What is the Flames system?

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,955
8,449
2015 - Hartley v1.1 (Shot block, crash net, stretch pass, bag skate)
2016 - GG 1.0 alpha edition (All the features, half are broken, no idea what it truly was)
2016/2017 - GG 0.5 alpha roll back with less features but works (Hold the blue line, short pass, carry in)
2017 - GG 0.75 Smith beta (1 D back Smith support, D/F players play up, let goalie see shot)
2017 - GG 0.5 beta Lack ver (0.5 alpha with new skin. D/F play more grid rather than play up to receive goalie pass?)

???


One of the things I think has been bothering me about the speed is the fact that we look slow. But we're not that slow, at least under Hartley. So IMO I think what's going on is this:

Players are receiving passes at a standstill.

But it's not their fault. Consider that the F/D can play up because of Smith's passing. However, where can they go beyond the neutral zone? They have to stop to avoid being off side. Hartley's system at least had the player accelerating from the middle of the neutral zone. Gully has their a few steps ahead with zero speed.

My thoughts:

- Offense is at a disadvantage position wise if needing to accelerate from a stand still (IMO Smith system flaw).
- Gully's theory (my guess) of the puck being the fastest object is not wrong, but the problem is that the system literally does not give the players room to move. Our players at a stand still is putting them at a disadvantage.
- Gully's theory IMO makes a hell of a lot of sense in a nutshell, but the "finish" on it is causing problems. Carry in vs dump and chase both work under this theory...
- Aesop's fable, the cat and the fox. (Long story short, Fox has more tricks than the cat, but dies because it can't decide which method to use) This may explain why the "dumbed down" system version we saw in the latter half last season worked better than the
- Gully's system is open concept. The players are free to play within it once they understand it. We are seeing more of this. However, Gully's original deployment of his systems seems flawed. Too robotic.


I'll add more thoughts later on when I have time. I don't think I have a full grasp on what the system is yet, but this is what I've seen so far. What do you guys think of Gully's system from a tear down stand point of view?
 

Mobiandi

Registered User
Jan 17, 2015
20,841
17,197
To me it looks like a finesse, puck possession system with an unusual amount of emphasis on set plays and Xs and Os rather than fluid split second decision-making. This is where it all falls apart for the bottom 6 because they're not good enough to play that way, yet it feels like all 4 lines are trying to play the same way.

The problems that I also have with our system:

You hardly ever see this team set up an effective cycle because they're always looking for the winger down-low to play a quick one touch pass to the center in the slot. So when that's not on, like 95% of the time, we get caught hotdogging with the puck in their zone and quickly turn it over. How many times we have seen a proper one timer from the point from Gio or Hamilton this season so far? I honestly don't think more than a few times.
(On a separate note, I've also lost count of the amount of times Brodie and Giordano have bobbled the puck at the blueline by the boards). They never set up with that in mind and when they do get the puck, they're either forced to play back to the winger or play it around the boards to the other winger behind the net. Also the puzzling amount of low-percentage shots from the half boards. I would understand if they were being taken to force a juicy rebound out of the goalie but most of the time they're whiffed into the chest of the goalie (no element of crashing the net that is seen with these shots either).

Then there's issue of our Dmen not being afforded the ability to carry the puck or join the rush which leads to a lot less "counter-attacking" goals.

That said, when it works, the system looks great but there are too many instances when we force the issue even when the opposing team has cut off a specific passing lane. Also this team cannot breakout or transition well at all against an aggressively forechecking team.
 
Last edited:

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
I guess the easiest way to talk about it is with reference to what I perceive as Hartley's system (when it worked):

By default (obviously, everything changed trying to come back late in the third):
-Make sure everyone is behind the puck. No odd-man rushes. Do not take risks defensively. No pinches.
-In the defensive zone, be passive and don't get beaten to the net by your guy. Let them have the puck on the outside, and stay in lanes.
-When we get the puck, look for instant offence. If they're in a bad defensive position, try to get a 4-on-2 by having one or both defencemen jump. If there's a stretch pass on, try it. The key is to not let them get set. If there's no quick offence option, get it deep as quickly as possible.
-If we're in the offensive zone and the other team is in good position defensively, revert to taking no risks and prepare for the counter.

Now with Gulutzan's approach, the biggest difference is the risk factor. The team seems to be encouraged to attempt a risky play when the puck is turned over in order to maintain controlled possession. Chipping out and chipping in is discouraged. The team is very aggressive in the lower parts of the defensive zone trying to get the puck away, with wingers drawn down to the faceoff dots. The points are largely left uncovered until they receive the puck, at which point the wingers charge.

The break-out relies on the weak-side defenceman immediately heading up-ice and receiving a pass, but I don't know what the plan is from there. Where Hartley's system revolved around only attacking a team in a compromised position (unless the game situation dictated otherwise) and otherwise just taking the field position, Gulutzan's system involves attempting to get all our guys to break through all their guys on every rush (unless we're handed a turnover). Right now, the Flames don't seem to have any way to do this consistently, but their passing in the Washington game was way more effective in this. When we struggle, it's because this part of the game is failing.
 

