imisssergei

I never said weaker. Your words, not mine. I said bigger and slower. Also that the dmen Shanny faced were more skilled. These are all true.

You may view it as a misunderstanding but it is scientific fact that a larger curve will help you shoot the puck harder. The more curve on the blade a stick, the more spin the puck has on it when it leaves the stick. The more spin on the puck, the easier it is for the puck to travel through the air, creating a harder shot. Potential into kinetic. The loft, or height of the shot is directly affected by the curve of ones stick. It's impossible for it not to. The larger the curve, the more conducive to higher shot it is. All this is relative however. The actual effect that the curve has is very minimal, especially with the skill set that NHLers posses.

It's bs, it holds water. 86-94 were Neely's best years. He played against bigger, slower players than Shanny did. All I'm trying to point out is that had Shanny been in his prime during that era he would have been the mirror image of Neely. That's all.

Shanny played against bigger, stronger, more skilled defenders than Neely.

Really? Shanny fits that mold to a T. My 5.... Fedorov Yzerman Gilmour Felix Potvin Pavel Bure

I miss the days of Dave and Mickey. Those two were fantastic.

Datsyuk is good, but not that good. Fedorov was the most well rounded hockey player in the world in his prime. No way Datsyuk can play d for an entire game and not look foolish. Fedorov could have been a Norris winner had he played d more often. Yes, he was that good.

I disagree. NHL coaches are looking for the right moment to ask for a measurment. Rarely, in fact I've never, do you see a stcik measurement turn into a pissing contest between coaches. As the playoff race tightens up, I wouldn't be surprised to see the fist stick measurement called here pretty soon.

I also watched that TSN report, they said that there has not been one measurement done this season. As far as what happens to the coach if he requests a measurement, and it's legal, he does get fined the $100 and he is assessed a 2 minute bench minor for delay of game. It's funny that this topic would come up, and goaltenders pads would be compared to it. In the thread about goaltenders pads someone made the comparison that sticks are monitored more closely than goaltenders pads. All goaltenders equipment is checked before each game. Sticks are only checked upon request.

I don't remember the year, as I was too young. I know it was before I started kindergarden, but after Stevie started. My first game was the Wings and Blues. Oates was still a Wing. The Tigers were good without a $100 million payroll. The Wings jersey's were tighter than they are today. I remember when PASS was introduced, and I had to watch most of the games scrambled. I remember crying when they were swept by the Devils. I remember Petr Kilma's first stint with the Wings. I remember sitting about a foot from the tv every night a game was on because my dad worked nights, and no one else watched. I remember being mezmorized by the game. I remember the battles between the Leafs and the Wings, those battles lead to my love for the Leafs today. (relax, the Wings are still #1)

Does it bother anyone else that the Wings have had some problems late in games when they have the lead? I don't know if it's the Wings just thinking the opposition is going to give up, or maybe they just don't care. But the way they have been playing isn't too comforting going into the playoffs.

I'm not just talking about today's game. The Wings have been awful in the 3rd period most of the season, allowing teams to get back into games they shouldn't be in. As far as the refs are concerned, just as all of us knew the calls would be going Nashville's way, so did the Wings. The Wings just didn't play very well in the third period, again. At some point, the Wings need to shape up and play a full 60 minutes.

I've argued with a friend about this all season long. I can understand how it might be boring for an opposing fan to watch the Wings games, as their team doesn't generally generate much offense. However, the Wings are one of the highest scoring teams in the league, and the best defensive team in the league. Their style does not produce a lot of up and down action, but it's great hockey. Top 5 most boring styles? Come on, New Jersey, Minnesota, Vancouver, L.A., Anaheim, Calgary, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay are much more boring to watch, IMO.

You do realize that while Bettman has some pull in how things are done, nothing would happen if the BOG didn't want it to.

I meant with the ability to look at things like too many men on the ice.

You know that list is a bunch of BS when Toronto isn't on it. Leafs tickets are the hardest ticket to get in sports. If the Leafs were to make it to the SCF, those tickets would be harder to get than tickets to any Super Bowl EVER. No teams fans live and die with their club like Toronto's do.

No, staw house was what I meant. You aren't familiar with the phrase, so I'll explain. Your argument is as strong as a straw house, it looks fine, but as soon as the wind blows, it's in shambles. I'll say this one more time, and if you can't get it, then you have serious issues. There is a very distinct difference between something that is not addressed in the rules, and something that is specifically addressed in the rules. There is a very distinct difference between something that is not addressed in the rules, and something that is specifically addressed in the rules. There is a very distinct difference between something that is not addressed in the rules, and something that is specifically addressed in the rules. I wrote that three times on purpose. They say the best way to absorb something is through repatition. Maybe it will help you understand what I am trying to say. But just in case.... There is a very distinct difference between something that is not addressed in the rules, and something that is specifically addressed in the rules. There is a very distinct difference between something that is not addressed in the rules, and something that is specifically addressed in the rules. There is a very distinct difference between something that is not addressed in the rules, and something that is specifically addressed in the rules.

VERY NICE!!! The only thing I was thinking about was an octopus with a face, something like the purple one they used to have at the Joe with the mean look on his face.

Those are beautiful!!! :clap: I really like the old english d. The only thing I would do different is make the sleeves more like the standard jerseys with one white stripe, and put red numbers inside of it.

I'm kind of on the fence here, leaning towards no. Here is why. The NHL has probably the best video review system around, in that of the systems in use, it is the most effective and efficient. However, it isn't perfect. I think it should be left alone as far as how plays are reviewed, but I would like to see what the plays that can be reviewed expanded. The best way to do this, IMO, would be to have a short, 30 second break between goals to allow the guys in Toronto time for a quick review of the goal. If something needs further review, they make the call and take the necessary time to make the correct. Every time I've seen a play reviewed in the NHL, they get it right. Which is more than you can say for any other sport.

You should do one in black, and find some sort of alternate logo, maybe an octopus or something. I suggest instead of actually doing it myself because I lack the knowhow.

Straw house buddy....

I've had seats all over the Joe. I prefer to sit anywhere between the bluelines in the upper bowl, the higher the better. My favorite seats are section 210. If you sit at the top, you can lean back and see the tv's that hang for in the press boxes in event of a reviewed play.

THANKS!!! It's good to know there is someone else out there who can use sound logic to reason on this subject!

If you have played ball all your life, then you know that an outfielders mit is larger than an infielders mit, and that the webbing is a players preference. Anyone who can use logic to reason can see the stark differences between steroids and equipment. Regardless, I'll play your little game. It is possible for something to be 'unfair' yet allowed by the rules. Example: The rules allow Chara to use a stick that would be impossible for Rex to use. This could be viewed as technically unfair. However, you can't use steroids as an argument. There is a vast difference between something that isn't addressed in the rules (steroid use in the 80's), and something that is specifically addressed in the rules (Giggy's pads). Furthermore, Giggy's pads meet all specifications laid out by the NHL. Apples and oranges.