Bigger nets maybe?

[Kutcher 0]

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

No more Lillypads out on the ice....

True. But without shutdown forwards, and as many great 2-way forwards the defense and goalies would be under more of an assault. The lines with guys like draper and maltby that get put out against teams scoring lines to specifically shut them down wouldn't exist anymore, and let's face it that's probably the biggest reason behind the Wing's success. Without those extra teams in the league, you wouldn't be able to afford to give those spots to anyone , teams would opt for Marian Hossa or Jagr over a guy like Draper or Maltby.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I personally don't think that games are suffering from "lower scoring", however I do think a big catalyst for this is the amount of talent actually on a team. There have been a number of expansions since the "scoring days", and the all star players are being spread out over more teams. Sure many teams still have a solid first line, but the second and third lines are weaker.

I also don't think that making goalie pads smaller, or nets wider is going to make much of a difference. Teams will adapt and instead of having two defensmen within a five foot radius of the goalie, they'll add a center in there as well to make up for the extra space to cover.

edit: I also think that goalie pads, aside from the chest protector are actually smaller than what they were in the 80s.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Echolalia

[Grittzkey 1]

Hope not.

[Hank 0]

I personally don't think that games are suffering from "lower scoring", however I do think a big catalyst for this is the amount of talent actually on a team. There have been a number of expansions since the "scoring days", and the all star players are being spread out over more teams. Sure many teams still have a solid first line, but the second and third lines are weaker.

I also don't think that making goalie pads smaller, or nets wider is going to make much of a difference. Teams will adapt and instead of having two defensmen within a five foot radius of the goalie, they'll add a center in there as well to make up for the extra space to cover.

edit: I also think that goalie pads, aside from the chest protector are actually smaller than what they were in the 80s.

No they're not. I play goal in a floor hockey league and we use old goalie gear from the 80's. The blocker and glove are much, much smaller than today's. And the pads don't go up as high as the ones most goalies wear now.

You also have to take in account that the old pads were 4x as heavy and absorbed water. The pads today are as light as a running show and repel water.

I've also noticed that goalies wear pants that are 2 or 3 sizes larger than what they would normally wear.

All of this adds up to goalies that are much faster and can cover twice as much space than what goalies could in the 70's and 80's.

Lastly, I'm not asking this to be a dink, but I'd like to hear your reasons why you don't think games are suffering from low scores. The last 2-3 weeks the average goals per game has been below 5. The NHL hasn't seen scores that low since the 30's. And goal totals weren't low back then because of traps and goalie gear.

If the trend continues like it has, the average goals per game could be close to 5 or even lower. That does not bode well to get the game on ESPN or to gain any exposure or bring fans in. I love hockey and the NHL and I'd hate to see the league lose even more potential fans.

[Kutcher 0]

If the trend continues like it has, the average goals per game could be close to 5 or even lower. That does not bode well to get the game on ESPN or to gain any exposure or bring fans in. I love hockey and the NHL and I'd hate to see the league lose even more potential fans.

Maybe thats what hockey needs. Look at soccer, it is probably the biggest sport in the world and the goals per game is probably around 3. It's all about scoring chances and opportunity, getting close to scoring but getting robbed, scoring a couple fantastic goals a game.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

No they're not. I play goal in a floor hockey league and we use old goalie gear from the 80's. The blocker and glove are much, much smaller than today's. And the pads don't go up as high as the ones most goalies wear now.

You also have to take in account that the old pads were 4x as heavy and absorbed water. The pads today are as light as a running show and repel water.

I've also noticed that goalies wear pants that are 2 or 3 sizes larger than what they would normally wear.

All of this adds up to goalies that are much faster and can cover twice as much space than what goalies could in the 70's and 80's.

Exactly.

I checked the rulebook on goaltender pad size a while back, and the perimeter of catching glove can be 48 inches around. Basically if you took a tape measure and held it at the wristpad, then ran it around the outside seam of the glove all the way back to the starting point, that can be friggin 4 feet in length.

That's ridiculous.

that's a good point about the pants too. If you see a goalie with just his hockey pants on, he looks like one of those old cartoons where a guy is wearing just an old barrel being held up by suspenders.

