Kevin Bieksa you are really...

[Barry_Wilkins]

Teamates? Who? When? Show me...otherwise it's just another brown rabbit out of your dirty crapcatcher...and i'm not sure which end on you that would describe most adequately.

Ah, the accelerating ad hominems, a sure sign of one without an argument. Time to put up another picture.

[Barry_Wilkins]

Well let's see, in latter half of Bieksa's first full season AV told him to quit looking for fights. He didn't want him in the box for five. Simply put, fighting isn't his job. Particularly when it seems we constantly have top 4 D out with injuries already.

It isn't figure skating. Hits happen. For the most part you let the grunts look after it if needed.

I think I actually get it. All this whining about Bieksa not fighting enough is simply smoke and mirrors. The real reason you want him to fight more is to get him off the ice for 5 or more. Am I right?

Ha ha. That's good, your last question.I like it. But no, actually the Bieksa supporters who say that one fight would take a needed 20 minute D man out of the line-up should do some basic math. Bieksa plays a third of the game. A 5 minute major means 1 min 40 seconds less ice time (5 mins divided by 3). Ergo, Bieksa's ice time is reduced from 20 mins to 18: 20, hardly crucial even were Bieksa to fight every 5th game (not that I''m even advocating that).

your earlier point: yes, I agree. But check your wording. He shouldn't go LOOKING for fights. But again, what I'm saying is he should definitely RESPOND, especially if he's as tough and fearsome as some on here like to believe.

[Sharpshooter]

Ah, the accelerating ad hominems, a sure sign of one without an argument. Time to put up another picture.

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue

And the picture as requested madam.

[Barry_Wilkins]

Isn't that a contradiction? If he drops his gloves and goes after a guy for throwing a hit he is in fact instigating a fight. Particularly if he's not even the one that was hit.

Actually, no. I answered this earlier but I'll rephrase it here.

Lots of fighting majors in the NHL, perhaps even the majority of them happen when (for whatever reason) one guy decides to initiate a fight with the other. He'll say something to him, or tap his shin pads, or give a shove, the two will then do the stare down and drop the gloves virtually simultaneously. There is no instigator in these situations, and again, it happens all the time.

You see, this is where the Bieksa lovers reach truly epic proportions in either their disingenousness or desperation to support him. He's supposedly so effective because he's "so tough", but he's INeffective at the same time because the big bad rulesmakers don't allow bruisin' Kevin B to do his Rambo thang with impunity.

edit: A big LOL. I just anticipated another defense here by #3's boys. "But of course no one would even drop the gloves any more with him since he wins all his fights. They're scared!"

[El_Capitan]

I booked a 2 week trip to Holland, for business, but I always have a blast in Amsterdam, and a 6 week junket to kurdistan. That will be a grind. It's tough when 'saving the world' is part of the job description. I'll be following the Nuck games via the internet as best I can. I'll even post pics if applicable and there is any interest from cdcer's.

Have a great time, Amsterdam is a fun place.

Tell me how much worse the Red Light District is, if it's even there now...

Last time I was in Amsterdam they took the hookers out of the windows and replaced them with clothing on mannequins.

[Barry_Wilkins]

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue

And the picture as requested madam.

Good for you. You can access wikipedia. Your posts are littered with ALL SORTS of ad hominem, the scope of which is beyond your puny wiki search. The entire purpose of the ad hominem is to deflect attention away from argument and debate, creating stagnation and deflection, emotional pettiness over logical exchange, and self-aggrandizement over a respect of differences in opinion. You see, I can respect someone like Baggins, for instance, who, in my brief time here, sets out his argument well, and then deals directly with the response. It's a good tactic. In your next 8,000 posts in this thread, you might want to try it some time.

