Strategy & team systems of the 80s Oilers

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

So this is a post thats been bouncing around my head for a while. Im not old enough to remember seeing the 80s Oilers live, but I have watched a handful of full games & highlight packages from the era.

Ive been trying to understand the strategy & team systems of the 80s Oilers because they look so different from most modern teams. I think Ive been able to pick up a couple of points about how they played defensively and transition wise, but I still struggle to understand how their offensive game worked beyond the obvious explanation of Gretzky

They seem almost somewhat passive in the defensive zone compared to a modern team. Obviously the Oilers skaters still pressure the puck carrier in the defensive zone, but it almost seems like they set up with a half of a mind towards the breakout (some players move to set positions on the side boards or moving over the blueline) before even regaining the puck. As hard as it may be to believe, this actually makes Fuhr & Moogs jobs harder than most people remember them. Everyone remembers the breakaways, the 2 on 1s, and the occasional f***up by an Oilers defenceman that resulted in a goal or needed an incredible save, but the Oilers give up a scary number of unscreened shots from the high slot and circles where the shooter has all day to put all the power they can into the shot while the Oilers defenceman is just standing still.

Offensively I have a much harder time understanding how they managed to dominate other teams so badly. To my millenial eyes their zone entries & play in the neutral zone look pretty ordinary, but I suppose they were tricky for some defenses to handle at the time, given that only 10 years earlier most players literally played straight up and down their wings. They do generate a fair share of breakaways and odd man rushes both ways down the ice, but Im not sure they really played a full 60 minutes of end to end hockey as much as they were better at putting away the chances they got than most teams they played.

Im wondering if any of the older members of this board can fact check me here

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

Quote: "To my millennial eyes their zone entries & play in the neutral zone look pretty ordinary"

This is indeed the millennial eyes looking! I think it's in the Mark Messier DVD where he says something like, "The way we played the game was just totally different from any other team", and it's true. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the 80s' Oilers' offensive strategy is basically the blueprint for the more successful offensive teams up to today. Whereas nowadays head-manning the puck (much easier with no red line) and then the carrying forward button-hooking to set up the trailer is standard procedure, it was fairly unusual prior to Gretzky in particular and the Oilers in general making an art of it. Also, the 80s' Oilers tended to play a very creative, liberal style that involved weaving all over the ice with every forward "out" of position. This wasn't revolutionary, but they just did it as a matter of course, far more than most teams.

That's not to say they invented anything. A lot of their offensive style was based on the European-model of hockey.

And obviously they played a very risky, chance-taking style, particularly before the '86 loss to Calgary (which was sort-of the pivot of the Dynasty era team). Prior to that loss, Coffey in particular was really given free reign, and the team would take all sorts of chances shorthanded, particularly if Gretzky was penalty-killing (for obvious reasons). After that loss, they tightened up a lot, especially in the playoffs, and played a more standard defensive strategy, notably on penalty-kills.

But you are quite correct that a lot of their success was down to simply taking advantage of opportunities more than most teams. This is the 'Gretzky factor'. If Gretzky and Kurri had a two-on-one, or Gretzky and anybody had a three on one, it was an automatic goal 95% of the time. It was very normal to see a game where Edmonton would be outshot 35 to 21 and be leading 6 to 2 or whatever. I mean, that wasn't a rarity at all.

To some extent, this even carried over to the post-Gretzky era. The classic example here is game two of the 1990 Final against Boston. If you go back and watch that one (painful for Bruins' fans), the B's totally dominate in shots on goal and chances for, but nearly every shot the Oilers take goes in (they end up leading 7-2 in the third on about 19 shots).

The Islanders in '83 and Calgary in '86 managed to beat them by clogging up the blue-line to make zone entry difficult, and by being extremely disciplined in terms of getting pucks deep -- like, the Flames basically won the '86 series (albeit barely) because they didn't turn pucks over. That was how Edmonton killed teams. In fact, in game 7, with Calgary up 2-0, Al MacInnis turns a puck over at the Edmonton line instead of getting it deep, and immediately Gretzky and Anderson get a two-on-one and score. The broadcaster makes the apt comment that this is the only time all game where Calgary did that.

In general, it should also be noted that Edmonton played a much more 'standard' defensive game in the playoffs as compared to regular season, especially in '87 and '88 (of the Gretzky years). Fuhr and Moog's GAA would normally be down a full goal per game or something in the playoffs.

