Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Replies 61
  • Views 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • bearpants
    bearpants

    too many people think it's still the 1970s.... size is important but speed and puck movement trumps size every time... I'd take a small, good skating puck mover over a big bruiser any day... although,

  • Idk what Paul is going on about, but that’s a huge allegation to say that it was intentional from tkachuck

  • FrostyWinnipeg
    FrostyWinnipeg

    I feel like such a fanatic. Part of me thinks the D is too small/weak and we will score the #1 draft pick. The other part thinks the same as Noeller.

comment_482005
1 hour ago, sweep the leg said:

It's hard to say what Tkachuk's plan was. At best it was incredibly reckless.

Oh for sure. Hard plays in to the boards like that can be incredibly reckless. But Maurice has to be 100% sure that it was intentional if he is gonna call him out for that. Otherwise it can make him look like the fool.

comment_482007
14 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

Oh for sure. Hard plays in to the boards like that can be incredibly reckless. But Maurice has to be 100% sure that it was intentional if he is gonna call him out for that. Otherwise it can make him look like the fool.

No it doesn't make Maurice look like a fool. He lost one of his best players on a reckless play by a known agitator. He's pissed.

Flames suck.

comment_482010

In a play such as this, the instigator usually gets the benefit of a doubt, depending on a number of factors. One of the factors, being an agitator like Tkachuk, moves the needle more to the intent side as opposed to unfortunate accident. 
Did Tkachuk plan it? Of course not. He’s not that smart. But, could he have adjusted the skate angle? I think so. We, on the TV feed, could not see the right angle, but one knows when there is danger in an upcoming hit. Did he hold up his skate too long?

It’s Tkachuk, and his reputation, and thats why there are questions.

comment_482013
53 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

No it doesn't make Maurice look like a fool. He lost one of his best players on a reckless play by a known agitator. He's pissed.

Flames suck.

Of course he’s upset. Who wouldn’t be? But every time a player gets injured by another player, the coach can just go off and say “100% intentional” when they have no idea? 

comment_482014
19 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

In a play such as this, the instigator usually gets the benefit of a doubt, depending on a number of factors. One of the factors, being an agitator like Tkachuk, moves the needle more to the intent side as opposed to unfortunate accident. 
Did Tkachuk plan it? Of course not. He’s not that smart. But, could he have adjusted the skate angle? I think so. We, on the TV feed, could not see the right angle, but one knows when there is danger in an upcoming hit. Did he hold up his skate too long?

It’s Tkachuk, and his reputation, and thats why there are questions.

No one is disagreeing with you there.

comment_482024
1 hour ago, Tiny759 said:

Of course he’s upset. Who wouldn’t be? But every time a player gets injured by another player, the coach can just go off and say “100% intentional” when they have no idea? 

Yea he probably does have an idea because I'm sure he reviewed the footage over and over again and watched MT skate come up and clip MS from behind. Yes he can't read MT mind to get at intent but he's basing on MT's track record and he's backing his player.  As far as I know historically PM does not go off every time and say 100% intentional when one of his players gets hurt by another player. 

comment_482030

Just pisses me off the lengths people will go to excuse these cheap shot artists. 

Yeah maybe he didn't intend to get his skate up and try and chop the guys leg off, but he sure as hell intended to hit the guy in a vulnerable position. It's what they do. When you are always trying to take shots at guys you cross the line and injure people. 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment