The new catch phrase around here is "sitting on a lead" and other versions of the idea.  It seems to be thrown out every time the B's score early and give up a couple of goals.

Can someone who believes in this theory please explain to me exactly what constitutes "sitting on a lead"?  How can you tell they're sittting on a lead?  What does the offense do?  What does the defense do?

How do you know?

Thanks.

They spend the rest of the night in their own end - just as they did!

In response to bingobilly's comment:

And you believe this is intentional?

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Indirectly intentional as it is a byproduct of playing half "court" prevent defense...

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Yes..Just like you being a dick head is!

This isn't just being used here:

http://bruins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=659859&navid=DL|BOS|home

----

"No, I think it was the energy, was more the way we approached the third period," alternate captain Patrice Bergeron told media, when asked if his team ran out of gas at the end. "We sat back."

"The first 40 we were going at them on the forecheck, we were first on pucks, and we were getting results," added Bergeron, as he spoke from the locker room, looking unable to find the words after the frustrating loss.

----

"I think we were sitting back way too much and then we kept putting the pucks in," said Dennis Seidenberg, who had played in his 200th career NHL game as Bruin. "They were playing on three quarters ice. We just didn't gap up quick enough, and at the end it was just little turnovers, like my own that led to the third goal. We've just got to be better and make a safer play in those situations."

----

"It's nothing that you can control, that's your schedule," said Bergeron on the doubled-up games. "I hope it's not an excuse, because we're going to go through that a lot more the rest of the year."

"It's about finding a way. Like I said, it's about finding the energy, more than sitting back. We didn't want to make any mistakes and because of that, we did."

----

I think that last part is what a lot of people mean: focussing so much on not making a mistake that they don't take any of the risks that are often needed to generate a scoring chance.  Last night may have had a lot more to do with the Penguins offensive pressure than any decision to focus on defense to the exclusion of offense, though.

If it wasn't just sloppy play and they actually were trying o play "prevent defense" to sit on their lead, they would have gone to the trap. They didn't.

In response to DrCC's comment:

According to Bergeron the Bruins strayed from what was working for them.

They didn't play well for the full 60. Period. They were outworked in the 3rd and looked a bit tired. Sitting on a lead is not something I've ever seen this team do.

In response to WalkTheLine's comment:

I don't think they were sitting on anything, but their own behinds! 

In response to red75's comment:

This is what I noticed more than any strategic change in play -- they looked tired and sloppy.  It may have looked like they took their foot off the gas to protect the lead, but it actually seemed more like the same game plan with a more timid, lackluster approach.  Protecting the lead would have been a fine strategy if they did it aggressively.  

As red said, it's not like they dropped into a trap.  They just slowed their hustle, didn't backcheck hard, and played dowright sloppy at the end.  Clearly Julien noticed the dip in performance, as I can think of no other reason he would keep the 4th line out with 1:15 and a faceoff on the O-zone.

They looked like they were skating with cement boots on in the 3rd period.

I thought it was a combination of the Penguins skating harder and the Bruins not trying to make a mistake, which Seindberg did. If it was not for that errant pass, the B's maybe could have taking the Penguins into overtime.

Learning curves. I hope the lesson is learned before playoff time.

PP got us a goal last nite !!!  Baby steps

 

"Sitting on the lead" is a misused term, I agree.  Perhaps, "more conservative play" so the other team does not score would be better,  and could include some of the following:   "collapsing everyone inside the "home plate" area in front of the goal when the puck is in the defensive end.  It could include sending in ONLY 1 forechecker or perhaps 0 forecheckers instead of 2.  It could include ONLY dumping the puck in when you hit the redline instead of "taking it to the other team".  It could include taking an icing if the puck is in one's zone as a safe play.  It could include EVERYONE going down to block shots.  It could include your goalie covering up all pucks for faceoffs.   It could include having 2 men high in the offensive zone.  It could include locking on to the other teams wingers during the forecheck.  It could include no cross ice passes, nothing up the middle, and having the D only using the glass or wall during the breakout.  It could include no D-men ever joining the rush to attack.  I hope this helps. 

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

next thread will be about what these "hockey cliche's " mean  LOL

You know the OP doesn't like player nicknames, word cliche's and 3 goal leads (or 2 or 1).

 

 

Maybe we should dedicate a new thread to the most annoying hockey cliches out there.  Many don't really make any sense.

In response to red75's comment:

You continue to say that the Bruins don't trap.  What do you call a 1-2-2?  They are always in this in the neutral zone and Brick talks about it almost on a nightly basis.

DrCC. In your link, Julien is being very honest when he says "They were the fresh team." That really is the end of the story. Everything else Bergeron and Seidenberg are saying are rehearshed cliches Fletcher1 is talking about.

In response to MeanE's comment:

I have never said they don't trap - I have said they don't use it frequently and that they weren't using it in the third last night. They pick their spots for it, but more often than not they'll use their structure to force a turnover either in the offensive zone or the neutral zone itself. While they do in certain circumstances try to use their sructure to force a dump-in from the neutral zone - "the trap" - that's not their primary defensive strategy. 1-2-2 is not in and of itself "the trap", it's how the 1-2-2 is then used.

In response to red75's comment:

Semantics.  If the Bruins weren't in a 1-2-2, what were they in, besides their own end last night?  So with your thinking "the Trap" is only when an opposing team dumps the puck?

In response to MeanE's comment:

 

Semantics.  If the Bruins weren't in a 1-2-2, what were they in, besides their own end last night?  So with your thinking "the Trap" is only when an opposing team dumps the puck?

 

 

It's not semantics. The trap by definition is the use of the 1-2-2 to force the opposing team onto the boards and cause a dump-in to your own zone, with the puck being picked up by the back D. That is the trap - it's not a structure, it's not the use of 1-2-2, it's not strong neutral or own zone D. It is a specific play. You can call other things the trap, but then you'd be wrong.

 

Don't think they sat on anything. Shots for the Bruins by period went 5-7-4. They probably would have had more shots in the 3rd if they didnt have to kill a 5 on 3. No reason to open it up offensively, especially against the Penguins. I thought they had the same game plan throughout the whole game, shut down Crosby.

In response to red75's comment:

Who's definition, yours?  The trap is used to create turnovers! A dump-in is not the definition of the trap.

It's the definition of any coach who teaches it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq4Q6XKZx_w

that's the trap.

In response to red75's comment:

Since you think that you are right regarding the trap definition, which you are not, you still haven't answered my question.  What were the bruins playing last night in the neutral zone.  What is Claude's normal system that he impliments in the neutral zone and on the forecheck?

In response to red75's comment:

From your link:

"Once the puck carrier is on the outside the second forward can apply the trap and the third forward can block up the middle of the ice looking for a turnover.
Ultimately you want the puck carrier to either dump the puck before they reach the red line or force him into a bad decision pass."