PDA

View Full Version : Gophers 2013-14 B1G Things To Come!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Gurtholfin
11-19-2013, 12:29 PM
Do you read any other points? Just because you have a regulation rink doesn't mean you are doomed to play like UW. How can you explain BCs style of play and success with it if what you seem to be assuming were true? BC plays on a 200x87.

I agree pads are ridiculous size but are you trying to tell me that's what creates less space? Lol... A few inches here or there of extra pads?

As for player size, it is a factor but it's mainly because the NHL allowed the game to turn into more of a slug fest and less about skill play. The rink size isn't at fault for that.



The other contradiction to that line of thinking is that the KC ice surface is actually 200 x 97.

Whatever style of play that the Badgers employ, it's not on an NHL sized rink.

My formative years of watching the NHL were through the 80's. Parents shared Hawks tickets, so I got to go to a bunch of games (and watch many many more on TV, of course) and see the players of that era and I agree, it was wide open and a lot of fun to watch. Savard was amazing and the Oilers were flat out ridiculous. Rink size didn't matter.

I will agree that watching NHL games that turn into a clog-the-middle-fest, shot blocking extravaganza gets old, but I rarely watch non-playoff games that don't include the Hawks and they're usually fun to watch. Could see the Gophers going to a Hawks puck possession style game on a smaller rink and doing it quite well with the skill that you guys get.

Can see both sides of this argument.


Carry on...

D2D
11-19-2013, 12:29 PM
As for player size, it is a factor but it's mainly because the NHL allowed the game to turn into more of a slug fest and less about skill play. The rink size isn't at fault for that.

Depending on when you believe "the NHL allowed the game to turn into more of a slug fest" I may disagree with this. Certainly back in the day of the 70's Bruins and '80's Broad Street Bullies the NHL was more of a slug fest than it is today. Yet the players of today are bigger (and stronger) than they were back then, and the amount of space on the ice has remained the same.

Stauber1
11-19-2013, 02:51 PM
Do you read any other points? Just because you have a regulation rink doesn't mean you are doomed to play like UW. How can you explain BCs style of play and success with it if what you seem to be assuming were true? BC plays on a 200x87.

I agree pads are ridiculous size but are you trying to tell me that's what creates less space? Lol... A few inches here or there of extra pads?

As for player size, it is a factor but it's mainly because the NHL allowed the game to turn into more of a slug fest and less about skill play. The rink size isn't at fault for that.

To go back a couple posts, guys in the USHL are playing against smaller and less physically developed players than they face in college. So there is going to be a feel of more space out there. Take the same size rink and make the opposition bigger and more mature (like in college vs. the USHL) and that space shrinks a bit. I think that point remains.

The narrower rink doesn't guarantee a UW style, but it certainly makes that style more viable. I'm not sure using BC as an example is necessarily valid. They are a pretty extraordinary team with some pretty extraordinary players.
UMD is an interesting team, but if you look at the games they played in the NCAA Tournament the year they won it, JT Brown and both Mike and Jack Connelly only scored on special teams. In fact, I think you could say they won that tournament on the strength of goaltending and their power play. So again, I'm not sure how valid a point that is.

You said early on that looking at the pro game doesn't quite equate to the college game, and I agree with that. There are a lot of other factors that go into it. The pool of players they have to pull from, the amount of games they play, etc. In general, college teams are going to be smaller across the board, and recruiting highly talented players who are considered too small for the NHL so that they stick around until they are veterans is proving to be an effective strategy. That probably isn't ever going to change. But that doesn't mean that a smaller surface doesn't reward size and reach at the cost of speed and agility. An extra 10-15 feet overall or 5-7.5 feet on each wall doesn't sound like much, but it makes a difference. My guess is that if the NHL moved to Olympic size ice and made no other changes, you would start to see the way teams are built change slightly. And some of these small, highly talented college players would become 2-3 year players instead of 4.

But the crux of it really is to what degree does the size of the sheet impact the game. That's a bit dicier of a question. I'm sure there is some way to quantify the impact, but that's above my pay grade. To be simple, my contention is that it does impact the game to some noticeable degree. When guys can cover a larger percentage of the ice surface without having to move their feet, it makes a difference and rewards players with a bigger wingspan, and it places more emphasis on systems than on skating ability and creativity. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that point, and simply restate that if Mariucci shrinks its surface I'll be bummed.

