|
Did DiPietro's dog actually get run over or was that an SAS "just wait, something else terrible is going to happen to him" thing
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
mcvey posted:So you're saying that DiPietros problem was mental... He does a lot of thinking with his groin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
mcvey posted:So you're saying that DiPietros problem was mental... Here's how this one happened
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
DiPietro got hurt at the allstar game during the trick breakaway competition while he was miked up. "Oh my god I just blew my whole leg out. I just hosed my hip up again." Right after suggesting he'd have to take Gaborik's leg's out to slow him down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfGQqhtiL78&t=52s Still my favourite allstar game moment ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Saw a picture of Brown from the end of the game. Do hockey players really get their teeth knocked out that completely? His upper teeth are pretty much gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty much. And a lot of them (all of them?) choose not to get them fixed until they're done playing hockey, because what's the point? Fairly good odds of losing them again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
My dads got a few teeth knocked out from hockey but he just wears dentures that he puts in/out when playing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
mcvey posted:My dads got a few teeth knocked out from hockey but he just wears dentures that he puts in/out when playing. Yeah, and that's what most of the pros opt for as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
congrats Kings fans
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Did DiPietro's dog actually get run over or was that an SAS "just wait, something else terrible is going to happen to him" thing quote:It always seems like something,” DiPietro said a day before winning his return, 4-3 in a shootout over Florida, on Saturday night. “Whether it’s my face or my dog getting hit by a car. … It just seems like everything’s piling on here. I think the biggest thing I’ve learned from all of this, especially dealing with my knee, is that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Stuff happens, and you have to learn from it and become a better person. I think I’ve become a better person, a more patient person. I respect and cherish what I have here, and that makes me work that much harder to come back. either DiPietro was the weakest person ever coming into the league or he's now strong enough to lift an oil tanker
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:either DiPietro was the weakest person ever coming into the league or he's now strong enough to lift an oil tanker what about Sami Salo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:what about Sami Salo? Yeah he could probably lift Salo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
So I have a really stupid question. Especially after following hockey for the last few years. I still don't understand what the forecheck is. I read the explanations at the begging of this thread and I am still baffled. Not sure why this is eluding me, but for some reason it is. So if someone would explain it to me like I am a retarded kindergartner that would be awesome. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
The forecheck is the offensive pressure that the attacking team puts on the defensive team. Also the backcheck is the forwards skating back towards their defensive zone after the other team. The basic hockey offensive zone attack often consists of dumping the puck into the other teams zone and chasing after it, and the teams use different methods of pressure. A 1-2-2 forecheck is the first forward into the zone pressures the defending teams defensemen and the other 2 forwards hang back in the middle of the offensive zone waiting for the puck to be freed (if not they are in a position to stop the other team from leaving the zone, or having an odd man rush), the other 2 is the attacking teams defenders normally up around the bluelines. The 2-1-2 forecheck is two attacking forwards going hard for the puck, one hanging back in the middle of the offensive zone, and the defenders again up around the blueline. This is just basic though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
D C posted:The forecheck is the offensive pressure that the attacking team puts on the defensive team. Thanks. This makes so much more sense now. Not sure why the other explanations didn't click and this one did, but I not get it in the most basic sense I believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
hey just wonderin' If you guys would name the 4 most key players during the season of the kings who would it be
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
ironworkerx10 posted:hey just wonderin' Dustin Brown, Jonathan Quick, Ryan Clowe and the Staples arena clock guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
ironworkerx10 posted:hey just wonderin' 1-4. Jonathan Quick. Dude was an absolute beast. He stole so many games, and there were plenty of games where he only allowed a single goal but the Kings still lost because of the lack of offensive support. Obviously his run in the playoffs was similarly fantastic. If I had to pick three other guys it would probably be Kopitar, Doughty, and Brown. Possibly Williams.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me in a comprehensive way exactly why there was a lockout last time around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:Can someone explain to me in a comprehensive way exactly why there was a lockout last time around? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2%80%9305_NHL_lockout 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
 Duh, right.Okay, so here's a more specific question to the folks who were watching hockey at that time. Who did you guys side with, so to speak, during the lockout? Did you feel that one side or the other had a more legitimate claim to what they were asking for? That wikipedia article indicates that the general populace put more of the blame on the players than on the owners, which surprises me. Is that pretty much how you guys around here felt too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
From a technical standpoint, the league was at fault for the lockout. They locked the players out. The players were willing to play the season under the previous CBA while negotiating. I, personally, think the players were significantly more reasonable during negotiations. They actually made attempts at compromise. The league did a lot of dicking around. The part that irritated me the most was when the players eventually offered a luxury tax and a 24% salary rollback and the owners countered with a plan that was basically the same as their original position but also incorporated a salary rollback. In these situations, the leagues generally do a better job of controlling the PR. It's hard to make sports players that earn millions sympathetic, even if the owners are taking in more. You can still see it on message boards now. People whine about the fact that player salaries are so high and question what the lockout was for even though player salaries are locked into a set percentage of revenues. I'll do a better summary later though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
