The whole "Torts had to do it" argument is such a P.O.S
If it was the third shift of the game and a faceoff in the Flames end and Hartley put his 4th line out I am sure that Torts would have had no issue putting out his first line and trying to score a goal.
Friedman's argument on the Fan960 this morning was that Torts had to do it, because Sedin was hurt, and he couldn't afford to have Kelser thrown out and be down to two centers.
Not a great argument - no one would have attacked Sedin. Kesler would have turtled against real toughness.
Wow!!! Made a comment on TSN facebook page about the brawl and all i got was racist comments from canucks fans. "I should go back home to mexico and watch soccer" "charlie brown". "I don't know hockey because i'm not white"... I'm not even mexican for charlie brown's sake!!!
Why are you friends with Canuck fans?
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
The Following User Says Thank You to Flashpoint For This Useful Post:
Wow!!! Made a comment on TSN facebook page about the brawl and all i got was racist comments from canucks fans. "I should go back home to mexico and watch soccer" "charlie brown". "I don't know hockey because i'm not white"... I'm not even mexican for charlie brown's sake!!!
Canucks tough guy @TomSestito23 will join Hockey Central @ Noon to talk about Saturday's line brawl between the Canucks and Flames. @FAN590
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
Friedman just seems terribly convinced that McGrattan and Westgarth were going to fight anybody who went on the ice against them. To me it seems pretty unlikely that McGrattan would fight anybody on the Canucks other than Sestito. There probably isn't a more "by the code" fighter in the league right now.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Arsenal14 For This Useful Post:
Friedman just seems terribly convinced that McGrattan and Westgarth were going to fight anybody who went on the ice against them. To me it seems pretty unlikely that McGrattan would fight anybody on the Canucks other than Sestito. There probably isn't a more "by the code" fighter in the league right now.
Westgarth seems like a guy who would fight anyone, agreed with McGrattan
The Following User Says Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
Friedman just seems terribly convinced that McGrattan and Westgarth were going to fight anybody who went on the ice against them. To me it seems pretty unlikely that McGrattan would fight anybody on the Canucks other than Sestito. There probably isn't a more "by the code" fighter in the league right now.
Actually Friedman was pretty adamant this morning that neither McGrattan nor Westgarth have ever had a history of going after skilled or smaller players, and that he did not believe there was much if any chance they would go after a Sedin. He was playing Devil's Advocate for Tortorella.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vox For This Useful Post:
The whole "Torts had to do it" argument is such a P.O.S
If it was the third shift of the game and a faceoff in the Flames end and Hartley put his 4th line out I am sure that Torts would have had no issue putting out his first line and trying to score a goal.
Yeah the whole argument is rediculous as Elliot Friedman layed out this morning on the Fan. I'm starting to think he has a huge Canucks stiffy.
I listened to the whole conversation on the fan960 and yes friedman came out like a lawyer for canucks.
Don't you think it's more interesting to hear the other side of the story and what might actually be said at the tribunal than the same rhetoric over and over again? I vehemently disagree with what Torts did, but I don't need 5 different pundits to tell me why. I would rather know why what he did might be right in his mind.
Fonzie is stuck in the 70s, thinks Hartley put out "Dr. Hook" Tim McCracken and not "Dr. Smiles" Brian McGrattan.
Again, it should be utterly laughable that is even an argument. The guy complaining, trying to get into the opposition locker room is the same guy who started his goons against LA's top line.
3 Games Ago
3 Games Ago
2 Games Ago
2 Games Ago
If you want to play Devils Advocate here, I'm talking to you Friedman, maybe Hartley was justified in starting his goons in the game, considering the pro-scouting of the previous few games.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Friedman's argument on the Fan960 this morning was that Torts had to do it, because Sedin was hurt, and he couldn't afford to have Kelser thrown out and be down to two centers.
Not a great argument - no one would have attacked Sedin. Kesler would have turtled against real toughness.
This honestly is a horrible argument. If Sedin is injured, you don't play him. Just because his iron man streak is on the line doesn't mean you play him. The iron man streak means nothing if he gets a serious injury because of the smaller injuries finally catching up.
The Following User Says Thank You to dfsflamesfan For This Useful Post:
Westgarth seems like a guy who would fight anyone, agreed with McGrattan
Westgarth didn't even fight Bieksa once he said no, even though he had every chance to pound the guy. What makes you think he would go after Sedin or Kesler?
I like Friedman, but I think in this case he is off base. Neither of those guys would've gone after Vancouvers skilled guys.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
By Tortorella's logic the road team should start their 4th line in every game. The home team has last change and could start their 4th line to just pummel the other teams stars if the road team puts them out there.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
Don't you think it's more interesting to hear the other side of the story and what might actually be said at the tribunal than the same rhetoric over and over again? I vehemently disagree with what Torts did, but I don't need 5 different pundits to tell me why. I would rather know why what he did might be right in his mind.