Brush with Greatness

Fucking P3 cards (Not mine but my friends). Caused me to not be able to see the show. Looks like the P3's are getting fazed out in favour of the P4's. Anyways, what is the schedule for the rest of the tourney. Quarterfinals - ???? Semi's and Finals - ????? Any dates, or confirmation that that is indeed the way they are doing it.

Add to this the nominee's for the Lester B. Pearson award, technically awarded for the most valuable player as voted on by the players themselves. However, this award has teetered back and forth over the years between being for most outstanding and most valuable. Lately it's been handed out to most outstanding, and it looks to follow that tradition again this year as the nominees are: Martin St. Louis, Tampa Bay Roberto Luongo, Florida Joe Sakic, Colorado

Exactly what time does this card start (central) and is it the regular alloted 3 hours?

Not my predictions, but my ideal playoff scenario from here: Detroit d. Calgary Colorado d. San Jose Montreal d. Tampa Toronto d. Philly Detroit d. Colorado Toronto d. Montreal Detroit v. Toronto final Those conference finals rule. And, just to remind you, the goaltending matchup in the final: Eddie v. Cujo. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind the much less likely scenario of the 86/89 cup rematch with the Habs and Flames.

I think Part one is the better film, with the whole movie being laid out in the opening wedding scene incredibly well. They tried to do this again at Anthony's communion (or whatever) in part II but it didn't work as well. For me, the current scenes in II tended to drag at times. Don't get me wrong, there are some great scenes and stuff throughout, but I just don't care for any of the shit with Kay (even though it is somewhat integral in the continued development of Michael) I loved all the old stuff with Deniro and Bruno Kirby though. Part II is carried by the flashbacks. Part I, I could watch over and over and over continously without ever tiring. Part II is one that I just like to watch once in a while. So yeah, I voted for I. A question though, in part II at the bar when the Rizzoto brothers are going to kill Pantangeli, why does the one guy say "Michael Corleone says hello!"? I mean, I understand how it sets up Pantangelo's turn and shit, but weren't the Rizzoto's legitimately trying to kill Pantangeli (under Roth's orders). If that was the case, then why would they bother making the Corleone reference?

On top of that, the Sens hadn't won a game all year when trailing after two periods. Law of averages. Happens every time. And on a side note, how much do you think CBC loves the fact that the three series involving Canadian teams are all going to 7 games? That's huge for ratings.

Can anyone give a recap. I missed it on both Monday and Wednesday (I'm Canadian eh, which means I've missed the past few weeks of Degrassi as well, which is a great lead in for O.C.), along with the past few weeks, although it sounds like it hasn't been on. So what happened?

Oh, fuck, you can't blame the reffing there. Blame Alexei Kovalev. This is the second time in the past eight years that he has fucked over a Quebec based team in the playoffs by his overselling. The slash didn't look bad at all (it appeared he barely caught him on the glove) but even if your wrist is broken you get your head up and see what's going on. Kovalev just did his big sell job (much like on the first penalty but not nearly as bad as his show v. Quebec in 95) and was a fucking idiot bumping into Souray (at least I think it was Souray). Maybe if Kovalev wasn't known as such a con artist there would've been a call. I like the Habs but after Kovalev's shit this game and Ribiero the other night, they deserve to lose.

Yeah, Oates was a tough omission for me as well. Just not sure where he would fit in. Again, possibly in Ratelle's spot. For me though, Oates is more of a St. Louis guy (although I can't really use that argument as Ratelle and Park are more Rangers in my eyes). Yeah, I was thinking Thornton will be there in a couple years, just not yet. In goal, I would rank Cheevers as the third stopper, especially considering his two cup rings. One last thing is the possibility of Lionel Hitchman on defence in place of Flash, just to give all 10 retired Bruins a spot on the team. As for the coach, Sinden, Tom Johnson and Cherry were all considerations, although it would be tough to say which one of them was the best out of each other. No coach has two Stanley Cups on his resume (in Bruins history) which makes it tough as well. If Sinden had been coaching in 1972 as well, I probably would have given him the reigns. Ross' playoff history is shady, although he was the leader of one of the greatest single season teams in NHL history (who invariably choked in the end). That and his longevity are enough to give him the nod.

