Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Scott Stevens single handidly turns games around with his hits.Call them dirty (which I have yet to see a decent arguement about his hits being dirty), call them viscious, call them whatever the hell you want. But at the end of the day, Stevens is a Hall of Fame-calibre player who is legendary in his day for two things -- being a great leader and being one of the game's BEST HITTERS. It takes something special to have a player be able to turn around games, give his team momentum, and single handidly WIN games with his crunching hits. I have yet to see another player who can do what he does without ending up in the penalty box night in and night out. Now I'm not saying Stevens is an Angel, of course he's made some questionable plays, but he's not an overall-dirty player. To be able to do that is really rare, especially nowadays. You don't have to be jealous, I couldn't care less. You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. I'm not making him out to be the devil, either. I'm just trying to prove he's not Mother Theresa in a Devils jersey. I guess we can agree on this. The problem is that Stevens has garnished some respect around the league (how this happened, I haven't the foggiest), and any hit, no matter how questionable it may be, will not be called. The Kariya hit last year was a PERFECT example of this. If you replace anyone else in the league, tough guy or not, with Stevens on that hit, he might have gotten 5 or a game misconduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 4, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I guess the ESPN announcers (who don't exactly go out of their way to compliment the Devils in general) have Stevens goggles on then cause they all said the Kariya hit was clean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) I guess the ESPN announcers (who don't exactly go out of their way to compliment the Devils in general) have Stevens goggles on then cause they all said the Kariya hit was clean And the league, after reviewing it: "There were two factors I looked at in reviewing the hit," said Colin Campbell, executive vice-president and director of hockey operations at the NHL."One, the hit was a legal hit, as Stevens struck Kariya with his shoulder. Two...it was clear that the hit occurred less than one second after Kariya made the pass." Even Babcock didn't complain about the hit itself. He just complained about the lateness of the hit. Edited April 10, 2004 by David Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) Aww, man, those guys LOVE the Devils. You might be a little biased, and you might not hear all the compliments you guys usually get from ESPN announcers, sportscenter, and NHL analysts. Trust me, those guys need to check Stevens for Polyps while their up his butt so far. Even Babcock didn't complain about the hit itself. He just complained about the lateness of the hit. This goes back to the whole "league respect" thing I was talking about. No one wants to openly admit Stevens CAN be a dirty player, so of course everyone will make it look a lot less violent that it really was. Edited April 10, 2004 by Pablo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 No respectable Flyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 How come I've never heard of all this "witness to a rape" stuff until now? Is it just a rumor? Any sources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 No respectable Flyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Scott Stevens 1,830 games played (regular season + playoffs), which means: 1 elbowing call for every 457.5 games. That means 8 out of every 3,550 penalty minutes. Meaning one out of around 450 penalties was an elbowing call. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 This might be true for many teams because the NHL roster contains a lot more Euros than ever before. This is just a theory, but it seems like a lot of Euros aren't as charitable as North American players because THEY ARE charity cases. Well, not them, per say, but places like Russia, the Chzech Republic, etc. aren't exactly the most economically booming countries in the world, meaning they are the ones who need the charity. That's not to say that every Euro isn't charitable, but it's just a theory. Wrong. Sorry, the Canadiens are chock-full of Europeans and they do charity work all the time. The hospital my friend works at has had three visits in the past two months alone - yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 This might be true for many teams because the NHL roster contains a lot more Euros than ever before. This is just a theory, but it seems like a lot of Euros aren't as charitable as North American players because THEY ARE charity cases. Well, not them, per say, but places like Russia, the Chzech Republic, etc. aren't exactly the most economically booming countries in the world, meaning they are the ones who need the charity. That's not to say that every Euro isn't charitable, but it's just a theory. Wrong. Sorry, the Canadiens are chock-full of Europeans and they do charity work all the time. The hospital my friend works at has had three visits in the past two months alone - yeah. 1 team out of 30. Impressive. If we're just talking about hospital visits, then I'm sure EVERY team is chock full of these charitable people. If you want me to name every Flyer who does this, I can post a link to the website with the full roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 How come I've never heard of all this "witness to a rape" stuff until now? Is it just a rumor? Any sources? Well according to NJD Jester and Darwindog, the Grand Jury found insufficient evidence to support a rape charge and the woman recanted. So what does that say? Not much. I don't understand how he could be a witness to rape either. And since she recanted, it sounds to me, as a woman, more like the girl just wanted to have fun and someone gave her a bad case of the moral guilts. Happens sometimes. JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekes Head Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Trash talking is funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Trash talking is funny yeah it is... it's a shame ANY time I do it.. the damn team LOSES it's so unfair.. I can't have faith... when I do.. they LOSE.. I can't talk sh!t.. they LOSE ... all I get is to gloat all summer... how unfair !