2019-2020 NHL Preseason

1208209211213214228

Comments

  • cutzcutz Posts: 8,351
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Increase the goal size if there is a safety concern. 
    That's a good idea. How much bigger?
  • cutzcutz Posts: 8,351
    Poncier said:

    HAHA>That's pretty much what the Goalies look like now.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    cutz said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Increase the goal size if there is a safety concern. 
    That's a good idea. How much bigger?
    12 to 18 inches?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    Can you win a cup with one line? It seems like the Bruins only generate offense from the Bergeron line. 
  • cutzcutz Posts: 8,351
    mrussel1 said:
    cutz said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Increase the goal size if there is a safety concern. 
    That's a good idea. How much bigger?
    12 to 18 inches?
    Maybe they could try that out in the AHL and some other Minor Leagues to see how it goes.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    mrussel1 said:
    cutz said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Increase the goal size if there is a safety concern. 
    That's a good idea. How much bigger?
    12 to 18 inches?
    The NHL has discussed increasing net size...likely the players union would say no ... Goalies have bonuses in their contracts that could be hugely affected by the increased net size, the flip side of that is it would make it easier for forwards to meet their bonuses, so the owners are likely opposed...kind of a catch 22.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    cutz said:
    mrussel1 said:
    cutz said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Increase the goal size if there is a safety concern. 
    That's a good idea. How much bigger?
    12 to 18 inches?
    Maybe they could try that out in the AHL and some other Minor Leagues to see how it goes.
    The NHL usually test this stuff in the AHL.  
  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 10,479
    Bruins came on strong.  Canes need to go back to the uniforms with the flags.
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 9,945
    Goaltending advantage for Bruins is huge in this series, don't see Carolina winning with Mrazek.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    Another entertaining game...


  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 10,479
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 10,479
    mrussel1 said:
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
    True. But less is more IMHO. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    Get_Right said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
    True. But less is more IMHO. 
    Bring back "no 2 line passes!"  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
    You know that won't happen,  and should not.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    mrussel1 said:
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
    You know that won't happen,  and should not.
    I know it won't happen.  The same as they will only tinker with goalie equipment...and there is no way I want the nets increased 12-18 inches as you want...that'll never happen.  You do not like the competitive NHL playoffs.  Hows that NBA garbage working, the best I can tell after game 1...the Celtics were only ever close at opening tip-off, what a wonderful game 6 in Philly...must have been so exciting.  I'll take competitive be NHL playoffs over what the NBA produce...

    There is a reason they have a rules committee...they have studies the net, over and over...they have not changed it.  

    Were you not advocating for bigger ice?  And you want more scoring?  Bigger ice means less scoring and boring European style.  I just got done watching Canada v Finland in an exciting 2-1 game, actually, it was a boring game as most international hockey is...

    Scoring is down partly from the equipment, but mostly because teams play in the system...systems that coach like.  But then again, maybe not, the scoring started to drop as teams added cookie cutter arenas, scoring could be down because there are just not enough quality players to fill 31/32 NHL rosters.  30 years ago, most teams 4th line players now would never be NHL, they'd be in the AHL. 

    There could be any multitude of reasons why scoring is down.

    It's easy for us to sit at home and say make the goalies go back to the early nineties equipment size...but then a bunch of other rules need to be changed back to the day as well...hockey is the fastest game played, goalies need to be protected from these collisions as well.
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 9,945
    mrussel1 said:
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
    Only 1 empty netter. 5th goal was scored on Mrazek after they put him back in.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 14,388
    Poncier said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
    Only 1 empty netter. 5th goal was scored on Mrazek after they put him back in.
    Yup.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    dankind said:
    Poncier said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
    Only 1 empty netter. 5th goal was scored on Mrazek after they put him back in.
    Yup.
    Sorry, I turned it off after the first EN.  Assumed the second.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    mrussel1 said:
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
    You know that won't happen,  and should not.
    I know it won't happen.  The same as they will only tinker with goalie equipment...and there is no way I want the nets increased 12-18 inches as you want...that'll never happen.  You do not like the competitive NHL playoffs.  Hows that NBA garbage working, the best I can tell after game 1...the Celtics were only ever close at opening tip-off, what a wonderful game 6 in Philly...must have been so exciting.  I'll take competitive be NHL playoffs over what the NBA produce...

    There is a reason they have a rules committee...they have studies the net, over and over...they have not changed it.  

    Were you not advocating for bigger ice?  And you want more scoring?  Bigger ice means less scoring and boring European style.  I just got done watching Canada v Finland in an exciting 2-1 game, actually, it was a boring game as most international hockey is...

    Scoring is down partly from the equipment, but mostly because teams play in the system...systems that coach like.  But then again, maybe not, the scoring started to drop as teams added cookie cutter arenas, scoring could be down because there are just not enough quality players to fill 31/32 NHL rosters.  30 years ago, most teams 4th line players now would never be NHL, they'd be in the AHL. 

    There could be any multitude of reasons why scoring is down.

