Stick a fork in 'em... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-15-2005, 12:25 PM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,406
Local Time: 10:51 AM
the owners are right in this particular argument. the players should have figured that out a long time ago. everyone else with half a clue has. if the players would have just given in and accepted this fact from the start, this whole thing woulda been over months ago. if they continue to not realize this, we won't have hockey next season, either.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-15-2005, 02:21 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Surely, Bettman can`t call off the season tomorrow at noon if discussions are taking a turn for the better?

This is the latest update I`ve found at the Globe & Mail (interesting part about league's inability to "declare legal impasse if there's no deal and the season is cancelled")

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Updated at 2:42 PM EST

Canadian Press and Globe and Mail Update




New York — The two sides in the NHL labour dispute have abandoned longstanding philosophical positions and edged closer together, but the question is whether there is time to bridge the remaining gap.

While more talks were expected Tuesday, time is running out with commissioner Gary Bettman expected to cancel the season at a 1 p.m. EST news conference in New York barring an agreement.

Still, it appeared Tuesday like there was the momentum to secure a deal following Monday night's revelation that the NHL Players' Association had changed direction at the final turn and offered to play under a $52-million (U.S.) salary cap.

The league, meanwhile, turned heads by proposing a $40-million salary cap with no "linkage" to revenue.


"I'm sure not everybody is happy out there. I'm sure there's some players not happy with a hard cap and some owners not happy at not having linkage," Flyers player representative Robert Esche told The Canadian Press from Philadelphia.

"But hey, it's a give-and-take world. Now it seems we're just down to numbers. It's exciting."

Now the question is whether the two sides can bridge the gap. A source said the league sees $52 million as too high but might be willing to go in the low 40s to get a deal done.

"It shouldn't be that hard, they're agreeing on principles," Esche said.

Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk wasn't quite as positive.

"It's a lot to try to do in a very, very short time," he told The Fan, a Toronto all-sports radio station. "I'm just not optimistic."

The change in strategy represents a quantum leap for both sides. The players have insisted a salary cap was a non-starter while the league has built its case around so-called cost certainty — linking player costs to revenue.

A source close to the talks indicated Tuesday morning that he expected both sides would get together later in the day. But as of 1 p.m. EST NHL executive vice-president Bill Daly was still in New York while NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin was still in Toronto.

The surprising developments came during a secret meeting Monday in Niagara Falls, N.Y., between Saskin and Daly.

Daly began the process by offering his cap figure without a fixed link between player costs and league revenues. The union countered with the $52-million salary cap per team and its 24 per cent rollback on existing salaries, which was rejected by the NHL.

"It is indeed unfortunate that with the major steps taken by both sides today we were unable to build enough momentum to reach an agreement," Saskin said in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

It appears a select group of players spearheaded the NHLPA change in strategy.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and others reported Tuesday that Flyers centre Jeremy Roenick, along with Calgary's Jarome Iginla, St. Louis's Chris Pronger and others, urged the union leaders to put a cap with no linkage on the table in a bid to save the season.

"I was involved with a group of NHL players who were trying to get to as many people as possible to come on board with a resolution that works for both sides," Roenick told the Inquirer. "The proposal has to have a number that is not tied to revenues."

A call to Iginla was not immediately returned Tuesday.

Other reports said the group of players actually had a proposal for the league, but Esche said that was pushing it too far.

"That needs to be clarified," Esche told CP. "I talked to Pronger a few hours ago, I spoke with JR a few hours ago, that is the further thing from the truth. They didn't give a proposal to the league, they didn't go behind the union's back. They would never undermine our union."

Still, Buffalo Sabres player rep Jay McKee was surprised Tuesday when he heard the union would accept a cap.

"If that's where we were going, I wonder why now," he said.

