HFBoards

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

Who is Umberger?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2008, 08:37 AM
  #26
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 08:42 AM
  #27
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm6492 View Post
lol, the umberglar never gets old.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 08:56 AM
  #28
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Im not saying malkin should be a second line center, Im just saying he is. And since I live in reality as well I know that not every team is balanced like your scale of the top 90 scorers should be first line players or whatever. Some teams would love a 60 point scorere on their second line (LA Kings) and others it doesnt impress, hence the reason the flyers are looking to move him.
The Flyers are looking to move him because of the salary cap, not because they don't think he's a good player.

Joffrey Lupul was 6th on the Flyers in scoring...with 46 pts. The Flyers would love to have a 60 point forward on their 2nd line -- Lupul is more than capable in a healthy campaign.

The 6th forward on the Pens in scoring? Talbot with 26 pts. The Pens wouldn't be sad to see a guy like Umberger on their roster -- especially after they lose Malone and Hossa this summer.

There is not a single shred of evidence backing up your claims about the value of a 60 point player. Look around at teams rosters, it'll shock you.

Quote:
I couldnt care less how much players score i would jsut like to see the best players playing all the time. I would much rather watch a low scoring game with highly skilled players than a high scoring game with a punch of nobodys playing 3rd line.
Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that your formula for creating higher scoring players was flawed. Just bunching all the players into a more competitive league doesn't suggest in any way they would produce the same or greater offensive statistics.

Quote:
I dont really agree that scoring would go down so much anyway. if every team in the NHL had 2 very good lines and 3 balanced lines that could all score it would be difficult to defend. I mean really look at the two teams left, they both are great teams but both are fueled by just a few players for the most part.
They also would have 2 good defensive pairings to match up...the bottom 4 goalies wouldn't be out there to get lit up like a christmas tree. The addition of 4 weaker starting goalies alone would almost definitely lead to a quick increase in scoring...similarly, cutting the bottom 4 goaltenders from the league would lower scoring, and that's before we ponder that such a move would make players like Randy Jones 2nd pairing defenders in the NHL.

Quote:
Games in the olympics and allstar games are often pretty high scoring, when you have a ton of talented forwards coming at you all night it wears down a defense.
The All-Star Games are a joke where no one is playing defense and teams aren't unified groups, and the Olympics are not necessarily all that high scoring affairs when the good teams are playing one another and not beating up on Bulgaria...it's also a situation where the teams aren't nearly as unified in team purpose as teams that are playing with each other over 82 games.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:09 AM
  #29
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The Flyers are looking to move him because of the salary cap, not because they don't think he's a good player.

Joffrey Lupul was 6th on the Flyers in scoring...with 46 pts. The Flyers would love to have a 60 point forward on their 2nd line -- Lupul is more than capable in a healthy campaign.

The 6th forward on the Pens in scoring? Talbot with 26 pts. The Pens wouldn't be sad to see a guy like Umberger on their roster -- especially after they lose Malone and Hossa this summer.

There is not a single shred of evidence backing up your claims about the value of a 60 point player. Look around at teams rosters, it'll shock you.



Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that your formula for creating higher scoring players was flawed. Just bunching all the players into a more competitive league doesn't suggest in any way they would produce the same or greater offensive statistics.



They also would have 2 good defensive pairings to match up...the bottom 4 goalies wouldn't be out there to get lit up like a christmas tree. The addition of 4 weaker starting goalies alone would almost definitely lead to a quick increase in scoring...similarly, cutting the bottom 4 goaltenders from the league would lower scoring, and that's before we ponder that such a move would make players like Randy Jones 2nd pairing defenders in the NHL.



The All-Star Games are a joke where no one is playing defense and teams aren't unified groups, and the Olympics are not necessarily all that high scoring affairs when the good teams are playing one another and not beating up on Bulgaria...it's also a situation where the teams aren't nearly as unified in team purpose as teams that are playing with each other over 82 games.

