Brodeur Suggests Changes

[eva unit zero 271]

as stated in two earlier posts - it makes PERFECT sense. When there's a scramble for the puck, as ANYONE who ever played the game know, one is going to just blast the puck and take the icing over giving up a goal, the ONLY time a clear would be made with "touch" would be the same cases in which a player could carry it out... which they already do...

These extra icings would slow the games progress down by stopping play close to at least 3 times a power play, leave tired players on the ice and in turn cause more injuries and improper line change opportunities (for BOTH the attacking AND defending team)

Despite history, it's not exactly fair that a team that committed a rules violation gets an ADVANTAGE in that they can ice the puck. What this rule does is takes that advantage away; it won't create extra icings because the situation where a player would now ice the puck becomes a situation where if the player does ice the puck, he's just giving the opposing team a fresh line against his tired line. For those complaining about tired players leading to injuries, I have a solution for you:

We'll have 30 minute games and use rosters of 40 players, and we'll use no-touch icing, and all penalties will be a minimum 10 game suspension. That way, nobody will get injured, right?

[imisssergei 0]

as stated in two earlier posts - it makes PERFECT sense. When there's a scramble for the puck, as ANYONE who ever played the game know, one is going to just blast the puck and take the icing over giving up a goal, the ONLY time a clear would be made with "touch" would be the same cases in which a player could carry it out... which they already do...

These extra icings would slow the games progress down by stopping play close to at least 3 times a power play, leave tired players on the ice and in turn cause more injuries and improper line change opportunities (for BOTH the attacking AND defending team)

Are you serious buddy? The only point with any validity that you made was this rule would cause more stoppages in a game. Big deal. So games are now a few minutes longer.

Tell me something, how would this rule result in injuries and 'improper line changes' (please explain what the hell you mean by that) by both attacking and defending teams? I can understand the potential for a poor line change made by the defending team, but the attacking team? And injuries, how the hell does this increase injuries?

This rule would force teams to either play with a tired PK unit which would create more chances for the PP unit, or learn how to clear the puck with touch. It's that simple. What don't you understand?

[maltbyrocks18 0]

this is something that should be left alone, i mean come on leave some sort of defense in the game. all the nhl is doing any more is finding more ways to f*** over the defensive qualities of the game and its bull. more goals more goals more goals. this isn't basketball, we dont need a goal every 10 seconds to not get distracted and lose interest. real hockey is where a goal is an achievement, a big thing that you go crazy about when it happens because its not something that happens every minute. Is there any hockey fans left but me that would rather see a double overtime 1 - 0 game than a 9 to 7 win? i mean im a defensemen myself personally so maybe im biased but this is coming from brodeur and that makes no sense to me.

[imisssergei 0]

this is something that should be left alone, i mean come on leave some sort of defense in the game. all the nhl is doing any more is finding more ways to f*** over the defensive qualities of the game and its bull. more goals more goals more goals. this isn't basketball, we dont need a goal every 10 seconds to not get distracted and lose interest. real hockey is where a goal is an achievement, a big thing that you go crazy about when it happens because its not something that happens every minute. Is there any hockey fans left but me that would rather see a double overtime 1 - 0 game than a 9 to 7 win? i mean im a defensemen myself personally so maybe im biased but this is coming from brodeur and that makes no sense to me.

Sex sells.

Goals = Sexy.

Therefore, Goals sell.

If we want to be able to watch hockey things will have to change. It's as simple as that. I'm not necessarily all for increasing scoring, but I'm all for increasing scoring chances.

[Sebastian 0]

this is something that should be left alone, i mean come on leave some sort of defense in the game. all the nhl is doing any more is finding more ways to f*** over the defensive qualities of the game and its bull. more goals more goals more goals. this isn't basketball, we dont need a goal every 10 seconds to not get distracted and lose interest. real hockey is where a goal is an achievement, a big thing that you go crazy about when it happens because its not something that happens every minute. Is there any hockey fans left but me that would rather see a double overtime 1 - 0 game than a 9 to 7 win? i mean im a defensemen myself personally so maybe im biased but this is coming from brodeur and that makes no sense to me.

I agree with you 100%, thats the reason i hate basketball, cuz like no game is ever close and they score every damn second.

[toby91_ca 620]

Just to play devil's advocate... did the shoot-out cheapen the wins you get from it?

definitely!!

[toby91_ca 620]

"If you ice the puck now, you can't change," Brodeur said, "so you'd get tired penalty killers out against a fresh power play. That's a better advantage [for the team with the extra skater].

Is it just me or is Brodeur a little confused?

Maybe I am missing your point.....since I am thinking it's just you.

[CopenhagenWing 38]

Misread it.

Brodeur is talking about a future scenario.

[34Legace34 0]

weird idea...not really feeling it.

on the topic of making goalies smaller, it can and should be done.

this does NOT include making the pads and gloves smaller.

they are already using INTERMEDIATE sized gloves, and 11inch pads...these are the same sizes that are built for 12 year olds.

what needs to change is the pants and chest protector sizes.

the new thinner pads and smaller gloves have made goalies quicker...but they still have the advantage of HUGE mid sections...looking all "puffed" out.

this is coming from a goalie...who is still using old NHL spec sized equipment

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

My favorite part of the article is where he calls out Legace for wearing oversized equipment.

Regarding reducing goalie pad size:

"I don't have a problem with it," Brodeur said. "One guy who's 170 pounds probably shouldn't look bigger than a guy who's 220. I've got 30 pounds on a lot of guys, but they look bigger than me because they're wearing size XXL pants. Look at (St. Louis goalie) Manny Legace. He's a small guy who wears 38-inch pads (in length), the maximum. Olaf Kolzig wears 38s, but he's 6' 4". There are a bunch of guys who should be wearing 36s. (Brodeur wears pads that are 34½ inches.) Because Legace is small, the pads are allowing him to cover areas that he probably shouldn't be covering. The way it is now, it isn't fair."

Legace wears the same size leg pads as Kolzig?

Edited January 8, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[imisssergei 0]

My favorite part of the article is where he calls out Legace for wearing oversized equipment.

Regarding reducing goalie pad size:

Legace wears the same size leg pads as Kolzig?

Well Manny is all legs, so it makes sense.