HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The (AV) SysTEm

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2013, 09:41 AM
  #26
Ilovemymum
recreational MD
 
Ilovemymum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 851
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MollyMollyOxenFree View Post
The only thing Pyatt is showing the rest of the team is how to play like ****.
There goes the hypthesis that they are slow learners

Ilovemymum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 09:43 AM
  #27
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,233
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Except for when they were killing time at the end of the game, the Rangers always forechecked with two men.

When it didn't work it was because the forecheckers weren't properly supported by the high F or the D men.

The forwards and defense were reluctant to drop too low to put pressure on the opposition. Considering Torts likely reaction to a mistake, I can't say I blame them. But it makes forechecking mch more difficult.

Whether you are checking or trapping, it is all about forcing turnovers. And aggressive forechecks are pointless if you are not willing to commit to pressing the opposition to turn the puck over.

All you are doing is wearing yourself out.
Placing one guy in front of the goalie is not an aggressive forechecking scheme. Having another "forechecking player" roam above the face off circles is not an agressive forechecking scheme.

What we saw time and again was puck carrier wait for 2 support players, one near the wall, the other in the face off circle. Puck carrier passes to support player 1 near the wall, he gets pressed and passes to support player 2 in the FO dot who then has 2 options, dish to the far side to support player 3 or give back to emerging player that started the breakout.

The problem with this is that forchecker 1 in front of the net needs to press the decisions made by puck holder behind the net. We never did that. We allowed time for support to develope and because of that we were beaten cleanly out of the zone ALL of the time.

An agressive forchecking system requires the guys to force the issue and make the carrier do things they do not want to do. Press the issue and defenceman can and will cough up the puck. We see it happen with our D all the time. That's what agressive forchecking systems do.

We do not do that.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 10:16 AM
  #28
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Placing one guy in front of the goalie is not an aggressive forechecking scheme. Having another "forechecking player" roam above the face off circles is not an agressive forechecking scheme.

What we saw time and again was puck carrier wait for 2 support players, one near the wall, the other in the face off circle. Puck carrier passes to support player 1 near the wall, he gets pressed and passes to support player 2 in the FO dot who then has 2 options, dish to the far side to support player 3 or give back to emerging player that started the breakout.

The problem with this is that forchecker 1 in front of the net needs to press the decisions made by puck holder behind the net. We never did that. We allowed time for support to develope and because of that we were beaten cleanly out of the zone ALL of the time.

An agressive forchecking system requires the guys to force the issue and make the carrier do things they do not want to do. Press the issue and defenceman can and will cough up the puck. We see it happen with our D all the time. That's what agressive forchecking systems do.

We do not do that.
Do not or did not? Are you talking about Torts or AV?

Torts usually had 2 players below the hash marks. Those players had little support from the 3rd F above the face off circle and none from the D who were often not even in the zone. Being outnumbered 5 to 2 or 3 in the zone usually leads to an easy breakout.

I always thought Torts forecheck was just aggressive enough to wear the team out but not really very effective.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 10:18 AM
  #29
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Placing one guy in front of the goalie is not an aggressive forechecking scheme. Having another "forechecking player" roam above the face off circles is not an agressive forechecking scheme.

What we saw time and again was puck carrier wait for 2 support players, one near the wall, the other in the face off circle. Puck carrier passes to support player 1 near the wall, he gets pressed and passes to support player 2 in the FO dot who then has 2 options, dish to the far side to support player 3 or give back to emerging player that started the breakout.

The problem with this is that forchecker 1 in front of the net needs to press the decisions made by puck holder behind the net. We never did that. We allowed time for support to develope and because of that we were beaten cleanly out of the zone ALL of the time.

An agressive forchecking system requires the guys to force the issue and make the carrier do things they do not want to do. Press the issue and defenceman can and will cough up the puck. We see it happen with our D all the time. That's what agressive forchecking systems do.

We do not do that.
True. Very coach at every level talks about limiting time and space. If you do that, you'll create turnovers. I would say we were average at this during the last couple of years. We had some shifts, periods, games where we were very good and then other times when the opposing team was at the red line before you batted an eye.

This is where we REALLY miss Hagelin. His first two seasons he was able to make any line he played on an effective forechecking line. Although he lacks the touch to ever be a legitimate 1st line player, he is the type of player who is the PERFECT companion for a guy like Stepan who has average at best foot speed.

