Teams that would benefit from bigger ice surface

I got the idea for this thread from the The Press Box board's "Commissioner for a day" - thread.

If teams were allowed to have a larger rink,

a. which teams would benefit from it with their current roster?

b. which teams would be in trouble with their current roster?

Optional question, should some teams have a larger rink ASAP?

I got the idea for this thread from the The Press Box board's "Commissioner for a day" - thread.

If teams were allowed to have a larger rink,

a. which teams would benefit from it with their current roster?

b. which teams would be in trouble with their current roster?

Optional question, should some teams have a larger rink ASAP?

a) New Jersey, Islanders, Pittsburg, Ottawa, Montreal, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida, St. Louis, Chicago, Columbus, Colorado, Vancouver, Minnesota, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Dallas, San Jose, LA

b) Rangers, Flyers, Toronto

I think New Jersey would have more trouble.
Teams who would be benefitting are fast teams : Edmonton, Pittsburgh...

a) New Jersey, Islanders, Pittsburg, Ottawa, Montreal, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida, St. Louis, Chicago, Columbus, Colorado, Vancouver, Minnesota, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Dallas, San Jose, LA

b) Rangers, Flyers, Toronto


Flyers are far from a slow hockey team.

Gagne, Williams, Amonte, Roenick, Recchi, Johnsson, Pitkanen, Lapointe, Primeau, Brashear, Kapanen are all very good skaters.

The only player we have that is really below average in terms of speed is Handzus.

Handzus has decent speed.

But...

a) Florida, Pittsburg, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Colorado, Anaheim

b) Philly (because the hit so much and non-agressive teams fair slightly better on big surfaces), Toronto, St Louis, New Jersey, Minnesota, Chicago

NJ would have no problem with a larger ice surface. We have plenty of speed. I don't think Philly would have a problem either. The Rangers would be in trouble with defensemen like Dale Purinton and Darius Kasperminus, but their offense would flourish.

I cant speak for all teams, but the islanders would most definitely benefit...This season I feel the Isles are icing one of the faster teams in the league....Blake...Papineau....Bergenheim(supposedl y fastest skater taken in that draft)...Weinhandl....Plus our D is very mobile.....But we also have a lot of grinders who would be rendered quite usless on a large ice surface I.E: Cairns, Wiemer, Asham

Oh God, an Olympic size surface in Denver would be *sick* with our top two lines. Let them skate all day.

I think New Jersey would do much better with a bigger ice surface. Niedermayer is one of the top ten fastest players in the league IMO. Gomez, Friesen, Langenbrunner, Elias, Rafalski, and Gionta aren't exactly what I'd call slow either. Plus NJ is going through a youth movement trying to bring in players like Hale, Suglobov and Martin. I'd be all for this if the NHL could do it although I know that this would never happen.

If teams were allowed to have a larger rink,

a. which teams would benefit from it with their current roster?

teams with low skill level defensemen and teams that lack playmaking and creativity. teams that are small and/or soft, and shy away from physical play.

b. which teams would be in trouble with their current roster?

teams that invested in proper defense and talent level. teams that rely on physical play.

Optional question, should some teams have a larger rink ASAP?

not unless you want to decrease the entertainment level, goal scoring, and hitting in the NHL.

Colorado, Vancouver, and Edmonton would all benefit more so than most I think. Pittsburgh could also reap big benefits, but only if their young guys could prove they have a scoring touch and not just wheels. Koltsov, Straka and Fata in particular would benefit.

The only teams that would have a real problem with it IMO are the ones already mentioned: Chicago, NYR, Toronto... maybe St. Louis.

I don't think Philly or NJ would be greatly affected one way or another. They could juggle their lineups to make it work on both ends of the ice.

teams with low skill level defensemen and teams that lack playmaking and creativity. teams that are small and/or soft, and shy away from physical play.



teams that invested in proper defense and talent level. teams that rely on physical play.



not unless you want to decrease the entertainment level, goal scoring, and hitting in the NHL.
And as we could see in any international competition, you're plain wrong... :)

And as we could see in any international competition, you're plain wrong... :)

do you have a clue what you are talking about, because international competitions only further prove my point.

- defensemen no longer needed to make a play to get the puck out of the zone, simply hammer the puck off the glass or chip it out to a forward waiting to blow the zone
- extremely thinned out physical play
- less puckhandling, more passing
- low scoring

The caps would arguably benefit more than any other team from a larger surface.

