LW Andreas Johnson - Frolunda, SHL (2013, 202nd, TOR)

stavs*

Registered User
Oct 11, 2010
3,549
0
Toronto
Kelly should get Torres treatment. That's not even accidental thats a blatant target to the head. Johnson may never play hockey the same way again. ****ing scrub, this should give the Marlies even more incentive to wipe the floor with the Devils.
 

schenneuf

Registered User
Jul 4, 2011
1,334
1
Definitely a massive concussion. Hopefully he fully recovers and doesn't have PCS. What are the chances of that?
 

LeafGm

Registered User
Jan 10, 2009
264
24
Definitely a massive concussion. Hopefully he fully recovers and doesn't have PCS. What are the chances of that?
The Leafs have spent a lot of money on their medical science department, and I think the way they handled William Nylander after he suffered his concussion in the WJC shows that we should be able to expect that they'll handle Johnson with an over-abundance of caution, and won't have him back in a game until he's completely healthy.

But there isn't really any doubt that this was a pretty significant concussion. He was knocked out cold, and when he came to, apparently he didn't know where he was and didn't recognize any of the Marlies training staff. He also continued to be disoriented and had memory problems throughout the evening after they brought him to the hospital.
 

gretskidoo

Registered User
Nov 26, 2011
4,794
395



I think 10 games is fair. Personally, I wanted more to set a standard that these hits are unacceptable now.


It's fair, but the problem is that you can't be fair to people making hits like this. You have to come down hard on them or they'll never stop.
 

buttman*

Guest
It's fair, but the problem is that you can't be fair to people making hits like this. You have to come down hard on them or they'll never stop.

10 sends a message. He misses the rest of the playoffs and the start of next year. He also becomes a repeat offender and if this happens again I bet it's 30+.

It also sends a message to other players -- 10 games is not a suspension lots of guys want.
 

The Thin White Duke

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
3,909
1
Suspensions for these types of players will never solve the issue. Nobody's buying a ticket to see Kelly play. AHL plugs know their only chance at getting another contract is to play on the line. Obviously they'll risk getting suspended if the alternative is to start looking for another job.
 

LeafGm

Registered User
Jan 10, 2009
264
24
Suspensions for these types of players will never solve the issue. Nobody's buying a ticket to see Kelly play. AHL plugs know their only chance at getting another contract is to play on the line. Obviously they'll risk getting suspended if the alternative is to start looking for another job.
I do agree---my preference would have been for this suspension to be a lot stiffer. This was as predatory a hit as I've seen in a long time.

Still, it's not a slap on the wrist. If the Marlies knock Albany out of the playoffs and he ends up serving seven or eight games of this suspension next season, he'll be forfeiting 8-10% of his annual salary. And for a career AHLer like him, who hasn't banked millions of dollars in his hockey career and has likely been making something in the $50-90K range per season, losing that kind of money is definitely going to hurt.
 

The Thin White Duke

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
3,909
1
I do agree---my preference would have been for this suspension to be a lot stiffer. This was as predatory a hit as I've seen in a long time.

Still, it's not a slap on the wrist. If the Marlies knock Albany out of the playoffs and he ends up serving seven or eight games of this suspension next season, he'll be forfeiting 8-10% of his annual salary. And for a career AHLer like him, who hasn't banked millions of dollars in his hockey career and has likely been making something in the $50-90K range per season, losing that kind of money is definitely going to hurt.

I don't know if the length of the suspension is necessarily the thing to be looking at. Fining the coach and management for encouraging and allowing this kind of hit to happen is the only thing that will begin to fix the headhunting we see in the AHL and Juniors. Hurting the guy financially just makes the situation suck for everyone to be honest. I don't mind seeing guys like Cooke lose money when I know he's got millions + NHL pension to retire on.

The problem with this suspension is that it hasn't changed the cost/benefit analysis for Kelly at all. He's still faced with the choice of playing on the line or looking for a new job when he gets back from this suspension.
 

