Do we have a system?

[Beauner]

At the beginning of the year you could see the changes Johnston brought. More careful with the puck, playing a possession style game. Lots of looping in the neutral zone if there were no options...now all I see is pond hockey. Turnovers off bad passes, stickhandling too much. Do we have a system anymore? Where did it go and why?

Click to read more...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

At the beginning of the year you could see the changes Johnston brought. More careful with the puck, playing a possession style game. Lots of looping in the neutral zone if there were no options...now all I see is pond hockey. Turnovers off bad passes, stickhandling too much. Do we have a system anymore? Where did it go and why?

I think we purposefully let other teams stay in our zone 55 out of every 60 minutes. If we have a system that would be a good portion of it.

 

[turd]

Perimeter, dump and not chase hockey appears to be the system.

 

[AquaticBirdman]

Well...isn't it obvious?

 

[AquaticBirdman]

Perimeter, dump and not chase hockey appears to be the system.

Which is unfortunate, because that's not at all what it was during the first 3 months of the season. Where things went wrong is beyond me.

 

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, it´s gone. The first game of the season against the Ducks was beautiful, so instrumental in terms of SYSTEM. Right now, it´s just not there. It´s skating for the sake of skating, playing for the sake of playing, no gameplan at all. I think it´s both, the players are not respecting Johnston too much right now and the opposing teams have solved the Penguins (like taking away the boards, clogging the neutral zone, forechecking etc). That together leads to a complete mess like this.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

This team was #1 in the nhl in goals per game and winning percentage after the first two months. What on earth happened? Rest of the league catch on to his system and MJ failed to adapt?

 

[Beauner]

This team was #1 in the nhl in goals per game and winning percentage after the first two months. What on earth happened? Rest of the league catch on to his system and MJ failed to adapt?

I really don't think so because they aren't doing the same things they were earlier. Everything we saw the first few months is gone.

 

[PensPlz]

Our system: try to score a goal or two while Fleury stands on his head.

 

[drpepper]

Johnston and the Pens have systems for offense, for offensive to defense transition (forecheck and backcheck), for defense, and for defense to offense transition (breakout).

However, the majority of the systems don't really fit most of the personnel that the Pens have particularly on the breakout, offense and forecheck and more recently on the defense. The players are having issues executing which is partially individual errors and partially fit problems. In addition, the systems are easy to figure out and to play against particularly on the breakout, offense, and more recently defense. Johnston and the Pens have been unsuccessful in changing and adapting as teams figure out Johnston's systems from earlier in the year.

 

[Tender Rip]

But..... imagine if this is all a ploy?!?!?
After the first few months we have gone away from all the good things ON PURPOSE! Including the PP!

Thinking being that we got it all clicking, so why give the rest of the league months to find us out, rather just play possum, and then bring back THE DESIGN when it matters.

Evil genius, I tellz ya.

NB: Rutherford also knows a loophole that will get the Despres-Lovejoy trade nullified on the eve of the playoffs.

 

[billybudd]

Johnston and the Pens have systems for offense, for offensive to defense transition (forecheck and backcheck), for defense, and for defense to offense transition (breakout).

However, the majority of the systems don't really fit most of the personnel that the Pens have particularly on the breakout, offense and forecheck and more recently on the defense. The players are having issues executing which is partially individual errors and partially fit problems. In addition, the systems are easy to figure out and to play against particularly on the breakout, offense, and more recently defense. Johnston and the Pens have been unsuccessful in changing and adapting as teams figure out Johnston's systems from earlier in the year.

Ultimately, all systems are a bad fit for our forwards, specifically our wings.

 

[drpepper]

Ultimately, all systems are a bad fit for our forwards, specifically our wings.

Absolutely.

But I don't even know if the systems fit Crosby and Malkin. Malkin seems to do best when he completely disregards their existence particularly on the breakout. Crosby seems to be trying to row upstream while the rest of his canoe is having a waterfight.

Letang seems to be the only fit for the system. Maybe Pouliot as he develops.

 

[cygnus47]

But..... imagine if this is all a ploy?!?!?
After the first few months we have gone away from all the good things ON PURPOSE! Including the PP!

