Bigger nets maybe?

[Echolalia 2,961]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/rumors/post/NH...F?urn=nhl,53248

This is the first semi-official report that I've actually heard of them making the nets larger, or bowing the posts and crossbars out.

Im still against it

Edited November 13, 2007 by Echolalia

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I would laugh so hard at the league if Luongo lived up to his promise given that larger nets comes to fruition.

[Viperar 16]

I would laugh so hard at the league if Luongo lived up to his promise given that larger nets comes to fruition.

same here

[Hank 0]

It's very funny that this thread was started today.

Lindy Ruff recently addressed the problem with today's game and how 'zone defense' is killing hockey.

I've been saying for a while now how teams have adjusted and simply moved the neutral zone trap to the defensive zone.

http://sabres.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pa...rticleid=342669

On top of that, I wrote an email to XM Home Ice:

After last nights scores I was interested in seeing how many games this year have resulted with one team scoring 2 goals or less.

Because I have no life and too much time on my hands I crunched the numbers and found it quite interesting.

As of last night, the NHL has played 246 games. In those 246 games, a whopping 193 have resulted in one team scoring 2 goals or less, or 78% of the time.

What was even more astonishing is that in 114 games one team has scored 1 goal or less, or 46% of the time. Basically, half of the games you watch, one of the teams will score 1 goal or less.

What's even more disturbing is how the great majority of goals are scored. I would gamble and say that over 90% of the goals are scored from rebounds, screens or deflections. Watch a quarter of basketball and then watch a period of hockey. They're basically the same. In the NBA, because of how defensive their game has become, the mid-range jumper is all but extinct as is the full-court press. Most points are scored from the 3 point line or from the paint. Just like in the NHL.

I don't blame the officials as I believe they've done a great job in eliminating clutching and grabbing from the game. But the coaches and players have obviously adapted to the new standard and have devised game plans to continue suffocating offenses. I guess it was too much to ask for some of these coaching 'geniuses' to use the new standard to actually open the game up.

The game has evolved so much to accommodate the growing player and their skills. The game used to be played with 6 skaters aside, goalies wore next to nothing and the ice surface they competed on was a phone booth compared to today's NHL rink. But over the years, everything has grown except the net.

With the PA's reluctance to embrace technology and force goalies to wear sleeker equipment, I think the NHL's only option is to increase the size of the nets.

Now, before the NHL elite jump on my throat I don't want to see 9-8 games, but is it so much to ask to see an average of 7 goals per game? Is it blasphemous to want more scoring zones in the game? Why is the word "goals" such a dirty word around some hockey circles? A long range slapper from the wing or a 15-foot snapshot from the high slot are all gone from the game. Nowadays, with the inflated goalie gear and insufferable defensive systems, if a goalie lets in a shot that he sees from more than 8 feet out, it's a "bad goal".

And finally, for those that trumpet that scoring chances are just as exciting, or more exciting, than an actual goal, do you really believe that every 2-1 or 3-1 game being played now is back-and-forth action featuring unbelievable goalie saves? This past weekends Ottawa-Montreal game was like that but a great majority of them are not. With the exception of the 'Miracle on Manchester Part 2' games are still being sealed after 40 minutes of play.

The only way this can be rectified is if they somehow make scoring goals a little bit easier and playing defense a little bit harder.

I know that some will say that by increasing the size of the net will only artificially increase the amount of goals, but I could just as easily say that the inflation of goalie equipment has artificially decreased the amount of goals too.

It's time the NHL, Robert Luongo and the minority of some fans realize that although this game is very important to us it's still entertainment. And so far, through 246 games, I have been lulled into sleep more than kept on the edge of my seat.

Sorry for the long read, but I think it sums up my thoughts on the subject.

Games are just as boring now as they were in 03-04. There's more flow, that's for certain, but there's little drama because there are next to zero scoring zones in the game compared to the 60s-early 90s.

Unless things are changed, I won't be renewing my centre ice package.

[Cicada 4]

goals don't make great hockey games. Great hockey games make great hockey games...

the amount of poor high scoring games i've seen. The best game i saw the whole of last year was the Wings - Devils game, and that was what 2-1 final?

i saw the LA / Dallas 6-5 game the other night, and while being a great comeback, it was a classic example of one team playing terrible hockey, and then the other team going to sleep. It wasn't a good hockey game.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Cicada

[eva unit zero 271]

Making the nets larger would be a mistake. All that would lead to is an increase in the number of guys like Giguere; where 'big' is their primary asset, and reflexes are unimportant.

