Commander Clueless

That's kind of like saying that the guy was "just lighting a cigarette" while pumping gas when the explosion happened.

If you're Scott at that point, and Kessel's arm is coming up at you - what are you going to think about it? You're not going to wait - you're already primed up and ready. You're going to react.

 

Kessel shouldn't have been next to Scott, shouldn't have been jawing with him and certainly shouldn't be "defending" himself against a guy who hadn't dropped the gloves yet. (As far as the NHL video goes - that's the same group that bought Neal's line that he jumped into a player to "avoid" him).

 

Scott clearly doesn't "jump" an unsuspecting Kessel - he's reacting to Kessel's actions. Kessel is looking right at him.

 

Neither side comes out smelling like a rose in that confrontation, but either Phil Kessel is a complete moron (I might grant you this ) or he certainly should have known what was happening on the ice at that point.

 

Because just about everybody else did (even you admit you were expecting Scott to take on someone).

 

I had no respect for Scott and still don't. I lost any respect I might have had for Kessel.

When I use the word "jump", I mean one player initiating a fight when the other player is clearly not interested in said fight. Maybe not the best word to use on my part, but I can't really think of a better one.

Kessel raised his arm, yes, but not in a way to initiate a fight.

I'm not saying Kessel is completely innocent (or smart  ), but I do think people calling him out for not "backing up his actions" are being a little unreasonable. He in no way wanted that fight and I don't think he did anything that would provoke that strong of a reaction from Scott. According to Kessel in the interview afterwards, he said that Scott said he was going to jump him. Maybe that's what he's reacting to? No idea.

Kessel's dirty play came after the "fight" began, not before. Therefore I don't think he should in any way be expected to "back himself up" there. To his credit, he did fight (well...sort of fight. As fight as Kessel gets) with another Sabre after the hacking incident.

I completely understand people losing respect for Kessel for the hacking incident. Heck, I lost a good deal of respect for him there too. But what I don't understand is people losing respect for him for the events that took place before he transformed into Phil Bunyan.

@yave1964

And Detroit is so much better than Toronto even!

I have only ever seen one Leaf game live in my life, but I've seen several Wings games because they are closer and actually somewhat affordable.

Speaking of that, my cousin got some tickets so I'm going to see my second live Leaf game next week in Detroit. Should be fun!

Three incidents in less than a week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nrgYmRBnjg. I don't feel even a little bit guilty about labeling him.

 

As far as Scott "jumping him", watch the video. Kessel is the one who reached for Scott first.

Watching the video you linked, you'll notice that Kessel's initial "reach" for Scott is not hostile. It almost looks like he's already on the defensive, as he's backing up from Scott a bit. The NHL even acknowledges that Kessel is acting in self defense in the video, not instigating.

Also from the video, Kessel has zero history prior to this season. He had two incidents with the Flyers, yes, but I don't think that's deserving of the cheap shot artist title. Certainly not commendable behaviour, but the guy has a clean history (according to the NHL) before that.

I suppose Giroux is a cheap shot artist too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyEyaiL1Tm8

And for the record, no I don't think he is a dirty player.

I believe we went through this - I know I did - when it happened so I think our positions are pretty well established.

 

Buffalo is my "second team" (I'll be in WNY this weekend visiting friends for St. Paddy's), but even if it was the Jets and the Flames, I'd feel the same way if things went down the same way.

 

 

 

 

I 100% totally believe Buffalo was doing it wrong.

 

And yet I was not surprised when it happened.

Very true, this is a bit of a rehashed discussion. But I believe it's a good thing to consider when talking about what place fighting has in the game. And IMO, what Scott did has no place in the game. There's a big difference between fighting between two teams that are pissed at each other, and non-consensual fights.

Maybe I just live a sheltered life watching mostly just Leaf games, but I never expect non-consensual fights to happen.

