If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Philadelphia Flyers bring the "four corner stall" to hockey   (espn.go.com) divider line 76
    More: Sad, Dwayne Roloson, Ilya Bryzgalov, Sean Avery, Scott Hartnell, Martin Brodeur, Chris Pronger, Tampa Bay Lightning, Dominic Moore  
•       •       •

3550 clicks; posted to Sports » on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:16 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-10 10:03:35 AM
I like defensive hockey as much as the next guy, but that was a pretty boring game...
 
2011-11-10 10:18:16 AM
I get that a 1-3-1 is a b*tch to play against and I get that Laviolette wanted to send a message, but that's terrible, terrible hockey and no fan wants to see a defender loop around in his own zone with his thumb up his ass.

I expect the NHL will have something to say about this.

And to the writer of the article, yes, the Sean Avery penalty has been called, against, that's right, you guessed it, Chris "the Sh*thead" Pronger.
 
2011-11-10 10:57:30 AM
Yet another reason to hate the Flyers.
 
2011-11-10 11:30:20 AM
Queue the ol' nintendo ice hockey rule where you are penalized for not leaving your zone within 30 seconds of gaining possession. Kind of like a shot clock. I doubt it will be a penalty...but a faceoff in deep would be the result.
 
2011-11-10 11:30:55 AM
a.espncdn.com

They both approve.
 
2011-11-10 11:31:29 AM
Why is 4 minutes almost a third of 16:17? It's almost exactly a quarter. That throwaway line shouldn't annoy me as much as it does.
 
2011-11-10 11:36:47 AM
Great move.

It's the perfect venue : The home ice of the offending team.

It's the perfect slap in the face : You want to play annoying, boring hockey? Tell your fans to enjoy us shuffling the puck around.



Seriously, for those dipshiats who think the Flyers did something wrong here, what's the justification for having a defensive skater hovering around his own slot before the puck is even in the neutral zone? It's terrible defense, and the league, if anything, needs to step in and make such D formations illegal.
 
2011-11-10 11:39:39 AM

Rev.K: And to the writer of the article, yes, the Sean Avery penalty has been called, against, that's right, you guessed it, Chris "the Sh*thead" Pronger.


In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

And really, is the 1-3-1 such a biatch to play against? The Lightning are 24th in the league in GA this year, and finished 22nd last. They are also tied for fourth in goals for this season, so it seems their trap is designed to create opportunistic turnovers.

The Flyers decided they were going to make a point last night, and shot themselves in the head to do it. Poor strategy lost the game.
 
2011-11-10 11:41:41 AM

Quigs: Great move.

It's the perfect venue : The home ice of the offending team.

It's the perfect slap in the face : You want to play annoying, boring hockey? Tell your fans to enjoy us shuffling the puck around.



Seriously, for those dipshiats who think the Flyers did something wrong here, what's the justification for having a defensive skater hovering around his own slot before the puck is even in the neutral zone? It's terrible defense, and the league, if anything, needs to step in and make such D formations illegal.


I agree.
 
2011-11-10 11:42:58 AM

Rev.K: I get that a 1-3-1 is a b*tch to play against and I get that Laviolette wanted to send a message, but that's terrible, terrible hockey and no fan wants to see a defender loop around in his own zone with his thumb up his ass.


It takes two to tango, in this case... Yeah, Philly was sitting back in their zone and it's their responsibility to attack with the puck, but Tampa was making no effort to forecheck or even offer a token challenge to the Flyers in their defensive zone, from what I saw.
 
2011-11-10 11:44:22 AM
They did this last year too late in the season where they needed 1 point to lock in a higher playoff seed and buffalo needed 1 point to clinch the playoffs so they basically just skated around for the last min of play.

Pissed off rangers/canes fans pretty good lol
 
2011-11-10 11:44:37 AM

Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.


Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.

Why should the team with the puck be forced to skate into an overly defensive formation?

If both teams are happy with a 0-0 tie as the seconds tick off, so be it. If the Lightning weren't happy with a 0-0 tie, then go try to get the puck.
 
