HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Hmmmm (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=25111)

Steve 11-03-2003 10:06 AM

Hmmmm
 
I don't think too many people would disagree that attendance is down in the NHL because of "the trap" it's an incredibly boring style of hockey to watch. We listen to owners who complain about financial troubles but they continue to put a boring product on the ice. Could it be possible to make "The Trap" illegal and respond with an "illegal defence" penalty, similar to what they used to have in basketball? At least hockey would be more exciting and you would have much higher scoring games. I think, in turn, attendance would go up. Or keep the trap legal and contract, contract, contract! Any opinions?

Dar 11-03-2003 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve
I don't think too many people would disagree that attendance is down in the NHL because of "the trap" it's an incredibly boring style of hockey to watch. We listen to owners who complain about financial troubles but they continue to put a boring product on the ice. Could it be possible to make "The Trap" illegal and respond with an "illegal defence" penalty, similar to what they used to have in basketball? At least hockey would be more exciting and you would have much higher scoring games. I think, in turn, attendance would go up. Or keep the trap legal and contract, contract, contract! Any opinions?

I don't think you can outlaw it. I think it was Bobby Smith (could be wrong) who had the right idea. Make the blue lines six feet wide and you'll solve a lot of the trapping problems. Teams that hang back in the neutral zone will have to rethink their strategies.

Steve 11-03-2003 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dar
I don't think you can outlaw it. I think it was Bobby Smith (could be wrong) who had the right idea. Make the blue lines six feet wide and you'll solve a lot of the trapping problems. Teams that hang back in the neutral zone will have to rethink their strategies.

Do you think removing the redline might make a difference. I heard a good quote, "Offence puts fans in the seats and defence wins championships" In this case, we need fan support, I pray for the day that "the trap" no longer exists and the torpedo is commonly used in the NHL!!!!

Leaf Army 11-03-2003 10:17 AM

I honestly think that the NHL has taken some of the excitement out of hockey with their "obstruction crackdowns."

These days the referees call everything and a lot of teams are afraid to play with emotion because they'll end up in the penalty box.

As a result, every coach in the league is preaching 'discipline'. Disciplined hockey is boring hockey.

Scoring isn't exciting. Intensity is exciting. Just look at the All-star game. Tons of scoring, tons of pretty plays-- no intensity. Boring.

Dar 11-03-2003 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve
Do you think removing the redline might make a difference. I heard a good quote, "Offence puts fans in the seats and defence wins championships" In this case, we need fan support, I pray for the day that "the trap" no longer exists and the torpedo is commonly used in the NHL!!!!

No!!! Not the torpedo. It's almost the worst form of trap. Send one poacher up and fire the puck up to him whilst everyone else hangs back. Taking the red line would only work for a short time before teams adjusted and re-invent the trap. Look at the Czech Republic in the 1998 olympics. They probably had the most stifling trap I've seen to date. By extending the blue lines the defending team has less neutral zone to clutter and the offensive team has a) less chance of being offside so often and b) an easier time maintaining the puck in the offensive zone.

Riddarn 11-03-2003 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dar
No!!! Not the torpedo. It's almost the worst form of trap. Send one poacher up and fire the puck up to him whilst everyone else hangs back. Taking the red line would only work for a short time before teams adjusted and re-invent the trap. Look at the Czech Republic in the 1998 olympics. They probably had the most stifling trap I've seen to date. By extending the blue lines the defending team has less neutral zone to clutter and the offensive team has a) less chance of being offside so often and b) an easier time maintaining the puck in the offensive zone.

What teams using the torpedo system have you watched?

Dar 11-03-2003 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ridderwall
What teams using the torpedo system have you watched?

Commonly used by both Sweden in international tournaments and in the SEL.

Dar 11-03-2003 10:48 AM

Just so others not familiar with what the Torpedo system is:

Quote:

The "torpedo" uses two forwards forechecking aggressively, another forward and a defenseman as a second line of defense and leaves the other defender back in something akin to a "rover" position.
Where I got my original theory was from a Sundin article in which he described it exactly as I said above. This is from NHL.com.

Riddarn 11-03-2003 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dar
Commonly used by both Sweden in international tournaments and in the SEL.

I would hardly call what team sweden plays and what the current SEL teams plays the same thing that Djurgården played 1999-2001..

Stephen 11-03-2003 12:14 PM

Peope talk about attendance being down like there used to be some mythic past where every city used to have sell outs night after night. Attendance is down because the game isn't a sexy sell like basketball because it isn't marketed properly and because the hockey players are so boring as individuals. Hockey isn't popular like football because there isn't the whole gambling culture and because hockey games aren't events like football games are in the states.

Leaf Army 11-03-2003 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen
Peope talk about attendance being down like there used to be some mythic past where every city used to have sell outs night after night. Attendance is down because the game isn't a sexy sell like basketball because it isn't marketed properly and because the hockey players are so boring as individuals. Hockey isn't popular like football because there isn't the whole gambling culture and because hockey games aren't events like football games are in the states.

Another reason why hockey will never really be huge in the States is that hip-hop culture rules the mainstream.

Hockey players aren't boring...they just aren't hotdogs with huge egos. That kind of mentality is celebrated in American sports these days.

Guys autographing the football in the end zone...teamates bickering back and forth regarding whose team it is. That kind of nonsense doesn't happen in hockey.

p.l.f. 11-03-2003 12:51 PM

4 on 4 is great
bring it on!

leaflover 11-03-2003 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=Stephen
Attendance is down because the game isn't a sexy sell like basketball because it isn't marketed properly and because the hockey players are so boring as individuals. [/QUOTE]



I disagree that the NBA,NFL or any other league is popular because the players have interesting personalities.I can't imagine anyone preferring player personalities over the actual sport,and those that do are generally girls between the ages of 12-18.Not really a huge chunk of any sports *paying fan base*.

The nhl is in the attendance trouble its in because of over-expansion,poor expansion choices,a lack of grassroots participation in minor hockey in many of its markets,poor marketing and the absurd rise in ticket prices.If these owners could run their teams at break-even while setting ticket prices at roughly half what they are then you would see attendance increase.In a nutshell TOO MANY REAL HOCKEY FANS cannot afford the ridiculous cost of attending games.

The funny thing is the NHL braintrust was so set on getting its teams into the hands of the mega rich that it overlooked the damage that would result from doing so.Salary costs have gone through the roof and many small market teams have had to price tickets out of the range of many true fans.Winnipeg and Quebec City are GREAT hockey towns but the rising costs of icing a team made it impossible for anyone to keep the teams there without losing huge amounts of money.So those two hockey hotbeds watched their teams fly south of the border.One ended up in Denver and was immediately an on ice success and quickly gained a solid fan base.I'm still not willing to call Denver a true hockey mad city,i'll wait until the team has missed the playoffs for 3 or 4 years and i'll check attendance then(everyone loves a winner right?).Phoenix has struggled mightily despite moving from a city of less tham a million people to a city with milions of residents.Thats the difference between a true hockey city and just a big city looking for another form of entertainment for its residents.

And whoever mentioned the trap has a legitimate point as well.Hockey games are nowhere near as exciting as they were.So now you have people that decide to pony up a hundred or so dollars each to check out a hockey game and don't feel they got treated to a hundred dollars worth of entertainment.They're not coming back period.The NHL has many many problems to get ironed out and i for one sure hope they get this mess cleaned up soon.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 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.