Coaching and systems talk
- Thread starter Heraldic
- Start date
This is very interesting to me. My knowledge of the swarm is very limited, I think Eakins brought it over from the AHL and it failed in Edmonton. As I understand it the swarm is an outnumbering system where you basically pull both d down into the corner for puck battles, the c supports the puck battle, the strong side winger controls the point and the weak side winger cover the slot (as opposed to having one d in front of the net and the weak side winger in the high slot).
The huge issue I have with this is that it obviously leaves the front of the net less protected, and protecting the front of the net is not exactly a strong suit of the Sabres anyway. On the other hand, outnumbering the other team around the puck in the corners would cut down on the 'Sabres malaise' of constantly chasing the puck around the D zone, a concept I find very appealing. Nothing has me swearing more profusely than the minutes long fire drill defense that seems to plague the Sabres in every single game.
So, my question to you would be this: What kind of changes would the Sabres have to make to successfully employ a swarm? It seems to me that this system would benefit from more Delauries and less Hodgson if that makes sense. Also, how do you see a system like this working for a player like Ennis? Is he tenacious enough to make it work? To easy to bump off the puck in the corners?
As for the move off the 96% dump ins zone entry strategy I completely agree.
Anyway, to make it slightly on topic, it's also a very interesting point that Larsson and Lindbäck both played for Brynäs. From experience it's can be a lonely road to move from Europe to North America, especially for young kids like these players really are. I am sure it's a great thing for both of them to have someone that knows the place they are from and shares a common bond (even though Johan Larsson was born on Gotland
)
Heraldic
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2013
- 2,937
- 51
This is topic so rarely adressed that I dare to continue the offtopic here.
I'm not an expert either, but I understand the main principles the same way. The key here is to create a man-advantage situation into a corner in order to stop the puck possession fast.
This is a tactic that is extremely demanding and shouldn't be used if your roster doesn't allow you to - and that was the situation in Edmonton.
Key components are big and strong d-men who can skate with the puck and also execute simple outlet passes. The reason for this is that stopping the possession is not only a nice benefit, it's crucial as well. If the opposition gets time and space and manage to cycle the puck, the situation becomes dangerous.
You also need wingers who are defensively responsible and have the required defensive awareness.
I'm not saying that we should implement "pure" swarm next season, but in the future our defensive system should look more swarm than this current system. We have excellent big, strong d-men with good mobility and puck skills (Zadorov, Bogo, Risto). They are strong enough to win puck battles when given a man-advantage. They can also skate or pass the puck out of danger-zone as well. For example I think that Ken Hithcock is doing a bad job in St.Louis because his defensive system is so passive. I mean, you got defenders like JBo and Pietrangelo there. St.Louis were totally dominated by Hawks because they gave so much time and space in last years' playoffs.
We're also building a forward group of big two-way guys, guys who can manage the demanding system and even thrive in it.
When we're talking about puck possession, the obvious dimension usually is when you have the puck - how to execute zone-entries and -exits. The usually neglected one is the dimension that the less the opposition has the puck, the more you have it. And that's the key here. Of course we need players who are excellent rushing the puck through organized neutral-zone, because in swarm you usually don't get so many odd-man rushes (because the players are usually a lot deeper, even the forwards).
Yes, it has it's obvious weaknesses, and it is vulnerable when you lose the puck battle in a corner (and that's what Edmonton for example did a lot during Eakins), and you're not able to block the shots from the blue line as effectively. But the idea is to win the majority of those puck battles and regain the possession, which shouldn't be too hard with strong and mobile d-men given the man-advantage situation.
Like I said the key components are the d-men, which we, in my opinion, have. You also have to have wingers who are fast skaters, because there will be situations where they have to cover a lot of area and they have to hurry to the transition as well. And you have to have defensively sound centers, that's obvious.
It's clear that we can't implement a system that demanding next year, but I think we should try to implement some elements at least. Devils and Detroit have done so, and Canada won the gold medal in Sochi playing pretty pure swarm and it worked excellently even on a bigger ice where it is more difficult to execute.
