Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hawks2d

Retribution On Keith (from Canucks Blog)

159 posts in this topic

I'll define it in two words,Andrew Ladd! When I consider the 1.6m that was due him in 10-11 and the fact that he had two more RFA seasons after that,the only thing that comes to mind is.......the organization has no appetite for his style of play.

WOW! Now that is perspective.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncs proved himself to be a stand up guy last night when he objected to the hit on Mayers.

I know DK doesn't fight much, but it was good to see him stand up for a teammate. We need more of that.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll define it in two words,Andrew Ladd! When I consider the 1.6m that was due him in 10-11 and the fact that he had two more RFA seasons after that,the only thing that comes to mind is.......the organization has no appetite for his style of play.

Great player, good teammate, physical when he needs to be, plus he scores 40 to 50 points per season.

Could definitely use a guy like Andrew Ladd.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncs proved himself to be a stand up guy last night when he objected to the hit on Mayers.

I know DK doesn't fight much, but it was good to see him stand up for a teammate. We need more of that.

I heard the game on 720AM last night and was proud that Keith came to his teamate's defense. While he is an integral part of the team on the ice, his willingness to not stand for questionable crap from the opposition will continue to go far, even in the locker room with his buddies. Good for Keith and good for the Hawks in playing well while Duncan sat in the sin bin for 19 minutes. Being on the road for so many early games seems to have brought the guys together that will form a real tight bond for the rest of the season, hopefully. Go Hawks!
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you define as "requisite toughness"? John Scott?

No; not John Scott.

Clark Gillies

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is the retribution from the Keith hit on D. Sedin.

Compare the dynamics of both hits: Both hits occured in the neutral zone while a defenseless player was trying to play an airbourne puck - and in both cases, an elbow was intentionally delivered to vulnerable players head, leading to a concussion.

Eye for an eye, i guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is the retribution from the Keith hit on D. Sedin.

Compare the dynamics of both hits: Both hits occured in the neutral zone while a defenseless player was trying to play an airbourne puck - and in both cases, an elbow was intentionally delivered to vulnerable players head, leading to a concussion.

Eye for an eye, i guess.

I like how you talk from both perspectives, I agree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites