Leaderboard

I just don't understand the desire to change the game at this point... I'm not completely opposed to making the nets 1-2 inches bigger, but I just don't see the point in changing any part of the game for an extra half a goal or whatever it would work out to be. For me personally, I'm fine with the way the game is right now, and I actually like that it is harder to score these days. The NHL has some of the best athletes in the world at every position, and the skill level has increased dramatically over the years, with more focus on training, and bigger, better equipment. Goalies are a little bigger and more athletic, and they can and will continue to have games where they stand on their head and only allow one goal or even shut the door completely. But at the same time, players can still pick corners, deke goalies completely out of the net, and rack up 5+ goals any given night. There is still plenty scoring, still a lot of 7+ goal games, and still some 3- goal games. It's not as if, we're getting to a point where goals are a rarity. There is still more than enough scoring, so why change it?

Ha. I told you there was something to it man. The second game you posted it, pulks scored the winner. And Fulton Reed is teemus spirit animal, as you recall.

Nice GDT, getting addicted to these, thanks! That's some nice young talent Edmonton has. No doubt they'll start winning soon. Not yet though. We should be able to ask for a good 2 points from our team, LGRW!

I have no problem at all with making nets larger by a couple inches. I don't think it ruins the integrity of the game any more than changing the rules for icings, or delay of game penalties, or two-line passing, etc has. Actually I think wider nets would be more subtle than the above examples.

I dunno that increasing the size of the net really solves anything. We'd see more goals, but do we want more goals for the sake of having more goals, or do we want more offense, more open ice, more displays of skill - more scoring chances?

just win

I don't like argument that slower players can't participate in the same play as quicker players. It's not like the game is a fast-forwarded version of normal hockey when Helm is on the ice. He isn't going to be throwing all of his passes three feet ahead of slower players. The main thing a quick player changes about the game is he is more likely to keep the play alive after a rebound generates a 50/50 puck in the corner, he's more likely to force turnovers on an aggressive forecheck or negate an odd-man rush on the backcheck, and he's going to back defenders off when he's flying through the neutral zone which opens up the blue line a bit more. Occasionally he'll get a breakaway, but that's an individual activity, not a team one, so it doesn't matter if Richards isn't keeping pace with him (unless 2 on 0s are the expectation). But his speed isn't going to make cycling awkward, or make slower players irrelevant. It should generate more opportunities for slower players to cycle though, and with that comes more chances at the net.

Making the rinks larger will do nothing and honestly it will never happen. The arenas today are multifunctional no sane owner will agree to shut them down for a few weeks and risk losing a lot of revenue, it's just not going to happen. Also players, coaches would figure out in a hurry how to take away the new space (i.e. olympic ice). Well I don't care if it helps star-forwards they are STAR forwards so they should be able to score a bunch of goals and assists right? Funny nobody is saying let's help the star defenders doing their job, so why help the forwards? I personally couldn't care less if a new fan is turned away because his favorite player hasn't scored 100 points and "only" managed to get lets say 88. Honestly 100 points should be the exception (a highlight) in a players career not the norm. Gretzky is hands down the best player who ever played the game but back then goalies - with the few obvious exceptions - weren't as atheltic and well trained as they are now. Never understood why people are so fixated on 3 digit numbers if its that important they can go watch the NBA. I think a lot of fans are protective (not that it matters what he think anyways..) of the game because some of the changes have all been for the worst: hockey in places with ECHL like attendances, salary cup, instigator rule, constant twinkering with the ASG till it has become basically a joke. Also Ovechkin is not a playermaker he is a finisher, which means he will score more goals and have less assists so I doubt he'll ever reach 100 or whatever points. Another reason why the game "used to be higher scoring" is owners were able to aDD and KEEP all-star-talent that isn't the case anymore, players have to get used to new linemates, find new chemistry and need time to figure it out. And now people want to punish goalies for being reallyreally good? Doesn't make sense to me.

As was already pointed out, the rink size will not be changed. It would cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to convert all the NHL arena surfaces, not to mention the millions in revenue that would be lost due both the time it would take and the seats that would be lost. Not feasible.

If Ovechkin played in the 80s and 90s, he'd have 1,500 goals when he finished. The bigger goalies and goalie equipment has tightened up hockey a lot. If you watch a lot of Gretzky highlights, you will see goalies standing up trying to kick their pads out to stop weak shots along the ice and failing. A goalie today stops a lot of those shots with the butterfly style and bigger equipment. Gretzky would have a hard time hitting 500 goals if his career would have started in the 2000's.

I feel like your argument is directed at people who posted before me. I was simply saying that I would rather have a low scoring game with chances then a high scoring game where the goals mean nothing. I wasn't saying I was against one extra goal per game, not sure where you got that from what I said.

