New Rule being discussed

[Hank 0]

How do you feel about an illegal defense penalty like they had in the NBA if the played a zone? Is it possible to force teams to not trap?

That's precicely what these new lines would do. It would force teams to keep their wingers out of the action down low. With 3-on-3 hockey taking place below the top of the circles it would be next to impossible to play zone defense.

If you really, truly wanted to get rid of the trap you'd almost have to go with no lines at all. Just make it wide open. But I don't want to see that.

Short of brainwashing every coach in the league to not use defensive traps or zone coverage, the only thing you can really do to create more scoring zones is to make the scoring area bigger. That can be accomplished by making the nets bigger or shrinking the goalies.

What really bothers me is that fans and 'hockey people' worldwide have been begging to reduce goalie gear for over a decade now with little success. This is why I hate the PA. Without them, it wouldn't be an issue.

Eventually, within the next year or 2, you'll see the NHL give the PA an ultimatum; either agree to slimmer gear or they'll implement larger nets.

[imisssergei 0]

The problem with goaltenders isn't the size of their pads. I'm so tired of hearing about this. The difference between today's goaltenders and the goaltenders who let in those record amount of goals are easily summed up in 2 points.

1. Today's goaltenders are MUCH more athletic than they used to be. Seriously, look at any of the 'highlight reel goals' Lemieux scored pre-1992. What you will see is a goalie who stands straight up, doesn't move much, and gives up a lot of the net to shoot at. Today's goaltenders pretty much all have the 'butterfly stance', and play various styles from there. They are taught from a young age to make themselves as big as possible in the net. They no longer hold their elbows at their sides, they flair them out to take up more space. Seriously, what do you think would have happened back in the 'good old days' if a tender would have played like Dom? Today's goaltenders are better at controlling rebounds, skating, positioning, and pretty much everything else than ever before. Bottom line is goaltenders have finally caught up to skaters in terms of talent and athleticism.

2. Today's defense is a team effort. Couple that with all the shot blocking, the goalies have an easier job to do. Again, look at the high scoring days, how many guys did you see dropping down blocking shots? How many teams played defensive styles?

I also feel that making the rinks smaller wouldn't help, it would hurt. Back when the old barns were in use, the average player would be considered small in today's game. Making the rinks smaller might lead to more turnovers, but it would also allow guys like Hatcher to play more effectively.

So what is left to do? Well, this is what I would like to see. I want to see the NHL implement Olympic size surfaces and rules. Everyone talks about how much better Olympic hockey is, and generally speaking, I agree.

The extra size would allow guys like Ovechkin and St. Louis to use their speed to blow past defenders more often. It would create more space in all zones, most importantly, the neutral zone. This would help teams beat the trap. In the offensive zones, the extra surface would help on the PP, and allow teams with speed to create opportunities, guys like Crosby and Thornton would have more room to set up shop and make perfect passes.

The biggest rule change (with the Olympic idea being implemented) that I think would help is no-touch icing. Not only would this speed up the games, it would reduce the chance of dmen getting clobbered trying to get to the puck. But just to make things interesting, I'd take out the trapezoid, and let goalies playing the puck behind the goal line fair game in regards to checks.

[Hank 0]

The problem with goaltenders isn't the size of their pads. I'm so tired of hearing about this. The difference between today's goaltenders and the goaltenders who let in those record amount of goals are easily summed up in 2 points.

1. Today's goaltenders are MUCH more athletic than they used to be. Seriously, look at any of the 'highlight reel goals' Lemieux scored pre-1992. What you will see is a goalie who stands straight up, doesn't move much, and gives up a lot of the net to shoot at. Today's goaltenders pretty much all have the 'butterfly stance', and play various styles from there. They are taught from a young age to make themselves as big as possible in the net. They no longer hold their elbows at their sides, they flair them out to take up more space. Seriously, what do you think would have happened back in the 'good old days' if a tender would have played like Dom? Today's goaltenders are better at controlling rebounds, skating, positioning, and pretty much everything else than ever before. Bottom line is goaltenders have finally caught up to skaters in terms of talent and athleticism.

2. Today's defense is a team effort. Couple that with all the shot blocking, the goalies have an easier job to do. Again, look at the high scoring days, how many guys did you see dropping down blocking shots? How many teams played defensive styles?

I also feel that making the rinks smaller wouldn't help, it would hurt. Back when the old barns were in use, the average player would be considered small in today's game. Making the rinks smaller might lead to more turnovers, but it would also allow guys like Hatcher to play more effectively.

So what is left to do? Well, this is what I would like to see. I want to see the NHL implement Olympic size surfaces and rules. Everyone talks about how much better Olympic hockey is, and generally speaking, I agree.

The extra size would allow guys like Ovechkin and St. Louis to use their speed to blow past defenders more often. It would create more space in all zones, most importantly, the neutral zone. This would help teams beat the trap. In the offensive zones, the extra surface would help on the PP, and allow teams with speed to create opportunities, guys like Crosby and Thornton would have more room to set up shop and make perfect passes.

The biggest rule change (with the Olympic idea being implemented) that I think would help is no-touch icing. Not only would this speed up the games, it would reduce the chance of dmen getting clobbered trying to get to the puck. But just to make things interesting, I'd take out the trapezoid, and let goalies playing the puck behind the goal line fair game in regards to checks.

You're right on both counts.

But please, don't for one second dare to say that the equipment today is even close to what it was back in the day. It's not even close and it definitely prevents more goals from being scored today.

Ken Dryden - 6'4", 210 lbs

Roberto Luongo - 6'3", 205 lbs

I think that says it all.

P.S. Olympic sized ice is not the answer and would hurt scoring. First, Olympic hockey is basically 6 allstar teams going at it - not 30 watered down teams.

Secondly, how is making the ice wider going to increase the size of the scoring zones. Just because a player can be 15 feet wider of the net, doesn't mean the puck has 15 feet more room to score.

You could make the ice as big as a lake and teams will still collapse around the goalie to block shots like they do now.

So now, not only would defenses still be in place, but it would take guys like Ovechkin 2 more steps to walk out of the corner to get in a scoring postion.

Besides, have you seen elite European hockey? It's horrible. Absolutely horrible. And it has a lot to do with how coaches use the bigger ice surface to implement suffocating defensive systems. What do you think guys like Lemaire or Julien would do with it. People would be begging for barn-burning 2-1 games. Everything would end with 1-0 (SO) wins.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Hank

[Izzy24 44]

You're right on both counts.

