Hank

No they're not. I play goal in a floor hockey league and we use old goalie gear from the 80's. The blocker and glove are much, much smaller than today's. And the pads don't go up as high as the ones most goalies wear now. You also have to take in account that the old pads were 4x as heavy and absorbed water. The pads today are as light as a running show and repel water. I've also noticed that goalies wear pants that are 2 or 3 sizes larger than what they would normally wear. All of this adds up to goalies that are much faster and can cover twice as much space than what goalies could in the 70's and 80's. Lastly, I'm not asking this to be a dink, but I'd like to hear your reasons why you don't think games are suffering from low scores. The last 2-3 weeks the average goals per game has been below 5. The NHL hasn't seen scores that low since the 30's. And goal totals weren't low back then because of traps and goalie gear. If the trend continues like it has, the average goals per game could be close to 5 or even lower. That does not bode well to get the game on ESPN or to gain any exposure or bring fans in. I love hockey and the NHL and I'd hate to see the league lose even more potential fans.

That's not a fair statement. There are lots of real fans that enjoy seeing more than 3 goals in a game. I'm one of them. This past week I must have caught around 10 non-Wings games. Only 1 of them was entertaining (Montreal-Ottawa). People constantly say that scoring chances and flow is what's really important. I agree to some deigree. If the average goals per game went up by 2 but the goals were the same as they are now, the game would still be boring. What I want to see is more scoring zones and more odd-man rushes. I want to truly believe that if Jerome Iginla blasted one from 20 feet out against the wall it has a chance to go in. Or that the goalie has to make a good stop to keep it out. I also want the anticipation that a Sakic wristshot from 12 feet out, near the faceoff dot has a shot of going in on the short side. Both of the described goals existed for nearly a century before goalie gear got out of control and defensive systems reigned supreme. Because of those 2 simple changes, the game has gone from one of great transition and flow to a stand-still chess match where each opponent waits for the other to make a mistake. It would be no different than if every boxing match featured two counter-punchers who simply feigned and walked around each other for 12 rounds. There's a reason why Mike Tyson was so popular just like 70's and 80's hockey is still referenced when talking about 'real hockey'. Both attacked their opponents instead of waiting for one to slip. I vehemently object to this idea. Trap hockey would be even easier to employ with Olympic sized rinks. I've heard players like Miroslav Satan, Mats Sundin and Dan Alfredsson say as much. With more room, it would be much easier to contain offenses and force players to the outside. I've used this same example in several posts but I'll reiterate it here. In an NHL rink, if Ovechkin were to deke through a defender from the corner he would be one step from the slot and a prime chance. In an Olympic rink, he would need at least 2 to 3 more steps to get in that position. And by then, he would have 3 guys on him. Olympic ice is not the answer. Coaches like Lemaire and Martin would salivate at the various degrees of defensive zone coverage and traps they could easily utilize on a bigger ice surface. The fact, is there are very few changes that can be implemented that coaches and players cannot counteract with more defense. But if you increase the scoring area, there's no defense for that. You can only collapse on your goalie so much.

LOL! Argh! Tis a good idea!

I don't know. Even some of the 3rd liners in this game have decent shots. It's just that with how defensive everything is, if you're lucky enough to get anywhere near the goalie there's no room to shoot at. And regarding putting asterisk's beside stats, I think there should already be asterisks beside every goalie stat since 1997 - when Garth Snow introduced his Michilen Man costume. Because after that, shooters had half the cubic space to shoot on compared to every other player from 1900 - 1997. Also, while some low scoring games can be more exciting than high scoring games, normally this isn't the case. I've watched a lot of hockey this year and I have seen some of the most boring games in my life. The problem is, most people think things are fine because they only watch their team. The Wings are 13-3? The NHL's fine. Because like most people, as long as your team wins, it's good hockey. But I am an NHL fan first and a Wings fan 2nd. I routinely watch non-Wings games and so far this year has been brutal. Anyway, if anyone is opposed to making the nets bigger and in favour of decreasing goalie equipment, let the PA know about it. They're the ones stopping it from happening. You can email them here: http://www.nhlpa.com/feedback/index.asp Let's stop flapping our gums and make those responsible accountable.

It's very funny that this thread was started today. Lindy Ruff recently addressed the problem with today's game and how 'zone defense' is killing hockey. I've been saying for a while now how teams have adjusted and simply moved the neutral zone trap to the defensive zone. http://sabres.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pa...rticleid=342669 On top of that, I wrote an email to XM Home Ice: Sorry for the long read, but I think it sums up my thoughts on the subject. Games are just as boring now as they were in 03-04. There's more flow, that's for certain, but there's little drama because there are next to zero scoring zones in the game compared to the 60s-early 90s. Unless things are changed, I won't be renewing my centre ice package.

