Changes? What Changes?
You know you’ve heard it: when the NHL returns - the game will be different. The AHL has made all sorts of changes this year: moving the nets back a couple of feet, implementing different offsides and icing rules, having wider blue lines, tinkering with the colors of the ice surface, limiting goaltender movement, having a shootout - all to see if this will increase offense and flow in the game.
Now there are talks of possibly making the nets bigger along with all those other changes.
Well, wait a second, Tom Powers of the Pioneer Press reports that these changes haven’t worked, even shootouts aren’t what were expected:
“There was a shootout last game,” Wild coach Jacques Lemaire said in Houston, where he watched the minor league Aeros. “They made three out of 10, one goal on one side, two on the other. Maybe five out of 10 wouldn’t be too bad. But three out of 10?
“The goalies are bigger. The equipment is bigger. It’s just harder to score.”
And those other changes?
In fact, the changes might have had an adverse effect on the game as defenders have compensated by clutching and grabbing more than ever.
“I’ve seen some games, I’m telling you, they just hold and grab,” Lemaire said, sounding offended by the whole approach.
“Play has deteriorated,” said [Wild GM Doug] Risebrough, who has been following the Aeros. “The skill players are trying to perform, but there is so much obstruction. I was disappointed by the level of officiating. With all the holding, it doesn’t matter what you do to the ice surface.”
Risebrough said the obstruction surely will carry over to the NHL whenever play resumes. The more changes are made to boost offense, the more defenders will grab and hold. And unless the referees put a stop to it, which hasn’t happened yet, it’s only going to get worse.
One thing is for sure, the NHL is looking to improve the game. Changes made for the sake of change aren’t going to work though.
I’ll fall back on what I’ve been saying for some time. I think it all comes down to one thing more than anything else: coaching. Coaches coach to win, and nothing else. There’s no “entertainment” in the job description, nor is there much security nowadays.
Coaches need guaranteed contracts. Give a coach a three-year guaranteed contract and say “win and entertain”. A coach with a guaranteed contract isn’t paranoid about every non-converted breakaway and giveaway made by his team (or her team, as we’re progressive here at TIB). This sort of coach doesn’t exist anymore though. What you have now is a system where everyone has to win today or they’re gone tomorrow. It forces coaches to ream players who take risks. We don’t see many defensemen who move up to join the rush because of systems, not because of a lack of talent. Move up and possibly turnover the puck and give the opponent and odd-man rush? No way, you can be benched the next game for that.
Clutching and grabbing doesn’t exist just because players decided to do it more, it’s because it’s practically taught into the game. Taught one day, whined about the next. You simply can’t let anyone get by you for a scoring opportunity, and don’t you dare move into a risky position, even if it can lead to your own scoring chance. Boring, mistake-free hockey.
Develop a player? Are you nuts? Players have to produce now or they’re out of town faster than you can say Olli Jokinen (That’s OH-lee YOKE-ih-nehn. Ok, so you have a little time, but don’t push it). Why would any coach give a developing player ice time for the future coach to get credit for his play? Why risk losing today for the coach of tomorrow? What it comes down to is you just can’t. You have to win now, or you’re gone and the product on the ice is going to reflect that.
This isn’t to say coaches need to coach throughout their entire contacts. If it’s not working out for a coach, he should be able to be re-assigned within the organization for some percentage of his coaching salary. Also, at that time he should be free to talk with other teams, and if a move is made the current contract is ended. Simply said: there’s a bit of a cushion. You can’t lose everything, and you have more room to take risks.
In the end, you have to look at what’s working and what isn’t, and many of the proposed changes simply aren’t working. There’s no reason to implement rules that do nothing to improve the game, and there’s certainly no reason to give fans false hope. Let’s try and start hitting this thing at the root. No more band-aids, let’s give the game some real medicine. Influencing coaching can change style of play more than anything else, and hopefully more people with more ideas to influence coaching changes will surface before play begins in the NHL again.
Next entry: ESPN Doesn’t Ask About Hockey
Previous entry: Lawyer Suing St. Pete Times Forum
Comments