HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Less padding = more production

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2013, 01:18 PM
  #76
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
That is such an ignorant statement. Quite frankly, just from that I know you have never played a lick of goaltending in your life. All the hockey players that I know who have tried goaltending realizes the degree of difficulty involved in a simple butterfly save.

There's so much more to a butterfly save than just "sitting on your knees".
Goaltending has changed so much that goalies rarely have to react to make a save, most of the time they are in good enough position to let the puck hit them. I'm not taking a shot at goalies. If they were not so good it wouldn't be an issue. New era goalies are crazy athletic and have great technique and play the angles well. That's why we can't let them have all that extra "protection".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
Once you go into your butterfly, you have to have the ability to go side to side in your recoveries and go post to post in a blink of an eye. You have to have great footwork and body control to do something like that. Further, the amount of work that is put in by a goalie to develop the flexibility needed for a wide butterfly is nuts. Just because Carey Price and Cory Schneider make it look so effortless and easy doesn't mean it is so. If it was so easy then you should be about to just sub in any AHL goalies and have him perform well in the NHL.
I don't think a goalie should be allowed to take away the whole bottom of the net with a wide butterfly. If a goalie doesn't have to challenge to take away the net then you don't see as many exciting recovery saves or reaction saves.

I don't know why you're accusing me of saying it was easy, I didn't. I said it wasn't exciting. It isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
That is because the shoulder padding is angled in a way so that the puck can deflects off the goalie's shoulder rather than transferring brunt of the energy force on the goalie himself. Its the exact same concept that goes into building a goalie mask.
6 inches above the collarbone would mean that the padding sits so high that its level with the goalie's nose when the goalie is in a relaxed position. It might appear that way in some photos of goalies who are in their stances and butterflies, but that's because goalies are taught to bring up their shoulders during those instances to cover up more space. So their shoulders are sitting higher by quite few inches to begin with.

I challenge you to find me a picture of a goalie standing up that has his shoulder/collar padding all the way up to his nose when he is standing upright.


Jose Theodore is a 170 pound man. Are you going to argue that chest protector is all for protection? I may have exaggerated, like you when you said there was no difference, but it's quite obvious what is happening.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
As a matter of fact, both the chest protector and the pants do have protection on the back. The chest protector has spinal padding and the goalie pants have protection all the way around your body including padding for kidneys. You should go to a hockey shop and take a look at goalie pants on the market.
I wasn't talking about pants, I was talking about chest protectors. Pants are another issue. You've turned this into a personal attack on goalies, which it was never intended to be. There is an issue with goalie equipment whether you want to admit it or not.

I think it's quite funny that I've been called delusional and a out to lunch when the idea actually came from NHL GM's. The arrogance around here can be quite funny.


Last edited by Scurr: 02-12-2013 at 01:31 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 01:27 PM
  #77
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 23,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Jose Theodore is a 170 pound man. Are you going to argue that chest protector is all for protection?
Chest protector discussion starts and ends with Ryan Miller.




Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 01:37 PM
  #78
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,495
vCash: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizeman View Post
Do you know how full of crap your photos are. You purposefully 'picked' the photos to enhance dryden and find one where todays goalie looks small.

You type Ken Dryden into the search bar and thats the ONLY photo you can come up with ? Brodeurs photo is the ONLY one for todays goalies obvious cheating?

Let me help you out. See how much net the 6 ft 4 dryden takes up!!!!!!
You posted an old picture of Ken Dryden and basically said 'look how much net Stamkos would have to shoot at!' But as others have been talking about the amount of net you can see is more a matter of his stance and his positioning. Legs straight, bent over at the waist, and standing on the goal line.

Going along the lines of 'how much net could Stamkos have to shoot at', here's Lundqvist in a similar position:



And how about Quick:



Tons of space for Stamkos to shoot at! For additional comparison, here's a photo of old timer Glen Hall taking a more modern goaltending stance:



Still more room to shoot than you'd get today, but he still isn't doing it quite right and he's squaring up to a shooter to the left of the photographer, so the picture doesn't accurately show all the space he's covering.

Point is, while goaltending equipment size has increased the biggest factor in taking away room to shoot at is the modern goalies skating ability. Like if you watch some video's of Messier flying up the wing in the 80's and doing his signature snipe, pay close attention to where the goalies are (hint: they're much farther back in the net). This is also greatly illustrated by the sumo goalie video above.

It's no longer just a matter of reflexes, to be an elite goalie these days you also have to be able to skate and read the play at an elite level.

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 01:58 PM
  #79
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
IMO it's not just about equipment size.

If goalies went to old-style masks, I very much doubt anybody would be playing butterfly style, it would be facial suicide. If goalies went to, say, 60's era padding tech, I'd say it's equally likely that goalies would not be playing a "just let the puck hit me" positional style (at least not for very long!)