The league needs to streamline equipment; what should happen is a testing phase for new, sleek goaltender equipment. Injuries would be monitored; if there was no discernible difference in goaltender injuries that could be related to their protection, then the union would have nothing to complain about.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I wish the game was more wide open, but increasing the size of the nets is a mistake. You'd have to put an asterisk next to any records that have ever been set in the NHL, and I don't believe that any sport has ever done anything like that.

[OsGOD 3]

Bigger nets???

nah just more talented goal scorers is all they need... don't fix the equipment when it is the human wearing them that can't do anything.

[Hank 0]

Bigger nets???

nah just more talented goal scorers is all they need... don't fix the equipment when it is the human wearing them that can't do anything.

I don't know. Even some of the 3rd liners in this game have decent shots. It's just that with how defensive everything is, if you're lucky enough to get anywhere near the goalie there's no room to shoot at.

And regarding putting asterisk's beside stats, I think there should already be asterisks beside every goalie stat since 1997 - when Garth Snow introduced his Michilen Man costume. Because after that, shooters had half the cubic space to shoot on compared to every other player from 1900 - 1997.

Also, while some low scoring games can be more exciting than high scoring games, normally this isn't the case.

I've watched a lot of hockey this year and I have seen some of the most boring games in my life.

The problem is, most people think things are fine because they only watch their team. The Wings are 13-3? The NHL's fine. Because like most people, as long as your team wins, it's good hockey.

But I am an NHL fan first and a Wings fan 2nd. I routinely watch non-Wings games and so far this year has been brutal.

Anyway, if anyone is opposed to making the nets bigger and in favour of decreasing goalie equipment, let the PA know about it. They're the ones stopping it from happening.

You can email them here:

http://www.nhlpa.com/feedback/index.asp

Let's stop flapping our gums and make those responsible accountable.

[OsGOD 3]

Maybe we should unmask the pretty boy net minders and that well help bring up the goal counts.

A few pucks the forehead and a few stitches will have them thinking twice about performing their job... de ja vu.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Maybe we should unmask the pretty boy net minders and that well help bring up the goal counts.

A few pucks the forehead and a few stitches will have them thinking twice about performing their job... de ja vu.

Just thinking out loud here so please don't flame me.

I wonder what the league would look like if we took the top scorers from the minors and replaced the least skilled guys on their respective NHL teams.

What would the league look like if there were more emphasis on scoring and less emphasis on the "other" skill sets such as hitting, fighting, defensive-only shutdown forwards?

I'm not saying there's no place for those guys and by all means I don't want to take out fighting from the game but you can't tell me that the top 30 scorers in the AHL couldn't replace one hack at the NHL level on each roster.

[irishtemper14+25 11]

i think its stupid...anyone who has to have a lot of goals scored to enjoy the game is not a true fan of the sport, another brilliant gary bettman idea

[OsGOD 3]

Just thinking out loud here so please don't flame me.

I wonder what the league would look like if we took the top scorers from the minors and replaced the least skilled guys on their respective NHL teams.

What would the league look like if there were more emphasis on scoring and less emphasis on the "other" skill sets such as hitting, fighting, defensive-only shutdown forwards?

I'm not saying there's no place for those guys and by all means I don't want to take out fighting from the game but you can't tell me that the top 30 scorers in the AHL couldn't replace one hack at the NHL level on each roster.

Well Kane is a good example of that... straight out of the OHL and tearing it up here.

now on the same lines sorta... they should just award penalty shots for everything... if you draw blood you get two penalty shots.

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

Honestly, I always thought 80s oilers hockey was boring to watch with the high scoring and all. So, I'm not really looking for a drastic lift in the points. However, I've always been a real big fan of Olympic hockey, I think it beats out NHL hockey for 1 simple reason, the amount of ice. It's so much fun to see the skilled players with more room to play. I'm aware this won't happen because a majority of the stadiums probably can't accomodate larger skating surfaces, but i'll keep dreaming.

