HFBoards

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

Hammer placed on waivers, claimed by NYR

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2013, 11:55 AM
  #126
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Did BB adjust to break the trap? Yes or no.


(edit: remember, we're talking about a guy who said he didn't even see the value in line-matching)
And I think their point is that the Caps handled Tampa's trap just fine, it was when they switched to an aggressive 2 man forecheck that the Caps fell apart.

So yes they did break the trap but Boucher adjusted and stopped trapping and the Caps couldn't handle that.

But you know 18, 20, 37, 40 what's the difference...?

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 12:23 PM
  #127
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
And I think their point is that the Caps handled Tampa's trap just fine, it was when they switched to an aggressive 2 man forecheck that the Caps fell apart.

So yes they did break the trap but Boucher adjusted and stopped trapping and the Caps couldn't handle that.

But you know 18, 20, 37, 40 what's the difference...?
Handled it fine, looked like **** and got swept, what's the difference....?

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 12:30 PM
  #128
CapitalsCupFantasy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
CapitalsCupFantasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 27,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Handled it fine, looked like **** and got swept, what's the difference....?
Handled it fine, didn't handle it fine, Won a series, lost a series, 37 goals or 40 goals....accountability ftw!

CapitalsCupFantasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 12:37 PM
  #129
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Handled it fine, looked like **** and got swept, what's the difference....?
So you are looking at it from a very macro perspective, ie since they got swept everything they did must have been terrible?

They lost 2 one goal games, one of which was in OT, and another that was a one goal game plus an empty netter. Only game 4 wasn't really a close one.

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 01:05 PM
  #130
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
So you are looking at it from a very macro perspective, ie since they got swept everything they did must have been terrible?

They lost 2 one goal games, one of which was in OT, and another that was a one goal game plus an empty netter. Only game 4 wasn't really a close one.

No, I'm just using your own tactic to show you how it works both ways. Now you're rationalizing and knocking down strawmen. If you think they looked good in those games and think the close score in 2 of them is proof, I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe you should go back and look at some quotes from that series. They admitted they were thoroughly outplayed, and it wasn't even as close as some of the scores indicated.

(A 1 goal game with an empty netter is a 2 goal loss, by the way. If they'd tied and come back to win, you'd call it a win, not a 1 goal game they got lucky and won.)

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 01:10 PM
  #131
BrooklynCapsFan
Waiting on the Isles
 
BrooklynCapsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundhockey View Post
I'll miss Hamr.


Last edited by BrooklynCapsFan: 03-07-2013 at 01:19 PM.
BrooklynCapsFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 01:15 PM
  #132
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
No, I'm just using your own tactic to show you how it works both ways. Now you're rationalizing and knocking down strawmen. If you think they looked good in those games and think the close score in 2 of them is proof, I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe you should go back and look at some quotes from that series. They admitted they were thoroughly outplayed, and it wasn't even as close as some of the scores indicated.

(A 1 goal game with an empty netter is a 2 goal loss, by the way. If they'd tied and come back to win, you'd call it a win, not a 1 goal game they got lucky and won.)
This is ridiculous. Just because a team gets outplayed does not mean that got outplayed in every part of the game. When Tampa was trapping in that series the Caps were doing fine. They were clearly prepared for it and did ok, not great mind you but ok. When Tampa switched to an aggressive forecheck the Caps fell apart. Teams don't usually change their approach for no reason but Tampa did. Why I ask you?

And they lost game 1 by 2 goals, 1 of which was an empty netter. They lost games 2 and 3 by 1 goal each. Nobody looking at the competitiveness of a game treats a 2 goal loss where one of those was an empty netter the same as a 2 goal loss without an empty netter.

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 01:22 PM
  #133
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
This is ridiculous. Just because a team gets outplayed does not mean that got outplayed in every part of the game. When Tampa was trapping in that series the Caps were doing fine. They were clearly prepared for it and did ok, not great mind you but ok. When Tampa switched to an aggressive forecheck the Caps fell apart. Teams don't usually change their approach for no reason but Tampa did. Why I ask you?

