GDT: GDT #12 New York Islanders @ Boston Bruins | November 9th | 7 PM | F/5-2 L

[MJF]

Barzal is actually doing less of what that article you referenced said. He's not circling the offensive zone like crazy holding the puck. He's actually using his teammates significantly more than we've seen him in past seasons. The give and goes with Horvat have been wonderful. Dishing to Dobson has been great. Letting other players gain the zone has helped his game quite a bit and may have even made his entries more effective because he's not as predictable. He even seems to be shooting more (I haven't checked his stats on that so maybe I'm wrong).

I will say that Barzal has lapsed back to doing more of this in the last 3 games, and it reflects poorly in his line's productivity.

 

[Rehabguy]

Again, lots of teams have won with the same approach. Trotz did so with a similar system with the Capitals. The Kings were able to do it. The Blues were able to do it too. What are the differences between those teams and the Islanders?

Most of Trotz teams have not had Cup wins throughout the years. It's a good system to get you to the playoffs but in most cases it's been proven to be ineffective at the highest levels. They play a system is very akin to playing with a pusher mentality in tennis. Just get everything back, don't take any chances, let the other player make all the mistakes. For the opponent this is a very frustrating player to play against. It will get you pretty far but when you come across a truly skilled player you are going to lose. The difference for the Capitals is they had Ovechkin and Backstrom who were critical to their Cup wins. We don't have anyone like those two. Also, as I said before the problem with just pushing a system on a roster that was not designed for that system from the ground up is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It might get you far but in both ECF the results were predictable. It is a gamble to randomly take any roster and force upon it an entirely new system and expect to create a champion. Cup winning teams build a roster around a system not the other way around. Besides, it's been 5 years that they been trying to make this system work. When is enough enough? As the saying goes the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I don't think the system is flawed, I think that players struggle to execute that style for long periods of time because it's grueling. As players like Martin and Clutterbuck get older it gets more difficult to keep up. That's why many wanted to start phasing those guys out instead of keeping them around. Getting younger and fresher legs could go a long way playing this style of hockey.

It is definitely grueling both physically and mentally as the years progress. But age is not the problem with this team. This team is actually on average a year younger than the team we had in both Eastern Conference Finals but it is the same team that we last year that squeaked into playoffs. If the team was consistently being scored upon when the 4th line is on the ice then I could see your argument, but I don't see this happening.

While it's an example of a singular player I wouldn't call it concrete evidence. As I mentioned, many offensive dynamos talk about the need to understand the defensive side of the game in order to win. Blake scored 40, but how'd the rest of the team do? How successful was the team? It wasn't. Why didn't everyone else on those team benefit the same way?

It's also missing a lot of context on Blake to say he went from 5 goals to 40. That didn't happen in a singular season. He went from 5 goals to 8 goals to 25 goals to 22 goals to 28 goals and then had his breakout 40 goal season. It was quickly met with a rapid decline. How many times did Jason Blake score 40? Just that single season. He never approached that number again. His next closest after that confidence building season was 25 goals and that was the last time he ever broke 20 goals. If anything, Blake was a blip on the radar and had a meteoric unsustainable season where everything went right for him. I don't think we should be looking at players like him for evidence of success on an individual or team level.

I'm not presenting him as evidence I'm presenting him as explanation of why hockey is not just a game of X's and O's. It's not chess. I'm showing how something as simple as confidence can play an overriding effect on the success of an individual player AND a team because a team is made of individuals. Going from a regular 5 goal a year goalscorer to just 20 let alone 40 goal scorer is not an insignificant observation. Now imagine an entire team if you could increase their output by 125% or more by addressing a simple issue. In regards to Blake's rapid decline that nothing more to do than his age. He figured all this out too late in his career.

Why is it confidence and not skill? How do you know they don't want the puck?

This is the easiest question to answer and one that is most easily observable. We can all agree that this team does quite well against good teams early on and throughout most of the game. The problems are always happening in the third period even when they are up by several goals. The team clearly has the skill to match up against some of the better teams in the league. The core of the team has made the ECF twice. The same team made playoffs last year. If this was a question of lack of skill it would apparent throughout the entire game but it's not. So if it's not skill was it? Why are turning over the pucks late in the game? Why are they retreating late in the game? Why are they playing on their heels late in the game? Why are they not seeing offensive opportunities late in the game when the other team is pressing? Why are they not making the right decisions late in the game? It's fear not skill. It's fear not age. They are too afraid to make mistakes in front of their coach who has a chokehold on them through a too highly conservative defensive system and the problem becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when a player who's too worried about coughing up the puck is so wound up about doing that that he inevitably DOES it. And when he does it what does Lambert do to resolve the issue. Does he pull him aside to say "hey, mistakes happen you've been playing great just keep doing what you've been doing." No, he doesn't do this, he exacerbates the situation by making the player's fear a reality by benching him a game. (See Engvall) All this does is make the situation worse and create even MORE fear. When players are scared like Jason Blake was they don't want the puck. They just want to get rid of it so the team as whole loses puck possession time. That's what we are seeing in the third periods. When it comes to things like this its not good to come up with convoluted explanations of what might be going on. Sometimes the simplest answer that explains almost everything is the best answer. (Occam's Razor)