I dont know why I bother arguing, you will never admit that anything you say is anything but fact when it is quite obviously not. It is fact that scoring used to be much higher in the NHL when there were less teams. Whether you want to attribute that to other factors thats fine, but the fact remains that as more teams entered the league scoring went down. Its easier for a team to run a trap against average players. Since you dont really play hockey, or at least at a level where the trap in in effect, ill let you know, the best way to be a trap is to skate through it, its very difficult to pass through a trap, speed can beat a trap, a trap takes away the ice and limits passing options so the average player has nothing to do but chip it off the boards. A lot of teams now have a 3rd line as a shut down line to kill time during a game, add a couple skill players to each team and you no longer have that 3rd line thats job is to keep the puck in deep and cyle for 45 seconds every shift. Instead you have a 3rd line with guys that can score. You can say what you want about how you THINK scoring would go down but facts are facts, more goals used to be scored back in the day when there we'rent so many teams.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:17 AM
  #30
Chuck Downie
(New Coach Sucks)
 
Chuck Downie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlottetown
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,078
vCash: 460
I think the playoffs was the first indication that Umberger "gets it" like Richards "got it" this past season. Trading him may be inevitable but I believe it WILL haunt the Flyers. I hope he takes a home team discount ala 2.5 - 3 mil for a couple years.

Chuck Downie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:20 AM
  #31
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
^^^
It could mean he gets it, or we could overpay and blow it.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:22 AM
  #32
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
I dont know why I bother arguing, you will never admit that anything you say is anything but fact when it is quite obviously not.
Everything I've said is backed up...prove it wrong. You want to say 60 pts isn't something teams in this league necessarily would welcome on their 2nd line...that is obviously not true if you look around at rosters.

Quote:
It is fact that scoring used to be much higher in the NHL when there were less teams. Whether you want to attribute that to other factors thats fine, but the fact remains that as more teams entered the league scoring went down.
Scoring cycles have been going on longer than recent expansion, and the high scoring 80s came post-expansion. The reason there was a decline in scoring is because the focus and level of coaching in the NHL increased exponentially from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. Teams actually started committing themselves to defensive systems in a significant fashion.

Quote:
Its easier for a team to run a trap against average players. Since you dont really play hockey, or at least at a level where the trap in in effect, ill let you know, the best way to be a trap is to skate through it, its very difficult to pass through a trap, speed can beat a trap, a trap takes away the ice and limits passing options so the average player has nothing to do but chip it off the boards.
Pause and consider the fact that while you're making the attackers quicker by lessening the number of teams you're similarly making the defenders quicker as well. You're thinking only of the offense, and not thinking of the relationship between the players on either side. If I increase both sides of an equation, equilibrium remains.

Quote:
A lot of teams now have a 3rd line as a shut down line to kill time during a game, add a couple skill players to each team and you no longer have that 3rd line thats job is to keep the puck in deep and cyle for 45 seconds every shift. Instead you have a 3rd line with guys that can score. You can say what you want about how you THINK scoring would go down but facts are facts, more goals used to be scored back in the day when there we'rent so many teams.
More goals were scored back in the day because the level of goaltending in the league was much lower than it is today. Goalies were smaller and less athletic, and thus easier to score on. Defensive systems didn't exist to the degree they do today and the level of coaching in the league was decidedly weaker than we see now throughout the league. The European players were not involved in the game as much, and that's had a massive effect on the level of talent in the game. The sport has grown in America in that time considerably, extending further south than it was in the 60s and 70s.

The talent level hasn't gotten weaker since the 70's and 80's, it's improved across the board and that's why scoring has gone down. Guys are better conditioned and trained, so defenders are better at staying in front of elite guys than they used to be.

And if you want to get frustrated and start throwing out the crap about level of playing the game, dispute this gem: Gretzky himself has said he couldn't accomplish the offensive numbers he did in the league today. The talent is better, defenders and goalies are too good. If you think bottom pairing guys are bad now, go watch some games from the 80s and 70s when bad teams are playing and they got guys out there who seemingly struggle to skate compared to today.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:23 AM
  #33
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Downie View Post
I think the playoffs was the first indication that Umberger "gets it" like Richards "got it" this past season. Trading him may be inevitable but I believe it WILL haunt the Flyers. I hope he takes a home team discount ala 2.5 - 3 mil for a couple years.
It was a good playoff run...they happen every year. Nice for Umberger, but wouldn't expect it to carry over in the slightest.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:26 AM
  #34
Chuck Downie
(New Coach Sucks)
 
Chuck Downie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlottetown
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,078
vCash: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It was a good playoff run...they happen every year. Nice for Umberger, but wouldn't expect it to carry over in the slightest.
I hope you are right so we can fleece some team in a trade, but my gut feeling is that he will become a very valuable 2 way threat somewhere else, but preferrably here.

