View Single Post
Old
01-18-2014, 11:30 PM
  #105
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman00 View Post
Question for you guys that know the game more than me. (I'm a fan and know the rules, but lack game strategy and systems because I never played).

In the third period, our guys were everywhere...putting pressure on, rushing the net, etc etc. Ellis noted in the post game that they traded up sitting back defensively like they always do to gambling a bit because they had to. In my mind, the team looked entirely different and actually scored 3 goals in a period along with an onslaught of shots on goal.

Everyone has said that Trotz holds the team's offense back and wants us to play only defense. But we looked really good shifting gears to offense a bit instead...it made all of the difference in the world. So do we actually have players on the team that can score plenty, they are just held back by our system? Or could we no sustain such a gambling style every game. Curious of your thoughts.
No coach advocates 100% offense or defense. When a team takes risks to generate offense, it leaves itself open to attack. Usually when a team does it is in a situation like tonight ... the team with a lead doesn't have the need to press offensively so the result is one team going balls to the wall trying to generate offense against a team that tries to go into a shell defensively and only attacks when there is a clear chance. Calgary and Philly did the same thing against us when we had a lead in the 3rd that we tried tonight against the Avs.

It's a high risk move like pulling the goalie late. When already down, the chance of catching up mitigates the risk of falling even further behind. Notice that NO team keeps taking the high risks once tying a game .. .the risks no longer outweigh the possible reward.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote