Support NeoGAF

[Revenant]

The face of the league is facing a concussion from a hit that was no where near the neutral zone. They need to look at their equipment where those shoulder pads are knocking people out.

without a doubt, I remember one time Mike Ribiero got put in the penalty box for roughing, and having been in a scrum his jersey and pads had been yanked out of place. So as he's in the box and retooling himself you could see his frame better and you could see how much extra bulk was on his shoulders and even elbows.

and why was he in the box, for elbowing someone from behind :lol

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Born 1983.
Habs fan since 1989.

Have you played a lot? Have you ever had a coach tell you "Don't be the jackass who skates with his head down. That's how you end up like Lindros." I think how the game is taught to you really influences how a person sees the game.

 

[Solo]

Have you played a lot? Have you ever had a coach tell you "Don't be the jackass who skates with his head down. That's how you end up like Lindros." I think how the game is taught to you really influences how a person sees the game.

I played until I was 15-16.

 

[Socreges]

If we do that I'd be curious as to NHL-Gaf's history with the sport as well. I agree that I'm a miniscule minority here. There's no denying that.

We'll only include old school fans then, of which there are many.

Have you played a lot? Have you ever had a coach tell you "Don't be the jackass who skates with his head down. That's how you end up like Lindros." I think how the game is taught to you really influences how a person sees the game.

Huh? We're talking about which era had superior quality of hockey. Don't get confused so early into this.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

I played until I was 15-16.

Fair. Like I've said, I can understand the preference but I definitely have experience with people who feel otherwise. I just find it ridiculously annoying how dismissive NHL-Gaf is of the old game.

Soc, it's less about being "old-school" and I think you GET my point but are intentionally trying to be obnoxious about it. But whatever. I've said what I think about it and I accept people here disagree. And that has EVERYTHING to do with which era had "superior quality" hockey (which is completely subjective). How a person was raised into the game is going to affect how they answer the question. I was raised being taught that the guy in the slot is going to get THE SHIT kicked out of him by the defenseman. That was always a really impressive part of the game to me. It is virtually gone.

 

[Revenant]

\


This is why I'm not screaming for the game to go back to what it was. I get it appeals to a broader audience now. They're the people jacking up my ticket prices at the Verizon Center, but I do think consideration should be paid to people who have grown up with the game and have dedicated a ton of time to the sport and have certain preferences.

consideration is paid to whoever helps the bottom line. While any league needs a mix of strong hardcore fans and a casuals there is no doubt that the NHL will be happy you buy a ticket whether you need someone to explain icing to your or not.

 

[Solo]

I think the only way hockey can be improved right now is by making the nets bigger to boost scoring.

 

[Socreges]

Soc, it's less about being "old-school" and I think you GET my point but are intentionally trying to be obnoxious about it. But whatever.

I literally put my hands up in bewilderment after reading this.

You tell me what your point is, dude, because I'm doing my best to understand it.

 

[Stet]

I think the only way hockey can be improved right now is by making the nets bigger to boost scoring.

And replacing the boards with those giant inflatable tubes kids use on the gutters in bowling alleys.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

I literally put my hands up in bewilderment after reading this. :lol You tell me what your point is, dude, because I'm doing my best to understand it.

See my edit.

 

[Revenant]

I think the only way hockey can be improved right now is by making the nets bigger to boost scoring.

I think at the 10th minute of the 2nd period they should introduce "Multi-Puck Madness"

 

[endresults]

If i'm not mistaken, the NHL is/was looking at ways to reduce the size of the shoulder/elbow pads. There's a point where skaters are so well protected that they are doing things that would have been nuts 20 years ago, like not keeping their heads up, and we're past that point now. At the end of the day, you can put on all the pads you want but it won't protect your brain from banging into your skull when you get rocked.

Reducing pad size might help instill that "oh hey, I'm actually mortal!" thought back into players. Game speed will be reduced slightly, but it could go a long way in reducing concussions.

 

[Solo]

And replacing the boards with those giant inflatable tubes kids use on the gutters in bowling alleys.

