything. It didn't help his team win. It's a sideshow. Which again, is fine to a certain extent. Just don't pretend that it's needed to win hockey games.

 

[Hoople]

Nothing wrong with it. But the point is that it didn't affect anything. It didn't help his team win. It's a sideshow. Which again, is fine to a certain extent. Just don't pretend that it's needed to win hockey games.

I can play the same game as well by picking one single game and extrapolating an opinion about it.

PK Subban was on the ice for 4 goals against Detroit. He did not help his team win and DD/Vanek won the game for the Habs. Subban is flashy and skates well with the puck and excites the fans. Thats fine to a certain extent. Just dont think that he is needed to win hockey games with his poor defense.


See how easy that was to look micro and project macro.

By the way, George Parros has his name on the Stanley Cup.

 

[firewagon77*]

There are always fighters available every year as free agents this off season.....Cody McCormick...Mark Fraser....Shawn Thornton....Ben Eager....Zenon Konopka....Chris Thorburn....Daniel Carcillo...John Scott....Stu Bickel....Paul Bissonnette...Mike Brown...Kevin Westgarth...Sheldon Brookbank....Brad Staubitz...Steve MacIntyre....Michael Haley...Troy Bodie...Zack Stortini....Matt Kassian...Deryk Engelland...Cam Janssen are all free agents also you could make a trade for someone like Kyle Clifford or Matt Martin.

 

[overlords]

I can play the same game as well by picking one single game and extrapolating an opinion about it.

PK Subban was on the ice for 4 goals against Detroit. He did not help his team win and DD/Vanek won the game for the Habs. Subban is flashy and skates well with the puck and excites the fans. Thats fine to a certain extent. Just dont think that he is needed to win hockey games with his poor defense.


See how easy that was to look micro and project macro.

By the way, George Parros has his name on the Stanley Cup.

I didn't pick anything. i'm not that one that brought up that parros fight. You just completely missed the point of the discussion.

Being on the ice for 4 goals against is now equivalent to not helping your team win? Where did this disconnect in logic come from? Everything after that point in your post is just meant to stir **** up. It's a very tired, boring act.

It's very easy to say that 2+2 does not equal 4, it doesn't mean you look any smarter for having said it.

Dandenault also has two cups. Jean Perron has won a cup as coach. legitimately stupid people have risen as high as president in certain, recent cases. Failing upwards happens.

awful players can be part of winning teams. All that means is that the team wins in spite of them, as opposed to contributing to them. This isn't a particularly difficult concept to get.

 

[Hoople]

I didn't pick anything. i'm not that one that brought up that parros fight. You just completely missed the point of the discussion.

Being on the ice for 4 goals against is now equivalent to not helping your team win? Where did this disconnect in logic come from? Everything after that point in your post is just meant to stir **** up. It's a very tired, boring act.

It's very easy to say that 2+2 does not equal 4, it doesn't mean you look any smarter for having said it.

Dandenault also has two cups. Jean Perron has won a cup as coach. legitimately stupid people have risen as high as president in certain, recent cases. Failing upwards happens.

awful players can be part of winning teams. All that means is that the team wins in spite of them, as opposed to contributing to them. This isn't a particularly difficult concept to get.

You and others are engaging in the "tired boring act" that you accuse me of doing. And the reason for that is the NHL has teams that employ enforcers. And those GMs that hired them will be upstairs watching their teams in the playoffs. And chances are very good that a team that has an enforcer on their roster will win the Stanley Cup.

Pointing out that reality is not an "act". It is not tired and while it goes against your belief system, it is a reality. You are on the side that continues to point out your opinions as if they mean anything in reality. And they do not. NHL GMs disagree with you. And they carry a little bit more clout than you regarding the games on the ice.

 

[overlords]

Childish drivel? Was that necessary?

You and others are engaging in the "tired boring act" that you accuse me of doing. And the reason for that is the NHL has teams that employ enforcers. And those GMs that hired them will be upstairs watching their teams in the playoffs. And chances are very good that a team that has an enforcer on their roster will win the Stanley Cup.

