Tampa 1-3-1 And Possible Nhl Intervention

[brelic]

What I'm shocked about is the amount of support for the Bolts here in Flyerdom and the opinion of a few about how the Flyers came up short in not attacking through the 1-3-1 ! The first thing said is "it's not against the rules" to do the 1-3-1. Well, perhaps not. But I don't need laws ans rules to know how to act honorably. If the first thing I have to ask myself is "can i get away with it? Is it in the rule book" then you have already crossed the line. I guess i love the game to much... EVERY team should do this to them to embarress them.

What I DON'T get is how the Tampa fans put up with this crap... They havn't won anything since last year when this 1-3-1 thing started for them yet the fans keep forking over the money to watch this...?

Overwhelming analyst and other teams support for the Flyers actions last night. That says something...

I don't get what any of this has to do with honor. It's not a war, it's a freakin' game worth $2.5B dollars and they're each collecting multimillion dollar paychecks to skate around a frozen surface.

And I'm not supporting the Bolts. It's a shitty ass way to play hockey, but it's their way, and I don't really care. They still blow defensively.

I'll bring up the goaltender analogy again. When goaltenders started more and more to go into butterfly style and cover the ice so well, did the league say "hey, wait now, you can't play on the ice before the shot is even taken, how are we gonna score?" No. Players and coaches figured out how to beat butterfly goaltenders. It's a style. Just like the 1-3-1 is a system among many.

Way too much is being made about an insignificant system on a mediocre defensive team.

[idahophilly]

And again, I'm not advocating the league make another rule. And this next thing I make a disclaimer: I'm not a conspirousy theoroist!!!! But, I think the Flyers did that on purpose last night... A statement to the BOG and GM's. Yes , if i was in charge we would have dumped and chased. But i wasn't and i still don't have a problem with what they did BECAUSE it exposed that crap. Someone had to do it and we got a point anyway.

[brelic]

And again, I'm not advocating the league make another rule. And this next thing I make a disclaimer: I'm not a conspirousy theoroist!!!! But, I think the Flyers did that on purpose last night... A statement to the BOG and GM's. Yes , if i was in charge we would have dumped and chased. But i wasn't and i still don't have a problem with what they did BECAUSE it exposed that crap. Someone had to do it and we got a point anyway.

Sure, maybe it was a message. Good for them, I guess. But I would have been more impressed with the message if it were "hey, look, we can still score 5 goals against your lame ass system" instead of "we don't like the way you stand around doing nothing, so we'll stand around doing nothing and still lose."

In the grand scheme of things, it's really insignificant. I *might* have a different opinion in 3 years from now if we're talking about TB going for a three-peat.

Edited November 10, 2011 by brelic

[colorado_al]

>> Let the players figure it out.

Agree 100 percent... we don't need any more regulations.

[B21]

However, the NHL DOES have a responsibility to its brand and the game and if this proves to be a problem then I won't fault them for making a new rule for delay of game for trapping. We would have nothing to worry about because we don't trap.

And just a side note, if this is so "OK", why don't the other 29 teams use it? They don't! Because they know how to play the game honorably. So, to all those that think it's ok I'll wait and see how you feel when 2 teams are playing 1-3-1 traps at the same time..........

Tampa is 24th in the league in goals against. The other 29 teams likely don't use it (or use it as much as Tampa) because it does not work. Keep in mind Tampa was down their top two d-men and facing the highest scoring team in the league. Should they just play a style that allows the Flyers better access to their zone because that's "honorable" and the fans want to see better hockey? No. It's Boucher's job to win. He came up with a strategy that worked. Lavi could not counter it.

The bottom line is winning. There are no extra points for style.

No one bitched when Princeton used that slow-down back-door offense to beat UCLA in the 1996 NCAA Men's B-Ball Tourney. Just the opposite...they loved it. Great strategy. The same way a football teams uses the 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust "boring" running game to keep a high powered offense of the fiend...kinda like the Giants did to the Bills is SB XXV.

[aziz]

I'll bring up the goaltender analogy again. When goaltenders started more and more to go into butterfly style and cover the ice so well, did the league say "hey, wait now, you can't play on the ice before the shot is even taken, how are we gonna score?"

trivia: prior to 1917, goalies were not allowed to drop to the ice. all saves had to be made while on their skates.

[brelic]

trivia: prior to 1917, goalies were not allowed to drop to the ice. all saves had to be made while on their skates.

Exactly. And at one point, you couldn't pass backwards.

[Lindbergh31]

It will be interesting to see if there is any discussion about what happened last night at the GM meeting next week. I'm sure Yzerman will defend what his coach did.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Exactly. And at one point, you couldn't pass backwards.

I think you have that backwards (no pun intended). You could only pass backwards

[Irishjim]

FROM NHL.COM

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman led off his weekly radio show Thursday night by addressing the events of Wednesday night in Tampa Bay, where the game between the Lightning and Philadelphia Flyers featured multiple instances of the referees whistling play dead after the Flyers held the puck in their own zone for a prolonged period of time while the Lightning sat back in a 1-3-1 defensive formation -- with neither side willing to blink first.

