You two are having a fun little debate...
But as it relates to a primary puck carrier in the ozone, for sure there is no hard bright line role, but if a line of Eichel, girgs and Kane are out, and over several shifts Eichel is not getting the puck quickly while the other two dangle around and try to make plays, heads will roll.
Maybe a better example is on a generic cycle, the two guys closest to the free puck should engage right away, but once you have control, most lines will try to shift into the best roles.
I gotta say the phrasing you use drives me nuts.
1) Like
"two guys closest to the free puck should engage right away". What's the context? What created a situation that there was a "free puck" with two of our guys near it? Are we using an aggressive 2-1-2 forecheck and it lead to a turnover? You can call this nitpicking if you want. But its a terribly vague thus meaningless phrase that leaves me with questions on how that situation developed. Plus if this is part of your explanation for a "generic cycle" its flawed from the get go since we don't have the puck. which leads to ............
2) .....Cycling the puck occurs AFTER gaining control of the puck. Half of the bolded is talking about the forecheck. Not the same thing. And yes it matters. Like Dzone coverage and the breakout, one leads to the other but they're not the same thing. One is playing without the puck the other is playing with it.
2) What you describe with the bolded sounds like a PP puck retrieval then shifting to getting into PP positions or as you describe it "best roles". Thats not how it works 5v5.
So say you have a line of mcdavid maroon and strome. Mcdavid and maroon win a battle and start a cycle. At some point if given the time, maroon better get his big ass away from the puck and try to interfere all the way to the front of the net. And strome is gonna do his best to feed mcdavid the puck to make the decisive play, unless he gets a completely free chance. Mcdavid could therefore be looked at as the primary puck carrier or catalyst.
McDavid does what he does within the cycle because of his skill level not because he was assigned the non exisistant primary puck carrier role . I see we are trying to change the word used in an attempted to change the meaning intended. Struck's point was pretty clear that Sam was playing the primary puck carrier role and ROR was spotting off him. He also described them as playing the wing and center roles in the Ozone (not a thing). It was described in a way that sounded an awful lot like a point guard. Not something that exists 5v5 in hockey.
A generic cycle would be as follows... After the forecheck we have player with possession of the puck in the corner, another forward by the net and another up high near but above the face-off dot. Thats the rough outline of where guys would go once a puck is gained. Then the players move themselves and the puck to each of the points of that triangle they created trying to break down the defense. Thats a very simple cycle description. Obviously there are variations off this; it could be different set up with the 3 players at different points than the three I described. Or it could be a two man cycle with a guy at the net or up high , or the defense could be involved, etc. But there is no variant that includes the "primary puck mover"
Watch some clips of Girgs/Sam/Griffth. Many times they were able to run a textbook cycle. No one was carrying the puck more than anyone else. They were reading and reacted off each other perfectly. By doing that they were able to create chances and get to the net. None of those 3 really are the types to carrying the puck a lot within the cycle so they don't. Whereas a guy like Jack or McDavid would carry the puck more than those guys would. Its about the player's ability and skill set not an assigned role.
It’s obviously less focused for lines with even skill or close enough.
I'll go back to the Girgs/Sam/Griffith line and their ability to cycle the puck. Based on your attempt to bring this non existent role to life, you're arguing that the guy who is the "primary puck mover" is based on talent and the bigger the gap the more pronounced that role is. Well if Sam had that role with ROR (he didn't) he must of have had with the lesser players like Girgs/Griffith (He didn't). That i would hope gives you some insight into how foolish this idea is. One of the bigger oddities though is if this nonexistent role did exist. I find it incredibly odd that Sam would be chosen over ROR for it based on your parameters.
It could be looked at as a terminology difference, if your not nit picking.
Pointing out that a poster either inaccurately described something or described something that doesn't exist in hockey is not nitpicking. Its simply pointing out they're wrong. But I know us dumb old coaches can't understand anything unless you explain it with "coaching clinic" terms.
