Breakdown of Housley's system in dzone and neutral zone

[Der Jaeger]

There's literally nothing about Housley's system which is insanely difficult from a defensive zone and breakout perspective. But when you've got Beaulieu trying to make plays to Jordan Nolan, no system is going to work.

 

[jc17]

The idea you can extract the system and discuss it in isolation from other factors on the ice is just silly.

First off, coaching is so much more than running systems. I recall a game in October against the Islanders, being down 1-0 in the second. We go on the PP, but surrender a quick shorty. Seconds later, we give up another shorty. Any ****ing coach worth his salt calls a timeout in that situation, settles the team down. Coach Phil? Na, **** that, timeouts are for wussies. Of course, seconds after that, after the PP ends and Buffalo struggles to execute an effective line change as the Islander score yet again. Then he calls a timeout. Nope, too late moron, game over.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Powerplay? Went to hell. The ability to shuffle lines mid game to get a spark? Non-existent. Holding guys accountable for lazy play and slow ass line changes? Didn't see it. Experimenting with different pre-game line combos? Not this coach. Creating space/opportunities for AHL guys to develop? Hardly.

Easy there.

I think discussing the systems are interesting. The original post was about the system and that's what I was hoping this would continue as, not an all-inclusive Phil Housley evaluation thread.

 

[Dreakon13]

So I'm suppose to believe that Coach Phil inherited a team teeming first rounders on which nobody knew how to pass and skate? What are the odds so many faked their way into the first round, and we drafted them all?! You're falling prey to the "lecturing birds on how to fly" fallacy that infects the minds of so many people who think it all starts with the theory and trickles down into practice. Like birds need to be told by an "expert" how to fly.

We lucked into Eichel, Reinhart, and Dahlin at his point. Build a system that best suits their game, not the other way around. That also means getting better players to complement their natural abilities. But you don't get that by swapping ROR for Berglund, or Kane for Sheary, do you now.

I'm not sure where your going with this. Are you suggesting that dump and chase/stretch passing all the time "best suits their game" for Eichel, Reinhart and Dahlin? Because I don't... and I think Housley trying to instill something different in the team last year was a good, but obviously rocky, first step.

I'd argue lesser players than those three are the ones struggling to transition from the "lowest common denominator" Bylsma system to something better. In that case, Berglund/Sheary may be effective adds since there is no transition... they've been playing in something better all along. I'd expect the smart, mobile youth learning and cooking in Rochester to help immensely in this regard as they trickle in over the next few years as well.

Keeping Bylsma's system because we pessimistically think it's the only way to 80 points isn't an option IMO.

 

[joshjull]

Stretch passing > needing a Beaulieu to Nolan connection in order to be a pass away from leaving the zone.

I'm guessing you didn't read either of the articles based on your singular focus on stretch passes. While they do get used in breakouts they have nothing to do with defending in the defensive or neutral zone when we don't have the puck.


I've always found your singular focus on stretch passes as it relates to the Sabres and breakouts to be a bit odd.

1) We did use them last year with minimal success.

2) The way the bulk of the league uses them is with one forward "sneaking out" and a dman reading that and making the stretch pass to them. In many cases thats a timed area lob pass. Thats more difficult to do than the basic passes involved in breaking out. So its bit odd a d-corp you have zero faith in making the easier play of the basic breakout pass is better suited in your mind to make the harder play for that type of stretch pass.

3) Using the stretch pass in the manner most teams do these days is part of an overall breakout system not a stand alone tactic in place of one. The only way you can effectively get wingers to "sneak out" for the stretch pass is to have the opposing team trying to hold the blue line when you attempt to break out. Thats only going to happen if you have an effective and consistently used breakout in place that they are trying to break up.

4) Maybe you're thinking of Disco's approach to the stretch pass. His version was sending both wingers out of the zone once we gained possession. Tactically thats a whole different ball game from the stretch pass deployed most prominently around the league. Disco's approach was about trying to ease the pressure on us from the opposing teams forecheck. It wasn't about creating a scoring chance or putting pressure on the opposition like the the stretch pass is used now.

 

[Icicle]

This article is flawed: What Hosuley tried to have them do the first 5 games of the season is what he wanted, but they couldn't execute. He then reverted to the simplest stuff possible and focused on neutral zone, but even then, reverted to a basic 1-2-2 for most of the season.

