[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I have to ask, with all the talk of systems and confusion and comparing previous coaches like Peters and Gulutzan, can anyone even tell the difference between the systems of all 3 of Treliving’s coaches?

Because from what I’ve seen and what I’ve remembered, there isn’t much difference at all, all 3 had very similar if not identical systems. Milan Lucic just the other day, said to the media that it’s the exact same system.

To some extent, you're correct. All three of Treliving's hires do follow and preach a lot of the same basic principles. Things like moving in tightly-packed 5 man units, boxing out in front of the net instead of fronting, little things like that are pretty consistent, especially when contrasted with Bob Hartley's systems, where the forwards were essentially a different entity altogether from the defensemen, and the defensemen were asked to do very different things in the defensive zone.

I will say however, that all coaches have things they want to preach. Maybe "systems" isn't even the right word for it, but areas-of-focus. One coach might really dislike plays right up the middle of the ice, another coach might be willing to take that risk. One coach might want his defensemen to be more engaged and active offensively, the other coach might see his defensemen as a point shot source and nothing more.

Here's what I believe I have seen based on what I've watched of these three coaches:

Glen Gulutzan disliked the stretch pass. He had a really firm grasp on playing a tight neutral zone game. Offensively, he really emphasized cycle play and we generated most of our offense off of the cycle. Defensively, he played a very aggressive style - the kind that sometimes got you burned but more often got you out of the zone quickly. I mentioned Hartley above saw the forwards and defensemen as separate entities in the defensive zone... well Gulutzan saw the forwards and defensemen as separate entities in the offensive zone. He wanted three forwards to score on teams of five most of the time, with the defensemen simply firing blind pucks at the net from the boards.

Bill Peters was more open to the stretch pass, although he had much more aggressive approach than Hartley's collapse defense. Early on he was more open to taking some chances and driving the middle of the ice as well - when the Flames would use the middle of the ice, they had a ton of rush scoring opportunties. In the playoffs however, all that aggressiveness that was characteristic of the team seemed to disappear. If I had to guess, this was due to the Hanifin - Hamonic defense pairing losing all confidence in their gap control (the other two pairings Giordano-Brodie and Valimaki-Andersson seemed to be decent) but the result was easy zone entries against. Maybe it was a small sample size, but it really felt like the team was not playing the style that originally made Peters successful. They defaulted to safe glass and out breakouts and gave up way too much room on zone entries against. Their forecheck, which was pretty effective in game 1, was adjusted to by Bednar and Peters had no real answer. I think I'm digressing here though. My point is this - Out of Treliving's three coaches, at least when the team appeared to be winning, they had a lot of VARIETY in their attack. If they need to break out with a textbook D-W-C, they could. If they need a stretch pass, they could. If they needed Brodie or Hanifin or Ryan or Backlund to simply skate the puck into open ice... they could. They gave themselves options. This to me was apparently one mark of a well-coached team - I'm sure they preached a lot of their principles, but they usually had multiple strategies, and never got too stuck doing things one way on breakouts or on offense. On offense, they also had their defensemen more involved in the play than Gulutzan's teams. The D weren't just guys posted along the wall to shovel a puck at the net, they had a green light that they NEEDED!

Geoff Ward hockey is, to my eyes, a style that is allergic to the middle of the ice when the team has control of the puck. His preference appears to be have defensemen rim the puck along the boards on the breakout, and the stationary wingers along the boards then have two options

Option A) Chip the puck past the opposing defensemen to the neutral zone
Option B) Chip the puck to the nearby center

The problem isn't that this is a BAD breakout strategy. The problem is that this feels like the ONLY breakout strategy. Going back to Hartley's stretch pass obsession, we've come around to the exact opposite end of the spectrum. Every play is so predictible under Ward. Maybe he's not actively preaching this as the only way they need to play, but his failure to preach variety in breakout styles, one way or the other, gives his teams an identity that we describe as his system. Where are the defensemen skating the puck into open ice? Where are the stretch passes? I just don't see any of those things, and it's not as if guys like Hanifin or Andersson are not capable of those things. So what we end up with are breakouts that force the stationary wingers to the two above options. And the accuracy of option B drops considerably because the other team is so well-prepared for that short area pass.

Additionally, I believe Ward implements a more passive defensive strategy in general. Teams under him play much more compact to the center of the ice - a collapse defense if you will. This is also true of our neutral zone play under Ward... just loose gaps - our whole team plays like that Hanifin - Hamonic pairing did in that Avs series right now. If this is not being coached, then I don't know why they're not being coached to play tighter. A top end coach would not be satisfied with our neutral zone play under Ward - if the players aren't executing then you tell them to go take more risks.

Ultimately though, Geoff Ward hockey is risk-averse. And by being risk-averse, they spend a lot of time in their own zone, and when they are able to break the puck out, they don't have the multitude of options presented to them that a well-constructed system would encourage.

I don't believe this is a case of "Geoff tells them NEVER to stretch pass or use the middle of the ice". I think this is a case of "Geoff overlooks the importance of practicing different breakout situations, because he favours risk averse strategies like the ones outlined above". Them not using the middle of the ice, is thus a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. But because that symptom manifests, the breakout strategies that should be second nature are so well-covered by opponents that the players play with panic. Because the game is very fast.

I saw a play, maybe two nights ago against the Leafs, where Hanifin has the puck around the left circle with a clear lane to simple skate the puck out of the zone. Instead he passes the puck to his stationary winger along the walls. Why would someone make such a stupid play? Because that's the sort of play that gets preached in practice, and their instincts are to do what they practice.

I know this isn't an in-depth look at systems in terms of 1-2-2 or 1-1-3 or 2-1-2. I do think that there are some differences there as well but that would be worth its own thread and you'd really need video evidence to back it up. And I'm not smart enough to be the guy doing that because I don't even have the attention span to do video work in general.

The same system that got them into the playoffs, the same system that saw Sam Bennett play the best hockey (playoffs) of his career and the same system that won them the series against the Jets. If someone could tell me what part of this system that’s still confusing to the players, then I’d like to know.

The Flames played an even series against the Jets, who were missing their #1 AND #2 centres. And the Jets were not even a playoff team - this was a team who had finished the season 9th in the standings before the pandemic. I would not read a ton into it. A system designed to stop a team with no offensive talent (which is a valid description of the team we faced) is not the same as a system designed to stop an NHL playoff team with NHL star forwards.

The Flames were outplayed by the Stars.

And that was not Sam Bennett's best hockey. If you want the best playoff hockey of Bennett's career, look to his series in 2017 centering Versteeg and Chiasson. He had better linemates last year, but wasn't playing to his peak level.