RK’s system: What is it and does it work?

[Kruppstahl]

1 hour ago, LouBrawls said:

I'd read somewhere, can't recall where, that this was a "proven system"... maybe those were RK's words.Can anyone name a specific time, team or where this system has worked?  because it seems like it's set up for failure.  All of this also verifies my notion that he was trying to plug the players into a system and not playing to their strengths. You could see it in the lack of creativity, they looked tentative, knowing if one dominoe fell then that was it.

Let it go!  We're done with that guy now, and you aren't going to see him anywhere near an NHL bench ever again.

Enjoy the moment!

 

[Weave]

2 hours ago, LouBrawls said:

I'd read somewhere, can't recall where, that this was a "proven system"... maybe those were RK's words.Can anyone name a specific time, team or where this system has worked?  because it seems like it's set up for failure.  All of this also verifies my notion that he was trying to plug the players into a system and not playing to their strengths. You could see it in the lack of creativity, they looked tentative, knowing if one dominoe fell then that was it.

The 1-2-2 part is definitely proven.  NJD played it all the way to a Cup.  But I'm pretty sure their defenders pressured at the line, and their forwards were terriers on a loose puck.  And having Brodeur in the net helped too.

[IKnowPhysics]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

The 1-2-2 part is definitely proven.  NJD played it all the way to a Cup.  But I'm pretty sure their defenders pressured at the line, and their forwards were terriers on a loose puck.  And having Brodeur in the net helped too.

Had the impression that was a 1-4 NZ trap, which, while novel and successful at the time, leaned on the ability to clutch-and-grab and on Brodeur's bigly puck handling skills.

By the end of the '05 lockout, NZ trap teams fell victim to drawing penalties against dump-and-chase offenses and being picked apart by effective short-pass-zone-entry offenses.

NZ trap has evolved from 1-4 to 1-1-3 and 1-3-1 traps that are much more effective in today's faster/cleaner game, as they still trap, but use a high-pressure attack on the puck carrier to contest posession and force turnovers into the trapping players instead of literally grabbing and hooking puck carriers.

1-2-2 is still effective though, especially for up-tempo teams and teams that want to "keep it simple," as just about every player even in beer league knows how to execute it.

[Weave]

18 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Had the impression that was a 1-4 NZ trap, which, while novel and successful at the time, leaned on the ability to clutch-and-grab and on Brodeur's bigly puck handling skills.

By the end of the '05 lockout, NZ trap teams fell victim to drawing penalties against dump-and-chase offenses and being picked apart by effective short-pass-zone-entry offenses.

NZ trap has evolved from 1-4 to 1-1-3 and 1-3-1 traps that are much more effective in today's faster/cleaner game, as they still trap, but use a high-pressure attack on the puck carrier to contest posession and force turnovers into the trapping players instead of literally grabbing and hooking puck carriers.

1-2-2 is still effective though, especially for up-tempo teams and teams that want to "keep it simple," as just about every player even in beer league knows how to execute it.

They were utilizing a left wing lock, which was a 1-2-2 system.

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

They were utilizing a left wing lock, which was a 1-2-2 system.

Thinking of Detroit with LWL.  NJD was using a more classic neutral zone trap which was a 1-2-2 set up.