Jimmy Leeds Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Hope this wasn't posted already.......good reading. IN LIFE, THERE ARE NO TIMEOUTS April 19, 2004 -- NINETY percent. Eighty-five percent. Fifty percent. These are not numbers from the Stanley Cup playoff penalty-killing chart. These are numbers from a colon cancer Website chart documenting survival rates for white males between the ages of 50-and-55. These are five-year survival rates. Pat Burns is 52 years old and yesterday, accompanied by his wife, Line, and by his friend, Lou Lamoriello, he announced that he will immediately begin up to two months of aggressive treatment for colon cancer that will include surgery. Burns, diagnosed with the illness prior to the beginning of the playoffs, made the announcement at a noon Meadowlands press conference that, attended by approximately a dozen players including Scott Stevens, was the saddest in franchise history. Burns, his voice breaking at times, read a short, prepared speech, then departed the dais without taking questions and walked through the lower lobby into the locker room corridor, his right arm around his wife's shoulders. Two years a Devil and an immortal member of the organization's family after having directed the team to last year's Cup, he was walking into the unknown, hockey left behind him for the foreseeable future. "I have a fight awaiting," the coach said. "I've never backed down from any fight and I'm not backing down from this one." As the team's longest summer since 1996 commences, hockey immediately recedes into the background. This is a relentlessly results-driven organization that took a hockey blow with Saturday's first-round, five-game elimination. Compared to yesterday, that was a love tap. Now the only results that matter are the ones from Burns' exams. The franchise has been badly wounded here; shaken to its core. The people who work in that organization care for each other. "This hurts us all," said Martin Brodeur. "We're talking about life, not hockey." The Devils sensed something had been wrong for a while, but Burns never broached the subject with his team. That would have been out of character for him. They learned the severity of the issue prior to Saturday's match. After the game, Scott Niedermayer suggested in a meeting that the team show its support for Burns by attending the announcement. "Pat's the kind of person who hides everything and keeps his feelings to himself," Brodeur said. "I'm sure it was very hard for him to talk about this publicly because of how private he is. "The players are here to let Pat know that he has our support every step of the way." Burns never wanted to be the players' friend. See what happens? It was a very upsetting day. Much of the talk was about perspective. It always is in sports after someone is stricken with an illness, suffers a serious injury, or goes into rehab for substance abuse. But sports is like any other industry. Business doesn't stop. People not only carry on with their jobs, they are expected to excel at them. There are no timeouts in life. Very soon, Lamoriello will get back to hockey. If he hasn't already, he will have to identify a replacement for Burns should that become necessary. He will have to solidify his roster. Changes are coming. It's evolution. Perhaps speaking with an already life-altered perspective, Burns made a point of noting that, "No one is to blame" for the loss to the Flyers. Burns is right. There is no one to blame. A franchise of enduring greatness just wasn't good enough this time. That's it. The Devils are allowed. They'll be back. And if the hockey world's prayers are answered, so will Burns. This private man has the support of the public. One hundred percent of it. Wow. Good Stuff From Brooks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I think hell has frozen over Larry Brooks actually wrote a good article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamode Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Reminds me of the Grinch where the X-ray machine looks for his tiny heart..... Best wishes to Burnsy......I pray he recovers but even so, as much as I want him back, think it will be awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanity_gallops Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Wow. A compelling article, to say the least. And I think it's a big-time thing that Nieds spoke up about it to the players and suggested they show up to the announcement. That means a lot. *note: aaaaaand signature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Larry Brooks is a great writer. Almost always what he says is true, and a good opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Larry Brooks is a great writer. Almost always what he says is true, and a good opinion. LMAO if u think so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I don't get it. What are those percentages at the top of the article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I don't get it. What are those percentages at the top of the article? Read it again: NINETY percent. Eighty-five percent. Fifty percent. These are not numbers from the Stanley Cup playoff penalty-killing chart. These are numbers from a colon cancer Website chart documenting survival rates for white males between the ages of 50-and-55. These are five-year survival rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I read it 6 times already. I still don't see what the number represent. I seriously hope that Pat fits into the 90% category. From what I read the day they said he had colon cancer, I saw that the vast majority of people who have colon cancer survive... not 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I read it 6 times already. I still don't see what the number represent. I seriously hope that Pat fits into the 90% category. From what I read the day they said he had colon cancer, I saw that the vast majority of people who have colon cancer survive... not 50%. it makes sense to me sorry i cant help u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Goosebumps. Can we trade Neverson for Brooks? Isn't an article like this supposed to be his job???? When he said this organization is a family was beautiful. But I was surprised to read that they knew before Saturday's game. Insanity you beat me to it. Guess two posters can have the same sig! I absolutely loved it. It summed up the playoffs perfectly. It summed up the team. LETS GO DEVILS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Don those stats are for white males 50-55. The vast majority includes younger men and women. He was giving stats for Burnsy, a 52 year old white male. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Oh and you have to take into account how far the cancer advanced. 50% would be for those that were not diagnosed in the early stages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I read it 6 times already. I still don't see what the number represent. I seriously hope that Pat fits into the 90% category. From what I read the day they said he had colon cancer, I saw that the vast majority of people who have colon cancer survive... not 50%. it makes sense to me sorry i cant help u I think one of us is being stupid here. And it's most likely me. 90% = survival rate for whom? 85% = survival rate for whom? 50% = survival rate for whom? Or did he just pick random numbers off a chart he was looking at (which is pretty much what I did when I posted the 76% in the original thread)? The only reason I mention it is because that 50% is much lower than what I had seen and heard elsewhere (although the heard was anecdotal, not a scientific study). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Don't feel bad Don I don't get that line either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice dog Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 If anyone has a link to the cancer chart brooks was talking about, I'd like to take a look at it... certainly hope Burns is in the higher percent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadvlfan Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I think hell has frozen over Larry Brooks actually wrote a good article I think Brooks always writes a good column. It's only when he speculates on trades & who should be coming/going that makes it interesting. But, it is usually entertaining. Vince Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 This is an excellent article by Brooks. He put everything into its proper place. Life does go on - even for a hockey club. But not in such a carefree way as before. I also loved that last statement from Brooks. The Devils will be back, and hopefully with Burns at the helm. God bless you, Pat!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 He explains what who the number are for in the first paragraph. (50-55 yr old white males) The higher percentage would be for those caught the earliest. Since we don't know how far Burn's cancer has spread, he couldn't speculate as to which % he fell into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I think Brooks always writes a good column. It's only when he speculates on trades & who should be coming/going that makes it interesting. But, it is usually entertaining. I think there's a difference between good and compelling. Sean Hannity does a compelling radio show, but it stopped being good as soon as he was synidcated (too much self promotion, IMO). Brooks' columns are a must read, but usually for all the wrong reasons: baseless gossip, snarky commentary, and a slant towards the boys at MSG. That being said, this was a good AND compelling column, and an indication that Brooks can be quite an effective writer when he isn't regurtigating website rumors and inventing his own. <JESTER> 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.