But I sure as hell will be pissed off, if we still play this 90's hockey when our roster is capable of doing a lot more. That is also the reason why I don't want any old school coach like Hitchcock with an outdated tactics book. Of course I don't want any Eakins either, who will straight ahead try to implement a system that the roster has no chances to execute.
This can by all means be moved under a better suited thread.
joshjull
Registered User
A few things worth mentioning as it relates to dump and chase, why its not going away and why fans shouldn't get frustrated by it. This is league wide thing not Sabres specific.
Many know that a team is more likely to get a shot on goal carrying the puck in with possession than dumping it in. Roughly more than 2X more likely to get a shot on goal carrying in with possession than with dumping the puck in.
The problem with that stat is it only tells us what the likely outcomes are once the zone is ALREADY gained. What it doesn't tell us is the success rates of gaining the zone with each method as well as possible negative outcomes attached to each attempt to enter the zone.
To put it another way, that stat doesn't incorporate the most important thing to a team trying to gain the opposing zone. How well the other team defends the entry and how that impacts zone entry success. That needs to be known before using the other stat.
If the zone entry is well defended that gives the attacking team a few options……
1) Dump it in --> this approach has the best chance of successfully getting the puck into the opposing zone with minimal negative effects in terms of blue line/neutral zone turnovers
2) Challenge a defender 1 on 1 to gain the zone* ---> less likely to gain the zone than dumping it in and has a much higher risk of a blue line/neutral zone turnover than dumping it in. Something that can lead to a scoring chance going the other way.
3) Regroup at center ice---> This option is not realistic since no NHL team tries to do this with any frequency. The reason being it takes a decent amount of skill/chemistry among the players to pull off. Teams don't have the skill throughout their lineup to make this a workable option team wide. It would lead to a lot of neutral zone turnovers. The only team I can think of thats ever had success with this is the Soviet teams form the 70s/80s. They operated with 5 man units that were together for years.
*Obviously the skill level of the individual players involved will impact rates of success of failure. As in a 4th liner is far more likely to dump the puck in than a top line player. SInce a 4th liner is more likely to lose the puck 1 on 1. On the flip side, a top defender is far more likely to create a turnover defending than a bad defensive player. So its not going to be the same percentage of success or failure throughout the team.
The above are things the analytics folks could put numbers to to further flesh things out. For example whats the percentage chance of getting a shot on goal when a team tries to beat defenders 1 on 1 vs dumping it in. Its can also list the chances it turns into a turnover and how often that leads to a scoring chance going the other way. It can be broken down by team and individual. These are the types of numbers that would give the bigger picture and not just part of it.
Even teams that encourage puck possession to gain the zone still dump the puck in a lot. Its because when their entry is defended its the safest course to gain the zone. It does fluctuate by individual though.
Other reasons dump and chase is going to stay.
-The system a team is using. Its not uncommon for a trapping team that plays a passive 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 to focus on dumping the puck. It allows them to set up their system so they can wait for the odd man counterattack opportunity.
-Some teams use the dump and chase as a strategy to get the team moving within a game. Keep the legs moving and roll the lines. LA does this a lot.
-Its been used as a playoff strategy when certain opposing d-pairs are out. This way they are going back to retrieve the puck and getting hammered. Its an attempt to wear them down.
Many know that a team is more likely to get a shot on goal carrying the puck in with possession than dumping it in. Roughly more than 2X more likely to get a shot on goal carrying in with possession than with dumping the puck in.
The problem with that stat is it only tells us what the likely outcomes are once the zone is ALREADY gained. What it doesn't tell us is the success rates of gaining the zone with each method as well as possible negative outcomes attached to each attempt to enter the zone.
To put it another way, that stat doesn't incorporate the most important thing to a team trying to gain the opposing zone. How well the other team defends the entry and how that impacts zone entry success. That needs to be known before using the other stat.
