HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Goalies - Past vs Present

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2014, 11:15 PM
  #1
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,606
vCash: 500
Goalies - Past vs Present

First off I'll say that I do not know a lot about goaltending even though I played the position briefly in Pee Wee. I have read a lot of the discussions on this board regarding goaltending and have a question to ask. However, first a general comment about what I've read.

In a thread awhile back there was a lot of criticism about goaltenders from the 70's and 80's and their performance. One particular comment was regarding a goal Guy Lafleur scored on Wayne Stevenson I believe. Lafleur is coming across the blue line going one on one with I believe Bill Daily. He appears to use Daily as a screen and fires a wrist shot that finds the top corner of the net. Stevenson hardly even flinches. The criticism regarding this play and likely others was about how hard Lafleur's wrist shot actually was and Stevenson's apparent lack of effort. I think Lafleur's goal was more or less an occasion of ideal circumstances. A big defenseman who stood up straight and screened Stevenson and a perfectly placed shot by Lafleur.

Now let's fast forward to a game in Montreal the other night involving Carey Price. Montreal won the game I think 2-1, but Price let in what I thought was a weak goal. The shooter received the puck in the slot and before he released the puck, Price appeared to have dropped to his knees. The puck went over his shoulder and in. I was critical of Price, and maybe wrongly so, that he should have waited a fraction of a second longer before reacting. Had he remained tall the shot likely would have hit him in the chest. I have come to the conclusion that this is the style most goalies play these days - take away the bottom of the net. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm wondering if it is more difficult for goalies today to read where the shooter is aiming because of the nature of these composite sticks. It seems to me when I briefly played, a goalie could assess where a shot was going based on how the shooters stick was lying. I have not used a composite stick so I am not aware of their abilities.

Thoughts?

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 12:14 AM
  #2
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Sounds like Stevenson was completely screened but that was one of his weaknesses as a goaltender. He was a big guy and for whatever reason wouldnt get into a really low crouch on a screenshot through a crowd or on a one on one. You have to, you have to be able to see the puck at all times on a stick in particular otherwise that Red Light could go on. Peek through or around legs & sticks. A player like Lafleur wouldve known this about him in advance & if he didnt, saw him standing tall, with a quick release to a corner, had a very good chance of finding net as it was unlikely he could see the puck.

Fast forward; dunno if Price was screened but as you didnt bring it up I'll assume he wasnt. So yes, todays Butterfly goalies drop early on most shots. Not all of them all the time, but an awful lot of them. Once a goalies done that he's committed and getting back up again not exactly an option. The shooter by being patient can just wait him out. He drops into the BF, shooter goes top shelf. The Butterfly was a save option back in the day that Stand-ups did use on scrambles in front & on dekes. In a scramble when the pucks ricocheting around out front & you have lost site of it cover as much of the net as possible until you can spot it again, then react accordingly. On a deke when the guys coming in at you with a clear backhander which you can tell by the lie of the puck on his blade & how hes holding his stick. Backhander the toughest shot to stop so the BF the most effective way to stop it as your basically just creating as much of a wall as is humanly possible. Hope it hits you & or you see it at the last second & can actually make the save.

Todays Goaltenders, the style they play is criticized however, its a style that was developed in reaction to the game being played out in front of them that has evolved considerably over the past 20yrs. Certainly the composites have altered or slanted the ice somewhat. Everyone having a quick release & every shot hard, fast & super heavy. So you saw the redesign of pads to accommodate the BF, blockers with massive sidewalls, catchers seemingly double the size of yesteryears & padded on top to bat & deflect as much as they are to catch & pocket. We still see great saves, but generally, the guys job is blocking. The players in constant cycle requiring the goalie play deeper in the crease, cover the bottom, and better you should be 6'2"+++ so in the BF your upper body & chest also covering the rest of the cage.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 11:09 AM
  #3
11MilesPerJohan
@BeingAHumanBean
 
11MilesPerJohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: McLean Hospital
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
This, to me, is the single most impactful change the game has undergone in recent years. When people wonder why scoring in the NHL is hard to come by, look no further than the evolution of the goaltender.

Not only is the technique completely altered from stand-up goalies to butterfly, but the goaltenders today are bigger, more athletic, and wearing larger equipment, making it difficult for the shooters. You just don't have anymore 5' 6'' Mike Vernons patrolling the pipes, not that he wasn't a great goalie, but you see a guy like Ben Bishop today at 6' 7'' and you wonder how a puck ever gets past him.

