New NHL....New TRAP!

[charlio lemieux]

Thank you Marc Crawford for keeping the TRAP alive and well in the New NHL. :cry: Your Trap is new as well. No longer do your players clog up the neutral zone. They line up 4 across the blue line.
It worked, for the most part. Phoenix had a heck of a time trying to generate pressure in the offensive zone. They had to keep dumping the puck in. Half the League will be using this crap by X-mas and the rest of the league will follow. Far less entertaing to watch than the wide open Leafs/Sens game.
For all the good hockey I saw last night, I damn near puked when I saw the 1-4 defensive scheme of the Canucks.

Anybody else see this?
Or like it perhaps?

[Newfie John]

I fell asleep during the game but it was bound to happen. Leave it to Crow.

[THE HACK]

When you have the lead and its late in the game then by all means use this and it was smart of Crawford to do this when he had just Anson Carter in the other teams zone forchecking while the others lined up at the blueline.Its when teams start doing this at the start of the game or midway through the 1st period after they have the lead that will be a problem like it was last time hockey was played.But late in the game last night like the Canucks did is fine!

Cheers

[charlio lemieux]

All the rule changes where about stopping the trap and opening the flow of the game up. Crawford just slammed the lid on that.

[KB in Kelowna]

I believe it was Ken Hitchcock who said if they outlawed the trap, coach's would come up with an alternative with in a week. I saw what Crow had the Canucks do late in the game. Preserve the lead. Should have been 3-0 or more except for Cujo and Special Ed coughing up the puck in his own end which allowed the first Yotes goal.

[Iced Tea]

Thank you Marc Crawford for keeping the TRAP alive and well in the New NHL. :cry: Your Trap is new as well. No longer do your players clog up the neutral zone. They line up 4 across the blue line.
It worked, for the most part. Phoenix had a heck of a time trying to generate pressure in the offensive zone. They had to keep dumping the puck in. Half the League will be using this crap by X-mas and the rest of the league will follow. Far less entertaing to watch than the wide open Leafs/Sens game.
For all the good hockey I saw last night, I damn near puked when I saw the 1-4 defensive scheme of the Canucks.

Anybody else see this?
Or like it perhaps?Maybe if the Leafs were able to hold the lead last night, they would have used a similar approach as the Canucks during the final minutes of the third period. The Leafs/Sens game was far from entertaining until the Sens generated some offensive and then the game opened up.

The Canucks/Coyotes game was exciting until the final 3 or so minutes. If you want to judge the game on just those few minutes, that is your choice. Also, you might want to find out how many other teams didn't use the same "trap" last night and you can't determine that from watching highlights either. I doubt it was only Vancouver.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the Leafs blowing the game last night and Quinn's paranoia. The Sens intentionally injured Sundin. hahahaha Just like Allison tried to injure the linesman. Neither was intentional and Quinn needs to quit whining and get some therapy.

[a4l]

Way to go Crawford. I was looking forward to a trapless season and more wide open play.

[KB in Kelowna]

Way to go Crawford. I was looking forward to a trapless season and more wide open play.

http://www.hockeystation.com/showthread.php?t=1720

????? Please explain.

[charlio lemieux]

Maybe if the Leafs were able to hold the lead last night, they would have used a similar approach as the Canucks during the final minutes of the third period. The Leafs/Sens game was far from entertaining until the Sens generated some offensive and then the game opened up.

The Canucks/Coyotes game was exciting until the final 3 or so minutes. If you want to judge the game on just those few minutes, that is your choice. Also, you might want to find out how many other teams didn't use the same "trap" last night and you can't determine that from watching highlights either. I doubt it was only Vancouver.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the Leafs blowing the game last night and Quinn's paranoia. The Sens intentionally injured Sundin. hahahaha Just like Allison tried to injure the linesman. Neither was intentional and Quinn needs to quit whining and get some therapy.

