joesuffP 1,746 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 The more I think about it the more I don't really like the idea. Shoutout sucks but this is just as bad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 What was so glaringly wrong with 4-on-4? 3-on-3 makes it even more of an unrealistic gimmick. Apparently, too many shootouts. Which begs the question. If shootouts are considered a problem, why not remove them altogether? The league just seems undecided right now on what to do. It seems like they're hoping this system leads to less shootouts, even though after the lockout, the shootout was supposed to be the new big thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 The match ups are gonna be awesome though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rick zombo 3,739 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 Glad Babcock's gone. I don't think I could watch Miller-Glendenning-Ericsson for two and a half minutes of OT. 6 kylee, derblaueClaus, Izzy24 and 3 others reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 Thank god they're replacing the skills competitions with...a skills competition. Sooooo stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I'm gonna start a thread about the greatest hypothetical 3 on 3 line ever. Gretzky, Messier, Coffey? How about Beliveau, Richard, Harvey? Hey, this could be fun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hack & Whack Rule! 160 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 From Winging It in Motown: After consulting with each other, and our current roster situation, we have come up with some projected 3v3 line combinations: Pavel Datsyuk - Tomas Tatar - Niklas Kronwall Henrik Zetterberg - Gustav Nyquist - Niklas Kronwall Riley Sheahan - Tomas Jurco - Niklas Kronwall Darren Helm - Teemu Pulkkinen - Niklas Kronwall Fixed it for ya. bring back ties I laughed...I cried...you see, at first I thought you were joking, and then I thought you might be serious. I'm so confused. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Helmethead 235 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 Cleary-Andersson-Kindl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hack & Whack Rule! 160 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 Cleary-Andersson-Kindl I want to hire you, so that I can fire you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rick zombo 3,739 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 This 3-on-3 business should help pad some of the elite goal-scorers stats by at least 5 or so goals next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 And next year's Norris Trophy goes to...Erik Karlsson, who scored 1 zillion points for the first time in NHL history. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I think the big problem is that after they got rid of ties, you really can't go back to it. They really, really want to reduce the number of games going to a shootout. Extending 4 on 4 OT would have really helped, but extending game time really isn't an option (PA won't agree to that). It's not like baseball where you are in a particular city for a number of days in a row and going into extra innings isn't a big deal. So, going to 3 on 3 will reduce the number of games going into shootout. That's good I guess. I hate the idea of 3 on 3, but I must admit, I prefer that to a shootout. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 Well Darren Helm just became a more valuable player. A lot points are gonna be decided in 3 v 3 and it's gonna be all speedsters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barabbas16 499 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I don't know if I like this better. I liked the idea of 3 on 3 if it got rid of shootouts. I wasn't looking at it as a replacement for 4 on 4 OT. 4on4 > 3on3 > shootout How much it reduces the shootouts will be the determining factor for me, I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I guess the question the NHL needed to ask was, "does a 3 on 3 victory become any more legitimate than winning a shootout?" I answer that question in the negative. The NHL apparently doesn't think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cnot19 191 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I personally think the 3 on 3 is substantially more legitimate than the shootout. (This coming from a defenseman who has some offensive ability but is also a shutdown d man who would prefer to pass) I mean the 3v3 would have a pass made or defenseman who stops someone which is more "hockey" to me than a shootout Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joesuffP 1,746 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I would have it 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and 3 on 3 for 2 minutes then call it a draw 1 rick zombo reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PredsFanTheBayouState 263 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 3 on 3 OT is not that bad as everybody think it is,Our minor league down here uses it and i like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kickazz 5,459 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 3v3 would be advantageous for us seeing as though most of our production comes from smaller players that thrive off of space. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marcaractac 3,962 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 I guess the question the NHL needed to ask was, "does a 3 on 3 victory become any more legitimate than winning a shootout?" I answer that question in the negative. The NHL apparently doesn't think so. Of course it does. Even in 3 on 3 hockey, they actually still play hockey. And while rare, 3 on 3 does happen in game situations. In a perfect world, players would never tire and we would never have to worry about working early the next morning and have continuous ot all season long. Ties don't fix the problem unless we keep the loser point. If there is no loser point, OT would be played safe so both teams can keep their point. That's boring. Shootouts as a last resort is not going to go away. 3 on 3 OT is the best way to ever prevent it from getting there. 1 Hockeymom1960 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amato 3,210 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 Just put datsyuk on the ice and the other team doesn't touch the puck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 Maybe Datsyuk circa 2008. If you haven't noticed, he's looking pretty old these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kylee 727 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 Fixed it for ya. I laughed...I cried...you see, at first I thought you were joking, and then I thought you might be serious. I'm so confused. 4v4 5 minutes, then 3v3 5 minutes. After that I'd be fine with a tie. Granted, I can live with the current system if we got rid of the loser point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Izzy24 44 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Does anyone else think this is going to make Derek Meech a lot more valuable of an asset, since he can play wing and defense? I wonder if this is just what he needs to get back in the show. Edited June 25, 2015 by Izzy24 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hack & Whack Rule! 160 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 4v4 5 minutes, then 3v3 5 minutes. After that I'd be fine with a tie. Granted, I can live with the current system if we got rid of the loser point. What good is a tie, though? Two teams get a loser point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
