What do you think of Don Cherry?

[Island Nucklehead]

Cherry went directly from there to a bit of a pro-fighting rant: “Which would you rather have? Now we’ve got two star players out, Daniel and Keith. If you don’t have the fighting you have that stuff”.

What the heck does that mean? If there was no instigator that Keith would have made Daniel fight?

Or if Keith took his drubbings from Juice or Kas, that there'd be no hard(er) feelings?

Bingo. It means nothing. The Canucks tried to get after him every chance they got. He declined, we took penalties. The instigator doesn't stop A) Sedin from finishing his check, B) Keith taking a cheap-shot, or C) the Canucks going after him every chance they get.

[Meds]

Yeah HNIC is contracted to the NHL, but it's due to expire soon...thankfully. Can you imagine selling Cherry today to the CBC...hey here's an idea "we'll take a grumpy old man dress him in funny clothes...instant success " you'd be laughed out the industry. He fitted in maybe in the nineties.....here's another idea lets replace him with a more current ex play,coach,manager who understands the games past the neanderthal era

I'm gonna guess you vote Liberal, are pro everything, think that everyone should be able to do anything they want regardless of limitations because fear of discrimination trumps common sense, and that you believe that nobdoy should ever state an opinion if it means stepping on other people's toes.....even if it's the truth.

[dhabums]

I'm gonna guess you vote Liberal, are pro everything, think that everyone should be able to do anything they want regardless of limitations because fear of discrimination trumps common sense, and that you believe that nobdoy should ever state an opinion if it means stepping on other people's toes.....even if it's the truth.

There is a very confusing theme to your post.

[Strangelove]

Cherry went directly from there to a bit of a pro-fighting rant: “Which would you rather have? Now we’ve got two star players out, Daniel and Keith. If you don’t have the fighting you have that stuff”.

What the heck does that mean? If there was no instigator that Keith would have made Daniel fight?

Or if Keith took his drubbings from Juice or Kas, that there'd be no hard(er) feelings?

Bingo. It means nothing. The Canucks tried to get after him every chance they got. He declined, we took penalties. The instigator doesn't stop A) Sedin from finishing his check, B) Keith taking a cheap-shot, or C) the Canucks going after him every chance they get.

Well if you listen to the whole segment... and if you know Cherry from listening to CC over the years... pretty sure he means the Canucks/Hawks couldv'e/would've taken out their hostilities in the form of fisticuffs if it weren't for the league trending toward anti-fighting. Instead the built-up angst tended to manifest itself by way of cheap shots (first perhaps a little one from Daniel, followed by a HUGE one from Keith).

I don't know ALL that Cherry is inferring. Perhaps he would suggest Keith should've dropped the gloves with one of the Canucks who were mocking him for whining about Danny's hit.... rather than eventually go full retard on Dan.

He referred to the Rags/Devils game saying they got it out of their system early and then went on to play a great game.

[Fred]

A Don Cherry segment would never fly today. Try putting forward a suggestion to HNIC "here's an idea lets get a far right wing guy who will insult almost every segment of society and every nationality, dress him up in a clown suit and give him a free hand for 5-10 minutes on prime time every Saturday night "

[Island Nucklehead]

Well if you listen to the whole segment... and if you know Cherry from listening to CC over the years... pretty sure he means the Canucks/Hawks couldv'e/would've taken out their hostilities in the form of fisticuffs if it weren't for the league trending toward anti-fighting. Instead the built-up angst tended to manifest itself by way of cheap shots (first perhaps a little one from Daniel, followed by a HUGE one from Keith).

I don't know ALL that Cherry is inferring. Perhaps he would suggest Keith should've dropped the gloves with one of the Canucks who were mocking him for whining about Danny's hit.... rather than eventually go full retard on Dan.

Well I don't get it. Daniel's hit wasn't dirty. That's a hit you see every game. Guys will get hit in the head. You'll never stop that in a contact sport. You can punish head hits, but you'll never take them out of the game.

The idea that fisticuffs and goons are an alternative to what happened is laughable. This was a European finishing his check against a pussy Canadian, and the Canadian responded with a cheap-shot precisely because he wouldn't fight. Even if he did, you know Sedin wouldn't. Top it all off with the Canucks trying to fight anyone and everyone for the entire second period, and you see why Don Cherry's opinion is grossly incorrect.

[Strangelove]

Well I don't get it.

I don't think you're trying hard enough.

You are all micro whilst Mr Cherry is macro.

BIG PICTURE:

Cherry is saying the cheap shot by Keith is far less likely in a world where the players police themselves.

In other words, perhaps Keith doesn't throw that hit in the first place because Kassian/Bieksa doesn't care if Keith wants to fight or not. Kassian/Bieksa rips off Keith's helmet and proceeds to beat the living bejeebers outta him. Next game, same deal.

And so on.

A world where players pay for major cheap shots with a series of humiliating beatings rather than silly little suspensions.

You don't have to agree with Cherry, but you DO have to at least make an attempt to understand what he's saying

(if you want to comment on what he says).

Cherry has always despised cheap shots and has always said it was a mistake for the league to minimize fighting.

You and I seem to be having this discussion in two different threads....

[rats19]

You mean like how gretzky was able to play through his career....

[Fred]

This is a stat that Cherry will enjoy, of the 39 suspensions this season 37 were to NA players

[clem]

Are NA guys willing to go further over the line to win?
Do they prefer a different style of 'accounting'?

Maybe it’s the number of plumbers from NA.

“Never forget a friend. And never forget an enemy.” D. Cherry