    It's easy for us to sit at home and say make the goalies go back to the early nineties equipment size...but then a bunch of other rules need to be changed back to the day as well...hockey is the fastest game played, goalies need to be protected from these collisions as well.
    I don't understand why a larger net would make the game less competitive.  Increased scoring isn't going to help one team over another, other than the existing advantage of a larger goaltender.  I'm certainly not passionate about larger nets, my point was that if safety is a concern about reducing equipment size, you could offset it by proportionally adjusting the goal. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    And the NBA's issues are far different than goal size, court size, paint rules, time outs, etc.  The NBA's culture has changed dramatically since the advent of the Dream Teams, changing the dynamics of how players interact with each other.  Second, the NBA had some built in assumptions about money and how important the contracts were (Bird Rule, etc.) that turned out to be wrong.  The NBA never foresaw the super team until Lebron went to Miami.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    Poncier said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Get_Right said:
    7 goals.  No need to make the net bigger.
    2 EN's, so really 5.  Goals are fun.  Scoring is fun.  Ask the NFL.  
    Only 1 empty netter. 5th goal was scored on Mrazek after they put him back in.
    Rask gives Boston a big advantage...
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
    You know that won't happen,  and should not.
    I know it won't happen.  The same as they will only tinker with goalie equipment...and there is no way I want the nets increased 12-18 inches as you want...that'll never happen.  You do not like the competitive NHL playoffs.  Hows that NBA garbage working, the best I can tell after game 1...the Celtics were only ever close at opening tip-off, what a wonderful game 6 in Philly...must have been so exciting.  I'll take competitive be NHL playoffs over what the NBA produce...

    There is a reason they have a rules committee...they have studies the net, over and over...they have not changed it.  

    Were you not advocating for bigger ice?  And you want more scoring?  Bigger ice means less scoring and boring European style.  I just got done watching Canada v Finland in an exciting 2-1 game, actually, it was a boring game as most international hockey is...

    Scoring is down partly from the equipment, but mostly because teams play in the system...systems that coach like.  But then again, maybe not, the scoring started to drop as teams added cookie cutter arenas, scoring could be down because there are just not enough quality players to fill 31/32 NHL rosters.  30 years ago, most teams 4th line players now would never be NHL, they'd be in the AHL. 

    There could be any multitude of reasons why scoring is down.

    It's easy for us to sit at home and say make the goalies go back to the early nineties equipment size...but then a bunch of other rules need to be changed back to the day as well...hockey is the fastest game played, goalies need to be protected from these collisions as well.
    I don't understand why a larger net would make the game less competitive.  Increased scoring isn't going to help one team over another, other than the existing advantage of a larger goaltender.  I'm certainly not passionate about larger nets, my point was that if safety is a concern about reducing equipment size, you could offset it by proportionally adjusting the goal. 
    The safety issues for the goalies are getting run into by forwards charging hard to the net, which is a factor as to why goalies like the bigger equipment.  The increase net size will benefit the teams with the more skilled shooters, that is similarly what the shootout is not a great idea...but the players and many fans seem to enjoy the shootout, so it stays...

    I do not want the net sizes touched until Ovechkin retires...he does not need help passing Gretzky's goal scoring record...
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,720
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
    Great point !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,720
    I’m totally happy leaving things as is , these playoffs have been great no ? 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    Absolutely...there is no need to change.  The playoffs rock.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    The one change I would love to see is if the benches were placed on opposites sides of each other and back in the neutral zone...
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    Charles Barkley really wanted to watch the finish to Game 7 between the Stars and Blues
    https://www.bardown.com/charles-barkley-really-wanted-to-watch-the-finish-to-game-7-between-the-stars-and-blues-1.1302605

    Even Charles Barkley knows hockey is more exciting than the NBA...LOL
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    The NHL is never going to increase the size of the nets...they enjoy something that Basketball and Baseball don't...competitive games.  If you wanna shrink goalie equipment, fine...then you need to re-introduce the solid pipes holding the nets in place...if these forwards want to drive to the net full tilt and the goalie has reduced protection, then the players need to know that when you hit the net with your body, it will hurt...
    You know that won't happen,  and should not.
    I know it won't happen.  The same as they will only tinker with goalie equipment...and there is no way I want the nets increased 12-18 inches as you want...that'll never happen.  You do not like the competitive NHL playoffs.  Hows that NBA garbage working, the best I can tell after game 1...the Celtics were only ever close at opening tip-off, what a wonderful game 6 in Philly...must have been so exciting.  I'll take competitive be NHL playoffs over what the NBA produce...

    There is a reason they have a rules committee...they have studies the net, over and over...they have not changed it.  

    Were you not advocating for bigger ice?  And you want more scoring?  Bigger ice means less scoring and boring European style.  I just got done watching Canada v Finland in an exciting 2-1 game, actually, it was a boring game as most international hockey is...

    Scoring is down partly from the equipment, but mostly because teams play in the system...systems that coach like.  But then again, maybe not, the scoring started to drop as teams added cookie cutter arenas, scoring could be down because there are just not enough quality players to fill 31/32 NHL rosters.  30 years ago, most teams 4th line players now would never be NHL, they'd be in the AHL. 

    There could be any multitude of reasons why scoring is down.

    It's easy for us to sit at home and say make the goalies go back to the early nineties equipment size...but then a bunch of other rules need to be changed back to the day as well...hockey is the fastest game played, goalies need to be protected from these collisions as well.
    I don't understand why a larger net would make the game less competitive.  Increased scoring isn't going to help one team over another, other than the existing advantage of a larger goaltender.  I'm certainly not passionate about larger nets, my point was that if safety is a concern about reducing equipment size, you could offset it by proportionally adjusting the goal. 
    The safety issues for the goalies are getting run into by forwards charging hard to the net, which is a factor as to why goalies like the bigger equipment.  The increase net size will benefit the teams with the more skilled shooters, that is similarly what the shootout is not a great idea...but the players and many fans seem to enjoy the shootout, so it stays...

    I do not want the net sizes touched until Ovechkin retires...he does not need help passing Gretzky's goal scoring record...
    So get more skilled players.  I don't really understand the issue other than tradition, which is fine.   When the NFL changed its PI rules,  it changed what teams drafted both in receivers and cornerbacks.  It's not like it created some unfair advantage for a team, division or conference.  Teams adjust.  Same when the NBA reestablished zone defense.  Like I said,  I'm not particularly an advocate,  but I would like the per game,  per team scoring to be closer to 3.5 or higher per game. It rarely breaks 3.
Sign In or Register to comment.