2011-11-10 11:47:13 AM

MugzyBrown: Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.

Why should the team with the puck be forced to skate into an overly defensive formation?

If both teams are happy with a 0-0 tie as the seconds tick off, so be it. If the Lightning weren't happy with a 0-0 tie, then go try to get the puck.


The worst part is, Tampa would switch back to the 1-3-1 several times while down 1-0. I seriously feel bad for Tampa fans. Guy Boucher is an idiot.
 
2011-11-10 11:59:37 AM

keylock71: It takes two to tango, in this case... Yeah, Philly was sitting back in their zone and it's their responsibility to attack with the puck, but Tampa was making no effort to forecheck or even offer a token challenge to the Flyers in their defensive zone, from what I saw.


They did at least once, which caused a turnover and a scoring chance. But yes, I see what you're saying.

This is a sticky issue because yes, both sides can be blamed, however, I think it's a lot easier to implement changes that affect the offensive team rather than the defensive team. The wording of a rule change would be difficult, but I think we can all agree that we don't want to see these Flyer shenanigans.

What they shouldn't do is make a rule about having 20 seconds to get over the red line or something like that. I think that kind of rule would only make this problem worse.
 
2011-11-10 12:01:59 PM

MugzyBrown: Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.

Why should the team with the puck be forced to skate into an overly defensive formation?

If both teams are happy with a 0-0 tie as the seconds tick off, so be it. If the Lightning weren't happy with a 0-0 tie, then go try to get the puck.


Why should a defense be forced to make a hole for the other team to exploit? What does overly defensive even mean in this context? It isn't like they built a house in front of the crease or something like that.

They gave up one zone to reduce the chance of a Philly break-away, then Philly decided to not even try.

There is no shot clock or zone clock. It's just something that happens when both teams want to see something that they're not seeing.
 
2011-11-10 12:05:50 PM

MugzyBrown: Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.


Umm, yes. I was talking about Pronger getting nailed on the Avery rule, not the shenanigans from last night.

Quigs: The worst part is, Tampa would switch back to the 1-3-1 several times while down 1-0. I seriously feel bad for Tampa fans. Guy Boucher is an idiot.


An idiot who has one of the highest scoring teams in the league, which is tied for first in its division, albeit having played two more games. Would that my team was so dumb...
 
2011-11-10 12:07:05 PM

Quigs: Seriously, for those dipshiats who think the Flyers did something wrong here, what's the justification for having a defensive skater hovering around his own slot before the puck is even in the neutral zone? It's terrible defense, and the league, if anything, needs to step in and make such D formations illegal.


I get where you're coming from, but the 1-3-1, while annoying, is far from impenetrable. The Capitals about halfway through their playoff series with TB basically figured it out (one cross ice pass before a soft dump/chip behind the net on the side away from the last defender), but when Boucher then changed things up and allowed his guys to forecheck, TB proved to be pretty good at that as well.

I think Boucher does it just as his form of gamesmanship. What the Flyers did only embolden him.
 
2011-11-10 12:07:31 PM

Rev.K: keylock71: It takes two to tango, in this case... Yeah, Philly was sitting back in their zone and it's their responsibility to attack with the puck, but Tampa was making no effort to forecheck or even offer a token challenge to the Flyers in their defensive zone, from what I saw.

They did at least once, which caused a turnover and a scoring chance. But yes, I see what you're saying.

This is a sticky issue because yes, both sides can be blamed, however, I think it's a lot easier to implement changes that affect the offensive team rather than the defensive team. The wording of a rule change would be difficult, but I think we can all agree that we don't want to see these Flyer shenanigans.

What they shouldn't do is make a rule about having 20 seconds to get over the red line or something like that. I think that kind of rule would only make this problem worse.


Hmmmmm, I suppose they could leave it to the Referee's discretion instead of giving a hard time limit to move out of your defensive zone (I agree, it would lead to more, not less of this kind of play). If the Ref feels the attacking team is sitting back purposely, he can call a delay of game penalty.

