WCF - Ducks vs Wild

[Chizip]

oh and the way I would try to make things "more exciting" would be to make the ice bigger. the olympic is is larger and we can all agree that was some pretty exciting hockey. the players have gotten much bigger and stronger over the years, yet the ice has stayed the same size. If we make it bigger it will be harder to run the traps, there will be much more skating and open things up a lot more, not as much clogging of the neutral zone, more fancy passes and better scoring chances.

Is this really feasible, could each arena expand the ice? I dont know, probably not, but for the good of the game I definitely think that is the way to go. It is truly the only way to bring the skill back and get rid of the talentless thugs who cant reallt even skate.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

It always comes back to the Canucks

Tighten up on defense means tightening the free-flowing offense. Teams are there to win championships - not "excite" the fans. Sorry. You can excite the fans all you want, but, if you don't win championships - you are worthless. Three teams with this similar style of play in the Cup semis - and the one without the style is down two games to one and couldn't score last night.

You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you rather see an "exciting" brand of ocke year after year that gets knocked out in the first or second round of the playoffs.

I bet you will see more teams play this way.

I never said once that they weren't there to win championships. I simply think that entertainment should be part of the package. And I also happen to think it is possible to have a great defensive system without resorting to the trap to the degree that NJ, Anaheim and Minny do. Let's face it: every team plays the trap to some extent. The word trap does get overused. It's simply making sure all your players are back in defensive position almost all of the time (ie, when your not attacking offensively). Some teams concentrate on this far more than others and they trade off the goal scoring for shutting the other tream down. You get teams like NJ winning games 1-0 because they are very good at that system. The problem with that, though, is that if every team became equally as good at shutting down the other team, winning becomes a crapshoot. It comes down to whichever team gets the first lucky break. I really don't want to see every game decided by such means. I want to see pro-active play. I want to feel the game.

Even a team like Ottawa traps to some extent, but the point is they don't do it exclusively. They also use a constant forecheck, and use creativity (lots of passing plays, and making room for themselves with turns and offensive manouvers). When a team like Ottawa sees an offensive opportunity, they don't do the safe thing and dump the puck in. They jump on it (which, btw, I must commend Minny for against the Canucks). NJ and Anaheim, however, don't know what to do half the time anymore when an offensive situation lands in their lap. They've forgotten the creative side to the game. I saw numerous examples of this during this series. Each time I asked myself why didn't they do that or make the pass over there -- the guy woud have had a 2-1 or a clear break.

To conclude, it's not about winning championships, it's about how do coaches want to win championships? I disagree big time that a stifling trap is the only answer. If everyone does it, then, yes, maybe it is the most effective. But it doesn't have to be that way if the coaches around the league changed the philosophy to some extent. They're only hurting themselves by putting a much larger significance on the chance factor.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

oh and the way I would try to make things "more exciting" would be to make the ice bigger. the olympic is is larger and we can all agree that was some pretty exciting hockey. the players have gotten much bigger and stronger over the years, yet the ice has stayed the same size. If we make it bigger it will be harder to run the traps, there will be much more skating and open things up a lot more, not as much clogging of the neutral zone, more fancy passes and better scoring chances.

Is this really feasible, could each arena expand the ice? I dont know, probably not, but for the good of the game I definitely think that is the way to go. It is truly the only way to bring the skill back and get rid of the talentless thugs who cant reallt even skate.

I see your point, Chizip, but being more a traditionalist, I really would not want the ice to be changed. If you had incredibly talented teams facing off against each other (such as Canada and the USA at Salt Lake), you would see entertaining hockey. However, a lot of international hockey relies even more on the trap to counter the absence of the red line. You have teams just as, if not more, defensive minded as in the NHL.

I would like to see the nets moved back toward the back boards a couple feet, like they used to be. Gretzky had much more success back there, believe it or not, when there was a little less room. Also, bringing the nets out the way they did actually removed space in the offensive zone. The result is a shorter distance between the net and the blue line. The defense has more time to shut down any attack. It was counterproductive in my opinion, and many a hockey expert will tell you the same thing (not that I'm an expert, just that we happen to agree )

Just to make a point about goalie equimpment: I don't think it's the problem. If you watch the game, it's the lack of opportunities that are frightening, not the actual results so much. For sake of argument, say the league initiates a mandatory decrease in size for all goalie equipment. Let's just say they even increase the net size (that would be truly ridiculous). Well, what do you think that would do to the game? If anything, it would be even more defensive, and thus even harder to get the opportunity to score! Sounds like a bright idea to me

The NHL will hopefully wake up and realize how special the game was when players like Gretzky and Lemieux had the ability to turn this game into an art form. Until then, let's keep watching chess on ice.

