Rangers played zone under Renney, except there was a bigger emphasis on puck support and less on fronting and blocking shots like it was under Torts.
AV is 1-11 in the last 12 playoff games he's coached. Man on Man D is easy to expose if just one defender is off, you see teams do it to EDM every game. Put the puck where a Ranger is a step behind and watch the domino effect.
I thought the Rangers were a good powerplay, zone entry, and breakout away from the cup. Man on Man D changes all that, it's less physical so other teams aren't wearing down, and mistake prone.
When only 2 defenseman in your entire system play it right, then there is something wrong. Teams just tear you to shreds with passing plays.
No, Rangers played a collapsing shot blocking system under Renney as well. It maybe was as pronounced as Torts' system and didn't get as much press since he didn't really talk about it, but they definitely were big into blocking shots and collapsing down. It's something I really noticed the Rangers do a lot coming out of the lockout and other teams started picking up on it in the following years. You like you overload on a PK at times, you "go man-man" at times when playing man-man. You don't play man-man for full shifts, shift after shift. The starting point is of course always the classic defensive set-up.
As for the Rangers D, sometimes it looks like they get it, sometimes they look disorganized. Sometimes it almost looks like they're playing one guy in the puke position (he's the only one that chases the puck, everyone else collapses down) but I think that mainly because when the puck goes back to the point, you often see the winger on that side go to the guy with the puck, and when the puck is swung to the other point, the other winger is nowhere to be found and is usually down in the scrum around the slot. I really don't know if that's by design or the wingers just for some reason haven't picked up on their rotation well.
I'd say that's really the biggest problem, guys just don't always pick up their assignments correctly and for some reason end up guessing a lot about who they should be covering. On the flip side, the system worked alright for Vancouver for years and they really don't have defensemen that are any better than who the Rangers have. Maybe better forwards though...hard to say. Sometimes the Rangers seem to get it, sometimes they don't, don't really know why
Del Zotto had kind of a ****** game last night regardless though. Made some bad decisions that aren't a result of playing man defense.
I played man-man almost 4 pro-years and my in junior hockey, and like half a year zone hockey. The man-man I know, you shouldn't be able to tell the diffrence between an agressive zone and man-man unless you are really looking for it. The diffrence at least when its working is very much nitty-gritty and small play stuff. When the zone play get a hold on the attacking team and overloads on one side its identical of course to a man-man that gets a hold of a attack and puts pressure on it. With a man-man, if the other team is swarming around the net and perimeter, you of course just takes a step back, counts in the other team, and then go after them when you get an opertunity.
We blocked a lot of shots under Renney? There is nothing in a man-man that prevents you from block shots. How you handle the points has nothing to do with a man-man. You can mark your point by breading down his neck or you can do it 10 feets from him.
Man-man is -- not -- that you like give out numbers to your defenders before they hit the ice. "
You take number 9 and him number 11". A defensemen and forward must always switch players when they can. If everyone is in place, there is no diffrence for example if a forward has the puck behind the net, skates with it up along the boards and up to the blueline. The D will follow him and then leave him over to the forward. Just like a zone.
In certain rotating situations in a man-man a D has a position that is closer to the forward and there is much more awareness for the D to follow the forward and keep pressure on him.
I don't get why we are struggling so much with this. Sometimes we play an extreme man-man that look like some kind of experiment and we are very often running around way too much. And of course, the nightmare scenario, where like 2-3 guys plays man-man and 2-3 guys takes a step back and trys to count players in, happens way too often.
And we undoubtedly played what in my world is charasteristic man-man hockey under Renney. If Rozi for example went into the corner to pressure a forward, the forward started to move towards the blueline while the other teams LD moved towards middle of the ice along the blueline, Jagr would rotate with the D and Rozi stay with the forward. Under Torts "JJ" would drop back towards the center of the ice and Rozi move in towards the goal instead. That is the one big area where the difference between a man-man and zone really should be obvious.
However, to make those decisions on when to pressure and when to take a step back and just count in the players (ie stepping back and playing identical to what we did under Torts), when to cover for each other, obviously seem to be much harder for younger players that never played man-man than one can imagine. Or its just not coached very well here in NY right now. You know, I don't quite get it. You should be able to tell the diffrence between an extreme deep zone like Torts and LA's and a high pressure man-man, but you should barely be able to tell the diffrence, save for like 5 plays per night, between the two "fundamentally" diffrent approches between Detroit and Chicago's defense (I mean Chicago has many elements of man-man in their defense for sure. Their Ds will stay with their forwards much more freely than Torts D's or LA's Ds).
