Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

Expand Messages
  • William Underwood
    Yes he does play the angles well but the point being is that for the average human being it is a risky way to play much as was the case with Hasek. You leave
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes he does play the angles well but the point being is that for the average
      human being it is a risky way to play much as was the case with Hasek. You
      leave the entire upper net open and if the shot is deflected.And if you lack
      his tremendous leg strength you can't recover. It worked deadly well but it
      is NOT a style that I would encourage a young goalie to use any more than I
      would say "Watch how the Dominator does it"..he had cyborg like reflexes and
      the flexibility of a 15 year old gymnast! :-) Nor would I have told kids
      "see how Hextall handles the puck..try that" Most have no clue as to when to
      do it much the less the ability to DO IT. Another issue is how long can he
      keep it up? That style is like a catcher in baseball, a strain on the knees.
      Can it be done successfully over a 60 game stretch doubly so known that
      every team in the league will spend 3 months studying it? Hey it may be fine
      long term like with Hasek style was but again it is NOT a style to be
      emulated..He played GREAT and it works well for him but I stick to my guns I
      would NOT tell another goalie to try it nor do I expect to find a wave of
      Jonathan Quick clones...



      As for the net, the idea has merits but I would not like to see it and we
      won't. The problem being is that you run the risk of doing "too much". It
      would not take much to make the game TOO high scoring the way that kids can
      shoot these days. I see midgets who can really pull the trigger and can be
      pretty accurate. It is something that it would be EASY to get wrong, either
      by doing too little or too much. The nets were not why we saw low scoring
      in the playoffs, the Pens and Flyers had the same nets and it looked a heck
      of lot like lacrosse. It was that teams played great TEAM defense and yes
      some got great goaltending, a potent combo that is the best path to a title,
      just as a great D in football wins or a great pitching staff wins in
      baseball.. The top teams left few rebounds and gave few power breaks. And
      that is not a bad thing. D is part of the game. Plus players have become so
      willing to block shots which again a larger net will not change.



      I am not totally averse to it but just averse as to how far we go and am a
      skeptic.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • William Underwood
      I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see more goals but that we may see TOO many! [Non-text portions of this message have
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 15, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see
        more goals but that we may see TOO many!



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • MoreyH
        I m not so sure. That s why we have the Summer Camp in Toronto, is it not? To try new things? Maybe a 4 x 8 net would yield too many goals - I don t think
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 15, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm not so sure. That's why we have the Summer Camp in Toronto, is it not? To try new things?

          Maybe a 4 x 8 net would yield too many goals - I don't think so. Experiments could be made with a 4 x 7...

          Total shots in goals, both teams during the Finals: An average of under 15 per period. This includes rebounds, and there were not a tremendous amount of blocks.

          The game has become a chess match.

          Morey



          --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
          >
          > I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see
          > more goals but that we may see TOO many!
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • DAVE SOUTTER
          Morey: It seems your complaint is that the game has become much tighter checking, making it harder to score. Or, perhaps this combined with better goaltending
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 15, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Morey:

            It seems your complaint is that the game has become much tighter checking, making it harder to score. Or, perhaps this combined with better goaltending has led to fewer goals. Either way, perhaps those two elements have resulted in a less entertaining show of talent.

            I know the NHL average goal per game has fluctuated through the years, and although it didn't set a record, this past season was historically low for average. It has definitely trended downward since a couple of peaks in the 80s.
            However, the playoff scoring average has been slightly higher the past several seasons on average than it was in the mid-to late 90s, for example. And, playoff SOG has actually trended upward the past several years.

            You say the game has become a "chess match". I see your point, but I believe that is a result of the tighter checking we see in the game today. Players are faster and more mobile at both ends of the ice than ever before.

            So, I assume your argument for increasing the goal size would result in increased scoring. Maybe, but my intuition tells me the larger goal would result in an even tighter-checking game.

            Again, I can't see the NHL increasing the size of the goal. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe doing so would result in changes in the way the game is played we cannot imagine beforehand. And if that precedent is set, what other changes may we see? Four skaters rather than five to open things up? Allow teams to skate three men short on PKs? Smaller pucks?

            The game has changed, and maybe not for the better, but its still a lot of fun to watch.

            Dave Soutter
            Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

            -----Original Message-----
            From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
            Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:08:50
            To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

             



            I'm not so sure. That's why we have the Summer Camp in Toronto, is it not? To try new things?

            Maybe a 4 x 8 net would yield too many goals - I don't think so. Experiments could be made with a 4 x 7...

            Total shots in goals, both teams during the Finals: An average of under 15 per period. This includes rebounds, and there were not a tremendous amount of blocks.

            The game has become a chess match.