Scorcho

Twitter @AmateurAdult11
Apr 16, 2010
3,193
785
Space
I don't know if the length of the suspension is necessarily the thing to be looking at. Fining the coach and management for encouraging and allowing this kind of hit to happen is the only thing that will begin to fix the headhunting we see in the AHL and Juniors. Hurting the guy financially just makes the situation suck for everyone to be honest. I don't mind seeing guys like Cooke lose money when I know he's got millions + NHL pension to retire on.

The problem with this suspension is that it hasn't changed the cost/benefit analysis for Kelly at all. He's still faced with the choice of playing on the line or looking for a new job when he gets back from this suspension.

I doubt Kelly returns to the devils next season, He was a Lou Lams hiring and signing.
I think shero will move on.

So for those of you wanting to fine the coaching staff/management for players actions, that would mean you'd have to fine Lamoriello, correct?
 

Future

Registered User
Feb 8, 2011
10,705
3,506
Ontario
10 games is not nearly enough. There needs to be stricter punishment for these types of hits. Sick sight to see a kid lying on the ice like that because of a puke's attempt to injure.
 

TheKrebsCycle

Throwing Confetti for Perfetti
Jun 1, 2011
6,383
1,984
Barrie
More dirty hit/attempts in this game so clearly the suspension wasn't severe enough to dissuade such play.
 

Man Bear Pig

Registered User
Aug 10, 2008
30,995
13,739
Earth



I think 10 games is fair. Personally, I wanted more to set a standard that these hits are unacceptable now.


My problem is, is that enough to stop some goon from doing this again? unlikely. Kelly gets paid to play on the line, and, on occasion, cross it. I can't stand players like him. They toil in the AHL or ECHL and never make any noise until they throw a cheap shot on a good player. Johnson isn't a blue chipper but he's a good prospect, and likely an NHL player, and some bum just delivered brain damage to him. Hockey has moved beyond beer league-like skilled players, they have no place in the NHL anymore. The sport has moved past bums like this. And before people point to players like Orr or any other goon who's played for the Leafs, I didn't like those players. They have no place in the NHL. Face punchers are not hockey players.
 

ITM

As Long As It Takes
Jan 26, 2012
4,536
2,509
My problem is, is that enough to stop some goon from doing this again? unlikely. Kelly gets paid to play on the line, and, on occasion, cross it. I can't stand players like him. They toil in the AHL or ECHL and never make any noise until they throw a cheap shot on a good player. Johnson isn't a blue chipper but he's a good prospect, and likely an NHL player, and some bum just delivered brain damage to him. Hockey has moved beyond beer league-like skilled players, they have no place in the NHL anymore. The sport has moved past bums like this. And before people point to players like Orr or any other goon who's played for the Leafs, I didn't like those players. They have no place in the NHL. Face punchers are not hockey players.

But the reality is, some are both. Our President was a hockey player and "face-puncher".

Ten games I've read, is a "fair" initial disciplinary action. I disagree. That hit was egregious, whether it was a reflex or was loaded for Johnson before Kelly left the bench doesn't matter. I think the action appeals to the intentional fallacy in a certain way. The effect is the effect for all to see. And the trade off is a potential game-breaker sent off the ice for a face-puncher. You're an AHL coach who wants an NHL job and your goal is a championship, the trade-off is a simple one. And if people think that "that kind of thing" doesn't still go on (where one coach encourages a player to do one thing or another), then there's some lambs out there that need to know that the wolves haven't gone anywhere.

Intermediate disciplinary action isn't going to achieve the ultimate goal of ridding cheap-short artists from the game. Never has and never will. And what's more, it's funny to read how many seem to think that that idea is a new idea. It isn't. The game is the game and in a small area (comparatively to the increase in size to players) with increased speed and superior coaching strategies and training regiments, material change needs aggressive application. And there's no better incentive than non-negotiable suspensions that are measured in thirds. Start with 1/3 of a season, move to 2/3 on the second infraction, with a year suspension the third time and with subsequent infractions with exponential increase. This to say, a 5th infraction is essentially the end of one's career in the AHL and the NHL.

Let the Kellys of the hockey world dumb their way into invisibility.