But please, don't for one second dare to say that the equipment today is even close to what it was back in the day. It's not even close and it definitely prevents more goals from being scored today.

Ken Dryden - 6'4", 210 lbs

Roberto Luongo - 6'3", 205 lbs

But look at the ''technique' Dryden is using, it looks like he's making himself as small as possible. Just let Giguere and Luongo wear their "giant" pads, but make them use 50s-60s-70s style goaltending styles/techniques. Ovechkin/Datsyuk/Crosby on a breakaway? make 'em stand at the top of the crease while the shooter puts it into one of the corners along the ice.

[Opie 308]

The problem with goaltenders isn't the size of their pads. I'm so tired of hearing about this. The difference between today's goaltenders and the goaltenders who let in those record amount of goals are easily summed up in 2 points.

1. Today's goaltenders are MUCH more athletic than they used to be. Seriously, look at any of the 'highlight reel goals' Lemieux scored pre-1992. What you will see is a goalie who stands straight up, doesn't move much, and gives up a lot of the net to shoot at. Today's goaltenders pretty much all have the 'butterfly stance', and play various styles from there. They are taught from a young age to make themselves as big as possible in the net. They no longer hold their elbows at their sides, they flair them out to take up more space. Seriously, what do you think would have happened back in the 'good old days' if a tender would have played like Dom? Today's goaltenders are better at controlling rebounds, skating, positioning, and pretty much everything else than ever before. Bottom line is goaltenders have finally caught up to skaters in terms of talent and athleticism.

2. Today's defense is a team effort. Couple that with all the shot blocking, the goalies have an easier job to do. Again, look at the high scoring days, how many guys did you see dropping down blocking shots? How many teams played defensive styles?

I also feel that making the rinks smaller wouldn't help, it would hurt. Back when the old barns were in use, the average player would be considered small in today's game. Making the rinks smaller might lead to more turnovers, but it would also allow guys like Hatcher to play more effectively.

So what is left to do? Well, this is what I would like to see. I want to see the NHL implement Olympic size surfaces and rules. Everyone talks about how much better Olympic hockey is, and generally speaking, I agree.

The extra size would allow guys like Ovechkin and St. Louis to use their speed to blow past defenders more often. It would create more space in all zones, most importantly, the neutral zone. This would help teams beat the trap. In the offensive zones, the extra surface would help on the PP, and allow teams with speed to create opportunities, guys like Crosby and Thornton would have more room to set up shop and make perfect passes.

The biggest rule change (with the Olympic idea being implemented) that I think would help is no-touch icing. Not only would this speed up the games, it would reduce the chance of dmen getting clobbered trying to get to the puck. But just to make things interesting, I'd take out the trapezoid, and let goalies playing the puck behind the goal line fair game in regards to checks.

I will try to make this quick as my work day is unwinding and it is time to go drinking:

Your argument can be destroyed in 4 easy points, but thanks for playing our game!

1. There is no denying that the pads are a lot bigger. Having said that it is a simple matter of physics. If the pads are wider they cover more area. If they cover more area, there is less area to shoot at. There is no arguing that it is a simple matter of science.

2. I agree that defense and goaltender style of play has changed dramatically, that doesn't change the fact that if you have bigger pads you are covering more area. In fact it is an argument to support smaller pads. If the goalies and Defenses are playing a style that creates less opportunities, when an opportunity does present itself smaller goalie pads would also allow for the player to see more net. Example, how many players score in a shootout with a shot on the ice that doesn't go 5-hole, Z comes to mind with his copy cat move of Forsberg's stamp. Think of it this way, little leaguers use aluminum bats because they aren't as good as older players, as they get older the equipment they use does less of the work for them. In the NHL if goalies had less pads, they would have to play even better. So if they are playing better than the goalies in the old days, why give them bigger pads, which logically gives them an advantage.

3. Making the rink bigger would not allow for Ovechkin and those guys to blow by anyone, because there would be more surface area, the skater would actually have to cover more ground than the defender, while the skater is 30-40 wide of the net, the defenseman would be able to skate down the middle of the ice and take up the slot. And seeing as the player with the puck would have to go wider, thus skating a greater distance, they would be at a disadvantage.

Where as if the rink were smaller it would force the defenseman to skate better, or try to body up a guy in the neutral zone. Thus allowing a guy like Ovechkin to skate around or in his case through most defenders. I might add with less work because he is covering less ground. This is not a matter of physics this my friend is a matter of geometry.

5. As to your last point I have always thought it should be like the quarterback rule in football, once he steps across the line of scrimmage (out of the crease in this case) he would become fair game!

Remember the 7:30 show is never they same as the 9:30 show, don't forget to tip your wait staff.

[imisssergei 0]

You're right on both counts.

But please, don't for one second dare to say that the equipment today is even close to what it was back in the day. It's not even close and it definitely prevents more goals from being scored today.

Ken Dryden - 6'4", 210 lbs

Roberto Luongo - 6'3", 205 lbs

I think that says it all.

P.S. Olympic sized ice is not the answer and would hurt scoring. First, Olympic hockey is basically 6 allstar teams going at it - not 30 watered down teams.

Secondly, how is making the ice wider going to increase the size of the scoring zones. Just because a player can be 15 feet wider of the net, doesn't mean the puck has 15 feet more room to score.

You could make the ice as big as a lake and teams will still collapse around the goalie to block shots like they do now.

So now, not only would defenses still be in place, but it would take guys like Ovechkin 2 more steps to walk out of the corner to get in a scoring postion.

Besides, have you seen elite European hockey? It's horrible. Absolutely horrible. And it has a lot to do with how coaches use the bigger ice surface to implement suffocating defensive systems. What do you think guys like Lemaire or Julien would do with it. People would be begging for barn-burning 2-1 games. Everything would end with 1-0 (SO) wins.

I never said that the pads weren't different. But if you want to get technical about it, the only real difference in pads is the glove, and chest protectors. The leg pads aren't much different in size, the biggest difference there is materials. Back in Dryden's day, the pads would soak up water and become very heavy, not to mention they were much heavier to begin with.

