HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

GMs to discuss size of goalie equipment

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2013, 11:29 AM
  #76
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
These are both radical departures from traditional hockey. Something that may not be a welcome change. I certainly don't want to see nets widened. There's even more beauty to a well executed play nowadays, and scoring still remains higher than the dead puck era.
Giant goalie gear was a radical departure from traditional hockey. As many others have said, there has never been less "beauty" to goals than there is now - just guys firing it at the net and hoping it bounces off 17 players and past the goalie.

And scoring is reaching dead-puck territory. It's been down every year for 4 or 5 seasons now.

Tough Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 11:34 AM
  #77
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
I don't see the problem with +2 inches. The bigger the thigh rise gets the more it becomes a disadvantage. Most goalies I know use +1 very few use +2. Partly due to the bigger it gets the harder it is for goalies to skate especially the younger ones. I only use +2 because my legs are the longest part of my body so I need the extra 2 inches to close off the five hole.

There's balance with equipment and goalies young and old are finding that balance. NHL goalies are perfecting that balance. There's still a five-hole, its just being more effectively shut down which is the point of the butterfly. You'll never see anyone with +3's and +2's only work if the goalie has long legs. Give a goalie with short legs +2 and they aren't moving anywhere fast whether it be side to side or up and down.
Okay I'll ask you directly this time: What's the point of a +2, or a +1 for that matter. What purpose do those extra 1 or 2 inches serve? I played with a +2 through my NCAA career, btw.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 11:46 AM
  #78
Gigantor The Goalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New London
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
What's the point of a +2, or a +1 for that matter. What purpose do those extra 1 or 2 inches serve?
I'll give you an example. I wear 36"+2 Simmons Matrix 3 pads. I stand at 6' 3" at least, my legs make up most of that height. I need to wear 36" pads due to the knee pad placement on them. If it were just a regular 36" pad it would just reach the bottom of my pants and be difficult for me to close my five-hole. With the added +2 I ensure that no pucks sneak by my pad and pants and nail me in the thigh. With the added +2 I can also close my five-hole properly while taking advantage of my leg length. Even with the +2 my pads are not near my waist which seems to be what many are afraid of.

+1 just help shorter goalies close that five easier without exposing their thigh in the butterfly. When I wore Heaton's or McKenzie's I believe is what they were called, whenever I went down into my butterfly my thighs would be partially exposed. That's because they were not butterfly pads and now butterfly pads usually contain the +1 or +2 depending on the size of the goalie.

Gigantor The Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 11:50 AM
  #79
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
I'll give you an example. I wear 36"+2 Simmons Matrix 3 pads. I stand at 6' 3" at least, my legs make up most of that height. I need to wear 36" pads due to the knee pad placement on them. If it were just a regular 36" pad it would just reach the bottom of my pants and be difficult for me to close my five-hole. With the added +2 I ensure that no pucks sneak by my pad and pants and nail me in the thigh. With the added +2 I can also close my five-hole properly while taking advantage of my leg length. Even with the +2 my pads are not near my waist which seems to be what many are afraid of.

+1 just help shorter goalies close that five easier without exposing their thigh in the butterfly. When I wore Heaton's or McKenzie's I believe is what they were called, whenever I went down into my butterfly my thighs would be partially exposed. That's because they were not butterfly pads and now butterfly pads usually contain the +1 or +2 depending on the size of the goalie.
If you support thigh rises, then you support the notion that aspects of goalie equipment that serve no protective purposes and are designed solely for the purpose taking away net are okay. I guess that's where you and I disagree, which is fine.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:04 PM
  #80
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I think the simplest solution is to increase the size of the nets. It just makes sense the goalies now are bigger and even the minimum size needed to keep the goalie safe has just naturally increased. To get the same effect as reducing the size of a goalies equipment you'd only need to increase the nets slightly, probably a couple inches taller and maybe an inch on either side. I dont see any reasonable arguement against increasing the size, it's one based entirely on tradition.
I was at the Ricoh rookie tournament in 2006 when the NHL experimented with the bigger nets. These ones were 8" wider and 6" higher IIRC. So that means 80"x54" instead of 72"x48". Or 4320 vs. 3456 square inches. That's actually a pretty significant increase, like 25%. I remember thinking that it still wasn't that visually striking from an audience perspective, however. And scoring didn't go through the roof. I think the round-robin Carey Price vs. Justin Pogge game was 6-5. There were some other lower scoring games. I don't remember if the bigger nets were in all the games.

