A little late to the debate, but 3 on 3 is absolutely a possession game. Hell, the NHL is a possession game now. Teams want the puck and if they don't have it they want to get it back as soon as possible. Didn't see much of the game cause I was working(saw the last 10 minutes and overtime). Carolina basically possessed the puck for most of the overtime although the Flyers had a couple of chances.

One thing sticks out to me lately. Perhaps I'm misguided, but I 've noticed that TK seems to fade as the game progresses. Seems to get tired in 3rd period and certainly had a bad overtime yesterday. He was a step behind for the winning goal and gave up a possession to the Canes by attempting a lazy ill advised pass to Provorov that gave the Canes the puck right back. Perhaps he needs some physical training and work in the gym?? Give him Roddy's number at once!!
- Phillywhiteout

No one had said it wasn’t. For a lot of teams it can be very boring because they wait for the perfect opportunity to go into the offensive zone. You end up watching a team regroup a 100 times and the crowd gets restless. If anyone has ever played pond hockey you’d know it’s a puck possession game lol idk why people think they are Rocket scientists thinking they cracked the code here

No one had said it wasn’t. For a lot of teams it can be very boring because they wait for the perfect opportunity to go into the offensive zone. You end up watching a team regroup a 100 times and the crowd gets restless. If anyone has ever played pond hockey you’d know it’s a puck possession game lol idk why people think they are Rocket scientists thinking they cracked the code here
- ClaudeFather

Didn't try to crack any codes. It sounded as if some folks disagreed that it's about possession in 3 on 3 play and I chimed in. Also, for the most part I think 3 on 3 is exciting! I enjoy watching it with the different strategies involved and wish they would go to two 5 minute OT's. The shootout is the gimmick IMO and that doesn't excite me nearly as much as the 3 on 3 play does. Thanks!

Got to catch yesterday's game later in the night, another really strong 5 on 5 game by the Flyers. They skated with and at times out skated, out hit and out chanced one of the best teams in the league, and that is something to feel positive about IMO. What I think did the Flyers in more than anything else these past few games is their putrid power play, which I think is now 14%! This is another area where I think Yeo's personnel decisions is costing this team. Yeo keeps rolling out the same 5 on the first unit when its clear they cannot get it done, i.e. its not coaching or scheme, its the players who are trying to execute it. I understand keeping G on the first unit, especially now where you want to showcase him, but enough with Provey at the point, that stiff JVR, TK and Cam. I was thinking last night I would like to see Sanheim at the point, G and Frost on the half walls, Mayhew in the bumper and Ratcliff net front. I think this unit has a real good chance to succeed. I mean why not try it, they really can't be any worse?

Nice to see Brown play well last night, and Ratcliff is starting to get me really excited about this potential. Frost had a strong first period but then faded as the game went along. I know he took a puck off his foot in the 3rd. I guess we have to give it up for Mayhew, he has got a little luck right now but I am rooting for him to stay in the NHL and continue to help this team.
- jd250

Disagree as no it is not. Canes 3rd game in 4 nights. They are playing a sad sack flyers team. Not exactly gong to get their juices going. Flyers looking "good" when all the pressure and expectations are long gone. Sorry not getting excited in any way. Been there seen/done that over the years.

Frost at this point looks like another 1st rd bust. The 1st rd bust have set this organization back big time.

It is fn sad they keep Ivan on that pp. Just reeks of incompetence from the GM down to the coach.

Didn't try to crack any codes. It sounded as if some folks disagreed that it's about possession in 3 on 3 play and I chimed in. Also, for the most part I think 3 on 3 is exciting! I enjoy watching it with the different strategies involved and wish they would go to two 5 minute OT's. The shootout is the gimmick IMO and that doesn't excite me nearly as much as the 3 on 3 play does. Thanks!
- Phillywhiteout

People made up an imaginary argument because they can’t comprehend. I agree that the shootout is worse, but the end of the day they are both gimmicks. Overtime altogether with these 3 point games has really put a damper on the league

Who said it was stupid?
- ClaudeFather

Oh I’m sorry boring. I guess we’re splitting hairs today. You don’t like 3 on 3 and that’s fine but how you feel isn’t the final word.

People made up an imaginary argument because they can’t comprehend. I agree that the shootout is worse, but the end of the day they are both gimmicks. Overtime altogether with these 3 point games has really put a damper on the league
- ClaudeFather

No nobody made an imaginary argument.

People made up an imaginary argument because they can’t comprehend. I agree that the shootout is worse, but the end of the day they are both gimmicks. Overtime altogether with these 3 point games has really put a damper on the league
- ClaudeFather

I hated the OT when it went 3 on 3 and the shootout worse...gimmicks for an ADD group of fans who are not watching the game anyway... making it like basketball one on dunk contests to decide team games.. and you know who came from NBA management. Its also what makes anything in the IIHF crap at moments of high drama..