Chuck Downie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:29 AM
  #35
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Downie View Post
I hope you are right so we can fleece some team in a trade, but my gut feeling is that he will become a very valuable 2 way threat somewhere else, but preferrably here.
He was a valuable two-way threat here...he just isn't going to score like that over an 82 game schedule. Guy had 50 pts during the regular season -- and as you can see by the discussion ongoing, that isn't too shabby -- and people are acting like he came out of left field. He's a good player and will be a good player elsewhere. He deserves to be paid more than we can probably pay him, and he's capable of playing a larger role than we're probably capable of offering him.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:29 AM
  #36
Chuck Downie
(New Coach Sucks)
 
Chuck Downie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlottetown
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,078
vCash: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm6492 View Post
^^^
It could mean he gets it, or we could overpay and blow it.
That's why it is risky either way. Plus, we don't want to lose him as an UFA, which is I think less than 2 years away. A 2 year contract where he can prove he merits a big payday would work IMO.

Chuck Downie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:43 AM
  #37
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Everything I've said is backed up...prove it wrong. You want to say 60 pts isn't something teams in this league necessarily would welcome on their 2nd line...that is obviously not true if you look around at rosters.



Scoring cycles have been going on longer than recent expansion, and the high scoring 80s came post-expansion. The reason there was a decline in scoring is because the focus and level of coaching in the NHL increased exponentially from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. Teams actually started committing themselves to defensive systems in a significant fashion.



Pause and consider the fact that while you're making the attackers quicker by lessening the number of teams you're similarly making the defenders quicker as well. You're thinking only of the offense, and not thinking of the relationship between the players on either side. If I increase both sides of an equation, equilibrium remains.



More goals were scored back in the day because the level of goaltending in the league was much lower than it is today. Goalies were smaller and less athletic, and thus easier to score on. Defensive systems didn't exist to the degree they do today and the level of coaching in the league was decidedly weaker than we see now throughout the league. The European players were not involved in the game as much, and that's had a massive effect on the level of talent in the game. The sport has grown in America in that time considerably, extending further south than it was in the 60s and 70s.

The talent level hasn't gotten weaker since the 70's and 80's, it's improved across the board and that's why scoring has gone down. Guys are better conditioned and trained, so defenders are better at staying in front of elite guys than they used to be.

And if you want to get frustrated and start throwing out the crap about level of playing the game, dispute this gem: Gretzky himself has said he couldn't accomplish the offensive numbers he did in the league today. The talent is better, defenders and goalies are too good. If you think bottom pairing guys are bad now, go watch some games from the 80s and 70s when bad teams are playing and they got guys out there who seemingly struggle to skate compared to today.

Dont twist everythign I say, I never said he couldnt play second line, you said he would be a "fantastic" 2nd line player and I said that there are teams int he league that would not feel Umby is a "fantastic" 2nd line player.

Just as you used nothing but stats to say players shooting % means they are an accurate shooter and didnt worry about all the other factors that go into goal scoring, the same arguement can be made saying that when they started adding teams scoring went down. That is your OPINION that it is coaching and all those other factors, it is my OPINION that it was more teams and a watered down league.

About your "gem" that gretzky said he couldnt put the numbers up that he did when he played. Just as you said that when sykora said he was jsut putting the puck at the net was just him saying that, do you really think the great one would come out and say "man, if i had sticks that were proven to increase the speed of my shot, rules that dont allow clutching and grabbing like back when i played (which was the only way to stop him) and the training facilities they have now that are far better than when i played i would be scoring 300points every year"? The guy is part owner and coach of an NHL franchice, its his job to market these guys as being amazing athletes. lets be serious. A lot of people including myself feel that with these new rules, new technology for sticks and intense training to make guys stronger that gretzky would for sure still dominate the way he did back then.


And about your comment about the trap. Your makign it more and more obvious about the limited amount of hockey you have played. not only that but I am now questioning how much you know about the game beyond stats. the point of the trap was put in place so that average players, would shut down good players. In a trap players dont use their speed, its more of a chess game. Defenders get into a POSITION to make it very difficult for the players to make outlet passes and force them to skate around everyone, and even then they push them to a certain side of the ice (left wing lock). Thats why the trap works so well, your 3rd line can go out and shut down a second line with ease without breakign a sweat, they dont use speed or even much skill in a trap, its all about buying into it and believing it. They are playing a smart game, not a game of speed. if better players played, they could skate through the trap better, and not only that but the defense for the offense would be better puck movers, who can skate through the trap. Someone like hatcher or smith can never skate through it and thats why it seems like they are constantly just throwing the puck up the boards. if teams had 5 good skating D they could easily get the puck out and through the trap no matter who the other team has because speed beats a trap but speed on defense doesnt always make a trap better. Who is the best team to ever run the trap? The devils, and a lot of people say they were some of the least skilled teams to win cups, but they had players that boguht into the system and they had big guys that could play systems well, they werent the fastest teams in the league.
Not only that but for the most art scoring lines dont run a trap. The trap calls for teams to give up scoring opportunities so that they can play the trap. Usually one forward stays high and doesnt get much into the offensive pressure so that when the team breaks out he is there to begin the trap. if every team had better players it would be useless to run a trap with them when they are much more valuable being used to score goals.

Edit-if you notice the trap really came into effect when teams like Forida, Tampa, Ottawa, Anaheim, and San Jose...this made it so that each team had to add a few players to their roster that wouldnt otherwise be int he NHL. the only way for that line to not get killed was to have them play a system that would not expose their lack of speed and skill.


Last edited by Juicy Couturier*: 06-04-2008 at 09:55 AM.
Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:57 AM
  #38
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Dont twist everythign I say, I never said he couldnt play second line, you said he would be a "fantastic" 2nd line player and I said that there are teams int he league that would not feel Umby is a "fantastic" 2nd line player.
No, the statement was that 60 pts was pretty fantastic for a 2nd line player in the NHL. That still seems to be holding true...whether or not you think Umberger is capable of putting up those totals is another matter.

As far as the trap...

The trap requires getting into position to funnel the opposition to one side of the ice and then cutting off that player to create a turnover. How do you cut off that player, you close him down defensively. Unless you're suggesting that players stand like pylons out there whilst playing the trap, defensive quickness to close the player out once he chooses his side is a key element to defending, regardless of the system you're using.

The reason the trap allows "average" players to play more effective defense is because it's a systematic team method to get the puck carrier into a bad position on the ice where a turnover becomes more likely. It allows players to work as collective units, rather than a group of individuals playing defense...which was much closer to the way the game used to be played at the NHL level -- why the game was so much more wide open, guys would slip their man and be gone.

So, apply your immense hockey knowledge to this question: If I have two teams who play the trap perfectly, who will be more effective at playing it? A team with greater quickness throughout its lineup, or a slower team?

In my humble opinion, having faster defenders neutralizes the ability for fast players to skate through the trap...which you so sanctimoniously brought up earlier. If the attacking player isn't quicker than the defenders, then he's not going to beat them through the neutral zone and he's going to HAVE to make a pass after entering the trap, which is where the turnover occurs. The idea of the trap is to make players make passes in a bad position, the reason quick players can beat the trap is because they can skate past that pressure...a quicker defense isn't going to allow players to skate past the pressure with as much ease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Edit-if you notice the trap really came into effect when teams like Forida, Tampa, Ottawa, Anaheim, and San Jose...this made it so that each team had to add a few players to their roster that wouldnt otherwise be int he NHL. the only way for that line to not get killed was to have them play a system that would not expose their lack of speed and skill.
The trap had been around a lot longer than that...and it became popular because the Devils won a Stanley Cup doing it. Everyone was playing the trap to one degree or another, not simply the expansion teams. And, yes, smart coaching and defense allow weaker teams to compete with greater ease...most of those teams were getting killed all the same when they entered the league.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:21 AM
  #39
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, the statement was that 60 pts was pretty fantastic for a 2nd line player in the NHL. That still seems to be holding true...whether or not you think Umberger is capable of putting up those totals is another matter.

As far as the trap...

The trap requires getting into position to funnel the opposition to one side of the ice and then cutting off that player to create a turnover. How do you cut off that player, you close him down defensively. Unless you're suggesting that players stand like pylons out there whilst playing the trap, defensive quickness to close the player out once he chooses his side is a key element to defending, regardless of the system you're using.

The reason the trap allows "average" players to play more effective defense is because it's a systematic team method to get the puck carrier into a bad position on the ice where a turnover becomes more likely. It allows players to work as collective units, rather than a group of individuals playing defense...which was much closer to the way the game used to be played at the NHL level -- why the game was so much more wide open, guys would slip their man and be gone.

So, apply your immense hockey knowledge to this question: If I have two teams who play the trap perfectly, who will be more effective at playing it? A team with greater quickness throughout its lineup, or a slower team?

