News Article: Jack Han and The 2F3D project

[Eb]

Lol, these posters that are immediately scoffing at the thought of trying something slightly out of the norm remind me when Don Cherry used to rip on using 4 forwards on the powerplay.

 

[cookie]

The future of tactical hockey will be a Total Football style where positions are fluid. You can already see how Euro-leauge ball has brought a version of this to the NBA, where the game is played from the arc, rather than the paint, with tons of switches and you have to guard multiple positions.

We were playing more of a CCCP style under Keefe, but our D didn't have the passing/skating/intelligence to excel playing it like the Soviets did. I'm also not sure it works well with two of our centers (Matthews, Tavares) excelling down low and Tavares in particular lacking the footspeed to play center-mid/defensive-mid. Matthews does a good job of cycling back to our D in the NZ and running a soft pick on the F1, but he's basically the only one that ever does it.

I don't really like the idea of activating D like Josi, because it doesn't end up in cups. If you look at the D corps from Stanley Cup winners and the style they play, it's much more important that you can defend, move the puck efficiently to the forwards and then provide ancillary support.

Fedorov and Byfuglien are two players of different skill sets that saw success being tasked with forward and defensive roles relatively recently. Would you consider Chara standing in front of the Leafs net a forward for that PP shift? And if I recall correctly, the Soviet teams that outplayed Canada's made full use of position-less hockey, why not see it through to the NHL, even in a limited perspective?

I like Han's thinking here, even if it's a strategy that isn't adopted all at once. Hockey isn't static - tactics and game states change. For instance, teams shoot themselves in the foot when they play more defense-oriented hockey when they're trying to close a game. This is counter-intuitive because during this time frame, teams have been found diminishing their possession and giving up quality scoring chances.... the thrust of going 2F3D is to maximize puck possession which is something teams traditionally are not doing when they're trying to close games off.

One of the comments in the Toronto Star article also brings up a good point - this isn't groundbreaking:

Most teams do this already. They just don't call it what it is. Most teams send in two wingers, while the center hangs back two one side or other of the slot, during the cycle. Then, when the play goes the other way, it's always the center that rushes back to help the D.

In all honesty, the Leafs' forecheck is really hit and miss. Going 2F one shift and then surprising the opponent with 4F can yield dividends. Then there's the Leafs transition defense - for instance, our top LD in Rielly (among other blueliners) gives up the defensive blue line too easily which leads to quality scoring chances against the Leafs. 3D fixes that.

(There's also the application of this strategy with skeleton crews that coaches oftentimes need to work with)

 

[ottomaddox]

Lol, these posters that are immediately scoffing at the thought of trying something slightly out of the norm remind me when Don Cherry used to rip on using 4 forwards on the powerplay.

I love how if you're not in love with the inverted pyramid / 3 defenseman scheme that you're a Don Cherry.

Call me old fashioned, but I still don't think that the Mighty Ducks' flying v formation was all that good for the NHL. Sorry.

 

[The Beyonder]

Ok, I completely misunderstood initially. thinking of 4F1D; which makes no sense to me. However, 2F3D makes complete sense. Having guys that can maintain a more defensive presence. There's always a 3rd forward thats high on their forecheck, making that player a d-man makes more sense. Also, the cycle in the offensive zone becomes more dynamic, meaning having a defensive minded player allows for more effective cycle at the blue line as well.

I completely support this and would actually do it myself.

Matthews-Marner
Rielly
Brodie-Bogosian

Tavares-Nylander
Sandin
Muzzin - Holl

Thornton - Mikheyev
Liljegren/Hollowell
Dermott - Lethonen

It also lets you rotate another duo line of the following
Hyman, Kerfoot, Simmonds/Robertson/Engvall/etc.

It's dynamic enough. Especially if your playing an offensive minded team, you can certainly stifle them with a more effective defensive checker who has a better mindset of gap control. It also gives you a better d-zone coverage.

I would actually do this. The problem is if it doesn't work off the gate, you'll chastised non-stop by fans and media.

 

[Eb]

I love how if you're not in love with the inverted pyramid / 3 defenseman scheme that you're a Don Cherry.

Call me old fashioned, but I still don't think that the Mighty Ducks' flying v formation was all that good for the NHL. Sorry.

You don't have to be in love with it, but I don't see why anyone would oppose it without even trying it.

And by you comparing this to a children's movie, you sound exactly like what you called yourself.

 

[The Beyonder]

So the question I'd pose is which trio do you like better

1.Hyman-Matthews-Marner vs Rielly- Matthews-Marner
2.Mikeyev-Tavares-Nylander vs Sandin-Tavares-Nylander
3.Kerfoot-Thornton-Vesey vs Dermott-Thornton-Mikheyev

To me, it's close, but when you count that you have a d-minded player in all 3 zones you realize you become more dynamic in all 3 zones allowing for better possession, the choice becomes easy for me to try out. If Keefe tried a 2F3D, I wouldn't mind it. It's very forward thinking. I'd rather have a coach who experiments and you gives himself more options than a coach who is unyielding and derivative.

