Defending Big D: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: SB Nation MMA Rankings for August 2010

The Neutral Zone: More on James Neal and Marc Crawford

Before we get into some more official breakdowns from last night's game against the Blue Jackets, I wanted to share some of my thoughts that didn't make it into the game recap. I found that I had a lot to say, but was so frustrated and angry that I found I really couldn't put them together in a coherent manner. After a somewhat restless night of sleep, here are my further thoughts on the Dallas Stars and that debacle at American Airlines Center last night.

Logo_dallas_stars_medium

Sometime this morning we're going to get word on whether the NHL will punish James Neal for his hit on Derek Dorsett. Initially my thoughts were that he may just get fined since this is his first transgression of this nature. Yet I fear that Neal may have made this hit at the exact wrong time and will be punished because of it.

The NHL has had a number of issues the past month or so regarding head injuries and cheap hits; the inconsistent punishments and a lack of true reasoning why one hit is punished and not another has led to an outcry that league is directionless and does not care about the health of it's players. "The NHL needs to send a message that hits that lead to head injuries will be severely dealt with" seems to be the rallying cry among media members. Last night on TSN the panel discussed what would be a suitable punishment for Neal, and the consensus was between two and five games, to "send a message to other players".

Now just because the media calls for it does not mean the NHL will follow suit. However, you have to think that at some point the NHL will want to stem this tide of bad PR and show that they do indeed care about head injuries and cheap hits, and use James Neal as an example of their stance on the matter.

The unfortunate nature of this is that while this was a hit from behind that resulted in a head injury, in no way was this a maliciously dirty hit. It wasn't a violent, elbow up open ice hit that sends a player to the hospital. Nope, this was James Neal racing to make a play on the puck along the boards, playing just like he always does with a focused intensity and physicality, and in the process he threw his shoulder into the back of the shoulder of Dorsett. He didn't lay him out with a hit right between the numbers; it was just an unfortunate hit that led to Dorsett smacking his forehead on the glass.

The other aspect of this that will be against Neal is the way Dorsett reacted after the hit. I'm certain that he hit that glass hard, and took that hit directly on the temple. While that's not as dangerous as smacking your back of your head on the ice, it's certainly a good way to get a nasty concussion. The way the replays show Dorsett falling, attempting to stand up and then collapsing to the ice like that is sure to strike a nerve with fans and media alike. They won't see the cross checks the Stars players had been taking in the back all game, or how Dorsett took a run at Neal in the first period. They'll see a player taking five or six strides towards the boards and putting a shoulder into another player who was facing the glass, followed by the hit player losing all sense of himself and falling in a heap on the ice.

If the NHL does do what Mike Keenan suggests and suspends Neal for four or five games, then I'm really not sure how I'll react. Somehow, I must have faith that the NHL keeps with the level of punishment they have already established and do not fall prey to the wishes of a few. If you want to send a message, then suspend Mike Richards for his hit. Suspend Rob Scuderi for his low hit. Fine James Neal and give him a stern warning for not using proper discretion on a bad hit along the boards.

More after the jump.

Star-divide

Logo_dallas_stars_medium

At what point does Marc Crawford start feeling the heat?

This team feels directionless at times, as if they don't understand their exact approach from game to game. Crawford has shown that he can get this team ready for a tough opponent with 3-4 days of preparation, but when the Stars have back to back games or three in four days, they have issues playing with a consistent approach to the game.

Last night the Stars looked like a team that was trying to be something they weren't. For some reason, they abandoned the methodical approach from the night before in the win against Detroit and decided to go for a physical game that does not play to their strengths as a team. What's ironic is that we've called for the Stars to be more physical and establish a strong forecheck and show some attitude for a change; but not in the way the showed it last night.

I understand that the Blue Jackets were making some questionable hits and the players wanted to stick up for each other. I completely respect that. But when you can't take advantage of the number of power plays you received in the process and in fact give up a backbreaking shorthanded goal in the final seconds of the period, all of that energy that was spent fighting and 'sending a message' was completely wasted.

Perhaps the Stars had a specific gameplan in mind, but the early goal by Columbus combined with the physical nature of the game sent the Stars away from what they wanted to do. Is that Marc Crawford's fault, or was last night just a matter of a game getting out of hand and the Stars never able to recover?