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

i all for something being done. bigger nets would create more goals, but i don't think the game would be more exciting, just higher scoring. defenses are just way too good nowadays, and that is what stifles play. in my opinion, we either need bigger rinks or less players on the ice. both would open up the game and make for more exciting hockey where the offensive zone isn't always such a cluster f*ck. rigid, enforceable limits on goalie pads, too. just my opinion.

but this league isn't letting it's talent breathe. play is just too stifling. there is so much great talent but you don't really get to see it shine unless it's a pp or overtime.

[Izzy24 44]

Why not a "two-goal" line past the top of the face-off circles?

[vangvace 12]

Olympic hockey is great, but it wouldn't transition well to the NHL. First, the overall caliber of talent in on an olympic team is much higher than your average NHL team. Secondly, in the defensive zone, you wouldn't have to chase the puckcarrier. Much like many teams play now, they just have to keep the puck on the perimeter and in other low percentage areas of the zone.

In a similar thread a while back either Hank or Harold (and Datsyukismyfriend) made mention of dropping to four skaters. I'm starting to warm up to the idea. Eight pairings instead of the standard line setup could add to some interesting combinations and stratagy.

Oh and to stay on thread...

Bigger nets = bigger pads

I wonder if, now that there are safety nets at both ends, if it's time to due away with curve restrictions on the hockeysticks?

[Hank 0]

Maybe we should unmask the pretty boy net minders and that well help bring up the goal counts.

A few pucks the forehead and a few stitches will have them thinking twice about performing their job... de ja vu.

LOL! Argh! Tis a good idea!

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

Olympic hockey is great, but it wouldn't transition well to the NHL. First, the overall caliber of talent in on an olympic team is much higher than your average NHL team. Secondly, in the defensive zone, you wouldn't have to chase the puckcarrier. Much like many teams play now, they just have to keep the puck on the perimeter and in other low percentage areas of the zone.

well, first, because of the greater difference in tallent, the high tallent players would be able to break free easier. Imagine the moves Datsyuk and Zetterberg could pull off with more space?

Second, it's much harder for a team to keep the puck on the perimeter with added space.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Bigger nets is a bad idea that needs to die.

As I've said before, they better crack down on goalie equipment before they come anywhere near net size. Not just the Michelin man chest and arm protectors like Luongo and Giguere. They could reduce the size of the ridiculously oversized catching glove, and even the blockpad a little. Most of that isn't protective, it just covers more of the net.

And goalies talking about needing the padding to protect themselves is b.s. The pads have gotten much better over the years. They can reduce the size and still be safe. Funny how they need the giant chest arm and leg protection to be safe, yet many go without any throat protection because it bothers them.

I'd also rather they increase the size of the rinks. Not olympic size, but with the players getting so much bigger and faster over the years, there's a lot less room out there. This is even less likely to happen than the goalie equipment, unfortunately, as it requires owners thinking about what's good for the sport long term and giving up some seats in the arena.

Edited November 13, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[Kutcher 0]

Why don't they just contract the league so you have less one line teams ( like the Wings, Thrashers, Senators etc.) And then you'd have say 20 teams with 3 solid scoring lines. Imagine Dats-Zet-Homer then 2nd line Hossa-Kovalchuk-Bergeron for example. The problem is just that, there is not enough GOOD offensive talent to let the game go wide open, thats why coaches choose the defense first option. They don't have enough scorers to make the " lest just out score the other team" mentality work. So they decided to stop trying to outscore each other and now they try to shut down each other.

They could also take out the instigator rule so skilled guys could do whatever they wanted without being checked, ala Wayne Gretzky, I mean they guy was great but put him in a league where he get checked constantly and his point totals are easily cut in half, maybe more. If you put some of the elite guys in the league now, on the 80's oilers or 90's kings instead of Gretzky their numbers would be pretty close, probably wouldn't beat his because he was that great but it was the times of the game that allowed him to be great.

When has an elite player in this league had the chance of just dangling and not having to worry about being hit cause everyone knew if you touched him a big psycho was gonna break your face.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Why don't they just contract the league so you have less one line teams ( like the Wings, Thrashers, Senators etc.) And then you'd have say 20 teams with 3 solid scoring lines. Imagine Dats-Zet-Homer then 2nd line Hossa-Kovalchuk-Bergeron for example. The problem is just that, there is not enough GOOD offensive talent to let the game go wide open, thats why coaches choose the defense first option. They don't have enough scorers to make the " lest just out score the other team" mentality work. So they decided to stop trying to outscore each other and now they try to shut down each other.

