NHL Playoffs 2003 - Page 7

The funny/lucky bounces come to you when you are agressive and put you and the puck on net. That's why these teams won their respective games, and why they got the "lucky" bounces in those wins. It's not as random as it would appear IMO.

Anyway, the north-soth game is fun for fans, but what hockey player likes their chances in a craps shoot like that? The stupidest thing I've heard is outlawing the trap, but the trap is such a basic setup, it would either get called way too often to give the game any flow or it would just not be respected. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the redline. College, junior and international hockey don't use it for offsides anyway. It wouldn't eliminate the trap, just make it less effective unless the next Lemaire invents the new great defensive strategy.

I could see raising the crossbar a few inches. It would make the butterfly goalies' jobs just a little less... predictable.

I would like to see icing called less, make the icing rules more strict. I say that icing should only be called when the puck is sent down 2/3 of the ice instead of 1/2 -- that a player has to send the puck from his defensive zone past the opposite goal line. Also, give the linemen more freedom to call off any icing if the player doesn't fetch the puck in a certain time. It punishes laziness (that's why I don't want automatic icing -- players give up on the play too easily) and rewards agressive chasers/forecheckers.

Lamorillo is suggesting that a player penalized should sit the entire penalty in the sin bin, regardless of whether the opponent scores. That's pretty radical.

One thing you won't see any time soon is making the rink wider. You lose the seats, and no GM would agree to lose seats!

But I don't think it solves everything, nor will any particular rule change do the job. The history of the NHL, like any other sports league has an ebb and flow between strong scoring champs and strong defensive ones.

disney scriptwriters are laughing their way to the bank.

who'll play kariya and giggy?

The Devils just blew it. No way they'll be able to overcome this. Brodeur has lost it, they have no emotion, no killer instinct, no finishers. They were about to become the next NHL dynasty, now they're about to become the Buffalo Bills of the hockey world.

Well, the Devils did it in Game 7 against Ottawa. Despite Game 6, I think they will be tough to beat. I just can't see those Quackers winning the Cup.

Actually Buon Rotto, I wouldn't mess witht the dimensions of the net. I'd get rid of the blue line, and the widen the ice about 3 feet, more in the smaller rinks. That's just enough while not being euro-ice -- it rewards speed with that extra stride to go out or cut in.

And EQUIPMENT, regulate ALL equipment. Wooden sticks, strictly regulated pad material and thicknesses for all players/manufacturers.

Big equipment (aside from helmets) doesn't protect against big injuries. What it does is remove the natural pain threshold that would limit the violence of hits and slashes. In todays game, when players get hurt, they ussually get hurt bad -- because they've just dived in front of a 100MPH slapper, or taken/given an ungodly hard hit and for once they were turned just a little off. Boom, blood clots, spinal injuries, concussions.

It seems to be a case these days of "it doesn't hurt untill it really hurts, then it hurts."

Ths makes it way to easy for players to clog up the net and become uncreative. Lets stand in there and hack and slash each other to bits. Forward, defender? Doesn't matter, 90MPH slap shot? No worries, I got these her carbon nylon shin pads. What't the answer for a point man? Just get a carbon-graphite stick and suddenly everyone's Al McKinnis! Goalies say, "lool how hard the shots come and how crowded my crease is, I need this equipment." If the regulated the equipment, the offence/defence would regulate itself.

I look at Gretzky and Hull as two interesting examples of the problems with hockey, and they have nothing to do with the trap, rink dimensions (though I would go a smush bigger and eliminate the red line) and go directly back to EQUIPMENT.

When hull scored 70 and 80 plus goals a season, he was always in motion, he'd pik up a stray puck in an open space and fire it home. Did he score every time? Nope, but he led the league in shots on net. He took 4-6 good shots a game, and 1-2 would find their way into the netting. To hear Hull speak of it today, he's more surprised than anyone that he's more appreciated today than he was way back. He plays the system. Fine, mebbe it's defence then.

