GM Hockey

You are not connected. Please login or register

GM Hockey » The other NHL teams » General Hockey talk » General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 34 ... 67  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 67]

NEELY


Mod
Mod
I'll just say this about Elliott, he has all the tools to be a solid NHL goaltender but you can't account for how weak someone is mentally... you can't count on a goaltender like that.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
I'll just say this about visors. If a player wants to be a dumb Donkey and take the risk of losing an eye by not wearing a visor, fine by me. He's taking on the risk and it is not affecting any other player on the ice. That player will have to live with their decision if they lose an eye or their vision.

Until the insurance companies start to put in clauses about losing coverage for an eye injury if the player is not wearing a visor, nothing will change and it will remain a player option. The trend is towards more players wearing visors so that is a good thing and eventually, pretty much everyone will be wearing a visor anyway.

Hoags

Hoags
All-Star
All-Star
Insurance companies can only pressure the NHL no ? That pressure would force the NHL to try and get the NHLPA to approve.

Eye injuries don't happen very often, Concussions happen far more often but only concussion prone players have been cut off (Crosby ?). Not much change on that department either.

spader

spader
All-Star
All-Star
shabbs wrote:I'll just say this about visors. If a player wants to be a dumb Donkey and take the risk of losing an eye by not wearing a visor, fine by me. He's taking on the risk and it is not affecting any other player on the ice. That player will have to live with their decision if they lose an eye or their vision.

Until the insurance companies start to put in clauses about losing coverage for an eye injury if the player is not wearing a visor, nothing will change and it will remain a player option. The trend is towards more players wearing visors so that is a good thing and eventually, pretty much everyone will be wearing a visor anyway.


It affects the other players when he's out, though. Imagine if, instead of a tendon injury, Karlsson had gotten a preventable eye injury. Wouldn't we be saying that he owed it to the team to prevent his injury by wearing a visor? All I mean is that a player that injures himself by being reckless does have an effect on the other people on the team because he effectively takes himself out of commission and the rest of the team has to make due with a call-up.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
spader wrote:
shabbs wrote:I'll just say this about visors. If a player wants to be a dumb Donkey and take the risk of losing an eye by not wearing a visor, fine by me. He's taking on the risk and it is not affecting any other player on the ice. That player will have to live with their decision if they lose an eye or their vision.

Until the insurance companies start to put in clauses about losing coverage for an eye injury if the player is not wearing a visor, nothing will change and it will remain a player option. The trend is towards more players wearing visors so that is a good thing and eventually, pretty much everyone will be wearing a visor anyway.


It affects the other players when he's out, though. Imagine if, instead of a tendon injury, Karlsson had gotten a preventable eye injury. Wouldn't we be saying that he owed it to the team to prevent his injury by wearing a visor? All I mean is that a player that injures himself by being reckless does have an effect on the other people on the team because he effectively takes himself out of commission and the rest of the team has to make due with a call-up.
Yes, that is true, but I was speaking in the sense as it's not an additional safety risk for other players. Same could be said about a helmet, mouth guard though...

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
NEELY wrote:I'll just say this about Elliott, he has all the tools to be a solid NHL goaltender but you can't account for how weak someone is mentally... you can't count on a goaltender like that.

There can't be a question about his mental game right now. Really no other explanation.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Markstrom is gonna be ruined in Florida.

dennycrane

dennycrane
Veteran
Veteran
SpezDispenser wrote:This can be a really cruel game sometimes. Elliott was stellar last year with St.Louis, this year be literally can't stop a beach ball. Was last year a fluke?

I'll say this much: The Blues have no need for him anymore with Allen coming up to backup Halak - especially considering Halak went down and Elliott crapped himself to the point where they thrust Allen into play (who was good).

Where does Elliott end up from here? I believe he's signed to 1 more year @ 1.8 million, but who would possibly take a chance on him?

Elliott is a good backup goalie on a good team. With confidence, he elevates his game. If he goes into a game thinking he needs a shutout to win, he won't win. 1.8 million is less than the league average salary. He'll get a job.

LeCaptain

LeCaptain
All-Star
All-Star
Jeff Carter and the Kings for a cup repeat is my vote.
I think Chicago is still a bit better but if Quick or Bernier get hot, watch out

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Ouch. Bryz and co blow a 4-1 lead, lose in regulation.

tim1_2

tim1_2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
SpezDispenser wrote:Ouch. Bryz and co blow a 4-1 lead, lose in regulation.

Which is excellent for Ottawa. We need Winnipeg, the Islanders, Philly, Washington, T-Bay, and Buffalo to keep losing.

We are currently 5 points clear of 9th. If the Rags beat us tonight, they'll tie us for for 6th. Finishing 6th is exactly where a team wants to wind up, too...that means a first round date with Carolina, which is vastly preferable over the Pens, Habs, or Bruins.

wprager

wprager
Administrator
Administrator
tim1_2 wrote:
SpezDispenser wrote:Ouch. Bryz and co blow a 4-1 lead, lose in regulation.

Which is excellent for Ottawa. We need Winnipeg, the Islanders, Philly, Washington, T-Bay, and Buffalo to keep losing.

We are currently 5 points clear of 9th. If the Rags beat us tonight, they'll tie us for for 6th. Finishing 6th is exactly where a team wants to wind up, too...that means a first round date with Carolina, which is vastly preferable over the Pens, Habs, or Bruins.

Tied for 6th likely means 7th. It would be more than just "nice" to beat them. They are beaten up and tired (OT win last night). Losing Staal is a fairly big blow for them (although we all know how a team already in tatters can lose its Norris-winning best player and still reel off a 5 game winning streak. Still, the Sens were in NYC yesterday, so they'll be nice and rested. The Rangers will be a bit tired, but at least they didn't have to travel far after last night's game.

Lehner better be in #beastmode.


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Frazer McLaren challenged Chara to a fight last night... man, is this guy trying to make a name for himself or something? That's a death wish. Chara didn't engage.

Seguin scored twice last night... the chant from the Boston fans was "Thank you Kessel!" Hilarious.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
McLearen for Chara trade off, lol. Chara probably said he makes McLearen's salary in 5 mins.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
NEELY wrote:McLearen for Chara trade off, lol. Chara probably said he makes McLearen's salary in 5 mins.
Heh. PMac commented on that regarding the fight he had with DD and the "impact" it had on the game. He commented about McLaren playing 3 minutes in the game. What impact? Wink

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 67]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 34 ... 67  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum