• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Echolalia

Goalie Pads

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I was able to see first-hand the size of Legace's pads yesterday. They are about as tall as him. It's legal. But come on Legace. No way do you need pads THAT big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steroids in baseball were used most heavily in the 80s, but did affect the 90s because many of the users, even if no longer using, had benefitted greatly physically from using them.

And the difference between the gear used by Brodeur and the gear used by Giguere? Brodeur uses gear his size for safety reasons. Giguere uses gear that blocks extra net because he's not fast enough to stop a lot of those pucks. It's unfair because one goalie is using properly sized equipment and relying on his immense talent, while the other goalie is using grossly oversized equipment and relying on his being able to square to the shooter and cover extra amounts of net with his gear. If Giguere were to use Brodeur's gear, he'd probably still be in the NHL...but he would not be an elite goaltender. And that is the problem people have with his gear. It's the difference between a good goalie and a great one because it means he has to move much less, which eliminates his major weakness.

The thing is, Giggy's pads aren't grossly oversized, they meet all NHL standards just like Marty's do. Just because the two guys play a different style, and use equipment that caters to that style does not mean either of them is abusing the system.

I gaurantee that the Marty uses the biggest pads that he is comfortable with, as does every goaltender.

Gear doesn't make the goaltender, his play does. Just like Chara's extra long sticks don't suddenly turn him into an elite defender. The fact is that the goaltender still has to go out there, and be in the right positions, and Giggy is one of the most positional sound goaltenders in the game, maybe ever. Are his pads bigger than Marty's? Yeah, but Marty's are smaller for a reason, they allow Marty to play his style in net.

It seems that the only way to make people like you happy would be to require all goaltenders to wear the exact same size equipment. Otherwise, there will always be some goaltender somewhere who has bigger pads, so that must be what makes him good.

I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet you fight so hard to prevent the change.... why?

I don't understand your question.

I'm not against change, I'm against people saying that the size of goaltenders pads needs to be reduced because they are too big.

The only reason anyone would want to do this is to increase scoring. As long as the trap is a legal style of defense, you will never see the high scoring days of the 80's.

There are other things in this game that need to be addressed before the size of goaltenders pads. Such as how on back to back night professional refs can blow two calls that lead to goals, one a game winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, Giggy's pads aren't grossly oversized, they meet all NHL standards just like Marty's do. Just because the two guys play a different style, and use equipment that caters to that style does not mean either of them is abusing the system.

I gaurantee that the Marty uses the biggest pads that he is comfortable with, as does every goaltender.

Gear doesn't make the goaltender, his play does. Just like Chara's extra long sticks don't suddenly turn him into an elite defender. The fact is that the goaltender still has to go out there, and be in the right positions, and Giggy is one of the most positional sound goaltenders in the game, maybe ever. Are his pads bigger than Marty's? Yeah, but Marty's are smaller for a reason, they allow Marty to play his style in net.

It seems that the only way to make people like you happy would be to require all goaltenders to wear the exact same size equipment. Otherwise, there will always be some goaltender somewhere who has bigger pads, so that must be what makes him good.

I'm done.

I want pads to be limited to what is necessary to protect the goaltender. This means restrictions based on the size of the goaltender. I posted earlier that a maximum width of 9 inches and a maximum height of 2" above the knee would be more then sufficient to protect the goaltender from a safety standpoint.

That is what my issue is; safety equipment where the purpose of increased size has nothing to do with increased safety, but rather it is increased ability to stop the puck with less movement.

Giguere is very good positionally. Brodeur is also very good positionally. But Brodeur has much better reflexes than Giguere. Giguere is not so much better positionally to make up for most of the difference between the reflexes; the oversized pads are a huge factor in that.

I am not a big believer in goaltenders being allowed to wear equipment that is much too large for their body in the name of 'playing style' because that's a crock. Unless you think outfielders should be allowed to have a three foot long glove or that guys who like to perform a take-out slide should get to sharpen their spikes. Playing style is one thing. Unfair equipment is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dare someone to tell me that he's to big and that there is nowhere to shot after you look at this picture.

9c61d0acb5c7e20f3c31dc483c1c5f18-getty-76074437bb003_anaheim_ducks.jpg

He might be using equipment thats a little big but he makes saves cause he's that good at his angles and quick with his reflexes. How big a diffenence does it make anyways. Might help him make 2 or 4 saves a game that he might make anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut
I don't understand your question.

I'm not against change, I'm against people saying that the size of goaltenders pads needs to be reduced because they are too big.

The only reason anyone would want to do this is to increase scoring. As long as the trap is a legal style of defense, you will never see the high scoring days of the 80's.

There are other things in this game that need to be addressed before the size of goaltenders pads. Such as how on back to back night professional refs can blow two calls that lead to goals, one a game winner.

I asked why you were fighting so hard for nothing to be changed, when you were asking us to prove things that could never be proven without the rules being changed.

Ok... two things here.