This analysis looks at the whole year, which is representation of the latter, and not what Housley necessarily wants them to do. He points to that in his first article. He wants the defenseman jumping up earlier and the forward to pre-emptively step back-- but the players we had last year are just too damn slow, and the defenders we had are just bad at stopping pucks when they engage with pressure. Stick positioning and all. Something ROR was elite at, by the way.

It's a good point out at one of the major problems last season: The wingers were so bad, the defenseman got lazy since they never had anyone to pass to anyway, and they got conservative because they couldn't rely on wingers to back them up on pinches enough. The centers were lost along for the ride because of the failures of the wingers too.

One of those problems we got focusing on that center spine. Luckily, it's the easiest thing to fix and we're halfway there this off-season.

 

[old kummelweck]

I know people aren't fans of Paul Hamilton's, but he would often call out practice drills and how terrible the sabres players were at executing the drills. He attributed it to basic stuff like skaters not being able to give or receive a pass, and how frustrating that would be for guys like Eichel. I don't see how you can possibly execute a break out, let alone implement a 'system' if the players skill sets aren't up to snuff.

 

[Icicle]

I know people aren't fans of Paul Hamilton's, but he would often call out practice drills and how terrible the sabres players were at executing the drills. He attributed it to basic stuff like skaters not being able to give or receive a pass, and how frustrating that would be for guys like Eichel. I don't see how you can possibly execute a break out, let alone implement a 'system' if the players skill sets aren't up to snuff.

Housley said this himself. We all saw it for the first half of the season too.

Bylsma got them all lazy.

 

[joshjull]

It is when you have one defenseman who can drive controlled exits with his skating and wings incapable of consistent puck support.

It’s a downright awful look that Phil put Eichel/O’Reilly/Reinhart in the most taxing defensive situations, while demanding they serve as the primary offensive drivers for their undermanned lines, in a system that requires execution from those bad players to get them the puck back in transition.

What a silly statement. Center by definition has the most taxing defensive role. It comes with the position. They also are usually tasked with driving the offense as well. Also comes with the position. If they didn't have enough talent on their wing thats on the GM not the coach.

Your post is also not really not much of an observation about how we defend in our end or in the neutral zone systemically. Which is what the article talk about

 

[old kummelweck]

Housley said this himself. We all saw it for the first half of the season too.

Bylsma got them all lazy.

My post was referring to the talent. Not laziness.

 

[Icicle]

My post was referring to the talent. Not laziness.

There's a talented core, but only Eichel came into last season executing. And only Okposo had a decent excuse. Rest were lazy with their off-seasons/last couple of years

 

[brian_griffin]

The idea you can extract the system and discuss it in isolation from other factors on the ice is just silly.

First off, coaching is so much more than running systems. I recall a game in October against the Islanders, being down 1-0 in the second. We go on the PP, but surrender a quick shorty. Seconds later, we give up another shorty. Any ****ing coach worth his salt calls a timeout in that situation, settles the team down. Coach Phil? Na, **** that, timeouts are for wussies. Of course, seconds after that, after the PP ends and Buffalo struggles to execute an effective line change as the Islander score yet again. Then he calls a timeout. Nope, too late moron, game over.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Powerplay? Went to hell. The ability to shuffle lines mid game to get a spark? Non-existent. Holding guys accountable for lazy play and slow ass line changes? Didn't see it. Experimenting with different pre-game line combos? Not this coach. Creating space/opportunities for AHL guys to develop? Hardly.




So I'm suppose to believe that Coach Phil inherited a team teeming first rounders on which nobody knew how to pass and skate? What are the odds so many faked their way into the first round, and we drafted them all?! You're falling prey to the "lecturing birds on how to fly" fallacy that infects the minds of so many people who think it all starts with the theory and trickles down into practice. Like birds need to be told by an "expert" how to fly.

We lucked into Eichel, Reinhart, and Dahlin at his point. Build a system that best suits their game, not the other way around. That also means getting better players to complement their natural abilities. But you don't get that by swapping ROR for Berglund, or Kane for Sheary, do you now.

Many likes for this post, although I agree it is off-topic from the video-example article / discussion. That Isles game was an abomination.

Back on topic - It would be disingenuous to claim it was a new experience for any of last years Sabres to run a 1-2-2 forecheck in the manner illustrated in the videos / article.

To me, a huge issue last season was intensity. The vast majority of games the Sabres had no-to-minimal jump right from the opening faceoff, and on the rare occasion they did play a full 20 minute 1st period, they typically reverted to Stage 5 REM sleep in the second.

