Because there is less exciting stuff
Forum: Why the NHL sucks

no.7
Jul 12, 2007 15:28 ET
Here, I'm going to identify all types of exciting events in a hockey game and mark each of them as going up or down. "Up" means that we've seen more events of this type recently, "down" means that there've been less events of this type.

Exciting eventsTrend 
End-to-end hockeyThis is when both team rush up and down the ice, trying to score off those rushes. Today, they would rather dump the puck in and then cycle it on the boards down low.
I haven't seen pure end-to-end hockey all year.
Free skating Bobby Orr-styleThe days when Bobby Orr would skate the length of the ice with the puck and score are long gone. These days, a player is lucky to reach the other team's blue line. More often, he has to get rid of the puck before reaching the red line.
This "free skating" distance shrinks every year.
Pretty playsIt seems that nothing is pretty these days. When a player has only a second or two on the puck before he is checked, he has no time for anything fancy. He's lucky to make any play to begin with. Most often, they would just dump the puck in and out.
This "length of time to make a play" also shrinks every year.
Pretty goalsIn today's hockey, most goals are garbage. The days when Orr, Gretzky, Kurri and co. scored into an empty net are long gone. Now, the shooter is lucky to see any net at all. Most often, he doesn't.
Big hitsI can't remember an NHL season when there were so many no-hitters as last year. Early in the season, there were some really big and exciting hits. The NHL brass then started talking about outlawing hits to the head, the referees began handing out penalties for any questionable hits and hitting went down from then on. One particular team - Colorado Avalanche - hasn't hit anyone all season.
FightsFighting in the NHL went down from 0.68 per game in 2003-2004 to 0.41 per game in 2004-2005. Even though it recovered slightly in 2006-2007, the tough guys played even less than the year before. The Detroit Red Wings didn't have an enforcer throughout the entire season.
RivalriesHaving adopted a schedule designed to promote rivalries with more divisional games and home-and-home series, the NHL shot itself in the foot by clamping down on fighting. Gary Bettman is the only man in hockey who doesn't know that hockey rivalries can't develop without fighting.
EmotionWhen big hits, fighting and rivalries and all down, emotional games are rare.
Wild actionThis is when you don't know what's coming next - a goal, bit hit, fight, cheap shot or whatever it might be. It usually happens in highly emotionally charged games, when coaches lose control of their players, or lose control of themselves.
Because the new rules favor disciplined hockey, there have been few wild games in the new NHL.
High-scoring gamesEven though scoring dropped by 0.28 goals per game from 2005-2006, it was still higher last year than in any other year since 1995-1996. However, it is set to drop further in 2007-2008 to where it was before the lockout.
Comeback gamesThis is one of the rare success stories of the New NHL. The salary cap led to parity, with most games being close. The increase in scoring also means that it's easier to come back than it used to be. However, with scoring set to fall next year, expect to see fewer comeback games than last year.
Shooter beats goalie cleanlyBecause the shooter usually can't see any of the net, it hardly happens any more. When it does, it is considered more of a goalie's fault these days. Goalies are supposed to stop every shot they can see. I think this alone makes the game sick.
You see the puck going into the netThat doesn't happen very often these days. More often, you can only guess that a goal has been scored from the crowd noise or players celebrating.

As you can see, out of 13 types of exciting events, we've seen 11 going down and only 2 up recenly. It's no wonder that hockey has become boring to watch.

Hard to believe, but all signs are here that it's going to get worse. With scoring set to drop down, there will be fewer high-scoring and comeback games.
Reply
PittyPittyPie
Jul 13, 2007 17:32 ET
While most of the above do seem to be true of the new NHL, i think that one of the major successes is being understated in your post. Yeah, there is more tight checking in the game nowadays, this also correlates into a faster-paced game. Decisions are being made much quicker, and the players are much more athletic than ever (yeah, but unfortunately most of them are pussies).
I have been watching alot of older games (80s) and they seem slowed down. Not like molasses slow, but just slower. The "new" NHL (post-lockout) involves much more fluidity. The 6-5 OT game between the Penguins and Maple Leafs (Staal hat trick) involved one of the greatest stretches of hockey I have ever seen, nearly 7 minutes go by in the first period without a stoppage. It was incredible, it was almost as if the game was pushed off a cliff, and it just kept picking up pace. Great hits and just great all-around speed to the game. I am not saying that most of your arguments are off, but I highly recommend this game to you and I think that it represents what the "new" NHL is all about: Great comebacks (as you mentioned), very fluid, quickened pace.
Reply
no.7
Jul 14, 2007 07:20 ET
Quote from message by PittyPittyPie
The 6-5 OT game between the Penguins and Maple Leafs (Staal hat trick) involved one of the greatest stretches of hockey I have ever seen, nearly 7 minutes go by in the first period without a stoppage.
I just managed to watch through the first 10 minutes of that game. It was so boring that I had to take a break at that point. Even the announcers got bored by that time:

