nhl
 

i know there aren't many hockey fans, but that there are a few. anyone else sweating the negotiations? i've already paid for nhl center ice, they better have a season!!!!

you better hope you can get some rosetta stone Russian for cheap and also get your cable provider to switch the offer to the KHL center ice-package....

они не собираются получить сделку


-bt-

:D


yeah, not looking too promising right now.
and nyet to learning russian; i'm still working on spanish.

easy as A B C
 

Ban the helmet, 20% salary raise for everyone, teen age girls crowding the rinks, everybody makes money, lots of money. When these dopey Canadians realize this is entertainment, and when fans can see the players faces, they become bigger fans. Non fans, become fans. I bet a third of them would take them off now if they could.





"the least common thing in the world is common sense" - The Unpredictable Johnny Rodz

Two lockouts in less than a decade is undescribably stupid for a sport in these economic times.

The hardcore fans will be there when they start playing again, but they can't afford to lose the casual fans who will take their rapidly dwindling descretionary funds elsewhere.

Yeah the NHL hasn't had any issues with concussions lately...

I think Larry Brooks is the best hockey writer out there, and he summarizes the situation quite well in today's article:


http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/devil...wLQvEQBP8hffvO

if no one gets to wear one, the concussions go away. Man , you just don't get it do ya ?
Have you ever laced em up ? The helmet ruined hockey. Ask Bobby Orr, he'll tell you about it. He never wore one.

you've got to be kidding me.

and the helmet 'ruined' hockey? i didn't know hockey had been ruined. i enjoy it as much now as i did back when there was no hockey rule. i suppose next you'll be advocating no helmets in the nfl as well? then they won't get helmet to helmet hits and everything will be a-ok. because we all know that head injuries only occur when there is a helmet to helmet hit. :rolleyes:

there are no helmet to helmet hits in hockey. Comparing football is apples and oranges. No helmets mean everyone is vulnerable, and the dirty play stops.They played for many years with no helmets and there were not many concussions. Alot of missing teeth, yes, but ther are better mouthpieces now. Don't forget there is a money incentive here, both for players and owners.

oh now I get it Tretiak...the ruskies used to wear helmets when the NHL wasn't wearing them. But then Fred Shero's Flyers showed the world what a bunch of little pussiez they really were. They were practically crying out there on the ice.

I was going to type a long response to this but I will just summarize it. You are an idiot.

yep, they played for years without helmets, and looking back, they were insane.

yes, i know there typically aren't helmet to helmet hits in hockey. that was my point. helmets in hockey prevent a variety of injuries besides a helmet to helmet, including pucks getting shot into someone's head. you think those puck hits would magically end because they stop wearing helmets? when a guy goes to block a shot in a power play kill, the puck won't ever have a chance of hitting him in the head? with modern sticks, with more flex, and more speed in a shot, you want to get hit in the head with that frozen rubber? no helmet, no visor. i think a lot of players like their visors. we had a guy in the nhl almost lose an eye because of no visor.
i tell you what, you go play a season as an experiment, without a helmet, and let me know how that works out for you.
and what exactly is the point of your last line?

Congrats on your consistency.
Or was this another lost in translation moment? :rolleyes:

we 3 kings
 

you are , no doubt, the nitwit who brought the myrrh. It's tough to type a long response when you have to respond to the truth, with no ammo to back you up

re-read post 13.

the sticks come down, and you don't do a Don Awrey blocking shots on the power play. You don't screen the goalie and let him see and stop the shot.
I doubt any of you guys ever really played hockey. Even now when we rent the ice and play pickup games, about 3 guys wear helmets (no cage or visor) and no one else does.

Craig McTavish......

You sir, are a f.ucking idiot. You are seriously comparing pond/rec hockey to the NHL?

Oh yeah, What about when a guy gets tripped or slew-footed and he cracks his head on the ice? Or is tripping not going to happen in your backyard hockey game either?

it doesn't even have to be a blocking shot. those pucks come flying...

and i doubt the guys you play with are comparable with ovechkin, crosby and the like.
i can't believe you think it would be a good idea to completely change how hockey is played, just so people don't have to wear a helmet. makes no sense.
people have gotten injured after a puck hit them in the helmet, and you want them not to have that? that is completely absurd.

why were there so many less injuries when players didn't wear helmets. Bobby Hull's shot with a wooden stick was harder than any of these guys with there fancy sticks. There was nothing more exciting watching The Roadrunner coming busting over center ice with a full head of steam and a full head of hair. Part of the allure of the great Bobby Orr was that you could see him. The game was so exciting back then it was incredible, not this zone trap bull. Non playoff hockey is a joke and needs a change.

There are two types of injuries in hockey..or..any other sport. Call them intended, or unintended..ie...hitting a guy in the head with a stick or...getting tripped up on an icing call and going face first into the boards.

I agree..I think..that if everyone did not wear a helmet it might minimize the intended stuff..but...if a helmet helps reduce the unintended (slapshot in the head)..why in the world would you want to campaign for no headgear?

