3 minute minor for faking a shot sounds right

this is by far the dumbest question i have ever heard. and of course its from a penguins blogger.

this is by far the dumbest question i have ever heard. and of course its from a penguins blogger.


- zigger91

I said in the last blog entry that it should be called a two min for illegal defense if all 5 players collapse in front of the net. I liked that idea and still do. There is no such thing as a dumb question. People who condem others for questions seeking answers are generally closed minded and lack creativity and compassion for others. Good luck with that.

I feel like you don't give mats the respect he truly deserves. He was a point per game player which is amazing considering how many games he played. His international performance was unreal. He was definitely the best power forward of his time and one of the better captains. He is one of 42 NHL players to make the 500 goal mark, he may not of been the best point scorer but he put up all-star stats each every full season he played. Really not point of arguing with you though…he was inducted on his first year of be eligible, so i guess the people who matter saw his talent.
- inielsen

Was Sundin a power forward? He was a big body but he lacked the physical edge that guys like Tkachuk, Shannahan, Lindros, Neely and others included in their game.

brilliant idea !

about as good as that "foot in crease" fiasco way back when... right Brett !

I do not even understand how this is a debate... shotblocking is a fantastic part of the game that guys put everything on the line to do.

Seriously, a penalty???

I said in the last blog entry that it should be called a two min for illegal defense if all 5 players collapse in front of the net. I liked that idea and still do. There is no such thing as a dumb question. People who condem others for questions seeking answers are generally closed minded and lack creativity and compassion for others. Good luck with that.
- powerhouse

I do not even understand how this is a debate... shotblocking is a fantastic part of the game that guys put everything on the line to do.

Seriously, a penalty???
- uncleben

I once thought the same thing about tackling a qb in football.

Ronnie Lott may have been an ordinary player in today's no hit nfl.

Your point is valid but expect the unexpected.

I said in the last blog entry that it should be called a two min for illegal defense if all 5 players collapse in front of the net. I liked that idea and still do. There is no such thing as a dumb question. People who condem others for questions seeking answers are generally closed minded and lack creativity and compassion for others. Good luck with that.
- powerhouse

I understand not wanting too many rule changes, but I think some people are being unnecessarily sensitive to the idea. As previously stated, shot blocking wasn't always a legal play, and even goalies were required to stay standing until a rule change. Not all rule changes are the instigator rule nor the extra two minutes for lip biting.

That said, I'm still against such a rule change.

Was Sundin a power forward? He was a big body but he lacked the physical edge that guys like Tkachuk, Shannahan, Lindros, Neely and others included in their game.
- Ben37

I don't know if you watched him play then? he didn't use his body to knock guys over but he used it to plough through. He would often have two guys pressed against his back while in the zone and just cycle endlessly with the puck while they struggled to reach around his figure or knock him down. His ability to use his body to keep guys off the puck was unmatched, you should look at some old games and see how comfortable he is just wheeling behind the opposing teams net. Also during his ceremony they actually brought up that he never was the top at anything but was instead a player who was better than 99% of league in every aspect of the sport, and he was able to be that good in ever season he played..which was a lot of seasons.

Don't give John a hard time for the question. What the hell else is he supposed to write about? To answer the question No I don't think it should be a penalty. I do think equipment should be made smaller and this is one of the reasons.

Don't give John a hard time for the question. What the hell else is he supposed to write about? To answer the question No I don't think it should be a penalty. I do think equipment should be made smaller and this is one of the reasons.
- dbell646

I've heard people suggest going back to foam-type padding. I have doubts you can convince the players to wear lower-tech gear, but hard plastic armor is definitely a big factor in how much shot blocking goes on.

I've heard people suggest going back to foam-type padding. I have doubts you can convince the players to wear lower-tech gear, but hard plastic armor is definitely a big factor in how much shot blocking goes on.
- BulliesPhan87

Also would help cut down on concussions but I'm sure other types of injuries would increase.

I don't know if you watched him play then? he didn't use his body to knock guys over but he used it to plough through. He would often have two guys pressed against his back while in the zone and just cycle endlessly with the puck while they struggled to reach around his figure or knock him down. His ability to use his body to keep guys off the puck was unmatched, you should look at some old games and see how comfortable he is just wheeling behind the opposing teams net. Also during his ceremony they actually brought up that he never was the top at anything but was instead a player who was better than 99% of league in every aspect of the sport, and he was able to be that good in ever season he played..which was a lot of seasons.
- inielsen

That just makes him a big body though, Mario Lemieux did the same things that you described. He used his 6'4 230lb body as an advantage, but nobody has ever considered Lemieux as a power forward.

Maybe it's me and that I am stuck in the idea of a power forward as coming from the Messier, Lindros, Stevens, Lucic, Clarke model. Guys who could score, fight, and intimidated their opponents.

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing his greatness or skill level or the validity of his nomination.

Also would help cut down on concussions but I'm sure other types of injuries would increase.
- dbell646

I'm not convinced that converting back to foam would. Maybe contusions would decrease, but if you tear a muscle or a ligament plastic isn't going to help you.

In other news, no more national anthem at WPA high school hockey games.

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...nal-anthem-110750692.html

It'll tell a lot about the Rangers, too. Was their superb season just lightning in a bottle? Can just adding one (albeit expectedly major impact) player bring out the offense they seemed to lack? Will their defensive cohesiveness be hurt by losing the players they gave up? We'll see how things shake out.

