Jump to content

NHL Renews Anti-Diving Campaign


Guest B21
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since the photo attached is Sid the Kid I put this under the Pens. I do love how he called Bill Barber the "Pioneer of Diving" though. I gues we all won our Cups with a known "diver" playing an important role... ;)

There were a few videos imbedded that I had to delete to copy it but the article is still up...Stu Hackel's latest column on cnnsi.com...

NHL renews anti-diving campaign

Colin Campbell, NHL Hockey Operations, Sean Avery | Comments

textsize.gif

textsize_minus_d.giftextsize_minus_l.gif

textsize_plus_d.giftextsize_plus_l.gif

sidney-crosby.jpg

Refs will keep close tabs on players like Sidney Crosby, who have a reputation for diving in order to get penalty calls. (Joel Auerbach/Getty Images)

How effective will the NHL’s proposed crackdown on diving be when (and if) the season starts? The last time it tried, opposition from some of the same general managers who called for a tougher standard stymied the effort. Now, perhaps, some changes in the potential punishment will lead to more acceptance.

As a result of the NHL’s mini-summit earlier this week, both on-ice officials and the Hockey Operations Department will be watching more closely for players who try to deceive referees by embellishing fouls — and also those who impede the progress of forecheckers. Improvement in both areas should help juice the game’s flaccid offenses which produced Dead Puck Era-type goal scoring totals last season.

Much of the discussion involved playing rules and clarification, especially when it came to the standards of obstruction, as Colin Campbell told reporters on Wednesday.

The players, coaches and managers seconded Campbell’s assessment in this video.

It’s not the first time that the league has tried to crack down on hold-ups and diving, which are in some ways linked. You want a forechecker to have a clear path to the puck without being obstructed illegally, but you don’t want him to take advantage of the situation by faking a foul. Most of the media attention coming out of the meeting, however, was on the renewed initiative against diving and other forms of embellishment, like players snapping their heads back in an attempt to draw a high-sticking penalty.

“The players and coaches were particularly adamant that we address it, make the calls, particularly the two and two call, two for the hook and two for the player trying to sell it,” Campbell told Tim Campbell of The Winnipeg Free Press on Wednesday. “They’re not for suspensions, but fines, letters, some form of embarrassment. The players were big on that.”

In truth, the standard on both embellishment and interfering has slipped in recent seasons. Holding up forecheckers typifies the sort of obstruction tactics that characterized pre-lockout NHL play and the increased calling of interference penalties and all forms of obstruction starting in 2005-06 helped produce the exciting game that we welcomed back after the lost 2004-05 season. As part of that package of “new rules,” the league placed a new emphasis on calling the embellishing penalty. Eventually it was codified as Rule 64 on Diving/Embellishment but at the outset it was merely an Unsportsmanlike Conduct minor. However, this new rule had sharp teeth. It called for Hockey Operations to review game videos and assess fines to players who dive or embellish a fall or a reaction, or feign injury in an attempt to draw penalties even if it wasn’t called on the ice. The first such incident would result in a warning letter being sent to the player. The second brought a $1,000 fine. The third upped the fine to $2,000. The fourth dive would mean a one-game suspension. And any public complaints or derogatory comments about this new practice could also result in fines.

That was how the GMs wanted the league to enforce things, but it didn’t really work out that way.

At the outset, Hockey Ops monitored each game and collected footage of potential dives, whether a penalty was called or not. On Mondays, the staff would gather and review the video and if they believed a player embellished a play, Campbell would phone that player’s GM and let him know the player was being cited as a diver. In addition to the letters and fines, a notice with the names of divers would be sent to each club and to the on-ice officials to be posted in dressing rooms. Letting the teams and the refs know the identities of offenders would, theoretically, put a crimp in the practice.

The most important part of the system was everyone knew who the divers were, even the refs. Divers were put on notice that they were being watched. There was even to be acknowledgement in the media. Everyone was to know that these players had been fined. And they wouldn’t get much leeway on the ice. To be fouled and get the call would necessitate a blatant penalty, like having their legs chopped out from under them.

The problems, however, started shortly thereafter. As Mike Halford of NBC.com’s Pro Hockey Talk recalls, “The ‘diver’s list’ became big news following the last lockout when, early in the 2005-06 season, then-Kings forward Sean Avery blasted Campbell after being placed on the list — one that publicly identified him not just as a diver, but a repeat offender.”

