So, you come in here preaching the fact that you understand hockey better than everyone else, and then go ahead and only address half of the system that people have grown fond of attacking.
If every person who moaned about Torts' system actually made substantive points about what they specifically didn't like, or how they would like to see it change - like you do - I would be much more inclined to look upon them favorably. But the reality is that they don't. So, I ignored "half" the system because I was responding to what I perceive to be the most consistent, popular, and off-base complaints about Torts system:
1. Hating the dump and chase.
2. Criticizing the "grinding" in the system.
3. Claiming it stifles offensive creativity.
4. Torts doesn't coach offense / the system strangles all the offense out of skilled players.
5. Wanting to "open up" the system more.
Point 1 ignores the reality that dump and chase is a part of hockey, and all teams use it. The majority of the people who I see complain about it also seem to think that there are very few situations in which it should be used and that yes, even our third and fourth lines should be better at zone entry, both of which are absurd.
Point 2 is similar to point 1. It is a part of hockey. Get used to it.
Point 3 is ridiculous. Neither Torts nor his system inhibits the forwards (or even the defensemen) from being creative offensively. If either of those were true, then what is happening in those all-too-few games this year when the team can actually make and receive a pass, has a good transition game, or stickhandles through the defense? They must have just abandoned the system during those games and those shifts, huh? That makes zero sense, what-so-ever. If they could do that all the time and against every team, they would.
Point 4 completely ignores the fact that Gabby had two 40-goal seasons under the same system. Rick Nash is having his best year, ppg-wise, under this system. It also ignores that our offensive troubles this year are related to 2 star players not performing to the level they should and a bottom 6 that was completely re-tooled and has no where near the offensive skill or depth scoring that it did last year.
Point 5 I read as: 'I'm bored watching them, I want moar goals!1!!' Even though it is often accompanied with essentially those words (or tone), this may be a bit hyperbolic on my part... but after sitting through 10+ seasons of defensively dreadful teams I have an instinctive reaction against this kind of thinking. It's a cliche, but the phrase "defense wins championships" doesn't exist for no reason.
On top of that, you try to make a point that our forwards aren't skilled enough to carry the puck into the zone, and then you name 5 of the top 6 as guys that certainly are capable of doing just that. I don't think anyone here wants or expects to see the third and fourth line backing the defense up with speed and creativity at the blueline - they're expected to dump and chase.
I did list 5 of the top 6 -- but I also separated 3 of them out as
"maybes"... I guess I wasn't really clear in how I meant that (what was in the head didn't quite make it out in words). So here you go (for the top 6): Gabby is weak on the puck all around - his game is primarily not about having possession of the puck, so he does not add much to the discussion here. So far
this year, Richie has generally been utterly useless in this regard, among many others. Stepan is a great playmaker, but doesn't have the speed or strength on the puck to be consistently reliable at getting the puck in the zone without dumping it. Callahan in many ways is the opposite of Stepan (strength on the puck, but less of a playmaker). And in my mind, Hags lacks the puck skills to stickhandle it or pass it into the zone, but has the ability to gain the zone by backing the d off with his speed -- which he doesn't do enough. And many of those guys aren't all too hot at creative passing plays to enter the zone. So that leaves Nash as the sole player who can consistently get the puck into the zone without having to dump it. The others
can do that; they just aren't skilled enough to
consistently do that, which means you're going to see a lot of dump and chases. That is all I was trying to say.
Not sure what boards you're reading with the part of the above quote that I've bolded - but I've seen
exactly that as one of the complaints. They especially want that out of the third line/our tweeners -- when Boyle, Miller, Kreider, etc dump the puck, the immediate reaction is that Torts made them do it; not that the defense forced them into a position where that was their only option, or that they didn't have the skill or NHL experience to be able to figure out how to gain the zone.
My problem with Torts' system is in the defensive zone. The collapsing, shot blocking style not only puts players at elevated risk for injury, it puts undue pressure on the whole team in the defensive end of the ice because it concedes possession. They allow the point men insane amounts of space while begging them to take point shots, and if they are unsuccessful at blocking those shots there are three possible outcomes:
1. A save by the goalie and then a faceoff.
2. A goal, and often a weird one. How often does Henrik get beat by weird deflections? Not a coincidence.
3. A rebound, either off the keeper or the boards that most times results in the process starting all over again because the defensive, reactive posture of the Rangers in their end leads to them getting beat in loose puck races.
This stifles offense like crazy. Odd man rushes and good scoring chances in the NHL are generated by forcing your opponent into mistakes.
Despite my defense of Torts' system - I actually agree with some of what you say here; and almost included the collapsing defensive zone strategy among the "reasons to have a beef with Torts" list in my previous post.
- I agree that I hate how the collapsing zone coverage leaves the points with tons of time and space.
- But I think you overstate how passive they are in the defensive zone -- they give up the points, but they pressure the puck below the tops of the circles.
- I see your point about shot blocking having the potential to lead to more injuries, but don't see it as a reason not to execute the system. It is a part of the game. They should be doing everything they can to win - and that includes shot blocking. Checking players and being checked increases the chance of injury too; should they start shying away from physical play?
- I see your point about Lundqvist being an all-star goalie and not "needing" shot blockers. And while an unfortunate consequence of this system is that there can be unusual bounces off of shot blockers that lead to goals, this isn't necessarily the norm. That said, I think you underestimate the defensive value and benefit of throwing bodies and sticks in passing and shooting lanes. It closes off options, limits the areas of the net they have to shoot at, forces wide shots, and can force the opposing team to the perimeter. I personally see all of those things as adding more value than the occasional bad deflection goal off our own guy.
- That said, I don't think the defensive zone system has been executed all that well by the players this year, so it hasn't looked quite as good as it has in the past or gotten the same results. Some of that is a result of roster turnover, and some of that is the d-men looking more shaky than last year. Personally I think the new additions can, will, and have been getting better at it with time -- and would rather not see it completely abandoned. But I could be convinced that this is where Torts needs to make some tweaks to respond to the limitations/effort of new personnel.
Grinding and cycling on offense often leads to these breakdowns, but so does aggressive defense.
Aggressive defense also generally leads to many more mistakes and thus quality scoring chances for the other team. It goes both ways.
This, in addition to the fact that we have the best goalie in the world (he doesn't need people blocking/deflecting shots for him), is why I hate Torts system.
Fair point; I'll agree to disagree here though for the reasons I mentioned above.