HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Reactions to the Trap

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-10-2011, 11:54 AM
  #51
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,009
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOSUK...eature=related


oh nooes...

Flyerfan4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 12:18 PM
  #52
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
I found the trap / response to be embarrassing on both sides of the ice. Like drownedsailors said, this isn't a new concept, so you adjust to beat it. It didn't help that the Flyers are generally not good passers, beyond Giroux/Jagr (and Giroux was not stellar last night!). I know this is a blanket statement, but they genuinely look weak in short tape-to-tape passes, which is the first strength to breaking a trap. Add to that their poor faceoff showings even when they were winning faceoffs last night, they frequently gave the puck right up to the Lightning and the team looked incapable of mounting sustained pressure and puck possession ... well, beyond doing lazy circles in their own zone, that is.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 12:30 PM
  #53
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
I found the trap / response to be embarrassing on both sides of the ice. Like drownedsailors said, this isn't a new concept, so you adjust to beat it. It didn't help that the Flyers are generally not good passers, beyond Giroux/Jagr (and Giroux was not stellar last night!). I know this is a blanket statement, but they genuinely look weak in short tape-to-tape passes, which is the first strength to breaking a trap. Add to that their poor faceoff showings even when they were winning faceoffs last night, they frequently gave the puck right up to the Lightning and the team looked incapable of mounting sustained pressure and puck possession ... well, beyond doing lazy circles in their own zone, that is.
I pretty much agree and yes our breakout for most of the year especially with Pronger out has looked like a pizza faced teen. Lavy needs to be careful and not double down on what the Flyers did last night or he's going to look very unprofessional. They worked in practice on controlling the puck better but doing so shouldn't mean just standing around either. As puck possessor you are pretty much expected to initiate the play moreso than the defending team so I would say the onus is more on the Flyers despite what I feel is an unofficial illegal defensive scheme TB is employing. If the league doesn't address it..Flyers can't just resort to protest like they did without looking bad. Next game(s) like I said....Lavy better devise an actual strategy to breakout better. It will def be interesting to see how this plays out..especially on 24/7.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 12:40 PM
  #54
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coutsiephan View Post
I pretty much agree and yes our breakout for most of the year especially with Pronger out has looked like a pizza faced teen. Lavy needs to be careful and not double down on what the Flyers did last night or he's going to look very unprofessional. They worked in practice on controlling the puck better but doing so shouldn't mean just standing around either. As puck possessor you are pretty much expected to initiate the play moreso than the defending team so I would say the onus is more on the Flyers despite what I feel is an unofficial illegal defensive scheme TB is employing. If the league doesn't address it..Flyers can't just resort to protest like they did without looking bad. Next game(s) like I said....Lavy better devise an actual strategy to breakout better. It will def be interesting to see how this plays out..especially on 24/7.
The irony for me is I thought the Flyers were vulnerable to an aggressive-forechecking system, as they coughed up the puck too consistently.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 12:59 PM
  #55
DarthYoda28
Registered User
 
DarthYoda28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 71
vCash: 500
At the end of the day, you need to look at the point of hockey. It's a fast paced game requiring a tremendous amount of multiple skills! The trap kills that. You might as well watch golf.

The game was equally as boring when the puck just went from zone to zone without any scoring chances. It was essentially just turnovers then. I praise the Flyers for making a stand. Why waste the effort for the exact same boring result that cheapens the game? The last thing we need is a repeat of Devils dead-puck era hockey.

Flyers exploited an opportunity. On the road, in a fairly weak hockey market, they exposed a team that is playing dead puck hockey. If more teams do this, Tampa is likely to lose some fanbase.

It doesn't matter if you win games if the game is too boring for fans to care. It's much like the cap debate. It doesn't matter how much cap space you have if you have no money coming in to actually pay the bills.

Yes, the goal is to win games, but that's part of the entertainment value. Fans pay to be entertained. That's what the market is, entertainment.

Here's an idea, what if both teams decide they want to play without goalies? Sure, the game would be tremendously high scoring, but there wouldn't really be much excitement would there? Post lock-out, there were immense changes to the game to quicken it up and make it more exciting...that's hockey's niche. I have to imagine the NHL brass will continue that trend and find a way to prevent teams from acting as Tampa did.

