Shoot outs in Hockey

[KleptoKlown]

First off, question why people want shootouts.

They're exciting, and they're very rare. The only time you really get to see them is allstar breaks, and international play.

Now ask yourself this...if you saw a shootout every other night, would you still think they were as exciting?

Use shootouts for overtime is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg Okay you are either retarded, or just trying to be. You totally ignored my post because "Colorado is Colorado" Jersey's deeper roster and defense isn't going to do shit for them in a shootout. Try and decide what standpoint you're trying to take.

Why are you being a jackass?

I'm not going to go through each guy and try to determine if they would score. I read your list, and its stupid, you cant take a guy like Forsberg and say he wouldn't be that great in a shootout. You've probably only seen Forsberg in maybe a few shootouts/penalty shots (if that) so you're opinion is baseless. Since they dont do it on a regular basis, the only way to predict the outcome is by talent. Hell for all we know Darcy Tucker could be a beast at Penalty Shots, but would you bet a lot of money that he is? Of course not. So in terms of scoring talent, Colorado is much deeper than Anahiem, anyone can see that (except you apparently).

In terms of the Jersey thing, now you're just being ignorant because you are mixing up two separate points. My point about Jersey being a somewhat deep has to do with them playing a full game, in comparision to teams like Minnesota. I never once said that Jersey would do well in a shootout, I was just pointing out that they are a deeper overall team than Minestoa and Anahiem (again its impossible to argue that point).

Next time try to get your facts right before you run your mouth.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by ]{lepto]{lown First off, question why people want shootouts. They're exciting, and they're very rare. The only time you really get to see them is allstar breaks, and international play. Now ask yourself this...if you saw a shootout every other night, would you still think they were as exciting? Use shootouts for overtime is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb

Well if they used my idea, you'd have 10 minutes of overtime, which would increase the number of games that end in OT.

But yeah, you'd have a lot of shootouts, and its impossible to tell if people would get tired of it because it hasn't happened yet. I can see how it would be exciting almost everytime. I dont see how people could be bored by seeing say Iyla vs Luongo or Iginla vs Joseph, and so on.

And it wouldn't be every other night (unless you watch all the games), but I think the Leafs had something like 10 ties (thereabouts anyway), so that would be 1 out of 8 games ending in a shootout, so it would still be pretty special.

Originally Posted by The CyNick Why are you being a jackass? I'm not going to go through each guy and try to determine if they would score. I read your list, and its stupid, you cant take a guy like Forsberg and say he wouldn't be that great in a shootout. You've probably only seen Forsberg in maybe a few shootouts/penalty shots (if that) so you're opinion is baseless. Since they dont do it on a regular basis, the only way to predict the outcome is by talent. Hell for all we know Darcy Tucker could be a beast at Penalty Shots, but would you bet a lot of money that he is? Of course not. So in terms of scoring talent, Colorado is much deeper than Anahiem, anyone can see that (except you apparently). In terms of the Jersey thing, now you're just being ignorant because you are mixing up two separate points. My point about Jersey being a somewhat deep has to do with them playing a full game, in comparision to teams like Minnesota. I never once said that Jersey would do well in a shootout, I was just pointing out that they are a deeper overall team than Minestoa and Anahiem (again its impossible to argue that point). Next time try to get your facts right before you run your mouth.

You are an idiot.

Your whole argument was that Colorado would kill anyone in a shootout because of the stars on their team. Then I pointed out that while they have a few good stars, they wouldn't exactly overwhelm a supposed less-talented team like Anaheim. Then you basically just say "No, Darcy Tucker is as good a player as Forsberg, so you suck"

Basically, you're an idiot. If you're going to try and argue your point, at least try and put out something valid that would make even someone like Yash believe it. All you've said was "Colorado and Ottawa would kill other teams in a shootout." You've given me nothing to believe that your point is true.

[MoRcHeEbA]

the toronto maple leafs would win every shoot out ever

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg You are an idiot. Your whole argument was that Colorado would kill anyone in a shootout because of the stars on their team. Then I pointed out that while they have a few good stars, they wouldn't exactly overwhelm a supposed less-talented team like Anaheim. Then you basically just say "No, Darcy Tucker is as good a player as Forsberg, so you suck" Basically, you're an idiot. If you're going to try and argue your point, at least try and put out something valid that would make even someone like Yash believe it. All you've said was "Colorado and Ottawa would kill other teams in a shootout." You've given me nothing to believe that your point is true.

Dumbass, its impossible to prove. The only way to judge is to see how guys have faired on penalty shots/shootous in the past. Everything is just speculation, and proves very little.

And once again you missed the point with the Tucker thing, which shows you cant read, which is sad in this day and age.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by MoRcHeEbA the toronto maple leafs would win every shoot out ever

now this guy I can agree with

[Adder]

Hockey used to be 3 forwards, 3 defensemen and the goalie. Then they removed a defenseman to open up the game. Granted that was a long time ago, but people who say altering the game is blasphemy seem to overlook things like this.

Hockey needs some sort of change.



They have been mulling over the idea of larger nets. (actually what it is is smaller goalposts at this point) Removing the redline is another. Whether it's one of these idea or whether it's shoot outs, 4 on 4 hockey for 10 minutes instead of 5, they should just get to doing something.