I do nothing more than see the scores on the side or bottom while watching other tv...low definition reruns of Farscape were my choice instead of yesterdays game.. at least I could look at Claudia Black...

all luck absolutely. Flyers have the unluckiest scouts and management in the history of hockey.
- hello it's me 2050

It is luck. Only 44% of 4th round picks make the NHL. That only accounts for playing a min of 1 game. So the actual percentage of full time NHL players from the 4th round is even less. So yes it does come down to luck.

If drafting had no luck involved there wouldnt be any busts. The draft rankings would be fact rather than opinion and guys like Igor, Marchand and Pastrnak would all be taken in the 1st round rather than 3rd.

Amen. Save the gimmick for the all star game
- ClaudeFather

And then cancel the all star game

I don’t mind the 3 on 3. I also don’t love it. I could take it or leave it. It was more exciting in the beginning before teams realized it was all about possession, but 4 on 4 wasn’t exactly nail biting either so whatever I guess.

It is luck. Only 44% of 4th round picks make the NHL. That only accounts for playing a min of 1 game. So the actual percentage of full time NHL players from the 4th round is even less. So yes it does come down to luck.

If drafting had no luck involved there wouldnt be any busts. The draft rankings would be fact rather than opinion and guys like Igor, Marchand and Pastrnak would all be taken in the 1st round rather than 3rd.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

It is not all luck.

It is luck. Only 44% of 4th round picks make the NHL. That only accounts for playing a min of 1 game. So the actual percentage of full time NHL players from the 4th round is even less. So yes it does come down to luck.

If drafting had no luck involved there wouldnt be any busts. The draft rankings would be fact rather than opinion and guys like Igor, Marchand and Pastrnak would all be taken in the 1st round rather than 3rd.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

No one doubts that luck plays a part, and that it plays a bigger part than with first round picks. Its the "all" part of the "all luck" that is hard to justify.

Using your 44% logic, since the sh% of a NHL player is far lower still, the difference between a Bossy (who shot 20%+) over his career, and Nate Thomson, who shoots whatever he shoots (surely less than 12%), is (EDIT: only) luck. One guy's goals happened to go in, the other guy's didn't.

Do you really believe that?

OK game. Canes thought they could phone 📱 2 points in.
- THE EVIL WITHIN

3rd game in 4 nights, with two of those being afternoon starts and down a defenseman after the first. They were always going to just try to survive this one.

And then cancel the all star game
- Scoob

I wonder if anyone knows the tv ratings for a game on average, and then for OT specifically. Sometimes, when I am idly watching NHL scores and I see a random game has gone to OT, I will tune in if I can (sorry to some of you).

If a lot of people do that, that might justify why the OT persists.

Sloppy for Slafkovsky

you would think the Jets will shake up their core.

It is not all luck.
- hello it's me 2050

Then explain why so few picks make nhl. I listed facts you just say no. Thats not an argument.

Looking back at 2010 draft. There were 4 players out of 30 picks that are nhl regulars

Khunhackl
Donskoi
Grubauer
Hankaapaa

Only Donskoi was taken in the first 15 picks. If its not all luck, why did so many teams pass on these guys for players who were busts?

I chose 2010 because its a year where if a player drafted then isnt here now, they never will be.

Lets look at shesterkins draft now

Husso
Wallmark
D.Toews
Arvidsson
Shesterkin
Kahkonen
Bunting
Heinen

This is a more successful year. 8/30 picks.

Shesterkin and Toews obviously stick out.

Husso is having his 1st good season this year. Kahkonen is still backup stuck behind Talbot.

Rest are not big names. Bunting is having success with Matthews and Marner but who wouldnt?

These are needles in a haystack. If Isles or Rangers knew what they were getting why did they draft the likes of

Keegar Iverson
Brandon Halverson
Ho Sang
Dal Colle

Ahead of them?

No one doubts that luck plays a part, and that it plays a bigger part than with first round picks. Its the "all" part of the "all luck" that is hard to justify.

Using your 44% logic, since the sh% of a NHL player is far lower still, the difference between a Bossy (who shot 20%+) over his career, and Nate Thomson, who shoots whatever he shoots (surely less than 12%), is (EDIT: only) luck. One guy's goals happened to go in, the other guy's didn't.

Do you really believe that?
- PT21

You've made a bad analogy. Shot percentage luck and draft percentage luck are not remotely the same thing. Of course there is the difference in a players ability to get quality shots off as well as his ability to shoot the puck harder and more accurately. While there can certainly be a difference in "talent" level from one team to another, it's not nearly as pronounced as the disparity between Bossy and Thompson. It helps to look at the picks in the previous rounds in the same draft made by a team. It points many times to sheer luck.

No one doubts that luck plays a part, and that it plays a bigger part than with first round picks. Its the "all" part of the "all luck" that is hard to justify.

Using your 44% logic, since the sh% of a NHL player is far lower still, the difference between a Bossy (who shot 20%+) over his career, and Nate Thomson, who shoots whatever he shoots (surely less than 12%), is (EDIT: only) luck. One guy's goals happened to go in, the other guy's didn't.