DarthYoda28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 01:09 PM
  #56
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
I found the trap / response to be embarrassing on both sides of the ice. Like drownedsailors said, this isn't a new concept, so you adjust to beat it. It didn't help that the Flyers are generally not good passers, beyond Giroux/Jagr (and Giroux was not stellar last night!). I know this is a blanket statement, but they genuinely look weak in short tape-to-tape passes, which is the first strength to breaking a trap. Add to that their poor faceoff showings even when they were winning faceoffs last night, they frequently gave the puck right up to the Lightning and the team looked incapable of mounting sustained pressure and puck possession ... well, beyond doing lazy circles in their own zone, that is.
I would agree with this. I mean, the first person to employ the 1-3-1 system in Sweden (at a high level at least) was Tommy Sandlin who used it in the late 70's. Obviously the tactics behind it has changed a bit and become more efficient/complex since then, but still, there are a few ways known to man on how to beat it. I'm guessing this was more of a statement from Laviolette/the Flyers, than an actual game plan, so to speak.

It seems as if it is easier to defend than it is to attack in every sport, and as such when teams become to good at defending there will be some rule changes/tweakings to make it harder to defend (or easier to attack), I would bet that this game will be discussed when the people in charge have their meetings. Maybe it's time to get rid of the red line all together (as soon as you cross your own blue line you can dump the puck without it causing an icing)? I mean, you North American's think soccer is boring nowadays, you should have seen it in the late 80's, early 90's. After a few rule changes (and also a little bit different mentality among coaches and players I would say), things actually picked up a little bit.

On a more personal note, this is one of the (many) reasons why I never made it to the NHL. I could never play the game like the Lightnings (or the Flyers) did last night. Late in games while protecting a lead, then sure. But not like this. I may have been a defensive dman, but after a while I would have left my spot and charged ahead of St Louis shouting "Leeerrrroooooooooyyyyy!!!". Well, not the last part perhaps, but I played hockey because it's fun, not to fall asleep.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 01:25 PM
  #57
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
I would agree with this. I mean, the first person to employ the 1-3-1 system in Sweden (at a high level at least) was Tommy Sandlin who used it in the late 70's. Obviously the tactics behind it has changed a bit and become more efficient/complex since then, but still, there are a few ways known to man on how to beat it. I'm guessing this was more of a statement from Laviolette/the Flyers, than an actual game plan, so to speak.

It seems as if it is easier to defend than it is to attack in every sport, and as such when teams become to good at defending there will be some rule changes/tweakings to make it harder to defend (or easier to attack), I would bet that this game will be discussed when the people in charge have their meetings. Maybe it's time to get rid of the red line all together (as soon as you cross your own blue line you can dump the puck without it causing an icing)? I mean, you North American's think soccer is boring nowadays, you should have seen it in the late 80's, early 90's. After a few rule changes (and also a little bit different mentality among coaches and players I would say), things actually picked up a little bit.

On a more personal note, this is one of the (many) reasons why I never made it to the NHL. I could never play the game like the Lightnings (or the Flyers) did last night. Late in games while protecting a lead, then sure. But not like this. I may have been a defensive dman, but after a while I would have left my spot and charged ahead of St Louis shouting "Leeerrrroooooooooyyyyy!!!". Well, not the last part perhaps, but I played hockey because it's fun, not to fall asleep.
Being able to dump from your own end without icing it doesn't really help you either, the 1-3-1 is so effective because they clog the neutral zone while having the guy all the way back playing center field so he can chase down dump ins.

They have to find a better way to attack the trap, because standing still doesn't help you if you're trailing. The bigger concern though is the team reverting to the lazy and stupid penalties.

McNasty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 01:26 PM
  #58
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,227
vCash: 500
With the league meetings falling so close to this game ..one wonders how much influence Snider had in making this statement? As a senior owner he has had a lot of clout with respect to rule changes over the years...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 02:29 PM
  #59
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Being able to dump from your own end without icing it doesn't really help you either, the 1-3-1 is so effective because they clog the neutral zone while having the guy all the way back playing center field so he can chase down dump ins.

They have to find a better way to attack the trap, because standing still doesn't help you if you're trailing. The bigger concern though is the team reverting to the lazy and stupid penalties.
I don't know about that. It would be more difficult to play the trap in the neutral zone I would imagine, if the opposing team could send the puck down that early.

Another idea would be to force the team without the puck to actually do something, otherwise the faceoff is in their zone. Instead of having it the other way around like it is now.

