Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/death-shootout-support-3-3-overtime-increasing-nhl-195413310--nhl.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Yay ? Nay ?

    Will the NHLPA like it ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I dont like the shootout at all, its fun to watch, but I think 3 on 3 would be absolutely ridiculous.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    Just wondering but what was wrong with just letting a game end in a tie?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to red75's comment:

    Just wondering but what was wrong with just letting a game end in a tie?



    I think it should go 10 mins 4 on 4, then 5 mins 4 on 4, then end in a tie if need be. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I would love it.  Play hockey win the game.  3 on 3 would get a little crazy, but at least it is hockey, and not a gimmicky little skills competition.  Would be fun to see the speed and fitness in the 3 on 3.

    I'm all for it.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    good words fletch.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    I would love it.  Play hockey win the game.  3 on 3 would get a little crazy, but at least it is hockey, and not a gimmicky little skills competition.  Would be fun to see the speed and fitness in the 3 on 3.

    I'm all for it.



    100% with Fletch on this issue !

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from huntbri. Show huntbri's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I think it should be 5 minutes of 4 on 4 and then 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and then if it is still tied (my guess is that this would be arre) call it a tie.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    Ties are lame and what they league was trying to get away from in the first place. I do agree with 10mins at 4 on 4 but  after that go 5min with 3 on 3.





     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    3 v 3 is too hokey.  It's not a real game situation.  Sure, it happens, but not often at all.  If they're going to insist on a winner, I want to see a real game situation determine it.  4 on 4 would be acceptable to play out for 10 and then just end it.

    The Shootout Circus is so bad.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    3 on 3 would result in as many break a ways as a shootout. I would like a team to win, while still keeping it a hockey game. I also dont like rewarding a team with a point if they did not win. Heres my idea.

    Give each team a two minute power play with the road team going first. If they score, the home team gets a shot at tying it. If the road team does not score and the home team does, game over. If the road team scores first and the home team fails to, then game over. Keep going til we have a winner...

    Shorthanded goal, wins no matter what.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    With the B's awesome PK and dreadful PP, those games would go to 4am in Boston!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    With the B's awesome PK and dreadful PP, those games would go to 4am in Boston!




    I get that answer every time I bring it up. Yet, I still think it's a good idea. Only because it's mine.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    A full 20 of 5-on-5 OT... ends in a tie if no winner.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruinsalways. Show bruinsalways's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to red75's comment:

    Just wondering but what was wrong with just letting a game end in a tie?



    I'm with you nothing wrong with a tie.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:



    I like it.  Much better than a shoot out - much more exciting.  

    I don't see much hitting going on in a 3 on 3, just fire wagon hockey.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    3 v 3 is too hokey.  It's not a real game situation.  Sure, it happens, but not often at all.  If they're going to insist on a winner, I want to see a real game situation determine it.  4 on 4 would be acceptable to play out for 10 and then just end it.

    The Shootout Circus is so bad.



    However, it is possible that a 3 on 3 can happen in an actual game.

    6 penalty shots in a row is not possible in an actual game.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I agree with Fletch!  As many on here have said before, if you lose in OT there should not be a point awarded.  Shootouts are for kids!

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    The whole problem with most of these other great suggestions, is they fail to consider the leagues biggest issue, when they originally tried to come up with the concept of a  reg season winner.

    Flights.

    The monotony and compression of the regular season has teams on a tight schedule.  When the whole 4 on 4, shootout system came in...it was only decided upon, because it could be fitted in, in about 1/2 hour usually.  On average, teams only have "minutes" per night....not "hours" in which to get the games in.

    To me, nothing worse than  overtime, and still no winner.  I also agree with the league, that at the end of the night...someone should be the winner.  It's pretty much impossible to figure out how much time is involved in any kind of overtime result, so we're left with some kind of gimmickry, if a winner is to be crowned.  3 on 3, is a gimmick too, and one I don't think is too well suited to the current Bruins.