While the outcome of the game was incredibly disappointing, it's not as if the Stars played an overall bad game. In fact, I thought that the Stars played one of their more determined efforts at home and especially showed some good energy after playing the night before. If Steve Mason doesn't make some of the brilliant saves he did in the first and second periods, then we would be having a completely different conversation today. That's just the way the game of hockey works; you run into a goaltender who is completely in the zone and it feels impossible to get anything past him.

The Stars were working hard to get back in the game in the second period, but the James Neal major rattled the entire team. They lost their positional discipline, lost any momentum they might have had and allowed two extremely frustrating goals at the tail end of the second period. All of a sudden the Stars were scrambling, just like the penalty kill from the start of the season and the wheels completely came off and the game was essentially lost during that five-minute power play. Is that one Marc Crawford? Is the onus on the head coach to ensure his team does not lose their composure in the midst of a game like that? It's not like Neal went kamikaze into the boards and drew the penalty because of a viciously dirty hit. It was called a major, it was unfortunate but it's still the Stars' job to kill it off.

I don't believe that last night's loss was a result of bad coaching by Marc Crawford, at least not directly. There are games where a team loses their cool a bit and things go horribly wrong and before you know it you're down four goals. The Stars for the first time all season showed a desire to stick up for their teammates who were getting abused along the boards. They drew penalties and had the chance to make Columbus pay for getting as rough as they did. Unfortunately, the bad guys got the break and the game was lost.

Yet with the Stars in the midst of a season long battle for consistency from game to game, and showing what seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde approach from night to night, at some point Marc Crawford is going to have to shoulder the blame. The Stars have this potential to be a good team; they've beaten Chicago, Calgary, San Jose and Detroit. Yet they've lost to Florida, Nashville and Minnesota.

It's frustration and it's not something that Stars fans have ever had to deal with before.

Hockey in North Texas is fickle. If the Stars aren't winning and if they aren't competitive, then the team will not keep those fringe fans that are the staple of Dallas sports. You can sense it; these fans are just itching for a reason to get on their feet and go crazy at a hockey game but each time the Stars lay an egg at home that's less fans that decide to come back. There will always be the die hard Stars fans that are there every game, that watch the game each night on television. But for a team that is competing for attention with the Dallas Cowboys, winning is the only solution for keeping fans.

0 recs  |  Comment 49 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

More on Neal and Crawford

Where’s the more on Crawford?

Agree that I’ve seen the same hit almost every game that the Stars have played, on both sides. Shouldn’t be a suspension IMO.

by D.T.1 on Nov 20, 2009 9:19 AM CST reply actions  

Sorry for that.

Technical glitch cut off the second part of the post. Should be up now.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 9:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Crawford

This is the same way I felt last year with the team under Tippet. I give props to Crawford for changing the Riberio line, and the way he’s utilized the 4th line this year. Also it looks like the changes to the D pairs has helped. I would like him to change up the power play units when they aren’t working, and they haven’t been. I don’t count the Riberio goal off the defenseman’s stick the other night, and if you don’t they’ve been very poor. By comparison look at the PK, and until last night there’s been major improvement since the start of the year. Those are the types of things I give to coaching, I don’t think you can coach desire and consistency and some of the things I’ve seen this year from the team looked like lack of desire.

by D.T.1 on Nov 20, 2009 9:33 AM CST reply actions  

It does make you wonder whether it's the players and not the coaches.

We’re seeing the same issues under Crawford that we had with Tippett, and these issues are supposedly got Tip fired. It’s unfortunate though that the blame will go on Crawford like this, but at the same he’s the Head Coach. He has the onus to pull this team together and point them in a singular direction and get them focused. You see it across all sports, how a great coach can do more with his team than they were doing before. The Stars have tremendous potential, with some talented forwards and some great young players who are just coming into their prime. And it’s frustrating to see them struggle like this.

We’ve also seen this supposedly great offense just sputter lately. Tough to win when you’re averaging two goals a game, like they have the past nine games

By the way, welcome to the site!

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 9:40 AM CST up reply actions  

If they can't fix these back to backs

we’re in serious trouble. With the olympic break coming up, the rest of the schedule is going to be absolutely jammed up. Based on the level of play right now, I would have to say that they are not going to make the playoffs this season. They have the potential, but for some reason they just can’t execute ona regular basis.

