Skip to content

Jordan Staal believes Marc could play again this season

Mar 18, 2013, 6:22 PM EDT

Marc Staal Getty Images

Eric and Jordan Staal had the opportunity to visit ailing brother Marc Staal on Sunday. They provided some updates about the New York Rangers defenseman’s condition to the Bergen Record, including this hopeful bit from Jordan about Marc possibly playing again this season.

“I believe so, he still needs time to heal but he’s looking forward to getting back as soon as he can,” Jordan said.

Unfortunately, the optimism wasn’t quite as abundant regarding Marc’s vision coming back 100 percent.

“It’s heading in the right direction and we’re not sure completely how it’s going to turn out,” Jordan said.

It sounds like Marc will wear a visor whenever he returns to the NHL, although it doesn’t appear to be a slam dunk (despite their mother’s objections).

“We asked him, I think he’s going to wear one,” Jordan said. “It really isn’t a laughing matter but I think he’s going to throw one on. My mom threw a few comments out but the Staals can be stubborn sometimes.”

Apparently so, because Eric seemed pretty ambivalent about wearing one himself.

“I don’t know, he hasn’t really said much about it to be honest. It’s one of those things that it’s tough to make an excuse for,” Eric said about Marc before shifting to his own situation. “But right now I’m comfortable without it and obviously I’m going to have address it at some point and possibly go with it but for right now I’m staying with the way I have it.”

In related news, TSN’s Bob McKenzie reports that Marc will be on hand in New York to watch his Rangers face his brothers and the Carolina Hurricanes on Monday.

  1. valoisjoeybfeld69 - Mar 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM

    Wear the visor already. The visor saved a potential life changing injury for Orpik and Harold recently. C’mon! Smarten NHL. Make this mandatory has you did for helmets. Remember 1979…..

    In August 1979, then president of the National Hockey League (NHL), John Ziegler, announced that protective helmets would become mandatory in the NHL. “The introduction of the helmet rule will be an additional safety factor,” he said. The only exception to the rule are players—after signing a waiver form—who signed professional contracts prior to June 1, 1979. Essentially, this grandfather clause allowed established NHL players to choose whether or not they wanted to wear helmets but forced all new players to wear them.

    • stakex - Mar 18, 2013 at 9:15 PM

      But why shouldn’t it be the players choice? If, like Eric Staal, you know the risk (and have seen it first hand) and still don’t want to wear one… why should you be forced to? People who are for making them mandatory have never really given a good response to that.

      I mean players are just as likely to suffer life changing injuries from clean hits, so does that mean the NHL should ban contact? Of course not. Players know the risk and chose to take it by playing the sport. Its the same with visors. Players know the risk of not wearing one, and some chose to take it.

      So lets stop trying to play nanny for NHL players, and let them make some choices themselves. Its their life after all, not yours.

      • valoisjoeybfeld69 - Mar 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM

        What does it matter who makes the decision? It’s about making the game safer. Who decided that we have to wear a seat belts on take off & landing. Should it not be the adult’s choice? After all they know the risks. Why can’t one buy cocaine at the corner store? After all, adults know the the risks. Why did the NHL make helmets mandatory? After all the players were aware of the risks. I don’t get your nanny response when it’s clearly about making the game safer. What do you care if the visor is mandatory? It’s not you who is affected by the change. People who don’t want the league to take action always have the same response. It’s the players choice. Well! Regardless of the sport the governing body has the authority to institute rules to ensure the safety of players. Helmets in football, baseball, and hockey were not mandatory at one point. Why did they change that and not leave it to the players? Unfortunately, adults don’t always make the right decision, which is way there are laws and rules. Hope you got a different perspective, and if you didn’t, well so be it.

      • stakex - Mar 18, 2013 at 11:27 PM

        First of all, my perspective is based on my own experience playing a lot of compedative hockey… and isn’t based on laughable arguments like yours is. So no, that little statement didn’t change anything.

        To go over your points:

        1. You have to wear a seat belt on an airplane because the companies that own the planes don’t want to get sued if you get hurt. They have a vested interest in you not getting hurt on their plane. Its also the law… which is in place to protect people who might not understand that a takeoff and landing on an airplane can be dangerous. There is no law that requires hockey players to wear a shield, and all players fully know the risk… the same is not true for airline passangers.

        2. Hockey players have been playing without visors for decades, and only a handful of players have ever been seriously hurt as a result. Cocaine use on the other hand, has a negative impact on everyone that does it… and again, its against federal law. Though, while hard core drugs are illegal, we do allow people to chose to use cancer causing cigarettes that are very bad for them.

