Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, the grinder said: tho a fair share of rats and disliked players have won cups , Marchand .Pronger Scott Stevens Wilson lemiux etc etc like 100 to 1 maybe? Edited January 14, 2020 by Darius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, Darius said: you can be effective and win cups without being a rat that is generally disliked around the league. Yes but apparently you can be a rat and be generally disliked and still win cups. Don't them be effective by giving them opportunities to play their game. Players like him embrace the hate and "do what it takes" to win. I'm not saying I like it, but these players exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: Look at guys like Pronger his a rat and he took almost ever team he played with to the cup final iirc. ROWDY WANTS PLAYERS LIKE THAT. rowdy must be having a hard time with the current canucks team. mostly honorable young guys who dont invite the gutter play... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, theo5789 said: Yes but apparently you can be a rat and be generally disliked and still win cups. Don't them be effective by giving them opportunities to play their game. Players like him embrace the hate and "do what it takes" to win. I'm not saying I like it, but these players exist. i think most of the guys you list were on teams that would have won cups regardless of their presence on their teams. its not like the ratness was the reason for the cup. I mean did Brad Marchand really win that cup in 2011 by being a jerk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Darius said: like 100 to 1 maybe? I don't think so, most cup teams had some sort of hated player 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Darius said: I mean did Brad Marchand really win that cup in 2011 by being a jerk? Thomas and Chara were the backbone of that team. Didn't even notice Lucic in the Finals (other than TAKING the hit from Hamhuis that took the later out of the series). Elite player now but Ratboy was just a complemtary player on that 2011 squad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 1 minute ago, the grinder said: I don't think so, most cup teams had some sort of hated player OT - Al McNeil was hated by the French Canadians on his team. But still won a Cup as rookie head coach for the Habs. Unfortunately for him, Henri Richard wanted him gone; so after winning the cup, McNeil was demoted to their farm club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, the grinder said: I don't think so, most cup teams had some sort of hated player a lot of teams have some sort of disliked player. this means nothing. i mean for every marchand we can point to an avery that never got anywhere. being rat or a dirty player brings a minimal element to a stanley cup winning team in comparison to all of the other ingredients involved in winning the cup. Edited January 14, 2020 by Darius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Darius said: i think most of the guys you list were on teams that would have won cups regardless of their presence on their teams. its not like the ratness was the reason for the cup. I mean did Brad Marchand really win that cup in 2011 by being a jerk? marchand was effective player in the final , so was Lucic , Chicago had dirty Duncan keith and others , Washington had Wilson ,Pitts had ryan reeves , st louis had maroon and blais ,so there you go 5 cup teams , all recent Edited January 14, 2020 by the grinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, the grinder said: marchand was effective player in the final , so was Lucic , Chicago had dirty Duncan keith and others , Washington had Wilson ,Pitts had ryan reeves , st louis had maroon and blais ,so there you go 5 cup teams Pittsburgh also had Matt Cooke one year. Was Cooke the reason they won? You have to show that dirty play is a significant ingredient to winning a cup. Im not talking about Maroon throwing his body around...im talking Claude Lemieux like behaviour of attempting to injure guys as a beneficial trait for a stanley cup winning team. Edited January 14, 2020 by Darius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Darius said: i think most of the guys you list were on teams that would have won cups regardless of their presence on their teams. its not like the ratness was the reason for the cup. I mean did Brad Marchand really win that cup in 2011 by being a jerk? Sole reason? Probably not. But they provided a role that drew the hate and caused distractions for the other team should they choose to engage. Regardless of Cups, many of those players have had long careers doing what they're doing because it works for them. Considering how many players hated them and for example Claude Lemieux could play 1200+ games without getting destroyed is remarkable, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, theo5789 said: Sole reason? Probably not. But they provided a role that drew the hate and caused distractions for the other team should they choose to engage. Regardless of Cups, many of those players have had long careers doing what they're doing because it works for them. Considering how many players hated them and for example Claude Lemieux could play 1200+ games without getting destroyed is remarkable, no? So you think that Tkachuk and Marchand cannot be as effective without being rats? Sorry but im not buying it. I think the opposite is true in many cases. Look at the negative attention this brings to the team and look at what Tkachuk's team mates may potentially deal with now that the situation has been escalated. For a guy that likes to take the moral ground you sure like to defend these guys, lol. Edit: ps Claude did get destroyed....look at that fist game vs Detroit after he almost killed Draper......he was beat to a pulp... Edited January 14, 2020 by Darius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Just now, Darius said: Pittsburgh also had Matt Cooke one year. Was Cooke the reason they won? You have to show that dirty play is a significant ingredient to winning a cup. Im not talking about Maroon throwing his body around...im talking Claude Lemieux like behaviour or attempting to injure guys as a beneficial trait for a stanley cup winning team. Sure it is when you have the cookie monster skating around you better keep your head on a swivel., Like the players I mentioned before you better know when they are on the ice or else , its called intimidation , and in a 7 game series it is effective , guys make a quicker play or a panic play because they don't want to get steamrolled or injured . you hit to hurt in the playoffs , target star players , get them off their game hmmm sounds like what marchand did in 2011 or the other 10 or so other players ive mentioned before 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Darius said: So you think that Tkachuk and Marchand cannot be as effective without being rats? Sorry but im not buying it. I think the opposite is true in many cases. Look at the negative attention this brings to the team and look at what Tkachuk's team mates may potentially deal with now that the situation has been escalated. For a guy that likes to take the moral ground you sure like to defend these guys, lol. Edit: ps Claude did get destroyed....look at that fist game vs Detroit after he almost killed Draper......he was beat to a pulp... Defend? I'm saying that's the game they play that makes them effective. I never said I liked the way they played. I've been saying, don't let them play their game and take away their effectiveness. If you're upset with them, then they are doing their jobs. I understand why they play their game, that is a far cry from defending them. About Claude, that's my point. People wanted to destroy him and yet he had a 1200+ game career. Less rat like players have survived fewer games. He knew his role and prepared for it. He knew players would be after him as his job was to get players off their games. How you negate this is to not let him get in your head by not giving them the opportunities to do their thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 48 minutes ago, the grinder said: lol is it now it is simple as that This makes even less sense than the last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Just now, the grinder said: Sure it is when you have the cookie monster skating around you better keep your head on a swivel., Like the players I mentioned before you better know when they are on the ice or else , its called intimidation , and in a 7 game series it is effective , guys make a quicker play or a panic play because they don't want to get steamrolled or injured . you hit to hurt in the playoffs , target star players , get them off their game hmmm sounds like what marchand did in 2011 or the other 10 or so other players ive mentioned before Not buying any of this. Matt Cooke won the stanley cup because he had elite players on his team. PIttsburgh won a cup because Malkin Crosby etc were world class players and you could surround that core with practically any stiffs and they would win the cup. The fact that Matt Cooke was a gultess career ender had nothing to do with that cup win. Same with Marchand in 2011. There were a million factors besides Marchand that directed that series. You are over estimating the value that players who play like rats bring to a championship team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, theo5789 said: Defend? I'm saying that's the game they play that makes them effective Marchand and tkachuk would continue to be elite players even if they stopped their rat like antics. Its arguable that the rat element they bring to their game is actually a detriment to their team in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 40 minutes ago, Darius said: rowdy must be having a hard time with the current canucks team. mostly honorable young guys who dont invite the gutter play... Well sometimes yes but I survived threw the Sedins so yea lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: This makes even less sense than the last post. Whatever dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, the grinder said: Whatever dude Deep. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now