The Leafs aren't immune to this behaviour by any means, and Carlyle ain't no saint here. Colton Orr had an incident where he decked Brian Gionta that I didn't really approve of. It was a little different because he was swarmed by Habs players who didn't like his attempt at an open ice hit, and he decked the nearest player, but still...

I also found it funny. Wrong, but funny.

@Commander Clueless

@radoran

 

I think you both have good points and are both right.  Somewhere is a hypothetical line that a players crosses..."this" much dirty stick work or "this" much yapping and you should be prepared...expected...to drop the gloves if challenged.  Guys yap and whack at each other all the time but there is a point when it goes too far and if you don't want to fight, don't go that far.  The most obvious example in situations like this is Sean Avery. 

 

Where that line is I'll leave for you two to continue the debate.  Sounds like Kessel crossed it here which is a bad idea with a guy like Scott.

Agreed, but I'm not convinced Kessel crossed that line. We don't really know what he said, but he didn't get in his face or anything. He did put his hand up on Scott (almost looks like he was going for a bro hug or something) - not sure what that was about. But then he seems surprised and freaks out a bit when Scott drops the gloves on him.

If Kessel was roughing him, sure he has to expect a fight. But talking? I don't think anybody should look down on him for not fighting Scott, regardless of what questionable parentage he may have referenced in Scott's case.

Now hacking a guy with a stick...that's worthy of looking down on him for. Kind of irrelevant in a thread about fighting I guess.

I don't like the Leafs' horrible defensive play this year. They showed some decent promise last year, particularly on the penalty kill. But this year? Atrocious.

I don't like the Leafs' tendency to hand out awful contracts.

I don't, for the most part, like the Leafs' lackluster drafting/development.

And I don't like the Leafs' ticket prices.

To be clear again, I don't think Scott belongs in the league. I'm not excusing his move - but it didn't surprise me.

 

That's the only thing Scott is on the roster to do.

Maybe excuses is the wrong word to use on my part.

But John Scott should not be expected to pull illegal moves like that. He's on the roster to fight and not play hockey, yes. But if he's on the roster to jump other players, then Buffalo's doing it wrong.

So yes, I was surprised he jumped Kessel. If he had, say, tried to pick a fight with someone - yeah, I'm not surprised. Totally expected that from the moment the tension started.

I agree with this - and it was likely what Carlyle was thinking. But it was you that said:

 

 

 

And that was the context of my response - to your hypothetical.

Indeed. And Carlyle was well within his rights to not expect a fighter to jump his player, so I don't think he was at all in the wrong.

But my point in the hypothetical is that while Kessel's yapping may not have been the smartest decision for his personal safety, it should in no way cause him to be expected to engage in a fight. It in absolutely no way excuses Scott from jumping him, just as getting jumped in no way excuses the use of the stick as a weapon.

If dirty players - who aren't fighters - don't want to have to put up with the possibility of fighting guys like Scott then maybe they should rethink their style of play. I have less of a problem with guys like Scott defending their teammates than I do with someone who is a cheapshot artists and refuses to fight.

Really? A cheap shot artist? Phil "soft as butter" Kessel?

I mean using his stick like that was certainly dirty and stupid, and deserving of a suspension...but a cheap shot artist? That's a little bit much, IMO. Kessel had done nothing in that game up to that point where he should be expected by anybody to answer the bell. Maybe after the stickwork you could argue that, but not before.

John Scott "defending his teammates" by jumping the nearest player? And the Leafs best player at that? That's not defending your teammates. That's goonery.

Call me a biased Leaf fan if you want, but yikes. I'm not excusing Kessel's dirty stickwork by any means, but neither am I siding with Scott for the crap he pulled.

Sure, the coach does - absolutely.

 

So then why is Kessel running his yap at Scott? If he was told to deescalate, to not engage - why is he engaging with the goon who's sole purpose on the ice is to escalate? This isn't a situation where Kessel is mouthing off to a Vanek or a Stafford - he's mouthing off to a goon. I don't know what else he was expecting to happen, because any "hockey fan" or "hockey player" worth his salt knew what was going on there.

