In Sutter We Trust

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Right and Toronto beat their forecheck because they made quick, efficient plays. They handled the pressure well and rendered Edmonton’s forecheck ineffective which in the end hurt them because they had 2 guys caught up ice. If F3 is at the very least situated in the neutral zone, then you have a second layer of defense who can step up and pick passes off or front the puck carrier, otherwise it’s just 2, 3 or 4 coming down at your lone 2 defensemen full steam who the. of course have to give up the blueline.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say for most of this season. The Flames’ failed checking attempts have been directly causing them problems in the defensive side of things. You can cause turnovers in other ways (i.e. the way teams are checking the Flames).

The Flames' checking has been atrocious in all 3 zones, yes, I agree with that. But that does not suggest, and I continue to disagree with any claim that, they are being too aggressive.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Can't quote Classic_Sniper:


I agree with Enoch that this team is too passive. I actually think they are too passive in ALL areas of the game.


With respect to the forechecking - yes, sometimes when teams run 2 forecheckers, there can be odd-man rushes. However, in the Flames case, it isn't from being over-aggressive that they run into problems. The Flames allow too much to happen. They have miss coverages all the time. They incorrectly identify the wrong assignments on the back-check.


I think fast teams should employ a 2-man forecheck, and be as aggressive on the forecheck as possible, especially when they are dumping the puck in as often as they do. They just need to be better at recognizing the play developing, and properly identifying and not allowing odd-man rushes.


When there are 2 forecheckers in, there are still two D deep in the zone - it shouldn't translate into an odd-man rush unless the forecheckers misread the play. Centre should be controlling the middle of the ice and trying to cover the opposing centre who may receive the outlet pass, but also ensure that he doesn't allow the centre to get behind him to create an odd-man rush if the forecheckers aren't able to gain possession.


Over aggressive is when you already have two forecheckers deep in the zone, and the centre or one of the defencemen make an ill-advised pinch trying to get at a loose puck (or worse, anticipating the loose puck), and blowing by the three opposing forwards. If that puck gets behind him, it is a guaranteed 3 on 2, or even a 3-1 if the centre is slow to back-fill for the pinch.


You see the Flames give up a tonne of odd-man rushes, and it is because of missed assignments and misreads. Sutter (or any competent coach really) will help manage that, while staying aggressive.


Don't believe it? Just look at the underlying metrics on the Kings. They were for the most part a very stingy team, and it wasn't because Quick was making highlight reel save after highlight reel save like Markstrom (and Rittich) have been doing all season long. Sutter teams are aggressive and forecheck hard, but they don't allow out-numbered chances often. There is a right way to be aggressive, and there is a completely oblivious way to be aggressive and disregard competent defensive coverage.

Your point about forechecking mostly comes down to the details of the game which Geoff Ward always talked about. Yes there are a lot of missed assignments and blown coverages and etc; but as I’ve said before this an overtaxing system that requires extremely high attention to detail to stay “connected” and for a generally slow team like the Flames, that’s a tough ask. We see it all the time from this team where they’re over aggressive in their pursuit of the puck, then there’s not enough support coming back to cover up and then they scored on or give up odd man rushes.

So the question I’ve been asking for a while is, should they even deploy this kind of style with this current personnel? Well the answer to me is no, not with the current level of engagement shown and the lack of speed when they’re trying to put pressure on the opposition back and forth. On a team like Vegas, heck yeah, for this current Flames group, heck no. Now this can always change because I’m talking about tactics here which can be changed up shift to shift, period to period. But right now, at this very moment, the current tactics aren’t helping.

The LA Kings are sort of a poor example to compare the Flames with as I mentioned in my Identity post. The Kings were heavy everywhere on the ice. Their forecheck was frightening, they directed a lot of shots to the net and got into the dirty areas to score goals, they could pin opposition teams to stop their cycles, their corner and board play was excellent to feed their transition back up. This is not the identity of the current cupcake Flames, this team actually struggles mightily against the heavy teams like the Blues and Stars and etc.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Flames' checking has been atrocious in all 3 zones, yes, I agree with that. But that does not suggest, and I continue to disagree with any claim that, they are being too aggressive.

Well that’s fine, we can agree to disagree. But do yourself a favor (loosely) and watch the prime Minnesota Wild and NJD and try to spot the differences between the Flames and those 2 teams. After that, then you can tell me what “passive” really looks like.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well that’s fine, we can agree to disagree. But do yourself a favor (loosely) and watch the prime Minnesota Wild and NJD and try to spot the differences between the Flames and those 2 teams. After that, then you can tell me what “passive” really looks like.

