Are the Rangers a defense-first team?

I’m sure some of you have noticed recently Joe Micheletti has been describing the Rangers as a “defense-first” team. Obviously this is causing some confusion among our fanbase, since most analysts tend to use this term to describe trap teams (i.e. Kings, Bruins, Devils, Preds, etc).

First let me state that we don’t know what exactly Joe is referring to. Perhaps this label came to fruition because Torts spends more time coaching defense in practice, perhaps it is because we have depth on the blueline, or perhaps Joe just needed to fill air-time. We can only speculate.

What I can tell you is that TV analysts will often describe teams as north/south, run & gun, vs. defense-first, etc. because it is a quick way to label a team on-air without really getting into specifics.

If you wish to understand the game beyond vague labels, I humbly suggest you read all of our hockey systems coverage.

With that aside, the Rangers are not a defense-first team in the traditional sense. The Blueshirts generate most of their 5-on-5 offense from an aggressive 2-1-2 forecheck and transitional offense (meaning offense generated from the rush).

Defense-first teams, or conservative trap teams, do not send three forwards in deep after the puck. Hyrbid trap teams will sometimes forecheck aggressively, but only until they have a lead. Once they have the lead, they tend to drop guys back and plug up the neutral zone in those 1-2-2, 1-4, or 1-3-1 formations. This is a major tactical difference between those who always encourage puck pursuit (think Torts or Bylsma) and those who do not (think Hitchcock or Lemaire).

Defense-first teams also do not give their offensive defensemen free reign to pinch, jump into the play, or join the rush. They are much more conservative with their blueliners. The Rangers certainly allow their defensemen to get involved offensively, so long as someone covers them.

Now where things get a little muddled is defensive zone play. Up until a few year years ago, trapping teams were really the only teams who collapsed in front of their net and blocked shots. More aggressive teams sent two forwards towards the blueline or would let one forward cherry-pick in the neutral zone.

Times have changed and defensive zone play has gotten more sophisticated. In today’s NHL, more and more teams are collapsing to the net and blocking shots regardless of what their overall offensive strategy is. Point in case, during the 2001-02 season 10 teams blocked over a 1,000 shots. Last season all but two teams blocked over 1,000 shots.

So before we go blame a hockey system on a star player’s lack of production, let’s first understand what that hockey system actually is.

New tactic helping to boost Rangers’ offense

By now hopefully all of you have read our hockey systems page and have a basic understanding of the game from an x’s and o’s perspective. Today we are going to turn it up a notch and get into advanced hockey tactics.

Sorry, no trade rumor talk today

In order to comprehend complex forechecking schemes, you have to throw away the notion of forwards being referred to as centers, leftwings, and rightwings. In today’s sophisticated systems, coaches label their players by their distance from the puck.

F1 is the forward closest to the puck. F2 is the forward second closest to the puck. F3 is the forward furthest from the puck. Sounds simple right?

The difficulty is every forward has different responsibilities in different areas of the ice (i.e. Offensive Zone, Neutral Zone, Defensive Zone) and every forward needs to be aware of each other’s responsibilities.

The reasoning is simple. Every forward is going to find themselves as F1, F2, or F3 at some point during the game. And when they find themselves in one of these roles, they better know what they should be doing or a breakdown will ensue.

Got it? Good.

I’ve been noticing lately that Torts & Sullivan have our boys executing a new forechecking tactic, which I believe is helping our penalty kill create some offense. Specifically, it’s called a T-Forecheck.

Read more »

The Myth Of The “Untouchable” Player/Prospect

The term “untouchable” is often tossed around on Twitter, on blogs, and around the interwebs in many different forms. “Untouchable” is a term that fans have given to players they have either grown attached to, think are special in some way, or are vital to the organization’s well being. In the business that is hockey, there is no such thing as an “untouchable” player. Everyone can be had in the right deal. Including the most important player the Rangers have had since Brian Leetch: Henrik Lundqvist.

Now, will Lundqvist be traded? Absolutely not. But let’s say the Red Wings came calling for Hank, and they offered up Jimmy Howard, Henrik Zetterberg, and a top prospect for Lundqvist. Only a fool would say no to that trade. We all love Lundqvist, but in this case, I make that trade. Remember: emotions have no place in the business of the game.

