GDT: PRE 3 | "Small Sample Size" | Oilers vs. Jets | 9.23.15 | 7:00 PM | Rexall | Streamed

[Dorian2]

I'd rather have the shootout.

The 3 v 3 was an unsettling combo of sad and weird.

Nah. I liked the 3 on 3. Reminded me of those street pickup hockey games as a kid. And cars weren't running over their snow mound goal posts neither.

 

[guymez]

Why does it have to be a message? Reinhart and Nurse are both rookies with a chance to make the team, clearly this is just giving each an opportunity with the "big" group. Same I'd think with Slepyshev and Pitlick. Those are guys who could conceivably make the roster in a press box or bottom line type role or be first call ups, give them each a chance with the big group.


Not everything has some hidden message, sometimes it's just giving each person a chance.

!00%.

When you couple that with Reinharts injury its really is an opportunity for Nurse to show better than he has so far.

 

[Patch101]

Nah. I liked the 3 on 3. Reminded me of those street pickup hockey games as a kid. And cars weren't running over over there snow mound goal posts neither.

I'd rather just kill all of it and go back to a tie game.

 

[T-Funk]

I'd rather just kill all of it and go back to a tie game.

Gross. You need a winner.

 

[I am the Liquor]

I'd rather just kill all of it and go back to a tie game.

This^

Gimmicks are for The Brick and City Ford.

 

[Oilfan2]

Gross. You need a winner.

Disagree.

I agree with Patch101. No reason to need a conclusive finish after one game. All that type of 'showboating' or trick shots doesn't tell you what the best team is.

Most likely you'll find that out even before 82 games are played. I think having some of those end in ties is perfectly acceptable.

The largest spectator sport in the world has ties...don't know why hockey can't...just to appease some unknowing American audience. Most who don't care one way or the other.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

I hate ties honestly and 3v3 is fun to watch imo

 

[Arpeggio]

Count me as a Canadian who hates ties as well.

 

[McDNicks17]

I'm still on the fence about these 3on3s.

It's fun to watch, but it feels like just as much of a sideshow as the shootout is.

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

I hate ties honestly and 3v3 is fun to watch imo

This^^^^. I'm really looking forward to watching the 3 on 3's. I went on Game Center last last night, just to watch the 3 on 3's from other games. At the end of the day, it's all about entertainment and the 3 on 3's are fun to watch. Not to mention, we could really have an advantage on the 3 on 3's with the players we have. They've essentially been playing shinny hockey for the last 4 seasons, so we might have an edge here (Especially with McDavid).

 

[Soundwave]

I'm still on the fence about these 3on3s.

It's fun to watch, but it feels like just as much of a sideshow as the shootout is.

They're both gimmicks, but 3-on-3 favors the roster we have, so I'll take it.

While it is a bit extreme, I am also tired of hockey games being decided by obstruction/hyper defensive systems play and not by talent anymore.

So it'll be nice to see what some of the more skilled players can actually do ability wise rather than just hearing "player X does some incredible things in practise".

 

[s7ark]

Ties suck. I think those advocating them are forgetting how boring the last few minutes of a game and OT were when ties were a thing. Teams went into shutdown mode to not lose that point.

 

[Da McBomb]

For 3 x 3.. try pulling the goalie and put in a 4th player who plays 'goalie' and goes up when the play is in the other end lol

 

[Replacement*]

Ties suck. I think those advocating them are forgetting how boring the last few minutes of a game and OT were when ties were a thing. Teams went into shutdown mode to not lose that point.

Ties are a true and honest result and a better arbiter of respective teams and games then 3 on 3 or shootouts.

if a game isn't decided in normal play its a tie. Simple as that. Choosing something other than standard hockey to bring about a result is arbitrary, and often random and results in such occasional inanity as the Calgary Flames making the playoffs last year while The Kings, (3-16 in OT) ended up missing. Yet in regulation time the Kings were the far better team.

That's in a nutshell the trouble with these candy coated results. If you choose arbitrary ways to decide hockey games you get some arbitrary standings results.

I want the best teams to be in the playoffs, not the luckiest at whatever latest ********* OT intervention the NHL dreams up.