They could also take out the instigator rule so skilled guys could do whatever they wanted without being checked, ala Wayne Gretzky, I mean they guy was great but put him in a league where he get checked constantly and his point totals are easily cut in half, maybe more. If you put some of the elite guys in the league now, on the 80's oilers or 90's kings instead of Gretzky their numbers would be pretty close, probably wouldn't beat his because he was that great but it was the times of the game that allowed him to be great.

When has an elite player in this league had the chance of just dangling and not having to worry about being hit cause everyone knew if you touched him a big psycho was gonna break your face.

Following your reasoning of contracting the league, wouldn't the defensive pairings get better too?

No more Lillypads out on the ice....

[MonkeyGoalie 14]

I think increasing the rink size to olympic (international) size would greatly help out and leave the goal size the same. It would give more room for the puck to move around, which could cause defence to move away from the net and increase scoring chances. I think it would work here because it works all over the world.

Now I'm not an advociate for increasing scoring, but the more popular sports in the US all have high scores (outside of baseball which is our past time sport). Most international sports like hockey and soccer all are usually low scoring games this is one of the main reasons I see that they really haven't caught on here in the US. One of my old boss told me that one of his main reason for not watching hockey is because of the low scoring.

[Hank 0]

i think its stupid...anyone who has to have a lot of goals scored to enjoy the game is not a true fan of the sport, another brilliant gary bettman idea

That's not a fair statement. There are lots of real fans that enjoy seeing more than 3 goals in a game. I'm one of them.

This past week I must have caught around 10 non-Wings games. Only 1 of them was entertaining (Montreal-Ottawa).

People constantly say that scoring chances and flow is what's really important. I agree to some deigree. If the average goals per game went up by 2 but the goals were the same as they are now, the game would still be boring.

What I want to see is more scoring zones and more odd-man rushes. I want to truly believe that if Jerome Iginla blasted one from 20 feet out against the wall it has a chance to go in. Or that the goalie has to make a good stop to keep it out.

I also want the anticipation that a Sakic wristshot from 12 feet out, near the faceoff dot has a shot of going in on the short side.

Both of the described goals existed for nearly a century before goalie gear got out of control and defensive systems reigned supreme. Because of those 2 simple changes, the game has gone from one of great transition and flow to a stand-still chess match where each opponent waits for the other to make a mistake.

It would be no different than if every boxing match featured two counter-punchers who simply feigned and walked around each other for 12 rounds.

There's a reason why Mike Tyson was so popular just like 70's and 80's hockey is still referenced when talking about 'real hockey'. Both attacked their opponents instead of waiting for one to slip.

I think increasing the rink size to olympic (international) size would greatly help out and leave the goal size the same. It would give more room for the puck to move around, which could cause defence to move away from the net and increase scoring chances. I think it would work here because it works all over the world.

Now I'm not an advociate for increasing scoring, but the more popular sports in the US all have high scores (outside of baseball which is our past time sport). Most international sports like hockey and soccer all are usually low scoring games this is one of the main reasons I see that they really haven't caught on here in the US. One of my old boss told me that one of his main reason for not watching hockey is because of the low scoring.

I vehemently object to this idea. Trap hockey would be even easier to employ with Olympic sized rinks. I've heard players like Miroslav Satan, Mats Sundin and Dan Alfredsson say as much. With more room, it would be much easier to contain offenses and force players to the outside. I've used this same example in several posts but I'll reiterate it here.

In an NHL rink, if Ovechkin were to deke through a defender from the corner he would be one step from the slot and a prime chance. In an Olympic rink, he would need at least 2 to 3 more steps to get in that position. And by then, he would have 3 guys on him.

Olympic ice is not the answer. Coaches like Lemaire and Martin would salivate at the various degrees of defensive zone coverage and traps they could easily utilize on a bigger ice surface.

The fact, is there are very few changes that can be implemented that coaches and players cannot counteract with more defense. But if you increase the scoring area, there's no defense for that. You can only collapse on your goalie so much.

[rick zombo 3,739]

Maybe they should make the neutral zone smaller and the offensive/defensive zones bigger.