“Untouchable” is a phrase that is used for prospects as well, which is mind boggling to be honest. I again use the Bobby Ryan for Chris Kreider scenario. Ryan is proven, and still young. Kreider is still unknown, and at his absolute peak is what Bobby Ryan is today. If the Ducks ask for Kreider for Ryan, you make the trade (assuming the other pieces make sense of course).

The phrase “untouchable” is a phrase used by those who have formed emotional attachments to players, prospects, and picks. Any player, any prospect, or any pick can be had in the right deal. It is a general manager’s job to evaluate all possible trades and determine the best path for his team’s success. If that means trading the captain, or the top prospect, or the heart of the team, then so be it. It is the cost of doing business in the NHL.

Actually, the more I write this post, the more I realize there are a few players that are “untouchable”. Those are the players with no-movement or no-trade clauses. They are “untouchable” because they can’t be moved without their approval. But even then, they aren’t really “untouchable”, they are just more difficult to move.

Is there an end to the madness that is the phrase “untouchable?” Likely not, but might I suggest saying “It would take a big overpayment to get that player.” Much like the Lundqvist example above, the Rangers aren’t moving him unless there is a huge overpayment. No general manager would make that trade, but it’s a trade that would make Hank very, very movable. No one is “untouchable.” Period.

Scouting The Deadline Part 3: Identifying Trade Partners And The Deal

Part 1: Identifying Team Needs and Surpluses
Part 2: Identifying Appropriate Return For Assets

As we roll into the trade deadline, rumors are going to be appearing from every possible angle. Aside from judging the source (note: HFBoards is not a source), there are a few ways to tell if a rumor is legitimate or if it is just someone blowing hot air. This Scouting The Deadline series is going to be a three part series where identify and analyze the three key steps in the trade process. Today is the third and final post, and it will address identifying the ideal trade partner and that perfect deal. All three posts are now permanently pinned in the brand new GM Tactics page.

In the first two posts, we identified where the Rangers have a surplus (defensive prospects), and where they have a need (top six LW), and where other teams need help (Ducks – defensive defensemen, Coyotes – offense). We also identified what exactly the return should be for specific types of players. The key to building a successful trade is identifying where those needs for the Rangers coincide with a surplus for a trading partner; and where those surpluses for the Rangers coincide with a need for a trading partner.

This again brings us back to the Anaheim Ducks. The Ducks, as mentioned above, have a big need for a defensive defenseman. Between Cam Fowler, Francois Beauchemin, and Lubomir Visnovsky, the Ducks are set in terms of blueliners that can contribute offensively. But outside of Toni Lydman, they lack that pure defensive defenseman who is capable of playing top-four minutes. The Rangers have that in abundance, with a few more on the way.

Focusing on Bobby Ryan for a second (again, I know, you must be tired of it), he fills a big need for the Rangers, and the Rangers definitely have the pieces to acquire him. While the rumored asking price is two roster players, a prospect, and a first round pick; the more likely asking price is one young roster player, one prospect, and a pick. The quality of the prospect and the quality of the pick will be determined by the quality of the roster player.

Backing away from the Ducks for a second, let’s look at the Phoenix Coyotes, who we identified have a big need for a scoring prospect. The Rangers have three big names that can fit that bill: Chris Kreider, JT Miller, and Christian Thomas. While Kreider is unlikely to be moved for any of the players on the Coyotes roster, including Shane Doan, someone like Thomas sure is intriguing to a team like Phoenix. That said, when you look at the Coyotes roster, it is tough to really find a player that jumps out at you as a guy you are willing to move Miller or Thomas for. These guys won’t be moved for rentals, as discussed in the second post in this series.

It is due to this lack of intriguing options on the Coyotes that makes any potential deal with them to be less of a blockbuster type and more of a rental for spare parts type. With so many defensemen becoming free agents, a prospect who is not as high on the Rangers depth chart (see: Valentenko, Pavel) could be equally as attractive for the Coyotes. They aren’t a perfect match, but there is a deal to be made there for a rental.

