Carrie Underwood about Mike Fisher on "Ellen"

shabbs wrote:Mike's lady Carrie Underwood was on Ellen the other day talking them.
I trimmed out all the non-hockey crap. Not sure I like all the "thumbs down's" he got though.

Just a couple of points of clarification. Carrie's reactions to mike's teeth (haha), his country and his sport were all impressions she had before she met him. She was recounting the questions she asked her band mate about him and her reaction to those answers.

She has since changed her tune (in fact in the Ellen interview she recounted and said she loves Canada), and in fact she is up here in Ottawa more than you know. Quite frequently in fact.

Proof positive of this is her recent dedication to Mike in her latest CD. The moving in was never in play, Mike never asked her and in fact it leaked because the Ellen interview was filmed prior to yesterday and some people miss understood the question to believe that Mike had asked her.

They are both strict Christians and as such Mike has not and would never ask her to move in prior to marrying her.

SensGirl11 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Poor Fisher. With his religous background he'll be devistated, if they get married, when they eventually divorce, as most hollywood marriages end up.

I wonder if Fisher doesn't tie the knot with her for that very reason?

I don't think he would risk being happy for the rest of his life for fear of divorcing. That's not the way to think of it when you think of getting married.

I have confidence that these two would be great together for many many years. They have a lot in common and enough different tastes to keep it interesting. And they're both hot too, which helps. (I don't know if that's relevant, but it's true)

I agree with you but, marrying into Hollywood is marrying into a high risk group for divorce. Even the ones that last more than 10 years still find a way to screw it up.

You'd have to think it's in the back of his mind. Kinda like this is a nice ride but there's no real future in it kinda thoughts? Who knows? Maybe it started that way and is starting to change now?

shabbs wrote:They both travel a lot, so I'm not too worried about location being an issue. Who knows. As long as Mike keeps putting pucks in the net... it's all good.

GO FISHER GO!!!

I was telling my Dad the other day, do you know how many famous, or well to do people fly into the carp airport.

THere is a reason Carrie has been to Ottawa several times, yet no one seems to see her arrive. Carp airport is perfect for small private aircraft and hell it's close to Mike's house..

If he wants to move to Nashville that's fine with me. Ryan Suter, straight up. Thanks for the memories Mikey! Hello, N1 D-man!

Seriously though, as well as he's been playing I would move him for a quality D-man like Suter. Hopefully Regin would be able to step up, or we could trade Shannon and one of our scrubs on D for a replacement.

In that video....a thumbs down for hockey and Canada?

Carrie Underwood

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SensGirl11 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Poor Fisher. With his religous background he'll be devistated, if they get married, when they eventually divorce, as most hollywood marriages end up.

I wonder if Fisher doesn't tie the knot with her for that very reason?

I don't think he would risk being happy for the rest of his life for fear of divorcing. That's not the way to think of it when you think of getting married.

I have confidence that these two would be great together for many many years. They have a lot in common and enough different tastes to keep it interesting. And they're both hot too, which helps. (I don't know if that's relevant, but it's true)

I agree with you but, marrying into Hollywood is marrying into a high risk group for divorce. Even the ones that last more than 10 years still find a way to screw it up.

You'd have to think it's in the back of his mind. Kinda like this is a nice ride but there's no real future in it kinda thoughts? Who knows? Maybe it started that way and is starting to change now?

Maybe. I think it's different though with Hockey Players going out with Hollywood stars. It's a different set of circumstances, IMO. Hockey players can't go out to clubs all the time like hollywood stars can. Carrie isn't a Hollywood star necessarily, she isn't in movies meeting hot actors all the time, she's mostly touring, and when she's not touring she's here to spend time with Mike. Same goes for him. And the fact that they are both devout Christians is serious and I don't see them as the type to go out clubbing without their significant other, or even at all. I think they're good.

Hollywood stars that film a movie every 3 months is a very different story though, they meet so many different stars and there are very intimate moments between them. The only time Carrie would get intimate with another man that isn't Mike would be for a video.

hemlock wrote:If he wants to move to Nashville that's fine with me. Ryan Suter, straight up. Thanks for the memories Mikey! Hello, N1 D-man!

Seriously though, as well as he's been playing I would move him for a quality D-man like Suter. Hopefully Regin would be able to step up, or we could trade Shannon and one of our scrubs on D for a replacement.

In that video....a thumbs down for hockey and Canada?

Carrie Underwood

Again, I highly highly doubt he's going anywhere. Maybe at the end of his current contract, but he loves Ottawa as much as Alfie does and he's a fixture here.

Shannon and a scrub on D for us will get us nothing.

She wasn't saying she doesn't like Canada at all, she loves Canada. She just said it was so far away and it makes for a loooong distance relationship, which sucks. That's all.