According to a source, the union's offer breaks down like this:

A cap of $52-million but with provisions for teams to spend as much as 10 per cent more than that on three occasions in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated. The luxury tax rates would be 25 per cent on $40-$44 million; 50 per cent on $44-$48 million; 75 per cent on $48-$52 million and 150 per cent on $52-$57.2 million.

The league's deal features a $40-million cap, with a 50 per cent luxury tax on payrolls from $34 million to $40 million.

Using last season's payrolls and adding the 24 per cent rollback on existing contracts, the average team payroll was $33.95 million. There were 16 teams over the $40-million figure last season, but that's without the contact rollback.

Monday's development could also have a major impact on the league's ability to declare legal impasse down the road if there's no deal and the season is cancelled. The union could perhaps argue to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board that there is no impasse in talks because the philosophical issue of a salary cap is no longer the deal-breaker.

The NHL is hoping to avoid becoming the first major professional league in North America to cancel an entire season from beginning to finish.

"I'm extremely concerned," Flyers captain Keith Primeau said from Philadelphia. "The biggest thing that disturbs me is everyone's true misunderstanding of the fan base. You hear how certain people believe that the hardcore fan will definitely return, that the damage isn't irreparable.

"I think that's a huge miscalculation or judgment in error of who and what your fan base is. That, I think, is going to alarm a lot of people when the doors are re-opened."

Through Tuesday, 834 of the 1,230 regular-season games have gone by the wayside.

If an agreement can still be reached, the league has a shortened schedule ready to go that would see teams play 28 regular-season games, playing only within their conference. The playoffs would stay the same.

"We probably could've gotten this thing done in the summertime," Chicago forward Matthew Barnaby said. "Am I mad, no? I want to get back to work. But at the same time, I'm just a little disappointed that it went this far to play poker and to have someone call your bluff."
__________________

__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 06:35 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Even if they come to an agreement, I won't care about the 2 dozen games they play to determine the playoff teams. I mean, the Stanley Cup winning team will probably have more wins in the playoffs 16, then in the regular season. It would be ridiculous.

Maurice Richard trophy awarded to Vincent LeCavalier with 10 goals.

Art Ross trophy with 30 points, Ilya Kovalchuk.

No, thanks. Wait until the fall, and right now the fans should boycott hockey if they do settle. We should not give them our dollars via live attendance or TV ratings. Neither the owners nor the players give a damn about the fans or the thousands of people who depend on jobs related to the industry.

The fans should respond with an initial boycott powerful enough to send a strong message to both sides not to f**k with hockey anymore. Empty stadiums would be the best message, but I doubt that will happen. I, for one, will not watch hockey for a while.

Besides, hockey sucks now. I only watch the playoffs. Too much clutching, grabbing, mediocre games, subjective rules

-if a team gets 3 penalities in a row, you can be sure the next one will be against the opposing team no matter what. Gotta even it up. If a pitcher walks 5 batters in a row, the umpire ain't gonna call ball four next inning against the opposing pitcher to even up the walks, is he?

-Brett Hull's foot was in the crease back in '99. I don't care who won the Cup but call the bloody rule when it counts the most ( rule is now dead of course) The league lost credibility when the question of "what would they do if someone's foot was in the crease when the Cup winning goal was scored" Answer: nothing

-rarely are penalities called in OT, the mentality is let the players decide the game. Rubbish!

-no red line, bigger nets, bigger ice, smaller goalie equipment, move nets back, move nets forward, paint the lines bigger, no touch icing, tag up offsides, What other major sport tinkers with its game every bloody year? It's ridiculous. I say go back to the year of the highest scoring which was not a Gretzky year and use those rules. Reason: people love goals, not 3-1 or 2-0 with only 40 shots on goal between the 2 teams. Or make a rule and tell the refs to call it no matter what, the players will adapt. Jeez, back in '99 some players were lifting their feet while skating along the edge of the ice to avoid having a foot in the crease

-give coaches guaranteed contracts with no firing clauses so they start coaching to win and stop coaching not to lose. They are afraid of losing and having a poor win/loss record which could leave to their firing. They don't take risks during the games anymore, gotta use the trap, have 2 men back, block all the shots, Boring.

