PDA

View Full Version : 7 Defense, 11 Forwards?



Pages : [1] 2

Watson Rink
05-31-2015, 10:13 AM
A topic for the offseason: the Boston Globe's hockey analyst just jumped on the Bandwagon of Unorthodoxy, saying in part: "full applause for Jon Cooper's preference for dressing 11 forwards and seven defensemen. If the Tampa Bay coach believes he's maximizing his roster that way, it's the right move....Double-shifting players and managing ice time based on team strengths and situations should be standard operating procedure."

In the context of women's collegiate hockey, do people think that dressing 7D/11F is likely or unlikely to maximize the strengths of the roster in the situations most likely to crop up during a game?

KTDC
05-31-2015, 10:21 AM
Fewer D!

A mistake by the defense will result in a goal for the other team. A mistake by a forward is more likely to be rescued by one of the solid defensemen you have back protecting your defensive zone. So I think you can more easily get away with forwards who aren't completely up to par.

Also, defensemen can play more minutes.

D2D
05-31-2015, 11:52 AM
Fewer D!

A mistake by the defense will result in a goal for the other team. A mistake by a forward is more likely to be rescued by one of the solid defensemen you have back protecting your defensive zone. So I think you can more easily get away with forwards who aren't completely up to par.

Also, defensemen can play more minutes.
I think it depends on your roster's strengths and weaknesses, but in general I agree that it makes sense to give your best D more minutes and if possible play four forward lines. As an extreme example, in the just-completed Chicago-Anaheim series, the Blackhawks largely relied on just four defensemen. Despite the pounding defensemen in the NHL take Duncan Keith played an amazing 231 minutes over seven games, an average of 33 minutes per game.

Canuckwatcher
05-31-2015, 03:03 PM
I think it depends on your roster's strengths and weaknesses, but in general I agree that it makes sense to give your best D more minutes and if possible play four forward lines. As an extreme example, in the just-completed Chicago-Anaheim series, the Blackhawks largely relied on just four defensemen. Despite the pounding defensemen in the NHL take Duncan Keith played an amazing 231 minutes over seven games, an average of 33 minutes per game.

Agree with roster makeup playing a role but I have seen the downfall of too many minutes for certain D. My daughter's team has 7 D and rotates between dressing 6 or 7. 1-4 play a ton actually too much when you consider PP, PK and regular shift. Our team by the 3rd period often starts to have issues in our zone because the D are so tired and after 2 periods the coach has no confidence to play the 5-6 pairing to give the top 4 a break. The team often also starts the year on fire but by Christmas they are hanging on as the top 4 girls are cooked!!

Coaches need to think a bit about development too. For example, this year we lose our #1, #2, # 3 D who played massive minutes. Unless the freshmen recruits coming in are outstanding, could be a long year trying to get out of our end!! Hard to go from playing 4-7 min a game to being a player that needs to be relied upon.

I agree with play your best more often but beware of ignoring the 5-6-7 skaters, you need them to take on minutes at some point.

KTDC
05-31-2015, 03:40 PM
Coaches need to think a bit about development too. For example, this year we lose our #1, #2, # 3 D who played massive minutes. Unless the freshmen recruits coming in are outstanding, could be a long year trying to get out of our end!! Hard to go from playing 4-7 min a game to being a player that needs to be relied upon.

I agree with play your best more often but beware of ignoring the 5-6-7 skaters, you need them to take on minutes at some point.

My response was considering having fewer forwards and more 'd' generically. I was not thinking about development. I agree that development is an important part of coaching the team. As a fan that is one of the better balancing acts of the coach to watch. When to shorten the bench, when to lengthen. How to evaluate and estimate a player's potential upside. It's also enjoyable to read the Harvard fans and their discussions of their coach's tendency to go with a short bench :p

ne7minder
05-31-2015, 03:44 PM
Agree with roster makeup playing a role but I have seen the downfall of too many minutes for certain D. My daughter's team has 7 D and rotates between dressing 6 or 7. 1-4 play a ton actually too much when you consider PP, PK and regular shift. Our team by the 3rd period often starts to have issues in our zone because the D are so tired and after 2 periods the coach has no confidence to play the 5-6 pairing to give the top 4 a break. The team often also starts the year on fire but by Christmas they are hanging on as the top 4 girls are cooked!!

