Hank

To me, yes. Because scoring a goal is way more exciting than a chance to score a goal. And besides, there are very few times where the situation you described occurs. Most of the time it's Player races down the ice and is forced to the outside because of a defensive trap. Player rips a standard 25 foot shot that goalie easily sees and even if he didn't his ginormous equipment would have made the save for him. Goals bring people out of their seats. Scoring chances entice but don't come close to generating the joy and excitement a goal does. And lets not forget that crowds used to get excited over the anticipation of a goal because there were a lot more scoring zones from the blueline in. Now everyone on the ice and in the stands knows nobody's going to score unless they're standing on top of the goalie. When 'cycling' gets a buzz going in the crowd you know there's something wrong with the game. 3-on-2's and 2-on-1's used to get people to the edge of their seats. But you'd sooner see Bigfoot than an odd man rush nowaday's. Whether you want to believe it or not, you're in the vast minority. Lundqvist's performance last night might have been special if 4 other goalies hadn't done the same thing on the same night. I don't pay $100 a game or $200 a year for Centre Ice to watch goalies play great angles. Snore. 50 years from now people will still be talking about Ovechkin's fantastic falling down, behind the back goal, not how Lundqvist played a perfect angle on a Briere shot from the far dot. P.S. You're right, the players of today can do things that Gretzky and Howe could never have dreamed. Too bad we never get to see it because of the horrible defensive systems and goalies that are the size of Mount Everest. Imagine watching an NBA where Lebron James was averaging 8 points per game because the hoop was shrunk in half and teams were told to always play defense and not even worry about the ball. Lebron James, physically, might be the most gifted basketball player of all time. But nobody would get to see that because of what I described above. I'm sure fans would flock to the arena or their TV's to watch that.

I love watching vintage hockey too. So much more interesting than some of the hockey played today. The reason why goalies all played stand-up back then was because the leg pads were so heavy and absorbed so much water that it made it harder to pop back up when they went down. Not only that, but in the butterfly you gave up a lot of the upper net to shooters. But that's all changed now. The equipment is twice as big, half as heavy and absorbs no water. So goalies can go into the butterfly and their upper-body gear will block out the sun. All the disadvantages of the butterfly in years past are gone to the point where playing stand-up is suicide. On top of that, I can't tell you how sick I am of watching defensive systems. Watching teams send one forechecker of the redline is blasphemous in my book. It's a shame that when you try to mention any of this on HF you get blasted by kids who've only watched hockey over the past 10 years. They never had the pleasure and privilege to watch hockey in the 80's where hockey was HOCKEY. Fights, hits, goals, great saves, ODD MAN RUSHES <gasp!!!>. I guarantee you if hockey was played today like it was 20 years ago there wouldn't be an empty seat in any arena and people would be tuning in a lot more than they are now. I know, I know, I'm an old geezer but today's hockey has a lot less character and flair than it used to. 25 of the 30 teams play the exact same style as do the goalies. It's so generic and sterile today to the point that almost every game is the exact same. I would argue 'yes'. And the reason is, if goalies were forced to play standup, there would be a lot more goals. And if a team realizes that they can't prevent half the goals they do by playing conservatively and trying to block every shot, they'll have to score too in order to stay in the game. It would be like war games. Once one volley of missles was fired, the other side would be forced to respond. We'd have a lot more back and forth hockey where scoring could occur anywhere in the offensive zone. There's only one scoring zone in the game now - 8 feet around the net. Sure, you'll see the odd Kovalchuk or Heatley goal where they snipe it in from 10-12 feet away. But for the most part, 90% of today's goals are from rebounds or deflections.

You summed it up to a T. Another big change that's happened because of upgrades to padding is how everyone collaspes on their goalie to block shots. It used to be that coaches and goalies would scream to 'get out of the way' when a player was winding up. Now everyone is expected to block shots. Players no longer have to try getting the puck past one player but now they have to get through 3 or 4 before it makes it's way to the over-inflated goalies. Shutouts are completely boring and mundane nowadays, as are 'great saves'. With the exception of 1 or 2 goalies, all goalies are basically the same with only defenses making the difference. The only way to rectify this is to make the nets bigger or shrink the goalie gear. But to be honest, I'm sick and tired of talking about this topic. I hate the idea of making nets bigger but I don't see the union allowing the league to cut back the padding as they'll only scream about having an unsafe work environment (which is complete bulls**t!). But if there was more space to score then teams wouldn't be so inclined to sit back and wait for mistakes. Today's shooters are very dangerous. Even 3rd line guys. So if some team wants to sit back and let teams take the zone, they'll be on the wrong end of a lopsided score before they have to open things up. When teams realise it's much easier to score, and much harder to prevent goals, they'll be forced to win games by <gasp> generating offense. I know there are some that love defensive hockey. I used to appreciate it too. But that was in a time and era when shutting teams down was an actual challenge and a testiment to the hard work on the ice. Now, with all the systems, super-gear and conditioning/speed of today's players, getting a shutout or only allowing 1 or 2 goals is fairly easy and expected by most coaches and fans.