It’s never quite as simple as throwing names up on the board and saying that the deal works, but right now we have identified two teams that seem to be good trading partners, and have the tools to make it work. Now it’s a matter of identifying that perfect deal, which takes us back to knowing what you want for your assets.

“The Deal” here is not going to be top prospects or young roster players for a rental. That doesn’t fit the Rangers M.O. anymore. So you can eliminate any worries of Thomas for Whitney, or Kreider for Whitney, or Kreider for Hemsky, etc. But if the organization feels they can make a run –and every sign points to them looking like they can– then the powers that be might look to deal one of these top prospects to fill a need. After all, hockey is about winning Cups and using assets to build that Cup contender.

Scouting The Deadline Part 2: Identifying Appropriate Return For Assets

Part 1: Identifying Team Needs and Surpluses

As we roll into the trade deadline, rumors are going to be appearing from every possible angle. Aside from judging the source (note: HFBoards is not a source), there are a few ways to tell if a rumor is legitimate or if it is just someone blowing hot air. This Scouting The Deadline series is going to be a three part series where identify and analyze the three key steps in the trade process. Today is the second post, and it will address identifying appropriate returns for assets.

First things first, let’s define what an asset to the organization is. A player is an asset, and an asset is used to help build a Stanley Cup contending team. Assets can be players in the lineup, assets can be prospects, assets can be picks. Not every draft pick plays for the NHL club, and not every pick is used in the draft. The goal of a general manager in this league is to identify what assets mean to the organization, and what the minimum return for that asset would have to be to be moved.

For trade deadline buyers, the return is almost always a player that will serve as an upgrade for the playoffs. For sellers, the return is almost always picks and/or prospects to help build for the future. Regardless of the position a team is in, these are the generalized returns that GM’s look for.

Going deeper into this for buyers, the return does change depending on which players are to be dealt. Using Brandon Dubinsky as an example here (hypothetical, not an actual rumor), he is an integral part of the Rangers current structure. The Rangers won’t move him for a rental, nor should they. Dubinsky has tremendous value to the club. However, when referring to what was said above, trading Dubinsky isn’t exactly out of the question if the return is another roster player that serves as an upgrade at the position. This goes hand in hand with identifying team needs and surpluses, the first part of this series.

Using the first post, I identified that the Rangers have a need for a top six left wing with proven elite offensive talent. Using the Bobby Ryan example again, Ryan serves as a significant offensive upgrade over Dubinsky. So taking a step back and looping back to the original point of the post: Would Bobby Ryan be an appropriate return for trading Dubinsky? I’d have to think the answer here is yes.

But there’s more to it than just roster players. A prospect that most fans think is untouchable is Chris Kreider. First let’s go with one thing: No player, prospect, or draft pick is untouchable. Period.

Back to Kreider, his potential is widely known, but it is still just potential. He has not done anything at the NHL level, so while he is considered to be a top prospect, he is not a NHL player yet. At his peak, he actually pans out to be another Bobby Ryan: an elite power forward. When you are given the opportunity to trade potential for the proven talent, and that talent has yet to hit his prime, the deal must be made. Ryan is proven at a young age, Kreider is not.

Summing up the last few paragraphs, it makes sense that the Rangers would consider trading Chris Kreider or Brandon Dubinsky for Bobby Ryan. It meets their criteria of what the appropriate return is. That said, appropriate return also addresses overpayment. A deal with both Kreider and Dubinsky for Ryan would be an overpayment. That is not an appropriate return.

Getting away from Bobby Ryan for a moment, let’s address another type of player that is usually available: the rental. The rental is a player that fills a hole for the short term, but is unlikely to return following the playoffs.

Ray Whitney and Shane Doan fall into the rental category. Would a rental be an appropriate return for a core roster player (Dubinsky) or an elite prospect (Kreider)? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t mean a deal is dead. I identified the surplus for the Rangers to be defensive prospects. Is it really unfathomable that the Rangers would view Whitney as a good return for someone like Pavel Valentenko, who has dropped so far on the depth chart he’s collecting dust?