Cliffy1814 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 10:26 AM
  #30
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
The Rangers have performed so poorly that I think its almost impossible to make an educated analysis of exactly what AV's system entails.

Ironically, besides man to man defense, the 2 wins this season looked a helluva lot like how the previous regime used to win games. Effort, grit, great board work, and winning the battles below the hashes.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 10:39 AM
  #31
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,233
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Do not or did not? Are you talking about Torts or AV?

Torts usually had 2 players below the hash marks. Those players had little support from the 3rd F above the face off circle and none from the D who were often not even in the zone. Being outnumbered 5 to 2 or 3 in the zone usually leads to an easy breakout.

I always thought Torts forecheck was just aggressive enough to wear the team out but not really very effective.
under Torts we did not do that.

We got beat CLEAN out of the opposing teams defensive zone. All the time.

We never pressed players behind the goalie or forced them to make snap decisions and choices.

They were allowed time and space needed to break out with limited opposition.

If you are going to give the D behind the goalie time, he's going to take it and allow his wingers to set up to exit the zone with limited opposition.

This was most evident in the playoffs against Boston as they had their way with us all series.

The fact is, it was happening with more regularity during the season as well.

Slow teams do not forecheck well because once you are past them it opens holes all over the ice.

Slow teams trap very well because it clogs up the neutral zone allows for a quicker transition to offence as they have less of a surface to skate to go on the offensive.

The Rangers played a VERY safe style both on the forecheck and on offence. It was a gritty style that required alot of dedication and a willingness to put yourself in harms way, but it was not and is not conducive to winning with an offensively challenged group of forwards.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 10:51 AM
  #32
Ilovemymum
recreational MD
 
Ilovemymum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 851
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The Rangers have performed so poorly that I think its almost impossible to make an educated analysis of exactly what AV's system entails.

Ironically, besides man to man defense, the 2 wins this season looked a helluva lot like how the previous regime used to win games. Effort, grit, great board work, and winning the battles below the hashes.
It's also the only two games where Hank has been himself.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id...32014&view=log

Ilovemymum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 10:57 AM
  #33
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilovemymum View Post
It's also the only two games where Hank has been himself.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id...32014&view=log
Yea, I'd put a little more weight in that if they werent losing games 9-2,4-0,6-0, etc.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 12:17 PM
  #34
stan the caddy
Registered User
 
stan the caddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
You bring up the fastest guy on the team, yet ignore everyone else

Richards is slow.

Stepan is slow

Boyle is slow.

Pyatt is slow

Zuccs is not slow, but he's not a fast player either.

Gaborik had lost a step

Callahan is a great forechecking player.

Nash isn't and never was a great forechecking player

Asham is slow

Powe has decent speed.

The Rangers are NOT a fast team
You could make every team in the league sound slow with this logic. Where are all these teams that ice 9 speedsters?

Tortorella used an aggressive forecheck, I don't know what else to tell you. He's already preaching it in Vancouver. Most teams in the league aren't sending two guys in.

stan the caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 12:22 PM
  #35
stan the caddy
Registered User
 
stan the caddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
under Torts we did not do that.

We got beat CLEAN out of the opposing teams defensive zone. All the time.

We never pressed players behind the goalie or forced them to make snap decisions and choices.

They were allowed time and space needed to break out with limited opposition.

If you are going to give the D behind the goalie time, he's going to take it and allow his wingers to set up to exit the zone with limited opposition.

This was most evident in the playoffs against Boston as they had their way with us all series.

The fact is, it was happening with more regularity during the season as well.

Slow teams do not forecheck well because once you are past them it opens holes all over the ice.

Slow teams trap very well because it clogs up the neutral zone allows for a quicker transition to offence as they have less of a surface to skate to go on the offensive.

The Rangers played a VERY safe style both on the forecheck and on offence. It was a gritty style that required alot of dedication and a willingness to put yourself in harms way, but it was not and is not conducive to winning with an offensively challenged group of forwards.
So are you saying they forechecked aggressively in the Boston series, did a poor job of it, and were exposed?