But if you are going to use the argument that goalies equipment is decreasing scoring, you then would have to concede the fact that players equipment enhances scoring. Yeah, I know, the sticks break. But there is no way around the fact that they give an a player with an average shot a good shot, and a player with a good shot a great shot. It's a two way street.

As far as the Olympics having All-Star teams, yeah, they are better players. But that isn't why things work better. If anything, having guys that aren't as good as the next (as in the NHL's 'watered down pool') would create more opportunities for the stars. I mean, it isn't like the NHL All-Star game, those guys actually hit and play defense. The reason things work better is that there is more ice surface to work with, and the rules promote a game with much more flow.

If stopping a team offensively is as easy as collapsing around the net, why hasn't any NHL coach done just that? Because it isn't as easy as collapsing around the net. I agree that some coaches may find a way to play a defensive style on the larger ice, but it still would be that much harder to play it as there is that much more ice to cover. In the offensive zone, passing the puck around is the best way to get defenders out of position, more ice to pass the puck around would create more offensive chances. On the larger ice surface, puck control (yes, the European style) becomes the way to play. More teams would play a puck control style. Couple the puck control style with the larger surface, and you have a system that allows teams to beat the trap much easier. What's the biggest complaint against the trap? You hear players say it all the time, 'there just isn't any room out there, they are taking everything away.' If you have more surface to play with, that makes it that much harder to take away chances.

It might take Ovechkin two more step to get out of the corner to get that scoring chance. But I'll take that everyday if that means he has two more steps in to neutral zone to blow past a defender. Also, it would give AO more ice to be creative with, or to just simply take a dman wide and blow past him.

I'm not saying that Olympic ice is the be all, end all fix for the NHL. But I think it is a great start.

[auxlepli 17]

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

[ltgator333 3]

I liked the removal of the two line pass, and actually think they should've done it sooner.

The goalie trapezoid ok whatever.

This, is ridiculous. One of the most exciting d-men of all time made a name for himself on breaking deep into the offensive zone. If they do this that's it for me. It's NOT soccer people, nor should it be played as such.

That said, one of my biggest 'I wish this would happen' is to someday see a properly talented team play the torpedo, or some variation of such. Doing this would kill that. Matter fact, everytime Nick Lidstrom moves up in the offensive zone the wings damn near look like they are playing the torpedo this season. I love it, it creates exciting matchups in the offensive zone, and this rule would kill that.

Bottom line,

[vangvace 12]

Besides, have you seen elite European hockey? It's horrible. Absolutely horrible. And it has a lot to do with how coaches use the bigger ice surface to implement suffocating defensive systems. What do you think guys like Lemaire or Julien would do with it. People would be begging for barn-burning 2-1 games. Everything would end with 1-0 (SO) wins.

What's wrong with going to SO? that's the most exciting part of the game

[imisssergei 0]

I will try to make this quick as my work day is unwinding and it is time to go drinking:

Your argument can be destroyed in 4 easy points, but thanks for playing our game!

1. There is no denying that the pads are a lot bigger. Having said that it is a simple matter of physics. If the pads are wider they cover more area. If they cover more area, there is less area to shoot at. There is no arguing that it is a simple matter of science.

2. I agree that defense and goaltender style of play has changed dramatically, that doesn't change the fact that if you have bigger pads you are covering more area. In fact it is an argument to support smaller pads. If the goalies and Defenses are playing a style that creates less opportunities, when an opportunity does present itself smaller goalie pads would also allow for the player to see more net. Example, how many players score in a shootout with a shot on the ice that doesn't go 5-hole, Z comes to mind with his copy cat move of Forsberg's stamp. Think of it this way, little leaguers use aluminum bats because they aren't as good as older players, as they get older the equipment they use does less of the work for them. In the NHL if goalies had less pads, they would have to play even better. So if they are playing better than the goalies in the old days, why give them bigger pads, which logically gives them an advantage.

3. Making the rink bigger would not allow for Ovechkin and those guys to blow by anyone, because there would be more surface area, the skater would actually have to cover more ground than the defender, while the skater is 30-40 wide of the net, the defenseman would be able to skate down the middle of the ice and take up the slot. And seeing as the player with the puck would have to go wider, thus skating a greater distance, they would be at a disadvantage.

Where as if the rink were smaller it would force the defenseman to skate better, or try to body up a guy in the neutral zone. Thus allowing a guy like Ovechkin to skate around or in his case through most defenders. I might add with less work because he is covering less ground. This is not a matter of physics this my friend is a matter of geometry.

5. As to your last point I have always thought it should be like the quarterback rule in football, once he steps across the line of scrimmage (out of the crease in this case) he would become fair game!

Remember the 7:30 show is never they same as the 9:30 show, don't forget to tip your wait staff.

I see 2 points here, not 4.

It's true that a goaltender does cover more area when wearing bigger pads. But that doesn't necessarially make him a better goaltender. In fact, wearing equipment that is too large would hamper his movement, thus not allowing him to cover as much net as he could with smaller pads.

So because defensemen play a better defensive game now, goalies should wear smaller pads? That doesn't make any sense. Since Ottawa doesn't play as defensive as Detroit does, should that translate into Gerber getting to wear larger pads than Osgood? The point is that what's going on in front of the goalie should have zero impact on the limit placed on his pads.

The idea that no many shots are scored by shooting low can be solved by one things. Chicks dig the long ball. Meaning, scoring on a shot low isn't nearly as sexy as putting one next to the peanut butter. That, and goalies are much better down low than ever before. There just isn't room down there. This has nothing to do with the size of a goaltenders pads. Watch the save a goalie makes on low shots. Most of them are made either with the lower toe portion of the pad, or the stick. The saves made with the section of pad from the ankle up could be, generally speaking, made with pads that were much smaller.

Making the rink bigger WOULD allow AO to use his speed to get past defenders more than he is able to now. It's a simple result of angles. Just because there is more room for AO to use, doesn't mean he has to use it all. The biggest impact is that the defender would have help as close as he would on an NHL surface. This would create more one-on-one match-ups, in which AO could use his speed to take the slower defender wide and blow past him.

A friendly reminder, next time you want to be a jackass and 'destroy' some of my thoughts. Don't incorrectly number your 'arguments'. It makes you seem even less intelligent than your posts already do!

P.S. Using your scientific approach, making the ice smaller would make less surface area for the d to cover and a d partner would be closer, thus making it easier to cover AO.