As for Lucia, If I were to make a guess, his thinking probably has more to do with being accustomed to the size of the sheet come the post-season than it does anything else. Can MN still have success on an NHL-size rink? I don't have any doubt they can. And playing home games on a narrower sheet *might* prepare them better for NCAA Tournament play. But I think it would be more entertaining, freewheeling hockey if they kept the rink at Olympic specs.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-19-2013, 03:53 PM
I do think goalie pad size has contributed to creating less space on the ice. Back in the day when pads were a lot smaller, an open head on shot had a lot better chance than it does today. With that in mind offenses worked a little more just to get an open look. Today it's all about taking away vision, getting tips, deflections, and rebounds. To me, that favors packing the front of the net and it favors bigger, stronger players.
I'm no expert on the NHL but another contributing factor to the evolution in play was probably Detroit winning a lot of cups playing a trapping style. Most teams adopted some form or another of what the Redwings were doing over time.

I like Big Ice and I cannot lie... I'd much rather everyone played on big ice and with smaller pads, but frankly 3000 square feet of an NHL arena is some pretty expensive real estate. :(

Edit: And now that I think about it, so are Goalie pads.

Slap Shot
11-19-2013, 06:49 PM
I have to question how much of the college game is being watched if the fear is a smaller sheet without question will restrict open play. A lack of skill and a trapping defense is absolutely more of a contributor than the size of the ice.

state of hockey
11-19-2013, 06:53 PM
Cripes do we ever need the conference schedule to start.

Go4PuckFan2.0
11-19-2013, 07:51 PM
Justin Bourne is a former UAA hockey player who writes a terrific hockey blog, Backhand Shelf

Just a few months ago he wrote an interesting article on the differences between playing on an Olympic sized rink as opposed to an NHL sized rink.
Linky here:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/07/24/on-the-differences-between-playing-on-olympic-and-nhl-sized-ice-sheets/

Enjoy!

cross cheque
11-19-2013, 07:57 PM
The other contradiction to that line of thinking is that the KC ice surface is actually 200 x 97.

Whatever style of play that the Badgers employ, it's not on an NHL sized rink.

My formative years of watching the NHL were through the 80's. Parents shared Hawks tickets, so I got to go to a bunch of games (and watch many many more on TV, of course) and see the players of that era and I agree, it was wide open and a lot of fun to watch. Savard was amazing and the Oilers were flat out ridiculous. Rink size didn't matter.

I will agree that watching NHL games that turn into a clog-the-middle-fest, shot blocking extravaganza gets old, but I rarely watch non-playoff games that don't include the Hawks and they're usually fun to watch. Could see the Gophers going to a Hawks puck possession style game on a smaller rink and doing it quite well with the skill that you guys get.

Can see both sides of this argument.


Carry on...

There's too much "this." and "I'd like to see so-and-so on so-and-so's line" to let your comment be noticed but as long as they're at it, this.

Slap Shot
11-19-2013, 10:21 PM
justin bourne is a former uaa hockey player who writes a terrific hockey blog, backhand shelf

just a few months ago he wrote an interesting article on the differences between playing on an olympic sized rink as opposed to an nhl sized rink.
Linky here:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/07/24/on-the-differences-between-playing-on-olympic-and-nhl-sized-ice-sheets/

enjoy!

boom ;)

Tiggsy
11-20-2013, 09:53 AM
There's too much "this." and "I'd like to see so-and-so on so-and-so's line" to let your comment be noticed but as long as they're at it, this.

Gurt made a logical post with a point and contains a positive comment about the Gophers. We're just having a hard time accepting that it's real.

:D

Stauber1
11-20-2013, 04:37 PM
Justin Bourne is a former UAA hockey player who writes a terrific hockey blog, Backhand Shelf

Just a few months ago he wrote an interesting article on the differences between playing on an Olympic sized rink as opposed to an NHL sized rink.
Linky here:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/07/24/on-the-differences-between-playing-on-olympic-and-nhl-sized-ice-sheets/

Enjoy!

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

He makes a lot of observations that came up in our discussion, agreeing and disagreeing with points made on both sides. I think the biggest takeaway from the article is that changing the size of the sheet even by just 10-15 feet does make a noticeable change in the style of play.

Hammy
11-20-2013, 05:38 PM
Justin Bourne is a former UAA hockey player who writes a terrific hockey blog, Backhand Shelf

Just a few months ago he wrote an interesting article on the differences between playing on an Olympic sized rink as opposed to an NHL sized rink.
Linky here:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/07/24/on-the-differences-between-playing-on-olympic-and-nhl-sized-ice-sheets/

Enjoy!