If the zone entry is well defended that gives the attacking team a few options……
1) Dump it in --> this approach has the best chance of successfully getting the puck into the opposing zone with minimal negative effects in terms of blue line/neutral zone turnovers
2) Challenge a defender 1 on 1 to gain the zone* ---> less likely to gain the zone than dumping it in and has a much higher risk of a blue line/neutral zone turnover than dumping it in. Something that can lead to a scoring chance going the other way.
3) Regroup at center ice---> This option is not realistic since no NHL team tries to do this with any frequency. The reason being it takes a decent amount of skill/chemistry among the players to pull off. Teams don't have the skill throughout their lineup to make this a workable option team wide. It would lead to a lot of neutral zone turnovers. The only team I can think of thats ever had success with this is the Soviet teams form the 70s/80s. They operated with 5 man units that were together for years.
*Obviously the skill level of the individual players involved will impact rates of success of failure. As in a 4th liner is far more likely to dump the puck in than a top line player. SInce a 4th liner is more likely to lose the puck 1 on 1. On the flip side, a top defender is far more likely to create a turnover defending than a bad defensive player. So its not going to be the same percentage of success or failure throughout the team.
The above are things the analytics folks could put numbers to to further flesh things out. For example whats the percentage chance of getting a shot on goal when a team tries to beat defenders 1 on 1 vs dumping it in. Its can also list the chances it turns into a turnover and how often that leads to a scoring chance going the other way. It can be broken down by team and individual. These are the types of numbers that would give the bigger picture and not just part of it.
Even teams that encourage puck possession to gain the zone still dump the puck in a lot. Its because when their entry is defended its the safest course to gain the zone. It does fluctuate by individual though.
Other reasons dump and chase is going to stay.
-The system a team is using. Its not uncommon for a trapping team that plays a passive 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 to focus on dumping the puck. It allows them to set up their system so they can wait for the odd man counterattack opportunity.
-Some teams use the dump and chase as a strategy to get the team moving within a game. Keep the legs moving and roll the lines. LA does this a lot.
-Its been used as a playoff strategy when certain opposing d-pairs are out. This way they are going back to retrieve the puck and getting hammered. Its an attempt to wear them down.
Love talking about this stuff. Don't know what's wrong about using "outdated 90's" tactics however. If they work, then use 'em. And the dump and chase still works and will continue to work long into the future.
Don't know much about swarm but I've used a variation of this approach on PK's. There are teams you can smother with it because they don't have the requisite skills and compete factors. And there are others that will pick you apart. Bottom line, it sounds like one has to have a very high skill and awareness level to make it work. A quick, accurate passing team like the Red Wings should be able to defeat the swarm pretty easily.
The other concern I would have is a team's ability to keep up the pace. Swarm sounds like the hockey equivalent of the 2 minute offense in football. Not sure any team can keep the pace up for 3 periods. Frankly, Box + 1 with a few adjustments works for me as well as any defensive zone scheme. The key has always been the transition to the breakout and defeating the forecheck.
Just completed my high school season and the most frequently used forechecking system was dump and chase with the chase turning into an aggressive 2-1-2/2 -3 type of forecheck.
Our key to defeating this is type of attack was having quick, strong, sure handed puck handling defensemen. Still a bit bothered that the Sabres traded (another? i.e.; McNabb and Myers?) one of those type of guys away recently.
Don't know much about swarm but I've used a variation of this approach on PK's. There are teams you can smother with it because they don't have the requisite skills and compete factors. And there are others that will pick you apart. Bottom line, it sounds like one has to have a very high skill and awareness level to make it work. A quick, accurate passing team like the Red Wings should be able to defeat the swarm pretty easily.
The other concern I would have is a team's ability to keep up the pace. Swarm sounds like the hockey equivalent of the 2 minute offense in football. Not sure any team can keep the pace up for 3 periods. Frankly, Box + 1 with a few adjustments works for me as well as any defensive zone scheme. The key has always been the transition to the breakout and defeating the forecheck.