My guess for Neal would be a max of a 1 game suspension + whatever fine they throw at him. If he gets suspended for the last 3 Stars games I will get to go to for a couple of year (I’m moving to Memphis in 2 weeks), I’m going to be TICKED

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 9:43 AM CST reply actions  

Versteeg

on a TOTALLY unrelated note, how would everyone feel about acquiring Versteeg from the Hawks? It’s been reported via Spector’s Hockey that the Hawks can’t officially sign the big 3 until they dump some salary, and upon signing, they’ll have ZERO room to wiggle and sign the young righty. Now what team was it that had a ton of cap space and ALOT of UFA’s next year? oh yeah, us.

any ideas?

by sundancekid on Nov 20, 2009 9:47 AM CST reply actions  

Versteeg would be a GREAT addition to the Stars.

A speedy, talented right-handed shot who can score 20-25 goals a season. The issue would be what it would take to trade for him, but it seems that Chicago would be a bit desperate and a good deal would be available.

I’m just worried that despite being so far under the cap, we’d still not have the finances to make the deal. Also, what would you be willing to give up in a trade to get Vesteeg?

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions  

How about a left handed shot?

Since that’s all we have on the forwards. (What a botch that has wound up being)
Isn’t there talk of interest in brunnstrom? I think he might be able to excel for the Hawks, and it just doesn’t look like he’s fitting in well here.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 9:55 AM CST up reply actions  

Brunnstrom is a possibility...

You’ve also got some young prospects like Lindgren, Sergei Korostin, and Colton Sceviour. I’m not a big fan of trading away Sceviour, but that could be what it takes. Also: Wandell, Petersen….

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 10:00 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't think a trade

Is likely, or the answer.

This group has to figure this out for themselves. They better do it quick. They have a lot of home games coming up, and they’re the second worst home team in the league.

by Brad Gardner on Nov 20, 2009 10:00 AM CST reply actions  

IMO..

I was in the opposite corner from The Real Deal’s hit but it didn’t look like a hit to the head to me. Course, that was the result anyway and looks like we may be without one of the only consistent guys in our line up.
This team is so frustrating to watch some nights and then electrifying on others…

As far as Brunnstrom, again to me, it doesn’t look so much as him not fitting in as much as he’s having difficulty adjusting his already late developing game into the NHL as opposed to what he ended up doing in Sweden. Fabian works hard, is coachable (according to reports, since obviously I’M not coaching him), and is incredibly personable to any who’ve had the opportunity to interact with him. He is doing everything but having results. And as some have already pointed out, results are really what the majority care about…

**Proof SOME rules are meant to be broken**

by PNLTBX on Nov 20, 2009 10:01 AM CST reply actions  

It wasn't a hit to the head...

But Neal’s hit forced Dorsett’s head to hit the glass. That’s where the injury came from.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 10:04 AM CST up reply actions  

Sometimes it takes a trade

to make a player better. I have no idea why it works that way, but sometimes it does. Look at how productive (cough until recently) Ribs has been for us since we got him.

I don’t think we’re talkin about the trade as an answer to our current problems. What’s wrong goes way deeper than that. But with our UFA’s coming up, it might be something to look at for the near future.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions  

Correct me if I'm wrong...

but Neal didn’t hit Dorsett’s head. Neal hit him in the back and Dorsett hit his head falling down. Like the Mike Richards hit, its results were unfortuante, but it wasn’t illegal.

I guess this is the way they’re cutting down on head shots, even though it wasn’t really a shot to the head. And it’s not like Neal intended to injure Dorsett. Hopefully the league takes that into account and only gives him a fine and a warning.

Dallas Stars 4 Life: Stars Blogging From Hockeyville, Iowa

by Brad_Richards_Rocks on Nov 20, 2009 10:20 AM CST reply actions  

Not hit to the head but head trauma regardless

seems to be the issue, at least for Neal’s hit on Dorsett.

I don’t know what’s going to happen, and frankly, don’t even want to try to speculate. I was just thinking about Wandell and all the physical abuse (best word I could think of) that he’s taken over the last week. We’re fortunate that he hasn’t been hurt because he’s been stapled, flattened, steam-rolled, you name it. James’ hit caught the Jackets’ player just right (or rather, wrong) and resulted in injury.

We can’t take physicality out of hockey. Not going to happen. I just don’t know what the league and our players can do to do something about these injuries.

**Proof SOME rules are meant to be broken**

by PNLTBX on Nov 20, 2009 10:24 AM CST reply actions  

It's 11:34am on the East Coast

I wonder what the hell “morning hearing” means.

by Brad Gardner on Nov 20, 2009 10:35 AM CST reply actions  

Since the poison dwarf is shorter than most

it takes longer in the day before the sun hits him.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 10:36 AM CST up reply actions  

Good... not much longer then.

