| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 11/14/2011 : 13:19:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
Narrow views towards Philly? Beans, I don't care if it was the Leafs doing it . . . they didn't attack or leave their own zone when they had the puck. They were whistled down for it a couple of times and lost possession for it.
Tampa Bay NEVER did that, please compare apples to apples.
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
When a team does what Philly does, and they lose possession of the puck after it's whistled down, and TB gets an offensive zone faceoff . . . how that can be construed as anything other than assinine is beyond me.
But go ahead, defend it to its death. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
i agree, as i said before Philly did not use any stragety they quit playing,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
To "quit playing" is not a strategy?? It absolutely is a strategy. Is 'quiting a forecheck" a strategy?? It sure is. It's call a trap. |
 |
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 14:15:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
Narrow views towards Philly? Beans, I don't care if it was the Leafs doing it . . . they didn't attack or leave their own zone when they had the puck. They were whistled down for it a couple of times and lost possession for it.
Tampa Bay NEVER did that, please compare apples to apples.
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
When a team does what Philly does, and they lose possession of the puck after it's whistled down, and TB gets an offensive zone faceoff . . . how that can be construed as anything other than assinine is beyond me.
But go ahead, defend it to its death.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
i agree, as i said before Philly did not use any stragety they quit playing,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
I actually believe it was startegy and here's why. Philedalphia knew that if they just held the puck the Tampa crowd would start to boo and Tampa could either play into Phillys hands and forecheck or embarass themselves in front of their hands and risk fans not coming to their games.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 14:24:20
|
I don't think it has anything to do with what the fans would do. I believe it is the exact same thing as the trap mentality.
Trapping team - We will not chase the puck. We will let the puck come to us and react to the opposition by being positioned in the neutral zone to intercept passes and pressure the puck carrier to attempt to move the puck to an area of the ice we are positioned in.
Sit and Wait team - We will not try to break down the trap. We will let the forecheck come to use and react to the opposition by being positioned to make passes to relieve the pressure on the puck carrier. We will move the puck to an area of the ice where the opposition is not.
But somehow one of those strategies is wrong and one of those strategies is correct. At least according to some. |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 19:06:24
|
Coaches are not paid to put fans in the seats - they are paid to win hockey games. (I'm not suggesting that coaches don't care about playing in a full or empty arena, but it's secondary to winning.)
Here's what TB's coach (Boucher) had to say about things. "I don't care what people say. I coach our team and I'm paid to win games and our rink is full. (General Manager) Steve Yzerman is happy. The comments don't bother me and I really don't know the extent of it. We play the same way we played last year and we're going to continue playing that way. In every game, every team has a strategy. We have a strategy against the other team and during the game we adjust and re-adjust and other teams have to do the same against us. It's an ongoing process, whether it's on the ice or off the ice. The only thing that matters is what happens on the ice. We've got our strengths and weaknesses. We play to our strengths."
Unless the league changes things, Boucher's tactics work. The Flyers (or other teams) can pass around the puck in their own end all they want, and right now, the end result is a face-off in your own end of the rink. Not too smart really. I'm not biased to one team's strategy over another, but I have a bias toward common sense, and as it stands right now, the Flyers (or any other team) would be foolish to give up puck possession by showing their displeasure for Tampa Bay's 1-3-1 trap system.
|
|
|
|
Guest4874
( )
|
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 20:14:59
|
I can not believe the controversy this is causing! It seems to me that too many people have only half of the information.
Firstly, yes the play was whistled down when Philly did not move the puck....as it should be....but once they adjusted by passing the puck and literally skating in circles, the "strategy" was no longer whistled dead.
Secondly, the purpose of D to D passes and D moving backwards with the puck is for the purpose of luring forecheckers in deep so Philly's strategy was not only acceptable but sound.
Thirdly, and I think most importantly i believe the whole purpose of the "stunt" was to embarass the Lightning and their approach to the game. This was not the case of a team adopting a defensive posture to protect a lead, it was a team trying to clog the middle and counter attack. Why would Philly happily engage in that.
Lastly, I applaud Philly for at least sticking to their guns.....although I'm sure they wouldn't have tried this at home!!!
The people that I truly feel sorry for are the highly skilled Tampa forwards htat hd to endure the "stall tactics" of their own coach |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 21:18:46
|
My point remains that if a team chooses to just pass around the puck until the ref blows the whistle, this is a losing tactic.
As far as moving the puck back and forth until forecheckers are "lured in," from what I saw in the highlights, TB wasn't biting. So then it becomes a waiting game, and the Flyers can only wait until the referee blows the whistle, or they eventually have to move the puck forward against TB's system.