Just completed my high school season and the most frequently used forechecking system was dump and chase with the chase turning into an aggressive 2-1-2/2 -3 type of forecheck.
Our key to defeating this is type of attack was having quick, strong, sure handed puck handling defensemen. Still a bit bothered that the Sabres traded (another? i.e.; McNabb and Myers?) one of those type of guys away recently.
MODS feel free to edit my response if to repetitive:
Swarm Defense 101:
The swarm defense was around before Eakins just to clarify. In the 80's and 90's most dzone coverage was basically Wingers cover the points high and tight strong side and slot on the weakside, strong side D and C battle in the corners, Net front stays in the slot or above the crease. As offense evolved teams began sending three forwards in the corner thus making the defenders have to create layers, usually now in a 'collapse dzone' (which is most common) two defensemen in the corner with the center between the puck and the net both winger down to a little lower than the tops of the circles.
The problem with the 'swarm defense' is when the puck battle begins in the corner (usually what happens is) the strong D and the Center go to create pins or a scrum puck. Once this occurs the strong side winger come down and fishes for the puck off the outside shoulder of the top forward and the weakside D comes in and does the same off the bottom forward. The weakside winger stays in the slot. The theory is commit 4 to the corner and out man the offense even if they send three, by also shutting down the wall to the strong side point.
Where the swarm becomes in effective is 3 things happen. 1) the forward quickly rims out to the D, because the strong side winger is low on the wall the d has an easy angle to shoot or moves the puck d to d with no shot blockers because they are all retreating back to the net. 2) the third offensive forward now slides down outside the scrum almost at the faceoff dot and gets a blind kickout pass that is very hard to stop. 3) the offense tries rimming to the weakside the weakside offensive d pinches with the third forward to 2v1 the weakside defensive winger.
Dump and Chase Theory
Whether it is Ted Nolan, Mike Babcock, Scott Bowman every coach wants possession time and to carry as opposed to dump when given the chance. I have watched all but three Sabres games, people can say what they want about the systems in my opinion it has nothing to do with systems. Every analyst/hockey expert picked the Sabres to finish 30th they are a very weak team starting with the back end and literally got way worse due to injury. With Gorges out for the year that is a ton of ice time regulated to below average players. On a playoff team at this stage in their career Bogosian was a #3 in Winnipeg, Zadarov and Ristolanian (sp?) would be at best 6/7, Beniot now being on the top pair 6/7, Strachan, Weber and Mezaros 5,6,7. Out side of the kids none are really skating D like a Letang, Doughty, Reilly, Subban ...etc. The Sabres D are more puck moving stay at home type and are being expected to play very big minutes that to be honest they aren't good enough or ready to play including the 19 and 20 yer old kids playing 3/4. The side effect is the Sabres get hemmed in their zone for long periods of time (Corsi stats say so) once they finally do break it out the forwards are tired they get the red dump and change. You usually end up either being countered or have to be in a passive 1-2-2, it the nature of the beast right now with their team.
In saying that the LA Kings last season as supplied by the Score earlier this year Analytically dumped the puck in the most of any team last season, the difference is that they also had the highest percentage of recovery in the NHL. I believe that fans love hearing all these Corsi stats and analytics but fail to realize that the teams that carry the puck most often and are possession teams (this is not backed up with data you can do your own and correct me) are teams like Pit (Crosby, Malkin), ANA (Perry, Getzlaf) Bos (Bergerion, Krejci) CHI (Toews, Sharp, Kane) Det (Datsyuk, Zetterberg) I think you get my point that the teams with the high possession numbers are the teams with bonafide superstars. Not teams with the depth or skill set of Buffalo this year.