Thanks for the link. He pretty much reiterates the bulk of what I have been saying but does a better job of explaining it.

Koho
11-20-2013, 06:07 PM
Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

He makes a lot of observations that came up in our discussion, agreeing and disagreeing with points made on both sides. I think the biggest takeaway from the article is that changing the size of the sheet even by just 10-15 feet does make a noticeable change in the style of play.

I have a friend who also played college hockey on an olympic sized rink for his home rink. He has some different conclusions than the above article. He is a strong proponent of moving the NHL to Olympic size and likes college on that size as well. (I read the link yesterday, and don't have time to re-read, but it seemed like a big part of his conclusion is that bigger ice makes for possession style of play, with less shots, which he finds boring. I think there are a number of factors that determine this (mainly the players you have and the coaches style). The Wild plays a possession style on small ice and the cheeseheads often play a trap on big ice. And the Gophs play on big ice and play a possession style which I find far from boring in most games. Not to mention, they usually do pretty well in the shot department, so I don't know that my observations support his conclusions. Players can and will make quick, tick-tack-toe passing plays on either size rink. They are effective and entertaining when executed well, so there is no reason they won't continue, no matter how large the rink. And fast teams won't succeed by just collapsing in their zone on defense, it negates one of their advantages. And it is more of an advantage to be fast on big ice.

But with the way defensive systems have evolved, even since those 80's years, I would argue you see less room for the individual effort, the guy stickhandling through and around three guys to score. This is one play that improves on bigger ice. (And I'll acknowledge that this is not as big of an issue in college, where there is a greater discrepancy in skill from top line player to bottom then in NHL, but at the college level, that is where bigger ice starts to make sense to me.)

And my buddy who played college hockey, played for a coach who embraced the olympic style of hockey at the time (80's) and I don't know how anyone could find that style of international play boring because it was on big ice. I found it immensely entertaining.

Koho
11-20-2013, 06:22 PM
Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

He makes a lot of observations that came up in our discussion, agreeing and disagreeing with points made on both sides. I think the biggest takeaway from the article is that changing the size of the sheet even by just 10-15 feet does make a noticeable change in the style of play.

I have a friend who also played college hockey on an olympic sized rink for his home rink. He has some different conclusions than the above article. He is a strong proponent of moving the NHL to Olympic size and likes college on that size as well. (I read the link yesterday, and don't have time to re-read, but it seemed like a big part of his conclusion is that bigger ice makes for possession style of play, with less shots, which he finds boring. I think there are a number of factors that determine this (mainly the players you have and the coaches style). The Wild plays a possession style on small ice and the cheeseheads often play a trap on big ice. And the Gophs play on big ice and play a possession style which I find far from boring in most games. Not to mention, they usually do pretty well in the shot department, so I don't know that my observations support his conclusions. Players can and will make quick, tick-tack-toe passing plays on either size rink. They are effective and entertaining when executed well, so there is no reason they won't continue, no matter how large the rink. And fast teams won't succeed by just collapsing in their zone on defense, it negates one of their advantages. And it is more of an advantage to be fast on big ice.

But with the way defensive systems have evolved, even since those 80's years, I would argue you see less room for the individual effort, the guy stickhandling through and around three guys to score. This is one play that improves on bigger ice. (And I'll acknowledge that this is not as big of an issue in college, where there is a greater discrepancy in skill from top line player to bottom then in NHL, but at the college level, that is where bigger ice starts to make sense to me.)

And my buddy who played college hockey, played for a coach who embraced the olympic style of hockey at the time (80's) and I don't know how anyone could find that style of international play boring because it was on big ice. I found it immensely entertaining.

Stauber1
11-22-2013, 06:44 PM
I have a friend who also played college hockey on an olympic sized rink for his home rink. He has some different conclusions than the above article. He is a strong proponent of moving the NHL to Olympic size and likes college on that size as well. (I read the link yesterday, and don't have time to re-read, but it seemed like a big part of his conclusion is that bigger ice makes for possession style of play, with less shots, which he finds boring. I think there are a number of factors that determine this (mainly the players you have and the coaches style). The Wild plays a possession style on small ice and the cheeseheads often play a trap on big ice. And the Gophs play on big ice and play a possession style which I find far from boring in most games. Not to mention, they usually do pretty well in the shot department, so I don't know that my observations support his conclusions. Players can and will make quick, tick-tack-toe passing plays on either size rink. They are effective and entertaining when executed well, so there is no reason they won't continue, no matter how large the rink. And fast teams won't succeed by just collapsing in their zone on defense, it negates one of their advantages. And it is more of an advantage to be fast on big ice.

