We've heard Bednar quite often in post game pressers praise a player and say that "he plays a heavy game, he's physical..." Those are clearly things that he likes.
I think the key is, they gotta have enough hockey IQ and speed in order to utilize their physicality within the system. While he's no hockey genius, NAK, who had a well-established rep for dumb penalties, cleaned up his game quite a bit but didn't really lose much edge in the process. I recall him getting benched in a regular season game after taking a really bad penalty but that was it.
I agree, but he also plays a part IMO as to why the PK is so bad. For all his very aggressive tactics, even on defense (i.e., the "Gegenpress") his team is insanely passive on the PK and it drives me nuts. Unfortunately the lack of reliable goaltending plays a huge part in that as well.
They had better star players but the Kraken had by far the better depth. It wasn't even close.
Don't forget Scott Darling. E-gads...
To be fair, Cloutier might have been the very first coach to actually tell Kasper what to do out there, and he played arguably his best hockey in Colorado. He wasn't just running around looking for the big hit, he was actually playing good defense. It may have helped him in his next stop with the other New York team, he was much better IMO than I would've expected.
Darling always had the talent, but had the vices to go along with.
And it takes a very specific style of bottom sixer to play that role. You've got to be able to skate, big enough to throw the body, and smart enough to anticipate and think out there. I thought Duhaime could do that but he really tailed off in the playoffs.
I don't disagree with that. For better or for worse, this is why Compher succeed and got so many minutes. He was able to play the way Bednar wanted and with some grit. He wasn't as physical as Colton, but he played within the system better. Why LOC works too... he can skate, hit, but knows the limits.
Interesting idea, but it does feel a little gimmicky. But I guess OT rules are a giant gimmick anyway.
I actually just responded to that on the main board with this:
Some people would like this here too, I heard it before.
I think just if they went to a 3-point system with zero points for losses (3 RW, 2 OTW, 1 SOW), teams would be inclined to try harder to win in regulation, or in OT. Right now, teams have zero reason to try and go for it, and cost themselves a point, in the last 3-4 minutes of regulation.
Nope.
Unless there's something at stake like that extra point being something that decides a playoff spot, teams will take the safer route every f***ing time.
Yeah, I agree. The end result of this will be teams playing less aggressively, not more. No matter how you structure it, the imperative in 3v3 hockey will always be possession at all costs. Tweaking around the edges won't change the fundamental nature of what 3v3 means.