Giggy was his usual dependable self - always in position but no ability to take a goal away when the shot's not on target to hit his pads.

Just goes to show that goalie equipment and defensive systems have taken the art and fun from what shutouts used to mean. It's no different than if baseball had 5 no-hitters in one night. I can remember a time when 5 SO's would top the league over an entire season. Pascal Leclaire already has that many and the season isn't even a quarter done yet. Time to strip the goalies down.

Exactly. Too injury prone and too high of a price tag.

http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/News...ing/index.shtml

Absolutely. I didn't get the impression that Schneids was 'cracking' on Babcock in the least. I actually got the impression he was trying to kid around.

This guy thinks he's so clever. What an idiot. Honta yo baby!

I witnessed a duck and retreat one time in a local Junior C game. It was during a Christmas tourny and one of the local players went after a visiting player. This kid literally flew down the ice and jump over the boards, into his bench, to avoid the fight. The whole arena (1000 fans or so) blew up laughing. After the game, a lot of the players went back to a local watering hole. One of the linesman noticed that kid that turned tail and said to him "If I was the official I would have given you 2 minutes for being a *****".

LOL!

You're right. It's funny, before the lockout it was the East that was boring. Lots of trap hockey and very little flow. Now that's reveresed. The Wings, Wild, C-bus, Vancouver, Dal, etc all play a very tight, trapping style. Divisional play certainly has hurt the attendance but I know that if Zetterberg and Datsyuk were named John Smith and Jim Johnson, the Joe would be packed.

Bob Hartley anyone?

I don't think anyone's laughing at those guys injuries only the fans reacting so soon to a poor start. I think it's quite obvious that Naslund doesn't want to be there anymore. He doesn't fit into their new, tight-checking style and it might be time for him to move on. The Sedin twins, Bieksa and Luongo are the only things that team has going on. Morrison has gone straight into the toilet and people keep waiting for Linden to return to his 1993 self. Minnesota is this years Vancouver.

Absolutely! The #1 line is an exceptionally entertaining watch. Out of all the top lines in the league, the Zetts-Dats-Homer line is the best, bar-none. Kira, the reason why I say it's boring is because even though I'm a Wings fan I enjoy watching games for both sides. This shows my age but back in the day when, say, the Islanders would roll in to town I loved watching Patty Lafontaine do his thing. Or Bure in Vancouver, Sakic in Quebec, Fluery in Calgary, Recchi if Philly, etc. It's not just the Wings stars that I like to see do their thing. But it's hard for an offensive player to be entertaining without the puck - which the Wings don't like to give up very often. Like I said, I'm trying not to complain because the Wings are winning and the top line is awesome to watch. But along with the physicality of the sport, I enjoy watching the offensive stars shine. That doesn't happen a whole lot in Wings games because the top line can't play 40 minutes and the other team never has the puck. Just my $.02. P.S. Even though they've struggled this year Buffalo is a fun team to watch. I swear Derek Roy is the 2nd coming of Doug Gilmour. And Kovalchuk was a man possessed in the Sens game last night too.

I'm opening myself to get flamed here, but I think the Wings are one of the most boring teams in the league to watch. Dats and Zetts are a pleasure to view but the rest of the team is boring. We play a very boring, suffocating style that puts a lot of fans to sleep. I shouldn't complain because we'll more than likely use this style to get another #1 seed locked up. But the last couple of years I use most of my free time and Center Ice subscription to watch other teams during the regular season. But I tune in for every minute of Wings playoff hockey.

