Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Under Hartley, I hated the collapsing D zone coverage, but I loved the way the D jumped into the play.
With Gulutzan, our D is still way too passive (playing zone and ignoring the man), but now they aren't jumping into the offense as much. Hartley wasn't the answer. But this is worse.
|
I agree with this. However, I want to add something here.
I do think that under Hartley, that collapsing shot-blocking coverage worked for the team he had. I wanted an aggressive Minnesota-style coverage where the opposing team was challenged to make a play quickly. However, Giordano and Brodie only started becoming a thing under Hartley. Other than that, you had Wideman who played really well for the most part, but was not fast enough to play that type of a game. Engelland was also too slow, Russell was undersized... Staios and the revolving door of 6th defencemen were either too slow or too weak to support that type of defensive system too.
In hindsight, I think that it was a good fit for the team. I do think he just made the most of what he had at the time. I also did love how active the defencemen were at generating offence. To me anyways, it seemed like a system that was really designed with the team's composition in mind. They weren't going to out-corsi anyone with that roster. They weren't going to out-defend anyone with that roster. They just played to their strengths and were challenged to play with a tonne of effort every night. They became a counter-attacking team that generated most of their offence off the rush.
I have to say, I keep wondering what adjustments Hartley would have made to his system if he was still here. I would imagine there would be some changes implemented. Maybe coaches just get to set in their system and dislike changing them. Who knows. I just have to agree that Gulutzan is seemingly not making the most out of the team's defensive strength right now, considering the Flames have the luxury of having offensive-type puck-movers throughout the lineup.