Yeah, "ridiculous" is a good word, but now in the way you meant it.

Another aspect of that series, iirc, was that TB was shooting from EVERYWHERE. Behind the goal line, in particular. And they were going in. It was part of their gameplan. And BB and the Caps NEVER adjusted to that.

But by all means, keep squeezing that rock to see if blood comes out. Maybe you can change history if you talk yourself into it.

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 01:38 PM
  #134
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Yeah, "ridiculous" is a good word, but now in the way you meant it.

Another aspect of that series, iirc, was that TB was shooting from EVERYWHERE. Behind the goal line, in particular. And they were going in. It was part of their gameplan. And BB and the Caps NEVER adjusted to that.

But by all means, keep squeezing that rock to see if blood comes out. Maybe you can change history if you talk yourself into it.
What kind of adjustment do you feel is needed when teams are shooting from below the goal line? IMO you do what you can to keep them shooting from below the goal line because those are terrible shots.

And this discussion is simply about the Caps doing fine against Tampa's trap. That is all. Obviously that wasn't enough as Boucher adjusted to an aggressive forecheck and the Caps weren't able to handle it. You claim the trap beat them and I am saying that wasn't the case, it was the aggressive forecheck that beat them. They were beat regardless...

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 02:53 PM
  #135
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
What kind of adjustment do you feel is needed when teams are shooting from below the goal line? IMO you do what you can to keep them shooting from below the goal line because those are terrible shots.

And this discussion is simply about the Caps doing fine against Tampa's trap. That is all. Obviously that wasn't enough as Boucher adjusted to an aggressive forecheck and the Caps weren't able to handle it. You claim the trap beat them and I am saying that wasn't the case, it was the aggressive forecheck that beat them. They were beat regardless...

Wrong again. And this is the only time I'm going to do a "homework assignment" for you...

The point back on page 3 was that the failure vs TB was yet another example of BB not adapting in the playoffs, and added to many other issues he was eventually on thin ice. An example from puck daddy:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl,wp4170

"But after 189 wins in 307 regular-season games haven't led to anything but a semifinal exit, Boudreau's return for 2011-12 is rightfully in question.

In eliminations against the Pittsburgh Penguins (2009), the Montreal Canadiens (2010) and the Tampa Bay Lightning (2011), Boudreau was outcoached. Bad line changes and too many men on the ice penalties -- on a power play, no less -- undermined the team against Tampa. He's been unable to extract the same level of intensity from his players in the postseason as he has the regular season."


They did not "do fine", and I question whether or not you actually watched the series closely or paid attention to the team quotes that resulted from it. If TB changed its approach it was to further pressure the Caps into turnovers because they realized they couldn't get out of the zone anyway, and they knew they could get the D to cough up the puck. It was NOT because the Caps had solved the trap. It was because Boucher realized the Caps were just looking to get a lead and sit on it, so he got to them FIRST. Then he shut down the Caps offense.

http://capitals.nhl.com/club/recap.htm?id=2010030214

"Washington’s role players didn’t contribute nearly as much as those of the Lightning, and the Caps weren’t able to muster the patience and discipline needed to play against the Lightning’s 1-3-1 system."

And that's from homer Mike Vogel, who in the same post-mortem was trying to paint a "coulda won" positive picture (spin) of the series. You can also look up quotes about trying to get the lead to sit on it, not playing complete games, being outplayed, and the team just coming out flat even after having plenty of time to rest before facing a TB team that went a rough 7 vs the Pens.


As for the adjustments to the TB shooting philosophy, the Caps continued to allow puckhandlers to freely operate below the goal-line and to the sides in general because they never adapted to TB's strategy. And multiple goals were scored from those areas because of it.

There was also no adjustment in goaltending, as Neuvirth did not hug the post when he should have and did not expect pucks to be flung to the net or crease from all angles. Even the TV commentators knew this was going on, but BB didn't. That's probably one reason why Nervy's save % went from .946 vs NYR to never above .870 vs TB.


Again, I don't think you really watched those games, and you're just being contrarian because it's how you get your kicks.


