2016 Garbage bag day @ the dome

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Stretch pass is fine, when used in moderation. That was the problem this year...it seemed like it was the only option.

[GranteedEV]

You don't need to be a big team to hem other teams in. Not so much this year due to injuries, but last year I thought the Palat-Johnson-Kucherov was the best cycling line the NHL. That's a smaller top line than Johnny-Monny-Hudler. The Blackhawks' most dominant line at times is often the Shaw-Kruger fourth line of theirs, again on the smaller side.

Is is a Getzlaf/Perry type of slow, physical cycle no, it's more of a forecheck with everybody involved, get pucks on towards the net, and then win every race to the rebounds or misses, and then ring it all the way back to the weak side to rinse and repeat, but it's effective.

The Flames had something along the that line on this shift:

MOD EDIT: Video removed, pomf.se is defunct and is using redirects which triggers some antivirus/firewall warnings, please upload to a different host.

Johnny needs to gets a little bit stronger and a little bit faster to play that kind of game, but I believe in him. The Flames can succeed playing like that. I think Shinkaruk can play like that. Monahan is there on that shift but I think he can be more present too. Gio, Hamilton, and Brodie are no-brainers, if we can get Kulak or Kylington to succeed at #4 it would go a long way.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Stretch pass is fine, when used in moderation. That was the problem this year...it seemed like it was the only option.

And that's fair. The issue is when it's forced. Hartley's breakout structure was created around an event that presents itself how many times during the natural progression of a game? Maybe half a dozen? Under 10 times for sure.

Teams are just too good defensively these days. If you don't have a plan to get through a clogged up neutral zone, you're going to have a bad time.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

If you don't have a plan to get through a clogged up neutral zone, you're going to have a bad time.

Bob Hartley beat the vintage trap Devils in the SCF. With Forsberg missing the series to injury. I wonder what kind of strategies he employed for that series.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Johnny needs to gets a little bit stronger and a little bit faster to play that kind of game, but I believe in him. The Flames can succeed playing like that. I think Shinkaruk can play like that. Monahan is there on that shift but I think he can be more present too. Gio, Hamilton, and Brodie are no-brainers, if we can get Kulak or Kylington to succeed at #4 it would go a long way.

Gaudreau is who he is. He's not going to get stronger in any discernible way. Considering he's a top ten scorer in the league - not really sure why we'd want him to change his game in any way.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Gaudreau is who he is. He's not going to get stronger in any discernible way.

He got noticibly stronger this year than he was last year.

Considering he's a top ten scorer in the league - not really sure why we'd want him to change his game in any way.

Who said anything about changing his game? Just expanding it. He already has everything need to play that game because at times he shows flashes of it, but he can be even better next year.

[Krule]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

And that's fair. The issue is when it's forced. Hartley's breakout structure was created around an event that presents itself how many times during the natural progression of a game? Maybe half a dozen? Under 10 times for sure.

Teams are just too good defensively these days. If you don't have a plan to get through a clogged up neutral zone, you're going to have a bad time.

I too think we need better breakout options. Having more than one option forces the opposition to guess at what you're going to do next. And let's face it, everyone knew what we were doing because we lacked options. I think the only real reason to attempt that long stretch pass is if you know you are catching the opposition on a bad line change.

[MarkGio]

I really hope the Flames never implement a dump and chase or trap system. Maybe defense wins championships and maybe Hartley's current system lets in a few goals, but when I watch Hartley hockey I could keep watching even when the team was down a few goals because it was possible to muster up an epic comeback, whereas Sutter hockey was hopeless if the team was down going into the 3rd.

Besides, people will complain regardless. Of Brodie wasn't stretch passing, people will say Hartley's not utilizing Brodie's talents and building a system around it's assets. If Hiller's getting lit up, people complain that Hartley hasn't adjusted to the fact that goaltending is the weakest link. If the power play is horrendous, people will complain that Bennett isn't getting enought power play time. He takes his orders from Trevy and you can't please everyone

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Bob Hartley beat the vintage trap Devils in the SCF. With Forsberg missing the series to injury. I wonder what kind of strategies he employed for that series.

He started Roy in net. Roy didn't let in more than 1 goal in any of the Avalanche's wins that series...

[AltaGuy]

It's interesting - I don't think we've really spoken much about the Hawk's systems, because they are more difficult to emulate than a cycle/big man game like the old Bruins or Kings (or Anaheim). Getting bigger is easier than learning to play the Hawks' style imo.

I have not seen the Hawks using the stretch pass very often like we do. I don't watch a ton of their games, but haven't seen it when I do. More often, they seem to bring the puck up as a five man unit. Seeing as they are known for their "possession" game, risky stretch passes that have at best a 50/50 of losing possession wouldn't fit.

When we try the stretch pass, we often look for the tip into the zone, since most of the time they're not perfect, and it avoids a neutral zone giveaway. But couple that with a defensive zone posture that remains too passive, and we often change instead of forecheck, meaning we give up possession quickly.

I would like a more aggressive team in the defensive zone (which we were this season as compared to last, but not great still) and I would like far fewer stretch passes, and more possession and five-man breakouts. We have a good team to play like the Hawks, but we don't under Hartley.

