The Sens hit the ice this morning at Canadian Tire Centre after falling to the Detroit Red Wings 3-2 in overtime last night.
It's interesting to note that yesterday's overtime period began with 54 seconds of 3-on-3 play, which is something that has been discussed in recent weeks as a potential replacement to the game-deciding shoutout. After practice the topic was brought up and we've put together the best quotes below...
On 3-on-3 overtime
Yeah it's not half bad. There's a lot of ice but I think it's fun for a short period of time. I don't think you could do it for a long period of time. It's fun that it happened yesterday but unfortunately we couldn't capitalize on it.
It was exciting to watch. Pretty exciting to be a part of knowing that you still had teammates out there on the ice to help you out. I think we saw that we had a pretty good chance to win the game there with it, lot of ice for guys to be creative and use their speed. I think it's a lot more fun than watching a guy come in half-speed at the end of the game.
Yeah. I love it. It's lots of ice and I think there would be a lot of odd-man rushes, 2-on-1's, even breakaways. I think I could probably use my speed to my advantage in those situations.
Yeah. Obviously I like it. I think it's good for me. I like to have a lot of ice and for good skaters like me it's a good opportunity to have odd-man rushes and a lot of chances. I think it makes the games more exciting. It feels like when you go out at night and just go skate with friends.
On preferring 3-on-3 overtime or shootouts
100% 3-on-3. It's still a team game. You still have teammates on the ice. You still have guys making plays. You've got guys that if they do get a breakaway they have some back pressure. With a penalty shot, a guy is coming in at half speed. It's not game realistic to have a skills competition at the end of the game to decide the difference.
I've only been around for the penalty shots and I think it's a little bit of a lottery but at the same time it's the same for both teams and I like taking penalty shots. I wouldn't mind keeping it.
Oh 3-on-3. At least there's some semblance of "team" versus just "skill".
On the strategy behind playing 3-on-3
3-on-3 is obviously wide open because of the amount of ice but really the reason it's wide open is you've got to get a chance and the way you get that chance is to have 3 guys go up the ice. If you miss that chance...somebody is going the other way. That's what makes it so intriguing: the concept of the open ice. You're not going to sit back 3-on-3 because you'll just be defending the whole time. When you get your chance you just have to go but chances are if there's a big save, miss the net or blocked shot it's coming the other way and that's what makes it so exciting. It's also important that you attack. It's no good to just kill the time off, you have to attack.
There's always going to be some different types of strategies. Maybe keep one guy as the safe guy so if something does happen it's a 2-on-1 instead of a 2-on-0. But then if they miss on their 2-on-1 we've got a 2-on-1 going back the other way. It'll be interesting to see but I think it'd be a good thing for the game.
It's mostly man-to-man. You don't want to lose your man but when you have the puck you want to always keep moving and try and create odd-man rushes. Other than that I think it's just playing hockey.
On the difference in both team's lineup strategies during the 3-on-3 overtime last night
If I had his two forwards, I'd have them on the ice too. Two real elite, skilled, world-class players. That's why I put two D out. I thought they gave us the best chance to counter that. I did think about it but probably went the "Scottish-conservative" way. But I liked the 3-on-3 though.
We had a coach in Binghamton that would do that with 3 forwards and 1 D my first couple years there. It all depends what the coach wants and what the coach sees. Either way is a good option.
On bypassing the 4-on-4 overtime period and going straight to 3-on-3
I think with 4-on-4 there are chances all the time so it's not like opportunities aren't there. Either way I think would be fine.
As we saw from the 3-on-3 for a minute there were 3 or 4 scoring chances. So you figure if you play 3-4 minutes of that there will be a goal for sure.
On not being a fan of the shootout
Not since day one. Let's go have a homerun derby contest. That's what it is.
It's difficult to really evaluate the 3-on-3 overtime concept at the NHL level based solely on an impromptu 54 seconds last night but it has definitely added some fuel to the debate.
What are your thoughts? Do you prefer the existing shootout or are you in favour of the proposed 3-on-3 idea?