Why do you think the scoring is down in the NHL?

Why do you think the scoring is down in the NHL compared to how it was back in the 1980s and early 1990s?.........Comments, suggestions, and/OR Opinions..........Let's hear what you have to say about the downturn in NHL scoring.

Bigger goalies and equiptment, Traps, Players suck now!

Goalie equipment

Larger players, ineffectively enforced rules, better systems.

There are many factors. One that I think is overlooked is that the goaltending has improved, despite the equipment. You now have many goaltenders going into the butterfly style Roy has popularized. You now have guys who can play well with unorthodox styles like Hasek and Chechmanek. You now have goaltending talents so great that they could go #1 in a draft. You now see most teams (if not all teams) with a goaltending coach (I think this is new at least). Part of the reason scoring is down because the guys who stop the pucks have improved as a whole.

Too many teams. There just aren't enough talented hockey players in the world to fill up 30 NHL rosters. Thus, there are too many AHL calibur players in NHL lineups and the game suffers because of the lack of talent. Contraction would be the only sure fire way to make sure only the most talented hockey players are playing in the NHL.

i've got a controversial view...

convential wisdom seems to be that the talent pool in the NHL is thinner than it was 20 years ago. i disagree. back then there were 20-23 teams, now 30. but the number of north american players is very close to the same. i don't have the numbers in front of me but i remember seeing them and it was close.

what this means is of course more european players. i don't see how the talent is much thinner now as a result of more teams.

here's the kicker: i think that scoring is down BECAUSE of a higher amount of talent in the league now. no more pylons making $50,000. this is why many casual hockey fans like CHL - there are four or five standouts who skate circles around everyone else, and a bunch of guys who won't make the NHL. this creates more scoring, more exciting hockey.

of course more complex systems, goalie equipment, coaching/drafting tendencies, economics, all play a part but i really see teams full of players that just don't make the mistakes made 20 years ago.

to test my theory i'm maybe going to watch an old game, and not like 87 cup finals game 7, i mean an old NHL regular season game between colorado and hartford or something. maybe i'll prove myself wrong, seems like if this is the main reason then it's kind of hopeless.

I think the Goaltending has improved yes but so too has everybody else and that is why I think the scoring is down.........some of you out there might be thinking to yourself; "Wait a second...if the forwards are better too like the Goalies are then shouldn't the scoring also be up?"........Not necessarily so........just to give you an analogy (a rough one anyways).....I'm 35 years old and if I go play street hockey with a bunch of 10-year olds I will be able to score alot of goals on those kids because I am a much more talented player then what these kids are.........HOWEVER, as soon as I start to play with guys my age who are just as talented if not more, then my scoring will start to go down..........I think this is what's happened to the NHL.........everybody seems to think that the talent level is depleted when it actually is the other way around..........

I noticed the NHL scoring start to go down when alot more of the talented Euro players entered the NHL in the late 80's and early '90s..........this raised up the overall talent level in the ENTIRE League and because there are many more great players today then there ever was before, all of these great players have been able to neutralize each other.........that's my theory anyways.

A high average skill level among the players, thanks largely to European expansion, combined with league-wide parity, has helped the NHL return to a more historically average level of scoring.

Other Dave

i've got a controversial view...

convential wisdom seems to be that the talent pool in the NHL is thinner than it was 20 years ago. i disagree. back then there were 20-23 teams, now 30. but the number of north american players is very close to the same. i don't have the numbers in front of me but i remember seeing them and it was close.

what this means is of course more european players. i don't see how the talent is much thinner now as a result of more teams.

here's the kicker: i think that scoring is down BECAUSE of a higher amount of talent in the league now.

:bow:

I was about to same something similar, but you beat me to the punch.

I know it's difficult to swallow, but scoring is down because talent is better -- not worse.

Teams today would mop the ice up with the free-wheeling players of the 80's. Players today are bigger, stronger, faster, have quicker reflexes, play smarter defense, etc. Of course, goaltenders are much better too.