Pointing out that reality is not an "act". It is not tired and while it goes against your belief system, it is a reality. You are on the side that continues to point out your opinions as if they mean anything in reality. And they do not. NHL GMs disagree with you. And they carry a little bit more clout than you regarding the games on the ice.

Yep, those chances are pretty good. There's also a really good chance that the team who wins the cup has a player who wears a cross. Does that mean you need catholics to win the cup? I'd bet there's a great chance that the team who wins the cup this year has a gay player on it, too. Does that mean they need one to win? The winning team will also likely have a player who once dreamed of being a space cowboy. Etc, etc. Your logic doesn't hold.

The second part of your post is one giant appeal to authority. Ie: a logical fallacy. I try to keep my posts within the constraints of reason and logic, but that's your prerogative.

 

[Hoople]

Yep, those chances are pretty good. There's also a really good chance that the team who wins the cup has a player who wears a cross. Does that mean you need catholics to win the cup? I'd bet there's a great chance that the team who wins the cup this year has a gay player on it, too. Does that mean they need one to win? The winning team will also likely have a player who once dreamed of being a space cowboy. Etc, etc. Your logic doesn't hold.

The second part of your post is one giant appeal to authority. Ie: a logical fallacy. I try to keep my posts within the constraints of reason and logic, but that's your prerogative.

A logical fallacy? That is a cop out.

Its called reality. Its what we see on the rosters of NHL hockey teams.

You can disagree all you want with NHL GMs. Your choice.

 

[EvilGreenRanger]

Well I don't know about you guys, but it sure was fun watching the Habs get pushed around for 5 playoff games against the Sens last year.

• Eller getting destroyed by Gryba in Game 1
• Gionta tearing his bicep(limited to 2 games)
• Pacioretty missing a game with a lower-body injury
• Prust getting injured while fighting(limited to 4 games)
• White fighting and ending up with a punctured lung(missed game 5)

That all happened in a span of FIVE games, and the fifth game was 6-1 blowout by the Sens.


The Habs were pushed around in that series by a Sens lineup that included:

• Gyba
• Neil
• Kassian
• Methot
• Cowen
• Smith

 

[overlords]

A logical fallacy? That is a cop out.

Its called reality. Its what we see on the rosters of NHL hockey teams.

You can disagree all you want with NHL GMs. Your choice.

How is your using a logical fallacy, an argument that does not hold logical weight, a cop out on my part? You're jumping the shark.

 

[Hoople]

How is your using a logical fallacy, an argument that does not hold logical weight, a cop out on my part? You're jumping the shark.

If the majority of NHL GM's did not employ enforcers and I was advocating that NHL teams needed enforcers, then I would be advocating an illogical choice and using a logical fallacy because a couple of teams have them.

But that's not the case.

Its OK that we disagree.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

Well I don't know about you guys, but it sure was fun watching the Habs get pushed around for 5 playoff games against the Sens last year.

• Eller getting destroyed by Gryba in Game 1
• Gionta tearing his bicep(limited to 2 games)
• Pacioretty missing a game with a lower-body injury
• Prust getting injured while fighting(limited to 4 games)
• White fighting and ending up with a punctured lung(missed game 5)

That all happened in a span of FIVE games, and the fifth game was 6-1 blowout by the Sens.


The Habs were pushed around in that series by a Sens lineup that included:

• Gyba
• Neil
• Kassian
• Methot
• Cowen
• Smith

Some people still think Anderson was the reason we lost.

We got manhandled by a lesser team. Same story damn near every playoffs for the Habs.

 

[icerocket]

Some people still think Anderson was the reason we lost.

We got manhandled by a lesser team. Same story damn near every playoffs for the Habs.

Um Anderson was in fact part of the reason why we lost. The physical play of the Sens and the Walrus's mind games also contributed.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

Um Anderson was in fact part of the reason why we lost. The physical play of the Sens and the Walrus's mind games also contributed.

No. Anderson made the saves he should have made. We let him see everything. The biggest factors were the Sens D keeping us to the perimeter, Sens forwards punishing our D and forwards along the board and the physical play which contributed to a number of Habs injuries. Price also was not strong.

Anderson really was not as big a story as some make it out to be.