Barzal is actually doing less of what that article you referenced said. He's not circling the offensive zone like crazy holding the puck. He's actually using his teammates significantly more than we've seen him in past seasons. The give and goes with Horvat have been wonderful. Dishing to Dobson has been great. Letting other players gain the zone has helped his game quite a bit and may have even made his entries more effective because he's not as predictable. He even seems to be shooting more (I haven't checked his stats on that so maybe I'm wrong).

These are things many of us have been saying he needs to do for years. You're attributing it to him having confidence and ignoring the coach but I can't imagine a world where a coach told him not to do these things. It's basic hockey at its core.

I don't agree with this much at all. I'm seeing the same player I saw in Barzal his rookie year hopefully reemerging. What caused this sudden change in play style I don't know but it should be clear everyone a light bulb turned on. Whether it's going for broke. Or he read an article about himself. Or it was his girlfriend. Or maybe it was Ledecky to razzle a bit more again. Or he came to grips with his fears. I don't know, but this is a Barzal we haven't seen for quite some time.

I will say that Barzal has lapsed back to doing more of this in the last 3 games, and it reflects poorly in his line's productivity.

You can say you want but I want more of this not less. That might be the difference between what you and I see as what makes Barzal effective or not.

 

[PK Cronin]

Most of Trotz teams have not had Cup wins throughout the years. It's a good system to get you to the playoffs but in most cases it's been proven to be ineffective at the highest levels. They system is very akin to playing with a pusher mentality in tennis. Just get everything back, don't take any chances, let the other player make all the mistakes. For the opponent this is a very frustrating player to play against. It will get you pretty far but when you come across a truly skilled player you are going to lose. The difference for the Capitals is they had Ovechkin and Backstrom who were critical to their Cup wins. We don't have anyone like those two. Also, as I said before the problem with just pushing a system on a roster that was not designed for that system from the ground up is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It might get you far but in both ECF the results were predictable. It is a gamble to randomly take any roster and for upon it an entirely new system and expect to create a champion. Cup winning teams build a roster around a system not the other way around.

I just can't agree that it doesn't work. I provided examples of lots of teams in the recent past who implemented similar styles that did win the cup. Almost nobody (I can't think of any current coaches or available coaches who have, though a couple have been to multiple finals) has won a cup with multiple teams so using Trotz' teams not winning the cup in the playoffs is a really insane bar to have.

I'm in agreement about making sure your roster can play the system you want. That's why it's important that the GM and coach are on the same page about the style of play and what the roster needs to look like in order to have success.

The only team that was devoid of superstars the way the Islanders are that has won the cup in recent memory is the Blues I think, and they relied on their goaltending and solid defensive play in order to win. So if we don't have the horses like the Capitals or the Kings had, what do we do? It's not like this team has the same level of talent the Penguins, Avalanche, or the Lightning have had.

It is definitely grueling both physically and mentally as the years progress. But age is not the problem with this team. This team is actually on average a year younger than the team we had in both Eastern Conference Finals but it is the same team that we last year that squeaked into playoffs. If the team was consistently being scored upon when the 4th line is on the ice then I could see your argument, but I don't see this happening.

In a recent game I pointed out how a goal was scored against the Islanders and you mentioned it was a result of the momentum shift from a few shifts prior. Why aren't you applying the same logic here? I think it's more appropriate to apply here because the whole purpose of the fourth line on the Islanders is to wear their opponents down physically and to play in the offensive end. If they aren't doing that they aren't effective. It's essentially 10-12 minutes of non-impactful hockey that the opposition is being given to reestablish their game.

Average age is deceiving. Guys like Greene bring that average up significantly. What's more important for me is to look at the age/contribution expectancy. The fourth line is relied upon to play crucial minutes and at crucial times in the game. If they are ineffective at what they do because their age has slowed them down then it's a problem. Romanov and Dobson being young has no impact on the effectiveness of the fourth line.

