HFBoards

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

A thought about the system...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-29-2010, 11:35 AM
  #26
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant In The Room View Post
To say that the D will be "so strong" without having seen them play together at all is the equivalent of the whole "XXX will definitely take a pay cut to come here for a chance to play with Sid/Geno".

In other words, I will believe it when I see it.
I agree, I'm just messing with you. If the Poni situation proved anything, it's that you can't bank on a guy being able to just come in and not miss a beat.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2010, 11:45 AM
  #27
Guins71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 961
vCash: 500
Nice effort in writing this, but I strongly disagree with the idea. This would be the equivalant of an NFL team having Joe Montana and Jerry Rice and saying I think we should take very few chances, Throw 14 passes per game, hope our defense keeps it close, and maybe pull it out late with a touchdown pass. I love the attacking style. If your teams in a slump and need a win, maybe try your idea to break the slump. Otherwise, use your talent.

Guins71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2010, 06:10 PM
  #28
ColePens
Global Moderator
Your Savior
 
ColePens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 34,792
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ColePens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funk311 View Post
I do believe this is a good system to have as an option. But i would be against playing it all the time.

Cole, have you played on a team that has used this system? I have for a season and it can work quite well, but you need the right players and the right commitments or as you said, lazyness results in a boring trap. This is all about attack and collapse and really playing the body on the first pass after the D is forced to move the puck. And I do think counter-attacks suit our squad well.

I also think a strength of ours is skating and puck control in the O-zone. So this kind of worries me, that setting up a strong cycle and wearing teams down will be on the decline. Granted once we get the puck we could set up in the zone, but a 1-4 does limit the corner play by nature of read and react.

But if we could utilize this system against teams with floaters, weak puck moving d men, and when we have solid leads......I am all for it. I do believe we could pull it off with good result.
Yea I played this system just sparingly. We actually defeated Peters Township HS (when i was a freshman or sophomore) when they had their ridiculous undefeated year. We were their only loss and we were playing w/o two of our top scorers. It worked in juniors as well because kids just had too much speed and we knew how to convert off their miscues. Obviously none of this compares w/ what the NHL is, but just to answer your question if I played that system.

The art of this system is NOT to play a trap. It's not a defensive trap at all. It's reacting and transitioning to offense instead of just forcing offense 24/7. Support defensively, explode offensively.

Also, it's important that the team doesn't think they are too good to play one way. That's what you see in Washington. If they played a very consistent team game, they'd be a playoff team and probably could have been in the finals already. Take the 92 Penguins as well. They were getting their ***** kicked by the Caps before Mario and the gang implemented that team 1-2-2 to take away from the Caps.

You are right about one thing though... we could become lazy and just make it a trap and stay back on our heels if you don't play a disciplined patient game. I just think we have the natural talent to do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guins71 View Post
Nice effort in writing this, but I strongly disagree with the idea. This would be the equivalant of an NFL team having Joe Montana and Jerry Rice and saying I think we should take very few chances, Throw 14 passes per game, hope our defense keeps it close, and maybe pull it out late with a touchdown pass. I love the attacking style. If your teams in a slump and need a win, maybe try your idea to break the slump. Otherwise, use your talent.
The main focal point of this system is how you explode into offense. It's not a trap at all. The only difference is how we get to our offense. You could possibly see more odd-man breaks and more 1 on 1s because we are north/south attacking as the other team is heading the opposite way. It puts them on their heels.

I think Zippo said it best... there would be nothing wrong with playing both styles. Make it a situational back-pocket system that you bring out against the likes of Washington. I mean we tried to run/gun them last year and look how awful it ended each time.

ColePens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 11:34 AM
  #29
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,237
vCash: 500
I have wondered with the changes if the Pens would adjust their system though. Most have us with a top three defense in the league now. Our losses on offense (I include Gonchar and what he brought in that) do not seem much, most likely a wash in the end. So with a vastly improved defense, do we adjust at all Bylsma's system and if so how?

One thing about those old Devils team, that people probably lose in the memories of them, was that they always did have some tremendous offensive talent. Patient and wait for a mistake and then having guys who could and did captialize quickly on the mistake and bury it does not necessarily mean you are making up for having a les talented team than who you are playing.

Jaded-Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 12:18 PM
  #30
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,352
vCash: 500
I would want to see the final lines before commiting to a style but right now I would use a simple third man high or a 2-1-2. I like a team that pushes ahead with a strong forecheck and that seems to fit this team right now. Then to unsimplify things I would use the 2-1-2 to trap pucks in corners and beat up defenses.