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
15,600
6,639
The key is the defencemen drop out of the offensive zone. Rather then holding the opposing blue line like under Hartley, our defence back off.

I’d say we try to hold our defensive blue line.

In theory it creates less offense but provides better defence.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
The key is the defencemen drop out of the offensive zone. Rather then holding the opposing blue line like under Hartley, our defence back off.

I’d say we try to hold our defensive blue line.

In theory it creates less offense but provides better defence.

Under Hartley (during the good years), we didn't stand up at the blueline unless there was a forward covering. The number one priority seemed to be preventing odd-man rushes, and that's how we ended up in so many close games. We only attacked with odd-man rushes, and we didn't allow any. So even if the other team had the puck all night, we could get the better chances.

That said, your last statement brings up an interesting point with regards to hockey systems.

You could make the argument that dropping back and giving the other team an easier breakout doesn't necessarily lead to better defence, because you're letting the other team form a rush how they like, rather than being forced into making the right play under pressure.
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,955
8,449
Thanks for the responses guys. There are a few things I definitely think I recall seeing and things I'm interested in paying attention to next game I watch.

The key is the defencemen drop out of the offensive zone. Rather then holding the opposing blue line like under Hartley, our defence back off.

I’d say we try to hold our defensive blue line.

In theory it creates less offense but provides better defence.

Very interesting theory. I think I do see it. In some senses, Hartley vs GG are two insanely different styled coaches.

Hartley = Proactive offense, reactive defense.
Gulutzan = Proactive defense, reactive offense.

Does the below seem reasonable?

Hartley
- Defense collapses in front of the net and waits for opposition to move first to transition to...
- A hyper aggressive forward group who enjoys the stretch pass.
- Hold opposing blue line at all costs to keep up offensive pressure
- Neutral zone pressure
- Drop back from defensive blue line (see first point)

Movements:
Attacking: Own crease/goal line - red line - hold the offense blue line (F/D movement Shape -]])
Defending: F/D pressure neutral zone, but if team zone entry, collapse goal line/crease (F/D movement Shape -=)
Physicality/pressure: High (Hard to maintain/lots of injuries)

GG (Smith)
- Defense is half in their own zone and half on the verge of exiting it expecting Smith to aid in the break out.
- D/F in formation near the opposing team blue line.
- Carry towards opposing team blue line for carry in or dump in
- If opposing team gains control in their zone, dmen jump back towards red line.
- Neutral zone pressure
- Hold the defensive blue line, if line breaks, keep opposing team to perimeter

Movements:
Attacking: D/F blue line to blue line with single guy in back almost like a trap formation, but not a trap (F/D movement Shape E ' or E , ?)
Defending: Hold blue line, then grid the zone. Neutral zone exit (F/D movement [ ' ] or [ , ]?)
Physicality/pressure: low (Robotic/low injuries)


Gully's formation seems like (on occasion) a form of a 1-3-1 formation. However, it's super rigid unlike a typical 1-3-1 which has the 3 players at the red line. The players at the red line for a 1-3-1 allows them to absorb an attack and red line to blue line "time" to consider how to attack. IMO Gully's formation is nearly a 3-1-1. A player carrying in the puck needs to weave past his own players. There's much less room to move. IMO, this might be why I keep seeing players "bunch up together". Gully's formation is designed to require the least amount of movement, but problematically at times because it doesn't give the players enough room. It also IMO relies too heavily on acceleration rather than the natural speed our team can produce.

In Smith 2.0 The F/D only have the neutral zone for space (often shared with the opposing team). In Hartley's system, they have half/full dzone+ neutral zone for space.

Hartley's system had flaws but distinct advantages. The collapse method meant an opposing team has to break through a team. Any one guy theoretically supports each other if one fails. You break through a team to get towards the net. However, the trade off is giving opponent time and possession. Gully's theory is more active with the team creating a grid to keep opposition on the perimeter. This has its advantages of reducing time, but often means the grid is only as strong as the weakest link. How many times have we seen a player in our own zone being outnumbered and yet no player swoops in to help out?

Here's the kicker, I disagree that Gully's system handcuffs the team. I think style wise it gives a lot of freedom. What I'm wondering if whether Gully's system has a tendency to smother itself. IMO, Smith 2.0 can benefit if the formation is more 2-2-1 vs 3-1-1. Also, I think they'd also benefit from positioning closer to the red line than the opposition blue line. This way, there's more room for a zone entry as well as space to take a few strides so that they can enter the opposition zone with speed.

A few posters commented that the Flames seem slow this season. I honestly think it's because there's so much stop and go vs fluid movement of systems past. Gully 0.5 was more fluid. Gully 2.0 Smith ver is extremely stop and go IMO.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->