Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

GMs to discuss the 1-3-1 forecheck


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:22 PM

No it wasn't aimed at you or anyone here. More like at everyone who used that argument to defend Flyers, because there already was a long conversation about this on the hfboards.

Ahh fair enough! Feel very guilty bring up the whole subject now... :(

Let's add some more boredom to the game and remove some more fun. Legal or not 1-3-1 is lame. If I were one of the talented players on a team using that strategy I would protest it because you are taking away my ability to beat you with my skills and replacing it with beating you with a boring system. The Tampa Bay fans boo'd the team for their strategy and I join them BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I still love Stevie and always will and he made his mark as a scorer during a time when the game was fun and exciting I'm sad he would back such a system and help to remove more fun from the game. How many Wings game would you go to pay and see if the team sat around like that? For me the answer would be ZERO, I can find ways to bore myself for free. I would not contribute my hard earned money for million dollar salaries to watch these players sit around and wait like that.

As has been mentioned in here by myself and a few others, the skills are still required to actually SCORE, which is a rather essential part to winning. The boring comes from a team like Philly who has such little imagination and determination to even try and attack a trap defence, so they ***** and moan by essentially refusing to play. It didn't really draw Tampa out of their system much, so when they realised it wasn't actually that effective a ploy, they should have actually tried to do what they are paid to do, and play some damn hockey.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#22 The Secret

The Secret

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:07 PM

Ahh fair enough! Feel very guilty bring up the whole subject now... :(


As has been mentioned in here by myself and a few others, the skills are still required to actually SCORE, which is a rather essential part to winning. The boring comes from a team like Philly who has such little imagination and determination to even try and attack a trap defence, so they ***** and moan by essentially refusing to play. It didn't really draw Tampa out of their system much, so when they realised it wasn't actually that effective a ploy, they should have actually tried to do what they are paid to do, and play some damn hockey.


Hey I guess you are right... I suppose Philly coach should have realized how effective that system was and had his team go out and do that same thing. Have all 10 of the players on the ice standing around between the blue lines... how is that for some imagination?! Sounds like a really fun game to be at... watching them all standing around getting paid to play hockey.

Judging by the fans reactions they were not having fun nor were they being entertained. For the amount of money they are paid they should have a better game plan then standing around and waiting.

Edited by The Secret, 15 November 2011 - 05:10 PM.


#23 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:17 PM

Hey I guess you are right... I suppose Philly coach should have realized how effective that system was and had his team go out and do that same thing. Have all 10 of the players on the ice standing around between the blue lines... how is that for some imagination?! Sounds like a really fun game to be at... watching them all standing around getting paid to play hockey.

Judging by the fans reactions they were not having fun nor were they being entertained. For the amount of money they are paid they should have a better game plan then standing around and waiting.

That's based on the presumption that the Tampa players would have done the same thing against a trap defence, and just stood there without playing the puck. If they play the trap themselves, I'm almost certain they'd be willing to at least try and attack it. I was at the home opener in Tampa, and the fans want their team to win. They may not be the oldest and wisest hockey fanbase there is, but they're still proud of their team and sell-out their arean most of the time. Playing this trap style to get some defensive stability is a lot better for them than getting beat 7-4 in their first home game, to their closest geographical rivals.

I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves in here as I love posting about my Wings. Just from a completely logical point of view, playing a trap (although boring) is a solid defensive strategy, unlike the offensive strategy that was adopted by Philly.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#24 The Secret

The Secret

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:30 PM

That's based on the presumption that the Tampa players would have done the same thing against a trap defence, and just stood there without playing the puck. If they play the trap themselves, I'm almost certain they'd be willing to at least try and attack it. I was at the home opener in Tampa, and the fans want their team to win. They may not be the oldest and wisest hockey fanbase there is, but they're still proud of their team and sell-out their arean most of the time. Playing this trap style to get some defensive stability is a lot better for them than getting beat 7-4 in their first home game, to their closest geographical rivals.

I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves in here as I love posting about my Wings. Just from a completely logical point of view, playing a trap (although boring) is a solid defensive strategy, unlike the offensive strategy that was adopted by Philly.


You aren't getting on my nerves... we are just not seeing it the same way. I'd rather see my team play exciting hockey and lose 7-4 then adopt the rope a dope strategy and bore everyone to victory. Shows a lack of defensive creativity on the coaches part imo. Standing around in the neutral zone is not playing hockey in my eye's.

