Line brawl & Crazy Torts - Aftermath

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Chip Hilton

Is that the same unsuspecting Jones who had just run the Utica defenceman headfirst into the boards with a dirty and dangerous hit? Are you suggesting that Westgarth would have responded any differently?

I see it differently. It looked more like two guys fighting for the puck with the Utica defenseman losing balance and falling into the boards. It almost looked like Jones was bent over to see if he was ok before that big goon came plowing in with his cheap shots.

[Robo]

Oilers won't do anything they are in tank mode the last game against Winnipeg was one of the most uninspired games I have ever seen a team play. I expect more playing dead as they continue their quest for a 4th first overall pick in 5 years truly pathetic

[foshizzle11]

No, they will finished last and have the best chance only to lose the lottery to us and then we draft Ekblad. That would be amazing.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

No, they will finished last and have the best chance only to lose the lottery to us and then we draft Ekblad. That would be amazing.

I honestly think that if they finish last again the league will rig the lottery so they cant draft first again.

At some point someone has to put a stop to this.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Stanley

I guess it all comes down to who lined up at the FO, really. Westgarth gets in there and drops 'em before the puck even hits the ice which made it look worse.

I mean, if B. Jones and Lain stayed at the FO and then a rumble ensued, then I would seriously question the fine but...

Overall I understand the fine for Hartley, he knew what he was doing...but it's a fine line.

If Jones takes the FO and all 5 guys fight there is still a fine.

If the Sedin line with Edler and Hamhuis is out against Hudler/Backlund/Cammy/Russell/Butler and there is a line brawl off the start of the FO there is a fine.

Who was out there matters so much less than the fact there was a line brawl 2 seconds into the game. The NHL wants these types of things to end and will punish coaches anytime they happen now no matter who is out there for each team.

[Chip Hilton]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I see it differently. It looked more like two guys fighting for the puck with the Utica defenseman losing balance and falling into the boards. It almost looked like Jones was bent over to see if he was ok before that big goon came plowing in with his cheap shots.

I agree that the Utica player looked like he had lost his balance, which makes Jones' actions even worse, as he clearly gave the Utica player a two handed shove in the back, propelling him into the boards. Regardless of our different interpretations of the play, however, Lain's response was what one would expect from just about any teammate in that situation.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Stanley

I guess it all comes down to who lined up at the FO, really. Westgarth gets in there and drops 'em before the puck even hits the ice which made it look worse.

I mean, if B. Jones and Lain stayed at the FO and then a rumble ensued, then I would seriously question the fine but...

Overall I understand the fine for Hartley, he knew what he was doing...but it's a fine line.

On one of my original points is that Westgarth only took the faceoff due to the serious mismatch between Jones and Lain. If Torts wants to learn about protecting his players, he should talk to Westgarth. Why leave Jones in there when the other guy is not only way bigger but already has a history with him?

Has anyone from the media talking heads ever talked about this?

[moon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

On one of my original points is that Westgarth only took the faceoff due to the serious mismatch between Jones and Lain. If Torts wants to learn about protecting his players, he should talk to Westgarth. Why leave Jones in there when the other guy is not only way bigger but already has a history with him?

Has anyone from the media talking heads ever talked about this?

Why would they?

If Lain was going to go after Jones wouldn't he have moved over and stood next to him when Bieksa stood in to take the draw? Or gone after him when standing around looking for a fight?

There seems to be no indication that Lain was going to go after Jones.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

So, no - McGrattan and Westgarth would not have tackled the Sedins, and anyone who believes they would have isn't paying attention to the NHL and is just making noise for the sake of noise.

So all of the Canucks fan base?

[foshizzle11]

An Ed Olczyk interview was just played on the fan, he has some very strong words about Hartley for not "standing up for his team like Torts did." he was commenting on how Hartley was hiding behind his team instead of leading them when Torts was confronting them outside the dressing room.

Really, nobody was getting to Torts with Grats standing there playing bouncer.

Olczyk was challenging the character of Hartley for ignoring Torts while on the bench and for not leading the charge at Torts in the hallway. As we all already know, what Hartley did was extremely irritating for Torts and is the main reason it escalated at intermission. I don't agree at all with what Olczyk said at all. How did Hartley not stand up for this players? He set a great example by not reacting and freaking out like Torts did. We all know that Clint was right there doing it for him.

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by moon

If Jones takes the FO and all 5 guys fight there is still a fine.

If the Sedin line with Edler and Hamhuis is out against Hudler/Backlund/Cammy/Russell/Butler and there is a line brawl off the start of the FO there is a fine.

Who was out there matters so much less than the fact there was a line brawl 2 seconds into the game. The NHL wants these types of things to end and will punish coaches anytime they happen now no matter who is out there for each team.

Fair enough, I understand that point. The NHL would fine both sides regardless - it's a line brawl, end of story.