        3. Helmets are different then shields. In virtually every game there is a case in which a player would probably have been hurt if he wasn’t wearing a helemt. The same is not true for visors. Injuries that would be prevented with visors are very rare compared with head injuries prevented with helemts. Not to mention that no one is going to die from not wearing a visor… but someone could (and has) died from the lack of a helmet.

        4. I might not be effected by the change, but I’m not the one freaking out that players need to be protected from themselves. I think the choice should be theirs, its you that wants to take it out of their hands… so me not being effected has nothing to do with it. Besides, throwing my own argument back at me only proves you have no valid point.

        ————————————-

        Look, they can come up with a thousand different pieces of equipment to protect against every freak injury possible in hockey, but where does it stop? There has to be a point at which you say “Ok, its the players choice if they want to wear more then basic protection on the ice”. Otherwise we will end up with NHL players wearing more armor then a 15th century knight… all because whiny fans who never played the game demanded it. And make no mistake about it…. visor preventable injuries ARE freak injuries.

      • valoisjoeybfeld69 - Mar 19, 2013 at 12:56 AM

        We should agree to disagree. But I still don’t get why it bothers you that, and this according to you, “all because whiny fans who never played the game demanded it”, some want to make the game safer. What will wearing a visor change besides provide protection? How you come up with the assertion that “whiny fans who never played the game demanded it” is beyond me. The game has changed in so many ways. The equipment is lighter, the players are bigger, stronger, faster, and the sticks used today allow them to propel and shoot the puck much harder and faster, cutting down their reaction time to protect themselves. Players today wear full face masks until they play junior wear they start wearing the visor. Why do they take it off? I can’t think of any other reason than because they can. They are 18 or 19 when they make the decision to stop wearing the visor. Hardly the mature man with a wife and kids to be concerned about at that age, and hardly the maturity of an older more experienced player. By the time they realize the importance of protecting their eyes they’ve gotten accustomed to play without even if they wore facial protection for over 10 to 15 years. Tough to go back. Maybe the league should have been guided by one of the greatest coaches of all time, and disallowed the goalie mask.

        During the 1959–60 NHL season, Plante wore a goaltender mask for the first time in a regular season game. Although Plante had used his mask in practice since 1956 after missing 13 games because of sinusitis, head coach Toe Blake did not permit him to wear it during regulation play. However, on November 1, 1959, Plante’s nose was broken when he was hit by a shot fired by Andy Bathgate three minutes into a game against the New York Rangers, and he was taken to the dressing room for stitches. When he returned, he was wearing the crude home-made goaltender mask that he had been using in practices. Blake was livid, but he had no other goaltender to call upon and Plante refused to return to the goal unless he wore the mask. Blake agreed on the condition that Plante discard the mask when the cut healed.

  2. 950003cups - Mar 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM

    Peter Harrold (NJ Devils) had a shot hit him square in the face. Similar shot as Staal got. His visor cracked off, and his face was bleeding. The visor prevented another Staal incident.

  3. shortsxit34 - Mar 18, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    Stakex,

    I responded weeks ago. I pointed out that players are team assets. I pointed out that the fans come to see the players. I pointed out that contracts are guaranteed.

    I suggested that players should have the choice, but should sign waivers and pay for their own insurance. I said players should not receive their guaranteed contracts if they receive a preventable injury due to a choice they make, such as going without a visor.

    You proceeded to go on a rant about how I said they should be forced to wear a visor (despite my first sentence saying otherwise), how I must want to take hitting out of the game, and how I should stick to bowling or baseball.

    • stakex - Mar 18, 2013 at 11:31 PM

      I remember that post, and if I recall correctly most of it was not directed at you… and I believe it was tennis I said people should go watch if they have a problem with hockey being a dangerous sport.

      With that said, the one side of the argument I agree with is that teams should have a say in it. If teams want their players to wear a shield, so be it. However the NHLPA would never allow that, and is never going to agree to make shields mandatory… at least not for a few years.

  4. valoisvipers - Mar 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM

    I agree with valoisjoeybfeld69 that the use of visors should be grandfathered into the league. Kids use them in the juniors so why let them take it off when they play in the NHL. If Sid can rack up points at the pace of 1.60 ppg using a visor then there is no issue with visors causing vision problems. Another selfish and reckless move by the NHLPA.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. C. Price (1740)
  2. J. Harding (1700)
  3. M. Staal (1566)
  4. J. Giguere (1502)
  5. J. Thornton (1454)
  1. J. Spezza (1267)
  2. A. Semin (1265)
  3. C. MacArthur (1243)
  4. A. Ekblad (1230)
  5. B. Bishop (1104)