Offensive Systems

[dagies]

I'm not a guy who knows a lot about systems so I found reading this blog entry on Russo's blog interesting to read.

What made me want to post here was this paragraph:

I will say, judging from what I saw today, while the Wild will try to be a more puck possession team, a big part of this system is to dump and chase

[Kermit]

My 2 cents worth: Blais' Sioux teams used a lot of dump and chase with a VERY aggressive forecheck. It was the norm to send all 3 forwards in on the forecheck. It was common to see two forwards below the goal line, and not unheard of to see all three! Conversely, Blais' defensemen tended to be stay-at-home types with maybe one offensively oriented d-man on a team (ie. Murphy, Williamson, Roche).

Hakstol, like almost all current college coaches, tends to be more conservative on the forecheck. Now days, the Sioux might only send one or two forwards in on the forecheck, depending on the situation and the opponent. There is much more emphasis on the forwards' defensive responsibilities and yes, the Sioux sometimes play something like a left wing lock or a neutral zone trap. Interestingly, Hakstol's defensemen have included more risk-taking, offensively-oriented types epitomized by Chay Genoway.

College hockey has changed for many reasons: better coaching, better conditioning, bigger players, bigger goaltending equipment, etc, etc. It is not a simple thing to turn the clock back. That said, the hockey of the Gasparini and Blais eras was much more wide open and often more fun to watch. No slight to current players or coaches intended.

I'm not a guy who knows a lot about systems so I found reading this blog entry on Russo's blog interesting to read.

What made me want to post here was this paragraph:

In the past there has been discussion on this board about Hakstol's offensive system. When Hak took the job he said he was going to run an up-tempo system and it wouldn't be a lot different from what Blais ran.

There have been numerous criticisms in the past that Hakstol is running a dump and chase system which is ineffective and boring. I don't remember enough nor am knowledgeable enough about Blais's system to know how similar or different Hak's is.

But anyway, what I did think was interesting is that the new Wild coach, Richards, is supposed to be implementing a very up-tempo, puck possession type system and here a good part of that is dump and chase.

This made me remember the criticisms of Hak's system and wonder if there's more going on in Hak's system then he's been given credit for.

I'm interested in the discussion.

[Goon]

I would explain it like the way that BSU played against Cornell and Notre Dame, up tempo, get pucks deep and then get on them in the offensive zone before they can counter attack, if you get a lead its hard to answer if your a defensive team. Play short shifts. It sounds like the Wild want to play that way this season. On the flip side of that is boring like the old Wild, Cornell and Miami these team try to slow it down, clog it up line up at the blue line and make you try to break through, that is what happened on the second night against Cornell last season, the refs didn't call the obstruction and it was horrible game. RACE HORSE hockey like blais played was push the puck up and down the ice and force check hard, the best act was a counter attack. My favorite kind of hockey.

[redwing77]

Can you play an up tempo game against Cornell?

[jk]

System-wise, I'm not smart enough to say. But I will say that I think Blais pushed conditioning to a new level when he arrived at UND, and it gave the team a competitive advantage for years. By the end of his UND stint, everyone else had caught up, and now it's the norm. (You can see his reputation is intact when his new players get messages from friends: Get ready to run. As I said, though, I don't think it'll be revolutionary as it was 15 years ago.) To get to the point, maybe Blais' UND teams were so up-tempo because they were best conditioned.

One other thing: You carry it in if you can avoid turning it over at the blueline. Otherwise chip it in. That seems to be the way Hak's teams do it. Trying to carry it through a shelterbelt of sticks just gets the puck going the other way, with about the same momentum your guys have the other direction.

[Goon]

Can you play an up tempo game against Cornell?

BSU did in the NCAA's I think we did because they could keep up with UND the first night.

We made their so called great goalie look like crap.

[Snake]

One thing to note about Russo's article is that one of the key statements was...

...dump it where the goalie can't play it.

The NHL has restrictions on where the goalie can play pucks. The NCAA does not.

Dump-and-chase may be able to play into a more up-tempo style in the NHL given the restrictions on the goalies.

[ScottM]

I'll agree with those who say there was a more aggressive forecheck by the forewards under Blais, Rory McMahon comes to mind. The downside is that if you get caught too deep, you can give up odd-man rushes.

[stickboy1956]

I'm not a guy who knows a lot about systems so I found reading this blog entry on Russo's blog interesting to read.

What made me want to post here was this paragraph:

In the past there has been discussion on this board about Hakstol's offensive system. When Hak took the job he said he was going to run an up-tempo system and it wouldn't be a lot different from what Blais ran.

There have been numerous criticisms in the past that Hakstol is running a dump and chase system which is ineffective and boring. I don't remember enough nor am knowledgeable enough about Blais's system to know how similar or different Hak's is.

But anyway, what I did think was interesting is that the new Wild coach, Richards, is supposed to be implementing a very up-tempo, puck possession type system and here a good part of that is dump and chase.

This made me remember the criticisms of Hak's system and wonder if there's more going on in Hak's system then he's been given credit for.

I'm interested in the discussion.

I don't think there's much difference between the Blais/Hakstol philosophy.

Here's what I see as different:

1. We have recruited a lot of high end skill players over the past few years. When they are on a rush, they are less likely "dump and chase" and more likely to try to beat a defender one-on-one - or we will play more of a possession game in the attack zone - control the puck and wait for the rest of the team to enter the zone before going on the attack.

