JVR scores first as Flyers crush Panthers, 5-1
by Travis Hughes on Oct 24, 2009 10:12 PM EDT
in 09-10 Game Recaps
50 comments
[Recap] - [Boxscore] - [Complete Coverage] - [FLA Reaction]
It seems the rust is gone. In a complete 180-degree turn from last Friday's loss in Florida, the Philadelphia Flyers dominated the Panthers 5-1 tonight in front of 19,007 at the Wachovia Center. Ray Emery was rarely tested, only having to make 17 saves in total. He saw just two shots in the second period and only five in the third, which shows you how excellent the Flyers offense was in keeping the puck in the Florida end. Danny Briere scored two goals and had an assist on four chances, pacing the Flyers in an excellent overall effort.
A few scattered thoughts from the win...
- The Flyers completely dominated every offensive aspect of the night. From the power play, to shorthanded, to even strength, Philadelphia controlled the tempo and put 38 shots on Tomas Vokoun in the process.
- Vokoun was spectacular, and the game would have been much more out of hand if it wasn't for his play.
- I'm not sure whether or not it was a result of playing last night or not, but the Panthers looked absolutely dead for most of the game. They went 13 minutes without registering a shot in the second period and just couldn't get anything together offensively.
- Simon Gagne finally got on the scoreboard, notching his first goal of the season tonight. It was a very poised play, too, corralling a bouncing puck along side the net and putting it past a flailing Vokoun.
- Arron Asham just keeps on getting more confidence. Now with three goals in his last three games, he's making John Stevens look like a genius for giving him time on the top lines.
- James van Riemsdyk had an excellent game. He showed a ton of poise working for the puck down low, and a beautiful pass to Danny Briere in front of the net resulted in the first Flyers' goal. In the third, he was rewarded for his excellent game by his first NHL goal, a beautiful one-on-one attempt on Vokoun.
- The Florida Panthers official Twitter feed during the third period: "Just need to end this one and get home."
The biggest story of the game was the huge Mike Richards hit on David Booth in the second period. The video can be seen here. Most of the initial reaction seems to be that the hit is a dirty one, and given Booth's scary fall to the ice and the subsequent trip to the hospital doesn't help Richards' case. He was given a five minute major and a game misconduct on the play, which leads one to believe that the NHL will take further action. Paul Holmgren thinks it was a clean hit, saying that "there is nothing dirty about that play" and that "it's a hockey play and sometimes things like that happen."
In a previous era of the NHL, there would be no question about this collision, but today, with the leagues' efforts to take hits to the head out of the game, Richards could very well see a suspension. Whether that's right or wrong is still to be debated, but the league could look to make an example out of the Flyers' captain.
Booth was taken immediately to Methodist Hospital on South Broad Street (hat tip to Frank Seravalli of the Daily News). The good news is that, according to the Miami Herald, Booth is awake and has movement in all of his extremities. Our thoughts are certainly with him.
Coach John Stevens said postgame that "Mike Richards has as most integrity for the game as anyone else" and that he's "not a dirty player." Hard to disagree there. The Captain seemed genuinely concerned in the locker room postgame.
"Obviously, I wasn't trying to hurt him," Richards said. 'I was just trying to separate him from the puck. I don't have a history of hits to the head, and I don't even know it was to the head. It happened so fast." As you would imagine, Florida general manager Randy Sexton thought the hit was dirty, also saying that "these types of hits have no place in the game."
Over at The Litter Box, we're "barbarians." So much for respectable discourse and debate.
We'll definitely have much more on this either late tonight or early tomorrow, but back to the game, the Flyers played a great one tonight, looking great in just about every aspect of the sport. It's the way they should be expected to handle a team like Florida and they did their job tonight. We should expect a similar outing tomorrow on home ice against San Jose.
After the jump, questions with answers and comment of the night.
Questions With Answers
- Can the Flyers get to Vokoun? 42 saves is a lot of work in one night, and playing back to back, he could be tired. They put almost as many shots on Vokoun as he saw last night, and he looked up to the task. Still, the Flyers did get to him five times and looked great in doing so.
- How does the new "French Connection" of Gagne, Laperriere, and Giroux work out? Can Gagne break out of his slump? Gagne did break out of his slump, but it was on the power play. Still, the line looked good, and I'd like to see more of Giroux and Gagne together in the future.
- Can Arron Asham keep up his two-game goal streak? Yes! He did an excellent job picking up a pass from Richards in the slot to put it past Vokoun.