Thinking being that we got it all clicking, so why give the rest of the league months to find us out, rather just play possum, and then bring back THE DESIGN when it matters.

Evil genius, I tellz ya.

NB: Rutherford also knows a loophole that will get the Despres-Lovejoy trade nullified on the eve of the playoffs.

I wouldn't be surprised if we're a lot better in the playoffs actually. But I think a lot of the damage is done mentally, we don't have the mentality of a winning team and that's the thing we've been missing for a few years more than anything else.

 

[drpepper]

I wouldn't be surprised if we're a lot better in the playoffs actually. But I think a lot of the damage is done mentally, we don't have the mentality of a winning team and that's the thing we've been missing for a few years more than anything else.

The Pens breakout being terrible has nothing to do with mentality.

The Pens don't have defensemen who can handle the puck or pass well enough and fast enough to make Johnston's system work as intended. Add in to the fact that the breakout is easily defended by a fast forecheck or closing off the left wall of the neutral zone because the system is simple and predictable and the fact that Johnston can't adapt it to the NHL, and he's tried skating the puck up, cross ice passes, up through the center of the ice passes, and a lot of reversals.

The Pens pathetic forecheck and neutral zone defense has nothing to do with mentality.

It is intentionally passive in order to catch bad neutral zone passes and work the gap to prevent clean entries. Unfortunately, most of the forwards aren't good enough skaters and don't anticipate well enough to disrupt the passing. And on the defense side, Scuderi has probably the best gap on the team followed by Martin and then no one.

Mentality won't get more pucks in the net.

Johnston's offensive system relies on shots from the point (which is why you see forwards like Crosby draw up so much) when several defenseman can't shoot. It emphasizes crashing the net such that all three forwards crash the net and miss the rebound. Or stand like idiots because most good goalies (read most of the Metro division and a good portion of the Atlantic) have good rebound control. And it relies almost entirely on net-front presence which doesn't help when players keep shooting into defenders and the puck doesn't get to the net or when the Pens have two centers that can only generate offense on the rush.

 

[billybudd]

Johnston's offensive system relies on shots from the point (which is why you see forwards like Crosby draw up so much) when several defenseman can't shoot. It emphasizes crashing the net such that all three forwards crash the net and miss the rebound. Or stand like idiots because most good goalies (read most of the Metro division and a good portion of the Atlantic) have good rebound control. And it relies almost entirely on net-front presence which doesn't help when players keep shooting into defenders and the puck doesn't get to the net or when the Pens have two centers that can only generate offense on the rush.

One forward (and only one) is theoretically supposed to be playing rover, while two crash and interfere. But yeah, I'll agree with the rest of that.

Thing about this is it's difficult to defend--to specifically defend, as in a 7 game series--because it relies on randomness to more of an extent than working triangles or something. That's randomness for everybody. Both teams and all 11 players. As a defensive coach, you can't game plan randomness out. If a puck bounces right instead of left, preparation and responsible positioning might not stop someone from being able to whack it in. And that's what the idea is. Create a lot of situations where something odd can go wrong for the other team.

I mean, this is all the Kings do to create offense. And I mean this is ALL the Kings do to create offense.

Of course, they're also built for it as an organization.

 

[deczola]

Perimeter, dump and not chase hockey appears to be the system.

Any form of dump and chase in this version of the NHL is a criminal tactic by any coach. What's the point to dump a puck and try to retrieve it when the opponents can interfere and hold carte blanche.

 

[systemsgo]

it's called tanking. but someone forgot to tell crosby, malkin, fleury and letang.

 

[PensPlz]

it's called tanking. but someone forgot to tell crosby, malkin, fleury and letang.

And GMJR since he traded our first away

 

[drpepper]

One forward (and only one) is theoretically supposed to be playing rover, while two crash and interfere. But yeah, I'll agree with the rest of that.

Thing about this is it's difficult to defend--to specifically defend, as in a 7 game series--because it relies on randomness to more of an extent than working triangles or something. That's randomness for everybody. Both teams and all 11 players. As a defensive coach, you can't game plan randomness out. If a puck bounces right instead of left, preparation and responsible positioning might not stop someone from being able to whack it in. And that's what the idea is. Create a lot of situations where something odd can go wrong for the other team.

