• Oldfarthawkfan

    Crawford gave up 3 goals? That Darling guy would of had a shutout. Why do we keep playing Crawford? He isn’t worth $6 million, we need cap space. In the meantime we talk about how this team no matter how bleak it looks finds a way to pull through. I think #50 is a major reason why. That is why he is worth $6 million, weak glove hand or not.

  • Giamarino

    I don’t understand the last link at all. What a dubious study. Maybe it’s poor ESPN reporting, but overall that study is odd. First off I question what it was they were testing that led them to conclude that certain helmets are more safe than others. Based on the studies on CTE, granted those studies are more related to football and soccer, it’s all but concluded that helmets do not really help stop concussions. Particularly as it relates to football. That begs the question what criterion they were using to test these helmets. The researchers are claiming that players risk getting an additional 6+ concussions a year wearing a “non-recommended” helmet. How are they able to quantify that? Again this may be due to poor reporting on ESPN’s part, but what is it about the higher rated helmets that allow them to dampen G-forces by a third compared to the lowest rated helmets? What mechanism or design are the better helmets using that allows this? How are they quantifying how many g-forces the brain is seeing on impact, and how are they relating this to both an occurrence during hockey (what they claim is a fall on the ice where the head strikes the ice) and how often that occurrence happens? This, of course, ignores the fundamental truth that concussions are not the overall problem of brain damage. Sub-concussive hits are the main culprit of long-term brain-damage. This study is misleading on multiple levels. First, they are trying to correlate helmets and concussions implying that helmets affect the rate at which concussions occur. As I’ve said before I believe this to be a dubious statement. The second is that the researchers wrap the concussion question in a larger presentation of protecting the brain. This is simply misleading because concussions are not the problem. They’re not good, obviously, but to imply that simply reducing/removing concussions will reduce/protect someone from sustaining brain damage is, I think, patently wrong.

  • Jim

    Hawks in playoffs, even if they go 1-6 for the rest of the season.

    More detail:

    To me, home, not home, wildcard, first opponent. None of it really matters.
    The home advantage goes away once a home team loses a single game.
    As far as first opponents, it would be nice to avoid Minnesota, but other than that they seem about the same (all difficult).