Quote from message by Drew Remenda at 8:30
Very simple plan for both teams: shoot the puck in, chip the puck out, get it as deep as you can, try to cycle it around up the boards.
Quote from message by Bob Cole at 9:20
The shots - get this - are only 2 apiece.
I also took note of how the puck entered the attacking zone. 24 times they dumped it in before reaching the blue line. 14 times they crossed the blue line with the puck (or passed it across the blue line retaining possession). Even when they dumped the puck in just after crossing the line, I counted it as a rush, so a more "neutral" count is bound to produce even bigger "dump-in" percentage.

I'll try to watch the rest of the 1st period later today, but if you watch these first 10 minutes, that's your typical New NHL game. There was 1 legitimate scoring chance.
Reply
no.7
Jul 14, 2007 07:30 ET
Quote from message by PittyPittyPie
I have been watching alot of older games (80s) and they seem slowed down. Not like molasses slow, but just slower.
I agree. However, they had more space and more time on the puck as a result.

Quote from message by PittyPittyPie
this also correlates into a faster-paced game. Decisions are being made much quicker, and the players are much more athletic than ever
You are right again. However, the quicker pace doesn't make the game more entertaining. This is because players have so little time on the puck that they can't make any fancy plays. They have to play simple. Simple means dumping it in and chipping it out. Simple means no fancy plays, no pretty plays and no skilful plays. Simple means boring.
Reply
PittyPittyPie
Jul 14, 2007 11:57 ET
Having watched around 65 or so Penguins games from this year, this game really isn't the average game (at least for the Penguins). Errey is a moron, i think he makes a comment about this being "like a pond hockey game," and Steigy appears lost at times. Anyway, I was fascinated by the first period of that game. Didn't you agree about the hitting? I thought the game played with tremendous passion as well. I am sorry that you found the game boring, but it really highlighted the season (in a great way for me anyway).Reply
PittyPittyPie
Jul 14, 2007 12:01 ET
Maybe you are just burned oout. I think that you may have watched too many hockey games lately. Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but you seem a little more than pissed at the new NHL. I admit, scoring is down, you can see with my list of games on this site, I absolutely seeing high-scoring games. It makes it all the more special for me when I am able to witness one of these high scoring affairs when they happen only once a week or so. If every game was like that, I think that we would ultimately get bored with that (even I would be calling for SOME defense). I tried watching a month or so of baseball, and when I came back to hockey with my head held low, I appreciated the speed and pace of the game.Reply
no.7
Jul 14, 2007 16:57 ET
Quote from message by PittyPittyPie
Maybe you are just burned oout. I think that you may have watched too many hockey games lately.
Now that I watched the rest of the 1st period, I'm pretty sure that it's not the period you were talking about. There was no 7-minute spell without stoppage in play. It was a dull, uneventful period of boring hockey, the new NHL-style. There was 1 goal on 13 shots and no big hits.

We have 3 reviews of the game which do rate it above average, but not as anything special:

http://www.dropyourg...nts.aspx?Game=114143

The only game I remembered for good quality action last year was this one:

http://www.dropyourg...nts.aspx?Game=114523

I wouldn't rate it a 10 for action as several reviewers there did, but it was a game worth watching.
Reply
PittyPittyPie
Jul 14, 2007 17:04 ET
It may not have been 7 minutes without a stoppage of play, but I thought for sure that there were only 6-8 whistles for the entire period. I read through those reviews before and thought they were rather low. This game (in it's entirety) was one of the best games I have ever seen. I am not saying that any reviewer is wrong but I would like to know what it would take for a game to be rated as a 10 by them. Anyway, do you have a list of your personal ten best games, I would love to check them out.Reply
no.7
Jul 15, 2007 03:50 ET
Quote from message by PittyPittyPie
do you have a list of your personal ten best games
Here's my Love list, for what it's worth:

