One theory I’m not certain about yet is that they tend to be lower in the defensive zone, making it harder to break in transition for rush chances.
And at times, teams appear to have more passing outlets in attack, because Dallas is more focused on the most dangerous areas. So prolonged pressure can result from it, as was happening more often early in the season when they kept getting hemmed in. Seems like it’s improved in the last month to me, though.
I really don’t care that they are giving up more shots from low danger spots on the ice. The two goaltenders are good enough to handle it, I think. They don’t seem to be getting as many turnovers leading to odd man rushes, which was a bigger part of PDB’s system. In essence, the Stars have given up a little offense to get more defense and maybe player energy (man to man has to be more taxing on players, although I’m mostly speculating here).
One thing that I noticed that is much cleaner now than early on when the team was getting used to the system - the first month or so, there were a good number of times where two Stars would start toward an opposition player (especially if they were down low) - so there would be a momentary, and sometimes longer, lapse of coverage in the crease.
The defenders have now gotten much better at communicating and have largely eliminate these coverage lapses. I haven't watched it as closely, but there seems to have been a similar learning curve between the defenders and the forwards. So much here is dependent on efficient switching, so communication is key, and it seems like the Stars have reached the point where much of this is happening just as a matter of course.
It’s complicated in theory, but it has gotten simpler in practice. And the numbers all suggest it is pretty effective, too. Can’t ask for much more than that.
Great article… prob great anyway… But more so because I hated the man on man system… it heavily relied on forwards covering the net front, OK as a temporary support to assist d,-to me stupid when their whole career did not include, nor were they drafted for, their defensive training or abilities!
Second observation regarding scoring… reminded me of the dark ages of the Bones era (error), now my hate of four-corners-hockey might be biasing my memory (nah), but at least one year every forward scored less than the year before, and no Star even made the top 50 scorers… boy exciting times -not!
Mostly, the Stars are just plain good. They were good under PDB, too. I suspect that they would be a very good team under any system. The real debate here is which system is more conducive to winning generally, and winning in the playoffs when only the best teams ultimately survive. Coaches, front office hockey people, and hockey philosophers might disagree. But when was the last time that a team won a Stanley Cup with PDB’s system, especially man to man defense?
I'd love to see you study the seeming struggle the Stars have on their power plays...to break into the offensive zone when the opponent has a phalanx of defenders set up. Makes me long for Zubov - who could clear space with the tiniest of head fakes.
Gulutzan did mention earlier this week that they're something like 22nd in power play zone entries, so there's certainly some work to be done. But they made some solid tweaks that showed up against Winnipeg, I thought. They're always adapting. And it's easier to adapt when you get four cracks at it.
I think these changes along with aggressive neutral zone play really helped the Stars last night during that 6 on 4 at the end of the game. The Jets barely were able to get the puck in the offensive zone, much less get set up and have any high danger chances. That was very impressive.
The neutral zone is a whole other ball of wax, but their 1-2-2 can be very solid when it's working well. At 6-on-4, it's more about their PK approach, which is also a menace at the blue line when they're firing on all cylinders.
This is a seriously good article. And again, the new system reminds me a lot of what Bruce Cassidy runs in Vegas (and, before that, Boston). It seems to me to be a more energy efficient system because players are not chasing their opponents all over the ice no matter where they go. I suppose the downside is that you won’t generate as many turnovers and transition rushes (which account for a disproportionate number of even strength goals), but when you have players like Robo, Johnston, Hintz, and the Moose in your top 6, you can generate more offense in other ways.
This is as good of an explainer about different defensive strategies as I have seen anywhere. I learned tons!
Others here seem more versed than I in hockey schemes and strategies so I very much appreciate a primer like this. Very well supported with video examples, this is tremendous work!
Completely brilliant analysis. Your work lifts my understanding of the game to a new level and makes me look forward to watching the game tonight with my hockey fanatic wife and sharing our better educated in game observations with one another. This Edina Minnesota boy who grew up with a pond in his back yard is very thankful that you write for the Stars fans. Have a marvelous Christmas.
What do you think are some potential flaws of this kind of modified zone coverage defense system?
One theory I’m not certain about yet is that they tend to be lower in the defensive zone, making it harder to break in transition for rush chances.
And at times, teams appear to have more passing outlets in attack, because Dallas is more focused on the most dangerous areas. So prolonged pressure can result from it, as was happening more often early in the season when they kept getting hemmed in. Seems like it’s improved in the last month to me, though.
Wholly agree on that second part- that DOES feel like what’s happening/ the possession skewing.
Thanks for writing!
Thanks for reading!
