| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 10:11:51
We have now had 4 full season of post-lockout NHL and are entering into the 5 year of the new CBA. Many of the new rules have been good for the game and some seem to be a little sketchy... I just want to hear your opinions on what you guys like and dont like about the current product on the ice.
I think that removing the two line pass was the best change they made, and the delay of game penalty for flipping the puck over the glass the worst.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| just1n |
Posted - 09/18/2009 : 13:00:28
I can't understand why people don't like shootouts. Tie = boooooooring. Everyone can still feel somewhat satisfied from getting the point even in a shootout loss. While shootouts aren't particularly exciting all the time, it at least settles who won or lost, like every other major sport. Three point games keep the standings tight and keep the races to make the playoffs exciting.
Take Mats Sundin's return to Toronto last year. He won the game for the Canucks in the shootout, creating a great story and ending. Same thing with Fleury's return to Calgary last night, added some excitement to a pre-season game. If it were a tie? Dull, unfinished game. No one leaves happy. When I watched Junior B games as a kid I would pray games that made it to overtime would eventually go to a shootout - so exciting.
Note that I absolutely hate shootouts in the Olympics (any Canadian would!) and they'd better not try using shootouts for the NHL playoffs. I don't think they ever would be able to pull that off...
|
| shazariahl |
Posted - 09/17/2009 : 17:07:10
I dislike shootouts. I know the reasons people like them, and I fully understand these, so I don't criticize anyone who disagrees with me. But I like the 5 min OT and the tie. I don't see what was wrong with each team getting a point.
Don't get me wrong - shootouts are exciting, but as someone else said, its not real hockey.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/09/2009 : 18:05:03
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0855
quote:
Originally posted by nashvillepreds
The one thing I really do not like though is the way the NHL handles the salary cap. It was instated so that players would not get too overpaid and so that teams as well as the league could save money. The one thing I do not agree with is when the NHL is basically forced to raise the cap because of players signing to outrageous contracts.
Salary cap is based on total league revenue. Players maximum salary is based a percentage of the cap value. Hence contracts are based on the cap not the cap based on contracts.
This is a really good point and I think the perception of Nashville Preds is quite common. Reason being is that we have only had revenue increases and salary cap increases since the lock out( stupid Bettman and the NHL. What are they thinking progressing after a lock out when every other sports league that had a labour dispute fell backwards. Seriously, how does he still have a job). However, next season there is a prediction of a reduction in revenues meaning a reduction in the salary cap. Those long term, huge dollar deals (a la DiPietro, Hossa, Ovechkin, and Richards) and those deemed 'overpaid' contracts (a la Briere, Drury, Gomez) will be very painful for those teams. |
| Guest0855 |
Posted - 08/09/2009 : 12:03:13
quote:
Originally posted by nashvillepreds
The one thing I really do not like though is the way the NHL handles the salary cap. It was instated so that players would not get too overpaid and so that teams as well as the league could save money. The one thing I do not agree with is when the NHL is basically forced to raise the cap because of players signing to outrageous contracts.
Salary cap is based on total league revenue. Players maximum salary is based a percentage of the cap value. Hence contracts are based on the cap not the cap based on contracts. |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 08/09/2009 : 08:54:27
I like all the rules the NHL has brought into the game, except I agree that the delay of game rule for shooting the puck over the boards is dumb.
The one thing I really do not like though is the way the NHL handles the salary cap. It was instated so that players would not get too overpaid and so that teams as well as the league could save money. The one thing I do not agree with is when the NHL is basically forced to raise the cap because of players signing to outrageous contracts.
The NHL is preparing to go into a season in which they will lose money. Yet due to "good profits", as they say, they still decide to raise the cap. But with the board knowing they will hit a wall this season in terms of money, I don't understand why they would sitll raise the cap. In my mind it does have something to do with what the players around the league are demanding in terms of contracts.
I know this is not entirely the leagues fault, but they should not keep raising the cap so player and teams can have more wiggle room. The point of the cap is to limit salary amounts, yet they're higher than ever right now.
Colin Wilson- The future |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 04:46:02
Good Topic! My opinions . . .
I like:
- the salary cap (much more even playing field)
- two line pass (something everyone agrees on?!?)