 

[streitz]

They had the best gameplan of any team I've ever seen.
Score more goals then the other team.



As much as I disliked them they were always exciting to watch, heroes and villains on that team. Always a fun time except for their opponents .

 

[The Panther]

They had the best gameplan of any team I've ever seen.
Score more goals then the other team.

ha! Yes, that's right (well, up to 1986 anyway).

I agree that it was fun. A normal team that was up 4-0 after the first period would relax in the second and then go into a defensive shell in the third, and probably end up winning 5-1 or something. But Edmonton, up 4-0 after the first, would go for 8-0 after the second, and then try to add to it in the third! They just pounded teams into submission.

A good example? How about the box-score from Vancouver @ Edmonton, November 8th 1985:

First Period

1 - EDM : Raimo Summanen 5 (Craig MacTavish) (EV) 2:36 2 - EDM : Jari Kurri 9 (Wayne Gretzky, Dave Semenko) (EV) 6:17 3 - EDM : Craig MacTavish 7 (Kevin McClelland, Larry Melnyk) (EV) 13:35 4 - EDM : Dave Lumley 2 (Wayne Gretzky, Lee Fogolin Jr.) (EV) 17:24

Second Period

5 - EDM : Mark Messier 8 (Glenn Anderson, Mike Krushelnyski) (EV) 6:03 6 - EDM : Jari Kurri 10 (Wayne Gretzky) (EV) 17:40

Third Period

7 - EDM : Glenn Anderson 13 (Mark Messier, Paul Coffey) (SH) 2:26 8 - EDM : Dave Hunter 1 (Dave Lumley, Craig MacTavish) (EV) 3:52 9 - EDM : Dave Lumley 3 (EV) 9:13 10 - EDM : Mike Krushelnyski 3 (Dave Lumley, Mark Napier) (EV) 15:22 11 - EDM : Mark Napier 2 (Larry Melnyk) (EV) 16:34 12 - EDM : Lee Fogolin Jr. 1 (Kevin Lowe) (EV) 17:56 13 - EDM : Dave Lumley 4 (Paul Coffey, Wayne Gretzky) (EV) 19:47

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Shots On Goal

1 2 3 T Vancouver Canucks 7 17 5 29 Edmonton Oilers 19 11 14 44 [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Why just beat 'em when you can humiliate 'em?

 

[Big Phil]

That was the thing with the Oilers back then, they just kept coming at you. Kevin Lowe said that the thing about Gretzky was that he would get a 7 point night and then the next night be trying to get 8. John Muckler said that even when Gretzky was at his greatest he was always trying to get better. Obviously the key to the Oilers game plan was Gretzky at the core. The rest were good supporting players too and they couldn't have scored over 400 goals without them but it started with Gretzky. He took the attention away from a lot of players and gave them more room.

The way the Oilers played was the way it should be played and the way some teams are starting to play it again now (finally) in the NHL. Tampa, Toronto, even Winnipeg for instance seem to play to win by outscoring the other team rather than sitting back and afraid to lose. The Oilers were kings at this type of game and they won far more than they lost because they kept the pedal to the metal.

 

[Killion]

That was the thing with the Oilers back then, they just kept coming at you. Kevin Lowe said that the thing about Gretzky was that he would get a 7 point night and then the next night be trying to get 8. John Muckler said that even when Gretzky was at his greatest he was always trying to get better. Obviously the key to the Oilers game plan was Gretzky at the core. The rest were good supporting players too and they couldn't have scored over 400 goals without them but it started with Gretzky. He took the attention away from a lot of players and gave them more room.

The way the Oilers played was the way it should be played and the way some teams are starting to play it again now (finally) in the NHL. Tampa, Toronto, even Winnipeg for instance seem to play to win by outscoring the other team rather than sitting back and afraid to lose. The Oilers were kings at this type of game and they won far more than they lost because they kept the pedal to the metal.

Lots of words. No knowledge. Zero comprehension.... Phil? Did you EVER play sport at any meaningful level? Obviously you never played hockey at any meaningful level and you know what?.... Where I come from THAT is important.... Yet you seem to have an "expert" opinion on all of it. Do you have any idea what Sather was pulling?. Like, really? Its not hard to understand, appreciate. He just let them go, let the boys play.

