HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   NHL should be playing like WJC (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=121201)

TheZherdev 12-30-2004 06:47 PM

NHL should be playing like WJC
 
have any of you guys watched the speed intensity from the WJC. THIS IS HOW THE NHL GAMES SHOULD PLAYED. it reminds me of a decade ago, when it wouold be common to have atleast 5 goals a game. to be perfectly honest this is the most exciting hockey ive seen in a couple years. anyone share this opinon?

BDubinskyNYR17* 12-30-2004 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackburn2727
have any of you guys watched the speed intensity from the WJC. THIS IS HOW THE NHL GAMES SHOULD PLAYED. it reminds me of a decade ago, when it wouold be common to have atleast 5 goals a game. to be perfectly honest this is the most exciting hockey ive seen in a couple years. anyone share this opinon?


yea its been fun to watch. Its physical, it has speed, and it has goal scoring and good defensive plays. I enjoyed it. Better than the stupid trap.

Theoren Fan 12-30-2004 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackburn2727
have any of you guys watched the speed intensity from the WJC. THIS IS HOW THE NHL GAMES SHOULD PLAYED. it reminds me of a decade ago, when it wouold be common to have atleast 5 goals a game. to be perfectly honest this is the most exciting hockey ive seen in a couple years. anyone share this opinon?

The olympics to me was the most exciting hockey I've seen since the Rangers were a competitive team years and years back. I haven't seen any of the WJC as of yet but from what people are saying, it sounds pretty good.

However, at least 5 goals per game to me doesn't seem very ideal...I could easily watch a 2-1 or a 3-2 game as long as the chances and the excitment was there.

BDubinskyNYR17* 12-30-2004 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theo Fan
The olympics to me was the most exciting hockey I've seen since the Rangers were a competitive team years and years back. I haven't seen any of the WJC as of yet but from what people are saying, it sounds pretty good.

However, at least 5 goals per game to me doesn't seem very ideal...I could easily watch a 2-1 or a 3-2 game as long as the chances and the excitment was there.

yea i agree to that as well. As long the effort is their.

007 12-30-2004 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theo Fan
The olympics to me was the most exciting hockey I've seen since the Rangers were a competitive team years and years back. I haven't seen any of the WJC as of yet but from what people are saying, it sounds pretty good.

However, at least 5 goals per game to me doesn't seem very ideal...I could easily watch a 2-1 or a 3-2 game as long as the chances and the excitment was there.

I have to agree, the Olympics were just awesome. Some of the high-scoring games we have had in the NHL have been as a result of just incompetent defending, more than offensive skill, and that just looks like terrible pond-hockey.

bmoak 12-30-2004 10:01 PM

Do you think it has something to do with the larger ice surface for international events?

A lot more room for skating and puck-moving and a lot harder to trap with the bigger neutral zone.

Sad London Ranger 12-31-2004 02:29 AM

04 WC in Prague where Canada beat Sweden was equally great.

Is their a trend here?: Large ice surface.

I was advocating increasing the NHL ice surface especially since recently a flurry of
new barns was being built.

you put 10 - 6'+ footers on the ice 3 refs and the goalies supersized mitts and their is now way you can score goals.

I am actually watching the Swiss Spengler Cup in Switzerland and I have the opportunity to see Thornton, Nash, and St. Louis etc and you can see clearly the
trap is completely ineffective on the bigger ice rinks.

I know increasing the ice pads will probably never happen and sinceI have my doubts the intellect and integrity of the clowns who run the NHL anyway, and their serious desire to improve the product, I'd say the game is in jeopardy.

Son of Steinbrenner 12-31-2004 05:26 AM

i think the trend isn't larget ice surfaces but better competition. the nhl did fine for a long time with the dimensions they are using now. heck the blackhawks and bruins had smaller dimensions and plenty of skill players played for those teams. we all know what the problem is with the league and shootouts and stricter goalier rules aren't the answer. the answer is lose 6 teams.

Ola 12-31-2004 07:32 AM

The larger icesurface is a factor, but the game in Europe was even more defensive and less scoring then in the NHL today untill they removed the redline offsiderule. Everyone was against it at first, coaches and players threatened to strike ect. because it would destroy the game, but today its obvious that its have had a tremendous positive effect for the game.