Edited November 13, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[Hank 0]

Maybe thats what hockey needs. Look at soccer, it is probably the biggest sport in the world and the goals per game is probably around 3. It's all about scoring chances and opportunity, getting close to scoring but getting robbed, scoring a couple fantastic goals a game.

1. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world because a great, great majority of countries play it growing up. And most of them are impoverished countries that can only afford soccer. Think about it. One kid out of a village buys a soccer ball and suddenly 100 kids have something to do on a weekend.

2. The game you just described " It's all about scoring chances and opportunity, getting close to scoring but getting robbed, scoring a couple fantastic goals a game." happens once ever 25 games. If every game was like that, I'd have no issues. But the problem is, these games are few and far between. 90% of the 2-1 or 1-0 games out there feature boring hockey with the 1-4 or 1-2-2 and defensive zone traps that take any flow or creativity out of the game. Goalies rarely have to stand on their head because defenses and their overgrown pads are so good the puck will never make it to the net on a good quality chance. Look at most games these days and you'll see that on a good night 1 team might have 12 scoring chances. But most of the time, a 'scoring chance' isn't even a good one. They'll count a bad angle shot from 20 feet away as a scoring chance. But that's a routine save.

I can still remember a time where when a good to great player was on the ice, they'd generate a scoring chance on every shift. I loved watching Wings games when Yzerman was in his offensive prime. There wasn't a useless shift as he would make something happen everytime he's on the ice. That can't be said about anyone now. I've seen games where Crosby might got 2 or 3 shifts without doing anything. And it's not because he isn't good - he's a phenomenal player. But every night he has to play against 5 skaters who want nothing to do with the puck. And in today's NHL with the advancement in equipment, faster backcheckers and defensive zone traps, even the best don't have much room to do anything out there.

Sometimes I wonder how many people remember what hockey looked like 20 years ago. Are most fans here or on other boards so young that they've only been watching hockey for the past 10 years? Or do most fans only watch their team and nobody else?

Because I seriously don't know how anyone can remember what hockey looked like in 87 compared to now and think today's game is even remotely as entertaining or suspenseful. 3 goal leads in the 3rd period were not a sure thing back then. Odd-man rushes happened all the time, goalies were forced to stand on their heads to get a shutout and offensive stars were dangerous on every shift. You can't say that now. The game today is so milktoast I have to force myself to watch some nights.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Sadly, I agree with you Hank. Of the games I've watched this season (mostly Red Wings and a few others) I have to say, I found a lot of them kinda... boring.

I couldn't tell really if I was just losing interest in hockey or if the game really has become a dull trap fest. I'm afraid it's the latter.

I think on googlevideo or maybe youtube you can watch some games from the 80s. They're nothing like the game today. The new rules have at least cut down on the clutch and grab, but I haven't seen many games that were as wide open as they were then.

Wings @ Flyers in 1985 (look for a very young Stevie Y)

This isn't necessarily a spectacular game, but I can't believe how much room there is out there. (plus it showed the Red Wings from a time that I think a lot of people here haven't seen)

Edited November 13, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

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.

Yea, but with more ice if 3 guys converged on Ovechkin, then two guys would be open. It would be like giving your ball to Shaq in the paint, having him draw two defenders, and kicking it out to the open man.

[Hank 0]

Sadly, I agree with you Hank. Of the games I've watched this season (mostly Red Wings and a few others) I have to say, I found a lot of them kinda... boring.

I couldn't tell really if I was just losing interest in hockey or if the game really has become a dull trap fest. I'm afraid it's the latter.

I think on googlevideo or maybe youtube you can watch some games from the 80s. They're nothing like the game today. The new rules have at least cut down on the clutch and grab, but I haven't seen many games that were as wide open as they were then.

I was worried about that too. I was starting to think that maybe my interest in hockey was waning. But I don't think it has at all. I still tune into the NHL network as much as possible. I can't wait to watch highlights in the morning. But when I try to watch a game (any game), I find myself getting lulled into sleep.

What's funny is, last night they showed a classic series on the NHL network - the 1992 finals with the Pens and Blackhawks. It was awesome. Lots of flow.

My love for hockey hasn't gone down, it's just that the level of hockey we're seeing cant' come close to what I grew up on.

I'm not naive to think that this type of hockey will ever come back. I know it won't. But I am still holding out that one day the NHL will find a way to make teams want to open up and score more than 2 goals to win games.

