WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hockey-101. Show hockey-101's posts

    WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

                         
               Too much D,not enough O.Xs and Os when did hockey become football and or basketball anyway?Who started this trap thing and when?Hockey is a creative,fast,free wheeling sport by nature.Who the turned this great game into football and or basketball Xs and Os?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    A Swedish coach supposely started the trap system almost like an arrow affect.
    One forward attacks two at the opponents blue line and the d men in the neutral zone. If you watch Cherry's style coaching he would dump, send in one forward then two will follow(one will penetrate the net screen ie Wensink his claim the fame) then the d men would set up at the points. It was simple but worked. Hence he never like the finese player only a couple on his team.Cherry always liked to play the boards but his weakness was open ice ie the canadians his achilles heal.


                                      
         D  />                F  />
                                                   F />

                                                         
         D  />                F />        

                                   
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    YUP -- Bowman always owned Cherry.

    Still does, in fact.

    Recently, Bowman advised the Habs should keep Price while Cherry questioned trading Halak.

    Owned again, Donnie Boy !

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    Bowman never "owned" Cherry or anybody. He had the team with the most talent. Put Guy Lafleur on the Bruins and see what a genius Bowman is ... and bob224 - that would also solve your "open ice" issue with Cherry.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheShepherd. Show TheShepherd's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?



    I wasnt around in the 70's for the habs and the Bowman Trap. my first memories of hockey were catholic memorial vs bc high in the late 80's, i remember it being crazy (maybe because i was 8 or 9)... then cam neely was fighting the injury bug. rosie ruzicka, adam oates, randy burridge doing the pump... and the NEW JERSEY DEVILS TRAP! Jaques Lemaires devils in the mid 90's were atrocious to watch. Dump and chase, then trap, then marty broduer comes out in the corner and picks up the puck... I think it was actually called "the left wing Lock"

    They could have banned "two-line offsides" in the 80's and things would have been alot nicer growing up a hockey fan. The trapazoid def helped too.

    Personally, i think the game has to be more x's and o's cause the players now a days are so skilled, if it became more individual, you would see players getting dogged by guys like crosby, stammer and datsyuk... just completely exposed.

    I think the game has changed mostly with the penalties... I love watching old classic games and the Hooking and Holding that went on back then was RIDICULOUS!!! i had no i dea it was that bad!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stuke50. Show Stuke50's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    Sportsnet boys were talking about this the other day. The successful hockey teams today are the teams that know how to play chip in hockey and are very good at special teams. PP and PK.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hockey-101. Show hockey-101's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?



                  An old time NHL great once said "you work so hard to get the puck why give it back to the other team".Great stuff.Wish I could remember who said it.I remember watching the Devels  and would say to myself this is boring hockey,what is so great about the Devels.It seems like hockey is slowing down.I had no idea what a trap was,but apparently they did it very well.BORRRRing to watch.Maybe that's why hockey declined a bit.They sped it up with the no clutching,hooking,and grabbing though.But I still hate the games that stay in the middle of the ice,dump and chase and don't go up and down.But I understand there are 4 guys behind a bench now.Much like football Thanks for the drawing boborielly224.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    It would obviously never happen, but if you watch some hockey on the bigger Olympic sized ice sheet you realize that would be the death of the trap.  It looks more like what you see in the 4 on 4 overtime -- way too much lateral room in the nuetral zone for a trap to be effective.  Speed and skill are on display...

    I think it would be awesome to move to the bigger ice sheet, but as I said, it is totally implausible for a number of reasons.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    Fletcher, I'd love to see international ice used as well, but you're right that it will never happen. Only 5 rinks in the laugue are capable of expanding to those dimensions (plus the two team ready rinks in KC and Winnipeg). There's too much expense involved in making the change.

    I do however think while I hate the trap, it is nowhere near as bad as it from 1995 until the lockout - the Devils and their emulators produced the worst era ofhockey ever.

    Back when the Flames made their cup run against the Lightning, both teams used fire wagon hockey - I can't think of one team in the league that uses that style anymore.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    In Response to Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?:
    It would obviously never happen, but if you watch some hockey on the bigger Olympic sized ice sheet you realize that would be the death of the trap.  It looks more like what you see in the 4 on 4 overtime -- way too much lateral room in the nuetral zone for a trap to be effective.  Speed and skill are on display... I think it would be awesome to move to the bigger ice sheet, but as I said, it is totally implausible for a number of reasons.
    Posted by Fletcher1

    Speaking of ice size,I've always felt the reason home teams no longer dominate in the play-offs is the league wide uniform ice size.Back in the old days there were rinks like the old Garden and the Aud in Buffalo that were considerably smaller than most other rinks.The Bruins and Sabres drafted their teams accordingly.The Habs,for instance,had a bigger rink and drafted the lafleur style of fast skaters and boston drafted more grinders.It wasn't rare to see a 7 game series with the home team winning every  game.Now it seems it dosen't matter who hosts the game as all the rinks are essentially the same.Makes me wish the league would give more leeway in regards to ice size.Bring some team personality back into the game.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    In Response to Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?:
    YUP -- Bowman always owned Cherry. Still does, in fact. Recently, Bowman advised the Habs should keep Price while Cherry questioned trading Halak. Owned again, Donnie Boy !
    Posted by RMiller87


    Correct answer !  He started the trap system.  Cherry was full ahead forecheck.
    Take the talent Bowman had, add the big 3 in front of Dryden and there's your winning formula. 
    Today it's called the trap.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    I think what people are really talking about here started with Roger Neilson in the 80s - using a passive, risk-averse approach to minimize scoring chances so that a team with little offensive talent has a chance against a team of high-flyers.  It's the equivalent of a ball control strategy in football - keep the other team's offense off the field and they can't score.  Probably the beginning of the apocalypse, though, was the 1986 St. Louis Blues under Jacques Demers.  They made the conference finals playing the most passive version of the system I've ever seen, icing the puck as a strategy to keep the game from gaining any flow, because once it started to flow, they were woefully overmatched against that year's Flames.  Because they made the conference finals, a lot of eyeballs saw how far you could go by frustrating your opponent into mistakes.