If a Raffi Torres or a Matt Cooke is fourth-time cheap-shotting an NHL player, then a league is endorsing a pattern that's potentially career-ending to real hockey players. It's unacceptable to me to provide opportunity after opportunity to players whose contribution to the game is defined by erasing the contributions of others with potential permanency.

In the meantime, an enforcer that can play hockey is still a necessary asset. Call the enforcer by another name, or don't mention it all and simply refer to the hockey player that's also a face-puncher, by his name. But critics like Don Cherry are right from a pragmatic necessity. Players that can fight and give hired goons pause to think are still necessary.

It's always been the same and until a time when it isn't if a league won't enforce suitable protection,teams have to.

10 games...:shakehead
 

FrozenJagrt

Registered User
Dec 16, 2009
10,446
4,488
I would like to see teams face harsh punishments as well. It will make a team think twice before employing dirty players, which should phase these talented rats out of the game.
 

nyrcup94

Registered User
Jul 14, 2002
228
0
Winston-Salem, NC
Visit site
I would like to see teams face harsh punishments as well. It will make a team think twice before employing dirty players, which should phase these talented rats out of the game.

Good point, FrozenJagrt. If teams area also accountable for the action of players, beyond just losing that player for X number of games, that may wake them up also. Maybe a large fine for continuing to use players who are repeat offenders. That would have gotten that punk Matt Cooke out of hockey sooner.

You could take the counter argument that it's the player's fault and not the team, but if they are a repeat offender and the team keeps putting them out there, they should be punished.
 

Morguee

Registered User
Jan 22, 2010
3,002
184
I would like to see teams face harsh punishments as well. It will make a team think twice before employing dirty players, which should phase these talented rats out of the game.

Make it so if a player is suspended he can't be replaced on the roster. A lot of teams would think twice about employing a high risk offender.
 

jfhabs

Registered User
May 21, 2015
4,709
2,203
FIrst, that was a dangerous hit and the suspension was not harsh enough in my opinion. I don't know the player but some mentioned he's a "goon" so I would have given him more.

What I don't like in this thread is the :"all the goons/on the edge players are the devil" kind of speech... let's not forgot guys like Colton orr were adored in Toronto not so long ago...

I mean every team has players like that and it always been that way...those players are loved when they are on your team and hated when they play for the rival team. See Orr, Marchand, etc
 

FrozenJagrt

Registered User
Dec 16, 2009
10,446
4,488
FIrst, that was a dangerous hit and the suspension was not harsh enough in my opinion. I don't know the player but some mentioned he's a "goon" so I would have given him more.

What I don't like in this thread is the :"all the goons/on the edge players are the devil" kind of speech... let's not forgot guys like Colton orr were adored in Toronto not so long ago...

I mean every team has players like that and it always been that way...those players are loved when they are on your team and hated when they play for the rival team. See Orr, Marchand, etc

Orr wasn't a guy that went out looking to hurt star players. He had one suspension, and that wasn't with the Leafs. In fact, during his time in Toronto he was a very clean player that played with a code.

Darcy Tucker is a better comparison, or Tie Domi, but you'll find a large group of Leafs fans that hated the way those guys played.
 

Henderson19

Registered User
Jul 6, 2007
670
10
Make it so if a player is suspended he can't be replaced on the roster. A lot of teams would think twice about employing a high risk offender.

This is the answer. :handclap::handclap::handclap:

Fines and suspensions impact the player, but money doesn't hurt a team much. But when the bench is short for 10+ games? That's when things will finally change.
 

Winston Wolf

Registered User
May 15, 2003
12,089
6,690
Philadelphia
They should've given him more than 10, especially with it being in the AHL.

I would like to see teams face harsh punishments as well. It will make a team think twice before employing dirty players, which should phase these talented rats out of the game.
Who is going to introduce this idea, the owners? Not going to happen.

Make it so if a player is suspended he can't be replaced on the roster. A lot of teams would think twice about employing a high risk offender.
No chance. Both the NHLPA and the owners would never allow it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->