Why not change the rules to shorthanded?

What’s up with the gang and welcome back to the bench with Mitch. Well, a new profile picture. I love it. It doesn’t hurt… on the bench. Please tell me Colorado will be playing in a different league next year because the NHL doesn’t seem strong enough for them.

Here are the answers to your questions.

I see Dadonov’s arrival with a good eye. I didn’t make a video about him (that would have gone viral for sure) but the Canadian did upload one. Still with 40 points on a team where he was underrated, Dadonov finished the season after the close with 16 points in 16 games. It’s obvious he wanted to demonstrate something to the whole league.

He had two more 65- and 70-point seasons with Florida. The talent is there. The change doesn’t seem to have been positive for him when he arrived in Ottawa, and then we know the whole story in Vegas. If you look at Dadonov’s goals this season, most of them have been scored inside and near the keeper, not on the periphery. What I like about the transaction is that the Canadian has given nothing for his contract at Weber, in addition to the assets that are in the top 6 in Montreal next season, at the limit in the top 9.

With a good start to the season, it could become interesting for a certain team at the close of trading. Imagine if the Canadian managed to trade it for a 5th round pick on deadline day, for example. That would mean they traded Weber’s contract for a pick in the 5th round, which would be pure magic.

Regarding the player, I’m not willing to say that he looks like option A or B. He’s a little bit of everything. He doesn’t have the guts and leadership of Perry or the offensive touch of Radulov, but he’s ahead of Hemsky and Semin. One person mentioned that he looks a bit Tatar and I could say yes. Just look at the highlights everywhere and you’ll see that it’s a mix of option A with a bit of tartare.

Great question here, Alex and I will try to answer it as best we can. In order to increase the number of goals, I think we’ve gotten a taste of offense with a number of teams this season. Several encounters ended with a total of 6 goals and more, which was exciting for the fans. The power play percentage stays pretty much the same year after year and we often talk about 5v5 play.

But if we’re talking specifically about the power play, there’s been a lot of discussion about that over the years, and I think it’s time to put that on the table and come up with new rules or ways of doing things. First off, losing the blue line in the zone is similar to dekhockey 5v5. Once you cross the center line, you can play great there.

I don’t hate the idea except I think it might be difficult once the penalty is over, the blue line rule coming back mid game and also the fact that for 2 minutes it would be possible to have to say no no longer pay attention to the offside. It would give the team on the power play an opportunity to stop fret about entering the zone, that’s obvious.

Another option and I don’t know if they still do or if the league is still called that, but in the LHPS back then you couldn’t score if you were understaffed. This completely changes the way things are done, as well as the changes.

I don’t hate the idea in the sense of the offending team playing 4v5 for 2 minutes, but to help them we’re removing a rule that’s usually there, the right to release. It would be like saying if you are in the power game to help them there is no line on the ice and they can do whatever they want, yes I’m exaggerating but it’s a matter of principle.

The league might push even more than the team which is understaffed, not only are they not allowed to clear the puck but they get a 2 minute delay on the 3rd release on the same penalty for delaying the puck on the 2nd release. Otherwise, a rule I genuinely like is to leave the full 2 ​​minutes or 4 minutes. So if you score after 30 seconds, you have 90 seconds left on the power play. The offending player serves their entire sentence. That there would be a few more powerplay goals is obvious and would make the game more attractive.

Millions of factors play a role and one or the other can lead to disappointment. How many times have we heard that X players had the greatest potential and unfortunately didn’t live up to expectations? Conversely, how many times do they say they drafted Y players to give them time to develop and ultimately won’t have played a single big league game?

You have to consider what they have achieved, but above all what they could bring in the long term. Danièle Sauvageau spoke to Mario Langlois about this in May and I found it very interesting: do you pick the talent or the best player? Who has the potential to play in your DNA?

So we talk a lot about the short-, medium- and long-term potential. Therefore, it is important to have excellent staff for recruitment and analysis, not only by video, but also in person and by several members of management and not just one person.

So we understand a little better why the consolation is difficult year after year and why, after watching a few highlight videos, we find it easy to criticize or try to get people to talk about us.

This year’s top 3 is interesting at that level. Who will have reached their full potential in 5-10 years? Do Cooley and Slaf have better potential than Wright? If so, will they reach 100% of their potential or will they reach a certain potential that will be lower than Wright’s? Wright’s potential may be less, but if he reaches his full potential, he could emerge as a top 3 winner. It depends on who is fishing him out, the coaching offered, the development, but also what the youngster decides to do in his off-season and during the season.

With that I close my column. Don’t hesitate to follow me on social media and come talk to me @Mitch_Giguere. I am very sociable and enjoy talking about hockey. So we say we’ll see you next week with a new column and new questions. Feel free to ask questions on almost any topic. Thank you all.

Leave a Comment