Or, we don't overreact and change the rules based on one game. Oh, and agreed on the lazy and stupid bit.


Last edited by mirimon: 11-10-2011 at 02:36 PM.
mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 02:45 PM
  #60
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 2,694
vCash: 500
While I agree playing the trap is lame, I don't think NHL should ban it. I think teams should play any way they want within the rules that are currently in place, and let them and other teams deal with the consequences. It's a perfectly valid style of play, and to me it would feel as cheating banning certain styles and endorsing others. Kind of takes the fun out of the game.

Ryker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 02:46 PM
  #61
Cromster
Registered User
 
Cromster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New London, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 135
vCash: 500
everyone keeps referring to this as a 1-3-1. this isn't accurate. there was absolutely no forecheck whatsoever. What Tampa employed was a 0-4-1. That is a really tough nut to crack. You can't skate or pass through 4 players. That is super low percentage chance of success.

What you are left with is attempting to skate through to the red line (good luck with that) for a dump and chase, or flat out ice and chase. The problem there is the D-man that's sitting right by the goalie. You aren't going to beat him to the puck.

The best way (ok not the best way, but my favorite solution) to deal with this is have Rinaldo skate with the puck as fast as he can and obliterate a defender. There is no rule against the puck carrier initiating contact with a defending player. Peter Forsberg used to skate through people all the time.

After about 4 or 5 Rinaldo torpedo hits against opposing players, the players will move out of the way, being dissatisfied with being stationary targets, and the system will break down, thus creating opportunities for offense.

Cromster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 03:13 PM
  #62
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cromster View Post
everyone keeps referring to this as a 1-3-1. this isn't accurate. there was absolutely no forecheck whatsoever. What Tampa employed was a 0-4-1. That is a really tough nut to crack. You can't skate or pass through 4 players. That is super low percentage chance of success.
It was really more of a (0-1-3-1) 0-1-2-2.

-l--------ll-X------l-
-l----X---ll--------l-
-l--------ll------X-l-
-l--------ll--X-----l-
-l--------ll----X---l-

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 03:18 PM
  #63
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
It was really more of a (0-1-3-1) 0-1-2-2.

-l--------ll-X------l-
-l----X---ll--------l-
-l--------ll------X-l-
-l--------ll--X-----l-
-l--------ll----X---l-
I think it was more like 5 dudes all pretty much standing in the neutral zone.

There is the trap, and then there is that bs.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 03:30 PM
  #64
Foreverinour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 99
vCash: 500
they didnt really win because of the trap. a power play goal and 4v4 OT rebound goal. if anything pronger couldve just left the puck a few feet in front of him and waited til the guy came (if he ever did) and then pass it. nobody would have possession so they cant blow the whistle or at least if they did blow it faceoff should be out of our zone. it would end up probably being a boring game for the fans. or just do the flying V against it....

Foreverinour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 03:42 PM
  #65
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I think it was more like 5 dudes all pretty much standing in the neutral zone.

There is the trap, and then there is that bs.
It's called a trap because it's designed to force you to pass the puck and then be able to swarm the puck carrier, which is exactly what that was. 1-3-1 is simply the formation they take in the neutral zone it doesn't mean 1 fore checker.

The NHL will probably do something because if 20 teams adopt that style of play it's going to make the league very difficult to watch, especially at a time where they can capitalize on the lack of basketball. I'm not sure what they can really do to prevent teams from using it outside of cracking down on the subtle interference they let teams get away with on dump ins.

Either way the trap isn't why they lost, they lost because they couldn't capitalize on the PP and they couldn't stay out of the box in the 3rd.

McNasty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 03:49 PM
  #66
Cromster
Registered User
 
Cromster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New London, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Either way the trap isn't why they lost, they lost because they couldn't capitalize on the PP and they couldn't stay out of the box in the 3rd.
i agree. however, i also believe some of those 5 on 4's should have been 4 on 4's. There was a lot of diving going on in the third period by TB.

Cromster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 04:13 PM
  #67
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cromster View Post
i agree. however, i also believe some of those 5 on 4's should have been 4 on 4's. There was a lot of diving going on in the third period by TB.
Agreed.

A combination of tempo loss due to trap, inability to capitalize on the powerplay, and an egregious amount of penalty kills though some were deserved and some weren't.

It also didn't help that after trying to beat their trap all game we were visibly worn down in the third period.

