Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I think shooting percentage in Hartley's system would always be higher, as he had them collapse down low and then counter attack after getting worked in their own zone.
But do you want way less chances and a higher shooting percentage, or way more chances and a lesser shooting percentage?
|
I guess I'm not convinced it's one or the other. I think it's entirely possible to find a happy medium rather than yo-yoing between those two extremes. I also think it's not quite that direct of a relationship, and there are opportunities to look for the counterattack without sacrificing too much in the way of our structured 5-man-unit transitional style.
If you let the wingers fly the zone in certain situations, obviously creating a fast odd-man rush is plan A. But it also makes the D think twice about pinching, and if the wingers peel off and go back to the puck it creates space for our D->W->C bump-back play. Or course you make life harder for your D because they have to think quickly about where to move the puck, but that's why we're paying so much money for our D core.
In general I take issue with any stance of "we should always do option A over option B." Hartley had us stretch pass every time, and it wasn't great. Gulutzan has sticking in a 5-man unit every time, and it's better, but still not ideal. I think we've got a good enough group of players that we can trust them to read the play and improvise more than we do, and if they make more mistakes I can live with that.