Edited December 19, 2007 by imisssergei

[IceMunkee 15]

I say we just use bubble hockey theme. Put each player on a stick and let them move only in lateral and spin!!! That should do just about all we need it to do.

[vangvace 12]

I see 2 points here, not 4.

It's true that a goaltender does cover more area when wearing bigger pads. But that doesn't necessarially make him a better goaltender. In fact, wearing equipment that is too large would hamper his movement, thus not allowing him to cover as much net as he could with smaller pads.

So because defensemen play a better defensive game now, goalies should wear smaller pads? That doesn't make any sense. Since Ottawa doesn't play as defensive as Detroit does, should that translate into Gerber getting to wear larger pads than Osgood? The point is that what's going on in front of the goalie should have zero impact on the limit placed on his pads.

The idea that no many shots are scored by shooting low can be solved by one things. Chicks dig the long ball. Meaning, scoring on a shot low isn't nearly as sexy as putting one next to the peanut butter. That, and goalies are much better down low than ever before. There just isn't room down there. This has nothing to do with the size of a goaltenders pads. Watch the save a goalie makes on low shots. Most of them are made either with the lower toe portion of the pad, or the stick. The saves made with the section of pad from the ankle up could be, generally speaking, made with pads that were much smaller.

Making the rink bigger WOULD allow AO to use his speed to get past defenders more than he is able to now. It's a simple result of angles. Just because there is more room for AO to use, doesn't mean he has to use it all. The biggest impact is that the defender would have help as close as he would on an NHL surface. This would create more one-on-one match-ups, in which AO could use his speed to take the slower defender wide and blow past him.

A friendly reminder, next time you want to be a jackass and 'destroy' some of my thoughts. Don't incorrectly number your 'arguments'. It makes you seem even less intelligent than your posts already do!

P.S. Using your scientific approach, making the ice smaller would make less surface area for the d to cover and a d partner would be closer, thus making it easier to cover AO.

Umm goalies wearing too large of equipment often are know for "playing the percentages" or "positional game" over being know for quick reactions. If all we has to do is sit there in the butterfly towards the shooter because his equipment is so large that it blocks the net and absorbs most of the energy from the puck so no juicy rebound then he's än excellent goalie".

Except for thier sticks and helmets (I think on the helmets) there is not a single peice of equipment that hasn't become larger. You mention that leg pads haven't changed much, however if worn to the max size it's 3 square feet of coverage per leg pad over 1993ish time frame.

The butterfly style killed only on hole, the five. Even that is debatable depending on the shooter/goalie.

As for where goals are scored from... besides screens, how many goals can you count from farther out than 7 feet from the goal?

Wow AO can use his speed to gain the zone faster... and when he doesn't score on stay puff? What good is his speed going to do along the boards farther away from the goal where the D doesn't have to chase him around. More teams are pushing play to these zones of dead ice and fewer are chasing a cycle. Olympic ice does nothing to bring back scoring from the slot. Too base your auguement on AOs speed is like changing the game for Gretzky. Worked great for him, not so much for 95% of the other players.

Hell even if AO comes off the corner and blows by the first guy, by the time he's in scoring position guy number two (and maybe three )is callapsing on him leaving him with dwindling options. Lemaire hockey at it's finest.

For my curiousity? Have you watched much hockey on international ice besides olympic or international competition? Many of the Euros have said that the trap is worse in the leagues (you know the ones with the "big"ice) of their home countries.

Edit: sorry for spelling errors, crankiness and to add...

In addition, you lose 72.5 square feet of scorable ice in the attacking zone. The two areas where international ice is larger is in the neutral zone and behind the goalline.

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

Edited December 20, 2007 by vangvace

[imisssergei 0]

Umm goalies wearing too large of equipment often are know for "playing the percentages" or "positional game" over being know for quick reactions. If all we has to do is sit there in the butterfly towards the shooter because his equipment is so large that it blocks the net and absorbs most of the energy from the puck so no juicy rebound then he's än excellent goalie".

Except for thier sticks and helmets (I think on the helmets) there is not a single peice of equipment that hasn't become larger. You mention that leg pads haven't changed much, however if worn to the max size it's 3 square feet of coverage per leg pad over 1993ish time frame.

The butterfly style killed only on hole, the five. Even that is debatable depending on the shooter/goalie.

As for where goals are scored from... besides screens, how many goals can you count from farther out than 7 feet from the goal?

Wow AO can use his speed to gain the zone faster... and when he doesn't score on stay puff? What good is his speed going to do along the boards farther away from the goal where the D doesn't have to chase him around. More teams are pushing play to these zones of dead ice and fewer are chasing a cycle. Olympic ice does nothing to bring back scoring from the slot. Too base your auguement on AOs speed is like changing the game for Gretzky. Worked great for him, not so much for 95% of the other players.

Hell even if AO comes off the corner and blows by the first guy, by the time he's in scoring position guy number two (and maybe three )is callapsing on him leaving him with dwindling options. Lemaire hockey at it's finest.

For my curiousity? Have you watched much hockey on international ice besides olympic or international competition? Many of the Euros have said that the trap is worse in the leagues (you know the ones with the "big"ice) of their home countries.

So being a great NHL goaltender is as easy as wearing the biggest possible equipment?! SIGN ME UP!!!

I hate when people use the excuse that a goalie is good because his pads are large. He still has to get them into the correct position at the correct times. If you want to talk about great positional goaltenders, let's start with that one guy in New Jersey. You know, the guy with SMALL pads. Brodeur is one of the best goaltenders ever. He doesn't use pads that push the limits, his style isn't flashy. Again, if a goaltender uses pads that are too large, it will hamper his movement, and not allow him to get into proper position.

In regards to the pads not being much different, I was referring to the pictures of Dryden and Luongo. Look carefully at the size of the pads. Look at how high Dryden's pads come up on his legs. They come up just as high, if not higher than Luongo's.

Have you ever seen a butterfly goaltender? The lower corners are taken away just as much, if not more than the five hole.

As far as where goals are scored from, you have to look at the chances players get. If you give a guy who can shoot the puck an opportunity in the high slot, about 15 feet from the net, his chances of scoring are pretty good. But you don't see that happen too often in today's game. You see teams crashing the net and trying to deflect shots in. A lot of shots are taken to produce a rebound. How often do you hear a player say 'I was just trying to put it on net'?

