WordsOfWisdom Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share Posted November 10, 2015 It's one of the great all-time nicknames that I cannot take credit for. This Board may be able to take credit for it though. Or these guys, who I can only barely tolerate. You might find some of it funny. I do. Some of it at least. My advice don't read the comments: http://www.crossingbroad.com/tag/jeff-carter Cool. So getting back to the topic at hand...... Is anyone of the opinion that goal scoring would increase dramatically if teams stopped putting as much emphasis on defence as they currently do? Is there any team in the NHL that focuses primarily on offence? Dallas Stars perhaps? Edmonton Oilers? Could this be a case where one successful offensive minded team sparks a series of copy cats and ushers in a new era of higher goal scoring? I think it's a situation where teams would be doing it already if it were successful. I don't see any desire on the part of coaches to change the way they coach. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 One idea that has been bandied about was keeping the nets the same size, BUT, angling the crossbar and posts inward, so all those shots that hit iron and go out, are more likely to ring the crossbar or post and go IN. Not sure how feasible something like that is and whether it would help increase scoring on pucks hitting posts or not, but I thought it was an interesting idea.Lets face it, a hit post means the goalie WAS beat...it just didn't go in. So if there was a way those post shots could be redirected more regularly INTO the net due to angled posts/crossbars, why not? I mean, if they are gonna go to larger nets, how long before we see this?? Then you are gonna have people pissin n moaning about stats being inflated...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Is there any team in the NHL that focuses primarily on offence? Flyer fans would like to know just what this "offence" thing that you speak of is? We know the meaning of "offensive" in spades, but not this offence thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter puck Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Larger ice surface would open the game up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Larger ice surface would open the game up. I'm not sure the European experience demonstrates this. It's certainly not self-evident. It leads to soccer on ice. What's interesting, perhaps, is that 5-on-5 on larger ice is not the same as 4-on-4 (or 3-on-3) on regular NHL-size ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Also an excellent point. Would you say that the younger generation basically accepts the game the way it is and doesn't crave any additional scoring? From what I've seen, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't see any way that scoring can ever increase again unless the league does something with the nets. Ever since goalies became great skating goliaths that properly cut down angles, the only way to get more goals is to either throw defensive play out the window by sending everyone in and just swarming the net, or to have goalies wear protective equipment that is no larger than today's skaters in order to create some openings.That is an interesting point. I think we all have a tendency to favor the game as it was when we were growing up and got into it. It's like that favorite cartoon show or movie or music that we had growing up. Sometimes when you go back and revisit it, it's not as good as we quite remembered. But sometimes it is.I do also tend to enjoy strong defensive play in pretty much all sports, so I might be a bit biased on the subject. I mean, I am a Devils fan, the team that supposedly killed hockey.I just think that if they really want to create more offense, there are other ways of doing it than to make the nets wider. Cut down on the enormous equipment these 6'5"+ goalies are wearing. If skaters can block shots with their equipment, why can't we trim down goalie equipment even further?Although, as you mention in your other post, it might just take an offensive team winning it all to change the landscape. It is a copycat league after all. Maybe we should hope that a Dallas or Tampa wins the Cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Another vote here for the larger ice surface. I like international hockey, so maybe that's an influence, but I like the bigger ice. More skating. More emphasis on skill. On second thought, it doesn't fit the 30 team NHL . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 One idea that has been bandied about was keeping the nets the same size, BUT, angling the crossbar and posts inward, so all those shots that hit iron and go out, are more likely to ring the crossbar or post and go IN.Not sure how feasible something like that is and whether it would help increase scoring on pucks hitting posts or not, but I thought it was an interesting idea.Lets face it, a hit post means the goalie WAS beat...it just didn't go in. So if there was a way those post shots could be redirected more regularly INTO the net due to angled posts/crossbars, why not? Yeah, I've heard that idea too. I think it's worth a shot. (No pun intended lol.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 Another vote here for the larger ice surface. I like international hockey, so maybe that's an influence, but I like the bigger ice. More skating. More emphasis on skill. On second thought, it doesn't fit the 30 team NHL . The reason that's a non-starter with the NHL is because it requires 30 new arenas to be built, or premium seats have to get ripped up in existing arenas to do that. That would be the least feasible solution (from a cost perspective). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 Flyer fans would like to know just what this "offence" thing that you speak of is? We know the meaning of "offensive" in spades, but not this offence thing. LOL. Yes yes indeed. This "offence" thing is a recognition that there is another net on the ice that needs paying attention to. It's waaaay down there at the other end of the ice. Legend has it that one can increase their own goal total by putting the puck there, but nobody has yet tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I am hearing now that the NHL godfathers in their infinite wisdom, have decided to legislate the goaltenders' equipment without giving up any safety by using materials like kevlar and so on. Brilliant..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Isn't there a lot of cycling on the bigger ice surface? I'm not sure that would make the games more exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Isn't there a lot of cycling on the bigger ice surface? I'm not sure that would make the games more exciting. Might bring in the Nascar fans as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted November 12, 2015 Author Share Posted November 12, 2015 Isn't there a lot of cycling on the bigger ice surface? I'm not sure that would make the games more exciting. That's the real irony with the larger ice surface: it actually reduces goal scoring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted November 12, 2015 Author Share Posted November 12, 2015 I am hearing now that the NHL godfathers in their infinite wisdom, have decided to legislate the goaltenders' equipment without giving up any safety by using materials like kevlar and so on. Brilliant..... LOL. I'd issue an ultimatum to goaltenders (coming from the NHL and NHLPA): "Reduce the size of your equipment immediately or else larger nets will be introduced beginning in 2016-17." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blocker Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Might bring in the Nascar fans as well As long as the cycling is done counter-clockwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 As long as the cycling is done counter-clockwise.Hey now, they turn right...twice a year on the road tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Sorry, double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Kings' Quick: Reduce size of goalie pads, but leave nets alone EL SEGUNDO -- As a goalie, the Kings’ Jonathan Quick is an obstructionist by nature when it comes to goals, but Quick is fine with the NHL’s desire to increase scoring as long as it is done properly.For Quick, that doesn’t include increasing the size of the nets. Quick gave an unequivocal thumbs-down to that idea Wednesday, but supported the reduction of the size of goalie equipment and, more importantly, urged the league to add staff to help enforce the equipment-size rules. Quick gave lengthy, passionate answers when asked, in general, about the idea of reduced equipment size: QUICK: ''I’m on board. I know there’s a coach who came out a couple weeks ago talking about nets. I think that’s ridiculous. If you look around the league at the goalies, in their street clothes and then with their gear on, the difference in size is a little too much. So I’m on board with that. If they’re trying to find a safe way to do that -- that’s the key, a safe way -- to reduce the size of the equipment, I’m all for it. Obviously if it starts to risk injury and stuff like that, then you have to find a different route to do it. But you can just tell. You look at goalies on the ice and off the ice, and you can just tell that it’s something that can be addressed.''The easy way is to just make the net bigger, right? The biggest difficulty with gear (size enforcement) is body size and body types. It’s so hard to get a standard on who can what what, and what size everyone is. That’s very difficult. Then, once guys get gear, some guys make changes and adjustments to try to make it look a little bigger. The biggest issue is, there’s one guy, Kay Whitmore, who is the only guy who checks the gear. He’s the only guy I ever see come to the rinks and check gear. At the same time, he’s the guy who has to be at the factory approving the gear that’s getting shipped out, and watching tapes and seeing which goalies look big. Then he has to visit. There’s just way, way too much work for him to have to do in order to keep it in check.''If you look, there’s been zero fines. I don’t think, since I’ve been in the league, there have been fines for goalie equipment. For sure there’s some, I don’t want to say cheating, but there’s some guys trying to supplement the gear a little bit. That happens around the league. There’s no question about that. To put one guy in charge of all that, it’s too much on his plate. So you’re not getting anywhere.''The easy way is, all right, let’s just make the nets bigger, because it’s just saying, 'We don’t give a crap to actually do it the right way and put as many people on the payroll to get it done the right way.’ That’s just the easy way. That’s just, OK, let’s make the nets bigger and let the goalies do whatever they want.’’(on his equipment not needing to be changed after the most recent rules changes…) QUICK: ``It was pretty much the same gear that I’d been wearing before. So I was fortunate that I didn’t have to adjust to anything new when that happened.’’(on how many times per season his equipment gets checked…) QUICK: ''It will be maybe once a year, something like that. It doesn’t happen too often. Like I said, for Kay to be able to try to make his rounds, and he has to be at the (equipment) offices to check the gear that’s getting shipped out, some guys are getting gear once a month. You’ve got a lot of gear coming through his office that he has to make sure meets regulations. In my opinion, I think that’s what it comes down to. It’s just too much work for one guy to do. It’s nothing against Kay. He works hard and he’s doing everything he can do. He’s fighting an uphill battle. It’s tough for him and I feel for him. He’s trying to do everything he can, but he doesn’t get any support. If they want to go the easy way, and they want more goals, the easiest way, the way that you don’t have to put any work or effort into it, is just, OK, let’s make the nets bigger. That’s all it is. If you want to do it the right way and try to police it properly and everything like that, you get more guys to get on the payroll and do the right things and keep everybody in regulation.’’ (on the realities of changing equipment size…) QUICK: ''It’s a process. There are guys who will say they need certain things for protection, and who’s to say they’re wrong? Everyone kind of plays a little different. Everyone relies on equipment a little different. It’s tough.’’ Not that he's the only one, but one guy who is definitely guilty of "I'm skinny but I wear massive equipment" would be Ryan Miller. The dude's a toothpick, but his equipment looks like it would fit The Notorious B.I.G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Ahem...Apparently he's going into actual battle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 OK, one LAST post on this topic from me. First off, there is absolutely NO guarantee that either making the nets bigger or reducing goalies' equipment size will increase scoring. None.Second, where is the "sweet spot" for goals? How many per game is the target? 4? 5? 6? 10? There were 12 games last night and 65 goals were scored an average of 5.1 per game. That sounds like PLENTY of goals to me.Third, who is wanting more goals? Soccer is the biggest sport on the world and they average less than 3 goals per game at the highest levels. Yet no one has ever suggested changing the size of the goals. Amazing. Why does the NHL seem to constantly need to manipulate the game? The game does not need to be manipulated! It is a great game just the way it is. LEAVE IT ALONE!! I love Babcock as a coach but he couldn't be more wrong on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Ahem...Apparently he's going into actual battle... They really need to crack down (again) on the Garth Snow wings. Those shoulder pads are more egregious than what Snow was wearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 As a Flyer fan, hell yes. Make them into soccer nets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Second, where is the "sweet spot" for goals? The 7-hole? Upstairs, where momma puts the cookies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted November 15, 2015 Author Share Posted November 15, 2015 Soccer is the biggest sport on the world and they average less than 3 goals per game at the highest levels. Yet no one has ever suggested changing the size of the goals. Amazing. I think the difference here is history. The NHL you're watching today is not what fans of my generation grew up watching (from a goals standpoint). There is a stark contrast between what it was and what it is now. It would be like growing up with a Porsche 911 calendar on your wall and then going into a dealership to finally buy one only to find that it now has 150 HP instead of 500 HP, has a hatchback, has six passenger seating, no longer has the shield logo on the hood, and it costs 3x more than it used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.