eva unit zero

The old pads are definitely smaller. Here's some proof; Patty Roy in basically the same position several years apart. Notice particularly the enlarged trapper and chest protector. His leg pads are not significantly larger, but that's not where the difference is made on a butterfly goaltender.

Clearly they didn't watch the whole thing. As I've said before...if I could take the tradeoff my goalie letting in center ice goals like Ozzie did in 98, and have each year end the same way 98 did...I'd take that deal every time.

Defensemen in the Eastern Conference must really be terrible..seeing as McCabe is on the All-Star ballot. I'm putting the over/under for McCabe ASG votes at 1000.

A power forward is a strong, usually big guy who plays a physical brand of hockey and can produce offensively. Guys like Brendan Shanahan, Kevin Stevens, Gary Roberts, Keith Tkachuk, Eric Lindros, Jarome Iginla. That's a power forward. Guys like Jagr, Yashin, Lang, Eric Daze, Marian Hossa, Jason Allison, Glen Murray? Those guys are big and strong and use their strength to produce offense, but does that make them power forwards? The difference, and it is key; Power forwards use their physical strength to control play when they have the puck, and they use it to control play when they DON'T. Guys like the second group are big strong guys who can brush off defenders and are strong on the puck...but you don't see them intimidating an opponent physically in the same manner. Opposing teams were scared of guys like Shanahan and Tkachuk because they could punish you physically, or on the scoresheet....Jagr, Yashin, etc. were/are intimidating only for their scoring presence.

You are taking the 'blindly optimistic' point of view, I see. Consider this; Mike Babcock has a red hot goalie playing every game with his starter injured. His starter has also been underperforming this season. When his starter gets back from injury, there are four games spaced apart. Do you play the goalie that hasn't looked good in all four games and hope he develops a rhythm, risking your hot backup going cold....or do you play him in half of them and hope that only one of those things (cold backup/no rhythm starter) or none happens? If Osgood goes cold because he'll have only played basically two games in two weeks, and Hasek doesn't pick it up, what happens?

I brought up the numberof goalies inducted thing to make a point; the top handful of goaltenders from an era have typically been inducted into the Hall. Osgood is in the top handful of goaltenders of his era. That means that at the very least, it's not an open and shut case of him being locked out. I feel Ozzie deserves to be in the Hall based on his level of play, not based on the level of play of his competitors. If Ozzie passes Esposito, then maybe? When is the last time a goalie won 425 games and was MAYBE a Hall of Famer? The only goaltender with 400 wins who is not either already in the Hall, or a lock to be inducted when eligible, is Curtis Joseph, who as a starter has won zero individual awards, zero Stanley Cup championships, zero Stanley Cup finals appearances, and one President's Trophy. Compare with Osgood who has won the Jennings, has been named a second-team All-Star, has appeared in the finals, and has won a Cup, as well as being the starting goaltender for two President's trophy winners. Come to think of it, while people are slamming Ozzie for playing on great teams..Hasek has started for just as many President's trophy winning teams as Ozzie did. EDIT: Interesting statistic; Since the Original Six era began in 1942-43, exactly three goaltenders have been the starting netminder for multiple seasons in which the Wings have allowed fewer than 2.5 goals per game as a team. Terry Sawchuk, Chris Osgood, and Dominik Hasek.

Assuming my parents have the same seats as the past few seasons, I'll be in Section 42, row 60. Seat will be between 18-22.

Making the nets larger would be a mistake. All that would lead to is an increase in the number of guys like Giguere; where 'big' is their primary asset, and reflexes are unimportant. The league needs to streamline equipment; what should happen is a testing phase for new, sleek goaltender equipment. Injuries would be monitored; if there was no discernible difference in goaltender injuries that could be related to their protection, then the union would have nothing to complain about.

Depends who you ask. I've seen 'expert' opinions that called Alexei Yashin and Jaromir Jagr power forwards...

I have your solution. Since Z is the better centerman, but you claim Dats' goal scoring problems have been due to his positioning on the left wing...why not just swap Dats and Homer? Dats would have a much better angle coming off the right side, and Homer would be in front no matter where he was listed as playing.

The fact that he is being talked about as a potential Hall of Famer means he's not a bust by any stretch. A bust is a guy who not only is supposed to do well, but then comes out and NEVER succeeds. For example: Alexandre Daigle was drafted 1st overall in 93, Viktor Kozlov was drafted 6th that same year. Daigle scored 129 goals and 327 points in 616 games, which compares fairly well to the 169 and 442 in 749 games Kozlov carried into the current season. Daigle is universally considered a bust; some even label him as the biggest bust ever. Yet Kozlov was at times during his career considered a star player. Daigle was far more consistent a scoring threat and produced roughly the same amount of points without ever playing with talented linemates....I believe the best linemate he ever had was Mike Sillinger in Philadelphia. Lindros, however, won a Hart trophy and was nominated the next season, and was one of the five best players in the world for years. You can fail to live up to expectations and not be a bust, and that's what Lindros did.

