Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Does possession win games though when the goals aren't there? WHen they were previously a top offensive team they were the worst defensive team in the league. They were literally sacrificing goals against to play a more offensive oriented style of hockey. It remains to be seen if they can be a top 10 team in either category without sacrificing one of them.
|
Under Hartley, the threat of the stretch pass, in combination with the d-men being encouraged to rush the puck (and actually having PMD's that can play this style) certainly led to a lot of offence from the dmen, but I wouldn't call these strats sacrificing defence for offence. The winger is expected to cover for any rushing dmen. He certainly didn't shy away from ripping into ours if they blew their assignment. Looser and far more aggressive offensively, but the amount of offense generated is far greater than the amount of times you'd get burned on a turnover.
That was Hartley's system. I understand where the sentiment of him "not having a system" comes from, but there was one and he stuck to it. He was all about letting the goalie have the long shot and collapsing to take away high danger scoring chances. This unfortunately led to some spectacularly bad possession numbers (and the 'no systems!' battlecry), but that's the nature of how the team played under his strategies. Exciting for sure, but not tailored towards sustainability.
As for sacrificing one for the other - I think the league-worst goaltending had more to do with our playoff miss last season than any defence-related issues.