psulion22

Ask the vet for Entyce. It will up his appetite and keep him eating as he starts to feel sick. We also used Cerenia, though that's expensive. CBD oil probably can't hurt at this point either. Marinol (synthetic THC given to human cancer patients) is an option if your vet/oncologist is progressive. None of this is going to cure the cancer, but it will keep him more comfortable for the time he has, and eating will keep him alive longer. We went through this last year. Literally tried everything, as you can see from the Marinol, surgery, radiation, 4 different chemo protocols. We kept him alive for 18 months by keeping him eating while we tried to fight it (to no avail). That's the key. Entyce is supposed to work miracles. Unfortunately it wasn't available yet for us. We had resorted to giving him Taco Bell by the end. Sorry to hear this. Spend time with him, but don't give up. You can still give him a great quality of life for as long as he's able. You'll know when it's time.

Nope, Supremes definitely have a more neutral pitch. Many posters here have complained about the feeling of being back on their heels when they switched to new Supremes. I can't say for sure if it's the boot or the holder, because I had that feeling when I went from NXGs to MX3s, both Supremes, with the only change being the holder. I'd imagine that going from a non-Edge Vapor to an Edge Supreme would be an even more dramatic change. I have no idea. DO a quick search on here for "shim" and I'm sure the answer is out there. Maybe someone more experienced with this than me can help you out. I can't imagine that it would be more than a few bucks. Rivets are $1-2 each, and the shims can't be that much. I'd expect something in the $20 range maybe? It doesn't affect the profile, it will tilt you forward to get you off your heels and more of the feeling that you had in the Vapors. So if your Supremes are a 0 in terms of pitch, your Vapors may have been a +2 forward. The Quad 0 is giving you back close to a +1, but you're still behind what you had before. You can have the profile put on at an angle to alter the pitch, without altering the profile or adding shims. But I feel Shims are the better method. EDIT: Or you can just wait for JR to reply and answer everything more accurately than I can. lol

I suspected this was the case. Supreme skates (or possibly even the edge holder) have a neutral pitch to them. Your Vapors had a more forward pitch. So the backwards lean you're feeling is because of the pitch of the skate, not the profile. The best way of fixing that is to have shims placed in the heel of your skate to give you a more forward lean.

What is your new skate? That could be causing the problem instead of the profile.

I can pretty much agree with the sentiments on here - Fire is like ROH with a little more glide. I don't find it has less bite than the same ROH, I have 1/2" in both and don't really notice anything. But it's not like FBV that sits on top of the ice and really digs in on the edges. For me it's FBV > Fire > ROH.

Thanks, I'm on Quad 1. The agility and stability on the ice is outstanding, and far superior to the 9' with a Cag I had before. But I feel like I'm missing speed and acceleration. I'm still only 3-4 weeks into my return from a major knee injury that sidelined me for 6 months, so I'm still attributing it to that rather than the profile. We'll see if it's still an issue in a few more weeks, and possibly move up to Q2.

Ah yes, I see what you are saying now.

20% off accessories, and $100 off the sharpener

The depth would only alter the radius if you didn't apply enough pressure. If you were to push too hard, you'd take off more steel, but still have a 1/2" radius. The wheel is 3mm thick and contoured to a specific radius. As long as you push hard enough to make the whole wheel contact the 3mm blade, the radius won't change. Depth of hollow (or edge height) would be measured in thousandths of an inch, and be relevant in edge squareness, not radius.

There's a tool, I forget what it's called, that checks the depth of the hollow on the steel. Not Sparx specific, it can be used on all skates. What you're talking about is different. 1/2" is the radius of the hollow (or more accurately, the wheel), not the depth. If you didn't apply enough pressure to the wheel when sharpening a skate, you wouldn't remove the steel across the entire radius and the hollow wouldn't be deep enough.