Of course, this is a notch below NHL calibre shooters, but also young goalies. I vaguely recall Pogge critiquing the nets in the news afterwards, but I think you really have to expect that from goalies. Obviously the extra 6 inches over the shoulders if you're playing butterfly and the angles are all going to be messed up for them. Goalies adjust to the different ice dimensions and angles in international play, though, on very short notice. Less of an adjustment than have an extra 8 inches of net exposed beside you, but still.

I think if you could wave a magic wand and change all the hockey nets everywhere in the world automatically to bigger ones, it'd be an easy and relatively harmless solution. But the logistics of the trickle down effect would otherwise make it a very difficult move. And you couldn't just keep changing it, like 1 or 2 inches this year, 1 or 2 more in 10 years when we reach the same problem again, etc.

Change the fan perception instead. There's nothing wrong with a 2-1 hockey game. They haven't been talking about increasing soccer net sizes to get away from all those 1-0 scores.

The main focus shouldn't be on goals anyway. It should be on the flow of the game. Something all scrappy and ugly like the Habs-Rangers game last night isn't all that fun to watch, whether the score is 1-0 or 3-1 or 5-3. Players are bigger and faster and cut off the lanes and close the gaps so much better now, and are coached to pay attention to detail, take the short shifts to have more energy, etc, etc... the focus on "improving the game" should be more wide-reaching than "get more pucks in the net".

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:10 PM
  #81
Gigantor The Goalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New London
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I was at the Ricoh rookie tournament in 2006 when the NHL experimented with the bigger nets. These ones were 8" wider and 6" higher IIRC. So that means 80"x54" instead of 72"x48". Or 4320 vs. 3456 square inches. That's actually a pretty significant increase, like 25%. I remember thinking that it still wasn't that visually striking from an audience perspective, however. And scoring didn't go through the roof. I think the round-robin Carey Price vs. Justin Pogge game was 6-5. There were some other lower scoring games. I don't remember if the bigger nets were in all the games.

Of course, this is a notch below NHL calibre shooters, but also young goalies. I vaguely recall Pogge critiquing the nets in the news afterwards, but I think you really have to expect that from goalies. Obviously the extra 6 inches over the shoulders if you're playing butterfly and the angles are all going to be messed up for them. Goalies adjust to the different ice dimensions and angles in international play, though, on very short notice. Less of an adjustment than have an extra 8 inches of net exposed beside you, but still.

I think if you could wave a magic wand and change all the hockey nets everywhere in the world automatically to bigger ones, it'd be an easy and relatively harmless solution. But the logistics of the trickle down effect would otherwise make it a very difficult move. And you couldn't just keep changing it, like 1 or 2 inches this year, 1 or 2 more in 10 years when we reach the same problem again, etc.

Change the fan perception instead. There's nothing wrong with a 2-1 hockey game. They haven't been talking about increasing soccer net sizes to get away from all those 1-0 scores.

The main focus shouldn't be on goals anyway. It should be on the flow of the game. Something all scrappy and ugly like the Habs-Rangers game last night isn't all that fun to watch, whether the score is 1-0 or 3-1 or 5-3. Players are bigger and faster and cut off the lanes and close the gaps so much better now, and are coached to pay attention to detail, take the short shifts to have more energy, etc, etc... the focus on "improving the game" should be more wide-reaching than "get more pucks in the net".
Thank you.

Gigantor The Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:16 PM
  #82
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I was at the Ricoh rookie tournament in 2006 when the NHL experimented with the bigger nets. These ones were 8" wider and 6" higher IIRC. So that means 80"x54" instead of 72"x48". Or 4320 vs. 3456 square inches. That's actually a pretty significant increase, like 25%. I remember thinking that it still wasn't that visually striking from an audience perspective, however. And scoring didn't go through the roof. I think the round-robin Carey Price vs. Justin Pogge game was 6-5. There were some other lower scoring games. I don't remember if the bigger nets were in all the games.