Heh. Hate the suggestion all you like, but its the one thing I prefer about the "old days" - more scoring. With goalies and equipment being so big now (and goalies being more skilled than ever), things that were once guaranteed - multiple players hitting 50 goals and over 100 points a year for a joke - are now rare occurences, and I hate that.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Heh. Hate the suggestion all you like, but its the one thing I prefer about the "old days" - more scoring. With goalies and equipment being so big now (and goalies being more skilled than ever), things that were once guaranteed - multiple players hitting 50 goals and over 100 points for a joke - are now rare occurences, and I hate that.

So you're like the guys who screams "MORE HOME RUNS" in baseball? It's not all about scoring...

 

[Solo]

So you're like the guys who screams "MORE HOME RUNS" in baseball? It's not all about scoring...

I'm the guy who doesn't watch baseball.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

I'm the guy who doesn't watch baseball.

Which is the better option, agreed. Just making the analogy. It's still not all about scoring...

Maybe this is why I get excited about a rookie like Couturier and not Read....

 

[ZeroGravity]

Stamkos scores #49 and #50 tonight. Not that it'll matter much if Roloson starts.

 

[Solo]

Also, they need to do something about the loser point.

It should be:
- win (reg, O/T or shootout): 2 points
- lose (reg, O/T or shootout): 0 points

OR:
- win (reg): 3 points
- win (O/T or shootout): 2 points
- lose (O/T or shootout): 1 point
- lose (reg): 0 points

I would suggest dropping the shootout altogether, but I know that's not going to happen.

 

[fallout]

So you're like the guys who screams "MORE HOME RUNS" in baseball? It's not all about scoring...

No, but it is about more interesting and entertaining plays. I don't care if the goals / game goes up or down, but I like having no centre ice line as it creates more opportunity for more interesting and entertaining plays.

 

[Cake Boss]

Lindros was the face of the league for a while.... Weird how these questions are so pressing NOW... I'm not even saying this as a "bitter" Flyers fan. At the time people just saw it as, "Damn, good player got injured. Unfortunate." Now it is some pressing matter of extreme importance that warrants rule changes. I don't think players getting injured signifies a problem with the game.



This is why I'm not screaming for the game to go back to what it was. I get it appeals to a broader audience now. They're the people jacking up my ticket prices at the Verizon Center, but I do think consideration should be paid to people who have grown up with the game and have dedicated a ton of time to the sport and have certain preferences.

Yes but Lindros got hurt during an era where the red line was in play, so why would it protect todays players again. It wont stop players from boarding each other or lowbridging each other or throwing elbows at each other.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

No, but it is about more interesting and entertaining plays. I don't care if the goals / game goes up or down, but I like having no centre ice line as it creates more opportunity for more / interesting plays.

Maybe. Like I said. I find the battle between wingers and defensmen in front of the net "interesting." NHL doesn't seem to give a shit about that.

Yes but Lindros got hurt during an era where the red line was in play, so why would it protect todays players again. It wont stop players from boarding each other or lowbridging each other or throwing elbows at each other.

The Stevens hit on Lindros was considered perfectly legal at the time. It would now be suspension worthy. Why was the change necessary now? I'm not sure the rule change improved anything so just go back to how it was. Players getting injured doesn't warrant rule changes generally.

 

[bonesmccoy]

How many recent injuries/concussions would have been prevented with the red line rule?

 

[Revenant]

Also, they need to do something about the loser point.

It should be:
- win (reg, O/T or shootout): 2 points
- lose (reg, O/T or shootout): 0 points

OR:
- win (reg): 3 points
- win (O/T or shootout): 2 points
- lose (O/T or shootout): 1 point
- lose (reg): 0 points

I would suggest dropping the shootout altogether, but I know that's not going to happen.

a man can dream though... a man can dream.

I agree with a change in the points system though.

Maybe. Like I said. I find the battle between wingers and defensmen in front of the net "interesting." NHL doesn't seem to give a shit about that.

One of my favorite parts of hockey, sadly it is just not the same as it was before, but it's akin to the trench fight in football between the lines, It's not the part you always notice, but it's vital to the game.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

How many recent injuries/concussions would have been prevented with the red line rule?

How many injuries have been prevented by the headshot rule?

 

[Solo]

a man can dream though... a man can dream.

This is one area in which I preferred the old rules:

- a single, 20 minute O/T
- you win, you get 2 points
- you lose, you get 0 points
- no one wins, its a tie and you both get 1 point

 

[Revenant]

This is one area in which I preferred the old rules:

- a single, 20 minute O/T
- you win, you get 2 points
- you lose, you get 0 points
- no one wins, its a tie and you both get 1 point

I'd be okay if they at least just bumped up the OT time to 10 minutes then had a SO since I doubt they'll drop that.

 

[Solo]

I'd be okay if they at least just bumped up the OT time to 10 minutes then had a SO since I doubt they'll drop that.

That would be a fair compromise:

- a single, 10 minute O/T
- you win, you get 2 points
- you lose, you get 0 points
- no one wins, its goes to a shootout, winner gets 2 points and loser gets 1 point

I like it!

 

[Kave_Man]

That would be a fair compromise:

- a single, 10 minute O/T
- you win, you get 2 points
- you lose, you get 0 points
- no one wins, its goes to a shootout, winner gets 2 points and loser gets 1 point

I like it!

More teams would play just to get to the shootout and get a guaranteed point as opposed to nothing.

 

[Stet]

I think we all agree that shootouts are awful.

And I say that not only because our team has terrible goalies and having to solely rely on them for the win is an idea that keeps me up at night.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

One of my favorite parts of hockey, sadly it is just not the same as it was before, but it's akin to the trench fight in football between the lines, It's not the part you always notice, but it's vital to the game.

I'm pretty sure it's been called a "marginal" part of the game here before. Specifically when I brought up players like LeClair. I just don't agree with that, and honestly I think a big part of that has to do with having my ass KICKED by defensemen twice my size and just being impressed by wingers who could take that kind of punishment. It's a completely different type of game, but it's no less impressive and the NHL has virtually killed it.

 

[Solo]

More teams would play just to get to the shootout and get a guaranteed point as opposed to nothing.

10 minutes of 4 on 4 man.....someone will score most of the time on that.

But I'd also be down with shootout loser getting 0 points.

 

[FOOTE]

That would be a fair compromise:

- a single, 10 minute O/T
- you win, you get 2 points
- you lose, you get 0 points
- no one wins, its goes to a shootout, winner gets 2 points and loser gets 1 point

I like it!

5 on 5? Or 4 on 4?

Edit- I saw.

 

[Revenant]

3 points for regulation
2 or SO win
1 for SO loss

hell why not at this point.

 

[Solo]

5 on 5? Or 4 on 4?

4 on 4. Better chance for a goal, more open and exciting, etc.

 

[Socreges]

See my edit.

Hah. Yet you left in the "obnoxious" part. Just FYI I wasn't the only one who took your post as old/new school point, so I don't get why you were so offended. Just be more clear from the get-go then.

And that has EVERYTHING to do with which era had "superior quality" hockey (which is completely subjective). How a person was raised into the game is going to affect how they answer the question. I was raised being taught that the guy in the slot is going to get THE SHIT kicked out of him by the defenseman. That was always a really impressive part of the game to me. It is virtually gone.

No, I'm not saying that playing the game won't affect how you see it. I'm saying that being told "Don't skate with your head down" won't affect which era you believe is superior since that's an important element in both eras (Jakub? You hearing this?) AND any hockey fan knows that anyhow. Apparently you think that these things can only be learned from coaches.

 

[Kave_Man]

I think we all agree that shootouts are awful.

And I say that not only because our team has terrible goalies and having to solely rely on them for the win is an idea that keeps me up at night.

I don't like shootouts but I don't hate them. I say this more thinking of it in the heat of the moment. If I had my way shootouts would be gone but I don't think to myself in a highly competitive regular season game that goes to a shootout "geez what a horrible way to end this game". I'm thinking more the lines of "please score!"

I still await the day a shootout goes 18+ rounds and the goalies are forced to shoot. I don't even know if that's possible rules wise but I don't care.

10 minutes of 4 on 4 man.....someone will score most of the time on that.

But I'd also be down with shootout loser getting 0 points.