 

[zonelistener]

There is so much "luck" built into the game of hockey. So many times, your skill can be thwarted by a slip of a stick or a bump on the ice or who knows what else. If you Match perfect skills to perfect skills - the only thing you have left is luck. Evident in Vancouver V. Minnesota - the teams (no matter HOW PAINFUL THIS WILL SEEM TO you) were well matched, skill for skill - Minnesota just got the lucky bounces. No?


I would say the same thing about the first two games of the Ducks/Wild - except, Anaheim has a way better skilled goalie in Frank McCool Junior on the ice. takes the chance and luck away - and gives Anaheim an advantage.

 

[Chizip]

also, teams like anaheim and minny just dont have the skilled players up front to open it up. they cant go out and afford the super skilled players the red wings and colorados and dallas' have. if they tried to open it up they would get killed. so they are just doing what they have to do to stay competitive with the big spenders. and i think thats probably the smartest thing to do.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

There is so much "luck" built into the game of hockey. So many times, your skill can be thwarted by a slip of a stick or a bump on the ice or who knows what else. If you Match perfect skills to perfect skills - the only thing you have left is luck. Evident in Vancouver V. Minnesota - the teams (no matter HOW PAINFUL THIS WILL SEEM TO you) were well matched, skill for skill - Minnesota just got the lucky bounces. No?

Yes, of course there is luck, but my point is luck (and goaltending) shouldn't be the only factor in the outcome of the game. No, I can objectively disagree with you about the skill level being equal between Vancouver and Minny. Just look at the regular season numbers, and look at the all-star players Vancouver has compared to Minny. Look at how many players in the Vancouver lineup that played in the Olympics compared to that of Minny. Anyone (except maybe a Wild fan and possibly Chizip just to spite me ) would tell you the same thing.

You say that if you have two teams with great skills you will have a game simply made of luck. I disagree. Look at the final game between the USA and Canada. That was truly exciting hockey. Both teams were very highly skilled, but the team who had more will and determination won the game. That's the difference between the crapshoot method (ie, the trap) and the pro-active, offensive (hitting, forechecking, creativity) way of approaching the game. The latter method is more condusive to will over chance.

 

[Chizip]

there is more to winning than skill mikey, you of all people should know this. just look at the vancouver-stl series. i think we could agree stl has more talent across the board, yet they were outworked (although a decapitating illness had something to do with that) and they lost.

but the team who had more will and determination won the game.

are you saying minny didnt have more will and determination than the canucks? will and determination are what make up the difference in the gap between talent.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

also, teams like anaheim and minny just dont have the skilled players up front to open it up. they cant go out and afford the super skilled players the red wings and colorados and dallas' have. if they tried to open it up they would get killed. so they are just doing what they have to do to stay competitive with the big spenders. and i think thats probably the smartest thing to do.

Yes, it's not just the coaching philosophy, but the reasons behind it. The economics of the game are such that teams have to stay competitive, and the trap is the most practical on-ice tactic for doing just that. It's too bad saleries have escalated the way they have. It's ironic that Gretzky is now an owner when he was the once who drove them up in the first place when he came to LA and expanded the market along the sunbelt. Talk about the players (and more so the owners) becoming their own grave diggers.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

there is more to winning than skill mikey, you of all people should know this. just look at the vancouver-stl series. i think we could agree stl has more talent across the board, yet they were outworked (although a decapitating illness had something to do with that) and they lost.

I addressed this already. As you know, I brought up the Canada/USA game. The team that had more determination won the game. See the next counter quote you've chosen...

are you saying minny didnt have more will and determination than the canucks? will and determination are what make up the difference in the gap between talent.

What? When did I say that Minny didn't have more will and determination than the Canucks? I find this statement rather odd and quite confusing. Of course will and determination makes up the gap between talent! I agree with this, and I've been consistent with that agreement. I'm still not sure what you're driving at. Explain?

 

[zonelistener]

More Will and Determination

Luck

I think it is impossible to say a team has "more will and determination" than another team.

