NHL/Tour de France

[mrusse01 0]

the current coaching philosophy of trying really hard not to lose.

I think that's not just a coaching philosophy...people in general hate to lose more than they like to win.

Last coach that I say played a true run and gun style was god love him, Pat Quinn.

[JJ Thompson94 0]

NHL should go to 26 teams realistic, two divisions in each conference. Top two teams from each division makes the playoffs, they take one round out of the playoffs, so the NHL doesnt run into mid June and with only 8 teams making the playoffs, the season means alot.

[chippa13 1844]

The league has become more specialized, roles are more defined.

The "good old days" of the 16 of 21 teams making the playoffs made the regular season practically meaningless.

Of course, I was kidding. But at least back then the playoffs were set up on your overall finish, I think. Can't remember exactly but........

They tinkered with a couple of different playoff ideas. There was the top 4 in each division which led to some great playoff series since teams were often meeting in the playoffs year after year. They also ran the playoffs with a straight 1-16 seeding that I don't think folks in the league cared for.

the current coaching philosophy of trying really hard not to lose.

I think that's not just a coaching philosophy...people in general hate to lose more than they like to win.

Last coach that I say played a true run and gun style was god love him, Pat Quinn.

Carolina seems to enjoy turning games into track meets.

[chippa13 1844]

The Russian super league is low scoring because Euros place a premium on puck possession. With the bigger ice sheet it is tougher to create turnovers so an offensive team will keep moving the puck looking for that one perfect shot.

If teams only played twice a week then the regular season and playoffs would take well over a year.

[adam14 182]

One of the things that bothers me most about professional sports which goes along with what Chadd was saying is the firing of coaches just because a team does bad, sometimes its not your coach it could just very well be your players.

but its a hell of a lot easier to replace one guy that can have impact, rather then 26. think of the team tho, like if there playing bad, they cant just replace an entire team, so they go for the cheapest route, replace the coach (or in torontos case, the gm) but this does spark the team in most cases, look at the caps, last night against TBL they showed the stats of the caps before boudreau went in and after and the numbers were incredible.

[1q3er5 1]

If you can't see a difference between pre-lockout hockey and post lockout hockey, you really shouldn't make comments like this:

most of whom have no idea what they’re talking about or can spot a talent.

Most coaches in the NHL are more afraid of losing than they are interested in winning. That's why you see such cautious play from teams most of the time. No matter what rule changes you want to make, you aren't going to change that mentality. The only thing that is going to change that way of thinking is another team like the 80s Oilers or early 90s Penguins who don't care how much you score as long as they get one more goal.

You can't compare todays game to the 80's or 90's, if their even was trapping it was no where near down to a science like it is today. Today's game is being smothered by defense. It is boring to watch 5 on 5.

NHL scoring is nowhere near what it was. Copious amouts of powerplays is what is keeping the scoring up.

With no offsides coaches/teams can keep their cautious mentality -it will do them NO good. Holes will be created no matter what. Defensive mistakes = more goals/scoring oppurtunites = more excitment. No need to make the nets bigger.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you mind as well replace the bluelines with speedbumps because thats what they are, they just slow the game down.

Look at that ridiculous trapezoid shape they have around the net! That awkward shape is there BECAUSE of offsides. No one would be dumping the puck in without offsides, and NO more boring cycling that leads for the most part to nothing. Cycling would exist without offsides but wouldn't be used as much as its required today.

Don't say it's the dumbest idea you heard either, you calling mike modano dumb, he came up with this idea years ago.

Traditionalists won't let it happen, its too radical and too simple. And that is a shame. I wish they tried this in pre-season or junior leagues to hush all the naysayers.

[Chadd 916]

If you can't see a difference between pre-lockout hockey and post lockout hockey, you really shouldn't make comments like this:

most of whom have no idea what they're talking about or can spot a talent.

Most coaches in the NHL are more afraid of losing than they are interested in winning. That's why you see such cautious play from teams most of the time. No matter what rule changes you want to make, you aren't going to change that mentality. The only thing that is going to change that way of thinking is another team like the 80s Oilers or early 90s Penguins who don't care how much you score as long as they get one more goal.

You can't compare todays game to the 80's or 90's, if their even was trapping it was no where near down to a science like it is today. Today's game is being smothered by defense. It is boring to watch 5 on 5.

NHL scoring is nowhere near what it was. Copious amouts of powerplays is what is keeping the scoring up.