“How can a guy sitting in an office in New York determine if you dived or not by watching a tape?” Avery told Chris Foster of The Los Angeles Times that November. “They don’t know if you had a bad ankle or a torn bursa sac or something. I can’t even tell you what play they are even talking about. They don’t have to tell you a play, just what game they are looking at….No question that this is a way to do something to me. It has nothing to do with diving. How can Colin Campbell, or whoever it is, sit at a desk and make that call?”

That outburst cost Unsavory Avery an extra grand in addition to his diving fine. But the atmosphere around the rule was soured.

Another problem was that escalating punishments led to suspensions — and, as we all know, GMs don’t even want their players suspended for head checks. They certainly don’t want them banned for diving. Consequently, some GMs vehemently argued and complained to Campbell when he made that phone call. These were the same guys who had called for the rule, who had said they’d support the league office in enforcing it and pledged they’d offer no resistance.

Lacking the expected support from managers, Hockey Operations eventually abandoned the system. It’s still in the rule book, however, but it was no longer enforced.

At the mini-summit, the coaches, managers and players rededicated themselves to the rule and to exposing the culprits with a list that everyone can see. They’ll dispense with the suspensions, however. “They want to get [the list] out there,” Campbell told reporters. “They want the player to be caught, whether it’s on the ice by the referee or by us on video. They are all tired of diving. The object is to make them stop eventually and, by doing that, they can get it out there around the League, embarrass them. The referees will know it, too, so the divers don’t get the benefit of the doubt.”

Diving is one of those areas in which two of hockey’s traditions clash. On one hand is the belief that there is virtue in being honorable, an “honest hockey player,” whose respect for the game means he will fight through checks and match his skill and strength against a checker while he rushes the puck. Hockey fans regularly chide soccer enthusiasts over that game’s ridiculous chronic diving and theatrics, which is not befitting the world’s most popular sport. You frequently hear a hockey player scolded, “This isn’t soccer” after an embellishment. That’s the ideal, anyway, and a traditionalist like Don Cherry fumes when he sees it (although he has yet to master the traditional task of correct pronunciation, especially when it comes to identifying Dan Carcillo).

http://youtu.be/an8goR1HDfE

On the other hand is the competitive urge to win at all costs, something that is equally prized alongside respect for the game, a credo that goes so far as to claim, “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” So players will try to fake a foul in hopes of getting a penalty called, and they’ve gotten pretty good at it.

There’s a long history of diving in the NHL, and the Flyers Hall of Fame winger Bill Barber was a pioneer of it.

In Barber’s day, the referees just stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt once they caught on to his deception, but it took a while. The fact that some NHL referees attended the meeting in Toronto should make the learning curve easier this time. “The players’ feedback was real good,” ref Wes McCauley said. “I thought there was a real good dialogue where they kind of let us in on some of the things that they use or feel they use as tactics to try not to get called on their penalties. So I thought they were honest and gave us a couple of trends or tricks to the trade, so to speak.”

But McCauley declined to divulge some examples to reporters. “I don’t want to put them under the bus,” he laughed.

Edited by hf101
added videos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will certainly be interesting to see what it does. My fear is it brings back the days of clutch and grab. Interference that doesn't necessary pants someone but slows the game enough that the stars can no longer shine through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But McCauley declined to divulge some examples to reporters. “I don’t want to put them under the bus,” he laughed.

Perhaps he has more Pittsburgh players in mind....I didn't know that Jerome Bettis was going to get involved in hockey though..... :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, I love this idea. They can find the worst offenders just by looking through last years playoffs so they should already have a list to go on.

Briere's diving has always annoyed the crap out of me. Carcillo's head flail was another flyer who used to embarrass me. It cheapens the game. There are not that many divers out there but the ones that do need to stop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@flyerrod The real embarrassing part of Carcillo's head flail was how he laughed about it after he got away with it.....um, yeah...like the refs will never see the replay....like they will not HATE the fact they got decieved and looked foolish....betcha he got called real tight after that...and the Flyers *knew* he would, another reason for his hasty deal trade after that years playoffs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, I love this idea. They can find the worst offenders just by looking through last years playoffs so they should already have a list to go on.