It would also be used as a structered support system for the puck carrier and cut the ice in half (the winger would come to center ice to support the puck on the opposite side). The puck either gets dumped in as a safe play, passed east west or dropped to a player coming from behind with speed if defenses step up on the puck carrier. If defenses back off the player can go into the offensive zone with speed down the wing, lure the defense out of the shooting lane and drop it to the high man (who has his stick blade in the shooting lane not his body god damn Feds).

If the Pens go for a 1-4 I'm hoping that its more like a 1-2-2 and played like a slingshot for the Pens centers. Like a D to D pass, quick pass up the wing and then hit the speeding center with a pass in the blink of an eye.

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 02:58 PM
  #31
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Frasier Crane View Post
Since we are going to be so strong defensively, I think we should look to be more aggressive up front. The reason to go out and get great defenseman is so we can take more chances on the forecheck and in transition.

I think the 1-4 forecheck would be better used by a team that doesn't have as much talent on the back-end.

So I'd go with the 2-3 forecheck. This team is too good defensively to sit back, if that makes sense.
I'm inclined to agree with this. The problem with a 1-4 is that it is rather conservative in nature & doesn't jive with Bylsma's in-your-face-approach. The 1-2-2 fits the personnel well, though I would personally favor the more agressive 2-3. Our game thrives on transition & cycling & the latter systems set this up better than a 1-4....

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 03:25 PM
  #32
Sideline
Registered User
 
Sideline's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,189
vCash: 500
What I *think* Cole is describing is the original 1-2-2. "The Trap" as we know it today is a modified version of the aggressive 1-2-2. CBC did a special on it some time in the dead-puck era. A Finish coach came up with the idea (or applied a little known idea. Not terribly important here) on the premise that his team had great speed. He though he could have his guys create turnovers and generate offence on the huge number of counter attacks the system allows. His team absolutely lit up their league. To run this system you need three things:

1) Tempo
2) Tempo
3) and Tempo

Fast centres, fast wingers, and fast defence. Does that remind you of any current NHL team?

Some other coaches realized that if you move the aggressive 1-2-2 back by about half a zone you still create the turnovers, but you don't need as much speed to implement the system because your players have an extra half a zone to read and react. However, the turnovers now happen the same half a zone back so you don't get the same quality chances on the counter attack. This is the dreaded trap.

I would be open to the first system, but I defer to more knowledge guys to compare and contrast it to other alternatives.

Sideline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 05:24 PM
  #33
Der Schweinehund
Registered User
 
Der Schweinehund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,730
vCash: 500
The concern I have with 1-2-2 is that it really doesn't allow you to leverage (what I believe is) a core strength of the Pens in the fact that their defensmen are for the most part good puck control/passing defensemen.

A 2-3 or even 2-1-2 (with the 1 being high) can force the opposition attack to the boards and remove the stretch pass. That in turn allows the defense to grab the puck and quickly counter attack.

Der Schweinehund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 06:25 PM
  #34
BrOrpik 44
Registered User
 
BrOrpik 44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColePens View Post
So I've been away from the internet for a couple weeks as we were getting Fios in the house (whooole disaster in it's own) and w/ that time, obviously, I sit at home and sit in a dark room with an old film projector and chalk board and draw up hockey forechecks. It got me thinking about something that could really benefit this team next season.

You guys know I ***** and ***** about wanting to see a 2-3 forecheck and a simple north/south game, but how about we do the exact opposite and sit back in a 1-4? I really think that would complement the roster we currently have.

We are looking strong defensively and I believe Fleury will have an above year. What is a way we can complement our defensive game while still giving us a chance to attack offensively? Well.. simple, it's an offensive 1-4 forecheck. An offensive 1-4 forecheck? I know.. that sounds like a complete contradiction. Here is how it runs:

Our first guy doesn't forecheck past the bottom of the circles and all he does is let the opposing defender come out and pick a strong side. Our 4 stagger in a box (inside the dots) right at the blueline and our defense not too far off in the redline. As soon as the first forechecker forces the play to a strong side board, we attack. Our first forechecker comes back to the middle of the ice and will support our defense. Simply put - we cut off the middle of the ice in the neutral zone and we force teams to either dump the puck in (we will own puck possession) or try to skate through us. That gives us two options to counter attack.

So to get a visual - it's just a box + 1 defensive forecheck based on reaction as opposed to forceful pressure. The offensive game is implemented by a north/south transition when we create a turnover or regroup in our defensive zone and break back out. The key word is transition. We have to attack north/south as a team when we get the puck. That applies all the pressure right back on the opposition.