I'm not presenting him as evidence I'm presenting him as explanation of why hockey is not just a game of X's and O's. It's not chess. I'm showing how something as simple as confidence can play an overriding effect on the success of an individual player AND a team because a team is made of individuals. Going from a regular 5 goal a year goalscorer to just 20 let alone 40 goal scorer is not an insignificant observation. Now imagine an entire team if you could increase their output by 125% or more by addressing a simple issue. In regards to Blake's rapid decline that nothing more to do than his age. He figured all this out too late in his career.

Brock Nelson was older when he was inserted into a defensive system, now he's had back to back 35+ goal seasons. Can I attribute that success to playing within a defensive system?

I don't think anyone would dispute that there is more to hockey than the x's and o's. The players are humans and each one is different and so it stands to reason that they respond differently when put in different situations. Maybe one coach is better at communicating something than another, even if it's the same content. One high school math teacher might be able to explain something to me in a way that another one can't. It's not changing what I'm being taught, it's changing the presentation that allows me to understand the information. I think that's true in sports. I think that's why change of scenery scenarios exist too.

This is the easiest question to answer and one that is most easily observable. We can all agree that this team does quite well against good early on and throughout most of the game. The problems are always happening in the third period even when they are up by several goals. The team clearly has the skill to match up against some of the better teams in the league. The core of the team has made the ECF twice. The same team made playoffs last year. If this was a question of lack of skill it would apparent throughout the entire game but it's not. So if it's not skill was it? Why are turning over the pucks late in the game? Why are they retreating late in the game? Why are they playing on their heels late in the game? Why are they not seeing offensive opportunities late in the game when the other team is pressing? Why are they not making the right decisions late in the game? It's fear not skill. They are too afraid to make mistakes in front of their coach who has a chokehold on them through a too highly conservative defensive system and the problem because a self-fulfilling prophecy when a player who's too worried about coughing up the puck is so wound about doing that he actually DOES it. And when he does it what does Lambert do to resolve the issue. Does he pull him aside to say "hey, mistakes happen you've been playing great just keep doing what you've been doing." No, he doesn't do this, he exacerbates the situation by making the player's fear a reality by benching him a game. All this does is make the situation worse and create even MORE fear. When players are scared like Jason Blake was they don't want the puck. They just want to get rid of it so the team as whole loses puck possession time. That's what we are seeing in the third periods.

You say it's fear when I can point to any number of other things it could be. It could be fatigue, it could be opponents adjusting, it could be bad luck, it could be the coach instructing players to do something different, it could be fear, it could be too much confidence, etc.

If they have success in the first two periods playing the system the coach wants then why are they suddenly fearful in the third period? Just keep doing what you've been doing. I don't think a veteran group is going to be fearful at that stage of the game.

Also, we have no idea what Lambert says to the players before or after the games. That's conjecture and I can invent a scenario where he's being super supportive and nice but the players aren't responding to that so now he's resorting to harsher tactics to get his point across. There's no way to know until the players start talking about it in interviews ten years from now.

Often times fans forget that the other team is figuring things out as the game goes along too. Maybe they know a certain match up isn't working and their coach is changing that. Maybe they're mixing their lines up to give different looks too. I don't think it's one thing, I think it's a combination of things that are happening. It is up to Lambert to figure that out though and fix it before it ends up biting the team. He's been unable to do that effectively so far.

I don't agree with this much at all. I'm seeing the same player I saw in Barzal his rookie year hopefully reemerging. What caused this sudden change in play style I don't know but it should be clear everyone a light bulb turned on. Whether it's going for broke. Or he read an article about himself. Or it was his girfriend. Or maybe it was Ledecky to razzle a bit more again. I don't know, but this is a Barzal we haven't seen for quite some time.

We'll agree to disagree then.

 

[MJF]

You can say you want but I want more of this not less. That might be the difference between what you and I see as what makes Barzal effective or not.

I've got a 7 year resume of Mat Barzal's that says the way you want him to play doesn't work.

 

[Rehabguy]

I just can't agree that it doesn't work. I provided examples of lots of teams in the recent past who implemented similar styles that did win the cup. Almost nobody (I can't think of any current coaches or available coaches who have, though a couple have been to multiple finals) has won a cup with multiple teams so using Trotz' teams not winning the cup in the playoffs is a really insane bar to have.

I'm in agreement about making sure your roster can play the system you want. That's why it's important that the GM and coach are on the same page about the style of play and what the roster needs to look like in order to have success.

The only team that was devoid of superstars the way the Islanders are that has won the cup in recent memory is the Blues I think, and they relied on their goaltending and solid defensive play in order to win. So if we don't have the horses like the Capitals or the Kings had, what do we do? It's not like this team has the same level of talent the Penguins, Avalanche, or the Lightning have had.