Coaches need to think a bit about development too. For example, this year we lose our #1, #2, # 3 D who played massive minutes. Unless the freshmen recruits coming in are outstanding, could be a long year trying to get out of our end!! Hard to go from playing 4-7 min a game to being a player that needs to be relied upon.

I agree with play your best more often but beware of ignoring the 5-6-7 skaters, you need them to take on minutes at some point.

Well, if coach won't play 5-6 than having a 7th is a waste of a uniform.

Because the best girls are often put at D so that they can get more ice time I know the Gophers recruit a bunch of D that spend some or all their time at F because it is a more natural use of their skills. If your talent pool gives you a bunch of offensive minded D and you have them carry up ice then I suppose having 7 would be OK but I hardly see it as a genius move that can elevate a team.

Skate79
05-31-2015, 05:50 PM
Well, if coach won't play 5-6 than having a 7th is a waste of a uniform.

Because the best girls are often put at D so that they can get more ice time I know the Gophers recruit a bunch of D that spend some or all their time at F because it is a more natural use of their skills. If your talent pool gives you a bunch of offensive minded D and you have them carry up ice then I suppose having 7 would be OK but I hardly see it as a genius move that can elevate a team.

Because skating four lines in women's hockey isn't universal, dressing an extra D isn't the same as it would be for an NHL team that regularly rolls four lines. I couldn't see the Bruins doing it on a regular basis because Julien loves his fourth liners and the only D I would put up on a fourth line would be Tory Krug. He's too valuable though because of his puck moving abilities and because the Bruins have the slowest D in the NHL.

Harvard had exceptional balance and depth this year with three lines that were interchangeable and a fourth line that had talent and saw minutes especially in the BU Beanpot game. The D was also deep and interchangeable for the most part. That doesn't happen every year so it is up to the coach to determine what players should play the most minutes and on what lines or D pairings.

joecct
05-31-2015, 07:04 PM
Heck - Clarkson has dressed 3 lines and 3 d pairs. When you only have 18 scholarships sometimes you don't skate a full lineup.

ne7minder
06-01-2015, 04:53 PM
Because skating four lines in women's hockey isn't universal, dressing an extra D isn't the same as it would be for an NHL team that regularly rolls four lines. I couldn't see the Bruins doing it on a regular basis because Julien loves his fourth liners and the only D I would put up on a fourth line would be Tory Krug. He's too valuable though because of his puck moving abilities and because the Bruins have the slowest D in the NHL.

Harvard had exceptional balance and depth this year with three lines that were interchangeable and a fourth line that had talent and saw minutes especially in the BU Beanpot game. The D was also deep and interchangeable for the most part. That doesn't happen every year so it is up to the coach to determine what players should play the most minutes and on what lines or D pairings.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I have only noticed 4th lines getting ice sporadically even on the best teams and almost never in big games. It also seems to me that the 3rd set of D don't get as much use as the other two. If a coach is not using what he already has why add to it?