Any team that lost a lead did not employ Cawfords trap. If you had listened to the comentators all night they were commenting on how the new rules allowed for come backs. This was going to force teams to maintain a high tempo game, and not sit back and just protect a lead. The rules were put into place to encourage end to end hockey. All the comments about the other games included how there was end to end action. Crawford has defeated the purpose of the new rules in one game. Nothing personal against him, he is doing what it takes to make his team win. At the same time though, he just employed a system which the NHL had thought it had ruled out. I hope you enjoy sleeping during the second half of a hockey game.

Maybe if the Leafs were able to hold the lead last night, they would have used a similar approach as the Canucks during the final minutes of the third period. The Leafs/Sens game was far from entertaining until the Sens generated some offensive and then the game opened up.

Maybe, if the Leafs had used a similar approach, they would have been able to hold the lead. I would rather see good hockey, than the wall of 4 on the blueline. There was neither in the final minutes, of the Leafs/Sens game.

[Madferret]

http://www.hockeystation.com/showthread.php?t=1720

????? Please explain.

lol
He got ya Sue..

;)

[TimmyTabasco]

I fell asleep during the game but it was bound to happen. Leave it to Crow.

You sure that wasn't the Leafs game?

I fell asleep during that trap infested snore fest, and woke up just in time for the Canucks game :thumb:

[TimmyTabasco]

Far less entertaing to watch than the wide open Leafs/Sens game.
For all the good hockey I saw last night, I damn near puked when I saw the 1-4 defensive scheme of the Canucks.


I almost puked when I read your post ;)

The sens/leafs game was..to be honest..a snore fest. The only highlight was when Alfie scored the tie goal, and then in the shootout put the leafs out of their misery.

This really shocks me..how you can find such a boring, dull game..more exciting than the free flow of the canucks game? The sens were trapped out of the offensive zone for most of the leafs/sens game. This was obvious.

During the Canucks game, what were the shots? Oh yeah..thats right..32 for the Yotes..but thats a trap? :confused:

Sure, I noticed the 4 guys back, and laughed my ass off. However, only noticed it ONCE.

Give me a break :thumb:

[Newfie John]

You sure that wasn't the Leafs game?

I fell asleep during that trap infested snore fest, and woke up just in time for the Canucks game :thumb:

You obviously did not watch the game. There was no trap being played. 2 D back most of the time and 3 wide up front. The way it should be.

[TimmyTabasco]

You obviously did not watch the game. There was no trap being played. 2 D back most of the time and 3 wide up front. The way it should be.

Actually I did watch the game

It was on before the Canuck game, so had to bare the battle :nod:

[Bob burns]

Any team that lost a lead did not employ Cawfords trap. If you had listened to the comentators all night they were commenting on how the new rules allowed for come backs. This was going to force teams to maintain a high tempo game, and not sit back and just protect a lead. The rules were put into place to encourage end to end hockey. All the comments about the other games included how there was end to end action. Crawford has defeated the purpose of the new rules in one game. Nothing personal against him, he is doing what it takes to make his team win. At the same time though, he just employed a system which the NHL had thought it had ruled out. I hope you enjoy sleeping during the second half of a hockey game.

Maybe, if the Leafs had used a similar approach, they would have been able to hold the lead. I would rather see good hockey, than the wall of 4 on the blueline. There was neither in the final minutes, of the Leafs/Sens game.

Crawford found a way to win the game. Just like the trap was used to win games. Crawford found a way that wins games, and his way is therefore better hockey than the alternative. If you want to have a hockey game where there is 38 goals a game but the players do not play as good and as smart as they could be, you can have it. Good luck finding a league for it though. I'll be happy with the best hockey on earth with coaches, teams, and players looking for new more efficient ways to win games. What Crawford did was not brand new, but it was the first noticeable time when a coach did so far in the two games that have been televised on tv so far this year...er day. And to be honest, I only recall it happening one time when Carter was the forechecker. Maybe it happened other times but I did not notice.

And if you did not think that game was end to end I'm not sure what you are expecting. From my biased perspective the game was far more open than the Ottawa/Toronto game, and had far more wide open opportunities.

[charlio lemieux]

Posted by B Burns
Crawford found a way to win the game. Just like the trap was used to win games. Crawford found a way that wins games, and his way is therefore better hockey than the alternative. If you want to have a hockey game where there is 38 goals a game but the players do not play as good and as smart as they could be, you can have it. Good luck finding a league for it though. I'll be happy with the best hockey on earth with coaches, teams, and players looking for new more efficient ways to win games. What Crawford did was not brand new, but it was the first noticeable time when a coach did so far in the two games that have been televised on tv so far this year...er day. And to be honest, I only recall it happening one time when Carter was the forechecker. Maybe it happened other times but I did not notice.

And if you did not think that game was end to end I'm not sure what you are expecting. From my biased perspective the game was far more open than the Ottawa/Toronto game, and had far more wide open opportunities.


Crawford found a way to win the game. Just like the trap was used to win games. Crawford found a way that wins games, and his way is therefore better hockey than the alternative.

Posted by Charlio Lemieux
Crawford has defeated the purpose of the new rules in one game. Nothing personal against him, he is doing what it takes to make his team win.
Better hockey? If the trap is better why were rules brought in to eliminate it. Crawford's system was/is definately more efficient, but I wouldn't call it better from an entertainment standpoint. You don't seem to get it. It is not just about winning and losing anymore. It's about icing a product that draws in new fans, with high tempo action filled hockey. The increased fan base will in turn increase league revenues and subsequently increase teams salarycap. Bringing in a new form of the trap is death to hockey growth. BTW There was no 1-4 checking in the Mon/NYR game last night.

If you want to have a hockey game where there is 38 goals a game but the players do not play as good and as smart as they could be, you can have it.

I have posted elsewhere that my two favorite games of all-time where 1-0 and 2-1 scores. I like to see goalie's steal the show. What makes hockey exciting is the scoring chances. A trap system eliminates scoring opportunities, therefore it also makes the game less exciting.

I'm sorry to hear you like the trap system. Hopefully your fever will soon break, and you will be feeling better. ;)

And if you did not think that game was end to end I'm not sure what you are expecting. From my biased perspective the game was far more open than the Ottawa/Toronto game, and had far more wide open opportunities.

I don't believe I said the game wasn't end to end for most of it. The D on Van did a good job most of the night. They really clogged up the front of the net. There were times from the ice level camera where the net couldn't be seen because there was three black jerseys between Cloutier and the puck. I thought Vancouver dominated most of the game. I just don't like the idea of every team playing 4 across the blue line once they have a lead. Which is what will happen after Vancouver demonstrates that it is an effective system. We will be watching boring blue line to blue line hockey again by X-mas, unless this system is deterred.

[KB in Kelowna]

I watched nearly all the game, save for the first 7 minutes which I listened to on the radio. The one forward checking and 4 men back was used for maybe the last 3 minutes of the game not the entire 60! The fact that Phoenix scored late would cause some to question its effectiveness.

[Bob burns]

Better hockey? If the trap is better why were rules brought in to eliminate it. Crawford's system was/is definately more efficient, but I wouldn't call it better from an entertainment standpoint. You don't seem to get it. It is not just about winning and losing anymore. It's about icing a product that draws in new fans, with high tempo action filled hockey. The increased fan base will in turn increase league revenues and subsequently increase teams salarycap. Bringing in a new form of the trap is death to hockey growth. BTW There was no 1-4 checking in the Mon/NYR game last night.

Because the NHL wanted American fans to watch the game. I thought we all knew that...

What don't I get? Even if Crawford's "new" attempt to win the game did in fact work, would that not be better hockey than playing a less perfect game on his part? He had the lead and found an efficient way to prevent the opposition from winning. If he did not do that, then his team would have been more beatable, therefore making his team not as good as they could be, therefore making the game not as excellent and close to perfection as possible. By your logic, where do we stop to prevent a defensive game? Should they stop having goalies all together? Should they not allow two defensemen in the defensive zone at the same time? Where do you want to take it? Why do you not want the game to be as good as it can be? Why do you want to limit an efficient way to win?

Perhaps you would like it if the MLB enforced that the pitchers could only pitch strikes and each pitch had to be under 80 mph. There would be a lot more runs, but the game's perfection would be limited. That's not something I would want, and neither would most diehard baseball fans I imagine.