Ted Nolan went to 4 Memorial Cups, Brian Trottier won 6 as a player and 1 as a coach in Colorado, Dan Flynn 5 Memorial Cups. The staff is solid they know how to develop players, they know systems, they also realize they can't ask plummers to be surgeons. Nolan stresses hard work and a never give up mentality, they need to play the perfect game every night and hope the other team is off because they are greatly out matched talent wise.
Regardless who the next coach is he will last 2 years if he isn't given talent to work with. Look at EDM Pat Quinn, Tom Renney, Ralph Krueger, Dallas Eakins and now Todd Nelson. Pat Quinn = 1,400 games coached in NHL, Tom Renney 595 games coached 260 wins, Ralph Kruger was the hottest coach not in the NHL took the Swiss to the next level in international hockey, Dallas Eakins - Everyone and their dog thought he was going to be the next Mike Babcock when he left the AHL. None had success with all the first rounders in EDM.
It is so easy to point the finger at the coaching staff in Buffalo, not showing significant systems, they literally don't have quality NHL players to perform against NHL with talent and good coaching.
Heraldic
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2013
- 2,937
- 51
Dump and chase won't go away anywhere, because it's a lot less demanding approach, and there is only a handful of teams who are able to offer you the opportunity to utilize something else effectively. But I think the purpose of this rebuild is to be one of those teams.
Here are some quotes of Darryl Sutter and others and Sutter's philosophy about today's hockey:
***
Of course you can't execute controlled zone-entries with every line perfectly unless you have a team Canada roster. But that should be the first priority however. And the lines who execute more frequently dumping, need to be fast and strong.
What is also one of the biggest reasons for the demand for big, mobile and skilled d-men? It's the reason that they are effective against the dump and chase. They can get the puck before forecheckers, they can manage the physical contact and they can execute accurate and fast outlet passes when time and space are scarce.
And I completey disagree about swarm being ineffective against teams like Detroit - it's the exact opposite, to be frankly. Yes, they have skill. But they lack size and strength even more. If you have mobile, big and strong d-men, who take the time and space away, you regain the puck quickly. Of course this is not possible if you have only a bunch of hallgills on your roster. Contrary, I think that giving them time and space is the sure way to lose a game. Is it a coincidence that their powerplay is so deadly, and that's where you have the time and space? Is it really a coincidence that St.Louis has been so overwhelmed in playoffs and Kings and Chicago have been the opposite? Is it a coincidence, that Boston Bruins are struggling with their passive zone?
Mike Babcock is doing a helluva job in Detroit, and you rarely see Detroit dumping the puck. That's because they have players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg who are able to rush the puck controlled. I think that Detroit have quite average roster, but they utilize puck possession really nicely.
When it comes to building a winning team, you should be sure you have players who are able to rush the puck effectively (Toews, Kopitar, Doughty, Keith, Datsyuk, Zetterberg etc.) and the lines who can't should be filled with fast and strong players in order to win the puck race and puck battle, because it's becoming harder and harder every day, when teams are more and more seeking these aforementioned defenders.
Sure there are teams like Montreal, but they are almost entirely depended on their excellent goaltending, and that was the era we had Hasek.
Here are some quotes of Darryl Sutter and others and Sutter's philosophy about today's hockey:
***
Of course you can't execute controlled zone-entries with every line perfectly unless you have a team Canada roster. But that should be the first priority however. And the lines who execute more frequently dumping, need to be fast and strong.
What is also one of the biggest reasons for the demand for big, mobile and skilled d-men? It's the reason that they are effective against the dump and chase. They can get the puck before forecheckers, they can manage the physical contact and they can execute accurate and fast outlet passes when time and space are scarce.
And I completey disagree about swarm being ineffective against teams like Detroit - it's the exact opposite, to be frankly. Yes, they have skill. But they lack size and strength even more. If you have mobile, big and strong d-men, who take the time and space away, you regain the puck quickly. Of course this is not possible if you have only a bunch of hallgills on your roster. Contrary, I think that giving them time and space is the sure way to lose a game. Is it a coincidence that their powerplay is so deadly, and that's where you have the time and space? Is it really a coincidence that St.Louis has been so overwhelmed in playoffs and Kings and Chicago have been the opposite? Is it a coincidence, that Boston Bruins are struggling with their passive zone?
