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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Markstrom is gonna be ruined in Florida.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?