Matt Cooke is Reformed!!!!!!

[big_dl]

Cooke did a lot to get the reputation as a dirty out of control player. So I understand that as soon as he does something everyone immediately thinks back on all of the things he had done previously. The reformed Cooke argument however has a lot of merit. First he's gone basically 3 years without an incident, if he was consistently playing out of control and dirty that would be a nearly impossible task to accomplish. Second, the vast majority of his previous incidents were for dirty hits of a different variety, namely hits to the head. Cooke's never been known as a player who leads with his knee. I'm sure he would have had the entire weight of the Department of Player Safety thrown at him had he targeted Barrie's head.

This isn't to defend the hit just to say that one dirty incident shouldn't wipe out 3 years of Cooke taking on his agitator role while playing relatively within the rules (no suspensions).

[fulcrum]

This is a combination of having a setback in his ability to stay clean, and people piling on because of his past history.

.... just to say that one dirty incident shouldn't wipe out 3 years of Cooke taking on his agitator role while playing relatively within the rules (no suspensions).

He can't control himself....his emotions get the better of him.....and it costs other players, not him , other players. But you want me to accept that he has had a set back and is a good guy, and we need to be more understanding. If we were talking about an alcoholic or a drug addict trying to reform himself and having a set back, where he is the only one paying for his lack of self control.....ok. But this guy threatens all players at all times, since we aren't sure when he is gonna have another set back. He has issues, bottom line, issues that put other peoples well being at risk.

IMO his time has run out, his grace period is long over, and he should no longer be an NHL hockey player.

[big_dl]

He can't control himself....his emotions get the better of him.....and it costs other players, not him , other players. But you want me to accept that he has had a set back and is a good guy, and we need to be more understanding. If we were talking about an alcoholic or a drug addict trying to reform himself and having a set back, where he is the only one paying for his lack of self control.....ok. But this guy threatens all players at all times, since we aren't sure when he is gonna have another set back. He has issues, bottom line, issues that put other peoples well being at risk.

IMO his time has run out, his grace period is long over, and he should no longer be an NHL hockey player.

He doesnt threaten players all the time, he's had no major penalties or game misconducts in the last 3 years. In the last 3 years he's had 2 10 minute misconducts and a bunch of minors. He hasn't even averaged a PIM per game in the last 3 years, the closest he came was last year when he had 36 PIMs in 48 games.

I'm saying he's basically been a model player for the last 3 years which doesn't fit the narrative of him still being a reckless player who can't control himself. We've seen 4 or 5 knee-on-knee hits this playoffs alone yet Cooke is the only to get supplementary discipline, he's also the only one being called dirty. Where are the calls for Max Lapierre to be thrown out of the league? Lapierre this year alone had 2 majors, 3 misconducts and 1 game misconducts. Over the last 3 years he's racked up 11 majors, 9 misconducts and 2 game misconducts. Hell even Bickell has 5 majors and 2 misconducts. Furthermore, contrast cooke's 2 misconducts in the last 3 years with the years before that when he racked up 12 majors, 5 misconducts and 2 game misconducts.

I think the numbers show that this isn't the same player. I trust that more than the recollection of Cooke based on his whole career colouring his recent trend as model citizen. It's human nature to remember the negative even when the evidence suggests that the truth of the situation may be the opposite.

[fulcrum]

He doesnt threaten players all the time,

Yes he does! Because you never know when he is going to do it again, he has no control over it.....and when he does do it again..., it takes someone out of the game for months.

I will not argue over whether this should or should not be in the league. He should not be and you will never convince me otherwise.

I am not telling you that he is the only guy injuring players....he sure as hell isn't,......you using other players penalties to justify Cooke means nothing.....what does that have to do with what Cooke has done.

[doulos]

He can't control himself....his emotions get the better of him.....and it costs other players, not him , other players. But you want me to accept that he has had a set back and is a good guy, and we need to be more understanding. If we were talking about an alcoholic or a drug addict trying to reform himself and having a set back, where he is the only one paying for his lack of self control.....ok. But this guy threatens all players at all times, since we aren't sure when he is gonna have another set back. He has issues, bottom line, issues that put other peoples well being at risk.

IMO his time has run out, his grace period is long over, and he should no longer be an NHL hockey player.

1) I'm not asking you to accept anything. Just giving my own take.

2) Cooke's actions do have an effect on himself, emotionally and financially. It's the reason he has tried to change the way he has played over the past several years.

3) Drug addicts and Alcoholics kill and injure people as well. That's a pretty lousy example you've given there to be honest.

4) Cooke 'used to' threaten players all the time, but has been a very different player over the past 3 years, with this one exception. He has changed as a player if you look at the way he plays and the steps he's made. So no, he doesn't 'threaten players at all times' like you suggest.

All that being said, I'm not sure how I feel about Cooke's place in the league right now. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as people want to make it out to be. I'm not asking you to agree with me though.

[big_dl]

In the last 3 seasons, you know the 3 where Matt Cooke never received a game misconduct, a major or a suspension, 94 separate players received suspensions in the NHL. 14 of those players were suspended multiple time. That includes Rene Bourque, Andrew Ference, Tyler Myers, Duncan Keith, James Neal, Martin Hanzal and Alex Edler all of whom were suspended twice each.

Shouldnt a player who is reckless and constantly threatening other players have managed to at least have gotten himself suspended once in those 3 years. Hell Raffi Torres got himself suspended 4 times, that's a guy who wasn't able to restrain himself.

It's always best to debate something when you can't be convinced by facts. Instead rely on your recollection which completely negates the any evidence you don't like. My point in bringing up the penalties other players have received in the time in which Matt Cooke is said to have been reformed is that, especially in the case of Lapierre, it's a comparable, a player who does, and has, gone out an injured players by playing recklessly in the last 3 years.

Matt Cooke has played 212 regular season games over the last 3 years, basically every one in which his team played, by contrast Nate Prosser played 100 less games and got suspended once. The evidence just does not support Matt Cooke still being the same player he was 3 years ago.

[Lucic17]

Cooke reformed is so funny...scared shirtless he will have to go try to be an asst coach junior hockey more like that. Or play in Switzerland or Germany...what a P.O.S

Should have got rest of the post season + 20 reg season games

[Bomm Bastic]

Why can't coaches self regulate more? Why is it the NHL's full responsibility to ensure these hits are removed from the game?

Ron Rolston was punished by the league for the John Scott/Phil "I'm a Sissy" Kessel incident. Why isn't there more of this??? If I'm Yeo or any other coach I'm telling my players dirty hit and you're a healthy scratch. period.

[fulcrum]

1)
3) Drug addicts and Alcoholics kill and injure people as well. That's a pretty lousy example you've given there to be honest.

yeah, likely not a great one. It just came to mind in one context.....the entire NHL drives me nuts these days. It pisses me off to no end that a sport I loved is becoming one I am starting to hate.

my point about Cooke endangering people all the time is you never know when he is gonna lose it again....so because of that you have him in rear view mirror at all times. Nobody in the league should get that respect for illegal actions.

Sorry for my over the top reactions here, I usually have more level headed approaches, but this guy ...... Man.

Cheers for your patience Doulos and big_dl. You guys handled it better than me.....lol

[Top_Shelf]

He can't control himself....his emotions get the better of him.....and it costs other players, not him , other players. But you want me to accept that he has had a set back and is a good guy, and we need to be more understanding. If we were talking about an alcoholic or a drug addict trying to reform himself and having a set back, where he is the only one paying for his lack of self control.....ok. But this guy threatens all players at all times, since we aren't sure when he is gonna have another set back. He has issues, bottom line, issues that put other peoples well being at risk.

IMO his time has run out, his grace period is long over, and he should no longer be an NHL hockey player.

Well said.

+1 rep to you sir

[big_dl]

I'm going to try this from a different angle. I have a problem with the basis of the argument being presented against Cooke. The argument as I understand it is that he is reckless and unable to control his emotions resulting in him frequently injuring other players. For Cooke to go 3 years without doing anything like that means that according to this argument he either hasn't had the opportunity to lose control of his emotions/play recklessly or that has happened but he hasn't been able to injure anybody. The problem for me with this is twofold; first, if Cooke really is a reckless player unable to control his emotions how do you explain him doing so for three years. That has to suggest that he has changed in some, shape or form, second, if the argument is that he just hasn't injured anyone despite trying to that's problematic because he has shown the ability and willingness in the past to injure players whenever he chose to do so. Furthermore, this hit wasn't necessarily reckless or a result of a loss of emotional control. At the risk of seeming like I am blaming Barrie, which I am not, this is a situation where Cooke is trying to finish a hit, a common mantra from NHL coaches and Barrie tries to avoid the hit. An attempt to injure would be more like going straight at a guy lined up for a knee-on-knee to begin with. So while you could maybe argue this is reckless it's no more reckless than Brendan Smith, Max Lapierre or Bryan Bickell, none of whom are being tagged as being especially reckless.

I'd find it easier to swallow if the argument being presented was that Cooke is a ruthless assassin who took 3 years off in order to no longer be considered a repeat offender. Which has its own problems but makes more sense. This argument takes as it's base that Cooke can't control himself because he has so often injured other players. Then to make up for the fact that the last 3 years do not fit with that argument adds that he might snap at any time. Thus regardless of whether Cooke were to ever injure anyone ever again while playing hockey he's still a danger to those around him. It's a fantastic paradigm to set up as you can have your cake and eat it too because you are right no matter what even when the basis for your argument falls apart.

[Top_Shelf]

I'm going to try this from a different angle. I have a problem with the basis of the argument being presented against Cooke. The argument as I understand it is that he is reckless and unable to control his emotions resulting in him frequently injuring other players. For Cooke to go 3 years without doing anything like that means that according to this argument he either hasn't had the opportunity to lose control of his emotions/play recklessly or that has happened but he hasn't been able to injure anybody. The problem for me with this is twofold; first, if Cooke really is a reckless player unable to control his emotions how do you explain him doing so for three years. That has to suggest that he has changed in some, shape or form, second, if the argument is that he just hasn't injured anyone despite trying to that's problematic because he has shown the ability and willingness in the past to injure players whenever he chose to do so. Furthermore, this hit wasn't necessarily reckless or a result of a loss of emotional control. At the risk of seeming like I am blaming Barrie, which I am not, this is a situation where Cooke is trying to finish a hit, a common mantra from NHL coaches and Barrie tries to avoid the hit. An attempt to injure would be more like going straight at a guy lined up for a knee-on-knee to begin with. So while you could maybe argue this is reckless it's no more reckless than Brendan Smith, Max Lapierre or Bryan Bickell, none of whom are being tagged as being especially reckless.

I stopped reading at the bolded parts. We are all entitled to our opinion but if you honestly believe that the hit was not reckless, that Cooke is just trying to finish a hit and didn't go for a Barrie's knee and line him up for a knee-on-knee you are either wearing Minnesota Wild blinders or b) are Cooke's agent, father, brother, etc.

I have not heard a single hockey analyst or even neutral fan who sees the scenario way you do.

A more simple explanation and how I see it......The Wild are down 2-0 in the series and everyone knows that the Avs are shallow on defence. Barrie is irreplaceable for them and Cooke saw an opportunity to take a piece out of Barrie and did it.

[big_dl]

I stopped reading at the bolded parts. We are all entitled to our opinion but if you honestly believe that the hit was not reckless, that Cooke is just trying to finish a hit and didn't go for a Barrie's knee and line him up for a knee-on-knee you are either wearing Minnesota Wild blinders or b) are Cooke's agent, father, brother, etc.

I have not heard a single hockey analyst or even neutral fan who sees the scenario way you do.

A more simple explanation and how I see it......The Wild are down 2-0 in the series and everyone knows that the Avs are shallow on defence. Barrie is irreplaceable for them and Cooke saw an opportunity to take a piece out of Barrie and did it.

You're argument that Cooke's trying to take Barrie out for the series makes more sense if he's lined to go knee-on-knee before Barrie tries to evade the hit. The Dept of Player Safety has recognized in previous suspensions that there's a difference between a straight line knee-on-knee and one where the player tries to avoid being hit. As for having not heard that argument, the finishing the check argument, it's one that isn't being put forward on TV where more than half of the analysts think Corsi's a joke. It's being put forward more in the analytics community where 1. they're questioning the effectiveness of hitting and 2. questioning whether hitting shouldnt once again be about separating the player from the puck. Pretty sure I saw Dellow and Bourne both making that assessment.

The fact that the Wild were down 2-0 is misleading even before the series went back to Minnesota the Wild were carrying the play. If the Wild had league average goaltending in Colorado the series is 3-1 now or even a sweep. The Wild were never in trouble in this series, there was just a massive jump to assume that every 2-0 series was going to end in a sweep or a blowout series this series.

Finally, for the record, I'm a Flames fan, unfortunately, who couldn't care less about the Wild in general. The only personal investment I have in this series is having Bryzgalov, Barrie, Coyle and Granlund in my playoff pool, which is a carry over of the regular season. In short I'm just trying to look at this hit, and Matt Cooke, rationally. 3 years I would've fully agreed that Matt Cooke was a scourge, now after looking at the stats, not so much, hell not at all.