3 on 3 discussion

[King Knut]

Lack of emphasis for 1 on 1 play still bites us for another loss.

Just because the shootout will be emphasized less doesn't mean there isn't a greater need to be able to convert on 1 on 1 plays, and I think we will see these breakaways very often in the new 3 on 3 OT. So this team better practice the shootout on a daily basis or expect a lot of lost points for a quality effort.

Yeah it's now a major issue. I can't tell if I hate 3 on 3 more or less than the shootout, BUT either way, there look to be a ton of breakaway opportunities during 3 on 3, so it's still going to cost us a bunch of games if we can't score on the breakaway let alone when they gift wrap two penalty shots for us. Can't believe they aren't any better at this. How was this not ALL they were doing all summer? You dont need a coach or a team. Just a buddy to strap on some pads and a mask

[King Knut]

From what I just saw, this team is no better suited to win games in 3 on 3 than it is to win a shootout. So repeating last year's 18 lost points after the 3rd period could be the well within reach.

Giroux especially has to better one on one with the goalie, for all his skills he gags more often than not

Yeah. 3 on 3 is where their lack of speed becomes blatantly apparent and half the team becomes an absolute liability.

[brelic]

I can't tell if I hate 3 on 3 more or less than the shootout

 

It's better than the shootout, but it certainly doesn't feel like "hockey".

[King Knut]

This makes no sense. They were all over them tonight, good board play one on one. I'm not going to get too upset with game 1 missing 2 penalty shots. Especially by a kid who is getting his first real taste of the NHL. When they play 3 on 3, they need to make sure someone is back and that's what killed them tonight. Jake didn't go back when Med was up on the play. This team might be a pleasant surprise this year...maybe.

It's going to take a while for teams to figure out how to play 3 on 3. Teams with speed and skill like the lightning will dictate play in the early days of this new phenomenon. But eventually coaching brains will counter it and it look slightly less chaotic.

I'm not going to tag on the flyers for losing in 3 on 3 OT. I would like to have seen them look better in the PS's though. That has to be a priority more than ever now. 3on3 will yield a boatload of straight up breakaways and that often lease to penalty shots. Either way,definitely, they need to learn how to beat a goalie one on one.

[radoran]

It's better than the shootout, but it certainly doesn't feel like "hockey".

 

JJ and Jonesy were all over the "this is so great! there's no defense!" aspect of the 3-on-3.

 

Yeah, no defense means it's not hockey.

 

Once again, we're fiddling around with the standings and giving away points to teams in something that has really nothing to do with the 60 minutes of team play that preceded it.

 

[murraycraven]

JJ and Jonesy were all over the "this is so great! there's no defense!" aspect of the 3-on-3.

 

Yeah, no defense means it's not hockey.

 

Once again, we're fiddling around with the standings and giving away points to teams in something that has really nothing to do with the 60 minutes of team play that preceded it.

 

 

agreed... it is exciting but there it is just another gimmick.

[OccamsRazor]

At the end?

 

I say at the end before they head to the showers....you don't get off the ice till you score one!!!!! So you could be in the shower quick or it could take awhile you choice is up to the player! 

[Phlyer1]

I go back to 67 and prefer hockey as it was meant to  be played. I don't like 3 on 3. There was a time it took something short of manslaughter to get a penalty shot. If it ain't broke don't fix it. First line needs to score goals that is why they' re the first line.

[Lindbergh31]

I was just wondering what everybody's thoughts on the 3 on 3 overtime, do you like it or not. I like it because it's going end games in overtime instead of going to the shootout. I assume the players will like it for that reason because the team decides the outcome not only certain players.

[Podein25]

I LOVE IT

[flyerrod]

I agree with brelic. It is 1000 times better than a shoot out. I would rather watch them flip a coin to decide the win than watch another shoot out....

[OccamsRazor]

I'm ok with it as long as we don't have to watch a shootout.........cause quite frankly we all know the Flyers suck at the skills competition for some reason.