 

[onlygotmygrade10]

I think both the ideas are neat to think about - including total hockey in this, but I can't see either being used at the pro level.

With 2F 3D, the 'rover' is essentially doing what a center would do. If a team wanted to play this style more, they could train their centers to play the role. The other issue I see is that to commit to this kind of play style, you have to have less forwards and more d. I think if it were ever to be used, you would use it in a similar way to how a basketball team may change to zone defense for periods of time to give the opponent a different look, but that isn't as applicable with hockey positions.

Total hockey I see less practical application with. Hockey is just moving too fast and that style of game requires many players to be in tune with each other all at the same time (and that's not factoring things like on the fly changes). I bet you could see some nice hockey out of it, but you would also see some terrible miscues when two players aren't on the exact same page.

 

[ottomaddox]

You don't have to be in love with it, but I don't see why anyone would oppose it without even trying it.

And by you comparing this to a children's movie, you sound exactly like what you called yourself.

I think you're naive to think that it's possible for new innovations in hockey, or that they no one has ever thought about this/tried it.

Perhaps they'll change hash marks and the center dot in order to fit a 3rd defenceman or have no center.

 

[meefer]

3 pages in and not one contract comment. A win in my books.

 

[Martin Skoula]

I think you're naive to think that it's possible for new innovations in hockey, or that they no one has ever thought about this/tried it.

Perhaps they'll change hash marks and the center dot in order to fit a 3rd defenceman or have no center.

Randy Carlyle is gonna hit 1000 games coached with a cup on a basic dump and chase that hasn't been updated whatsoever in a decade, it's not exactly a league that prioritizes innovation at all. I'm sure people were saying hockey's figured and new innovations are impossible in the 70s before they faced the Soviets.

It took 40 years to figure out the slap shot, 50 years to figure out the butterfly, it took almost 100 years to figure out the 4F powerplay. Of all the major sports, hockey strategy is the most inside the box and has the most untapped potential.

 

[al secord]

I ain't watching until they get rid a those trapazoidial thingies.

 

[Eb]

I think you're naive to think that it's possible for new innovations in hockey, or that they no one has ever thought about this/tried it.

Perhaps they'll change hash marks and the center dot in order to fit a 3rd defenceman or have no center.

Lol, how is it naive when I literally included an example of something that has changed in my original post?

 

[ottomaddox]

Lol, how is it naive when I literally included an example of something that has changed in my original post?

The NHL was founded in 1917, and the game has been around longer than that. Do you really think that no one in that entire time hasn't tried 4 forwards and 1 D on the power play, or 2 forwards and 3 defensemen? It probably has, and the reason you haven't seen it (IMHO) has to do with the rules, the markings on the ice surface, and the responsibility a Center has in the game. My point is that it's naive to believe that 1.It's never been done before. 2. That it's going to work and it will take the NHL by storm.

I suppose I'm a little more involved with this discussion because we just got finished with the ridiculous notion that toughness, experience, and defensive hockey doesn't matter. That Dubas has created a new model for team architecture. If you don't have a short memory then you'll recall the narrative in TOR has changed drastically.

 

[Oscar Peterson]

The NHL was founded in 1917, and the game has been around longer than that. Do you really think that no one in that entire time hasn't tried 4 forwards and 1 D on the power play, or 2 forwards and 3 defensemen? It probably has, and the reason you haven't seen it (IMHO) has to do with the rules, the markings on the ice surface, and the responsibility a Center has in the game. My point is that it's naive to believe that 1.It's never been done before. 2. That it's going to work and it will take the NHL by storm.

I suppose I'm a little more involved with this discussion because we just got finished with the ridiculous notion that toughness, experience, and defensive hockey doesn't matter. That Dubas has created a new model for team architecture. If you don't have a short memory then you'll recall the narrative in TOR has changed drastically.

From Feschuk's article:

' As for the merits of a three-man defence: Hockey author and historian Eric Zweig sent along an email pointing out that the idea, if Han has recently made it his own, has a track record dating back more than a century.
“It is an ancient strategy, really,” Zweig said.
It was also, Zweig said, an effective strategy — so effective that more than one league made rules attempting to outlaw it. Until the early 1940s the NHL, like its various predecessor leagues, was known to have an “anti-defence rule” that attempted to address the wont of some coaches to deploy three defencemen and two forwards.
“(The strategy) had enough success that the NHL chose to legislate against it,” Zweig said. '

You're making up arguments by saying that people think it's going to take the NHL by storm. Most people are just saying that it's an innovative idea that could be tried out simply to assess if it could be an effective tactic. Apparently it used to be really effective in hockey according to this guy Zweig.

 

[Stephen]

The idea still makes no sense to me from the perspective that there isn’t a glut of NHL capable defensemen who aren’t finding ice time. The Leafs have struggled to put 6 quality defensemen out in the past, but now they can ice 7? Like we could roll with a grouping of Dermott, Marincin and Hollowell out there for a shift?

