Tactical/strategy question/discussion

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

This thread pertains to all teams (NHL in general) and may belong more on the Main Boards (but I care less about what the random yahoos have to say).

It's always seemed to me (a house league, community league, rec/beer league player/coach) that there is very little strategy thought put into some of the attempts to play the puck (in our own end) to the corner/around the boards. Often defenders (D, forwards & goalies) will play the puck into the corner or around the boards. Obviously this is to keep the puck out of the middle of the ice (the most dangerous area) and often is intended to be the first touch of a breakout. The odd thing I notice in some of these cases is that the playing of that puck is not done in a way to advantage their own team. Often a soft touch to the corner would give a teammate the advantage to get the puck but the play is too hard and goes to the other teams forward or D.

Not all of these misplays are intentional:

• The player just makes an error and the result is not what they intended
• The player is under pressure and doesn't have time for an assessment of what to do/where to put the puck
• I assume in many cases the structure and strategy of the team is for a player to be in a certain spot so the no look pass is for that person and its their responsibility to be there.

Taking all of that into account there is still a % of plays where the player has time and space and can see all the chess pieces and still chooses to play the puck in a way that their teammates can't get it.

If the forechecker wins the battle behind the net or in the corner, one of their most likely plays is to send it back to the point. Often the defending team will play the puck to the point themselves (essentially doing the job of the forechecker for them).

Hellebuyck (who played great last night) had one of these examples: he could have played the puck directly to his LD or put the puck to that corner for the LD to go get; but he wrapped the puck around the boards hard enough that no one from our team could get anywhere near it and right to the stick of the Flames D at the point. These types of plays happen quite frequently.

I'm curious (especially from people who were coached at a higher level) how players are typically coached on this.
These scenarios seem to produce the most glaring unforced turnovers.
If a team could improve in this area it could reduce defensive zone turnovers a bit (maybe only a couple of times a game).
Over the course of a season that could impact the outcome of some games.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Mud Turtle]

This has absolutely driven me crazy over the years. It happens so many times every game.
If they took just a little bit off of it they would actually gain possession in a large majority of the cases.
All teams are guilty of it.

 

[Jet]

That hard rim is meant to be a chip by the winger out of the zone, and it's the wingers responsibly is to be on the boards underneath the opposing defenseman.

This is a play that's generally reserved for situations when the team is under pressure, needs a change, or the team is out of positional structure.

Because hockey has a measure of variability, both in how a play develops and the skill level and processing speed of players, there can be situations where the play results in a turnover.

Obviously, you don't want to turn over possession in your zone, but for all but the best players, processing all of the variables whilst being under pressure is not possible.

Strategy, systems and tactics are meant to be somewhat of an equalizer of player level, and are designed to give the best chance of a positive outcome. Because of the somewhat erratic nature of hockey, they aren't 100% foolproof.

The reason elite teams have less of these events is because they have players at key positions that have the IQ (and coaches green light) to do something different than that set play (think Jomo). He might do a quick bump to the middle a a pressure release, while that might be a cardinal sin for say a Samberg.

It's like when people botched about Helle throwing the puck up the glass in the Bruins game that resulted in a bad bounce and goal against. He he made the correct play, but variability reared its ugly head. 99 times out of 100 that's a good play. You can't stop doing something because it's not always successful because the other options are even less good.

 

[Weezeric]

This thread pertains to all teams (NHL in general) and may belong more on the Main Boards (but I care less about what the random yahoos have to say).

It's always seemed to me (a house league, community league, rec/beer league player/coach) that there is very little strategy thought put into some of the attempts to play the puck (in our own end) to the corner/around the boards. Often defenders (D, forwards & goalies) will play the puck into the corner or around the boards. Obviously this is to keep the puck out of the middle of the ice (the most dangerous area) and often is intended to be the first touch of a breakout. The odd thing I notice in some of these cases is that the playing of that puck is not done in a way to advantage their own team. Often a soft touch to the corner would give a teammate the advantage to get the puck but the play is too hard and goes to the other teams forward or D.