Or are you saying the Rangers weren't aggressive because they are a slow team?

stan the caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 05:28 AM
  #36
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,343
vCash: 500
Canucks fans here. I've been following some of the threads here and can't help but offer my opinion especially reading about what apparently some Canucks fans have said. I haven't watched the Rangers enough this season to know what AV is doing here, but I think when analyzing AV it's important to start with what he did in Montreal and when he first arrived in Vancouver before Gillis became GM in addition to the success he had with the Canucks.

Before Gillis arrived, AV was known as a pure defensive coach. There were articles written about how AV kills offense. With the Canucks, I would classify AV's system as more of a trapping/counterattack system. Back when Therrien was having success with the Penguins, AV constantly denied that he employed the trap and defended his system saying it's no different from what the Penguins were playing under Therrien. According to AV, the difference was that the Canucks lacked the offensive the Penguins had. It's the classic Jacques Lemaire system does not stagnate the offense argument (Gaborik did score 42 goals under Lemaire). There's a strong argument that AV's defensive system got the most out of a team lacking talent.

When Mike Gillis became the Canucks GM, Gillis wanted his team to play uptempo hockey and AV actually had to convince Gillis he was capable of coaching that style. While AV certainly proved himself capable of coaching an offensive team, I still think he's a defensive coach at heart. I'm not sure if you guys have noticed it yet, but I think AV coached teams have a tendency to sit back, especially on a lead. Sure, the defense are encouraged to jump into the attack, but AV's system isn't a run-and-gun system. There is a tendency to fall back into trap-like system and wait for the counterattack.

F A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 06:25 AM
  #37
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,343
vCash: 500
I'm not surprised at all about some of the comments you guys have expressed. Here are a few more thoughts.

Assistants: I've read some complaints about AV's choice of assistants. FWIW, Gillis ended up forcing AV to change his assistants and besides AV's associate coach Rick Bowness, it was mostly Gillis handpicking assistants for AV (supposedly with AV's approval of course).

PP: AV was never in charge of the PP. During the Cup run, the Canucks had the best PP in the league and credit goes to Newell Brown, a Gillis hire.

Line Juggling: AV was notorious for line juggling, but in reality he constantly goes back to his original lines. Taylor Pyatt on the first line? He did that on the Canucks. He also had 4th liners Dale Weise and Maxim Lapierre take shifts on the first line in the past as well. Oh and he likes having big bodies in front of the net. One big complaint about AV is that he doesn't stick with lines that work. Zach Kassian started last season with 5 goals in 7 games playing with the Sedins and it didn't take long before he made his way to the 4th line with some "shifts" with the Sedins. So don't scratch your head too much when you see a guy like Pyatt or another 4th line guy take shifts on the first line.

Line Matching: AV really micromanages at times. He will stick with a matchup he wants even if something else proves more effective. Like most coaches, AV is stubborn in some ways and this is one of them.

Timeouts: AV has been criticized for not calling timeouts. I'm indifferent.

Defensemen: AV is not exactly a fan of puck-rushing defenseman, especially if they are prone to mistakes. He prefers guys who makes good first passes. When things weren't going well, the Canucks were often pinned in their own zone because the Canucks lacked defensemen who were capable of taking the puck up ice after stealing a puck in the team's own zone.

Forwards: AV likes defensively-responsible players first and foremost and isn't a fan of east-west players. Even when the team needs offense he'll play a defensively-responsible north=south guy over a offensively-talented forward who is a bit of a defensive liability.

Complexity of AV's system: I didn't really hear this from Canucks fans when he was here, not sure why Rangers fans think this. AV likes to make the use of set plays but I don't think the concepts are hard to grasps. Defensemen are expected to make a good break-out pass rather than the off-the-glass variety, centers are expected to play deep in their own zone, and wingers are positioned just outside the blue-line awaiting for the breakout pass. In most cases, the forwards know where they need to be and the defensemen know where the forwards will be when the defensemen manage to get a hold of the puck in their own zone. It's not exactly like Torts' get the puck out as soon as possible system, but I don't think there's some sort of complex calculations that defensemen have to make before they decide on what to do with the puck, at least I haven't heard any Canucks defensemen mention it.