Mike Babcock is doing a helluva job in Detroit, and you rarely see Detroit dumping the puck. That's because they have players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg who are able to rush the puck controlled. I think that Detroit have quite average roster, but they utilize puck possession really nicely.
When it comes to building a winning team, you should be sure you have players who are able to rush the puck effectively (Toews, Kopitar, Doughty, Keith, Datsyuk, Zetterberg etc.) and the lines who can't should be filled with fast and strong players in order to win the puck race and puck battle, because it's becoming harder and harder every day, when teams are more and more seeking these aforementioned defenders.
Sure there are teams like Montreal, but they are almost entirely depended on their excellent goaltending, and that was the era we had Hasek.
Heraldic
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2013
- 2,937
- 51
In Europe you can find examples of pretty total puck control. Being a Finnish I'm pretty familiar about Finnish coaches and the game in Liiga. Jukka Jalonen is maybe the most known representative of the coaches who uses a lot slow zone exits and regrouping at center ice. But if you want to find a coach, who is even more extreme, I recommend you to watch Pekka Virta's team's play, especially Kalpa in Liiga. To be honest that is so total puck control that it is even boring, because they have drop passes after drop passes and many times they even get back to their own zone (and even behind the net) regrouping from the neutral zone.
But it has been pretty effective system this season in Kalpa. But I doubt it's viability in NHL, where the rink is smaller.Personally I don't think that Nolan and his coaching crew really had any other options than to adapt this simple system. But that really undermines today's hockey, because teams capable in puck possession are going to crush teams who sucks at it, unless they have exceptional goaltending and great team at blocking shots. Montreal is maybe the best example, but I really doubt their chances in the long run.
RoofIt5hole
Ball Don't Lie
From what I understand, Richardson is very much a puck possession / some swarm principles guy.
Also what I heard was he turned down the Ottawa job because he wanted to wait for his daughter to finish college because she goes to school near Binghamton (is a senior), and he seemed to have some issues with Ottawa ownership.
I'd bet anything Richardson is the Sabres coach next season..
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
That isn't Babcock.
That is the GM that is putting together a roster with enough skill to possess the puck.
Murray hit the nail on the head when he said that the Sabres will possess the puck more when they have better players.
The ability to possess the puck more isn't a function of the coach as much as it is a function of the talent that the GM acquires.
Granted, an old school coach that demands that everyone plays dump and chase can mess that up. But, I doubt Murray hires a coach like that when the team has a lot more talent on it and doesn't have to play that way.
Great Post YGrapes! Very informative and illustrative. I certainly agree with your last statement about talent. We all need to keep in mind that these systems and approaches are being applied by elite athletes in the prime of their careers. (even those who we designate 3rd/4th liners are elite compared to the rest of the playing population).
And even with all of these very cool and creative approaches, how many times do we hear the cliches about getting back to basics and doing the little things right?
All the time cause they are foundational to every skill and talent level.
Good food for thought. Indeed, the Finn's are/have been doing some great work in pushing the hockey envelope. Kind of like this era's Tarasov… (Sorry 'bout the Russian reference.) Thanks.
Love the thread and the posts so far!
I have a couple of questions. I very rarely get to watch the Sabres, so I am limited to TV viewings which makes it difficult to get a great feel for how they play, especially on the fore check. So, for someone with a better eye than me or regular arena time at Sabres games: It seems to me that the Sabres mainly play a passive 1-2-2 neutral zone fore check. I know they sometimes mix that up and play what looks to be a more aggressive 2-1-2, but that is getting more and more rare as the season has progressed. I get that the results were poor at the beginning of the year, but what would be the rational for making us even more predictable? Simplify ever more? Lost effective fore checkers to trades and injury?
