inkman Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 3 hours ago, #freejame said: Interesting in this clip that the announcer says “he gets challenged every get” re: Rempe. Who was the last “challenger” in Buffalo? I don’t care about heavy weight fighters. They don’t impact the game. The Sabres need more guys that can play hockey and answer the bell if needed. This NYR kid is blazing a trail. Not sure it’s going to be lit for long. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, inkman said: I don’t care about heavy weight fighters. They don’t impact the game. The Sabres need more guys that can play hockey and answer the bell if needed. This NYR kid is blazing a trail. Not sure it’s going to be lit for long. He is going to get hurt, if he isn't already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 31 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: He is going to get hurt, if he isn't already. He got his bell rung yesterday for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 12 minutes ago, Doohickie said: He got his bell rung yesterday for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerreaultForever Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 7 hours ago, inkman said: They didn’t go away, they are just on the brink of extinction. Fighting is fine. The league just doesn’t need a designated fighter role. It serves little purpose other than satisfying the blood thirsty fans. I hear what you are saying but I don't think the facts make it true. I think about the rosters of the playoff teams and just about every single one of them has at least one massive guy who can fight the big guys. Ideally you want a guy like Wilson who can also play but I still think you need that big tough guy to make other teams less likely to rough up your stars and then a guy like Cozens doesn't get his jaw broken (maybe). We don't even have the mid level guy like a Foligno or Frederick. So, while the pre-orchestrated designated fight shows might be on the brink of extinction, I think the trend is back to the idea of having a tough 4th line. Salary cap issues also contribute to this trend back, as these guys are often cheap. We should at the very least have a few of these guys in Rochester that could be there if we decided there was a need. We have nobody. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerreaultForever Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 5 hours ago, thewookie1 said: Clifton and E Johnson are also considered more physical styled players He's 6'1" and nearly 200 lbs; he isn't exactly small and weak either. No, sorry, the AVERAGE NHL player is listed as 6'1" and 199 lbs. Stillman is listed at 190 but even if he's 200, he's still just average. Cliffy is fine in terms of toughness but he's small and he can't be expected to be the tough guy or take on heavyweights. Johnson is an old man (by hockey standards). Greenway is big and tough enough but he's a passive force. We need a guy who has Greenway's size with Krebs attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said: No, sorry, the AVERAGE NHL player is listed as 6'1" and 199 lbs. Stillman is listed at 190 but even if he's 200, he's still just average. Cliffy is fine in terms of toughness but he's small and he can't be expected to be the tough guy or take on heavyweights. Johnson is an old man (by hockey standards). Greenway is big and tough enough but he's a passive force. We need a guy who has Greenway's size with Krebs attitude. Honestly I don't think that's a must seeing as there are so few in the league to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 3 hours ago, Doohickie said: He got his bell rung yesterday for sure. 3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said: 3 hours ago, Doohickie said: Not sure what that's supposed to mean. These GIFs are dissents from the use of the phrase bolded above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 So you're saying you don't like when people use "bell rung" to mean "hit in the head"? Sounds like a personal problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerreaultForever Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 3 hours ago, thewookie1 said: Honestly I don't think that's a must seeing as there are so few in the league to begin with. I know, and there's lots of people that think you can get away with it now but I think it depends on your roster too. If you have guys who handle things and take care of themselves (Tkachuk types) then you can get away with a Verhegee or Hathaway type(s) on your 4th line and maybe you don't need the heavyweight enforcer, but if you have soft players and small players and lots of undersized kids, then the old bodyguard philosophy still applies. Players will play bigger and braver when they know others have their backs. We have guys who I really think would be much better and braver players (and thus more effective) if they had that security. That's my view anyway. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 16 hours ago, Doohickie said: So you're saying you don't like when people use "bell rung" to mean "hit in the head"? Sounds like a personal problem. I think the use of that phrase - and others - is problematic. They date to a time when concussions weren't acknowledged and player safety was an afterthought. Wrt this being a "personal problem" of mine: https://concussionfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/CLF_Media_Project_22_Dos_013121.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384814/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 So now getting your bell rung is politically incorrect? Give me a break. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ska-T Chitown Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 2 minutes ago, Doohickie said: So now getting your bell rung is politically incorrect? Give me a break. I took it as more that the older terms are ways for "tough guys" or guys who think others need to "toughen up" to down play the severity of concussions. Having watched poor Patty and then Timmy C (just from Buffalo) have their careers ruined by concussions, I am all in favor of anything we can do to change the culture around these injuries. Those terms imply you can "power thru" a concussion - and no you can't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 8 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: I think the use of that phrase - and others - is problematic. They date to a time when concussions weren't acknowledged and player safety was an afterthought. Wrt this being a "personal problem" of mine: https://concussionfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/CLF_Media_Project_22_Dos_013121.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384814/ Just feels like another case of finding ways to try and proclaim moral superiority. 5. You can't actually do since practically every player would be sat for head contact/rapid head motion. Effectively any collision with another player or even the boards/ice would fall under this category. 