In my humble opinion, having faster defenders neutralizes the ability for fast players to skate through the trap...which you so sanctimoniously brought up earlier. If the attacking player isn't quicker than the defenders, then he's not going to beat them through the neutral zone and he's going to HAVE to make a pass after entering the trap, which is where the turnover occurs. The idea of the trap is to make players make passes in a bad position, the reason quick players can beat the trap is because they can skate past that pressure...a quicker defense isn't going to allow players to skate past the pressure with as much ease.



The trap had been around a lot longer than that...and it became popular because the Devils won a Stanley Cup doing it. Everyone was playing the trap to one degree or another, not simply the expansion teams. And, yes, smart coaching and defense allow weaker teams to compete with greater ease...most of those teams were getting killed all the same when they entered the league.
Your making my point, average players can be dominant on defense because they play a team game, they do not use their speed. Again your making it so clear that you dont know how to play hockey and have never ran a trap yourself. There is a reason why third lines run a trap the most and its because its the best way to take speed out of the game for themselves. And no, at no time in the history of the NHL did teams play man coverage so the point where if you beat "your guy" you would be gone.

As for your question about who would win, a fat team or a slow team playing the trap. I dont know how many times i have to tell you SPEED beats the trap! Obviously the faster team would win because they would be able to beat the opposing team's trap by skating the puck. the slower team would not be able to skate throught the fast teams trap not because the team is fast, but because THEY are slow. If you ask if team A is fast and team B is slow and they both play team C which team's trap will be more effective I would give a slight edge to team A because obviously it doesnt hurt to be faster but speed is not why the trap works. You are trying to convince me that if better players were int he league it would make it harder to score because the defenders would be faster. it would be much more of a benefit to have faster offensive players than faster defensive players when ti comes to the trap. As i said you wouldnt have Hatch or smith trying to beat the trap, you would have Jones as one of your slower less skilled dmen which is a huge jump in offensive ability. i will say it again since you seem to ignore certain points. If teams had 3 scoring lines instead of only 1 or two they wouldnt run the trap as much because while running a trap is great for your defense it is also goign to limit scoring chances. Most teams that run the trap have their center stay high and nto get much into the offense so he is ready to run the trap by forcing teams to the side he chooses. Now Carter is our third line center, would it make sense to have him stay up high and not handle the puck int he offensive done because you need him for D? no hes much more valuable as an offensive threat. If every team had good offensive players on their 3rd line it would be the same way. But if you have John madden back there who doesnt have that kind of offensive ability its much more valuable to have him stay back and trap.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:21 AM
  #40
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
You know, there's another reason why scoring is so low - every time the league has implemented rules to open up the game, coaches find ways to employ trap-based systems to close up the offensive game. I don't understand why teams are so afraid to embrace the offensive rules. The only team that I saw that really embraced them were Buffalo. That's the major problem with hockey today - every time there's a chance to improve the offensive flow of the game, there's always some knucklehead coach finding a defensive trap system to implement to slow the game down.

I'm not saying I have a problem with defense, because it's part of the ebb and flow of the game. I have a problem when teams play trap because it's crap hockey and it's the style of hockey that the league is trying to rid itself of.....

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:23 AM
  #41
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
You know, there's another reason why scoring is so low - every time the league has implemented rules to open up the game, coaches find ways to employ trap-based systems to close up the offensive game. I don't understand why teams are so afraid to embrace the offensive rules. The only team that I saw that really embraced them were Buffalo. That's the major problem with hockey today - every time there's a chance to improve the offensive flow of the game, there's always some knucklehead coach finding a defensive trap system to implement to slow the game down.

I'm not saying I have a problem with defense, because it's part of the ebb and flow of the game. I have a problem when teams play trap because it's crap hockey and it's the style of hockey that the league is trying to rid itself of.....
Start paying coaches to be entertaining as opposed to winning, an they'll stop devising defensive systems that have a better track record of winning.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:26 AM
  #42
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
You know, there's another reason why scoring is so low - every time the league has implemented rules to open up the game, coaches find ways to employ trap-based systems to close up the offensive game. I don't understand why teams are so afraid to embrace the offensive rules. The only team that I saw that really embraced them were Buffalo. That's the major problem with hockey today - every time there's a chance to improve the offensive flow of the game, there's always some knucklehead coach finding a defensive trap system to implement to slow the game down.

