I know you don't hear this very often Dustin, but you're right. 3-on-3 is for the fans. That ridiculously inflated paycheck? That's for you. Consider it hush money for whenever the NHL wants to make a rule change that you disagree with. You're the talent. An entertainer, if you will. You get paid to play the game, not tell everyone else how the game is to be played. You know why things get changed on behalf of the fans? Because it's their money that inevitably pays your salary. They are the reason you get to play a sport for a living. With no fans, there are no players, so maybe stop complaining about something new that they enjoy, and start working on covering your area of the ice better. If I was lackadaisical offensive defenseman I would probably hate a change that made me become more responsible in my own end as well. Herein lies the difference, I wouldn't be publicly denouncing it to the media. Not just because 3-on-3 is ridiculously entertaining, but because I wouldn't want to go against the people that indirectly keep me gainfully employed.
Is 3-on-3 overtime the most authentic form of hockey? Obviously not. It does, however, stand a much better chance of helping teams avoid the shoutout, and if the purity of the sport is what we are talking about then a breakaway contest is the true abomination. 3-on-3 is what we call a compromise. It's still dependent on teamwork, but it opens the game up more and increases the likelihood that the game won't be decided by a skills competition. I find it interesting that Dustin Byfuglein would choose to label something as "not hockey" when it's entire intention is to phase out something that is most definitely "not hockey". Sorry that you have to skate a little more Buff, but maybe this will finally motivate you to do something other than sit around eating 'Zebra Cakes' in your boxers all offseason. Probably (definitely) not, but maybe.