Simple dump and chase hockey can equal success and just won a Cup

[SnuggaRUDE]

You don’t get the level of skill and intelligence required from the 5 players on the ice to pull this off is off. Nor that the defending team would be going after your regroup.

I mean you’re expecting a player attacking through the neutral zone, at full speed mind you, recognizing carrying in with possession isn’t possible. Then stoping on dime or passing or attempting to cut back away from the blue line to start a regroup. While simultaneously his 4 teammates are also recognizing the exact same thing and moving as one to support the player. Then working as the globetrotters in the neutral zone to keep the puck and support each other. All while the opposing team is trying to get the puck away from them.

All that by they way to avoid dumping the puck in. Thats not very logical.

I'm not here to suggest it would be trivial to implement this strategy. Usually teams don't have all 5 players attack the offensive zone at once, at a minimum the defenders lag the strike. If the two wingers are committed to breaking in, the opposition marking them will be committed too. The puck carrier can disengage without them supporting the decision.

The difficult role would be an even greater emphasis on the puck carrier to make reads; not just on the way to attack, but on the feasibility of continuing. Currently it's a more tactical consideration: where should I attack. A more fluid question would be: should I be attacking?

A team's entire concept of how to transition can be modified to support this concept. Stagger defenders back so they can receive bail out passes, or retrieve pucks "self iced". Done correctly this will work like play-action in football.

Sure there will be times when a defense adapts correctly, but typically the fail condition is two forwards disconnected from the puck with two defenders marking them even further from the puck. A perfectly valid corollary is to tell some of your lines to only feint. Since defense is more energetic than offense this has the advantage of wearing a team down over the course of a game with little risk.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

You've got to be kidding me. There is no tactical or strategic comparable between 5v5 and 3v3 hockey.

The implications may play out different, but if there's nothing about 5v5 that is built out of 3v3 than teams are playing one of the two conditions at worst incorrectly, and at best haphazardly.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Real Madrid .. On Ice!

I want to see drops (back passes) to goal and fans of the other side (I mean team) whistle in derision. The innovation of the sweeper-goalie will re-invent the game!

 

[joshjull]

I'm not here to suggest it would be trivial to implement this strategy. Usually teams don't have all 5 players attack the offensive zone at once, at a minimum the defenders lag the strike. If the two wingers are committed to breaking in, the opposition marking them will be committed too. The puck carrier can disengage without them supporting the decision.

The difficult role would be an even greater emphasis on the puck carrier to make reads; not just on the way to attack, but on the feasibility of continuing. Currently it's a more tactical consideration: where should I attack. A more fluid question would be: should I be attacking?

A team's entire concept of how to transition can be modified to support this concept. Stagger defenders back so they can receive bail out passes, or retrieve pucks "self iced". Done correctly this will work like play-action in football.

Sure there will be times when a defense adapts correctly, but typically the fail condition is two forwards disconnected from the puck with two defenders marking them even further from the puck. A perfectly valid corollary is to tell some of your lines to only feint. Since defense is more energetic than offense this has the advantage of wearing a team down over the course of a game with little risk.

What you’re describing would be a terrible approach to 5v5 hockey It sounds like a PP zone entry regroup.

Hockey 5v5 is played at speed. When the attacking player with the puck has to decide between dumping it in or carrying it in near the opposing blue line. He isn’t going to have 5 opposing players in front him. He may have 1 or 2 in his sights with the others back-checking behind and their locations unknown him. Its always fluid like this. How exactly can they make bail out or “self icing” passes when they have 3 opposing players unaccounted for? Passes like that are very much the opposite of low risk.

The approach you out forth greatly increases the chances of neutral zone turnovers which also increases the amount of scoring chances against. It does next to nothing to increase your amount of scoring chances or zone time. It actually greatly reduces them since you’ve eliminated the option of dump ins. So more chances against and less for. Not a great combo.

Not to mention your approach would be easy as hell to defend. Just sit in a trap or 1-3-1 and watch you spin your wheels regrouping. Since easy zone entries with the puck would be denied and you’re never dumping it in.

 

[joshjull]

The implications may play out different, but if there's nothing about 5v5 that is built out of 3v3 than teams are playing one of the two conditions at worst incorrectly, and at best haphazardly.

