Lalonde and Defense First

[kipwinger 8,756]

Mostly I'm just starting a new thread because I don't want to sift through the spam looking for old ones...

But I also wanted to talk about this. After last season SY gave the coaching staff a very clear mandate to improve defensively. He even said in his end-of-year presser that the coaching staff may need to change their systems etc. He then inexplicably gutted our (already bad) defense corps and signed a few top nine forwards who aren't any good at defense to play top minutes. In response to all this Lalonde has basically tried to lock everything up to the point where it looks like a Guy Boucher team out there. Most of the forwards who get all the ice time aren't any good at defense, but now they're not scoring either (Kane recently called this out in the media). The defense is abysmal with the exceptions of Edvinsson and Seider. All of this could easily be predicted when you look at the offseason moves, but our 5 on 5 defense IS marginally better than a year ago. So my question is...

Why is it better in the minds of management to lose games 2-1 rather than win them 5-4? This is the same mentality that Babcock had and I still don't really get it. We narrowly missed the playoffs a year ago playing the "wrong way" and we're not even close playing the "right way". So is it really the right way?

[AtlantaHotWings 1,126]

I think there has to be a happy medium.

You can't win if you don't score but if you allow 4 goals a game it's hard to get 5 every time. Some days you have to get 1 or 2 goals and shut the other team down. Can't shut down other teams unless you know how to do it and running and gunning isn't the way.  Playoff goals are usually tougher to come by.

I prefer a system where once you are ahead you throttle the O down a tic ie stop cherry picking for example. BUT not to the point where they are playing like a turtle just sitting in the d zone and hanging on which seems to the be the system. 

 

[Scott R Lucidi 675]

We have 3 defensemen that cant play defense.  We are going to need to win almost every game against teams outside of the top 10 to get in.

[Rick D 390]

Bottom line is you need to play to the strengths of your roster. You cant have a team full of cats, and expect them to play like dogs. 

For SY to tell his coach what kind of system to play is kind of overstepping his boundaries. If he wants a team that plays a certain way, he needs to deliver a roster that is built that way. 

 

[kipwinger 8,756]

It seems like we are better at winning in an offensive system than we are in a defensive system. I realize defense is important, but it seems like it would be better to ride offense to the playoffs, get beat because "that's not playoff hockey", and then adjust and refine the roster from there as opposed to wasting another year missing the playoffs while trying (and losing) to teach a team to make the playoffs winning 2-1 most nights.

A lot of teams make the playoffs with an "all offense" system, then get humiliated by teams that play defense, and then adjust and improve. Remember when Columbus swept Tampa? Remember when Florida moved on from guys like Huberdeau and Duclair after winning the President's trophy and getting whooped in the playoffs? Which team ever made the playoffs with a negative goal differential? Who are we modeling our game after?

[Axl Foley 334]

12 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Mostly I'm just starting a new thread because I don't want to sift through the spam looking for old ones...

But I also wanted to talk about this. After last season SY gave the coaching staff a very clear mandate to improve defensively. He even said in his end-of-year presser that the coaching staff may need to change their systems etc. He then inexplicably gutted our (already bad) defense corps and signed a few top nine forwards who aren't any good at defense to play top minutes. In response to all this Lalonde has basically tried to lock everything up to the point where it looks like a Guy Boucher team out there. Most of the forwards who get all the ice time aren't any good at defense, but now they're not scoring either (Kane recently called this out in the media). The defense is abysmal with the exceptions of Edvinsson and Seider. All of this could easily be predicted when you look at the offseason moves, but our 5 on 5 defense IS marginally better than a year ago. So my question is...

Why is it better in the minds of management to lose games 2-1 rather than win them 5-4? This is the same mentality that Babcock had and I still don't really get it. We narrowly missed the playoffs a year ago playing the "wrong way" and we're not even close playing the "right way". So is it really the right way?

Offensive teams lose because they hit a hot goalie and cant score.

Defensive teams can still expect to score 1 or 2 goals a game.

The former is more feast or famine. The latter is consistently more reliable.

[Scott R Lucidi 675]

1 hour ago, Axl Foley said:

Offensive teams lose because they hit a hot goalie and cant score.

Defensive teams can still expect to score 1 or 2 goals a game.

The former is more feast or famine. The latter is consistently more reliable.

If you play your GOOD PLAYERS, you will play good hockey.  You dont have to have one or the other.  You can have a team thats good at both.

[Axl Foley 334]

theoretically but not practically