HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Puck Daddy R&D Camp grades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2011, 12:08 PM
  #51
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
I love parity. Parity is making hockey exciting because on any given night, anything can happen. I don't wanna see the NHL become like the NBA and have 3 or 4 55+ wins teams and a bunch of pretenders.

I like it when the game is played smartly, without mistakes. I love it when guys execute and do their job. Sure, "system" hockey can be pretty boring depending on the system, but I pretty much never get bored watching the Pens or the Wings play. I love puck possession systems and they do create a lot of offense. Sure, you need the proprer players to execute those systems, but I prefer to endure some boring team than to make the game more "offense" friendly for the sake of "entertainement". Lot of goals aren't that entertaining anyway. The All-Star Game is boring, watching a beer league game isn't that great either. Defense can be entertaining when executed to perfection.

Even if you change the rules to create more offense, smart coachs will adapt and their teams will dominate and then everybody will catch up and we will be back to square one. I just don't see the point of "adding more offense".
I don't mind parity but it's something that either exists or doesn't. You don't introduce a convoluted point system to have parity, because it's not real parity. It's just mucking up the works to make it look that way.

I don't want the All-Star game every night either, that's taking it to the extreme. I just don't want to go 2 weeks seeing a bunch of 3-2 or 2-1 games. If you enjoy the systems then I suppose I more enjoy seeing individual players showcase their talents.

Despite their faults I'm a big fan of Team Russia every time the Olympics roll around so that should tell you something. It's good hockey to me. Puck possession is......well I don't think it results in the offense you're talking about. Cycle, cycle, cycle, throw the puck to the net, maybe it's a decent chance, maybe it's just throwing the puck at the net. That's not hockey to me that's just playing keep away. I'm not saying it has to be the '80s again, but I think there's a large spectrum in between.

I caught Russia vs. Canada in the world championships this spring. Best game I saw all year. Bigger ice surface and the play favored players that could skate and pass. That's basically what I like. Sure there were no Craig Adams or Mike Rupp-types on the ice, but I don't see that as a horrible thing.


Last edited by UnderratedBrooks44: 08-21-2011 at 12:14 PM.
UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 12:10 PM
  #52
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG View Post
I'm not seeing the correlation between getting rid of the loser point and the need for scoring more goals. I'm obviously missing something.

I'm for getting rid of the loser point, but don't think more goals need to be scored to do so. There should only be 2 points per game.

EDIT: I just read one of your later responses, and I understand what you're saying now. 41 goals though is a lot of goals. You make it sound like a minuscule number, and it's not.
I don't think it's miniscule I just think it's much lower than it should be when you're comparing one of the best offensive teams in the league and one of the worst.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 12:34 PM
  #53
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
I don't think it's miniscule I just think it's much lower than it should be when you're comparing one of the best offensive teams in the league and one of the worst.
Goals are just a fraction of the picture though. What separates Pittsburgh and Toronto is just an overall better team, and better quality hockey, regardless of what numbers say.

I think in this league, if TEAMS so chose to score 5 goals a game, they would. Teams realize that's not how you win though. Could we score 5 goals a game if we altered the system? I have little doubt. Fact is, we are committed to playing the whole rink, and goal scoring suffers because of it.

The lack of goal scoring isn't the league, it's the teams and the systems they employ. I mean, Washington was scoring damn near 4 goals a game in 2009-10. That doesn't translate into winning though, regardless of if it is what you want to see or not.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 12:40 PM
  #54
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
 
UnderratedBrooks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Miranda's house
Posts: 12,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG View Post
Goals are just a fraction of the picture though. What separates Pittsburgh and Toronto is just an overall better team, and better quality hockey, regardless of what numbers say.

I think in this league, if TEAMS so chose to score 5 goals a game, they would. Teams realize that's not how you win though. Could we score 5 goals a game if we altered the system? I have little doubt. Fact is, we are committed to playing the whole rink, and goal scoring suffers because of it.

The lack of goal scoring isn't the league, it's the teams and the systems they employ. I mean, Washington was scoring damn near 4 goals a game in 2009-10. That doesn't translate into winning though, regardless of if it is what you want to see or not.
Points taken, I just think there's an in between. I think playing solid hockey at both ends of the rink should always rue the day, but I don't think it's taboo to believe that this can all be done with a couple more goals being scored each game. I think it's the size of the rink, the goal pads, and yes the point system. Teams are just reacting to the factors that are out there. It's easier to play keep away and not take any chances because one mistake could mean the game. That sounds nice but it's actually only because.....broken record time......there aren't enough goals being scored.

UnderratedBrooks44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2011, 12:55 PM
  #55
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,625
vCash: 500
Sure, more goals could be scored if the rink was spread out more, the goalies pads were smaller, and nets were bigger, but I'm still not understanding how the points system has anything to do with goals scored per game.

I just don't think lack of goals is a problem at all. Most games are won with a team scoring 3 or more goals, where as back in the day, 2-1 was the normal game. Like I said before, I may be a snob, but if you need more goal scoring to feel satisfied with the sport, the sport really doesn't need fans like that. Goal scoring isn't the be all end all.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:14 AM
  #56
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
I really don't see the problem with no touch icing.

1. no injuries --> win

2. The whistle will be blown faster, making it less attractive to ice the puck when winning --> win.

And I also don't think the NHL's problem is goal scoring. Having about 5 goals scored per game makes each goal very important and valuable, I like that.

I agree that the current points system is strange. Make it 3 points for every game. Regulation win = 3 points. OT or SO win 2 points and the loser point. Or goa back to two point games. That means you lose OT or SO, you get on point.

Milliardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:23 AM
  #57
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,625
vCash: 500
I think making it attractive to take a game to overtime is dumb. How many games have we watched where teams with 5 mins left basically play dump and chase with each other because both want to secure a point?

Without the loser point, the last 5 mins of a tie game would be infinitely more exciting because both want to win that game in regulation, rather than taking the safer bet, getting at least 1 point, and fighting for the other in OT.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 08:47 AM
  #58
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG View Post
I think making it attractive to take a game to overtime is dumb. How many games have we watched where teams with 5 mins left basically play dump and chase with each other because both want to secure a point?

Without the loser point, the last 5 mins of a tie game would be infinitely more exciting because both want to win that game in regulation, rather than taking the safer bet, getting at least 1 point, and fighting for the other in OT.
3 point rule or 2 point rule, I really don't care, but don't mix it up and have 3 point and 2 point games at the same time, that sucks.

Milliardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.