http://www.dropyourg...Owner=no.7&List=Love
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 18, 2007 21:07 ET
There do seem to be a lot of people on this site who are more than a little down on the sport. I have read many comments about how the 06/07 season sucked, worst ever, etc. Maybe it's time for a break. Personally, I thought it was a great season. Plenty of high scoring games and drama. Watching the Avalanche's run at the end of the year was fantastic. If you haven't seen these games I highly recommend them. Sakic was phenomenal. There were also lots of comebacks which was almost unheard of in the "old NHL". Before the lockout there were many nights when I practically had to force myself to watch games but the last couple of seasons I couldn't wait for the games to start. The game is far from perfect, but I, for one, am enjoying watching it again.Reply
no.7
Jul 20, 2007 07:19 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
Watching the Avalanche's run at the end of the year was fantastic. If you haven't seen these games I highly recommend them.
The Avalanche struck me early in the season as a team that wouldn't hit anyone. This was the first NHL team I've even seen to play like that on a consistent basis. As a result, their games lacked emotion and I stopped watching that team altogether.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 20, 2007 14:37 ET
Quote from message by no.7
The Avalanche struck me early in the season as a team that wouldn't hit anyone. This was the first NHL team I've even seen to play like that on a consistent basis. As a result, their games lacked emotion and I stopped watching that team altogether.
Well, we obviously watch games for radically different reasons. There's much more to hockey than fighting and hitting. You missed an amazing run by a team desperate to make the playoffs. I have most of the games if you ever want to watch some fast paced hockey with great displays of skill.
Reply
no.7
Jul 20, 2007 15:57 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
Well, we obviously watch games for radically different reasons.
Absolutely. Different people watch hockey for different reasons.

The main reason I love hockey is that it has so many dimensions - more than any other sport. The reason I hate the New NHL is that it wants to take some of them away.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 20, 2007 16:29 ET
Quote from message by no.7
Absolutely. Different people watch hockey for different reasons.

The main reason I love hockey is that it has so many dimensions - more than any other sport. The reason I hate the New NHL is that it wants to take some of them away.
It seems you only like one or two of the "dimensions" Dmitri, fighting and hitting. If I had known this site was going to turn into an NHL bashing site I probably wouldnt have joined. I love the game and there are enough idiots out there who don't watch it without those of us who do picking it to pieces. I mean, how can we expect to convert people when even the fans of the game hate it.

Like I said before, the game is far from perfect but if the only reason you follow it is to criticize it then why bother. Stick with the minor leagues and pre-season NHL games where fighting is much more prevelant and leave the game to those of us who still love it.

Sorry if this seems harsh but that's how I feel.
Reply
no.7
Jul 20, 2007 17:26 ET
In order to improve a faulty product, you need to admit that there is a fault. If I didn't think that the NHL sucks, I wouldn't have started this forum.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
how can we expect to convert people
There's no point in trying to convert people to a product which is faulty. Instead, you have to fix the product. If the product is exciting, there's no need to "convert" anyone. The "conversion" will happen all by itself.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 20, 2007 17:51 ET
Quote from message by no.7
In order to improve a faulty product, you need to admit that there is a fault. If I didn't think that the NHL sucks, I wouldn't have started this forum.

There's no point in trying to convert people to a product which is faulty. Instead, you have to fix the product. If the product is exciting, there's no need to "convert" anyone. The "conversion" will happen all by itself.
"Exciting" in who's opinion? I think the game is the most exciting game out there, bar none. Is MLB more exciting than even the most boring NHL game? Not in my opinion. Every game has it's faults, even pro football which is by far the most popular sport in America. Hell, even soccer, the most popular sport on the planet, is flawed.

But if I am talking to my non-hockey loving friends I am certainly not going to blast the NHL in front of them. I am going to talk about the things I love about the game in the hopes of opening peoples eyes to this great sport. People who only think of violence when they think of hockey because all they see on the news are the Simon incidents or the Bertuzzi debacle. There is so much more to this great sport and they may never get to see it. Everyone neophite I have ever taken to a live game has loved it and has said they would go again.

Having an open discussion about how we can improve our game and openly bashing the sport under the heading "The NHL sucks" are two completly different things.
Reply
no.7
Jul 21, 2007 03:11 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
"Exciting" in who's opinion?
In most hockey fans' opinion as these figures show:

http://www.dropyourg...ad.aspx?Thread=24648

Quote from message by smelltheglove
Every game has it's faults, even pro football which is by far the most popular sport in America. Hell, even soccer, the most popular sport on the planet, is flawed.
Completely agree with you on this one.

Hockey is less secure than the other 3 sports you mentioned though. Those other sports have been established for such a long time in their countries that their fan base mostly consists of fans who grew up watching the sport. Such die-hard fans will follow the sport even if it becomes utterly boring to watch to the others. For example, the international soccer federation is being run by its own version of Gary Bettman. Under him the game is steadily getting more boring to watch, yet it's never been as popular. Here in England, soccer is THE ONLY major sport and just about everyone grew up supporting one club or another. They mostly care about whether their team wins or loses. The quality of the soccer itself comes distant second. It has become so boring recently that I cancelled my expensive TV package and stopped watching. However, I'm clearly in a minority because the last Premier League TV contract is nearly a double of the previous figure (something like $3.4 billion over 3 years).