Of course, this is a notch below NHL calibre shooters, but also young goalies. I vaguely recall Pogge critiquing the nets in the news afterwards, but I think you really have to expect that from goalies. Obviously the extra 6 inches over the shoulders if you're playing butterfly and the angles are all going to be messed up for them. Goalies adjust to the different ice dimensions and angles in international play, though, on very short notice. Less of an adjustment than have an extra 8 inches of net exposed beside you, but still.

I think if you could wave a magic wand and change all the hockey nets everywhere in the world automatically to bigger ones, it'd be an easy and relatively harmless solution. But the logistics of the trickle down effect would otherwise make it a very difficult move. And you couldn't just keep changing it, like 1 or 2 inches this year, 1 or 2 more in 10 years when we reach the same problem again, etc.

Change the fan perception instead. There's nothing wrong with a 2-1 hockey game. They haven't been talking about increasing soccer net sizes to get away from all those 1-0 scores.

The main focus shouldn't be on goals anyway. It should be on the flow of the game. Something all scrappy and ugly like the Habs-Rangers game last night isn't all that fun to watch, whether the score is 1-0 or 3-1 or 5-3. Players are bigger and faster and cut off the lanes and close the gaps so much better now, and are coached to pay attention to detail, take the short shifts to have more energy, etc, etc... the focus on "improving the game" should be more wide-reaching than "get more pucks in the net".
The size of the net or goalies has never been the cause of 1-0 soccer games. It's the distance that must be traveled between the nets just to get a shot or reasonable scoring chance.

The focus isn't just more pucks in the net, it's forcing goalies to be more athletic puck stoppers, instead of puck blockers. The biggest proponent in this thread for larger goalie equimpment said it himself. He needs the extra 2 inches on the leg pads to shut down the 5 hole when he goes down in the butterfly, not for protection. Gee, in the "olden days" good goalies used to do that with their stick.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:18 PM
  #83
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
And equipment that allows us to play our style
Totally unfair because every player has to use the same equipment and not change it up to make it work better for them right? Why does our equipment need to hinder us while a players equipment helps them skate faster, stop easier, shoot quicker and shoot more accurately.

When we switched from those heavy useless pillows to these sleek things of beauty, I rejoiced and don't know why other goalies wouldn't. "Oh know now I can stop more pucks and be able to play a full game, I really liked becoming useless in the 3rd", yeah I just don't see too many goalies saying that. And yeah lets use goalies from the 70's to use our example, because you know, goalies never change as time goes on. The butterfly may have started with them but Roy is known as the innovator, perfecting the butterfly and starting something that everyone here hates. Of course since Roy used the butterfly he's just a no name threatening records.
That's like claiming it's unfair to baseball players that corking their bats is illegal. The purpose of goalie pads is to protect from injury, NOT to protect the goal mouth.

Do you really want to use Roy as an example? He was the top goaltender in the NHL when he was still using the old '80s goalie equipment: He didn't need the huge equipment to be the top dog. All he really accomplished by pioneering the jinormous pads was bring comparatively mediocre goaltenders up to near his own level.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:24 PM
  #84
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
And equipment that allows us to play our style
Totally unfair because every player has to use the same equipment and not change it up to make it work better for them right? Why does our equipment need to hinder us while a players equipment helps them skate faster, stop easier, shoot quicker and shoot more accurately.