quote:"I had dinner with [Wild owner] Craig Leipold on Wednesday night,” Nanne said. “I know Chuck Fletcher and Leipold really want Parise, and what Craig told me is how hard he’s going to go after him, and the kind of money he’s going after him with — I don’t see how Parise’s not coming here. As a Wild fan:  But seriously, I know how much everyone loves trade rumors and all, what do people think it'll take to pick Parise away from a team that made a run at the Cup? He's already said he wants to go to a team that not only will be a contender next year, but for years to come. Apparently the Kings are throwing their name in the hat now too and have showed interest in him, aside from the Rangers (Who he said he wasn't interested in), the Devils, as well as the Red Wings. e: Dumb me. Wrong thread. I'll leave it here in case anyone wants to read the article, but I'll move discussion to somewhere it's already taking place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
xzzy posted:HoF needs a wing dedicated to players who should have been stars, but got screwed by circumstances outside their control. Bryan Fogarty is a lock for this. Who else? e: for newbies since this is the newbie thread: Fogarty was by all rights an absolutely monster of a defenseman who should've dominated the league for years. Seriously, quotes like "We had seen Wayne (Gretzky). Wayne had to work at it. His game was outsmarting everybody else. Fogarty's game was outperforming everybody else. That's like comparing a Volkswagen to a Corvette." However, he was devastated by crippling alcoholism from an extremely young age to deal with anxiety. Despite scoring 155 points in 60 games in the OHL (and beating Orr's record for goals by a d-man by, raising it from 38 to loving 47), he never made it in the NHL due to addiction. In the short time he spent with the Nordiques he made enough of an impression that Mats Sundin said "Bryan Fogarty could skate faster, shoot harder and pass crisper drunk than the rest of us could sober." He's one of the players I wonder about the most. He should've been a star, a Ray Bourque level defensive stud, and you can only imagine what he could've done if he stayed sober. FUCK COREY PERRY fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
A lockout is always an action by management. A strike is when the players walk out. In general, fans/media/"the public" side with the owners. In the NFL lockout, people (that I know) were saying things like "they make millions of dollars who cares if they have brain damage" and "they make millions of dollars and they want more?" or "they make millions of dollars gently caress them" (despite the average nfl career being what, 2 years?) even though the owners make like billions or whatever and are far less sympathetic. People just don't support unions in general it seems. I don't have stuff, why should unions!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the great OP. The Kings were such a big deal this year, and had so many sports-talk and television shows talking about them, that it made me interested enough to come read this thread. I don't have a single friend or family member that likes hockey, but I'm sure going to start watching the regular season next year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
Kimasu v2.0 posted:Thanks for the great OP. The Kings were such a big deal this year, and had so many sports-talk and television shows talking about them, that it made me interested enough to come read this thread. You won't regret it, but you should definitely catch a couple live games too. It's pretty unreal how much better you can see the whole game live than on TV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Rutkowski posted:Staples arena clock guy. Can't believe nobody's given you props for this 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
Zorkon posted:You won't regret it, but you should definitely catch a couple live games too. It's pretty unreal how much better you can see the whole game live than on TV. This is only true if you can sit in the lower level. I would much rather watch a game on TV than sit in section 309. If you live in a market where the team doesn't sell out every game, it is possible to "upgrade" your seats for free. YMMV
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
I don't mind the 300 level if it's at center ice. You get the TV angle but have control over the camera. The corners and behind the goals are poo poo seats though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
The closest team to me (six hours driving) is Phoenix, so assuming they're still there next season I bet I could attend and get good seats without spending too much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
Sitting in the upper deck isn't bad if it's steep. The problem is unlike the older arenas where the fans were stacked on top of each other close to the ice, a lot of the newer buildings just go up and out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:This is only true if you can sit in the lower level. I would much rather watch a game on TV than sit in section 309. xzzy posted:The corners and behind the goals are poo poo seats though. These guys are giving bad advice. Yes those seats are better sometimes...but I kind of like the balcony in Boston because it has more enthusiastic fans and you can see the play develop a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
I went to see my first live games a few months ago and found that sitting in the 200s was the best in terms of seeing the action but not feeling like the players were little ants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
If a player is in the penalty box at the end of an overtime, can they participate in a shootout?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Insertnamehere31 posted:If a player is in the penalty box at the end of an overtime, can they participate in a shootout? Yes, I believe so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Yeah, although there's an oft proposed rule that would change that if instituted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Thanks guys. It's seems a little unreasonable to me that if a player commits a penalty in the last few seconds that the don't have to really face a penalty, but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Can't believe nobody's given you props for this I know. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
I love sitting in the 200 level in the corner. I can see most plays develop pretty well, I get a great view of the zone right in front of me, and I'm close enough to recognize players simply by looking at them. Yeah, the view of the other end of the ice isn't great, but there are very few blind spots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:22
|
|