Briere's diving has always annoyed the crap out of me. Carcillo's head flail was another flyer who used to embarrass me. It cheapens the game. There are not that many divers out there but the ones that do need to stop.

I can't fault the players. If there are rules that aren't called the players are going to take full advantage. They will bend/break the rules until penalties start getting called. No different than a stick that is curved too much or goalie pads that are an inch or five too wide.

And before this turns into a who-gets-more-diving-calls-against them pizzing match, you can probably count on two hands the number of times diving was called last year. In other words, just about everyone gets away with it 99% of the time. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before this turns into a who-gets-more-diving-calls-against them pizzing match, you can probably count on two hands the number of times diving was called last year. In other words, just about everyone gets away with it 99% of the time. ;)

You did notice who I used for examples ( I.E. Briere, Carcillo). I think we would all like to see the divers embarrassed to the point of giving it up. I am more than willing to clean up my own house first, how about you? ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did notice who I used for examples ( I.E. Briere, Carcillo). I think we would all like to see the divers embarrassed to the point of giving it up. I am more than willing to clean up my own house first, how about you? ;)

Frankly, I am indifferent. It's been going on for decades and has only become an issue now because one of the league's best (and most polarizing) players has it in his bag of tricks. You don't like it when Briere and Carcillo do it. Fair and honorable...until they draw a penalty the leads to a PP goal that wins you a Game 7. ;)

It's 40 years ago now - way before my time - but I'm guessing no one had issues with Billy Barber (The Pioneer :)) when the Flyers were winning their Cups.

As for calling it...some of the obvious ones (like the Carcillo head snap)...OK. But if a player is really good at it there is no way for the officials to tell without the benefit of replay. It's not just diving...what about the player who gets legitimately drilled, stays down on the ice like he was shot and is back a few shifts later? Maybe the antics make a 2:00 minor a 5:00 major or even a misconduct? Maybe he did get the wind knocked out and needed to stay down for a minute or maybe he milked it? Really no way to tell.

Diving/embellishing will never go away completely in any sport where contact is regulated like hockey and basketball and, to a much lesser degree, football. But they can start calling some of the really obvious infractions a lot more.

I also think players know their reputations. I KNOW Crosby knows. Doesn't seem to have much affect. Most of these guys would sell their souls to win a Cup so I doubt the league can "embarrass" players into stopping the diving/embellishing. If they want it to stop...start calling it as best you can. My $.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@B21

i barely remember bill barber, when i became hockey aware it was 1979, So i didn't see enough of him to know anything about him except for what my step dad said, and he didn't like him all that much. he was a Leach guy all the way. so i imagine for a lot of us the bill barber dig doesn't mean a whole lot, it's not like you're running down Dave Poulin, Brian Propp or the big E which which i'm sure would draw howls of indignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@B21 "It's 40 years ago now - way before my time - but I'm guessing no one had issues with Billy Barber (The Pioneer :)) when the Flyers were winning their Cups."

I was 10-15 when Barber was in his hey day. Really hard to comment, but I can say I did not like the way he played, mostly because my Uncles around me told me it was not honourable. Even back then, I took a lot of heat when Barber dived....the whole room (we watched a lot of hockey as a family, all my Uncles assemebled for Saturday Night CBC hockey) would explode and say "look at your cheating Flyers!!" Also heard a LOT of Clarke is a coward, like to see him play without the big boys there to back him up"...ahhhh, the good ol days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consequently, some GMs vehemently argued and complained to Campbell when he made that phone call. These were the same guys who had called for the rule, who had said they’d support the league office in enforcing it and pledged they’d offer no resistance.

Lacking the expected support from managers, Hockey Operations eventually abandoned the system. It’s still in the rule book, however, but it was no longer enforced.

If this doesn't adequately explain in four sentences what is wrong with how they referee this game, I'm not sure what would.

I was 10-15 when Barber was in his hey day. Really hard to comment, but I can say I did not like the way he played, mostly because my Uncles around me told me it was not honourable. Even back then, I took a lot of heat when Barber dived....the whole room (we watched a lot of hockey as a family, all my Uncles assemebled for Saturday Night CBC hockey) would explode and say "look at your cheating Flyers!!" Also heard a LOT of Clarke is a coward, like to see him play without the big boys there to back him up"...ahhhh, the good ol days!