The worst thing is they know there is something wrong with game but do they ask the people who have the most valuable opinion on how to fix it? No, they discuss it amongst themselves. Hello, they are on the ice playing and coaching, we the fans watch and pay for the entertainment. Fans should have some input on what is needed to fix hockey, we know what we want to see, not the owners or players

Sorry about the rant but the NHL and the NHLPA are pissing me off especially now that Goodenow has accepted the premise of a salary cap. We spent the last 7 plus months listening to " NO SALARY CAP EVER" and NOW, with a handful of games to go, sure, let's negotiate a salary cap. GRRRRRR! That is what they should have spent the last 7 plus months negotiating. That cap level alone could take a year to settle. Dumbasses!

If anyone is offended or thinks my remarks are ignorant, sorry but I had to get it off my chest. Ah, I feel better.



Hoping for the return of an exciting, dynamic meaningful hockey season in the near future.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 07:06 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Great post Trevster2k!
__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:04 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
The fans should respond with an initial boycott powerful enough to send a strong message to both sides not to f**k with hockey anymore. Empty stadiums would be the best message, but I doubt that will happen. I, for one, will not watch hockey for a while.
A fundamentally bad idea if you're a fan of hockey. Based on your distaste for the listlessness regular season games, I would say the lockout dispute has been a favourable inconvenience for you...



There is an inherent benefit in a shortened season, regardless of the process thus far. Sure less money will be made, but the prospects of smaller market teams being able to make the playoffs is a promising benefit for the future fanbase. A condensed schedule would produce exciting hockey, and probably a greater degree of unpredictability. Any trophies awarded at the end of the season would of course be asterisked, but who cares... as long as the new CBA deal is stable enough to avoid long work stoppages in later years and there is viability in revenue and fanship... the loss of games was worth it. I understand the principle of boycotting, and it is the most powerful way as a fan to express your opinion. But haven't we waited long enough? At this point I'm willing to part with some personal reservations to see the league back up and running.

Quote:
Brett Hull's foot was in the crease back in '99. I don't care who won the Cup but call the bloody rule when it counts the most ( rule is now dead of course) The league lost credibility when the question of "what would they do if someone's foot was in the crease when the Cup winning goal was scored" Answer: nothing
I believe the officials immediately said that it was an interpretation of the crease rule... if the player has control of the puck in the crease and is not obstructing the goaltender, then a goal is allowable. This was confusing to a lot of people, so they got rid of the rule altogether.

Quote:
Hoping for the return of an exciting, dynamic meaningful hockey season in the near future.
Agreed
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:16 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,407
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
[B]-if a team gets 3 penalities in a row, you can be sure the next one will be against the opposing team no matter what. Gotta even it up. If a pitcher walks 5 batters in a row, the umpire ain't gonna call ball four next inning against the opposing pitcher to even up the walks, is he?
The referee is trying to prevent bias. When it comes to calling balls and strikes it's clear and obvious mostly, and it can be always replayed and shown whether the call was explicitly right or wrong. Penalties are 95% judgement calls. Hence, the referee is trying to prevent accusations of bias. But you can't always be sure 100%, "no matter what" that the next penalty is going against the other team. Sure, it happens the majority of the time because by the law of probability it will happen the majority of the time. But if a guy runs someone from behind, or two hands someone across the kneecap, you can be sure it's going to be a penalty. Referees who are in the NHL know what they're doing by that time.

Quote:
-Brett Hull's foot was in the crease back in '99. I don't care who won the Cup but call the bloody rule when it counts the most ( rule is now dead of course) The league lost credibility when the question of "what would they do if someone's foot was in the crease when the Cup winning goal was scored" Answer: nothing
And it was a damn stupid rule.