Though, I'm not sure it's that big of a problem that a new rule needs to be added... The Bruins handled the 1-3-1 of Tampa fairly well in the play-offs last year, and the Flyer's strategy doesn't seem to be the general strategy used by most teams to counter the 1-3-1.
 
2011-11-10 12:12:08 PM

keylock71: Hmmmmm, I suppose they could leave it to the Referee's discretion instead of giving a hard time limit to move out of your defensive zone (I agree, it would lead to more, not less of this kind of play). If the Ref feels the attacking team is sitting back purposely, he can call a delay of game penalty.


I'd be fine with that. Something about violating the spirit of the game. In soccer, FIFA will look at matches where teams both need only a draw to advance and they'll investigate games where they thought both teams were just f*cking the dog for 90 minutes to get their point.

Something like that. I mean it's bound to be controversial and I would hope that it doesn't have to be used often, but honestly, that Flyers display was shameful. It looked like a Monday night beer league out there. You're f*cking professionals being paid millions to play the game, so play the goddamn game you babies.
 
2011-11-10 12:13:09 PM
media.giantbomb.com

If a team is going to play a trapping defensive style and refuse to send a forechecker to try to recover the puck, then I have no problem with the other team doing this. It's a creative and legal way to try to send a message. "If the other team isn't going to try to attack and score, we won't either. See how ridiculous this is?"

Trapping hockey nearly killed the league a decade ago, because no one enjoys watching that (except Devils fans, apparently). The league should discourage trends that slide back in that direction.
 
2011-11-10 12:13:44 PM
You have to admit. Despite the boring nature of the tactic this is actually quite hilarious and genius.

Its not too often in hockey that someone comes up with a rule changing(probably soon) tactic that nullifies what the other team was trying to do.

While i completely agree that sucks for the paying fans i cant help but laugh at tampas unwillingness to break their formation even with the forechecker up front.
 
2011-11-10 12:14:08 PM

keylock71: Though, I'm not sure it's that big of a problem that a new rule needs to be added... The Bruins handled the 1-3-1 of Tampa fairly well in the play-offs last year, and the Flyer's strategy doesn't seem to be the general strategy used by most teams to counter the 1-3-1.


Hell, IIRC, the Lightning only sporadically employed the 1-3-1 vs the Bruins. Like I said, Boucher seems to the kind of coach who has no problem completely revamping his gameplan during games depending on not only his opposition, but whatever floats his boat.
 
2011-11-10 12:16:17 PM

Resolute: MugzyBrown: Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.

Umm, yes. I was talking about Pronger getting nailed on the Avery rule, not the shenanigans from last night.


No, you weren't. Nice attempt to slide by that one though.

Quigs: The worst part is, Tampa would switch back to the 1-3-1 several times while down 1-0. I seriously feel bad for Tampa fans. Guy Boucher is an idiot.

An idiot who has one of the highest scoring teams in the league, which is tied for first in its division, albeit having played two more games. Would that my team was so dumb...


Your team isn't even in first for goals per game in the weakest division in hockey.

/Stats
//I can make them do shiat too.
 
2011-11-10 12:17:50 PM

poisonedpawn78: You have to admit. Despite the boring nature of the tactic this is actually quite hilarious and genius.

Its not too often in hockey that someone comes up with a rule changing(probably soon) tactic that nullifies what the other team was trying to do.

While i completely agree that sucks for the paying fans i cant help but laugh at tampas unwillingness to break their formation even with the forechecker up front.


Yeah. I told my girlfriend what happened (She's a Devs fan) and she thought it was hillarious as well.
 
2011-11-10 12:21:31 PM

Killer Cars: keylock71: Though, I'm not sure it's that big of a problem that a new rule needs to be added... The Bruins handled the 1-3-1 of Tampa fairly well in the play-offs last year, and the Flyer's strategy doesn't seem to be the general strategy used by most teams to counter the 1-3-1.

Hell, IIRC, the Lightning only sporadically employed the 1-3-1 vs the Bruins. Like I said, Boucher seems to the kind of coach who has no problem completely revamping his gameplan during games depending on not only his opposition, but whatever floats his boat.


