What if the Leafs experimented with 3 defencemen & 2 forwards? It’s worth a shot

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Psh we are way ahead of them. Remember when we played 4 or 5 defencemen at once, I think it was under Brent Sutter.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Steve Staios took a couple of faceoffs and actually won them.

[troutman]

Lemaire's neutral zone trap was 1-2-2.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Psh we are way ahead of them. Remember when we played 4 or 5 defencemen at once, I think it was under Brent Sutter.

Oh, it was 5. Truly desperate, Brent had run out of ideas and sent a message.

I wonder if that was the same day he beat the hell out of a garbage can

[CroFlames]

It was five defensemen on the powerplay no less.

[Always Earned Never Given]

The Oilers have been using their own version of baseball's "the shift".

They deploy their 5 guys on who has the puck and then you get the "This guy scores" moment when the opposition goes for the "opposite field"!

[lazypucker]

Teams should try playing with 2 goalies when defending a lead late in the game. Maybe it will provide better defence...

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Agreed. Or trying out other new things.

Down by 2 goals with 3 minutes remaining.. take out the goalie and play 6 forwards (basically the entire top 6)..worth a shot imo. Or 4 forwards and 1 dman if down by 3 with 10 mins to go

So one real reason this doesn’t happen is because there’s nowhere for that 3rd defenseman to go.

Defensemen are meant to push the attack to the wall. The wingers cover the point, and the centre covers the middle.

If you just stick an extra defenseman in the middle of the ice, you’re going to get scored on. Just look at what happens when a D comes out of the box and has to play wing for 30 seconds. They are visibly uncomfortable, because the way you move on the ice as a winger is different. The way you look at the ice is different.

Defensemen spend 95% of the game with the play in front of them. They almost never turn their back to the opposing net, and if they do, it’s a screwup/pursuit scenario.

If you replace a forward with a D, you’re not going to put the D at centre, you’re going to put him at wing. Which means he’s going to have to do something he’s not familiar/comfortable with, which increases the chance of a mistake. Since you’re not removing a centre, you may as well stick with a winger and get yourself through to the next shift.

Watch a forward try to play a 2-on-1 - they can’t. It isn’t because they don’t know how to skate backwards, it takes a lifetime of practice to get good at breaking up a 2-on-1 at the NHL level, and if it was easy, everyone would do it.

Six forwards is an act of total desperation, and even in the worst case scenario, you probably want your best offensive D out there with five forwards- you want someone who’s used to playing the game from the blue line and holding the puck in the zone. It’s unlikely your six forwards will be experienced at this.

The old 5D PP is good for sending a message and not much else.

Now, what may be useful is an 8D 10F lineup, if you’re really overmatched. You gamble that your top three lines will be able to get you at least two goals, and the 8 D and stud goalie hold the line against a vastly superior team.

But even that seems too disruptive to be deployed regularly. You wouldn’t build a team that way.

[Jay Random]

The problem with 8D 10F is that you're giving ice time to your 7th and 8th-best defencemen. That's likely to make your overall team defence worse, not better.

Closest thing I can think of: Back in the dawn of time, the Canucks used to dress 7D and 11F. But that was when two of the forwards were designated face-punchers, and they basically rolled three lines unless they wanted or expected a fight.

[Burner]

The Oilers should try this - they only have two forwards
Oh wait - they dont have 3 defensemen

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The problem with 8D 10F is that you're giving ice time to your 7th and 8th-best defencemen. That's likely to make your overall team defence worse, not better.

Closest thing I can think of: Back in the dawn of time, the Canucks used to dress 7D and 11F. But that was when two of the forwards were designated face-punchers, and they basically rolled three lines unless they wanted or expected a fight.

The SC champion Lightning used 7 D for a substantial portion of the 2020 playoffs.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by timbit

The SC champion Lightning used 7 D for a substantial portion of the 2020 playoffs.

That’s making the calculation that your 7th D brings more than your 12th forward, which may well be the case.

Is a defensive liability who’s an elite PP Weapon worth more in his 6-12 minutes than a Rinaldo/Jankowski?

Depending on the situation, it may be more useful to go with 11/7.

Anything more drastic, I don’t think would be feasible at the NHL level.

[Jason14h]

This is the dumbest idea ever .

Players have specialized positions because a specialized athlete is better then a non specialized

Why would you put out a 3rd D instead of just getting a specialized Center who is really good at D!

Sure if you have 3 elite D it may makes sense for a shift at the end of a game to play them together, but outside extreme circumstances it makes no sense

This isn’t basketball where you play 7/8 guys on rotation all game.