| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
dbc
(Been Here Awhile)
865 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2013 : 4:40:52 PM
|
| now 0 for 23 and the team is 4-0. Hard to see how the talent that can score this many even strength goals can't find the net on the PP. Even the winning goal today was a SH goal. |
|
|
danc
(The Next Level!)
114 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2013 : 04:41:54 AM
|
0 for 23 on the PP and a net zero on the penalty kill-1 SH goal for and one allowed in 15 PKs.
16 goals in 4 games with no PP goals makes me optimistic about this year. Add to this that Pelech and Aubin are on the IR and the offense looks very nice.
But, then again, this is the ECHL and who is on the team in October can have very little similarity to who is on the playoff roster. Still it's nice to have the possibility of having a potential offensive powerhouse.
The best defense is a good offense. Someone's quote, can't remember who it was, but Ive always liked it.
Here are some fun hockey quotes:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/563354-50-greatest-hockey-quotes-of-all-time#/articles/563354-50-greatest-hockey-quotes-of-all-time
|
 |
|
|
Donnie Hockey
(Loves To Post!)
USA
1514 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2013 : 10:40:40 AM
|
| How many quality scoring chances have the Cyclones had in those 23 power-play chances? If they're moving the puck around well, getting good chances but the goalie is making the save, then that's all you can ask for and the 0-for-23 isn't as concerning as might look on paper because eventually the puck starts going in when you're getting chances. |
www.twitter.com/donhelbig |
|
|
|
elvis77
(Loves To Post!)
1435 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2013 : 11:04:31 AM
|
"The best defense is a good offense." Give me a break.
While I'd love to see the PP producing, in order to be successful in the ECHL you have to build a team from your goal line out. Despite the 2008 Cup teams offensive capabilities it's often overlooked how solid that team was in their own end. The 2009 Sting Rays team, also incredibly solid defensively. The 2010 Cyclones, hard work and DEFENSE.
Think of it this way; go out to any open hockey or drop in hockey game and you'll players shooting, scoring, etc. Basically just working on offensive skills. You rarely see a player blocking shots, working on foot work and position to keep someone hemmed in the corner. No one likes playing defense, it takes more work when you don't have the puck. Personally I like what I'm seeing in this team thus far. IF they were scoring some goals and bleeding them in their own end I'd be concerned that Skalde 2.0 had descended upon us. Defense first and the offense will come naturally in time. |
"PBR can do that to you....1,2,3,12 beers and you're f**ked"
-oscar
"and i don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation" - joan jett
"beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy." - benjamin franklin
"is that a pulled pork sandwich i smell?"
"some things are just better without pants...."
www.cycwords.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
danc
(The Next Level!)
114 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2013 : 2:15:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by elvis77
"The best defense is a good offense." Give me a break.
. Defense first and the offense will come naturally in time.
Offense is a gift and a skill. It doesn't just "come naturally in time". A pack mule can be taught to play defense. You can't teach someone to see the ice and/or put the puck in the net. In any case, I will submit that a team must have better goaltending than Chet Pickard could provide.
Skalde 2.0 wouldn't be the worst thing. The Cyclones lost the first game in Reading on a late fluke goal in regulation and outplayed Reading in game 2 and were hosed by a late non call in game 4. They were good enough to win the Kelly Cup by playing a system which allowed for offensive creativity and risk taking while calling for a decent amount of defensive responsibility. It's called a balance.
To infer that the 07-08 offensive juggernaut was a defense first team is silly. Chuck Weber might have talked that game, but that's not how his first KC team team played. With scorers like Desharnais, Beauregaurd, Latendresse, Daoust, Deitsch, Syro and Aubin, the team averaged 4 goals per game. That the defense was good was icing on the cake. That team did have excellent goaltending in Desjardins, but the defense most certainly didn't drive that engine. The 2010 cup team may have had a higher emphasis on defense but when the mediocre Barrett Eghoetz is your leading scorer, there's really no other way to play. They were also extremely lucky to win that year. They came a post away from losing in round 1 v. SC that year. They came back from an 0-3 deficit vs. Reading in the CF. A more seasoned Larry Courville coaching job would have prevented the Royals' once in a generation collapse. If those entire playoffs were replayed, the Cyclones wouldn't have won once in 20 times. The bounces and the hockey gods were with them much more than any playing philosophy.
Score, score and then score some more. Throw in a few fights now and again and you've got yourself a fun to watch hockey team. |
Edited by - danc on 10/31/2013 2:29:03 PM |
|
|
|
PsychFan
(Finally Got A Star!)
98 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2013 : 9:28:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by danc
quote:
Originally posted by elvis77
"The best defense is a good offense." Give me a break.
. Defense first and the offense will come naturally in time.