Last edited by g00n: 03-07-2013 at 02:58 PM.
g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 03:05 PM
  #136
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Well I just flat out disagree with nearly everything you said, and WHICH trap BB couldn't break is a nitpick regarding his failure to adapt, so whatever. Moving Ovechkin to the slot to float for a few games as the rest of the team runs around is not the same as what Oates is doing, and BB/Hunter didn't do it for long. They kept moving Ovechkin to the point, and using 2 point men, and doing all kinds of crap (that is, when they could evne get set up because they had no clear entry plan).
You should probably learn a little more about hockey systems before you try and argue about them. The 2-1-2 is not a "trap." Tampa's 2-1-2 sent two forecheckers deep in their offensive zone. The F1 harassed the puck carrier, and the F2 attempted to cut off the passing lane to the other D. The F3 sat somewhere around the blue line. It's an aggressive forecheck, not unlike what Tortarella uses in New York. Since the Caps breakout was designed to beat the 1-3-1, there wasn't much support down low for the puck carrier (as that wouldn't be needed when nobody on the other team is forechecking), often leaving the opposite D as the only option (who, remember, is being covered by the F2).

When Tampa sat back in the 1-3-1, the Caps faired far better than many teams at breaking through. It wasn't really a huge issue for the Caps in the series, certainly not as much as the 2-1-2 was. The Caps got swept, but the 1-3-1 forecheck was not the reason why.

As for the 1-3-1 powerplay under Boudreau, the period when Ovie was in the center was not the only point he used the 1-3-1 last season (just the most obvious example). It is also not what Hunter was using.



Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Did BB adjust to break the trap? Yes or no.


(edit: remember, we're talking about a guy who said he didn't even see the value in line-matching)
BB adjusted to break the trap during the regular season, and carried that same adjustment into the post-season (minus the sitting in their own zone bit, given they never really had a lead). What BB failed to adjust to was the aggressive forecheck Boucher countered with.


Last edited by Mystlyfe: 03-07-2013 at 03:13 PM.
Mystlyfe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 03:13 PM
  #137
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Actually, I know enough about hockey to know you're wrong about what happened, and that what BB did with the PP is NOT what Oates is doing, no matter what you say. In the Oates 1-3-1, the low man is behind the net or to the side of it. It's a much more disciplined PP with more options. And the point was, and still is, that Oates fixed the PP and BB didn't do it right, and wasn't using it when the PP was the main problem following the MTL debacle.


Last edited by Langway: 03-07-2013 at 04:28 PM.
g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 03:29 PM
  #138
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
Actually, I know enough about hockey to know you're wrong about what happened, and that what BB did with the PP is NOT what Oates is doing, no matter what you say. In the Oates 1-3-1, the low man is behind the net or to the side of it. It's a much more disciplined PP with more options. And the point was, and still is, that Oates fixed the PP and BB didn't do it right, and wasn't using it when the PP was the main problem following the MTL debacle.
For all this anger about me not reading, perhaps you should go ahead and actually read what I wrote. Find where I said Oates and Boudreau used the same powerplay, 1-3-1 or otherwise. I'll wait.

What I did say was that Boudreau used the 1-3-1 powerplay at the beginning of last season. I then expounded on some of the differences between his and Oates' powerplay. Here's the original post if you wish to read it again. I was simply pointing out my differing interpretation of the hockey systems being discussed. If anything, both Boudreau's and Hunter's systems actually had more net presence than Oates'. One of the large problems with Oates' system is that the goaltenders have too clean a view of the one timers from Ovie/Brouwer. They have to be perfectly timed and placed in order to find the twine.

As for Oates' "fixing" the powerplay, it was very cold at the beginning of the year, got hot, and now it's cold again. Boudreau had plenty of similar streaks during his time. Many of the same concerns about Boudreau's system can be lobbed at Oates' (not enough movement, too predictable, forcing the puck to Ovechkin, not a legitimate shooting threat on the right side, etc.). Oates' system has a lot of positives, but don't completely write off the negatives. A lot of the offense on the powerplay has come from broken plays or in transition. Oates also has Ribeiro, an asset that Boudreau didn't have.


