GDT: World Cup of Hockey [Flames Edition]

[InfinityIggy]

That's a pretty regressive point of view to have on an issue as serious as head injuries, no? If you tilt has seeing guys hurt would it not be best to do something about it?

I think the minute we view attempts to limit head injuries as bastardizing the game the battle has been lost.

They're not something to take lightly.

Not looking to get into a heated debate, just a healthy conversation.

My point of view on a hit like the one to Backlund, is that the hit itself was not a 'headshot' or an an attempt to hit him in the head. Yes the concussion was a result of the hit, but I think part of the responsibility lies with Backlund on this one. If he has his head up the hit probably doesn't result in a concussion.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

The hit reminded me of Steve Moore on Markus Naslund. Backlund, similar to Naslund, lost his balance right before the hit and accidentally put himself in a vulnerable position. Don't think the hitting player had time to react.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

My point of view on a hit like the one to Backlund, is that the hit itself was not a 'headshot' or an an attempt to hit him in the head. Yes the concussion was a result of the hit, but I think part of the responsibility lies with Backlund on this one. If he has his head up the hit probably doesn't result in a concussion.

I agree that there was no intent or targeting of the head by Lepisto. Where I disagree, is that it was a headshot - in that other than Backlunds' hands, contact from the shoulder to head came prior to the shoulder hitting the chest- the head took most of that impact it seems.

I further disagree with the popular narrative that a player who puts themself in a vulnerable position is to be the sole person to blame, I find this view somewhat archaic. Now granted, there are times when a player cannot react in time to let up. However they player delivering the hit still has some responsiblity to determine if a player is vulnerable or not. Again though we have to consider that there are times that a quick change of body position or orientation can't be reacted to.

It's a fine line, I get that but we can't continue to risk the health of players when we are learning so much about head injuries and they can potentially be limited further than what current rules try to do. (Which is more or less my last few posts and not with the Backlund hit in particular, but those types in general).

 

[Anglesmith]

I don't think the slope is as slippery as you are lead to believe.

You're not wrong, however, not every hockey injury should be simply lumped in with head injuries. Is a groin, hip, shoulder injury the same? Not even close. If you can take steps to reduce hits that can obviously lead to direct contact to the head, even if it's unavoidable, it's probably best to do it.

It's not like you're taking all the physicality out of the game. It's purpose, at its' most basic interpretation and use is to simply separate a man from the puck. Do we need huge hits to do so? No. Do huge hits add to the entertainment value? Absolutely, they're fantastic. However, when a hit in which the principle point of contact is the head, can be deemed legal because due to the circumstances of the hit it was "unavoidable", there is something wrong.

In the situation you propose, would it not be just as effective to allow angles to come into play and step up in that fashion? I'd argue it's more effective.

In response to your last post:

A defence and job is not to hit an unsuspecting player, at that point you suggest, it's to prevent zone entries, which can stll be done just as effectively so they're not going to lose a Stanley Cup over it. To place the entirety of the blame on an unsuspecting player is just as ludicrous.

Would you put the blame on a murder victim because they chose to walk through a dark alley, thus putting themselves in a vulnerable spot? Would a player facing the boards for 20 seconds deserve to get run because he put himself in that position?


That's a pretty regressive point of view to have on an issue as progressive as head injuries have been in terms of knowledge, no? If you truly hate seeing guys hurt would it not be best to do something about it?

I think the minute we view attempts to limit head injuries as bastardizing the game the battle has been lost.

They're not something to take lightly.

Not looking to get into a heated debate, just a healthy conversation.

The issue is just about how much a player can reasonably be expected to analyze the positioning of the player he's about to hit when the game is played so quickly. Given how fast things happen in open ice, if a player has to worry about being suspended if the guy he hits ends up in an awkward position at impact, I think you would definitely see a decrease in hits, because the risk would no longer be worth the reward.

I think the way the NHL rules are written gets rid of all but the most unfortunate and unlucky injuries, without adding undue difficulty to the process of making a hit. If there's a way to make a clean hit and avoid head contact, a player is expected to follow that course of action. If the situation goes that a player does his best to hit through the body, and the head just ends up being in the way, then that's unfortunate and bad things can happen, but that only happens due to a lack of control or awareness on the part of the guy being hit.

I think it's a good balance.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

The issue is just about how much a player can reasonably be expected to analyze the positioning of the player he's about to hit when the game is played so quickly. Given how fast things happen in open ice, if a player has to worry about being suspended if the guy he hits ends up in an awkward position at impact, I think you would definitely see a decrease in hits, because the risk would no longer be worth the reward.

I think the way the NHL rules are written gets rid of all but the most unfortunate and unlucky injuries, without adding undue difficulty to the process of making a hit. If there's a way to make a clean hit and avoid head contact, a player is expected to follow that course of action. If the situation goes that a player does his best to hit through the body, and the head just ends up being in the way, then that's unfortunate and bad things can happen, but that only happens due to a lack of control or awareness on the part of the guy being hit.

I think it's a good balance.

Strangely enough, I can come close to agreeing with this. Like I said, I don't want to take out the hitting, nor do I expect a player to be able to adjust to a split second change in opposing players' body position or orientation as that is not realistic to do so.

I just think there are situations where you can identify beforehand that a player is in a vulnerable position, but hits are still delivered, these are the ones I don't like. However, given the language of the rule where a hit is legal if contact with the head is deemed unavoidable they go unpunished.

How do you institute writing that can eliminate those types? Even I don't have the answer. It would likely have to be judged on an individual basis more than it is now.

 

[Kahvi]

I know that the discussion isn't about whether the hit was dirty or not, but this is anyway a really interesting article:

Slow motion increases perceived intent

 

[Lunatik]

I don't think the slope is as slippery as you are lead to believe.

You're not wrong, however, not every hockey injury should be simply lumped in with head injuries. Is a groin, hip, shoulder injury the same? Not even close. If you can take steps to reduce hits that can obviously lead to direct contact to the head, even if it's unavoidable, it's probably best to do it.

It's not like you're taking all the physicality out of the game. It's purpose, at its' most basic interpretation and use is to simply separate a man from the puck. Do we need huge hits to do so? No. Do huge hits add to the entertainment value? Absolutely, they're fantastic. However, when a hit in which the principle point of contact is the head, can be deemed legal because due to the circumstances of the hit it was "unavoidable", there is something wrong.

In the situation you propose, would it not be just as effective to allow angles to come into play and step up in that fashion? I'd argue it's more effective.

In response to your last post:

A defence and job is not to hit an unsuspecting player, at that point you suggest, it's to prevent zone entries, which can stll be done just as effectively so they're not going to lose a Stanley Cup over it. To place the entirety of the blame on an unsuspecting player is just as ludicrous.

Would you put the blame on a murder victim because they chose to walk through a dark alley, thus putting themselves in a vulnerable spot? Would a player facing the boards for 20 seconds deserve to get run because he put himself in that position?


That's a pretty regressive point of view to have on an issue as progressive as head injuries have been in terms of knowledge, no? If you truly hate seeing guys hurt would it not be best to do something about it?

I think the minute we view attempts to limit head injuries as bastardizing the game the battle has been lost.

They're not something to take lightly.

Not looking to get into a heated debate, just a healthy conversation.

as low ng as the play hockey there will be head injuries and as they learn more about the brain the number will continue to rise. The fact of the matter is in many cases the league is protecting players from themselves. They're aware of the risk of neck injuries, yet they still turn late to draw penalties, the same thing will happen with hits to the head. As long as the t is a solid shoulder first hit without the player chasing the hit, it should definitely be allowed.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Though, I basically didn't see any of his games with the Flames last season. So how was his play after that trade?