Therefore, it seems to me very clear that there is a direct link between playing techniques and equipment changes. These changes in playing techniques are clearly superior to what was done, say, 30 years ago. But simply calling it "better technique" isn't, IMO, accurately describing what has happened, as it is changes in protective gear that actually enabled the technique changes.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:18 PM
  #80
LuckyDay
Registered User
 
LuckyDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Uncanny Valley
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
ah good. I was going to mention Glenn Hall with no helmet and his invention of the butterfly

let me add the original "stick the fat guy in net and tell him to never come out"



tretiak.

I used to see Steve (not Kevin) Weekes and John Garret just squat there and let the puck go behind the net for the D to pick up. This changed with Ron Hextall and the Flyer when they made a system out of it. After that forwards had to forecheck the goalie or when they dumped and chased they had to send it high.

Quinn let Weekes go because he felt MacLean was his rising star even though his GAA was lower because he said MacLean had more wins. The offense he generated was the new thing.

It was Gump Worsely who showed with the two pad stack that you can save more goals by defending low.

Jacques Plantes who had the guts and the clout to put the mask on permanently (because of curved sticks) brought huge innovation to the position.

With Roy not only did he prove the butterfly was the way to go but he brought in the oversized equipment. Few people point out that it forced the teams he played on to hover around him as he couldn't smother the puck.

Nabakov thought it was a dumb idea to tuck your shirt in. Now when pucks hit the chest they flop instead of rebounding to the slot.

Hasek returned to the idea that a goalie's first job was to stop the puck and did everything he could to do that coming up with his innovations along the way.

Finally there are new defensive systems. The Russians copied other sports by playing 5 man units and since Bobby Orr the D man could be key to the offense going up the ice (Hextall became this). Break out plays became critical rather than just dumping it down the sides out to center.

And since Roy there started to be more focus on having a guy who's central job was to clear the puck in front of the goalie. This became two and now we see up to five.

The game has changed. Goaltending - and hockey - from back in the day looks stupid to me now. People can long for the original 6 teams but the types of play were stagnant for years.

And let's not forget the removal of fixed posts for magnetic then plastic guards. We may not have guys like Mark Howe ending their careers anymore but forwards aren't afraid of goalies or their nets now.

I'm not a fan of oversize equipment but I think undersize equipment is stupid now. In fact, I can barely watch a rerun of an old game.

I really don't like composite sticks - any sort of spring action would make it illegal if it were golf - but they go a long way to improving scoring. The forwards have innovated too. Are Crosby, Malkin or the Sedins any less exciting to watch in this era?

LuckyDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:35 PM
  #81
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
That's why we can't let them have all that extra "protection".
Problem is, even with all that padding goalies still get hurt on some shots if it hits at the right spot.

Marc Andre Fleury broke his fingers from a shot to his glove hand during practice.

Theres a video of Mike Smith injuring his arm from a one timer slap shot, I can't find it but it was recent, happened only a couple years ago. After the shot he could barely move his left arm.


Quote:
I don't think a goalie should be allowed to take away the whole bottom of the net with a wide butterfly. If a goalie doesn't have to challenge to take away the net then you don't see as many exciting recovery saves or reaction saves.

I don't know why you're accusing me of saying it was easy, I didn't. I said it wasn't exciting. It isn't.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. That said, a wide butterfly has nothing to do with the pads... even if you make goalies wear the old style pads they could still cover most of the bottom area simply because they spend so much time and effort working on hip/knee flexibility.

Reducing pad size won't help this situation because goalies will still find it the most effective way to stop pucks. You'd have to ban the butterfly save selection altogether.


Quote:


Jose Theodore is a 170 pound man. Are you going to argue that chest protector is all for protection? I may have exaggerated, like you when you said there was no difference, but it's quite obvious what is happening.
Actually with Theodore, that looks like the chest protector fits him just right. I would definitely say that is all for protection. Tiranis's picture of Miller is a bit over the edge though I agree.

Despite what you said about the shoulder floaters being too big. Goalies are still getting hurt from collar bone shots. Look at this





If you look at the picture of Mrazek's chest protector (keep in mind that its riding up in the photo and will sit down when the jersey is put on and tied down). You can see how beefed up his equipment is compared to retail model of the Vaughn 9500.

The black piece underneath his shoulder deflector, and the white piece on the side of the elbow, are all extra pieces that are modded in because the regular model doesn't protect well enough. Trust me, I have had that same model in the past and I have gotten hurt at those spots before.

Goalies are actually adding additional pieces to their standard chest protector to not get hurt


Last edited by Hank4Hart: 02-12-2013 at 02:46 PM.
Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 03:06 PM
  #82
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
Problem is, even with all that padding goalies still get hurt on some shots if it hits at the right spot.