"While we had an interesting night in Tampa, I'm not exactly sure it was the grand moment of the season that everybody's speculating," Bettman said, drawing laughter from his co-host, E.J. Hradek.

"I think it's been called an embarrassing moment -- we play 1,230 regular-season games, and in the course of seasons played things happen that are unusual, teams will do things that are unpredictable and unexpected, and the good news is the game has gotten to such a point from an entertainment and skill and excitement standpoint, I'm kind of enjoying the fact that there's some outrage when something that tries to take the game out of its normal flow gets this kind of reaction."

Bettman had a couple points to make regarding each team's tactics in the game, which was televised nationally in the United States on Versus.

"The notion of a trap goes back decades, probably to the '60s," he said. "The normal, the predictable, the traditional trap of a 1-2-2 is something we've lived with for years and even in the '90s and recently, teams that have won the Cup have done it playing some trapping. It's a tactic. OK, so Tampa, Guy Boucher uses a 1-3-1, a little bit different, and so Philadelphia decided that they were not going to attack the defense, but the defense wasn't going to attack the offense. They did it in Tampa's building, the fans reacted.

"Did I like it? No. Is it the most horrible thing I've ever seen on the ice? No. But I do think it has now added another agenda item to the general managers (meetings) next week. The officials whistled down play when there was no puck movement and it was appropriate. Do we need to eliminate the trap? You know, there are a lot of people who love the game the way it is who say no. If you're playing smart, tactical hockey, that's your prerogative and it's incumbent on the other team to figure out how to deal with it. By the same token, if this became too prevalent and too much of the game and too regular, then I think we'd have to deal with it, and we will."

Hradek asked Bettman if he felt the officials had handled the situation appropriately.

"I think under the circumstances they reacted appropriately," Bettman said. "It reminded me of when Sean Avery was waving his stick in front of Marty Brodeur, and they said, 'OK, we think that's unsportsmanlike conduct. We haven't seen that before, so it is unsportsmanlike but we're going to warn you and tell you if you keep it up, that's the penalty that we're going to call.' And that's what they did, and I think that's kind of what we're dealing with now.

"What we don't like to do is just make it up as we go along and not give any warning, and knee jerk. So on that basis, it's one of the things we deal with and we'll react and respond to it."

Nashville coach Barry Trotz, a guest on the show, offered his own take.

"The system that Tampa plays is a very patient system, and it's been around for 100 years. And Philly was basically trying to pull them out of their system," he said. "It was two stubborn individuals or two stubborn teams going, 'All right, I want you to play it our way,' and they're saying, 'We're going to make you play our way.'

"I think it's real difficult, as coaches we don't get a chance to play Tampa a lot and they play that very, very passive system with a great counterattack. That's their bread-and-butter. Coaches are starting to figure it out -- that's what we do. We dissect things, we figure it out. We played Tampa once, I think we did a really good job of dissecting what they do. Every system has a weakness. Every system has a strength. I think as coaches you have to accept what the other tactic is in terms of their system and then you have to try to exploit their weakness."

[OzFlyer]

RT @TSNBobMcKenzie: 18 GMs responded. 13 said Tampa more responsible, 3 said it was PHI, 2 didn't take a position. Asked a second question, as follows:

RT @TSNBobMcKenzie: Are you in favor of rules/legislation to ensure no repeat of last night: 8 of 13 who chose Tampa favor a rule change, 1 of 3 who picked PHI.

RT @TSNBobMcKenzie: Some GMs say they are concerned with decreasing offense in NHL. 6.1 goals/game in 1st year after lockout. 5.4 gpg so far this season.

[brelic]

Why do people keep getting concerned with decreasing offense? Scoring doesn't necessarily make a game entertaining... sheesh, the three blowouts that we had this season were terrible terrible hockey.

[spacin007]

I don't know how this would get implemented, but I'd like to see the trapping team have the face-off in there zone.

10-15 seconds of no forechecking and a 1-3-1 formation and then a whistle. Face-off in the trapping team's zone...done.

trap gone in a few games.

10 seconds is plenty for a line change, if the team goes into the trap the opposing team can either skate into/through it or hold back and wait like the Flyers did. the refs at this point can give a visual warning similar to offsides. Then they count to themselves for a 5 more seconds or so, if the trapping team does not send in a forechecker to cross the blue line, then they are whistled for delay of game.

No penalty is necessary, just a face-off

Edited November 11, 2011 by spacin007

[aziz]

you don't think it would be weird to penalize a team for not being aggressive? even if the consequence is just a defensive zone draw? what about when a team is shorthanded, do they still have to send a guy in? what if they are up by a goal with a minute left, are they not allowed to go all-in defense to win the game? they *have* to open themselves up to the breakout?

i really don't understand why anything needs to be done. they are already sacrificing something to employ the tactic: they have no offense, they are allowing the other team to exit the defensive zone with speed.

i don't understand how it is any different that a prevent defense in football, or a pitch-out in baseball. they are sacrificing one aspect of the game to lockdown another part. give up the short pass to make sure the 40-yarder doesn't connect. give up a baserunner to make sure the longball doesn't happen. give up offensive zone pressure to make sure the odd man break can't be sprung.

why is it not just up to the opposition to figure a way around it?

