We Talk Blindside Hits, Scoring, and Concussion Spotters with NHL GMs Jim Nill and Brad Treliving

It seems like not long ago the World Cup was in full swing and the talk of hockey was the electrifying North American young guns team with their breathtaking speed and skill. One could not help but get excited for what was to come once the NHL season got underway. Well, it's hard to believe, but all of sudden we already sit more than a third of the way through the regular season. What have we learned so far?

Well, among other things, Sidney Crosby is still really good. Connor McDavid provides "must watch" television on a nightly basis and his career is probably off to a better start than expected. And Carey Price, as we determined last season, remains vitally important to the success of the Montreal Canadiens.

But we've also had the chance to watch some broader issues play out. Olympic participation in 2018 is still very much in flux. Independent concussion spotters have been given increased power to remove players from games. Blindside hits—and the seemingly never-ending debate—have cropped back up. Scoring has continued to reduce. And the notion of altering the point system to include three points for regulation wins has attracted some attention.

We recently caught up with general managers Brad Treliving (Calgary Flames) and Jim Nill (Dallas Stars) to get their thoughts on some of these issues.

In an era where much attention is being paid to the long-term effects that concussions can have, the NHL took a step this season to empower independent concussion spotters to call for the removal of a player who seems to be exhibiting concussion-like symptoms. To protect from further liability, it was the only logical step, as the onus could not be left to the player or the team to make a decision. In cases of mild uncertainty, it would be difficult to expect, every time, that a team, in the heat of a game, would err on the side of caution.

"I think it's worked very well," Nill said. "It's happened to us a couple of games. I've watched other games with other teams where (guys have been pulled off). It's the best way to look after our assets—the players—and make sure the right decision is made. That it is an independent person making the call is important. It is one of the most advanced stages of looking after the issue of concussions."

"The goal here is to be ahead of the issue and do everything we can to protect our players as best as we can," Treliving said. "The training staffs do a remarkable job and for the most part catch everything that's going on. But it's another set of eyes to watch what is going on. When you are talking about removing players from a game, you are always wondering how this is going to go. But I think, all in all, I think it's worked very well."

McDavid was pulled from a game earlier this month after hitting his chin on the ice and missed the final 6:28 of the second period before returning in the third. With McDavid's removal coming at a pivotal time in the game, naturally much commotion ensued later when he commented that he was "shocked" to have been removed. In the end, it was determined he was fine. But if he was not, is his absence from the game for six-plus minutes not worth it to ensure his longer-term health, even if it may have cost the Oilers their best chance of tying a game they went on to lose 2-1?

Now, full disclosure, our talk with Nill and Treliving occurred prior to this incident but the sentiment remains the same. As tough as it might be in the moment to lose your best player, ultimately, you must err on the side of caution on this issue.

"It's about what is right for the player," Nill said. "You have to take yourself out of it as the team and think of the whole picture and how it affects other people. Concussion protocol is about what is doing the right thing for the player. We're doing the right thing for the player because sometimes they may not even realize they are affected but it's the safest and most effective way to deal with this issue."

"I think we've moved away from the days of putting competition ahead of safety so that's not to say we wouldn't trust team personnel," Treliving said. "It'll be good to see at the end of the day who has been taken out of a game that maybe wouldn't have been so the fact that there is an independent voice is a good thing."

On several occasions so far, spotters have instructed goaltenders to be removed for assessment which obviously presents a bit more of a direct consequence to the game than a skater, no matter who it is. The potential of affording the goalie coming into the game a few minutes to warm up was discussed at the GM meetings in November and will be further discussed at the next set of meetings in March. But what seems like a simple decision could lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. While having a goalie come in cold is not ideal, coaches are devious types and GMs fear a rule of this nature could quickly get exploited.

"You can say yes (they should get to warm up) but then it's no different than when the goalie hurts his knee and the backup has to come in cold," Nill said. "Does that mean now every time a goalie tweaks an ankle or a knee and has to come out, the backup goalie gets to warm up? The problem is, does that lead to gamesmanship from the coaches? The biggest struggle we have in our GM meetings is that when you start to make changes, there are always arms that grow out from it. There are things you never think of that come up as a result of putting a new rule in. Are coaches now going to go to goalies and say, 'You're hurt, you're coming out'? Then it gives you a three- or four-minute break for your team."

"Earlier in the season, Antti Raanta was pulled in New York and Henrik Lundqvist had to come in," Treliving recalled. "I get it, you've got your high-priced goaltender sitting on the bench for two hours and now he has to go in cold, it's not ideal. You can get some gamesmanship, though, that could go along with it that's maybe not what you intended, so it will be a difficult one."

In 2011, the NHL adopted stronger penalties with the invocation of Rule 48 to curb what had become an epidemic of hits targeting the head. But earlier this season, the debate came roaring back after Nazem Kadri's hit on Daniel Sedin. Though the league determined Sedin's head was not the main point of contact, he did hit his head on the ice as a result of being hit while in the midst of shooting, or a "defenseless position." Kadri was not suspended but it reignited the debate about what should constitute an acceptable hit. The debate was had at the November GM meetings and is expected to be discussed in March, as well.

"We have to make sure our game is unique. It's a fast game and the physical part is important to the game so we have to be careful we don't take that out," Nill cautioned. "On the flip side, any time a player can't defend himself, if he can't see a hit from the side or from behind, I think something's got to be—we have to find some parameters for that. It's one thing if you are skating with the puck with your head down and somebody comes at you from the front, that's your responsibility. But if you can't defend yourself from the side or back, those are the hits we need to set the parameters for the new rules for blindside hits."

When pressed for a definitive answer on whether he would be in favour of reforming rules to protect against blindside hits, Nill said, "My answer is yes, but how do you define it? That's where we have to be careful because we can't take the physicality out of the game."

Like Nill, Treliving agreed that hits targeting defenseless players through no fault of their own are worth more discussion.

"Those north/south hits, there is an onus on the player to have his head up. I think all of us agree that those hits where a player really doesn't have a chance to protect himself, not the ones where you have your head down and you have to have your head up, but those ones where you really don't necessarily have a chance to see a guy coming (are worth discussion)," Treliving said.

"The Kadri-Sedin hit by the letter of the rule book right now, it was shoulder contact but he was shooting the puck and not in a position to protect himself. All of us (GMs) ask ourselves do those hits pass the smell test and are those types of hits what we want? We have to be careful because physicality and contact is an important part of our game. But from my end, the ones where guys are defenseless through no fault of their own, are those what we want?"

It seems like it's becoming harder to make up ground in the standings nowadays. Over the last three seasons, nearly 80 percent of teams in a playoff position by American Thanksgiving went on to make the postseason. In other words, a bad October and November is likely to cost a team its season.

With that in mind, the notion of earning three points for a regulation win has been floated recently with the hope that 1) it will reward top-end teams for winning in regulation, allowing them to create some separation at the top of the standings and 2) give teams behind in the standings a chance to make up ground more quickly.

Interestingly, though, when ESPN ran the numbers at of the end of November comparing the current format to one that would award three points for regulation wins, two points for overtime or shootout wins, and one point for overtime or shootout losses, only three teams actually switched positions.

So would it have as much of an effect as some might hope?

"I don't know if it would dramatically change things," Treliving said. "There is reasonable sense to reward winning the game in regulation but I do think our game is so well-coached and the parity is so tight, if you look at the playoff races now, it wasn't that long ago that you'd have teams out of it early. You can make a case for and against the current point system. Maybe it's because this is what we have and I'm comfortable with it, [but] I think it's fair and made for great parity in the league."

If it came to a vote in the near future, Treliving indicated he would be in favour of keeping things the way they are but would not be against studying the ramifications of a three-point regulation win system more thoroughly.

"I'd be very interested in really digging in and seeing a real comparative analysis," he said. "What you are saying in this new system is really trying to reward teams for winning in regulation. Now, if it's 2-2, is the coach really going to say, 'Let's open it up and win 3-2 in regulation' or he is going to say, 'Let's make sure we get our point'? If you are down 3-2, is the system play, structure, tactics going to be any different? No, you are going to try to chase and tie it up.

"Now as you get later in the season, the impact could be greater on the standings but I still think our game is so well-coached, I don't know if it is going to make that much of a difference in terms of the type of game our fans see on the ice. If it's 2-2, I still think the coaches are going to want to put their point in the bag before opening it up and putting that at risk."

Nill was skeptical as well that a 3-2-1 system would have as much impact as some predict.

"When I was in Detroit [with the Red Wings], we did a bit of a study on this and I don't think there will be the separation that people think there will be," he said. "The games aren't going to change, they will still be tight. Right now, we are trying to win in regulation but because the games are tight, we go to overtime. It would be the same thing with the 3-2-1 system, you are going to have tight games and they'll go to overtime."

The possibility of removing a loser point should a team fall in overtime or a shootout was a non-starter for Nill. He didn't think it would gain much traction among other GMs, either. Playing 3-on-3 in overtime and shootouts are both viewed as too gimmicky to come away with nothing for a loss despite being tied through 60 minutes.

To conclude, we look at the annual outrage about goal scoring. Yet again, scoring is on the decline. According to Sporting Charts, through the end of November, the total goals scored in a game was at 5.27. The last time it was that low was in 2003, just before rule changes were made coming out of the 2004-05 lockout to open the game up.

That first season, total goals per game sat at 6.05 but has steadily declined over the last decade. So is it time to consider new changes to help increase scoring?

"A 3-1 game can be as good as a 7-6 game so it's not always a case that scoring makes the game more exciting to watch," Nill said.

So why does he feel that scoring has decreased again over the last decade?

"It used to be years ago a team would have its first line, second line, third line, and fourth line. Now it doesn't seem to matter," Nill explained. "Fourth lines, for the most part, can all skate and handle the puck so the matchups or mismatches aren't what they used to be. Players are just better. Everybody can skate nowadays, so if you can skate and play hard, you can neutralize a star player. Coaching has never been better.

"We're a by-product of being the best hockey league in the world and it's got the best of everything and because of that, games are so much tighter. When everybody is so good, there are fewer mistakes so it's harder to score. Goalies have also never been better. Unless you get a lucky bounce or a tip-in, you aren't beating a goalie from 30 or 40 feet out anymore."

Perhaps the better question is, while scoring is down, does the of game, in any way, resemble the clutching and grabbing and skate-in-mud style that was seen in 2003?

"I think the game has never been better. The speed, the skill level, we are seeing young players come in and have impacts right away," Treliving said. "Their skill level is high but they are not scared to do stuff. Ten years ago, you'd never see young guys try to go between their legs because if they messed up, they might not be playing anymore. I think our game is in a great spot.

"The amount of times we shoot the puck in the net, we'd always like to increase that but the scoring chances and the excitement of the game is high. It's wide open and you are seeing chances on both sides. The way rosters are built is dramatically different than ten or more years ago—it's speed and creating offence from all four lines."