[pilldoc]

I'll go on record and say that I like the new 3 on 3.   However, I also agree with all the concerns that have been mentioned above.  If this is a way to prevent the dreaded shootout then at least the NHL is making an attempt.  Outside of Jake and G the 3 on 3 will show the deficiencies of this team.  Do the Flyers have the possiblity of getting burned in the end by having to play 3 on 3....absolutely.  Hopefully in a few years this is were a player like Travis Konecy will shine. 

 

I also think 3 on 3 changes the way coaches will approach the final minutes of a game with the score tied.  You might find that coaches with teams that don't have all the skill players necessary to be succesful in OT, they might take a few more chances trying to win in regulation.  Conversely those coaches who have the skill players, might sit back and wait for OT knowing they may have decided advantage in OT.  I dunno...this is just pure speculation.

 

One thing is for certain, love or hate it, this new OT is gonna make this years season very interesting.

[King Knut]

I go back to 67 and prefer hockey as it was meant to be played. I don't like 3 on 3. There was a time it took something short of manslaughter to get a penalty shot. If it ain't broke don't fix it. First line needs to score goals that is why they' re the first line.

 

I agree with all of this myself... though I don't go quite all the way back to '67. 

Honestly, I think the Flyers would do better if the refs sent a guy to the box for 2 before giving the flyers a penalty shot anyway. 

Jake and G needed to put up a goal last night and most nights.  They can't start the year without scoring again.

 

As for OT.  It's pond hockey and that's why it was exciting.  But this is the NHL.  It's entirely a gimmick.

 

Again, I've said it for 20 years probably, but why not JUST let them play 10 minutes of 5 on 5?  How is it that after all those years of 5 minute OT's the league just threw it's hands up and said, screw it, we need penalty shots?    HOW ABOUT JUST LET THEM PLAY LONGER!  Almost any team can prevent another team from scoring in 5 minutes.  It gets harder after 10, 15, 20. 

 

Long story short, if 3 on 3 is going to stick around, I'd almost suggest putting a center and two D men out there and bringing up Ghost as soon as possible.  Ghost was BORN for 3 on 3. 

 

Ghost, MDZ, Medvenev, Streit... these guys should actually be pretty good at 3 on 3 hockey!  Streit isn't nearly as fast, but he can threat some long passes with the best of them.

 

But seriously... 3 on 3 almost seems to have been invented for a kid who can skate like Ghost.

[King Knut]

Outside of Jake and G the 3 on 3 will show the deficiencies of this team.

 

I like your observations, but I think The Flyers COULD have the pieces they need.  YOu mentioned TK and he's for sure the kind of player that will excel in a 3 on 3 OT.

 

But I'll point to Ghost as an almost prototypical 3 on 3 player.  That kid and all that extra ice?  are you kidding me?

 

I also think we have other pieces that could be good in a 3 on 3 situation, but that you wouldn't think to use especially the first time you do it.

 

Bellemare for instance, I think he'd benefit from it.  Raffl for sure.  Laughton did well but couldn't hold on to the puck or get wood on the backhand for the PS, but he did okay.

 

As it develops I think we'll see a guy like Coots start to figure out how to shut guys down 3 on 3 as well.  It's going to take time.  It's something for everyone to talk about and the guys at ESPN to laugh at for a few weeks.  In 2 or 3 years we'll revisit and everyone will see what they think. 

 

Personally, it may be thrilling, it may be exciting, but it eliminates half the game of hockey and I'm just not sure that seems right to me.  This is the NHL.  why do you want to eliminate the skill sets, strategies of such a large portion of the game.  It reminds me of the way OT in NCAA football works.  That's like 3/4 of the game of football just not being incorporated into deciding who wins.  Just confuses me.  How do you decide with 3/4 of the game isn't important enough of a factor?

 

Seems a bit arbitrary.

