seagoal

1 minute ago, froese said:

Haha, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. My animosity for the Flames runs deep

But that doesn't mean yellow doesn't look good with red with a flaming C for the Flames

12 minutes ago, froese said:

We'll have to see if they look good enough to counteract their horrible jerseys. They should adopt these practice jerseys as their regular home, would be a major improvement. 

Oh man, I could not possibly disagree more.  But I acknowledge your hatred of the Flames!

12 minutes ago, froese said:

Seriously, what is this glove? 581 back, different logo layout/placement, and completely different stitching in the palm compared to the current ef6 custom 580 break. 

Also, this all red looks awesome but I hate the Flames so I feel very uncomfortable right now. 

This looks so good, especially with the red base on the helmet. 

13 minutes ago, chile57 said:

For the record - I like it (and am not frequently in that camp with DaveArt masks). So what's the story with it though? Is it intended to be a Cujo homage? 

Yeah, that's a good call.  Not sure though.  It sure looks like the beast on it is genetically related to this beast

Samsonov's bucket.  I've always like Dave's designs with just one large thing like his open mouth creature or face/head of a creature designs.  

So much less cluttered than the more dynamic collage of smaller things designs 

1 hour ago, Lucky Pucker said:

For reference (looked it up since I didn’t know either), they’ll be wearing these sweaters:

Pretty sweet how the goalies matched the not-goalie's gloves.  Very nice.

I'd say next time you play just try to focus on small things in your game and work on those, create little victories for yourself.  "I will send a blocker rebound safely to the corner" and do it.  "I will trap a puck in my belly" and do it. "I will keep my hands actively out in front of my body" and do it.  Work on building confidence one little piece at a time. Ultimately you can only control yourself so try not to invest too much well-being or emotions in things you can not control.

I know it's easy and perhaps comforting to blame our teammates and have high expectations for them, but as goalies we are responsible for any shot on net, no matter what. That's not to say we should expect to save every shot and get shutouts, but we have a chance to make decisions on every shot, every save.  We can learn to make better decisions and improve, bit by bit, piece by piece. Ultimately, we are the only ones who improve our game on the ice and build healthy emotional and mental durability that allows us to endure the stressors of playing goalie.

I like to think of everything that happens in front of us as a filter: our responsibility, what we should worry about and invest in, is everything that gets through the filter, no matter what.  That's where I learned to aim my focus after struggling with anger and embarrassment and frustration for years in in my 20s and 30s.  I think if we worry too much about the filter in front of us, if we expect too much or place blame there, we are projecting too much of our well-being and success on things we can not control and setting ourselves up for failure.

You guys rule.

Also, this is my buddy with the Grubauer connection.  What if he's there??  What am I gonna wear???  OMG.

My teammate just invited me to Canadian Thanksgiving:

"This Sunday evening. Dinner around 5 or 6. Same as American thanksgiving just more polite and we watch hockey."

1 minute ago, coopaloop1234 said:

lmao, inner thigh, left leg. 

LOL, I guess you would be a giraffe if that was your throat.  Regardless, that's a good one.

2 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Pretty sure I can make out some letters. 

Holy shit that's your throat?!?

6 minutes ago, Chenner29 said:

This answer is different for regular and FR goalies...

You win the day, my friend.

Top Vezina picks for this season hit the media today

2 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

It's ok, I'm sure he'll get rounded up, told not to do that again, and be out and about in no time. 

And asked if he needs any assistance with his future projects.

There is guy going around starting fires in my neighborhood at work.  We were setting up to start our sensory analysis this morning and all of a sudden we smelled smoke.  Successive fires every 3 blocks to the south.  Good times.  Oh, city life.

32 minutes ago, Hockey34 said:

I always thought a 600 was a 75 degree break. But it’s a 50?

Haha. Part of the problem as well.  These angles are descriptive and definite but poorly understood,  practically. 

How man goalies could correctly answer this:

-put your hand up, thumb to the right.  Image a 75 degree glove on it.  Now Imagine changing it to 80 degrees.    Do you turn the glove left or right?

Pretty sure we have not shown Fleury's amazing all green set yet. Here he is against some kid named Connor

https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/1710131427327516749

54 minutes ago, ZeroGravitas said:

Again, it's just a model number. I Google'd Levi's pants fit to take a look and the conversation would be the same.

510 is a skinny fit. 511 is slim, but not as skinny as 510. 513 is roomier than 511.
OK, so increasing the number means roomier and decreasing the number means skinnier.
But wait, 501, 505 and 508s are roomier than all of the above!

How the heck would an uneducated customer be able to tell anything about the fit/feel of these pants without doing their homework or having someone tell them?!

I think some of this is because of the 90 in 590 that throws people off.

