Roster Talk: Nearing the 20 game mark

[damacles1156]

I believe Shore and Forbort are the only 2 guys that can be sent down without waivers.

And I don't think this team needs King or Nolan or Andreoff. They don't need anymore grit. They need scoring production but Sutter doesn't believe in that. That's why it's okay to win games 2-1 or 3-2.

Every Coach, that has ever coached Hockey at any level, is ok with winning games 2-1, 3-2.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

Every Coach, that has ever coached Hockey at any level, is ok with winning games 2-1, 3-2.

The real question is weather the coach would prefer winning 1-0 2-1 or 4 1 or 5 2 Which i bet every coach would prefer the bigger margin. In those game they get to rest the better players roll the lines more even and keep the team a lot fresher. The key is the wording of winning which any coach prefers.

 

[damacles1156]

The real question is weather the coach would prefer winning 1-0 2-1 or 4 1 or 5 2 Which i bet every coach would prefer the bigger margin. In those game they get to rest the better players roll the lines more even and keep the team a lot fresher. The key is the wording of winning which any coach prefers.

Sure in a perfect game/world every coach would love the 4-1, 4-2 win.

But how many teams in the history of Hockey, win on average of a 2+ goal margin ?

I bet you can count those teams on two hands, in the history of the NHL. Also bet all of them are MTL Canadian teams pre expansion, maybe an EDM Oiler team in there, 80's.

So it's not realistic in today's NHL.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think the current roster's speed has nullified the absence of King but getting him back would be a positive as it would push some of the redundancies with NO scoring touch into the press box.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

Sure in a perfect game/world every coach would love the 4-1, 4-2 win.

But how many teams in the history of Hockey, win on average of a 2+ goal margin ?

I bet you can count those teams on two hands, in the history of the NHL. Also bet all of them are MTL Canadian teams pre expansion, maybe an EDM Oiler team in there, 80's.

So it's not realistic in today's NHL.

I agree with you that defense win championships. It took a long time for me to figure out but i am happy winning 2 1 but you have to admit having scoring like we did with triple crown line and 99 was exciting hockey. All i think cali and myself is saying is a little more scoring would be nice to see This winning by a goal is nice but winning a few more by 2+ would be a lot better. I would also say a few of them islander teams and pittsburgh may also qualify in 2+ goals wins However pre lockout hockey is different then now *( a huge debate over that im sure )

 

[damacles1156]

I agree with you that defense win championships. It took a long time for me to figure out but i am happy winning 2 1 but you have to admit having scoring like we did with triple crown line and 99 was exciting hockey. All i think cali and myself is saying is a little more scoring would be nice to see This winning by a goal is nice but winning a few more by 2+ would be a lot better. I would also say a few of them islander teams and pittsburgh may also qualify in 2+ goals wins However pre lockout hockey is different then now *( a huge debate over that im sure )

I think everyone would enjoy a little more scoing in the NHL on average.

But today's Defenders/Goalies are really freaking good. You would have to actually limit them, to increase scoring a noticeable margin.

 

[HYORI 1963]

I think everyone would enjoy a little more scoing in the NHL on average.

But today's Defenders/Goalies are really freaking good. You would have to actually limit them, to increase scoring a noticeable margin.

Or just make the goal net bigger/wider.

 

[damacles1156]

Or just make the goal net bigger/wider.

Sadly, a lot of the people in power, also a good portion of NHL players, are not in favor of doing that.

 

[HYORI 1963]

Sadly a lot of the people in power, also a good portion of NHL players, are not in favor of doing that.

Well, the people need to change with the time.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Personally, I like the reducing goalie gear thing, but I don't like the nets. I don't think the goals themselves are the problem, it's the scoring chances. Unless you remove the soccer walls of guys fronting/blocking shots, promote flow by cracking down on interference, etc., it's not going to fundamentally change the game, it's just going to arbitrarily add goals.