 

Let Scott say whatever he wants. Let him try to goad you. Don't take the bait. Don't rise to the lure. Be the better player - which you are by far - and take your revenge by winning the game.

 

I go back to the infamous hit on Kapanen by Tucker in the Flyers/Leafs series. These days, some idiot would be trying to fight Tucker and play would stop. In that situation, JR took the right initiative and scored the game-winning, series-ending goal.

 

That's the best revenge I can possibly imagine.

Really? I must not be worth much salts, then, because I never expected Scott to jump Kessel like that. I totally expected Scott to try to start a fight with someone, but not jump Kessel. To me, jumping a player because he said something mean to you when he has no interest in fighting in a pre-season game is the kind of fighting that the game can do without.

Kessel might not be worth his salt then either, because he looked fairly surprised when Scott dropped his gloves.

I don't think Kessel can be accused of "taking the bait" there, when it was Scott that reacted. Kessel's supposed yapping is completely irrelevant when Scott is the one that made the move. Like I said, players chatter back and forth all the time. It's not like Kessel was in his face and threatening him, because if that were the case I would agree with you.

Actually, what Kessel did might have been considered a good, penalty drawing move, if he didn't react by chopping Scott....

We also have no idea what Carlyle may or may not have told Kessel to do. He could very well have seen the 4th line, and thought "ooh, scoring chance!" and sent Kessel out without instructions of any kind.

I don't like the expectation that the Leafs could just throw whoever they wanted onto the ice with last change knowing what the situation was and expect that nothing would happen.

 

I don't like the expectation that Kessel can run his mouth with Scott and not be expected to back up his flapping jaw when he knows why Scott is on the ice in the first place.

 

I don't like the expectation that Kessel should be excused for using his stick as a weapon and taking a two-handed slash to the back of the legs of a guy who is engaged in a fight with another player.

 

Aside from that, yeah, it's pretty stupid to expect Kessel to stand up to Scott; immensely dumb for his coach to put him in that situation; freaking unbelievably moronic for Kessel to engage Scott verbally; inexcusable for Kessel to use his stick as a weapon from behind.

 

To be perfectly clear - also dumb for the Sabres to waste a roster spot on Scott, much less actually put him in the lineup.

I don't like the expectation that a coach needs to throw on his fighter just because the other team wants to start some crap. A coach should have the right to tell his players not engage in a fight, and the other team should be appropriately penalized for "gooing it up" so to speak. Carlyle should have every right to see a team throw out their fourth line, and try to get his scoring line out to generate more offense. Carlyle certainly should anticipate Scott wanting to fight, but there's no reason to anticipate him instigating a non-consensual fight against a non-fighting star forward. Why? Because it's against the rules to jump people who don't want to fight. Coaches/players get praised all the time for not engaging in fights when they are winning. Why is Carlyle held to a different standard here because Scott decided he was fighting no matter what anyone else decided, rules be damned?

I don't like the expectation that a player who "runs his mouth" needs to fight for it. If that were the case, there would be a lot more fighting in the NHL because lots of players yap constantly without any real intent to fight. Answering the bell for dirty hits and roughing people up, sure. Answering the bell for being angry at the other team's goon and stating that? No. Big difference there. If you want to punch someone in the face for talking smack, that's your perogative, but it's wrong.

I also don't like Kessel's stickwork, though. He had plenty of options to defend himself that don't involve using the stick, particularly when the immediate threat has been handled by another player and the target has his back to you.

  It's your team, you would know a lot better than I do, I defer to your first hand knowledge in this matter....lol.

You would think that, but then again I am Clueless.

@yave1964  Maybe they are counting on Ranger for depth on defense. He does not dress most nights, but he is a pretty dependable dude on most nights.

Ranger is definitely in the plans. They've been using him as a #7 D instead of a 12th forward on occasion as of late.

Could also be they are counting on Franson stepping up his game like he did in the playoffs last year.

Sad to think that some Leafs fans considered Franson our 2nd best defenseman last year (and to be honest, he probably was), and this year he has been hot garbage except on the powerplay. Lately, he's been awful on the powerplay too.Franson's only positive attribute in recent games has been his physicality.

At this point I'd easily play Ranger over Franson, given their recent play. Of course, that would leave Toronto with a grand total of 0 right-handed shots on the blueline.

@yave1964 I was hoping for a solid defenseman at the deadline on the cheap. I still think beating the offer for Robidas would have been a good idea, even if he is getting up there in age and couldn't play for a bit yet. I mean, he ended up going for what, a 4th rounder or something? Then again, as I mentioned earlier, the Leafs are so tight against the cap they would have to shed salary first I think. Or they could have just kept Robidas on IR until the playoffs, I suppose.

Too bad we already used both compliance buyouts to get out of bad long term contracts. Otherwise, we could have used it to get out of a bad long term contract.

The Leafs agree with this. Are compliance buyouts tradeable? If so, I could see them acquiring one. 

I find it interesting people take issue with goons fighting just for the sake of it, because there is way less of that now than even just a few years ago. There are piratically no "goons" left in the league. There are no more Tie Domis, Dan Kordics, Dave Browns, or Tony Twists in the NHL anymore. They aren't a dying breed, they are dead.

 

I don't care if it's off of a face off, retaliation for a dirty (or clean) hit, as long as it's between two willing combatants, I have no issue with it. I don't like cheap shots, fighting a guy who doesn't want to go, or other stuff like that, but if it's between two guys who want to go, I say let them go. This talk of suspending one kind of fight but allowing another is nonsense.

Yep. Almost dead, but not quite. As a Leafs fan I can tell you that Tie Domi was roughly 2-3 times the player that Frazer McLaren is, and he still gets a spot once in awhile. Was a regular last year.

Still, with the way it's going, it looks like the "goon" will be dead very soon.

I don't take issue with fighting for the sake of fighting, but I do take issue with it when it interrupts the flow of the game for no practical reason. If it's after a play is dead, sure. Why not?

Thanks @mojo1917.

Clearly the 7D format is working. After all, I don't think they used it last night and got eaten by the Sharks.

I mean, clearly the issue was that they felt so bad about the Sharks getting their goal called back that they decided to give them the game. Dramatically. Yeah, that's gotta be it.

IMHO the instigator rule has hurt the game, causing irreparable harm to follow Jammers point.

 

  I am going to use the Wings Nick Kronwall as my example (see that b21? lol).

 

  He has really toned his act down over the past two seasons since Lidstrom retired and he was forced to move up to the top pairing, but previous to that he drilled three or four poor saps a year into the ice. Whether legal or not can be debated and has been debated to death, but he usually goes after star players.

  With the instigator rule he can do this with no worry of retaliation because the other team would be penalized for it and the Wings would come out with an advantage. Thus he is free to play his game without worry, killing a Kesler or a Briere or a Voracek with no fear that someone will retaliate because to do so would hurt their team.

  I hate goon on goon, I love bad blood feuds, teams that truly do not like each other and fight to avenge bad blood or to intimidate and look for an edge. Not enough of that anymore, sadly nowadays most of the fighting is by the circus clowns who get five minutes a nite on the ice for that reason.

A fair point about the instigator, but at the same time you have to wonder if removing the instigator penalty would only increase the amount of fights that start over clean hits. In fact, I'm sure it would.

There has to be a happy middle ground somewhere, but I'm not sure how to acheive it.