But with the way defensive systems have evolved, even since those 80's years, I would argue you see less room for the individual effort, the guy stickhandling through and around three guys to score. This is one play that improves on bigger ice. (And I'll acknowledge that this is not as big of an issue in college, where there is a greater discrepancy in skill from top line player to bottom then in NHL, but at the college level, that is where bigger ice starts to make sense to me.)

And my buddy who played college hockey, played for a coach who embraced the olympic style of hockey at the time (80's) and I don't know how anyone could find that style of international play boring because it was on big ice. I found it immensely entertaining.

He didn't seem to be making any sort of statement on how entertaining/boring the game was on either surface, more just describing what he saw the differences to be.
Some of his observations were definitely in contrast to what I and many people tend to think; like that you are rewarded more for speed on Olympic ice. Others were in agreement; like on smaller ice the game tends to be about putting the puck in a spot without much deliberation (systems), and on a bigger sheet you have a little more time to pick your head up, run through options and make decisions (creativity).

But he also contradicts himself a bit, talking about how possession doesn't mean anything on its own, and then that you don't want to be out of possession because it's hell to get the puck back. He also says it's near impossible to play up-tempo on the Olympic sheet, and we all have seen some great up-tempo games not just at Mariucci (the Fri. BC game this year was probably the most up-tempo college game I have ever watched) but also in international play. Maybe for a team like Anchorage that was the case, though ;)

I certainly wouldn't take this blog post as gospel, but it's an interesting read and the main point is that the game does change to a degree when you change the width.

There has seemed to be a tendency to exaggerate the position of those in favor of Olympic ice by saying they think that all games will by default turn into slow-paced, trapping snooze-fests. That's not what is being said. I certainly have been talking in terms of degree rather than absolutes, and to respond to Slap Shot I don't think anyone has been debating what the biggest factors are in dictating style of play.
Recognizing that certain styles become more viable and certain player attributes become more or less valuable isn't saying that all games will be this way or that way, or that ice size is the most important variable in terms of how a game will be played.

Koho
11-23-2013, 07:55 AM
Seems like each week there are a few shifts where I get worried about how long Fasching is going to be around. Can someone update this lazy person on who drafted him and how they are sitting for young players and prospects ahead of him?

mnstate0fhockey
11-23-2013, 09:16 AM
Seems like each week there are a few shifts where I get worried about how long Fasching is going to be around. Can someone update this lazy person on who drafted him and how they are sitting for young players and prospects ahead of him?

LA Kings in 4th round. I think we'll have him at least next year, with 50/50 shot at him coming back for his junior year. We'll see.

Koho
11-23-2013, 10:25 AM
LA Kings in 4th round. I think we'll have him at least next year, with 50/50 shot at him coming back for his junior year. We'll see.

Yeah, you never can predict who jumps and who stays. There are always some surprises. But with his reported love for playing for the Gophs and the fact that he doesn't seem ready this year, I wasn't expecting one and done. But coming in I was thinking at least three years from him, and now I'm not sure he's likely to stay beyond next year if he continues to improve.

Koho
11-23-2013, 04:12 PM
(Not sure If I'll get the linking correct.)
Interesting article with Trent Klatt and Jake Bischoff talking about kids staying in HS rather than jumping early to Juniors.

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/1815-junior-hockey-can-wait.html

Hammy
11-23-2013, 04:27 PM
The reality is there is no one "right answer" for whether a HS kid should stay or go to junior hockey before he graduates. Every kid has unique circumstances to consider. Some kids should go because the HS level simply does not offer enough of what they need (whether it is enough games, enough development opportunities, enough competitive teams on their schedule, or other variables). Other kids should stay for reasons like they are going to need to play a year or two of junior after HS anyway or maybe they just don't have the emotional maturity to leave home yet. There are lots of variables in play. I don't fault a kid for staying but I also don't fault a kid if he feels he needs to leave. I just wish some of these pro-HS people would get off their high horse and recognize that leaving doesn't mean a kid made the wrong decision. It is a case by case situation.