I guess my thought is, if there is no "jump" / intensity to start the game, more frequently we'll see the F1 forechecker a half-stride slower from closing the gap to the opponent D starting the breakout. Similarly, if the gap control from the forwards is a little bit off at the opponents blue line, the Sabres strong side D-man may hesitate to step up an play the body vs. waiting for the play to close the gap to him. I dunno. I fault effort / intensity moreso than talent / knowledge.

Nice article and videos; good off-season fodder.

 

[joshjull]

Many likes for this post, although I agree it is off-topic from the video-example article / discussion. That Isles game was an abomination.

Back on topic - It would be disingenuous to claim it was a new experience for any of last years Sabres to run a 1-2-2 forecheck in the manner illustrated in the videos / article.

To me, a huge issue last season was intensity. The vast majority of games the Sabres had no-to-minimal jump right from the opening faceoff, and on the rare occasion they did play a full 20 minute 1st period, they typically reverted to Stage 5 REM sleep in the second.

I guess my thought is, if there is no "jump" / intensity to start the game, more frequently we'll see the F1 forechecker a half-stride slower from closing the gap to the opponent D starting the breakout. Similarly, if the gap control from the forwards is a little bit off at the opponents blue line, the Sabres strong side D-man may hesitate to step up an play the body vs. waiting for the play to close the gap to him. I dunno. I fault effort / intensity moreso than talent / knowledge.

Nice article and videos; good off-season fodder.

Actually it would be 100% accurate. Under Disco it was played passively looking to take away passing lanes and the middle of the ice. Under Housley it was more aggressive in the neutral zone looking to jump passes or the initial receiver of the pass to create a turnover. The missed reads to do that as well as players hesitating to do that were a huge problem.

But your intensity comment isn't that off the mark. Since playing the way they needed to in the neutral zone requires more intensity than they had to use the previous year.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

Come on with the bolded. You've coached long enough to know there is a difference between a player understanding the basics and player playing flawless system hockey. No matter how many times you go over things with them their tendencies (cheat on the play, be conservative, etc) will still creep through from time to time. I think its a bit foolish to argue that NHLers by virtue of being NHLers are somehow immune to this when we know they're not. Some of the most frequently stated frustrations by NHL coaches after a loss are we didn't stick to the system or we made bad decisions. It wouldn't be hard to find examples of the mistakes shown in those articles by every team in every game throughout the league. The difference for us seems to be frequency and how much more those mistakes hurt us.

I'd also argue the neutral zone issue pointed to in the article (players being reluctant to be aggressive/ not stepping up) probably had a lot more do to with lack of faith in the guys between the pipes than anything else.

As for the inmates running the asylum, that seems to be the focus of the GM's locker room clean up. Which in today's game is really the only way it can happen. The days of a coach kicking ass and taking names to straighten out a room are long gone.

I'm still undecided on Housley. I think he needs more to work with and will get it next year. At minimum he will have far fewer excuses for failure next year. You are very skeptical of him but you also admit he may have been handcuffed by the hand he was dealt. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

Good points. And yeah I'm familiar with players uh....."interpreting" direction differently than was was intended. There is certainly a higher degree of freedom you give players as they progress and their level of play upscales. I really can't determine at this point how much freedom to digress is allowed in Housley's system. Seems like he felt he needed to clamp down rigidly. I don't think that's his preferred style of coaching however.

I'm in analytical -wait and see mode - with Phil. Certainly feel he deserves more time. Am skeptical that he will make the best use of it. But I'm willing to give him more time. Weighing the pros and cons. My mom would have said - Stop being so darn wishy washy! LoL

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

This is a fun little exercise.

The tough part is that without being in team meetings, everyone is left to guess why breakdowns in the system occurred.

Was it a talent/speed issue?

Was it a buy-in issue?

Was it a communication issue?

Was it a square peg/round hole issue?

Or was it a little bit of everything issue?

A little bit of everything is my guess....

 

[joshjull]

Good points. And yeah I'm familiar with players uh....."interpreting" direction differently than was was intended. There is certainly a higher degree of freedom you give players as they progress and their level of play upscales. I really can't determine at this point how much freedom to digress is allowed in Housley's system. Seems like he felt he needed to clamp down rigidly. I don't think that's his preferred style of coaching however.

I'm in analytical -wait and see mode - with Phil. Certainly feel he deserves more time. Am skeptical that he will make the best use of it. But I'm willing to give him more time. Weighing the pros and cons. My mom would have said - Stop being so darn wishy washy! LoL

Fair enough and mostly agree with the bolded. I love the mom quote

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Actually it would be 100% accurate. Under Disco it was played passively looking to take away passing lanes and the middle of the ice. Under Housley it was more aggressive in the neutral zone looking to jump passes or the initial receiver of the pass to create a turnover. The missed reads to do that as well as players hesitating to do that were a huge problem.

