The most telling thing from Micah's simulations is that the Penguins played 1 million fake games and their results look like that of a team that runs a Guy Boucher 1-3-1 or a Ken Hitchcock NZ trap, not a team with Crosby, Guentzel, Malkin, Letang, Marino, etc...
The goals are going to be seriously hard to come by - I wonder whether or not Sullivan will make any adjustments to account for the lack of goal scoring depth.
If you can't beat the trap - and your roster analytically leans trap, maybe it's time to trap.
Without getting too deep into the equation, I like the promising possibilities that Jankowski brings. Dare I say, looks to be very light Staal like capabilities both offensively, defensively and PK as well. This is where I think they hinge the probabilities of the success of the bottom six.
As far as the trap goes, you'd hope it's a variation of it, but the top six will not be in favor of this. That will make this situational. You really can't play the trap efficiently if they are down a couple goals trying to get back into the game, but it should be used if you have the lead or neutral. In game adjustments is where this will be effective. Sully, will have to make those adjustments and get the team/lines to buy in and somehow converse what he wants with simple commands. You would hope, in time, with regularity, the players wouldn't need told what needs used at any given point in the game.
Are you going to break down each given line with the pros & cons? These isolated looks at them are fine within the players themselves but looking at what each lines potential will give a far more accurate look. Considering the 3rd line has never played with one another it is the most intriguing for what we will see/get.
I don't think anyone has a "real" concern with Kapanen and how he'll perform with Sid/Jake. This is one addition you don't want to rush to any conclusions considering the players who have patrolled the RW for him (Sid) over the years. Kap's toolbelt pretty much is almost tailor made.
I want to see a new age version of the trap that basically focuses around counter attack. So it's aggression in small space basically. I think that will lead to turnovers and odd man rushes in the Pens favor. You can call it a 1-3-1, LWL, 1-4 but in reality it is none of those.
I want to see basically a 1-4 set forcing to one side but as soon we get the force, we attack almost like an all out pressure. We are going to create bad passes/turnovers. Then we need to convert immediately off the rush, which is really our strength.
@Jesse Would you EVER see Sully finding this type of format?
Here's the problem, knowing when and where to properly adopt/transition the trap in and out. If they are down a couple you can almost eliminate using the trap at all. They will be pushing offense through the top 2/3 lines.
This is where in game adjustments come in. Situational. Break down in game scenarios and map each turn of events to come up with your best plan to address each scenario. Give it a code to yell out, a simple letter..
DB style kind of like Hangman. Haha..
T - trap in the 1-4
R - reduced trap 2-2-1
A - Attack 2-3
P - Pressure 1-1-3
S - Safe 1-3-1