One additional thing - part of the reason we are passive in the defensive zone is because we don't always have five guys defending. One thing leads to another: a forward breaks for the stretch pass, and if possession isn't perfected, we are forced to play passively since we are outnumbered often. I don't see the Hawks doing this: they are almost always five players back, and look to transition quickly together when they have possession.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

He started Roy in net. Roy didn't let in more than 1 goal in any of the Avalanche's wins that series...

He also had hart winner and leading playoff scorer Joe Sakic, prime Hejduk, Drury, Ray Bourque, etc.

Even without taking into consideration Hartley's HOF roster, the game has changed a lot in the last 15 years.

Anyway, the dichotomy between generating offense from cycling/possession and from the rush is a false one. Anaheim and L.A. can score off the rush too, and Doughty, Lindholm, etc. still throw stretch passes up the middle when it's there. The problem with Hartley's system is that there is no other option other than the stretch pass-rush, and this inflexibility hurts us defensively too, because often we can't even get out of our own zone, and the more time we spend in our own zone, the more tired we get, the more chances there are for freak bounces against us, etc.

Under Hartley, there is seldom the lateral pass option, there is little movement up the ice as a 3-5 man unit (often it's two defensemen in our own zone and 3 forwards up high, creating a needless gap that teams have exploited to force turnovers), and there is seldom regrouping (except when Brodie is on the ice). Good coaches can adapt their strategies when something doesn't work. Hartley hasn't shown any adaptation this year.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

He started Roy in net. Roy didn't let in more than 1 goal in any of the Avalanche's wins that series...

That's fine, but I'm honestly curious what kind of strategies Hartley employed. That was also before the red line was removed.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

He started Roy in net. Roy didn't let in more than 1 goal in any of the Avalanche's wins that series...

And kept throwing Joe Sakic, Milan Hejduk, Alex Tanguay, Chris Drury, Ray Bourque, Adam Foote, and Rob Blake over the boards, a lot.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Most goals are scored shortly after some entry. The theory that cycling is essential are misguided IMO

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this tells me that cycling the puck (ie, possesion in the o-zone) equates to more goals. I agree that there are different methods of success for sure, but I don't see how this chart expresses that scoring off the rush is equating to more goals. 20 seconds in the zone with possession is not shortly after entry. That is a very long cycle. I'd say a goal off the rush comes <10 seconds after entering the zone.

The reason there's a big drop off after 20 seconds is not many shifts will have any team holding the puck for that long consecutively.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this tells me that cycling the puck (ie, possesion in the o-zone) equates to more goals. I agree that there are different methods of success for sure, but I don't see how this chart expresses that scoring off the rush is equating to more goals. 20 seconds in the zone with possession is not shortly after entry. That is a very long cycle. I'd say a goal off the rush comes <10 seconds after entering the zone.

The reason there's a big drop off after 20 seconds is not many shifts will have any team holding the puck for that long consecutively.

I think you're reading it wrong. It's cumulative. 70% of goals are scored in the first 10 second before much cycling can occur

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're reading it wrong. It's cumulative. 70% of goals are scored in the first 10 second before much cycling can occur

Yeah but the numbers steadily increase as zone time does. Even 10 seconds is pretty decent time to have possession in the o-zone. A rush chance, to me, happens literally on the rush. How long after crossing the blueline does a 3 on 2 chance get a shot? Maybe 2 or 3 seconds?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah but the numbers steadily increase as zone time does. Even 10 seconds is pretty decent time to have possession in the o-zone.

Again, it's cumulative. That's why it looks like it increases. Put it this way:

57% of all goals scored in the NHL occur in the first 7 seconds. In the next 7 seconds, only 23% of goals are scored

[Harry Lime]

Or, if you're a possession team, the chances of you scoring a goal goes up 23% due to the ability to hold onto the puck in the offensive zone, compared to a rush team.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Again, it's cumulative. That's why it looks like it increases. Put it this way:

57% of all goals scored in the NHL occur in the first 7 seconds. In the next 7 seconds, only 23% of goals are scored

Yeah but doesn't that still mean that holding the puck longer increases the chance of scoring by that 23%?

Again, there aren't many instances where a team will have more than 10-15 seconds of possession in the o-zone regardless of what style they play. Most goals are going to be scored in that 1st 10 seconds just because there aren't many instances of holding the puck for much longer. So if those extra 10 seconds increase your scoring opportunity by 20%, that still means it's better to have possession for longer than it is to shoot within 5 or 6 seconds of entering the zone.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Or, if you're a possession team, the chances of you scoring a goal goes up 23% due to the ability to hold onto the puck in the offensive zone, compared to a rush team.

That chart is not your odds of scoring a goal based on possession time. You can't draw this conclusion from that data. For this conclusion, you would need all of the shifts of X length that didn't result in a goal. Plus, goal-scoring is not an odds-based metric.

I would bet that most zone times of 3 seconds or less result in no goal. The vast majority, in fact. But that's because the vast majority of zone entries don't result in a goal.