2. We see a lot of opponents utilize a "Delayed Forecheck" (I won't use the T word) against us. In trying to navigate against that we don't always end up with 3 forwards hitting the blue line together. The intent of the DF is to slow the pace down. You need patience to beat it - being too aggressive will lead to turnovers in the neutral zone, which is the intent of the DF.

3. You often see 3 Sioux forwards below the dots on offense. This is anything but conservative.

[The Sicatoka]

What I notice more than anything:

Hak changes style based on situation; Blais played wide open all the time and when his teams tried to take a more defensive posture they tended to give up goals. They weren't used to playing a defensive style and it showed and they broke down. The Blais teams' best defense was their aggressive offense and puck possession.

That Blais aggressive offense made life tough on goalies, the other and his, however. You expected to see the Sioux goalie face at least a couple clean breakaways and a couple +2 odd-man rushes (3-1 or 4-2) per game.

Hak's teams don't seem to give up as many bad odd-man rushes and fewer clean breakaways. I attribute that to Hak's penchant to keep a forward at the dots or above in the offensive zone when it's even, or he's up a goal, late. He seems to go for a full forecheck (three men below the goal line) when it's even early and they are looking to establish the lead (or are down late and need one). He also seems more willing to go full forecheck when you can see a clear mismatch in team speed and they know they can get back.

Alternatively, I've seen "Hak Trap" too, with one chaser and four men in the traditional "trap box" back outside the blue line (say they're up two with five to play and just dumped for a change). But that's a smart strategy if you're able to run it and are just looking to run out the clock. And Hak's teams with a lead in the third are predictable in going to three step hockey*.

All this is the long way of saying what I said before: Hak changes style based on situation far more than Blais ever did.

* Three step hockey (that's how it was described to me):

Step One: get it out of your own zone by any means available.

Step Two: get it across the red line by any means available.

Step Three: get it down deep by any means available (skate or dump).

[The Sicatoka]

Now, let's talk special teams.

I like the approach the team takes on the PK. Rather than setting up the traditional box outside the zone and rolling it back in they've gone to a more 1-1-2 where outside the zone the furthest out man is designated to chase and skate and "influence" the puck carrier to a particular side. It's more of a defensive open-ice forecheck designed to force teams to make good plays and passes and to force the action. (I think it makes some teams show weakness in talent.)

However, at other times it seems they almost go into a 1-3 and stack the blueline. I believe I can sum up those times pretty easily: That system seems to be employed when obstruction isn't being called by the officials. That makes sense because a blue line "fence" works best to force a dump and you'd use it when you know you (on defense) can win a race to the puck (because the attacker has been "slowed up").

Where I'd like to see improvement is on the power play. They seem to play too much "shooting gallery" (stand there, take pass, look, fake, fake, stand there, pass, next guy takes pass, fake, shoot wide, and puck rings and get out of the zone) and not enough motion and diagonal, intentional puck movement at times. That makes for "flat feet" and far too many miscues. And that "shooting gallery" approach lets the goalie get stacked up before the shot. Movement, especially quick planned moves or "diagonal" passes, doesn't allow the goalie to get over much less get set. (SCSU and Minnesota are masters of the diagonal pass for the easy tap-in backdoor goal.)

If you are going to play shooting gallery (umbrella) you have to get the shot through the traffic and on net, the "on net" part being critical.

[Irish]

Interesting discussion -

From what I've seen (especially last year) during the first half of the season we almost never carried the puck across - we almost always dumped it. As a result, our players looked for this option first. In fact I had a fan from another team ask me if we ever carried the puck into the zone - he was rather amazed at the amount of dumping we did. As a result of this style, we almost never had odd man rushes the first half and struggled as a team. In the second half, we seemed to open up and play more and our offense became much more potent. We finally started looking for the good pass and the open teammate - the results speak for themselves.

As for Hak being more versitile than Blais, I'm not buying it. Versitile in this context seems to mean taking a full half year to play to potential every year (and having to try some different things because of it). Blais found a system that worked, recruited and coached to make it work, and won his second national championship at the end of his 6th year - he also took over a program in much worse shape. The continual dump/chase/cycle offense drives me nuts - give me Blais style every time.

[Siouxman]

To some extent the style of play will depend upon who you are playing. If you are playing teams such as Wisconson with the neutral ice trap, unless your players are really ready to deal with it you will see more dump and chase to avoid the neutral ice turnover. Against teams that tend to be skating teams rather than trapping teams, you will be able to carry the puck into the zone more. It all depends upon who is controlling the flow. If you can get a trapping team off their stride, it is easier to carry it in. Goals don't usually come from rushes that start behind your own net. They come from turnovers high in the zone or at neutral ice. Therefore coaches tend to stress getting the puck in deep, even if it means dumping it. Hakstol has cited that very point several times when asked about goals the Sioux gave up. Someone failed to get the puck deep into the zone. I prefer to see the team carry it in, but sometimes the defensive scheme says dump it and chase.

The point about the goalie restrictions in the NHL is a good one. I take more dumb penalties in NHL video games because of that dang rule. I keep trying to have my goalie do too much.

[Goon]

I also think that if the NCAA and the WCHA is serious about their calling the obstruction the Trap is much harder to pull off. A perfect example of this was night two of the Cornell and UND game. The refs basically put their whistles away and they Big Red slowed UND up coming into the zone. The night before the Fighting Sioux threw them off their game as well by getting a lead which they were able to keep up with UND.

[Goon]

I wish the NHL had the trapazoid as well, that would have been tough on goalies like Stalock.