The Game was a Much Different animal 40 years ago. The players were different kinds of people - they weren't making the kazillions (or even a minimum half a million) that they are today. Clarkie *was* a thug who deliberately broke ankles and "did anything to win games."

I hate diving. I hate it when the Flyers do it - and would continually harp on it if it made a significant difference ("winning a Game 7"). I hate when other teams do it. I almost expect to see someone blade themselves like Ric Flair at some point...

Oh, and Crosby doesn't have "a reputation" as a diver - he's a diver and whiner. Nothing sums that up better than his meltdown in the last postseason which was an embarassment to the sport. I don't care if he doesn't care - but he should really ask himself why his powerhouse team - "Stanley Cup favorite Penguins" - that was rolling along while the other talented players assembled around him played in his absence, fell apart at the most crucial point of the season under his "leadership."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this doesn't adequately explain in four sentences what is wrong with how they referee this game, I'm not sure what would.

The Game was a Much Different animal 40 years ago. The players were different kinds of people - they weren't making the kazillions (or even a minimum half a million) that they are today. Clarkie *was* a thug who deliberately broke ankles and "did anything to win games."

I hate diving. I hate it when the Flyers do it - and would continually harp on it if it made a significant difference ("winning a Game 7"). I hate when other teams do it. I almost expect to see someone blade themselves like Ric Flair at some point...

Oh, and Crosby doesn't have "a reputation" as a diver - he's a diver and whiner. Nothing sums that up better than his meltdown in the last postseason which was an embarassment to the sport. I don't care if he doesn't care - but he should really ask himself why his powerhouse team - "Stanley Cup favorite Penguins" - that was rolling along while the other talented players assembled around him played in his absence, fell apart at the most crucial point of the season under his "leadership."

I'd agree he WAS his first couple of years. All 18 year olds have a lot of maturing to do. Since then he's done exceptionally well. Arguing no more or less than most captains do. Certainly not diving like he used to.

He had a bad playoff series, that I'll agree. His emotions got the better of him a few times and the team wasn't itself, I'll concede. But an embarrassment to the Sport? Hardly... Guys have ups and downs. The Pens are no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree he WAS his first couple of years. All 18 year olds have a lot of maturing to do. Since then he's done exceptionally well. Arguing no more or less than most captains do. Certainly not diving like he used to.

I would agree, and I believe I have agreed with you previously on this, but I thought he took a great step backwards last postseason. He wasn't "leading" as much as being petulant and that attitude pervaded the whole team (and the coach, btw). He was embellishing (which is part of diving) and doing much more whining than he had been.

IMO. YMMV.

He had a bad playoff series, that I'll agree. His emotions got the better of him a few times and the team wasn't itself, I'll concede. But an embarrassment to the Sport? Hardly... Guys have ups and downs. The Pens are no different.

The last image most people have of Crosby is him getting smacked on his keister by a guy who then went down and scored a goal moments later. How he reacts to that will be an important part of how he develops.

Let's not even mention the "shot in the back" flop, shall we?

It's one reason I have all the respect in the world for Mario Lemieux - when he was talking about clutching and grabbing and obstruction ruining the game he was right and how he lead his team was an vital part of how Pittsburgh won.

How Crosby lead his team was a major part of how Pittsburgh lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jammer2

@mojo1917

As long as we are all on the same page the the actions of the Barbers and Crosbys don't cast a shadow on the Cups their teams one then we are all on the same page. Some of us might be more tolerant of it than others but that's about the only difference of opinions I see here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree he WAS his first couple of years. All 18 year olds have a lot of maturing to do. Since then he's done exceptionally well. Arguing no more or less than most captains do. Certainly not diving like he used to.

He had a bad playoff series, that I'll agree. His emotions got the better of him a few times and the team wasn't itself, I'll concede. But an embarrassment to the Sport? Hardly... Guys have ups and downs. The Pens are no different.

How quickly Giroux's antics in the following series are forgotten, P922. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How quickly Giroux's antics in the following series are forgotten, P922. ;)

I do not believe they have been forgotten.

But Giroux wasn't the Cup-winning Captain of the Cup Favorite Penguins and One Of the Greatest Players In The Game.

He was the guy who put that guy on his butt and sent him home for the summer. :D

This is where Giroux emerged as a great player. Sidney Crosby was supposed to have been already there but, IMO, certainly didn't act like it.

And Giroux's "antics" really didn't have much to do with why the Flyers lost that series with the Devils. The Devils played smart, disciplined hockey and had a concise plan of attack against the Flyer defense which involved the whole team playing as a unit and to a system to attack a weakness they detected in the Flyer defensive corps (tendency to play the puck to one side). I could go into a host of players who were playing 20-30 games more than they ever had before, or in the case of Jagr hadn't for years, as I have over on the Flyers Forum.

The differences in the two cases should be self-evident. And neither of them look good for Sidney Crosby.

If he had played smart, disciplined hockey - as his team had done for much of the season without him - then the Cup Favorite Penguins do roll the Flyers out in the first round.

He didn't. And as the Captain and Focal Point of his team, he lead the Cup Favorite Penguins home for the summer.

I think the Flyers played to the Penguins weakness, and that weakness turned out to be Sidney Crosby.

To be clear (and state the obvios): He has done better. He can do better. He should do better.

And, for the record, as a fan of the game I believe he will do better. And I hope last year was a notice to him.

As a fan of the game. Certainly not as a Flyers fan. :ph34r:

IMO. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How quickly Giroux's antics in the following series are forgotten, P922. ;)

comparing Crosby's actions in the ECQF to Giroux's in the ECSF are like comparing the hindenburg to a bouquet of mylar balloons. Crosby continued his boorish behavior in the dressing room after the game, with the whole "i don't like him" business... Giroux yapped at Zubris, who showed remarkable guts and fortitude to come back from such a vicious hit, then the officials and took his suspension with a "that sucks" .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

<<< But Giroux wasn't the Cup-winning Captain of the Cup Favorite Penguins and One Of the Greatest Players In The Game. >>>

And that's relevant why? He can't have moments like that because of his "status" as a player? Horse. Shite. ;) Giroux had one. A bad one. So now what?

<<< This is where Giroux emerged as a great player. Sidney Crosby was supposed to have been already there but, IMO, certainly didn't act like it. >>>

Yes and no. This season is where Giroux emerged as a great player. It wasn't "just" in the playoffs. This is the first season where he had a "Crosby-like" bull's eye on his back. Years prior it was Richards and Carter who carried that torch as the Flyers' best players. In his 2nd playoff series in that role with the Flyers, Giroux had pretty ugly episode after dealing with the kind of nonsense that Crosby has been dealing with for 7 years. Complaining to the official + a cheap shot...both acts you know who gets railed for. Maybe that was an isolated incident. Maybe not. I for one want to wait and see how Giroux handles a few more season with that bull's eye on his back.

<<< And Giroux's "antics" really didn't have much to do with why the Flyers lost that series with the Devils. The Devils played smart, disciplined hockey and had a concise plan of attack against the Flyer defense which involved the whole team playing as a unit and to a system to attack a weakness they detected in the Flyer defensive corps (tendency to play the puck to one side). I could go into a host of players who were playing 20-30 games more than they ever had before, or in the case of Jagr hadn't for years, as I have over on the Flyers Forum. >>>

Just like Crosby's antics had nothing to do with the Pens losing that series to the Flyers. The fact that you put "antics" in quotes is very telling. Looks a lot like Giroux is getting a pass in your mind.

<<< If he had played smart, disciplined hockey - as his team had done for much of the season without him - then the Cup Favorite Penguins do roll the Flyers out in the first round. >>>

Did you watch that series? The breakdowns on defense? The undescribably God-awful play from Fleury? Crosby could have acted like St. Sid and scored 10 goals...the Pens were still losing that one.

<<< He didn't. And as the Captain and Focal Point of his team, he lead the Cup Favorite Penguins home for the summer. I think the Flyers played to the Penguins weakness, and that weakness turned out to be Sidney Crosby. >>>

Pretty obvious what you are trying to do here....you are trying to take his role as captain and pin that series loss on him and him alone. The Pens suspiciously played bad when their captain returned! See! The attempt is as expected as it is futile. Crosby's behavior, leadership (or lack there of) had absolutely nothing at all to do with why the Pens lost that series. The Flyers played better...err not as awful.

Edited by B21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

comparing Crosby's actions in the ECQF to Giroux's in the ECSF are like comparing the hindenburg to a bouquet of mylar balloons. Crosby continued his boorish behavior in the dressing room after the game, with the whole "i don't like him" business... Giroux yapped at Zubris, who showed remarkable guts and fortitude to come back from such a vicious hit, then the officials and took his suspension with a "that sucks" .

C'mon! The "I don't like them..." was great! This is my point...a Flyer says that and it's "What a warrior blah blah blah...." Crosby says it as as answer to an interview question and he's boorish. More. Horse. Shite.

And Giroux didn't just yap at Zubrus. He yapped at the officials (letting Zubrus get by him, no?) then went after Zubrus' head.

You guys better hope that is an isolated incident or else I am going to have a field day. ;);) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "I don't like them..." was great! This is my point...a Flyer says that and it's "What a warrior blah blah blah

Personally, disagree...it was an immature response from a great player. I would have said the same thing if a Flyer would have said it. He could have said, I don't like them...cause they are a rival, they play us hard, etc, etc....I don't like them, because I don't like them came across as childish. And it's not just Flyers fans that had issues with it...national talking heads(NBC, NBC Sports, ESPN, TSN, online, etc) jumped on Crosby for the comments as well.

I have no problems flaming Flyers when the deserve it. EX..I thought Giroux's slashing comments this summer were poor. They sounded like whining-to me-and should not have been said. And I posted comments on this forum stating the same thing when Giroux said them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon! The "I don't like them..." was great! This is my point...a Flyer says that and it's "What a warrior blah blah blah...." Crosby says it as as answer to an interview question and he's boorish. More. Horse. Shite.

And Giroux didn't just yap at Zubrus. He yapped at the officials (letting Zubrus get by him, no?) then went after Zubrus' head.

You guys better hope that is an isolated incident or else I am going to have a field day. ;);) ;)

you are wrong.

@DaGreatGazoo eloquently (in spite of a 3 large beer pizza lunch ) states how I feel as well.

crosby sounded like a baby and led his team to the golf course.

giroux ,over the summer ,sounded like a baby.

I read the full article from the backwater news site and my opinion changed a little, as he was asked about his scars and answered directly and was not flaunting them saying look at what mean sidney did.

Still i'd have preferred he said "it's hockey".

maybe you're poking some fun, but to say your captain acted like a good leader in the playoffs and his comments and behavior were" great" doesn't help your reputation as a good poster round these parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much to reply to... Wow..

First off, I didn't see Crosby being cross checked in the back ten feet from the bench well after the mucking had stopped and falling down as a dive. If it had happened closer to the play or right off the bat I'd agree... But that far from the grind... I think most players let their guard down that far after the whistle, after the mucking, and one stride-glide from stepping off the ice. It was a simple cross-check, but a surprising one.

I DO take issue with how Crosby handled himself and the influence it had on the team during the playoff series, but I do NOT think its why they lost. I think it's more the product of that losing. I hope he learned and it doesn't happen again.

I also agree with a lot B21 says... Crosby gets abused because he's a threat to other teams and an emotional guy. It IS hypocritical to hold him to a super human standard then excuse Giroux's immaturity in the same breath. Giroux is a great player, but his temper tantrum shoulder to Zubrus' chin was worse than anything Crosby did. To me that was a deliberate strike to the head, and I hope when he saw it he learned not to do that again. Yes he made a nice hit on Crosby and went in to score a goal, but he also had some not do proud moments as well.

In summary, Crosby isn't why the Pens lost to the Flyers.... Poor defense, poor goaltending, and coaches refusing to adjust caused that. Giroux isn't why the Flyers lost to the Devils afterwards. Hockey smarts by the Devils, poor goaltending by the Flyers, and Flyers coaches refusing to adjust the defense caused that.

I don't expect a love movement for Crosby by Flyers fans... But I do think most of you guys who step back and look at the guy will find he's not Satan.

Let's see what both Crosby and Giroux do when the season hopefully starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...