Do you really believe that?
- PT21

You are comparing two things that arent comparable.

Sh% is meaningless. All nhl players have good shots. Watch on YouTube where they try a sumo wrestler in net. He takes up most the net yet George Parros lights him up like a Christmas tree. Shooting percentage doesn't tell the story of a player. It doesnt tell you the quality of the shots, perimeter shots are not equal to slot shots. It doesnt tell you if its a tap in a breakaway, it doesn't tell you if the player picked his spot, got a lucky bounce, goalie let in weak one or if hes just throwing it on net.

If you are selective eith your shots your shooting percentage will likely be higher than a player thats theows everything at the net. It doesnt even account for skill level of the player

You are comparing Apples to Broccoli

I don’t mind the 3 on 3. I also don’t love it. I could take it or leave it. It was more exciting in the beginning before teams realized it was all about possession, but 4 on 4 wasn’t exactly nail biting either so whatever I guess.
- funmaster18

It's absurd just how much better 3v3 is than 4v4. They should just 3v3 sudden death until there's a winner, no SO.

3rd game in 4 nights, with two of those being afternoon starts and down a defenseman after the first. They were always going to just try to survive this one.
- BINGO!

A 50% effort gets it done versus the Flyers these days.

You are comparing two things that arent comparable.

Sh% is meaningless. All nhl players have good shots. Watch on YouTube where they try a sumo wrestler in net. He takes up most the net yet George Parros lights him up like a Christmas tree. Shooting percentage doesn't tell the story of a player. It doesnt tell you the quality of the shots, perimeter shots are not equal to slot shots. It doesnt tell you if its a tap in a breakaway, it doesn't tell you if the player picked his spot, got a lucky bounce, goalie let in weak one or if hes just throwing it on net.

If you are selective eith your shots your shooting percentage will likely be higher than a player thats theows everything at the net. It doesnt even account for skill level of the player

You are comparing Apples to Broccoli
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

You routinely blow off things as meaningless. Shot percentage is not meaningless. The sumo wrester thing cracks me up. Was Parros playing in a game and having to shoot in tight spaces with a defender on him? That's just a gimmick. An average junior player could do the same thing in a non game situation.

Then explain why so few picks make nhl. I listed facts you just say no. Thats not an argument.

Looking back at 2010 draft. There were 4 players out of 30 picks that are nhl regulars

Khunhackl
Donskoi
Grubauer
Hankaapaa

Only Donskoi was taken in the first 15 picks. If its not all luck, why did so many teams pass on these guys for players who were busts?

I chose 2010 because its a year where if a player drafted then isnt here now, they never will be.

Lets look at shesterkins draft now

Husso
Wallmark
D.Toews
Arvidsson
Shesterkin
Kahkonen
Bunting
Heinen

This is a more successful year. 8/30 picks.

Shesterkin and Toews obviously stick out.

Husso is having his 1st good season this year. Kahkonen is still backup stuck behind Talbot.

Rest are not big names. Bunting is having success with Matthews and Marner but who wouldnt?

These are needles in a haystack. If Isles or Rangers knew what they were getting why did they draft the likes of

Keegar Iverson
Brandon Halverson
Ho Sang
Dal Colle

Ahead of them?
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

A good portion is luck, a good portion is timing/opportunity and a good portion is development.

There are guys the Flyers 'ruined' that could probably have been players if they had been picked by a team with more patience, better coaching, and openings further up the lineup at the right times.

You could put all of that under the umbrella of luck, but I think some of it can be controlled to an extent.

A good portion is luck, a good portion is timing/opportunity and a good portion is development.

There are guys the Flyers 'ruined' that could probably have been players if they had been picked by a team with more patience, better coaching, and openings further up the lineup at the right times.

You could put all of that under the umbrella of luck, but I think some of it can be controlled to an extent.
- Tomahawk

The Flyers have been unlucky to draft players that can bust through the road blocks placed in their way.

An example is I hear that the Flyers have been attempting to develop Ratcliff into a 4th line role player. He seems to have some offensive ability and in the short sample I've seen. Seems to be a much better player than reports have indicated.

You are comparing two things that arent comparable.

Sh% is meaningless. All nhl players have good shots. Watch on YouTube where they try a sumo wrestler in net. He takes up most the net yet George Parros lights him up like a Christmas tree. Shooting percentage doesn't tell the story of a player. It doesnt tell you the quality of the shots, perimeter shots are not equal to slot shots. It doesnt tell you if its a tap in a breakaway, it doesn't tell you if the player picked his spot, got a lucky bounce, goalie let in weak one or if hes just throwing it on net.

If you are selective eith your shots your shooting percentage will likely be higher than a player thats theows everything at the net. It doesnt even account for skill level of the player

You are comparing Apples to Broccoli
- xShoot4WarAmpsx