Also, I am not being facetious when I say that I have honestly struggled to identify the Sabres defensive system. I have sort of assumed that they play a pretty straight defensive game (the system previously identified as a box + 1 in this thread). At least that's what I've been basing my critical comments of Hodgson's slot coverage in the past. So, is it accurate to say that the Sabres typically play box + 1 only that the box gets routinely warped by teams cycling the puck at will around us? Are they perhaps playing a modified box + 1 where the modification is that Mezaros frequently drifts into the high slot for unknown reasons? Comments on the Sabres defensive (theoretical) structure welcome.
I also want to comment on the couple of posts about the dump and chase not going away. That much is obvious, and I don't think there are many people who advocate abandoning dumping the puck in completely. My issue is that the Sabres dump the puck in 99.9% of the time it seems. This has also changed from the beginning of the year where we employed both stretch passes and puck rushes by Ennis much more. I get that when a team has just played 2 minutes of skatearound defense, the only play when you finally get to the red line is to dump and change, but the Sabres dump the puck in regardless of circumstance. It seems obvious to me that they are under direct instructions to dump the puck in every time they gain the offensive half of the neutral zone. Heck, we even dump the puck in with great frequency on the power play.
I have no illusions that the current Sabres could start carrying the puck into the zone at will if they were coached better. We have to rely heavily on dumping the puck in the corner and go grind it out. My issue is that when this is the only tactic used, it becomes very easy to defend. Teams just drop their d down a little lower and break out relatively easy. I would like to see more players given the green light to rush the puck every now and then. Even if Ennis is the only one who is good enough to do it, I would like to see Gionta, Risto, Bogosian and even Zadorov, Hodgson and Foligno rush the puck more often. Even if it just means turning the puck over 2 feet past the blue line, at least it would make defenses play honest.
There's other ways to gain the zone than one on one carry to, use a drop pass every now and then, or a cross ice pass up to a winger on the boards. And many other ways as well that I can't name. I understand the need to keep the game simple, but in my opinion they have gone too far down that road. I don't think it's too much to ask even of AHL level talent.
I have a couple of questions. I very rarely get to watch the Sabres, so I am limited to TV viewings which makes it difficult to get a great feel for how they play, especially on the fore check. So, for someone with a better eye than me or regular arena time at Sabres games: It seems to me that the Sabres mainly play a passive 1-2-2 neutral zone fore check. I know they sometimes mix that up and play what looks to be a more aggressive 2-1-2, but that is getting more and more rare as the season has progressed. I get that the results were poor at the beginning of the year, but what would be the rational for making us even more predictable? Simplify ever more? Lost effective fore checkers to trades and injury?
Also, I am not being facetious when I say that I have honestly struggled to identify the Sabres defensive system. I have sort of assumed that they play a pretty straight defensive game (the system previously identified as a box + 1 in this thread). At least that's what I've been basing my critical comments of Hodgson's slot coverage in the past. So, is it accurate to say that the Sabres typically play box + 1 only that the box gets routinely warped by teams cycling the puck at will around us? Are they perhaps playing a modified box + 1 where the modification is that Mezaros frequently drifts into the high slot for unknown reasons? Comments on the Sabres defensive (theoretical) structure welcome.
I also want to comment on the couple of posts about the dump and chase not going away. That much is obvious, and I don't think there are many people who advocate abandoning dumping the puck in completely. My issue is that the Sabres dump the puck in 99.9% of the time it seems. This has also changed from the beginning of the year where we employed both stretch passes and puck rushes by Ennis much more. I get that when a team has just played 2 minutes of skatearound defense, the only play when you finally get to the red line is to dump and change, but the Sabres dump the puck in regardless of circumstance. It seems obvious to me that they are under direct instructions to dump the puck in every time they gain the offensive half of the neutral zone. Heck, we even dump the puck in with great frequency on the power play.