[da_king]

just heard that the NHLPA is going to file a grievance over plans to reduce the size goaltender pads , no doubt just politicking. anyways one idea i'd like to see them try out is have a floating blue line. atacking team gains the zone, defesive team has to get it past centre for the offside rule to kick in. i don't know what it is about the people that run the NHL but it seems like it takes them forever to do anything and usually it's something small and inconsequential or they don't follow through with it properly.

[Heyman]

QUESTION - Why not just completely eliminate off-sides?

Keep the 5 on 5, but just get rid of all off sides. No icing as well.

[Y2Ant]

They should just use the soccer offside, you have to have at least one D-man infront of you when you recieve a pass, no crossing the blue line bollocks

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Y2Ant They should just use the soccer offside, you have to have at least one D-man infront of you when you recieve a pass, no crossing the blue line bollocks

I'd compare hockey more to basketball than soccer (due to a more similar sized 'playing field').

Basketball has no offsides. Hence - the sport has great tempo.

Gotta have off sides. Drop the red line. In fact that was added from the original game anyways.

[The CyNick]

As far as the nets go, I dont see the problem with making them a little bigger. I understand why the NHLPA wants to prtect their goalies with larger equipment, so the way to fight that is increase the net size. Gaolies are still protected, but they cant cover as much of the net, which would increase scoring.

Too many people in hockey are afraid are real changes to try to improve the game. I'm as big of a hockey fan as there is, but I recognize its a business and a lot of people could care less about the game. They should be taking larger strides to make the game more exciting to get new viewers.

[MoRcHeEbA]

my league doesn't play with the red line, all it does really though is eliminate the trap style though... Nothing special. Makes the game quicker... Meh

[samichna]

cat fight

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero Gotta have off sides. Drop the red line. In fact that was added from the original game anyways.

That would be a good solution, but I don't see WHY it's such a bad idea to completely eliminate offsides.

Eliminate offsides and icing, and it practically KILLS the trap.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg You are an idiot. Your whole argument was that Colorado would kill anyone in a shootout because of the stars on their team. Then I pointed out that while they have a few good stars, they wouldn't exactly overwhelm a supposed less-talented team like Anaheim. Then you basically just say "No, Darcy Tucker is as good a player as Forsberg, so you suck" Basically, you're an idiot. If you're going to try and argue your point, at least try and put out something valid that would make even someone like Yash believe it. All you've said was "Colorado and Ottawa would kill other teams in a shootout." You've given me nothing to believe that your point is true.

Road Doggy Dogg:

You calling The CyNick an idiot, is like Michael Jackson calling Brock Lesnar a "girly man".

You're a reasonably intelligent guy (I'll give you that), but The CyNick is MUCH more intelligent than you.

Re-read your dialogue with him, and you'll realize who the real "idiot" in this thread was.

[Y2C]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg God no. If anything, they should be in everything BUT finals (playoff) games. I, as a player, would be quite pissed if my entire season were to lay on the shoulders of 5 players on my team, and could be gone because our star winger tripped at the top of the circle and missed his shot. The games are just too important for something like that to decide them.

Then what would you suggest instead of a shoot-out to decide games? In finals games you must have a winner, so that one team advances and the other gets eliminated. In a best of 7 series, what if they were 3 wins each with 1 tie? You can't have 2 teams progress when there is only 1 spot available.

Finals matches are the only ones where there must be a winner & a loser. During the regular season if there's a tie then both teams get equal amount of points. There are no points in finals, as you're playing to get to the next round.

[The Icon of Elisim]

In playoff matches you have overtimes, generally sudden death

[da_king]

yeah keep playing till someone scores. play all night if they have to.

[Y2Ant]

Originally Posted by Heyman I'd compare hockey more to basketball than soccer (due to a more similar sized 'playing field'). Basketball has no offsides. Hence - the sport has great tempo.

That would be true I guess.

I'd like to see a more exciting, offensive game (and I dunno what the scores used to be in the days of Gretsky) but I don't wanna see games end up like 10-9 every night, I like to see shutouts happen too.

[Y2Ant]

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero Gotta have off sides. Drop the red line. In fact that was added from the original game anyways.

The only thing the red line is used for is icing isn't it ?

If so, then I agree with what you just said

[Y2Ant]

Oh yeah, no 2 line passes without a red line

Could someone give me an explanation of the trap system

I'm guessing it's some sort of counterattack after the defence absorbs all the pressure, nick a goal or two and then play defensively or something?

[Heyman]

Just so everyone knows, I got the whole "no icing, no offsides" idea from my old Super Nintendo game (NHL 97').

[Y2Ant]

Fights should be like Blades of Steel on the NES, where only the loser of the fight goes to the bench.

[MoRcHeEbA]

Originally Posted by Y2Ant Oh yeah, no 2 line passes without a red line Could someone give me an explanation of the trap system I'm guessing it's some sort of counterattack after the defence absorbs all the pressure, nick a goal or two and then play defensively or something?

A two line pass is just a fancy word for offside

anyways the trap is basically a 1-2-2 forecheck a team that's on defense will send in one forechecker into the opositions zone, then leave there other two forwards at about the blue line and the two defense at about half way between the red and blue. the two forwards will basically lock the two wingers up without causing a interfernce call, so they're basically taken out of the play. Basically all it does though is cause alot of turnovers and makes the game slower.