- Florida's power play is atrocious, sitting at 26th in the league. Maybe the Flyers score a shortie tonight? Close, several times. They definitely exerted some pressure the other way while shorthanded.
- How does the Tollefsen/Syvret pairing follow up an impressive performance from Thursday? Not very noticeable despite a Tollefsen hit that drew a penalty in the first period. Not very noticeable is a compliment, by the way.
Comment of the Night
Slim pickens tonight in the open thread.
So…anything interesting in this one?
>> Whale4Ever
0 recs |
50 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Think Mile High Hockey and Canes’ Country are sharing the same love?
It was a brutal hit on Booth. Not going to debate the legality of it, or the fine line that may straddle, but it certainly appeared targeted. We’re all aware of Richards and his typically gentlemanly play, but he crossed the barrier on this one.
by Donny Rivette on Oct 24, 2009 11:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Philadelphia Daily News writer Frank Seravalli compared this hit to Ruutu’s, and I don’t think that’s accurate. This hit more closely resembled Dion Phaneuf on Kyle Okposo or Scott Stevens on Eric Lindros. I think we can all agree on the dangerous and scary nature of this hit, but when we start debating legality vs. morality, there’s never going to be an answer. Those who think this hit should be penalized aren’t talking specifically about this hit, but about hits which go above and beyond effective checks into the mentality of the players. My problem with criticism of this hit is directing the criticism to Richards and not Stephane Robidas, Dion Phaneuf, Scott Stevens, and everybody in general.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 25, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t see the hit as it happened. I was listening on the radio, and Saunders & Therien were surprised that Richards was penalized. When I got to where I was going I saw what happened. I agree with you that this was more like what Phaneuf and Stevens did. However, this hit will be much more magnified because one of the Flyers did it.
People expect Tuomo Ruutu to be dirty, but they don’t go around saying that Carolina is a horrible organization. People expect that Dion Phaneuf will lay hard, questionable hits on people because he’s “the next Scott Stevens.” No one goes around saying that the Flames organization is “the most classless in all of sports.” And Scott Stevens went around giving people concussions without reprisal. But Mike Richards! He’s a Flyer! He should be banned from the game for life, because of something Dave Schultz did 35 years ago!
Don’t get me wrong – my primary concern is for David Booth. And as I said before, I am not a fan of hits to the head because they are dangerous. I don’t think it was premeditated, though. It happened too quickly. Hopefully the league takes all of this into account when they hand down their suspension.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 25, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can Flyers fans complain about the reputation on the one hand while they revel in it on the other? PHI fans love the stories of the Philly Flu. They love being known as a tough team that walks the line. You have Scott Hartnell and Daniel Carcillo, then you add Chris Pronger and you wonder where the reputation comes from?
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A tough team that walks the line is something we love being. That doesn’t mean we love when our team crosses the line, nor does it mean that we should accept being penalized when we don’t actually cross the line.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 25, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I do think Richards crossed the line on this one, but I absolutely don’t expect supplemental punishment. Mark it down, he’ll be playing Tuesday.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a real shame about Booth. You hate to see any player go down, but especially a player of his caliber. I hope he’s okay.
Personally I think it was a shoulder check, but I’ve never been crazy about hits to the head, regardless of how they happen or who carries them out. They’re dangerous.
Everything else about the game was awesome, at least from the Flyers’ standpoint.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 24, 2009 11:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh my god, whoever writes for Litter Box Cats is a complete baby. It’s hockey. It was a hard hit. I was there and it happened so fast it’s hard to imagine the intent was anything beyond delivering a heavy hit (WHICH IS WHAT PLAYERS DO IN HOCKEY).
AND on top of that, the gutless Panthers just tucked tail and didn’t even stick up for him (a little scuffle afterwards is not sticking up for him). They got slapped around all game and now they’re crying about it.
People are going to see this play in slow motion and think it was dirty, but trust me, I’ve never seen a big hit delivered so fast out of nowhere. I didn’t even know who hit Booth until afterward. I was surprised he even got a penalty (I personally don’t think the refs would’ve called one if he had gotten right up).
by Will21 on Oct 25, 2009 12:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There is no need for name calling. People don’t like seeing their star players go down. If the roles were reversed, we wouldn’t be happy about it either.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 25, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, can’t a counter with the childist argument of “he started it” with the barbarians comment. I know some Flyers fans were upset about the Stevens hit way back when but looking back that was more of a response to the fact that we despised Stevens and I don’t really have a problem with that hit other than you might suspect he knew Lindros was concussion prone.