I’m agonizing over what they will do. These guys are so weird with their punishments, I have absolutely no clue.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 10:42 AM CST reply actions  

By the way....

Is there any word on Dorsett yet? Man, that empty stare and the way he collapsed really freaked me out.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 10:55 AM CST reply actions  

Haven't seen anything.

Yeah, he was out of it for sure. He stood up…and then just flat collapsed, almost like a faint. But a manly one.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions  

Haha, a manly faint.... a maint?

From the replay I saw, it kind of looked like he turned around to see who hit him, then decided it would just be better to collapse on the spot.

Those awkward hits are the worst. Let us know if you hear anything on him.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions  

What's interesting is that there are some who belive he embellished the effects of the hit.

Ludwig mentioned this, as in the delayed reaction was very odd and the way he fell. I kind of felt the same way, almost like he saw there was a penalty and then collapsed to make it worse.

HOWEVER…when it comes to head injuries, I’m always going to assume it’s legit.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions  

Nope I agree.

Like I said….there was a delay, but that happens with head injuries all the time. You stand up, and only then does the effect of the hit affect you.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions  

Ah..yeah.

I thought he was a bit over the top on that one.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions  

For an instant, that is what it looks like...

Just because it took a half second before he collapsed.

But, having seen some unfortunate accidents in my life, I know that empty stare. You can’t fake that.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 11:13 AM CST reply actions  

Look...

upon review – there is clearly no intent. Look at his record, even before the NHL. He avoids fights on a regular basis…that’s just not his game. Columbus was just pissed that they found out he can throw down when he has to last year. I hope the guys not hurt…but come on, who stands 2 feet off the boards with their back turned and expects to not get hit. If you can’t protect yourself on the ice then you don’t belong in the NHL.

On pins and needles for the outcome….

by jellison1980 on Nov 20, 2009 11:40 AM CST reply actions  

I think he wasn't expecting to get hit because he didn't ever have the puck

No one at Columbus seems to be mad at Neal, they all know it was an innocent (just maybe a little over-aggressive) hit.

by Tsudbury on Nov 20, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions  

after reading opinions around the internet

it’s clear that so many people don’t know the game, or never played at a high level. this hit is only being talked about because dorsett, a complete bender by the way, got hurt. all of us here have seen stephane robidas’ head hit the glass at least once a game. dorsett did everything fundamentally wrong. he had poor positioning on the boards, he clearly doesn;t know how to break the puck out, and left himself in a completely exposed position from all angles.

if you watch the reply from many angles, you can piece together where neal is looking: the puck carrier. he makes contact with dorsett, who is in his way of the puck. that happens in every puck battle. there’s physical contact (duh, because it hockey) and people will hit the glass. dorsett, aka the biggest bender ever, is standing there like its first game in pee wee hockey.

there should have maybe been a 2 minute boarding, at most, and the hit was completely incidental. if dorsett did his job, and made any move towards the puck, either with his stick, or skate, or turned, or did any of those things, he wouldn’t be hurt, and we wouldn’t be talking about this. absolute garbage.

by agvdstars on Nov 20, 2009 12:49 PM CST reply actions  

nash on robidas

that hit was the same thing. except robidas took it. and didn’t get hurt. that play caused more of a ruckus anyways. even turco got involved.

by agvdstars on Nov 20, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks for clearing it up

so, according to you, that was a legal hit and Dorsett should have gotten the penalty for being out of position? Sounds like you’ve been kicked in the head by a steer a few too many times.

by gooseman2 on Nov 20, 2009 3:03 PM CST up reply actions  

2 game suspension for Neal

Or so Heika is reporting.

::sigh::

**Proof SOME rules are meant to be broken**

by PNLTBX on Nov 20, 2009 2:06 PM CST reply actions  

Suspending players for accidental injuries seems fundamentally wrongheaded...

But if that continues, think this situation might end up being an advantage going forward? Ott and now (if the 2 game info is right) Neal have weathered suspensions — perhaps officials will think they need to spread it around the League more before ‘hitting’ Dallas again. On the other hand, being perceived as a team with players who try to injure opponents is a) no good and b) total BS.

by laurenb on Nov 20, 2009 2:22 PM CST up reply actions  

What a big steaming pile of...

I suggest only one precedent:

Mike Richards
first-time offender | physical shot to the head | 5min. penalty/Game Misconduct | no suspension

James Neal
first-time offender | shot to the back with results being a head injury | 5min. penalty/Game Misconduct | 2-game suspension

Like the Stars play, CAN WE GET SOME CONSISTENCY?! Even the US Judicial system is not THIS incompetent. Wouldn’t precedent figure into the conversation somewhere?!