Watson Rink
06-01-2015, 05:27 PM
No doubt I've been guilty of selective memory in regard to last year's fourth line but let me just take this opportunity to remind everybody once more that in the Beanpot they outscored the entire BU team, 3-2 (I say selective memory because other games from that season are just a blur to me; for example, I think we played a game with BC earlier that season in which a total of 12 goals were scored, but gee I think perhaps BC scored more of them than we did but I can't be more definite at this point, it's all receded through the smoke rings of my mind, down the foggy ruins of time....) (LOL)

A real headscratcher occurred in the '13-'14 season, when we had a roster of 18: due to injuries there were 5 D and 8 F left standing in the NCAA quarters and Coach Crowell chose to go with 2-2/3 lines rather than use one of the Ds at F even though that same D had centered the third line for a couple of weeks early in the season and they had subsequently used 4 D for half the season while the same was injured. I absolutely couldn't keep track of who and how among the 8 Fs were doubleshifting.

ne7minder
06-02-2015, 07:04 AM
No doubt I've been guilty of selective memory in regard to last year's fourth line but let me just take this opportunity to remind everybody once more that in the Beanpot they outscored the entire BU team, 3-2 (I say selective memory because other games from that season are just a blur to me; for example, I think we played a game with BC earlier that season in which a total of 12 goals were scored, but gee I think perhaps BC scored more of them than we did but I can't be more definite at this point, it's all receded through the smoke rings of my mind, down the foggy ruins of time....) (LOL)

A real headscratcher occurred in the '13-'14 season, when we had a roster of 18: due to injuries there were 5 D and 8 F left standing in the NCAA quarters and Coach Crowell chose to go with 2-2/3 lines rather than use one of the Ds at F even though that same D had centered the third line for a couple of weeks early in the season and they had subsequently used 4 D for half the season while the same was injured. I absolutely couldn't keep track of who and how among the 8 Fs were doubleshifting.

I very clearly remember the triple OT game against UND and the 4th line never once saw the ice. Obviously I am not qualified to make the call but it seems to me that a rested 4th line would have some advantage over a bone tired 2nd or 3rd line.

Watson Rink
06-02-2015, 09:34 AM
I very clearly remember the triple OT game against UND and the 4th line never once saw the ice. Obviously I am not qualified to make the call but it seems to me that a rested 4th line would have some advantage over a bone tired 2nd or 3rd line.

Anybody remember a Bruins/Oilers 3OT Stanley Cup game in the '90s when the game was quickly decided by the Oilers' coach deciding to release from his doghouse an Eastern European player that he had been benching for lack of effort since back around the second period? The guy leaped over the boards, picked up the puck, zipped through the leaden-legged Bruins and scored within seconds.

Then the coach's conundrum was what to do with the player in the next game: continue benching him, treat him as a hero, what?

Skate79
06-02-2015, 03:45 PM
Anybody remember a Bruins/Oilers 3OT Stanley Cup game in the '90s when the game was quickly decided by the Oilers' coach deciding to release from his doghouse an Eastern European player that he had been benching for lack of effort since back around the second period? The guy leaped over the boards, picked up the puck, zipped through the leaden-legged Bruins and scored within seconds.

Then the coach's conundrum was what to do with the player in the next game: continue benching him, treat him as a hero, what?

That would be Petr Klima. The immortal Petr Klima. Guy never did much else but he really killed us with that goal.

Skate79
06-02-2015, 03:52 PM
No doubt I've been guilty of selective memory in regard to last year's fourth line but let me just take this opportunity to remind everybody once more that in the Beanpot they outscored the entire BU team, 3-2 (I say selective memory because other games from that season are just a blur to me; for example, I think we played a game with BC earlier that season in which a total of 12 goals were scored, but gee I think perhaps BC scored more of them than we did but I can't be more definite at this point, it's all receded through the smoke rings of my mind, down the foggy ruins of time....) (LOL)

A real headscratcher occurred in the '13-'14 season, when we had a roster of 18: due to injuries there were 5 D and 8 F left standing in the NCAA quarters and Coach Crowell chose to go with 2-2/3 lines rather than use one of the Ds at F even though that same D had centered the third line for a couple of weeks early in the season and they had subsequently used 4 D for half the season while the same was injured. I absolutely couldn't keep track of who and how among the 8 Fs were doubleshifting.