This is what hockey has to compete against in every country except Canada.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
I think the game is the most exciting game out there
Point taken, but I'm afraid that you are in a minority as the figures above clearly indicate. The Cup Finals' TV ratings have halved in the last 10 years, and this decline only accelerated under the new NHL.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
if I am talking to my non-hockey loving friends I am certainly not going to blast the NHL in front of them.
We don't have non-hockey loving people on this site. I don't even think we have any casual fans here.
Reply
re
Jul 21, 2007 09:08 ET
There is more to hockey than hitting and fighting. But without hitting and fighting hockey would suck. It all goes together the grit with the speed of the game. Its great to have the excitment that a fight could break out or someone could get drilled and its great to watch high action with lots of scoring. But its also fun to watch a 6-0 game with lots of fights. If hockey was just hitting and fighting it would also suck.

Hitting + Fighting+ Scoring+ Action all goes together to make great hockey.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 21, 2007 14:53 ET
I couldn't agree more. It just seems to me 90% of the members of this site would be just as happy with a 0-0 game and 10 fights. Personsally, I love it EITHER way. It's the 1-0 nothing games with no emotion or effort that I can live without and I agree there do seem to be more of those. Or, least there were before the lockout.Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 21, 2007 16:40 ET
Amen, brotha, Amen.Reply
re
Jul 21, 2007 16:53 ET
I agree with both of you. I still love hockey. I liked it better before the lock forsure but still I don't have very many issues with the NHL the way it is now. As long as it doesn't get any worse. Sure I would like to see every team dress an enforcer and a few more fights but still hockey is a great game. Fighting is part of it and still is. Maybe a few more fights would be good but the "New" NHL doesn't quite suck its still enjoyable.Reply
re
Jul 21, 2007 16:56 ET
Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
I don't understand how anybody thinks the NHL is not exciting. I'll tell you right now that it is far more exciting then any other of the three major sports (in North America). Football is great action sure but its five seconds of action then a minute break. Basketball is good back and forth action but scoring is so easy and there are very little moments where something different happens. Baseball is a lot of standing around and making routine plays, slow, and not much fun to watch. Hockey is constant action, sure some games are boring but nothing like the average game of baseball, football, or baseball. Just because the United States of America isn't keen on it doesn't mean the product is exciting. Sure hockey was more fun back in the day but to say the game 'sucks' is exaggerating the situation greatly. The players have more skill then ever before. The game is faster then ever too. Hits need to be increased but head shots need to be erased. Solution get rid of the plastic ridden pads. When people get hit, they aren't getting hit by a shoulder, they're getting hit by a hard layer of plastic. The goalie pads could be a little smaller to make goals come more often. The shootout is good but the statistics need be counted as part of in-game stats. The schedule could be shortened to make more games more important. The instagator rule has to go and the salary cap has to be carefully monitored or we'll be back where were market-wise in a couple years. I think the blame for boring games has to lie on the coaches for implying boring strategies. The reckless styles of the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers make almost everyone of their games a joy to watch. You cannot fix the problem totally but for people in the Southern half of the USA do not show the Carolina Hurricanes and the New Jersey Devils, show the Anaheim Ducks and Dallas Stars. Broadcast the exciting games. That will help make the game grow in America. Still the NHL does not 'suck' the game is exciting, watching the highlight reels nowadays is as good as it gets sports-wise.
100% my thoughts.
Reply
no.7
Jul 21, 2007 17:03 ET
Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
to say the game 'sucks' is exaggerating the situation greatly.
No one said that the game sucks, at least not yet. I said that the NHL sucks because it has allowed the game to become boring.

Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
The players have more skill then ever before.
If you mean that they dump the puck in and out better, I'd agree with that. They also cycle the puck better than ever. Other than that, I'd disagree with you. For example, they aren't able to beat the goalies cleanly as they used to.

Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
head shots need to be erased
You do not necessarily control where you hit someone. It happens too fast.

Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
Solution get rid of the plastic ridden pads.
Agree. Don Cherry explained this point well in Coach's Corner.

Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
The goalie pads could be a little smaller to make goals come more often.
I don't think this is the best way to follow. The goalies will fight the idea using the safety argument. It's far easier to make the nets bigger.

Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
The schedule could be shortened to make more games more important.
This is a non-starter. Less games would mean less money for the owners AND the players. You could see during the lockout how greedy these guys are. If forced to choose between playing 80 and 84 games, I have little doubt that both the owners AND players would vote for 84.

Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
I think the blame for boring games has to lie on the coaches for implying boring strategies.
They are only doing their job. Coaches are fired based on results, not entertainment.