[Sharpshooter]

Good for you. You can access wikipedia. Your posts are littered with ALL SORTS of ad hominem, the scope of which is beyond your puny wiki search. The entire purpose of the ad hominem is to deflect attention away from argument and debate, creating stagnation and deflection, emotional pettiness over logical exchange, and self-aggrandizement over a respect of differences in opinion. You see, I can respect someone like Baggins, for instance, who, in my brief time here, sets out his argument well, and then deals directly with the response. It's a good tactic. In your next 8,000 posts in this thread, you might want to try it some time.

Ok Professor, i'll give it the ol' college try.

Interesting how you didn't address the substance of the last post as far as your motives go...but decided to squeeze out the last drop of psuedo intellectualism that you could wring out.

Hubris for the win!

[CANUCKLELION]

Have a good trip!

Rock it in Amsterdam, dude! Be safe in both places and, of course... Save the World, too.

Find some hockey in Kurdistan and take some pics.

Thank you all, for the kind words, Cheers.

Kurdistan is nice. Nice people to.

Should be getting a bit cold this time of year.

My brother and business partner, just got back from 2 weeks in Erbil, they said the heat was brutal.

Have a great time, Amsterdam is a fun place.

Tell me how much worse the Red Light District is, if it's even there now...

Last time I was in Amsterdam they took the hookers out of the windows and replaced them with clothing on mannequins.

I haven't seen to the red light district since the spring of 09. The windows were still live ads for the services of people of ill repute then. lol.But I'll check em out again and give you an update.

I'll mostly be working in Nijmegan, with weekends in Amsterdam. Everything is 2hours away, Amsterdam, Germany etc etc.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Good for you. You can access wikipedia. Your posts are littered with ALL SORTS of ad hominem, the scope of which is beyond your puny wiki search. The entire purpose of the ad hominem is to deflect attention away from argument and debate, creating stagnation and deflection, emotional pettiness over logical exchange, and self-aggrandizement over a respect of differences in opinion. You see, I can respect someone like Baggins, for instance, who, in my brief time here, sets out his argument well, and then deals directly with the response. It's a good tactic. In your next 8,000 posts in this thread, you might want to try it some time.

What's your argument?

This whole thing seems pretty deflecty to me sport.

[Baggins]

Ha ha. That's good, your last question.I like it. But no, actually the Bieksa supporters who say that one fight would take a needed 20 minute D man out of the line-up should do some basic math. Bieksa plays a third of the game. A 5 minute major means 1 min 40 seconds less ice time (5 mins divided by 3). Ergo, Bieksa's ice time is reduced from 20 mins to 18: 20, hardly crucial even were Bieksa to fight every 5th game (not that I''m even advocating that).

your earlier point: yes, I agree. But check your wording. He shouldn't go LOOKING for fights. But again, what I'm saying is he should definitely RESPOND, especially if he's as tough and fearsome as some on here like to believe.

It's not so much Bieksa losing ice time as much as it is a lesser d-man having to fill the gap. You put one of your top 4 in the box for five and one of your bottom pairing has to be on the ice more. A situation the coach doesn't particularly want.

Bieksa is a pretty good scrapper and I believe he is relatively tough. One aspect that impresses me in his fights is when taken down how fast he's back on his feet to continue the scrap. When he fights there's just no quit there.

[wallstreetamigo]

It's not so much Bieksa losing ice time as much as it is a lesser d-man having to fill the gap. You put one of your top 4 in the box for five and one of your bottom pairing has to be on the ice more. A situation the coach doesn't particularly want.

Bieksa is a pretty good scrapper and I believe he is relatively tough. One aspect that impresses me in his fights is when taken down how fast he's back on his feet to continue the scrap. When he fights there's just no quit there.

Regarding Bieksa as a fighter, I agree.

Regarding the point about lesser dmen having to play more, we have 5 top 4 dmen and Alberts is also okay in a pinch there. I think the ice time of the D this season, plus the under utilization of Ballard so far would suggest that the team could probably weather the storm for an extra few minutes in exchange for an emotional lift once in awhile. Bieksa is not THAT valuable that he cant fight for risk of the D totally melting down while he is in the box.

