3 on 3 OT looks like it is coming in 15-16
- Thread starter EspenK
- Start date
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,701
- 26,750
The interesting part of this is will the Jackets do 2 forwards 1 D or 2 D one forward and pinch one of the D? Or hell, 3 forwards but one plays back a bit. I would assume we do 2 forwards, because JJ, Murray, and Connauton are all speedy, but thats about it.
Not sure, but I am happy about this. I have wanted them to do this. I would think we would be fine with 2 F and 1 D with Jack and Ryan.
EDIT - Not as happy now that I realized they are skipping 4-on-4. Not a fan of that. I think it should be 4-on-4 and then 3-on-3. Even if you shorten each period of OT.
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,701
- 26,750
punk_o_holic
Registered User
Not a fan. Bob will have to be extra sharp imo. We were good in shootouts. I can see us losing more games in 3 on 3 OT(compared to 4 on 4) meaning less shootout chances to win games.
1857 Howitzer
******* Linesman
Not a fan of this at all. Now not only are we stuck with the gimmick of the shootout now OT is a pure gimmick too.
I love 3 on 3. I proposed it here a few years back, when it was still a fringe thing. And im adamant, its not a gimmick, its hockey. My preferred idea is more like the royal rumble countdown. . Hehehe.. start 4 on 4 and subtract a player every few minutes til it's one on one. I still have hope for that.
I think we will do well at 3 on 3. We have a lot of players with moxy rather than structure. The d is slow overall but jack and murray are all you need for 3 on 3. One d, alternating, is all you need in 3 on 3 ot.
I think we will do well at 3 on 3. We have a lot of players with moxy rather than structure. The d is slow overall but jack and murray are all you need for 3 on 3. One d, alternating, is all you need in 3 on 3 ot.
jackets4life
Registered User
Anything that leads to fewer shootouts is good in my book, but to lose all 4v4 OT, whoa boy not too big a fan. I can see how the players and the PA would find this new format very intriguing however. CBJ will probably be less successful with the bonus point this season but a needed change for the league.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
I confess I am not thrilled at replacing 4-on-4 with 3-on-3, but I'm willing to give it a try and see how it works out.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
I'm probably in a very small minority, but I really enjoy shootouts. I really like to see skilled players be able to demonstrate their skills unencumbered by a defenseman.
3 on 3 will allow players so much room that they'll be able to show a lot more of their high skill moves, so I guess it's a wash for me. Not as many shootouts, but some wild stuff 3 on 3.
3 on 3 will allow players so much room that they'll be able to show a lot more of their high skill moves, so I guess it's a wash for me. Not as many shootouts, but some wild stuff 3 on 3.
Doggy
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2011
- 3,702
- 2,811
I LOATHE the shootout.
Seriously guys...I turn off the tv or if in the arena put my head down and not watch (I have to stay since I am there with family). I find the SO to be incredibly boring and quite possibly the dumbest way to settle a hockey game (except for maybe Rock Paper Scissor).
Anyone who thinks the SO is a good idea I assume thinks baseball should be decided by a home run hitting contest or football games with a FG kicking competition or basketball with a slam dunk contest. UGH!
Therefore, anything that resembles real hockey and reduces the use of the SO is worth a try in my book. I don't really worry about whether it is good or bad for the current CBJ team because that is cyclical. Rosters change. I think I agree I would have rather seen the 4 on 4 for three minutes followed by 3 on 3 for four minutes but this is what the players wanted and I am OK giving it a try.
Now for my soapbox though...all of this is simply a bandaid to two of the issues hurting hockey today.
1) The "loser point" the NHL awards in games that go past regulation. This is beyond idiotic and can be fixed in a number of ways. I am a fan of the 3-2-1 system (understanding that the SO isn't going away). Not only would this reduce the impact of the SO but teams will less likely pull back in the last five minutes of the 3rd period playing for the guaranteed point. There is an incentive to win in regulation...the extra winner point! I am open to other suggestions but the current point system is possibly the worst system they could have chosen for any intelligent fan. In a 30 team league, 15 should be +.500 and 15 should be -.500. In the NHL 24 teams were +.500 and 6 were -.500. That's not right.