To me, these guys with their bigger bodies and bigger pads, and in using the butterfly technique, can effectively take away all of the easy shots from an NHL player. It also doesn't help that they are adept at moving form side to side, sometimes deep in the net, in a crouch position (think J. Quick).

The butterfly is all about taking up as much net as you can, with your body and angles, and making the shooter make a perfect shot to beat you. And that's what it seems to take to beat goalies today: perfect shots, screens, deflections, and the occasional crashing the net for a rebound. Even one-timers on odd-man rushes and in PP situations don't seem like a sure thing anymore because these guys are so quick side to side.

It's really remarkable to watch a game today, and then watch a game even from the early 80s, and see how much the position has changed.

11MilesPerJohan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 12:33 PM
  #4
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,748
vCash: 156
First, I'm no expert; I'm just aimlessly musing here.

When comparing goaltending eras, is size really that important? If you're 6'7" pre-butterfly, would you really be gaining any sort of an advantage over other goalies? They would be just as able to cover the upper part of the net, and the shorter guys might have even had an easier time covering the middle areas.

Whereas if you're a short guy in the butterfly, it's naturally going to be harder for you to cover the upper part of the net compared to a tall goalie...so I think when comparing the two styles, goalie size is negligible compared to the ability to take away those low shots. Goalie size going up is just a result of that style perhaps making it more feasible/more attractive to make the tall kids into goalies instead of another position.

Wouldn't tall guys in the 70s and 80s have been made into Dmen or something? Before the butterfly, based on my mental wanderings here, I would be led to assume that having a tall goalie wasn't necessarily something to seek.

Re-reading this I'm not sure I've finished my point here . I'm not sure how to finish linking this mental train, or even what its destination is supposed to be.

__________________
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
01-03-2014, 12:53 PM
  #5
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,151
vCash: 500
I know exactly what goal you are talking about with Stevenson. He doesn't even move. He's probably screened and this is Lafleur shooting with his hard and accurate shot so he probably saw it as it was flying by his head. We still see this today with a goalie. Sometimes the shot is simply that good that a goalie doesn't even move. Or barely does.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:05 PM
  #6
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
First, I'm no expert; I'm just aimlessly musing here.

When comparing goaltending eras, is size really that important? If you're 6'7" pre-butterfly, would you really be gaining any sort of an advantage over other goalies? They would be just as able to cover the upper part of the net, and the shorter guys might have even had an easier time covering the middle areas.

Whereas if you're a short guy in the butterfly, it's naturally going to be harder for you to cover the upper part of the net compared to a tall goalie...so I think when comparing the two styles, goalie size is negligible compared to the ability to take away those low shots. Goalie size going up is just a result of that style perhaps making it more feasible/more attractive to make the tall kids into goalies instead of another position.

Wouldn't tall guys in the 70s and 80s have been made into Dmen or something? Before the butterfly, based on my mental wanderings here, I would be led to assume that having a tall goalie wasn't necessarily something to seek.

Re-reading this I'm not sure I've finished my point here . I'm not sure how to finish linking this mental train, or even what its destination is supposed to be.
... Depends. Pre-BF you had Hybrid Stand-Up-BF (Roy, Belfour) and before that pure-SU (the last of that kind being Kirk McLean really) though even of late Brodeur & Thomas, a few others still employ some elements of SU. Prior to full-on SU (which was in reaction to the Slapshot & increased speed in the game) you had combination Acrobatic & BF. The BF was a save selection, not a full time style, Glenn Hall mind you more often than not employing it on a semi-full-time basis (and he passing it on to the likes of Roger Crozier & Tony Esposito amongst others).

Back in the day yes, very often when kids started playing the most rotund, smallest or weakest skater would be "stuck" in the net, the bigger guys put on Defence & so on. That however started to change in the late 50's & early 60's when being a Goalie had a certain "caleche" or glamor to it and often the best that followed moved into the crease after starting as forwards or defencemen. Size sometimes but not always a factor. Cesare Maniago was one of the first big goalies but of course he'd toiled in the minors for some time, unable to really crack the starting role during the 06 era. It wasnt until he with Minnesota & Ken Drydens brilliance in 71 that big goalies were really accepted, as it was felt they could be (and often were) easily victimized by low shots. The position was played closer to the ice, on the down low. Being tall considered a disadvantage pre-BF full time. When playing pure-SU, size not all that important as you moved out towards the shooter playing the angle, so be you 5'6" or 6'0 tall, youd simply adjust & just keep moving towards the shooter leaving nothing for him to shoot at. Make yourself "big". Easy peasy. But you had to be able to read the play, was he going to shoot or deke, and you had better be an excellent skater because you might have to retreat to your crease & fast. Stickhandling & shooting also important. Roaming (Plante, Giacomin) and acting as a 3rd Defenceman, transitioning from defence to offence part of your job.