Quote:
-rarely are penalities called in OT, the mentality is let the players decide the game. Rubbish!
Would you rather let a flimsy penalty call by a referee decide the game on a powerplay? Or how about a biased referee? Would you like it if that were to happen to your team?

Quote:
-no red line, bigger nets, bigger ice, smaller goalie equipment, move nets back, move nets forward, paint the lines bigger, no touch icing, tag up offsides, What other major sport tinkers with its game every bloody year? It's ridiculous. I say go back to the year of the highest scoring which was not a Gretzky year and use those rules. Reason: people love goals, not 3-1 or 2-0 with only 40 shots on goal between the 2 teams. Or make a rule and tell the refs to call it no matter what, the players will adapt. Jeez, back in '99 some players were lifting their feet while skating along the edge of the ice to avoid having a foot in the crease
Go back to the last non-Gretzky highest scoring year? As in sometime after 1999 (or whenever it was he retired)? So what. That changes nothing. Or are you talking about something like 1977? Cause that'd be a real great idea to have guys out there without helmets.

Quote:
-give coaches guaranteed contracts with no firing clauses so they start coaching to win and stop coaching not to lose. They are afraid of losing and having a poor win/loss record which could leave to their firing. They don't take risks during the games anymore, gotta use the trap, have 2 men back, block all the shots, Boring.
No firing clauses? What if the guy verbally abuses a player, or does something ethically wrong or anti-team policy but that is still technically legal? You can't be seriously suggesting that teams be forced to keep a locker room cancer.

Quote:
The worst thing is they know there is something wrong with game but do they ask the people who have the most valuable opinion on how to fix it? No, they discuss it amongst themselves. Hello, they are on the ice playing and coaching, we the fans watch and pay for the entertainment. Fans should have some input on what is needed to fix hockey, we know what we want to see, not the owners or players
This is one of the smartest things I've ever seen in PEUP.

Quote:
Sorry about the rant but the NHL and the NHLPA are pissing me off especially now that Goodenow has accepted the premise of a salary cap. We spent the last 7 plus months listening to " NO SALARY CAP EVER" and NOW, with a handful of games to go, sure, let's negotiate a salary cap. GRRRRRR! That is what they should have spent the last 7 plus months negotiating. That cap level alone could take a year to settle. Dumbasses!

If anyone is offended or thinks my remarks are ignorant, sorry but I had to get it off my chest. Ah, I feel better.



Hoping for the return of an exciting, dynamic meaningful hockey season in the near future.


Oh, and Goodenow is a douchebag for rejecting that $42.5m offer tonight. He just singlehandedly killed the season, and that is now what he will forever be remembered for. Good on ya, twatface. :
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:23 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:51 AM
only 6.5 million apart now

they will get a deal done
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:24 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Start putting money on the Blue Jackets.
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:28 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:51 AM
they need to address some rules though to make it more fluid and exciting for the average fan

a couple ones i like are:

you cant use your stick on another player, only the body
smaller goalie pads
shoot outs after an ot period is played (no more ties)
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:32 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:21 PM
I was a hardcore hockey fan until just a couple of years ago. I grew up and lived in Newfoundland, Canada. During those legendary OT games involving the Capitals, Devils and other teams, I would be up until 330 or 4am watching a bloody hockey game and then get up at 7am to go work or school. The reason I stopped watching regular season games is because of the lack of good hockey. I join hockey pools, I follow the statistics during the season, I watch the odd game if it is between 2 excellent teams. But generally I can't justify watching the mediocrity any more.

I thought Mario was a whiner when he first started discussing the clutching and grabbing but he was right. It has killed the game. I have been watching the classic games on TSN and holy smokes, no one is grabbing anyone. Bobby Orr would never have scored his famous goal in today's league because he would have a stick in his jersey by the time he hit his own blue line. And the goalies don't look like the Michelin man, granted, today's goalies are much more athletic than goalies of the past.

