DirtyDeeds Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I am sure those of you who have been around long enough on these boards have heard FF52 and myself talk about our appreciation of old time hockey or our appreciation of a good well played defensive game. Like the good old days when there were only 6 teams..... Well this thread is your chance to ask or talk about the "Good Old Game". There is little doubt todays players are bigger stronger and faster. However with the very diluted down league is the game actually better? There is little doubt that the rules have changed and with things little no red line the game has changed. Is it really better?? And... There is little doubt that the heavily trap based teams do not have as much clout anymore. Was the trap systems your vision of what "old time hockey" was about? IIt wasn't the same in my mind... the only thing the trap and old time hockey had in common was low lower scoring games. The basics are the same... - build your team from the net out.. - get a few talented scorers and surround them with decent hockey players... So lets discuss the "Old Time Hockey" and the era when most teams(all of them) had 3+ lines of very good players... Old Time Hockey era = 1942(3) - 1967 (1ST Expansion draft) Toronto Montreal Chicago New York Boston Detroit Edit: there is little doubt that some things that have changed from "Old Time Hockey" are good for the game. Things like Mandatory Helmets, Concussion protocols etc. This is not the topic of discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm 35. My "old time hockey" is the late 1980s. Bench clearing brawls. Flames vs Oilers at the peak of the rivalry. It was common place for a team to score 5-goals in a game and still lose. As kids, we used to laugh at soccer scores and called them boring because they would only get 1 or 2 goals per game. In terms of the trap and the red line, i liked it. It adds so much strategy to the game and a lot of that has been loss. The game used to be a 3 zone game and there was plenty of neutral zone action. Plenty more neutral zone hitting and body checking. Since the removal of the red line and the 2-line pass, the NHL is now a half court game. The trap causes turnovers. Turnovers become scoring chances. The league got it wrong when they took out the red line. The Trap was never the problem. The problem was clutching and grabbing. They blamed the problems of a lack of scoring of the late 90s and early 2000s on the wrong thing. Good thing there's a growing movement trying to bring back the red line while keeping clutching the grabbing away from the game. We could one day return to a type of game that is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 As hockey is a team game, games should be settled in a team fashion. Ditch the shootout and innovate the overtime period ala AHL with 4v4 then 3v3. If the games are still tied after the OT, a tie will be the final result. Institute the 3 (Reg Win)-2(OT Win)-1(OT Loss or Tie) point system. Maybe eliminate the Loser Point all together & don't give me that "but the team stayed in it for the 1st 60 minutes" crap. I grew up with ties so I don't suffer from the "but I want a winner" mindset characteristic of the non olde-tymers....24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khrox Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm with Pyro as far as Ditching the Shootout and bringing in the Tie (as well as ditching the loser-point). A team game decided by 2 players (the shooter and the goalie) bugs me, I don't mind Penalty shots since usually it was going to be a 1v1 when something happened but as the deciding factor of a game it shouldn't factor in. I'm closer to People on that one (except 10 years younger), my definition of old-timey involves the 70's and 80's hockey which was still pretty good and something I've still caught a lot of on television (classic games and such). I enjoyed the high-scoring and tons of chances in a game, but definitely was not a fan of the trap system (but credit where it was due, it was effective). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think growing up on old time hockey is what made me appreciate the defensive side of the game as much/more than the flash & dash scoring. It's also why my favorites tend to be 2 way centers & punishing defensemen (although a smart prevent type like JBo catches my eye) rather then the 1s putting up gaudy points but cherry picking. A hard played 1-0 or 2-1 game is more interesting (imo) than a race to 10. For that high scoring, 0 defense stuff I could watch that meaningless all-star game (I don't bother). @ 1 time the all-star game was the defending Cup champion vs an all-star team. Those were interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 As hockey is a team game, games should be settled in a team fashion. Ditch the shootout and innovate the overtime period ala AHL with 4v4 then 3v3. If the games are still tied after the OT, a tie will be the final result. Institute the 3 (Reg Win)-2(OT Win)-1(OT Loss or Tie) point system. Maybe eliminate the Loser Point all together & don't give me that "but the team stayed in it for the 1st 60 minutes" crap. I grew up with ties so I don't suffer from the "but I want a winner" mindset characteristic of the non olde-tymers....24 This is the perfect place to ask about a 3-2-1 system... Ask the ol'timers how the game was played towards the end of the game when it was tied... would they 'go for it' and play exciting hockey? or would they shell up and wait for a point a tie would give them? Whatever the answer is, it would be the same as what would happen when there is 3 vs Zero on the line in a 3rd period of a tie game. Either super exciting... or the worse version of the sport you can possibly see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 We've been very remiss here to have this many posts without mention of tough guys succeeding. Tough guys were your power forwards. Which power forward in this era is more than willing to tangle with Weber, Keith et.al? Who are our Clark Gillies and Bob Nystrom's? I believe it ended with Bertuzzi in his prime. There used to be such emotion. Like watching hemmed in play nowadays, you can smell a goal coming. Back then, you could smell a fight coming betwwen good players. "Oh, Rene Robert and Brad Park are hating each other, here we go". Now it's a role, back then, it was pure emotion. Stan Jonathan of the Bruins taking on a towering Larry Robinson, in the playoffs, no less. Those are my hockey memories. That's my hockey. Today, it's "bar-down" mentality. All about "pretty", as it were... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 ^^^ I mentioned the toughness in the WJC thread. I just saw it as a given when talking about "Old Time Hockey". Any player that stood/sat & watched while a scrum happened wasn't gaining respect as a teammate. You mentioned guys like Robinson (always 1 of my favorites) & Gilles/Nystrom. In the day even the supposed "goons" like Dave (Hammer) Schultz & Andre (Moose) Dupont would put up roughly 0.5 points per game to go with high penalty minutes. Another was John Ferguson (Fergie). Rather than the current sideshow they could actually play & contribute. Even stars like Gordie (Mr. Hockey aka Elbows) Howe & Maurice (Rocket) Richard were far from shrinking violets. I recall #4 Bobby Orr in a tilt or 2. Tempers boiled & spontanious fights happened. ********************************************************* Now its broken into scoring stars, a shutdown line & under 5 minute goons with few points. Due to rules like the instigator or 3rd man in players put their team in a bigger hole penalty wise than watching a team mate suffer a beating. Coming off the bench is the kiss of death. They don't outright ban fighting but turn it into a joke. Spontanious play is discouraged (as is saying something in interviews) in an attempt to make the game more acceptable to those that like bland. *************************************************************** 1 more thing. Ditching for a high pick was unheard of prior to the Mario Lemieux fiasco. It's the go to move for lazy/inept management now. It would have been a firing offence but now even so called fans see it as a tool to build a winner. Sam Pollock managed to do fancy trading to land Guy Lefleur for the reigning SC champs. Seems even management was smarter & had pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Watching Shea ragdoll Cooke for cross-checking him in the face brought a tear to my eye, can't wait to see him do it again because I don't think he quite got his point across yet. Nashville handed Minny their butts in all facets of that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.