Confused? Think I’m making things too difficult? I might be, but I also might not be. Trades are not made on message boards or in NHL 12. Most trades take weeks of talking and negotiating, and conversations like this one are had on a daily basis. Trading is the science of preparation, negotiation, and sticking to your guns. Preparation includes those surpluses and needs, but it also is about going in knowing what you are willing to give up for a specified return. That is the toughest part of the GM’s job.

Scouting The Deadline Part 1: Identifying Team Needs And Surpluses

As we roll into the trade deadline, rumors are going to be appearing from every possible angle. Aside from judging the source (note: HFBoards is not a source), there are a few ways to tell if a rumor is legitimate or if it is just someone blowing hot air. This Scouting The Deadline series is going to be a three part series where identify and analyze the three key steps in the trade process. Today is the first post, and it will address identifying team needs and surpluses.

If you watch a team long enough, like we have with the Rangers, it’s easy to identify where the team needs and surpluses are. For the Rangers, it’s clear there isn’t much depth on the top six, especially at left wing. Naturally, when the deadline approaches, it is a fair assumption that the Rangers will look to fill that hole. That hole was severely exposed when both Brandon Dubinsky and Ruslan Fedotenko were out of the lineup. On the other side of things, with Mike Sauer returning to the lineup soon, the Rangers are going to have a lot of capable defensemen on their hands.

Identifying other team’s needs and surpluses is a much more difficult task. This requires research (gasp).  Looking at how a team is performing in critical aspects of the game is the best place to start. Taking the Ducks for example, their defense isn’t exactly anything to write home about. When you look at the structure of their blue line, the expiring contracts, and the lack of overall defense being played, it’s clear that if they are to unload a piece of their core, they will require a defensive defenseman in return. It’s why when we analyzed the Bobby Ryan situation, we mentioned that Mike Sauer might have to be an obligatory piece to ship to Anaheim.

But it’s not just about the Rangers and the Ducks. Let’s look at the Phoenix Coyotes, who are quickly falling out of the playoff race. When looking at their roster, it is clear they need some top-six forwards, as their roster is comprised mostly of grinding forwards.  Only three players are on pace for 60 points on their roster. Looking deeper into the roster, you can see a need for a defenseman or two at the NHL level as well. In the ‘Yotes case, their surplus is expiring contracts that don’t have a long term future with the organization (this is true of most sellers).

But a trade isn’t made by just looking at the NHL level, so by looking at the prospects in the Coyotes’ system, you can see that four of their top five prospects are defensemen.  In fact, only three of their top ten prospects are forwards. So in a trade, it is safe to assume they are going to look for scoring prospects to help retool their offensive threats. This is why when we laughed at the Shane Doan rumors, we said that Chris Kreider or Christian Thomas would have to be in that deal.

Making a trade is a two way street. Teams are looking to fill holes, be it for the immediate or long term future of their clubs. In the Rangers case, the team need is a top six LW. To fill that need, the Rangers have identified that their surplus is young defensemen, as  Dylan McIlrath and Tim Erixon will also be pushing for roster spots. That’s a lot, even for the most cost-savvy of teams. If the Rangers are to make a move, it will be a move to fill their offensive needs by trading some of their younger defensive prospects.

Hockey Tactics: Executing 2-on-1s

If you’ve ever followed a twitter feed during a Rangers telecast, then you’re probably aware of the attempts at “color analysis” that often take place. Now I’m not one to call out the preponderance of errors from the Joe Micheletti’s to be, but I do cringe at some of the faulty finger pointing.

To alleviate some of this we figured it’s about time we get back to basics and open up our hockey systems playbook. Today we will focus on executing 2-on-1s, since they often produce plenty of tweets that will read, “OMG! Dubi should have shot the puck!” or “Why the **** did Richards pass?”

In today’s NHL, an odd man situation is often a team’s best chance to score, thanks to an ever increasing sophistication to team defense & penalty killing. That’s why it is crucial these rushes be executed to perfection.

The most important aspect to getting a good quality shot on net in these situations is reading the defender. First you have to read the defender’s body position. Is he cheating toward you or his playing the pass? Defenders are taught to take away your “time and space.” This means if he’s cheating towards you, then his goal is to force you wide and eliminate your shooting angle. You also have to be cognizant of the defender’s handedness. Is his forehand facing you or is his backhand? His stick angle will tell you if he’s playing the shot or the pass.