Sad London Ranger 12-31-2004 07:55 AM

I still think the rule sucks! I am not convinced taking the red line has made hockey better. The bigger ice allows skilled and fast players to stand out, defensive players
tend to lose a bit of an advantage.

I reckon NHL ought to find a compromise of a half way size between olympic and
nhl regulations.

but it will never happen.....

Ola 12-31-2004 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by london ranger
I still think the rule sucks! I am not convinced taking the red line has made hockey better. The bigger ice allows skilled and fast players to stand out, defensive players
tend to lose a bit of an advantage.

The WJC is maybe not a fair example since junior hockey always is a bit less defensive. But Iīve followed the SEL very close the last 8-10 years and there is a distinct positive effect.

A extremly popular word among coaches today is "decision making", where as 10 years ago there was no real decision to make. Teams that didnīt have defense first on there priority list never accomplished anything.

There is always gooing to be traps, old or redefind. The fact that it worked in Europe isnīt a gaurantee that it would work in the NHL, but I personally canīt see how it could get worse. And the list of advantages is long and I donīt belive for a second that it would take much hitting out of the game, defensemen who are slow will have some disadvantage, fewer Rich Pilon could mean less hitting but...

For example there are more "lucky" oppertunitys, more goals scored on extremly fast transtition plays ect. Maybe not fair goals, but it opens up the games allot. Of course, important games can be just as boring and slow as with the redline, but once things opens up some games become extremly entertaining. You have to give up more defensivly to attack, and its harder to defend when you canīt use the redline as a 3rd defensemen...

RangerBoy 12-31-2004 08:45 AM

The Canadian team is tremendous.They could win the tournament by playing with no goalie.That's how good they are.

5 first round picks on defense and 6 first round picks up front plus Patrice Bergeron who is a NHLer plus the top young player in the world in Sidney Crosby

Onion Boy 12-31-2004 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
we all know what the problem is with the league and shootouts and stricter goalier rules aren't the answer. the answer is lose 6 teams.

Agreed completely. :handclap:

Riddarn 12-31-2004 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by london ranger
I still think the rule sucks! I am not convinced taking the red line has made hockey better. The bigger ice allows skilled and fast players to stand out, defensive players
tend to lose a bit of an advantage.

I reckon NHL ought to find a compromise of a half way size between olympic and
nhl regulations.

but it will never happen.....

I agree with you. I think the removal of the red line was positive at first but now it's starting to go the other way. The fear of that long pass has made teams more defensive when games actually matter. Bigger rinks in North America and smaller ones in Europe, with pre-1994 NHL rules all over the globe would be the ideal solution to me. NHL regulation rinks are 85feet wide, IIHF rinks are 100 feet wide. Compromise and make them 92 feet wide all across the globe!

True Blue 12-31-2004 10:44 AM

[QUOTE=Son of Steinbrennerwe all know what the problem is with the league and shootouts and stricter goalier rules aren't the answer. the answer is lose 6 teams.[/QUOTE]
Couple that with the fact that most of the time the refs simply refuse to call obstruction away from the puck, and you have the current NHL product.

"I reckon NHL ought to find a compromise of a half way size between olympic and
nhl regulations."

Never going to happen as that would require almost every arena in the league to alter their respective dimensions. Those things cost lots of $$$.

barrel_master 12-31-2004 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerBoy
The Canadian team is tremendous.They could win the tournament by playing with no goalie.That's how good they are.

5 first round picks on defense and 6 first round picks up front plus Patrice Bergeron who is a NHLer plus the top young player in the world in Sidney Crosby

Ha ha, that's a bit far now don't you think?

Ola 12-31-2004 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riddarn
I agree with you. I think the removal of the red line was positive at first but now it's starting to go the other way. The fear of that long pass has made teams more defensive when games actually matter. Bigger rinks in North America and smaller ones in Europe, with pre-1994 NHL rules all over the globe would be the ideal solution to me. NHL regulation rinks are 85feet wide, IIHF rinks are 100 feet wide. Compromise and make them 92 feet wide all across the globe!

You canīt have seen many games from the SEL when there still was the redline offside rule...