The blame is entirely with the NHL. It's their job to find rules which would make it possible to play offensive-minded hockey and win.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 21, 2007 17:56 ET
If I could address your points one by one:

They don't beat goalies clean anymore because goalies are WAY better than they used to be and WAY bigger with much bigger equipment. There is no doubt there is more skill on display today than ever before.

You absolutelty can control where you hit someone. You're telling me Pronger didn't mean to go for Holmstroms head? Get real.

The blame is equally the coaches.It is their job (or at least they seem to think) to find ways to play defense because we all know defense wins hockey games (just ask the 80's Oilers). No matter what rules the NHL comes up with they will spend the next six months figureing out how to break them. If more coaches coached like Lindy Ruff we wouldn't be having this discussion. And don't tell me it's the personell he has because that is crap.
Reply
no.7
Jul 22, 2007 03:26 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
They don't beat goalies clean anymore because goalies are WAY better than they used to be and WAY bigger with much bigger equipment.
They don't beat goalies clean because they can't see the net. With a few exceptions, a save is made simply because the puck hits the goalie.

Goaltending skills today are not about MAKING a save, they are about COVERING the net with their equipment. I don't understand why no one put a sumo wrestler in the net yet, a guy big enough to fill the whole thing with his body and equipment. He would be the first perfect goalie with a 100% save percentage.

If I were made a GM, this is what I would do as my first move. My team would concede 0 goals all year and win the Cup. The next year, they would introduce bigger nets.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
You absolutelty can control where you hit someone. You're telling me Pronger didn't mean to go for Holmstroms head? Get real.
You found a perfect example to prove my point. The 2 referees clearly didn't think so as they called no penalty on the play.

I think (based on his reputation) that Pronger intended to give Holmstrom a shot to the head, only he DID'T HAVE THE ANGLE to do the damage. Without Niedermayer hitting Holmstrom from the opposite angle at the same time, there would be little damage done, if any at all. But Pronger didn't know that Niedermayer would hit Holmstrom at the same time. It all happened too fast.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
If more coaches coached like Lindy Ruff we wouldn't be having this discussion. And don't tell me it's the personell he has because that is crap.
1. Even Ruff caved in last year when he started benching his players in the playoffs for giveaways. That pretty much destroyed their playoff run.
2. It's absolutely because of the personnel he had in the last 2 years. In the old NHL, he used to have Hasek and his Sabres were one of the most defensive-minded teams in the NHL, if not THE most defensive.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 22, 2007 15:35 ET
Quote from message by no.7
They don't beat goalies clean because they can't see the net. With a few exceptions, a save is made simply because the puck hits the goalie.

Goaltending skills today are not about MAKING a save, they are about COVERING the net with their equipment. I don't understand why no one put a sumo wrestler in the net yet, a guy big enough to fill the whole thing with his body and equipment. He would be the first perfect goalie with a 100% save percentage.

If I were made a GM, this is what I would do as my first move. My team would concede 0 goals all year and win the Cup. The next year, they would introduce bigger nets.

You found a perfect example to prove my point. The 2 referees clearly didn't think so as they called no penalty on the play.

I think (based on his reputation) that Pronger intended to give Holmstrom a shot to the head, only he DID'T HAVE THE ANGLE to do the damage. Without Niedermayer hitting Holmstrom from the opposite angle at the same time, there would be little damage done, if any at all. But Pronger didn't know that Niedermayer would hit Holmstrom at the same time. It all happened too fast.

1. Even Ruff caved in last year when he started benching his players in the playoffs for giveaways. That pretty much destroyed their playoff run.
2. It's absolutely because of the personnel he had in the last 2 years. In the old NHL, he used to have Hasek and his Sabres were one of the most defensive-minded teams in the NHL, if not THE most defensive.
Yes, and they can't see net because goalies are bigger, better at playing angles AND there equipment is bigger.

Not sure how 2 refs missing a call proves your point. Is there any doubt in anyones mind other than the 2 idiots in the stripes that Pronger was trying to injure Holmstorm. I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion after watching that play. Pronger is the dirtiest player in the league who CONSISTENTELY gets away with murder. I can only conclude the refs fear him. I'm quite certain you don't agree with the majority of the calls made by the officials so please, don't tell me they were right in this situation.