Also what is the delta in effectiveness between the defenseman who was in the press box and the centerman or winger who comes out of the lineup? Based on the Leafs depth chart, you’re almost better off with two centres, two wingers and one defenseman. At least the second center could support the D, be an extra face off option and join the rush.

 

[ottomaddox]

From Feschuk's article:

' As for the merits of a three-man defence: Hockey author and historian Eric Zweig sent along an email pointing out that the idea, if Han has recently made it his own, has a track record dating back more than a century.
“It is an ancient strategy, really,” Zweig said.
It was also, Zweig said, an effective strategy — so effective that more than one league made rules attempting to outlaw it. Until the early 1940s the NHL, like its various predecessor leagues, was known to have an “anti-defence rule” that attempted to address the wont of some coaches to deploy three defencemen and two forwards.
“(The strategy) had enough success that the NHL chose to legislate against it,” Zweig said. '

You're making up arguments by saying that people think it's going to take the NHL by storm. Most people are just saying that it's an innovative idea that could be tried out simply to assess if it could be an effective tactic. Apparently it used to be really effective in hockey according to this guy Zweig.

No.

 

[Mickey Marner]

The idea still makes no sense to me from the perspective that there isn’t a glut of NHL capable defensemen who aren’t finding ice time. The Leafs have struggled to put 6 quality defensemen out in the past, but now they can ice 7? Like we could roll with a grouping of Dermott, Marincin and Hollowell out there for a shift?

Also what is the delta in effectiveness between the defenseman who was in the press box and the centerman or winger who comes out of the lineup? Based on the Leafs depth chart, you’re almost better off with two centres, two wingers and one defenseman. At least the second center could support the D, be an extra face off option and join the rush.

Agreed, let's see if we even have six capable defensemen first before toying with idealist strategies.

In sports it's tactically more advantageous to build a system where you can plug&play mediocre players that require a compartmentalized role, so that they can be effective. Rather than just try to play your stars as much as possible. Tampa last year being a good example on the defensive end. Belichick has made a career out of making undersized, unathletic receivers appear to be stars by giving them the best routes to run. Popovich in the NBA popularised the concept of resting stars and mixing journeymen into the rotation without missing a beat.

We should prioritize masking our deficiencies over accentuating our strengths. And it's not even clear that we have a surplus of puckmoving defense who should see the ice more.

 

[Menzinger]

I think you're naive to think that it's possible for new innovations in hockey, or that they no one has ever thought about this/tried it.

Perhaps they'll change hash marks and the center dot in order to fit a 3rd defenceman or have no center.

There's a big difference between a coach trying something for a period in mid 70s to something that multiple teams do on an nightly basis

For example, Less than a decade ago Goons were considered a vital part of any team success. Now they've gone extinct. There were certainly coaches/GMs in the past that had no time for them, but they were outliers.

 

[gtforepro]

I've always thought that a sumo wrestler in net would be a good idea.



Only half joking

If you could teach a sumo to skate and do the butterfly he'd be tough to beat. I've also thought about it.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

If you could teach a sumo to skate and do the butterfly he'd be tough to beat. I've also thought about it.

i know they are strong surprisingly agile dudes, but asking a sumo’s hips, knees and ankles to support the butterfly for 2hrs a day 3-4 times per week seems like a lot

 

[Dreakmur]

The idea still makes no sense to me from the perspective that there isn’t a glut of NHL capable defensemen who aren’t finding ice time. The Leafs have struggled to put 6 quality defensemen out in the past, but now they can ice 7? Like we could roll with a grouping of Dermott, Marincin and Hollowell out there for a shift?

Also what is the delta in effectiveness between the defenseman who was in the press box and the centerman or winger who comes out of the lineup? Based on the Leafs depth chart, you’re almost better off with two centres, two wingers and one defenseman. At least the second center could support the D, be an extra face off option and join the rush.

I remember Nashville rolled 3 defensemen on their first PP unit a few years back. That was demanded by team structure - Josi, Subban, Ellis, and Ekholm were all better than just about all their forwards.

The leafs have the opposite problem. Their forwards are way better than their defensemen. The solution can’t be to have fewer good players on the ice.

 

[The CyNick]

The overall team hockey IQ is not high enough to make positional hockey work. Most of the Leafs D dont know where to stand using a traditional structure. You try something complex and you'll have guys at the concession stands on some plays.

 

[TheProspector]

This sounds like some real bong-rip stuff, who knows? I'm open to experimentation.

 

[Face Of Bear]

Why not pull the goalie and do 5F 1D? 4th line could be 1F 4D 1G

 

[Dreakmur]

This sounds like some real bong-rip stuff, who knows? I'm open to experimentation.

Experimenting is admirable, but it has to make logical sense.

Looking at our current roster, can anybody actually say that they think it would be a good idea to play the defensemen more and the forwards less?