I really don’t care that they are giving up more shots from low danger spots on the ice. The two goaltenders are good enough to handle it, I think. They don’t seem to be getting as many turnovers leading to odd man rushes, which was a bigger part of PDB’s system. In essence, the Stars have given up a little offense to get more defense and maybe player energy (man to man has to be more taxing on players, although I’m mostly speculating here).
Great Breakdown Robert.
One thing that I noticed that is much cleaner now than early on when the team was getting used to the system - the first month or so, there were a good number of times where two Stars would start toward an opposition player (especially if they were down low) - so there would be a momentary, and sometimes longer, lapse of coverage in the crease.
The defenders have now gotten much better at communicating and have largely eliminate these coverage lapses. I haven't watched it as closely, but there seems to have been a similar learning curve between the defenders and the forwards. So much here is dependent on efficient switching, so communication is key, and it seems like the Stars have reached the point where much of this is happening just as a matter of course.
Seeing it in action, I love it.
It’s complicated in theory, but it has gotten simpler in practice. And the numbers all suggest it is pretty effective, too. Can’t ask for much more than that.
(Well, besides better 5v5 possession, that is.)
Great article… prob great anyway… But more so because I hated the man on man system… it heavily relied on forwards covering the net front, OK as a temporary support to assist d,-to me stupid when their whole career did not include, nor were they drafted for, their defensive training or abilities!
Second observation regarding scoring… reminded me of the dark ages of the Bones era (error), now my hate of four-corners-hockey might be biasing my memory (nah), but at least one year every forward scored less than the year before, and no Star even made the top 50 scorers… boy exciting times -not!
This is sooooo much more entertaining:))))
It is as fun as it’s ever been to watch Stars hockey, certainly!
Mostly, the Stars are just plain good. They were good under PDB, too. I suspect that they would be a very good team under any system. The real debate here is which system is more conducive to winning generally, and winning in the playoffs when only the best teams ultimately survive. Coaches, front office hockey people, and hockey philosophers might disagree. But when was the last time that a team won a Stanley Cup with PDB’s system, especially man to man defense?
I'd love to see you study the seeming struggle the Stars have on their power plays...to break into the offensive zone when the opponent has a phalanx of defenders set up. Makes me long for Zubov - who could clear space with the tiniest of head fakes.
Gulutzan did mention earlier this week that they're something like 22nd in power play zone entries, so there's certainly some work to be done. But they made some solid tweaks that showed up against Winnipeg, I thought. They're always adapting. And it's easier to adapt when you get four cracks at it.
I think these changes along with aggressive neutral zone play really helped the Stars last night during that 6 on 4 at the end of the game. The Jets barely were able to get the puck in the offensive zone, much less get set up and have any high danger chances. That was very impressive.
The neutral zone is a whole other ball of wax, but their 1-2-2 can be very solid when it's working well. At 6-on-4, it's more about their PK approach, which is also a menace at the blue line when they're firing on all cylinders.
Kinda similar to what Cassidy brought to Vegas after they fired ... wait for it ... Pete DeBoer.
Remember how Vegas players were openly so happy about the change, wonder how that season went for them as well.
Exactly. I just made this very same point before seeing your reply.
This is a seriously good article. And again, the new system reminds me a lot of what Bruce Cassidy runs in Vegas (and, before that, Boston). It seems to me to be a more energy efficient system because players are not chasing their opponents all over the ice no matter where they go. I suppose the downside is that you won’t generate as many turnovers and transition rushes (which account for a disproportionate number of even strength goals), but when you have players like Robo, Johnston, Hintz, and the Moose in your top 6, you can generate more offense in other ways.
Thanks, Kenneth!
Outstanding Robert!
This is as good of an explainer about different defensive strategies as I have seen anywhere. I learned tons!
Others here seem more versed than I in hockey schemes and strategies so I very much appreciate a primer like this. Very well supported with video examples, this is tremendous work!
Excellent article! :)
Thanks, Michael!
I love these articles that go in detail on the systems with video examples. Thanks for taking the time to put it together!
I genuinely enjoy them, even if I’m sure I’m missing stuff since we’re all trying to infer from the outside. Appreciate it!
Completely brilliant analysis. Your work lifts my understanding of the game to a new level and makes me look forward to watching the game tonight with my hockey fanatic wife and sharing our better educated in game observations with one another. This Edina Minnesota boy who grew up with a pond in his back yard is very thankful that you write for the Stars fans. Have a marvelous Christmas.
Understanding is an elusive goal, but hopefully I’m getting slightly less ignorant each year. Thanks for reading!