Don't put your head in front of a slapshot. If you do get hit the helmet isn't gonna save you. Why do all these guys have concussions if they all wear helmets ? Not thugs, big stars....open your mind

Your First sentence..huh? Your second sentence...are you kidding?? your third sentence..how many more would if they weren't...And Al Bundy, I have and do skate...OK..Serious question...would you send your kid out without a helmet?

As an AHL season ticket holder, I'm selfishly rooting for a delayed start to see some young NHL'ers for a few months.

1-absolutely absurd.
2-mike green got hit by a pick just above his ear last season. the helmet was the difference in him only missing the rest of that game, vs missing weeks- or something worse.

concussions will occur regardless of helmets. and many times they come with a check in open ice. not a cheap hit, not boarding...look at crosby when he got hit a couple times within a week. neither was a blow to the head. but with the force of his head being whipped in one direction and then another because of a check, he got concussed. the head doesn't actually have to hit an object to get a concussion.
however, i promise you that the players suffering hits to their head are happy to have a helmet between their noggin and whatever is hitting them. but to suggest that a player would be better off without a helmet is unrealistic.


as for the talks of bobby orr...you do remember about the removal of the rule against a two-line pass just a few years ago? that has sped up the game considerably. many feel that is why there are more concussions occurring these days. not because of helmets being worn.

home of the braves
 

The Boston Braves games were as good as the Bruins games back in the Terry O'Reilly days.


Danzig my point is that with a helmet on the players get a feeling of invincibility which cause these hits at so high a speed. Like in football, do you think those safeties would be dealing out those hits if they weren't wearing helmets.

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that 12 year old kids should be wearing helmets on Bicycles.

er, do they face frozen pucks?

and yes, i get your point about a feeling of invincibility. however, i think you're overstating that part of the case. players know that even with a helmet, they can still suffer injury. thus, they don't necessarily feel they are invincible.
besides, if that was the only way a player was injured in the head, due to a high speed collision, you'd be onto something. except that it's not.

as for dirty hits, i hope they continue to give out hefty suspensions. but i'd rather have a helmet then not, in case a dirty shot was ever delivered.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4968953_hi...y-helmets.html


you can't prevent a variety of scenarios from occurring, all you can do is offer protection.

Seems to me, AS would like to see the NHL All Star game type play every night. I don't watch the All Star game so I can comfortably say that I wouldn't watch helmetless hockey with no hitting and guys making sure they stay out of they way of slapshots.

:tro:


and how can guys stay out of the way anyway? they don't all necessarily have their eye on the puck the entire time-we all know how quickly the game moves.
hard to avoid the thing if your back is to the shot. hard to avoid even if you're looking at it! guys get hit by the puck quite often in a game when they block shots.

couple years ago, nick backstrom played a portion of a power play without a stick. i doubt he'd have involved himself quite so much in the penalty kill without a helmet; he blocked several shots with his body. amazing display.

a la Don Awrey ?

how come nothing ever happened to MacTavish. What about the 50 years before the helmet. Don't forget hockey players are tough. They can take it. I would like to see a poll of the players. example. you are making 800K, if you stop wearing the helmet, your salary goes right to 960K. what would the vote be ?

There is a better chance of players playing for free than w/o helmets. Just because of the liability alone there is absolutely no chance that this happens. Not to mention that the idea that seeing a hockey players hair is somehow going to make the games better or more popular is so inane that it sounds like something the NTRA would come up with.

But it still isnt as ridiculous as left handed pitchers having an advantage in Fenway Park.

The lockout begins.... Matt, I'm glad you got out to NYC and protested yesterday, but couldn't you have found a couple more friends to join you?

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...P0QNRqWBMP2LuO

:rolleyes:

All the sox Great hitters were lefties. Why? Cause it's a left hand hitters park. Ray Culp pitched the first opening day I went to. Caught a foul ball from Veda Pinson. How any times have u been to Fenway ?

very disappointed that they couldn't avoid a lockout.

Dewey, Rice, Manny, Fisk, Bucky Dent..come on

Wow, don't even know where to begin with this one...ever get hit in the head with a puck shot with a composite stick? Ever have a puck deflected up at your head? Ever take an inadvertent high stick to the head? Yup, you convinced me, the helmet is unnecessary.:zz:

TED WILLIAMS, Carl Yastrezmski, a couple of triple crown winners, and hall of famers, were the sox best 2 hitters

All the Sox great hitters were lefties? Like Jim Rice? Manny Ramirez? Nomar? Fisk? Dwight Evans? Bobby Doerr? Vern Stevens?


How many times have I been to Fenway has nothing to do with the laughable idea that Fenway Park is a haven for left handed pitchers. Its almost as idiotic as saying that the NHL should get rid of helmets but that is just a pointless opinion. The fact that the Red Sox best left handed pitcher in the last 70 years is Jon Lester should be proof enough.

Bill The Spaceman Lee??