It is not uncommon for aging, NHL veterans to be asked to compare the NHL of today with the NHL of their early careers. Without fail, each and every one of these interviews ends in an admission that: today's players are significantly more talented than the players of yesterday.

A high average skill level among the players, thanks largely to European expansion, combined with league-wide parity, has helped the NHL return to a more historically average level of scoring.

Other Dave
So then what's the answer?..........Some more expansion?........after all when Gretzky was scoring in those 200+ point seasons that was right around the time when the League added some more teams.......the WHA folded and the NHL accepted 4-teams from that League.......the Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets and the Edmonton Oilers.

So then what's the answer?..........Some more expansion?........after all when Gretzky was scoring in those 200+ point seasons that was right around the time when the League added some more teams.......the WHA folded and the NHL accepted 4-teams from that League.......the Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets and the Edmonton Oilers.

umm... no. I think few and far between think that.

But, first, you have to get people to admit there's a problem. I, frankly, don't think scoring in the NHL is that bad. I would prefer to make reasonable changes to improve scoring (i.e., limiting ridiculous pads).

But, quite honestly, I think that today's scoring pretty much reflects how things should play out naturally. I like today's brand of hockey just fine.

umm... no. I think few and far between think that.

But, first, you have to get people to admit there's a problem. I, frankly, don't think scoring in the NHL is that bad. I would prefer to make reasonable changes to improve scoring (i.e., limiting ridiculous pads).

But, quite honestly, I think that today's scoring pretty much reflects how things should play out naturally. I like today's brand of hockey just fine.

Well there is talk of the New WHA starting up and if they do go ahead with that Hockey League and steal some of the better talent from the NHL then THAT might be the thing that helps raise the overall scoring in the NHL...........I think.

So then what's the answer?..........Some more expansion?........after all when Gretzky was scoring in those 200+ point seasons that was right around the time when the League added some more teams.......the WHA folded and the NHL accepted 4-teams from that League.......the Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets and the Edmonton Oilers.

there's a solution? the eighties were an aberration brought on by external factors.

just something i heard, the last 100+ years of baseball has produced five-year (i think...) cycles, batting and pitching as it relates to drafting etc. hockey may also be subject to that type of equalization.

personally the best short-term would be a better enforcing of obstruction rules, plus of course goalies not permitted to wear equipment that makes their bodies wider than normal.

expansion also creates more fans, more kids growing up watching hockey, but it will have a short-term effect.

Well there is talk of the New WHA starting up and if they do go ahead with that Hockey League and steal some of the better talent from the NHL then THAT might be the thing that helps raise the overall scoring in the NHL...........I think.

Do you really believe that, though?

I mean you don't have to have a business degree to know why all the best talent in the world goes to the NHL.

If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet much money the WHA is going to draw many players away from the NHL.

Also, defence is mostly learned while offensive touch is something you're born with for the most part.

Do you really believe that, though?

I mean you don't have to have a business degree to know why all the best talent in the world goes to the NHL.

If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet much money the WHA is going to draw many players away from the NHL.
You got no arguement from me on that point buddy........WHA doesn't stand a chance.........I don't even think they'll last half as long as they did the first time around.........What was it back then?.......7-years?

I think the reason players production going down is that team Defence is taking the tool. Everyone is now playing a very strategic Zone/Trap defence which, not only slows attackers down, but, most possibly, isolate the forwards. Also, I think that the Centerman play the 3rd man back strategy.

Why do you think the scoring is down in the NHL compared to how it was back in the 1980s and early 1990s?.........Comments, suggestions, and/OR Opinions..........Let's hear what you have to say about the downturn in NHL scoring.

I attribute 80% of it on netminding.

You know, I have never really understood this discussion because, in my mind at least (small as it might be ;) ), there's really only one factor that's changed dramatically in the last 20 years or so.