But look at Gretzky. He really hit a wall towards the end. Still a top 30 player, but nothing like younger Gretz. To be expect with age, I suppose. But Gretzky never had a surpreme physical/athletic game -- not the best reach or speed or strength, not the hardest shot, but laser beam accurate for a few seasons anyway, bets passer and top 3 stick handler -- his game should have held up a lot better, it didn't, why? Because the game changed, and not just the defence, the forwards too, especially the forwards.

Dump and chase has been around forever. It's not creative, just a determined way to gain the blue line. But what then? Crowd the net and wait for a blue line shot. 99 could still bank the odd pass of a lumbering big man, but the motion need for offensive creativity wasn't there anymore. One defender's pinching, the others got the point and anywhere from 4-6 guys are bashing around in front of the net because, hey, those 90MPH slap shots don't hurt whether you're a defender or attacker crowding, and for that matter, neither do most all of the slashes and cross checks that happen out there on open ice. With no motion from his own forwards, who was the guy gonna pass to? And could he walk in front of the net? not really, not only were the defenders there plugging things up, but his own forwards were there making it hard to find a shot aswell.

Yes, this sounds awfully contrary, and it is, because it's aboutthe only things forwards can do. If they don't crowd, two defenders and a winger and goal tender can make a box tight enough to stop more shots than a wall in soccer, a wall wearing riot gear and occupying the space of twice as many mere mortals.

The offence has been duped, you can't really blame defence. If you change the rules, they will adapt again, because it's the equipment that makes it possible to slow the game as much, not the strategy.

Gretzky, I'm fond of saying, was so successful, because he found a way to play shinny in the middle of a hockey game.

IME and in watching lots of games I would actually suggest it's the red line, not the blue lines that is the problem. The reason the NZ trap works so well is that the defense knows it has the two line pass rule on its side. They don't have to worry about offensive players getting behind them for long outlet passes because it would be blown dead.

Take out the red line and fast-skating teams like Edmonton have a much better chance against the Dallases of the world because the wings can fly up the board and find various ways of getting behind the defense, while remaining in the NZ. Probably what I would do is remove the red line and just move the blue lines a foot or so closer together. This would keep the trapping defenses more honest and would also keep the offense from trying too many long-bomb passes.

The point is it would increase the calculated risks for both sides but definitely have the effect of speeding up the transition game / NZ action.

Ultimately widening the rink IS the correct answer (look at the Olympics), but greed will never allow that to happen. I think that mentality is stupid because you could still charge a premium for glass seats, and just re-distribute the lost row's revenues to the first 20 rows or so. All the people sitting in those seats have money as they already clost $75 in most arenas. Adding another $5 or $10 to each seat wouldn't kill any operation. Or even re-distributing it to luxury box owners. I say the first row should cost about $150, then the next 20+ about $80, then keep it the same on up, except for luxury box owners if more needs to be "made up for."

This also goes back to salary capping. If you don't let things get out of hand like they have in other sports, you don't *need* two rows of seating that cost $150-$200 a seat. That's insane. There are other ways to make money.

They introduced the red line because too many Gretsky's who couldn't play defense just cherry picked at the opposite blue line. Sure the other 4 skaters wereessentially playing the penalty kills, but instead of just clearing, they were throwig out potential outlet passes. I'm not totally convinced the red line is the problem since it did solve the lazy cherry picking rampant in the 80's. Widening the rink, ideally to international dimensions does solve that problem, but not only does it eliminate premium seats, but it also reduces the hitting/checking in the game a lot, something that's also bankable about hockey in North America. No dump and chase, no blue-line stand-up play, no play along the boards (for better and worse), etc.

