2003/2004 NHL Season

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Here's the problem: The NHL should not have moved the nets forward an extra 3 feet from the back boards a few years ago. This did two things: 1) it created much more of a cycle game down low, which I personally find boring. Even Gretzky said he preferred less room behind the net, as it helped him (and others) retrieve the puck there and make plays more easily. There's just waaaay too much room back there now. Players cannot use the net as a decoy as much anymore to protect the puck because there's much more room for checkers to surround a player back there now. And 2), perhaps the biggest problem of all (yet perhaps the most subtle) with having the nets an extra 3 feet from the boards, is there's less room in the neutral zone. Consequently, it's easier for teams to trap. We all know the trap isn't a recent invention. It's just much easier to employ now, and the rule changes in the mid 90s are a big reason for that. With less room in the neutral zone, players have less space to build an attack, forcing them to dump and chase as soon as they hit the red line.

It's no coincidence that scoring in the NHL went down tremendously as soon as Gary Bettman introduced the 3 extra feet behind each goal.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:

Steve's a smart guy. One of the best captains in NHL history. Who are we to argue his wisdom?

the most important component of yzerman's quote is 10 games.

they are one of the best through 10.

a week or two later and they are still one of the best through 15 or so.

but that doesn't matter. being the best through 82 is meaningless. its the first to 16 wins after that.

the canucks may have been *ELITE* for a time last season as well, but they destroyed that themselves.

no one should really give a damn about being *ELITE* through 10, 20 or 80 games.
 
Pinball Wizard said:
With no-touch icing the dump and chase style that predominates would become all but obsolete... as well as helping to rid the league of unecessary injuries.
On the injury front, I agree with you. However, I don't think it would eliminate the dump and chase style. Don't forget, under the current rules, in order to dump and chase, you have to do it after you cross the red line, otherwise you'll get called for icing (unless the dumping team gets to the puck first, which can make for exciting hockey with fast teams, but I digress...). If there was no touch icing, players would simply dump and chase only once they hit the red line, as they usually do anyway, so it wouldn't change a thing really.
 
kobayashi said:


the most important component of yzerman's quote is 10 games.

they are one of the best through 10.

a week or two later and they are still one of the best through 15 or so.

but that doesn't matter. being the best through 82 is meaningless. its the first to 16 wins after that.

the canucks may have been *ELITE* for a time last season as well, but they destroyed that themselves.

no one should really give a damn about being *ELITE* through 10, 20 or 80 games.
Agreed. I have revised my thoughts. To be perfectly honest, there aren't any elite teams in the NHL anymore. The last were the Oilers of the 80s. Before that the Islanders, and before that the Canadiens. What you had in the 90s and beyond, was a watered down version of the term "elite" - The Wings, Avalanche, and Devils are/were merely very good teams who won the Cup off and on. I wouldn't call them (or anyone else today) elite, now that I've thought about it more.
 
Michael Griffiths said:

Agreed. I have revised my thoughts. To be perfectly honest, there aren't any elite teams in the NHL anymore. The last were the Oilers of the 80s. Before that the Islanders, and before that the Canadiens. What you had in the 90s and beyond, was a watered down version of the term "elite" - The Wings, Avalanche, and Devils are/were merely very good teams who won the Cup off and on. I wouldn't call them (or anyone else today) elite, now that I've thought about it more.

i guess that proves yzerman is a liar
 
Lemon Meringue said:
Did I read correctly that the Canucks have no thugs on thier team?
If there is one criticsm with the Canucks, it is that they don't have enough goon power/toughness. They no longer have Langdon, and May is too small to be as affective as a bigger enforcer. The Canucks have size, skill, speed, finesse...but they lack goon power, yes.
 
Michael Griffiths said:

Precisely. Too bad the Wild (and other heavily trapping teams) force everyone to do it.

I have been attending Wild Games since the preseason of their first year. I was complaining back then about how much they dumped the puck. I figured it was just because they were a young, new team. It has decreased, but they still do it too much.
 