Regarding the boycott, yes, the fans have waited long enough. But after the settlement it is time for the fans to make the owners and players wait. We pay their salaries, we generate the revenues, we create the legends, we buy their merchandise, and we love the game. If their are no repercussions to these two parties from the fans, then I guess we are their bitch. They can leave us hanging whenever they want and we go crawling back for more. They are taking us for granted and I believe the fans deserve more respect.

The interpretation of the crease rule was an example of the problem I refer to with the NHL, they call whatever they feel like depending on the situation. They didn't call it back because it was THE goal. Everyone was celebrating and it was too late. Throughout the whole season, everything was called back. I remember a goal being called back when the goalie was not even in the crease. It is a joke. The rule book means nothing unless it is followed by the book.


Hockey is Canada's game but the NHL isn't necessarily Canada's league.

Peace out.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 09:58 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


The referee is trying to prevent bias. When it comes to calling balls and strikes it's clear and obvious mostly, and it can be always replayed and shown whether the call was explicitly right or wrong. Penalties are 95% judgement calls. Hence, the referee is trying to prevent accusations of bias. But you can't always be sure 100%, "no matter what" that the next penalty is going against the other team. Sure, it happens the majority of the time because by the law of probability it will happen the majority of the time. But if a guy runs someone from behind, or two hands someone across the kneecap, you can be sure it's going to be a penalty. Referees who are in the NHL know what they're doing by that time.



I understand what you are saying but when Harry Neale says stuff like " they better be careful because you know they are going to get the next penalty", it seems pretty obvious to me that there is something else going on besides attempts to address bias. And how many times have you seen players get butchered with no calls. Jeremy Roenick can personally vouch for this. BTW, he just an example, I ain't a JR fan persay.

Quote:
And it was a damn stupid rule.

Damn straight.

Quote:
Would you rather let a flimsy penalty call by a referee decide the game on a powerplay? Or how about a biased referee? Would you like it if that were to happen to your team?
I would rather that then see some the crap going on in OTs. Can you define a flimsy penalty? A penalty is a penalty, period. This is the problem with the application of the rules.


Quote:
Go back to the last non-Gretzky highest scoring year? As in sometime after 1999 (or whenever it was he retired)? So what. That changes nothing. Or are you talking about something like 1977? Cause that'd be a real great idea to have guys out there without helmets.
Of course, I don't mean no helmets. I am taking Gretzky out of the formula because his contribution to scoring skews the numbers. Although, many people think their would be less injuries without helmets. I don't feel that way however. They took away 4 on 4 powerplays during the '80s because of the Oilers dominance in that situation. They changed the tagup rule for similar reasons. I just wish they would stop fiddling with the game year after year after year.



Quote:
No firing clauses? What if the guy verbally abuses a player, or does something ethically wrong or anti-team policy but that is still technically legal? You can't be seriously suggesting that teams be forced to keep a locker room cancer.
Verbal abuse? C'mon Dave, they are verbally abused their entire careers by coaches. And don't say what if he attacks his ethnicity or something, you know what I mean. Some Midget coaches are just crazy. Ethic issues, yes , they should be fired. I just want the coaches to be less constrained by the demand to win and provide a more exciting brand of hockey. 1994 was the last great year of hockey, since then it has gone downhill. The Devils Cup win using the trap has just slowed the game so much since so many coaches have adapted that style.



Quote:


Oh, and Goodenow is a douchebag for rejecting that $42.5m offer tonight. He just singlehandedly killed the season, and that is now what he will forever be remembered for. Good on ya, twatface. :


My POV is based on 25 years of watching hockey so this may be why I am so adamant about the state of the game. When I was your age, I remember older older guys saying the original six was the best but I never agreed with them. I have since changed my opinion because they might be right plus I never watched hockey back then. My point here is that the game you grew up on affects your perspective on what is happening in the game today. 90's hockey is different than '80s and so on.

