It's probably LESS to do with advertising than people think (i.e. not the first step in a process that leads to sponsors on the back of jerseys), but more to do with brand presentation. *Note - Tried to find a promo/press pic of Ovie but they were all of him in game* However in all these sorts of photoshoot pics, what's the one thing you notice about the player in questions jersey? If you, as an organisation, are trying to sell your brand then the last thing you want is your marquee player, the face of your franchise, obscuring part of their jersey (in this case, their number) when he is on TV or going to be snapped for the net or the papers. All arranged photos seem to have players with untucked jerseys it seems.
Not surprising this seemed to come at the request of GMs.
Anyone else bugged by us being "like" Chicago, even though Chicago copied us?
Not only that, IF they are including Toews and Kane as any part of that future score, then their statement about Blackhawks doing all their young investment without the help of Lottery picks is a blatant lie.
I'm probably a broken record when it comes to supporting Tootoo, but I thought he looked real solid last night. He was hustling hard out there, got a few good hits in, drew a late penalty while negating an icing. I'm really hoping he makes the cut, as unlikely as it may be.
We don't know Tatar and Nyquist can deliver. We hope and expect they can. Look, I'll miss Brunner as much as anyone. He has skill and the desire to improve. But Tatar is more well rounded than Brunner and equally driven. While it'd be nice to have two young scoring wingers, it's just not in the cards.
Point is, Alfredsson is quality insurance in case Tatar doesn't develop. Consider Tatar to be Brunner 2.0 and Alfredsson to be icing on the cake.
Tatar is the key to the season, I think. If he explodes we will do fine. If not, our offense hasn't improved much over last year.
Posted by DickieDunn
on 19 September 2013 - 03:34 PM
Simple rule is if you see the guy's name you don't hit him. That's all on Pulk.
Pulk will get hammered because he's a rookie who has no shot at making the NHL out of camp and they can say see we do want to stop those hits. Then when a star does it or nobody is hurt they can make an excuse to let it go later in the year. What should happen is it's a suspension regardless of injury or player status, but we might as well wish that the government actually did what was right instead of what's best for themselves.
I tried explaining to a casual fan of hockey how jersey tucking is infinitely more dangerous than, say, body checking, or, say, skating on ice, or, say, falling on ice, or, say, not wearing a visor, or, say, shooting a puck, or, say, being a goalie, or, say, being a referee, or, say, sitting on the bench (pucks get shot there all the time), or, say, sitting in the stands near ice-level (falling pucks). I also tried explaining how jersey tucking is equally as dangerous (2-minute minor) as slashing (2-minute minor), tripping (2-minute minor), cross-checking (2-minute minor), high-sticking (2-minute minor), etc.
It left me wondering one thing: if blood is drawn, by a tucked-in jersey, is it four minutes in the box?
Only if it goes over the glass or happens in the last five minutes of play (unless you're a star player) or if you're in the trapezoid or if the official had the intent to blow.
I'm hoping that the more I drink as the game goes along it will make more sense. I try to picture what they're talking about in my head, but before you know it everyone's wearing a clown costume and playing kazoos.
I like that I'm hearing the word "save" a lot in regard to our less than stellar Monster. Maybe there's hope yet...