Last edited by Langway: 03-07-2013 at 04:28 PM.
Mystlyfe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 07:40 PM
  #139
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
BB adjusted to break the trap during the regular season, and carried that same adjustment into the post-season (minus the sitting in their own zone bit, given they never really had a lead). What BB failed to adjust to was the aggressive forecheck Boucher countered with.
That is what I saw also so I guess we both weren't actually watching those games...

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 07:57 PM
  #140
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
That is what I saw also so I guess we both weren't actually watching those games...
BB only "broke" the trap in February of the regular season once when he copied what the Flyers had done 3 months earlier, by just stalling in the defensive zone. TB kept using the 1-3-1 throughout the playoff series. Just read some recaps if you forgot what you "watched".

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 08:07 PM
  #141
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
BB only "broke" the trap in February of the regular season once when he copied what the Flyers had done 3 months earlier, by just stalling in the defensive zone. TB kept using the 1-3-1 throughout the playoff series. Just read some recaps if you forgot what you "watched".
And I will say again that when Tampa was trapping in that series the Caps handled it ok. When they forechecked hard they didn't.

Apparently neither one of us is changing the other's mind. I'm good with knowing that at least one other poster on these boards agrees with me.

Lets you and I agree to disagree. Cool?

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2013, 08:19 PM
  #142
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
And I will say again that when Tampa was trapping in that series the Caps handled it ok. When they forechecked hard they didn't.

Apparently neither one of us is changing the other's mind. I'm good with knowing that at least one other poster on these boards agrees with me.

Lets you and I agree to disagree. Cool?

We already disagree. If you're asking me to "drop it", then fine. I'm good with knowing the web contains linkable articles and analysis that agree with me.

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 06:10 AM
  #143
Stewie G
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
We already disagree. If you're asking me to "drop it", then fine. I'm good with knowing the web contains linkable articles and analysis that agree with me.
No need to "act like a child".

Stewie G is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 08:05 AM
  #144
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie G View Post
No need to "act like a child".

"Thanks" for your "advice"

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 08:59 AM
  #145
BobRouse
Registered User
 
BobRouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think there is "real bad blood" between Hamr and the organization. I'm thinking more like Hamrlik was extremely disappointed he had no real chance of getting into the lineup. Unless you want to call playing with a bunch of bobbleheads with a new coach and system a real chance in those first three games.

Poti was on the shelf when Hamrlik signed. I can understand the org. wanting to give Poti the benefit of the doubt. Schultz is "the project".

Reading between the lines of Oates' comments it seems Hamrlik remained a really good teammate despite the lack of playing time. He didn't mope and practiced hard (Poti said so). He helped Kundratek who also gave Hamr very high accolades. Sounds to me like Hamr went to his agent and to GMGM and they tried something to get him back on the ice. Perhaps it worked and everyone can move on.

I sincerely believe (I could be wrong) the right intentions were made when Hamr came to the Caps. He wants a Stanley Cup and thought this was a good chance. Little did he know he would get caught up in a whirlwind of coaches and Green being in and out of the lineup. Hamr was to be Green's mentor. It's hard to do that job when the guy doesn't play.

I remember Poti coming back and saying he wanted a fair shot and McPhee said they would "make the roster spot". The plan was to give Poti a couple of weeks and that's about when Hamr fully disappeared. It's how it turned out but I think the Caps could be in real trouble should they suffer a significant injury on the LD. It may have been a better idea to set the top four d-men and rotate that thirding pairing LD. Would that have worked and appeased Hamr - who knows.

And maybe I'm completely wrong.
I don't think you are wrong.

In fact EJ Hradek said as much yesterday. He mentioned that George probably called around the league to make sure someone would pick him up before waiving him and got the green light from the Rangers.

BobRouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 10:44 AM
  #146
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
BB only "broke" the trap in February of the regular season once when he copied what the Flyers had done 3 months earlier, by just stalling in the defensive zone. TB kept using the 1-3-1 throughout the playoff series. Just read some recaps if you forgot what you "watched".
First off, the Flyers copied Boudreau.