I'd also argue that 'possession' hockey vs. rush chances have changed the game in that way, too. that slows the game down (to me, in a good way)...everyone wants to point to goaltending in the 80s being terrible but lets not forget how much was scored on oddman breaks and breakaways

 

[HYORI 1963]

Personally, I like the reducing goalie gear thing, but I don't like the nets. I don't think the goals themselves are the problem, it's the scoring chances. Unless you remove the soccer walls of guys fronting/blocking shots, promote flow by cracking down on interference, etc., it's not going to fundamentally change the game, it's just going to arbitrarily add goals.

I'd also argue that 'possession' hockey vs. rush chances have changed the game in that way, too. that slows the game down (to me, in a good way)...everyone wants to point to goaltending in the 80s being terrible but lets not forget how much was scored on oddman breaks and breakaways

But they've already reduced the goalie gears and the scoring really hasn't improved that much. The way I look at it, much like many traditionalist didn't care for the 3 on 3 OT or the SO, we won't truly know until we experiment with the bigger net.

 

[damacles1156]

Yeah reducing Gear doesn't do much. Quick already wears smaller gear than is required, always has. A few goalies prefer smaller gear, Jimmy Howard is another guy that wears smaller gear.

Quick/Cory Schneider, both are on record saying they would prefer even smaller gear, I'll try and find the interviews.

 

[KINGS17]

I'm fine with making the nets bigger. When a goalie that is 6ft-5in goes down in the butterfly there is still hardly anything to shoot at up top. If goalie wants to protect everything down low more of the top of the net should be open.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Yeah reducing Gear doesn't do much. Quick already wears smaller gear than is required, always has. A few goalies prefer smaller gear, Jimmy Howard is another guy that wears smaller gear.

Quick/Cory Schneider, both are on record saying they would prefer even smaller gear, I'll try and find the interviews.

I remember that and I agree with you and Hyori. They were talking about much more dramatic stuff than simply removing some padding here and there...they were talking about making goalie gear more form-fitted like player gear. That's drastic.

 

[damacles1156]

I remember that and I agree with you and Hyori. They were talking about much more dramatic stuff than simply removing some padding here and there...they were talking about making goalie gear more form-fitted like player gear. That's drastic.

I find it extremely funny how the top American Goalies who modeled themselves after Mike Richter; would prefer form fitting gear.

Unlike the Canada boys, and the KING.. Hank who looks like he wears borderline illegal equipment, always has looked ridiculous big in his gear.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I find it extremely funny how the top American Goalies who modeled themselves after Mike Richter; would prefer form fitting gear.

Unlike the Canada boys, and the KING.. Hank who looks like he wears borderline illegal equipment, always has looked ridiculous big in his gear.

It makes sense. The butterfly/percentage goalies never speak up when this is brought up, the athletic/reflex guys are always like "DO IT DO IT"

 

[Minor Boarding]

I find it extremely funny how the top American Goalies who modeled themselves after Mike Richter; would prefer form fitting gear.

Unlike the Canada boys, and the KING.. Hank who looks like he wears borderline illegal equipment, always has looked ridiculous big in his gear.

Lundqvist equipment is so big it could cover the OZONE hole. If he had any bigger shoulder pads - they would be considered his moons orbiting on his body. If his leg pads were any bigger, they could be used as a bridge over the Grand Canyon...

I am fun...

 

[kingsfan28]

I find it extremely funny how the top American Goalies who modeled themselves after Mike Richter; would prefer form fitting gear.

Unlike the Canada boys, and the KING.. Hank who looks like he wears borderline illegal equipment, always has looked ridiculous big in his gear.

Without his gear during the Tonight Show when he was trying to stop pumpkin pies being shot at him.

 

[bob77]

It makes sense. The butterfly/percentage goalies never speak up when this is brought up, the athletic/reflex guys are always like "DO IT DO IT"

To start with, the catcher glove and the blocker can be made so much smaller.

 

[bob77]

Right now, both Greene and King need to be taken off IR to put the roster limit back to 23. Right now the Kings have 24.