When we switched from those heavy useless pillows to these sleek things of beauty, I rejoiced and don't know why other goalies wouldn't. "Oh know now I can stop more pucks and be able to play a full game, I really liked becoming useless in the 3rd", yeah I just don't see too many goalies saying that. And yeah lets use goalies from the 70's to use our example, because you know, goalies never change as time goes on. The butterfly may have started with them but Roy is known as the innovator, perfecting the butterfly and starting something that everyone here hates. Of course since Roy used the butterfly he's just a no name threatening records.
Ken Dryden had a great take on this:

"Goalies too have adapted. How do you cover a net that is bigger than you are, when a puck can be shot faster than you can move, and when a skater might be on one side of the ice, or, after a pass an instant later, on the other side? You do what you could have done a few years earlier, but didn't, because you didn't have to. But now you do. You make your equipment bigger. Not your leg pads, there are rules against that, but your gloves, and most particularly your arm and torso pads. You couldn't really do that effectively a few years earlier. The protective padding was made mostly of felt, deer hair, and leather, so adding my size also added prohibitively more weight. But by using lightweight nylon, plastic, and foam, goalies could have size mobility too. There weren't really rules to stop them, and the principle on which equipment had been introduced in sports in the first place years before had been forgotten. Once, equipment had been understood as something to protect the body and allow it to do what a game asked it to do. So, if in rushing up the ice and trying to score, or defend, a puck might incidentlly strike you in the shins, why not be able to wear shin guards, so you can continue to skate and play as if undistracted by what really isn't important? The same for incidental blows to your hands. Why not wear protective gloves? And for the goalie, for whom stopping the puck is not incidental, why not protective leg pads and gloves? The principle, so universally understood as to require no discussion, was that equipment was to protect the body. If that meant, coincidentally, the protected body covered a little more of the net, that was OK. Anything more was unthinkable.

But if by protecting your body, equipment also made you a better goalie, over time it might seem that the real purpose of goalie equipment was to make you a better goalie. And if part of the goalie's approach was to preventing goals meant catching pucks, using a modified glove like forwards wore seemed pretty stupid. Why not a modified first baseman's glove? And if later, those quick, European, change-of-direction passe for a goalie meant the need to move but block just as much, if the goalie had to take away space to shoot at, he needed to take up more space himself. Besides, shot at one hundred miles per hour, even with a well-protected body, the puck hurts. So to a goalie, anything new that he adds to his equipment is arguably for protection. And to a League administrator, a former forward or defenseman, who wouldn't be caught dead playing goal, who doesn't understand goalies, and who by now is so confused by all this, it all seems allowable. In the last ten years, goalies have gone from Gumby-like stick figures to net-protecting objects as big as a house. The principle that the purpose of equipment is to protect the body, not the net, has been forgotten. Who says goalies are crazy?"

Ken Dryden from the 2003 Afterward to "The Game"


Last edited by SaintPatrick33: 02-20-2013 at 12:38 PM.
SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:30 PM
  #85
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Ken Dryden had a great take on this:

"Goalies too have adapted. How do you cover a net that is bigger than you are, when a puck can be shot faster than you can move, and when a skater might be on one side of the ice, or, after a pass an instant later, on the other side? You do what you could have done a few years earlier, but didn't, because you didn't have to. But now you do. You make your equipment bigger. Not your leg pads, there are rules against that, but your gloves, and most particularly your arm and torso pads. You couldn't really do that effectively a few years earlier. The protective padding was made mostly of felt, deer hair, and leather, so adding my size also added prohibitively more weight. But by using lightweight nylon, plastic, and foam, goalies could have size mobility too. There weren't really rules to stop them, and the principle on which equipment had been introduced in sports in the first place years before had been forgotten. Once, equipment had been understood as something to protect the body and allow it to do what a game asked it to do. So, if in rushing up the ice and trying to score, or defend, a puck might incidentlly strike you in the shins, why not be able to wear shin guards, so you can continue to skate and play as if undistracted by what really isn't important? The same for incidental blows to your hands. Why not wear protective gloves? And for the goalie, for whom stopping the puck is not incidental, why not protective leg pads and gloves? The principle, so universally understood as to require no discussion, was that equipment was to protect the body. If that meant, coincidentally, the protected body covered a little more of the net, that was OK. Anything more was unthinkable.

