33 replies to this topic

[The Axe]

Has a team ever tried this?

Datsyuk-Franzen
Zetterberg-Brunner
Filppula-Tatar
Helm-Emmerton
Tootoo

Ericsson-Kronwall-Lashoff
Kindl-Smith-Quincey
Colo-White-Huskins

Howard
Gustavsson

Dump, Chase, have one D pinch while the other 2 slide.

Just getting a little sick of our "system" I guess. It doesnt seem to work without Lids.

[wingedominance13]

Uhhh. No. Respectfully of course.

[Euro_Twins]

Has a team ever tried this?

Datsyuk-Franzen
Zetterberg-Brunner
Filppula-Tatar
Helm-Emmerton
Tootoo

Ericsson-Kronwall-Lashoff
Kindl-Smith-Quincey
Colo-White-Huskins

Howard
Gustavsson

Dump, Chase, have one D pinch while the other 2 slide.

Just getting a little sick of our "system" I guess. It doesnt seem to work without Lids.

 

This right here, is why you should stick to your day job

[Ram]

Has a team ever tried this?

Datsyuk-Franzen
Zetterberg-Brunner
Filppula-Tatar
Helm-Emmerton
Tootoo

Ericsson-Kronwall-Lashoff
Kindl-Smith-Quincey
Colo-White-Huskins

Howard
Gustavsson

Dump, Chase, have one D pinch while the other 2 slide.

Just getting a little sick of our "system" I guess. It doesnt seem to work without Lids.

I'm not so sure a team has ever tried it or that your post is serious, but for those that have played hockey, this just really wouldn't work out. It would be like playing with three centers in basketball, two shortstops in baseball, etc.

[GMRwings1983]

This is not soccer, so formations aren't flexible the same way in hockey.  

 

But if we lose 5 more games in a row, I'll be more than happy to see the Wings try this formation.  

[Z Winged Dangler]

Is this your defence wins championships approach?

[ogreslayer]

Why not a 2-2-2?

 

Brunner-Hank

Mule-Pavs

Cleary-Flip

Tootoo-Emdog

 

Kronner-Lashoff

E-White

Q-Smith

 

Howie-Monster

(Bert as emergency back-up)

 

[CrimsonFlame]

Has a team ever tried this?

Datsyuk-Franzen
Zetterberg-Brunner
Filppula-Tatar
Helm-Emmerton
Tootoo

Ericsson-Kronwall-Lashoff
Kindl-Smith-Quincey
Colo-White-Huskins

Howard
Gustavsson

Dump, Chase, have one D pinch while the other 2 slide.

Just getting a little sick of our "system" I guess. It doesnt seem to work without Lids.

The problem is if you go to a 2-3 system you're killing any chance of offense you would have.  3 Guys hanging back in the zone will be a lot easier for a goalie to manage against.  And if you move one of the defends up you're just playing an inferior 3-2. 

 

It might be something interest to try if you're up 2 goals in the third and want to coast your way to victory but it really wouldn't have a use outside that. 

[GMRwings1983]

Next time we go up 2 goals, we should go into the 1-4 formation.

 

"Park the bus" as they say in soccer.  

[puckbags]

Has a team ever tried this?

Datsyuk-Franzen
Zetterberg-Brunner
Filppula-Tatar
Helm-Emmerton
Tootoo

Ericsson-Kronwall-Lashoff
Kindl-Smith-Quincey
Colo-White-Huskins

Howard
Gustavsson

Dump, Chase, have one D pinch while the other 2 slide.

Just getting a little sick of our "system" I guess. It doesnt seem to work without Lids.

 

This is an absolute gem haha..For all the things that I completely 100% disagree with that you say this makes up for it kinda.  Lemaire would be proud. Just bottle up the whole arena.

[rick zombo]

Technically, the neutral zone trap is 1-4. Lot's have teams have done this obviously.

 

I have seen Detroit go 0-5 a few times this year too.

[fat guy in a maltby jersey]

it's not realistic to use all those defenseman.  what you would need to do instead is slide one of the wingers from each line back, to line up across the ice with the defenserman.

 

sound familiar?

 

 

[Seraph]

Not cool to be disrespectful to a post like this. It's creative and creates an interesting hockey discussion. If you think it's a bad idea explain why. Good way to learn.

