- Jul 12, 2005
this is a really good post, thank you. I can't speak for everyone, but I think you've articulated a lot of the justification for some of my snarkiness around what I've said in this thread. I think you're right about what they are saying. I think what worries me is that Carolina's system of offense is not new or innovative. Going low to high and using point shots to generate offense is a pretty old school approach to offense. It's also really really inefficient. I wish I could remember the writer, it may have been Shayna, but I read an article last offseason where the author wrote about how the canes personnel have allowed them to out pace the data on their offensive system. The conclusion was basically that their D and forwards, collectively, have the speed and consistency to outpace the efficiency numbers of the system to generate offense. The Islanders play a similar system in the ozone, but they suck at generating offense, because their personnel aren't able to effect the process in the same way. I'm very skeptical that this D and forward core has what it takes to emulate Carolina.I don't have a ton of time before my first class, but I'll try to revisit later...
Firstly, anyone who hears the Neely-Sweeney Gang talking about changing tactics and hears words like Dump, Chase, and Grind is right to be worried...we've seen too many chumps get too much money and ice time in recent seasons. But I think people are missing some of the nuance here.
From reading all of the Athletic articles, my takeaway on what the FO is saying:
Now, I think a lot of this is coming out of the fact that we just lost to a very good Carolina team who
- We try to generate too much offense based on clean breakouts. If a team stops up our breakout we didn't show the ability to adjust our game.
- Our zone entries were too predictable, especially on the powerplay, this caused too many turnovers
- Given these factors the FO wants to see adjustments to switching up to more of a dump and retreive (which given their love of bangers falls in line with their ideals)
- Offensively we don't offer enough of a varience in tactics, relying almost exclusively on cycling. When other teams drop 5 down low to stymie this, we don't adjust. Sweeney specifically mentions working high to low and getting the D core scoring more.
- Butch is too tough on the kids and needs to trust them more even if they're not as sound defensively if he wants.
I'm sure some of this is just philisophical, although it's hard not to imagine the line about Ronal Reagan...he always believed the last thing someone told him. I do wonder how much recency bias is in play here.
- stiffled our breakouts with aggresive forecheck and pinching D
- dig a great job on their blueline of denying clean zone entries
- plays a very aggressive style where they want to get pucks in behind the other team and force turnovers
- play a low-high game in the OZ where they like to get shots from the point, and use their forecheck to tip/collect rebounds/harass the other team back into turnovers.
I don't think they're quite as neandrathalic as people are suggesting here, and I do think there is some merit to making different adjustments, but I don't think trying to emulate Carolina (who has spent a few years building a team around his philosphies) when you've got a completely different roster is the right move. If they want to change things and move to a different model then we probably need a new coach and some significant roster changes.
The vast majority of the "good" offensive teams in today's NHL run a 2 man forecheck with forwards who are comfortable pushing the puck to the slot. This tends to generate high danger opportunities. Bruce's offenses score off the rush and then off the cycle but you're right in that if a cycle team just waits for a perfect opportunity, the defense isn't going to allow that opportunity. This team's offense just doesn't go through the slot enough outside of the first line stars and Taylor Hall. The rest just don't have the ability or will to get to the net off the cycle since it requires being able to outplay your check 1 on 1. I just don't think they have the personnel to do that with any regularity.
My worry, based on what the GM and PResident have said this week, is that they believe this roster is built to achieve efficiency with the type of system they are proposing. I don't see any evidence of that.