2) The lack of scoring in regulation: to me the problem is blocked shots. Sure they could make the nets bigger or reduce the goalie pads but the problem is the players are getting bigger (not just goalies) and the rinks are not. In reality the ice surface is getting even smaller because in the past twenty years more and more shots are being blocked in the shooting lanes. Blocking shots takes very little skill....I am sure, for the most part, guys in the ECHL can do it just as well as guys in the NHL. Scoring opportunities would go up and scoring would go up.
You can't ban blocking but you can change the rules governing it. Bob Gainey once proposed a rule...that defenders must keep one blade on the ice at all times. Blocking would actually become more of an art fem and you won't see players flopping on the ice like a fish out of water anymore. The league gets more scoring and the players even wind up less bruised over an 82 game regular season.
A win for everyone except Goalie's GAA.
OK...off my soapbox. Go ahead and rip my idea apart...but I still like it
Seriously guys...I turn off the tv or if in the arena put my head down and not watch (I have to stay since I am there with family). I find the SO to be incredibly boring and quite possibly the dumbest way to settle a hockey game (except for maybe Rock Paper Scissor).
Anyone who thinks the SO is a good idea I assume thinks baseball should be decided by a home run hitting contest or football games with a FG kicking competition or basketball with a slam dunk contest. UGH!
Therefore, anything that resembles real hockey and reduces the use of the SO is worth a try in my book. I don't really worry about whether it is good or bad for the current CBJ team because that is cyclical. Rosters change. I think I agree I would have rather seen the 4 on 4 for three minutes followed by 3 on 3 for four minutes but this is what the players wanted and I am OK giving it a try.
Now for my soapbox though...all of this is simply a bandaid to two of the issues hurting hockey today.
1) The "loser point" the NHL awards in games that go past regulation. This is beyond idiotic and can be fixed in a number of ways. I am a fan of the 3-2-1 system (understanding that the SO isn't going away). Not only would this reduce the impact of the SO but teams will less likely pull back in the last five minutes of the 3rd period playing for the guaranteed point. There is an incentive to win in regulation...the extra winner point! I am open to other suggestions but the current point system is possibly the worst system they could have chosen for any intelligent fan. In a 30 team league, 15 should be +.500 and 15 should be -.500. In the NHL 24 teams were +.500 and 6 were -.500. That's not right.
2) The lack of scoring in regulation: to me the problem is blocked shots. Sure they could make the nets bigger or reduce the goalie pads but the problem is the players are getting bigger (not just goalies) and the rinks are not. In reality the ice surface is getting even smaller because in the past twenty years more and more shots are being blocked in the shooting lanes. Blocking shots takes very little skill....I am sure, for the most part, guys in the ECHL can do it just as well as guys in the NHL. Scoring opportunities would go up and scoring would go up.
You can't ban blocking but you can change the rules governing it. Bob Gainey once proposed a rule...that defenders must keep one blade on the ice at all times. Blocking would actually become more of an art fem and you won't see players flopping on the ice like a fish out of water anymore. The league gets more scoring and the players even wind up less bruised over an 82 game regular season.
A win for everyone except Goalie's GAA.
OK...off my soapbox. Go ahead and rip my idea apart...but I still like it
Last edited:
Doggy
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2011
- 3,702
- 2,811
Yeah but he's talking an extra ten minutes on top of the extra five they already play. That's a ton more playing time over the course of a season. The NHLPA balked at playing seven minutes of OT instead of five...no way the league could push ten or fifteen. Not to mention the quality of play when playing back to backs and three games in four nights would suffer.