I agree here. That's what was the giveaway to me. The pitch was changing in different parts of the blade, and I felt that was being caused by too much tension. It's almost a slipping sound which you'd think was caused by not enough pressure on the blade, but it's the opposite. I've thought about using the riser for my Tydan steel to give the carriage a little more freedom of adjustment. I may do that now. I don't have the tool to check hollow depth. But I can tell you anecdotally that reducing the pressure actually created a sharper, stronger edge. I'm sure there's a tradeoff point to where it's not getting enough force, but going down one click wasn't a problem.

I also found that lowering the wheel one click on the starting point is giving a smaller burr. I haven't noticed any difference while skating from the wheel starting a fractional amount lower on the toe, but the burr has been much easier to remove.

I agree about Crawford. They won that Cup in spite of him. And the reality is for all of Murray's heroics, the team in front of him is way more responsible for his success. I don't want to say they win in spite of him too, because he does steal them some games. He is much like Crawford in that he has a bad glove and average puck control, and causes a lot of problems that he then bails himself out of, making him look spectacular. But he allows too many soft goals. If you look at their shot totals and charts, you'll see how little work he actually has to do. In 2016, the Pens held their opponents to 25 shots or under in 11 of the 22 games Murray played. The Sharks didn't record 30 in any game, with their high being 26. The Bolts recorded 30 or more twice (30,37), but were also held to 20 or under twice, including 17 in Game 7. And all of that was despite two games in each series going to OT, which increased the shot totals. In fact, in the two final elimination games, the Bolts and Sharks were held under 20 shots (17 and 19 respectively). Both were shut outs. The crux of the argument here is in the bullet points. I believe the first should read "Top tier defensive systems and defensemen are generally a must to win", with the rest holding true. You could make the third "Average defenses can potentially get it done if their goaltending is out of this world". But the problem is that we haven't seen that second one since Thomas in 2011 or maybe Quick in 2012 (his defense was better than average imo). We've seen a lot of teams riding the hot or elite goalie only to lose to the better defensive team though. It's just a difference of opinion.

Good? Yes. Less than fantastic? Absolutely not. Crawford was good, if that, but not fantastic in '15. Murray was good, but not fantastic in the half of the games he played last year. Fleury was good but not fantastic to start last year, and got his team to the conference finals. Even the first year, Murray was pretty good but not fantastic,

The regular season and playoff success of guys like Price, Bobrovsky, Holtby, Rask, Rinne, and even Lundqvist would seem to contradict that. Those guys are the ones that are about as elite as it gets over recent time. They've all had inconsistent results, both in the regular season and playoffs. Lundqvist, Holtby, and Rask have been outplayed by backups for a time. A guy like Mike Smith, or Luongo, are guys on bad teams that don't get the recognition they should. Antii Raanta was unbelievable this year for a terrible team that got nowhere. Devan Dubnyk was close to an elite level in Minnesota for a few years with little success. The team that plays the best defensive system - first the passive Torts system, and now the active transition game - is the one that got higher in the standings and deeper into the playoffs over the past 5-7 years. It's not basketball. The team with the best player doesn't always win. That's why team play and system is significantly more important than a single player, even a goalie.

I don't know how I forgot Quick in '12. He was ridiculous. The rest of the guys aren't finalists. Many of them got only one vote. In fact, you have to go back to 13/14 to find one of them that got more than one vote. That year Quick got 3, for a total of 9 points. The winner, Rask, had 103 points. So again, what you continue to ignore is that the team with the best defensive structure beats the team with the hot goalie over the long run. That was what I said. 5 years in a row the better team beat the goalie that carried their team there, mostly in dominating fashion. In those wins, the teams had multiple goalies playing with similar results. Statistically, the goalies are interchangeable when the team does its job. But you're handpicking the games the guy played fantastic, and ignoring the games he blew the game as your argument. I believe any goalie in the league is capable of stealing some games and shitting the bed in others. Most of the guys that played truly fantastic recently - Rinne, Jones, Bishop - all lost to a dominant team with an inconsistent goalie, allowing bad goals that had been atypical up to that point. Both Murray and Crawford were replaced because of their poor play and won, and Murray only played half the games last year. My point isn't that goaltending isn't a factor. It certainly is, especially to the bad side. My point is that the goalie doing the goaltending isn't important as long as he stops what he should and doesn't allow bad goals. Statistically, there just isn't a large enough separation between these guys to make a big difference over the long term. We'll just to have to agree to disagree on this.