RangerBoy 12-31-2004 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrel_master
Ha ha, that's a bit far now don't you think?

Want to compare the Team Canada roster to the Rangers,Penguins and Capitals?

Team Canada would beat all three teams :)

Riddarn 12-31-2004 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ola
You canīt have seen many games from the SEL when there still was the redline offside rule...

I agree that the last part of the '90s before the red line rule was pretty horrible.

barrel_master 12-31-2004 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerBoy
Want to compare the Team Canada roster to the Rangers,Penguins and Capitals?

Team Canada would beat all three teams :)

:) Don't get me wrong, Canada has an excelent team... I was just saying that if they didn't play with a goalie they probably wouldn't win that many games.

Also, although they've dominated their group... who exactly have they beaten? Their toughest team was finland (in my opinion) and although they have tons of heart they also lacked experience. It will all boil down to beating Russia or the USA and even though the US goaltending has been an issue, I still think it's better then what Canada has to offer. I still hope/think that Canada will win though.

Sad London Ranger 12-31-2004 07:34 PM

[QUOTE=True Blue]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrennerwe all know what the problem is with the league and shootouts and stricter goalier rules aren't the answer. the answer is lose 6 teams.[/QUOTE
Couple that with the fact that most of the time the refs simply refuse to call obstruction away from the puck, and you have the current NHL product.

"I reckon NHL ought to find a compromise of a half way size between olympic and
nhl regulations."

Never going to happen as that would require almost every arena in the league to alter their respective dimensions. Those things cost lots of $$$.

this is where the NHL has its head up the respective a..e!
they were building new barns around north america and they were clinging to the old format.how many new arenas were introduced in the late 90's during the expansion years? 12/16 is my guess (florida, boston, la, minny, columbus, atla, philly, nash,
trnto, mtrl, carolina, phoenix as far as I remember)

instead they the league was advocating expansion, expansion and expansion. the talent was thinly spread so that many stars were able to command huge
salary premiums for what? who knows.

Now the wisdom says shrink the league. and the hockey players are the ones getting a bad rep.

half the league could have already had wider rinks.......

BigE 01-01-2005 12:34 AM

The reason for the excitement and high scores has very little to do with the ice surface (which is by the way a bit smaller than regular international ice).

The elimination of the red line is probably the greatest contributing factor to the fast pace of the game. In addition the relative inconsistency and inexperience of these young players provides for mistakes which translate into goals. Lastly, there are 3-4 talented/semi-talented teams in which the game by virtue of comparison is quite honestly boys playing against men (eg. Canada vs. it's pool).

It's great hockey no doubt, and I've become an advocate for eliminating the red line as have numerous substantial hockey minds. With that said however, a larger ice surface is not the answer. The Swedish Elite League is the most defensive league in the world and they'll be the first to tell you that bigger isn't necessarily better.

Ola 01-02-2005 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigE
The reason for the excitement and high scores has very little to do with the ice surface (which is by the way a bit smaller than regular international ice).

The elimination of the red line is probably the greatest contributing factor to the fast pace of the game. In addition the relative inconsistency and inexperience of these young players provides for mistakes which translate into goals. Lastly, there are 3-4 talented/semi-talented teams in which the game by virtue of comparison is quite honestly boys playing against men (eg. Canada vs. it's pool).

It's great hockey no doubt, and I've become an advocate for eliminating the red line as have numerous substantial hockey minds. With that said however, a larger ice surface is not the answer. The Swedish Elite League is the most defensive league in the world and they'll be the first to tell you that bigger isn't necessarily better.

Right on, in Europe there is talk about making the ice NHL size. Finland has already begun cutting down the size of the rink.

Taking away the redline offside rule will change the game, not big changes however. But it would be noticeable. I doubt Dave Anderchuk would survive in the NHL without a redline. And I can understand why people are afraid of these changes, I was really against it when the redline was removed in sweden. But today nothing talks against removing it IMO. Its not a desparate "it canīt get any worse why not try it" action. All the facts talks in favor of it.

Roger's Pancreas* 01-02-2005 08:49 PM

Even though its almost set in stone for Canada to whoop United States I do agree with the title. I love this tournament, we're watching the best prospects go at it tooth and nail w/o a single fight. Good riddance


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.