I understand the third point (about trying to embarrass TB), but does this change anything? Do teams really care? TB doesn't appear to care. Did you read Boucher's comments?
Don't get me wrong. I find the 1-3-1 trap system boring and frustrating to watch. My point is that as the rules now stand, TB wins the tactical battle.
And unless the league changes how they call this "play" (passing the puck back and forth with no forward movement, and opposing forecheckers staying back), you won't see it happen again. Because the Flyers tried it, and it doesn't work!
Which team (and fans) were frustrated after all? That tells you something. I don't have a bias toward either team, and while I don't like TB's tactics, I think they win (at least for now) the tactical battle.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 09:44:52
|
I just sent Peter Laviolette an email for the next Phi/TB game. Here's what i suggested he try...........
Pete,
Alex116 of PUH.com here. Love what you did strategy wise vs TB the other night, thought it was a great way to counter their "trap". Seeing as the ref's didn't help you out there, THIS is what i suggest you do next time. Have your dman carry the puck to the faceoff dot in your own end. Try to make it Pronger, as he will fit this role perfectly. Tell Chris when he gets to the dot, wind up like he never has before, and rifle the puck down the ice. Have your wingers "in motion" like a CFL reciever, flying into the offensive zone to beat the only dman there (cuz the other 3 guys are in the neutral zone) and gain possession of the puck. If all goes well, you get the puck in the opposing teams zone relatively quickly and painlessly. If all goes better than well, perhaps Pronger's slapper nails the forward who was refusing to enter your zone to put pressure on the dmen.
Hope this helps, i'll be watching to see how it works....
Sincerely,
Alex116 of PUH.com
I'm awaiting an email back  , i'll keep you all posted! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 10:49:40
|
I love Alex's strategy!! Brilliant. If the offensive team will create the same outcome by icing the puck or not moving it, why not try the dump and chance from the defensive zone?? Especially against the 1-3-1. I would pile 3 offensive guys at the opposite blue line, dump it from the defensive zone, and let the chips fall where they may. Even if you were 25% successful it would be better than sitting in your own end and not moving the puck.
However, fans wouldn't appreciate that many icing calls either. But there is no rule on how often a team can ice the puck. However, I am certain if Philly did this, some would say it was either not a strategy or against the spirit of the game.
|
|
|
|
Guest4551
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 13:09:15
|
| ok i like the dump it in the technique its a good idea but what happens when the NHL decides to go ahead with the no touchicing rule?? Then what do you do? i say have a couple of guys (WINGERS stay at the side and pass behind the 3 defenders at the red line) to the othe centre streaming in and follow him after he carries it agains one guy use the trap against them. |
|
|
|
Guest4243
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 18:48:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4551
ok i like the dump it in the technique its a good idea but what happens when the NHL decides to go ahead with the no touchicing rule?? Then what do you do?
i say have a couple of guys (WINGERS stay at the side and pass behind the 3 defenders at the red line) to the othe centre streaming in and follow him after he carries it agains one guy use the trap against them.
Well you shoot on net. The goalie freezes it and face off in TB zone. Or puck stays in play and you pressure deep in their zone.
I thought the new NHL is about offence and scoring. By allowing TB to continue this defence you set up for low scoring boring games which the league is trying to remove.
Like I said before a simple rule change that force one defensive player to engage the puck or the puck carrier eliminates this c(t)rap. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 22:07:52
|
Beans, i actually think your odds are better than 25% when firing it the length of the ice! First off, you can try to put it on net, therefore mitigating an icing call. Second, you have all 3 of your forwards moving, with speed into the other end and it's basically 3 vs the 1 dman, unless the goalie plays it, which in turn solves the icing problem!
I can't believe teams don't try this? Even more unbelievable is that Laviolette didn't reply to me!  |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 11/16/2011 : 12:18:22
|
*** REVISED***
Posted - 11/16/2011 : 09:26:45
Alex – hang tight. You still might get a response! :)
Years ago, I sent a note to Oilers GM Kevin Lowe about a suggestion I had about what to do when a DEFENSEMAN loses their stick in the defensive zone.
My suggestion was that forwards should keep their sticks, because they're helpless when dealing with the opposing defense. And that defensemen (even without a stick) have other ways of defending, and having a stick is less important to them. (This was before the new rules took place about holding, etc.)
Surprisingly, I received two replies, one from their PR guy (Bill Tuele) who responded that the Oilers appreciated my input as a season ticket holder, and they thought it was an interesting suggestion. And then I received a response from Kevin Lowe, who stated that he discussed the idea with the coaching staff, and expressed that Billy Moores thought it was worth consideration, but Craig MacTavish wasn't sold on the idea, so they would stay "status quo."