6. Head injury and brain injury tend to be interchangeable in common vernacular. The only point of the "brain injury" push is to create fear. 7. Finally a good point 8. Feels like another scare tactic, the use of the phrases are more often used in describing a collision. Most people do understand that getting your 'bell rung" tends to mean a serious hit that likely includes head movement if not the direct point of contact. No announcer is going to say, "Well Cooke just got a traumatic brain injury." All this accomplishes is the notion we need to hate contact and be against physicality. 10 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said: I took it as more that the older terms are ways for "tough guys" or guys who think others need to "toughen up" to down play the severity of concussions. Having watched poor Patty and then Timmy C (just from Buffalo) have their careers ruined by concussions, I am all in favor of anything we can do to change the culture around these injuries. Those terms imply you can "power thru" a concussion - and no you can't. I do however understand this idea as well and agree concussions aren't an injury you can just push through and shouldn't be treated the same way as any other injury. Outside of professional sports I'd rather err on the side of caution. That being said, while general society should aim to avoid concussions; professional athletes should have to embrace and accept that inherent risk. Trying to lessen the impact is certainly a good thing but total avoidance is neither possible nor a good goal barring Sci-Fi tech levels of equipment. Part of the reason they receive millions of dollars are to deal with the inherent risks that come with skating 22mph on a slippery surface with 11 others. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 22 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said: I took it as more that the older terms are ways for "tough guys" or guys who think others need to "toughen up" to down play the severity of concussions. Having watched poor Patty and then Timmy C (just from Buffalo) have their careers ruined by concussions, I am all in favor of anything we can do to change the culture around these injuries. Those terms imply you can "power thru" a concussion - and no you can't. The target audience with the image above is the medical community, not the masses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabrefanday1 Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 It is like these people now that stop kids from tabogganing down hills and from playing sports at high school like football cause they may get hurt. It is part of living and unfortunately fighting and nasty checks to players heads are also a part of hockey and has been for many years. I am glad there has been less fighting and less headshots and overall concussions but that will stil happen regardless of how hard they try to remove that element. An dyes the Sabres are a team that are big but play small and for sure could use some toughness to say "we got your back". The team is a reflection of their coach...nice guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ska-T Chitown Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 5 minutes ago, shrader said: The target audience with the image above is the medical community, not the masses. Fair point. Not being even remotely adjacent to the medical community, does this give medical professionals additional ways to help combat the stigma that getting checked out for a concussion makes you less dedicated to your sport or your team? I hope so, because that BS attitude, especially below pro-level, really needs to go away. (Not trying to imply that you have that attitude). @thewookie1 - I guess I see the fear from the other side - if an athlete is afraid of being thought of as a wimp or soft for getting checked out, then that needs to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 (edited) 3 hours ago, Doohickie said: So now getting your bell rung is politically incorrect? Give me a break. Right? So *******. (Edited to remove use of the "R-word" slur. Hat tip to @LTS.) Edited February 27 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 32 minutes ago, thewookie1 said: Just feels like another case of finding ways to try and proclaim moral superiority. 22 minutes ago, sabrefanday1 said: It is like these people now that stop kids from tabogganing down hills and from playing sports at high school like football cause they may get hurt. Heavens to Mergatroyd. I didn't intend anything by the images above other than to demonstrate that my aversion to the phrase "getting your bell rung" wasn't a "personal problem," as had been stated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said: There used to be content in this spot. Now thar be dragons. Insert PC edit here. Edited February 27 by Weave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, ska-T Chitown said: I took it as more that the older terms are ways for "tough guys" or guys who think others need to "toughen up" to down play the severity of concussions. Having watched poor Patty and then Timmy C (just from Buffalo) have their careers ruined by concussions, I am all in favor of anything we can do to change the culture around these injuries. Those terms imply you can "power thru" a concussion - and no you can't. That's all well and good for the players themselves, but whether they get proper treatment or try to power through a concussion has ZERO to do with what I call the concussion a message forum. 13 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: Heavens to Mergatroyd. I didn't intend anything by the images above other than to demonstrate that my aversion to the phrase "getting your bell rung" wasn't a "personal problem," as had been stated. Your objection to the term is what I was calling a personal problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 12 minutes ago, Doohickie said: Your objection to the term is what I was calling a personal problem. And by citing to the nonprofit’s worksheet and that research paper, as examples from the first page of Google results, I was pointing out that my aversion (objection) was shared by many, as opposed to being personal to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said: And by citing to the nonprofit’s worksheet and that research paper, as examples from the first page of Google results, I was pointing out that my aversion (objection) was shared by many, as opposed to being personal to me. Again, my calling it getting his bell rung doesn't have anything to do with a player's access to the proper care. I think @thewookie1 covered it pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 5 minutes ago, Doohickie said: Again, my calling it getting his bell rung doesn't have anything to do with a player's access to the proper care. Again, the only point I was (am) making is that an aversion to the term and terms like it is generalized and shared, not personal to me. I don’t have an appetite for discussing the point you’ve made immediately above. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.