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?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.
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.
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.
You don't have to be in love with it, but I don't see why anyone would oppose it without even trying it.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.
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?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?
From Feschuk's article: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.
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 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.
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.
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.
This sounds like some real bong-rip stuff, who knows? I'm open to experimentation.