[canoli]

why is it not just up to the opposition to figure a way around it?

It is. Of course it is. It's incumbent upon the team with the puck to attack the opposing net. Teams should be prepared to challenge any defensive strategy. Praising Lavy's "statement" while condemning Boucher as if he committed a crime against the noble sport of ice hockey is a little corny imo.

The trap is boring, everybody agrees. But that's beside the point. What we saw that night should register some concern, for Flyers' fans anyway. We weren't prepared to attack the 1-3-1 so we didn't; we stalled and forced a stalemate on the ice.

Forcing a stalemate is not praiseworthy in and of itself. If it had helped us win the game, fine, at least there would've been some sense to it. But its effect was just the opposite; it wasn't helpful at all in pursuing the object of the game, which is to win. Put another way, Boucher's strategy may have hamstrung his best offensive weapons but it managed to do the same to ours as well, and worse. The "and worse" is important because Lavy's tactic not only limited our attack time (14 SOG) it displaced our attempts at an offensive flow, confused our own defense and eliminated any chance for momentum we might've established had we attacked quickly in transition.

The Flyers lost the "chess match" that night. TB's defense made the Flyers look exactly how they were: unprepared (and more than a little comical).

I hope Lavy has a better plan the next time we meet them.

Edited November 11, 2011 by canoli

[Mad Dog]

Why do people keep getting concerned with decreasing offense? Scoring doesn't necessarily make a game entertaining... sheesh, the three blowouts that we had this season were terrible terrible hockey.

Exactly. Did playing low-scoring or boring hockey prevent the Devils from winning 3 Cups? I don't think their fans have much to complain about. If it's boring, so be it. I'll take it if it gurantees success.

[jammer2]

I think the Bolts should feel free to employ any system they want (as much as it sucks). The onus falls on opponents to expose it and exploit it. If they are going to stubbornly stand flat footed like that, bring all five Flyers back, get a great head of steam and create an odd man rush with perfect short passes. They will get caught slowly skating backwards and get burned. That will discourage it more than talking about rule changes IMHO. If you're not moving, or slowly skating backwards you are no match for a player flying at full speed.

[Podein25]

I think the Bolts should feel free to employ any system they want (as much as it sucks). The onus falls on opponents to expose it and exploit it. If they are going to stubbornly stand flat footed like that, bring all five Flyers back, get a great head of steam and create an odd man rush with perfect short passes. They will get caught slowly skating backwards and get burned. That will discourage it more than talking about rule changes IMHO. If you're not moving, or slowly skating backwards you are no match for a player flying at full speed.

In other words, the "Flying V"

[blocker]

I read the original post and the answers.

It's nice to read the different responses to the trap problem by hockey-wise people.

This is what a hockey forum should be. No insults, smears, nor snide comments by someone who wouldn't know a puck from a petunia.

This place looks like it's going to be fun.

[Podein25]

It's good that you are here blocker. Wouldn't be the same without you. Just have to get Jack over here for same reason.

Cheers

[Digityman]

Why do people keep getting concerned with decreasing offense? Scoring doesn't necessarily make a game entertaining... sheesh, the three blowouts that we had this season were terrible terrible hockey.

That's American sports though unfortunately. Points make us excited and feel good. We must feel good all the time (see % Prozac use).

We watch it because it's entertaining. The trap isn't. The NHL needs to make a decision. Intervene in the natural progression of the game for the sake of popularity and money or let it go it's own course and let the game evolve untainted.

It's a tough decision.

[brelic]

That's American sports though unfortunately. Points make us excited and feel good. We must feel good all the time (see % Prozac use).

We watch it because it's entertaining. The trap isn't. The NHL needs to make a decision. Intervene in the natural progression of the game for the sake of popularity and money or let it go it's own course and let the game evolve untainted.

It's a tough decision.

I guess that's why soccer isn't popular in the US

[MaineFlyFan]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Trending-Topics-The-real-reason-Flyers-are-so-m?urn=nhl-wp17214

Here's a "good" read on the subject.....what a freakin DOLT this guy is! Someone hate philly a little.....

[flyerrod]

I guess that's why soccer isn't popular in the US

Yeah...the trap they employ doesn't help either..........

Caveat, I don't watch much soccer and was just being a little "smarmy".

I appreciate a little back and forth. Levity in some situations is not always a bad thing.Personal attacks I am not a big fan of.

[brelic]

Yeah...the trap they employ doesn't help either..........

Caveat, I don't watch much soccer and was just being a little "smarmy".

I appreciate a little back and forth. Levity in some situations is not always a bad thing.Personal attacks I am not a big fan of.

Haha, I don't watch soccer at all. I know NTP and FG are huge fans though. It's a great sport for kids (cheap, good exercise) and they can play it anywhere.