With no offsides coaches/teams can keep their cautious mentality -it will do them NO good. Holes will be created no matter what. Defensive mistakes = more goals/scoring oppurtunites = more excitment. No need to make the nets bigger.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you mind as well replace the bluelines with speedbumps because thats what they are, they just slow the game down.

Look at that ridiculous trapezoid shape they have around the net! That awkward shape is there BECAUSE of offsides. No one would be dumping the puck in without offsides, and NO more boring cycling that leads for the most part to nothing. Cycling would exist without offsides but wouldn't be used as much as its required today.

Don't say it's the dumbest idea you heard either, you calling mike modano dumb, he came up with this idea years ago.

Traditionalists won't let it happen, its too radical and too simple. And that is a shame. I wish they tried this in pre-season or junior leagues to hush all the naysayers.

You have to realize that coaches care more about preventing the other team from scoring than they care about their own team scoring. Once you grasp that fact, you should start to realize that your brilliant plan isn't going to stop cycling or increase the speed of the game.

Mike's a nice guy but not what I would call a rocket surgeon.

It won't happen because it's a terrible idea, but go ahead and keep talking about how simple it would be to fix all of the ills of the game.

[troy 12]

You can't compare todays game to the 80's or 90's, if their even was trapping it was no where near down to a science like it is today. Today's game is being smothered by defense. It is boring to watch 5 on 5.

NHL scoring is nowhere near what it was. Copious amouts of powerplays is what is keeping the scoring up.

With no offsides coaches/teams can keep their cautious mentality -it will do them NO good. Holes will be created no matter what. Defensive mistakes = more goals/scoring oppurtunites = more excitment. No need to make the nets bigger.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you mind as well replace the bluelines with speedbumps because thats what they are, they just slow the game down.

Look at that ridiculous trapezoid shape they have around the net! That awkward shape is there BECAUSE of offsides. No one would be dumping the puck in without offsides, and NO more boring cycling that leads for the most part to nothing. Cycling would exist without offsides but wouldn't be used as much as its required today.

Don't say it's the dumbest idea you heard either, you calling mike modano dumb, he came up with this idea years ago.

Traditionalists won't let it happen, its too radical and too simple. And that is a shame. I wish they tried this in pre-season or junior leagues to hush all the naysayers.

As soon as you remove offsides and have forwards constantly parked in the offensive zone, that's where defenseman will reside as well. You'll create an almost lacrosse like system with the separation of attacking and defensive players within a team. No matter what rule changes are made coaches always seek to eliminate methods of scoring not enhance them. This point has been made numerous times, until that mentality changes then there can be no hope for a long-term, offensive-driven NHL.

[epstud74 24]

If you watch the NHL channel on DirecTV, you will notice that today's defensemen are faster and better skaters than ever before. The always has been talented players, but there seem to be more of them nowadays with the influx of Europeans and Americans to go with the Canadians. Defensemen today seem to be better schooled in fundamentals and taking away space for the forwards to operate in compared to in years past. That could have a lot to do with the tightness of the game today.

[1q3er5 1]

I'd love to see what coaches come up with for defensive strategies without the blue lines, my guess is not much, other than "once our team loses the puck : start heading back to our zone" which happens right now anyways.

You guys have this notion that forwards are going to be cherrypicking all the time. I you actually think about it, this will rarely happen. If a guy decides to cherrypick the whole game waiting at center ice for a pass when the other team has the puck in HIS zone he is making his team shorthanded. With luck a player could cause a turnover and fire a pass to the cherrypicker, but thats much harder when its 5 on 4 which what it essentially is if you have a cherrypicker waiting at center ice all the time.

The other team could play man to man defense to neutralize the cherrypicker.

If that was to occur you would have more room on the ice instead of being concentrated in one area of the ice because of the cherrypicker snooping around center ice all the time.

Possession will be much more important, no doubt. Due to the nature of hockey's puck and stick "mechanics", possession is much harder to maintain than say lacrosse where the ball is hiding in a fishing net all the time, or basketball where the slightest skin on skin contact is a foul.

Another GREAT benefit which I doubt any of you can dispute is fewer WHISTLES!

Bad for TV breaks - great for the flow of the game.

Give me a better reason than coaches will focus on defense, they already DO and the bluelines are just a tool for them.

[troy 12]

I'd love to see what coaches come up with for defensive strategies without the blue lines, my guess is not much, other than "once our team loses the puck : start heading back to our zone" which happens right now anyways.