Exactly! First, they're not fake. Everything in Sweden is natural. Secondly, I'd bet my bottom dollar that every hetero male in this forum would hit that without being asked twice.

Yeah. The only way it could happen is if Sundin allows the trade and then resigns with the Leafs in the off season. That being said, I'd love to have Sundin in a Wings uniform.

Wow. Just because one guy scores and another doesn't, it doesn't mean one's so much better than the other. Wayne Gretzky was 0-9 on penalty shots in his career while Jussi Jokinen was almost perfect in shootouts last season. Does that make Jokinen a MUCH better player than Gretzky? Hardly. There are plenty of guys in the league who are great shootout artists but suck in a real game. With the exeception of Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom I would give up anyone else on my team for Radulov. And in about 2-3 seasons, Nashville probably wouldn't trade him for anyone on our team but Zetterberg. That includes Lidstrom and Datsyuk. Judging one's talent in a shootout is like judging an NBA players talent in a slam-dunk contest. The two have nothing to do with how the player is in actual games. I understand that but when you title your thread "great illustration of talent difference, Zetterberg vs Radulov" it sure comes off that you're implying that Zetterburg has a wealth more talent than Radulov because of one shootout instance. Zetterbergs move worked that time while Radulov's didn't. If they were to do it 10 more times the results could be vastly different.

That's a good question. The answer is probably because Rogers Sportsnet and TSN (along with the NHL Network) cover it enough. But still, not all canadians get those stations and I know a lot of people that would like to see Ron MacLean more than once a week. I LOVE the Hotstove. It'd be fun to get a mid-week 'cooking' match going.

I wish she'd 'Take a Chance on Me'. hahahaha! that was funny! I'm funny.

I thought this post was for Hank's selection in woman: Emma Andersson That's what fame and money will do for you. More on this here: http://www.sportsinferno.com/content/view/278/1/

This is very true. It should also be noted that back then the players salaries were so low that teams made money regardless if they went to the playoffs or not. Owners didn’t mind letting them play run and gun to entertain the crowd because they weren't going to go broke either way. It's why the Leafs continue to play the way they do despite defense winning Cups.

That's like Ryan Miller. He's 6'2" and 170. That's exactly my size when I was 19 - and I was Erkel material. No way he should take up as much netting as he does being that thin. Ridiculous.

On the heels of this discussion: http://www.metronews.ca/column.aspx?id=88386

LOL. Nope. I did it to show how some goalies gear has gotten rediculous. It's also funny that Roy said, almost immediately after retiring, that the goalie gear should and can be shrunk down. Ryan Millers gear is also ridiculous. The guy has calves and wrists the size of my 4-year olds and yet he looks like a damn sasquatch out there.

Compuware Parking garage. It's safe (Police dispatch inside), clean and the people mover connects to it. Also, it's nearby to some great places to eat or hang out before and after a game.

Roy stops Lemieux in junior game.

I agree. I guarantee you Perry would fight less if he was forced to remove his helmet before each tilt.

LOL! Yeah, he made sure to point out that the goalies today are far superior, physically, to the goalies 15+ years ago. But even with that, he said they enjoy a big advantage with the equipment they're allowed to wear. From the big trappers to giant upperbody gear, shooters don't have much room to score out there.

Well said. And I believe he still ties down his equipment in a way that when he hunches over, the equipment on the back flaps up covering even more room. And look at the size of his trapper! That's rediculous. Last night on XM204 Phil Esposito talked about this and he said the league really, really needs to do something about the size of the goalie gear or bigger nets will be a reality. He said the size of the goalies gloves today are enormous compared to when he played. Starstopper31, I agree with your assessment about the skaters gear getting better too. I would have NO problems with the league outlawing composite sticks. MLB doesn't allow aluminum bats so why would this be any different. However, I would argue that these new sticks are making for better shooters. Sure, some guys can shoot a little harder but it's not making them more accurate. And some players are now complaining how they can't 'feel' the puck when they receive passes as well. Going to wooden sticks might actually help some of these guys.

Absolutely right. The only thing the NHL can really do to reverse this, even to a micro degree, is make the goalies upperbody gear a lot smaller. Playing the butterfly back in the day meant that you had to have a fast blocker and glove because of all the room you give up on the upper half of the net. But when a goalie like Giggy, who has no quickness or athleticism, can play the butterfly there's something wrong. You might never be able to get the defensive minded strategies out of the game, but if you give shooters more net to shoot on, teams won't be so willing to give up their blueline to play a trap defense. Not if their net is getting filled every other shot because goalies have to cover more net with actual reflexes instead of padding. Trust me, nobody will be happier than me when goalies like Giggy are gone. They do nothing but mock and spit on this great game with their inflated, cheating goalie equipment. My dream is that the NHL would force goalies to use smaller upperbody equipment for one exhibition game just to see how it goes. I would bet my last dollar that if you forced two goalies to use those pads for 1 game tonight, both teams would score over 4 goals.