 I had forgotten that the Leafs had a buy out left, you HAVE to figure Clarkson is a goner, unless he suddenly starts filling the net...and even then you gotta figure they just want out. Seeing Clarkson as a direct division rival for many years in New Jersey, this player looks nothing like the hard nosed warrior I used to watch....this is a wishy washy welfare version of Clarkson. They have never used him on the top pp, which was the only way to get a respectable bang for the buck out of Clarkson. JVR has that role, screening in front of the net and causing havoc, and is pretty good at it, so don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

 I could see a third line of Clarkson, Kuleimin and Bolland, that trio *should* be very tough to play against in the post season, and they would make an excellent shut down line also.....but Clarkson may bring them down a bit due to lack of speed.

Actually I'm pretty sure the Leafs don't have a compliance buyout left. I believe they used theirs on Grabovski and Komisarek (I think). I was referring to the normal, "makes you pay for 12 years" type of buyout. But they'll likely give him at least one more year and explore trades with retained salary before exploring that avenue.

To be fair to Clarkson, he had a bad start with injury and suspension (still a stupid, stupid move by him), but he has looked nothing like I remember him from New Jersey (minus the falling down at least once a shift).

I actually like Kulemin with Kadri and Lupul much better. Clarkson was tried there, but he doesn't have the speed to keep up with the other two. Raymond does but he lacks the needed "go get the puck"-itude. Kulemin's combination of speed and grit makes him perfect for that spot.

Hopefully Clarkson can at least re-establish himself as a 3rd liner, because as it is he's playing like a 5 million dollar 4th liner. Heck, one could argue that Troy Bodie has been better than Clarkson so far this year. Be nice if he at least saw more PP time. I mean, lately the Leafs PP has been garbage after a hot start, so it couldn't hurt...right?

Okay look, this was not a rip of your Penguins it would not have mattered to me who the two teams were, it was must watch TV and did not disappoint. There were no bonus points because it was Pittsburgh. I even had the game on two weeks before when Johnson beat Dipeitro and was entertained by that.

  The fact that the Isles signed the worst felons in the New York State Penal system who could stand on skates without falling over and gave them bike chains instead of hockey sticks was fun to me. Most of the times these type of games get big billing and do not live up to the hype, this one did and I loved it. Remove the chip dude, it was not a crack on your precious Penguins.

Let's be honest, it's bonus points for beating up the Penguins. 

Nobody likes a powerhouse.

I think the major point here is that watching a game where the teams hate each other and emotions run high is much more entertaining than your run of the mill game. That's why the intensity of a playoff series is exciting. Regardless of who is in the right or the wrong (because most of the time, both teams share in the wrong).

Makes you wonder what he could do if he actually trained.

Sort of like the Babe Ruth of hockey. Except without the tiny legs. Or the whole "legend" part.

A bold move, bringing Owen out of retirement.

Someone's got to mentor the kids, though. Might pot a few on Hodgson's wing.

Oh wait, Ted. Yeah that could be a good hire.

And hey! No kicking the Canucks while they are down! Unless you are Roberto Luongo's twitter account. That's okay.

Fighting that is staged (like 95% of the Leafs' fights last year) serve no real purpose in my mind, except fan entertainment. They are entertaining when they don't detract from the game, which in my mind, happens often.

That said, when the going gets rough, being on the winning side of tough is a distinct advantage for the team. Nothing gets the team going like winning the match of hatred. That is extremely situational, though, making enforcers not a great return on investment.

Players that can play AND fight are valuable. Like Mark Fraser last year, before he fell back down to Earth. Like a meteor. And made the Coltonorrsaurus Rex extinct.

@yave1964 Not at all! It'll get more attention there probably. It's a bit desolate around these parts. Think I saw a tumbleweed earlier.

@yave1964 Agreed that the Leafs' intensity level has dropped. They are still winning, but this is a different same team as last year (as much sense as that makes). Gone are the Mighty Mighty Maple Leafs. Their defensive game has slumped as well. Last year their penalty kill was on of the best...this year it's one of the worst.

Somehow they seem to win, but it's mostly thanks to a potent offense that runs pretty much through Kessel, and Bernier saving their bacon. It's actually pretty crazy how bad they are for goals against compared to their current position in the standings.