The players weren’t born two years ago. There is documented proof that they've all played under other coaches before Bylsma.

 

[joshjull]

The players weren’t born two years ago. There is documented proof that they've all played under other coaches before Bylsma.

And your point is?

 

[Dingo44]

I like the intensity angle beyond just the talent.

I'm not letting Phil off the hook but the plan last year was to let young guys develop in Rochester, and let the big club do their thing. Good or bad, I think that's what Botts wanted.

When you don't have competition for spots, some players can get entitled and lazy. Which is why Botts has always talked about competition for spots.

This year we cleaned out some bad players, and added a lot of completion. I don't see Botts waiting to send a player down or get rid of him this year like he waited on Moulson. I wouldn't mind seeing someone sent down early just to send a message - pick up the play and the intensity and buy into the system, or you're sitting or riding buses.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

What a silly statement. Center by definition has the most taxing defensive role. It comes with the position. They also are usually tasked with driving the offense as well. Also comes with the position. If they didn't have enough talent on their wing thats on the GM not the coach.

Your post is also not really not much of an observation about how we defend in our end or in the neutral zone systemically. Which is what the article talk about

The article highlights the defensive workload of the center position in our system, and it’s dependence on build-up play in order to receive the puck in dangerous positions in transition.

Those asks are completely absurd given the offensive burden on all three centers to start the season. Housley not playing his talent together was the height of incompetence.

 

[Dingo44]

The article highlights the defensive workload of the center position in our system, and it’s dependence on build-up play in order to receive the puck in dangerous positions in transition.

Those asks are completely absurd given the offensive burden on all three centers to start the season. Housley not playing his talent together was the height of incompetence.

Again, what system would you like to have seen Housley implement that would best utilize our centers and the players around them?

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Again, what system would you like to have seen Housley implement that would best utilize our centers and the players around them?

Off the top of my head:

Stacking the top line, giving Eichel a defensive zone babysitter instead of the most responsibility in all 3 zones, utilizing stretch passing frequently enough that it’s noted in the end of season overview of the Sabres’ transition game, zone matching the top six in the offensive zone, double shifting O’Reilly as an OZS specialist instead of in the defensive zone, breaking up his two best transition forwards, opening up bottom six slots to AHLers...

 

[Crazy Tasty]

The article highlights the defensive workload of the center position in our system, and it’s dependence on build-up play in order to receive the puck in dangerous positions in transition.

Those asks are completely absurd given the offensive burden on all three centers to start the season. Housley not playing his talent together was the height of incompetence.

In what systems are Centers not asked to have some defensive workload?

We all get it, you hate Housley. Most of us aren't the biggest fans either, but until he's not coaching the Sabres... just deal with it.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

And your point is?

The poster said:

"It would be disingenuous to claim it was a new experience for any of last years Sabres to run a 1-2-2 forecheck in the manner illustrated in the videos / article."

...and you disagreed because and said that it was 100% new because "Bylsma didn't do it" (paraphrased).

His point was, they likely had experience with a 1-2-2 forecheck in the manner illustrated in the video before. Just not with the Sabres.

 

[joshjull]

The article highlights the defensive workload of the center position in our system, and it’s dependence on build-up play in order to receive the puck in dangerous positions in transition.

Those asks are completely absurd given the offensive burden on all three centers to start the season. Housley not playing his talent together was the height of incompetence.

Wow. The article shows how we played a standard defensive zone formation and our centers played a standard center dzone coverage within it. There is nothing unique or more difficult in what our centers were asked to do. Its hockey 101 dzone coverage for centers. That you can't recognize baseline expected center play and think it is some taxing demand of a system is amazing considering the vitriol you throw at our coach over "his" stupidity.

I mean you are literally complaining that its bullshit that our coach is asking our centers to play the role of center.

 

[brian_griffin]

Yeah, that's what I meant. But no worries.

<snip>
But your intensity comment isn't that off the mark. Since playing the way they needed to in the neutral zone requires more intensity than they had to use the previous year.

Agreed. Further, under Bylsma, I thought BUF consciously ceded their blue line and had their d-men collapse sooner / earlier in order to ensure less odd-man rushes.

Bottom line (or is it line up at the bottom?) - is there anything BUF did well last season (or at least at NHL average) other than lose games?