|
View Poll Results: Thoughts on the NHL potentially moving to 3 on 3?
|
|
Hate it, Flames are good in the shoot out
|
   
|
2 |
0.97% |
|
Hate it, I love the shoot out
|
  
|
5 |
2.42% |
|
Love it, Flames are built for 3 on 3
|
  
|
60 |
28.99% |
|
Love it, I can't stand the shoot out
|
  
|
85 |
41.06% |
|
Both A and B
|
  
|
1 |
0.48% |
|
Both C and D
|
  
|
54 |
26.09% |
03-17-2015, 08:59 AM
|
#1
|
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
QOTD: Thoughts on 3 on 3?
Will it help the Flames? Hurt the Flames?
More entertainment? Less entertainment?
Personally I always hated the shoot out, seemed silly to me and a let down to the actual hockey game. But now the Flames have guys that excel at it, so bad timing.
How will it effect the Flames? Are they built for 3 on 3?
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:02 AM
|
#2
|
|
Franchise Player
|
I would think 3 on 3 would be good for the Flames, but that's not why I like it.
It is fun to watch in the AHL. And is a vastly superior way to end a game than the shoot-out. So make it happen.
Which teams are good at it will rotate over time anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:02 AM
|
#3
|
|
In the Sin Bin
|
I doubt anybody is "built" for three on three. But anything that eliminates shootouts is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:02 AM
|
#4
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
I think it'll be good for the Flames, just like 4 on 4 is. You put out two Defensemen who can score with a defensively responsible forward, something we have the personnel to do. High speed favors 3 on 3 even more as well.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:03 AM
|
#5
|
|
Could Care Less
|
The Flames are definitely built for 3vs3 with speed on F and on D and high IQ. I really hope that they make this change. I don't hate the shootout as much as others seem to but looking at the stats from the AHL, it would be nice to have more games finish in OT. 3v3 would be awesome to watch!
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:06 AM
|
#6
|
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
|
None of the above.
Go to 10 min 5-on-5 O/T, then a tie.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
|
#22,
craigwd,
Displaced Flames fan,
drewtastic,
Eagle Eye,
Eric,
Erick Estrada,
FlamesAddiction,
flizzenflozz,
Puppet Guy,
Senor Rinkrat,
Sport Psych,
terryclancy,
the_only_turek_fan,
zarrell
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:15 AM
|
#7
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
I don't hate, hate the shootout per say, but I would prefer games either ending in OT, or moving back to the tie. The shootout is such a crapshoot for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:16 AM
|
#8
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
I'm with Troutman. You could even go 10 mins 4-on-4 .
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:21 AM
|
#9
|
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
I'm with Troutman. You could even go 10 mins 4-on-4 .
|
Maybe, but 4-on-4 is not pure NHL hockey. Half the players on the bench don't get on the ice for 4-on-4.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:22 AM
|
#10
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
I picked "D", but I don't love it. I would just tolerate it more.
I agree with Troutman. 10 minute 5-on-5, then call it a tie.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:24 AM
|
#11
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Meh. I think 3 on 3 is kind of gimmicky as well, but if it means less shootouts I'm all for it. Flames would probably be pretty good at it too, so that's another plus.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:26 AM
|
#12
|
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
|
I like it because it is good for the game and rewards skill, not necessarily because it will help or hinder the Flames.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:27 AM
|
#13
|
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komskies
I think it'll be good for the Flames, just like 4 on 4 is. You put out two Defensemen who can score with a defensively responsible forward, something we have the personnel to do. High speed favors 3 on 3 even more as well.
|
Flames are a "give'er" team so I think it's more likely they go with 2 forwards and a skating D
Brodie Monahan Gaudreau
Giordano Hudler Bennett
Russell Backlund [Poirier]
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:32 AM
|
#14
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
None of the above.
Go to 10 min 5-on-5 O/T, then a tie.
|
Yep. I'm okay with the shootout seeing it's used in international hockey to decide games but 3 on 3 is a gimmick and a joke IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:34 AM
|
#15
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
|
If there was an option to vote "meh, don't care either way", I would. I guess it would be cool at first but like the shootout who knows how long it will last. People are still going to complain about 3on3 being no way to solve a game just as they do with shootouts.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:43 AM
|
#16
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
I'm always sorta surprised at the level of hate for the shootout across most hockey fans.
Prior to the NHL adopting it, international shootout moments were some of the most dramatic sports events ever.
Add in soccer shootouts, and you have to admit they're always incredibly exciting.
But I do understand how it's an individual way to end a hard-fought team game- but I think 3 on 3 is pretty gimmicky too. That's not real hockey either.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to chopper89 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:44 AM
|
#17
|
|
I believe in the Pony Power
|
Love it. I hate the shootout and watched a lot of 3:3 overtime in the AJHL. It is fantastic. Fans will love it.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:46 AM
|
#18
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: VanCity
|
I'm all for 3 on 3. It's exciting and will most likely prevent more games going to the shootout. Not that I mind watching the shootout which I think should still exist if games don't end in the overtime.
Last edited by genetic_phreek; 03-17-2015 at 10:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:57 AM
|
#19
|
|
Taking a while to get to 5000
|
Its funny. I don't know how to vote here. I used to love the shootout when we weren't such a hot team a few years back 5 on 5 or 4 on 4. It gave us a better shot at the extra point (once Kipper got better at shootouts that is). Now that we are so much better 5 on 5 and 4 on 4 I hate to see them as I would much rather give the team a chance to win as a unit.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 09:58 AM
|
#20
|
|
Franchise Player
|
By the way, for those of you who like it, it's unlikely they abolish the shoot-out.
The current system in the AHL is 4 on 4, then 3 on 3, then a SO. The idea isn't to eliminate it, but to reduce its frequency.
And the talk on HNIC a couple weeks back was about 7 minutes of OT (both 4x4 and 3x3) and then a SO.
Adding 3x3 seems to drop the SO to about 10% of games (instead of 25ish or whatever it is)
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 AM.
|
|