Go back and watch a game from the 80's or before and you note that no one hooked, no one held, no one angled a player without the puck into the boards... Basically, the rules were enforced.

Now you have no speed through the neutral zone because players are allowed to do whatever they can to slow others down.

Certainly, there are different reasons for this (expansion, better systems, stronger players, better goalies with better padding), but what it boils down to is this: players with less talent even up the score by clutching, grabbing, hooking, and holding those with more talent and the refs let them do it.

How many points do you think Gretz would have managed if he'd been held and hooked while trying to make a pass. If you have doubts, go back and watch him play - he was barely touched. Take a player from today - Jagr. How many points do you think he'd get if no one was allowed to touch him other than a good and proper bodycheck? Now, just for fun, compare Gretz and Jagr. The latter is stronger and faster by far. Sure, he didn't see the ice as well as Gretz, but there's no denying that Jagr is a world-class talent. So how come he can barely crack the hundred point barrier when a weaker and slower player cracked two hundred?

Sometime in the late 80's and early 90's when all theses new players were brought in to play with all these new teams and they might not have had the talent to keep up, these new teams decided to implement systems which called for players to grab opponents to neutralize advantages. The league, in all it's wisdom, let it go hoping that the new teams would manage not to be blown out, and would continue to increase the fan base of the NHL.

Unfortunately, it got out of hand, and no one's been able to reign it back in. Penalties are not called.

Sure, you can point to the goalies and their huge equipment and say they cover a lot more of the net and they have far more talent than ever before. Agreed. But do you think they'd be able to rocket back and forth across the crease when two high-flying forwards zoomed in and tic-tac-toed the puck until it tickled the twine? While the goalies are better, so is the talent up front.

Guy Lafleur could zoom down the right side on Montreal making everyone look like a fool. Today, he'd get to his opposing winger and wouldn't get any further because he'd be held or hooked.

Call the rules as they should be and watch the game get better and better. Scoring will go up, as will fan support.

Of course, the goalies won't let it go up nearly as much as some might hope. :) Kudos to them.

A concerned fan.

You know, I have never really understood this discussion because, in my mind at least (small as it might be ;) ), there's really only one factor that's changed dramatically in the last 20 years or so.

Go back and watch a game from the 80's or before and you note that no one hooked, no one held, no one angled a player without the puck into the boards... Basically, the rules were enforced.

Now you have no speed through the neutral zone because players are allowed to do whatever they can to slow others down.

Certainly, there are different reasons for this (expansion, better systems, stronger players, better goalies with better padding), but what it boils down to is this: players with less talent even up the score by clutching, grabbing, hooking, and holding those with more talent and the refs let them do it.

How many points do you think Gretz would have managed if he'd been held and hooked while trying to make a pass. If you have doubts, go back and watch him play - he was barely touched. Take a player from today - Jagr. How many points do you think he'd get if no one was allowed to touch him other than a good and proper bodycheck? Now, just for fun, compare Gretz and Jagr. The latter is stronger and faster by far. Sure, he didn't see the ice as well as Gretz, but there's no denying that Jagr is a world-class talent. So how come he can barely crack the hundred point barrier when a weaker and slower player cracked two hundred?

Sometime in the late 80's and early 90's when all theses new players were brought in to play with all these new teams and they might not have had the talent to keep up, these new teams decided to implement systems which called for players to grab opponents to neutralize advantages. The league, in all it's wisdom, let it go hoping that the new teams would manage not to be blown out, and would continue to increase the fan base of the NHL.

Unfortunately, it got out of hand, and no one's been able to reign it back in. Penalties are not called.

Sure, you can point to the goalies and their huge equipment and say they cover a lot more of the net and they have far more talent than ever before. Agreed. But do you think they'd be able to rocket back and forth across the crease when two high-flying forwards zoomed in and tic-tac-toed the puck until it tickled the twine? While the goalies are better, so is the talent up front.