 

[streitz]

Lots of words. No knowledge. Zero comprehension.... Phil? Did you EVER play sport at any meaningful level? Obviously you never played hockey at any meaningful level and you know what?.... Where I come from THAT is important.... Yet you seem to have an "expert" opinion on all of it. Do you have any idea what Sather was pulling?. Like, really? Its not hard to understand, appreciate. He just let them go, let the boys play.

Seems to be some drama between you and phil

 

[Big Phil]

Seems to be some drama between you and phil

Your guess is as good as mine on this one.............

Lots of words. No knowledge. Zero comprehension.... Phil? Did you EVER play sport at any meaningful level? Obviously you never played hockey at any meaningful level and you know what?.... Where I come from THAT is important.... Yet you seem to have an "expert" opinion on all of it. Do you have any idea what Sather was pulling?. Like, really? Its not hard to understand, appreciate. He just let them go, let the boys play.

Sure I played hockey..........baseball too, at least that's what I played organized. I regret that I was never good enough to be anywhere near Gretzky's linemate though.

Isn't what I said sort of the same thing you said? I'll quote Sather on this one and I am paraphrasing here, but here it goes. Sather said he let the players do their thing and they liked it because it was different, but he was also lucky to have the players that could do it. He said something along the lines of that in that "Legends of Hockey" series a number of years ago. Less was more, but he still needed the players to do it and it all started with Gretzky. Didn't you notice once he got traded how their system changed overnight? The 1989 or even 1990 Oilers were not the 1988 Oilers anymore, or from previous years. I thought it was pretty obvious that when a 200 point player is traded from your team it changes the dynamic.

I don't know what league you were watching, but if the Oilers didn't have Gretzky in the 1980s they wouldn't have been near as successful with their free flowing game. We saw this the second Gretzky was traded.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Quote: "To my millennial eyes their zone entries & play in the neutral zone look pretty ordinary"

This is indeed the millennial eyes looking! I think it's in the Mark Messier DVD where he says something like, "The way we played the game was just totally different from any other team", and it's true. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the 80s' Oilers' offensive strategy is basically the blueprint for the more successful offensive teams up to today. Whereas nowadays head-manning the puck (much easier with no red line) and then the carrying forward button-hooking to set up the trailer is standard procedure, it was fairly unusual prior to Gretzky in particular and the Oilers in general making an art of it. Also, the 80s' Oilers tended to play a very creative, liberal style that involved weaving all over the ice with every forward "out" of position. This wasn't revolutionary, but they just did it as a matter of course, far more than most teams.

That's not to say they invented anything. A lot of their offensive style was based on the European-model of hockey.

That does make a good deal of sense, but wasnt head-manning the puck pretty much the only way of advancing the play before Orr made rushing the puck a possibility? I notice the Oilers do like the occasional chip forward to the forwards when the play is in the neutral zone, but how were their breakouts that revolutionary for the time? I get the sense when watching old games from the center red line era that theres only so much you can do to generate a dangerous scoring chance like a 2 on 1 or breakaway from your own zone. Its just too easy to go offside at the center red if you try to stretch the pass out that extra foot or two, but that extra foot or two is the difference between a clear breakaway and the defence getting back in time.

The Islanders in '83 and Calgary in '86 managed to beat them by clogging up the blue-line to make zone entry difficult, and by being extremely disciplined in terms of getting pucks deep -- like, the Flames basically won the '86 series (albeit barely) because they didn't turn pucks over. That was how Edmonton killed teams. In fact, in game 7, with Calgary up 2-0, Al MacInnis turns a puck over at the Edmonton line instead of getting it deep, and immediately Gretzky and Anderson get a two-on-one and score. The broadcaster makes the apt comment that this is the only time all game where Calgary did that.

So effectively you could shut the Oilers down if you just trapped the f*** out of them, right? If that was the case, why didnt the trapping era start in 1986 instead of 1995 if the way of stopping the leagues best team was a strategy that didnt necessarily require top end talent? (no disrespect to that eras Flames)

I don't know what league you were watching, but if the Oilers didn't have Gretzky in the 1980s they wouldn't have been near as successful with their free flowing game. We saw this the second Gretzky was traded.