Point being, I think when this dude calms down, he’ll see this as a hard hit and we shouldn’t be reactionary and make crazy rules that make it impossible for any hard hit to be legal. Look at the disgraceful way penalties are called in the NFL on QB “hits.”
by Will21 on Oct 25, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I certainly agree. The NFL tried to do the right thing and still need some tweaking.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 25, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, Panthers fans may be more angry by the lack of a response by their team, as you mentioned, Will.
That said, it was a (presumably legal) hard, high hit which will haunt the league only until the next one occurs. The NHL is now 2-for-2 this weekend in shameful displays, and Sunday just clicked over.
by Donny Rivette on Oct 25, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely agree. I’m glad you came over here to discuss the hit, since other message boards (mainly, Puck Daddy) are just emoting. Nobody is happy with the outcome of the hit, and I agree with you that these hits need to be taken out of the game. This is just another problem the NHL has on its hands. I wish David Booth the best.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 25, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Puck Daddy is worthless for actual discussion of hockey. The beauty of SBN is that you can play “road games” like this and allow opposing fan bases to interact on a higher level.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
Puck Daddy is fine to read, but getting caught up in the comments is a worthless exercise because it only leads to frustration. Thank you, SBN, for separating the wheat from the chaff.
I know I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again: Love the avatar.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 25, 2009 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you like the ’stache on, or off?
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On, definitely.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 25, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Richards is 5’11" and Booth is 6’. Booth was basically in an upright skating stance so he wasn’t leaning his head down to shoulder area. Physics and fundamentals dictate that Richards should have put his shoulder right into the middle of Booth’s chest, but somehow the shorter guy gets the taller guy right in the head with his shoulder.
It’s not the same as the Stevens/Lindros hit because a) Lindros still had the puck; b) Lindros was skating right at Stevens; it wasn’t a blindside; c) the utter lack of jumping on Stevens’ part; and d) Lindros was leaning over bringing his head to a lower level than it would naturally be at; Booth was in an upright hockey stance.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 12:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Booth was not standing straight up when the hit happened. His legs were bent as he was slightly turning. Look at the video.
Mike Richards did not leave his feet until after the hit took place. Look at the video.
David Booth had just gotten rid of the puck when Richards hit him. You can hit somebody right after they get rid of the puck. It happens all of the time, and the rules stipulate that it’s okay.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 25, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying it was late. I’m just saying that it’s a difference between the Stevens and Richards hit. Richards said “I wanted to separate him from the puck” but the puck was gone. He should have said “I wanted to punish him.” That’s what the intent was.
All skaters skate with their knees bent, that’s a hockey stance. What Booth didn’t do was bend forward at the waste like Lindros. That was my point.
You don’t explode upward to hit someone. In a textbook hit you lower your shoulder to center mass and drive through. Richards had to intentionally aim upward to even come close to Booth’s head.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First: The shorter guy is one inch smaller. That’s not enough of a difference. Second: 
Booth was more crouched than Richards, as evidenced there.
Your differences with the Stevens/Lindros hit are valid. Point (a) is legitimate, but it doesn’t change the fact that a hit immediately after releasing the puck is still legal. Point (b) is your best argument. I have nothing on that one other than saying it doesn’t make it illegal, it just makes it ethically/morally questionable. As for point ©, neither Stevens nor Richards left their feet. Point (d) goes back to the image. Booth wasn’t leaned over, but that doesn’t make the hit illegal.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 25, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That frame grab happened after Richards was exploding up so obviously Booth is “more crouched.” Bottom line is he’s not unnaturally crouched to the point where his head was at a spot that would Richards would have expected to be center mass.
You’re right that one inch smaller is not a big difference. But there is much more than one inch from Richards’ shoulder to Booth’s head. Say 5-6 inches. You lower your shoulder to hit, you don’t raise your shoulder if you are following proper fundamentals. That is true of football and hockey. It’s about leverage and transferring force.
Like I said above, the timing of the hit isn’t my concern. Point a) goes more to Richards’ excuse than the legality of the hit. Richards pretty clearly left his feet. He didn’t leave them before he made contact but he was aiming upward with his hit, that was my point. He launched himself vertically. The force of the Stevens hit was entirely horizontal. That’s how most of Steven’s devastating hits were, including the Kariya one. Stevens didn’t have to jump into hits to make them devastating. Go watch that Lindros hit if you need to again. Lindros is leaned way over and leading with his head. He put his dome where Stevens was aiming, which was center mass. Richards was never aiming center mass, and Booth didn’t lower his head to the same height as center mass would be.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Richards pretty clearly left his feet. He didn’t leave them before he made contact
Then it doesn’t matter.