But I think 580/590/600 is a pretty decent way to quickly describe the feel of a glove. What else would we use? "Premier" for 590-style? We used to be able to use "Eflex" for 600 (but the new EF6 will make it difficult because it's not a 600) to describe gloves too, but that wouldn't really give you a similar way to describe a 580.

tl;dr: what better way do we have of describing gloves?

it's all good. This gained more traction than it deserves. I guess to summarize my point and show a difference with the Levi's model number comparison:

Degree angle in a glove is descriptive.  It is a number that descibes the way a glove is built, sits on your hand, and feels.  90 degrees is a real, tangible thing. It is specifically what makes that glove different than a 65, 70.....degree glove.   They chose to call that glove 580, which is arbitrary and thus, means nothing.  90 means something, 580 does not.  I guess this is where I jump off the train in say the board meeting when someone proposes calling that glove a Reebok (was that first??) 90 and someone else goes "Nah, call that glove a Reebok 580" and they all go "Yes!" and vote for that.  Which forces customers to ask "What is a 580?" and the answer is "It is a 90."

Even worse:  "What is a Mach?" "It is a 600. "  "What is a 600?" "It is a 50."  

We don't give Levi's model numbers to Lucky Jeans.

Shrug.

Back on topic, hey look, Devon Levi looking sick. Early vote for set of the year in my book

6 minutes ago, ZeroGravitas said:

I don't quite get what you mean re: 580 and 579. It's just a model number.

As I understand it, this break angle was originated and/or popularized by the model - the Koho 580. And the 590 break originated with the Koho 590. I don't know why they were named that, except that each new retail release for Koho was an incremental increase over the previous ones (Koho 550, 560, 570, 580, 590, then RBK Premier 1, etc) - presumably easier for people to differentiate between models, and maybe internally to differentiate between builds. These particular gloves (580, 590, 600 have been so popular/ubiquitous that people refer to gloves in terms of how they feel in closeness to those models.

I believe the 600 style brea that originated with the EFlex 1 is called the 600 because it's the newest Lefevre glove model after the 590 (590 + an increment of 10). RBK Premier 1, 2, Reebok Premier 3, Revoke, XLT, 4, CCM Premier 1 and 2 were all off-the-shelf 590s.

I'm not into denim, but the Levi's 511 fit different from the Levi's 514, which is different from the 510 or the 501. Same difference here.

The Levi jeans comparison is the best explanation, or analogy,  I've seen.  Thanks. 

It still irks me I guess, not in a hostile way, that they chose an arbitrary number to refer to a number, which itself is a degree of measurement that is the only significant factor that brings uniqueness. 

This conversation:

"-what is a 580? 

-it's a 90 degree glove.

-how is that different than a 590?

-that is a 60 degree glove."

Is absurd. 

In this sense "580" is as arbitrary as "Fresttlibuuj" as a name for a glove that is only different from another glove by a number of degrees that measure an angle.

I guess this started as a discussion of how convoluted and arbitrary gear names are and that's where my brain went. 

1 hour ago, RedX said:

Yeah….we do know that they mean. 

I think this illustrates my point, actually.

580 is a number that is one more than 579.  How would we change that glove to be a 579 and not a 580?  What about changing it a bit more to be a 560 and not a 580?  Can we custom order a 613?

What does the value of the number 580 mean in the spectrum of numbers in terms of how a glove is built? Nothing about the combination of those physical features = the number 580.  In fact, you can get a 590 with those exact same features. 

22 minutes ago, jerd31 said:

True has to be the worst offender.  
 

L87, PX3, 9X3, L20.2, HZRDS or whatever.  

For real.  Do we even know what the hell 580, 590, and 600 mean, yet?  Why name a break angle on a glove a number but not use the actual number of the thing being measured.  I'm sure there is some explanation that I missed or chose to ignore over the years, but the fact still stands that 580 means 90 degrees, so why not just call it Reebok/CCM/Lefevre/True 90?  Why add another level of obscurity and confusion? Why use a symbol to refer to an existing symbol?

Are arcs in a circle measured in something different than degrees in ole' Canada?

50 minutes ago, keeperton said:

They really missed the opportunity to stick with until at least the Mach 5 for both Speed Racer and to confuse the daylights out of everyone with the M5, again.

LOL, exactly.

I swear goalie gear naming across the board is so damn convoluted and irrational.

13 minutes ago, ZeroGravitas said:

Wonder why the name change if the gear specs aren't changing much. Maybe following the player gear? At least CCM isn't afraid of having different names for goalie and player (Axis and EFlex vs Tacks and Jetspeed).

Mach --> Mach 2........ "Faster___________" .  Missed opportunity.

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

I have a pretty baseline idea of the changes from Mach to Shadow. 

Don't expect any real changes, very similar evolution as the HL1 to HL2. 

Blocker remains mostly unchnaged, small adjustment to the finger attachments. 

Catcher comes stock with a wrist strap, but smaller than hyperlite gloves. Cuff has been reduced for a larger pocket. 

Pads will be stock medium stiffness (ultrasonic). So a step softer than the Mach. Leg pillow is a bit more contoured, but the rest is similar to Mach. 

 

This all sounds perfect.  Really into the graphic too.  By the time these launch I might be ready for the jump up from M5s.