[Barry_Wilkins]

What's your argument?

This whole thing seems pretty deflecty to me sport.

Hey, :"Sport", thanks for chipping in with your usual substanceless report.

I simply took the accumulated measure of one who obsessively monitors this thread almost 24/7, makes snipes which at least he can giggle at in response to every one of my posts, ones, that is, where I AM advocating a clearly linear argument.

Do you have a position on the relative worth of #3, something other than "he's OK, but overpaid?"

[Barry_Wilkins]

It's not so much Bieksa losing ice time as much as it is a lesser d-man having to fill the gap. You put one of your top 4 in the box for five and one of your bottom pairing has to be on the ice more. A situation the coach doesn't particularly want.

Bieksa is a pretty good scrapper and I believe he is relatively tough. One aspect that impresses me in his fights is when taken down how fast he's back on his feet to continue the scrap. When he fights there's just no quit there.

Agree that Bieksa is a pretty good scrapper, though I think the important element here is to put this in the past tense. Effectiveness in any area has to be continually proven. Though I was always a fan of O'Brien (though I agree his off-ice issues finally caught up with him), he, also, fought less and less as he became "comfortable" on the team.

And I agree with wallstreet here, too. I'm not one advocating that he needs to go out and defend teammates or even himself at all times. It would be nice to see it happen occasionally, but this is a continual argument put forth by Bieksa lovers, that he IS effective in this role. It just hasn't been the case in 2010.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Hey, :"Sport", thanks for chipping in with your usual substanceless report.

I simply took the accumulated measure of one who obsessively monitors this thread almost 24/7, makes snipes which at least he can giggle at in response to every one of my posts, ones, that is, where I AM advocating a clearly linear argument.

Do you have a position on the relative worth of #3, something other than "he's OK, but overpaid?"

Sir I run circles around you so this laughable thesaurus filled argument you're trying to make is nothing more than BS to deflect from the usual BS of not being able to admit when you're wrong.

What you are advocating is nothing more that acting like a horses ass because you got can't think of anything else.

As far as my position on number 3 it's well documented in this thread as being much more than the drivel you wrote. Your undecipherable ramblings are nothing more than you trying to defend against a defenseless and unintelligable position.

Put down, or close thesaurus.com and make an argument.

Having said all that. You've made good points up until this little side project. You should go back to that.

[Barry_Wilkins]

Sir I run circles around you so this laughable thesaurus filled argument you're trying to make is nothing more than BS to deflect from the usual BS of not being able to admit when you're wrong.

What you are advocating is nothing more that acting like a horses ass because you got can't think of anything else.

As far as my position on number 3 it's well documented in this thread as being much more than the drivel you wrote. Your undecipherable ramblings are nothing more than you trying to defend against a defenseless and unintelligable position.

Put down, or close thesaurus.com and make an argument.

Having said all that. You've made good points up until this little side project. You should go back to that.

Strange position to take that "big" words are somehow wrong in an argument. You could always ..... oh, I don't know, look them up and learn something? After all, you're the one who loves to belittle the intelligence of others here. Ironic, no?

You stated in your latest sally that I was "deflecting" (notice the further irony there?). I replied that in fact I was defending myself against silly ad hominem arguments. That's a valid point to bring up in ANY debate as it shuts down the operating ploy of the one doing it, unless you think that personal attacks HAVE a place in a debate on the relative merits of Bieksa. If you DO think that, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

As to your response that your views are all over this thread, well, I've read a lot of it (not the entire 170 + pages, I admit). My question to you was sincere. I honestly don't know your big picture view on Bieksa. But this is a Bieksa thread, so that's a valid tack to make, as well. If you don't want to share those views, fair enough. I'm certainly not going to scour the entire thread to dig them up.

Nothing to get heated up about, it's only hockey, not World War 3.

[c0medyClub]

Strange position to take that "big" words are somehow wrong in an argument. You could always ..... oh, I don't know, look them up and learn something? After all, you're the one who loves to belittle the intelligence of others here. Ironic, no?

You stated in your latest sally that I was "deflecting" (notice the further irony there?). I replied that in fact I was defending myself against silly ad hominem arguments. That's a valid point to bring up in ANY debate as it shuts down the operating ploy of the one doing it, unless you think that personal attacks HAVE a place in a debate on the relative merits of Bieksa. If you DO think that, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

As to your response that your views are all over this thread, well, I've read a lot of it (not the entire 170 + pages, I admit). My question to you was sincere. I honestly don't know your big picture view on Bieksa. But this is a Bieksa thread, so that's a valid tack to make, as well. If you don't want to share those views, fair enough. I'm certainly not going to scour the entire thread to dig them up.

Nothing to get heated up about, it's only hockey, not World War 3.

This heated Bieksa thread will ultimately start WW3.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Strange position to take that "big" words are somehow wrong in an argument. You could always ..... oh, I don't know, look them up and learn something? After all, you're the one who loves to belittle the intelligence of others here. Ironic, no?

You stated in your latest sally that I was "deflecting" (notice the further irony there?). I replied that in fact I was defending myself against silly ad hominem arguments. That's a valid point to bring up in ANY debate as it shuts down the operating ploy of the one doing it, unless you think that personal attacks HAVE a place in a debate on the relative merits of Bieksa. If you DO think that, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

As to your response that your views are all over this thread, well, I've read a lot of it (not the entire 170 + pages, I admit). My question to you was sincere. I honestly don't know your big picture view on Bieksa. But this is a Bieksa thread, so that's a valid tack to make, as well. If you don't want to share those views, fair enough. I'm certainly not going to scour the entire thread to dig them up.

Nothing to get heated up about, it's only hockey, not World War 3.

I'm not heated and I never said I didn't understand your words however your use of the word irony is pretty interesting.

Personal attack eh? You don't say. Well I would say report them or perhaps if they aren't terrible enough and you aren't so shattered personally by them put your big boy underoos on. You are deflecting and now perhaps a little backtracking but hey that's progress.

As for your "sincere" question well allow me to ignore the obvious BS of that and open up for questions to clarify. You seemed from your last post to already know what my argument was and although I conceded that you have made good points here rather than act like a tween and pronounce that every post of yours was "Bieksa bad....fire bad...doritos good." To be fair though I can't say how much make up and angst you had so perhaps only halftween. (Go team Jacob.) (This little deflection brought to you by...comedy.)

Nothing to make BS up about and look like an ass while trying to look smart. It's only opinion...I read somewhere that they all stink.

There's a Lincoln quote that would go perfect right here I'm sure of it...

[Baggins]

Agree that Bieksa is a pretty good scrapper, though I think the important element here is to put this in the past tense. Effectiveness in any area has to be continually proven. Though I was always a fan of O'Brien (though I agree his off-ice issues finally caught up with him), he, also, fought less and less as he became "comfortable" on the team.

And I agree with wallstreet here, too. I'm not one advocating that he needs to go out and defend teammates or even himself at all times. It would be nice to see it happen occasionally, but this is a continual argument put forth by Bieksa lovers, that he IS effective in this role. It just hasn't been the case in 2010.

Well at the time AV had his talk with Bieksa the D wasn't so deep. I also think his past fights have established him as one of the guys a "typical" player isn't going to want to dance with. Crosby for example would be unlikely to give Bieksa a facewash out of fear he'd get a beat down. But he wouldn't think twice about doing it to Edler. I highly doubt his pugilistics have diminished any because he doesn't fight as often. It's kind of like riding a bike, you never forget how to grab a jersey and punch a guy in the face.

