[Boreal]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

He articulates himself well but his perspective is based in a past era of the game that isn't relevant in today's high skill game.

There are no bruiser lines or pairings in the league anymore unless they're highly skilled players that can do both.

Game has simply gotten too fast for the physicality-first game. And no opponent is going to 'play down' to a slow bruiser line they're just going to look to expose it with speed and skill.

I look at Vegas as a consistent model of this era. Quick transition, aggressive forecheck and rolls four lines. The Flames are clearly trying to emulate that, they just need more consistent energy in their game from period to period and a betterI fourth line.

100% If you listen to his podcast his bravado and speech is a laughable tragic comedy without Sportsnet and colleagues structuring him.

Vegas is a good example of the modern game. They also have attention to detail on 50/50 pucks to generate turnovers.

https://thecoachessite.com/video-san...game-analysis/

In San Jose we track offensive rushes for and offensive rushes against. Tracking and back-checking influences rushes. Vegas creates most of their chances by turning pucks over. That data is tracked by analytics. Odd-man rushes created by turnovers in the neutral zone is just another example of how specific you can get with analytics.”

Most teams are tracking these stats in their own way, to better understand the oppositions game and their response. But it’s hard, defining puck battles and 50/50 or otherwise and who won them is fluid and can enable subjectivity.

http://passittobulis.blogspot.com/20...-can-puck.html

On the surface, the task seems easy enough. Statistics are already kept for faceoffs, which are just a particular breed of puck battle. It's simple: the team that gains possession off the faceoff has won the faceoff. The issue is one of identification. Identifying a faceoff is easy: the play has stopped and the linesman drops the puck to re-start play. There are two clear players involved who oppose each other: the winner of the faceoff is the one whose team gains possession, even if his teammates played a key role in gaining that possession. There is a clear beginning to a faceoff and a somewhat muddled, but still identifiable, ending.

Identifying a puck battle is far more difficult. When does a puck battle begin? When does it end? It's a problem of segmentation, which is a common problem for hockey statistics.

Being aware and able to dominate puck battles is the epitome of working smart. Being overly aggressive on a puck battle can have be the wrong decision at times. I think this is part of what Peters instilled in the Flames to get success.

https://thecoachessite.com/video-cal...players-aware/

For Peters, faceoffs are an easy way to start the conversation about situational awareness. While he was in Carolina, Peters talked about how faceoffs were your team’s first 50/50 puck battle in every shift. As a coach, Peters says you can tell if your team is engaged emotionally by how they respond when the puck is dropped.

Vega’s ability to win puck battles on the forecheck and back check let them capitalize on mistakes. I think a lot of the energy that drove them was born out of being a collection of misfits on an expansion franchise that teams didn’t know what to expect because they were new. This has obviously changed since their 1st season, but so has their personnel.

Toronto did a good job of disrupting and winning puck battles against the Flames Tuesday. It disrupted their ability to consistently connect plays into shot attempts hitting the net.

This is the mental fortitude the Flames need to persevere through. They did a reasonable job of this Tuesday after the 1st and didn’t wilt. It’s part of the team growth in the early season. They should be learning from their mistakes.