Not disagreeing, but Messier always surprised me with how good he was at scoring off the rush too. Hed come down the wing and wait, wait, wait, changing the angle ever so slightly, then ripping a really accurate wrist shot into the tiny bit of incorrectly cut angle that the goalie would give up. A really lost art in the NHL until recently, scoring like that.

Messier doesnt get enough talk for his skill anymore, he was like a Canadian Evgeni Malkin in terms of the hands he had.

 

[Bluesguru]

Sather wanted to bring WHA hockey to the NHL. They were loaded. Not sure if Sather was really a great coach or if he was responsible for assembling all that talent, but they were loaded. I mean, how is any coach going to lose with that? In the aftermath, the Oilers still won a Cup without Gretzky, that's how loaded they were. Who knows how many they win if they didn't break up.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's tougher to coach stars than it is to coach average players in my experience...my experience does not include the NHL, mind you...but the best players in their age group are tougher to manage and it's not particularly close either. This is the old thing of "oh, he played with Gretzky...of course he scored..." that's a gross simplification, if not misunderstanding...

 

[Michael Farkas]

but wasnt head-manning the puck pretty much the only way of advancing the play before Orr made rushing the puck a possibility?

Centers carried. Eventually it became fashionable for d-men to go back and outlet to centers to carry (Harvey -> Beliveau).

Oilers "strength", as it were, was the spacing that they utilized and generating speed behind the puck. Look at the spacing differences between Coffey and Gretzky on a controlled breakout situation, then compare to the spacing between Potvin and Trottier...really highlights the difference in philosophy between the two clubs well and the results are pretty well expected...

 

[Big Phil]

Not disagreeing, but Messier always surprised me with how good he was at scoring off the rush too. Hed come down the wing and wait, wait, wait, changing the angle ever so slightly, then ripping a really accurate wrist shot into the tiny bit of incorrectly cut angle that the goalie would give up. A really lost art in the NHL until recently, scoring like that.

Messier doesnt get enough talk for his skill anymore, he was like a Canadian Evgeni Malkin in terms of the hands he had.

Oh absolutely, Messier gets a lot of flack because it is as if people remember only his Vancouver days and afterwards on here. Not true at all, that was not the Messier we all knew. Messier was quite offensively gifted. His patented shot was coming down the wrong wing and scoring on the far side against the goalie. He did that a lot. His 500th goal, which was to complete a hat trick, was from that play.

I just don't think, and I know from watching it, that the Oilers could play the same style and have the same success without Gretzky there in the first place.

Sather wanted to bring WHA hockey to the NHL. They were loaded. Not sure if Sather was really a great coach or if he was responsible for assembling all that talent, but they were loaded. I mean, how is any coach going to lose with that? In the aftermath, the Oilers still won a Cup without Gretzky, that's how loaded they were. Who knows how many they win if they didn't break up.

"That sounds like a challenge............." - Peter Chiarelli.

 

[Killion]

Seems to be some drama between you and phil

.... not really.... I enjoy his posts & do respect his opinions. Wears his love of the game on his sleeve. I do sometimes take issue with his opinions, hypothesis' etc but hey, never boring, entertaining, fun.

 

[Big Phil]

.... not really.... I enjoy his posts & do respect his opinions. Wears his love of the game on his sleeve. I do sometimes take issue with his opinions, hypothesis' etc but hey, never boring, entertaining, fun.

I find it entertaining when there are disagreements. Some threads are meant for more nostalgic reasons and others can turn into passionate affairs. I like both, but the latter can be entertaining. At the end of the day we're hockey fans.

 

[golfortennis]

The one thing I recall reading about later on(I didn't play growing up, so I never knew about certain responsibilities), was that Kurri would actually do the down low work in the defensive zone, whereas that is normally a center's job. Gretzky would break for the neutral zone.

One example of the game being overcoached these days is that a guy like Crosby is expected to dig out pucks down low, so that Chris Kunitz or Colby Armstrong lead the rush on the breakaway. Because that's a great use of the resources available.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You are correct, in that a lot of times Kurri would handle F1 responsibilities...there are times in Crosby's career where he was granted that benefit, namely when playing with Pascal Dupuis...mature Dupuis handled F1 duties towards the end of the Bylsma era and allow Crosby to stay on the pointman...