Since when did having a great goalie automatically make you have to play a defensive style of hockey? Grant Fuhr was one of the best of his era (of all-time in my humble opinion) and the Oilers saw that as an excuse to play MORE offensively. "Hey, we've got the best in the business back there to bail us out. Let's go for it." Same with the Penguins of the early 90's and Tom Barrasso. And, in the end, isn't that how it should be?
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 22, 2007 16:16 ET
Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
I can conclude one something entirely different. For Chris Pronger it says "PRONGER" on the back of his jersey and it were (all respect due, I actually like both of them) not star players with Thomas Holmstrom or Dean McAmmond. Look at it like this, if it was Brian McGrattan or Andrew Peters in Pronger's position and Sidney Crosby or Alexander Ovechkin in Holmstrom or McAmmond's position the response would be different.
Maybe that's it. I've been hearing about this "double standard" for star players for years but I haven't wanted to believe it but how else do you explain what the man gets away with on the ice? EVERY time he goes in the corner with a guy his stick is in the midsection. EVERY time a player dumps the puck in and tries to go around him he steps in front of the player to slow him down. EVERY EFFIN' TIME! I see other players called for these exact same infractions but not Pronger. It really irritates me to no end.
Reply
no.7
Jul 22, 2007 16:52 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
Not sure how 2 refs missing a call proves your point. Is there any doubt in anyones mind other than the 2 idiots in the stripes that Pronger was trying to injure Holmstorm.
Pronger COULD NOT injure Holmstrom on his own because he didn't have the angle to do that.

My point was that you don't necessarily control where you hit someone because it happens too fast. In this case, the injury to Holmstrom was accidental. Pronger couldn't have anticipated Niedermayer giving Holmstrom a shot from the opposite angle at the same time. It happened too fast.

Clearly, both referees also thought that it was an accident as neither made a call against Pronger.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
Grant Fuhr was one of the best of his era (of all-time in my humble opinion) and the Oilers saw that as an excuse to play MORE offensively. "Hey, we've got the best in the business back there to bail us out. Let's go for it." Same with the Penguins of the early 90's and Tom Barrasso.
If you take a look here:

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?m=20060128

Barrasso's save % was only average compared to the rest of the NHL goalies, whereas Fuhr's save % was actually BELOW AVERAGE.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 22, 2007 17:03 ET
Quote from message by no.7
Pronger COULD NOT injure Holmstrom on his own because he didn't have the angle to do that.

My point was that you don't necessarily control where you hit someone because it happens too fast. In this case, the injury to Holmstrom was accidental. Pronger couldn't have anticipated Niedermayer giving Holmstrom a shot from the opposite angle at the same time. It happened too fast.

Clearly, both referees also thought that it was an accident as neither made a call against Pronger.

If you take a look here:

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?m=20060128

Barrasso's save % was only average compared to the rest of the NHL goalies, whereas Fuhr's save % was actually BELOW AVERAGE.
You're unbelievable. Pronger went for his head. Period. End of discussion. How you can argue that is beyond me. Are you honestly going to tell me that you can go for someone's head WITHOUT intent to injure? Don't think so. If you go for a players head you have only one thing on your mind. Whether or not Neidermayer bumped him into Pronger is irrelevant. He went in, both arms up, going for his head.

As for the goalies, you are just proving MY point. Both of there teams went for it first and played defense 2nd. Of course their stats are not going to be great. I stand by what I said; both Fuhr and Barrasson were 2 of the best of their era and their teams would not have won cups without them.
Reply
no.7
Jul 22, 2007 17:32 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
Are you honestly going to tell me that you can go for someone's head WITHOUT intent to injure?
Absolutely. You just give a guy a little shot, and that's it. Still happens in every NHL game. I have little doubt that that was Pronger's intention. On his own, he simply didn't have the angle to ram Holmstrom's head into the glass. The suspension was politically motivated and ridiculous IMO.

Quote from message by smelltheglove
both Fuhr and Barrasson were 2 of the best of their era
I think that they both were pretty average. For example, Barrasso lost the Pens the 1993 series against the Islanders entirely on his own. They are both overrated because they played on winning teams.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 22, 2007 17:36 ET
I think we are from 2 different planets Dmitri. This will be my last response to any of your posts. Not worth my time.Reply
RedWingsWereTough
Jul 22, 2007 18:20 ET
Quote from message by SarcasticPillow
I don't understand how anybody thinks the NHL is not exciting. I'll tell you right now that it is far more exciting then any other of the three major sports (in North America). Football is great action sure but its five seconds of action then a minute break. Basketball is good back and forth action but scoring is so easy and there are very little moments where something different happens. Baseball is a lot of standing around and making routine plays, slow, and not much fun to watch. Hockey is constant action, sure some games are boring but nothing like the average game of baseball, football, or baseball. Just because the United States of America isn't keen on it doesn't mean the product is exciting. Sure hockey was more fun back in the day but to say the game 'sucks' is exaggerating the situation greatly. The players have more skill then ever before. The game is faster then ever too. Hits need to be increased but head shots need to be erased. Solution get rid of the plastic ridden pads. When people get hit, they aren't getting hit by a shoulder, they're getting hit by a hard layer of plastic. The goalie pads could be a little smaller to make goals come more often. The shootout is good but the statistics need be counted as part of in-game stats. The schedule could be shortened to make more games more important. The instagator rule has to go and the salary cap has to be carefully monitored or we'll be back where were market-wise in a couple years. I think the blame for boring games has to lie on the coaches for implying boring strategies. The reckless styles of the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers make almost everyone of their games a joy to watch. You cannot fix the problem totally but for people in the Southern half of the USA do not show the Carolina Hurricanes and the New Jersey Devils, show the Anaheim Ducks and Dallas Stars. Broadcast the exciting games. That will help make the game grow in America. Still the NHL does not 'suck' the game is exciting, watching the highlight reels nowadays is as good as it gets sports-wise.
Agreed. There arte definitley some new school elements to it that suck, but it is still a great, great game.