BTW, Dave, I like your posts. Pretty good for a kid.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 10:32 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
they need to address some rules though to make it more fluid and exciting for the average fan

a couple ones i like are:

you cant use your stick on another player, only the body
smaller goalie pads
shoot outs after an ot period is played (no more ties)
I agree Chizip. I also think they should shorten the season by a few games.

Yes, some parts of the game should be changed to improve the game. But the league is doing it like someone trying to adjust a weight of 2 tons to 1 ton using 5lb plates. As I said before, here is a novel idea, call the damn penalities so the players can skate and shoot and score. The players will stop doing the crap if they spend the whole game killing power plays night after night. I'm sure the coaches would make sure they play smart too.


The following are actual rules for the NHL but are usually only called when there are scoring opportunities taken away by the infraction or they have to make up for a bad call earlier. Generally, this stuff is going on all the time on the ice especially the hooking. Oh yeah, I forgot the retaliation call too. The refs always get the retaliator which is really comforting to a player.

Rule 50 Cross-Checking

(NOTE) A cross-check shall mean a check rendered with both hands on the stick, and the extending of the arms, while the check is being delivered.

(a) A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on a player who "cross-checks" an opponent.

When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

(b) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall also be imposed.



Rule 53 Elbowing

Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.

(a) A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to foul an opponent.

(b) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed and an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100).



Rule 64 Hooking

Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent.

(NOTE) When a player is checking another in such a way that there is only stick-to-stick contact, such action is not to be penalized as hooking.

(a) A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who impedes the progress of an opponent by "hooking" with his stick.

(b) A major penalty and a game misconduct shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by "hooking." A player who has been assessed a major penalty and a game misconduct under this Rule shall be automatically fined one hundred dollars ($100).

These are just a few rules they already have in place Chizip. Unfortunately, the referees have forgotten it. That $100 fine is a real deterrent too. Shit, I can even pay that. I'm sure $100 was a lot of money back in the '20s.

I like to think if they enforced the rules more effectively, the skilled players would be able to skate more freely and have better opportunites to score. People don't stand up and clap after a save, they want goals. If they stay on this diminshing trend of goals, soccer teams will be outscoring the hockey teams in 5 years. Oh goody.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 11:31 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
People don't stand up and clap after a save, they want goals.
I have been sassed many a time for doing that.

But come on. How many times does one ever see Glenn Healy make an ovation-worthy save?

On that note though, in the past decade the goalie has obviously dominated in terms of popularity... and the younger generation is leaning towards an appreciation of the more defensive side of the game. Some of these sadistic bastards are even callous enough to derive their messageboard monikers from underachieving namesakes in order to pass themselves off as hockey gurus.

...

Anyway, who else is on the ice for 60 minutes other than the well-loathed officials... maybe this era's fan is more prone to enjoying acrobatic saves and defensive prowess, and in that way is more accepting of the low scoring ratios. Sacrilege to some, but substantial to others.
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 11:44 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Glenn Healy is .......................a great back up goalie. Best compliment I got.

I agree that today's goalies kick ass.

My theory to that is years ago the goalie started off as the kid no one wanted on their team.Everyone wanted to be Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, or Stan Mikita. Also, no one wanted to get a puck in the wobbles. But then along came Ken Dryden, and Tretiak (I ain't even going to attempt his first name) and goalies started getting cool and kids wanted to be the goalie. Now, kids idolize Roy, Brodeur, Cujo (hmmm, you know I didn't even notice that until now) and emulate them at even younger ages. I am afraid at how good goalies will be in the next decade.

I remember Tony Esposito and especially Grant Fuhr as being the forerunners of today's crazy goalie techniques of flopping around in the crease. Cujo was the first young guy I see do that. That series against the Leafs when he was with the Blues was fantastic.

Peace out.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 04:06 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Eh...no doubt goalies are more athletic and technically skilled than in past years, but I have to wonder if the paucity of goals today is because it's harder for players to get off a good shot before they get pulled to the ground nowadays.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com