'and when he doesn't score on stay puff? ' I'm not sure what that means. Put together a clear thought, and I'll respond to it. Here is the thing. You will never, except in a PK situation, see a team just watch a player skate the puck. I don't know if you've ever watched a hockey game, but players don't stand still, they move. With a larger area to work with, not only could a guy like AO create more opportunities, a guy like Shanny is going to have more space to sneak into and get off a shot. BTW, if AO beats one dman, and there are 3 others waiting, there are 4 other Caps who are WIDE OPEN, I'm sure AO could manage to find one of them.

I'm not basing my idea of using Olympic ice on AO's speed, it's merely an example of how it could benefit the NHL game.

As far as how much hockey I've watched with the Olympic size ice, not a ton. But I have played on it enough to see the impact it has on players. Regardless, none of us have seen what NHL players can do on a consistent basis playing on that surface.

[vangvace 12]

So being a great NHL goaltender is as easy as wearing the biggest possible equipment?! SIGN ME UP!!!

I hate when people use the excuse that a goalie is good because his pads are large. He still has to get them into the correct position at the correct times. If you want to talk about great positional goaltenders, let's start with that one guy in New Jersey. You know, the guy with SMALL pads. Brodeur is one of the best goaltenders ever. He doesn't use pads that push the limits, his style isn't flashy. Again, if a goaltender uses pads that are too large, it will hamper his movement, and not allow him to get into proper position.

In regards to the pads not being much different, I was referring to the pictures of Dryden and Luongo. Look carefully at the size of the pads. Look at how high Dryden's pads come up on his legs. They come up just as high, if not higher than Luongo's.

Have you ever seen a butterfly goaltender? The lower corners are taken away just as much, if not more than the five hole.

As far as where goals are scored from, you have to look at the chances players get. If you give a guy who can shoot the puck an opportunity in the high slot, about 15 feet from the net, his chances of scoring are pretty good. But you don't see that happen too often in today's game. You see teams crashing the net and trying to deflect shots in. A lot of shots are taken to produce a rebound. How often do you hear a player say 'I was just trying to put it on net'?

'and when he doesn't score on stay puff? ' I'm not sure what that means. Put together a clear thought, and I'll respond to it. Here is the thing. You will never, except in a PK situation, see a team just watch a player skate the puck. I don't know if you've ever watched a hockey game, but players don't stand still, they move. With a larger area to work with, not only could a guy like AO create more opportunities, a guy like Shanny is going to have more space to sneak into and get off a shot. BTW, if AO beats one dman, and there are 3 others waiting, there are 4 other Caps who are WIDE OPEN, I'm sure AO could manage to find one of them.

I'm not basing my idea of using Olympic ice on AO's speed, it's merely an example of how it could benefit the NHL game.

As far as how much hockey I've watched with the Olympic size ice, not a ton. But I have played on it enough to see the impact it has on players. Regardless, none of us have seen what NHL players can do on a consistent basis playing on that surface.

Hmmm....using the largest pads available and being considered elite because of it... hmmm I don't know how those goalies on the west coast can get away with it

Yup Drydens pads are taller for a taller guy... too bad that they're still at least an inch narrower so fine I'll give. Luongo's pads are only at least taking up 2 square feet more than Drydens. Happy?

Compaired to the marshmellow twins Jiggy and Luongo, or less sizeable butterfly goalies Brodeur, a hybrid, has tons of personality.

So aot of shots are taken to roduce rebounds... stop the presses I thought it was so that they could score a goal! You mean it's about the rebound all along. What in the world was I thinking!?! How could I have been so blind to the fact that players might want to score from somewhere besides the goalies lap.

The saying 'I was just trying to put it on net' is as old as time... just ask Chelios. Too bad it used to mean that the puck went in on the shot instead of going in on the rebound.

Your right I should have looked up how to spell michelin man instead of making a movie reference with Stay Puff. Guess you missed it.

So tell me oh great wise one. How often are you seeing players get chased by the Keystone cops (or other team)around during a cycle this season? It doesn't happen like it used to now does it.

Larger work area? The zone is SMALLER BY 72.5 SQUARE FEET where it matters most, goal ine to blue line. Oh wait I forgot, now rebounds are now worth their weight in goals these days.

The AO scenario you describe happens nightly to him as it is BTW. Wide open yup. passing lanes might be tough to find. but chances are that they are there. Downside is that the puck will more than likely move back to the perimeter like, now wait for it you're going to like it.... today's NHL!

Euro NHL players have already stated that the trap is more effective on the larger ice surface and is one of the things they don't like about playing at home.

Opie - We're not going to protest.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Last night on TSN, Gord Miller said that this new idea is being thrown around the BOG and some of them actually like it.

Below you'll see a pic of how they will add 2 more lines above the circles.. The dmen in the offensive zone, while the wingers covering them will not be able to cross that line. This will force more 3-on-3 hockey and stop zone coverages and collapsing defenses.

This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Are these guys so high in their ivory tower they can't see that the most obvious change is the easiest - SHRINK THE GOALIE GEAR!!!

Spot on. While I'm in different to goalie pad shrinkage or not, all the current rules outside of instigating of course, are fine with me, penalties and, well non-penalties I guess. Referees and staff just need to get together to agree on whether to let the guys play or if they are going to call 25 penalties a game. I just want the rules enforced as consistent as possible game-by-game.

[Bluedevils_13 0]

WOW they are thinking of adding more lines, and limiting MORE players movement...and making the game more complecated? GET ESPN ON THE PHONE! I'm sure they'll take the NHL back now!

W T F

[auxlepli 17]

We can fit 100,000 songs into an iPod, but goalies equipment has to be light and huge to protect!! Friggen dumbasses.

That's becuase Apple isn't in charge of the NHL.

Steve Jobs for commissioner.

[Opie 308]

Hmmm....using the largest pads available and being considered elite because of it... hmmm I don't know how those goalies on the west coast can get away with it

Yup Drydens pads are taller for a taller guy... too bad that they're still at least an inch narrower so fine I'll give. Luongo's pads are only at least taking up 2 square feet more than Drydens. Happy?

Compaired to the marshmellow twins Jiggy and Luongo, or less sizeable butterfly goalies Brodeur, a hybrid, has tons of personality.