I could. It was Hillary Crowe, Sam Reber, Miye D'Oench, Dylan Crugnale, Mary Parker, and Sydney Daniels. Elizabeth Parker and Gina MacDonald were the spare forwards. Robin White was the 5th D. Hannah Zarzecki dressed but only took maybe one or two shifts at most. Brianna Mastel, Natasha Rachlin, Sarah Edney and Marissa Gedman played the heavy minutes on D.

driventoit
06-02-2015, 04:24 PM
I could. It was Hillary Crowe, Sam Reber, Miye D'Oench, Dylan Crugnale, Mary Parker, and Sydney Daniels. Elizabeth Parker and Gina MacDonald were the spare forwards. Robin White was the 5th D. Hannah Zarzecki dressed but only took maybe one or two shifts at most. Brianna Mastel, Natasha Rachlin, Sarah Edney and Marissa Gedman played the heavy minutes on D.

And #38 had 42 saves behind that stretched roster, including 4 PKs.

ARM
06-02-2015, 08:52 PM
I very clearly remember the triple OT game against UND and the 4th line never once saw the ice. Obviously I am not qualified to make the call but it seems to me that a rested 4th line would have some advantage over a bone tired 2nd or 3rd line.Brausen didn't play after the first period in that game -- she'd been injured the week before in the WCHA Final Face-Off. Garzone moved up to take her spot, so there wasn't a full fourth line after the first period. The two remaining forwards were Katie Frischmann and Sam Downey. The problem is that they aren't likely to score. Meanwhile, they could come out cold and get burned by some of the skill players that UND had on the ice. Frischmann could have seen shifts as the sixth D, because McMillen had been tossed by the end of the second period, and she'd certainly seen more shifts as a D than an F by that point of her career. I think it's the old theory of wanting to win or lose with the players that got you to that game. It almost isn't fair to little-used players to put them on the ice with the season on the line for the first time all year when they've been sitting for 100 minutes.

Skate79
06-04-2015, 11:31 AM
And #38 had 42 saves behind that stretched roster, including 4 PKs.

Actually it was Brianna Liang, not Emmerance Maschmeyer, who played the final two games of that Yale series.

ne7minder
06-04-2015, 08:48 PM
Brausen didn't play after the first period in that game -- she'd been injured the week before in the WCHA Final Face-Off. Garzone moved up to take her spot, so there wasn't a full fourth line after the first period. The two remaining forwards were Katie Frischmann and Sam Downey. The problem is that they aren't likely to score. Meanwhile, they could come out cold and get burned by some of the skill players that UND had on the ice. Frischmann could have seen shifts as the sixth D, because McMillen had been tossed by the end of the second period, and she'd certainly seen more shifts as a D than an F by that point of her career. I think it's the old theory of wanting to win or lose with the players that got you to that game. It almost isn't fair to little-used players to put them on the ice with the season on the line for the first time all year when they've been sitting for 100 minutes.

Don't disagree with your memory of the game. I was thinking specifically of Katie. Yeah she was not a scoring machine but I wonder if she could have done 2 things, first, her fresh leg might have more speed & spring one of the snipers to get the winner started or give the other forwards an extra 90 seconds rest which might make the difference when they came back out. I am not suggesting she go out against UNDs first line but the first is not always on the ice. Beyond that I often wonder if the 4th could have gotten more shifts throughout the season & left the higher lines less worn in March. But I'll defer to the guy that has a couple of NCAA championships over my opinion.

ARM
06-04-2015, 10:18 PM
But I'll defer to the guy that has a couple of NCAA championships over my opinion.Plus, we know his approach wound up winning. Yours? Maybe, maybe not.

driventoit
06-04-2015, 11:01 PM
Actually it was Brianna Liang, not Emmerance Maschmeyer, who played the final two games of that Yale series.

Watson Rink was referring to the 2014 NCAA quarters, and that game was at Wisco, with EM between the pipes. (For the record, WR, Frazer also played, and might have seen some time at F.)