I think a much larger omission is anyone off the Kraut Line, particularly either Schmidt or Dumart, or for that matter Dit Clapper, although it is tough to decide where to stick him . Having to name six: G- Frank Brimsek (although it's a tossup) D- Bobby Orr D- Eddie Shore (can't deny the 4 Hart trophies) F- Phil Esposito F- Johnny Bucyk (tossup with Neely) F- Milt Schmidt However, going with a full lineup, with Art Ross coaching: Johhny Bucyk____Phil Esposito____Cam Neely Bobby Bauer_____Milt Schmidt____Woody Dumart Ken Hodge_______Peter McNab____Wayne Cashman Rick Middleton____Jean Ratelle_____Terry O'Reilly Bobby Orr_______Ray Bourque Eddie Shore_____Dit Clapper Brad Park_______Flash Hollett Frank Brimsek Tiny Thompson And configuring this, its apparent the Bruins have been stacked with quality RW's over the years. Is there anyone I am severly omitting apart from Thornton, who I couldn't figure out where to put at centre (best possibility was in Ratelle's spot).

The West is a bit easier as the six of the eight spots are locked in (including the top four) 1. Detroit 2. San Jose 3. Vancouver 4. Colorado 5. Dallas/Calgary 6. Calgary/Dallas 7. St. Louis 8. Nashville So the matchups here are... If Dallas wins or ties and Calgary loses or ties Detroit v. Nashville San Jose v. St. Louis Vancouver v. Calgary Colorado v. Dallas If Dallas loses or ties and Calgary wins Detroit v. Nashville San Jose v. St. Louis Vancouver v. Dallas Colorado v. Calgary

Let me get the East straight... 1. T-Bay 106 pts (clinched) 2. Toronto 103 pts 44 wins (no games) 3. Jersey 100 pts - 42 wins (1 game v. Boston) 4. Ottawa 102 pts - 43 wins (no games) 5. Boston 102 pts - 40 wins (1 game v. Jersey) 6. Philadelphia 100 pts 40 wins(1 game v. Islanders) 7. Habs 93 pts (no games) 8. Islanders 90 pts (1 game v. Philly) Wow, the possibilities that still exist with two big games remaining. IF Bos wins in regulation and Phi wins or ties (which leads to the matchups I think a lot of people want) Tampa v. Islanders Boston v. Habs Philly v. Jersey Toronto v. Ottawa If Bos wins and Philly loses or if NJ gets a point in OT and Philly ties than the matchups are the same with the exception being Jersey gets home ice in the Phi-NJ series. Now, thats the easy part. If NJ wins and Philly wins Tampa v. Islanders Toronto v. Montreal Jersey v. Boston Ottawa v. Philly If NJ wins and Philly loses or ties Tampa v. Islanders Toronto v. Montreal Jersey v. Philly Ottawa v. Boston However, if Bos were to get a single point in a loss in either scenario. Same goes if Bos v. NJ is a tie game and Philly loses or ties Tampa v. Islanders Toronto v. Montreal Jersey v. Philly Boston v. Ottawa Okay, I'm sure a fucked up somewhere or missed something there so feel free to fix any errors I made.

Overall, really like the show. Some good KO's, with the only thing lacking being any real good groundwork. Sudo/Brown - Sudo never fails to be entertaining and I think Brown actually gave him more than he was expecting. Brown showed some decent strength and just needs to get some more experience. Tiki/Lytle - Meh, nothing bad to say. Decent fight overall but not really any highpoints either. Sims/Kyle - Fuck, how bout those bite marks. And you could tell that Kyle was guilty by turning the blame towards Sims. Also what's the whole "I'm wearing a mouthguard theory?" The big actual teeth marks were on the bottom. The mouthguard is on the top, the bottom teeth are exposed, and you can still bite with a mouthguard. Too bad Sims gassed, cause I would have seriously liked to see Sims kick his ass afterthat. Diaz/Lawler - Fuck. I like Robbie and that Diaz kid was a bit too cocky for me. Seemed like Lawler was thrown off by a combination of a) Diaz's reach b) Diaz being a lefty and c) the fact that Diaz actually stood and traded punches with him. Feed Diaz to Matt Hughes and see how he does. Excellent fight though. Cabbage/Arlovski - No complaints here. Cabbage hung in as much as he could and I agree that that time was the proper moment to stop the fight. I didn't see Cabbage complaining. You figured Arlovski was going to win anyway going in but still entertaining. I'm a little surprised that Cabbage didn't try to throw a few knees as he had the opportunity to clinch Arlovski up against the cage a few times and didn't take it. Edwards/Franca - Close fight. Meltz disagreed with the decision and that's debatable. In Pride, the fight probably would have to go to Franca but for UFC I'd give it to Edwards (by a very slim margin). Edwards was fairly impressive with his ability to avoid subs. Ortiz/Liddell - I figured Liddell would win by decsion as I didn't think Tito could keep Chuck down, if he was able to take him down. It was a moot point as Tito tried to stand in there anyways. Personally, I thought Tito went down a bit easy for him, considering some of the other blows he's shown that he can take. Now, the big question surrounding this fight (which about half the people watching this fight with me were thinking after)... Was this fight on the level? Personally, I think it was. However, I can't say 100% in my opinion that it was. The fact that the show was in Vegas, big money fight. Neither guy really took any damage. Liddell needed the win (alot moreso that Tito IMO). Tito seemed to go down fairly easy. All of these things are some potential question marks. Now don't jump back at many, no fucking way was it fixed, you're an idiot, blah blah blah, but I would like to hear some people's honest opinion on this. Is it even somewhat debatable that this was fixed?