Just a frame of reference for you guys: Hall of fame goaltenders who played at least 50% of their career in the Original Six era (1942-43 to 1966-67) and number of O6 years with minimum 20 games played. There should be a total of 300 O6 years played by that standard; 25 years of two goalies on six teams. Let's see how much of the NHL's goalies from that era are in the Hall, shall we? Terry Sawchuk, 17 Harry Lumley, 12 Glenn Hall, 12 Jacques Plante, 11 Gump Worsley, 11 Johnny Bower, 10 Bill Durnan, 7 Chuck Rayner, 7 Frank Brimsek, 6 Turk Broda, 6 Total 99 Ten goalies to represent 25 years. Average O6 career length of 9.9 years, meaning an average 4 of 12 goalies from a given O6 year would be Hall of Famers. We'll assume that the chances of a goalie making the hall relative to his peers in the 80s and 90s drops by 50%, from 1/3 to 1/6. That still nets us an average of about 8-9 Hall of Fame level goaltenders for the time period. Based on my top ten list, that number sounds pretty close to what we should have when all is said and done. And Osgood is in that group.

Proved he could get absolutely destroyed by Eric Lindros? Huh?

Nope, that's Andy Moog. In 1985 and 1986, Grant Fuhr started the All-Star game, and Andy Moog was the only spare goaltender for the Campbell Conference. In both seasons, he finished top six in Vezina voting and postseason All-Star team voting. As a backup.

San Jose doesn't have anyone to replace Marleau on the second line, and Atlanta would have exactly three wingers who belong anywhere near a scoring line after that deal. I think it would look more like this: To San Jose: RW Hossa C White To Atlanta: C Marleau RW Pavelski Atlanta gives up Hossa, easily the best player in the deal, as well as White, giving San Jose a solid two-way second-line center. Marleau gives Atlanta that speedy first-line pivot they have wanted to put with Kovalchuk, and Pavelski is a skilled youth that helps even it out; Atlanta is giving up the best player in the deal and a solid throw-in.

The 5 Hole king? Let's try and avoid throwing out baseless slams just for the sake of stirring the pot.

Kopecky has the offensive instincts and raw skill that, if he develops to his potential, could make him a 15-25 goal scoring physical winger. Depending on where in that range he falls and how consistently he produces will determine whether he is closer to a second liner or a third liner. I've always maintained this position. Let me give you a better idea of what I have always seen in Kopecky; Mikael Samuelsson with a physical edge and the ability to play any forward position. And whether you like it or not...that's a second liner.

Osgood was second in Smythe voting in 1998. If the Wings won in spite of his play, and he was still the second most valuable player on the team, Yzerman's 98 playoff performance must have been the greatest month and a half of hockey ever seen or yet to be seen, as he completely dominated the opposition en route to singlehandedly winning the championship despite the fact all of his teammates were dragging him down. Osgood succeeded on teams that weren't stacked. Fuhr failed miserably anywhere other than Edmonton's 80s teams. He was great, but not THAT great.

No, I said he would come around and show the kind of game he had been showing early last season and in his last year in grand rapids; a physical game with decent offensive upside that hopefully will develop into a solid 2nd/3rd line two-way grinding winger. You know...what I have been saying all along?

Told you guys he just needed a little time.

If Osgood posts a couple more solid seasons, there's no reason he can't be ahead of Fuhr. Fuhr played on possibly the most talented team in NHL history, at a time when the talent was at its most watered down. Think about that for a second; the Oilers were a team that would have been successful in ANY era, and they were playing in an era where talented players were hard to come by (the talent pool was not significantly bigger than the O6 era as until the end of the 80s, Europeans were generally unavailable, and skilled Americans were rare. The Oilers had enough of the top talent to compete in a six-team league. Now consider that the other five teams worth of that six teams was spread out across 20 teams. If we assume for sake of argument that the 1/6 was evenly distributed among the positions (1/6 of the top defensemen and forwards) that means that to have a team with talent distribution and dominance like the Oilers, you might be looking at this set of top six forwards/top four defensemen: Sidney Crosby/Jarome Iginla/Henrik Zetterberg/Pavel Datsyuk/Ryan Smyth/Evgeni Malkin Nicklas Lidstrom/Tomas Kaberle/Robyn Regher/Chris Phillips Fuhr was a good goalie, but no doubt having a truly stacked team in front of him helped his success.

If anyone gets bumped for personality it's Barrasso. Largely because he's as much a jerk as Roy or Belfour, but not as good a goalie.

In his career, Richter received one first place vote and two second place votes for Vezina. He was NOT a Vezina contender, ever. Total of 24 points in voting in his career. Joseph finished with better than 20 points three times, including 10 first place votes in 1999. It's funny that you would rank Salo ahead of Joseph, when Salo succeeded Joseph in Edmonton and did not produce nearly the same kind of results with similar teams. And those weren't even Joseph's best years. Salo should be NOWHERE near this conversation; he opens it up wide open to second-tier guys like Irbe, Kolzig, Ranford, Dafoe, Thibault, and Potvin, among others. The other guys I wanted to cram onto my list were John Vanbiesbrouck, Andy Moog, Mike Liut, and then maybe guys like Richter and Sean Burke.

I think there is a line. When it gets to the point where it is cartoony and stereotypical, and done in a demeaning fashion, then it's not ok. When the name/logo/mascot are used in a way that is respectful and honoring, and/or with permission, it's certainly perfectly ok. Case in point...Cleveland Indians vs Central Michigan Chippewa. Chief Wahoo is a racist joke. The CMU Chippewa have the blessing of the tribe. It's not all black and white like some are trying to make it.