I'm not saying I have a problem with defense, because it's part of the ebb and flow of the game. I have a problem when teams play trap because it's crap hockey and it's the style of hockey that the league is trying to rid itself of.....
Well thats my point in this whole thing. Coaches have to find a way to slow down teams. because the league is so watered down they need to use their 3rd line to trap because the offensive ability isnt there. Buffalo is a perfect example of a team with a lot of skilled players who will help the team more trying to score goals than sit back and trap. If there were less teams there would be more skill players on each team, every team would have as many skill players as buffalo and would all utilize those skilled players to try to score instead of having 3rd liners with limited offensive ability out there jsut trying to survive the shift without getting scored on.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:29 AM
  #43
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Your making my point, average players can be dominant on defense because they play a team game, they do not use their speed. Again your making it so clear that you dont know how to play hockey and have never ran a trap yourself. There is a reason why third lines run a trap the most and its because its the best way to take speed out of the game for themselves. And no, at no time in the history of the NHL did teams play man coverage so the point where if you beat "your guy" you would be gone.

As for your question about who would win, a fat team or a slow team playing the trap. I dont know how many times i have to tell you SPEED beats the trap! Obviously the faster team would win because they would be able to beat the opposing team's trap by skating the puck. the slower team would not be able to skate throught the fast teams trap not because the team is fast, but because THEY are slow. If you ask if team A is fast and team B is slow and they both play team C which team's trap will be more effective I would give a slight edge to team A because obviously it doesnt hurt to be faster but speed is not why the trap works. You are trying to convince me that if better players were int he league it would make it harder to score because the defenders would be faster. it would be much more of a benefit to have faster offensive players than faster defensive players when ti comes to the trap. As i said you wouldnt have Hatch or smith trying to beat the trap, you would have Jones as one of your slower less skilled dmen which is a huge jump in offensive ability. i will say it again since you seem to ignore certain points. If teams had 3 scoring lines instead of only 1 or two they wouldnt run the trap as much because while running a trap is great for your defense it is also goign to limit scoring chances. Most teams that run the trap have their center stay high and nto get much into the offense so he is ready to run the trap by forcing teams to the side he chooses. Now Carter is our third line center, would it make sense to have him stay up high and not handle the puck int he offensive done because you need him for D? no hes much more valuable as an offensive threat. If every team had good offensive players on their 3rd line it would be the same way. But if you have John madden back there who doesnt have that kind of offensive ability its much more valuable to have him stay back and trap.
dude, read more carefully...

TWO TEAMS PLAYING THE TRAP DEFENSE.

ONE is slower than the other...who is going to be more effective defensively, the fast team or the slow team at playing the trap against the same opponent. A faster defensive team is going to run the trap more effectively than a slower one, because they're going to close on faster players with greater ease. If you can't catch up with the puck carrier, that's obviously a problem...add speed to the defense and they're going to be able to keep up with greater ease.

Moreover, teams have trapped because it is a winning strategy. The teams that ran out tight defensive systems had greater success, and the Devils -- the Kings of the trap -- were a very skilled teams when they were doing it with the greatest effect (they led the league in scoring one year!).

You also present your 3 lines as if they're playing in a vacuum. The other teams would have better players which would neutralize the advantage you seem to think you're creating. Unless we're just tossing out good defensive players from the game -- most of whom can play the game pretty damn well.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:31 AM
  #44
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Well thats my point in this whole thing. Coaches have to find a way to slow down teams. because the league is so watered down they need to use their 3rd line to trap because the offensive ability isnt there. Buffalo is a perfect example of a team with a lot of skilled players who will help the team more trying to score goals than sit back and trap. If there were less teams there would be more skill players on each team, every team would have as many skill players as buffalo and would all utilize those skilled players to try to score instead of having 3rd liners with limited offensive ability out there jsut trying to survive the shift without getting scored on.
And they'd run into a team at some point who would jam a defensive game down their throat. Run 'n Gun doesn't work in any sport where smart people are coaching teams with equal talent level.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:35 AM
  #45
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post

