HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

What would the NHL be like if...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2004, 11:57 PM
  #1
rev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 151
vCash: 500
What would the NHL be like if...

What would the NHL be like if it was always 4 on 4.

rev is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 12:04 AM
  #2
rtafts
Registered User
 
rtafts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to rtafts
Better.

rtafts is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 12:05 AM
  #3
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,564
vCash: 500
Like a street hockey game. :p

Actually, as much as I am a traditionalist, it would be interesting to test (nothing more) the 4-on-4 concept in some "laboratory league" (minors) to see the results.

My suggestion would be that when a minor penalty was called, the team with the PP would gain a skater, making for a 5 -on-4 advantage. Otherwise, you'd often have 4 on 3s, which would make for a farcical game.

Trottier is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 12:32 AM
  #4
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
The players union will never let this happen. Less players on the ice, means fewer shifts and fewer minutes played. Which eventually would lead to smaller nightly rosters. You wouldnt need 4 forward lines. You would need maybe 8 forwards.

Lesser jobs=players union against it.

But...it would be fun to watch.

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 01:01 AM
  #5
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,962
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4
The players union will never let this happen. Less players on the ice, means fewer shifts and fewer minutes played. Which eventually would lead to smaller nightly rosters. You wouldnt need 4 forward lines. You would need maybe 8 forwards.

Lesser jobs=players union against it.

But...it would be fun to watch.
With the wide open style of play and the high speed, the shifts would have to be shorter than they are now. If they were to keep the roster size the same, teams could roll 5 lines instead of 4 and just keep them fresher.

It would certainly do away with the grinders though. :p

Vagrant is online now  
Old
03-18-2004, 01:03 AM
  #6
Karl Pilkington
Registered User
 
Karl Pilkington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,962
vCash: 500
And then we'd have three on three OTs.. then someone would suggest three on three for the whole game with two on two OTS.. then two on two for the whole game..etc etc...

Karl Pilkington is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 01:44 AM
  #7
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,088
vCash: 500
That would be the end of the lumbering defenseman, or any skater in general who does not possess decent mobility. Might be the end of the goon as well.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 05:52 AM
  #8
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
4 on 4 would have to be called something else, because it would not be hockey.There would be next to no physical play. What most people don't seem to understand is that the pressure to win games for coaches would still be the same and run and gun hockey would not be part of the plan. You would have 2 on 2 battles all over the place leaving very little options for playmaking. It would be single coverage everywhere so you would have to be adept 1 on 1. If the matchups were just right you may be able to abuse some players and get some great chances. What you lose out on is the confusion that the extra man provides, the ability for him to get lost in traffic and pop up for a goal not to mention the different forecheck possibilities that cannot be used with 4 on 4. Some games would be wide open but other games would be unbelievably defensive and quite possibly an even worse spectacle than the current format. It would drastically alter the game and not for the better.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 05:57 AM
  #9
Mats_Hallin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Horrible..

Mats_Hallin is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 06:20 AM
  #10
JV
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: na
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
4 on 4 would have to be called something else, because it would not be hockey.There would be next to no physical play. What most people don't seem to understand is that the pressure to win games for coaches would still be the same and run and gun hockey would not be part of the plan. You would have 2 on 2 battles all over the place leaving very little options for playmaking. It would be single coverage everywhere so you would have to be adept 1 on 1. If the matchups were just right you may be able to abuse some players and get some great chances. What you lose out on is the confusion that the extra man provides, the ability for him to get lost in traffic and pop up for a goal not to mention the different forecheck possibilities that cannot be used with 4 on 4. Some games would be wide open but other games would be unbelievably defensive and quite possibly an even worse spectacle than the current format. It would drastically alter the game and not for the better.
I think this is right on.

As appealing as the idea of more "flow" might be, 4 on 4 hockey is not the way to achieve it.

I've always thought the league dropped the ball by not requiring new arenas to have larger ice surfaces (something between the NHL regulation size and Olympic). They had the chance when all the new buildings were begun way back in 1990.