Motivation: I don't believe AV is a good motivator. When he first arrived in Vancouver he benefitted from having guys he coached in the AHL on the team, and he quickly made that group part of the leadership group. Later on he was able to hand the room over to the Sedins who quite frankly are underrated leaders. The Sedins are blocking shots under Torts. When you have leaders who are self-motivating, you really don't need to do much. But part of the problem for the Canucks the past couple of years is that during the regular season everybody was waiting for the team to flip the switch come playoff time. It never happened. Under AV there was this never get too high never get too low attitude where there's never anything to worry. It worked great in the regular season for the most part as the team was a talented team with established veterans who knew how to pace themselves and win. But it takes more in the playoffs and the Canucks' first round exits were telling.

Outcoached: There are some Canucks fans who hold the opinion that AV is constantly outcoached in the playoffs. There's certainly a strong argument that AV doesn't prepare his team well for the playoffs. Two seasons ago, Daniel Sedin ended the regular season sitting out with a concussion. Yet, AV didn't prepare the team to start the playoffs without Sedin.

Conclusion: I am honestly surprised that the Rangers are off to such a start. I do think AV is a good coach who has earned the respect of players. I'm confident that AV will find a way to win, but I suspect he will win with defense rather than offense.

F A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 06:36 AM
  #38
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by F A N View Post
Canucks fans here. I've been following some of the threads here and can't help but offer my opinion especially reading about what apparently some Canucks fans have said. I haven't watched the Rangers enough this season to know what AV is doing here, but I think when analyzing AV it's important to start with what he did in Montreal and when he first arrived in Vancouver before Gillis became GM in addition to the success he had with the Canucks.

Before Gillis arrived, AV was known as a pure defensive coach. There were articles written about how AV kills offense. With the Canucks, I would classify AV's system as more of a trapping/counterattack system. Back when Therrien was having success with the Penguins, AV constantly denied that he employed the trap and defended his system saying it's no different from what the Penguins were playing under Therrien. According to AV, the difference was that the Canucks lacked the offensive the Penguins had. It's the classic Jacques Lemaire system does not stagnate the offense argument (Gaborik did score 42 goals under Lemaire). There's a strong argument that AV's defensive system got the most out of a team lacking talent.

When Mike Gillis became the Canucks GM, Gillis wanted his team to play uptempo hockey and AV actually had to convince Gillis he was capable of coaching that style. While AV certainly proved himself capable of coaching an offensive team, I still think he's a defensive coach at heart. I'm not sure if you guys have noticed it yet, but I think AV coached teams have a tendency to sit back, especially on a lead. Sure, the defense are encouraged to jump into the attack, but AV's system isn't a run-and-gun system. There is a tendency to fall back into trap-like system and wait for the counterattack.
Good posts. A few things:

1. If a coach is offensiveminded or defensiveminded is purely a question of how much offense a coach wants to play at the cost of defense. Right?

In light of the above, how you play defense is not really part of the equation (!). IE, the same coach can play very offensive hockey if he is behind the bench of Chicago (that plays defense like AV) or have a team that is defending alot and plays a low scoring hockey if he is behind the bench in say PHX.

We saw that if nothing else with Renney in NY, he and Maloney hand picked a team for him and that team scored a ton of goals, when it had a good first line and some depth. Then Nyls and JJ were replaced with Gomez and Shanny and Drury, and it became very defensive minded. The same style that was almost dominating for stretches with the right players became really defensive with less top end ability.

In the end, in the game today, you need to be good defensively to play offensive hockey, AND vice versa.

AV got his team turning the back to their own net and backing down more, some call it trapping. But the real trapping teams, NJD of the 90's, they dumped the puck in and backed down. That is hardly what we are doing. We are doing the exact same thing as Chicago regulary are doing. When you loose pressure of the puck, you "trap". Torts has a diffrent philosopy here, more in line with Babcocks style in Detroit (and here you really see how separated these areas are from one another, because you can't find two fundamentally more diffrent coaches overall that Torts and Babcock), where you don't turn your back against your own end and instead skate with the pace of the transition game to have speed under your skates all the way.

2. Re your comment on Gabby, certain types of players are definitely affected diffrently by certain styles of play. Gabby is an excellent counter attack player, he will do well on a team that plays alot of defense because it gives him alot of opertunitites to counter attack, its as simple as that.

