The Misconception of Sutter's "System"

[bmr]

I was reading an article today on the Edmonton Journal blog site that talked about Gaborik providing offense to the Kings, but questioned how he would fit in with Sutter's system. Sutter actually provided some interesting comments:

"Sutter says the Kings’ seemingly defend-first game is a “misconception The big thing in today’s game is you have to be able forecheck and backcheck, and you have to have the puck. You can’t give the puck up. We don’t play in our zone, so there’s not much defending.”

“I’ve coached in three decades now and this stuff where they said Marian had to play in Jacques’s system is a bunch of bull-crap. The game’s changed. They think there’s defending in today’s game. Nah, it’s how much you have the puck. Teams that play around in their own zone they they’re defending but they’re generally getting scored on or taking face-offs and they need a goalie to stand on his head if that’s the way they play,” said Sutter."

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/03/09/gaborik-is-the-gun-the-la-kings-need-in-their-holster/

Click to read more...

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I was reading an article today on the Edmonton Journal blog site that talked about Gaborik providing offense to the Kings, but questioned how he would fit in with Sutter's system. Sutter actually provided some interesting comments:

"Sutter says the Kings’ seemingly defend-first game is a “misconception The big thing in today’s game is you have to be able forecheck and backcheck, and you have to have the puck. You can’t give the puck up. We don’t play in our zone, so there’s not much defending.â€

“I’ve coached in three decades now and this stuff where they said Marian had to play in Jacques’s system is a bunch of bull-crap. The game’s changed. They think there’s defending in today’s game. Nah, it’s how much you have the puck. Teams that play around in their own zone they they’re defending but they’re generally getting scored on or taking face-offs and they need a goalie to stand on his head if that’s the way they play,†said Sutter."

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/03/09/gaborik-is-the-gun-the-la-kings-need-in-their-holster/

Yeah, saw this a few days ago and thought it was a good read. Interesting thoughts about the modern game and how puck possession IS defense (which is a very 90s-Red-Wings concept in a way with the Russian 5 and such)--especially in light of some of the defensive personnel we have, and I mean that in a good way; Regehr, Mitchell, Greene aren't exactly modern defensemen in that regard, they're pretty throwback in terms of physicality and defense-first--but I like that Sutter is old-school enough that he sees the value of blending the old with the new.

 

[Duc620]

Thanks for this. Puck possession has always been the winners game.

And Sutter is a much, much better coach and tactician then he's given credit for around here. A very deep understanding of the game and how to make players comfortable in every situation - by providing a consistent structure. The Kings are going deep this spring.

GKG!!

 

[kingsholygrail]

Yeah, saw this a few days ago and thought it was a good read. Interesting thoughts about the modern game and how puck possession IS defense (which is a very 90s-Red-Wings concept in a way with the Russian 5 and such)--especially in light of some of the defensive personnel we have, and I mean that in a good way; Regehr, Mitchell, Greene aren't exactly modern defensemen in that regard, they're pretty throwback in terms of physicality and defense-first--but I like that Sutter is old-school enough that he sees the value of blending the old with the new.

Exactly. Terry Murray was a defense first team. They scored on turnovers, not on possession time and spent a lot of time in the defensive end.

 

[Duc620]

... puck possession IS defense (which is a very 90s-Red-Wings concept in a way with the Russian 5 and such)--

Great example, Brad. The thing about the Wings is how quickly they adjusted to whatever look the opponents are giving them. Chipping it off the boards, chip and chase deep, carry it in, pass it in, far around... never mattered to those teams. They could play three or four "systems" in a period. But always at the same controlled pace... always holding the puck or hunting it down... just wore teams down.

The Kings have grown into that kind of team.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Great example, Brad. The thing about the Wings is how quickly they adjusted to whatever look the opponents are giving them. Chipping it off the boards, chip and chase deep, carry it in, pass it in, far around... never mattered to those teams. They could play three or four "systems" in a period. But always at the same controlled pace... always holding the puck or hunting it down... just wore teams down.

The Kings have grown into that kind of team.

And those Red Wings teams always drove me up a wall because it was like they were never without the puck.

 

[driller1]

Is there a web site or pdf that dissects Sutter's systems? Like a X's and O's Cliff Notes for dummies.

Having watched the Kings closely for 30+ years, I can kinda guess at the system, but don't understand the nuances of the system. In football, I can dissect the play since I do have a history of X's and O's from playing it growing up.

 

[Bondoao1]

And those Red Wings teams always drove me up a wall because it was like they were never without the puck.

I'm glad im not the only one.
I always looked at Detroit as if they were the Russians back in those days, not just for the playing style was nearly identical, but also because they wore all red...

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Is there a web site or pdf that dissects Sutter's systems? Like a X's and O's Cliff Notes for dummies.

Having watched the Kings closely for 30+ years, I can kinda guess at the system, but don't understand the nuances of the system. In football, I can dissect the play since I do have a history of X's and O's from playing it growing up.

Someone actually posted a document on here back when Sutter was hired that was from his days with the Flames and is basically was a blue print. I'm not sure if it was real or if it was up to date but I know I saved a copy of it but I'm almost certain I won't be able to find it (assuming it wasn't fake).

I'm kinda the opposite of you. I like football but I never understand what is really going on. When they say "nickel defense" or John Gruden starts talking about the kitchen sink route on grandma's apple pie, I'm like "huh"? But hockey is a bit different in that there rarely are set plays. Hockey is a series of broken plays but obviously there is a strategy and structure within that. You should watch some strategy videos on youtube and try and find examples of that in games.

 

[johnjm22]

I think the general misconception about Darryl is that's he's "Old School." (Which is why a lot of us were opposed to his hiring initially.)

He's actually quite progressive IMO. He likes to run 4 lines that can score and possess the puck, never dresses an enforcer, wants versatile two way players, likes advanced states (from what I can tell), is big on safety, thinks players should wear shields/cages and cut proof socks ect.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

I've never thought Sutter to be as obsessed with grinders as has been advertised. He's simply attached to players he knows and trusts. As a coach for Calgary he made the Cup with practically just Iginla and a team of plumbers. He transitioned to GM and maintained his admiration for a lot of those guys, past the point of acceptable. Here its pretty much the same strategy, he just has so much more versatility and talent to execute it.