I agree with you but just saying give these coaches enough time and they'll find a way to stall for 10 minutes just to get a guaranteed point even if it was 3 on 3.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Hah. Yet you left in the "obnoxious" part. Just FYI I wasn't the only one who took your post as old/new school point, so I don't get why you were so offended. Just be more clear from the get-go then.

No, I'm not saying that playing the game won't affect how you see it. I'm saying that being told "Don't skate with your head down" won't affect which era you believe is superior since that's an important element in both eras (Jakub? You hearing this?) AND any hockey fan knows that anyhow. Apparently you think that these things can only be learned from coaches.

It's not so much "learned from coaches." I'm absolutely talking about playing affecting how you see it. My most vivid memories though are from jumping on the bench after getting rocked and getting reamed for having my head down. My point is I never saw what the other guy did as wrong. And like I mentioned before I've always been impressed with guys who could take a beating in front of the net. A lot of people have similar experiences. Then NHL has completely devalued that style of play through rule changes, and it is a completely legitimate preference to have. I just think you're gonna find that preference from people who have experience with it because it makes it easier to appreciate. Watching a big winger get his ass in the goalie's face while Chris Pronger tries to end his life in between the two doesn't look all that impressive until you realize how much that fucking hurts. The pretty "deke" shit is actually way more common to see when you're growing up cuz everyone tries to be able to do fancy stuff for fun.

 

[Socreges]

But I'd also be down with shootout loser getting 0 points.

Doesn't that just give even more power to the team that performs better in the shootout? I don't like it.

KHL has the right idea with the 3-point win. But I think the NHL is too 'purist' in its vision to make such a drastic change.

 

[Revenant]

Doesn't that just give even more power to the team that performs better in the shootout? I don't like it.

KHL has the right idea with the 3-point win. But I think the NHL is too 'purist' in its vision to make such a drastic change.

get your commie ideas out of here.

Spoiler

its worth a look

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Doesn't that just give even more power to the team that performs better in the shootout? I don't like it.

KHL has the right idea with the 3-point win. But I think the NHL is too 'purist' in its vision to make such a drastic change.

Well it's part "purism" and part, "It COMPLETELY fucks up any comparison with historical records as opposed to the somewhat applicable comparisons we can make now without people calling us out on it."

 

[Solo]

Well, I also like Revenant's proposal, which would be easily implemented into the current game:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT or shootout win
1 point - OT or shootout loss
0 points - regulation loss

 

[Revenant]

It's not so much "learned from coaches." I'm absolutely talking about playing affecting how you see it. My most vivid memories though are from jumping on the bench after getting rocked and getting reamed for having my head down. My point is I never saw what the other guy did as wrong. And like I mentioned before I've always been impressed with guys who could take a beating in front of the net. A lot of people have similar experiences. Then NHL has completely devalued that style of play through rule changes, and it is a completely legitimate preference to have. I just think you're gonna find that preference from people who have experience with it because it makes it easier to appreciate. Watching a big winger get his ass in the goalie's face while Chris Pronger tries to end his life in between the two doesn't look all that impressive until you realize how much that fucking hurts. The pretty "deke" shit is actually way more common to see when you're growing up cuz everyone tries to be able to do fancy stuff for fun.

The thing is net battles don't appeal to all, fancy dekes do. Watching a guy take 3 crosschecks and a slash to the leg isn't always as noticeable as the guy making some d man look absolutely foolish. I'd argue net battles are one of the things I missed most post-lockout. I feel like they've gotten a bit more lenient on them as the years have gone by though.

and the great thing is playoff hockey now reverts to some of the old school style and it mixes wonderfully with the new to create the most riveting playoffs in sports in my opinion.

 

[Socreges]

get your commie ideas out of here

Ironically, the NHL's system is more 'communist'. More even distribution of points and the 'loser' isn't punished as severely.

Gary Bettman, Marxist ideologue?

Well it's part "purism" and part, "It COMPLETELY fucks up any comparison with historical records as opposed to the somewhat applicable comparisons we can make now without people calling us out on it."