You guys have this notion that forwards are going to be cherrypicking all the time. I you actually think about it, this will rarely happen. If a guy decides to cherrypick the whole game waiting at center ice for a pass when the other team has the puck in HIS zone he is making his team shorthanded. With luck a player could cause a turnover and fire a pass to the cherrypicker, but thats much harder when its 5 on 4 which what it essentially is if you have a cherrypicker waiting at center ice all the time.

The other team could play man to man defense to neutralize the cherrypicker.

If that was to occur you would have more room on the ice instead of being concentrated in one area of the ice because of the cherrypicker snooping around center ice all the time.

Possession will be much more important, no doubt. Due to the nature of hockey's puck and stick "mechanics", possession is much harder to maintain than say lacrosse where the ball is hiding in a fishing net all the time, or basketball where the slightest skin on skin contact is a foul.

Another GREAT benefit which I doubt any of you can dispute is fewer WHISTLES!

Bad for TV breaks - great for the flow of the game.

Give me a better reason than coaches will focus on defense, they already DO and the bluelines are just a tool for them.

And those TV breaks are what help make the NFL as huge as it is. So do you want what you consider a "better" NHL, or a more popular NHL?

[#96 0]

The only way to open up the game is to get rid of the offside rule and get rid of the blue lines as well - think of roller hockey, I think they only use the red line.

Most of the fast break outs are developed between the blue lines, so we must get rid of them, this way the D can't line up anymore, plus even if they do force you to dump it in, this is where the no offside rule comes in so you can send a guy ahead of the puck.

No offense but that's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard. Inline hockey games are often painfully slow to watch, even at the elite levels. Not to mention the red and blue lines create areas of interest. You lose all of the times when players battle to keep a puck in at the blue line or get to the red line so a dump in is legal and replace it with more passive play. Getting rid of the blue lines is just going to result in defensemen backing off even more and rarely giving up breakaways. As for the benefit of having a guy cherry pick to get what would have been an icing, that isn't going to improve the game in any way shape or form.

As to the original post:

I actually think it was worse before the lockout, than it is now. I see more guys slashing to the net and give and go type plays than in the late 90s, early 00s. The Flyers used to excel in the cycle for 30 seconds and then get one shot or turn it over.

You do see some players now "posting up" to use a basketball term. Just throwing their ass out and holding the puck away from the defender. I have no problem when I see some creative guys doing it because you can often see them trying to set up a play. When you have fourth liners and goons doing it, it just sucks the life out of a shift.

I gotta go with Chadd on this. As someone who almost exclusively played roller the last 10 years, it's a game of individual skill, not team skill. Having all that open space only creates that individuality and the team game is just about lost until you get within a few feet of the net.

In roller there are maybe 1 or 2 passes before an amazing scoring opportunity occurs, and I feel it takes a lot away from the overall game.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

or owners who have no ego and don't care about profits.

That'll never happen hahahaha

[1q3er5 1]

I'd love to see what coaches come up with for defensive strategies without the blue lines, my guess is not much, other than "once our team loses the puck : start heading back to our zone" which happens right now anyways.

You guys have this notion that forwards are going to be cherrypicking all the time. I you actually think about it, this will rarely happen. If a guy decides to cherrypick the whole game waiting at center ice for a pass when the other team has the puck in HIS zone he is making his team shorthanded. With luck a player could cause a turnover and fire a pass to the cherrypicker, but thats much harder when its 5 on 4 which what it essentially is if you have a cherrypicker waiting at center ice all the time.

The other team could play man to man defense to neutralize the cherrypicker.

If that was to occur you would have more room on the ice instead of being concentrated in one area of the ice because of the cherrypicker snooping around center ice all the time.

Possession will be much more important, no doubt. Due to the nature of hockey's puck and stick "mechanics", possession is much harder to maintain than say lacrosse where the ball is hiding in a fishing net all the time, or basketball where the slightest skin on skin contact is a foul.

Another GREAT benefit which I doubt any of you can dispute is fewer WHISTLES!

Bad for TV breaks - great for the flow of the game.

Give me a better reason than coaches will focus on defense, they already DO and the bluelines are just a tool for them.

And those TV breaks are what help make the NFL as huge as it is. So do you want what you consider a "better" NHL, or a more popular NHL?

I just want to see more entertaining hockey. I believe it starts with the product. Im sure they could figure out ways to have TV timeouts.

[troy 12]

I agree with you entirely on a higher quality product. But it seems like whatever changes the league makes to the game, regardless of how misguided, seem aimed at increasing its viability in the mainstream market. My question was more rhetorically phrased.