Where does the offense jump in? Well, once again, this is all about transition. We are a young, explosive team and don't have the best wingers w/ natural goal scoring ability. What they do have, however, is tenacity and a will to want to play hard. If we counter, we will forcefully make the opposing team be on their heels. If we don't get a good scoring chance, we have momentum to cycle and play our game anyway. These guys could thrive off forcing opposing defenses on their heels.

Every single turnover has to result in a north/south transition game w/ our defense jumping in. That type of system will make defense turn into offense. That seems to be the team we have and we could really thrive off of that style.


Pros
+ It helps our defensive game which we built by free agency signings
+ It helps Fleury get some help throughout the game
+ We stay fresh for the 3rd period instead of always chasing up/down the ice in a 2-3.
+ The system supports our overall roster


Cons
- If we are lazy, then it turns into a trap and that doesn't benefit our explosive forwards.
- Teams can trap back and turn it into a boring game of dump/chase. Then it becomes a chess game of who blinks first.
- Games against the Devils will be boring as **** and will most likely end 1-0 in a shootout.
- Patience is needed in this type of system and could lead to the players thinking too much instead of just reacting and playing the game.



What do you guys think? Would you prefer a 2-3 style forecheck, a 1-2-2 forecheck, or this 1-4? If it's neither...come up with your own and post it!
You want to know my thoughts?

I think you should apply for that assistant coach job, I'm almost certain you could do a great job.

BrOrpik 44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 10:15 PM
  #35
ColePens
Global Moderator
Your Savior
 
ColePens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 34,792
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ColePens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideline View Post
What I *think* Cole is describing is the original 1-2-2. "The Trap" as we know it today is a modified version of the aggressive 1-2-2. CBC did a special on it some time in the dead-puck era. A Finish coach came up with the idea (or applied a little known idea. Not terribly important here) on the premise that his team had great speed. He though he could have his guys create turnovers and generate offence on the huge number of counter attacks the system allows. His team absolutely lit up their league. To run this system you need three things:

1) Tempo
2) Tempo
3) and Tempo

Fast centres, fast wingers, and fast defence. Does that remind you of any current NHL team?
Bingo. There are obviously a lot of flaws in keeping up that tempo but that is the basic overview of what we could do in a system like that.

I'd love to see that piece by CBC if anyone finds it. I quickly searched youtube but just got caught up watching Game 7's CBC intro against the Caps. Damnit I love that video.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrOrpik 44 View Post
You want to know my thoughts?

I think you should apply for that assistant coach job, I'm almost certain you could do a great job.
I don't think a suitable reference would be only about 55% of HF Boards lol. Mario and Ray might want someone with a bigger "wow" factor in their resume.


edit: You guys are killing me with all the name changes... did Doc come up w/ another HF-wide user name change again????? Someone has to get rid of Zip's creepy photoshop avatar too. lol

ColePens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 10:20 PM
  #36
ColePens
Global Moderator
Your Savior
 
ColePens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 34,792
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ColePens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
I have wondered with the changes if the Pens would adjust their system though. Most have us with a top three defense in the league now. Our losses on offense (I include Gonchar and what he brought in that) do not seem much, most likely a wash in the end. So with a vastly improved defense, do we adjust at all Bylsma's system and if so how?

One thing about those old Devils team, that people probably lose in the memories of them, was that they always did have some tremendous offensive talent. Patient and wait for a mistake and then having guys who could and did captialize quickly on the mistake and bury it does not necessarily mean you are making up for having a les talented team than who you are playing.
Well-put. I didn't think of it that way. I'm just waiting for the day TenderRip starts the "I told you I was right" thread about losing Gonchar.

Honestly, Bylsma has his work cut out for him this season. We have talent, grit, and a solid looking defensive group on paper but there has to be a system that benefits the group as a whole. That's another reason why I hope we don't sign any additional free agents. We can find out our weakness throughout the season then add whomever we need accordingly.

ColePens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2010, 11:11 PM
  #37
Sideline
Registered User
 
Sideline's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColePens View Post
Bingo. There are obviously a lot of flaws in keeping up that tempo but that is the basic overview of what we could do in a system like that.

I'd love to see that piece by CBC if anyone finds it. I quickly searched youtube but just got caught up watching Game 7's CBC intro against the Caps. Damnit I love that video.
I can't for the life of me remember anything about in other than the Finnish coach was so disappointed by what his innovation became.

Sideline 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 04:30 PM.

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.