That help?


Last edited by Killion: 01-03-2014 at 01:13 PM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:06 PM
  #7
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,745
vCash: 500
Equipment Weight

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
First, I'm no expert; I'm just aimlessly musing here.

When comparing goaltending eras, is size really that important? If you're 6'7" pre-butterfly, would you really be gaining any sort of an advantage over other goalies? They would be just as able to cover the upper part of the net, and the shorter guys might have even had an easier time covering the middle areas.

Whereas if you're a short guy in the butterfly, it's naturally going to be harder for you to cover the upper part of the net compared to a tall goalie...so I think when comparing the two styles, goalie size is negligible compared to the ability to take away those low shots. Goalie size going up is just a result of that style perhaps making it more feasible/more attractive to make the tall kids into goalies instead of another position.

Wouldn't tall guys in the 70s and 80s have been made into Dmen or something? Before the butterfly, based on my mental wanderings here, I would be led to assume that having a tall goalie wasn't necessarily something to seek.

Re-reading this I'm not sure I've finished my point here . I'm not sure how to finish linking this mental train, or even what its destination is supposed to be.
Overlooked by all, is the sharp drop in goalie equipment weight starting in the early 1990s that made the butterfly feasible especially with the two goalies system.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:19 PM
  #8
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,748
vCash: 156
Yes, Killion, that does help.

I assume the above mentioned improvement in equipment, as well as the average height of goalies rising over the last 2 decades making goalies better able to cover the top of the net while down, are both factors that have gone far towards pushing butterfly to prominence.

Do you guys think if, for whatever weird reason, average goalie size didn't increase, we would see more guys playing a hybrid style, being less able to cover the high areas while down? For example, Thomas does and he's on the shorter side of the modern spectrum.

I mean...obviously that's a pure hypothetical. When BF was made truly feasible by better equipment, there was little reason not to start tailoring goalies to a style that dramatically decreases low goals by grooming taller kids to play the position to minimize the high vulnerabilities.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 01-03-2014 at 01:25 PM. Reason: 2 decades. Not 20. Though I suppose 20 decades makes sense too.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:38 PM
  #9
mbhhofr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Back in the day yes, very often when kids started playing the most rotund, smallest or weakest skater would be "stuck" in the net
Thanks for the memory. I played right wing on our playground hockey team. Eleven years old. I was the smallest player on the team and one game, our goalie couldn't make it. Who to put in goal? Why the smallest guy of course. The pads were almost as tall as I was. I got bombed for eight goals. Strictly stand up.

mbhhofr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:39 PM
  #10
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I mean...obviously that's a pure hypothetical. When BF was made truly feasible by better equipment, there was little reason not to start tailoring goalies to a style that dramatically decreases low goals by grooming taller kids to play the position to minimize the high vulnerabilities.
Yes, and it all goes back really to Quebec, and a father & son team of goalies, Francois & Benoit Allaire. The Quebec School of Goaltending. It goes back a lot earlier of course, Vezina, Jacques Plante & Bernie Parent, Quebec always on the leading edge in producing excellence in Goaltenders & a great source of pride to their hockey programs & rightfully so. Francois Allaire worked with Patrick Roy when he was just 20, helping him adapt aspects of the BF in covering the lower corners of the net as the game out front was evolving, changed forever in 72 when the spectacle of the Soviets cycle game showed everyone how exciting the game could be playing that way, adapted slowly & taught through amateur & Jr, into the NHL. Gretzky & the Oilers, their success & so on.

In reaction, you had to play deeper in the crease. Remember Dryden in 72? He had a lot of problems, big guy, as he played out further, Stand-Up, and with the cycle & more passing, he'd be beaten badly so he adjusted his game & came back with a couple of excellent performances. Kids like Roberto Luongo grew up initially idolizing guys like Grant Fuhr (SU) but after witnessing Roys hybrid act thanks to Allaires schooling they realized, saw the future, attended Allaires camps & clinics in Quebec, learned to play the BF & at the same time, Allaire working with equipment mfgs' in re-designing pads. He used lighter synthetics, redesigning the buckle system in protecting the knees & facilitating the BF position with ease over the old style horsehair & leather jobbies. Roy started using them, and with his success as the pre-eminent goalie in the 80's & 90's much emulated & copied including in Europe. Lundquist & many others adopting same and size mattered. The bigger the better.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:51 PM
  #11
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhhofr View Post
Thanks for the memory. I played right wing on our playground hockey team. Eleven years old. I was the smallest player on the team and one game, our goalie couldn't make it. Who to put in goal? Why the smallest guy of course. The pads were almost as tall as I was. I got bombed for eight goals. Strictly stand up.
You grew up on the frozen steppes of Manitoba no? So I guess playing goal outdoors like that in -470F weather, when all sub atomic matter ceases to move (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale) "stand-up" had a different meaning huh? You were stand-up alright. A frozen stand-up human popsicle stick unable to move even if you wanted to. Hard shot liable to shatter a limb like crystal... I started playing organized hockey when it was outdoors, and no, no way was I playing goal. Not in those temperatures. Played forward to keep warm for several seasons and forever when playing shinny outdoors after taking up the position of goaltending in Pee Wee and then when it was indoors, covered arena. Guess you could call me a softie, dont really care. I like to think I was just smart. I mean, who in their right mind plays goal in sub zero, just standing around waiting for some action? Forget it.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 02:10 PM
  #12
mbhhofr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
You grew up on the frozen steppes of Manitoba no? So I guess playing goal outdoors like that in -470F weather, when all sub atomic matter ceases to move (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale) "stand-up" had a different meaning huh? You were stand-up alright. A frozen stand-up human popsicle stick unable to move even if you wanted to. Hard shot liable to shatter a limb like crystal... I started playing organized hockey when it was outdoors, and no, no way was I playing goal. Not in those temperatures. Played forward to keep warm for several seasons and forever when playing shinny outdoors after taking up the position of goaltending in Pee Wee and then when it was indoors, covered arena. Guess you could call me a softie, dont really care. I like to think I was just smart. I mean, who in their right mind plays goal in sub zero, just standing around waiting for some action? Forget it.
No mask either. The snot running from your nose would freeze just above your upper lip.

mbhhofr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 02:29 PM
  #13
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhhofr View Post
No mask either. The snot running from your nose would freeze just above your upper lip.
Or if he was given a mask, a catchers metal cage, tongue frozen to one of the bars, boiling water required to free him post game huh?... Oh ya, it was quite cruel. Poor littlest kid who just wanted to play & be a part of it all, buckled up & strapped in to super heavy oversized horsehair equipment that was beyond itchy & often reeked to high heaven... marooned out in the crease with no coaching or help/advice just a "good luck".... against a headwind... staring into the sunshine & glare off the ice... blinded, frozen solid.... tears crystalizing on his frost bitten nose & cheeks. ....Too cold to even speak, the words frozen in his throat... cry out for help... toes & fingers possible candidates for amputation.... his playmates laughing hysterically at him from the bench huddled together for warmth, able to skate, move & truck around in keeping warm.... yes, it was an Evil thing to do to the smallest or youngest but thats just the way it was sometimes.... Evil.... good character builder kid, hang in there.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 04:29 PM
  #14
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Or if he was given a mask, a catchers metal cage, tongue frozen to one of the bars, boiling water required to free him post game huh?... Oh ya, it was quite cruel. Poor littlest kid who just wanted to play & be a part of it all, buckled up & strapped in to super heavy oversized horsehair equipment that was beyond itchy & often reeked to high heaven... marooned out in the crease with no coaching or help/advice just a "good luck".... against a headwind... staring into the sunshine & glare off the ice... blinded, frozen solid.... tears crystalizing on his frost bitten nose & cheeks. ....Too cold to even speak, the words frozen in his throat... cry out for help... toes & fingers possible candidates for amputation.... his playmates laughing hysterically at him from the bench huddled together for warmth, able to skate, move & truck around in keeping warm.... yes, it was an Evil thing to do to the smallest or youngest but thats just the way it was sometimes.... Evil.... good character builder kid, hang in there.
You need to write a book Kill. Diary of a Wimpy Hockey Kid or something like that. I really enjoy your rhetoric.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 07:21 PM
  #15
DJ Man
Registered User
 
DJ Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhhofr View Post
No mask either. The snot running from your nose would freeze just above your upper lip.
I had one of the earlier simple plastic masks. Outdoors, your breath formed icicles on the nose vent, and a cloud of steam would rise from your head if you took it off during a game.