SensGirl11 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SensGirl11 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Poor Fisher. With his religous background he'll be devistated, if they get married, when they eventually divorce, as most hollywood marriages end up.

I wonder if Fisher doesn't tie the knot with her for that very reason?

I don't think he would risk being happy for the rest of his life for fear of divorcing. That's not the way to think of it when you think of getting married.

I have confidence that these two would be great together for many many years. They have a lot in common and enough different tastes to keep it interesting. And they're both hot too, which helps. (I don't know if that's relevant, but it's true)

I agree with you but, marrying into Hollywood is marrying into a high risk group for divorce. Even the ones that last more than 10 years still find a way to screw it up.

You'd have to think it's in the back of his mind. Kinda like this is a nice ride but there's no real future in it kinda thoughts? Who knows? Maybe it started that way and is starting to change now?

Maybe. I think it's different though with Hockey Players going out with Hollywood stars. It's a different set of circumstances, IMO. Hockey players can't go out to clubs all the time like hollywood stars can. Carrie isn't a Hollywood star necessarily, she isn't in movies meeting hot actors all the time, she's mostly touring, and when she's not touring she's here to spend time with Mike. Same goes for him. And the fact that they are both devout Christians is serious and I don't see them as the type to go out clubbing without their significant other, or even at all. I think they're good.

Hollywood stars that film a movie every 3 months is a very different story though, they meet so many different stars and there are very intimate moments between them. The only time Carrie would get intimate with another man that isn't Mike would be for a video.

The fact that they are devout Christians means nothing when talking about divorce. Several Christians groups have a higher divorce rate than athiests, and other religious denominations. Evangelical Christians are least likely to divorce though of all, based on faith.

The Barna Research Group has done extensive research into this breaking it down by age, location etc etc.

Point is, a Christian marriage is no more or less stable than marriages in other faith/non-faith groups.

SensGirl11 wrote:

hemlock wrote:If he wants to move to Nashville that's fine with me. Ryan Suter, straight up. Thanks for the memories Mikey! Hello, N1 D-man!

Seriously though, as well as he's been playing I would move him for a quality D-man like Suter. Hopefully Regin would be able to step up, or we could trade Shannon and one of our scrubs on D for a replacement.

In that video....a thumbs down for hockey and Canada?

Carrie Underwood

Again, I highly highly doubt he's going anywhere. Maybe at the end of his current contract, but he loves Ottawa as much as Alfie does and he's a fixture here.

Shannon and a scrub on D for us will get us nothing.

She wasn't saying she doesn't like Canada at all, she loves Canada. She just said it was so far away and it makes for a loooong distance relationship, which sucks. That's all.

Thanks for raining on my parade.

I guess I should have inserted more sarcasm smileys.

You think Shannon and let's say, Campoli fetches us nothing? I'll agree we are probably not getting a player of Fisher's value, but to say they are practically worthless is a bit of a stretch imo.

Sorry, I didn't mean to rain on your parade.

Well, if you're talking about Campoli and Shannon, that's a different story. If you're talking about Picard and Shannon...eesh. I don't think we'd get much for them.

I don't think Shannon is necessarily worthless but, he won't get us much in return in a trade. He's lost a lot of spunk and he can barely crack the lineup anymore. Maybe for a minor league team?

hemlock wrote:You think Shannon and let's say, Campoli fetches us nothing? I'll agree we are probably not getting a player of Fisher's value, but to say they are practically worthless is a bit of a stretch imo.

Flip it around, if you were GM of the Sens and someone offered you Campoli and Shannon, who would you give up (assuming, you have some interest in them)?

Picard? Kelly just because of the contract? Carkner? It's hard to give up something nice when you're willing to part with just the dregs. That's what I think might be tough on us.

Now, Hamhuis for those two and a 2nd rounder? Maybe.

SensGirl11 wrote: Sorry, I didn't mean to rain on your parade.

Well, if you're talking about Campoli and Shannon, that's a different story. If you're talking about Picard and Shannon...eesh. I don't think we'd get much for them.

I don't think Shannon is necessarily worthless but, he won't get us much in return in a trade. He's lost a lot of spunk and he can barely crack the lineup anymore. Maybe for a minor league team?

Actually yeah, we could turn him into a mid-to-low level prospect and try to make Bingo stronger. Hard to say though.

I think if you were to poll GMs, they'd tell you that Campoli doesn't even register on their radar - and Shannon might be of some use to a team that desperately needs some speed and scoring (Carolina?), but they won't give us much.

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:You think Shannon and let's say, Campoli fetches us nothing? I'll agree we are probably not getting a player of Fisher's value, but to say they are practically worthless is a bit of a stretch imo.

Flip it around, if you were GM of the Sens and someone offered you Campoli and Shannon, who would you give up (assuming, you have some interest in them)?