Guy Lafleur could zoom down the right side on Montreal making everyone look like a fool. Today, he'd get to his opposing winger and wouldn't get any further because he'd be held or hooked.

Call the rules as they should be and watch the game get better and better. Scoring will go up, as will fan support.

Of course, the goalies won't let it go up nearly as much as some might hope. :) Kudos to them.

A concerned fan.

Ya that's another point as well.........I was at the Hockey Hall-of-Fame the other day (just up the road from me in Toronto) and was looking at some of those Gretzky hi-lights on film and not trying to take anything away from Gretz here but ya you're right, nobody hooked or grabbed the guy like we see happening all the time today with our Top hockey stars.

Bigger players, same ice surface.

And expansion teams have had to resort to the neutral zone trap or some other neutral zone clogging system.

But I also sencerly believe that the players today are better than the average NHLer in 1980. In those days marginal players had jobs during summer. Now, with increased salaries, the players can focus on staying fit.

I don´t mind the scoring not running up - I like the style of play we see now. Skill still pays off and now,with Gretzky and Lemieux gone and far removed from his prime respectively, we have to realize that only the true superstars can accumulate 100+ Pts. seasons. And I don´t mind that at all.

Face it: the NHL kicks ass!

Better goalkeepers, players that are bigger and faster than ever and at the same time much more sound tactically meaning that the amount of good scoring opportunities have gone down. Talent being spread among 30 teams, meaning more and more teams have to play team defense to be competitive (and with teams like the Ducks and Wild having playoff success you will see more and more teams adopting a more defensive system).

Why do you think the scoring is down in the NHL compared to how it was back in the 1980s and early 1990s?

Well, it's down right now because the real season hasn't even started. ;)

All of the below, IMO:

- Bigger bodies, better skaters (overall) on the same size ice surface as before. (Not to mention more officials taking up space as well!)

- The fact that the aforementioned big bodies and better skaters do not necessarily equate to better (more skilled) hockey players.

- Trapping systems. They are designed to clog up the neutral zone, effectively minimizing scoring opportunities off the rush. They obviously work very well.

- Goalies' padding, especially chest protectors. (Call it "The Michelin Man" Syndrome).

so here's my question:

if the ice surface size is a problem, what happens when it's bigger?

teams play a one-man-in, four-men-back system. watch euro hockey. ugly stuff. reminds a lot of soccer. more wide open space makes coaches more cautious.

This has already been mentioned, but proper enforcement of the rules is such a no brainer it bears repeating. Seriously, the NHL is shooting itself in the foot and ruining their own product with the shoddy officiating.

Number one thing they could do to improve the game: have an eye in the sky referee who can make calls the guys on the ice miss. Being on the ice, you see things in great detail, but you miss an awful lot. So have someone in the press box who can watch from above and can watch the replays. It would be absurdly easy to mic the guys on the ice so they could communicate (without having to use that silly 70's phone on the side). The refs would complain of course, but at least the games would be properly called for a change. Scoring would go up, and Hockey would be exciting to watch once again.

Either that, or allow players to reach back and deck whoever it is hooking them or holding their stick.

From an overall standpoint, the talent pool isnt thinner now. Remember, back in the high scoring 80's, we had no talented eastern bloc players skating around.

Although there are too many teams, which robs offenses of greater depth, the greatest problems remain playing style and a too small ice surface.


In 1979-80, the average NHL player was 5' 11" and 185 pounds.

In todays NHL, the average is around 6' 1" and 205 lbs.

Remember how great the last Olympics were? Give the skill players room and watch the game improve.

Remember how great the last Olympics were? Give the skill players room and watch the game improve.

In my opinion the main reason the Olympics were great was because of the concentration of talent. Put the NHL's 30 teams on that ice and the tacticians like Lemaire and Burns will have a field day. It will make positioning, defence, following a system way more important.

I think that scoring isn't so much as down now, but was ridiculously inflated in the 80's, and the beginning of the '90's. I think that time-period was the aberration, and that things are just returning to normal, now.