And who was the last Vezina finalist to win a Cup? Thomas in 10/11? He truly carried that team to a win. But that Bruins team was the last of the really heavy, passive teams to win. After them, the Kings and Hawks moved to a more active, speed game that was metric based. The game is different now.

Corey Crawford. Twice. Over a team with the hot goalie. Matt Murray. Twice. Over a team with the hot goalie. That's 4 of the last 5 Cups. Both guys were replaced by someone else for sucking so badly at some point during at least one of those Cup runs. Murray played less than half the games last year. Yes, both of those guys made some key saves when needed. They also allowed some terrible goals that cost their team. And all 4 of those Cups relied more on their team's ability to defend and transition (and the Kings' inbetween as well) than their goalie carrying them. Interesting that both guys are known to be able to be picked high glove. And they frequently are when the other team has time to shoot. As a Flyer's fan you definitely know how a goaltender can lose you a series. But you also should understand how poor defensive structure can't win either. A goalie definitely impacts a team on the negative side more than the positive. With the way teams are playing over the past 5-6 years, a goalie needs to stop what he should and make a key save sometimes. But I feel that's something that every goalie in the league should be able to do, not just the elite or fantastic ones. That's why I say they're interchangeable. You should be able to put almost any goalie in and get those things. There are many, many examples of backups and unknowns coming in and outplaying the elites over the past 5 years. Things are different now than they were 5 years ago when teams all played that "Torts" passive style of defense and tried to clog up the middle of the ice and just block everything. Now they're very active and want to play defense by limiting the other team's possession, therefore limiting shots. Yes, if that doesn't work they try and block things, but that's not their first choice. The teams that are left in the playoffs are the teams that are the best at that. Goalies are still important, in that you need them to not suck and allow goals they shouldn't. But they aren't the most important to winning a Cup anymore. Let's look at this series. Game 1 the Pens play like crap, don't do their job, and win because the other team's goalie failed and their goalie bailed them out. Game 2 they play the same way, the other goalie doesn't choke and they lose. In both games, the Caps had time to exploit Murray's weakness. I said it at the beginning, if the Pens keep asking Murray to make the ridiculous saves to win games they will lose. That was the entire point of my post. They've won 2 consecutive Cups by strangling out the other team and not allowing possession rather than who was in net. If they win this series and another Cup, you'll say it was because Murray was fantastic. I'll say it was because he didn't have to be. I don't know that either of us will be right or wrong, nor that we'll agree with the other.

It goes beyond that though. It’s a perception issue. The reality is that there’s very little difference over the long term between most starters in the NHL. We’re talking about hundredths of a percent in save percentage from the best starter to the worst. That equates to 1 goal every hundred shots or so. It’s not like the old days where the top 5-6 goalies would be leaps and bounds better than the bottom 5-6. The team that limits shots, especially high quality ones from in the house or that cross the center line, will win the game more often than not if their goalie, any goalie, performs on average. Look at Vegas, they were down to their 5th goalie and still winning games the same way earlier in the season. Why? Because they’re one of the best in the league at limiting chances by retrieving and transitioning the puck quickly. When it comes to this series, the reason we’re even having this discussion is because the Caps real starter shit the bed and is playing well below his season averages. Grubauer was the better goalie by far this season, until the playoffs started. If he played on his average, the Caps sweep the Jackets and win game 1 vs the Pens. And if Holtby just did his job and stopped what he should have, all of Murray’s heroics would just have been an afterthought in a loss (like Quick’s were in round 1). In the end, the word “irrelevant” is wrong. Goalies aren’t irrelevant. They definitely impact the game, particularly to the negative side. I guess the better word is interchangeable. That is, they are mostly so close statistically that the results of the game are significantly more impacted by the team in front than the goalie, as long as that goalie just stops what he should.