Edited by The Secret, 15 November 2011 - 05:31 PM.


#25 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,876 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:03 PM

The trap is what it is.

It's like those people who drive 25 in a 40. They're not doing anything illegal; they're just annoying.

I can see the advantage of sitting back for a few seconds to regroup or something and then attacking, but if they're just hanging out there playing with themselves, it's as fun as watching someone play solitaire.

That said, I don't think this needs revision or anything. Unless you have a douchebag like Pronger on the ice, you probably won't find another team just sitting back and not playing.

#26 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,337 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:57 PM

If you don't like it, learn to beat it.

Posted Image


#27 sleepwalker

sleepwalker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:12 PM

It's like those people who drive 25 in a 40. They're not doing anything illegal; they're just annoying.


Bad example. Depending on the situation, and local laws, that could very well be illegal. Its also up to the officers discretion.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone all by yourself and nobody else is around, fine, you'll not be ticketed even if a cop pulls up on you.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone during rush hour and causing a major backup and impeding traffic, you can (and most times will if a cop witnesses it) get a ticket for impeding traffic, which is illegal in many, if not most, places.

#28 Heaten

Heaten

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:27 PM

Waste of time if you ask me, I think it's a perfectly acceptable way to play hockey.



http://www.nhl.com/i...pid=nhl-rxl-twt


Maybe have it to where if the defensive team refuses to attack the puck for an extended period of time, Refs should blow the whistle and faceoff in the 1-3-1 teams defensive zone.

This way if they refuse to play, they'll be penalized with an defensive zone faceoff. Not a big deal,but may enough to keep the coaches and players honest.

#29 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,870 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:35 PM

Maybe have it to where if the defensive team refuses to attack the puck for an extended period of time, Refs should blow the whistle and faceoff in the 1-3-1 teams defensive zone.

This way if they refuse to play, they'll be penalized with an defensive zone faceoff. Not a big deal,but may enough to keep the coaches and players honest.

Honestly I think it should be the other way.

If the team in possession of the puck doesn't try to advance it and just sits in their own zone like Philly did, the ref whistles the play dead and puts the faceoff in that team's defensive zone.

I would rather the onus be on the team with the puck to advance play and try to score, rather than the defending team be required to attack the puck in their offensive zone.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, I'm of two minds on this one. I can also see the argument that a team should be able to sit there with the puck if the other team isn't going to attack, basically saying "come and get it." Hmm...

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 15 November 2011 - 07:41 PM.


#30 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,647 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:44 PM

If you don't like it, learn to beat it.


That's what she said. :hehe:
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#31 RedWingBlitz

RedWingBlitz

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:01 AM

Im kinda new to the strategies of hockey so correct me if im missing something.


if its so good defensively why not run the trap while resting your star offensive players, then when your best players are rested, play them attack attack attack, then back to the trap while resting offensive players again.

or even just run the trap with their top line is on the ice, and play full hockey any other time.

if one team has a few superstars and no depth, and the opposing team has 1 or no superstars but lots of depth i can see it being a valid strat.


even if that works and gets wins i wouldnt be happy to attend a game like that.

#32 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,516 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:59 AM

This just screams fixing something that's not broken. The trap may be difficult to play against, but it's not fool-proof, and I don't even know if it's statistically any more successful than any other style of play. Only a few teams in the league do it. I feel that any fix is only going to ruin the game in some other aspect. The owners will feel the bite if fans don't like it and stop going to games, no need to make any rule changes. Like people have said, Philly had an obligation to at least try. It's all about good faith, the whole point of the game is to try to score. It'd be easy to win if you just lined all your players up and stacked them in front of the net with the goalie, but teams don't do that because it defeats the purpose of the game.
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#33 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:25 AM

I was watching some of Winnipeg - Tampa and was thinking, "my God they scheduled that as if the team was still in Georgia". Must be hellish


Not "as if" they were still in Georgia. The schedule was already made before the move was announced. That's why the league didn't realign THIS year.

Incorrect.

I initially thought this as well, but since then I've reconsidered. The goal above anything else is to win. If the Flyers think that attacking a trapping team is going to hurt their chances of winning (which it sometimes does), and if they also think that waiting will pull the Bolts out of their trap (which it did), then I don't see why they shouldn't wait; waiting for the opportunity for your attack to be effective seems like a good strategy to me.