Marc Andre Fleury broke his fingers from a shot to his glove hand during practice.

Theres a video of Mike Smith injuring his arm from a one timer slap shot, I can't find it but it was recent, happened only a couple years ago. After the shot he could barely move his left arm.
I'm not arguing that we should take away padding in those spots. A glove that is the same width in the wrist as it is in the hand is not for more protection. A chest protector that makes a 170 pound man look like a blimp is not for protection.

I don't see a big problem with goalies getting bruises. They always have and likely always will. Ideally they wouldn't, I'm all for protecting them as much as possible, but that doesn't mean they need to be that big. They don't. I'm not advocating sweeping changes in goaltending equipment, I'm saying that a slow and methodical erosion of goaltending equipment should start now. As technology gets better we should be able to get away with less bulk not more.

I'm also not saying this will solve all the NHL's problems. I tend to agree with

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Nobody argued otherwise.

IMO equipment, systems and technique each contribute approximately a third to improved goaltending performance.
The numbers are pulled out of the air but I think are reasonable. Excessive padding has changed systems and technique as well imo. Smaller goalies will make them be more athletic and open up the scoring area that coaches have to account for. That makes for more exciting saves and more room for skilled players to work. Sounds good to me.


Last edited by Scurr: 02-12-2013 at 03:12 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 03:55 PM
  #83
Wizeman*
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,622
vCash: 500
You can make an argument out of anything.

The key is that every time they put up photos of todays goalies vs yesteryear, they always find the ones where the camera angle and goalie are standing on the goal line.

They take the old goalies from a very sharp angle so the net is 2 1/2 ft wide, and way out of his crease to cut down the angle even more.

How about you take an EXACT picture of an old goalie standing on his goal line directing straight on so the goal is 6ft wide. THEN compare it to todays goalies standing in the same spot.

By the way they have to be roughly the same size too. No 5ft 9 goalies now vs 6ft 4 goalies then.

I guarantee you the difference in the size in equipment is obnoxious.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 04:16 PM
  #84
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Wait - why shouldn't goalies get bruises? Seems to me that's like arguing forwards shouldn't get bruises from being hit by defensemen.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 05:21 PM
  #85
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,286
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post

The numbers are pulled out of the air but I think are reasonable. Excessive padding has changed systems and technique as well imo. Smaller goalies will make them be more athletic and open up the scoring area that coaches have to account for. That makes for more exciting saves and more room for skilled players to work. Sounds good to me.

Smaller goalies via equipment or larger goals, it equals the same thing which is more net and more reaction saves and less pong. The only difference is goalie safety.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 07:15 PM
  #86
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm not arguing that we should take away padding in those spots. A glove that is the same width in the wrist as it is in the hand is not for more protection. A chest protector that makes a 170 pound man look like a blimp is not for protection.
But you have to take into consideration that the glove moves up and down on your hand, if you have the cuff protection being measured to the exact width of the goalie's wrist. The goalie would be exposing his wrist for injury as soon as moves his hand's angle. The purpose of having the cuff the way it is today is so that you can move your hand (not the wrist) up and down without exposing your wrist.

Where do you suggest that the chest protector can be reduced in size? Looking at Mrazek's gear I honestly can tell you taking any piece of foam from that equipment will do some major compromise in the goalie's safety.



Quote:
I'm not advocating sweeping changes in goaltending equipment, I'm saying that a slow and methodical erosion of goaltending equipment should start now. As technology gets better we should be able to get away with less bulk not more.
as long as the technology is there, i definitely agree with that. but quite frankly there hasn't been any significant advances in a while and likely won't be any time soon.

Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 07:15 PM
  #87
Stefan It Up
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,166
vCash: 500
As a goalie, all you arm-chair NHL commissioners should know that it's the butterfly-style of goaltending, and not the equipment that's had a bigger impact on goal scoring. Want to bring scoring up? Ban us goalies from dropping down into the butterfly and watch scoring revert to the early-80's.

Stefan It Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 07:22 PM
  #88
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Wait - why shouldn't goalies get bruises? Seems to me that's like arguing forwards shouldn't get bruises from being hit by defensemen.
I didn't say goalies shouldn't get bruises. Fact is, its going to happen.

My point is that even with the thick padding today, goalies are still getting hurt from shots at a decent rate. By reducing the gear size, they'd be exposed to even more danger, which is absolutely unnecessary.

It makes no sense to compromise the safety of goalies in order to make the game more exciting when you can just make the nets bigger. That way, goalies have to be more mobile and play less of a blocking style, but they will still be adequately protected.