I think all the bad defensive teams would have the most trouble also the ones with big slow guys on the blue line.

I think the Wild would thrive on a huge rink, all that speed no one could catch up.

Edmonton, Islanders and Senators deserve some mention.

do you have a clue what you are talking about, because international competitions only further prove my point.

- defensemen no longer needed to make a play to get the puck out of the zone, simply hammer the puck off the glass or chip it out to a forward waiting to blow the zone
- extremely thinned out physical play
- less puckhandling, more passing
- low scoring
Apparently I have the clue that you've been looking for.
Did you watch the last Olympic Games? Or the ones before?
The Nagano games featured some of the best games ever. That is due to of course the number of good players in competition, but also to the ice surface.
When skilled players have more space, they can use their skills and speed to create havoc.
It also eliminates many forms of the trap, which IS killing hockey.

I'd just like to clarify that by larger rink, I didn't automatically mean Olympic size rink. The rinks could be anywhere from 3 to 10 feet wider, meaning that it could make "trapping" harder but still retain the physical game.

It would help NJ's forwards but kill their defense. Our defense is really slow this year with Stevens, White, Albelin, and Brown all on the point.

Our forwards are really fast though so It all balances out.

Yeah you have a point. Hopefully if the NHL ever does widen the rink the Devils will have some more youth on their blue line

If they do it next year then we may be a fast team with Hale, Martin, Niedermayer, Rafalski, maybe Giroux with White. That is if Stevens will retire.

I don't care how large the ice surface is because as long as Stevens will play, I want him on the team.

If they do it next year then we may be a fast team with Hale, Martin, Niedermayer, Rafalski, maybe Giroux with White. That is if Stevens will retire.

I don't see Stevens retiring after this season.

Wider rink would benefit teams with good skating defensemen and a good passing game, and it would make trapping a bit harder but trapping would still be very effective.

Apparently I have the clue that you've been looking for.
Did you watch the last Olympic Games? Or the ones before?
The Nagano games featured some of the best games ever.

it contained the best players in the world... try diluting the talent level by several folds. it also featured some of the lowest hitting ever in professional hockey. it could also boast low scoring and little stickwork as long passes were used in favor.

When skilled players have more space, they can use their skills and speed to create havoc.
It also eliminates many forms of the trap, which IS killing hockey.

on the contrary. more space, less skill needed. and you are very incorrect in saying it eliminates the trap. watch some European hockey and in some places the trap is a bigger problem than it is here.

it contained the best players in the world... try diluting the talent level by several folds. it also featured some of the lowest hitting ever in professional hockey. it could also boast low scoring and little stickwork as long passes were used in favor.



on the contrary. more space, less skill needed. and you are very incorrect in saying it eliminates the trap. watch some European hockey and in some places the trap is a bigger problem than it is here.

IMHO bigger surface require higher level of skills not lower. Thats why Russian and European draftees are often better stickhandlers , creative players etc.
As opposed to larger surface smaller one allows less skilled and slow players with size be effective.

it contained the best players in the world... try diluting the talent level by several folds. it also featured some of the lowest hitting ever in professional hockey. it could also boast low scoring and little stickwork as long passes were used in favor.


...and let's not forget who won the Gold Medal and how they won it. Those who think an Olympic-size rink would elminate the neutral zone trap ought to give their heads a shake and go watch some SEL games.

As for teams that would improve? Colorado, Dallas, Vancouver, Edmonton, Minnesota from the west...from the East, Ottawa, Tampa Bay and New Jersey come to mind.

The team that would suffer most...Boston Bruins. That blueline is slow as all hell.

IMHO bigger surface require higher level of skills not lower. Thats why Russian and European draftees are often better stickhandlers , creative players etc.
As opposed to larger surface smaller one allows less skilled and slow players with size be effective.

Better stickhandling has more to do with the fact that they play pond hockey a hell of a lot more in Europe than they do in NA (years of playing on bumpy ice = kickass stickhandling).

More creative? Since when are European players more creative? This is just that wrongheaded "Canadians are gritty/Euros have skill" notion than manifests itself every now and then.

I also don't see how you equate being less skilled with being slow. Yes, there's no denying a smaller ice surface is a benefit for slower players - but they're far from crap! Case in point: Mario Lemieux.