Offense is a gift and a skill. It doesn't just "come naturally in time". A pack mule can be taught to play defense. You can't teach someone to see the ice and/or put the puck in the net. In any case, I will submit that a team must have better goaltending than Chet Pickard could provide.
Skalde 2.0 wouldn't be the worst thing. The Cyclones lost the first game in Reading on a late fluke goal in regulation and outplayed Reading in game 2 and were hosed by a late non call in game 4. They were good enough to win the Kelly Cup by playing a system which allowed for offensive creativity and risk taking while calling for a decent amount of defensive responsibility. It's called a balance.
To infer that the 07-08 offensive juggernaut was a defense first team is silly. Chuck Weber might have talked that game, but that's not how his first KC team team played. With scorers like Desharnais, Beauregaurd, Latendresse, Daoust, Deitsch, Syro and Aubin, the team averaged 4 goals per game. That the defense was good was icing on the cake. That team did have excellent goaltending in Desjardins, but the defense most certainly didn't drive that engine. The 2010 cup team may have had a higher emphasis on defense but when the mediocre Barrett Eghoetz is your leading scorer, there's really no other way to play. They were also extremely lucky to win that year. They came a post away from losing in round 1 v. SC that year. They came back from an 0-3 deficit vs. Reading in the CF. A more seasoned Larry Courville coaching job would have prevented the Royals' once in a generation collapse. If those entire playoffs were replayed, the Cyclones wouldn't have won once in 20 times. The bounces and the hockey gods were with them much more than any playing philosophy.
Score, score and then score some more. Throw in a few fights now and again and you've got yourself a fun to watch hockey team.
I think the point, dear danc, is that if you look at both of their title years - the defense was a MAJOR staple. Hockey gods or no hockey gods, the 2010 team had the 2nd lowest goals against average in the league. Guess who was first? Idaho. The team we faced.
In 2008 - an amazing year for the offense - guess where the Cyclones ranked in goals against average? Second place. Guess who was third? Las Vegas. The team we played.
If you think defense doesn't play a MAJOR factor in titles - you are wrong. Plain wrong. Point Elvis.
With that said, though, I like watching high scoring games! |
|
|
|
danc
(The Next Level!)
114 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 01:13:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by PsychFan
I think the point, dear danc, is that if you look at both of their title years - the defense was a MAJOR staple. Hockey gods or no hockey gods, the 2010 team had the 2nd lowest goals against average in the league. Guess who was first? Idaho. The team we faced.
In 2008 - an amazing year for the offense - guess where the Cyclones ranked in goals against average? Second place. Guess who was third? Las Vegas. The team we played.
If you think defense doesn't play a MAJOR factor in titles - you are wrong. Plain wrong. Point Elvis.
With that said, though, I like watching high scoring games!
[/quote]
Never did say that defense didn't matter. I've always found the defense first philosophy to be dismissive of offense, which is plainly wrong.
Did a little research on Stanley Cup Champs since the 04-05 lockout. Numbers probably aren't perfect, but close enough for cursory analysis.
I'll list year, champ, regular season defensive and offensive ranks.
06 Carolina 18/3
07 Anaheim 7/7
08 Detroit 1/3
09 Pittsburgh 16/4
10 Chicago 4/3
11 Boston 2/8
12 LA 2/27
13 Chicago 1/2
Average Def. Rank 6.4/Average offensive rank 7.2.
Essentially little difference in importance between needing a sound offense and defense. Only one less than top 7 offensive team has won the SC in the past 8 years while two defensively average (16 or below) have won the SC.
Both offense and defense play into the equation in roughly equal parts it would appear since the lockout. Mediocre defenses were overcome twice by SC champs while a putrid offense did win once. The Kings 2012 SC win with a 27th ranked offense (out of 30) was, no doubt, a very unusual occurrence.
I'm with Brett Hull. One of the worst inventions in hockey history was the neutral zone trap. Give me Espo/Orr and the Bruins, Gretzky and the Oilers, Lafleur and the Canadiens or Lemieux, Jagr and the Penguins any day over the defensively stingy 2012 Kings. Top offensively driven teams can win multiple Cups, primarily defensive-oriented teams are generally one and done. Teams which have both can, of course, win multiple cups as well.
Defense, in and of itself, would not appear to be the standard winning formula based upon the last 8 SC Champs. I'd think the same would hold true in the ECHL. I drew upon a small, but I believe relevant sample size, in basing my conclusions.
Point me
|
Edited by - danc on 11/01/2013 03:31:41 AM |
|
|
|
PsychFan
(Finally Got A Star!)
98 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 09:03:09 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by danc
quote:
Originally posted by PsychFan
I think the point, dear danc, is that if you look at both of their title years - the defense was a MAJOR staple. Hockey gods or no hockey gods, the 2010 team had the 2nd lowest goals against average in the league. Guess who was first? Idaho. The team we faced.