Torts had very little use for centers that could carry the puck in NY, under Renney they were essential. Torts kind of "raised" many of our D's in NY, and while he de facto don't stiffle creative D's (see Dan Boyle), the D's that he do raise becomes extremely N-S, get the puck up ice ASAP, orientated.

Like I am sure you know, AV wants his D's to move the puck up ice and start the attack from their own end and up instead of getting the puck below the hashmarks before the team try to get it to the net.

If you had seen more NY hockey, you would have seen how ridiculously unsecure our D's have been in these areas so far this season. They all got a distinct deer-in-headlight look in these situations. There was a quoet about a week ago how AV had talked about the importance of making passes "tape to tape" in the transition game, lol that says it all. And the team as a whole just becomes very unsecure as a result of it. Sometimes a unsecure D makes a short pass in his own end to keep the puck within the team, then while loosing some time collecting passes etc, we move it up ice and go up against a collected D. Or we are behind 2-0 and the same D all of a sudden starts hitting the ice playing Torts type of hockey, just banging the puck up the boards, while the forwards are going deep to collect passes etc.

Its a tremendous mess.

My point is just, whether AV is a defensive or offensive minded coach, has little impact as long as we can't execute his intentions. When we can't do that, we will not score anything and give up alot. Then one can ask themselves if AV isn't at fault for trying to play a somewhat creative (hey its not DRW II) transition game with the Ds he have, shouldn't he adjust to the team? I do not agree with that. Looking around the league, all the better teams right now are really poised with the puck. This is not an issue of talent on the blueline, to a big extent its a team drilling issue. Colin White moved the puck quite well for NJD for a long time, not end to end, but those simple passes where you read of the forecheckers and makes sure to deliver a pass tape to tape to the one player that manage to get open. McD is maybe the worst offender in NY, nobody can convince me that he has less talent that Colin White. So in the big picture, I think AV is doing the same thing as any of the like top 15 coaches in the league would do if they got the job, ensure that we started to work on getting some kind of transition game here in NY. That is the starting point.


Last edited by Ola: 10-25-2013 at 06:50 AM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:05 AM
  #39
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 500
From what I heard, watched and research. And from what I am seeing now.

Its a lot less zone defense and a lot more man on man. So to say.
The offense is asked to cycle and move the puck and move move move.
The defense is asked to load up on the strong side.
The breakout is 1 defender behind net with puck, 1 d on boards, 2 f up high and 1 forward coming in for option.

---I believe it can work. However, it has a ton of risk as we have seen.

Last night was no different than any other game.

Lets start with defense in our zone.
Flyers have puck in the corner. We load up on that side. We let that player with the puck make an easy pass to an open D man. We then all shift to that player. That D then shoots it which usually causes a rebound and were giving up easy rebounds (due to poor defensive positioning) or he passes it over D to D which then makes us shift more and then were out of position EVEN MORE now. Because we shift and shift and ****. We play man on man and then were always leaving opponents open in PRIME HIGH QUALITY SCORING CHANCES.

You give any NHL team 10 of these chances as we have done every game (except 1) then theyre likely to put in 2 goals. 10 high quality chances equals 2 goals. But then you realize that were sometimes giving up 20 of these and its 3/4 goals and then thats not even counting the opponents lucky bounces, low quality chances and other plays of the game.

We finally win possession but by the time we do, we have a line that is usually tired from playing man to man and running around with out heads.

Thats not even the biggest issue. Watch our transition from our zone, our break out. We have 1 guy behind the net. 1 guy on the boards. Okay fine, pretty standard. Yesterday the Flyers played a close up forecheck. They had one guy covering the guy on the boards and one guy on our net watching the puck.

Our forwards are all in the neutral zone proving LITTLE to NONE passing options. So one guy is designated as a guy to come in and provide a better option. It usually works but not on this type of defensive pressure. Why?

I saw a few attempted breakouts last night where that 1 forward circled into the zone. But what was he doing? He circled up and though it seemed like he provided an extra option, he was in a position of no passing lane.

So our defense is asked to make something out of nothing. When we were under Torts, our breakout was pretty bad too but it was not this bad.

What that forward should have done at least 2/3 times out of the 6/7 real breakouts we had last night was circle around the net and create confusion. Because then he has the option to either leave the puck and get open, or take the puck and skate past a stationary defender. No... instead he did nothing but play the role of a dead duck.