Um... first off you contradicted yourself. You say you are not against change, then spend 3 sentences explaining that you don't want things changed.

Second, I think with the number of staff working for the NHL they would be capable of making more than two changes to the rulebook in a year (though you bringing up the refs seems like nothing but a change of subject).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut
I dare someone to tell me that he's to big and that there is nowhere to shot after you look at this picture.

9c61d0acb5c7e20f3c31dc483c1c5f18-getty-76074437bb003_anaheim_ducks.jpg

He might be using equipment thats a little big but he makes saves cause he's that good at his angles and quick with his reflexes. How big a diffenence does it make anyways. Might help him make 2 or 4 saves a game that he might make anyways.

Does his shoulder/chest padding need to be higher than his ears?!?! do both his arms and legs need to mesh together with equipment to make a wall? In my opinon there should have been 5 holes to shoot there instead of 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does his shoulder/chest padding need to be higher than his ears?!?! do both his arms and legs need to mesh together with equipment to make a wall? In my opinon there should have been 5 holes to shoot there instead of 3.

Come on now.

It's above his ear because his head is down, ANY chest protector is going to do that in that position. And, on top of that, his blocker and glove are where they should be. I can go all day if you want me to. He's in a perfect set position other than his glove being pointed towards the shooter. A lot of goalies have the problem though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked why you were fighting so hard for nothing to be changed, when you were asking us to prove things that could never be proven without the rules being changed.

Ok... two things here.

Um... first off you contradicted yourself. You say you are not against change, then spend 3 sentences explaining that you don't want things changed.

Second, I think with the number of staff working for the NHL they would be capable of making more than two changes to the rulebook in a year (though you bringing up the refs seems like nothing but a change of subject).

How did I contradict myself? I'm all for change, if it is warranted. This assault in Giggy is nothing more than hatred by Wings fans against a rival goaltender. I don't recall anyone saying ANYTHING about Garth Snows equipment, his shoulder pads literally did come up to his ears.

As for the comment about the refs, I wasn't changing topics. Merely pointing out something that is a black and white issue, rather than something that is in the gray area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does his shoulder/chest padding need to be higher than his ears?!?! do both his arms and legs need to mesh together with equipment to make a wall? In my opinon there should have been 5 holes to shoot there instead of 3.

Let me help you out here, as you seem to lack the knowledge of where the five holes actually are supposed to be located.

Upper left corner, upper right corner, lower right corner, between the legs, and lower left corner. All the spots where there is supposed to be room, there is. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want pads to be limited to what is necessary to protect the goaltender. This means restrictions based on the size of the goaltender. I posted earlier that a maximum width of 9 inches and a maximum height of 2" above the knee would be more then sufficient to protect the goaltender from a safety standpoint.

That is what my issue is; safety equipment where the purpose of increased size has nothing to do with increased safety, but rather it is increased ability to stop the puck with less movement.

Giguere is very good positionally. Brodeur is also very good positionally. But Brodeur has much better reflexes than Giguere. Giguere is not so much better positionally to make up for most of the difference between the reflexes; the oversized pads are a huge factor in that.

I am not a big believer in goaltenders being allowed to wear equipment that is much too large for their body in the name of 'playing style' because that's a crock. Unless you think outfielders should be allowed to have a three foot long glove or that guys who like to perform a take-out slide should get to sharpen their spikes. Playing style is one thing. Unfair equipment is another.

The difference between a goaltenders pads and that of a players is that a goaltenders equipment is designed to stop the puck and protect him.

Since you are unfamiliar with baseball, I'll let you in on something. Each position does use a different size glove, some even shaped differently.

Outfielders tend to use a larger glove to help catch the ball in the air. Third basemen tend to use a very small glove to force them to get 'down on the ball' more. Shortstops and second basemen use a slightly larger mit than the third basemen do as they handle more balls in different situations. The pitcher uses a pretty standard mit. The first basemen uses a differently shaped mit, which allows him to more easily scoop balls thrown or hit in the dirt, as well as provide more protection for his fingers and palm when catching the ball. The catcher uses an even different mit, specially designed to protect his hand.

But I realize the point you are trying to make, it just doesn't fit. Until the NHL changes the rules concerning goaltenders equipment, Giggy's will remain completely legal, hence it is impossible for it to create any unfair advantage.

And let's keep one thing clear, an unfair advantage is something that not all players can compete with. Something that is only available by breaking a rule. Something that is used illegally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between a goaltenders pads and that of a players is that a goaltenders equipment is designed to stop the puck and protect him.

Since you are unfamiliar with baseball, I'll let you in on something. Each position does use a different size glove, some even shaped differently.

Outfielders tend to use a larger glove to help catch the ball in the air. Third basemen tend to use a very small glove to force them to get 'down on the ball' more. Shortstops and second basemen use a slightly larger mit than the third basemen do as they handle more balls in different situations. The pitcher uses a pretty standard mit. The first basemen uses a differently shaped mit, which allows him to more easily scoop balls thrown or hit in the dirt, as well as provide more protection for his fingers and palm when catching the ball. The catcher uses an even different mit, specially designed to protect his hand.

