They're absolutely right about the goalie equipment, though; it's totally not about safety.
I disagree. Players pack then didn't have the shots like they do now. Players didn't block shots like they do know meaning the puck didn't use to pinball of everything .. Who knows where it will hit goalies now.
I play goal and wouldn't wear the pads I use to back when I started. No ####ing way. I get hit in places now that I never had to worry about before.
Smaller pads won't provide more entertaining games. 1players are just more skilled to day. You give goalies smaller pads and paul Byron becomes a supertar. Smaller pads makes half the leuge 30 pluse goal scorers.
Make the players go back to the old wooden sticks and all the old school big puffy gloves that restricted movements then I might get on that side of the convo.
You know what eles those generations had that we didn't? They didnt think seatbelts were for safety/airbags, smoking anywhere you wanted, jagermister was a offically a cough medicine, no helmets on motorcycles etc etc.
Life progresses and old men need to get over it.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-04-2015 at 10:21 PM.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by combustiblefuel
I disagree. Players pack then didn't have the shots like they do now. .
You may want to rethink that....
Quote:
Bobby Hull's slap shot reportedly was once clocked at more than 118 miles an hour (and his wrister at 105 mph -- though the technology wasn't as good), and he could skate at nearly 30 mph. It was a combination of speed and power that terrified goaltenders throughout his career.
i need to go back and watch some old games, there was nowhere near the shot blocking and deflecting the puck out of the ice surface as their is today....... all team do it now, back in the day, not near as common
i need to go back and watch some old games, there was nowhere near the shot blocking and deflecting the puck out of the ice surface as their is today....... all team do it now, back in the day, not near as common
Here's a gem I found.
1975 Habs against Canucks!
Spoiler!
Canucks heartbreak never gets old!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The reason there was so much more scoring, seeming creativity, and "wow" moments in the NHL in the '70s and '80s than now is because the gap in talent from the top to the bottom has closed. The greatest players in today's game are just as great as the stars of bygone eras, but the middling and bottom end players are much, MUCH better.
Yes, it's a huge difference. In less than a decade, the NHL more than tripled in size, and the WHA came along and took a lot of players away from the NHL too.
In 1974-75 and 1975-76, there were 32 professional hockey teams in North America (18 NHL and 14 WHA). Here we are, 40 years later, and the NHL is debating finally returning to that number of teams.
Not only were there more teams, but there were a lot fewer sources of players being tapped back then. There were a handful of Swedish players in the NHL, and a small number of Americans. Otherwise, it was pretty much all Canadians.
Also, Canada's population 40 years ago was 2/3 of what it is today, so even the Canadian talent pool was smaller than today.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
As for talent and systems, the World Cup teams featured elite talent right throught the lineup. And you can't tell me the Soviets didn't play a system. And yet when teams full of elite players that stuck to a system played one another, you still had teams scoring off the rush and scoring beautiful goals. The Soviets wouldn't even try to score until the puck had touched the stick of every one of their teammates on the ice.
It really is about the revolution in goaltending - in size, technique, and equipment. The obvious adjustment is to increase the size of the nets.
The really comical thing about these threads is all the snickering at old men with their ideas stuck in the past, followed by the same people stamping their feet and moaning about how we can't mess with the tradition of the game by making the nets bigger. Who are the real reactionaries? And of course, none of the people aghast at the prospect would even notice if the nets were two inches bigger.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-05-2015 at 06:15 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
But that is the question. Why are coaches trying to win by being defensive instead of offensive? Because the rules allow it. In the NFL, coaches are under pressure to win too but they do coach offensively, it's no longer 3 yards and a cloud of dust. The league has made defending harder.
The NHL has also tried to make defending harder but it seems their rules change have been counter-intuitive.
Some examples:
1) clutching a grabbing/interference
You'd think this would help the offense but in the past the offensive team would also hold defenders, knock them over and run picks. Can you imagine if you couldn't run picks in a basketball offensive set? That's how the NHL is.
2) no change after an icing.
You think it's an advantage against tired players but in the past, teams could counter-attack off of a defensive faceoff win, now they are too tired. If you go back and watch the famous Lemieux goal in the 87 Canada Cup that came off of a icing. Today's rules Lemieux wouldn't have been on the ice (can't change) and the tired players would have cleared the zone and gone to overtime. Also they can't launch counter attacks from their own zone because they are scared to ice the puck, which leads to:
3) puck over the glass
Defenders are scared to shoot the puck high on the glass which is the easiest way to clear the zone and launch a counter attack. So now they just dribble it out and the teams play catch back and forth in the neutral zone.
So with all these supposed rules to help offense, instead just makes the defense hunker down and soak in pressure instead of stealing the puck and going on the counter. So the game has less flow. This is also because of short shifts but we can't do anything about that.
Good post, but I somewhat disagree.
1) I'd say there's a big difference between clutching and grabbing and interference through positioning. Clamping down on the first two has made the game faster and better, but I think you're right about interference. This first part of the current interference rule should be just completely removed.
Quote:
Providing a protective screen and limiting the opportunity for an opposing player to apply pressure to a teammate in possession and control of the puck.
That's a really stupid rule if you ask me. It prohibits players from making some great team plays, ones the require good movement and hockey IQ. This is also one of those rules that are called way too random. The exact same play can be a penalty or not, depending on the whims of the refs.