I mean, this is all the Kings do to create offense. And I mean this is ALL the Kings do to create offense.

Of course, they're also built for it as an organization.

The Kings notoriously can't create offense and rely heavily on size, physicality, and not-necessarily legal play to wear down the opposing team. The Pens don't have the personnel as a team to do that.

The Pens also have to play better goalies in the playoffs as compared to the Kings.

The randomness of Johnston's scheme also nullifies the strength of Crosby and Malkin as playmakers and being able to impact on-ice shooting percentage.

It is also painfully obvious that the Pens don't have a plan b when randomness will fail. If the Pens can't get shots through or rebounds then they have no offense.

 

[billybudd]

The Kings notoriously can't create offense and rely heavily on size, physicality, and not-necessarily legal play to wear down the opposing team. The Pens don't have the personnel as a team to do that.

That's why I've been complaining about the bulkiness of our wings since the Kings won their first championship on the basis of permitted obstruction in the offensive zone. The only counter-tactics are to hope the league cracks down, hope the Kings are unlucky, hope Quick sucks or join the arms race LA started. Only one of these tactics constitutes an plannable strategy.

Hawks use speed, but they lose more than they win against LA when the games count. And we don't have the footspeed on the sides of the ice to try that anyway. If Perron, Bennett and Adams were Kreider, Grabner and Hagelin, maybe we could try, but they aren't.

The Pens also have to play better goalies in the playoffs as compared to the Kings.

The randomness of Johnston's scheme also nullifies the strength of Crosby and Malkin as playmakers and being able to impact on-ice shooting percentage.

Strength of goaltenders really shouldn't matter when you're relying on randomness that close to the net.

But yeah. The Kings are notoriously low scoring. They get their 1.8 (or whatever) per playoff game no matter how loosely--or strictly--you defend them.

It's a tradeoff. Playing the same way as now, they don't get shut out 3 of 4 against the 2013 Bruins because eventually something hits something and Rask doesn't have time to react. This isn't necessarily to say they beat them. It's just not the unwinnable exercise in futility that stretch-passing into outnumbered situations and trying to beat a white hot goaltender from range was.

I do think Malkin's a decent fit for what we're doing. There are these pockets of dead ice that he can--and does--drive through in the offensive zone. Geno's got an awful lot of ugly goals this year.

Does it do any favors for Crosby? Probably not. But is anything going to do any favors for a 5'10 guy in a Dead Puck Era, when guys are allowed to hook him, hang on him and check him away from the puck?

It is also painfully obvious that the Pens don't have a plan b when randomness will fail. If the Pens can't get shots through or rebounds then they have no offense.

Oh there's a plan B all right. It's the powerplay. It's just dysfunctional.


Edit: I think Johnston has a decent to strong grasp of coaching tactics. I can't really say with any certainty that anything else he could be doing would map better to what he has, specifically a core of wings that is weak as a group, nonphysical as a group and immobile as a group. He's a bit by the book, in that he just does what's popular instead of innovating (we started the year with the most popular D zone scheme and ended it with the second-most popular D zone scheme--and given that I'm seeing more than just Babcock overloading, the second-most popular might be first now), but he's got a firm understanding of the book.

If we want to definitely improve on him as a tactician, the list of potential replacement coaches is going to be short. Deboer, Babcock, Tippett and that might be it. If Hitchcock, for example, is different than Johnston, I'm not real sure how. Maybe he wants guys finishing checks more. Not much of a difference.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Experience.

 

[WayneSid9987]

Bigger problems are the personel, identity and country club atmosphere that still remains.

 

[BHD]

Edit: I think Johnston has a decent to strong grasp of coaching tactics. I can't really say with any certainty that anything else he could be doing would map better to what he has, specifically a core of wings that is weak as a group, nonphysical as a group and immobile as a group. He's a bit by the book, in that he just does what's popular instead of innovating (we started the year with the most popular D zone scheme and ended it with the second-most popular D zone scheme--and given that I'm seeing more than just Babcock overloading, the second-most popular might be first now), but he's got a firm understanding of the book.