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 1 team out of 30. Impressive. If we're just talking about hospital visits, then I'm sure EVERY team is chock full of these charitable people. If you want me to name every Flyer who does this, I can post a link to the website with the full roster. Well, I can't live in 30 cities, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 How come I've never heard of all this "witness to a rape" stuff until now? Is it just a rumor? Any sources? Well according to NJD Jester and Darwindog, the Grand Jury found insufficient evidence to support a rape charge and the woman recanted. So what does that say? Not much. I don't understand how he could be a witness to rape either. And since she recanted, it sounds to me, as a woman, more like the girl just wanted to have fun and someone gave her a bad case of the moral guilts. Happens sometimes. JMHO It is also VERY possible that the reason she recanted is because she was paid off by Stevens. Despite how much you may not want to believe it, this is a very possible scenario. Again, I'm not trying to make Stevens out to be the Devil, but think about it. If you were a big name hockey player that might be faced with possible jail time, what do you think you would try to do? Stay out of jail at all costs? I think so, and Stevens certainly has the resources to do so. Just look at the Kobe Bryant case. He must think he has a real good shot at winning, and hasn't offered her anything yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Isn't this all speculation, no matter what? If I get word he DEFINITELY was a witness and it DEFINITELY was a rape, I'll believe it. I know your argument could have happened, and I know the exact opposite could have happened. I think it's sad that you keep going on about how biased we are but are equally biased yourself, just in another way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Isn't this all speculation, no matter what? If I get word he DEFINITELY was a witness and it DEFINITELY was a rape, I'll believe it. I know your argument could have happened, and I know the exact opposite could have happened.I think it's sad that you keep going on about how biased we are but are equally biased yourself, just in another way. I'm not being biased, I'm just showing you that there is another side to every coin. I never said he DID it, just that it is a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 hey if ya want to bring up speculation.. Lindros/Brind'Amour anyone ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I really don't want to keep talking about this, but if she was raped, why would money make her recant? A victory in court would assure her a monetary award. Also offering money is tantamount to admitting guilt, just ask Michael Jackson. How did legal hits turn into this discussion anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I really don't want to keep talking about this, but if she was raped, why would money make her recant? A victory in court would assure her a monetary award. Also offering money is tantamount to admitting guilt, just ask Michael Jackson. How did legal hits turn into this discussion anyway? There is another possibility, that she might have been threatened. Stevens is a big guy, so a threat from him isn't exactly forgettable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 It is also VERY possible that the reason she recanted is because she was paid off by Stevens. Listen, I know this is all in good fun, and you're here to stir the pot, but there isn't a single fact to back this up. There's a very thin line between "speculation" and "libel," and clearly you've crossed it. Now please, go back to knowing nothing about Stevens, defense, the Devils or really anything else you've written about here... <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 If you're arguing one needs to see the other side of a coin, so do you. A threat from Stevens? Please, give it a rest. He threatens her and the next time she steps into a police hall he's locked up without question. Ask Leeds. Rape is taken pretty damn seriously, and for GOOD REASON, and if you ask me, you are reducing the act. All you want to do is show that Stevens could have been guilty. WE GET IT ALREADY. If you are so diehard about this rape case, you'd actually have some compassion for the victim, if she was indeed a victim of rape, but instead it's all Stevens, Stevens, Stevens. Your approach to this situation is like seeing someone get run over and instead of getting help for the person lying on the ground, you go after the driver. Sorry, don't like that philosophy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 It is also VERY possible that the reason she recanted is because she was paid off by Stevens. Listen, I know this is all in good fun, and you're here to stir the pot, but there isn't a single fact to back this up. There's a very thin line between "speculation" and "libel," and clearly you've crossed it. Now please, go back to knowing nothing about Stevens, defense, the Devils or really anything else you've written about here... <JESTER> Take your blinders off, please. Have you ever left your house and stepped out into the real world? You act as if something like that can't happen. I said it's very possible, not fact. You are right, though. There is a thin line, and if you read my post clearly, you'd know I didn't cross it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Gee, first this 'Pablo' is saying there's a league-wide biasness towards Stevens, now he's saying there 'may' be a conspiracy to hide his role in a rape which may or may not have happened in the first place. Biased much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.