The Flames PK

[Anglesmith]

I think it was at the start of last season that the Flames transitioned from a standard box PK to their current 2-1-1 system. The change was noticeable, because so many teams employ either the seam pass or the bumper play in the slot, and the 2-1-1 system places a guy in the way of both. Watching the Flames PK, you can repeatedly see the opposition frustrated by the inability to find those plays.

I am a big fan of our current system, but I was recently talking to a friend who feels the opposite way. Our system does take away those options, but at the cost of greatly reducing the pressure we can apply up high. The system is extremely passive on the half-wall.

The Flames' PK isn't exactly one of the best in the league so far statistically, but almost every PP goal we've given up has been after a cross-seam pass because the system momentarily had a lapse. I'm curious about how people feel about the 2-1-1 system we play, and whether it is preferred to a more aggressive box.

Click to read more...

 

[User1996]

Given most teams run a 1-3-1 setup, a box really does nothing to defend that. Running a “wiper” style is the way to go.

 

[Mobiandi]

The issue with defending the 1-3-1 is when our defensemen get too narrow and collapse to the crease leading to a cross seam pass to an open guy on the dots who always seems to score - Kyle Connor, Matthews, McDavid

 

[Anglesmith]

The issue with the 1-3-1 is when our defensemen get too narrow and collapse to the crease leading to a cross seam pass to an open guy on the dots who always seems to score - Kyle Connor, Matthews, McDavid

I find that cross-seam passes tend to be a symptom of a break-down in the system. We've seen it sometimes when the two forwards miscommunicate and also when the forward in the middle just fails to do their job. But I hesitate to call that part of the system.

 

[Mazatt]

I am a big fan of our current system, but I was recently talking to a friend who feels the opposite way. Our system does take away those options, but at the cost of greatly reducing the pressure we can apply up high. The system is extremely passive on the half-wall.

I think that's a symptom of a good PK structure since the players aren't chasing, and are putting themselves in a solid position to always be able to block a shot. But on the other and, Mangiapane and Nordstrom playing as the bold 1 in the 1-1-2 have shown that they aren't afraid to follow a pass from the point to pressure below the half-wall. Mangiapane has done it a few times where I've thought he was breaking the structure by attacking the puck carrier but it was well-timed pressure that lines up with the Flames zone-entry defense where they pressure the puck carrier hard before going to the PK set up (I believe we saw that with Nesterov's clear follwing great pressure on the entry last night.) It might not be a system thing but the 1-1-2 is very effective because the Flames are recognizing times to be aggressive on the puck carrier leading to turnovers/chaos.

Even then, the lack of consistent pressure on the half-wall is offset by the fact that the near-side D-man is almost always in a position to get out for the block when the puck comes from the point, it's just that the other d-man has to cover the front of the net leading to the cross-seam play which is where the centre has to be very dedicated to playing the high-slot/watching the cross play. Idk, feels like giving the other team space to work with in the non-dangerous areas is exactly what the Flames are trying to do since most teams don't have a Lindholm who walks in off the wall and places shots perfectly.

 

[Fig]

IMO, it's a new system. Our guys are still getting used to it. It might evolve a bit once they get more comfortable with it. I'm not too worried.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Most PKs in the league are a 3 man triangle with the nearest to the puck to provide pressure. We are no different.

 

[TheHudlinator]

I'm fine with the pk, it's early in the season and we are 3rd in the division in pk only 1% behind Vancouver who is #1 and haven't played Ottawa yet who is last in the division in pp%. There aren't many pp qb defenseman in this division so leaving the point more open makes sense.

 

[Corpus X]

Mano a Mano.

 

[Mobiandi]

There aren't many pp qb defenseman in this division so leaving the point more open makes sense

Makes me sad how the one-timer from the point is a dead art

 

[TheHudlinator]

Makes me sad how the one-timer from the point is a dead art

Agreed its become all about the slap pass which vali is money at, but the booming slap shot was a favorite part of hockey for me growing up.

 

[Anglesmith]

Most PKs in the league are a 3 man triangle with the nearest to the puck to provide pressure. We are no different.

I think there is a significant difference. It is obvious in comparing to the Flames of the past, and based on my viewing around the league it may be unique currently, or at least rare.

The difference is not in static positioning, per se, but rather in terms of how the forwards move and rotate. This is best described by considering the pass from the top of the umbrella to the half-wall. In a typical PK, the forward who was not pressuring the point man then applies pressure to the receiver of the pass. The forward up high drops back to cover the cross-seam pass. This system leads to the guy on the half-wall having to make a fast decision with the puck, or else reset back to square 1. That said, there is a little window while one forward goes to pressure and the other is getting back into position where neither forward is occupying the slot.

Basically every PP in the league seeks to give the half-wall guy four options when they receive the puck: down low pass, bumper in the middle, cross-seam pass or back up to the point. In terms of danger, the best of these plays is crossing the seam or hitting the bumper in the middle, both of which open up when no forward is in the middle of the slot. The least dangerous is dumping the puck back to the point.

What the Flames do differently is that when the puck goes from up high to the half-wall, they leave the puck-carrier alone, more or less. The guy hanging back in the slot stays firmly in place, and the forward who was originally covering the point gently moves toward the half-wall to apply pressure. Rotation only occurs if both forwards wind up in the slot together.

The reason for this change, as far as I can tell, is to completely eliminate the most dangerous plays that a PP can make. If you keep a guy in the middle of the slot, then no matter how much time the guy has on the half-wall, he can't cross the seam, he can't hit the bumper for a one-timer, and the tic-tac-toe to the slot also has coverage. These are the most common methods of attack for PPs, but they all rely on exploiting the rotation that occurs in a normal PK. If you don't rotate, then you don't open these seams. All we give up in exchange is a lot more time on the half-wall, which means we spend more time defending and force fewer turnovers than a typical PK. We also invite the walk-in wrister, but the near-side defender is tasked with getting in this lane (which seems to be effective so far).

 

[Bounces R Way]

I like a more aggressive PK myself but the system the Flames are employing is good when they play it correctly. Forces players into low danger shooting areas on the side boards or on the point and isolates them.

Basically a condensed version of Hartley's passive collapse only we have a goalie that can make it work now.

 

[Mobiandi]

Every time I watch an away feed and we're on the PK, the commentators are sure to say that the Flames are well-known for being aggressive at standing up teams at the blueline and it always kind of surprises me because I don't see us like that

 

[InfinityIggy]

I really prefer the new system. I think our guys are still adjusting to it but we are starting to see the fruits of that change. For all the grief I give Ward, can’t fault him in this aspect.

 

[Rubi]

I guess I'm the only one that's voting for the box. I like to see a more aggressive PP where the Flames pressure the puck handler. I think we give the puck handler way too much time to take a shot or make a pass and we're depending too heavily on Marky to make the save when they do. Some times its like a shooting gallery out there. The odds are that its eventually going to kill us. We've been lucky so far. When you give the other team too much time they don't generally make mistakes which results in our PK guys being out there for too long and getting tired.

 

[NinjaTurtle]

Ashamed, I will say I haven’t given this subject enough consideration.

Great to see a thoughtful discussion on tactics instead of the usual message board fare.