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not even beginning to talk about legal. I don’t even know what is legal or illegal in the NHL a lot of times anymore. I’m saying it was dirty, and that in my mind it was pretty clear that Richards was trying to injure Booth. Read the link I posted below about the distinction.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m saying it was dirty
and that in my mind it was pretty clear that Richards was trying to injure Booth
Except you have provided no basis whatsoever for either of those opinions.
Read the link I posted below about the distinction.
That link is utter rubbish.
1) You only have to read the first nine words of that link to know they had their mind made up long before they rewatched the Phaneuff hit:
Leave it to the Duke of Douchiness, Dion Phaneuf,
2) Besides its blatant lack of objectivity, the entire article is about the CHARGING rule, which Richards didn’t violate.
3) The link is assinine in and of itself. The dude quotes the charging rule, which clearly states
43.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into
“Jumps Into”. That means that the charging rule is only violated if you jump before the hit.
Richards didn’t jump before the hit. It’s not a charge.
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Richards targeted Booth’s head when he could have and should have put his shoulder through his chest. That’s why I think it was dirty. I thought that was clear. Legal or not isn’t really the issue to me. We won’t know if the NHL says it’s legal until tomorrow. I already said I thought he wouldn’t get a suspension.
You clearly did not read and/or understand the link I posted. You can be jumping at a guy’s head even if you don’t leave your feet before contact. I think that’s what Richards did. Will the NHL call that a charge? No. But that wasn’t my argument.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree he could have simply caught him in the chest and had the same effect but the NHL doesn’t glorify big hits to the chest like it does for these head shots. For the Phaneuf hit Flames website had it under the heading “Phaneuf Lowers the Boom” and feature a clip of the hit on the main pagfe of the website. The Brian Campbell hit on Umberger was replayed on the Jumbotron during the game to get the crowd going wild. NHL has created a monster by not fining / suspending these hits that make 1st contact with the head, I am in favor of what the NFL does and just fine the players for dangerous hits regardless of wheter a flag was thrown or someone got injured. It would bring awarness to hits to the head without suspending players in a indescrimatly.
by chrislanci on Oct 25, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it’s realistic to call in-game penalties because it happens so fast. But NHL review can tell whether the hitter attacked horizontally through the body or launched vertically at the head. Players that launch to the head should be suspended. Period. But that doesn’t happen, and probably won’t any time soon.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You clearly did not read and/or understand the link I posted.
No, I read that crap. It was a dude who was clearly biased about Phaneuf, reinterpretting the charging rule to conform to his dislike for the player. The rule is you can’t jump before contact. He can draw all the lines on pictures to represent directions of motion (blah blah blah…) he wants, it’s still utter bullshit justification.
he could have and should have put his shoulder through his chest.
Maybe you should watch the video again. Here’s a picture:
Richards can’t put his shoulder in Booth’s chest because Booth fucked up. He’s bent over while admiring his pass. Richards hits him where his chest should be, but instead Booth is leaning forward with his head there.
It’s totally Booth’s fault that he’s skating through the offensive zone bent over with his head down.
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You obviously see what you want to see. Booth was not bent over a la Eric Lindros.
I’m not agreeing with the legal interpretation of charge in that link. I’m agreeing with the “clean or dirty” angle. It is dirty when you jump into a guy. Period. When you jump and target a guy’s head you are trying to hurt him. There is no question about that.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The picture is right there above you!
He’s clearly not standing up straight. There’s no subjectivity to it, it’s a fact. He’s bent over.
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a good post discussing the “leaving the feet” criteria. I know that Richards didn’t leave his feet before he made contact, but I think he definitely was launching himself upward and the fact that he a) made contact with Booth’s head and b) ended up leaving his feet vertically demonstrates that.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 1:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Richards cannot be suspended, based on the fact that the penalty was “interference”. It wasn’t charging (which is the call if he had left his feet), it wasn’t elbowing, it wasn’t even roughing.
The refs on the ice determined it was delivered in a perfectly clean manner, and the only violation of the rules was that Richards hit Booth when Booth didn’t have the puck. (Which is a joke, but whatever.)
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 1:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let me clarify that: he “should not” be suspended. There’s no special rule prohibiting suspensions for interference calls.