 

[Chizip]

what i was getting at, was you seemed to make it sound like the reason minny beat vancouver was because of the crap shoot trap, not because of more will and determination.

and in the canada/usa game, canada had more talent. so to say if it was due to talent or will and determination, who knows. like zoner says w&d is really impossible to determine.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I think it is impossible to say a team has "more will and determination" than another team.

Really? Why do you say this? I think it's quite easy to tell when a team has given up and doesn't want it quite as bad. It's not just how much they want it, but how confident they are in getting it. That's a big indication in how much will they have left as a team. For example, when Gaborik cross checked one of the Duck players on the team the other night, that was the first indication I've seen so far from the Wild that they (or at least Gaborik) has given up on the idea of winning. It was sign of frustration insofar that I haven't seen that from any member of the Wild up to this point in the playoffs. For Gabs' sake (if not for the rest of the Wild), I hope Lemaire sets him straight.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

what i was getting at, was you seemed to make it sound like the reason minny beat vancouver was because of the crap shoot trap, not because of more will and determination.

and in the canada/usa game, canada had more talent. so to say if it was due to talent or will and determination, who knows. like zoner says w&d is really impossible to determine.

No, my answer was two fold: the trap does cater to a bit of a crap shoot, but of course there is still will and determination involved (you have to be very disciplined to employ the trap so effectively). My point is an offensive game plan (from both teams) requires an aggressive, pro-active regiment, one which requires more will than chance. The will/chance balance is weighted more in favour of will than chance when you remove the trap. That's all I'm saying.

I still disagree that will and determination are impossible to determine. Vancouver gave up after the score was 3-2 late in the 7th game. One piece of evidence was Bertuzzi's lack of discipline. It came down to the fact that the Wild, as a whole, wanted it more in those waning minutes than the Canucks did. Whether that was because the Canucks were dejected, or lost the confidence to come back, is beside the point. Regardless of reason, they did not want to win as badly as the Wild when all was said and done.

 

[Chizip]

well, i think the trap also balances out the will/talent factor

the trap makes it so that the team that has more will will win than the team that has more talent, and shouldnt that be how it should be

whoever wants it the most and gives the most should win?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Ultimately, yes, it should be the team that wants it more that wins, but my original point is that it's a boring playing field. That's just it: it looks more like a field than an ice rink (hence, back to the soccer analogy). If you want to view it from a marketable standpoint, I really think the game would be much more attractive if it returned to the style of the early to mid 90s. That was compelling hockey. That's all I'm saying. Sure, if you believe that winning is the *only* thing that matters in the sport, than what I've been saying has no significance. But keep in mind, over the long and short run, teams will always win and lose, no matter what style they play. I'm simply advocating for a different way to the same goal (so to speak )

 

[Chizip]

hey i agree it would be nice if hockey was like it was in the mid 90's, so we are really arguing for no reason. but i think instead of criticizing the coaches and teams for running these defensive style systems, criticize the commisioner for letting these styles be winning ones.

cujo advocates rule changes like taking out the red line to try to get the game to open back up and making these systems not work as well. which may work, but i think making the ice bigger is what would really help open things up and lead to more skill being displayed. and it would be much harder to run these traps if there is much more ice to have to cover.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Yes, short of opening up the ice, however, the rule changes that were designed to open up the game have miserably failed. The so called clutching and grabbing penalty only gets called in the first half or the season (for about the last 5 years since it was introduced). The nets being brought out turned out to be counterproductive as already mentioned. These rules weren't addressing the real concerns, in my mind. Maybe, it's just that the game has evolved this way? Maybe this is the way hockey has to be now, because of the way it has developed? Maybe it's just part of the cylce, and will eventually return to a more offensive game like it did after the 70s? I don't know. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[zonelistener]

Really? Why do you say this? I think it's quite easy to tell when a team has given up and doesn't want it quite as bad. It's not just how much they want it, but how confident they are in getting it. That's a big indication in how much will they have left as a team. For example, when Gaborik cross checked one of the Duck players on the team the other night, that was the first indication I've seen so far from the Wild that they (or at least Gaborik) has given up on the idea of winning. It was sign of frustration insofar that I haven't seen that from any member of the Wild up to this point in the playoffs. For Gabs' sake (if not for the rest of the Wild), I hope Lemaire sets him straight.

With this statement - you say you can determine "Will and Determination" after a team has been completely destroyed - and has gone more than nine periods of hockey without scoring a goal. You are BRILLIANT! Clairvoyent even.