So aot of shots are taken to roduce rebounds... stop the presses I thought it was so that they could score a goal! You mean it's about the rebound all along. What in the world was I thinking!?! How could I have been so blind to the fact that players might want to score from somewhere besides the goalies lap.

The saying 'I was just trying to put it on net' is as old as time... just ask Chelios. Too bad it used to mean that the puck went in on the shot instead of going in on the rebound.

Your right I should have looked up how to spell michelin man instead of making a movie reference with Stay Puff. Guess you missed it.

So tell me oh great wise one. How often are you seeing players get chased by the Keystone cops (or other team)around during a cycle this season? It doesn't happen like it used to now does it.

Larger work area? The zone is SMALLER BY 72.5 SQUARE FEET where it matters most, goal ine to blue line. Oh wait I forgot, now rebounds are now worth their weight in goals these days.

The AO scenario you describe happens nightly to him as it is BTW. Wide open yup. passing lanes might be tough to find. but chances are that they are there. Downside is that the puck will more than likely move back to the perimeter like, now wait for it you're going to like it.... today's NHL!

Euro NHL players have already stated that the trap is more effective on the larger ice surface and is one of the things they don't like about playing at home.

Opie - We're not going to protest.

Thanks for having my back in the logic department.

I thought it was a pretty easy conclusion to make, bigger pads means the goalie covers more area, meaning he has to do less work to make saves. I don't think either of us said it would be easy, or that the goalies these days are less talented.

MY argument was if they are more talented why give them bigger pads. If they have learned better and more effective style, keep the pads the same, why enlarge them?

But apparently to some that statement means that any one could play goal with larger equipment.

Not only is the O-zone in Euro hockey smaller, but larger Ice surfaces are More conducive to the trap system. If you have more ice to cover (in Euro this would be the whole sheet not one zone) the easiest way to protect your net is collapse, play a zone, trap, whatever you want to call it. Give up the deep perimeter shot, which gives the goalie with bigger pads the ability to step out of the crease a little and (by using physics we come up with this part) take away almost all of the net, because by playing the angle and with bigger pads the goalie can take away more of the net.

But it is like trying to tell people that a 38 year old Feds is not going help this team out, or bringing back D-mac will not help this team out, or that trading Sammy, a first rounder, and Kindl will not get this team Lecavelier. Some times it is easier to beat my head off of my keyboard!!

[Hank 0]

I never said that the pads weren't different. But if you want to get technical about it, the only real difference in pads is the glove, and chest protectors. The leg pads aren't much different in size, the biggest difference there is materials. Back in Dryden's day, the pads would soak up water and become very heavy, not to mention they were much heavier to begin with.

True, however I'll add that the pants goalies wear today are nearly twice the size as well. Guys with a 30" waist are wearing pants for men who have a 44" waist.

Regarding the material, this is true too. That's why goalies had much larger pads back then because it wasn't as protective they used a bit more of it to cover more angles. That's precisely why the goalies leg pads can and should be reduced. Heck, most skaters shin guards today protect better than the leg pads goalies wore in the 70's. For that reason alone, goalies could easily still be fully protected with 8" wide leg pads.

But if you are going to use the argument that goalies equipment is decreasing scoring, you then would have to concede the fact that players equipment enhances scoring. Yeah, I know, the sticks break. But there is no way around the fact that they give an a player with an average shot a good shot, and a player with a good shot a great shot. It's a two way street.

Again, another good point. However, this comes down to the 'chicken-or-the-egg' argument. What came first? I might have to check some old tape but I am certain that I recall seeing Garth Snow parade out with giant equipment before composite sticks were introduced. An argument could be made that composite sticks evolved out of the ever growing goalie equipment.

As far as the Olympics having All-Star teams, yeah, they are better players. But that isn't why things work better. If anything, having guys that aren't as good as the next (as in the NHL's 'watered down pool') would create more opportunities for the stars. I mean, it isn't like the NHL All-Star game, those guys actually hit and play defense. The reason things work better is that there is more ice surface to work with, and the rules promote a game with much more flow.

Having less talent would mean that coaches would play a far more simplistic game - meaning collapsing defenses and not playing aggressively.

And having more ice surface, as Opie pointed out, won't mean more flow. Flow is considered north-and-south. And since the rink is already 200 feet long (same as Olympic surfaces) that won't be a factor.

If stopping a team offensively is as easy as collapsing around the net, why hasn't any NHL coach done just that? Because it isn't as easy as collapsing around the net. I agree that some coaches may find a way to play a defensive style on the larger ice, but it still would be that much harder to play it as there is that much more ice to cover. In the offensive zone, passing the puck around is the best way to get defenders out of position, more ice to pass the puck around would create more offensive chances. On the larger ice surface, puck control (yes, the European style) becomes the way to play. More teams would play a puck control style. Couple the puck control style with the larger surface, and you have a system that allows teams to beat the trap much easier. What's the biggest complaint against the trap? You hear players say it all the time, 'there just isn't any room out there, they are taking everything away.' If you have more surface to play with, that makes it that much harder to take away chances.

25 out of 30 coaches already play a collapsing defense. Buffalo GM Darcy Regher and LA's GM Dean Lombardi have spoken about this extensively. And it's the precise reason why these new lines are being introduced. Wingers are no longer covering their point man but rather forming a 'star' formation around the crease area. It's because of the simplicity and effectiveness of it, that almost every coach employs it. It's also why you'll see almost every game finish with one team scoring 2 goals or less.

Regarding the larger ice surface, teams will allow players to dispy-do and play puck possession around the parameter all they want. Every team in the league knows that the only scoring zone in the game today is 6 feet from the crease - hence the collapsing defenses.

Trust me, Olympic ice surfaces are not the answer. But don't take it from me, ask some of the Europeans playing in the NHL. During the lockout several of them were asked if this was the answer and players such as Zetterberg, Alfredsson, Satan, the Sedins and Ohlund all said that it wouldn't be good and it would result in even more boring defensive hockey.

Look at all the changes that have been made to increase scoring and what have coaches done with it? They've devised new and un-exciting ways to shut them down. The two-line pass was supposed to open things up but all it's done is back the defensmen up more. No hooking, holding or obstruction? No problem. All of the slow players were dumped from the league with new speedy players. The trap was moved from the nuetral zone to the defensive zone. It's all about holding your ground and causing the other team to make mistakes or take penalties on turnovers or through cycling.