You know, now that I think about it, you're right... There was a lot of talk about Tampa abandoning the 1-3-1 during that series.

In my defense, I went through a few bottles of Canadian Club watching that series.
 
2011-11-10 12:22:33 PM
admiralakbar.jpg
 
2011-11-10 12:26:29 PM

Rev.K: keylock71: Hmmmmm, I suppose they could leave it to the Referee's discretion instead of giving a hard time limit to move out of your defensive zone (I agree, it would lead to more, not less of this kind of play). If the Ref feels the attacking team is sitting back purposely, he can call a delay of game penalty.

I'd be fine with that. Something about violating the spirit of the game. In soccer, FIFA will look at matches where teams both need only a draw to advance and they'll investigate games where they thought both teams were just f*cking the dog for 90 minutes to get their point.

Something like that. I mean it's bound to be controversial and I would hope that it doesn't have to be used often, but honestly, that Flyers display was shameful. It looked like a Monday night beer league out there. You're f*cking professionals being paid millions to play the game, so play the goddamn game you babies.


Dr. Samuel Johnson's right about Olson Johnson being right. They already took out the red line out for everything except icing, get the puck behind the goalie and chase.
 
2011-11-10 12:28:34 PM

Station: Quigs: Great move.

It's the perfect venue : The home ice of the offending team.

It's the perfect slap in the face : You want to play annoying, boring hockey? Tell your fans to enjoy us shuffling the puck around.



Seriously, for those dipshiats who think the Flyers did something wrong here, what's the justification for having a defensive skater hovering around his own slot before the puck is even in the neutral zone? It's terrible defense, and the league, if anything, needs to step in and make such D formations illegal.

I agree.


Thirded. Laviollete and the Flyers were giving Boucher the finger on behalf of hockey fans everywhere last night.
 
2011-11-10 12:31:43 PM

Quigs: MugzyBrown: Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.

Why should the team with the puck be forced to skate into an overly defensive formation?

If both teams are happy with a 0-0 tie as the seconds tick off, so be it. If the Lightning weren't happy with a 0-0 tie, then go try to get the puck.

The worst part is, Tampa would switch back to the 1-3-1 several times while down 1-0. I seriously feel bad for Tampa fans. Guy Boucher is an idiot.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... yea, he is an idiot alright. Took a team that sucked donkey balls and got them to the division finals last season. farking idiot I tell you!
 
2011-11-10 12:32:26 PM

keylock71: In my defense, I went through a few bottles of Canadian Club watching that series.


I still watch those games on my DVR, lol.

If I remember correctly, I think they had a few plays designed specifically to get past the 1-3-1. The play at 2:40 or so of this video (new window) was the best, IMHO. I startled everyone in my house when that happened.
 
2011-11-10 12:34:49 PM

Quigs: Resolute: MugzyBrown: Resolute: In overtime. And it cost the Flyers the game. I lol'd.

Umm no, that didn't happen in overtime and it didn't cost the Flyers the game at all.

Umm, yes. I was talking about Pronger getting nailed on the Avery rule, not the shenanigans from last night.

No, you weren't. Nice attempt to slide by that one though.


Yes, I was. You see, a person with actual reading comprehension skills would have made note of the text I quoted in that reply. Specifically, the fact that I cut out aspects of Rev K's post about last night to focus in on the fact that the Avery rule has been called on someone else, and yes, the penalty occurred in overtime, and directly cost the Flyers the game.

My post then moved onto the topic du jour,
 
2011-11-10 12:37:18 PM
when i woke up this morning Hockey was still alive...thank farkin god the 1-3-1 didn't kill it
watching nascar would be more exciting than what I saw last night
 
2011-11-10 12:48:04 PM

discgolfguru: keylock71: In my defense, I went through a few bottles of Canadian Club watching that series.

I still watch those games on my DVR, lol.