The answer now probably involves a combination of moves:

1. Dropping the two line pass rule (the center line);

2. Enforcing interference rules; and

3. Restricting the ability of goalies to handle the puck behind the goal line.

JV is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 06:22 AM
  #11
MatsSundin13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Port Colborne,Ontario
Posts: 618
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to MatsSundin13 Send a message via Yahoo to MatsSundin13
well alot of you are fans of scoring...im a really big fan of goaltending...and something like this would not be fair some of the goalies in the NHL...4 ON 4 would even make Broduer not look good...But i mean it would be fun to try out in maybe AHL to see if it works out there before bringing it to the NHL

MatsSundin13 is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 06:44 AM
  #12
TMLFan4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Peterborough, ON
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoseTheo
And then we'd have three on three OTs.. then someone would suggest three on three for the whole game with two on two OTS.. then two on two for the whole game..etc etc...
lol

And then - before you knew it - we'd end up with goalie-on-goalie. What a game that'd be... :p

TMLFan4ever is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 07:35 AM
  #13
LaVal
Registered User
 
LaVal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,703
vCash: 500
what would the NHL be like?

- there would be next to nothing for fighting
- there would be very little physical play
- size would no longer matter, and small 1-dimensional speedsters would rule the NHL
- taking a penalty would be too costly (not that there would be too many with the way the NHL would adapt to playing 4 on 4)
- shorter shifts
- stay at home type defensemen would be useless, as would defensive specialist forwards
- etc

4 on 4 is exciting to see for 5 minutes of sudden death OT... however to make a game entirely of that would be stupid

LaVal is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 07:51 AM
  #14
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
4 on 4 would have to be called something else, because it would not be hockey.There would be next to no physical play. What most people don't seem to understand is that the pressure to win games for coaches would still be the same and run and gun hockey would not be part of the plan. You would have 2 on 2 battles all over the place leaving very little options for playmaking. It would be single coverage everywhere so you would have to be adept 1 on 1. If the matchups were just right you may be able to abuse some players and get some great chances. What you lose out on is the confusion that the extra man provides, the ability for him to get lost in traffic and pop up for a goal not to mention the different forecheck possibilities that cannot be used with 4 on 4. Some games would be wide open but other games would be unbelievably defensive and quite possibly an even worse spectacle than the current format. It would drastically alter the game and not for the better.


Very well said.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 08:53 AM
  #15
MikeC44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 452
vCash: 500
I think the main reason 4 on 4 OT is exciting is because teams already have a point in the bag, and most nights don't care if the other team gets the 2nd point; NOT because it's 4 on 4.

MikeC44 is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 08:59 AM
  #16
Ironchef Chris Wok*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Sox Nation
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Ironchef Chris Wok*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMLFan4ever
lol

And then - before you knew it - we'd end up with goalie-on-goalie. What a game that'd be... :p
Goalie on goalie is alittle lame

But 1 minute of 1-on-1?

I know it gets a little "street-ball" esque for a professional game, but who here would not pay good money to watch Sakic and Kovalchuk go mano-a-mano for a minute?

Ironchef Chris Wok* is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 09:29 AM
  #17
AGraveOne
Registered User
 
AGraveOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,138
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to AGraveOne
I hate ideas like this...
let's make the puck smaller and goalies shouldn't use skates and no offsides and blah blah blah blah....

If anyone watched 80s hockey, you wouldn't even for a second want 4 on 4 hockey. Even in OT. It is a great game even now, but then it didn't have all the clutching and grabbing...and it was 5 on 5. And they even played in smaller rinks (Boston Garden) and still the game would flow.

It is marketing ideas like this that bring the game down. No long-term focus. No love for the game passion.

The league is too QUICK FIX focussed and the game doesn't need that...4 on 4 hockey will eventually become either basketball (no physicalness at all) or mired in the same defensive schemes as the game is now. 4 on 4 will not solve anything LONG-TERM.

An example of the quick fix mentality...
NHL marketer: Hey, fighting really makes the sport hard to sell to families and that is where the money is...
NHL Rulers: well i guess we need to get rid of fighting.
NHL Rulers: Well, we can't get rid of it...the players and stuff wouldn't like that....so let's just try to make it more costly.
Rule Makers: The Instigator Penalty!

