OT: Proposed new NHL nets

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]nr53 Wrote:

 I guess I don't mind the larger size, but frankly i think the new shape looks stupid[/q]

I've spent too much time in Boston the last 15 months, so I was thinking "retahdid", but I share the sentiment.

[adamw]

Tom - I didn't go to Cornell ... believe it or not, non-Ivy Leaguers come up wit sum good thawts sometimes too.  :-D .... (just kidding folks - please don't throw your protractors at me)

And, FWIW, I agree with Beeeej about lax - believe it or not.  Just don't tell WHCU.  A friend of mine put it well ... he said lax is really much closer, in terms of strategy, to basketball than it is hockey.  Some of the skills required more closely resemble hockey - but the strategy is more like basketball, because you're basically working it around the perimeter looking for a shot, instead of the constant two-sided battle going on in hockey.  If you want to stick with the hockey analogy, though, lax resembles a power-play setup - which is actually much less exciting than 5-on-5.

Point being, the score in and of itself doesn't indicate excitement.  Or else basketball would be the most exciting game on the planet.

Al, I actually did understand what you were saying - but I was just clarifying for others - and didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to contradict you.

[cth95]

     I have to admit that I have not seen many lacrosse games, so I do not know the sport well.  Despite this the high scores make the game less interesting to me.  I personally enjoy hockey (and baseball for that matter) games in which neither team scores more than 5.  It makes every goal seem more important.  I have always played net in pick-up games, so I may be biased, but it seems in every sport that teams with the best defenses go the farthest.  Therefore, maybe that is why I appreciate lower scoring games as well.
     On a side note, I just read something which noted that Dryden was 6'4" and 205, but Cropper, who had the undefeated season, was only 5'5" and 125.  What a difference!

[cth95]

Adam,  Do you have an opinion on my post just above this one?

[Will]

[Q]cth95 Wrote:

On a side note, I just read something which noted that Dryden was 6'4" and 205, but Cropper, who had the undefeated season, was only 5'5" and 125.  What a difference![/q]

Apparently, the little guys go far at Cornell, which is a good omen for Topher Scott and Justin Milo. :-D

[jeh25]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off.  Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
[/q]

Doyle may diagree with me but I think that is the result of 3 specific factors:

a) the teams you are watching

b) the trend toward using a FO specialist

c) the advent of the offset head

With regard to the first, as an Ivy fan you'll can't help but see lots of settled, control offenses since that is what typifies Princeton, and Cornell and Brown to a lesser extend. Watch some run n' gun teams and it's a different game. In someways, HS lax is more fun because you get more dropped passes and turnovers and more transition.

Second, in the old days, you didn't have purpose built FO machines like Sollog that had no place on the offense. You faced off with one of your best offensive midfielders, thus you could score in transition without having to wait for a subsititution. Don't get me wrong - Sollog was a sick FO guy - but having to wait for him to run off hurts the pacing of the game. Again, this relates to the teams you're watching as a Cornell fan.

Third, and perhaps most important, is the offset head. Before the offset head, a good stiff  poke check to the bottom head could dislodge the ball. Today, you almost have to mug a guy to get the ball out. Witness Petro repeatly stripping Gait in the 88 (89?) title game.  It just doesn't happen today. Without the defensive turnover, you have less emphasis on the transition game and more deadball change of possession settled offensive. Generally, I'm not regressive when it comes to new equipment, but the offset needs to go. Of course, I know Doyle disagrees, but he uses a shortie whereas I'm a longstick. Plus he's too young to remember the old days. Really, you think I'm kidding, but I played in the pre-offset pre-cascade helmet days in HS and then came back to the game ten years later. The 20 year olds on my club team think I throw a wicked poke check. Thing is, it's not really that good - it's just that no one seems to throw hard poke checks anymore.

[Beeeej]

"'The History of My Skin,' by Charles Sims."


I appreciate the analysis, but understanding it doesn't make it any less boring to me.  :-)

Beeeej

[profudge]

New shape is dictated  by folks thinking about what is easily doable  without  changing rinks, in any expensive way  like moving mounting pipes for the net pegs ....!   and conflicts with the underlying refrigeration piping.  

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

 [Q2]Beeeej Wrote:

I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off.  Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
[/Q]
Doyle may diagree with me but I think that is the result of 3 specific factors:

a) the teams you are watching

b) the trend toward using a FO specialist

c) the advent of the offset head

With regard to the first, as an Ivy fan you'll can't help but see lots of settled, control offenses since that is what typifies Princeton, and Cornell and Brown to a lesser extend. Watch some run n' gun teams and it's a different game...

Second, in the old days, you didn't have purpose built FO machines like Sollog that had no place on the offense. You faced off with one of your best offensive midfielders, thus you could score in transition without having to wait for a subsititution...

Third, and perhaps most important, is the offset head. Before the offset head, a good stiff  poke check to the bottom head could dislodge the ball. Today, you almost have to mug a guy to get the ball out...[/q]
Transition play is what makes the game exciting--Bob Rule slinging the ball to a breaking middie in full stride, or a D-man taking it all the way down the field and going in on the goalie if nobody on their D thinks to pick him up.  Blanket substitution of all six middies every time the ball crosses midfield after a possession change is just deadly by comparison.

The change to sudden death OT didn't help either.  Now, whoever wins the face-off stalls waiting to take the last (only?) shot as time runs out.  Talk about watching paint dry.  In the 1976 championship game Maryland scored the first OT goal and then Cornell came back with four.  Wonderfully entertaining--unless, I suppose, you were a Terp fan.  Frank Gifford said it was the most exciting event he had ever called--up to that point in time.  I doubt he'd have felt that way about last year's Cornell-Navy quarterfinal game.

[ben03]

since you don't seem to like the "original" product might i suggest you watch NLL, which is hardly lacrosse, btw. [since you think it's boring you can stop reading]

as a footnote to john's analysis, in addition to position specialization, the concept of team defense has added to the slowing down of the game. hence the basketball like perimeter passing. there are no longer (or seldom utilized) take-away artists and their checks of ten years ago (see Petro and McCabe). the only one i can think of from the past five years is Ryan "McNasty" McClay and we were lucky enough he was on our team. :-) the offset head has had an effect but nearly as significant as Hayes would like you to believe :-P (he's just whining b/c he's a defender). the slow down mentality can be attributed to the success of Princeton and JHU ... even Syracuse has had to scale back their run-n-gun transition for a more conservative approach so as not to get beat by the likes mentioned above. agree or disagree the game has changed and i’m not a fan either but i will never understand how someone mentioned above they think baseball is --lessâ€" boring than any lacrosse game ever played.  ::screwy::  ::help::  ::screwy::

[Al DeFlorio]

Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/articles/2005/04/03/raised_stakes_for_sanderson?pg=full

Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?

"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is [expletive]. This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"

[KeithK]

[q]4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. [/q]What exactly does this one mean?

[Tub(a)]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).



Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?

"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]

The rumoured CBA proposal seems quite solid. Why they didn't propose something similar to this a year ago is beyond me. Not only does the NHL eventually get its way, but the players lose a year of salary. Goodenow is Goodasgone :-P

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. [/Q]
What exactly does this one mean?[/q]
Icing will be called during a kill?

[Robb]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. [/Q]
What exactly does this one mean?[/Q]
Icing will be called during a kill?[/q]

No more Gretzky rule?  The PKers better hit the exercise bikes!