A similar system can work and has been shown to work in the cases you mention. But "similar" is not the same as the "same". We are comparing different systems with different roster makeups. This team has been getting worse under Lambert with each passing season. They had no business being in the playoffs last season. How long does it take before we decide it's simply not working?

What do we do? That's the million dollar question. Some have been arguing that we should have been retooling a couple of years back. Maybe they were right, maybe not. I think If we are going to have any chance of the Cup it will be in the next 2-3 years then a rebuild is inevitable and it would be at that time for the GM which system to implement and what the roster should look like. At this point a complete system overhaul is probably unrealistic and best they just tweak it a bit. Either way the chances of this team being a Cup contender are probably not good, but as has been this teams modus operandi- if they get into the playoffs who knows what might happen. In my mind they need to switch to more man on man defense at the blue line and anchor zone defense down low. Anything that will minimize the team from collapsing around our goaltenders and giving the opposing team an endless opportunity to barrage them with prime shots on goal late in the game. The focus again should be on effective counterattacks when the opposing team is pressing. Recognizing opportunities to produce odd man rushes and putting pressure on the team trying to catch up. Again, this takes confidence for all the reasons stated previously and if it is Lane Lambert's presence that is hindering this confidence- he needs to go. If he can pull his head out of his ass and regain the trust of his players that they won't be benched for trying to be creative then maybe they can keep him. The choice is up to Lambert at this point. He can either keep his job or lose it but what he is doing right now is simply not working.

In a recent game I pointed out how a goal was scored against the Islanders and you mentioned it was a result of the momentum shift from a few shifts prior. Why aren't you applying the same logic here? I think it's more appropriate to apply here because the whole purpose of the fourth line on the Islanders is to wear their opponents down physically and to play in the offensive end. If they aren't doing that they aren't effective. It's essentially 10-12 minutes of non-impactful hockey that the opposition is being given to reestablish their game.

I've not seen any evidence that the source of the Islander's 3rd period collapses are the fault of our 4th line. It takes a team to win or lose. The 4th line hasn't been as effective as in years past that's true but I don't see that contributing to the team's late game losses. I see like you said, poor puck management, poor decisions, untimely mistakes, the team playing on their heels all of which results in our young goaltender losing confidence. (BTW I would start Varlamov several games to help steady the situation and allow Sorokin to gain his confidence back. They shouldn't subject to this until figures this all out. It's clear to me he's losing his confidence as well late in the game). A lot of the issues the Islanders have in 3rd period meltdowns has a lot to do as I have been saying with confidence and not with age or fatigue. They have to learn to stay with what worked for them for 2 periods and they need a coach who will provide the support and motivation for them to do this throughout the game. Lambert is completely lacking in this regard. He lacks the ability to rally his troups. Lee needs to speak up as well.

If they have success in the first two periods playing the system the coach wants then why are they suddenly fearful in the third period? Just keep doing what you've been doing. I don't think a veteran group is going to be fearful at that stage of the game.

Fear can rear its ugly head no matter who is on the ice. It take's strong leadership to get them through these challenging moments. They don't have that right now. It's easy to say to keep doing what you've been doing. Hard to do that when you think the coach is watching you through a microscope and subsequently benching you whenever you make a mistake. Lambert is good at making fears a reality which is the worse thing you can do to a team lacking confidence.

We'll agree to disagree then

Agreed.

 

[Rehabguy]

I've got a 7 year resume of Mat Barzal's that says the way you want him to play doesn't work.

That assumes you know what you are looking at. We were all good at explaining why Barzal went from an 85 point player to a 50-60 point player under Trotz/Lambert. I don't know why people forgot those reasons and they may have been acceptable reasons. Now Isles fans want to just turn on Barzal when he was the least of this teams problem. He's been a good soldier doing everything the coaches wanted from him. The last few games there has been a change in his game in a good way. Whether that was an internal decision or a conscious decision to just ignore what he may have been told not to do we will never know, but I like it nonetheless and he should continue to play his game.

 

[MJF]

That assumes you know what you are looking at. We were all good at explaining why Barzal went from an 85 point player to a 50-60 point player under Trotz/Lambert. I don't know why people forgot those reasons and they may have been acceptable reasons. Now Isles fans want to just turn on Barzal when he was the least of this teams problem. He's been a good soldier doing everything the coaches wanted from him. The last few games there has been a change in his game in a good way. Whether that was an internal decision or a conscious decision to just ignore what he may have been told not to do we will never know, but I like it nonetheless and he should continue to play his game.

We’re going in circles. Barzal’s career stats tell the story. You look at the painting and see something abstract. I look at it and see what I see-a player whose edgework and ability to hold the puck hasn’t translated to a useful NHL skill.

