HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Puck Daddy R&D Camp grades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-19-2011, 06:23 PM
  #26
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
I like some of these but as usual they're trying to do everything except the obvious: just make the goalies wear reasonable padding instead of the sumo-like ridiculousness you see nowadays. Do that and all the "durrrrr, how do we get more goals????" problems are solved.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 07:26 PM
  #27
EdwardBlake
This is all a joke.
 
EdwardBlake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Verification line needs to be done for this coming season. It'll cost next to nothing and only ads to the game. Takes away nothing.

I have no problem with the curved glass.

And the face off penalty is a very interesting idea, along with shallower nets.

EdwardBlake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 07:39 PM
  #28
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
I like some of these but as usual they're trying to do everything except the obvious: just make the goalies wear reasonable padding instead of the sumo-like ridiculousness you see nowadays. Do that and all the "durrrrr, how do we get more goals????" problems are solved.
And what if "needing more goals" wasn't really an issue? Am I the only one thinkg that this debate is moronic at best? The NHL doesn't NEED more "goals", it just needs better marketing. The game is awesome as it is and I don't think encouraging offense is the way to go. Goals are rarer in the playoffs and those games are the most entertaining ones of the year.

There is no need to change anything about goalies or nets (except for the glass thingy that would make it easier to review goals), the only changes we should make to the game are about safety, not offense or defense.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 08:35 PM
  #29
Neeeeaaaal
Waffles Are Good
 
Neeeeaaaal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dormont, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,645
vCash: 500
I always wondered if there was a material that could be put inside the goals, sort of replacing the Ice there, that would give a semi-transparent view of what happens as far as the puck crossing the goal line. Think of it as if the ice were glass, and you could just stand under it and watch the game. If there was some way to do that, then no amount of equipment or pile of humanity could obstruct the line of sight to the puck, as long as it's laying on the ice.

This would probably be a bit more costly than painting a verification line, as I'm not sure if there is enough space underneath the net to place a camera, not to mention all of the possibly nonexistent-see through-material that would be required for this to work.

I've just been thinking over the years, wouldn't it be easier to see where the puck is if you could somehow be underneath it? I mean the best way to know if a Field Goal is good is to stand directly under the posts, right? So the same (or similar) could apply here.

Neeeeaaaal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 08:58 PM
  #30
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,673
vCash: 500
Ice is painted. If they just didn't paint inside the net, the ice is so thin that it would probably be pretty transparent.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 10:53 AM
  #31
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveLuci View Post
What happened to the chichi who made funny jokes? Hmm? Where did he go?
Quiet, lady!



The ChiChi is a serious and committed fan of the game... the game chosen by the Versatile One as his life's work. The game that makes the world better. When rules are addressed, ChiChi must speak and be heard!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neeeeaaaal View Post
I always wondered if there was a material that could be put inside the goals, sort of replacing the Ice there, that would give a semi-transparent view of what happens as far as the puck crossing the goal line. Think of it as if the ice were glass, and you could just stand under it and watch the game....
An interesting and visionary solution if not totally impractical. I think you'd have to design the arenas with that in mind to work around the cooling pipes under the ice, the cement stability and all that stuff.

Darth Vitale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 11:03 AM
  #32
Get To Our Game
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Get To Our Game's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 5,064
vCash: 500
On an unrelated note, today is Joe Victory's 26th birthday!

Get To Our Game is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 01:09 PM
  #33
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
And what if "needing more goals" wasn't really an issue? Am I the only one thinkg that this debate is moronic at best? The NHL doesn't NEED more "goals", it just needs better marketing. The game is awesome as it is and I don't think encouraging offense is the way to go. Goals are rarer in the playoffs and those games are the most entertaining ones of the year.

There is no need to change anything about goalies or nets (except for the glass thingy that would make it easier to review goals), the only changes we should make to the game are about safety, not offense or defense.
26 teams averaged less than 3 goals a game last year. The highest in the league was Vancouver at 3.15 per game. The loser point and the shootout factor WAY too much into the standings. Yes I do think it's an issue.