If you were to give me an example from game one, or even the beginning of the second period of game three, I might agree with you. But if you think you see Anaheim having more "Determination and Will" after Minnesota hasn't scored a goal and has been clearly destroyed by a goalie - you are WAY off.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I will look past your sarcasm and simply say it doesn't matter how badly they've been stifled. You asked for an example, and I gave you one. I sincerely believe that the frustration had reached to such a level in Gaborik's game, that he felt he had no choice but to cross check the guy from behind. It's a simple indication of where his head was at, and whether it was justified or not (I don't blame Gaborik, but regardless...), obviously he had given up on winning at that point. I'm sure you'll see a different attitude come game 4, but to deny that the team had given up (forget about the reasons why, just for one second), I think is a bit of a pipe dream (no sarcasm needed).

 

[zonelistener]

You are missing my point.


Your original example of "Will and Determination" was the Gold Medal game - Canada V. USA. I want an example there!

I just don't see how Gaborik's display of frustration in the third period of a game that they have been stomped on has clearly displayed his "will and determination" that would set the tone for the series, or even that game (two and 3/4 periods earlier). Yes, that action was pure frustration, and a sign of "giving up" on a game, maybe even the series. But saying that Anaheim is winning the series because of having more "will and determination" is ludicrous.

Can I explain it any better?

Gaborik did not display anything like that till less than 5 minutes left in the third period of game three, down 4-0. His team hasn't scored a goal in over 200 minutes of play. And you take an example of one incident - at this point of a game and series - and say that Anaheim has more "will and determination."

Anyway, I am counting the Wild out. I am hoping they can win one more. Or maybe score one. But I am a Minnesota fan (read earlier post that I think no one read do to a page change among posts).

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Okay, for the Ducks/Wild game, if you concede that Gaborik gave up on the series, clearly he has lost all will to win. Agreed? That's all I'm driving at, and I do understand your point. You want to see something that proves a team has more will and determination before they are down by such a margin, correct? Well, it's not that simple. Rarely is there one thing, unless it's obvious (such as Gaborik's hit), but if you watched the Canucks against the Blues when the Canucks went down 1-0 in th 7th game or 2-1 in the 5th game, you would have noticed they weren't fazed at all. They still had a feeling they would win the game, despite being behind. When a team, such as those same Canucks, goes down 3-2 to the Wild in the 7th game, you can sense that they sense they aren't going to come back. This is where it get tricky. How do I know that? It's a combination of many factors, but the general feeling always tells. The Canucks were totally deflated after going down to the Wild after leading 2-0 the first two periods. They had played comeback hockey the entire series, but towards the end, they just could not hold a lead if their lives depended on it. When they finally broke that barrier and found that elusive lead, they thought they'd finally figured it out. But they were proven wrong when the Wild scored 4 unanswered goals, and they lost all will and determination because of it. The general feeling was, "Oh, here we go again. It's a conspiracy or something..."

So to answer your question, Bertuzzi's penalty late in the game was an indication. So was Cloutier's lack of battle level and killer instinct on the 3rd and 4th goals. They were deflated, and it showed.

In the Canada/USA game, once again, it was an overall effect. Perhaps it wasn't one thing, but Canada did show more hustle. They created the breaks. But that's someting much easier to do when both teams are going for it, hence back to my original point.

 

[zonelistener]

Do you create breaks, or do they just happen due to mistakes by players on the opposing team? Blown defensive coverage? Broken sticks on shots? Bad passes?

I think breaks "happen" this way - or due to uneven matches in talent.

I think you have proved that "will and determintation" can be a factor to games AFTER you are down. So, the other team outplays you (they are better) or they get all of the bounces (luck) - and then you lose "will and determination." You have proved that "will and determination" may be a factor in the END - but it is not a very clear thing form the start - and therefore, not quite the factor "luck" or overall/comparative talent. (mind you - I haven't processed the whole argument to truly find 'logic" in it...)

grifdawg...have you ever coached anything?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Yes, the breaks do happen the way you suggest, but what I was saying is they happen *only* that way in a trapping system. If you introduce an intense forecheck, hitting and the like, the scale is tipped much more into the control of the players themselves. I'm simply saying the balance is out of whack. Of course there will always be luck involved in hockey, and that is partly what makes the game unique and interesting. However, I prefer a playing field that is more condusive to the skill that the players would like to exhibit. They should be given that chance. That's all I'm saying.