    Although the single point thing is a reasonable pet peeve, I'm ok with that too.  Any of these gimmicks create a competitive challenge, and there's a cause/effect scenario to be considered.  2 pts for an overall win, and zero to the other team, will have serious consequences to the standings, therefore the overall game.  A shootout specialist or 2(see TS) would become much more integral to icing a successful team.  Same with 3 on 3.  If it's 2 pts vs none, it would seem to me, the overall benefit of being built on defense first....would be somewhat compromised.  I'm too lazy to figure this out, but I'm projecting around 15 games out of 82, end up tied after 60 minutes.  Imagine the difference in points, therefore the shakeup in playoff teams, if the league went 3 on 3, and the winner gets all the points.  

    Just my opinion, but no thanks.  When looking at all the options, I'm not that unhappy with the way it is.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    They should embrace true hockey culture.  After a 4x4 OT for 5, each team sends a fighter to center ice.  The bell rings, the gloves drop, and the guy who goes down first earns a "L" for himself and his team.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    The whole problem with most of these other great suggestions, is they fail to consider the leagues biggest issue, when they originally tried to come up with the concept of a  reg season winner.

    Flights.

    The monotony and compression of the regular season has teams on a tight schedule.  When the whole 4 on 4, shootout system came in...it was only decided upon, because it could be fitted in, in about 1/2 hour usually.  On average, teams only have "minutes" per night....not "hours" in which to get the games in.

    To me, nothing worse than  overtime, and still no winner.  I also agree with the league, that at the end of the night...someone should be the winner.  It's pretty much impossible to figure out how much time is involved in any kind of overtime result, so we're left with some kind of gimmickry, if a winner is to be crowned.  3 on 3, is a gimmick too, and one I don't think is too well suited to the current Bruins.

    Although the single point thing is a reasonable pet peeve, I'm ok with that too.  Any of these gimmicks create a competitive challenge, and there's a cause/effect scenario to be considered.  2 pts for an overall win, and zero to the other team, will have serious consequences to the standings, therefore the overall game.  A shootout specialist or 2(see TS) would become much more integral to icing a successful team.  Same with 3 on 3.  If it's 2 pts vs none, it would seem to me, the overall benefit of being built on defense first....would be somewhat compromised.  I'm too lazy to figure this out, but I'm projecting around 15 games out of 82, end up tied after 60 minutes.  Imagine the difference in points, therefore the shakeup in playoff teams, if the league went 3 on 3, and the winner gets all the points.  

    Just my opinion, but no thanks.  When looking at all the options, I'm not that unhappy with the way it is.




    Actually the shake up would have been minimal - seeds 1-8 in the West would have stayed exactly the same. In the East 1-7 would not have changed, but the NYI would have been knocked out of 8th and the Jets would have made it instead. Everything else would have stayed the same. No extra points really wouldn't have made a huge difference.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I think ties are dumb! When I go to a game & pay the money I do. I deserve to see a winner of the contest I paid for. I understand about schedules & flts and all of that. So, do a 4 on 4 then a 3 on 3; both for 5 min. Do the 4 on 4 with stop time & the 3 on 3 for straight. This will reduce shoot-outs by about 50% or more. they'll even be some 3-0's, because of fatigue & line changes. Imagine the save a goalie will have to make on a 3-0. No points should be awarded for a team that gets any loss. This would reduce teams playing for just a point. 

    "Why is a puck called a puck? Because Dirty little bastar d was taken!"- Marty Brodeur

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    im surprised how many people would be cool with 3 on 3. I think it would look and be ridiculous and be somewhat boring. I hate the shootout as much as anyone, but i think 3 on 3 would be a joke. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

    im surprised how many people would be cool with 3 on 3. I think it would look and be ridiculous and be somewhat boring. I hate the shootout as much as anyone, but i think 3 on 3 would be a joke. 



    How would 3 on 3 firewagon hockey be boring?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

     

    im surprised how many people would be cool with 3 on 3. I think it would look and be ridiculous and be somewhat boring. I hate the shootout as much as anyone, but i think 3 on 3 would be a joke. 

     



    How would 3 on 3 firewagon hockey be boring?

     


    lack of REAL hockey gameplay, its seems gimmicky, all the things that are bad and boring about shootouts...

    I like watching 5 on 5 hockey.  In OT 4 on 4 is fair and good, 3 on 3 just seems silly to me.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share