It might take Ovechkin two more step to get out of the corner to get that scoring chance. But I'll take that everyday if that means he has two more steps in to neutral zone to blow past a defender. Also, it would give AO more ice to be creative with, or to just simply take a dman wide and blow past him.

And how many Ovechkin's are there in the league? Even if I admitted that your point could be valid how is this extra ice going to turn the 600 slugs in the NHL into scoring stars or even offensive playmakers? It's not. A coach is still going to look down his bench and see 2, maybe 3 good players, with the rest being plumbers and muckers. He's going to use that extra ice to keep the other team even further away from the crease.

I'm not saying that Olympic ice is the be all, end all fix for the NHL. But I think it is a great start.

Try telling all 30 owners that they have to remove about 40 seats, averaging $200 in price (around $325,000 US per year), to bring in bigger ice.

And I'm being generous with 40 seats and $200 as an average price. Certain teams charge a LOT more than $200 for seats along the ice.

To me, I'm very much against using European ice. The game already resembles the Swedish Elite League more than the NHL did 20 years ago.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Hank

[Opie 308]

If stopping a team offensively is as easy as collapsing around the net, why hasn't any NHL coach done just that? Because it isn't as easy as collapsing around the net. I agree that some coaches may find a way to play a defensive style on the larger ice, but it still would be that much harder to play it as there is that much more ice to cover. In the offensive zone, passing the puck around is the best way to get defenders out of position, more ice to pass the puck around would create more offensive chances. On the larger ice surface, puck control (yes, the European style) becomes the way to play. More teams would play a puck control style. Couple the puck control style with the larger surface, and you have a system that allows teams to beat the trap much easier. What's the biggest complaint against the trap? You hear players say it all the time, 'there just isn't any room out there, they are taking everything away.' If you have more surface to play with, that makes it that much harder to take away chances.

Do you watch NHL hockey, at all, or just the highlights that are on NHL.com.

Stanley cups have been won based on the trap, NJ Devils. Ever hear of them, no!

This discussion is useless if you are going to pretend to be ignorant about things. Or if you are truly ignorant about the facts then please don't state things as the absolute truth if you are posting things that are obviously not the truth.

BTW: definition of ignorance is lack of knowledge so please don't take that as an insult.

Edit: Also if you have ever had the chance to watch the Wings on national television, do you know why the announcers make such a big deal about how much puck possession hockey the wings play?

Because they are probably the only team in the league that from D to Forward plays puck possession. Most teams cannot or simply chose not to play that style.

If you also will notice, playing that style has the wings as one of the teams that gets the most blocked shots.

Look at last years WCF, how many shots did the ducks block.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Opie

[imisssergei 0]

True, however I'll add that the pants goalies wear today are nearly twice the size as well. Guys with a 30" waist are wearing pants for men who have a 44" waist.

Regarding the material, this is true too. That's why goalies had much larger pads back then because it wasn't as protective they used a bit more of it to cover more angles. That's precisely why the goalies leg pads can and should be reduced. Heck, most skaters shin guards today protect better than the leg pads goalies wore in the 70's. For that reason alone, goalies could easily still be fully protected with 8" wide leg pads.

Again, another good point. However, this comes down to the 'chicken-or-the-egg' argument. What came first? I might have to check some old tape but I am certain that I recall seeing Garth Snow parade out with giant equipment before composite sticks were introduced. An argument could be made that composite sticks evolved out of the ever growing goalie equipment.

Having less talent would mean that coaches would play a far more simplistic game - meaning collapsing defenses and not playing aggressively.

And having more ice surface, as Opie pointed out, won't mean more flow. Flow is considered north-and-south. And since the rink is already 200 feet long (same as Olympic surfaces) that won't be a factor.

25 out of 30 coaches already play a collapsing defense. Buffalo GM Darcy Regher and LA's GM Dean Lombardi have spoken about this extensively. And it's the precise reason why these new lines are being introduced. Wingers are no longer covering their point man but rather forming a 'star' formation around the crease area. It's because of the simplicity and effectiveness of it, that almost every coach employs it. It's also why you'll see almost every game finish with one team scoring 2 goals or less.

Regarding the larger ice surface, teams will allow players to dispy-do and play puck possession around the parameter all they want. Every team in the league knows that the only scoring zone in the game today is 6 feet from the crease - hence the collapsing defenses.

Trust me, Olympic ice surfaces are not the answer. But don't take it from me, ask some of the Europeans playing in the NHL. During the lockout several of them were asked if this was the answer and players such as Zetterberg, Alfredsson, Satan, the Sedins and Ohlund all said that it wouldn't be good and it would result in even more boring defensive hockey.

Look at all the changes that have been made to increase scoring and what have coaches done with it? They've devised new and un-exciting ways to shut them down. The two-line pass was supposed to open things up but all it's done is back the defensmen up more. No hooking, holding or obstruction? No problem. All of the slow players were dumped from the league with new speedy players. The trap was moved from the nuetral zone to the defensive zone. It's all about holding your ground and causing the other team to make mistakes or take penalties on turnovers or through cycling.

And how many Ovechkin's are there in the league? Even if I admitted that your point could be valid how is this extra ice going to turn the 600 slugs in the NHL into scoring stars or even offensive playmakers? It's not. A coach is still going to look down his bench and see 2, maybe 3 good players, with the rest being plumbers and muckers. He's going to use that extra ice to keep the other team even further away from the crease.

Try telling all 30 owners that they have to remove about 40 seats, averaging $200 in price (around $325,000 US per year), to bring in bigger ice.

And I'm being generous with 40 seats and $200 as an average price. Certain teams charge a LOT more than $200 for seats along the ice.

To me, I'm very much against using European ice. The game already resembles the Swedish Elite League more than the NHL did 20 years ago.

It's interesting to see how any point I make can be so easily diffused, not just by you, but everyone. Yet, the idea that reducing the size of a goaltenders pads seems to be regarded as the only sure way to increase scoring. I could use the same arguments everyone else is.

If the goaltenders pads are reduced, coaches will find a way to manipulate it into a more defensive system. Any drastic reduction in pads would give a coach one more excuse to play a more defensive style.