In 2008 - an amazing year for the offense - guess where the Cyclones ranked in goals against average? Second place. Guess who was third? Las Vegas. The team we played.
If you think defense doesn't play a MAJOR factor in titles - you are wrong. Plain wrong. Point Elvis.
With that said, though, I like watching high scoring games!
Never did say that defense didn't matter. I've always found the defense first philosophy to be dismissive of offense, which is plainly wrong.
Did a little research on Stanley Cup Champs since the 04-05 lockout. Numbers probably aren't perfect, but close enough for cursory analysis.
I'll list year, champ, regular season defensive and offensive ranks.
06 Carolina 18/3
07 Anaheim 7/7
08 Detroit 1/3
09 Pittsburgh 16/4
10 Chicago 4/3
11 Boston 2/8
12 LA 2/27
13 Chicago 1/2
Average Def. Rank 6.4/Average offensive rank 7.2.
Essentially little difference in importance between needing a sound offense and defense. Only one less than top 7 offensive team has won the SC in the past 8 years while two defensively average (16 or below) have won the SC.
Both offense and defense play into the equation in roughly equal parts it would appear since the lockout. Mediocre defenses were overcome twice by SC champs while a putrid offense did win once. The Kings 2012 SC win with a 27th ranked offense (out of 30) was, no doubt, a very unusual occurrence.
I'm with Brett Hull. One of the worst inventions in hockey history was the neutral zone trap. Give me Espo/Orr and the Bruins, Gretzky and the Oilers, Lafleur and the Canadiens or Lemieux, Jagr and the Penguins any day over the defensively stingy 2012 Kings. Top offensively driven teams can win multiple Cups, primarily defensive-oriented teams are generally one and done. Teams which have both can, of course, win multiple cups as well.
Defense, in and of itself, would not appear to be the standard winning formula based upon the last 8 SC Champs. I'd think the same would hold true in the ECHL. I drew upon a small, but I believe relevant sample size, in basing my conclusions.
Point me
[/quote]
danc - you are awarded no points. you lost me when trying to compare NHL teams to ECHL teams. Open your ears, now: IT'S NOT THE SAME.
Come back when you have a better argument. |
|
|
|
elvis77
(Loves To Post!)
1435 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 09:16:58 AM
|
Sorry no point given.
Like I said, the defensive ability of the 08 cup team was missed a lot of people...I guess they were too busy eating their free BBQ sandwiches from City BBQ. That teams ability in their own end was matched by their ability at the other. It was the perfect storm.
You can teach a pack mule to play defense; that's what happened in 2010. The team was out gunned in just about all games but simply out worked teams in the defensive zone and took advantage of the few chances they earned.
In 2008, the team was built on a defense first. They scored loads of goals in transition out of their own end. I wish the ECHL made it easier for fans to look defensivee stats, like block shots, stels, etc, so it would be easier to see who solid that team really was in their own end.
The coaching mindset is different in the NHL than it is in the ECHL and it has to be. In the NHL you can have highly skilled offensive weapons and when they perform, where are they going to get called up to? The answer is no where, they're already at the top. In the ECHL, skilled players get called up if they're playing well. It makes sense, it's why there here. But it's also the reason you start with defense first. A team based on defense is a TEAM. Sure, a couple times a game an offensive chance is thwarted by an individual effort, but 90% of the time defense must be played as a 5 man cohesive unit; everyone has to buy in and be on the same page. As call-ups occur and new faces come in, if they don't buy in to playing D they don't see a lot of ice time.
I'm not saying there should be a blind eye turned to the offense, but early one the defense should get the emphasis. It's the defensive end of the ice that creates the team buy-in, getting everyone on the same page. Skalde tried to coach up the offense 1st mindset in his first 2 years and he failed miserably (Don't even throw the goaltenders under the bus, it's my opinion, that they saw so many break downs and odd man rushes to leave their heads spinning). It wasn't until his 3rd year and the installment of a more defensive based system that he found real success. I'd much rather a team build a strong defensive base early and build the offense progressively, because let's face it you do have to score goals to win a game. The way things are going, however, the 'Clones are winning, playing solid in their own end and taking advantage of the opportunities they get. If they were playing strong D but losing games 1-0 or 2-1, I'd be on the same bus you are and my fix would be this; keep it simple and keep someone in front of the net. In my observation there's been a serious lack of net front presence. It's a simple concept but it works. When a goalie sees the shot, he stops it 9 out of 10 times. When he doesn't, that likelihood goes down or at the very least creates rebound chances. I've lost count of how many times, there's been 3 guys battling for the puck in a corner, one wins it to the point and before anyone can get to the net a shot is harmlessly thrown in and it's covered or cleared.
