November 22nd, 2013, 11:09 AM #1
After getting to see a full 2 minutes of 3 on 3 OT last night I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to open a discussion on this, since there has been talks of possibly implementing some type of OT system that would include this.
I noticed a couple things that I'm wondering that anyone else saw which kind of made me think this wouldn't be the best idea.
1) It did open up the game a little. There seemed to be a faster back and forth pace on the ice which did get intense and excited. However, it seemed to me that once the teams got in the zone not much was really able to be done. I noticed one play where doughty got the puck at the point and I almost felt like his instinct was to pass it across to blue line like he would typically do, but there obviously was no one there.
2) Lack of men on ice seemed to make it hard to create a dangerous chances. When there was a chance there was no one to pick up the rebound because of the coverage, or there was lack of any decent traffic to create some chances. I saw doughty get his stick on a shot but it didn't really seem dangerous to me. I also saw a rebound and a wide open net where a player would normally be on a 4v4.
3) I don't know if this is just NJs playing style that played a part in this but the man on man coverage seemed really tight once the kings got in the zone (I think it was about the same vice versa). My thought on this was perhaps knowing there's only 3 guys on the ice you can play each guy a little tighter knowing there's more open ice so the chance of a second guy coming in to help is less likely?
Probably need to see more of this type of hockey in the pro leagues to get a better grasp on how it could work out but I don't know if this is an effective solution to a shootout. Any thoughts?
November 22nd, 2013, 11:23 AM #2
I thought it was terrible. Like you said, once they got into the zone there was no one to pass to. The only real chance at anything resembling a scoring play would be to fling the puck at the net from somewhere along the blue line and hope the guy in front can somehow get a deflection. It was boring hockey and didn't do anything to create the kind of pretty plays you would want from more open ice. I really hope they never implement anything like this in the future.
November 22nd, 2013, 11:26 AM #3
I thought it was heart-stopping action the whole time.
In the zone everyone gets covered?
Well, it doesn't take much for someone to get away from being covered.
I thought it was damn great, until Kopitar made that ****-ass pass at the end of it.
November 22nd, 2013, 11:30 AM #4
I enjoyed it! There was so much open ice to work that it really was a skills show for the fans. I'll tell you this much, I would much rather have a 3 on 3 OT period then a shootout!
November 22nd, 2013, 11:30 AM #5
ANYTHING is better than the shootout. I would prefer ties to the shootout.
3 on 3 is one mistake away from a terrific scoring opportunity, and I was a little surprised that neither team went with two forwards.
November 22nd, 2013, 11:31 AM #6
A couple of weeks ago Mike Babcock was talking about this. It was his own GM (Holland) who has suggested a 3 on 3 OT (after 5 min) instead of the SO. Babcock didn't agree...he thought they just should play the game as it is. The new rules after the 2005 lockout should have taken care of the problem. Naturally if you open up the game as a whole more games will be won in OT. That was the problem before so if you indeed really did "fix" the game with the new rules (no red line, call holding etc) in 2005 there should have been NO need to change the OT at all, let alone add the shoot out.
To me if they want to extend OT to 10 min then just do it. If they want 4 on 4 fine but I'd prefer 5 on 5 and after 10 min call it a tie since I think the 3 point game is terrible and artificially condenses the standings.
November 22nd, 2013, 11:32 AM #7
Game skills were on display, not just a slam dunk contest. I thought it was pretty cool.
Originally Posted by AllenA07
November 22nd, 2013, 11:36 AM #8
That was a great ending to a hard fought 60 minutes. I'd love to see more of this in the regular season.
November 22nd, 2013, 11:39 AM #9
In my perfect world I think I would do a 10 minute OT, with 5 minutes being 4 on 4 and then 5 minutes being 3 on 3. If that doesn't get it done, call it a tie and give each team a point. As said above, I hate the idea of a 3 point game and would love to see it go away.
November 22nd, 2013, 11:43 AM #10
I say take away the incentive to get the games to OT. No more 3-point games, period. Ties are a point each and winners in OT get 2 and the losers zero.
All this garbage about deciding a winner on a skills contest after the game cheapens hockey, imho.