Anyways, all that aside, the last two Olympic gold medallists were the Czech Republic, who won it relying on the trap with Jiri Slegr as their #1 defenceman, and Canada, who won by physically dominating most opponents with large, mean players (Nolan, Lindros, Smyth, Iginla...plus that blueline!).

it contained the best players in the world... try diluting the talent level by several folds. it also featured some of the lowest hitting ever in professional hockey. it could also boast low scoring and little stickwork as long passes were used in favor.



on the contrary. more space, less skill needed. and you are very incorrect in saying it eliminates the trap. watch some European hockey and in some places the trap is a bigger problem than it is here.
hmmmm actually, I live in Europe, so I obviously know what I'm talking about, contrary to some who see euro games once a year.

I would offer this point in favor of increasing the size of the ice in the NHL (not necessarily to Olympic size): the ice surface being played on today may be the same size as those in the 80s and before, but in actuality the increases in player size and speed, as well as skate and stick technology, have had the effect of making the rink play smaller than it actually is. Increasing the size of the ice would simply return to the players some of the space that has been lost due to physical growth and technological advancement, it doesn't have to be about making the ice bigger than originally intended.

I would offer this point in favor of increasing the size of the ice in the NHL (not necessarily to Olympic size): the ice surface being played on today may be the same size as those in the 80s and before, but in actuality the increases in player size and speed, as well as skate and stick technology, have had the effect of making the rink play smaller than it actually is. Increasing the size of the ice would simply return to the players some of the space that has been lost due to physical growth and technological advancement, it doesn't have to be about making the ice bigger than originally intended.

:teach:

Maybe some math genius could find an equation for how much wider the rinks should be in proportion to the size of the players now vs. size of players in the 80's.

:teach:

Maybe some math genius could find an equation for how much wider the rinks should be in proportion to the size of the players now vs. size of players in the 80's.

It's pretty obvious that bigger rinks would make the game better; but the fact is that rinks aren't going to get bigger as that would mean less seating which means less $$$ going into owner's pockets.

on the contrary. more space, less skill needed.

...which is exactly why skilled players are more effective on bigger ice surface. In the NHL, it requires either insane skills or insane speed (usually both) to stickhandle 'through' players without using size and strength to your advantage. Hence, difference in skill or speed becomes less of a factor than on international ice.

...which is exactly why skilled players are more effective on bigger ice surface. In the NHL, it requires either insane skills or insane speed (usually both) to stickhandle 'through' players without using size and strength to your advantage. Hence, difference in skill or speed becomes less of a factor than on international ice.

Huh? You went from saying that skilled players are more effective on bigger ice to saying that that's why we should do it - because the difference in skill or speed is less of a factor on international ice.

It's pretty obvious that bigger rinks would make the game better; but the fact is that rinks aren't going to get bigger as that would mean less seating which means less $$$ going into owner's pockets.

it's proven big rinks don't make the game better

it's amazing how many people watch the Olympics one year and say "oh boy, big rinks and no redline will solve ALL our problems". watch the SEL for a year and tell me if you think it's better than the NHL.

it's proven big rinks don't make the game better

it's amazing how many people watch the Olympics one year and say "oh boy, big rinks and no redline will solve ALL our problems". watch the SEL for a year and tell me if you think it's better than the NHL.

Again, maybe the answer isn't in making the rinks Olympic size, but bigger in proportion to the bigger players (~3-7 feet).

it's proven big rinks don't make the game better

it's amazing how many people watch the Olympics one year and say "oh boy, big rinks and no redline will solve ALL our problems". watch the SEL for a year and tell me if you think it's better than the NHL.
Hmmm, have you watched SEL for a year?
Do you realize the difference of skills between the SEL and the NHL?

Huh? You went from saying that skilled players are more effective on bigger ice to saying that that's why we should do it - because the difference in skill or speed is less of a factor on international ice.

You noticed the word in bold?

...which is exactly why skilled players are more effective on bigger ice surface. In the NHL, it requires either insane skills or insane speed (usually both) to stickhandle 'through' players without using size and strength to your advantage. Hence, difference in skill or speed becomes less of a factor than on international ice.

Hmmm, have you watched SEL for a year?
Do you realize the difference of skills between the SEL and the NHL?

That has nothing to do with it. There are similarly unskilled leagues in North America playing exciting hockey on smaller ice surfaces.

It HAS to do with it.
Defensemen in the SEL are rugged and tough to move.
But the offensive skill is not what it used to be.
But the international rink DOES open the game for skilled and fast players.