Yea, but with more ice if 3 guys converged on Ovechkin, then two guys would be open. It would be like giving your ball to Shaq in the paint, having him draw two defenders, and kicking it out to the open man.

And for some reason, with Olympic Ice, that 25 foot slapper from the open man would suddenly go in?

I might be wrong (Lord knows I am most of the time) but I just don't see Olympic Ice helping out. During the lockout Sportsnet broadcast some Swedish Elite games. To put it bluntly, they were horrible games. Now I know not every team was filled with NHL talent but there was enough that good games could happen. But because of the large ice surface the trap was more powerful than ever.

I think I would turn my back on NHL hockey forever if it looked anything like those SEL games.

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

I was worried about that too. I was starting to think that maybe my interest in hockey was waning. But I don't think it has at all. I still tune into the NHL network as much as possible. I can't wait to watch highlights in the morning. But when I try to watch a game (any game), I find myself getting lulled into sleep.

I always found what caused this for me was how painfully long hockey games can be. 3 20 min periods, with long intermissions, commercial breaks, and potential overtime?... It's gotten a little better with the faster puck drops, but games can still take an entire evening to watch. I watched almost every game last season, but I'll be honest, I normally split my time between the game and a book (unless it was a particularly exciting game)... I dont think I was sober for any of the playoff games, so it kept my interest at that point, but the regular season was painful at times.

However, I still find it more exciting than football, baseball, and basketball.

Edited November 13, 2007 by RedWings Gone Wild

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Off topic, but here's another good one.

Wings Toronto in '86

The Leafs school the Wings on this one, but you gotta love Gallant dropping the gloves right on the opening faceoff. My boy Harold mucking it up. Norwood getting into it. A young Joey Kocur scrapping.

Man I miss that rivalry.

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

I'm not naive to think that this type of hockey will ever come back. I know it won't. But I am still holding out that one day the NHL will find a way to make teams want to open up and score more than 2 goals to win games.

And for some reason, with Olympic Ice, that 25 foot slapper from the open man would suddenly go in?

I might be wrong (Lord knows I am most of the time) but I just don't see Olympic Ice helping out. During the lockout Sportsnet broadcast some Swedish Elite games. To put it bluntly, they were horrible games. Now I know not every team was filled with NHL talent but there was enough that good games could happen. But because of the large ice surface the trap was more powerful than ever.

I think I would turn my back on NHL hockey forever if it looked anything like those SEL games.

You're looking at a different tallent level in the NHL than in the SEL. That, and you might also be looking at a difference in style / tactics there too. I don't know enough about the SEL to say for sure, I just know there could be potentially different circumstances. I just think that Olympic hockey has always been more exciting, and this is with teams that lack the chemistry developed over a long NHL season. I think with the added familiarity the space could easily work in favor of the top tallent. I'm not sure if there would be a surge in goals, but certainly the added space would allow for a more fluid and flowing game which I think would add excitement regardless of the final score. I don't think you need 7-10 goals in a game for it to be exciting.

[vangvace 12]

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.

Talented, or should I say faster, players would be able to break free easier leading to more possible breakaways.

My arguement though is that the slower teams will hunker down and clog up the high scoring zones just like they due now. Datsyuk will be able to do a fricken triple lutz as long as he's on the outside, but once he gets near the slot or goal he'll still have guys swarming around him just like now.

In addition, from goal line to blue line you lose 72.5 square feet of ice along with losing 5 feet from goalline to blueline. The two areas where international ice truely becomes larger is in the neutral zone and behind the goalline.

International ice is bigger, but the extra ice is, imo, majority dead ice.

[Hank 0]

Off topic, but here's another good one.

Wings Toronto in '86

The Leafs school the Wings on this one, but you gotta love Gallant dropping the gloves right on the opening faceoff. My boy Harold mucking it up. Norwood getting into it. A young Joey Kocur scrapping.

Man I miss that rivalry.

I loved that series too. The Wings and Leafs had so many classic playoff series in the 80's.

And Gerard Gallant is my 2nd favourite Wing of all time. I actually had the honour of meeting him.

Actually, I loved most of the guys in that era. I was a BIG Dirty Harry fan. My uncle actually played against him in the minors in the 70's. He said he was a tough SOB but a real nice guy off the ice.