Pitiful.

by Loungepapa on Nov 20, 2009 4:17 PM CST reply actions  

It's a dirty hit

James Neal is a gutless punk. Take on Dorsett earlier in the game when you’re face to face, not when his back is turned.

Your words: “They’ll see a player taking five or six strides towards the boards and putting a shoulder into another player who was facing the glass…”

That’s called boarding, hitting from behind, you name it. It’s not allowed, he should be penalized, thrown out and suspended…all are the correct calls by the refs / Toronto.

Kids a punk, hope he gets what’s coming to him. He will.

by JT in Cbus on Nov 20, 2009 4:19 PM CST reply actions  

Neal wasn't even targeting Dorsett with the hit.

He was looking at the puck the entire time. I agree it was boarding and he’s been suspended as such.

But calling im a “gutless punk”. I don’t think so.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 20, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not sure that even makes sense

He wasn’t targeting him, but he hit him square in the back of the numbers? Is he blind then? Next time while he’s looking at the puck, maybe he should have his stick on the ice, vs pointing straight up in the air (which probably is a result of him bracing himself as he drives his shoulder into Dorsett’s backside).

Gutless punk I do think so….fight Dorsett when you have the opportunity and he’s in your face earlier in the game. Don’t take a run at him with his back turned.

To say he wasn’t targeting him makes you look pretty oblivious.

by JT in Cbus on Nov 21, 2009 7:46 AM CST up reply actions  

So is Rick Nash by your standards

Of course, since Robidas doesn’t put himself in a position where he gets severely injured on a normal hockey play…

Defending Big D Free to use and easy to join, as well as easy to use and free to join!
TheStarsFans Like your neighborhood bar, but drunkier
YNWA Because do you really want to root for ManU?

by Brandon Bibb on Nov 20, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Nash was standing right next to him, they were both battling for the puck.

Nash got assessed a penalty for it, which he should.

These two plays are not even close to being similar.

Putting yourself in a position to be injured? He’s battling for the puck on the freakin boards, it’s what you do in hockey. That doesn’t make him the guilty party for getting run from behind.

by JT in Cbus on Nov 21, 2009 7:38 AM CST up reply actions  

Nash probably did your guy a favor.

Your other guys didn’t fare too well in the three tilts they had.

Not to mention what happened last year when one of your guys picked a fight with him.

by Loungepapa on Nov 20, 2009 4:54 PM CST reply actions  

I agree that the suspension is inconsistent and unprincipled, but I do think the hit was bad. Neal has his stick vertically in the air, not a normal stick position for a guy that wants to play the puck. He also looks to me like he is thrusting into the number on Dorsett’s back. It may not be squarely in the spine but is certainly from behind. The injury is surely unfortunate, and it’s even more unfortunate that the injury is almost definitely responsible for the suspension. But at some point the NHL is going to have to take dangerous hits seriously and protect the players, even when there is no injury. If this suspension were a signal that the NHL intended to start applying principled rules to player discipline I could support it, but I’m under no illusions this will happen. It’s a bad hit but it sucks to be a Stars fan because hits like this go unpunished all the time.

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 Nov 21, 2009 2:41 AM CST reply actions  

James Neal-boarding

While James Neal is a reasonably talented hockey player-he avoids any type of mono on mono engagements. So far this year he has 3 boarding penalties (Calgary, Detroit-just the night before, and Columbus). The Columbus hit was really punk.
  In the 1st period Neal took a hooking penalty-Columbus scored on his mistake.
Dorsett took 9 min of penalty
2nd period Neal hammered him (Dorsett) from behind-square in the numbers-and like he always does when there is a scrum-that look of “who me-I don’t know what happened look” is on his face. Defending punk plays is so Stars
1st off-Neal went straight at Dorsett’s back-not toward the puck (watch Neal closely in games-he is pretty consistant at 3rd or 4th man in from the backside). Neal is a reasonably big guy-no real need to be punk (maybe he’s taking lessons from CSO/Can’t Shoot Ott). Neal’s skill level is above average, has a better than average shot from odd angles, average speed, strong hands. Puck handling ok. He is somewhat of a show-off
(lessons from Riebero) when doing his job (what he is paid to do).
As this is his 3rd boarding call in a month (2 in his last 2 games)-I would say he is lucky with only a 2 game suspension. Maybe this is where Neal stops training for punkdom and starts improving his skill level. He does have the opportunity.