Picard? Kelly just because of the contract? Carkner? It's hard to give up something nice when you're willing to part with just the dregs. That's what I think might be tough on us.

Now, Hamhuis for those two and a 2nd rounder? Maybe.

Which is why I sincerely hope Murray is not like we fans and that he's open to listening to and strongly considering ANY offer for ANY player if he believes it makes the team better.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
Which is why I sincerely hope Murray is not like we fans and that he's open to listening to and strongly considering ANY offer for ANY player if he believes it makes the team better.

Does trading Fisher make this team better though? He's almost got more goals than Spezza's got points.

And he's got a NMC.

He might have to get down to some painful decisions, like Regin, Foligno etc.

First thing that happens is Shannon gets moved to Carolina for a 4th rounder. That would be my guess. They have a good relationship and Carolina is sooooooo slow, they don't even care is Shannon can't score right now, they'll take the speed.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Shannon, Picard/Campoli and a 3rd for Ray Whitney. And it's not because we desperately need Whitney, it's because we need a top six and Murray wants to make the playoffs pretty badly (obviously).

I can also see Carolina and Chicago making a deal to be honest.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Does trading Fisher make this team better though? He's almost got more goals than Spezza's got points...

I can also see Carolina and Chicago making a deal to be honest.

I'm not sure of that. Depends on the return. I only hope that a decision wouldn't be predicated on solely who's a fan favourite or "good in the community".

That thinking got us 2 more years of the "calming influence" of Wade Redden and in a roundabout way, Brian Lee.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
I'm not sure of that. Depends on the return. I only hope that a decision wouldn't be predicated on solely who's a fan favourite or "good in the community".

That thinking got us 2 more years of the "calming influence" of Wade Redden and in a roundabout way, Brian Lee.

Oh Chara...we loved you.

hemlock wrote:

SensGirl11 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SensGirl11 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Poor Fisher. With his religous background he'll be devistated, if they get married, when they eventually divorce, as most hollywood marriages end up.

I wonder if Fisher doesn't tie the knot with her for that very reason?

I don't think he would risk being happy for the rest of his life for fear of divorcing. That's not the way to think of it when you think of getting married.

I have confidence that these two would be great together for many many years. They have a lot in common and enough different tastes to keep it interesting. And they're both hot too, which helps. (I don't know if that's relevant, but it's true)

I agree with you but, marrying into Hollywood is marrying into a high risk group for divorce. Even the ones that last more than 10 years still find a way to screw it up.

You'd have to think it's in the back of his mind. Kinda like this is a nice ride but there's no real future in it kinda thoughts? Who knows? Maybe it started that way and is starting to change now?

Maybe. I think it's different though with Hockey Players going out with Hollywood stars. It's a different set of circumstances, IMO. Hockey players can't go out to clubs all the time like hollywood stars can. Carrie isn't a Hollywood star necessarily, she isn't in movies meeting hot actors all the time, she's mostly touring, and when she's not touring she's here to spend time with Mike. Same goes for him. And the fact that they are both devout Christians is serious and I don't see them as the type to go out clubbing without their significant other, or even at all. I think they're good.

Hollywood stars that film a movie every 3 months is a very different story though, they meet so many different stars and there are very intimate moments between them. The only time Carrie would get intimate with another man that isn't Mike would be for a video.

The fact that they are devout Christians means nothing when talking about divorce. Several Christians groups have a higher divorce rate than athiests, and other religious denominations. Evangelical Christians are least likely to divorce though of all, based on faith.

The Barna Research Group has done extensive research into this breaking it down by age, location etc etc.

Point is, a Christian marriage is no more or less stable than marriages in other faith/non-faith groups.

Statistics like that can be quite misleading. And statements like "a Christian marriage is no more or less stable than marriages in other faith/non-faith groups" is quite presumptuous.

How many people when asked if they are religious will say "I'm Catholic" simply because of their background or just by default yet are not really religious?

Determining whether or not someone is a devout Christian is virtually impossible no matter how well you know them and how often the attend church or talk about their faith etc. For example, this girl being asked a question about moving in together before marriage, she makes no mention of her faith as the reason for not wanting to. I would be very surprised if Fisher didn't clearly state his beliefs in that regard if faced with the same question. Now, does that mean she isn't a Christian? No idea.

Going under the assumption that they are both in fact devout Christians just means that they are more likely to take divorce harder but, that is just my opinion and not based on any hard evidence.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Going under the assumption that they are both in fact devout Christians just means that they are more likely to take divorce harder but, that is just my opinion and not based on any hard evidence.

Well, this is a discussion that could go on for weeks. In theory, you're right but technically, a Christian (use of the word devout being unnecessary) the question of divorce never comes into the picture.