I think better goaltending, team's commitments to defense and some interesting officiating are all contributing factors, as well.

In my opinion the main reason the Olympics were great was because of the concentration of talent. Put the NHL's 30 teams on that ice and the tacticians like Lemaire and Burns will have a field day. It will make positioning, defence, following a system way more important.


You are quite correct in asserting that positioning is vital.

I do believe, however, that the rink dimensions greatly enable the trap and much clutch and grab play.

Its hard to trap what you cant catch. A broader surface would negate the AHL level cloggers that fill out most teams rosters.

Why do you think the scoring is down in the NHL compared to how it was back in the 1980s and early 1990s?.........Comments, suggestions, and/OR Opinions..........Let's hear what you have to say about the downturn in NHL scoring.


#1. Far and away the biggest reason is the quality of goaltending. Goalies of today have improved much more than the skaters in the league over the past 20 years.

#2. Coaching, systems designed to play great defense that can keep you in every game.

#2. European invasion, league now has much more depth than it did before. Even in the 21 team league there were always 4-5 teams that were just brutal, that you could rack up some big scoring nights. Also even the good teams had 4th line guys and 5th & 6th defenseman that were poor players that could be abused by the star players from other teams.

You are quite correct in asserting that positioning is vital.

I do believe, however, that the rink dimensions greatly enable the trap and much clutch and grab play.

Its hard to trap what you cant catch. A broader surface would negate the AHL level cloggers that fill out most teams rosters.

I'd like to say, I hope you are correct. That would make the situation relatively easy to fix. Personally I think the clutching and grabbing hit a climax in the mid-90s and was largely a reactionary measure by brand new teams with no talent base yet (florida...) that were sick of getting pasted nightly by teams that had nick polano-style connections and deep rosters. san jose really did a number on calgary and detroit, for example, in the playoffs as a dark horse, beating severely superior teams in terms of talent. especially detroit. man was that outrageous!

if it's as simple as widening the ice, then i say at least spend a few bucks to have it tried out in ahl exhibition in olympic rinks in north america or something - are there enough rinks for a few games to test the theory? this would let the ahl coaching, which is at or near nhl-level in my opinion, get used to it and exploit it one way or the other.

i think a 100-game tryout would tell us what the possibilities are, some teams like last year's bulldogs and aeros could take on an nhl club in my opinion and at least compete.

I agree with much of what is being said but the thing that troubles me. If all this is true is why is a guy like Mario still kicking ass (if you go by pts/gm). He's older slower and you have younger faster more skilled players.

Granted Mario or Gretzky were never your run of the mill players to put it lightly but if everyone is so much more skilled today theortically you should still be cranking out a few Mario class players still.

Here's my stab at why nobody's seeing the next great player come along. It's easier to teach defense than offense and successful coachs being control freaks by defenition want to control what's happening on the ice. Don Cherry wasn't a great coach, he was a great coach for Bobby Orr. He's pretty much said "I put him out on the ice and just watched him go".

The old story that you can't learn offense is BS. It's just that you can't teach it very easily. Player's need time to develope their offensive game and figure out what works and what dosn't work for them instead of being taught how anyone can play well (read defense or systems hockey).

In my opinion Paul Coffey, Mark Messier were no better than say Scott Neidermayer and Claude Lemieux(if he dropped the gloves). The biggest difference was that they were give the oppurtunity to play with Gretzky and learned how to make things happen on the ice and take chances.

This is why you still see the best Canadian players coming from small cities and not big cities like Toronto that have very serious well coached leagues with strict training regiments at very young ages.

As to which system of hockey I think is better ask the 91 Minnesota Norther Stars or the 96 Florida Panthers.

You know, I have never really understood this discussion because, in my mind at least (small as it might be ;) ), there's really only one factor that's changed dramatically in the last 20 years or so.