Not all of these misplays are intentional:

• The player just makes an error and the result is not what they intended
• The player is under pressure and doesn't have time for an assessment of what to do/where to put the puck
• I assume in many cases the structure and strategy of the team is for a player to be in a certain spot so the no look pass is for that person and its their responsibility to be there.

Taking all of that into account there is still a % of plays where the player has time and space and can see all the chess pieces and still chooses to play the puck in a way that their teammates can't get it.

If the forechecker wins the battle behind the net or in the corner, one of their most likely plays is to send it back to the point. Often the defending team will play the puck to the point themselves (essentially doing the job of the forechecker for them).

Hellebuyck (who played great last night) had one of these examples: he could have played the puck directly to his LD or put the puck to that corner for the LD to go get; but he wrapped the puck around the boards hard enough that no one from our team could get anywhere near it and right to the stick of the Flames D at the point. These types of plays happen quite frequently.

I'm curious (especially from people who were coached at a higher level) how players are typically coached on this.
These scenarios seem to produce the most glaring unforced turnovers.
If a team could improve in this area it could reduce defensive zone turnovers a bit (maybe only a couple of times a game).
Over the course of a season that could impact the outcome of some games.

Thoughts?

The speed that things happen at the NHL level is not really understood by fans. It doesn’t really translate on TV. If you’ve ever seen a recording of a beer league game, it’s pretty shocking how slow things happen.

It may seem like there’s lots of time and space but that’s an illusion.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

That hard rim is meant to be a chip by the winger out of the zone, and it's the wingers responsibly is to be on the boards underneath the opposing defenseman.

This is a play that's generally reserved for situations when the team is under pressure, needs a change, or the team is out of positional structure.

Because hockey has a measure of variability, both in how a play develops and the skill level and processing speed of players, there can be situations where the play results in a turnover.

Obviously, you don't want to turn over possession in your zone, but for all but the best players, processing all of the variables whilst being under pressure is not possible.

Strategy, systems and tactics are meant to be somewhat of an equalizer of player level, and are designed to give the best chance of a positive outcome. Because of the somewhat erratic nature of hockey, they aren't 100% foolproof.

The reason elite teams have less of these events is because they have players at key positions that have the IQ (and coaches green light) to do something different than that set play (think Jomo). He might do a quick bump to the middle a a pressure release, while that might be a cardinal sin for say a Samberg.

It's like when people botched about Helle throwing the puck up the glass in the Bruins game that resulted in a bad bounce and goal against. He he made the correct play, but variability reared its ugly head. 99 times out of 100 that's a good play. You can't stop doing something because it's not always successful because the other options are even less good.

I guess my question was more for the situations where the player (D, forward or goalie) can see that they don't have a player in position to get the puck and still send the puck around the boards hard enough to get to the point. Literally doing the other teams job for them. Why wouldn't they use a softer touch and hope that a player could at least win a race to the puck? Opposed to the guaranteed change of possession.

I realize there are a lot of factors and that's why I tried to identify a large chunk of them that explain themselves.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

The speed that things happen at the NHL level is not really understood by fans. It doesn’t really translate on TV. If you’ve ever seen a recording of a beer league game, it’s pretty shocking how slow things happen.

It may seem like there’s lots of time and space but that’s an illusion.

Trust me I get how incredibly fast the NHL is compared to what I would have played.
I have seen videos of myself playing and its comical how slow it is.
I know the speed of the game accounts for a lot of this.
Let's assume that 95%+ of the board plays fall under the umbrella of exceptions that I listed initially.

There are times where we can see someone with the puck, their head up, no immediate pressure and as someone finally does approach the player throws the puck up the side of the boards where he can see that his teammate is not in position.

I just find those ones weird and frustrating.
Is a turnover at the blue line considered a better option then say a turnover behind the net?