If Finland didn't have such poor depth, there's no way you would be sending a guy like him to a Best-on-Best. It would be unfair to say too much about his performance there against wave after wave of top lines. But the NHL is not that deep. In Hartley's system I think he performed admirably as our #4. And since Hartley's system is more scrutinizing of the D position than most systems, I think he could be a very solid player in a more structured system.

Overall, No, I don't think Jokipakka is an ideal #4, but he's the best we have on the left side and I think he can improve with experience playing middle pair. Is he a long term solution? Actually I think it won't be long before he's overtaken by Wotherspoon who I also think will be overtaken by Kulak (who might be the real "longish term solution" at #4). At even strength he is an upgrade over Russell in my opinion, even if that isn't saying much.

The only other option for a #4 is to try a Brodie-Hamilton top pair again, and a Gio-Wideman second pair. Not a terrible option.

Either way, we're not the first team to have a small hole at #4D. You would love to have a blue line like Nashville, but regardless, with Brodie, Giordano, and Hamilton as the top 3, we really shouldn't have any excuses about the #4.

 

[Kahvi]

Thanks for the comments. Though I'd still like to hear how he was stylewise last season. Low hockey iq, just not good enough, or something else?

 

[Lunatik]

Thanks for the comments. Though I'd still like to hear how he was stylewise last season. Low hockey iq, just not good enough, or something else?

I think a little patience is needed, he's a 25 year old kid that just finished his 2nd NHL season. I think that Jokipakka will be a good #4 in a couple years, he may even be that LH stay at home guy defensive stalwart some of us have been clamoring for. But he needs more time and I personally don't think throwing him in the deep end of the pool to see if he sinks or swims is the best idea.

 

[Kahvi]

Oh look, Vatanen made a bad play and Russia scored. Hopefully Finland manages to win, just so that NA goes to semis.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

It's such a high caliber of play. Non of Finlands D have looked all that impressive. Jyrkki won't be given that tough if match ups. Between Jokkipakka, Wideman and ideally Kulak we should be fine.

By all indications Laddy Smid is going to LTIR. So our D will probably look like.

Gio-Brodie
Jokkipakka-Hamilton
Kulak-Wideman
Engelland

 

[Kahvi]

It's such a high caliber of play. Non of Finlands D have looked all that impressive. Jyrkki won't be given that tough if match ups. Between Jokkipakka, Wideman and ideally Kulak we should be fine.

By all indications Laddy Smid is going to LTIR. So our D will probably look like.

Gio-Brodie
Jokkipakka-Hamilton
Kulak-Wideman
Engelland

After the first exhibition game against Sweden, where Jokipakka played 2nd pair with Vatanen, I was ready to say that he's going to fit nicely with Hamilton. Solid game with some mistakes. Then the mistakes kept on coming. Hopefully it's just inexperience as he still is relative young for a D.

And the name starts with Joki (=river), just like it is with Jokinen

 

[Lunatik]

After the first exhibition game against Sweden, where Jokipakka played 2nd pair with Vatanen, I was ready to say that he's going to fit nicely with Hamilton. Solid game with some mistakes. Then the mistakes kept on coming. Hopefully it's just inexperience as he still is relative young for a D.

And the name starts with Joki (=river), just like it is with Jokinen

What does Pakka mean?

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Thanks for the comments. Though I'd still like to hear how he was stylewise last season. Low hockey iq, just not good enough, or something else?

With Jokipakka the thing I really like is that he has the ability, and is not afraid to make plays. If I'm building a team, my defence core must be able to make plays. The game has revolved to the point where a shutdown type defenceman can't just simply stay at home and rim the puck or go glass and out. Even they have to possess the ability to transition the puck, and make a good first pass.

He also seemed to bring an element of physicality that we lacked aside from Engelland on the back-end.