Go back and watch a game from the 80's or before and you note that no one hooked, no one held, no one angled a player without the puck into the boards... Basically, the rules were enforced.

I'm not disagree with you on the interference issue, but I still think that way, way underestimating the change in goaltending.

If you have a chance, compare Patrick Roy in 86 to 2003. He literally took up HALF (an exaggaration) as much space in the nets. It's insane how much "bigger" goaltenders have become. I also think that goaltenders have improved the most over the last 15 years. Watch a game from the 80's, and it seemed that literally HALF the goals wouldn't likely be goals now. Shots that are incredibly low percentage shots now routinely went in back then.

I also remember Gretzky saying that back in the high scoring days that every team had at least 2 defenseman that couldn't really skate at the NHL level.

so here's my question:

if the ice surface size is a problem, what happens when it's bigger?

teams play a one-man-in, four-men-back system. watch euro hockey. ugly stuff. reminds a lot of soccer. more wide open space makes coaches more cautious.

Conversely, a larger ice surface will give skill players more room to operate and gain more speed through the neutral zone. All I know is, the ice surface size looked perfect for NHL players at the last Olympics.

I agree with much of what is being said but the thing that troubles me. If all this is true is why is a guy like Mario still kicking ass (if you go by pts/gm). He's older slower and you have younger faster more skilled players.

Granted Mario or Gretzky were never your run of the mill players to put it lightly but if everyone is so much more skilled today theortically you should still be cranking out a few Mario class players still.

Fair question, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The point is, Mario and #99 (and Howe, Orr and Richard) are almost universally mentioned when discussion of the GREATEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME is raised. So, the idea that you should still be "cranking out" a few of their kind is not realistic, IMO. (As you yourself acknowledged, not your "run of the mill" players.)

There are many incredible talents in today's game, and there will come along, at some point, another player truly worthy of mention with that company. However, the guys mentioned above are immortals in the sport, the kind that come along once a generation. Which answers your original question about why #66 still excels.

Emerson once said that "to be great is to be misunderstood." Such is the case when a guy in his late 30s steps on the ice after a three-year hiatus and is still dominant. Defies common logic.

This is why you still see the best Canadian players coming from small cities and not big cities like Toronto that have very serious well coached leagues with strict training regiments at very young ages.



Interesting theory.... but I disagree.

Talent is talent, and it makes no difference where you're from. Guys like Gretzky(Brantford) and Lemieux(Montreal) grew up in large cities, or on the door step of one. The reality is, however, they became the players they are/were not because of where they lived or where they didn't live. The best players become great players because they're the ones who had the drive, will and desire to practice everyday, on their own, for hours on end without having been told to by a pushy parent or coach. As a coach I can tell you it's easy to spot who will become a good player because of their work habits. And the kids who practice on their own are the ones who advance the furthest. Gretzky once was quoted as saying that he always gets parents coming up to him and asking him to tell their kid to practice more. He says he refuses to do it because the kid has to want it on his own, not be forced by a parent whose lofty dreams of reaching the NHL never panned out.

These are the kids that go the furthest, but these kids do eventually move to the bigger cities to get the development they need to move to the higher levels. At a certain age kids do need to play at the highest level possible.

I do see what you're saying about making things too regimented for young players in the bigger cities. There's no question that too much coaching can become detrimental to development.

The point is, Mario and #99 (and Howe, Orr and Richard) are almost universally mentioned when discussion of the GREATEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME is raised. So, the idea that you should still be "cranking out" a few of their kind is not realistic, IMO. (As you yourself acknowledged, not your "run of the mill" players.)


If you look at how often the Mario's, Gretzky's, Orr's, Richard's, Howe's come along it's about one every decade or so. Since Mario burst on into the league nearly 20 yr's ago I'd say the question of where's the next great player is not unreasonable.

I'm not of the opinion that all players in the league suck, but asking why a 35+ year old dominates the league in pts/gm is a legit question.

