GDT: 10/31/15 - Wild @ Blues - 7PM CT / 2AM Suomi - FS-N

[behemolari]

Well. I actually expected a loss, but I'll take a point. Good 2/3 periods boys

sadly it really really often goes if don't bury it with 5 on 3 you lose

 

[Minnesota]

Loser point!

 

[NHL1674]

Not gonna lie...happy it didn't go to a pathetic shootout. Not sure how Dubs would handle that. Was a fun 3 on 3...we were just tired.

 

[Avder]

Given how this game started I can live with one point.

 

[123TripleDoge]

4 on 4 + shootout is way more actual hockey than 3 on 3 + shootout. I almost threw up watching that crap

 

[15hockeyfan15]

A win would have have been nice but 3 out 4 points on a back to back against the hawks and blues isn't too bad. On the bright side Vanek wasn't on the ice for 3 on 3.

 

[melinko]

The Scandella play in OT is another that I think is a bad idea even though it worked. Your basically asking to turn the puck over in that situation.

 

[Soldier13Fox]

4 on 4 + shootout is way more actual hockey than 3 on 3 + shootout. I almost threw up watching that crap

Going to have to agree. I admit I like watching 3v3 as it is exciting as hell . . . but from a sport perspective I'd take 4V4 and then shootout

 

[elnewby]

Agree. 3 on 3 isn't hockey. I'd rather do 4 on 4 for 10 minutes.

 

[TaLoN]

4 on 4 + shootout is way more actual hockey than 3 on 3 + shootout. I almost threw up watching that crap

You don't have to rant about it after every ot game we play...

 

[josephwild123]

4 on 4 + shootout is way more actual hockey than 3 on 3 + shootout. I almost threw up watching that crap

I have to agree. 3 on 3 isn't team based at all. I was so entertained with 4v4. So hard to watch this.

 

[J22*]

A win would have have been nice but 3 out 4 points on a back to back against the hawks and blues isn't too bad. On the bright side Vanek wasn't on the ice for 3 on 3.

Yeah, why would you want your most skilled and most creative player on the ice 3 on 3? Much rather watch Parise try to jam the puck through the side of the net and then sit there and watch the other team go up the ice 3 on 2.

 

[Soldier13Fox]

Bacon's english is getting so much better!

 

[Nino Noderreiter]

No but 3 v 3 hockey will only appeal to the most casual of fan. hell, as a high school hockey player the only time we would do 3 v 3 was during a drill...limited to 1 zone. It's a joke. But I guess the shootout is too so whatever.

If Granlund had scored that or Nino we'd be all but giddy right now

 

[Alexandrov]

Yeah, why would you want your most skilled and most creative player on the ice 3 on 3? Much rather watch Parise try to jam the puck through the side of the net and then sit there and watch the other team go up the ice 3 on 2.

Oh my

Vanek was a turnover machine tonight. He had no business sniffing the ice on OT.

 

[Nino Noderreiter]

Yeah, why would you want your most skilled and most creative player on the ice 3 on 3? Much rather watch Parise try to jam the puck through the side of the net and then sit there and watch the other team go up the ice 3 on 2.

Yeah seriously...Vanek is like the 1st player we should put out there. Goals are going to come on 3 v 3 and come fast. It doesn't matter what kind of defense you play. You want guys who can score quickly and you should go all out to score first.

 

[Harvest]

Did Parise really went for a change there?

 

[Soldier13Fox]

Did Parise really went for a change there?

He must have. Out third guy was so flippin late joining the party.

 

[NHL1674]

4 on 4 + shootout is way more actual hockey than 3 on 3 + shootout. I almost threw up watching that crap

If it bothers you that much, then don't watch it. It's not going back to 4 on 4, so why make yourself miserable? I'm not being mean....just genuinely asking.

I'd prefer 4 on 4, but it lead to too many damn shootouts. And I'll take 3 on 3 vs a shootout any day of the week.

 

[Nino Noderreiter]

Regardless good to get a point down 2-0 on the road against good opponent in the Blues. But it sucks to lose to the Blues because they push every line given to them and play some pretty crappy hockey

 

[Blizzard6411]

No but 3 v 3 hockey will only appeal to the most casual of fan. hell, as a high school hockey player the only time we would do 3 v 3 was during a drill...limited to 1 zone. It's a joke. But I guess the shootout is too so whatever.

If Granlund had scored that or Nino we'd be all but giddy right now

Not a casual fan at all. 3v3 beats the hell out of the no ot days and the play to get to a shoot out days.

 

[SP1966]

I understand why some dislike 3v3 but it reminds me of the old pick up games at the park!

Regarding this game though, the Wild should have an advantage with their speed vs the Blues, but I guess being on the 2nd of b2b they were pretty dead.

 

[Harvest]

He must have. Out third guy was so flippin late joining the party.

Not Parise like at all.

 

[NHL1674]

No but 3 v 3 hockey will only appeal to the most casual of fan. hell, as a high school hockey player the only time we would do 3 v 3 was during a drill...limited to 1 zone. It's a joke. But I guess the shootout is too so whatever.

If Granlund had scored that or Nino we'd be all but giddy right now

Not a casual fan at all, and I'm perfectly happy with 3 on 3 as opposed to the shootout. Obviously, 4 on 4 is best, but the shootouts got out of control.

 

[Soldier13Fox]

Walz is talking about breaking up Miko's line, to try and generate more on the Granville line. What do you all think of that? I say you need to leave the one line that constantly challenges and scores points intact. Need to find another way with the other guys to get that Granville line going.