Too bad. It's your point as well. I guess I should have said, goaltending "should be" irrelevant. That is, a team needs a goalie to make the saves he should, maybe occasionally bailing them out, but not counting on him to continually steal games. In the long run to be successful, it's much more important for the defense to limit chances. But it isn't irrelevant to the negative side. Allowing weak goals when the team is doing their job won't win a Cup. Boston can't win if Rask keeps allowing bad goals. Pittsburgh can't win if they keep forcing Murray to make those kinds of saves.

Goaltending is sort of irrelevant in the NHL. He just needs to make the saves he should. I really don't think a goalie can win you a Cup anymore, but he can lose you one. As ridiculous as Murray played last night, the Pens can't win if he has to play that way on a regular basis. It's about limiting chances with speed, puck retrievals, and quick transitions, and blocking shooting/passing lanes. Over a larger sample size, If teams do that, they win. If they don't, they lose. We can focus on the 2 or 3 ridiculous saves Murray made to preserve that win, like both blocker saves on Connolly. But we should be talking about the bad plays the Caps made, not doing the aforementioned things, that cost them the game. Holtby allowed 3 awful goals, not stopping shots he should have (while Murray was on the other end making saves he shouldn't have). Poor puck retrieval on goals 1 and 3. Poor lane closing on goals 1 and 2. Let's look at the past few years, where the team with the hot goalie has made it to the Cup Final only to lose to the team with the better defensive structure and retrievals/transitions. Pekka Rinne last year carried the Preds to the Final and then essentially lost on two bad goals in two games. Meanwhile, the Pens completely strangled out the Preds in games 5 and 6. Murray had it pretty easy in those last 2 games. Same thing the year before against San Jose. Jones got them there, but couldn't overcome the Pens defensive system. A weak goal or two were the difference. Same with the Bolts losing to the Hawks the year before. And the Rangers to the Kings before that. Defense and transition beats goaltending over the long run.

Ours was like that too. Fought the cancer for 18 months. Eventually it made him stop eating, and we had to make the decision. And while we knew it was happening, and took time off work to spend a day or two with him at the end, the change in the environment when he wasn't there anymore was still jarring. I've done it a few times too, but we always had another dog in the house. It was never quiet and there was still one to greet you when you came home. The stuffed animal kind of gave us something to say hi to when we came home, and hold if we were sad. We weren't ready to get another right away, and this really helped. Good to hear you will rescue another. I'm sure you'll give it a great home and life.

I'm so sorry, man. There's not much worse than that feeling. But know your furkid and friend is still running around your heart. We had to let ours go in June from cancer as well. It took 6 months before we were able to open our hearts again. But we got a little rescue puppy in March. Hopefully you'll be ready to give your heart to another needy pup at some point. We did find that having a Cuddle Clone made really helped with the pain. It is so well done, and was like he was still there in some ways. That gave us some closure by interacting with it and allowing him to leave us gradually over time, rather than so suddenly.

I just got my Q1 steel and what I immediately noticed was how much more steel is touching the ice compared to a normal profile. I'll get to try them out on Sunday and I'm hoping I experience the same as you.

My friend's 4 (almost 5) year-old son will be undergoing a 9 hour surgery tomorrow to remove a brain tumor. They found it on a CT scan after he had a big seizure. It's likely been there a while and now it's putting pressure in an area related to memory and balance. I'm possibly his favorite person in the world (outside of his parents). When I went to visit yesterday, he didn't remember my name. The tumor appears to be benign and will likely not require chemo or radiation. But still. Brain surgery. On a 4 year-old. Why? Just why? Fuck cancer.