And, you say I have only proven that will and determination is a factor at the end of a game, but if that's the case, so what? You have not proven it isn't a factor at the beginning of the game. I could argue that it is a factor at the beginning, but I think it's pretty self-evident. I don't know if I have the energy right now!

No, I have never coached. I used to play hockey, though, and I've experienced a few different coaches and methods, some good, some bad.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Here's an interesting article dealing with what we're discussing. It's supposedly the "American point of view". I don't really agree with many of his points though...


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/hockey/5837154.htm

Citing the problems of hockey
By SKIP BAYLESS
San Jose Mercury News

SAN JOSE, Calif. - For years I've been obsessed with why I can't get obsessed with hockey.

I've tried and tried to warm up to the game played on ice. Now, treading on thin ice, I publicly admit I'd sooner watch another Aflac commercial than a minute of any NHL playoff game.

What a hockey puck I must be. Yet I'd feel much guiltier if I didn't think the staunchest Sharks fan has a tough time watching every tedious tick of - hold on, let me look this up - Ottawa-New Jersey or Anaheim-Minnesota in the conference finals.

Please understand, I do not hate hockey. If your local team is in the playoffs, experiencing a game live can be as electrifying as any playoff game in any sport. Yet what has long baffled me is why I, a sports nut, can't watch playoff hockey on TV when it doesn't involve my local team.

I covered the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" Olympic game in Lake Placid. Loved it; didn't last. I've asked coaches from Roger Neilson to Bob Gainey to teach me the game. Understand it; still don't get it.

I'll watch any football, basketball or baseball game on TV - regular season or playoffs, Bay Area teams or not. I buy the DirecTV packages so I can see virtually every regular-season basketball or baseball game, if I choose. I'd rather watch Hocking - the Minnesota Twins' Denny - than hockey.

Hockey doesn't have a single player I'd hurry home to watch. Not one. All 16 NBA playoff teams have at least one star - and usually two or three - who have kept me from channel surfing. As bad as the Boston Celtics are, I'd watch a replay of a Paul Pierce game before I'd watch a minute of the Bruins live.

My theory: Hockey is too hard for its own good. It can't showcase enough of a star's skills. Players blend. Defense dominates. Strategy blurs into a blizzard of turnovers. Scoring chances are agonizingly rare.

For me, hockey is a terribly flawed game courageously played by mostly good guys.

On radio it sounds like one continuous mistake: So-and-so passes to so-and-so but the puck is stolen by so-and-so who is knocked off the puck by so-and-so who can't control the puck and loses it to so-and-so ...

Imagine basketball if you could ram the man with the ball. Imagine Shaq on ice skates. Imagine Los Angeles Lakers 29, San Antonio Spurs 26.

But no, I didn't play hockey growing up. Most hockey hounds 1) are from Canada or an Original Six hotbed; 2) were regularly taken to games by their fathers; and/or 3) played as kids. A game that features so much blood has to get in your blood early.

But through high school, I did often attend minor-league hockey games. My friends and I went strictly to see the fights and we were never disappointed. But why does big-league hockey still need to encourage fighting? Because the game alone can't sell itself.

For years hockey officials have argued that fighting is an essential release for men carrying sticks who constantly bang into each other. So why do you see less and less fighting in the playoffs? Obviously because players want to avoid the penalty.

Conclusion: Most players could restrain themselves if suspensions forced them to. NFL players avoid ripping off their helmets every few minutes and duking it out. But blood-splattering fisticuffs appeal to some hockey customers.

Now I find them a credibility-killing embarrassment. It's as if the players knock each other's teeth out because they're dedicated soldiers who gladly sacrifice their faces to sell hockey.

But there's no doubt hockey players are generally the best guys in sports - the least spoiled and most accessible for the media. The problem is, they talk and talk without saying much. Not enough lightning-rod, cover-boy stars. I'd much rather listen to analyst Drew Remenda talk about the Sharks than listen to the Sharks.

Yet sitting rink side, especially at a playoff game, can be better than riding the Matterhorn. The game's speed and stick-handling skill hits you like the ice sprayed by the skates. Goals happen so unexpectedly and inexplicably that it's wilder than driving your car on ice. In person or on TV, you often can't figure out how the puck got in the net until you see the fourth or fifth replay.

Another flaw: Too many goals are scored because a slap shot caromed off a skate, a stick and a hip pad before careening past the shielded goalie. Skill? Strategy? Crazy luck.