I couldn't agree more. It really is the old saying "less is more". I was at a Spits game earlier this year and I think the score was something along the lines of 8-6, and it got to a point then when a goal was scored I really didn't care. I would take a 2-1 game with a ton of chances over a 8-6 game where the goals mean nothing any day.

I really feel like power forward takes the longest to develop out of any player besides maybe d-man. I agree with those who say he was brought up too early, but I feel like there is still a dynamo in there. My what the hell lines lol: Richards-Larkin-Nyquist Tatar-Zetterberg-Helm Jurco-Datsyuk-Pulkinen Sheahan-Glendenning-Abdelkader

I question the sanity of anyone who saw last night's game and still wants to change up the lines. We outplayed Boston. We just happened to lose. That happens.

If fans aren't protective of their game it will get worse each year simple as that. it's your opinion so you aren't wrong bit you are focussing only on the star forwards which I think is a mistake because there are superstars on the defense and in goal too. If a potential fan can't appreciate a low scoring game a great blocked shot, fantastic safe well maybe then hockey isn't the right sport to follow for them pure and simple. My novel idea if someone wants to get 100 points is. .play your rear end of and hope to stay injury free. The nhl is the best league in the world scoring goals is and should be tough star forwards will need to figure out a way to do it. The goalies then played mostly a stand up style and more often than not weren't in good shape that's changed now

here is my novel idea: If goal scorers are having problems to figure out a defense or shot blocking find a way around it simple as that.

Xym, I agree with everything except I'd switch Larkin and Nyquist. I know people don't want to break up that top line, but I honestly don't think it's really that Zetterberg and Larkin have this great chemistry together, they're just that good. Zetterberg and Nyquist do have great chemistry together, and it seems like Nyquist is always at his best on Hank's line. And really, how can you go wrong with Pav and Larkin on the same line?... I completely agree with that third line of Tatar - Sheahan - Jurco, it was money in the past, no reason to think it wouldn't be again. I'm not in love with Pulkkinen, but there's no denying that he has been producing, so it is tough taking him out. But I don't know how he stays in unless he remains on that second line, you bump Richards down in Sheahan's spot and have a forth line of Sheahan - Helm - Glendening... Either way, a ton of depth, not the worst problem to have... Helm does create a ton of opportunities for himself which is awesome, but what's the good when he rarely capitalizes on all these chances? Abdelkader had at least 5 breakaway opportunities last season and scored on all of them. For a while there it looked like he couldn't miss... There's no question in my mind that Abby is a better finisher, whether that be on a shot or banging in rebounds. I'm a huge fan of Helm, but I think he should remain in the bottom 6 for now, 4th line if it were up to me...

I wouldn't be opposed to a reunion of Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco. They had clicked pretty well earlier. Keep Hank-Abs-Larkin together, Pavel-Richards-Nyquist as the top two lines. Helm is going to be a beast on the fourth line. Let Pulkks sit for a couple of games.

I think for the most part, hockey fans in general don't give a s*** if it's a 2-1 game or a 7-6 game. What matters is quality scoring chances. A huge save is just as exciting as a goal in my opinion, and personally, I prefer the lower scoring game. More goal scoring means less excitement on each goal. If games are higher scoring, a 2 goal deficit doesn't mean as much, but with lower scoring, every goal has more of an impact on the game. That's my take. The game is fine, don't change a thing. You want high-flying offense? Follow junior hockey...

LeftWinger, I don't think you're wrong at all. Jurco is too good for the AHL, but he just hasn't quite figured out the NHL yet. But he's not going to do that by watching games up in the press box, and certainly not by only playing a game or two every five or ten. He needs to be a regular, and I hope he can bring enough to justify being in the lineup, in the top 9 every night. Jurco's potential far exceeds anything Pulkkinen has, hell I even still believe that Jurco's ceiling is higher than Tatar's, but he needs to show that can be a fixture in the top 9 first. The production will come, I'm not worried about that.

Hey. Anyone want to play a fun game? Based on their recent play, tell me which player recently signed a 7 year/29M dollar deal and which player is still playing for a UFA contract: Is it Abdlekader, or Helm?

. <------- the point. ---------------------> you Jurco should be a forward on a scoring line, not in a grinding, primarily defensive role on the fourth line as has been explained nearly ad infinitum. Here's hoping Jurco keeps tearing it up and comes back to the Wings with renewed confidence and a healthy back and starts to tear it up in Detroit. Blood on him for doing so well in his conditioning stint.

How did they not call Krug for piling on Larkin like that?

Not necessarily. If your boss said you needed to work harder, does that automatically mean you're unwilling to work harder? No it just means he expects more out of you, now you have to show him what you can do. He's just lighting a fire. Most players when in a slump or something like that will openly admit they need to work harder, it's not some public shaming.