From what I recall though, it seems like he is prone to turning the puck over, which could be a few things on their own or a combination of a few of them. Like MM said, patience could be part of it, or in some cases maybe waiting too long to make the play, decision making, or it could be that he has the vision to see a play to make but not necessarily the huge deal skill to have a high conversion rate. Or it could be something I've missed. I honestly can't remember the end of last year all that well, and haven't watched him enough besides that to know exactly what the cause is.

However, like I said, that's completely off my somewhat poor memory so the last paragraph could be completely off.

 

[Kahvi]

What does Pakka mean?

I vaguely remember writing something about this before, but best translation would probably be deck, pack, or set. Deck of cards is "korttipakka" (kortti = a card), cant come up with any other examples now. Definitely not a common name.

 

[Lunatik]

I vaguely remember writing something about this before, but best translation would probably be deck, pack, or set. Deck of cards is "korttipakka" (kortti = a card), cant come up with any other examples now. Definitely not a common name.

well that settles it

 

[Kahvi]

With Jokipakka the thing I really like is that he has the ability, and is not afraid to make plays. If I'm building a team, my defence core must be able to make plays. The game has revolved to the point where a shutdown type defenceman can't just simply stay at home and rim the puck or go glass and out. Even they have to possess the ability to transition the puck, and make a good first pass.

He also seemed to bring an element of physicality that we lacked aside from Engelland on the back-end.

From what I recall though, it seems like he is prone to turning the puck over, which could be a few things on their own or a combination of a few of them. Like MM said, patience could be part of it, or in some cases maybe waiting too long to make the play, decision making, or it could be that he has the vision to see a play to make but not necessarily the huge deal skill to have a high conversion rate. Or it could be something I've missed. I honestly can't remember the end of last year all that well, and haven't watched him enough besides that to know exactly what needs work.

However, like I said, that's completely off my somewhat poor memory so the last paragraph could be completely off.

Have to agree with this and its pretty much what I've seen so far at WCOH. Is physical, can throw a hit, and has some puckhandling skills, but makes mistakes like turning puck over too often.

 

[Lunatik]

Have to agree with this and its pretty much what I've seen so far at WCOH. Is physical, can throw a hit, and has some puckhandling skills, but makes mistakes like turning puck over too often.

Which is why I would like to see him sheltered more this year and I am completely in favor of bringing Russell back.

 

[Kahvi]

well that settles it

-I'm thirsty, do you have any water?
-Yeah, I just bought a Kevin

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Have to agree with this and its pretty much what I've seen so far at WCOH. Is physical, can throw a hit, and has some puckhandling skills, but makes mistakes like turning puck over too often.

Too often? Nah. Jokipakka makes good plays more often than bad. As far as this tournament is concerned I think Finland's weak roster magnifies every mistake. As far as his NHL stint with us, I was usually more concerned with his ability to skate and position his stick than I was his breakout, which is much better than either Russell or Engelland who satisfied the "turning pucks over too often" criteria. The Jokipakka-Hamilton pair did a fine job containing the play.

 

[Kahvi]

So, Finland scored one goal in three games. I really can't put my feelings into words right now.

 

[Kahvi]

Too often? Nah. Jokipakka makes good plays more often than bad. As far as this tournament is concerned I think Finland's weak roster magnifies every mistake. As far as his NHL stint with us, I was usually more concerned with his ability to skate and position his stick than I was his breakout, which is much better than either Russell or Engelland who satisfied the "turning pucks over too often" criteria. The Jokipakka-Hamilton pair did a fine job containing the play.

The mistakes he made were usually major ones, and that's why I probably noticed them. I know I might be too critical based on small sample size.

 

[Calculon]

Team NA knocked out and with it my interest in the tournament. Absolute shame that we didn't get to see Canada vs NA. Would likely have been phenomenal hockey.

Oh well. Time for Treliving to get to work on Gaudreau.

 

[Anglesmith]

Good. Negotiation time. Hope Treliving was waiting outside his hotel room for the final buzzer.