I have posted elsewhere that my two favorite games of all-time where 1-0 and 2-1 scores. I like to see goalie's steal the show. What makes hockey exciting is the scoring chances. A trap system eliminates scoring opportunities, therefore it also makes the game less exciting.

Then don't watch! If you do not like it where teams try to perfect their game to win then maybe the NHL is not for you.

I'm sorry to hear you like the trap system. Hopefully your fever will soon break, and you will be feeling better. ;)

:laughing:

I don't believe I said the game wasn't end to end for most of it. The D on Van did a good job most of the night. They really clogged up the front of the net. There were times from the ice level camera where the net couldn't be seen because there was three black jerseys between Cloutier and the puck. I thought Vancouver dominated most of the game. I just don't like the idea of every team playing 4 across the blue line once they have a lead. Which is what will happen after Vancouver demonstrates that it is an effective system. We will be watching boring blue line to blue line hockey again by X-mas, unless this system is deterred.

Why change the rules to attract a market that does not like the game no matter how many goals are scored? If the market you are going for was to ever like hockey, they would have started watching in the 80s when scoring was up. Maybe it is time to stop trying to cater to a market that does not like the game, and instead start catering to the real fans of the game.

The game changes all the time due to new systems that begin to outperform older systems; just like the trap outperformed the defenseless hockey of the 80s. In time something will come along that can out perform the trap. Why not just let that happen instead of trying to artificially trying to break the game because a market that never liked hockey won't like low scoring?

[a4l]

http://www.hockeystation.com/showthread.php?t=1720

????? Please explain.

Way back in the dark ages before the trap the scores in hockey games weren't that high unless one team really sucked.

[KB in Kelowna]

Way back in the dark ages before the trap the scores in hockey games weren't that high unless one team really sucked.

Way back in the dark ages teams used the left wing lock, another version of the trap. Methinks if this wasn't posted in the Canuck forum certain people wouldn't be engaged in this discussion. Or am I being cynical?

[TimmyTabasco]

Way back in the dark ages teams used the left wing lock, another version of the trap. Methinks if this wasn't posted in the Canuck forum certain people wouldn't be engaged in this discussion. Or am I being cynical?

Nah, you hit the nail right on the head :thumb: :nod:

[Matt Cooke]

By your logic, where do we stop to prevent a defensive game? Should they stop having goalies all together? Should they not allow two defensemen in the defensive zone at the same time? Where do you want to take it? Why do you not want the game to be as good as it can be? Why do you want to limit an efficient way to win?

Perhaps you would like it if the MLB enforced that the pitchers could only pitch strikes and each pitch had to be under 80 mph. There would be a lot more runs, but the game's perfection would be limited. That's not something I would want, and neither would most diehard baseball fans I imagine.

Too funny. :laughing:

It's fair to say this discussion is case closed.

[KB in Kelowna]

Funny I didn't notice it tonight? :coffee:

[Daryl Shilling]

What, Marc Crawford is all of a sudden getting credit for inventing the notion of "standing them up at the blueline"? This is an ages old and completely legitimate way of defending a lead. I'm not so sure what's controversial about it.

I'm not so sure that the intention of the new rules was meant to alter the way coaches position their players on the ice, so much as it was meant to stop the endless interference that all teams were employing as a tactic.

This isn't even against the spirit of the rules.

Daryl

[KB in Kelowna]

What, Marc Crawford is all of a sudden getting credit for inventing the notion of "standing them up at the blueline"? This is an ages old and completely legitimate way of defending a lead. I'm not so sure what's controversial about it.

I'm not so sure that the intention of the new rules was meant to alter the way coaches position their players on the ice, so much as it was meant to stop the endless interference that all teams were employing as a tactic.

This isn't even against the spirit of the rules.

Daryl

Daryl, please see one of my earlier posts I think you'll see where the contoversy sprang from.


Boy oh boy listen to me, I think Ferret and PDO might be on to something :eek: :laughing: 8) ;)