yzerman19

Sure can tell its the off-season here in UND hockey land. I think the divide on this issue is analogous to the global political debate. It is about freedom "from" vs freedom "to"...some people are always going to support things that can potentially protect the masses from negative outcomes, others are in favor of people having the choice and having to live with the consequences. I am in the latter category. It manifests itself in my political ideology as well as my opinion on this matter. Let people who are over 18 make their own choices and live with the consequences. Choose cable TV over health insurance- get sick- well, pay the piper. Choose to go half shield and get your jaw broken and subsequently wired shut for two months- suffer. I don't need someone telling me I have to do anything- give me access to the options and the information to make a good decision, and let me live with my choices. If the risks of playing without a cage were so great, don't you think that NHL owners and GM's would push it? They are the ones making money off the players, and they are the ones paying the medical bills if something goes haywire. They don't push it, because the fight isn't worth it...the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I respect the science out there, but I have questions related to the links that Ive seen posted. Concussions occur no matter what you have on your head. Yes, the risk of a broken nose or jaw or the risk of a facial laceration are higher, but those aren't life altering injuries.

Here is where the seatbelt analogy breaks from this argument: Money Seatbelt laws are not about preserving the safety of drivers, they are about preventing potentially huge medical expenses from having to be absorbed by insurance companies- usually auto, but also medical. The likely medical expenses from a hockey injury are dwarfed when compared to the likely expenses of a major auto accident. Also, junior, college, and pro players are all covered.

The study is interesting, I only read the abstract, but I wonder if they somehow adjusted for a very important variable in the concussion- the type of collision that led to it. You can't assume that the impacts were all the same, thus the chance for concussion being equal. I'd also be curious if the amount of ice time was equal among those wearing half-shields vs those wearing cages. I haven't been commenting on the vision aspect, but as someone who's worn both, I prefer the half shield... I also prefer riding a bike- motorized and pedal without a helmet and prefer a few other activities without all the "safety" equipment Sometimes it just feels better, and you accept the risks...

Couldn't agree more. He will score goals this year

He (Rowney) miight be top 6, but he's The number 3 center. That, and I'd rather have 3 scoring lines than two. I mean, you could move Rowney to Wing on the first line and have Rocco center Parks and MacMillan and rock two sick scoring lines, then have a third line with potential ala ODonnell, Rodwell and someone else ...I dunno, too many question marks

No doubt- I got that part too

United could be a loose reference to how we move on from this as well...

He said weasel, not monkey that hangs around with a man in a yellow hat!

I like this angry weasel thought...kind of clever...

Maybe its because I'm watching the Euro Cup, but I sorta like the sound of The University of North Dakota United- no way does the NCAA have any issues or any of the PC crowd for that matter... The other thing I like is something to do with "smoke" this would tie back to the pipe ceremony and would be without irony in terms of the spirit of the Sioux.

No offense to Joe, but I don't think his development is a weekly conversation with BlackHawks management. I really like the idea of Rowney centering that third like. It isn't an insult, but rather a compliment- putting the confidence in him that a line can be built around him that can be a third scoring threat.

Everything that i've heard is that they want Rocco playing center, not wing, which means he is not on the first line. Knight is too good two ways. If he's as good as his labeling, you have to put Rocco on the second line then, in order to get him the most ice possible given the above consideration. If you put Rocco on the second line, then you move Rowney to the third- I agree that it is tough to disrupt the chemistry of Parks, Mac, Rowney (RPM line I call it), but if Rocco is going to play center, then you have to. One of the keys to keeping the talent pipeline going is to ensure that the players are playing the positions that the NHL teams want them playing. Garth Snow was all over tDon for his mismanagement of Kyle Okposo in that regard.

How about we get trendy and leverage some serious marketing and merchandising opportunities- Sexy Vampire Zombies maybe? Or 60s ad executives? We could partner with Disney and make the zamboni look like a Car from the "Cars" movies. Or, considering the farce history, get the George Lucas machine behind us as the Wookie Rage or something to that effect. Obviously I jest, but there will definitely be consideration made to marketing and merchandising. The new name will need to be the embodiment of the State and School's vision for the future with acknowledgement of the past history, tradition, and culture.