 

[McShogun99]

For 3 x 3.. try pulling the goalie and put in a 4th player who plays 'goalie' and goes up when the play is in the other end lol

You'll probably start seeing that near the end of the season by teams that are just outside the playoff cutoff and need the points.

 

[Replacement*]

For 3 x 3.. try pulling the goalie and put in a 4th player who plays 'goalie' and goes up when the play is in the other end lol

You forego the single point if you do this and get scored on. =zero pts.

That's actually one intelligent rule the NHL thought about to dissuade teams from doing it.

 

[doulos]

Ties suck. I think those advocating them are forgetting how boring the last few minutes of a game and OT were when ties were a thing. Teams went into shutdown mode to not lose that point.

Agreed, it was truly dreadful.

There is no perfect solution but I'm a fan of the 3v3 at this point, though it's admittedly early. What other solutions are there?

1) Have ties - I get it that there are purists or whatever that are okay with this but they are in the minority and I just don't agree with them at all. This is the absolute worst option in my mind.

2) Shootouts after 4v4 OT - Okay we had that. It was rather meh. Shootouts are far more in the gimmick realm than 3v3 OT as far as I am concerned.

3) Shootouts after 3v3 OT - So we give this a try. The 3v3 at least resembles hockey in some form and does not rely on 1 single person. A hockey game CAN be 3v3 due to penalties so there is no argument that it isn't real hockey. It 100% is. Hopefully it cuts down on the number of games that go to SO and if it does significantly so then it's a win in my books.

4) Continuous OT until there is a winner - This would be the best solution by far except it's impossible for it to happen due to scheduling/travel etc. We don't live in a world with limitless time available so this is out as an option.

Is there another realistic option I am missing?

 

[Da McBomb]

You forego the single point if you do this and get scored on. =zero pts.

That's actually one intelligent rule the NHL thought about to dissuade teams from doing it.

And on the flip side... you basically end up having a 5 minute 4 on 3 powerplay and greater chance to score as well and gain that one point. With only 3 players on the other team, its much harder for them to get good long possession of the puck to score compared to a 5 on 4 powerplay.

 

[Joey Moss]

I'm still on the fence about these 3on3s.

It's fun to watch, but it feels like just as much of a sideshow as the shootout is.

So am I.. I understand trying to limit shootouts, but why didn't they just make it 4 on 4? 3 on 3 is way too open IMO.

 

[doulos]

So am I.. I understand trying to limit shootouts, but why didn't they just make it 4 on 4? 3 on 3 is way too open IMO.

Because too high of a percentage of 4v4 was going to a shootout I would assume.

 

[Aceboogie]

I love 3 on 3. Id rather watch actual end a game rather than a shoot out. Its exciting, its consistent back and forth action. No dumping a chasing, no grinding hockey, pure offensive hockey

I think people need to get over the fact hockey will never be ended in a 5 on 5 OT. In todays NHL a goal in scored probaly every 12-15 minutes. Thats just way to much time to keep playing hockey. These guys already played 60 mins so an extra 15 minutes is just painful to watch (dump and chase hockey) AND increases the risk of injuries AND increases exhaustion for future games

NHL would never go for it, NHLPA neither. Even the fans would complain after they are subject to a 2 OT game in Game 41 of the season. Its fun to watch in playoffs because big games on the line, but reg season not so much

Not to mention, McDavid is going to tear up 3 on 3. he might be the best 3 on 3 player in the league as soon as this year. You somehow get a forward covering Mcdavid and the D covering Eberle/Hall/RNH etc, that is asking for a goal

Watching Eberle last night, I cant help but think hed work great with McDavid. Hes quick but hes also great and give and goes and is a great shooter. RNH would also mesh well because hes great at puck distrubtion and finding holes in the coverage. Both RNH and Mcdavid can play well defensively

All out onslaught of McDavid-RNH-Eberle

then roll Hall-LD-Sekera/Klefbom

 

[Replacement*]

And on the flip side... you basically end up having a 5 minute 4 on 3 powerplay and greater chance to score as well and gain that one point. With only 3 players on the other team, its much harder for them to get good long possession of the puck to score compared to a 5 on 4 powerplay.