We're clearly not going to agree on this topic, so let's play nice and call it a draw. I'll leave you with this quote, however, "offense fills the stands, defense wins championships," |
"PBR can do that to you....1,2,3,12 beers and you're f**ked"
-oscar
"and i don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation" - joan jett
"beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy." - benjamin franklin
"is that a pulled pork sandwich i smell?"
"some things are just better without pants...."
www.cycwords.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Donnie Hockey
(Loves To Post!)
USA
1514 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 11:28:42 AM
|
Offense excites fans but strong defensive play and good goaltending win championships at all levels of the sport.
If you play well defensively and get good goaltending, you have a chance to win every time you take the ice.
Defense and will beats skill when the games matter the most. |
www.twitter.com/donhelbig |
|
|
|
dbc
(Been Here Awhile)
865 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 9:23:29 PM
|
In an hockey system, the offense flows from the defense and teams are built from the defense out. Everyone plays defense for the majority of the time they are on the ice. It is the defense that provides the chances a team needs to score. To paraphrase an NHL coach who once once told a group I was in,: you are on the ice for maybe 20 minutes a game and if you have 3-4 shots that is a lot. Most players have no where near that many shots in a game. But you are constantly playing defense--even in the offensive zone you have your scheme set up to insure the opposition doesn't have a quick break out etc. It is always defense first and a good defense leads to offensive opportunities. Even the skills necessary to keep the puck along the boards and keeping it in the offensive zone are really defensive skills. You score by keeping the puck away from the other team and that is a defense skill. There are lots of guys who have hard shots and can stick handle well who are selling used cars all over Canada.
One reason there is such a dsicussion is most fans who have not played don't know what is going on defensively. What they see are blocked shots--which is really the result of defensive error somewhere--or checking the puck carrier. The skills around reading a play and positioning oneself in the proper lane is not understood. For example I doubt many fans have any idea where the left wing should be when the puck is along the right boards in a two low scheme and how that changes if the scheme changes.
|
|
|
|
Donnie Hockey
(Loves To Post!)
USA
1514 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 10:18:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dbc
In an hockey system, the offense flows from the defense and teams are built from the defense out. Everyone plays defense for the majority of the time they are on the ice. It is the defense that provides the chances a team needs to score. To paraphrase an NHL coach who once once told a group I was in,: you are on the ice for maybe 20 minutes a game and if you have 3-4 shots that is a lot. Most players have no where near that many shots in a game. But you are constantly playing defense--even in the offensive zone you have your scheme set up to insure the opposition doesn't have a quick break out etc. It is always defense first and a good defense leads to offensive opportunities. Even the skills necessary to keep the puck along the boards and keeping it in the offensive zone are really defensive skills. You score by keeping the puck away from the other team and that is a defense skill. There are lots of guys who have hard shots and can stick handle well who are selling used cars all over Canada.
One reason there is such a dsicussion is most fans who have not played don't know what is going on defensively. What they see are blocked shots--which is really the result of defensive error somewhere--or checking the puck carrier. The skills around reading a play and positioning oneself in the proper lane is not understood. For example I doubt many fans have any idea where the left wing should be when the puck is along the right boards in a two low scheme and how that changes if the scheme changes.
Well said. |
www.twitter.com/donhelbig |
|
|
|
danc
(The Next Level!)
114 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2013 : 02:59:49 AM
|
Good points all except Psych Fan:)
ECHL champs offensive/defensive ratings
08 Cyclones 1/2
09 SC 4/2
10 Cyclones 11/2
11 Alaska 5/1
12 Florida 2/10
13 Reading 4/2
Average Offensive Rank 4.5/ Defensive Rank 3.1
Once again, just like the NHL, not much difference. In fact, if one throws out the lucky 10 Cyclones KC Champs, the average offensive rank goes to 3.0.
I will submit that goaltending is key in the playoffs. Last season, Houser started to go a bit south at the end of the Gwinnett series. Riley Gill outplayed him in the CFs. The Cyclones played very good team defense in the CF, but didn't get the same big saves that Houser had given them in the Toledo and early in the Gwinnett series. Would have loved to have seen Skalde give Foster the start in game 2 in Reading, but, that's just my monday morning quarterback point of view.
Jonathan Quick of the 2012 SC champ Kings had an amazing year in both the regular season and the playoffs. While the Kings were a smothering defensive team in the playoffs, Quick's insanely good play allowed them to eek into the post season as an 8th seed.
Come playoff time, there is nothing more important than one's goaltender. Sometimes a hot goalie can overcome even mediocre defense.
|
Edited by - danc on 11/02/2013 03:05:01 AM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