I think even worse for the Oilers was the bullshit call on Brewer in that game against St. Louis that lead to a powerplay goal in the 1-0 game. That was a four point game there.

In some bigger news... (courtesy Da Meltz) RRR mentioned the gambling sites yanking the fight. Wonder if they knew about this early or what. Anyways, hope they have a helluva backup plan (even though this isn't the signature fight it is still the scheduled 5 rounder).

What about cheap shot elbows to the head?

Fo shizzle. This show owned you.

Okay, in reality, as far as technique and how he converts to today's game, Martin Brodeur is probably the third or possibly fourth best goalie of all time behind Roy, Hasek, and possibly Belfour. And yes, you read that correctly, guys like Sawchuk, Espo, Dryden, Plante, Parent, etc. wouldn't crack the list. The reason for this is that goalies, far more than players have evolved so much over the past few decades (and it's not just the equipment). Watching old tapes of some of the goalies I mentioned you notice that if you stuck that goalie in today's game he would be terrible. Those guys had terrible technique and the position at that time was pretty much 100% reliant upon reflexes (which could be argued was a good thing). The player evolvement is minimal, apart from the way guys shoot the puck today (which just goes to show how much further the goalies have come along). So, in comparing goalies skill abilities and talents head to head, I would rank Brodeur third or fourth. Now, if you are talking about how they fare all time, comparing what they accomplished in their era (I don't mean strictly in a wins sense), that is a different story. I don't think he would crack the top 5. But a case could be made for Brodeur from there. One other thing that everyone has to realize is that almost all of these goalies mentioned benefitted largely from the system they were playing in and not only Brodeur. Don't kid yourselves, the Canadiens of the 70's were playing the trap long before it was labelled the trap (where the hell do you think Lemaire learned it to begin with - although with guys like Lapointe and Lafleur it looked a lot more flashy) and Dryden benefitted greatly from that. Hell, take a look at Dryden's backup Bunny Laroque and his numbers playing with that same team. In the three seasons from 75-78 Laroque posted a 57-6-11 record. Thats six losses in 74 games. And you thought Manny Legace was a good backup. Also, one of those seasons Laroque posted a GAA of 2.09 in 26 games to lead the league. And who the hell was Bunny Laroque? Fuhr, Plante, and Smith also all benefited from having the most talented teams in the league playing in front of them. You think Brodeur has an easy job because he has a good defence? New Jersey lacks offence and Brodeur giving up one or two goals in a game could mean a loss for his team. Thats a lot of pressure. Fuhr on the other hand had a safety net, so to speak, and knew that a soft goal here or there wasn't going to hurt them (apart from Steve Smith's blunder in 86). As a result, he could play more relaxed and had less pressure. When he retires, I think Brodeur will go down as one of the top 3 goaltenders of all time (along with Roy and Sawchuk) and rightfully so.

Pfft. If Monster Garage is anywhere near as good as Gearhead Garage, it's a must play.

Just out of curiosity, what is with the Netherlands fascination with kickboxing? It seems like it is the only Euro-country that is putting out guys (does Holland love kickboxing while the rest of Europe hates it or what). Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but aren't Aerts, Yvel, Schilt and the Overeems all Dutch? Anyone have an explanation for this?

And your point is? If you're saying that Toronto will at least survive the first round, albeit barely, that is great. Because I know I can't say that confidently for any team in the East.