If I remember correctly, I think they had a few plays designed specifically to get past the 1-3-1. The play at 2:40 or so of this video (new window) was the best, IMHO. I startled everyone in my house when that happened.


My whole house erupted when Horton got that goal... Closest thing to an actual orgasm I've ever had while watching a sporting event.

Yeah, I like the way the Bruins kind of confused Tampa in the neutral zone allowing the easy entry into Tampa's defensive zone. It's an effective counter to the 1-3-1.

More exciting than watching the Philly defenders play catch while Tampa watches from the neutral zone, at any rate.
 
2011-11-10 12:48:12 PM
OK, so how do you fix this? Neither Tampa nor Philly did anything wrong. Put in a shot clock to get past your own blue line? Then everyone is going 1-3-1. You can't require Tampa to forecheck either....

For the record, I side with Tampa on this one. They're playing by the rules, and Philly was too chicken to attack it.
 
2011-11-10 12:51:38 PM
Flyer hatred aside, I fail to see anything wrong with this.
 
2011-11-10 12:53:56 PM
A fun article by Quisp over on Jewels From the Crown, on how to penalize teams playing extremely passive defense.

(1) When Team A has possession of the puck in their own defensive zone, as long as no member of Team B has not yet entered the zone, Team A can ice the puck without stoppage; (2) If Team B, in the opinion of the near linesman, is making NO EFFORT to forecheck at all, the linesman raises his arm, which signals that passes across two blue lines (to a player from Team A who would otherwise be offsides) are allowed. When the linesman's arm is up, "three line" passes are allowed, and Team B had better start forechecking. When they do, or when the puck leaves the zone, the linesman puts his arm down. But when that arm goes up, Team A immediately sends a cherry-picker to stand in the slot and wait for the long bomb.

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/2011/11/9/2551296/some-thoughts-ins p ired-by-the-brilliance-of-peter-laviolette
 
2011-11-10 12:59:58 PM
This kind of reminds me of a game between Buffalo and Philly in the last week of the regular season last spring.

Buffalo needed 1 point to clinch a playoff spot, and Philly needed 1 point to clinch the Atlantic division. The game was tied 3-3 late in the 3rd. When the clock got down to about a minute left, Buffalo just held the puck in their defensive zone, and Philly just stood around in the neutral zone and refused to send a forechecker. And that went on for a solid minute until time expired. Crazy.

Even crazier because the home crowd (the game was in Buffalo) was going bonkers for that whole minute because they knew well what the point meant.
 
2011-11-10 01:03:59 PM
I am convinced that none of you ever watch the Lightning unless it's against a Northeastern team and follow what the farking idiot VS commentators have to say because they are so inept at actually looking at a game that they can only point to one obvious thing. The 1-3-1 is employed about 33% of the time and usually when another team lolligags on a line change to get the guys they want out on the ice. Tampa counters with this to say, "Ok, you got your matchup, now get through this."

You people biatching about a defensive scheme employed at certain times and thinking the on ice protest does anything is farking hilarious. This is the equivalent to a team running a fullback off tackle because the other team's defense doesn't want run saftey blitzes.

It's boring? The Lightning are doing just fine in the scoring category and Lightning fans have no problem with a change in tactics when you have 2 TOP FOUR DEFENSEMEN AND A TOP SIX FORWARD out of a game against the #1 offense. Lightning got two points and out shot that team. The Lightning give up their fair share of goals, so all this biatching isn't even remotely warranted. You don't like it? Find a way to beat it. The Bruins eventually did, so shut the fark up about it.
 
2011-11-10 01:07:04 PM
I'm torn. I don't want the NHL to make a knee-jerk reaction to this, but that was more boring than watching free throws in basketball.

This is one incident in the regular season. If it were to happen in the playoffs (see also: 2011 NCAA Lacrosse Final Four), or be a persistent thing in the regular season games to come, then there'd have to be some changes made.

Also: The Onion may have predicted something like this (new window)
 
2011-11-10 01:27:34 PM

Duelist: Why should a defense be forced to make a hole for the other team to exploit? What does overly defensive even mean in this context? It isn't like they built a house in front of the crease or something like that.