            Morey

            --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
            >
            > I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see
            > more goals but that we may see TOO many!
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • William Underwood
            I would need A LOT more data than from a short summer camp before a RADICAL change such as this. I d also need impetus from my EXISTANT (not fantasy) fan base
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 16, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I would need A LOT more data than from a short summer camp before a RADICAL
              change such as this. I'd also need impetus from my EXISTANT (not fantasy)
              fan base saying "this is something that we might want". I don't think people
              shunned the playoffs this year.to the contrary it seems that ratings were
              relatively good. Granted the NHL was quite lucky to have major market teams
              go deep.in fact it could hardly have been better fro that. Still the regular
              season numbers were good too, again granted the NBA lock out helped that but
              even if one factors that out one draws the conclusions that hockey fans are
              not tuning out the NHL. So one can say that this doesn't seem broke..so why
              go and try to "fix" something that the fan base is not saying via apathy
              "fix it"? To get fans that we really don't know even exist? If we had just
              come off of say three years of significantly declined attendance and TV
              ratings to the point that it is even being seen occur in Canada and major
              hockey hot beds and fans were saying "boring WAY too few goals, I can't
              watch it" I'd say "let's do it NOW". But again the contrary we have seen
              none of the above and in fact when polls are taken large numbers of people
              say "don't do it.." Therefore there seems limited motive to do it.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • William Underwood
              Great point! More net space would mean even MORE motive to try to reel the game in.we might see everyone go to the trap and have a ton of games like that
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Great point! More net space would mean even MORE motive to try to reel the
                game in.we might see everyone go to the trap and have a ton of games like
                that Tampa/Philly game where the Lightning were usign their 1-3-1 and the
                Flyers dropped into a trap to counter and it became a game of chicken to see
                who might blink first and take the first shot on net..international soccer
                on ice at its WORST!



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • DAVE SOUTTER
                I would also seek input from the players. I doubt too many goalies or d-men would support making the nets larger, but quite honestly I can t see a lot of
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 16, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I would also seek input from the players. I doubt too many goalies or d-men would support making the nets larger, but quite honestly I can't see a lot of support behind the idea from many forwards, either. The Player's Association would likely provide a fair amount of input.

                  To potentially dilute the product is not what the NHL is looking for, IMO.

                  However, it would be interesting to watch a game utilizing a larger net as an experiment. Perhaps a college or junior exhibition game or two just to see what happens.

                  You'd have to think breakaways and even 2-on-1s would almost always result in goals. Also 5-on-3 situations. Might be a good way to keep penalties down. Maybe you've got something there, Morey! And what about shootouts? Those may become a thing of the past, which wouldn't break my heart.

                  With larger nets, goalies would become like centers in basketball. Nobody under 6-5" need apply! The days of puckstoppers the size of Darren Pang and Lindsay Middlebrook would come to a screeching halt (not that there are many guys their size around these days, anyway).

                  With bigger nets, Gretzky would have had a heyday setting up in his "office", and maybe he could have reached the 100 goal mark by Christmas! ;)

                  Seriously, though... I agree with Bill in that until there is a hue and cry from the masses, there won't be any sort of change.

                  Dave Soutter
                  Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: William Underwood <wausport@...>
                  Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:31:20
                  To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

                   



                  I would need A LOT more data than from a short summer camp before a RADICAL
                  change such as this. I'd also need impetus from my EXISTANT (not fantasy)
                  fan base saying "this is something that we might want". I don't think people
                  shunned the playoffs this year.to the contrary it seems that ratings were
                  relatively good. Granted the NHL was quite lucky to have major market teams
                  go deep.in fact it could hardly have been better fro that. Still the regular
                  season numbers were good too, again granted the NBA lock out helped that but
                  even if one factors that out one draws the conclusions that hockey fans are
                  not tuning out the NHL. So one can say that this doesn't seem broke..so why
                  go and try to "fix" something that the fan base is not saying via apathy
                  "fix it"? To get fans that we really don't know even exist? If we had just
                  come off of say three years of significantly declined attendance and TV
                  ratings to the point that it is even being seen occur in Canada and major
                  hockey hot beds and fans were saying "boring WAY too few goals, I can't
                  watch it" I'd say "let's do it NOW". But again the contrary we have seen
                  none of the above and in fact when polls are taken large numbers of people
                  say "don't do it.." Therefore there seems limited motive to do it.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • William Underwood
                  All true.and as I say I d like to see WAY more than just a camp or handful of games to make a decision that would change the game so radically, I d want to see
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 21, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    All true.and as I say I'd like to see WAY more than just a camp or handful
                    of games to make a decision that would change the game so radically, I'd
                    want to see another league be a "Guinea Pig" first.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.