DJ Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 07:42 PM
  #16
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 33,908
vCash: 50
Awards:
Well I'll at least supply some laughs if nothing else.
I was goalie from late 60s until early 80s. Style by and large back then was stay on your feet. Only go down if play was at/ near crease or pad stack.
The equipment was no where and I mean no where like today. Yes, I had leather pads, Cooper65, that were full of felt. So was chest protector. Arm pads were just heavy felt like material. My mask was fiberglass and if you got hit in the face it hurt like hell. Odds are you wouldn't get cut or cut bad but yeah it hurt. Matter of fact aside from leg pads, it hurt wherever you got hit. nowadays a goalie will take a shot right off the chest. No big deal. Back then you'd try to glove it even if reaching across your body.

So style was partly what was taught at time and then self preservation. The more you were on your feet the less chance of getting hurt. Also as those pads absorbed water they got heavy as a mother. Getting back up with 25 pound weights on your shins, on ice, ain't that easy.

Today's sticks are light years better. Everybody can shoot hard now.

I honestly think if you took a good player today and let him crank against a goalie in say equipment of 1968 vintage, you'd end up eventually with a dead goalie.

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!

Last edited by Gee Wally: 01-03-2014 at 07:48 PM.
Gee Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 07:50 PM
  #17
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Man View Post
I had one of the earlier simple plastic masks. Outdoors, your breath formed icicles on the nose vent, and a cloud of steam would rise from your head if you took it off during a game.
Indeed. The old plastic or custom fiberglass masks did not breathe, and if you were kept really busy between the anxiety, stress & exertion youd be sweating buckets. That combined with the old pads absorbing moisture, you were essentially getting soaked, weighed down & waterlogged by your own sweat from the inside out, from melting ice & moisture from the outside in. Like a combination furnace/sponge all in one. Never had one but I liked the idea of the pretzel mask first worn by Plante & later Dryden. At least it had plenty of room, air space. But no, I had the Plante solid made in Magog Quebec, one of his earliest models & off the rack then a custom Harrison similar to a Higgins. Simply did not breathe at all. Never played outdoors but I can well imagine what your talking about.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 08:10 PM
  #18
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,745
vCash: 500
Backhand

Sidney Crosby just scored a classic top shelf backhand against Henrik Lundqvist. Should be on youtube soon.

You will see the weakness of the BF style.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 08:28 PM
  #19
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
Well I'll at least supply some laughs if nothing else. I was goalie from late 60s until early 80s. I honestly think if you took a good player today and let him crank against a goalie in say equipment of 1968 vintage, you'd end up eventually with a dead goalie.
Ya, ditto, but 60's through early 70's. The arm pads were the worst. Basically just quilted cotton with completely useless rubber inserts, zero protection around the shoulders but for the top of your belly protector. Not even inside leg protectors. You took a shot off the arms, heck, even in the pocket of your glove sometimes, easily shatter a finger, beyond stingingly painful & bruised. Absolutely black & blue if you were playing serious shooters. And that was top end gear. Cooper GM 12 catcher. The best in its day. As for the mask, you got one in the head and it just spread the impact throughout the fiberglass, like a charge of tnt had gone off in your brain reverberating throughout your face, entire skull, magnifying the shock. Rest of the game youd be seeing stars outskirts of your peripheral vision, the sound of a screaming train running through a tunnel with its whistle blowing ringing through your noggin for days, months, Hell in some cases years. Scarred for life.... Some Beer Leaguers still don the old gear, "just for fun like" and most go change halfway through the first period its that bad in comparison.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 08:51 PM
  #20
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yes, and it all goes back really to Quebec, and a father & son team of goalies, Francois & Benoit Allaire. The Quebec School of Goaltending. It goes back a lot earlier of course, Vezina, Jacques Plante & Bernie Parent, Quebec always on the leading edge in producing excellence in Goaltenders & a great source of pride to their hockey programs & rightfully so. Francois Allaire worked with Patrick Roy when he was just 20, helping him adapt aspects of the BF in covering the lower corners of the net as the game out front was evolving, changed forever in 72 when the spectacle of the Soviets cycle game showed everyone how exciting the game could be playing that way, adapted slowly & taught through amateur & Jr, into the NHL. Gretzky & the Oilers, their success & so on.