[radoran]

Does football go to 8-man football in OT? Flags? Touch? Two point conversion drills?

 

Does baseball switch to a home run hitting contest? Fungo bats?

 

Does basketball* go to 3-on-3? Do they play a game of HORSE?

 

Taking a team game and determining the outcome based upon a skills competition that affects the standings and playoff rankings of the teams is absurd and ridiculous.

 

 

* I am told "basketball" is still a professional sport

[OccamsRazor]

Does football go to 8-man football in OT? Flags? Touch? Two point conversion drills?

 

Does baseball switch to a home run hitting contest? Fungo bats?

 

Does basketball* go to 3-on-3? Do they play a game of HORSE?

 

Taking a team game and determining the outcome based upon a skills competition that affects the standings and playoff rankings of the teams is absurd and ridiculous.

 

 

* I am told "basketball" is still a professional sport

 

 

Nope great point so let's just make it like football. If it goes to OT the winner gets 2 points. The loser gets nothing. If that don't inspire them then nothing will.

 

It's just like the conversation of the kids getting a "tahnks for playing trophy" when it comes to the point for the tie in regulations. EFF IT!

 

 

WINNER TAKES ALL!!!!

[icehole]

I liked the 3 on 3 last night more than what we saw in the preseason. Theres no doubt the action was elevated. Unfortunately, I dont think the flyers will prosper in the 3 on 3 ots. As they are constructed now, their game is muck and grind and clean up garbage. They aren't a fast break offense and they're not a defense that can defend the break. Their terrible 1 on 1 with the gaolie and their goalies havent stopped the puck since the shootout was implemented 10 years ago. I had very little confidence that our top 5 NHL dangler would score on a penalty shot, but i was saying game over when a no name defensman went in on a breakaway. Why is that?

[King Knut]

Does football go to 8-man football in OT? Flags? Touch? Two point conversion drills?
Does baseball switch to a home run hitting contest? Fungo bats?
Does basketball* go to 3-on-3? Do they play a game of HORSE?

Taking a team game and determining the outcome based upon a skills competition that affects the standings and playoff rankings of the teams is absurd and ridiculous.
* I am told "basketball" is still a professional sport

 

SO SAY WE ALL!

you get my vote.

[King Knut]

It's just like the conversation of the kids getting a "tahnks for playing trophy" when it comes to the point for the tie in regulations. EFF IT!

 

The only thing that gives me pause with any of that is that the NHL is the only one of those sports with a points system. 

It's also a brutally punishing sport.  Football can obviously compare to it with the brutality, but the endurance needed to play an entire NHL game is significantly more intense than that needed for ANY of the sports you mentioned.  The NHL season is also 5 times longer than the NFL season. AND THEN there's the playoffs, which if a team went undefeated all the way to the Stanley cup, (best case scenario shortest successful playoffs possible) They'd be playing an entire NFL season in like a quarter of the time frame.

 

So anyway as a result, I don't mind giving a team a point for surviving 60 minutes of an NHl game.  I just think you should have to win at hockey in order to get that extra point for the win. 

[radoran]

I just think you should have to win at hockey in order to get that extra point for the win.

 

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

[pilldoc]

I like your observations, but I think The Flyers COULD have the pieces they need.  YOu mentioned TK and he's for sure the kind of player that will excel in a 3 on 3 OT.

 

But I'll point to Ghost as an almost prototypical 3 on 3 player.  That kid and all that extra ice?  are you kidding me?

 

I also think we have other pieces that could be good in a 3 on 3 situation, but that you wouldn't think to use especially the first time you do it.

 

Bellemare for instance, I think he'd benefit from it.  Raffl for sure.  Laughton did well but couldn't hold on to the puck or get wood on the backhand for the PS, but he did okay.