2 years later...
- the trap becomes an effective system because clutching and grabbing has increased because teams can not effectively protect their stars.
- Stars get injured a lot more because players do not respect each other and take advantage of any openning they can...

more years..
- teams unable to protect their players get frustrated by the clutching and grabbing
- scoring goes way down
- cheap shots go up
- concussions are common
- occassionally, the team enforcer explodes because he can't protect his team effectively but wants to send a message. (Bertuzzi, McSorley)

Hmm...good thinking NHL.

AGraveOne is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 09:35 AM
  #18
Toonces
The beer kitty
 
Toonces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Very well said.
I second that.

Maby they should replace the goaltenders with shooter tutors.

Toonces is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 09:58 AM
  #19
Marshall
Too right, man.
 
Marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Old Town Alexandria
Posts: 11,836
vCash: 500
Terrible.

Marshall is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 10:23 AM
  #20
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toonces
I second that.

Maby they should replace the goaltenders with shooter tutors.
Or those wooden cutouts for those "Million dollar score and win" contests.

ehc73 is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 10:34 AM
  #21
Anksun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,558
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Anksun
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC44
I think the main reason 4 on 4 OT is exciting is because teams already have a point in the bag, and most nights don't care if the other team gets the 2nd point; NOT because it's 4 on 4.
Exactly what i was going to write.

4 on 4 for an entire game would become defensive very fast... You can count on Lemaire to bring the trap to the next level... :mad:

Anksun is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 10:35 AM
  #22
TMLFan4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Peterborough, ON
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
How about on Monday and Tuesday we put soccer nets behind the goalies. Wednesday and Thursday you put lacrosse nets behind the goalies. Then Friday, Saturday and Sunday we have the regular hockey nets.

Or maybe for the first five mins of the first period it's five on five; next five minutes it's four on four; next five minutes it's three on three; and so on untill the period ends - then you start it again next period!

Heck, just leave the puck a centre ice and see what it does. :p

TMLFan4ever is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 11:06 AM
  #23
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
While a lot of you guys have good answers to the 4 on 4 debate, I don't see hardly a single post detailing why it would cause those results.

I could say that 4 on 4 would make it more physical, and then I guess I don't have to elaborate as to why it would be more physical

The jokes are nice and all, but it's an interesting thread and concept, I'd like to see some well thought out opinions on the matter.

Why is 4 on 4 more defensive?
Why would there be next to nothing for fighting?
Why would there be very little physical play?
Why would size no longer matter, and small 1-dimensional speedsters would rule the NHL?
Why would taking a penalty be too costly (not that there would be too many with the way the NHL would adapt to playing 4 on 4)?
Why would stay at home type defensemen be useless, as would defensive specialist forwards?
Why would that be the end of the lumbering defenseman, or any skater in general who does not possess decent mobility, the end of the goon as well?

Guest is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 11:16 AM
  #24
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
4 on 4 would have to be called something else, because it would not be hockey.There would be next to no physical play. What most people don't seem to understand is that the pressure to win games for coaches would still be the same and run and gun hockey would not be part of the plan. You would have 2 on 2 battles all over the place leaving very little options for playmaking. It would be single coverage everywhere so you would have to be adept 1 on 1. If the matchups were just right you may be able to abuse some players and get some great chances....

Sounds exactly like the NBA.

For the record, let me re-state: would not want to see it in the NHL. Would like to see it tested on a professional level (minor league) just to see the results.

I agree entirely with your points.

Trottier is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 11:22 AM
  #25
Hossa
Registered User
 
Hossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Abroad
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caniacforever
With the wide open style of play and the high speed, the shifts would have to be shorter than they are now. If they were to keep the roster size the same, teams could roll 5 lines instead of 4 and just keep them fresher.

It would certainly do away with the grinders though. :p
With respect to the grinders, it wouldn't take away the great third line players like Matt Cooke, Mike Fisher, Matthew Barnaby.....whoever, but rather the marginal guys like Shaun Van Allen, Craig Adams...

That to me is an example of why the NHL needs to take away the fringe NHLers. Not to say 4-on-4 is the way to go, but the NHL needs to do something about this stretched too thing problem.

Hossa is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:15 AM.

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.