The playoffs are still amazing. We all like to see great rivalries and some good scraps, but fights or no fights, there were some fantastic hockey games played in this year's playoffs.

There ar a lot of things wrong with the NHL, but there are a lot of things right and it's still a great game
Reply
RedWingsWereTough
Jul 22, 2007 18:23 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove


They don't beat goalies clean anymore because goalies are WAY better than they used to be and WAY bigger with much bigger equipment. There is no doubt there is more skill on display today than ever before.

This is the MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT to the whole thing. People seem oblivious to the fact that goaltending has improved ten fold since the 70s and 80s. Today's goalies are far more athletic and well rounded
Reply
RedWingsWereTough
Jul 22, 2007 18:46 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
I think we are from 2 different planets Dmitri. This will be my last response to any of your posts. Not worth my time.
Dude, it's because it's Holmstrom. If it were the type of player no.7 admires, he'd be calling Pronger a cheap shot.

There was clear intent on both Pronger and Neidermayer to injure Holmstrom, you know it and I know it.

And yes, players this good at this level know EXACTLY what they are doing in split-second increments...that is why they are at this level. It's called TALENT and SKILL. Those who move and react the fastest have the most success. Pronger knew EXACTLY what he was doing

As for the goalie argument, again you are right on the money. no. 7 also claims that Lidstrom has won championships and five Norris trophies because he played on good teams. Has it never occured to him that one fo the reasons the Wings have had great teams is BECAUSE of Lidstrom???
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 22, 2007 18:59 ET
Quote from message by RedWingsWereTough
Dude, it's because it's Holmstrom. If it were the type of player no.7 admires, he'd be calling Pronger a cheap shot.

There was clear intent on both Pronger and Neidermayer to injure Holmstrom, you know it and I know it.

And yes, players this good at this level know EXACTLY what they are doing in split-second increments...that is why they are at this level. It's called TALENT and SKILL. Those who move and react the fastest have the most success. Pronger knew EXACTLY what he was doing

As for the goalie argument, again you are right on the money. no. 7 also claims that Lidstrom has won championships and five Norris trophies because he played on good teams. Has it never occured to him that one fo the reasons the Wings have had great teams is BECAUSE of Lidstrom???
Exactly. And how does having a great goalie make you a defensive team? Isn't Miller a great goalie? Anyway, as much as I appreciate this site and I do think Dmitri is EXTREMELY knowledgeable when it comes to hockey I simply can't see where he is coming from in most cases and, as I said, will no longer even bother replying to his posts. His reasoning is flawed by his prejudices towards certain teams, players and styles of play. Everyone knows how he feels about Detroit and Pronger probably could have taken a chainsaw to Holsmstrom and it would have been justified it in his mind.
Reply
RedWingsWereTough
Jul 22, 2007 19:58 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
Exactly. And how does having a great goalie make you a defensive team? Isn't Miller a great goalie? Anyway, as much as I appreciate this site and I do think Dmitri is EXTREMELY knowledgeable when it comes to hockey I simply can't see where he is coming from in most cases and, as I said, will no longer even bother replying to his posts. His reasoning is flawed by his prejudices towards certain teams, players and styles of play. Everyone knows how he feels about Detroit and Pronger probably could have taken a chainsaw to Holsmstrom and it would have been justified it in his mind.
Exactly
Reply
14shanahan14
Jul 24, 2007 17:39 ET
As heated as it got between us before, I am with you on this one. I do think Lidstrom is a pussy, but I never question his ability to play the game. He won those 5 Norris trophies by being the best defenseman. Lidstrom didnt solely win us those Cups, but he helped a great deal. You could make an argument for Yzerman, Shanahan, Lidstrom, or Fedorov, that if they weren't there, NO CUPS FOR DETROIT.Reply
RedWingsWereTough
Jul 24, 2007 17:51 ET
Quote from message by 14shanahan14
As heated as it got between us before, I am with you on this one. I do think Lidstrom is a pussy, but I never question his ability to play the game. He won those 5 Norris trophies by being the best defenseman. Lidstrom didnt solely win us those Cups, but he helped a great deal. You could make an argument for Yzerman, Shanahan, Lidstrom, or Fedorov, that if they weren't there, NO CUPS FOR DETROIT.
It wasn't that heated, we were just being a couple of pig-headed idiots. I'm sure we'll do it again, LOL

But thank for the nod on this one
Reply
gosharks
Jul 27, 2007 16:46 ET
I agree with you....and Sarcastic Pillow.