 

As it develops I think we'll see a guy like Coots start to figure out how to shut guys down 3 on 3 as well.  It's going to take time.  It's something for everyone to talk about and the guys at ESPN to laugh at for a few weeks.  In 2 or 3 years we'll revisit and everyone will see what they think. 

 

Personally, it may be thrilling, it may be exciting, but it eliminates half the game of hockey and I'm just not sure that seems right to me.  This is the NHL.  why do you want to eliminate the skill sets, strategies of such a large portion of the game.  It reminds me of the way OT in NCAA football works.  That's like 3/4 of the game of football just not being incorporated into deciding who wins.  Just confuses me.  How do you decide with 3/4 of the game isn't important enough of a factor?

 

Seems a bit arbitrary.

 

And you may be right...there may be other pieces/players that have yet been tapped in order for the Flyers to be successful.

 

Does football go to 8-man football in OT? Flags? Touch? Two point conversion drills?

 

Does baseball switch to a home run hitting contest? Fungo bats?

 

Does basketball* go to 3-on-3? Do they play a game of HORSE?

 

Taking a team game and determining the outcome based upon a skills competition that affects the standings and playoff rankings of the teams is absurd and ridiculous.

 

 

* I am told "basketball" is still a professional sport

 

astute observations...and I agree totally.....HR derby with a fungo.. LOL ...talk about literally chuck and duck baseball.....

 

 

Nope great point so let's just make it like football. If it goes to OT the winner gets 2 points. The loser gets nothing. If that don't inspire them then nothing will.

 

It's just like the conversation of the kids getting a "tahnks for playing trophy" when it comes to the point for the tie in regulations. EFF IT!

 

 

WINNER TAKES ALL!!!!

 

now this I could get behind.  2 points or nothing.

 

============================================

 

By no means do I believe this is the best solution.  As I mentioned before...I see and agree with all POV.  Personally, I like the suggestion....play an extra 10 minutes and call it a day.  No silly shootout.  What is wrong with a TIE anyway?  That is why playoff hockey is so awesome.  There is are no gimmicks in OT.  It was exciting to see "pond" hockey for a bit last night and I think it appealed at least to me because it was new.  I'm sure I will see the error in my ways and eventually become more synical about it.

[OccamsRazor]

So anyway as a result, I don't mind giving a team a point for surviving 60 minutes of an NHl game. 

 

I do the rules will be the same for both sides....it will create some separation which is needed i think...right now there is too much parity and hard to make movement in the standings.

 

Or just get rid of the points and do it like the NBA just wins and losses.

[OccamsRazor]

now this I could get behind.  2 points or nothing.
 
============================================
 
By no means do I believe this is the best solution.  As I mentioned before...I see and agree with all POV.  Personally, I like the suggestion....play an extra 10 minutes and call it a day.  No silly shootout.  What is wrong with a TIE anyway?  That is why playoff hockey is so awesome.  There is are no gimmicks in OT.  It was exciting to see "pond" hockey for a bit last night and I think it appealed at least to me because it was new.  I'm sure I will see the error in my ways and eventually become more synical about it.

 

Sure it's a tough and grueling season so what....the rules apply for both sides...yeah so you may have to dip into your AHL a little more and have to juggle the salary cap better just another obstacle to get over....and it will create some better separation in the standing i think...keeps some of the team who maybe should be in the playoffs out maybe.

 

I can't say it will before trying it first but i am down with getting rid of the loser in OT getting something....wants points???

 

Win the damn game in regulation...or OT or God forbid the shootout....but i bet teams play harder to get those points knowing they may get nothing for not bringing it.

 

I just don't think they current way is going to work in the end.

[King Knut]

I do the rules will be the same for both sides....it will create some separation which is needed i think...right now there is too much parity and hard to make movement in the standings.

 

Or just get rid of the points and do it like the NBA just wins and losses.

 

I agree with whoever said that the tie makes the playoffs seem more significant and the points system is one of the things that just seems to differentiate the NHL from the other major three.  I'd hate to give it up.