Late in the third, after wearing us down, they put their foot on the gas so to speak, and we couldn't answer the challenge.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 04:14 PM
  #68
ph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker View Post
While I agree playing the trap is lame, I don't think NHL should ban it. I think teams should play any way they want within the rules that are currently in place, and let them and other teams deal with the consequences. It's a perfectly valid style of play, and to me it would feel as cheating banning certain styles and endorsing others. Kind of takes the fun out of the game.
At one point in time intentionally putting the puck over the glass from the defensive zone was a legitimate system/strategy/style of play.

ph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 04:20 PM
  #69
Mr Oysterhead
Registered User
 
Mr Oysterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 1,502
vCash: 500
edit


Last edited by Mr Oysterhead: 12-18-2013 at 01:02 PM.
Mr Oysterhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 04:45 PM
  #70
3Fs
Registered User
 
3Fs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Western Pa.
Country: United States
Posts: 492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersCup08 View Post
What's the rule on intentionally shooting the puck at an opposing player?

I wanted Coburn to just wind up and blast it at St. Louis when he was standing still. "If you're not gonna come get it, I'll just give it to you."
I had a good laugh with this post =)

3Fs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 04:48 PM
  #71
Letanger*
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
I HATE the flyers but since i was recently unbanned from this board...
I applaud what they did, their coaches really showed some balls to stand up and make a point. It was especialy great because it was in front of TB home crowd. I wish all the teams would do the same thing when playing in TB when their fans get bored of their tactics and stop coming to games, then the ownership starts feeling it on their wallets it might lead to some change. I really hope they dont win the cup using that type of system because then more and more teams will start copying it and this will only hurt the league in the long run.

Letanger* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 05:42 PM
  #72
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
I just heard that marble mouth bobby holik defending tampa. Sayin he's so mad that everyone is being so rough on them and that the Flyers were wrong not to advance the puck. At least thats what i think he said through his horrendous broken english. Listening to him talk is like watching a parapalegic walk. sorry to offend parapalegics everywhere. Of course that skilless tard needed this type of system to create an opportunity to sucker the rangers into a rediculoussly huge contract.

funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 06:19 PM
  #73
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,371
vCash: 500
I don't really have a problem with what either team did. Tampa plays a very suffocating defense, which relies on clogging the middle ice to retrieve the puck rather than a forecheck. From the aspect that defense has the purpose of preventing scoring chances, Tampa played a fantastic defensive game. They're not a puck possession team; they tend to score on the rush after turnovers, and on the powerplay.

While Philly didn't fall into the trap, they did waste a decent amount of puck possession time in their own zone. They didn't show up Tampa, or outsmart them, and Tampa didn't stare down a massive Philly offense and force them to back into their own zone. It was essentially what it looked like: a stalemate.

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 06:42 PM
  #74
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Gary Bettman is quoted on NHL.com

Quote:
"The notion of a trap goes back decades, probably to the '60s," he said. "The normal, the predictable, the traditional trap of a 1-2-2 is something we've lived with for years and even in the '90s and recently, teams that have won the Cup have done it playing some trapping. It's a tactic. OK, so Tampa, Guy Boucher uses a 1-3-1, a little bit different, and so Philadelphia decided that they were not going to attack the defense, but the defense wasn't going to attack the offense. They did it in Tampa's building, the fans reacted.

"Did I like it? No. Is it the most horrible thing I've ever seen on the ice? No. But I do think it has now added another agenda item to the general managers (meetings) next week. The officials whistled down play when there was no puck movement and it was appropriate. Do we need to eliminate the trap? You know, there are a lot of people who love the game the way it is who say no. If you're playing smart, tactical hockey, that's your prerogative and it's incumbent on the other team to figure out how to deal with it. By the same token, if this became too prevalent and too much of the game and too regular, then I think we'd have to deal with it, and we will."

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 06:44 PM
  #75
haleks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
I don't understand people saying the Flyers are wrong here? I didn't know that hockey was forcing the puck through a wall and potentialy turn it over and give the other team a chance to score.

Bob McKenzie said on TSN earlier today, that if there is a rule change about this issue, it would be that the team with the possession of the puck has to advance the puck. Worst thing that could ever happen to hockey. It would give every excuse to the 30 team to use the 1-3-1 knowing that the opposing team is oblige to enter your trap.

haleks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.