canacks1970 Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 This 3-on-3 overtime thing is going to be a joke. They want to avoid shootouts because too many games were decided by a so-called gimmick. What do you call 3-on-3? How often do you see that garbage in an NHL game? It's going to look like a practice scrimmage game with only 3 players on the ice for each team. Hopefully the league realizes what a horrible idea this was and kills it quickly. And you don't think a shootout isn't a gimmick and a joke! Go to a BCHL game and ask some of the players or coaches what they think of 3-3. At first they go 4-4 then 3-3. Most games end before they go to the shootout. Never liked the shootout . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggs Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 And you don't think a shootout isn't a gimmick and a joke! Go to a BCHL game and ask some of the players or coaches what they think of 3-3. At first they go 4-4 then 3-3. Most games end before they go to the shootout. Never liked the shootout . There are breakaways and penalty shots in hockey games. Neither of these things are gimmicks. Automatically reducing the number of players on the ice just because it's OT is a farce. I already disliked the 4-on-4 but that happens quite a bit in a game anyway. This 3-on-3 will be garbage regardless of what league it's done in. Just because a game ends sooner doesn't make it a good decision. That forced ending is contrived. They might as well make right-players use left-handed sticks or blindfold the goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 There are breakaways and penalty shots in hockey games. Neither of these things are gimmicks. Automatically reducing the number of players on the ice just because it's OT is a farce. I already disliked the 4-on-4 but that happens quite a bit in a game anyway. This 3-on-3 will be garbage regardless of what league it's done in. Just because a game ends sooner doesn't make it a good decision. That forced ending is contrived. They might as well make right-players use left-handed sticks or blindfold the goalies. Sure it's forcing a conclusion. So is the shootout. My gut says 3 on 3 looks more like a hockey game than a shootout does. 3 on 3 is either going to be wide open and exciting because it can't be any other way or it's going to be dull as hell and conservative because players are afraid to make a mistake. What has happened in Junior suggests the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 This 3-on-3 overtime thing is going to be a joke. They want to avoid shootouts because too many games were decided by a so-called gimmick. What do you call 3-on-3? How often do you see that garbage in an NHL game? It's going to look like a practice scrimmage game with only 3 players on the ice for each team. Hopefully the league realizes what a horrible idea this was and kills it quickly. Would you prefer tie games? I buck up for a game I want to see one side win. A tie game is like going on a date and getting a handshake at the end. A waste of time and money. Btw, I've seen 3 on 3 several times in penalty filled games. Just as I've seen breakaways and penalty shots. I don't see it as a gimmick at all. The only major change I'd like to see is 3 points for a regulation win and a 2/1 split for ot/shootout or lose the loser point all together. I hate seeing a team sitting higher in the standing than a team with more wins because of loser points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Would you prefer tie games? I buck up for a game I want to see one side win. A tie game is like going on a date and getting a handshake at the end. A waste of time and money. Btw, I've seen 3 on 3 several times in penalty filled games. Just as I've seen breakaways and penalty shots. I don't see it as a gimmick at all. The only major change I'd like to see is 3 points for a regulation win and a 2/1 split for ot/shootout or lose the loser point all together. I hate seeing a team sitting higher in the standing than a team with more wins because of loser points. Honestly, why make it complicated: 2 points if you win, 0 if you lose (no matter how). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Honestly, why make it complicated: 2 points if you win, 0 if you lose (no matter how). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googlie Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I don't think the Sedins will be as good 3v3 as they are 4v4. Going from 5v5 to 4v4 favours strong possession and cycle players (this is why the Sedins dominate), but moving to 3v3 it favours players with speed and players who score off the rush (anyone who has seen 3v3 hockey knows how many odd man rushes there are, it is a game of mistakes and rushes not set-up chances like 4v4).very prescient!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Would you prefer tie games? I buck up for a game I want to see one side win. A tie game is like going on a date and getting a handshake at the end. A waste of time and money. I would prefer they go back to ties. 3 points for a win or 1 each for a tie. No OT, shootout, coin flip, cock fight, etc. needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I like the 3on3, ends the game faster. 4on4 just seemed like a temporary phase to the shootout.Bomberman called it.Sedin's aren't built as much for 3on3 as 4on4 I hear they practise a lot with 3on3 drills...so the liability of the Sedin's speed coming back 3on3 shouldn't be a mystery to WD or any of our coaches. Heck the players even know. Maybe nobody saying anything is like that thing in the Emporer Has No Clothes where nobody wants to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-Hearted Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Would you prefer tie games? I buck up for a game I want to see one side win. A tie game is like going on a date and getting a handshake at the end. A waste of time and money. Btw, I've seen 3 on 3 several times in penalty filled games. Just as I've seen breakaways and penalty shots. I don't see it as a gimmick at all. The only major change I'd like to see is 3 points for a regulation win and a 2/1 split for ot/shootout or lose the loser point all together. I hate seeing a team sitting higher in the standing than a team with more wins because of loser points. Would you prefer tie games? I buck up for a game I want to see one side win. A tie game is like going on a date and getting a handshake at the end. A waste of time and money. Btw, I've seen 3 on 3 several times in penalty filled games. Just as I've seen breakaways and penalty shots. I don't see it as a gimmick at all. The only major change I'd like to see is 3 points for a regulation win and a 2/1 split for ot/shootout or lose the loser point all together. I hate seeing a team sitting higher in the standing than a team with more wins because of loser points.I totally agree with with the 3-point concept. However, if soccer can have ties, so can hockey. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the W-L-T format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googlie Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Wikipedia - on soccer, quotes hockey:In the National Hockey League in North America, a system described as "the three-point win" was proposed in 2004, with three points for a win in regulation time, two for a win in overtime, and one for a tie. This proposal was put on hold by the 2004–05 NHL lockout and subsequently rejected by team owners in February 2007.[18] Instead the NHL awards 2 points for a win in regulation or overtime/shootout, one point for an overtime loss, and none for a regulation loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I love 3 on 3, anytime it's on I make sure to find the game and watch it because it's super exciting and unpredictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 There's no 3-on-3 in the playoffs, and thank God because the Canucks simply don't have that top-end elite skill to have any success in it. No top defencemen, no top scorers, no chance 3-on-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainKool Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I hate 3v3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Would you prefer tie games? I buck up for a game I want to see one side win. A tie game is like going on a date and getting a handshake at the end. A waste of time and money. Btw, I've seen 3 on 3 several times in penalty filled games. Just as I've seen breakaways and penalty shots. I don't see it as a gimmick at all. The only major change I'd like to see is 3 points for a regulation win and a 2/1 split for ot/shootout or lose the loser point all together. I hate seeing a team sitting higher in the standing than a team with more wins because of loser points.I would much prefer tie games. Real hockey instead of some kind of crappy shinny game. If we must have a win go the way of baseball and play until somebody scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
250Integra Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 3 on 3 is super exciting. The problem is our team has not figured out the right mix of speed / skill to win it.Maybe our team should just play keep away for 5 minutes so we have a better chance in the shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I would much prefer tie games. Real hockey instead of some kind of crappy shinny game. If we must have a win go the way of baseball and play until somebody scores.Wait, you've never seen 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 within a game? Never seen a penalty shot in a game? All part of hockey. Which means it's not a gimmick. As much as I'd prefer a game be decided in OT it just isn't feasible to play until somebody scores with back to back games throughout the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I hate 3 on 3. I don't really like the 4 on 4 nor shoot out neither.I'd rather the game end in ties.The only reason we have this format now is to give the appearance that bad to mid tier teams look better than they are in the standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googlie Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I hate 3 on 3. I don't really like the 4 on 4 nor shoot out neither.I'd rather the game end in ties.The only reason we have this format now is to give the appearance that bad to mid tier teams look better than they are in the standings. Without their 6 "loser points" last year, cup-winning Chicago would have missed the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Without their 6 "loser points" last year, cup-winning Chicago would have missed the playoffsExactly. They played mediocre all season, barely made the playoffs and then turned it on. They shouldn't have been in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.