[Drury18]

Didn't see this posted but the Herald had a story with comments from McGrattan about the brawl and ex-teammate Spezza surprised by his actions. Definitely not "goon" or "meathead" like comments: http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...medium=twitter

[Locke]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

An Ed Olczyk interview was just played on the fan, he has some very strong words about Hartley for not "standing up for his team like Torts did." he was commenting on how Hartley was hiding behind his team instead of leading them when Torts was confronting them outside the dressing room.

Really, nobody was getting to Torts with Grats standing there playing bouncer.

Olczyk was challenging the character of Hartley for ignoring Torts while on the bench and for not leading the charge at Torts in the hallway. As we all already know, what Hartley did was extremely irritating for Torts and is the main reason it escalated at intermission. I don't agree at all with what Olczyk said at all. How did Hartley not stand up for this players? He set a great example by not reacting and freaking out like Torts did. We all know that Clint was right there doing it for him.

I mentioned this in the 'Clint frickin Malarchuk' thread:

John Tortorella didnt stand up for his team, he did their fighting for them and of course they liked that! But whats the point of that?

Hartley created a situation to bring his team together and forced them to stand up for themselves and each other.

Which would you rather have?

Ultimately, Torts is sitting on his ass because Hartley played him like an Ozark hillbilly plays a banjo.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by moon

Why would they?

If Lain was going to go after Jones wouldn't he have moved over and stood next to him when Bieksa stood in to take the draw? Or gone after him when standing around looking for a fight?

There seems to be no indication that Lain was going to go after Jones.

No, he switched places with Bieksa. It's his first NHL game - he's not going to displace a winger. Plus Jones' dance card was already full.

And I didn't say Lain was going to go after Jones. I'm just saying that two fourth lines facing off and two AHLers with a history between them is likely to go sideways. As it was a total mismatch with Jones, Westgarth matched it up. Please explain why Westgarth would be taking the faceoff then. Won a bet? Drew a straw? I guarantee (which I actually can't do, but it is good rhetoric) that if it was any other line out there for Vancouver, Jones takes that faceoff.

[moon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

No, he switched places with Bieksa. It's his first NHL game - he's not going to displace a winger. Plus Jones' dance card was already full.

And I didn't say Lain was going to go after Jones. I'm just saying that two fourth lines facing off and two AHLers with a history between them is likely to go sideways. As it was a total mismatch with Jones, Westgarth matched it up. Please explain why Westgarth would be taking the faceoff then. Won a bet? Drew a straw? I guarantee (which I actually can't do, but it is good rhetoric) that if it was any other line out there for Vancouver, Jones takes that faceoff.

I would guess that Westgarth took the FO because Hartley wanted his guys to fight.

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by Locke

I mentioned this in the 'Clint frickin Malarchuk' thread:

John Tortorella didnt stand up for his team, he did their fighting for them and of course they liked that! But whats the point of that?

Hartley created a situation to bring his team together and forced them to stand up for themselves and each other.

Which would you rather have?

Ultimately, Torts is sitting on his ass because Hartley played him like an Ozark hillbilly plays a banjo.

I was thinking the same thing. Torts didn't stick up for his team like some honorable coach, he just went apeshizz...but I guess him running down the hall towards the opponent's locker room is called "sticking up for your players" nowadays...typical Canucks.

While I do think Hartley could have been a bit more in the middle of things rather than look like he's hiding in the dressing room, he outright played Torts like a fool.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Locke

I mentioned this in the 'Clint frickin Malarchuk' thread:

John Tortorella didnt stand up for his team, he did their fighting for them and of course they liked that! But whats the point of that?

Hartley created a situation to bring his team together and forced them to stand up for themselves and each other.

Which would you rather have?

Ultimately, Torts is sitting on his ass because Hartley played him like an Ozark hillbilly plays a banjo.

Tortarella's team won and it is doubtful that this has any sort of lasting effect for the Flames.

It was fun to watch and Tortarella looked like an idiot going to the dressing room but it is hard to see how Hartley "played" Tortarella.

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by moon

Tortarella's team won and it is doubtful that this has any sort of lasting effect for the Flames.

It was fun to watch and Tortarella looked like an idiot going to the dressing room but it is hard to see how Hartley "played" Tortarella.

He "played" Torts in the sense that he basically exploited Torts' bad temper by setting the stage for a line brawl then ignoring him.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by moon

Tortarella's team won and it is doubtful that this has any sort of lasting effect for the Flames.

It was fun to watch and Tortarella looked like an idiot going to the dressing room but it is hard to see how Hartley "played" Tortarella.

Ah yes. Actually its easy to see. Torts looked like an idiot because Hartley played him. And when he figured it out he lost his mind.

[Stanley]

I suppose you could argue that Hartley didn't "play" Torts as much as Torts "played" himself by allowing his own emotions to control his behaviour....