Two-On-Two in OT?

From Yahoo! Sports:

Of all the ideas being tested this week at the league’s Research, Development and Orientation Camp, the most realistic ones with the biggest potential to impact the game involve overtime. The league is looking at two-on-two and three-on-three concepts, as well as four-on-four with teams switching ends to create long line changes.

The Nightmare on Helm Street is a hockey blog overwhelmingly dedicated to the Detroit Red Wings and the destruction of their enemies. The authors are true diehard fans who like to use a mix of stats (real or fake), sarcasm, and anger to exude their opinions onto their readers.

Visit Nightmare on Helm Street

Most everyone agrees the shootout has become too common. The debate is over what to do about it.

One person throwing out his opinion is the always entertaining Jimmy Devellano:

”It was good that they did it.  I wanted to see two-on-two. I wanted to see it because I thought, ‘What is this going to look like?’ And then I thought, ‘Oh, it doesn’t really look like hockey.’ ”

That's gold, Jimmy.  Thank you for that.

I agree that two-on-two is a little too extreme - and a good way to get out of going into so many shoot-outs would be to have a five minute 4-on-4 period and if you still don't have a winner, make the players switch sides and play a five minute 3-on-3.  I'm guessing this would lead to an eventual winner before the extra 10 minutes of playing time is up.

What do you think?  Makes the game too long?  Is it better than sitting around waiting for that little stripe to be made by the zamboni?  Do you even agree that too many games are going to the shootout?

Let me know.