When we finally have a proper transition game, we do have a fast attacking offense. Too bad this ideal transition only happens 3x a game and we only get 1 real high quality shot on net. Most of the time we have our players shooting 20+ feet out with a defender in the way (Brian Boyle, Taylor Pyatt) or 10 feet out and on a horrible angle (Brad Richards, Derek Stepan).


I blame the coach and the players... but I do blame the coaches more. The players should read the game better and understand that they dont have to follow the breakout plan to a T. However, most other things (most) they have to follow to the books and honestly its causing issues. I understand the players need time to adapt to a new system but you have 4 coaches (guys who say they study the game and they love that part of the job) and you cant change simple things.

Instead AV is making excuses... 1) Players are not playing well 2) Hank needs to play better 3) Were on a long road trip

My responses are...
1) Players are playing your system. There going to where you want them too. There moving in the lanes you tell them too. Its not there fault that when it comes to actual gametime, your gameplan does not work like the model says it will
2) Hank has given up some softies but I expect that when you let him face 100 real good shots on his net. His stats are inflated as well based on terrible defense. TERRIBLE.
3) Torts did not complain about our 11-12 long road trips (2 of them and starting the season in Europe). The team played well. They lost some but they bounced back and they even went to the ECF.

No excuses. You are the NY Rangers. You have one of the most highest revenues and profit margins and a very very rich owner who probably has them travel under best conditions... stay and sleep in best conditions and eat like kings.

And so many professional staff members to ease their stress and pain along the way. So Stop the excuses.

Im all for a change in coaching staff

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:06 AM
  #40
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,824
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post

Im all for a change in coaching staff
Sure. More fall guys.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:21 AM
  #41
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Good points, F A N. I've always thought of AV as a more defense-minded coach and I think that's what this team needs to be right now. However, I know that one of the reasons why Sather hired AV was to get more offense out of this group, so AV may be between a rock and a hard place right now.

I also agree about AV regarding motivation - from the way this team has played thus far, it seems like they aren't many self-motivators in the locker room.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:27 AM
  #42
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 500
I was not for firing Torts. When it did happen though I did not want Messier and I wanted AV.

Now. Fire AV. I was duped in believing in his studying of the game and his coordinators and 3 coach ideas.

Then again I was never for the Nash trade either...

Idk. If I was the owner as of now.
I would fire AV as head coach. We look pathetic.

I would then hire Messier. Why?
Yes he has a lack of coaching experience. But he is the captain and a guy whose played in the league for decades.

It cant get much worse so why not give him an intermediate contract for the season.
He can hire any assistants he wants. Leetch he said...

So fire our 3 assistants.

I would then have to hold Sather accountable. I heard his assistants very good. So why not?

At least with Messier as coach. Fans would be pleased and they wouldnt mind spending money to come watch him behind the bench. ya know?

Also, nothing would piss me off more than Messier finding a coaching job elsewhere and then being a good coach hahaha. If he won a Stanley Cup I would hate it

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:44 AM
  #43
Spamhuis
Registered User
 
Spamhuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,939
vCash: 500
AV is very stubborn and firmly believes in his systems. You will see the team lose and AV will be happy if the players played "the right way".

With that said, his system is very hard to learn. If you have puck rushing defensemen they will not be allowed to rush. Always they must pass. Also, the D we had come into the organization had trouble adapting so I'm sure it takes longer for a whole team to learn than most systems.

Spamhuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:49 AM
  #44
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 500
I am tired of people complaining about players and their stats.

Sports is never as simple as acquiring a "scorer" or "superstar" and witnessing more offense or better play.

At least 75% of the game, in every game, the players on a team are asked to follow a system. Sure, theres room for players to make their decisions. Theres a ton of that. But when watch the game. Look at our incredibly terrible break out and inconsistent transistion.

I agree some roster moves need to be made. But its not as easy as saying we need to get a guy who scored 30+ goals on this team... Because we have done this before. Other teams do that. You think its coincidence that those same guys dont score 30+ goals on our team...

No, its called a system. A structure.

This team sucks from head to toe.

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 03:37 PM
  #45
Ilovemymum
recreational MD
 
Ilovemymum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 851
vCash: 50
Some players perspective from NYDN today.

