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
02-15-2013, 10:21 AM
  #126
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,618
vCash: 500
I think the League needs to make the goalie equipment smaller (which can't be as difficult as some suggest), or make the nets bigger.

There just aren't enough goals and scoring chances for my liking. I don't need a bunch of 7-5 games, but some goals/chances off the rush would be nice.

It seems now the only goals that are going in are rebounds and rugby scrums in front of the net.

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 11:38 AM
  #127
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
It seems now the only goals that are going in are rebounds and rugby scrums in front of the net.
Depends on how hard you look. All 3 goals in the last game against Minny were highlight reel worthy.

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 11:49 AM
  #128
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
Depends on how hard you look. All 3 goals in the last game against Minny were highlight reel worthy.
Nice goals still happen, but it seems to me, the vast majority of goals are the result of deflected point shots through a mass of bodies, or four or five hacks at a rebound. Maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that I very rarely see a goalie beaten cleanly. It almost seems like when the puck does go in, it's as much the result of luck as anything else.

A goal like Hodgson scored last season vs Boston used to happen with some regularity, but if a goalie lets that shot in today with any frequency, he'd be playing in the ECHL.

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 12:29 PM
  #129
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
Nice goals still happen, but it seems to me, the vast majority of goals are the result of deflected point shots through a mass of bodies, or four or five hacks at a rebound. Maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that I very rarely see a goalie beaten cleanly. It almost seems like when the puck does go in, it's as much the result of luck as anything else.
That has little to do with a goalie's equipment. Imo, if equipment size is reduced, a lot more of these crash and whack goals will occur than "skill" goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
A goal like Hodgson scored last season vs Boston used to happen with some regularity, but if a goalie lets that shot in today with any frequency, he'd be playing in the ECHL.
I hear that a lot about goalies from younger fans looking at video from the 80s.

People look at the 80s and have a certain perspective regarding it. I remember an Oilers team that was very innovative (on top of their skill). They would intentional draw coincidental minors to get 4-on-4 play. Their line changes were designed around speeding up their transition game. That neutral zone drop pass that Canucks fans are sick of seeing was used extensively by that Oilers team. Skill and tactics is how I believe this "problem" should be solved.

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 12:37 PM
  #130
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,334
vCash: 833
Teams still score on a healthy percentage of scoring chances. Goalies are bigger, sure (and shaving down size safely should be looked at), but players are also bigger, stronger, and have significantly better equipment themselves.

The game just needs more scoring chances. I'd rather see them experiment with ways to open up the game than alter the size of the net.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 12:46 PM
  #131
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
That has little to do with a goalie's equipment. Imo, if equipment size is reduced, a lot more of these crash and whack goals will occur than "skill" goals.
I think, if you reduced the width of goal pads, shrunk the blocker, and reduced the size of the glove, you'd be seeing more pucks sneak into the net off clean shots. The size of goalie gear isn't the sole factor in the reduction of offence from the 80's and early 90's, but it is a factor.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
I hear that a lot about goalies from younger fans looking at video from the 80s. People look at the 80s and have a certain perspective regarding it. I remember an Oilers team that was very innovative (on top of their skill). They would intentional draw coincidental minors to get 4-on-4 play. Their line changes were designed around speeding up their transition game. That neutral zone drop pass that Canucks fans are sick of seeing was used extensively by that Oilers team. Skill and tactics is how I believe this "problem" should be solved.
Well, I'm not sure how "young" I am. I'm 36. I agree with the most of the above, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with having more net to shoot at. A shot from the top of the circle used to be considered a scoring chance. That's not the case now. Yes, goalies are better, but they also take up more of the net.

Now, I'm not suggesting smaller goaltenders or bigger nets is the be all and end all, there are other factors at work that are hurting the amount of offence in the game. Better coaching, better systems, better players are all factors. But in my opinion, having a little more net to shoot at couldn't hurt the entertainment value of the game, could it?

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 04:31 PM
  #132
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Save percentage today is actually higher than before the 2004 lockout when the equipment sizes got reduced.

If it were as simple as reducing goalie gear sizes, you would have seen the save percentage dip instead of going even higher.

Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 04:51 PM
  #133
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
Save percentage today is actually higher than before the 2004 lockout when the equipment sizes got reduced.

If it were as simple as reducing goalie gear sizes, you would have seen the save percentage dip instead of going even higher.
Without looking it up, I'd guess that shot totals have gone up, which would account for a higher save percentage, especially when so few shots actually have a chance of going in.

Also, I'm talking about reducing gear to 80's sizes, not whatever minor tinkering they did back in 2004.

And again, it might not make a huge difference. What's the objection to trying it?

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 05:34 PM
  #134
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
That has little to do with a goalie's equipment. Imo, if equipment size is reduced, a lot more of these crash and whack goals will occur than "skill" goals.



I hear that a lot about goalies from younger fans looking at video from the 80s.

People look at the 80s and have a certain perspective regarding it. I remember an Oilers team that was very innovative (on top of their skill). They would intentional draw coincidental minors to get 4-on-4 play. Their line changes were designed around speeding up their transition game. That neutral zone drop pass that Canucks fans are sick of seeing was used extensively by that Oilers team. Skill and tactics is how I believe this "problem" should be solved.
No.

Fact is the forwards are all blocking shots as well as the D men and NONE of them have these intelligence insulting space suits on . There is no argument from the goalie apologists .on this matter. Its just a fact they are more than willing to IGNORE.

The whole point of the football size shoulder pads, gloves the size of fishing nets, and upper body chest wear the size of Texas is to SHRINK the size of net the player sees coming in to shoot at. Less net means more shots wide or the player chooses to try to pass instead of shooting at all.

The size of the equipment is a joke and this argument that its not bigger is just a joke. You have to be an outright fool to believe it isnt.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 05:44 PM
  #135
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,530
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizeman View Post
No.

Fact is the forwards are all blocking shots as well as the D men and NONE of them have these intelligence insulting space suits on . There is no argument from the goalie apologists .on this matter. Its just a fact they are more than willing to IGNORE.

The whole point of the football size shoulder pads, gloves the size of fishing nets, and upper body chest wear the size of Texas is to SHRINK the size of net the player sees coming in to shoot at. Less net means more shots wide or the player chooses to try to pass instead of shooting at all.

The size of the equipment is a joke and this argument that its not bigger is just a joke. You have to be an outright fool to believe it isnt.
Nobody ever gets injured blocking shots either. No broken feet or hands. Nothing but little bruises like this

Dryden was a freak in day, 6'4"!!! Now 6'4 doesn't even raise an eyebrow. The padding may be bigger but so too are the goalies. Butterfly suits guys with long legs to cover the ground floor and long bodies to cover the height of the net.


Last edited by me2: 02-15-2013 at 07:56 PM.
me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 08:45 PM
  #136
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizeman View Post
The size of the equipment is a joke and this argument that its not bigger is just a joke. You have to be an outright fool to believe it isnt.
Never said equipment wasn't bigger. I just don't think it's a problem.

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 09:41 PM
  #137
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Here is Tim Thomas, Vezina and Conn Smythe winning goaltender.




The guy is wearing a Space Suit
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tim thomas oversized equipment.jpg‎ (442.5 KB, 35 views)

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 09:53 PM
  #138
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Here he is again. I thought we already went through the photo evidence thing.


Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 11:50 AM
  #139
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
That's great, but you choose to make those sacrifices, if you chose to you could probably wear extra protection to save you some punishment. Myself, as a goalie, I'm not interested in taking unnecessary punishment and I'll wear as much protection as possible without impeding my ability to stop pucks. Like I said, I think some gear can be streamlined so its not as bulky but I really don't believe it causes a serious impact on scoring league wide.
I find it hilarious that you're fine with the short and long term effects on a guy getting his lights put out for your entertainment but you're dead against a goalie getting more bruises for more scoring chances/goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Teams still score on a healthy percentage of scoring chances. Goalies are bigger, sure (and shaving down size safely should be looked at), but players are also bigger, stronger, and have significantly better equipment themselves.

The game just needs more scoring chances. I'd rather see them experiment with ways to open up the game than alter the size of the net.
If over the next 5 years we can make small, methodical changes to goalie gear and eventually reduce them by 20% through more streamline gear and better technology it will increase scoring chances by making the area you can score from bigger, teams will have to defend more ice, more shots will be scoring chances and more saves will be entertaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
Save percentage today is actually higher than before the 2004 lockout when the equipment sizes got reduced.

If it were as simple as reducing goalie gear sizes, you would have seen the save percentage dip instead of going even higher.
If you read the article... the changes they wanted to make were nixed by the NHLPA and the changes that came out were marginal.

Also, with the rule changes, the style of defence changed from neutral zone trap to collapse to the net. With blimps in net and 5 defenders in the slot it's pretty hard to score.


Last edited by Scurr: 02-16-2013 at 11:56 AM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 12:47 PM
  #140
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
I think, if you reduced the width of goal pads, shrunk the blocker, and reduced the size of the glove, you'd be seeing more pucks sneak into the net off clean shots. The size of goalie gear isn't the sole factor in the reduction of offence from the 80's and early 90's, but it is a factor.
I don't want to see more shots "sneak in." If you're not going bar down with an absolute laser, you shouldn't be scoring from the top of the circles.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 12:52 PM
  #141
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If you read the article... the changes they wanted to make were nixed by the NHLPA and the changes that came out were marginal.

Also, with the rule changes, the style of defence changed from neutral zone trap to collapse to the net. With blimps in net and 5 defenders in the slot it's pretty hard to score.

Have you seen the size of Garth Snow's pads? Marginal?


Last edited by Hank4Hart: 02-16-2013 at 02:04 PM. Reason: spelling
Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 12:54 PM
  #142
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,658
vCash: 500
Yeah, saying that the changes from before the 04 lockout have been "marginal" is basically equivalent to admitting that your argument isn't grounded in reality.

Also, OMG look at all the net he's showing! This is conclusive evidence that the pads must have been smaller then!!

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 01:20 PM
  #143
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I find it hilarious that you're fine with the short and long term effects on a guy getting his lights put out for your entertainment but you're dead against a goalie getting more bruises for more scoring chances/goals.
I find it hilarious that you think this is a real serious issue that will actually have a significant impact on scoring.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 02:35 PM
  #144
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Yeah, saying that the changes from before the 04 lockout have been "marginal" is basically equivalent to admitting that your argument isn't grounded in reality.

Also, OMG look at all the net he's showing! This is conclusive evidence that the pads must have been smaller then!!
Or you could read the article and find out the changes were marginal because the NHLPA nixed a bunch of them.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 02:41 PM
  #145
Linters*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Or you could read the article and find out the changes were marginal because the NHLPA nixed a bunch of them.
The NHLPA nixing something that would put players at risk of getting injured, who'd of thunk it.

Linters* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 02:43 PM
  #146
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linters View Post
The NHLPA nixing something that would put players at risk of getting injured, who'd of thunk it.
Bruises are not injuries.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 03:08 PM
  #147
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Or you could read the article and find out the changes were marginal because the NHLPA nixed a bunch of them.
Except the changes weren't marginal. Look at guys from the height of the dead puck era compared to now. It's a massive change. Pad width is smaller now than it was in 1990. I believe they started regulating length of thigh rises, they changed the configuration of knee blocks, they set up rules on the pants and sweaters, if I remember correctly, and changed gloves and blockers. I believe blockers are currently smaller than at any time in recent memory.


Actually, ****, let's just do this correctly, since you apparently are the authority on such things:

What were the specific rule changes regarding goaltender equipment coming out of the last lockout, and since then?

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 03:10 PM
  #148
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Except the changes weren't marginal. Look at guys from the height of the dead puck era compared to now. It's a massive change. Pad width is smaller now than it was in 1990. I believe they started regulating length of thigh rises, they changed the configuration of knee blocks, they set up rules on the pants and sweaters, if I remember correctly, and changed gloves and blockers. I believe blockers are currently smaller than at any time in recent memory.


Actually, ****, let's just do this correctly, since you apparently are the authority on such things:

What were the specific rule changes regarding goaltender equipment coming out of the last lockout, and since then?
I'm not the authority... I just read the article. You could do the same...

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 03:11 PM
  #149
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Bruises are not injuries.
What are you even talking about? The concern with leg pads was largely with repetitive motion knee and hip damage from the proposed pad configuration making guys' knees drop lower in a butterfly.

The impact injury concerns come up when people talk about CA and sometimes thigh rises.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 03:12 PM
  #150
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm not the authority... I just read the article. You could do the same...
The article says nothing. You're the one claiming that the changes were marginal. So what, specifically, were the changes?

RobertKron 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 02:31 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.