Regulating padding is a big deal. I was watching Patrick Roy in the '86 finals and I forgot just how small the goalie's pads are. I don't mind the other players' equipment so much because while pads are bigger, so are the shooters and their shot speeds are higher than ever. Regulation is required though. Jiggy ties his leg pads so loosely at the knee that when he goes down to the butterfly, his pads are completely flat and close the 5 hole when his kneees are a good 8-12" off the ice. Certainly ever goalie, especially someone as notorious as Garth Snow, has taken advantage of relxed/vitually non-existant regulations about padding. It's like my pet peeve with players tying their helmet strap loosely, mistakenly thinking that when their helmets get thrown back at the slightest brush, it will draw a penalty more easily. (Just the opposite has happened -- refs don't blink when players get whiplashed.)

Moogs, do you think moving the goal line back out a la the Gretsky days would help?

I'm not sure moving the goal line / changing the shape of the crease would ultimately have much effect. It would make lots of current minders think twice about playing pucks that are dumped in, thus resulting in an increase in shots per game most likely. It's hard to say what it would do beyond that.

Regulation of goalie padding should be mandatory, just like stick blade curves. It should be an option for the opposing coach to call the refs over and say "inspect the width of his leg pads" or "check the thickness of his shoulder pads", and then have the refs pull out the old ruler and check. Infractions are good for a penalty shot -- how's that for keeping the netminders honest and injecting some excitement into the game? You know the first couple seasons a bunch of goalies would get nailed with that one.

I don't personally care if a player wants to wear loose-fitting pads or helmets or whatever. Personally I think you'd have to be retarded to wear a helmet that falls off your head every time you look down or get shoved. Trying to induce penalty calls by reducing the safety factor of the single most important piece of equipment you wear (sans the jock maybe ) is just asking for trouble. Regardless, the size of [the pads worn by skating players], and the thickness of those pads should be more uniform between brands / models probably. I agree with the earlier sentiment about some of the brands being more like armor, so that it almost gives the player a false sense of protection, so they go doing things that cause more serious injury eventually.

I have no problem with composite sticks, because despite their ability to increase shot velocity, there are two very obvious drawbacks: it's much harder to catch passes with them and they break like...well, like twigs. You get caught with a broken stick at a bad time and suddenly that extra velocity isn't worth so much to you. I don't personally understand why so many pros use them. Even mediocre shot-makers can - with an old rubbery wood stick - hit the puck SO friggin hard it would make the average recreational player's head spin. To me it seems like overkill.

Sure a guy like me or you could definitely benefit from them - I own a CCM Vector - but that's because I'm lucky if I hit my best one-timer at probably 70 mph. To me the added advantage is really found on wrist shots and snap-shots because it's much easier to get good turnover on the stick when they're lighter and whippier.

bigger ice (Int'l size) would allow good skaters and talented speedsters to get the crowd buzzing every rush

combined with consistent obstruction and holding calls it might help take the game out of the hands of the less energetic or athletic, also effectively raising the performance level of the game

automatic icing (less injuries) rather than cheapshots on forecheck

moving the net back - dunno which way i lean on this.

restricted proportion/dimension goalie gear is a must. safety ok, cheater not.


and sudden death overtime... why does the league go to 4 on 4? more ice = more offence

why not continue it. every twenty minutes a player is removed...
starts as 4-4, 3-3, 2-2, eventually it's one-on-one to settle it.

Goalies must skate and score...

all part of our cunning plan to cut down on their equipment

I'm against automatic icing because I feel it will make the game less exciting. Players will give up on the puck. Now at least you have some good chases, and while there are some forecheckers that take cheap shots, most are smart enough not to get caught that deep. I mentioned efore that they should call less icing and let the palyers chase the puck, less whistles and more excitement that fast players can take advantage of.

I'm ambivalent with the idea of shootouts. Maybe one overtime then a shootout? I dunno if there are any easy answers for all the ties in hockey. I just want them to drop the stupid point for overtime losses trick. sure, more teams reach 100 points, but this isn't basketball and it doesn't make hockey any more exciting. I'd rather see 3 points for wins, 2 for ties and 1 for shootout wins or something like that if they feel it's that important.

BTW, there are some regulations for goalie leg pads, no more than 12" wide at the front, but all those flaps and stuff on the sides, and not tying them tight can give you that extra inch.

I think during the playoffs, there ought to be something like two 20 minute 5v5 OT, if that doesn't settle it, shootout. 100 minutes of hockey ought to be enough. If it isn't, the shootout will certainly not leave anyone thinking there wasn't an exciting end. I also think regular season OT ought to be 10 minute 5v5, not 5 minute 4v4. 5 minutes is not enough free hockey to satisfy the likes of me I tell ya!

last chance to wager...

my pennies are staying on the pacific. Ducks.

Ooo. Wagering is dangerous business in the superstition-prone game of hockey (some say it's worse than baseball). I'm not sure I am willing to put down a bet. I think the Devils will win but as long as it's at least one OT and more than a couple goals to get to that point, I don't care.

All I know is I hate summertime sports other than maybe the British and US Opens. Baseball is boring until September (and even then it's still kinda boring), basketball sucks, and football doesn't get interesting until there's a real chill in the air. Mmmm. Tailgater.

I can't remember if the CBA ends in the later half of next season, or the first half of the following but 2004 could be an ugly year for the NHL. Let's hope tradition and cooler heads prevail over dickhead sports agents and a few greedy players.

Congrats Mr. Rotto! I had a feeling you were over-reacting JUST a little the other night when you compared the Devils (already had two titles) to the Bills (had none in modern era)...but I decided to wait and see what happened. I think the team with home ice wins this series either way. Devils though, like always, score when they have to and then give you the ole "Bear Trap". They're pretty damn good, that's about all I can say of the Devils.

I will add though, that most of the fans in that arena were shitheads for booing Giguere. Show some friggin class already. I guess I should expect as much from a bunch of yahoos from the New York / New Jersery metro area. Only the fans in Philly would've booed more loudly. I think even Toronto fans would've given the guy his due for cryin out loud. Don Cherry will have something to say about this ... next year!

Sorry for being so melodramatic. \ I really didn't have a good feeling. Brodeur showed me something tonight, that's for sure. I won't dare defend the NJ fans in the arena for booing Giguere; at least the Devils players applauded, as he deserved that trophy, hands down. Everyone here is in the same boat, rather embarrassed by that (though we're split over them booing Bettman.) I thought the fans were very good for a change until they acted, as you said, like Philly fans at the end. I wish the ABC cameras would have stopped showing Jiggy so much right after the game. I'm glad they showed it, but no need to dwell so much on his understandable heartbreak.

Anyway, we're having a few too many drinks for a school night right now, and I'm missing the action in the living room. G'night.

No need to apologize. I know the sinking feeling of having your team lose a game six and being forced to a one game series. It's frustrating.

Anyway, Bettman is a dope; I got no problems with people booing him as long as they know *why* they should boo him. Not just because "hey man let's boo the comish!"

I couldn't boo Bettman just because we share an alma mater. He and Joe Nieuwendyk. I don't like to play "if were CEO" here, but I do think I would do things a little differently if I were the commish, and depend so much on David Stern's precedents.

Today, I'm wondering what will happen to the old-timers in that game: Daneyko, Oates, Thomas, Nieuwendyk, etc., even Stevens I suppose. I think Dano will retire and go straight into Devils scouting. Stevens has another year, I doubt he'll do another 2 for some reason. I think Newy never got over being traded from Dallas, and he looks at NJ as a bad place for himself. I think he'll move in the off-season, more for personal reasons. The question is, where will he go at his age and his pay scale? Philly maybe?

Detroit possibly. He'd fit in fine there. Or maybe a younger team like Minnesota that needs some veteran types who can score.

[Added]
Holy CRAP! Edzo is now the coach of the Penguins. I can't believe it. Check here if you don't know who the amazing Edzo is. Balsy move by Patrick. I think it's probably a good one though. Eddie will get two or three good years behind the bench and the young-uns will develop better under him than some old dude. Other than Jaques LeMaire maybe, but he's taken.