- no line change on an icing (makes sense)
- defensive zone face-off after a penalty (not a big change, but it does increase scoring chances)
I don't like:
- the shoot-out (nothing wrong with ties, and a shootout isn't real hockey, even if it is exciting)
- have gone back to not calling (as it should be, every time it happens) interference, obstruction, diving (for a year or two after the lockout they clamped down, now it's slowly gone back to dead-puck era "rules" . . . we need the game's rules to be called exactly as they were written)
- the schedule has sucked badly, missing out on original 6 match-ups and every team playing every team at least once . . . don't they want to promote the new stars of the game to every NHL city?!?
- no real stand taken on drug-testing, and the NHL is setting itself up for a big scandal in the future if they don't. Despite all the righteous talk, our testing policy is piss-poor (pun intended)
Neither here nor there:
- not super fond of the penalty for puck over the glass in defensive zone, but the rule should be enforced somehow . . . I mean, it's also wrong that a team under pressure gets a break with a crappy little play to change lines, get a bit of a huddle with the coach, etc - it's unfair, and unsportsmanlike in nature, especially since throwing the puck out of the field of play on purpose is against the rules, so . . . I am not totally against a penalty here. It encourages fair play, rewards the better team that is putting on the pressure, and increases scoring chances.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 01:53:09
Beans I am not old enough to remember before the "Dead Puck Era" and I HATE the shoot-out, sure its really exciting and all but whats the point in taking a team game and bringing it down to individual talents, who has the better individual not the overall team, and your completley right about overtimes, they used to be really exciting watching to see which team will pull of the W but now knowing one of the teams is gonna win for sure, its lame, and takes a lot of the excitement out of the extra 5 minutes.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| Sensfan101 |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 16:55:23
I REALLY like the shootout but I wouldn't mind having it removed because the Sens are brutal in it.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 14:02:14
I find it really interesting that the people that like the 3 point game and the chance for an playoff birth to be decided by a shoot out are not old enough to have watched hockey before the dead puck era. I mean, hockey between 1970 and 1995ish was excellent. Sure, maybe a little watered down through the early 80's, but still great to watch. The period of time between 1995 and 2004 was not a great product to watch so obviously today's game is what people think is better. But I would suggest that anyone who is old enough to have watched a reasonable amount of hockey before 1995 would agree that the 3 point game is a joke. |
| Axey |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 13:54:03
I think if a playoff spot was decided on a shootout could be the best thing ever, thats some intense stuff. The thing with the rivalries nowadays is there is too many teams. A good rivalry is made from the teams playing each other alot, that is where the bad blood comes from and players begin to hate each other. Even when teams meet in the playoffs alot, but it is hard now with the cap and how close teams are to have a dynasty and for 2 teams to meet in the playoffs alot and especially after playing 6 games against each other in the playoffs. Yes, it could happen one year but not too many beside that.
As for the goalies, to run them is ridiculous and would be blasphemy to do. Goalies when they make a save are usually on their knees, how is that fair for a player to come in and wack a goalie who is down? I could see if the goalie is playing the puck in a standing position you could be a bit more aggressive but a clean body check would also get out of hand since goalies have a clear disadvantage with the loads of gear they have on. Also, the slimely players like Sean Avery would take that to the bank. Them kind of players take that stuff to a whole new level.
I think what we need to do is get rid of the instagator penalty, but at the same time it should be legit say if some goon just wanted to go clobber the other teams best player, it should be in effect. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 07:02:44
Has anyone noticed that there are fewer and fewer rivalries in hockey today?? I blame that 100% on the three point game. Not the shoot out, but the 3 points handed out. Back in the day, when a great game ended in a tie, the fans were never mad. Never. They were leaving the arena to go get in line for the next time the two teams met! It was all but a sure thing that the next game was going to be better than the last one and that you would see two teams really going after each other.
It's the biggest joke in sports that 2 teams, tied in the standings after 81 games, could go down to a shoot out to see who goes to the playoffs.
Why not have baseball games settled with a home run derby or a basketball game end with a 3 point shoot out.
The only other 'global' sport that I know of that settles the game in a shoot out is soccer. That that's after playing an extra 60 minutes to try to settle the game.