Interesting theory.... but I disagree.

Talent is talent, and it makes no difference where you're from. Guys like Gretzky(Brantford) and Lemieux(Montreal) grew up in large cities, or on the door step of one.

This was over twenty years ago I'm not old enough to say that I know for a fact but the quality for lack of a better word of coaching in lower levels has dramatically increased over the years.


The reality is, however, they became the players they are/were not because of where they lived or where they didn't live. The best players become great players because they're the ones who had the drive, will and desire to practice everyday, on their own, for hours on end without having been told to by a pushy parent or coach. As a coach I can tell you it's easy to spot who will become a good player because of their work habits. And the kids who practice on their own are the ones who advance the furthest. Gretzky once was quoted as saying that he always gets parents coming up to him and asking him to tell their kid to practice more. He says he refuses to do it because the kid has to want it on his own, not be forced by a parent whose lofty dreams of reaching the NHL never panned out.

I would agree with this but draw a different conclusion. It's the kids that develope on their own that succeed. You don't see many kids out on a rink alone praticing systems it's the kids that pratice the stickhandling shooting puckhandling and making the passes that their coaches would bench them for trying, and I'll grant you it's easier to do this in smaller cities where their's more outdoor rinks per capita. While coach's teach young players many important skills they also teach you to stay in your position and make the easy safe play.


These are the kids that go the furthest, but these kids do eventually move to the bigger cities to get the development they need to move to the higher levels. At a certain age kids do need to play at the highest level possible.

I 100% agree that players should stay at a level that chalenges but I would also say that you don't bump a kid up to the next level while he is still developing at a lower level. This is a hard thing to tell who knows for sure if a kid playing at a lower level could say double his point production, but if he could I'd say that his long term development would be much better off than putting him in the next level up (plus he'd have alot more fun and likely pratice more and have more confidence moving up to the next level the year after).


I do see what you're saying about making things too regimented for young players in the bigger cities. There's no question that too much coaching can become detrimental to development.

Alot of this is based on my own experiences (just for the record I sucked as a hockey player) with hockey and chapter in a book about the Oilers (Glory Barons). A chapter goes on about this incredibly skilled player who was a Leaf's prospect back in 40's or something. He'd rip it up in the AHL they'd call him up and he'd score a ton. They'd start telling him to skate up and down his wing and his scoring would dry up and he'd get sent back down. He'd play how he wanted in the AHL again and rip it up. The guy in the book compares him to Gretzky during the entire chapter and asks the question what would have happened if Gretzky ran into coaches like that his entire career.

If you ask me who the next great player is I'd have half a mind to say it was Paul Kariya and it's a shame that they didn't build a team around him and really let him play his game. Outside of him I don't think I've seen anyone that comes close to measuring up yet.

Does anyone remember that dozen plus or so games last year to start the season where the refs were calling penalties? The Penguins were the toast of town, moving the puck all over the ice and creating scoring opportunities. Then the league pulled the rug out from under the refs and it all went back. I think it's pretty easy to see that the officiating is a major cause of the game being slowed down.

Does anyone remember that dozen plus or so games last year to start the season where the refs were calling penalties? The Penguins were the toast of town, moving the puck all over the ice and creating scoring opportunities. Then the league pulled the rug out from under the refs and it all went back. I think it's pretty easy to see that the officiating is a major cause of the game being slowed down.

i agree somewhat, the officiating (or lack thereof) is a major factor in the dearth of offense.

i can't bring myself to 'blame' the coaches for calling for it, they are just trying to win. and when you're playing lemieux (especially this season), you hang players from his jersey like drapes if you think you can get away with it.

he'll still average over 1 ppg, though...

I don't understand how # of the goals makes game interesting...

I've seen alot of 2-1 , 3-2 or even 1-0 games that were more exciting and interesting than stupid 7-6 or 12-2 games we've seen last year!
For me everything counts good G, D and O. In fact I prefer close games.