About your "gem" that gretzky said he couldnt put the numbers up that he did when he played. Just as you said that when sykora said he was jsut putting the puck at the net was just him saying that, do you really think the great one would come out and say "man, if i had sticks that were proven to increase the speed of my shot, rules that dont allow clutching and grabbing like back when i played (which was the only way to stop him) and the training facilities they have now that are far better than when i played i would be scoring 300points every year"? The guy is part owner and coach of an NHL franchice, its his job to market these guys as being amazing athletes. lets be serious. A lot of people including myself feel that with these new rules, new technology for sticks and intense training to make guys stronger that gretzky would for sure still dominate the way he did back then.
I am staying out of most of the debate, but had to put my 2 cents in for this one. Gretzky had all of his success before the cluthcing and grabbing years. I dont think there is any chance in hell he would have put up half of those numbers if he started in the 90s as opposed to when he did start. Even though the players are faster, more skilled, etc. now, the game was much more wide open in the 80s, not to mention that there is no way a team like the Oilers could be kept together now. Not taking anything away from the skill the guy had (although I still think Lemieux is better but thats another argument).

Just think of the points that guys like Jagr, Bure, Mogilny, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Crosby, Briere, etc. would have put up if they played in the 80s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
You know, there's another reason why scoring is so low - every time the league has implemented rules to open up the game, coaches find ways to employ trap-based systems to close up the offensive game. I don't understand why teams are so afraid to embrace the offensive rules. The only team that I saw that really embraced them were Buffalo. That's the major problem with hockey today - every time there's a chance to improve the offensive flow of the game, there's always some knucklehead coach finding a defensive trap system to implement to slow the game down.

I'm not saying I have a problem with defense, because it's part of the ebb and flow of the game. I have a problem when teams play trap because it's crap hockey and it's the style of hockey that the league is trying to rid itself of.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Start paying coaches to be entertaining as opposed to winning, an they'll stop devising defensive systems that have a better track record of winning.
Jester, I understand your point, but I think one of the main reasons for the trap was the expansion in the 90s. The talent level was spread among expansion teams. Yes, NJ started it and won a cup doing it. I would also argue that they were the only ones to do it and still play an entertaining game of hockey. The other teams that started playing the trap were the lesser talented teams of the era (other than Dallas) because that was the way everyone was winning.

I agree with you though that the coaches are now more willing, and have more capability to develop the defensive systems and that is a large part of it, I just think it all started with the 90s expansion and was a method used for the lesser talented teams to compete.

mikedifr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:40 AM
  #46
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Jester, I understand your point, but I think one of the main reasons for the trap was the expansion in the 90s. The talent level was spread among expansion teams. Yes, NJ started it and won a cup doing it. I would also argue that they were the only ones to do it and still play an entertaining game of hockey. The other teams that started playing the trap were the lesser talented teams of the era (other than Dallas) because that was the way everyone was winning.

I agree with you though that the coaches are now more willing, and have more capability to develop the defensive systems and that is a large part of it, I just think it all started with the 90s expansion and was a method used for the lesser talented teams to compete.
About the only team that never ran any variation of the trap/left-wing lock was the Penguins...EVERYONE else was running out the trap with regularity that was having success...and some of them were very talented teams. The Red Wings ran the LW Lock with regularity throughout the era, and they were easily the most talented team in the league and that isn't all that different from the trap in application.

Flyers trapped like crazy under Murray...which Lindros hated and is one of the reasons Murray got canned. That point speaks to a larger aspect of the trap, and one of the most interesting things about it. Playing it well requires players that buy into the team concept of playing it and sticking to the team game. Teams like the Devils and Red Wings were so good because they got the best players on their team to completely buy into the team concept and set the tone for everyone else on the roster.

Nieds could have put up 70 pts a season if he'd wanted to during his prime with the Devils, but he sacrificed to play within a team system that led to great success.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:51 AM
  #47
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
dude, read more carefully...

TWO TEAMS PLAYING THE TRAP DEFENSE.

ONE is slower than the other...who is going to be more effective defensively, the fast team or the slow team at playing the trap against the same opponent. A faster defensive team is going to run the trap more effectively than a slower one, because they're going to close on faster players with greater ease. If you can't catch up with the puck carrier, that's obviously a problem...add speed to the defense and they're going to be able to keep up with greater ease.

Moreover, teams have trapped because it is a winning strategy. The teams that ran out tight defensive systems had greater success, and the Devils -- the Kings of the trap -- were a very skilled teams when they were doing it with the greatest effect (they led the league in scoring one year!).