2) I see where you're coming from, but I think the rule is fine. No-change icing creates prolonged high-pressure situations that I feel are really intense to follow. It highlights some real defensive warriors of the game. Clearing the puck and getting a change in those situations often gets a huge applause from the fans, which I think is a sign that I'm not alone in considering this exciting hockey.
No-change icing has also made playing purely defensive hockey more difficult, which is a good thing. It's pretty rare to see teams just hover around in their own zone for the last minutes these days. Grinding the puck along the boards in the offensive zone is now the more popular way of running down the clock. Neither way is great hockey, but he latter is better hockey.
3) Easier counter-attacks don't result in more counter-attacks, they result in more conservative offensive plays because teams need to watch out for counter-attacks more.
Defensemen being such a big part of offensive hockey these days is largely due to counter-attacks being somewhat more difficult. I don't think there are less counter-attacks overall.
To me, the biggest problem in hockey is oversized goalie equipment. Fix that and you'd fix a lot.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
The reason there was so much more scoring, seeming creativity, and "wow" moments in the NHL in the '70s and '80s than now is because the gap in talent from the top to the bottom has closed. The greatest players in today's game are just as great as the stars of bygone eras, but the middling and bottom end players are much, MUCH better.
No question about it, but I still think that the goaltending abilities combined with the equipment they now wear is by far the biggest contributor.
Like Shutt says just the visual of a guy like Dryden vs a guy like Bishop and its blatently obvious that fewer saves will be made by the guy with the substantially smaller equipment.
30 years ago if a player like Lafleur came flying down the wing and ripped one top corner, the goaltender was forced to make a save on it, nowadays the goaltender just has to be in somewhat the right spot and the puck will simply hit him. It's a drastic difference.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Very different game for sure, and goaltending is a big part of it...but to claim that these "snipers" are showing more skill is ridiculous. Cornouyer got a breakaway and just (boringly) walked around a sprawling goalie. I'd much rather see a guy have to really deke or pick a tiny corner than that. And where's the hitting? Slashing, grabbing, and cross checking is NOT hitting!
The only thing from that game superior to the present game is that the faceoffs are clean and fair!
Very different game for sure, and goaltending is a big part of it...but to claim that these "snipers" are showing more skill is ridiculous. Cornouyer got a breakaway and just (boringly) walked around a sprawling goalie. I'd much rather see a guy have to really deke or pick a tiny corner than that. And where's the hitting? Slashing, grabbing, and cross checking is NOT hitting!
The only thing from that game superior to the present game is that the faceoffs are clean and fair!
But we're obviously never going that far back...which would be something like a 60% change in the style of game. What we're talking about is a 5-10% change to bring back some of the good elements from back then. Regardless of equipment, the goalies are much better and more athletic today, and won't get completely undressed as much as the past.
Anytime I hear about goaltenders needing the extra gear for protection, I look at how many shots are blocked by defencemen in a Calgary or NYR game, and wonder why they aren't clamoring for gigantor gear.
The material that is used for professional gear is so much better than it was in the 70s and 80s.
The construction of the gear is also scientifically designed as opposed to Friday the 13th designed.
Everyone who watches the game can see that the goalie gear is a problem. How long do they get to hide behind 'safety' when we all know that the same results can be found with more form fitting gear?
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
1) I'd say there's a big difference between clutching and grabbing and interference through positioning. Clamping down on the first two has made the game faster and better, but I think you're right about interference. This first part of the current interference rule should be just completely removed.
That's a really stupid rule if you ask me. It prohibits players from making some great team plays, ones the require good movement and hockey IQ. This is also one of those rules that are called way too random. The exact same play can be a penalty or not, depending on the whims of the refs.
2) I see where you're coming from, but I think the rule is fine. No-change icing creates prolonged high-pressure situations that I feel are really intense to follow. It highlights some real defensive warriors of the game. Clearing the puck and getting a change in those situations often gets a huge applause from the fans, which I think is a sign that I'm not alone in considering this exciting hockey.
No-change icing has also made playing purely defensive hockey more difficult, which is a good thing. It's pretty rare to see teams just hover around in their own zone for the last minutes these days. Grinding the puck along the boards in the offensive zone is now the more popular way of running down the clock. Neither way is great hockey, but he latter is better hockey.
3) Easier counter-attacks don't result in more counter-attacks, they result in more conservative offensive plays because teams need to watch out for counter-attacks more.
Defensemen being such a big part of offensive hockey these days is largely due to counter-attacks being somewhat more difficult. I don't think there are less counter-attacks overall.
To me, the biggest problem in hockey is oversized goalie equipment. Fix that and you'd fix a lot.
Yeah i don't think anyone disagrees about the goalie equipment.
I miss the days where the defensive team shoots it high off the glass and the pointment jumps up to try and stop it. If he misses it, it's a 2on1 the other way.
I miss counter attacks and rushes down the wing.
Also they used to not allowing grinding the pucks along the boards, the seconds it was frozen the whistle went and we had a faceoff.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Very different game for sure, and goaltending is a big part of it...but to claim that these "snipers" are showing more skill is ridiculous. Cornouyer got a breakaway and just (boringly) walked around a sprawling goalie. I'd much rather see a guy have to really deke or pick a tiny corner than that. And where's the hitting? Slashing, grabbing, and cross checking is NOT hitting!
The only thing from that game superior to the present game is that the faceoffs are clean and fair!
let's move forward 20 years.
Flames vs Canucks Game 4 1994.
an afternoon playoff game between two Canadian teams! unheard of!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