In retrospect they were right (of course). I must have watched a couple of games beforehand where goals were scored when forwards were caught trying to pass their sticks back to their defense partners. Hence the idea for forwards to keep their sticks.
One final footnote to this story: A few weeks later I was at a game, and an Oilers defenseman lost his stick. I'm not sure if the forwards were unwilling (not likely) or unable (most likely) to pass a stick back to the "stick-less" defenseman, but the end result was that a goal was scored against the Oilers on this play.
The Oilers lost that game (by a goal if I remember correctly), and they went on to miss the playoffs by two points that season, and I still wonder if the team actually tried my recommended approach that particular game? (Very unlikely I would add.)
One last story as it relates to a fan's input, and this one is not mine. In 2008, an Ottawa optometrist recommended that Marc-Andre Fleury change his yellow goalie pads to a more neutral colour (white), and he did so, and went on to finish the season in spectacular fashion.
So Alex – keep trying with your suggestions! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2011 : 10:06:11
|
Great story, Guest 4178, thanks for that. Please sign up!
It is interesting to note these little interactions and stories between the fans and coaches/management . . . great to hear guys like Lowe actually read those letters and memos. Heartwarming stuff.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2011 : 10:27:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4243
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4551
ok i like the dump it in the technique its a good idea but what happens when the NHL decides to go ahead with the no touchicing rule?? Then what do you do?
i say have a couple of guys (WINGERS stay at the side and pass behind the 3 defenders at the red line) to the othe centre streaming in and follow him after he carries it agains one guy use the trap against them.
Well you shoot on net. The goalie freezes it and face off in TB zone. Or puck stays in play and you pressure deep in their zone.
I thought the new NHL is about offence and scoring. By allowing TB to continue this defence you set up for low scoring boring games which the league is trying to remove.
Like I said before a simple rule change that force one defensive player to engage the puck or the puck carrier eliminates this c(t)rap.
Right cause with the 1-3-1 defense there is always a clear shot on net. How bout if the puck is banked off the boards in center ice before it enters the oppositions zone, it no longer becomes a 2 line pass or Icing. This will eliminate the sitting back in your defensive zone and create scoring chances. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2011 : 10:34:30
|
Joshua.....not sure what you mean? Are you implying that if it's shot in from center? Or are you saying it's shot in from the defensive end off the boards? I don't quite follow? 
As far as i know, icing is only negated by touching it first (offensive team) after coming from an onside position (or it's be considered a two line pass), or dumping it in once across center ice.
My suggestion, was to fire it down the ice from inside your own blueline, but have forwards entering the zone with speed to track it down before the defense can (usually only 1 guy in a trap system). Of course, the puck must cross the blue line before the forwards to keep it onside / not a two line pass! I guess if a team started doing this, the dman could back off even more, making it more difficult for the forwards to be first to the puck? Having said that, it would likely open things up more as far as the trap goes! |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2011 : 05:36:11
|
Ok, been in Mexico for a week so I missed the heart of this arguement but I still have to add my two cents,
Seriously the arguement about strategy of both teams being at fault is a bit misleading. TB applied a common defensive strategy used by many teams in a tight game or when defending a lead. To say that PHI's "strategy' was just as good is not accurate at all because essentially by having a defencemen just stand there with the puck and 4 guys skating around not an offensive strategy at all. In fact it is NO STRATEGY at all.
Now you can say TB's strategy was just 5 guys standing but its not. The 1-3-1 is good defensive strategy that when the offensive team actually plays offense it moves players into to strategical positions to defend their zone and attack the puck.
It is poor coaching on Laviolettes part to not get creative enough to provide offence against it.
To shorten it up, TB was the team defensive team in the situation and used a defensive strategy, PHI was the offensive team and used NO offensive strategy.
|
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2011 : 12:29:57
|
i dont see anything wrong with it. both teams were playing their style of hockey. its up to the players to make their strategy work. Philly should have baited the forecheck better IMO. standing at the red dot shows exactly what you are going to do wich is pass it to your defence partner, Also beating the trap falls upon the sholders of the Coach. all this prove is Philly coach doesnt have the slightest clue on how to beat the trap.
i am a real leaf fan. i know they wont win a cup i like em anyway! ~true leafs fans |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2011 : 22:29:59
|
What I was suggesting was a rule change to remove the 1-3-1 trap from the game.
|
|
|
|
Guest4306
( )
|
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 20:10:32
|
| So how is the 1-3-1 system working for Tampa Bay? After 20 games, they're sitting in 12th place in the East, and they are 27th in the league in goal against. This is definitely not the Jacques Lemaire - New Jersey Devils version of the trap! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
PHI avoids the 1-3-1 defense vs TB 