Why should an offense be forced to try to score and risk turning the puck over? It isn't like the burried the puck beneath a layer of ice or something like that.
 
2011-11-10 01:38:02 PM
I don't even need to bring in my latent Flyer hatred to side with the Lightning on this. You can break a 1-3-1 defence, and I side with Boucher in employing the formation when his top defenceman is injured. I can use all of my fingers on one hand to count the ways the Flyers could have broken it. They could have lifted the puck up and over their heads into the attacking zone, and bring in their strong winger to attack the one Lightning defenceman hanging back. That's the easy way. The hard way would have involved pretty passing.

I think Laviolette came up with an ingenious way to call the NHL's attention to it, and a great way to flip the bird to Boucher and the Lightning. I also think he's a coward.

The NHL will also be cowards if they implement a knee-jerk reaction to this. These kinds of traps are why we implemented two-line passing (and way back when, forward passing).
 
2011-11-10 01:40:39 PM
I guess what I don't understand is why Philly felt they weren't good enough passers to break through. The screencap from this article's video (^; PuckDaddy), shows the 2 Flyers farthest downice weren't even making (much of?) an effort to break off from their shadowing defenders.

Sure, Prongs and Co. can say 'If they won't play our way, then we won't play at all' all they want, but it's still up to them to break through. It's not nearly as bad as the trap days, since you can't actually obstruct players trying to get through. All you need to do (as the Bruins did last year) is thread a pass to a man in one of the 2 gaps in the Lightning's 3-man wall. From there, it's likely a chip and chase contest, but hell, that's what Don Cherry's been advocating for decades.

If the Flyers can't figure that out, and instead just pout in their own end, well, I don't know what to say.
 
2011-11-10 01:50:37 PM

Loomy: If the Flyers can't figure that out, and instead just pout in their own end, well, I don't know what to say.


Why is it on the Flyers to start the action? Both teams are playing the same game.
 
2011-11-10 02:00:04 PM

MugzyBrown: Loomy: If the Flyers can't figure that out, and instead just pout in their own end, well, I don't know what to say.

Why is it on the Flyers to start the action? Both teams are playing the same game.


They should just stand on either end of the red line and taunt each other.

cdn03.dayviews.com
 
2011-11-10 02:03:09 PM

MugzyBrown: Duelist: Why should a defense be forced to make a hole for the other team to exploit? What does overly defensive even mean in this context? It isn't like they built a house in front of the crease or something like that.

Why should an offense be forced to try to score and risk turning the puck over? It isn't like the burried the puck beneath a layer of ice or something like that.


I'm OK with with that too. Boring, but happens. As long as it isn't egregious, does there need to be a whole new rule? I agree with Doran that there probably will be a knee-jerk reaction that will cause more problems than it solves.
 
2011-11-10 02:07:14 PM
When I saw that I could only picture Bettman, somewhere, having major conniptions. National television!?!? Get the rulebook!
 
2011-11-10 02:11:26 PM

MugzyBrown: Loomy: If the Flyers can't figure that out, and instead just pout in their own end, well, I don't know what to say.

Why is it on the Flyers to start the action? Both teams are playing the same game.



....because they have the puck?
 
2011-11-10 02:29:18 PM
It's a tactic. It's the offense's job to break the defense, not the defenses job to break the game wide open. I mean, this is just part of the dynamics of a free flowing game.
 
2011-11-10 02:36:27 PM
Good thing they've removed hitting and fighting in order to make hockey more exciting.

/Die, Bettman, die.
 
2011-11-10 02:46:38 PM

MugzyBrown: Duelist: Why should a defense be forced to make a hole for the other team to exploit? What does overly defensive even mean in this context? It isn't like they built a house in front of the crease or something like that.

Why should an offense be forced to try to score and risk turning the puck over? It isn't like the burried the puck beneath a layer of ice or something like that.


Why should the Flyers even bother to try to score? They're a media-favored team, they should just be given goals.

/I can spew BS, too
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report