 

[BoneDocUK]

Nothing to add due to my overwhelming technical ignorance of the sport, but thanks @Zhamnov5GoalGame for kicking off an interesting thread. Always appreciate the chance to learn here.

 

[Buffdog]

I guess my question was more for the situations where the player (D, forward or goalie) can see that they don't have a player in position to get the puck and still send the puck around the boards hard enough to get to the point. Literally doing the other teams job for them. Why wouldn't they use a softer touch and hope that a player could at least win a race to the puck? Opposed to the guaranteed change of possession.

I realize there are a lot of factors and that's why I tried to identify a large chunk of them that explain themselves.

Sometimes it's the right play but the winger who the puck is intended for is out of position. It's not uncommon for teams to switch the puck to the weak side in both zones as a way of relieving pressure, especially when the puck handler is out numbered and has no close support

 

[Jet]

I guess my question was more for the situations where the player (D, forward or goalie) can see that they don't have a player in position to get the puck and still send the puck around the boards hard enough to get to the point. Literally doing the other teams job for them. Why wouldn't they use a softer touch and hope that a player could at least win a race to the puck? Opposed to the guaranteed change of possession.

I realize there are a lot of factors and that's why I tried to identify a large chunk of them that explain themselves.

I can't speak to each player and instance specifically, but I would imagine it's a muscle memory, anticipation of player movement, or a simple error. If say that confidence factors in as well.

Hockey is a game of mistakes, after all.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

That hard rim is meant to be a chip by the winger out of the zone, and it's the wingers responsibly is to be on the boards underneath the opposing defenseman.

This is a play that's generally reserved for situations when the team is under pressure, needs a change, or the team is out of positional structure.

Because hockey has a measure of variability, both in how a play develops and the skill level and processing speed of players, there can be situations where the play results in a turnover.

Obviously, you don't want to turn over possession in your zone, but for all but the best players, processing all of the variables whilst being under pressure is not possible.

Strategy, systems and tactics are meant to be somewhat of an equalizer of player level, and are designed to give the best chance of a positive outcome. Because of the somewhat erratic nature of hockey, they aren't 100% foolproof.

The reason elite teams have less of these events is because they have players at key positions that have the IQ (and coaches green light) to do something different than that set play (think Jomo). He might do a quick bump to the middle a a pressure release, while that might be a cardinal sin for say a Samberg.

It's like when people botched about Helle throwing the puck up the glass in the Bruins game that resulted in a bad bounce and goal against. He he made the correct play, but variability reared its ugly head. 99 times out of 100 that's a good play. You can't stop doing something because it's not always successful because the other options are even less good.

Agree with a lot of this, but not the last paragraph. That is, if you are referring to the goal against from the Bruins game where Helle chased a high ringer around the corner that was up on the glass that hit a stanchion and bounced out in front of the goal giving the Bruins an easy tap in. If the ringer around the boards is high up on the glass, most keepers will tell you that they don't like to chase those. Firstly, it is hard to get control of the high hard ones up on the glass even if you try to play it with your paddle. Secondly, when then are up high and hard on the glass, they are much more likely to hit a stanchion and end up god knows where, like right in front of your goal. Ask your keeper friends, this is what mine tell me. If it is a ringer around the boards (not high and hard on the glass) then yes it is the correct play. We are talking hard ringers right along the boards but high up onto the glass, into and around the the corner then behind the goal.

 

[Eyeseeing]

The speed that things happen at the NHL level is not really understood by fans. It doesn’t really translate on TV. If you’ve ever seen a recording of a beer league game, it’s pretty shocking how slow things happen.

It may seem like there’s lots of time and space but that’s an illusion.

Live Hockey cannot be beat.
The speed, the hand eye coordination, anticipation, the improvisation on the fly definitely doesn't translate on TV and even those lesser skilled players who get critized on our team are amazing athletes.
great post by @Jet