I think fans have to be realistic about what these guys can withstand. They are fantastic athletes in amazing physical shape but they aren't Superman. You want more OT, then pull the season back to 70 games (which I am all for because the season is already too long) but there is a limit to what the body can withstand over the course of a season!
LetsGOJackets!!
Registered User
3v3 vs 4v4
I will let the players decide which they prefer. Clearly the emphasis is on goal scoring and there are a number of ways to accomplish that.
I like the idea of reducing the flop blocking of shots, ie keeping 1 skate on the ice at all times. It allows more pucks through to the goalie, and I expect this change would reduce injuries
I appreciate hockey players that will give up their body to stop the puck, but don't really think it is the best move for million $ players/assets to be doing it
Shoot outs.. as a kid I always loved the penalty shot, now we get to see a shootout every few games, some of which can go very deep in the lineup which I think is pretty exciting. I love rooting for the goalie to put the team on his back in the ultimate challenge. Just offering a differing perspective
I will let the players decide which they prefer. Clearly the emphasis is on goal scoring and there are a number of ways to accomplish that.
I like the idea of reducing the flop blocking of shots, ie keeping 1 skate on the ice at all times. It allows more pucks through to the goalie, and I expect this change would reduce injuries
I appreciate hockey players that will give up their body to stop the puck, but don't really think it is the best move for million $ players/assets to be doing it
Shoot outs.. as a kid I always loved the penalty shot, now we get to see a shootout every few games, some of which can go very deep in the lineup which I think is pretty exciting. I love rooting for the goalie to put the team on his back in the ultimate challenge. Just offering a differing perspective
Im amused by the phrase "pond hockey gimmick". To me what defines a gimmick is an event that least resembles pond hockey, which is the soul of the game, not this corporatized rubbish weve been trained to watch.
Id have preferred a smoother transition from 4 on 4 to 3 on 3 (and then keep subtracting! ) but i understand the time limitations. My solution: start subtracting players after 50 minutes.
First 50 minutes: 5 on 5
50 to 54: 4 on 4
54 to 58: 3 on 3
**End of Regulation**
If the score is tied sudden death begins.
58 to 62: 2 on 2
62 to 66: 1 on 1
Shootout.
I think this would be vastly more exciting and truer to the game than what we currently have.
Id have preferred a smoother transition from 4 on 4 to 3 on 3 (and then keep subtracting! ) but i understand the time limitations. My solution: start subtracting players after 50 minutes.
First 50 minutes: 5 on 5
50 to 54: 4 on 4
54 to 58: 3 on 3
**End of Regulation**
If the score is tied sudden death begins.
58 to 62: 2 on 2
62 to 66: 1 on 1
Shootout.
I think this would be vastly more exciting and truer to the game than what we currently have.
The Jones Zone
Registered User
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,446
cslebn
80 forever
- Feb 15, 2012
- 2,802
- 1,366
Pick up hockey and organized hockey have always been different, corporate or not. This is trending more towards one than the other. I think I just say Tyler Johnson win every Tampa game flash before my eyes.
If you keep subtracting, you'll just be back to the shootout
Anything that still involves team plays and reduces SO's, I'm very happy. I would love to get rid of the shoot outs completely, but I'm in the minority so I have to continue to deal with that farce.
Got a notification from the NHL that this is a go as are coaches challenges. Not sure about the latter, but I'm great with the former.
Got a notification from the NHL that this is a go as are coaches challenges. Not sure about the latter, but I'm great with the former.
Zarathustra
This is not my hat.
This is kind of my view as well. I for one am excited. The way I see it, 3-3 is a plausible game situation, whereas two teams taking turns taking penalty shots is not.
It's high risk hockey, sure, but there it is still a team. Four players on the ice is a helleva lot better than 1. I realize that the shootouts are still there, but I think this will reduce them dramatically and that's exciting for me. I quite frankly think we should have 4-4 then 3-3 then just have a tie, but that's just me.