I have no illusions that the current Sabres could start carrying the puck into the zone at will if they were coached better. We have to rely heavily on dumping the puck in the corner and go grind it out. My issue is that when this is the only tactic used, it becomes very easy to defend. Teams just drop their d down a little lower and break out relatively easy. I would like to see more players given the green light to rush the puck every now and then. Even if Ennis is the only one who is good enough to do it, I would like to see Gionta, Risto, Bogosian and even Zadorov, Hodgson and Foligno rush the puck more often. Even if it just means turning the puck over 2 feet past the blue line, at least it would make defenses play honest.
There's other ways to gain the zone than one on one carry to, use a drop pass every now and then, or a cross ice pass up to a winger on the boards. And many other ways as well that I can't name. I understand the need to keep the game simple, but in my opinion they have gone too far down that road. I don't think it's too much to ask even of AHL level talent.
I also wanted to mention the comments Myers made after he was traded. He basically said how much easier it was to play with a clear system in place and with the added attention to detail.
That is a pretty telling thing to me and one reason why I don't fully buy the lack of talent excuse for our coaches. We are weak on talent, especially high end talent and you can't coach around that. But it seems that the keep it as simple as possible and work as hard as any man can approach is selling our talent short. There's no reason why our poor players wouldn't benefit from being coached better with attention to the details that Myers mentioned. (I have only heard specifically that he was told to hold his stick with one hand more often to improve his reach when poke checking, but that is the kind of thing that our coaches easily could have told him as well)
That is a pretty telling thing to me and one reason why I don't fully buy the lack of talent excuse for our coaches. We are weak on talent, especially high end talent and you can't coach around that. But it seems that the keep it as simple as possible and work as hard as any man can approach is selling our talent short. There's no reason why our poor players wouldn't benefit from being coached better with attention to the details that Myers mentioned. (I have only heard specifically that he was told to hold his stick with one hand more often to improve his reach when poke checking, but that is the kind of thing that our coaches easily could have told him as well)
All the poor players that would benefit from being better coached to be more of a possession team here is some food for thought. Montreal is one of the top teams in the East ... Sabres Second line forward, PK and PP player Brian Flynn healthy scratch and Torry Mitchell who was on the Sabres First line and again played special teams played 2 shifts last night in the third period. The players that the coaches have are depth guys and are having to be used as top 6 forwards ... they can't play possession because they don't have possession talent.
I don't see the Sabres that often either so I'll defer to JoshJull on what d zone system they play. Box +1 is really an introductory system. Teams tend to apply variations from the B+! theme such as sagg ing zone arrow, etc. Although it does appears that Boudreau uses the conventional B+1. I'm attaching a couple of links to coaching aids/explanations that describe Box+1 in more detail.
http://www.hockeyshare.com/blog/hockey-systems/box-plus-one-d-zone-coverage/
http://www.ec-rautakanki.at/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Tactics_defensive_system.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc2SMalX7ng
Sidenote: One of these mentions defending the cycle from the B+1 by having the defender stay with his man (check/cover) through the cycle (versus playing "zone"). I have tied both approaches and find that switching to man to man coverage has worked better for the skill level I work with. Lots of good stuff out there on the web on these topics. Hope this helps.
I wasn't trying to imply that we'd magically become a possession team with stronger coaching. But there are obviously pieces in place already that are better then Flynn and Mitchell. There's even young talented defenders that would probably benefit from coaching that goes into more of the details and structure that Myers said (or implied rather) is missing in Buffalo.
Or put anther way: Just because our assets are not the greatest doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to maximize them.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Speculation: 2023-2024 General Lightning Discussion - Part 3- Latest: Stammertime91
-
Roster/Rumors/Speculation/Trade Talk - 2023-24: Hotel California- Latest: The Real JT
Upcoming events
-
TO ADVANCE SEMIFINAL - Borussia Dortmund @ Paris Saint-Germain - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Borussia Dortmund1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $1,429.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 19Staked: $25,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 11Staked: $56,709.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 6Staked: $17,459.00Event closes
- Updated:
-