ihabs1993 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 During the Habs-Red Wings game last night, I noticed something peculiar and I'm almost positive I'm not the first one to recognize it. The Joe Louis Arena is a charming arena, however, I can't help but feel that it impacts the flow of the game too much. Take for example the unpredictable bounces off the glass, or the bounciest boards the league has ever seen. Everyone, including myself, loves The Joe for its historical presence, however does anyone else think it's a bit gimmicky? That is, does the arena impact the game too much? I started to notice this whenever the Wings would get a cycle going in the offensive zone. The only game plan the Wing had was to take shots 20 feet wide of the net and hope for a bounce that would cause havoc in the front of the net. For the most part, this didn't create much but it was peculiar to me that a team would center their game plan solely around the arena's gimmicks. It reminds me of when I used to play Mario Tennis as a kid and every court had some sort of obstacle that would make it unique (and annoy the living daylights out of me). My question is this: Can the Red Wings do anything to limit the affect of the arena (the boards and the glass) on game play? And if this is the case, should the NHL mandate that the Red Wings do everything in their power to make the arena behave like everyone else's? The reason I ask this is because the New York Islanders arena, Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, is seven years older than The Joe, and the boards and glass have no impact on game play. I've been to several games at The Coliseum, and I have never seen a bounce that would warrant this discussion. While Madison Square Garden is also older, it has been recently renovated so I don't think it is relevant in this discussion. I know Ryan Miller used to say that Montreal had trampoline boards, but the league made Montreal and other teams transfer to a different kind of glass which seemed to have solved the problem. Not sour grapes, I promise. I'm just somewhat curious as to how this sort of thing happens without any team, player, coach, general manager, or owner going off about how his team lost because of the spring loaded boards. ihabs1993Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I think there is an element of truth to this.Back in the 1980's, the Detroit Tigers used to let their infield grass grow as long as they could get away with. Sparky Anderson (manager) wanted Alan Trammell and Lou Whittaker to have as many cracks at ground balls as possible.Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay used to practice using the end boards to pass the puck from one side of the ice to another to each other. Purposely. The boards make that possible. (I think they did that at their previous arena also. The boards were lively there too, from what I'm told.)I actually prefer the lively boards and wish other arenas' boards would be more like JLA's. Would increase scoring and make the games more exciting.Not that I was complaining about last night's game. I thought it was a GREAT hockey game. I wouldn't want every game to be like that, but it sure is fun to watch when both teams are committed to giving their opponent no room to deal, and both goalies are sharp.But I remember how boring it could be watching the Devils play in their heyday. And this year's Habs are almost as boringly good to watch. Not that the boards are the key to solving the Habs. Last night shows they are not, but they do provide an additional element, and it actually almost cost the Wings more than the Habs on the Bruce to the back of Howard.I disagree with a preference for dead boards, but if your complaint is primarily that it is different, there is merit to that objection. But the truth is that all of the areas have their own little peccadillos and interesting quirks, so JLA isn't by any means unique in having something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabs1993 Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 I think there is an element of truth to this.Back in the 1980's, the Detroit Tigers used to let their infield grass grow as long as they could get away with. Sparky Anderson (manager) wanted Alan Trammell and Lou Whittaker to have as many cracks at ground balls as possible.Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay used to practice using the end boards to pass the puck from one side of the ice to another to each other. Purposely. The boards make that possible. (I think they did that at their previous arena also. The boards were lively there too, from what I'm told.)I actually prefer the lively boards and wish other arenas' boards would be more like JLA's. Would increase scoring and make the games more exciting.Not that I was complaining about last night's game. I thought it was a GREAT hockey game. I wouldn't want every game to be like that, but it sure is fun to watch when both teams are committed to giving their opponent no room to deal, and both goalies are sharp.But I remember how boring it could be watching the Devils play in their heyday. And this year's Habs are almost as boringly good to watch. Not that the boards are the key to solving the Habs. Last night shows they are not, but they do provide an additional element, and it actually almost cost the Wings more than the Habs on the Bruce to the back of Howard.I disagree with a preference for dead boards, but if your complaint is primarily that it is different, there is merit to that objection. But the truth is that all of the areas have their own little peccadillos and interesting quirks, so JLA isn't by any means unique in having something different.These are good points. I think it's something that the NHL should try to tackle one way or the other. It would seem that many would want it your way with the boards being as spring-loaded as possible, for lack of a better term. Hockey is really the only sport where the boundaries can be, and are, used as a way of playing the game. The bank pass of the wall is a good example of that as well. Remember the goal Ovechkin scored a few years back on an empty netter that banked off the boards at center ice?My qualm is just with the equality of the stadiums. If we're going to have bouncy boards, then make it so in all 30 NHL rinks. But one thing that still confuses me, and it's probably just because I don't understand rink physics, is the reasoning for how one set of boards are bouncier than another. What makes The Joe's boards different? The NHL has rules in place for what the puck is made of and what the nets are made of, but why not the walls? It's just surprising is all. And last night's game was a great game. One of those mid-season playoff games that you see every once in a while. Could be a fun playoff match-up if it shapes up that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingNut722 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 @ihabs1993 Whether you're right or wrong, the problem will be eliminated for the 2017 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabs1993 Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 @ihabs1993 Whether you're right or wrong, the problem will be eliminated for the 2017 season.This is true. The Joe is one of the last few arenas that offer that intimate feeling at a hockey game. New arena is going to be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.