Well, addressing the all time greats factor, you are a Bruins fan right? So tell me, if longevity and ability to avoid injury is so important, who was greater, Ray Borque or Bobby Orr and why? Forsberg's health record is on par with Orr's and Orr is generally considered the greatest defenceman of all time [although admittedly Orr did way more in his 8 full seasons (or 9 depending on what consitutes a full season) than Forsberg has done in his 7]. As for the whole power forward thing, the difference between Tkachuk or Shanny or Neely or Leclair and Forsberg is that Forsberg is not a power forward. Forsberg plays physical and takes as much abuse, if not more, than any of those guys but regardless he is not a power forward. Forsberg's stature pales in comparison to the guys you were mentioning. No one bigger, let alone his size, endures more physical punishment than he does. Looking at the size of the guys you mentioned, Leclair is 6'3, 225 pounds, Shanny is 6'3, 220 pounds, Tkachuk is 6'2, 231 pounds while Forsberg is 6'1, 205 pounds. Do you really expect a guy that much smaller to be able to endure the kind of punishment he takes? Oh yeah, and rethink that statement about Tkachuk not missing much time. When it comes to Peter Forsberg's greatness, he is in a no-win position. The reason Forsberg is considered great is a combination of reasons. On top of his incredible skill level, he is very dedicated defensively and doesn't back down from any situations. However, because of the amount of abuse he takes for playing a style that he doesn't need to be playing, he misses games and is not considered great because of it. Peter Forsberg could probably be a perimeter player. Forsberg could probably play a hell of a lot less defence. Both of these changes could result in less physical abuse and a lot more points. But to me, Peter Forsberg is not great for his scoring abilities. He is great because of his give it all attitude and dedication to both ends of the rink. Forsberg is the complete package like nobody before him (apart from Bobby). That alone should warrant mention amongst the greatest players to ever play the game. Look at it this way. If a guy only plays 8 seasons (all healthy) and then retires (just because), but those 8 seasons were phenomenal, could he be considered one of the best ever? Then what is the difference between that and a guy that gets injured but when he plays is phenomenal. Look at Jim Brown in the NFL. How long did he play? But he is considered one of the best ever.

I love how everyone has jumped on the Peter Forsberg bandwagon these past few seasons. I've been praising the guy as the best all round player since around late 95/early 96 (hell, I thought the guy was great against the Canadians in 1994); even going so far as to draft him with my first overall pick in a playoff draft the year he sat out the regular season. Of course I was mocked plenty at the time for it but it was during those playoffs that Forsberg proved to everybody what I already knew, that he was far and away the best player in the NHL. So yeah, I deserve a medal for that or something. Granted, Forsberg has had injury problems the past few seasons. Some however, are hard to blame on him. Ruptured spleen, anybody? A lot of Forsberg's injuries derive from the way he plays the game. Keying in on Forsberg, it is apparent that he takes as much physical abuse as anyone in the game. On top of this, he prides himself in the defensive zone and will dish it out physically. Now, not to knock Gretzky, but Gretzky played in a different era where players of his calibre weren't faced with the same physical punishment that Forsberg takes. On top of this, Gretzky didn't play a physical game. He was actually somewhat strong defensivly (apart from what many people believe), but he was no Forsberg in his own zone. So having said all this, is Forsberg the best player ever? Of course not. However, it could be argued that he is one of the most talented ever. In fact, I will go as far to say that Peter Forsberg is the best all around centre in the history of the NHL. On top of this, if I was building a team in today's game, with the way the game is played today, and I could build my team around Lemieux, Gretzky, or Forsberg in their prime, I would most likely choose Forsberg.

So just out of curiousity, what were peoples thoughts on the Fernandez-Roloson combo last year? Are either of those guys Cup calibre goalies? Yet, they managed to take the least talented team in the playoffs to the conference finals. With that said, and despite some doubters, the two goalie system can (not always) be effective in the playoffs. Not only that, but with such an even keel amongst goalies and so few goalies who actually have cup credentials, the two goalie system in the playoffs is without a doubt the wave of the future. How well the system works is all dependant upon the coaching and the personalities of the goaltenders involved. The coach needs to know how to play the goalies off of each other to reach their maximum potential in the playoffs. Speaking of goalies, I find it kind of sad that Luongo is going to get fucked out of the Hart trophy this year because coaching and management felt that Steve Shields should actually earn some of his 1.2 million pay cheque early in the season. With Luongo playing the games that Shields shit the bag, Florida would be in a playoff spot right now. Also, when talking about the unproven goalies that are going to step up their game this year and carry their teams, there must also be some unproven goalies who will crash and burn. So obviously again, all the guys mentioned that could step up: Rycroft, Kiprusoff, Esche, Aebischer, or Vokoun all could be possible contenders for the old collapse. Who does everyone think will fall apart come crunch time?

Well, if things stay this way, they will be exactly like I wanted them a few weeks ago (hell, who would have thought it would be Montreal in the six spot at the time and not Jersey though): Except for the Lightning-Isles. I would still love for Florida to get hot and sneak in some how (they actually pulled to within seven points with that win tonight with both teams having 9 games left). Go Panthers!