What it means is they are different game states with completely different parameters of time, space and pace applied to them. Which impacts what can and can’t be done in each.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

What you’re describing would be a terrible approach to 5v5 hockey It sounds like a PP zone entry regroup.

Hockey 5v5 is played at speed. When the attacking player with the puck has to decide between dumping it in or carrying it in near the opposing blue line. He isn’t going to have 5 opposing players in front him. He may have 1 or 2 in his sights with the others back-checking behind and their locations unknown him. Its always fluid like this. How exactly can they make bail out or “self icing” passes when they have 3 opposing players unaccounted for? Passes like that are very much the opposite of low risk.

The approach you out forth greatly increases the chances of neutral zone turnovers which also increases the amount of scoring chances against. It does next to nothing to increase your amount of scoring chances or zone time. It actually greatly reduces them since you’ve eliminated the option of dump ins. So more chances against and less for. Not a great combo.

Not to mention your approach would be easy as hell to defend. Just sit in a trap or 1-3-1 and watch you spin your wheels regrouping. Since easy zone entries with the puck would be denied and you’re never dumping it in.

If the majority of hockey is played with the puck carrier being pursued by 3+ members of the defending team back checking then controlled zone entries would be easy. That's not the case, most teams line up 3 across their blue line, the majority of the team is between the puck and net. That's a fundamental of the sport.

I'm not ruling out dump in; i'm of the opinion that a dump in isn't what happens when a controlled entry fails. A dump in should happen when the puck carrier thinks it has a prospect for success.

Regarding the bolded: that is essentially the state hockey is currently in. Teams impale themselves against defenses which are superior to their attacking chances. The goal of 5v5 hockey should be to draw penalties. I'm arguing against the status quo of the sport. The we do this because we've always done this mentality.

How many years did it take for the NFL to realize the game isn't about running? The NHL will eventually learn the game isn't about blindly attacking set piece defense.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

Simple straight forward hockey with coaches getting 100% buy in from their teams. Its largely how Trotz built his success as a NHL coach. Berube did the same thing with the Blues.

I was hoping last year we would have stripped things down in a similar fashion. It would have taking a lot of pressure off of our dmen/goalies.

EDIT: It will be interesting to see how Lehner does this coming season with the complete shift in play style in front of him. Isles gave up the least rush chances against. Hawks gave up the most I believe largely because they were trying to create off the rush.

Yeah. I agree.

Too bad USA Hockey doesn't. Their emphasis is puck possession and handling development. Meanwhile, they seriously intend to remove body checking from the game.

I am especially disgusted by the latter proposal...............

 

[jc17]

Yeah. I agree.

Too bad USA Hockey doesn't. Their emphasis is puck possession and handling development. Meanwhile, they seriously intend to remove body checking from the game.

I am especially disgusted by the latter proposal...............

Are you talking about at the international level or youth hockey?

 

[Jim Bob]

Are you talking about at the international level or youth hockey?

USA Hockey is all in on the skill development path. As such, they want players growing up learning skills and that's why they want coaches to de-emphasize dump and chase and have kids carry the puck as much as possible.

And as far as body checking goes, I think that there is a growing case to develop two tracks once kids make it to the Bantam (13 & 14yo) with one having body checking and one that doesn't.

If a kid is never going to play HS, JR, or college hockey with body checking, there is no reason for them to have it in minor hockey, IMO.

 

[jc17]

USA Hockey is all in on the skill development path. As such, they want players growing up learning skills and that's why they want coaches to de-emphasize dump and chase and have kids carry the puck as much as possible.

This doesnt seem like a bad thing to me. Skill development is something that is much easier to sink in at a young age, whereas I would think you could teach or emphasize the physical aspects of the game later in life without losing much ground

 

[enthusiast]

Many roads up the mountain, but I don't see puck retrieval as one of our strong suits

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

Are you talking about at the international level or youth hockey?

Youth........ USAHockey makes their case sound plausible.... no hits from behind, not hits to the head, et al. But those have always been illegal. Still, research has shown that players leave the game after physical body checking gets introduced.

There are a number of growing proponents throughout USA Hockey to institute a version of the girls game for boys. Contact allowed but not body checking. Tiering the program so to speak.

There are youth rec (in-house) programs that are already run this way.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

USA Hockey is all in on the skill development path. As such, they want players growing up learning skills and that's why they want coaches to de-emphasize dump and chase and have kids carry the puck as much as possible.

And as far as body checking goes, I think that there is a growing case to develop two tracks once kids make it to the Bantam (13 & 14yo) with one having body checking and one that doesn't.

If a kid is never going to play HS, JR, or college hockey with body checking, there is no reason for them to have it in minor hockey, IMO.

Yep......that's pretty much the party line.

Hockey's version of flag football.

And make sure you wear your helmet when you are coaching on the ice. We live after all, in a risk adverse world.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

This doesnt seem like a bad thing to me. Skill development is something that is much easier to sink in at a young age, whereas I would think you could teach or emphasize the physical aspects of the game later in life without losing much ground

True. But at the same time it is interesting to watch slick puck handlers suddenly lose their ability to make plays when they actually have to keep their heads up.........

Pretty sure that's the way the game was drawn up....... but times are changing.

 

[Chainshot]

True. But at the same time it is interesting to watch slick puck handlers suddenly lose their ability to make plays when they actually have to keep their heads up.........

Pretty sure that's the way the game was drawn up....... but times are changing.

Those who can adapt as they move up the development path will continue. That hasn't changed. Having been involved as they shifted to the half-ice model, it was all about having fun, keeping the game enjoyable for as many as possible. I would tend to agree -- worry about teaching how to grind later in the path, worry more about skill development earlier.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

Those who can adapt as they move up the development path will continue. That hasn't changed. Having been involved as they shifted to the half-ice model, it was all about having fun, keeping the game enjoyable for as many as possible. I would tend to agree -- worry about teaching how to grind later in the path, worry more about skill development earlier.

I am a big believer in small area games. More puck touches, less time stuck standing in line. Making and keeping hockey fun. Growing up with the game as played back on ponds in the northeast and upper mid west. But I admire the physical side of the game as well. It's becoming a lost art as I watch players practicing 3 on 3 cross ice inside the blue line. Simple plays to step up, steer, rub out, stand up - shoulder to chest - are ignored while sticks are used to reach in and try to knock the puck away.

After 2 seasons off, I am astounded at the skill level of players who have come through the ADM. But they aren't playing (or taught) the finer aspects of the physical game. This is something we might be losing. I'm concerned.

 

[Intermission]

Jack and Dahlin can bring the puck in as often as they ever get a chance to.
Some of them will get kicked into 50-50 pucks and that's normal.
Most of the ones that get away aren't bad turnovers, the others pucks we win.
Obviously, good zone entries keep possession where dump-ins are roughly 50-50 battles.
It evens out, as neutral zone resistance produces another 50-50 gambit for the right to attempt a zone entry.
Less transition turnover risk in the dump and chase system.
Teams dump it with the lead.
There are plenty of times to do it.
Need to carry it around also.

 

[Buffaloed]

I think Mike Kelly is taking the wrong path extolling the virtues of the dump and chase. The winning formula is to have a coach who is a leader that can identify what style of play best fits his personnel and get the players to buy into it.

 

[joshjull]

I think Mike Kelly is taking the wrong path extolling the virtues of the dump and chase. The winning formula is to have a coach who is a leader that can identify what style of play best fits his personnel and get the players to buy into it.

I don’t think Kelly was arguing dump and chase is the way to go for everyone but that its still a tool for success. Then gave prominent team examples and explained his thinking.

He’s posting about the defensive benefits of dump and chase. Something that is frequently ignored when talking about dump and chase vs gaining the zone with possession. He quoted a Dom L tweet about the Isles season prediction that commented on their use of dump an chase.

Three things can happen as you move into the neutral zone with the puck.

1) dump it in
2) gain the zone with possession
3) turn the puck over.

For whatever reason #3 gets ignored quite a bit when analyzing things. Which is odd since trying to reduce it can have tangible benefits. Kelly’s point was more along the lines that Dom was ignoring the benefits of the dump and chase to reducing #3 from happening and how it benefits how the Isles play. The Isles rarely gave up odd man rushes against. It was one of several reasons they gave up as few goals as they did. Which is a big reason why they had the season they did.

Its really about finding the best balance in the neutral zone to create offensive chances without surrendering chances against. Depending on the skill of the players available it may require a team to play more dump and chase than others or vice versa.

I look at more as a philosophy to keep the puck moving and quickly. For teams like the Isles and even Blues that will incorporate more dump and chase than most teams. Which is in line with your idea that the coach should base how a team plays on the personnel available