Jump to content

Around the NHL 2019-20


Eleven

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, LTS said:

And has been mentioned before.. what if that problem is #9?  He seems to be better this year.. but in the past there were plenty of reasons to think it might be.  It might still be for all we know.  

 

I wasn't sure that he should have been appointed captain when it happened and I remain unsure of that now.  I would have put that C on O'Reilly and kept him, and let Jack be content being the highest-paid.  And I think he would have been fine with it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

He had quite a night. ... He felt the skate blade hit his eye, but fortunately it just got the eyelid and they took 90 stitches to fix," Lamoriello said. "He'll be fine. It's just a matter of time with the eye opening up."

Really, Lou, "He'll be fine?"  It's like they say, minor surgery is only minor if it's not happening to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Sort of like helmets in the 80's.  And visors in the 90's.  I think it's inevitable.

They're not allowed unless you have some sort of facial injury.  That much I've never understood.  Why would they stop anyone who actually wants to protect themselves?  It's not like it enhances their performance in anyway, short of maybe being a bit more bold with shot blocking.  There used to be the fighting argument, but as that has more or less disappeared from the game, so that doesn't mean much anymore.

The most marketable game in this country has face shields, so they shouldn't be worried about that.  And if it is a marketability thing, there are a million other things they should be focusing on.

I don't see the need to mandate them, but let them wear them if they want to.  What's next, banning the cup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

Why?

Because it would all but eliminate fighting; completely eliminate double-minors, and potentially could lead to players playing more recklessly due to their false sense of further safety. 

Granted my biggest fear would be the NHL furthering down a path that leads to women's hockey rules where hitting is a penalty and it becomes a game of almost pure finesse which isn't all that entertaining. I love the combination of physicality, finesse, and IQ mixing together into an interesting show. A huge hit is far more entertaining than a guy two-hand slashing another player. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Because it would all but eliminate fighting; completely eliminate double-minors, and potentially could lead to players playing more recklessly due to their false sense of further safety. 

Granted my biggest fear would be the NHL furthering down a path that leads to women's hockey rules where hitting is a penalty and it becomes a game of almost pure finesse which isn't all that entertaining. I love the combination of physicality, finesse, and IQ mixing together into an interesting show. A huge hit is far more entertaining than a guy two-hand slashing another player. 

Wait.... one of your arguments against is because facesheilds will prevent high sticked players from getting cut?  WTF logic is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...