Now hockey has no one close to Wayne Gretzky, who turned it into a captivating art - a cross between figure skating and chess. As Mario Lemieux and Mark Messier fade, where are the stars? Here are this year's top five regular-season goal scorers: Milan Hejduk, Markus Nasland, Todd Bertuzzi, Marian Hossa and Glen Murray.

That's why teams in towns without deep hockey roots - San Jose - had better win. Sharks management can't depend on visiting stars to pacify season-ticket holders during rebuilding. The love of many Sharks customers will fade as quickly as mine does.

Here's an ominous indication: A week ago Saturday on ABC, an NHL playoff game between Dallas and Anaheim did an 0.9 rating in the Bay Area - 21,885 homes. The following day at 12:30 p.m. on ABC, an NBA playoff game between Dallas and Portland did a 5.5 - 133,744 homes.

The Mavs and Kings are about to tip off. Excuse me.

 

[Chizip]

i once again am gonna have to agree with zoner here, sorry griffer

usually when 2 people go after a puck, and one person gets there before the other, people will say, well he just wanted it more, he has more will and determination

but maybe that guy is just faster?

and i think you are confusing frustration penalties for lack of will and determination. does the stupid act of one player when things are looking down mean the whole team just didnt have the will and determination of the other team? i dont think so.

 

[Chizip]

you're saying you can only score in a trapping system by catching a lucky break?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

i once again am gonna have to agree with zoner here, sorry griffer

usually when 2 people go after a puck, and one person gets there before the other, people will say, well he just wanted it more, he has more will and determination

but maybe that guy is just faster?

and i think you are confusing frustration penalties for lack of will and determination. does the stupid act of one player when things are looking down mean the whole team just didnt have the will and determination of the other team? i dont think so.

No, I'm not confusing anything, Chizer. Have you ever heard the saying, you win as a team, you lose as a team? Well, it applies to hockey more so than probably any other sport (except possibly soccer). Gaborik was expressing the sentiment of the entire team in that moment. That's why when you see someone start a fight, it doesn' t just get that player going, it gets the whole team going.

And why are you asking such a ridiculous question about determination vs. speed?! hahaha! Chiz, even you must concede that sometimes it's determination, not ability in a race to a puck. Take icings for example. I was watching the Ottawa/NJ game last night, and an Ottawa player was beating the NJ player back to the puck (in the NJ zone), but as soon as they got to the puck, he let up because he didn't want to get hit. The result was the NJ player (who had been behind him all the way), managed to touch the puck first and get the icing call. That's just one example though.

And when did I say you can only score by catching a lucky break? I said a trap system is more condusive to scoring *only* with lucky breaks, meaning a team is more likely to score that way than with an open system. Of course, it's not exlclusive all the time (it never is in hockey), but it's more likely to be exclusive under the trap.

 

[Chizip]

what did you mean by this?

Yes, the breaks do happen the way you suggest, but what I was saying is they happen *only* that way in a trapping system.

 

[cujo]

If you were to give me an example from game one, or even the beginning of the second period of game three, I might agree with you. But if you think you see Anaheim having more "Determination and Will" after Minnesota hasn't scored a goal and has been clearly destroyed by a goalie - you are WAY off.

How has Minnesota shown will and determination in this series? I'm sorry to butt into the conversation, but tell me one instance from game one where the Wild tried to get traffic in front of the net? That's the way to beat goalies... and the only way to do that is to out work the defense... with will and determination. Even if they haven't scored goals, their effort has been lacking... they look like the Red Wings.

Your fancentrism seems to be clouding your sense of judgement. Welcome to my world.

- Canada did not out hustle the US... they beat them with talent.

- As for making the game exciting with a larger ice surface... well that's just buying into a very popular belief that the World Championships and Olympics were more exciting... but that's only because of the talent pool. If it were applied to the NHL it would only work for the ALREADY exciting teams. How sportcenter of you chizip... for shame

- Zonelistener, your name is very misleading.

 

[Chizip]

are you denying that larger ice rinks wouldn't free up some space? this would make better skaters a premium, and that would mean people would want faster guys on their teams than the bigger strong guys who cant really skate. this would just create all around prettier play.

obviously you cant compare the nhl to the olypmics because the olympics are the best of the best. but, if there were larger ice rinks, more emphasis would be on speed than clogging things up, and the speed aspect of the game is what makes it exciting.