ESPN NHL

	Subscribe at thehockeynews.com.

Anaheim - Andy McDonald: Yes
"You can look at it a lot of different ways. You don't really want to change the game too much. It's gotten to that a little bit by restricting equipment. But on the other hand, there obviously is a lack of offense, and nobody wants to come to a hockey game and see a 1-0 game, or 1-1 or whatever. They have to increase scoring somehow, make the game more exciting. The object is to make the game enjoyable for the fans to come and watch. Taking the red line out, I think it would open it up a little bit. A lot of the teams now, everyone traps in the neutral zone, and there isn't much room coming through the neutral zone, and that's where a lot of offense, transition-wise, is generated.

"I don't know. They should probably try it (removal of red line) in the minor leagues first and see how it goes. I do think the game needs more offense. It's exciting to watch when it's back and forth. It's not exciting to watch teams trap in the neutral zone and just dump the puck in. "Maybe the true hockey fan appreciates a true defensive battle, but the majority of people in the game want to see more offense. I'm one of those guys who do. I'd like to see more offense.

"When they talk about making the nets bigger, (I don't like that idea). You don't want to change the game too much, but attendance is down for a reason. We have to take some steps to make the game more exciting.

"In college, I liked playing like that (without the red line). First of all, the ice surface is bigger, then you take out the red line and it's just back and forth. The games were unbelievable, wide-open. I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't want to see that, but who wants to see 1-0 games? I mean, five shots in a period? That's ridiculous.

"I guess what you talk about is scoring chances. It's one thing to get great goaltending and have a game that's 1-1.

"They've made attempts with the obstruction (crackdown), but they seem to have gotten away from that a little bit. I've noticed a difference between this year and the beginning of last year, when they really cracked down at the start of the year. It's the same old story."

Atlanta - Garnet Exelby: No
"It's hard enough now the way it is."

Boston - Joe Thornton: No
"No. I'd rather stay the traditional way. That's more of a college game. Leave the red line. I like how the rules are with that. Keep that the same."

Buffalo - Brian Campbell: Yes
"I played with it in the World Championships and from a selfish point of view I noticed it was hard for defenseman to get points. I don't really know it if would open up the game anymore because you look at the Olympics and as great as those players were it was still low scoring games. They were exciting, but low scoring. I don't know the answer, but I don't think it would be a risk to try."

Calgary - Jarome Iginla: Yes
"I think it would. The NCAA has two-line passes and they have a ton of breakaways. More speed can be created. I've heard the argument that people might back up more and trap further back, but that's closer to your own goal, so that means more shots and goalies make mistakes some times. Also, if they back up, we can gain more speed coming at them, which should create more opportunities for the offensive team. Plus, I think there's a lot of whistles in hockey. If you're trying to attract new fans to hockey, it might look to them like it's a great pass but then there'll be a whistle. That concept -- the two-line pass -- is hard to grasp for new fans. I think it would make it easier in that way, for watching, for new TV viewers. I think it would speed up the game."

Carolina - Sean Hill: No
"Some people think it will make it a more offensive game, some people think that it'll make things more defensive. I think teams will stay back there more on defense, so I don't know if that's the answer."

Chicago - Steve Sullivan: No
"There is no need to maker drastic changes, just call what the rulebook says and the game will be fine."

Colorado - Anonymous: No
"I don't really think so."

Columbus - Anonymous: Yes
"Sure. I'd vote for that. Whatever it takes to get scoring chances and goals back up again. But I'd try other things first. Call penalties. Make the goalies shed some padding. Pretty basic stuff, really."

Dallas - Mike Modano: Yes
"It wouldn't hurt to try."

Detroit - Brett Hull: No
"I'm a traditionalist. It's not hockey anymore. They want to make the nets bigger, too. It would make the game even worse."

Edmonton - Scott Ferguson: No
"I don't think so. I don't think too many defensemen would."

Florida - Olli Jokinen: No

Los Angeles - Brad Chartrand: No
"I like it the way it is."

Minnesota - Anonymous: Yes
"Yes, but they also should move back the goal line to where it was in the '80s."

Montreal - Mike Ribeiro: Yes

Nashville - Anonymous: No
"I would probably support whatever was properly, thoroughly and intelligently researched. ... I've talked to quite a few players who have played in Europe, and they tell me the worse a team is, when you take the red line out they play 1-4 (forecheck). ... You can take the red out and both the blues, it's not necessarily going to open up the games. You want to open the game up? Call the rules that are already there. ... That will open it up."

New Jersey - Tommy Albelin: No
"No. It's been there for a long time and I'm old school. If you have a good system, you can use it to your advantage."

N.Y. Islanders - Radek Martinek: Yes
"Yes, it would make it more open."

N.Y. Rangers - Petr Nedved: Yes
"Definitely. Without question."

Ottawa - Jason Spezza: No
"I don't think they should remove the red line because that would just make teams back off even more. They need to open up space in the neutral zone, but I don't think that would work. We played with no red line in the world juniors and teams like Switzerland and Germany would just sit back."

Philadelphia - Simon Gagne: No
"If they took it out, you might have all five guys playing back. I don't think that's the answer to it (the scoring problem)."

Phoenix - Anonymous: Yes

Pittsburgh - Aleksey Morozov: Yes "Why not? At least try it in exhibition games, although I think teams might back up, and it would be even harder to make a long pass."

St. Louis - Pavol Demitra: No
"No. I don't like that idea at all. It would ruin the game. We play that all summer in Slovakia and everybody's cheating up more, nobody comes back and it's just not the same game, not the same hockey."

San Jose - Alyn McCauley: No
"No, I'm kind of like the tradition of the game and I think that's a pretty big chance. You might notice a difference and see the game open up a little at first, but teams would find ways to adapt to it and clamp down again."

Tampa Bay - Jassen Cullimore: No
"I don't necessarily see it as a good thing. They think it might bring more offense but it could bring exactly the opposite, having the defensemen stay way back all the time. As much as they want to bring offense in, if coaches want to look at the defensive side of things they will find ways to counter it. I just don't think it will work out."

Toronto - Anonymous: No
"No. The only people it would open the game up for would be the guys who are good at cherry picking. (Teemu) Selanne will get five breakaways a game."

Vancouver - Artem Chubarov: Yes
"Yes. I've seen it back home in Russia and it's more offensive. But you need a totally different system to play that way."

Washington - Jeff Halpern: No
"I don't even know if it would make a difference. You look at the games in Europe and they aren't really that wide open. The idea I like is to make the blue lines wider."

Material from The Hockey News.
To subscribe, visit The Hockey News web site at: http://www.thehockeynews.com