You also present your 3 lines as if they're playing in a vacuum. The other teams would have better players which would neutralize the advantage you seem to think you're creating. Unless we're just tossing out good defensive players from the game -- most of whom can play the game pretty damn well.
Read what i wrote man, I said that the faster team D would be slightly better only because it doesnt hurt to be fast. What I said was it is much more advantageous for an offense to be fast against to the trap than it is for a trap defense to be fast. if its more important to be fast to beat the trap than to be fast running a trap then yes its more beneficial to have speed on your offense. And like I keep saying and you ignore, guys like hatch and smith would not be moving the puck out of the zone.

You really dont get the concept of a trap, you can watch it, and you can google how to run a trap all you want but you dont understand that being fast on a trap doesnt help you as much as being fast trying to beat the trap.

The bolded part is what makes me realize you have no vlue how a trap works. You might know the concept but you dont know how it works. Look up the definition of the word "trap" you will not find the word chase anywhere in it. You say that speed in the trap makes you close on players faster and maked it so you can "catch up with the puck carrier". Come on man, this is rediculous, THATS THE POINT OF THE TRAP. You dont have to chase them, its a trap, think about what trap means. You force them to come to YOU, in no way are you chasing or stuggling to keep up with the puck carrier so therefor slower players can run the trap almost equally effective as fast players. This is just stupid, im done arguing, if you want to argue over stats thats fine because that is something you know, this is pointless.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:53 AM
  #48
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
can I get a short recap of this arguement?? I think its longer then war and peace or whatever that book is

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 11:03 AM
  #49
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Read what i wrote man, I said that the faster team D would be slightly better only because it doesnt hurt to be fast. What I said was it is much more advantageous for an offense to be fast against to the trap than it is for a trap defense to be fast. if its more important to be fast to beat the trap than to be fast running a trap then yes its more beneficial to have speed on your offense. And like I keep saying and you ignore, guys like hatch and smith would not be moving the puck out of the zone.

You really dont get the concept of a trap, you can watch it, and you can google how to run a trap all you want but you dont understand that being fast on a trap doesnt help you as much as being fast trying to beat the trap.

The bolded part is what makes me realize you have no vlue how a trap works. You might know the concept but you dont know how it works. Look up the definition of the word "trap" you will not find the word chase anywhere in it. You say that speed in the trap makes you close on players faster and maked it so you can "catch up with the puck carrier". Come on man, this is rediculous, THATS THE POINT OF THE TRAP. You dont have to chase them, its a trap, think about what trap means. You force them to come to YOU, in no way are you chasing or stuggling to keep up with the puck carrier so therefor slower players can run the trap almost equally effective as fast players. This is just stupid, im done arguing, if you want to argue over stats thats fine because that is something you know, this is pointless.
You don't chase them, you wait for them and you close on them and force them to give the puck up. You use skating ability and position to take time and space away from the attacker...you pressure the puck carrier. You force them to come to you by putting defenders in the path to go AWAY from you. The reason a faster player can beat the trap is because he can get past that pressure with the puck, but if the pressure comes faster...if you have players quick enough that the attacking player isn't going to beat them at the point of attack, then that threat is neutralized. Looking at my writing I don't see the word "chase," I see close.

Unless your suggesting the defensive wings don't close on the attacker when comes up ice...the trap is about being in position to take time and space away from the puck carrier, the faster players are the more effective they're going to be at doing it.

When the trap is working most effectively the center forces the side and closes laterally on the puck carrier (closing, chasing, whatever you want), while the defensive wing behind him is closing from in front of him...at which point the offensive player is forced to make a pass through them with three defenders stationed to pick off or breakup pass attempts and take off with the puck. Speed is a definite factor in running the trap effectively.

It's why a team like Ottawa could dismantle Buffalo a year ago...good skating team with strong neutral zone defense who could attack Buffalo's offensive talent.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 11:07 AM
  #50
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
I said that if there were less teams there would be more skill players in the league and they would be more likely to be able to beat the trap with speed than guys like hatcher trying to beat it. i said speed on offense is more important to beating the trap than having speed while runnign the trap because while running the trap you dont always use your speed, you wait for them to come to you, you control the flow of the game before it happens. You wont need to chase players while running the trap so beign fast isnt as important while playing the trap as it is in beating the trap. A slow less skilled team will have an extremely difficult time beating the trap, while that same slow less skilled team may be great at running the trap(NJ Devils).
jester feels that speed in the trap would neutralize the speed of the offense because they could keep up with them but in all reality its not speed in the trap that makes it effective, its the fact that they are in good position and wait for the flow to come to them instead of chasing.

Juicy Couturier* 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 06:02 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.