- Ryan McDonagh also described how the defensemen are trying to “come out clean” from their own zone with the puck to set up an “attack with speed” through the neutral zone, “as opposed to dumping it and chasing to an area.” McDonagh allowed that dump-and-chase is going to happen and sometimes needs to, but the Blueshirts can’t be relying on it to the point where they’re not applying the ideal pressure, and instead their opponents are able to attack them with speed, instead.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ran...sses-out-west-


Last edited by Ilovemymum: 10-26-2013 at 05:19 PM.
Ilovemymum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 06:05 AM
  #46
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Good posts. A few things:

1. If a coach is offensiveminded or defensiveminded is purely a question of how much offense a coach wants to play at the cost of defense. Right?

In light of the above, how you play defense is not really part of the equation (!). IE, the same coach can play very offensive hockey if he is behind the bench of Chicago (that plays defense like AV) or have a team that is defending alot and plays a low scoring hockey if he is behind the bench in say PHX.
It use to be that most teams change their style of play through coaching changes, but more and more you have GMs who identify a style of play and bring in coaches and players that reflect this style (with adjustments of course). Sure it's ultimately on the GM to put together the roster, but a coach still maintains the power to choose who he is going to dress or play on a given night. And if a coach manages to be there for a while, he is likely to have some input on the type of players his GM is bringing in. Strategically, a coach can completely impact the team's style of play. While you are right in saying that a coach behind the bench of Chicago CAN play offensive and a coach behind the bench of say Phoenix CAN play defensive hockey, it doesn't mean a coach will in those cases. There was an article about how Mike Babcock was adapting to the fact that the team no longer has Lidstrom and doesn't move the puck as well by having his defensemen make shorter passes rather than longer tape-to-tape passes and dumping the puck in a bit more. That's an example of a coach changing his system to adapt to the talent of his roster but that doesn't mean a coach will. In Vancouver, Torts has the Sedins blocking shots. This is a case of a coach forcing his players to adapt to his system/philosophy. And obviously when a coach decides not to play a Cody Hodgson or a Brad Richards when the team has trouble scoring it impacts the style of play you see on the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Torts kind of "raised" many of our D's in NY, and while he de facto don't stiffle creative D's (see Dan Boyle), the D's that he do raise becomes extremely N-S, get the puck up ice ASAP, orientated.
This is an interesting point. Canucks defensemen have looked pretty good so far this season even waiver pickup Ryan Stanton. Statistically, Canucks defensemen are giving the puck away at a more frequent rate due to Tort's philosophy of getting the puck out of the defensive zone as quickly as possible as opposed to AV's philosophy of having his defensemen look for that breakout pass whenever possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
If you had seen more NY hockey, you would have seen how ridiculously unsecure our D's have been in these areas so far this season. They all got a distinct deer-in-headlight look in these situations. There was a quoet about a week ago how AV had talked about the importance of making passes "tape to tape" in the transition game, lol that says it all. And the team as a whole just becomes very unsecure as a result of it. Sometimes a unsecure D makes a short pass in his own end to keep the puck within the team, then while loosing some time collecting passes etc, we move it up ice and go up against a collected D. Or we are behind 2-0 and the same D all of a sudden starts hitting the ice playing Torts type of hockey, just banging the puck up the boards, while the forwards are going deep to collect passes etc.
Yep and defensively I think Tort's philosophy of having his defensemen try to bang or chip the puck out of the defensive zone as quickly as possible works a bit better in diffusing pressure when the team is hemmed in but it really depends on the situation. Under Torts, the team will have his team quickly try the other side when the team is hemmed in as opposed to AV who will have his defensemen try to control the puck and find someone to pass to.

Another interesting comparison point I want to make is that AV has a lot more set plays and encourages his offensive players to look for a quality scoring chance. It's certainly more of a puck possession style. Torts encourages his players to spray pucks to the net. The biggest change is that Torts allows his 4th line to play offensively, while AV likes his 4th line to be more of a crash and bang line. Consequently, the 4th line has looked a look more dangerous (when they get a chance to play) under Torts, but the 4th line didn't get into trouble under AV as they did under Torts. Consequently, AV is a better manager of his players' minutes as AV will use his 4th line a lot more.

F A N 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 08:59 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.