"Washington's Bruce Boudreau was the first to use the wait-it-out tactic against the Lightning, a division rival, last season. Laviolette followed suit last Feb. 15, coaxing Tampa Bay into taking chances, as the Flyers were able to capture a 4-3 shootout win and their only points in the four-game season series."

http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-1...scott-hartnell

Secondly, the Lightning used both the 1-3-1 and the 2-1-2 during the entire series. Go watch the games, stop focusing on the media hype of the 1-3-1. As I mentioned earlier, the media loved the 1-3-1 because it was different and controversial, and thus a good story. The 2-1-2 is much more frequent, so they didn't bother talking about it.

Mystlyfe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 12:21 PM
  #147
g00n
abides
 
g00n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
First off, the Flyers copied Boudreau.

"Washington's Bruce Boudreau was the first to use the wait-it-out tactic against the Lightning, a division rival, last season. Laviolette followed suit last Feb. 15, coaxing Tampa Bay into taking chances, as the Flyers were able to capture a 4-3 shootout win and their only points in the four-game season series."

http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-1...scott-hartnell

Secondly, the Lightning used both the 1-3-1 and the 2-1-2 during the entire series. Go watch the games, stop focusing on the media hype of the 1-3-1. As I mentioned earlier, the media loved the 1-3-1 because it was different and controversial, and thus a good story. The 2-1-2 is much more frequent, so they didn't bother talking about it.

In my haste to post at work I got the dates mixed up but you're still dead wrong about everything else. The Caps did NOT break the trap effectively in the TB playoff series, even if they did stall ONCE in a regular season game. And that playoff series was the part of the demise for BB. Again, go back and read the original point of discussing that series, which was in describing what led to BB's firing, not whether or not YOU think the trap was a different configuration than everyone else.

g00n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 12:24 PM
  #148
ChibiPooky
Moderator
Caps/Avs/Bills fan
 
ChibiPooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Fairfax, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,198
vCash: 50
Good to see we're still on topic.

ChibiPooky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 12:31 PM
  #149
Stewie G
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChibiPooky View Post
Good to see we're still on topic.

Stewie G is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 12:59 PM
  #150
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00n View Post
In my haste to post at work I got the dates mixed up but you're still dead wrong about everything else. The Caps did NOT break the trap effectively in the TB playoff series, even if they did stall ONCE in a regular season game. And that playoff series was the part of the demise for BB. Again, go back and read the original point of discussing that series, which was in describing what led to BB's firing, not whether or not YOU think the trap was a different configuration than everyone else.
Stall "ONCE" eh? Try multiple times over two seasons.

The Caps had reasonable success navigating through the neutral zone against Tampa Bay when they employed the 1-3-1 in the playoffs. That wasn't the reason the Caps lost. It wasn't even Tampa's most effective forechecking scheme in the series. They had far more trouble dealing with the 2-1-2 because no forwards were staying low enough to support the defensemen during the breakout (because they were heading up ice, as they would do against the 1-3-1). Boucher outcoached Boudreau, something I willingly admitted in the first post of this discussion, but he did so because he adjusted to counter Boudreau's scheme to crack the 1-3-1. The 2-1-2 was the perfect answer for the Lightning, as the Caps weren't ready for it.

Watch Tampa's 2nd goal, caused by an aggressive forecheck leading to a turnover. And Washington's second goal, where they gained the zone against the 1-3-1 to start the play.


Who said anything about the trap being a "different configuration?" Are you trying to imply the 2-1-2 is part of the 1-3-1 "trap?" Because that is objectively wrong. The "trap" is a term used to describe neutral zone forechecking schemes aimed at stopping the other team from gaining the offensive zone with possession. It usually refers to the 1-2-2 scheme (think New Jersey), but can also refer to the 1-3-1 (Tampa) or 1-4 (Boston). The 2-1-2 is an aggressive offensive zone forecheck, that attempts to pin the other team deep in their defensive zone and/or cause a turnover. Think Tortarella's system with the Rangers.

Mystlyfe is online now   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 09:20 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.