by hgmgr on Nov 21, 2009 8:09 AM CST reply actions  

Brandon Worley/Marc Crawford resposibility

Should you take the time to review Marc Crawford’s record.
1. He deals with what the GM gives him to work with.
2. He assembles the best “lines” to work with
3. He stresses each player to be responsible for his position, work ethic, and use their individual skills for compatability within the team.
4. He doesn’t reward showboating, silly aggression, and after the whistle punk scrums
     (that line is all negative in the plus/minus column)
5. He rewards good defense (those lines are pretty much positive in the plus/minus column.
6. His goaltenders are split-one is solid, one could be in the great catagory if he would do the job he is paid to do.
7. He has 2 very good defensemen, 2 who will be (if they learn that certain forwards are not reliable for backchecking) and 3 OJT’s
8. He doesn’t whine, and before the season is over, I doubt if the players will whine as much as they have recently.
  On the other hand, your assessment of the NHL rules and regulations, how they are
administered, Marc Crawford’s responsibility for making a great team……
just blowing in the wind……Crawford has got more from this group of misfits (mentally lazy, star wannabes) than anyone imagined.

by hgmgr on Nov 21, 2009 11:08 AM CST reply actions  

I'm curious about a couple of things, and I'm just asking because I don't want to assume incorrectly...

How many Stars games have you watched this season?

What are the exact lines you are referring to?

And did you notice that I mentioned that perhaps the players are the ones to blame, since this has been going on since before Crawford arrived.

I did not call out Crawford, merely posed the question that if this continues does Crawford start shouldering some of the blame.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Nov 21, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions  

BOO HOO for Columbus

The Blue Jackets are a joke of a team, and even less of an organization. After Columbus purposefully hurt Ovechkin, took him out for six games, an Ohio reporter asked Coach Hitchcock if they’d “targeted” Ovechkin. Here’s what Hitchcock said: ""That would be correct. That’s the name of the game. Why, is that against the rules now?" He went on to add: ""Run, chase, hunt down, hit, whatever word you want to use that would be correct." The Jackets players backed away from Capitals players who “took issue” with Columbus’ play. Now the team, the organization, and their fans (all 15 of them) are boo-hooing. My only issue is it wasn’t Rick Nash falling over like a cartoon character. I want to see HIM hunted down, chased…whatever coach Hitchcock calls it. “Why, is that against the rules now?”

by Jackets are a Joke on Nov 21, 2009 2:06 PM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Dallas Stars website. We talk Stars hockey 24/7/365. You're welcome to join in the discussion; please follow the code of conduct for commentary.
Start posting about the Stars »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Osuhockey5_small
MAB v. Nisky
Bouldinstars_small
Breaking news: Mike Modano selected first overall in 2010 NHL Entry Draft
Bouldinstars_small
Would Bieksa be a good fit for Dallas?
2_small
Survey
Small
Why not Kaberle?
Txdpatch2_small
Welcome to Detroit, Mike. Have you met Ruslan?
Slideshow253_small
Willie Mitchell
Bouldinstars_small
It's now or never for Turco
Dsc04029_small
Is this it?
Loui-eriksson_small
Jersey three's part 2.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

PHILADELPHIA - MAY 16:  A fan of the Philadelphia Flyers holds up a sign reading "Next Goalie" behind goalie Carey Price #32 of the Montreal Canadiens in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals during the 2010 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs at Wachovia Center on May 16, 2010 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)

Habs Finally Lock Up Carey Price, Sign Goalie To Two-Year Deal

National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman answers questions during a pre-game media availability before the Pittsburgh Penguins season opener against the New York Rangers in a NHL hockey game in Pittsburgh, Friday, Oct. 2, 2009. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar) +25 updates

Ultimatum? NHL Reportedly Threatens To Toss Out Kovalchuk, Luongo Deals Without NHLPA Concessions

Photo +1 updates

Report: Donald Fehr Hands NHLPA List Of Conditions On Becoming Union Leader

More from SBNation.com >


Managing Editors

Me8_small Brandon Worley

Sb_avatar_small Brad Gardner

Staff Writers

Twitterme_small Brandon Bibb

Avatar-body__1__small Art Middleton

Photo_on_2010-08-24_at_18 Pat Iversen

Don_small Mike Russo

AHL Correspondent

Gtalk_profile_small scm83x

Graphic Design Artist

Avatar_small RyanM