I can go on if you like. I don't hate the game as it is or anything, it just could be so much more.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 01:37 PM
  #34
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,673
vCash: 500
I do think the loser point is kind of a dumb idea. Then again...the loser point kept us alive this past season.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 01:57 PM
  #35
BLASPHEMOUS
**** THE KING
 
BLASPHEMOUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sherbrooke
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,514
vCash: 447
1. Smaller net idea is good, gives a bit more ice to skate with. Goalies will need to be more cautious.

2. If the NHL was serious about player safety, then no-touch icing would be implemented. I'm not talking about the hybrid thing, I'm talking international and Canadian Hockey League rules. The fact that the NHL isn't even thinking about it is pure bull.

BLASPHEMOUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 02:07 PM
  #36
gopens66
Bart 4 Crosby's RW!
 
gopens66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Altoona,Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
26 teams averaged less than 3 goals a game last year. The highest in the league was Vancouver at 3.15 per game. The loser point and the shootout factor WAY too much into the standings. Yes I do think it's an issue.

I can go on if you like. I don't hate the game as it is or anything, it just could be so much more.
Instead of restricting the amount of goalie equipment, they should restrict the amount of goalie experience. No more than five years of actual on-ice experience, then they have to change positions if they want to keep playing hockey. This would usher in a whole new era of hockey. If you thought the 80's were high scoring, then hold onto your hats ladies and gentlemen. Or instead, each opposing team's coach pulls a name from the other team's roster out of a hat, and then that guy has to play goalie.

gopens66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 03:25 PM
  #37
LeTANGled58
Registered User
 
LeTANGled58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
I like some of these but as usual they're trying to do everything except the obvious: just make the goalies wear reasonable padding instead of the sumo-like ridiculousness you see nowadays. Do that and all the "durrrrr, how do we get more goals????" problems are solved.
I dont know why you think goalies are huge and blown up. the days of Sean Burke and those types who wore huge pads are gone. The NHL has limited the width of goal pads to 11" which is thin.

The chest protectors could be trimmed slightly, but i get bruised playing goal and i play in beer leagues. Imagine what NHL goalies go through. Think of taking a Chara slapper in the upper arm! Goalies need protected, especially now that sticks are made to whip the puck at mach speeds. and please spare me the bullet proof vest argument that people like to make. They aren't comparable.

LeTANGled58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 03:45 PM
  #38
Ziggyjoe21
Registered User
 
Ziggyjoe21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pitt
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,268
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ziggyjoe21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endersoldier View Post
1. Smaller net idea is good, gives a bit more ice to skate with. Goalies will need to be more cautious.

2. If the NHL was serious about player safety, then no-touch icing would be implemented. I'm not talking about the hybrid thing, I'm talking international and Canadian Hockey League rules. The fact that the NHL isn't even thinking about it is pure bull.
Completely agree. I don't have anything against the current icing rule, but if they are going to change it, instill the international icing rules.


Changes I would make:

-Less deep nets. More room behind the goal to maneuver.
-Full 2 minute power plays, regardless if a goal is scored.

Changes I think should be considered:

-make a game work 3 points. win=3, OT win=2, OT loss=1
-eliminate illegal curve rule. Illegal curves give you a harder wrist shot... well today's sticks give you a harder slapper than wooden sticks of 20 years ago. It's a matter of preference.

Ziggyjoe21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 04:19 PM
  #39
mpp9
Registered User
 
mpp9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 17,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiChi Vitale View Post
Hybrid Icing:
Hey I got an idea, since we don't have enough gray area to argue about with headshots and high hits and judging of intention, let's add more gray area and let the refs make an arbitrary decision that's based on nothing but instinct! Real simple: if you want to cut out those injuries, mandate automatic suspensions for anyone who runs a player into the boards (accidental or not) on the icing chase. Make players take responsibility for their speed and positioning at that moment and the rest will take care of itself. This is the same rule that should be applied to head shots. Mandatory. Just as with high sticking to the face, intention is irrelevant. Just match the suspension to the severity of the outcome of the play and to any pattern of behavior with these type of hits. Guys like Richards, Cooke, Ovy get a shorter leash, etc.
Alot of the injuries that occur when chasing down an icing are by accident, not by intentionally blowing the defenseman up. I don't think it's fair to suspend a player bc the D may drastically change his positioning and possibly put himself in a vulnerable position. It puts far too much responsibility on the guy trying to negate the icing if you're going to suspend him even if it wasn't his fault when injury occurs.