If this sort of thing became an epidemic in the NHL then something would have to be done, but it really wasn't that big of a deal in the game it happened in. My guess is that the GMs don't do anything about this.


With regards to the situation of the other night, it is absolutely and always the responsibility of the team with the puck to advance it. Tampa could have lined up all five skaters at the defensive blue line, and Philly still has to try and break that.

To wit:


Rule 63 - Delaying the Game

63.1 Delaying the Game A player or a team may be penalized when, in the opinion of the Referee, is delaying the game in any manner.

63.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player, including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area.



Seems pretty clear to me.


"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#34 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:12 AM

You aren't getting on my nerves... we are just not seeing it the same way. I'd rather see my team play exciting hockey and lose 7-4 then adopt the rope a dope strategy and bore everyone to victory. Shows a lack of defensive creativity on the coaches part imo. Standing around in the neutral zone is not playing hockey in my eye's.

Yeah granted, the game was really exciting, even finishing 7-4. But with the form they were in, something had to change. I mean it wasn't a bad streak they were on like we had, they flat out sucked in general. Had to change up the defence as they couldn't rely on Rolo (one man tried to throwing his arms around and swearing at him, despite being in the highest possible seat at the arena. That was pretty funny.) I guess the one good thing to take from it, is that at least the Wings would never sit back and take it, or would even use it - could you imagine Helm playing the trap? If that happens, I would just pack up and go to sleep for the year.


Not "as if" they were still in Georgia. The schedule was already made before the move was announced. That's why the league didn't realign THIS year.

Crap I either didn't realise when I got my schedule, forgot this, or just never connected it! That must be hell on them. Another terrible journey for a team in the league.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#35 Heroes of Hockeytown

Heroes of Hockeytown

    Big Goal Bob

  • Bronze Booster
  • 13,729 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:45 AM

With regards to the situation of the other night, it is absolutely and always the responsibility of the team with the puck to advance it.

It seems intuitive but if you examine it I don't know why this should actually be the case. There isn't any rule specifying that the puck has to be advanced, it's just what the attacking team does so it seems really weird for them not to try, but it doesn't mean they are obligated to. A defenseman wouldn't shoot a puck from the point if he thought it was going to be blocked; why should he try to start a breakout into the neutral zone if he thought it would result in a turnover?

Tampa could have lined up all five skaters at the defensive blue line, and Philly still has to try and break that.

Or they can sit back and do exactly what they did, which eventually caused Tampa to commit a forechecker and get the ball rolling. As for the Delay of Game rule, that's subject to interpretation. The referees in that game contacted hockey operations at the first intermission and were told not to interfere with coaches' tactics.
"We've been in the same spot all year long. We won 50 games for the fourth year in a row. People think we're just hum-drum and boring.
No, you know what we are, we're good. You can't do what we do every single day and not be good." - Mike Babcock

#36 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:53 AM

It seems intuitive but if you examine it I don't know why this should actually be the case. There isn't any rule specifying that the puck has to be advanced, it's just what the attacking team does so it seems really weird for them not to try, but it doesn't mean they are obligated to. A defenseman wouldn't shoot a puck from the point if he thought it was going to be blocked; why should he try to start a breakout into the neutral zone if he thought it would result in a turnover?

It's weird though isn't it. It is purely intuitive. If you look at the best players throughout history, none of them would have sat there holding the puck. Gretzky, or Yzerman, or Howe, or Lemieux wouldn't have held the puck and said "ok lets wait and have them come at me". Granted in this situation it was a defeceman but I guess it still applies. Those sorts of players had the instinct to attack in different ways, when it came to different defensive strategies. Onus might not be on the offence at the real heart of it, but it's just the instinctive thing to do.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#37 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,876 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:18 AM

Bad example. Depending on the situation, and local laws, that could very well be illegal. Its also up to the officers discretion.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone all by yourself and nobody else is around, fine, you'll not be ticketed even if a cop pulls up on you.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone during rush hour and causing a major backup and impeding traffic, you can (and most times will if a cop witnesses it) get a ticket for impeding traffic, which is illegal in many, if not most, places.

Quite so. Depending on where you are, it might be.

However, in the example I specifically said that they weren't doing anything illegal. Such is the case where I live. I was trying to think of an example of something which doesn't violate the letter of the law, but nonetheless drives one crazy.

I stand by what I said. There's nothing "wrong" rule-wise with it, but it makes you want to grab them and shake them and yell at them to move their rumps. But, of course, you can't.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users