But I realize the point you are trying to make, it just doesn't fit. Until the NHL changes the rules concerning goaltenders equipment, Giggy's will remain completely legal, hence it is impossible for it to create any unfair advantage.

And let's keep one thing clear, an unfair advantage is something that not all players can compete with. Something that is only available by breaking a rule. Something that is used illegally.

Hmm...I have played baseball all my life. The only difference I've noticed between an outfielder's mitt and a middle infielder's mitt is the fact that the outfielder's mitt has holes in the webbing so that he may see the ball better in the air without being blinded by the sun.

My whole argument is the fact that the NHL SHOULD change the rules regarding goaltender equipment, because the use of equipment several sizes too large SHOULD be against the rules.

But, since you said something not against the rules isn't unfair, what's your take on Jose Canseco's steroid use? Was that perfectly fair too? Or is it possible for something to be unfair and technically allowed under the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, Giggy's pads aren't grossly oversized, they meet all NHL standards just like Marty's do. Just because the two guys play a different style, and use equipment that caters to that style does not mean either of them is abusing the system.

I gaurantee that the Marty uses the biggest pads that he is comfortable with, as does every goaltender.

Gear doesn't make the goaltender, his play does. Just like Chara's extra long sticks don't suddenly turn him into an elite defender. The fact is that the goaltender still has to go out there, and be in the right positions, and Giggy is one of the most positional sound goaltenders in the game, maybe ever. Are his pads bigger than Marty's? Yeah, but Marty's are smaller for a reason, they allow Marty to play his style in net.

It seems that the only way to make people like you happy would be to require all goaltenders to wear the exact same size equipment. Otherwise, there will always be some goaltender somewhere who has bigger pads, so that must be what makes him good.

I'm done.

:clap: (not that you're done, clap cause I am pretty much 100% in agreement :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm...I have played baseball all my life. The only difference I've noticed between an outfielder's mitt and a middle infielder's mitt is the fact that the outfielder's mitt has holes in the webbing so that he may see the ball better in the air without being blinded by the sun.

My whole argument is the fact that the NHL SHOULD change the rules regarding goaltender equipment, because the use of equipment several sizes too large SHOULD be against the rules.

But, since you said something not against the rules isn't unfair, what's your take on Jose Canseco's steroid use? Was that perfectly fair too? Or is it possible for something to be unfair and technically allowed under the rules?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Barry Bonds is believed to have been given the clear and the creme by his trainer. Neither substance was banned under the MLB steroid policy at the time. Do you think he cheated if/when he used them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barry Bonds is believed to have been given the clear and the creme by his trainer. Neither substance was banned under the MLB steroid policy at the time. Do you think he cheated if/when he used them?

Straw house buddy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pad size is mostly about style of play...not trying to get the extra advantage. I could wear WAY bigger pads right now if I wanted too. But It would prolly make me play worse. My style of play is what Im used to....and Im used to about size 32+2 leg pads. Any bigger or smaller and I would have to change how I move, set up, and get into position. As seen in the picture above Giggys pads arnt huge....they are normal.

Like I said before its his compact stance that makes him look big...and his white pads have something to do with it to, same with legace. They are trying to make themselfs look big to the shooter...which is good...and apparently they do it so good you guys have to freak out about pad size. You people who say his pads are SO big are just clueless and no nothing about the goalie position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Straw house buddy....

Assuming you mean a straw man...

How exactly is it a straw man argument. What of your opinion have I misrepresented or oversimplified? I asked you if someone who did something that was not illegal and was okay under the rules as they stood cheated.

Ad hominem buddy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Don't forget about the 1st baseman's glove. If we really want to get into the size of players glove; second is usually the smallest (around 11.25'') next some shortstops (11.5'' to 12'') then third base, first base and the outfield (12'' to 13''). First base mitts are designed completely different as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming you mean a straw man...

How exactly is it a straw man argument. What of your opinion have I misrepresented or oversimplified? I asked you if someone who did something that was not illegal and was okay under the rules as they stood cheated.

Ad hominem buddy...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dare someone to tell me that he's to big and that there is nowhere to shot after you look at this picture.

9c61d0acb5c7e20f3c31dc483c1c5f18-getty-76074437bb003_anaheim_ducks.jpg

He might be using equipment thats a little big but he makes saves cause he's that good at his angles and quick with his reflexes. How big a diffenence does it make anyways. Might help him make 2 or 4 saves a game that he might make anyways.

Dare excepted! Not really though. I'd like to point out that from Drury's or the puck's point of view there is less to shot at than from the cameraman's point of view.

With that said there is still alot of net visible, esp. 5 hole. However, being a butterfly goalie, it's more of a tease than a scoreable area. (No I'm not against the butterfly BTW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this