Archive for the ‘Hockey Debate’ Category

This shouldn't have happened

Is there anything more demoralizing in hockey than a brutal goal?

Probably not. There’s that pervasive sense of “are you kidding me?” and “what the hell was that?” which infects the entire roster, top to bottom. Everybody’s glare becomes fixated on the goaltender – God forbid you’re at home and the crowd begins to prep themselves for a Bronx cheer – and things just get really, really uncomfortable.

In today’s slate of NHL action, two Masons – goaltenders, not cult members you Da Vinci Code fans – decided to duke it out for “if you thought that was bad, here’s this one” honors. Quite frankly, I’m a little perplexed as to which is actually worse. Hence therefore (Yogi Berra expression), I’ve decided to leave it up to you gang to tell us.

Take a look at each goal as Patrick Sharp shelfs one from the corner against Steve Mason and Evgeni Malkin beats Chris Mason from behind the Winnipeg net. Read the rest of this entry »

Sidney Crosby played 10 games in 2011, and has become the poster-boy for hockey's concussion debate.

Every hockey analyst and their dog has tried in vain to solve the concussion issue in hockey. I’m personally from the camp that suggests that there aren’t any more concussions in the game today as there were 5 or 10 years ago, but there is so much more reporting and scrutinizing of the injured players today that it boosts our number.

Where hockey is ahead of other sports in dealing with the concussion issue is that everybody seems vaguely aware that it exists. Fans have an odd way of dealing with it, however, creating the All-Concussed Squad applying a tinge of humour to the darkness. I don’t really have a problem with this, since it showcases who’s out and the severity of the issue, seeing how many stars are sitting on the sideline at any time.

Read the rest of this entry »

Whiteout? Blue-nket? ...Wow that was a bad attempt at "blanket."

First off, let me apologize for choosing a question for a headline. I always click those and fantasize about coming to a site where the body of the text reads something like:


But of course, as with all headline-question posts, it usually implies there’s some sort of debate, and this instance is no different. Let’s launch into it.

The Winnipeg Jets open the season at home on Sunday, October 9th against the Montreal Canadiens.

As with all home teams, they’ll be wearing their dark colours (which this blogger thinks is stupid. Whites are almost always nicer, and I came up in hockey equating white with the home team). Their home jersey colour is officially called ”Polar Night Blue.”

But of course, fans of the Winnipeg Jets are known for their classic ”whiteout.” The image of their final game in ’96 is burned into the brains of most hockey fans who were around at the time.

White is, of course, the colour that the visiting Montreal Canadiens will be wearing. Logically then, having everyone wear white would make no sense. It’s not like the Habs would think the fans are cheering for them or anything, it just seems sort of…wrong.

It’s also worth mentioning that the whiteout stayed with the organization when it moved to Phoenix, where fans have kept the tradition alive (or at least on life support).

Pic from

The prevailing sentiment when it comes to the return of the Jets has been straight up nostalgia (you guys remember they weren’t that awesome, right?). The folks at True North went with the classic name of “Jets” after all, and in doing so saved themselves from being hunted by an angry, pitchfork-and-torch weilding mob.

That nostalgia is the foundation of the main argument for why they should do it: they really, really wanna.

And, that’s just fine. I mentioned earlier that I think white’s should be worn at home because that’s how I remember it, and they’re going off the same premise. (Still, my thirst for the past isn’t tossing any logic by the wayside.)

Let’s take a closer look at the situation:

Contributing factors Read the rest of this entry »