For example, in this image below Cally and Dubi are on a 2-on-1 rush that ends with Cally putting a soft wrister right into the keeper’s belly. Looking at the photo and his options. Do you think he made the right decision?

Read more »

Earning icetime in John Tortorella’s system

It seems like there are some common misconceptions with regards to how Torts distributes ice time among his forwards. I figured I would cherry-pick a few of our reader’s comments and explain some of the logic behind how ice time is earned on this team.

Keep in mind I am not trying to call people out for their opinions; I am just using these quotes as a point of reference.

Misconception #1 – Salary Plays A Role In Ice time

“If Torts is gonna have to play guys according to their $$$$$ (think Dubi) he should go back to CT.”

Let’s ignore the “sending Dubi to the Whale” comment and focus on the salary part of this sentence. One of the reasons why I prefered Torts over Tom Renney had to do with income being irrelevant when it comes to earning ice time. If the above statement were true, then Drury and Redden would still be on the team and Dubi would not have seen his minutes decrease over the last couple of weeks.

Renney preferred to lean on his veterans, which is why guys like Redden, Rozi, and Gomer were rarely ever scratched, let alone riding pine. Torts on the other hand has proven time and time again that if our youth plays well, they will see their minutes go up. Point in case Hagelin is getting PK time, Stepan’s on the first line, MDZ is on the power play, etc.

Misconception #2- Not All Players Are Created Equal

“My main complaint is not Dubi here, its more the way Torts doesn’t treat everyone the same.”

Gaborik was benched the other night against Buffalo during the second period because his turnover lead to a goal. If that wasn’t enough to prove that no one man is greater than this team, then I don’t know what will. Torts has a very long history on both the Rangers and in Tampa for benching players for lackadaisical play.

Now as far as a guy’s place on the depth chart is concerned, I think people will often have an affinity for a bottom six player, like a Boyle or an Avery, and wonder why they don’t get more ice time if they are playing well. It’s all about what your individual role is on this team and what your expected output is given that role.

Consistent play will earn you more ice time within your given role. Dave had a great example of this yesterday regarding the utilization of Erik Christensen over Sean Avery. Avery’s role is to agitate. Special teams is not a place where agitating is a necessary skill set.  So his total ice time can only climb so high.

Misconception #3- Lack Of Offense Equals Less Ice Time

“If another player is doing better they should play. You earn your ice time. If WoWo earns it he should play.

While normally this quote would be true, there are shades of grey here. If a top 6 player isn’t scoring, they shouldn’t be demoted or benched if they’re playing well in all three zones. Dubinsky is a classic example of this. He was playing well earlier in the season. He wasn’t scoring goals, but he was making plays, forechecking, & playing solid defense. People called for his demotion to the fourth line because he wasn’t scoring, but it was premature. Torts had confidence in him and stuck with him.

The last week or two his play away from the puck started to plateau and he was coasting. Luckily other players were stepping up and were more deserving of ice time. The result was his demotion to the fourth line, which at that point was the right thing to do. But now we are getting to the point where we need Dubi to get going offensively, because like I said in Misconception #2, his role is to provide secondary scoring. I think if he plays a few hard-nosed games he will eventually move up.

So I guess to sum this all up, when it comes to ice time things aren’t always black and white. But if you think about these three examples, you should have a better idea of what it takes to see your guy out on the ice more often.

Breaking down Tampa’s 1-3-1 forecheck

Ever since the Philadelphia Flyers elected not to challenge Tampa Bay’s 1-3-1 forecheck, I’ve been reading a lot of erroneous things about the 1-3-1, neutral zone traps and just hockey tactics in general. The last thing I’d ever want is for misinformation to be percolating into the minds of Rangers fans, so if you have a few minutes, let me take you through a more in-depth look at what exactly the Tampa Bay Lightning are doing and how to beat their formations.

To simply write off the 1-3-1 as this decade’s version of Devil’s hockey is not giving Guy Boucher enough credit. As I said in my hockey system’s post, the 1-3-1 can be both a defensive schematic and an aggressive one. It all depends on where the puck is located in the offensive zone and whether or not the opposition has complete possession.