In reaction, you had to play deeper in the crease. Remember Dryden in 72? He had a lot of problems, big guy, as he played out further, Stand-Up, and with the cycle & more passing, he'd be beaten badly so he adjusted his game & came back with a couple of excellent performances. Kids like Roberto Luongo grew up initially idolizing guys like Grant Fuhr (SU) but after witnessing Roys hybrid act thanks to Allaires schooling they realized, saw the future, attended Allaires camps & clinics in Quebec, learned to play the BF & at the same time, Allaire working with equipment mfgs' in re-designing pads. He used lighter synthetics, redesigning the buckle system in protecting the knees & facilitating the BF position with ease over the old style horsehair & leather jobbies. Roy started using them, and with his success as the pre-eminent goalie in the 80's & 90's much emulated & copied including in Europe. Lundquist & many others adopting same and size mattered. The bigger the better.
Do you or anyone think Allaire should get serious HHOF consideration as a builder? I just thought of this and it is pretty incredible what they did to revolutionize an entire position. I have heard of Francois for years and years, but I thought he was merely a coach, helping Roy and many others... I didn't realize he had a big hand in redesigning the equipment in addition.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 09:23 PM
  #21
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Do you or anyone think Allaire should get serious HHOF consideration as a builder?,,,
Yes I think that would be a wonderful addition to the HHOF in the Builders Category. People like Allaire (in fact the whole family; the father of Benoit & Francois as well a mask maker & equipment innovator back in the 60's & 70's) who through Coaching (which is included already) or Equipment Innovation & Design (including infrastructure, building arenas etc) contributed to the growth & development of the game. Indeed, a lot of people at the Amateur & Major Junior levels who deserve to be inducted.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 09:46 PM
  #22
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sidney Crosby just scored a classic top shelf backhand against Henrik Lundqvist. Should be on youtube soon.

You will see the weakness of the BF style.
Beautiful and wicked backhand by Crosby, but yes, Lundqvist deep in the net and almost on his knees before the shot is released. In the 80's, the goalie would have stood tall and come out to challenge the shooter. A player like Gretzky or Orr would have faked the shot, hung onto it and skated around the net and found the late guy for an empty netter as the goalie would have likely been way out of position by that time.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 10:05 PM
  #23
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Beautiful and wicked backhand by Crosby, but yes, Lundqvist deep in the net and almost on his knees before the shot is released. In the 80's, the goalie would have stood tall and come out to challenge the shooter. A player like Gretzky or Orr would have faked the shot, hung onto it and skated around the net and found the late guy for an empty netter as the goalie would have likely been way out of position by that time.
Well, technically sorta kinda LBD. Standup Goalie would employ the Butterfly on a backhander but the trick is that you dont drop down into the BF until youve backed up into the crease with the player on the backhand and you only fall into the BF in the split second that the puck leaves his stick. Not before it leaves his stick, as its leaving his stick. Lundqvist, Luongo, all of them over-commit & just collapse into the BF before the pucks even left the shooters stick. Mindless. Your giving a good shooter all kinds of net to shoot at up high, 5 hole as the goalies going down. BF's fine in traffic, scrambles, but not on a shootout or clear view in every single case. So yes, an over-reliance on it.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 05:28 AM
  #24
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,745
vCash: 500
First Move

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, technically sorta kinda LBD. Standup Goalie would employ the Butterfly on a backhander but the trick is that you dont drop down into the BF until youve backed up into the crease with the player on the backhand and you only fall into the BF in the split second that the puck leaves his stick. Not before it leaves his stick, as its leaving his stick. Lundqvist, Luongo, all of them over-commit & just collapse into the BF before the pucks even left the shooters stick. Mindless. Your giving a good shooter all kinds of net to shoot at up high, 5 hole as the goalies going down. BF's fine in traffic, scrambles, but not on a shootout or clear view in every single case. So yes, an over-reliance on it.
Still comes down to the old adage - "First move loses."

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 09:48 AM
  #25
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sidney Crosby just scored a classic top shelf backhand against Henrik Lundqvist. Should be on youtube soon.

You will see the weakness of the BF style.
Saw the goal. Man, Lundqvist is just having an awful year

Big Phil is online now   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 09:38 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.