Not sure if anyone's interested in this, but I was looking over the goalie stats for the 1987-1988 season. In that year the SO leaders were: Grant Fuhr - 75GP, 4 SO Clint Malarchuk - 54GP, 4 SO Glen Hanlon - 47 GP, 4 SO Grant Fuhr won the Vezina with a 3.43 GAA and .881 Save %. Patrick Roy was the only goalie to post a save % over .900 with 30 games or more. The next closest was Pete Peters with .898 in 35 contests followed by Tom Barrasso with .896 in 54 GP. The average GAA for all 66 goalies was 3.328 with the average save % being .872. In that era SO actually meant something. Chicago actually didn't get 1 shutout all year. Pascal Leclaire has 5 in his 6 starts. This alone should make goalie buffs angry. The goaltender is no longer as special. Saves are mundane and boring as are shutouts. Any GAA above 2.4 or Save % below .910 is AHL material. I know I'm biased but I remember this season, and most seasons in the 80's, very fondly. Hockey was a joy to watch. Nowadays, it's almost like self-inflicted torture to watch some games. That Philly-NYR game was a snore fest. And that says something when you look at the talent on either side. It should have been a dandy. I guarentee you if the game last night, with all the talent on the ice, was played in the same fashion as in the 87-88 season (complete with NORMAL SIZED GOALIE GEAR) the game would have been 20x as exciting.

I'm not trying to be a prick but I have to argue that point about 4.75 goals per game or close to 5.00 goals per game. The NHL hasn't seen scores that low since the late 1930's. That's when players were not allowed to pass the puck forward and there were 6 skaters aside. When people talk about the golden era of hockey a lot of them are referring to the hockey that took place between 1970 to 1990. In those two decades the average goals per game was 7.15. I've spoken to other people that followed hockey during the 70's and I grew up watching hockey in the 80's and I don't ever remember anyone complaining that there was too much scoring. Not one person. People loved watching guys like Esposito, Orr, Bossy, Gretzky or Yzerman lighting teams up. But this, again, all extends beyond how many actual goals are being scored, but rather how milk toast the game has become. In the 70's and 80's there was an abundance of goals scored from the high slot and parameter. Sharp shooters would score from 15-20 feet out with a nice top-shelf goal wrister and most of the time the goalie wasn't to blame because the player was just a good shooter. If you watched 1 game, chances are you'd see that kind of goal once or twice (or more) over the course of 60 minutes. In today's game, you might see that goal once in every 20 games. Kovalev scored a goal like this a few weeks back and everyone in the media blasted the goalie because tenders today are expected to stop that shot. That's what enormous goalie gear has done to alter how goalies are judged or the reason why those types of goals have dried up. If the league averaged only 5 goals per game but each goal was exciting I wouldn't have as much a problem. I'd much rather see only 5 goals in one game if they were generated off of odd-man rushes, breakaways, sniper goals on the short side or clean slapshots from 20 feet out. That to me would be much better than watching 9 goals a game where every goal is like it is today: screen shot, rebound, deflection. As much as the players have gotten so much better, the creativity in the game has gone down the toilet. There are exceptions of course and every now and then you see something special but for the most part, every goal is the same and within the same 8 foot radius of the net. If you think the hockey now is bogged down by boring defensive systems, just wait till you see the game on Olympic style ice. It would be 10x as worse and European players have said as much. Instead of Ovechkin needing only 1 step to get to the net after beating a dman in the corner, he'd need 3 or 4. And by then, someone would be there to block his shot or check him off the puck. Coaches like Jaques Lemaire or Brent Sutter would salivate at the thought of how many 1-0 or 2-1 games they could generate with that much ice surface to play defense on. This is a very unrealistic fantasy, but I'd rather see the ice get shrunk and go to 4-on-4 full time before they went to a larger ice surface.

Hahaha! Are you kidding me???? His numbers would be more inflated than his current chest protector. He would be a backup's backup in the ECHL. I'm not even sure he'd get a gig playing in the Australian Mens league. I don't care if people think it's pure biterness or not, I will never, ever respect J.S. Giguere! He has ZERO TALENT and until he can prove that he can win with normal sized pads, I won't give him one ounce of respect. He's utter garbage and he's one of the main reasons that the state of the game is the way it is. I will personally hold him to blame if larger nets are ever introduced. Giggy you suck!

Thank you! I like the guy and I think he's one of the best, but for the last 4 years my senses have been attacked by Forsberg overload: "I'm not sure where I will sign" "I might come back, I don't know when" "I have a list of teams I might play for. I'll let you know" "I could retire or I could play again. We'll see" Enough already. Just retire!