For instance, in the photo above, which was taken from the recent Flyers/Lightning game, you will notice that the puck is not in deep and the Flyers have clear possession of the puck (the right defensemen). In this instance, the Lightning (circled in blue) do not want to forecheck. Instead they trap the neutral zone and wait for the puck to be brought up ice where they will attempt to turn the puck over.

So how do you beat this scheme? The same way you beat Boston’s 1-4 or the Devils 1-2-2… dump and chase or attack the neutral zone as a unit with short passes, as seen here.

Now in this photo against the Caps the puck is in deep and the Caps d-man doesn’t have clean possession. Tampa reacts and forechecks aggressively in that same 1-3-1 formation. You will notice that there is half a blue circle off to screen right. That is where the Lightning’s right defensemen has pinched in to provide support.

Here Malone wins the battle down low, feeds whoever is at the left circle, who then feeds St. Louis in the slot for an easy goal.

So that’s the 1-3-1 in a nutshell. You can either try to beat it or you can do what Mike Milbury did and walk off the set in protest. Seriously, how does this buffoon still have a job?

Reasons for line tinkering

The line combos, the line combos…it’s always the same complaint isn’t it? Since the advent of the internet I feel like I read the same complaints about the Rangers year in and year out. There’s always a stretch of games at some point during the season where either the fans, the bloggers, or the beat writers don’t like what they are seeing and the result is people crying about line combos. It’s as if they know nothing else.

Well, maybe it’s about time we explained why coaches actually shuffle lines around. Notice I said coaches and not just John Tortorella.

Every coach in the NHL tweaks their lines when things aren’t quite right. Renney does it, Boudreau does it, Quenneville does it, Blysma does it, they all do it. So here’s a quick lesson on why and when line tinkering may be appropriate.

Lesson #1 – You Start From Scratch Every Season

It sounds cliche, but it’s true. Every season you start fresh. New players come in, old players get kicked to the curb, and coaches have to take time to figure out how all of these pieces fit the puzzle.

Do we want our third line to be a shutdown checking line, or are those spots going to be reserved for 1st liners in training?

Is our first line going to be Richards and Gabby with Dubi or Wolski? Well, it has been neither. Dubi is off to a slow start again and Wolski’s been playing with his rubber ducky. Point is, it generally takes 15 games or so to figure out what’s working and what needs to be trashed.

Lesson #2 – Play The Hot Hand

There’s an old saying, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it.” Well what about when things are broken, or in hockey terms, when certain members of your roster aren’t producing? Coaches have to tinker with lines, tactics, and roster spots in order to win games.

Nothing is worse than seeing a coach trot out the Redden’s and Rozi’s hoping that they will magically turn back the clocks. You have to replace guys who aren’t playing well. Sometimes it’s for only a few shifts, other times it’s indefinite. You have to play the hot hand.

If Brad Richards and Gabby are flying and Dubi isn’t, guess who is getting yanked? Someone has to be able to keep up with those two. Some nights it will be Stepan, other nights it will be someone else. Until Kreider is ready, or Hagelin, or whoever, there is going to be a rotating door at LW. Get used to it.

Lesson #3 – Spread The Coverage

Breaking up Richards and Gabby is far from ideal, as those two should be spending time together to develop chemistry. With that said, opposing coaches aren’t dumb. The drawback of concentrating all of your offense on to a single line will simply cause coaches to assign their best checkers to smother them.

This is why the Dubi-Arty-Cally line NEEDS to get going. But if they remain flat (hello Arty) and the game is close, breaking up Richards and Gaborik here and there is just one of those necessary evils that you must do to spread the coverage.

If your secondary scoring threat is an inconsequential one, then a change has to be made and ultimately it is Tortorella’s job to continually cover up those weaknesses.

Now I know you may not agree with these ideas, but at least they are tactical ideas. So please, before you 40%’ers moan about how Johnny Boy has got to go, please enlighten us with an alternative.

***Update: Please refer to Chris In MA’s comments below about learning linemates’ tendencies and in-game bruises. They are both excellent points.