It speaks more to Dupuis' evolution as a player...which was pretty remarkable in terms of the details, it was cool to watch. Crosby, now paired almost exclusively with weaker and incomplete and inexperienced players (like Bryan Rust and Jake Guentzel) has upped his defensive game significantly even during the regular season (he's always been strong two-ways in the playoffs because he's just a monster) to compensate for the lack of defensive conscience he deals with now since Dupuis and Kunitz are gone...

 

[The Panther]

I have a feeling that fans too young to remember the mid-to-late-80s (or earlier) don't realize how great Jari Kurri was in his prime. I think he was a better player than Mike Bossy from 1982(ish) to 1987.

In 1984-85, Kurri scored 90 goals in 91 games, including playoffs, while going +101.

All four years the Gretzky-Oilers won the Stanley Cup, Kurri led the NHL in playoff goals.

His point total after Gretzky left increased from 96 to 102 (in fewer games).

When Kurri left the Oilers (and briefly the League) in 1990, he left as the #1 playoff goal scorer in NHL history.

And yes, he was very strong defensively.

 

[Big Phil]

I have a feeling that fans too young to remember the mid-to-late-80s (or earlier) don't realize how great Jari Kurri was in his prime. I think he was a better player than Mike Bossy from 1982(ish) to 1987.

In 1984-85, Kurri scored 90 goals in 91 games, including playoffs, while going +101.

All four years the Gretzky-Oilers won the Stanley Cup, Kurri led the NHL in playoff goals.

His point total after Gretzky left increased from 96 to 102 (in fewer games).

When Kurri left the Oilers (and briefly the League) in 1990, he left as the #1 playoff goal scorer in NHL history.

And yes, he was very strong defensively.

Very interesting, that second last line. I never thought about that but yeah at the time of his retirement in 1990 (he did come back of course but was never the same) he would have been the league's leader in playoff goals. He left in 1990 with 92 playoff goals. He got a few after that but to this day only Gretzky and Messier best him in that category. I guess nothing was thought about at the time because we all assumed Gretzky would take this record as well, and he has and will likely have it long after we are all dead. But that's still impressive about Kurri. I think sometimes we underestimate the Gretzky-Kurri combo. I know that a few years ago the "Best Damn Sports Show" did a list of best duos in sports history. They finished 6th. I am going on memory here, but the only ones ahead of them were:

Rice-Montana
Jordan-Pippen
Ruth-Gehrig
Kareem-Magic
Shaq-Kobe

So yeah, even an American sports show notices them.

 

[DowntownBooster]

So this is a post thats been bouncing around my head for a while. Im not old enough to remember seeing the 80s Oilers live, but I have watched a handful of full games & highlight packages from the era.

Ive been trying to understand the strategy & team systems of the 80s Oilers because they look so different from most modern teams. I think Ive been able to pick up a couple of points about how they played defensively and transition wise, but I still struggle to understand how their offensive game worked beyond the obvious explanation of Gretzky

They seem almost somewhat passive in the defensive zone compared to a modern team. Obviously the Oilers skaters still pressure the puck carrier in the defensive zone, but it almost seems like they set up with a half of a mind towards the breakout (some players move to set positions on the side boards or moving over the blueline) before even regaining the puck. As hard as it may be to believe, this actually makes Fuhr & Moogs jobs harder than most people remember them. Everyone remembers the breakaways, the 2 on 1s, and the occasional ****up by an Oilers defenceman that resulted in a goal or needed an incredible save, but the Oilers give up a scary number of unscreened shots from the high slot and circles where the shooter has all day to put all the power they can into the shot while the Oilers defenceman is just standing still.

Offensively I have a much harder time understanding how they managed to dominate other teams so badly. To my millenial eyes their zone entries & play in the neutral zone look pretty ordinary, but I suppose they were tricky for some defenses to handle at the time, given that only 10 years earlier most players literally played straight up and down their wings. They do generate a fair share of breakaways and odd man rushes both ways down the ice, but Im not sure they really played a full 60 minutes of end to end hockey as much as they were better at putting away the chances they got than most teams they played.

Im wondering if any of the older members of this board can fact check me here

If you'll bear with reading my long post in response to your question, I believe the mystery will be solved from a book titled "The Hot Line" which was forwarded by former Oilers coach/general manager Glen Sather who was the architect behind the great Edmonton teams of the 1980s. The following are his words from the forward comments in the book:

"Bobby Hull, Ulf Nilsson and Anders Hedberg were the most exciting line I ever saw. They were so creative and fundamentally, there weren't any flaws in their game. They moved the puck with precision, continually got in the open and anticipated where the puck was going to end up.