Not to sound condescending, but one piece composite sticks did came first. Watch any highlight reel from the '96 SCF, you'll see Igor, Kozzie, and I think Draper using the Busch by Graff. If you then watch the '95 SCF's you'll see Igor using the same stick. On a sidenote, one thing you never saw was that stick breaking like today's composite sticks do. Makes you wonder why that stick was so much more durable.

Back to the ice surface, I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. But a few quick points not necessarilly direct at you.

The Olympic size ice is actually shorter than the NHL ice by about 2 feet. It is wider by about 13. Someone said that the ice surface is smaller by 75, not sure how you do your math, but you might want to re-think that one.

When was the last time you saw a NHL team in teh defensive zone standing still watching players skate around? That's right on the PK. Even strength it doesn't happen. You don't see forwards sticking to the dman up high, but it isn't like they are playing in the slot. With more ice to work with, the talented players will have more room to make plays. The NHL may have a 'diluted' talent pool in some opinions, but it's the most talented league in the world. Yes, that even includes the Euro Elite League.

The Wings puck possesion style has nothing to do with them blocking shots. After all, it's kind of hard to block a shot when you have the puck. Blocking shots is a result of their defensive system, which isn't the trap. The Wings aren't a boring team to watch. They don't sit back and wait for opportunities, they create them. No matter what style defense teams play against them, they find a way to make things happen. That is what Olympic ice would allow more teams to do.

EDIT: As far as Dryden's pants are concerned, yeah, they are smaller, but again, so were the skaters. If goaltenders equipment gets reduced in size, something should be done about the sticks used today. Limit the flex allowance, or more strict curve allowance.

Edited December 20, 2007 by imisssergei

[Hank 0]

If the goaltenders pads are reduced, coaches will find a way to manipulate it into a more defensive system. Any drastic reduction in pads would give a coach one more excuse to play a more defensive style.

It seriously can't get more defensive than it is now. And if a 2nd or 3rd line guy can fire in more pucks from further out, the only thing a team can do to defend that is to spread themselves out. That in itself would open the offensive zone up.

When was the last time you saw a NHL team in teh defensive zone standing still watching players skate around? That's right on the PK. Even strength it doesn't happen. You don't see forwards sticking to the dman up high, but it isn't like they are playing in the slot.

I really don't mean to sound condensending, but have you watched much hockey this year? This is EXACTLY what's going on during even strength situations. When the guys at TSN introduced these new lines they showed various clips of several teams playing a PK box+1 to defend in their zone. Nearly every single team does it now.

I was watching a bit of the Sabres-Islanders last night and that was basically how the whole game was played. Unless they scored off the initial rush, teams settled into a Box+1 defense - essentially a "zone defense".

That's why they want to introduce these new lines, to get away from this type of defense. If you force the wingers to remain high, it can't be done anymore.

I know you disagree, but making the tenders gear smaller is essential to saving the game. If more 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th line guys can score from further out, it will force teams to open up that 'box', which, in turn, would create more space. It might also stop coaches from letting teams have their blueline. If a team has a better chance of firing goals from various lengths and angles, they'll have to attack teams before they gain the zone. All of this means that the game will become more aggressive and offenses won't be stifled as easily.

Cheers.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Hank

[Hank 0]

On the heels over our Olympic sized rink debate:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...mp;lid=tab6pos1

From Norway with peace, John!

I've seen a few suggestions that the NHL should consider increasing the size of the rinks to the size used in the Olympics and Europe. My take on this: Never, never, never, ever do that! Please!

It will take away much of the intensity we love in hockey and the game will appear slower. There is a reason I love the NHL and don't care much for Norwegian hockey. It's not necessarily the skill level (well, OK, that too), but the intensity of your game! Bigger rinks will be a big mistake! I actually believe that European hockey eventually will switch to NHL-sized rinks.

Roy Kvatningen

Oslo, Norway

(PS: Check out the Norwegian bands, Midnight Choir and Minor Majority.)

We've been sticking to the "bigger is worse" mantra in this space. I don't think low scoring is a major issue, but I do think a couple more goals a game (within the context of an exciting contest) are needed. A slightly bigger net would accomplish this. I would also like to see the AHL go to four-on-four for half of a season to see what the result would be. Remember, long ago, hockey used to be seven-on-seven (counting the goalie). Then, it became six-on-six. It is time to at least contemplate four-on-four to open up more passing and shooting lanes.

[vangvace 12]

The Olympic size ice is actually shorter than the NHL ice by about 2 feet. It is wider by about 13. Someone said that the ice surface is smaller by 75, not sure how you do your math, but you might want to re-think that one.

When was the last time you saw a NHL team in teh defensive zone standing still watching players skate around? That's right on the PK. Even strength it doesn't happen. You don't see forwards sticking to the dman up high, but it isn't like they are playing in the slot. With more ice to work with, the talented players will have more room to make plays. The NHL may have a 'diluted' talent pool in some opinions, but it's the most talented league in the world. Yes, that even includes the Euro Elite League.

Actually, I said that the ice surface is smaller by 72.5 square feet from goal ine to blue line. That's because the goal line is farther away from the boards and the two blue lines are farther apart from one another. Don't believe me? Go over to wiki and do the math yourself. International ice size is bigger in the neutral zone and behind the goal line. I guess thermal blades and bringing Gretzky out of retirement and we'll be all set.

I have personally seen the following play box +1 for at least a period this season

Min

Anh

LA

NJ

Phi

Edm

Pho

Buf

TB

Fla

Col

BJs

Stl

Tor

Mon

NYI

NYR

Composite sticks snap in half. Wood splits along the shaft. That's why breaks are more noticable now thenback then. However, with that said, I am extremely annoyed with how often composites break and think that the league should look into fixing that as well.

In addition, I would have liked to see in the CBA that the players had to pay for thier sticks if they wanted composites.

[auxlepli 17]

I think most of the reason Buccigross says bigger nets are needed is so he'll receive more press. Is anybody here a proponent of bigger nets? That idea seems gimmicky to me. More gimmicky than any other idea I've seen proposed even the more lines one.

As far as bigger rinks. I use to be a proponent of them until Brett Hull said it'd make the game boring. Much like the guy from Norway says. I just wish Bettman and the BOG would leave well enough alone with the game. The game is not broke. It doesn't need to be fixed.