That's Jacque Lemaire for you though... but, hey, it works for them. The Wild are basically the New Jersey Devils of 7 years ago, minus Brodeur and a great back end (that's what she said :wink:). They wouldn't be as competitive without the trap. It's a shame, really, that this is what has happended to the NHL. It's because the league has so many teams now. Some teams are more watered down than others, and it's these teams that have to rely on the trap to be competitive. You'd think with the likes of Gaborik, Dupuis, Brunette, and some of the speedy guys on the team, they could at least use somewhat of a forecheck. I didn't see more than 1 guy past the hash marks without the puck the entire game against Vancouver. The Canucks send 2 guys in, and they use a deep forecheck, sometimes chasing the guy around the net, trying to cause turnovers. I think the Wild could do some of this themselves, but they would never even try with Lemaire behind the bench.
 
Did any one see the goal of the year tonight? Pavel Datsyuk received an incredible breakaway pass from Brett Hull, only to put an even better move on Turco. I won't even try and describe the move, as you really have to see it and get deked out yourself. Watch highlight of the night on whatever sports channel you watch, because this will be it, gauranteed (unless it's ESPN in the States which never shows hockey).
 
it was a great goal, but goodness does turco look terrible this year

he totally was flopping around which made that goal possible
 
ugh the blues suck

give up a 3 goal lead in the 3rd period in a span of 45 seconds

ugh

and now tkachuk is gonna join weight in the pressbox with his very own suspension, the blues are the most undisciplined team in the league

we only have 3 scorers to start with, now 2 are out, ugh

yet, with a depleted lineup all year due to injuries and suspensions, the blues are only 2 points behind the almighty canucks with 3, thats right, 3 games in hand
 
What the Blues are doing is quite remarkable indeed. To have constant injury trouble and still be in contention of 1st place is commendable.

As for the Canucks, Mark Crawford should be fired. Yes, you heard right. He totally ripped into Hedberg after their OT loss tonight, saying he was "terrible". WTF? He wasn't great, but he certainly wasn't "terrible". And to make matters worse, the reporters told Hedberg what Crawford had just said, and asked him what he thought about it. This is something that can cause divisions in the team. Crawford also has a thing against Brendan Morrison, despite the fact he's been the Canucks' 3rd best player so far. I've never really liked Crawford that much (I think it has something to do with him not picking Gretzky for the 98 Olympics shootout in the gold medal game), but it appears the players don't like him much either. Who can blame them? I think Ted Nolan would be a GREAT fit for Vancouver. He's a player's coach, and a very effective one at that. I think if the Canucks had a coach they want to play for, they'd be even better.

End of rant.
 
Crawford is an awesome coach...one minor slip is okay.....look at the leafs situation. Tell me which team is worse off now!
 
Michael Griffiths said:

On the injury front, I agree with you. However, I don't think it would eliminate the dump and chase style. Don't forget, under the current rules, in order to dump and chase, you have to do it after you cross the red line, otherwise you'll get called for icing (unless the dumping team gets to the puck first, which can make for exciting hockey with fast teams, but I digress...). If there was no touch icing, players would simply dump and chase only once they hit the red line, as they usually do anyway, so it wouldn't change a thing really.

Thanks. Need I remind you that I DO watch hockey?

It wouldn't eliminate dump and chase, but it would decrease the frequency... most icings are the result of either pressure for the opposing team, or a miscued dump and chase rush.

Did you see the real elite team beat the wannabes? eh griffey? Philadelphia indeed.

Looks like the Leafs could use a... goaltender.

:wink:
 
Pinball Wizard said:


Thanks. Need I remind you that I DO watch hockey?

It wouldn't eliminate dump and chase, but it would decrease the frequency...

And I quote: "With no-touch icing the dump and chase style that predominates would become all but obsolete..."

I simply disagree that it would become obsolete. You say "most icings are a result of either pressure for the opposing team, or a miscued dump and chase rush". Why would a no touch icing rule prevent this from happening? Players would be pressured just as much to dump the puck in - probably more so, actually, because the opposition would try and thwart the attack with an automatic icing whistle. Further, players would simply dump and chase as they normally do, but would obvsiouly be extra careful to only do it once they hit the red line, because they would know that no amount of speed from the wingers would curtail it.

If I'm totally misunderstanding you (which is possible), let me know, but if I understood correctly, I have to disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom