|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
09-14-2012, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
|
#2
09-14-2012, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#3
09-14-2012, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#4
09-14-2012, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#5
09-15-2012, 07:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
09-15-2012, 07:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 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.
|
|
#7
09-15-2012, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ?
|
|
#8
09-14-2012, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#10
12-29-2012, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i prefer watching football on tv. hockey is best live. good stuff. i'm definitely suffering withdrawals. my daughter came by the other day-i had on vermont vs maine. she teased me about it. 'college hockey, mom?!' yeah! it's hockey!
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#11
12-29-2012, 11:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Union Busting..
|
|
#12
12-29-2012, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the truth, finally
|
|
#14
12-30-2012, 07:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I predict this will get settled within the next 10 days. Both sides realize losing a full season is MORONIC.
The deal the players will have to settle for won't be great, but it's not like it will get better next year after missing a full season. I agree that player salaries are relatively enormous, and that cutting them by any relatively small percentage won't hurt anyone tremendously. But what will be accomplished is the big market owners will benefit GREATLY, while the teams, and thereby the fans of said teams, will be hurt significantly. Because with the lower salary cap, top big market teams won't be able to keep their top players. And without any significant profit sharing, the smaller markets will still struggle. This is what Boston's Jeremy Jacobs is ring-leading. But for the players, there is no alternative.
|
|
#15
12-30-2012, 03:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I dont understand the infatution with salaries. Whatever the players get is fair. No one holds a gun to owners heads to sign them. The biggest fallacy there is in sports is that fans costs go up because of higher salaries. That is nonsense. The prices go up to whatever the market will bear regarless of expenses. When salaries are cut no ticket discounts are given
|
Hybrid Mode