Over the last 20 years the gear for forwards and defencemen have gotten much bigger and thicker as well. In fact, I'd argue that the improvement in gear for skaters have as much to do with the decreased scoring as the change in goalie gear. With the thicker and better gear, players are constantly putting their bodies in front of the puck and taking away scoring opportunities by blocking shots.

I suppose by that same logic we should make the players go back to the old Cooper padding since forwards are supposed to be bruised by the defencemen. Plus, you get the bonus of players not blocking shots anymore.

Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 07:29 PM
  #89
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Smaller goalies via equipment or larger goals, it equals the same thing which is more net and more reaction saves and less pong. The only difference is goalie safety.
Thank you. I have no problem with making the nets bigger.

Taking away the goalie's gear and compromising their safety in order to give the forwards an easier time is ludicrous.

There are only 2 goalies dressed at a time. As a team, if one of your skaters get injured, you have 17 other dressed skaters who can double shift, and after the game you have the entire farm system you can choose to call up. Its different with goalies, if you lower the protectiveness of our gear, we'd be dropping like flies and you'd be calling up your ECHL goalie after 5 games.



@ Scurr, you can argue that the gear has gotten too big, I don't disagree that the chest protector and pants, are in fact taking up a lot of space. However, if you have never trying suiting up as goalie on the ice then I don't think you are not qualified to claim whether each piece of equipment is just for bulk or a necessity for protection.

I used to think the same way as you did, but once I started playing net a few years ago I began to understood just how important every part of the protective gear is.

Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 07:35 PM
  #90
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
It makes no sense to compromise the safety of goalies in order to make the game more exciting when you can just make the nets bigger.
I have no problem with that. A foot bigger in each dimension ought to do it, I think.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 08:39 PM
  #91
TacitEndorsement
Registered User
 
TacitEndorsement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500

Bad angled shot and there's lots of net to look at.

TacitEndorsement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 08:41 PM
  #92
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Look at his eyes. He's not playing a puck that's at camera angle, he's playing a puck that's in the corner.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 08:44 PM
  #93
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 21,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I have no problem with that. A foot bigger in each dimension ought to do it, I think.


Yeah, that's not happening.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 08:58 PM
  #94
Fat Tony
Fire Benning
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Look at his eyes. He's not playing a puck that's at camera angle, he's playing a puck that's in the corner.
He's looking at the blond in the third row. Focus, Lou!

Fat Tony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 08:55 PM
  #95
LuckyDay
Registered User
 
LuckyDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Uncanny Valley
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
I also believe that goalies should be required to have both hands on the stick.

LuckyDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 09:26 PM
  #96
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Smaller goalies via equipment or larger goals, it equals the same thing which is more net and more reaction saves and less pong. The only difference is goalie safety.
I don't like what that does to the record book and I don't think it's necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
But you have to take into consideration that the glove moves up and down on your hand, if you have the cuff protection being measured to the exact width of the goalie's wrist. The goalie would be exposing his wrist for injury as soon as moves his hand's angle. The purpose of having the cuff the way it is today is so that you can move your hand (not the wrist) up and down without exposing your wrist.
Who broke their wrist with the old gloves? Bruises are not injuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
Where do you suggest that the chest protector can be reduced in size? Looking at Mrazek's gear I honestly can tell you taking any piece of foam from that equipment will do some major compromise in the goalie's safety.
A bruise is not a major compromise to safety.

If you need 3 inches of padding around the front then your width after you put pads on should be that plus 6. Some kind of measurement around how big you actually are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
as long as the technology is there, i definitely agree with that. but quite frankly there hasn't been any significant advances in a while and likely won't be any time soon.
Right now there is no need for manufacturers to make gear smaller, in fact there is incentive to keep goalies big.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 09:49 PM
  #97
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 21,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I don't like what that does to the record book and I don't think it's necessary.



Who broke their wrist with the old gloves? Bruises are not injuries.



A bruise is not a major compromise to safety.

If you need 3 inches of padding around the front then your width after you put pads on should be that plus 6. Some kind of measurement around how big you actually are.
I'm sure kids who want to play goal (and their parents) would disagree. You shouldn't have to be ok with being covered in bruises to be a goalie...I think this is a poorly thought out argument.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 10:01 PM
  #98
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Yeah, that's not happening.
World peace ain't happening, either.

Doesn't mean it's the wrong move...

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 10:08 PM
  #99
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 21,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
World peace ain't happening, either.

Doesn't mean it's the wrong move...
Expanding the nets 1'x 1' is a ridiculous idea.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 10:10 PM
  #100
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm sure kids who want to play goal (and their parents) would disagree. You shouldn't have to be ok with being covered in bruises to be a goalie...I think this is a poorly thought out argument.
You have to be ok with being covered in bruises to play hockey. I'm not sure what game you were playing.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.