“There’s an awful lot of pressure in the back of your neck,” said Ryan Suter, who plays for the Minnesota Wild.
“You feel it.”
I think it would have been a very tough decision for him, but I guess it’s something we all have to think about.
If you’re a goalie and you’re the goalie of the future, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to think a little bit about what that might mean.
You can see the concern in the voice of the goalie.
He knows his body is not the same when you’re not the goalie anymore.
It’s just an adjustment.
But then, when you look at the other side of the puck, you can see how much better you are.
“I know my body isnt the same, but you’re better than you were before,” said Suter.
“I think the other guy, if he had the same shoulder that he has now, I think he’d be a lot better.
I think his confidence would have gone way up.
I just think he could have done a lot more.”
The other side, of course, is the NHL.
The league has a new rule, and it’s called the ‘sensitivity rule.’
The sensitivity rule requires teams to provide their players with a “reasonable accommodation” for a player’s shoulder pain.
The players are supposed to be able to play in the playoffs if their injury isn’t too severe.
What happens if the team doesn’t provide that accommodation?
The rule is very clear.
If a player can’t get up, play, and play again, the player is out of the playoffs.
If the player can play, but is not 100 percent, the team will be fined for a game.
I don’t know that I would have had to deal with it, but it was the first time I’d ever been fined for not getting up.
The ‘sensitivity rule’ has created a rift between the NHL and its players.
Players are now talking about it on the bench.
So, what are your thoughts?
Should the NHL provide players with the same accommodation that the team does?
Do you think it will increase injury rates for the players?
Ryan Suter was a key piece of the Minnesota farm team.
He’s playing on the Wild now and has been playing well.
He was asked if he was happy with the way his team performed against the Ducks.
He answered yes, but with some caution.
“We had a lot of good chances, but we didn’t score.
They have a good chance, but they can’t score,” said the rookie.
“So we had a good opportunity and didn’t capitalize on it.
I’m not going to say we gave up a lot, but at the end of the day, it was a loss.
It’s not always the easiest thing to deal, but the players have to take a hit, especially if it’s against a good team.
But the fact of the matter is, if you have an injury, and you can’t do everything that the doctor tells you, you’re out of there.
I was able to do some things to make the team better.
If it was just the same injury, you’d be out of it.
When the NHL came to your house, what would you have done differently?
Would you have had a pressurized airbag?
So how do you feel about the new rule? “
It would have to be one of the least expensive ways to deal.”
So how do you feel about the new rule?
Suter’s opinion doesn’t matter if he doesn’t get his shot in the NHL, but he’s a guy who plays in the league, so I guess he’s more likely to be a proponent of the rule.
When I was a kid, I had my brothers and my sister in a barn.
A lot of times, when I would be sitting in the barn with them, I’d be on the phone, watching the NHL on the TV.
My parents were on the other end of that.
They would just sit there and watch the game on the television.
If you were in a situation like that, you might be concerned.
Do you think there will be any players who don’t have a pressurized airbag or have an accident in the future?
I definitely would be concerned if they don’t.
We’ve got to make sure we protect the players, and they have to play by the rules.
Is it safe to say that the rule is safe?
The NHL has come out and said they want to have the rule changed.
Will the rule change the way we do things in the game?