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 1:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it looked like to me a clean hit. Richards did not lead with an elbow, he did not leave his feet, it wasnt ever a late hit. It was an unfortunate clean hit. He caught booth in an awkward position as booth was looking down and booth took even more awkward fall to the ice. In all regards, I hope booth will be ok.
by phish'n on Oct 25, 2009 2:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One more thing, heres a video from last season of basically the same hit, which was not suspension worthy:
(I tried the imbed HTML code, if it doesn’t work, here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlGdGDVuVl8)
by MarioD on Oct 25, 2009 2:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So now we’re the Broad Street Barbarians? Has a nice ring to it, I guess. Hartnell kinda looks like one. Asham too.
by Ben Feldman on Oct 25, 2009 3:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So can we get a promo video of Chris Pronger asking Scott Hartnell what is best in life?
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can the Flyers do some Chase, What is in your Wallet commercials that would be a fun local add campaign, or a nice Conan themed opening jumbotron video.
by chrislanci on Oct 25, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 min major for interference?
Has a 5 min major ever be called for interference I don’t remember seeing such a thing another NHL record for the Flyers. I also wonder if Colin Campbell’s 1st time offender exception would hold for Richards from this video it sounded like all Flyers were considerd previous offenders. Great video if you haven’t seen it Ron MacLean gives it the “The Rules Czar” Colin Campbell.
by chrislanci on Oct 25, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wrong link
Still a good video about the “new rules” I apologize this is the one I wanted talking about the Carcillo playoff suspension and the others who were no suspended for the same play. Ron MacLean is my hero.
by chrislanci on Oct 25, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a 5 min. Interference in the NHL but I know the rule has been around. Chris Borque got hit with a five minute interference in the AHL last year for destroying a guy without the puck in an otherwise clean manner.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 25, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see the other side of this. We would be pissed if one of our top forwards got crushed. Richards a dirty player, please. I just watch the video and from that it looks as if Booth turns his head into Richards just before impact. Also Richie’s left skate never leaves the ice. His right does but only due losing balance.
by Crosby sucks on Oct 25, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree when JVR went into the boards i looked over and over to find something illegal about it, because I was upset. Same with the Kunitz hit on Kimmo in the playoffs last year. If Kimmo would have landed differently the injury could have been real bad. It is hard to lose a star player.
I think it is the protection of the star players that leads to these injuries. I see the “superstars” skate around and its two minutes for any contact near them, and they get this false sense of security that they aren’t going to get whacked. I want to say that I really hope Booth is ok. Watching him lay on the ice like that was horrific, but you have to skate with your head up. He is a great player, but I don’t think he is the smartest player. The night before in Pittsburgh he got his stick knocked out of his hand on a powerplay picked up the puck and threw it. I just don’t think he has a lot of hoickey sense the Pitt broadcasters were saying a 10 year old knows better than that.
by burtonboypa on Oct 25, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lines
I didn’t see the game and forgot the set up my TiVo what were the line combinations, form the highlights did Briere – Carter – JVR play together the whole game if so where were Gagne and Hartnell?
by chrislanci on Oct 25, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Gagne was with Giroux and Laperriere and Hartnell was with Richards and Asham.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Oct 25, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lost in all this discussion about The Cap’n almost killing a guy is how friggin awesome Arron Asham was. Again. Three goals in three games is quite the feat for a guy who had eight goals all of last season.
Start the all-star write-in campaign.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 25, 2009 1:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Crazy what happens when you give a guy a shot, huh? I think scratching him to start the season really lit a fire under him, too.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Oct 25, 2009 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s a shame that not once in his career had a team given him an opportunity to show what he had. We all knew that he had flashes of brilliance, but none of his coaches ever did anything about it. And playing with Carbomb and Darroll “Darryl” Powe for an average of 8:44 a game isn’t going to help show that to the point where coaches may pay attention.
by Ben Feldman on Oct 25, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
58 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 74 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
59 | 35 | 22 | 2 | 72 |
|
Philadelphia
|
57 | 29 | 25 | 3 | 61 |
|
New York Rangers
|
59 | 26 | 26 | 7 | 59 |
|
New York Islanders
|
58 | 23 | 27 | 8 | 54 |
(updated 2.9.2010 at 12:41 AM EST)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
New Jersey
|
Wed 02/10 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
Montreal
|
Fri 02/12 | 6:00 PM EST |
|
@
Montreal
|
Sat 02/13 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
@
Tampa Bay
|
Tue 03/02 | 7:30 PM EST |
|
@
Florida
|
Wed 03/03 | 7:30 PM EST |
Last 5 Games
|
New Jersey
|
Mon 02/08 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sat 02/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Edmonton
|
Wed 02/03 | L 0 - 1 |
|
@
Calgary
|
Mon 02/01 | W 3 - 0 |
|
New York Islanders
|
Sat 01/30 | W 2 - 1 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