The Wings in the 80's weren't the best team but they were a lot of fun to watch. They were tough, mean and had a handful of skilled players that could dazzle the fans.

RedWings Gone Wild, you coudl be right. Maybe things would be better with Olympic style ice. My only concern is that the game has already changed to a much more European flavour since import's starting coming over. The only thing missing now is their ice. I'm worried that if we went to 200x100 ice surfaces the NHL would look more like the RSL or SEL than the NHL.

I'm not opposed to European players in the least. But it's very hard to argue that hockey was a lot more colorful and exciting when 95% of the league was made up of North American's.

[rick zombo 3,739]

Off topic, but here's another good one.

Wings Toronto in '86

The Leafs school the Wings on this one, but you gotta love Gallant dropping the gloves right on the opening faceoff. My boy Harold mucking it up. Norwood getting into it. A young Joey Kocur scrapping.

Man I miss that rivalry.

Just watched this. The Leaf's goals except for maybe the rebound in close, were all good shots from the hashmarks out. It's all about the goalie gear if you ask me.

[vangvace 12]

I also don't think that making goalie pads smaller, or nets wider is going to make much of a difference. Teams will adapt and instead of having two defensmen within a five foot radius of the goalie, they'll add a center in there as well to make up for the extra space to cover.

edit: I also think that goalie pads, aside from the chest protector are actually smaller than what they were in the 80s.

I can't argue with this point.

but to respond to your edited add... the most recent pad shrink still kept the equipment larger than 80s keepers.

Edited November 14, 2007 by vangvace

[b.shanafan14 733]

this is ridiculus, and I say it everytime the bigger nets argument comes up. It makes no sense and bastardizes the game, and for what?! Haven't there been enough changes to "open up the game"? Teams are playing better team defense and goaltenders (bigger pads aside) have gotten better. A great game might not mean a lot of highlights the next morning, I know Bettman and other hockey hating nazi's don't understand and think that every game should be 6-5 and maybe replace the 3rd perioud with a shootout all together. I hate the thought of changing the game thats been great for near a century, a game that evolved naturally before. Like others have said, every goal there afterwards would need an asterisk next to it......

F*** BIGGER NETS

[hockey&beer 16]

I hate to be the one to say this but changing the net size, equipment size, or the size of the ice will not alter scoring in the long run. All that these changes would do is MAYBE change scoring for a couple of years and then we will be right back to where we are now. The game has gotten to the point where the athletes are so well trained and conditioned that goals rarely occur unless someone makes a mistake.

I can use my "other" sport as a good example. Lacrosse is played using the same basic priciples as hockey, without the skating of course. Box or indoor lacrosse is played on a surface similar in size to a hockey rink, the nets are similar size and the goalies are twice the size, yet many games end with 6+ goals per team. When lacrosse is played outdoors, the field is larger than in football, the nets are 6' x 6', and the goalies don't wear much more than a helmet gloves and chest protector (baseball catcher's size) and oddly enough many games end with the same type of scores as box.

I guess it means that if fans don't watch the game for what it is:great skills, hard hits, awesome saves, and amazing goals then hockey is destined to go by the wayside pretty soon.

BTW, has anyone actually watched a soccer match from beginning to end? Talk aboot snooz-fest!!

[Hank 0]

this is ridiculus, and I say it everytime the bigger nets argument comes up. It makes no sense and bastardizes the game, and for what?! Haven't there been enough changes to "open up the game"? Teams are playing better team defense and goaltenders (bigger pads aside) have gotten better. A great game might not mean a lot of highlights the next morning, I know Bettman and other hockey hating nazi's don't understand and think that every game should be 6-5 and maybe replace the 3rd perioud with a shootout all together. I hate the thought of changing the game thats been great for near a century, a game that evolved naturally before. Like others have said, every goal there afterwards would need an asterisk next to it......

F*** BIGGER NETS

Nobody's asking for 6-5 games every single night. But I don't like to watch constant 2-1 or 3-1 games with very little action invovled. Most of these games don't feature great saves or end to end action. Most of the time, they're boring affairs with little to no offensive flair and a couple of PP goals that go off everything in the rink but the kitchen sink.