I still stand by Tyutin knowing Cooke was coming at him and it should not have been a suspension to Cooke, even though it was not an icing. The defenseman holds just as much responsiblity to make sure he's doing what he can to protect himself rather than just assume the player coming at him will have his well being as a priority over getting possession of the puck.

Have no problem with a ref blowing an icing down. Question is are they going to blow it down even if there is a legit race for the puck.

mpp9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 04:42 PM
  #40
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by In Rejean We Trust View Post
On an unrelated note, today is Joe Victory's 26th birthday!


All hail!





(You sir are a patriot for reminding the masses of the importance of this day.)

Darth Vitale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 04:46 PM
  #41
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpp9 View Post
Alot of the injuries that occur when chasing down an icing are by accident, not by intentionally blowing the defenseman up...

Have no problem with a ref blowing an icing down. Question is are they going to blow it down even if there is a legit race for the puck.

Again, intention is irrelevant. If you're racing and cause the other guy to lose their balance of footing and they slam into the boards (or if you do the obvious shove), that should be their responsibility. Not really an offense or defense thing. It's does the guy who is a half step behind do something that endangers the other player?

As for the question, what the refs will do is call this rule inconsistently the whole season, because every race will be different and subjectively judged. This rule will do nothing but piss fans and coaches off alike. And it may not even cut down on all the injuries if the refs blown it dead at the last second. The players will take a second or two to react to that and stop or change direction or whatever. Some will still hit the boards anyway.

Darth Vitale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 09:27 AM
  #42
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
26 teams averaged less than 3 goals a game last year. The highest in the league was Vancouver at 3.15 per game. The loser point and the shootout factor WAY too much into the standings. Yes I do think it's an issue.

I can go on if you like. I don't hate the game as it is or anything, it just could be so much more.
Please, do go on, because I really don't see a problem with the GPG. I don't care about the number of goals as long as the game is played the right way. I want to see intelligent systematic hockey, not fire-wagon Capital style crap.

Pretty goals are exciting, but they are not the reason I watch the game of hockey. I don't see a problem with less goals being scored as long as the games are fun to watch. And IMO, for the most part, they are.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 09:36 AM
  #43
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,673
vCash: 500
Maybe I'm a snob, but IMO, if you need more goals to become a hockey fan, I'm not really concerned about you being a fan.

There are some changes that could be made that doesn't change the game basically at all. Making the nets shallower is one good change, in my opinion. I'll never be a fan of a hybrid/no touch icing. I also like the goal box behind the net.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 11:26 AM
  #44
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG View Post
Maybe I'm a snob, but IMO, if you need more goals to become a hockey fan, I'm not really concerned about you being a fan.

There are some changes that could be made that doesn't change the game basically at all. Making the nets shallower is one good change, in my opinion. I'll never be a fan of a hybrid/no touch icing. I also like the goal box behind the net.
It's the lower number of goals that make the loser point and shootout too big a factor like I mentioned above. It's that cause and effect that makes me want more goals. Like you mentioned before, the loser point kept us in it last year. From a neutral standpoint that's the problem. It shouldn't factor in that heavily.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 11:30 AM
  #45
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
It's the lower number of goals that make the loser point and shootout too big a factor like I mentioned above. It's that cause and effect that makes me want more goals. Like you mentioned before, the loser point kept us in it last year. From a neutral standpoint that's the problem. It shouldn't factor in that heavily.
Maybe the NHL should get rid of the point system all together and go by win % just like the three other major sports, don't you think? Keep OT, keep the SO and in the end, there is a winner and a loser and that's it.

