Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
This Hartley 'not caring about defence' is getting old.
From 2013/14 - 2015/16, the Flames were 8th, 12th and 11th in SA.
Calgary was 8th under Gulutzan's first year, and now 10th this past season. Hardly a world of difference.
You must not have been anywhere close to the bench when Backlund didn't rotate into position to cover for a D-man that jumped in on the play, causing a turnover and an odd-man rush the other way.
Hartley REGULARLY chewed-out players that didn't play defence. That was the expectation with the system. Everyone has the green light to play offence, but everyone absolutely has to play hard the other way. If you didn't do it, he would sit your butt on the bench for a long time, or even scratch you. He wanted the entire team to play 2-way. He didn't have patience for 1 dimensional defencemen. He didn't have much patience for 1 dimensional forwards either.
It wasn't 'run and gun' hockey. Not even close. To say as much is not understanding the system he implemented at all, and then point to the results and say: "See! I am right". It was a rebuilding squad. It was a major defensive accomplishment and a big feather in his hat that he kept this team from getting lit-up every other night on the scoreboard as most rebuilding teams experience. If players didn't get back into position they were chewed-out on the bench.
Heck, I look at Gaudreau on the backcheck under Hartley and how good he was at stripping the puck away from players - I even called him Datsyuk-lite. Where was that player under Gulutzan?
I wanted a more aggressive defensive system, but that system as implemented worked for the team and it was not 'run and gun' hockey. It was a passive collapse not allowing home-plate and clogging the lanes as much as possible. Gulutzan's defensive system isn't much different actually, only they don't shot block nearly as much (though eliminating Bouma and Russell makes it seem drastically different in that area).
The thing with Gulutzan's system is that it wasn't that great defensively either. They seem to allow way too many 5-alarm chances. If you want to call Hartley's system 'run and gun' while implying that the Flames have played better defensively under Gulutzan, I just don't see it. I see a team that has much better personnel with a lot more experience, but underwhelming defensively.
|
Using shots against isn’t really a great measure of defensive acumen when looking at Hartley’s Flames. I would like to see shot attempts against.
Those teams routinely chased games and on average held the puck less then their opponent because their defensive zone system was basically “collapse in front of the net while the other team controls the puck and try to block shots like Lance Bouma and Kris Russell”.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because I agree that Hartley didn’t have the best teams on paper. This was a system that was designed for an average group of players so I can understand the logic.
Ideally, a good team will have the puck a lot more and won’t have to play like that. As Kent Wilson said “blocking shots is like killing rats. Doing it is preferable to not, but if you’re doing it all the time it suggests you have bigger problems”.