 

[justonetime]

Personally, I like the reducing goalie gear thing, but I don't like the nets. I don't think the goals themselves are the problem, it's the scoring chances. Unless you remove the soccer walls of guys fronting/blocking shots, promote flow by cracking down on interference, etc., it's not going to fundamentally change the game, it's just going to arbitrarily add goals.

I'd also argue that 'possession' hockey vs. rush chances have changed the game in that way, too. that slows the game down (to me, in a good way)...everyone wants to point to goaltending in the 80s being terrible but lets not forget how much was scored on oddman breaks and breakaways

But increasing the net size would increase scoring chances. With more net to shoot at it will be actually possible/easier to score from more areas on the ice, which means there would be more chances to score. The defense would have to "shut down" a larger area of ice which should make there be more space in the "prime" scoring areas we are used to seeing goals from.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

But increasing the net size would increase scoring chances. With more net to shoot at it will be actually possible/easier to score from more areas on the ice, which means there would be more chances to score. The defense would have to "shut down" a larger area of ice which should make there be more space in the "prime" scoring areas we are used to seeing goals from.

I don't think it will necessarily spread out the defense the way you suggest, I just disagree there, but I can see where you're coming from--I just think it will lead to people fronting shots even harder in an effort to force shots from bad angles/below the circles so the goalies can still cover as much net as possible; and then the big goalies like Bishop and Rinne become even more valuable. But more shots from random spots = more goals is, like I said, arbitrary/artificial. If the only thing that really changes is the actual box score, is it really more exciting hockey? If our game vs. TB was 6-5 instead of lower, but it looked exactly the same, is the 'problem' solved? I'm not convinced.

To me, it's a combination of systems play, goalie equipment, and loose calling of interference. Changing the nets peripherally fixes #2, but I just think it's a no-no, like changing the rink dimensions; I'd much rather see advances in technology let the goalie gear be a bit more form-fitting so the percentage goaltenders have to work a little harder too. I don't have an answer as to how to truly work with the systems play; but you'll notice the highest scoring teams are those who aren't scared to take some offensive risks with things like centering passes and pinches, things that become turnovers, which gives coaches of less talented teams headaches because they don't have the talent to keep up with pond hockey. I WOULD like to see interference and obstruction called liberally like it was after the lockout. Promote flow, not just scoring.

Don't get me wrong, I"m not convinced the Kings roster is built for such a game, we're built for lockout era smash hockey, but you start promoting a game where the emphasis is on speed, skill, and exploiting open ice, and the rosters and player development will follow.

 

[KINGS17]

But increasing the net size would increase scoring chances. With more net to shoot at it will be actually possible/easier to score from more areas on the ice, which means there would be more chances to score. The defense would have to "shut down" a larger area of ice which should make there be more space in the "prime" scoring areas we are used to seeing goals from.

Yup, snipers would once again be a real threat from he top of the faceoff circles. Guys like Toffoli and Carter would score more goals.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Yup, snipers would once again be a real threat from he top of the faceoff circles. Guys like Toffoli and Carter would score more goals.

Does it really become an automatically more exciting game when every odd-man break is an auto-goal, though? Don't you think that would promote actually playing even safer?

I mean, I realize I'm in the minority here, and I'm not accusing posters on these (or even the main!) boards of being short-sighted--but I think the NHL discussions are. It sounds like they're just trying to appease and quickly.

Edit: but hey, maybe it IS time for more drastic measures: http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14207776/nhl-brief-history-nhl-pretending-fix-scoring

It's just tough for me--as a player of 20 years and a fan for more--to totally endorse things that fundamentally change the hardware of the game. I live in an area that isn't likely to replace their nets anytime soon

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Speaking of roster strengths, though, I thought this was a funny aside from Friedman's 30 Thoughts last week. This is Hakstol re: Philly's breakouts and zone entries:

"The other end is a problem, though, and Hakstol didn’t hide from it.

“We have to improve our ratio (of carry-ins to dump-ins). It’s not good enough.â€

What is the perfect ratio?

“Changes on a game-to-game basis. Some teams let you go outside with speed. L.A. doesn’t let you do anything.â€"

Gave me a good chuckle. We're such a pain in the ass.