I like the shoot out for excitement and it is fun to watch, but to think a team that has Jussi Jokinen has an automatic advantage is pathetic. Above this, the shoot out has caused 1/2 the overtime to be a waste. You can almost see the switch get flipped. Both teams go all out for the first couple of minutes of the OT, then they play safe. They don't play to score, they play not to get scored on. And, if a team is playing another team from their division and want to gain separation in the standing, they can't even pull their goalie. If a team pull their goalie in overtime and lose, they don't get the extra point. The winning team gets 2, the losing team gets zero. So the rules are tilted towards games going to the shootout and the extra point going to a luck situation.
|
| Guest9262 |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 08:25:28
About the shootout.
I absolutly agree. I love it, and when you go see a game live it's a good scenario to end the game because shootout are exciting. And I agree the team who wins gets 2 points and the team who lost gets 1 point. Even though it's frustrating when your team is below 500 in the shootout during the season and they lose 2 or 3 points because of it. We all know how 2 or 3 points is important. But like Alex said the coach has the responsibility to give good shoutout drill during the practise.
But what I don't like is when a game ends in overtime. It's still a 3 points game. The losing team in an overtime shouldn't get any point. |
| Alex |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 06:01:19
Regarding the shootout, I pretty much disagree with anyone who doesn't like it.
First of all, it is the absolute most exciting part of the game. Whenever I go to a live game, I hope it ends in a shootout. NHL highlight reels are dominated by plays from the shootout. Not only that, but I've felt the effect at a grassroots level. Now when I play road hockey with my friends, we're always seeing who can bust out with the best move in a shootout. There are so many combinations of moves and so many waiting to be made, and for kids my age, the fun in road hockey is mixing and matching them to try to come up with the best.
As for the fact that it represents one point in a three point game... I'm not crazy about it, but I'm definitely not against it. I think that NHL coaches have yet to acknowledge the importance of the shootout and give their players due time to practice during team practices. After all, seasons can be won or lost on the shootout. It's not the fault of the shootout, but rather, the coaches and players who have yet to have it impressed upon them that this is an integral part of the new NHL and is here to stay.
Not only that, but anything is better than a tie. Imagine the following scenario: The best team in the league had a three goal lead over your team early in the game but managed to see it cut down to a single goal due to sloppy play and careless penalties. Your team is down by a goal in the dying seconds of the game. Pull the goalie, send out the sixth man, throw tons of rubber on net. With ticks on the clock and a huge scramble in front, your star player finds a hole and slides the puck past the sprawling keeper to tie the game. The crowd goes wild! Buzzer sounds to end the game. Now on to overtime. Lots of rubber flying in all directions, a post or two are hit, but after five minutes, still no winner. There are three possible outcomes.
Your team wins in a shootout: By adding the shootout, it gives your team the chance to bring the storybook ending full circle and get the extra point they deserve for mounting an awesome comeback. Makes you as a fan feel great!
The other team wins in a shootout: For the other team, it gives them a sense of vindication. They manage to salvage a poor performance late and squeak out with the two points. Their fan base breathes a sigh of relief, and they go into the next game appreciative of the outcome but with a renewed sense of alacrity, fully aware the outcome could have gone the other way.
No winner. Game ends in a tie. This has GOT TO BE the most FRUSTRATING outcome of them all! Your team doesn't get to capitalize on the momentum they've built, the other team doesn't get a second chance to redeem themselves... there is all this buildup and when all is said and done, everyone goes home equal. Now, is that not anticlimactic? I would say so. |
| Guest9262 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 13:14:59
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The Good:
-No two line pass. Brilliant
-Clean up on obstruction Call. The dead puck era was boring hockey to watch and the clean up of rules that have always existed has giving the skill players the room to be skilled and removed the big, slow, stupid players from the game(like D. Hatcher).
-The Shoot Out - an exciting way to see a game end
-No Change Icing. Put the onus back on teams playing defense.
The Bad:
-Penalty for over the boards. Just plain dumb.
The Ugly.
-The Three Point Game. As I said, I dig the shoot out, but it should be only for entertainment and maybe a tie break at the end of the season(two teams tied in points and even on matchup, then go to number of shoot out wins). If two teams are tied after the 5 minute overtime, they each get 1 point.
Now, I completely disagree that goalies get run to often. In fact, I think they don't get ran enough. You see it at least a half dozen times each game where the goalie is outside of his crease and trying to draw a penalty for interferance. You want to know a way to increase the excitement of the game, do this.
1 - Take out the limited locations on the ice where the goal can play the puck. The goalie can play anywhere on the ice.
2 - The goalie has 100% protection inside of his crease.
3 - If he goalie is outside of the crease, they are in play with all other players and are subject to the same rules.
Basically saying, the goalie is untouchable in the crease but as soon as he is out of the crease, he can be body checked. Not triped or interfered with, but clean check. See how often the goalie leave the net then! And talk about scoring chances. How many pucks are stopped by a goalie half way out to the hashmarkes cutting off the angle?? It would be different if that goalie was getting hit once he touched the puck.
About the goalies, I was talking when they were IN the crease. Not out. So you agree with me there.
As for outside the crease, the rule is there, they CAN be hit if it's a clean hit just like any other player. But it's an understanding between the team not to run the goalie and if they do, well somebody is going after them.
And how would that make it an exciting game????? you think it's exciting when the good teams are playing there 3rd goalie because the other two are injured????? Personnaly, I like the game and goalies are part of the game, so I like to see Luongo, Brodeur, Lundqvist, Fleury, Backstrom, Ward and all the other number one goalie play. Great saves are as exciting as great goals. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 12:42:44
The Good:
-No two line pass. Brilliant
-Clean up on obstruction Call. The dead puck era was boring hockey to watch and the clean up of rules that have always existed has giving the skill players the room to be skilled and removed the big, slow, stupid players from the game(like D. Hatcher).
-The Shoot Out - an exciting way to see a game end
-No Change Icing. Put the onus back on teams playing defense.
The Bad:
-Penalty for over the boards. Just plain dumb.
The Ugly.
-The Three Point Game. As I said, I dig the shoot out, but it should be only for entertainment and maybe a tie break at the end of the season(two teams tied in points and even on matchup, then go to number of shoot out wins). If two teams are tied after the 5 minute overtime, they each get 1 point.
Now, I completely disagree that goalies get run to often. In fact, I think they don't get ran enough. You see it at least a half dozen times each game where the goalie is outside of his crease and trying to draw a penalty for interferance. You want to know a way to increase the excitement of the game, do this.
1 - Take out the limited locations on the ice where the goal can play the puck. The goalie can play anywhere on the ice.
2 - The goalie has 100% protection inside of his crease.
3 - If he goalie is outside of the crease, they are in play with all other players and are subject to the same rules.
Basically saying, the goalie is untouchable in the crease but as soon as he is out of the crease, he can be body checked. Not triped or interfered with, but clean check. See how often the goalie leave the net then! And talk about scoring chances. How many pucks are stopped by a goalie half way out to the hashmarkes cutting off the angle?? It would be different if that goalie was getting hit once he touched the puck.
|
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 12:17:14
forcing teams to take a defensive zone faceoff after taking a penalty has increased scoring big time as well. That was a good change.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Guest9262 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 12:17:07
The puck over the glass is the worst. When a player does it, it should be the same as an icing call the team can't change the players on the ice.
The zone behind the net is just stupid.
I like the cap. But I think they brought it up too high just a little.
The two line passes is great.
I don't like that they focus so much on hooking, holding, interference and all that they seem to be missing too many High sticking, cross checking, slashing, etc... I have to admit that last season was better, they were not calling as much when a players just touches the other guy with his stick. Also I don't like watching a game when there's constantly powerplays.
Also I find the goalies are run too much, something should be done about this. A lot of time somebody is in the crease not touching the goalie, the other team score because the goalie couldn't do his lateral movement properly. A goal like this should be disallowed. I'm not saying it should be like it use to be when there was just a skate in the crease. The rule is there because I was watching a game in Washington last year against Toronto and they disallowed the goal because somebody was in the crease. But they didn't give any goalie interference penalty.
It's hard to explain what I mean (especially because I'm french) but yeah they should protect the goalies a little more. |
| Guest2332 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 11:24:51
Really like the new rule on Icing where you can't make line change when it occurs. It forces defense crew to be more aggresive |
| Guest9838 |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 10:28:14
Not a huge fan of the "trapezoidal area" behind the net, but now that goalies have adjusted it's a non issue. I like the pace and the fluidness of the game now as well.
It's a slow month for hockey I see... |
|
|