    Bowman's left wing wing lock wasn't designed to make a bad team competitive.  It aimed to create odd-man situations where the Shabitants could take advantage of their open ice skills.  When the Devils were at their peak, they had more than a few guys with open ice skills once the system turned the puck over to them.

    It's also not just one thing - the wave of European players brought a wave of European strategy based on puck possession and the wider ice surface (which does NOT lead to better hockey or more scoring - sorry Fletch).  '72 demonstrated the value of circling back and keeping possession of the puck, moving laterally, and working as a coordinated unit.  It took almost a decade for an NHL team to really integrate that strategy - the Oil.  When you combine a fad for maintaining puck possession with a fad for closing off the puck carrier's options to create turn-overs, you get a perfect storm of passive hockey.

    We're through the worst of it now that the culture change on hooking and holding and cross-checks to the backs of guys in front of the net has taken hold.  It's much harder to take away all of a guy's options if the targets of his passes are allowed to move freely, and the dump and chase is way more effective if the forwards aren't allowed to slow up the forecheck.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    In Response to Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?:
    It's also not just one thing - the wave of European players brought a wave of European strategy based on puck possession and the wider ice surface (which does NOT lead to better hockey or more scoring - sorry Fletch). 

    I think I might understand your point, but don't really agree.  I did not say that a wider ice surface leads to more scoring per se, although I think that it might in the NHL.  What a wider ice surface does do, is make the traditional trap (clogging up the nuetral zone) much, much more difficult to execute.  The extra space leaves more room for skating skill and passing around the defenders that are set in the nuetral zone to force attackers into certain directions or lanes.  Open ice is kryptonite to the trap. 

    As far as a larger ice surface making for "better hockey" or not -- that is truly a subjective thing.  You may not like it.  I do.  You should explain why think it is worse hockey, some might agree, some might not.  I watch Colorado College play a lot (olympic sized rink) and I love the space.  Players generate more speed and skating is a bigger part of the game.  There is less hooking, obstruction, and clutching and players need to rely on their mobility more than defensive systems designed to slow down the game.  This is part of the reason the NHL has made overtime 4 on 4 -- more space, more speed, more excitement.

    There are also some downsides, like a little less hitting and more of perimiter game in the offensive zones.  There also seem to be less turnovers and therefore longer possession and less back and forth rushes.  To each his own.

    I'm not even suggesting that the NHL move to the big surface, because I understand the logistics are impossible.  But, if you watch hockey on a bigger surface, you'll see attempts at defensive zone traps typically fail. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    I am not professed on 50's hockey but read once that the Canadians played the trap in those times.  Kennedy97 may know if he is reading this.  Anywho, Gretzky was the one who changed hockey in the 80s.  With the influx of European players the "fad" or "trend" was offensive play.  Nielsen and then Lemaire introduced the trap to stop the trend, which btw coincided with the end of the "Gretzy era".  I still feel and think the trap would be limited with the concentration of better players on less teams.  The expansion of the NHL in the mid 90s further exasperated the offensive flow.  Teams who did not have talent played the trap.  All in all it is not the size of the rink but the size of the league.  Demographically speaking, the NHL would be best NOT to expand for another ten years.  The KHL will become more of an influence in Europe leaving a major source of talent on the other side of the Atlantic.  Lastly, I can only name one system created in Sweden (Europe) that is the "torpedo" system that was aimed at thwarting the "trap".  It is used in part now because of change in rules now last decade.  Cheers to all!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikzor. Show mikzor's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    In Response to WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?:
                                     Too much D,not enough O.Xs and Os when did hockey become football and or basketball anyway?Who started this trap thing and when?Hockey is a creative,fast,free wheeling sport by nature.Who the turned this great game into football and or basketball Xs and Os?
    Posted by hockey-101


    From your posts, I just assumed you stopped watching years ago.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mattymcgee55. Show mattymcgee55's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    Systems have been in play for decades and are much more sophisticated than the 1-2-2s that have been thrown around here. How about Badger Bob's wing locks for the Cup winning Penguins 15 years ago.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hockey-101. Show hockey-101's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?


      Great posts.Never did see Gretsky or Lafleur dump and chase back in the day though.Many of the top talent do it today,its a shame.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    In Response to Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?:
    Systems have been in play for decades and are much more sophisticated than the 1-2-2s that have been thrown around here. How about Badger Bob's wing locks for the Cup winning Penguins 15 years ago.
    Posted by mattymcgee55


    Actually, if you read the posts above they go through the whole range of different trap type systems that have been used over several decades.  And, Badger Bob was directly mentioned in one of the first posts...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO HOCKEY?

    Make the goalie equipment for protecting the goalie, not for stopping the puck, and scoring will return to normal.  Look at a picture of Reggie Lemelin and compare it to Ryan Miller.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share