I concur that with the defence pinching, it transforms into an inferior 3-2. And you are hancuffing the offense from creating any real chances.

[SDavis35]

Not cool to be disrespectful to a post like this. It's creative and creates an interesting hockey discussion. If you think it's a bad idea explain why. Good way to learn.

I concur that with the defence pinching, it transforms into an inferior 3-2. And you are hancuffing the offense from creating any real chances.

 

^this 

 

If you had a potent offensive duo that could break into the zone consistently with just 2, then maybe. I think a 2-3 isn't unheard of, but I wouldn't be using 3 D-men as the back line. I'd still like to see the 2-1-2, which I think is fairly consistent with coaches still?

[The Axe]

Not cool to be disrespectful to a post like this. It's creative and creates an interesting hockey discussion. If you think it's a bad idea explain why. Good way to learn.

I concur that with the defence pinching, it transforms into an inferior 3-2. And you are hancuffing the offense from creating any real chances.

What about all our "slick, offensive, puck moving, puck possession" defensemen? I dont think we lose ANYTHING by having Kronwall play rover to Datsyuk and Bertuzzi instead of Cleary filling out the other wing. Im saying create a Bobby Orr style Hybrid position to limit outnumbered d situations, but not cripple the offense.

[Sprsquirt7]

I want to just make some thing clear for some people suggesting various things about this 2-3 system. Well any system really. You can run ANY system with ANY 5 players. I have ran a 1-1-3 offensive zone in my career (used when you are substantially weaker than your opponent). This means that you have 1 hard forchecker, one secondary forechecker that reacts with strong side pressure and 3 across the blue line. You essentially then pinch wherever you need to, middle left right. You then have 2 D back the whole time. This is almost identical o a 2-3 system referred to. You just simply have players that need to be in a certain area regardless of their designated position. 

 

Also there are a few things about the transition from offense to defense. Say you had Datsyuk and Franzen as the two offensive players. You are almost 100% limiting them to covering the opposing teams D in the defensive zone. Now when you think about it that is a complete and utter waste of talent to station Datsyuk up there. Every team in the NHL has 2 D and 1 Center playing down low in their own defensive zone. That center can be the guy who takes faceoffs or the first guy on the backcheck who knows what he's doing. That center while he is considered a forward on paper, is a defenseman in the defensive zone until we break out. This is why guys like Datsyuk, Bergeron, and Backes are far more valuable in hockey than just their stats. This is the purpose of a center for the most part, granted there are some centers that are so offensively gifted that their defensive liabilities are overlooked.

 

So just so everyone has this straight:

 

Offensive zone systems are about filling a PLAYER into a need. That player can have any designation they want on paper, but as long as they perform the specific duties of a 2-1-2, 1-3-1, 1-1-3, or any other combination the coach deems appropriate they can run it.

 

Defensive zone has various ways to play defense against the other teams but that is more dependent on what the other team is doing. So for simplicity sake you have 3 PLAYERS responsible for the individuals playing down low. While 2 other PLAYERS are responsible for the Defenseman of the other team.

 

The actual make up of who plays what designated position is almost irrelevant. Granted you want to have the best players suited for each role in their specific role.

 

 

The real question is should we be more passive in the system or more aggressive or let things play out. Right now we clearly don't have the defenseman to leave them by them selves, I wouldn't mind seeing a more passive counter attack type of game while our injured get healthy. 

 

But it also doesn't matter your system when your team makes really bad turnovers that lead directly to goals.

[brett]

haha i was thinking about that last night actually funny s***

 

3 dmen and 2 forwards might be able to play defense then

[ogreslayer]

haha i was thinking about that last night actually funny s***

 

3 dmen and 2 forwards might be able to play defense then

Might depend on the 3 d-men.  Q, Kindl, & White?

[akustyk]

 

you mean like we'd call our offense our defense, and our defense the offense...?

 

I don't want to sound defensing, but some of you may find it offensive... but 2-3 is nothing more than one forward playing deep. a Selke-candidate type of forward can easily do it. even 2 forwards for a 1+4. but it obviously is tough to generate much offense of that...

 

 

[RedWingsRox]

Yes ... something like this, except they call it the 1-2-2