Anyway, it's still early in the season so why this concern about not fighting enough? How often is enough for you? Every other game...every 5...every 10 games? His fighting or lack thereof doesn't concern me in the least. I'd actually prefer him leaving it to the knuckle draggers.

[bbllpp]

<br />There are lots of ways to get back at an opponent. Many fights happen because one guy challenges, and the other accepts. There are no instigator penalties in most NHL fights.<br /><br />Another way is to punish the perpetrator with <i>legal</i> hits. To make a point of finishing hits with vigour and emotion. As already mentioned, this is impossible for Bieksa because of his stature.<br /><br />Another way is to say &quot;the heck with it&quot;, take the instigator penalty, and start the fight (which, again, isn't really instigating, that was done by the guy who first picked on your own teammate). Lots of games, including Canucks games this year, one team is up by  few goals in the third period. A 2 minute minor in those cases is a relatively minor trade-off to make in order to send a message to the other team.<br />

Know your facts

from: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26336

instigator is 2 min + 5 min + 10 min = 17 min = gone for a period

instigator deemed the aggressor is 2 min + 5 min + 10 min + 10 min (game misconduct) = gone for the game

So tell me, does a coach want a top 4 D-man instigating a fight? Don't think so. Will a top 4 D-man instigate a fight? In the heat of the moment, hell yes.

Should Bieksa have jumped the boards to fight Richardson? Hell no.

Should Bieksa have challanged Richardson later in the game? Sure why not.

Would Richardson accept (4th liner at 5'11" 185lbs and not a fighter)? I doubt it

Should Bieksa then take matters into his own hands and start wailing on the guy? Hell no

If Bieksa does go postal, does Richardson fight back? Doubt it.

Is Bieksa taking a game miss conduct in a payback play when the Canucks are down a D-man a smart play? Hell no.

To quote Baggins "Leave it to the knuckle draggers"

Does Bieksa have a reputation as a fighter? You are crazy to think otherwise.

Are the Heavy weight knuckle draggers intimidated by Bieksa? Doubt it.

Does everybody else think twice about getting Bieksa angry? I would think so (21-3-1 speaks for itself. Go watch all Bieksa's fights on hockeyfights.com if you have doubts).

Would I like to see Bieksa fight more? Hell yes because they sure are entertaining.

Should Bieksa fight more? No it's not his job.

Will Bieksa instigate a fight in the heat of the moment? History shows he will.

Does Bieksa go looking for fights? Not for years

Do opponents come looking to Bieksa for fights? Not many in recent years

Has Bieksa had to fight after hitting the opponent? More often than people realize

[RUPERTKBD]

In a literal sense, maybe. In terms of how things actually go down on the ice, no. Starting a fight after a big hit happens all the time with no instigator penalty handed out.

Yes, it does. However, in the event that an instigator was called against KB, all the haters would be talking about the "boneheaded" penalty he took.

Actually, no. I answered this earlier but I'll rephrase it here.

Lots of fighting majors in the NHL, perhaps even the majority of them happen when (for whatever reason) one guy decides to initiate a fight with the other. He'll say something to him, or tap his shin pads, or give a shove, the two will then do the stare down and drop the gloves virtually simultaneously. There is no instigator in these situations, and again, it happens all the time.

You see, this is where the Bieksa lovers reach truly epic proportions in either their disingenousness or desperation to support him. He's supposedly so effective because he's "so tough", but he's INeffective at the same time because the big bad rulesmakers don't allow bruisin' Kevin B to do his Rambo thang with impunity.

edit: A big LOL. I just anticipated another defense here by #3's boys. "But of course no one would even drop the gloves any more with him since he wins all his fights. They're scared!"

There are some people who have said this, however, most of the KB supporters don't particularly care if he's had a fight to this point of the season.

The fact is, he's been playing solid defense, which is what the team needs him to do. I'd say that the fact the last dozen or so pages of this thread have been concentrated on how "tough" Bieksa is bears this out.