But if by protecting your body, equipment also made you a better goalie, over time it might seem that the real purpose of goalie equipment was to make you a better goalie. And if part of the goalie's approach was to preventing goals meant catching pucks, using a modified glove like forwards wore seemed pretty stupid. Why not a modified first baseman's glove? And if later, those quick, European, change-of-direction passe for a goalie meant the need to move but block just as much, if the goalie had to take away space to shoot at, he needed to take up more space himself. Besides, shot at one hundred miles per hour, even with a well-protected body, the puck hurts. So to a gaolie, anything new that he adds to his equipment is arguably for protection. And to a League administrator, a former forward or defenseman, who wouldn't be caught dead playing goal, who doesn't understand goalies, and who by now is so confused by all this, it all seems allowable. In the last ten years, goalies have gone from Gumby-like stick figures to net-protecting objects as big as a house. The principle that the purpose of equipment is to protect the body, not the net, has been forgotten. Who says goalies are crazy?"

Ken Dryden from the 2003 Afterward to "The Game"
Thank you.

Totally unprotected this brave man made saves on shots from the likes of Bobby Hull.



I guess he wasn't very good though. He was often out of position and had to make exciting saves like this one:



Last edited by KINGS17: 02-20-2013 at 12:38 PM.
KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:37 PM
  #86
Gigantor The Goalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New London
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
That's like claiming it's unfair to baseball players that corking their bats is illegal. The purpose of goalie pads is to protect from injury, NOT to protect the goal mouth.

Do you really want to use Roy as an example? He was the top goaltender in the NHL when he was still using the old '80s goalie equipment: He didn't need the huge equipment to be the top dog. All he really accomplished by pioneering the jinormous pads was bring comparatively mediocre goaltenders up to near his own level.
Protect from injury and stop pucks from entering the net. A players stick doesn't keep them safe, its a tool to help them complete their objective, putting the puck in the net. Goalies need something to help them complete their objective, stop the puck. Roy was in constant contact with Koho on how to make his pads more effective. His pads changed from year to year to conform with his style. And no one is near Roy's level. What goalies are near his level? Only goalies close to Roy are Hasek (who could be said to be right beside him) and Brodeur.

What the butterfly does to is help mediocre young goalies become average. A goalies equipment does not propel them to the top of the NHL goalies list consistently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Ken Dryden had a great take on this:

"Goalies too have adapted. How do you cover a net that is bigger than you are, when a puck can be shot faster than you can move, and when a skater might be on one side of the ice, or, after a pass an instant later, on the other side? You do what you could have done a few years earlier, but didn't, because you didn't have to. But now you do. You make your equipment bigger. Not your leg pads, there are rules against that, but your gloves, and most particularly your arm and torso pads. You couldn't really do that effectively a few years earlier. The protective padding was made mostly of felt, deer hair, and leather, so adding my size also added prohibitively more weight. But by using lightweight nylon, plastic, and foam, goalies could have size mobility too. There weren't really rules to stop them, and the principle on which equipment had been introduced in sports in the first place years before had been forgotten. Once, equipment had been understood as something to protect the body and allow it to do what a game asked it to do. So, if in rushing up the ice and trying to score, or defend, a puck might incidentlly strike you in the shins, why not be able to wear shin guards, so you can continue to skate and play as if undistracted by what really isn't important? The same for incidental blows to your hands. Why not wear protective gloves? And for the goalie, for whom stopping the puck is not incidental, why not protective leg pads and gloves? The principle, so universally understood as to require no discussion, was that equipment was to protect the body. If that meant, coincidentally, the protected body covered a little more of the net, that was OK. Anything more was unthinkable.

But if by protecting your body, equipment also made you a better goalie, over time it might seem that the real purpose of goalie equipment was to make you a better goalie. And if part of the goalie's approach was to preventing goals meant catching pucks, using a modified glove like forwards wore seemed pretty stupid. Why not a modified first baseman's glove? And if later, those quick, European, change-of-direction passe for a goalie meant the need to move but block just as much, if the goalie had to take away space to shoot at, he needed to take up more space himself. Besides, shot at one hundred miles per hour, even with a well-protected body, the puck hurts. So to a gaolie, anything new that he adds to his equipment is arguably for protection. And to a League administrator, a former forward or defenseman, who wouldn't be caught dead playing goal, who doesn't understand goalies, and who by now is so confused by all this, it all seems allowable. In the last ten years, goalies have gone from Gumby-like stick figures to net-protecting objects as big as a house. The principle that the purpose of equipment is to protect the body, not the net, has been forgotten. Who says goalies are crazy?"

Ken Dryden from the 2003 Afterward to "The Game"
You see that bolded year right there? 2003. Yes there was a problem at that time. You know what happened after that? Lockout which caused goalie equipment to be slimmed down making this irrelevant nowadays. I can go back to 19 ancient and find an article as to how a goalie going down to his knees is wrong. Hell there were ex-goalies and current goalies of the time advocating against wearing masks.

I respect Ken Dryden and realize just how good he was. However it has been 10 years where changes have occurred since that was written.

Gigantor The Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:42 PM
  #87
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
I respect Ken Dryden and realize just how good he was. However it has been 10 years where changes have occurred since that was written.
Those "changes" you speak of are merely lip-service and didn't do the job. When I see goaltenders tricked out in equipment the same size of, say, 1986 then I'll say the job was done.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:42 PM
  #88
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,321
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post

I respect Ken Dryden and realize just how good he was. However it has been 10 years where changes have occurred since that was written.
Did the lockout reforms completely undo the unnecessary size increases which add no protection benefit, but serve to block more net space?

Nobody is arguing that they didn't make the pads smaller after the last lockout. The point is, perhaps they didn't do a much as they should/could have.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:51 PM
  #89
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Those "changes" you speak of are merely lip-service and didn't do the job. When I see goaltenders tricked out in equipment the same size of, say, 1986 then I'll say the job was done.
And it would still give them an advantage over 1980's era goaltenders because improved materials provide the same protection, but don't weigh nearly as much.

Now, if you want to go back to wooden sticks that's fine too.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:53 PM
  #90
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
Increase offense not goals, I dunno how making goaltending equipment will lead to a more fun to watch game even if gpg goes up.

It's an artificial way to increase scoring.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:55 PM
  #91
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
And it would still give them an advantage over 1980's era goaltenders because improved materials provide the same protection, but don't weigh nearly as much.

Now, if you want to go back to wooden sticks that's fine too.
Wooden sticks don't bother me. In fact, considering the number of shattered composite sticks I see on the ice damn near every game maybe going back to wood is preferable. Another poster who's used both told me that the difference between the the two is that wooden sticks do break more frequently but when a wooden stick breaks you can finish your shift with it while a composite stick simply disintegrates when broken.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:56 PM
  #92
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kloparren View Post
Increase offense not goals, I dunno how making goaltending equipment will lead to a more fun to watch game even if gpg goes up.

It's an artificial way to increase scoring.
Growing pad size was an artificial way to DECREASE scoring.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:57 PM
  #93
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kloparren View Post
Increase offense not goals, I dunno how making goaltending equipment will lead to a more fun to watch game even if gpg goes up.

It's an artificial way to increase scoring.
Reducing equipment size is going to make shots from wide angles and beyond the dots dangerous again. That alone will force teams to be more aggressive on defense, which will open up the game.

Reducing equipment isn't going to keep status quo with the illusion of more bad goals. It's going to fundamentally change the way teams play on offense and defense.

EDIT: I'm assuming the NHL puts their big boy pants on and reverts back to 70s/80s size equipment but with kevlar, plastic, and foam. I mean jeez, look at the size of Dryden's upper body in that picture. Imagine what Stamkos, Crosby, and Malkin can do against Brian Elliot with that much space.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:00 PM
  #94
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Wooden sticks don't bother me. In fact, considering the number of shattered composite sticks I see on the ice damn near every game maybe going back to wood is preferable. Another poster who's used both told me that the difference between the the two is that wooden sticks do break more frequently but when a wooden stick breaks you can finish your shift with it while a composite stick simply disintegrates when broken.
I agree, good players can still get a lot on a shot with a wooden stick. If that's one of the "concessions" the goalie union needs in order to get them back into normal size equipment then I'm all for it.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:05 PM
  #95
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,321
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I agree, good players can still get a lot on a shot with a wooden stick. If that's one of the "concessions" the goalie union needs in order to get them back into normal size equipment then I'm all for it.
Same here. Goalie pads shouldn't do the goalie's job for him. If goalies want to say the same thing about a shooter's equipment, so be it.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:06 PM
  #96
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 835
vCash: 500
here are the points i take from this thread