I hate to be the one to say this but changing the net size, equipment size, or the size of the ice will not alter scoring in the long run. All that these changes would do is MAYBE change scoring for a couple of years and then we will be right back to where we are now. The game has gotten to the point where the athletes are so well trained and conditioned that goals rarely occur unless someone makes a mistake.

I can use my "other" sport as a good example. Lacrosse is played using the same basic priciples as hockey, without the skating of course. Box or indoor lacrosse is played on a surface similar in size to a hockey rink, the nets are similar size and the goalies are twice the size, yet many games end with 6+ goals per team. When lacrosse is played outdoors, the field is larger than in football, the nets are 6' x 6', and the goalies don't wear much more than a helmet gloves and chest protector (baseball catcher's size) and oddly enough many games end with the same type of scores as box.

I guess it means that if fans don't watch the game for what it is:great skills, hard hits, awesome saves, and amazing goals then hockey is destined to go by the wayside pretty soon.

BTW, has anyone actually watched a soccer match from beginning to end? Talk aboot snooz-fest!!

Maybe you're right. I think we all know that coaches are never going to abandon an easy way to win (defensive traps) just to thrill the fans. Their jobs and too much money is at stake.

Less games might help somewhat. Players would be fresher and it wouldn't be necessary to play so conservatively because you wouldn't have as many back-to-back games as there is now.

But I still think there doesn't need to be a 4th line. With 10 forwards and 6 dmen, you could still keep an enforcer in the lineup and when he's put on the ice, everyone in the building will know what for.

[Echolalia 2,961]

No they're not. I play goal in a floor hockey league and we use old goalie gear from the 80's. The blocker and glove are much, much smaller than today's. And the pads don't go up as high as the ones most goalies wear now.

I posted in a recent thread a series of pictures from goalies today vs goalies in the late 80s, and aside from Giguere, all the pads were clearly smaller in today's era. Scratch that, all the pads beside the chest protector are smaller.

I will give you the fact that today's pads are more mobile

Lastly, I'm not asking this to be a dink, but I'd like to hear your reasons why you don't think games are suffering from low scores.

I don't determine the quality of play based solely on how many goals are scored in a game. If its a fast paced game with lots of shots and scrambles and scrums and whatnot, then its a game that I'm going to enjoy.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Echolalia

[Lazerbeam 13]

Goalie leg pads only used to be 10 inches wide in the early 90's and earlier. then they grew to 12 inches wide and became longer and lighter!! they are currently supposed to be only 11 inches wide now.

Solution that I have been saying for YEARS is..

1. shrink goalie leg pads to 9 1/2 inches wide and no more than 34 inches high.

2.Shrink goalie glove another 10 inches in diameter!

3. shrink chest and arm protection (AT LEAST) 3-8 inches in diameter

4. Shrink GOAL CREASE back to the old rectangle WITHOUT that arc in the front, so more players can screen goalies better-goalies dont need huge creases now!!

5. Move the goal lines back that 1 extra foot towards boards like they were before 1990

6. with smaller goalie creases, adopt the International rule of: anyone skates through the crease the play is blown dead and Faceoff outside of Blue Line. (does not apply for someone thats pushed into the crease)

Now watch scoring go up and games becoming more exciting!!

Edited November 13, 2007 by Lazerbeam

[auxlepli 17]

Just reduce the size of the goalie equipments. Sheesh.

The NHL is like a dumb people who can't warm water right. Like if the water is too hot then they turn up the cold water more instead of just turning down the hot water. Then as they turn up the cold water more it becomes too cold, so then the hot water is turned up even more. Everything escalates, when the simple and easier answer was just to turn down the hot water in the first place.

Sometimes less is more.

Edited November 13, 2007 by auxlepli

[good morning 10]

A) More goals

B) More fighting

Pick one, either/or...I know some people think there is no place for fighting in hockey, but I think you HAVE to admit even if you absolutely hate it, that the loss of it COMBINED with the increase in stifling defense has dealt a blow to the game. Not everyone wants to watch 60 minutes of people skating aimlessly from one end of the rink to the other while their respective goaltenders attempt to slide sluggishly along the crease, swimming in their huge pads like a child in clown boots.

[Izzy24 44]

Bigger nets? Why not smaller pucks?