Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KenP]

Nieuwy didn't play in game 4 tonight.  However...

Leafs C Joe Nieuwendyk missed his third straight game with what is believed to be a back problem. Nieuwendyk haspracticed for the last three days and is hopeful to play in Game 5.

[Greg Berge]

There was a mention in the post-game that by tying the series the Leafs may be able to keep Joe on the bench until Game 6.  Sounds like nagging back pain, which if you've had it *really* sucks.

[Greg Berge]

Joe will play this afternoon in Game 5 in Philly.

[Greg Berge]

Nieuwendyk scores his 6th goal of the post-season in the first period but it's 3-1 Philly after one.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

 Nieuwendyk scores his 6th goal of the post-season in the first period but it's 3-1 Philly after one.[/q]
And that was the Leafs' only shot on goal in the period.  ::worry::

[Josh '99]

The Leafs are now down 6-1, as of about 7:00 into the second, and Belfour has been pulled after making 12 saves on 18 shots.  Here's hoping it goes 7...   ::uhoh::

[billhoward]

Joe shoulda stood in bed.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 Here's hoping it goes 7...    [/q]

And an 8.5 on the Richter in South Philly.

[Chris \'03]

Anyone catch the mention of Joe's days at cornell? They said he grew 5 inches and 30lbs as a freshman? Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.

They also recounted his fine lacrosse skills.

[jeh25]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:
...I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though. [/Q]
As a lacrosse player, alpine skier, and cyclist I couldn't agree more.[/q]

I know, I'll take a kayaking helmet, drill some holes and bolt a cage to the front. I don't need no steenkin' Bacharach helmet... ;-)

Seriously however, it appears that the new style helmets are better when getting blindsided while the traditional helmets provide more protection in a frontal collision.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=164340

[jeh25]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:
 As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
[/q]

Especially not against Tierney's channeling, collapsing quagmire-like Defensive scheme.

[billhoward]

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

 [Q2]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:
...I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though. [/Q]
As a lacrosse player, alpine skier, and cyclist I couldn't agree more.[/Q]
I know, I'll take a kayaking helmet, drill some holes and bolt a cage to the front. I don't need no steenkin' Bacharach helmet...  

Seriously however, it appears that the new style helmets are better when getting blindsided while the traditional helmets provide more protection in a frontal collision.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=164340


[/q]
The study is pretty dry (well, it's academic) but I was struck, so to speak, by a couple points, most notably that the helmets tested (two traditional, two new) exhibited reduced impact protection over the course of the test, and that suggested a player who wears one helmet through a four-year career is probably not getting enough protection ... and maybe there could be less protection at the end of a single season.

I wasn't clear if "traditional" helmet meant a design from 5-10 years ago, or a design from say the days of Ned Harkness coaching lacrosse in the sixties or from the early seventies. Because it said in one kind of impact, the traditional helmet did a better job attenuating the impact, and I couldn't see that with a really older design.

And the game is getting more rugged. I for one would like to see a bit less hitting and more artistry (same post I've made elsewhere about pro hockey) but I don't think it's going to happen.

[billhoward]

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

 [Q2]ben03 Wrote:
 As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
[/Q]
Especially not against Tierney's channeling, collapsing quagmire-like Defensive scheme. [/q]

Indeed. It seems like a great player like Greenhalgh has a shadow at Princeton for all but about 10 three-second gaps, and on only two of them does he get the ball, which is good for one goal a game. .

[billhoward]

[Q]Chris '03 Wrote:

 
Anyone catch the mention of Joe's days at cornell? They said he grew 5 inches and 30lbs as a freshman? Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.

They also recounted his fine lacrosse skills. [/q]

Usually the announcer then goes on to recount Ken Dryden backstopping the Big Red to that wondrous 29-0 season in 1970. Dryden should ask Cornell to redate his diploma.

And every time I hear about Joe's lacrosse skills I keep thinking - geez, if only Richie Moran could have borrowed him for a couple weeks in the spring, those two NCAA runner-up finishes could have been first-place finishes.

I know Dick Bertrand gave players a lot of grief about hockey players being multi-sport players. Bill Murray '74, probably Cornell's best soccer player his junior year other than Bruce Arena in goal (and remember Arena played two sports), got incredible pressure and finally opted not to play soccer his senior year, which turned out to be the only year Cornell failed to go anywhere in the NCAAs.

Of course, now it's middle-school coaches doing the same thing to our kids, telling them they really should concentrate on soccer or hockey or lacrosse if they want to star in high school. Fortunately our town in NJ has both career-track leagues and also in-town, no-long-drives-to-games leagues.

[RichS]

Bill,

Your comments about middle school advice intrigues me.  I'm In NJ also and in my town, where I coach HS hockey, the advice is most assuredly NOT that a kid concentrate on only one sport.  Would love to discuss that with you.

In fact, as a hockey coach, I love it when hockey players play lacrosse in the spring...along with spring league hockey, of course.  ;-)