In the NHL with most talented players being the only ones on the ice in an extra time situation all a team has to do to to win is fire it into the empty cage. The risk/reward is not so great. A team would do it if they HAD to have the 3pts in the last game of the year. I don't think many coaches would want to opt for that otherwise.

I could be wrong. Maybe it proves to be effective. Big gamble though.

One other thing. The team pullng the goalie loses if they give up an empty net goal and if the game remains tied, and nobody scores, I think they lose automatically as well. i.e. doesn't go to shootout. Maybe somebody could clarify that last bit. I'm not certain of the latter.

 

[Replacement*]

I love 3 on 3. Id rather watch actual end a game rather than a shoot out. Its exciting, its consistent back and forth action. No dumping a chasing, no grinding hockey, pure offensive hockey

I think people need to get over the fact hockey will never be ended in a 5 on 5 OT. In todays NHL a goal in scored probaly every 12-15 minutes. Thats just way to much time to keep playing hockey. These guys already played 60 mins so an extra 15 minutes is just painful to watch (dump and chase hockey) AND increases the risk of injuries AND increases exhaustion for future games

NHL would never go for it, NHLPA neither. Even the fans would complain after they are subject to a 2 OT game in Game 41 of the season. Its fun to watch in playoffs because big games on the line, but reg season not so much

Not to mention, McDavid is going to tear up 3 on 3. he might be the best 3 on 3 player in the league as soon as this year. You somehow get a forward covering Mcdavid and the D covering Eberle/Hall/RNH etc, that is asking for a goal

Watching Eberle last night, I cant help but think hed work great with McDavid. Hes quick but hes also great and give and goes and is a great shooter. RNH would also mesh well because hes great at puck distrubtion and finding holes in the coverage. Both RNH and Mcdavid can play well defensively

All out onslaught of McDavid-RNH-Eberle

then roll Hall-LD-Sekera/Klefbom

Its not either/or. Ties are fine. The best single game I will ever see in my life was Red Army vs Montreal Canadiens New Years Eve 1975. 3-3 tie. According to many, the best game of hockey ever played. Anything but a tie would've seemed wrong and would've cheapened the classic result. It was so much more of a testimony to the two top teams in the world having it end in a tie. It was entirely fitting.

 

[Aceboogie]

Its not either/or. Ties are fine. The best single game I will ever see in my life was Red Army vs Montreal Canadiens New Years Eve 1975. 3-3 tie. According to many, the best game of hockey ever played. Anything but a tie would've seemed wrong and would've cheapened the classic result. It was so much more of a testimony to the two top teams in the world having it end in a tie. It was entirely fitting.

Ties are fine to me

However I like entertainment value. After all I am watching to be entertained. I have no hockey purist roots.

The current Oilers roster is pretty well set up for 3 on 3s, so finally I get to watch enterataining hockey. Hell id rather watch Oilers 3 on 3 over Oiler 5 on 5

On a semi related noted- something needs to change in current 5 on 5. Space needs to be opened up, its way, way to stuffy. Gone are the days when Bure could grab the puck in open ice and go. Now a skill guy gets the puck and theres a guy on him. So many turnovers and transitions

3 on 3 today is how I imagine hockey was in the 80s and non clutch eras. fast, exicting, edge of your seat stuff

 

[Da McBomb]

In the NHL with most talented players being the only ones on the ice in an extra time situation all a team has to do to to win is fire it into the empty cage. The risk/reward is not so great. A team would do it if they HAD to have the 3pts in the last game of the year. I don't think many coaches would want to opt for that otherwise.

I could be wrong. Maybe it proves to be effective. Big gamble though.

One other thing. The team pullng the goalie loses if they give up an empty net goal and if the game remains tied, and nobody scores, I think they lose automatically as well. i.e. doesn't go to shootout. Maybe somebody could clarify that last bit. I'm not certain of the latter.

One plan could be to wait until your team has clear possession of the puck.. like behind your own net or when its in the other end..and then pull your goalie. The only reason I thought of this was because someone asked McLellan about 3X3 the other day and he mentioned they were still analyzing all the situations and structures, including the goalie too.