It would be so much simpler.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 11:31 AM
  #46
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
Please, do go on, because I really don't see a problem with the GPG. I don't care about the number of goals as long as the game is played the right way. I want to see intelligent systematic hockey, not fire-wagon Capital style crap.

Pretty goals are exciting, but they are not the reason I watch the game of hockey. I don't see a problem with less goals being scored as long as the games are fun to watch. And IMO, for the most part, they are.
If you don't see a problem with 'almost every team averages less than 3 goals per game' written in plain English I'm sure nothing will convince you, but here goes:

The games are too friggin' close and there aren't enough goals to separate teams. Two years ago the Penguins scored 41 more goals than the lowly Maple Leafs. The disparity is not wide enough. Every year about 90 players score 20+ goals. 3 per team and that's counting players that score 30, 40, 50, goals. 20 goals being a benchmark is........kind of a joke looking back on history.

You want to see "intelligent systematic hockey"? Explain that to me because it sounds like BS, and if it really is true you'd probably be better served watching soccer.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 11:39 AM
  #47
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
Maybe the NHL should get rid of the point system all together and go by win % just like the three other major sports, don't you think? Keep OT, keep the SO and in the end, there is a winner and a loser and that's it.

It would be so much simpler.
There's just a lot of points being awarded that skew the standings that's all I'm saying. Plus the points system is obviously broken when some games have 2 points being awarded and some games have 3. That's just inexcusable in my opinion.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 11:41 AM
  #48
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
If you don't see a problem with 'almost every team averages less than 3 goals per game' written in plain English I'm sure nothing will convince you, but here goes:

The games are too friggin' close and there aren't enough goals to separate teams. Two years ago the Penguins scored 41 more goals than the lowly Maple Leafs. The disparity is not wide enough. Every year about 90 players score 20+ goals. 3 per team and that's counting players that score 30, 40, 50, goals. 20 goals being a benchmark is........kind of a joke looking back on history.

You want to see "intelligent systematic hockey"? Explain that to me because it sounds like BS, and if it really is true you'd probably be better served watching soccer.
I love parity. Parity is making hockey exciting because on any given night, anything can happen. I don't wanna see the NHL become like the NBA and have 3 or 4 55+ wins teams and a bunch of pretenders.

I like it when the game is played smartly, without mistakes. I love it when guys execute and do their job. Sure, "system" hockey can be pretty boring depending on the system, but I pretty much never get bored watching the Pens or the Wings play. I love puck possession systems and they do create a lot of offense. Sure, you need the proprer players to execute those systems, but I prefer to endure some boring team than to make the game more "offense" friendly for the sake of "entertainement". Lot of goals aren't that entertaining anyway. The All-Star Game is boring, watching a beer league game isn't that great either. Defense can be entertaining when executed to perfection.

Even if you change the rules to create more offense, smart coachs will adapt and their teams will dominate and then everybody will catch up and we will be back to square one. I just don't see the point of "adding more offense".

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 11:43 AM
  #49
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
There's just a lot of points being awarded that skew the standings that's all I'm saying. Plus the points system is obviously broken when some games have 2 points being awarded and some games have 3. That's just inexcusable in my opinion.
And I agree with that, that's why I'm suggesting the NHL should get rid of the point system altogether.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 12:05 PM
  #50
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
It's the lower number of goals that make the loser point and shootout too big a factor like I mentioned above. It's that cause and effect that makes me want more goals. Like you mentioned before, the loser point kept us in it last year. From a neutral standpoint that's the problem. It shouldn't factor in that heavily.
I'm not seeing the correlation between getting rid of the loser point and the need for scoring more goals. I'm obviously missing something.

I'm for getting rid of the loser point, but don't think more goals need to be scored to do so. There should only be 2 points per game.

EDIT: I just read one of your later responses, and I understand what you're saying now. 41 goals though is a lot of goals. You make it sound like a minuscule number, and it's not.

JTG 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 02:14 PM.

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.