- those who think goaltending today are not athletic are not in tune with anything, goalies today train just as hard if not harder and are some of the fit people on the ice. those who also think that probably have never played goal before

- want to know the reason you dont see sprawling saves as much anymore. POSITIONING!!!!! goal tenders have taken positioning to a new level. i believe one poster said sprawling saves indicate you dont have good positioning in net, i 100% agree. positioning is key in hockey, from scoring goals to stopping pucks

- goalies in the 80s didnt face the the kinds of shots today and the speed today of the shots. every player can shoot the puck way harder than they could in the 80s, consistently.

this coupled with faster, stonger players with advanced equipment make it very dangerous to start shrinking protective gear. the chest protector covers which area of the body? of thats right, the portion where ALL you vial organs are. ask goalies today, they still feel shots to the chest and a few still hurt. i am fine with the chest protectors being what they are. as for legs pads, makes absolutely no difference for me. im fine with the way hockey is today, i enjoy the game for its small aspects. goals are just part of it. i also want 50 goals in a season to mean something. not have 20 players reach it every year

hyster110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:10 PM
  #97
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyster110 View Post
here are the points i take from this thread

- those who think goaltending today are not athletic are not in tune with anything, goalies today train just as hard if not harder and are some of the fit people on the ice. those who also think that probably have never played goal before

- want to know the reason you dont see sprawling saves as much anymore. POSITIONING!!!!! goal tenders have taken positioning to a new level. i believe one poster said sprawling saves indicate you dont have good positioning in net, i 100% agree. positioning is key in hockey, from scoring goals to stopping pucks

- goalies in the 80s didnt face the the kinds of shots today and the speed today of the shots. every player can shoot the puck way harder than they could in the 80s, consistently.

this coupled with faster, stonger players with advanced equipment make it very dangerous to start shrinking protective gear. the chest protector covers which area of the body? of thats right, the portion where ALL you vial organs are. ask goalies today, they still feel shots to the chest and a few still hurt. i am fine with the chest protectors being what they are. as for legs pads, makes absolutely no difference for me. im fine with the way hockey is today, i enjoy the game for its small aspects. goals are just part of it. i also want 50 goals in a season to mean something. not have 20 players reach it every year
Never said the goalies today are not more athletic. I want to see more of that athleticism on display when they are playing their position.

Positioning became the most important thing when goalies turned from being puck savers into being puck blockers.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:11 PM
  #98
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Wooden sticks don't bother me. In fact, considering the number of shattered composite sticks I see on the ice damn near every game maybe going back to wood is preferable. Another poster who's used both told me that the difference between the the two is that wooden sticks do break more frequently but when a wooden stick breaks you can finish your shift with it while a composite stick simply disintegrates when broken.
have used both as well,

- you get better performance with a composite
- you get consistent performance from a composite
- you can get a stick with different feature (flex, flex profile, blade stiffness, texture)
- weight

hyster110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:11 PM
  #99
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Never said the goalies today are not more athletic. I want to see more of that athleticism on display when they are playing their position.

Positioning became the most important thing when goalies turned from being puck savers into being puck blockers.
see second part of that post

hyster110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:17 PM
  #100
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
I used to be opposed to increasing the net size. I viewed it as an affront to history and a compromising of every goal scoring record to come before.

I don't feel that way anymore. The goalies are clearly never going to make tangible reductions in their equipment size. The only way to account for their obscenely huge equipment is to increase the size of the net.

Nets should be increased so they are proportional to the increase in goalie equipment. I don't know how to calculate that exactly, but I think a rough estimate is fine.

Make the nets 20% bigger.

Pilky01 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 05:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.