To be fair to Randy on the goonery front, Fraser, Orr, and McLaren have played like garbage this year. Last year they were all decent energy guys, but this year - ouch. I think (know) they were counting on Clarkson providing more than he has in terms of intensity (never mind scoring...that seems to be a lost cause at this point).

Gleason has actually been very good for the Leafs. He's been a steadying presence back there that they desperately needed. They still do need more defense, though. The 7 defense thing seems to be helping, at any rate. At least in the short term.

Lately, Toronto Maple Leafs head coach Randy Carlyle has favoured opting out of his traditional goonerific 12th forward in exchange for a 7th defenseman on his bench. This 7th defenseman, one Paul Ranger, has responded by providing valuable minutes for the team; an excellent comeback for the man who had earned the nickname "Ranger Danger" from some fans for his frightening defensive gaffs earlier in the season. This welcome change in his game also has the added benefit of reducing the minutes of Dion Phaneuf and Carl Gunnarsson to a more realistic range, as well as taking even strength minutes away from Cody "Just Kidding I'm Still Just a Powerplay Specialist" Franson. Additionally, Carlyle has sung the praises of his ability to now double-shift forwards at certain points in the game to produce more offense. On the other hand, the Leafs have been giving up 3rd period leads in recent games, a frightening trend that brings back memories of the Game That Shall Not Be Named. Obviously this is a small sample size, but one has to wonder if exhausted forwards that already struggle with a two-way game might have something to do with it. Or maybe us Leafers are just paranoid.

It is key to note that this Leafs team utilized 3 enforcers last year: Mark Fraser, Frazer McLaren, and Colton Orr. This year, all 3 have not played well. Fraser was traded. McLaren was waived (not picked up). Last year, the Leafs led the league in fights - a trophy which I believe they have forfeited to the Flyers this year.

Now, Carlyle (who has always seemed to want an enforcer in his lineup) is running with no enforcers on a semi-regular basis. He seems to be content with less fighting, handled mostly by Tim Gleason and David Clarkson's Jessica Albatross of a contract.

So what do we think about Carlyle's strategy? Is it a good idea? Is it bound to fail long term? Is it a viable strategy in the playoffs, should the Leafs make it again this year?

The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

I obviously have no insight into what Nonis' prospective deals would have been on deadline day (according to him he made more phone calls than he ever had trying to make something happen), but doing nothing may have been the right call.

The problem with the Leafs right now is that they don't really need a "depth" type player. They need a high end defenseman, and (to a lesser extent) a #1 center. They have decent depth at all positions, but their needs are bigger pieces. Those types of pieces weren't really available from the looks of things. Maybe draft time we'll see Mr. Nonis make some moves.

I mean, adding depth never hurts, but they don't really have a) much cap space, or b) much in the way of picks/prospects to move at this point.

The only thing I could have seen them realistically go for given what happened on deadline day was a 3rd line center, but with Bolland hopefully returning soon and Holland playing decent in a stop-gap role (and the aforementioned cap issues), I don't blame Nonis for standing pat.

@jammer2 Ugh...the Clarkson deal may handcuff Nonis this offseason. I didn't like the deal when it was signed, but I thought to myself "self, you are darn good looking. But enough of that....at least Clarkson can bring a needed element of "go to the net-edness" to the Leafs". But no, sadly he has been not only not worth his contract, but completely invisible. Not even grinder-level aggressiveness and energy. He's practically begging for a buyout at this point. Awful, awful signing.

Right when the Leafs FINALLY got rid of their bad contracts and buyout hits, Nonis does this. Go figure.

@flyercanuck The Leafs came out of the gate flying, and then crashed hard for awhile there which is when Philly caught up. The Leafs made a big surge before the Olympic break that has continued. I don't have the stats handy, but their last 20-30 games have been really good.

Leafs always seem to be up and down. Hopefully that stabilizes.