I'm only speculating at this point as there is no proof of Atlanta shopping Hossa around. However, the Thrashers are struggling and I don't see them making the playoffs. Also there have been unconfirmed rumors that Hossa doesn't want to resign with Atlanta because of the direction they're going in. (Hossa refused to take part in the shootout the other night against the Habs because he wasn't 'feeling it'). Saying all of that, if Hossa did want out of town and Wadell was willing to dish him off, would you want him? And if so, for how much? Atlanta needs centres and mobile Dmen. Would you give up Filpulla and Kronwall for Hossa knowing that he'll be a UFA after the season is over? My thoughts would be to go for it. Hossa is an amazing talent and he would help round out our scoring greatly. I can only imagine how awesome it would be to see him and Dats or Zetterberg together. Resigning him would be the hard part. With Dats making $6.7M, Rafalski $6M and Zetts and Lids looking at around $7M per year it would be extremely tough to fit under the cap. I would hope that if this deal were possible, Holland could convince all 3 (Lids, Zetts, Hossa) to take a minimal pay cut to get them all under the Cap. You could front load all their contracts to give them huge $$ in the first 2-3 years and then lighten up in the back half. What are your thoughts? Who would you be willing to deal? Would you be partial to sending Jakob Kindl off in a packaged deal? Would you deal Hudler? Filpulla? Ericsson? Etc?

That's how I felt too. And if you watch the Wings '98 video where he's giving this speech to his players, they look embarrassed as well.

Hahaha. The irony isn't lost on me. What's funny is I've been getting a lot of emails lately where people have been doing this. Maybe it got stuck in my head too.

Wow! It sounds like the Ducks took a sip of their own medicine and it left a bad taste in their mouth. I hope Schlonger gets a Boll elbow in the face and it leaves him concussed until 2012.

Funny you mention Foote's health issues. On XM204 yesterday they were talking about the negative effect the new composite sticks have. One of them is that it vibrates badly when taking a hard pass. Apparently Foote got a bad case of tendinitis in his forearm last season because of it. Players also say that because of it, the puck will bounce a bit when receiving a pass at times. Just more proof that wooden sticks are still the best! P.S. I do have Hossa in my NHL08 dynasty and he and Dats are gold!

I think they're done. USAToday ran an article a couple of seasons ago showing that for the past 20 years 95% of the teams that were in the playoff picture as of November 1st stayed there. The Ducks won the Cup last year by rolling 3 amazing lines and 4 amazing defensemen. Then they lost arguably their best scorer, a top 6 winger (Penner) and their best dman and replaced them with 2 broken pieces. Making Huskins and Shannon Miller play more is not going to help this team. Especially when Giggy's pads can't stop a beachball right now. Ducks will be golfing early. Just like in '04.

Because defenses tighten up and block more shots. Giggy is the same guy in the regular season as he is in the playoffs. He just sees less quality shots in the playoffs and a lot of the rebounds are cleared because his dmen and forwards backcheck and play far more aggressively. Giggy is the most overrated goalie I've ever seen. At least he admits that he has no athletic prowess. I just wish the players and commentators would get on him more for the laughable gear he puts on. The dude has shoulders like a 12 year old girl and yet he looks like King Kong on the ice.

But that's just it. It used to be that if you played a butterfly style you had to have quick reflexes to stop high-shots. That's why Butterfly goalies rarely existed up to the early 90's. Guys like Felix Potvin could get away with it because of a quick glovehand or blocker. But Giggy stuffs his pads so full that he doesn't need quick reflexes. If all you can brag about is having good positioning, then you're overrated and an overpaid goalie at $6M. I disagree that he 'stole' games for the Ducks in '03. But maybe it's my interpretation. Luongo steals games and it's because he'll make a stop when you didn't think it was possible to preserve a game or keep it close. Giggy doesn't make stops like that. He's either in position or he's not. When caught out of position it's a goal 100% of the time. Or if a player is able to shoot on net, where it's not on target to hit his ginormous pads, it's also in the net. How many goals have we seen him give up from 20 feet out and nobody screening him because he was simply too slow? Lilja's playoff goal comes to mind. Or how about the one where Cheli rang one off the post from the blueline. Every NHL goalie and even AHL goalie would have stopped that. Not Giggy. 75% of his game is pads. If the NHL made him shrink his gear to the size of what guys wore in the 80's he'd have a 4.50 GAA and a .650 Save %. Giggy sucks.

Or the first if a top line talent like Hossa was to be had. I like Filp and I think he has potential to be a very good player. But if I had my choice, I'd trade potential for proven talent. If Wadell called and said we could get Hossa for Filpulla, Kindl and a 1st I'd take the deal. Especially if Holland could keep everyone under the Cap. Hudler-Zetterberg-Hossa Franzen-Datsyuk-Homer Cleary-Draper-Sammy Drake-Kopecky-Maltby Not too shabby. Or think about a Datsyuk-Zetterberg-Hossa superline on the PP or late in a game.