That's what I meant by purism. They'd want to keep that appearance of continuity.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Well, I also like Revenant's proposal, which would be easily implemented into the current game:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT or shootout win
1 point - OT or shootout loss
0 points - regulation loss

I never saw the point of this. If they do anything they should just remove the pity point for OT. I don't really understand why you should get a point from that to begin with.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

The thing is net battles don't appeal to all, fancy dekes do. Watching a guy take 3 crosschecks and a slash to the leg isn't always as noticeable as the guy making some d man look absolutely foolish. I'd argue net battles are one of the things I missed most post-lockout. I feel like they've gotten a bit more lenient on them as the years have gone by though.

That's why I've said I get the broad appeal. I really do. I just feel as if my preferences have been dismissed, as is evidenced by a lot of fans like Soc. I actually see that mindset a lot from a lot of people who are genuine hockey fans and have watched forever, but have never dedicated a significant amount of time to actually playing the sport. I've always assumed it was because they just never had the opportunity to gain appreciation for the nuance that actually ends up saving players a lot of fucking pain. There's nothing wrong with that. I like hail mary passes in football because I think they look cool. I don't really get what makes a "great" linebacker. But I never played football. When I watch with friends who played they will point out shit that looks completely insignificant and rarely gets talked about by broadcasters. That's fine. However, I think the NFL is much more considerate of that "hard nosed" player point of view. Even when they implement rule changes they typically try to gimp them as much as possible and preserve what the other people liked about the game as well. The NHL doesn't do that. It implements broad changes without consideration for other preferences. The funny thing is they claim it's generally in the interest of safety, and if you take into account the prevalence of under-diagnosis back in the day they probably haven't realistically changed much at all.

 

[Solo]

I never saw the point of this. If they do anything they should just remove the pity point for OT.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[Revenant]

Ironically, the NHL's system is more 'communist'. More even distribution of points and the 'loser' isn't punished as severely.

Gary Bettman, Marxist ideologue?

That's what I meant by purism. They'd want to keep that appearance of continuity.

having been studying for a WWII exam the past night and today that inspired a chuckle and then an overwhelming amount of flashback knowledge to the test we just had previously. If i do poorly on this one later today I'm blaming you

 

[Clydefrog]

should be fun to watch Jeff Carter vs Jack Johnson tonight

 

[Socreges]

It's not so much "learned from coaches." I'm absolutely talking about playing affecting how you see it. My most vivid memories though are from jumping on the bench after getting rocked and getting reamed for having my head down. My point is I never saw what the other guy did as wrong. And like I mentioned before I've always been impressed with guys who could take a beating in front of the net. A lot of people have similar experiences. Then NHL has completely devalued that style of play through rule changes, and it is a completely legitimate preference to have. I just think you're gonna find that preference from people who have experience with it because it makes it easier to appreciate. Watching a big winger get his ass in the goalie's face while Chris Pronger tries to end his life in between the two doesn't look all that impressive until you realize how much that fucking hurts. The pretty "deke" shit is actually way more common to see when you're growing up cuz everyone tries to be able to do fancy stuff for fun.

Anyway, we could reduce NHL-GAF to longtime fans who've grown up playing some hockey and I think you'd still be the only person who preferred pre-lockout hockey. I truly do think you hold a unique opinion, regardless of background, though it might have more to do with you being a Flyers fan honestly (?).

having been studying for a WWII exam the past night and today that inspired a chuckle and then an overwhelming amount of flashback knowledge to the test we just had previously. If i do poorly on this one later today I'm blaming you

My bad. Gary Bettman, totalitarian sympathizer?

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Anyway, we could reduce NHL-GAF to longtime fans who've grown up playing some hockey and I think you'd still be the only person who preferred pre-lockout hockey. I truly do think you hold a unique opinion, regardless of background, though it might have more to do with you being a Flyers fan honestly (?).

Not a ridiculous explanation either. I also know Devils fans who liked the old game better... :lol

EDIT: Also keep in mind the type of players I like. I wasn't a big Richards fan for his offensive play, and Couturier isn't exactly a goal scoring machine. Also, you Nucks fans don't give Kesler anywhere near enough credit. To me he's BY FAR your most valuable asset.