Hockey is the most exciting game out there, but I think a lot people don't like it because they can't play it. Below I described each MAJOR sport, and what you have to do to play it.

Football: Yes there is a lot of padding, but once you're on the field it is running, and thinking. Two qualities that are God gifted.

Soccer: Same thing, the game is running and thinking.

Baseball: Ok...pick up a bat and a mitt and you're ready to go. Yes, it does take some practice of batting and catching but not nearly as much as hockey.

Hockey: First you must learn how to skate..in the other three sports, it's all running to get started. Once you get by skating, you still have to learn many more things, such as: passing, shooting, skating with the puck, checking. I'm sure I could list many more things you must do to be a successful hockey player.

And kids/adults these days want to be able to play there favorite sport, and hockey is clearly the hardest to play.
Reply
smelltheglove
Jul 27, 2007 17:39 ET
Quote from message by gosharks
I agree with you....and Sarcastic Pillow.

Hockey is the most exciting game out there, but I think a lot people don't like it because they can't play it. Below I described each MAJOR sport, and what you have to do to play it.

Football: Yes there is a lot of padding, but once you're on the field it is running, and thinking. Two qualities that are God gifted.

Soccer: Same thing, the game is running and thinking.

Baseball: Ok...pick up a bat and a mitt and you're ready to go. Yes, it does take some practice of batting and catching but not nearly as much as hockey.

Hockey: First you must learn how to skate..in the other three sports, it's all running to get started. Once you get by skating, you still have to learn many more things, such as: passing, shooting, skating with the puck, checking. I'm sure I could list many more things you must do to be a successful hockey player.

And kids/adults these days want to be able to play there favorite sport, and hockey is clearly the hardest to play.
Not only the hardest, but by far the most expensive. For a sport to catch on at the grassroots level it must be cheap to play. A lot of families can't afford the equipment and ice rental.
Reply
gosharks
Jul 27, 2007 19:53 ET
yep...and I forgot the most boring sport:

Basketball:(yawn)....all you need is to learn how to run and shoot(yawn)
Reply
no.7
Jul 28, 2007 04:01 ET
Quote from message by smelltheglove
And how does having a great goalie make you a defensive team?
Have you noticed Vancouver becoming the most defensive-minded NHL team since they signed Luongo?
Reply
jasnpast
Jun 14, 2009 21:20 ET
Quote from message by no.7
I think that they both were pretty average. For example, Barrasso lost the Pens the 1993 series against the Islanders entirely on his own. They are both overrated because they played on winning teams.
I can't speak authoritatively for Grant Fuhr; I'm a Pittsburgher, and media coverage of the entire NHL in the U.S. has only been truly comprehensive since the early 1990s; but I have been turning the case and career of Tom Barrasso over and over in my mind for more than fifteen years now, and I still can't quite decide about him. I want to agree with most of what you say about him; he doesn't belong in the class of the very best goalies in the last two decades - P. Roy, Brodeur, CuJo, Hasek, Van Biesbrouck, and maybe Belfour, Luongo and Khabibulin - but I think at least one of the rule changes to boost goal-scoring in the NHL (restricting the area in which goalies can handle the puck) was necessary because of Barrasso's skill at leaving the crease and handling the puck when opponents shot it in from the neutral zone. If he wasn't in the first rank of netminders (he was very inconsistent from the 1993 playoffs on, and you're correct to say that he cost the Penguins their shot at a third Stanley Cup in the '93 series against the Islanders), he has at least had a big impact on the "new" NHL. Having said all that, it should be remembered that Barrasso (with Buffalo) won the Vezina and Calder Trophies at age eighteen, straight out of high school. No college or major-junior playing experience that I know of...astounding!
Reply
jasnpast
Jun 15, 2009 23:13 ET
Quote from message by jasnpast
Having said all that, it should be remembered that Barrasso (with Buffalo) won the Vezina and Calder Trophies at age eighteen, straight out of high school. No college or major-junior playing experience that I know of...astounding!
...And , of course, his two Stanley Cup victories with the Pens.
Reply