But I think they have a very dangerous team, maybe moreso if it's a shortened season. It'd be that much more gas in the tank come playoffs, and that many more days for Gaborik to become healthy.
- BulliesPhan87

Their shot blocking prowess wasn't the sole reason they were tops in the conference and only one point away from winning the President's Trophy last season.

Full credit to the Devils, but the main reason they beat the Rangers was due to the fact they took care of the Flyers with relative ease, sat back and waited for the Rangers to narrowly escape their second consecutive seven game series victory.

Lack of goal scoring is what killed this team, nothing more. They weren't the only team that blocked a plethora of shots. it's a league-wide issue, all teams back check and "protect their house" more so than what was done in the past.

It's almost laughable--not singling you out--that fans around the league spotlight the Rangers, first and foremost, as the only team that dedicated themselves to blocking shots.

Open your eyes, most if not all, teams sacrificed their bodies by blocking shots; the Rangers were just a little better at it and that is nothing to penalize.

Their shot blocking prowess wasn't the sole reason they were tops in the conference and only one point away from winning the President's Trophy last season.

Full credit to the Devils, but the main reason they beat the Rangers was due to the fact they took care of the Flyers with relative ease, sat back and waited for the Rangers to narrowly escape their second consecutive seven game series victory.

Lack of goal scoring is what killed this team, nothing more. They weren't the only team that blocked a plethora of shots. it's a league-wide issue, all teams back check and "protect their house" more so than what was done in the past.

It's almost laughable--not singling you out--that fans around the league spotlight the Rangers, first and foremost, as the only team that dedicated themselves to blocking shots.

Open your eyes, most if not all, teams sacrificed their bodies by blocking shots; the Rangers were just a little better at it and that is nothing to penalize.
- MidnightMarauder

I wasn't trying to say all the Rangers success was shot blocking, nor that they were the only team to sacrifice the body, just that shot blocking was a big part of the physical and defensive prowess that saw them succeed last season.

Frankly, I thought my assessment of where the Rags stood in that post was fair.

I wasn't trying to say all the Rangers success was shot blocking, nor that they were the only team to sacrifice the body, just that shot blocking was a big part of the physical and defensive prowess that saw them succeed last season.

Frankly, I thought my assessment of where the Rags stood in that post was fair.
- BulliesPhan87

I wasn't singling you out at all; I just happened to reply to your statement. You were definitely fair and made some good points.

I suppose I should have made that more clear and/or quoted someone else. Believe me though, I wasn't singling you out; just making statements based off of the overall sentiment, throughout the thread, suggesting that the Rangers style of play is not a style adapted throughout the entire league.

I wasn't singling you out at all; I just happened to reply to your statement. You were definitely fair and made some good points.

I suppose I should have made that more clear and/or quoted someone else. Believe me though, I wasn't singling you out; just making statements based off of the overall sentiment, throughout the thread, suggesting that the Rangers style of play is not a style adapted throughout the entire league.
- MidnightMarauder

You do get the full spectrum of perspectives here

I don't think it's fair to the game to make shot blocking a penalty when it's one of the more admirable aspects of a players game. It's an effort play that can end terribly. The league has to look for scoring elsewhere. That's really what they'd be after, am I right? It's just not something I agree with. I DO think it's a good question to ask though. What else do we have to talk about?

Off topic---but it's about ACTUAL hockey and involves the Pens. It's "In the Room" Wilkes-Barre edition!

I said in the last blog entry that it should be called a two min for illegal defense if all 5 players collapse in front of the net. I liked that idea and still do. There is no such thing as a dumb question. People who condem others for questions seeking answers are generally closed minded and lack creativity and compassion for others. Good luck with that.
- powerhouse

Sorry but thats a crazy idea.... Blocking the puck is part of the game and if 4 skaters or even 5 drop in front of the tender then so be it. I dont even see how blocking is a 2 min anything other feel good about yourself for helping the team till your next shift

Sorry but thats a crazy idea.... Blocking the puck is part of the game and if 4 skaters or even 5 drop in front of the tender then so be it. I dont even see how blocking is a 2 min anything other feel good about yourself for helping the team till your next shift
- Flyers_1488

It completely creates an unfair advantage to the team that does it, IMO. It is frustrating for me as a fan to create hopeless situations and detracts from the excitement of the game. In NO other sport is such a thing tolerated, only in the 'man up' world of hockey. Sometimes somebody has to look out what is good for the game. I am speaking up about it because I want us to think about it.

This usually happens at the end of a game when a team needs a goal. I hate it and it's BS. Do you want fans being frustrated at the near impossibility of a team coming back?

It completely creates an unfair advantage to the team that does it, IMO. It is frustrating for me as a fan to create hopeless situations and detracts from the excitement of the game. In NO other sport is such a thing tolerated, only in the 'man up' world of hockey. Sometimes somebody has to look out what is good for the game. I am speaking up about it because I want us to think about it.

This usually happens at the end of a game when a team needs a goal. I hate it and it's BS. Do you want fans being frustrated at the near impossibility of a team coming back?
- powerhouse

How so? If the other team wants to do it they can so I fail to see how one team holds the advantage. I have much more of a problem with teams that put 5 in the neutral zone and make no attempt to play offense until they create a turnover, but even that is a choice made by the team. It's like football, if you want to put 10 in the box to stop the run because the other team has a terrible QB you do it. It's not an advantage. In hockey, if you don't like it start taking waist high slap shots from the slot or aim for the ankles.