I think ODonnel will play opposite Kristo on the first line and will benefit production-wise as a result. I see him picking up a lot of trash down low. If Berry gets the pp humming, I agree that you could see 50+ point seasons out of Kristo and Knight. 40 point rookie campaign would put Grimaldi in that Toewser/Oshie universe- he is elite offensively, so it is possible! I see Parks and MacMillan continuing where they left off at the end of the season- which is great. I think they avoid the soph slump, mostly because their roles aren't changing. Rowney is the x factor. If he puts up 20ish goals and 40ish points from the second or third line, we are in really good shape. Agree with the poster on Berry's immediate impact to the D. Forbert's should be the number one beneficiary and could have a monster year. I disagree on the comparison of Simpson to Chorney(I just see their respective games as much different from one another's), but I do think Berry can help Dillon become the best player he can be. Scoring on three lines, an energy line of lunch pail players who don't know the word quit, a re-invigorated dcorps, a re-tooled pp...sounds like a nice run into April to me

So, in theory- if you believe in bubs, our dcorps and our special teams will be better this year than in the past couple. I like the thought of that. I think that Knight and Kristo should have 40-50 point seasons I wouldn't be surprised to see Rocco push 40 points either Parks and MacMillan could be 30 point men O'Donnel and Rowney- 20 goal potential each I am optimistic

No voting. The majority of the population is dumb.

Never said that the players can't make plays. Never said that at all. I said the most entertaining part of the game is watching players make plays. I said nothing about the ability or inability of players to make plays based on the equipment they are wearing. To infer the connection is broken logic. I think elite players could still make plays if they were playing in conquistador outfits. Also on the broken logic train, I would never protest or quit watching the sport I love based on equipment or rules changes. To support one position does not mean that you would protest if your position is not the one ultimately adopted. Just like in politics, right? I might disagree with the philosophy of the party in control, but I don't have to move to Canada as a result. I get where you are coming from too, and I support player safety. The issue is where do you draw the line at player safety vs excessive mandates? You could mandate sticks go back to wood too in order to slow down the shots and protect players that way. Are the safety risks of a half-shield so much greater than a cage that there should be a cage mandate? I haven't seen a fact support that. If they make any difference at all, it is marginal. If it is marginal, why make it a mandate? Seems to me that if the juice isn't worth the squeeze, why make rules?

I think the game is most entertaining when the players are making plays. I really can't comprehend this desire to madate certain equipment. I really don't care all that much- I don't know why others do either...it is the nany state approach. Same people who yell at me for riding my bike without a helmet. Same people who supported prohibition- better to take it away from the 90% of people who can handle it responsibly than to have 10% of the people have issues. You can't manage life like that. If it were me, given the choice, I would wear a half shield. I've worn both. I prefer the half shield. I would guess that 99% of players agree with me.

Growing up on the outdoor, you wore a stocking cap...that's it. Played hours and hours and hours of hockey...way more than any of us spent on indoor ice- probably until bantam. Never did I see anyone get a horrific injury. The pros have played without facial protection for years and years, and I have never seen a horrific injury that could've been avoided with a cage. Concussions- the cage might help a little, but not much. I agree with the poster who was talking about the danger of the 4 razors that guys have on their feet. That is the only real risk out there of something more than anything a couple stitches and beer couldn't take care of. The guys are bigger and stronger and faster, but the equipment IS better. You ever see one of those old Jofa helmets? Today's helmets offer way more protection. Hockey is a collision sport, the fastest of collision sports- there are risks when you play. Let the guys make their own decisions and live with the consequences. It is not up to anyone to nanny-state the game.

Shooting was never my issue- skating on the other hand...well, let's just say I can skate, but if speed and agility kills- I'm going to live forever!

breakdowns in coverage in the dzone or odd mans make a goalies save % suffer. If you play racehorse, you will give up odd-mans...on a 2-1 or a break away or a solid pp look the goalie has his hands full. I mean, realistically if you put me at the bottom of the face-off circle with a clean look and Ed Belfour in the pipes, I am going to score 20 percent of the time, a D1 forward will score 40 percent of the time, an elite player will score on 60+% of those looks...there just isn't much a goalie can do...too much net to cover.

Players and the game itself are about much more that stats. An excellent GAA and Win% is a reflection of team defense- something the Sioux pride themselves on. One of the key components of team defense is also likely to have a negative impact on save %- limiting opponents' shots on goal. The Sioux really limit the shots on goal from outside with their shot blocking and cycle play...it is tough for opponents to get shots when the Sioux are forechecking well and keeping the puck deep in the other zone. Another key aspect of save percentage is quality shots- this speaks poorly of team defense- or more appropriately speaks of defensive or mental breakdowns resulting is really good looks at the net from prime scoring areas. When I watch Dell, what I've seen is that more often than not (clearly everyone has an off night) he makes the first and usually the second save. When goals are scored on third or fourth attempts in a flurry, that is the whole team's fault and especially the d-men for not getting to their man or clearing out the puck...Brad Berry anyone? First save is about goalie positioning and seeing the puck, second save is about rebound control, third and subsequent are about the players who play outside the pipes.

Mac with the C Knight and Kristo with As

Well, the beloved Blaiser played for the Gophers...so anything is possible!

Looks like you answered your own question...only one fits all the requirements and is likely to take the job.