 

[Throttle]

That assumes you know what you are looking at. We were all good at explaining why Barzal went from an 85 point player to a 50-60 point player under Trotz/Lambert. I don't know why people forgot those reasons and they may have been acceptable reasons. Now Isles fans want to just turn on Barzal when he was the least of this teams problem. He's been a good soldier doing everything the coaches wanted from him. The last few games there has been a change in his game in a good way. Whether that was an internal decision or a conscious decision to just ignore what he may have been told not to do we will never know, but I like it nonetheless and he should continue to play his game.

Your $9M player shouldn’t be a ‘good soldier’ - that’s Fashings role - he should be leading the team and having an impact in a majority of the games.

 

[Rehabguy]

We’re going in circles. Barzal’s career stats tell the story. You look at the painting and see something abstract. I look at it and see what I see-a player whose edgework and ability to hold the puck hasn’t translated to a useful NHL skill.

Things don't tend to translate if the game plan doesn't allow you to use them. (BTW you wouldn't happen to be Sicilian? Would you be? Because then I would have fallen for one of the classic blunders)

Your $9M player shouldn’t be a ‘good soldier’ - that’s Fashings role - he should be leading the team and having an impact in a majority of the games.

Keep that thought.

 

[Zeeker]

We’re going in circles.

Much like Barzal in the o-zone

 

[Rehabguy]

Lane Lambert should have been fired simply for the way he handled Josh Bailey. In Lambert's first season as HC Bailey had been 4th best points a season in his entire career wearing the Islander uniform. The following year he was inexplicably benched for long periods of time. He wasn't losing a step he was losing Lambert's good side and Lambert made it personal. I remember remember distinctly watching Bailey come back after a long stint in the press box last year take a shift and nonchalantly and while totally relaxed try to make some drop passes you know creative stuff and it resulted in the team going the other way before the play was blown dead. Bailey just skated around the ice totally relaxed and totally whistling to himself and I watched Lambert's reaction. He was red in face screaming at Bailey's direction at top of his lungs and Bailey just pretended not to hear and skated around the ice with a smirk on his face. I saw it on camera. This was personal shit going on. Bailey is too smart a player to not see that Lambert's system has flaws and he probably grew tired of it and unfortunately it cost wrong man his career. The problem is Bailey is exactly the smart player, cool under pressure who the perfect player to be on the ice to stop these 3rd period collapses. Like Trotz said he's a smart player that he can just plug into any situation and he will get it under control. Fast forward a couple of years later Lambert exiles this player off the team. I'm telling you this team has got to drop Lambert.

 

[Big L]

Lane Lambert should have been fired simply for the way he handled Josh Bailey. In Lambert's first season as HC Bailey had been 4th best points a season in his entire career wearing the Islander uniform. The following year he was inexplicably benched for long periods of time. He wasn't losing a step he was losing Lambert's good side and Lambert made it personal. I remember remember distinctly watching Bailey come back after a long stint in the press box last year take a shift and nonchalantly and while totally relaxed try to make some drop passes you know creative stuff and it resulted in the team going the other way before the play was blown dead. Bailey just skated around the ice totally relaxed and totally whistling to himself and I watched Lambert's reaction. He was red in face screaming at Bailey's direction at top of his lungs and Bailey just pretended not to hear and skated around the ice with a smirk on his face. I saw it on camera. This was personal shit going on. Bailey is too smart a player to not see that Lambert's system has flaws and he probably grew tired of it and unfortunately it cost wrong man his career. The problem is Bailey is exactly the smart player, cool under pressure who the perfect player to be on the ice to stop these 3rd period collapses. Like Trotz said he's a smart player that he can just plug into any situation and he will get it under control. Fast forward a couple of years later Lambert exiles this player off the team. I'm telling you this team has got to drop Lambert.

Woof

Do you type out all your replies or voice to text?

 

[Rehabguy]

Woof

Do you type out all your replies or voice to text?

I type why?

 

[LeapOnOver]

As they said the opposite of fear is confidence. If they are not playing with enough fear they are playing with confidence. The Isles record in the past 5 games or so with all the blown leads and meltdowns doesn't exactly fit the definition of confidence in my book.

Confidence is in the middle. The opposite of fear is more like bravado or arrogance in this situation.

 

[LeapOnOver]

We’re going in circles. Barzal’s career stats tell the story. You look at the painting and see something abstract. I look at it and see what I see-a player whose edgework and ability to hold the puck hasn’t translated to a useful NHL skill.

Huh...i get you want more from him but hyperbole isn't going to make you sound sane.