The Wild were very aggressive in their own zone, but relied on the neutral zone trap rather than having aggressive forecheckers. They would send one forward in to flush the puck carrier out, but that's about it.


In their own zone, I liked how they used to play, and have long advocated for the Flames to play similarly - they have pressure defence - very aggressive.


As for your previous post - I don't think the Flames are slow, they just play slow. I think you will be surprised by how they play under Sutter, and how they manage to be a much more aggressive team yet stay in a solid defensive coverage. Proof will be in the pudding I guess there - and it won't happen overnight, but it will get there. Maybe we can revisit this conversation as the season draws to a close and maybe do some contrasting/comparison between how the Flames were playing under Ward vs how they were playing under Sutter - in terms of aggressiveness, speed, and defensive awareness. Should be really interesting to see how they end up playing like.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Flames' checking has been atrocious in all 3 zones, yes, I agree with that. But that does not suggest, and I continue to disagree with any claim that, they are being too aggressive.

Yeah one of the weakest F2 configurations I've seen in pro hockey ... reminds me of coaching midgets!

And that's both ways ... no support on the forecheck, but also no push to the far post to pull the dmen towards their net and apart.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well that’s fine, we can agree to disagree. But do yourself a favor (loosely) and watch the prime Minnesota Wild and NJD and try to spot the differences between the Flames and those 2 teams. After that, then you can tell me what “passive” really looks like.

Well, I agree that the Wild and Devils of old could put on a clinic of passive defense. Not sure how that proves the Flames are aggressive though. But as you say, we'll agree to disagree.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah one of the weakest F2 configurations I've seen in pro hockey ... reminds me of coaching midgets!

And that's both ways ... no support on the forecheck, but also no push to the far post to pull the dmen towards their net and apart.

On a similar note, during one of the games this week (can't remember which one), the Flames dumped it in, on the right side. There were 3 Flame forwards, and 3 defenders in the zone at the time. The Flames left winger was alone on the left side, and the other 2 forwards were on the right side, on the boards, pursuing the puck. The left winger looked around (you could clearly see the helmet turning), realized that wasn't where he was supposed to be, and he promptly skated over to the right side where the other two forwards were.

So the defenseman passed it over to the left side and they easily exited the zone.

I stared in disbelief. And I am certain that it wasn't just a brain fart - he clearly looked around and came to the conclusion that he was supposed to be over on the other side with the other two guys, and then went over there.

Right now, they all look like they aren't sure whether they are playing checkers or chess.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The Wild were very aggressive in their own zone, but relied on the neutral zone trap rather than having aggressive forecheckers. They would send one forward in to flush the puck carrier out, but that's about it.


In their own zone, I liked how they used to play, and have long advocated for the Flames to play similarly - they have pressure defence - very aggressive.


As for your previous post - I don't think the Flames are slow, they just play slow. I think you will be surprised by how they play under Sutter, and how they manage to be a much more aggressive team yet stay in a solid defensive coverage. Proof will be in the pudding I guess there - and it won't happen overnight, but it will get there. Maybe we can revisit this conversation as the season draws to a close and maybe do some contrasting/comparison between how the Flames were playing under Ward vs how they were playing under Sutter - in terms of aggressiveness, speed, and defensive awareness. Should be really interesting to see how they end up playing like.

I think you guys are seriously confused with what im trying to get at it here. I’m not trying to say play slower here. I’m not talking about their breakouts.

What I’m advocating for is for this team to shoot themselves in the foot less on their transition defense. Their forecheck in a lot of ways is used to basically create turnovers. But what I’m saying is that turnovers can be created in other ways where you don’t shoot yourself in the foot so much.

Geoff Ward use to have a great line for this and I’m paraphrasing here, “it’s not always what you make, it’s what you leave that matters” and that’s this team’s problem, they leave a lot.



Lastly, this is probably the most annoying thing I read in this place, “playing slow.” They don’t want to play slow. Nobody wants to play slow. What NHL coach, today, wants to slow the play to a crawl? Nobody. Bill Peters and Geoff Ward actually believed in playing fast. All Bill Peters use to talk about is playing with pace, playing with pace, playing with pace. There was even an article written about it NHL.com.

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/play-faster/c-310451184

As I’ve said before, it’s about what the defense gives you. You can’t always sprint through a mine field, you have to navigate around it or else it’s turnover city. If a coach like Bill Peters preaches playing fast and it did nothing, then maybe it’s not all on the coach.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well, I agree that the Wild and Devils of old could put on a clinic of passive defense. Not sure how that proves the Flames are aggressive though. But as you say, we'll agree to disagree.

2 words: Neutral Zone. The neutral zone is like night vs day.