If we want to definitely improve on him as a tactician, the list of potential replacement coaches is going to be short. Deboer, Babcock, Tippett and that might be it. If Hitchcock, for example, is different than Johnston, I'm not real sure how. Maybe he wants guys finishing checks more. Not much of a difference.

Johnston's bench management sometimes doesn't put this team in a favourable position. Systems wise, though, he is helping their chances of winning games. Of course, you will have games where they put up a stinker. But that is more on the players IMO.

Another thing is the team - as it is heading into the playoffs - just doesn't have the personnel to compliment it, especially on defense. Having Maatta, Ehrhoff, and Letang back there would help. Plus, adding Dupuis wouldn't hurt. People can scoff at this thought, but injuries and low sh% are making his system all for naught.

As for the other coaches you mentioned. Babcock for sure. Tippett and Hitchcock too. But Deboer? He's no better than Bylsma when it comes to having a system and making adjustments. The Devils made this Pens team look exciting with how Deboer had them playing near the end.

 

[drpepper]

Edit: I think Johnston has a decent to strong grasp of coaching tactics. I can't really say with any certainty that anything else he could be doing would map better to what he has, specifically a core of wings that is weak as a group, nonphysical as a group and immobile as a group. He's a bit by the book, in that he just does what's popular instead of innovating (we started the year with the most popular D zone scheme and ended it with the second-most popular D zone scheme--and given that I'm seeing more than just Babcock overloading, the second-most popular might be first now), but he's got a firm understanding of the book.

If we want to definitely improve on him as a tactician, the list of potential replacement coaches is going to be short. Deboer, Babcock, Tippett and that might be it. If Hitchcock, for example, is different than Johnston, I'm not real sure how. Maybe he wants guys finishing checks more. Not much of a difference.

Johnston's bench management sometimes doesn't put this team in a favourable position. Systems wise, though, he is helping their chances of winning games. Of course, you will have games where they put up a stinker. But that is more on the players IMO.

Another thing is the team - as it is heading into the playoffs - just doesn't have the personnel to compliment it, especially on defense. Having Maatta, Ehrhoff, and Letang back there would help. Plus, adding Dupuis wouldn't hurt. People can scoff at this thought, but injuries and low sh% are making his system all for naught.

As for the other coaches you mentioned. Babcock for sure. Tippett and Hitchcock too. But Deboer? He's no better than Bylsma when it comes to having a system and making adjustments. The Devils made this Pens team look exciting with how Deboer had them playing near the end.

I agree that Johnston is very academic in his approach. But he also doesn't seem that creative at this point.

I also disagree about the offensive system not being affected by goaltenders. By its very definition, this offense is highly dependent on shooting percentage which is based on closeness to the net or the amount of traffic in front and on save percentage where the goalies in the East tend with a few exceptions (Dubynk this year, Varly last year) to be better. When the players can't get close to the net or get the puck in areas to get bounces the sh% plummets in a way that suggests bad team that is taking perimeter shots over over bad luck. There is no plan b.

I also disagree that the systems Johnstons has in place help the team win games. His offense scheme directly hurts three of the centers on the team and nullifies the things that they are actually good at. It is also easier to defend against with people in the shooting lanes and boxing out the net front presence. The offense has been terrible outside of Crosby and Malkin. His defensive scheme is a terrible fit for the wingers and is not a very good idea in the East where there are good playmakers (that can make the cross-ice pass) and great shooters from the point down to the circle abound. His breakout continuously fails at the NHL level (remember the NYI and NYR game from the beginning of the year) partially due to an ill-fit with the current personnel (which isn't going to improve that much next year unless Lovejoy, Cole and Scuderi greatly improve in passing and decision making) and partially because it is simplistic and easy to defend against.

I don't think Johnston's line-up decisions and in-game player usage have helped at all.

I also don't think Johnston's systems take advantage or elevate Crosby and Malkin. They are the biggest advantage that Johnston has and his offensive system outright hurts Crosby and at best doesn't impede Malkin.

There was a brief spark (maybe Penguins vs Det in Feb) where Crosby was taking advantage of the full flexibility of the forward system with Perron and Hornqvist, and things looked like they could actually be innovated. But I haven't seen any sign of that since.

Innovation and effective adaptation seems to be asking a lot, but there it is.