It was hard for teams at that time to play against them because they hadn't seen anything like that before.

As a left winger with the Edmonton Oilers in 1976-77, I think I was like everyone else. I was mesmerized by how they played. They whizzed by us. They could all skate and could all pick up the puck with either hand. They were terrific to watch. They were all great thinkers, too. They were all very cerebral.

The way they could play as a five-man unit, with Lars-Erik Sjoberg leading the back end, is what impressed me the most. Nobody played like that in the NHL. The NHL was still in the dark ages back then. It was really fun to play against them.

The first time I was on the ice against those three guys was October 15 at Northlands Coliseum in Edmonton. It wasn't even close. The Jets beat us 6-1. They could play through all the hooking, holding, interference and dirty play. They just played the game the way it should be played.

Everybody tried to intimidate them but you couldn't. They weren't going to be intimidated. That was impressive, too. But it wasn't just Hedberg, Nilsson and Hull, it was also Willy Lindstrom, Dan Labraaten, Veli-Pekka Ketola, Thommie Bergman, Mats Lindh and Hexi Riihiranta, not to mention Peter Sullivan.

My first game as the Oilers' player-coach was March 3, 1977, also in Edmonton. We beat the Jets 5-4. (I like to say it's because we had superior coaching.) I also scored the opening goal that night. But even though we won, I wanted our team to play like the Jets.

The Jets beat us in the last Avco Cup finals in 1979. Even though Hull, Hedberg and Nilsson weren't there any more, that whole system had been incorporated by Winnipeg to play like that.

The Oilers didn't start to play like the Jets until we were in the NHL but they built the blueprint for us. It's one thing to have a plan to play like that but it's another to get players who can actually play in that style. When we started to draft players, like Mark Messier, Paul Coffey, Juri Kurri and Glenn Anderson, we had four or five years to train them to play like that. It didn't just happen over night, but it did happen.

When I was with the Minnesota North Stars the year before, I read a lot about what was going on in the WHA. I thought at the time that I'd end up in the league. Minnesota offered me a one-year deal but I wanted a two-year deal so I said 'no' to them. I thought I could make more money, have a two-year deal and live in Alberta.

If you look at the way the Pittsburgh Penguins played in winning the Stanley Cup in 2016, they played like the WHA Jets, too. I think you'll see more teams in the NHL play like that. The New York Rangers are like that, the Detroit Red Wings are like that. Teams are gradually going to change. It's an exciting game when it's played like that.

Hull, Hedberg and Nilsson and the WHA Jets made the biggest impression on how the game should be played today. They showed the Edmonton Oilers how to play. We won five Stanley Cups with that system."

--Glen Sather, President, New York Rangers, 2016

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I'm posting this without reading previous replies.....but is it understood/was it found out these run and gun 80's Oilers would ever "deliberately" try to create penalty situations inducing 4 on 4 hockey? The reason I ask is I read in a book referring to 4 on 4 as the Oilers' "bread and butter." I just wonder if Glen Sather, Gretz, Messier, Coffey etc. ever disclosed/stated that getting into a 4 on 4 situation was like a direct "game plan" ever against a particular opponent/opponents?

 

[golfortennis]

I'm posting this without reading previous replies.....but is it understood/was it found out these run and gun 80's Oilers would ever "deliberately" try to create penalty situations inducing 4 on 4 hockey? The reason I ask is I read in a book referring to 4 on 4 as the Oilers' "bread and butter." I just wonder if Glen Sather, Gretz, Messier, Coffey etc. ever disclosed/stated that getting into a 4 on 4 situation was like a direct "game plan" ever against a particular opponent/opponents?

I don't think that was the case, but as long as it was the right guy going in the box, they certainly never turned down the opportunity. It says something about you when the league changes a rule because of you.

But I can't imagine they deliberately went after it. They scored more 5-on-5, they scored more shorthanded. In some ways, their power play was almost a disappointment, if that could be possible(I don't believe they hold the record for most goals). They just knew how to use the ice.

Of course it helps when even on a power play the opponents were leery and would sometimes not hold the line in order to be back for a counterattack.