anyone have a video?

[Indian Chief]

No, it isn't the same is it.

The Flyers had possession of the puck. So they are supposed to try to score and attack. Tampa just sitting there is their form of defending in that situation.

What are you saying that Tampa should have chased the puck round like crazy and because they didn't it's the same thing? It was the Flyers responsibility. They were SUPPOSED to attack. That's your job when you have control of the puck. So when they refuse to do so they are ruining the game, whether there's a rule for it or not.

Tampa were saying come on and attack us. They were ready to defend the oncoming attack, but Philly didn't bring one.

The Flyers response was childish in my opinion. Like, unless you skate at me I'm not moving, THAT is a joke and sorry but you can't defend that.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Tampa was on D. Playing a defense that the other team won't even attack is a win for you. In any other sport, if the offensive team refused to attack, it would be completely ridiculous. Why is hockey any different?

I understand that the Flyers were trying to make a statement, but it was still an embarrassment to themselves, their fans and hockey. I also understand that fans of a team will usually defend them no matter what, but I'm still surprised at all the Flyers fans that started crying about Tampa's defense. Or maybe I'm not. Maybe I should expect this from Philly.

And as multiple people have stated, it's not like the Lightning had put up 6 straight shutouts. What is it exactly that you can't beat? Shoddy defense that happens to be cloaked in what looks like an unbeatable scheme? Again, embarrassing.

 

[TiLoBrown]

I cant wait til tomorrow... The 1 3 1 vs THE FLYING V!

 

[nj_cup]

So you don't think that is lazy defense? We cant come up with a better way to slow u down and contain u so we will just pull everyone back and clog up the nuetral zone that isn't lazy? Not even trying to force a turn over by a forecheck?

 

[MCDevils]

Structured defense does not equal lazy defense.

 

[nj_cup]

really......so saying hey guys no forecheck just stay at the redline...thats structured?

 

[MCDevils]

really......so saying hey guys no forecheck just stay at the redline...thats structured?

Um, yes, how do you define structured?

 

[Indian Chief]

I don't agree that it is lazy, but let's say for a second that it is. Okay, they are playing lazy defense. What did the Flyers do? Play lazy offense? Or no offense at all? Even if it was lazy, the Bolts are playing D. The goal of a defense is to stop the other team from scoring. In this case, success. The Flyers goal on offense is to score. In this case, fail.

I don't think anyone looks good here, for the record.

 

[nj_cup]

What the bolts did was straight up out of a mighty ducks movie. It's stuff a pee wee coach tells his kids to do if they are outclassed. Has no business being in the nhl. Shame you guys do because if every team starts doing it zzzzzz fest

 

[TiLoBrown]

What the Bolts did was stop the Flyers from scoring.....you know, PLAYED DEFENSE!

 

[Automattic]

Jesus fucking christ, It's not a death trap. Why are people still talking about this?

 

[TiLoBrown]

Because Cup refuses to accept that Tampa did nothing wrong

 

[Automattic]

What the bolts did was straight up out of a mighty ducks movie. It's stuff a pee wee coach tells his kids to do if they are outclassed. Has no business being in the nhl. Shame you guys do because if every team starts doing it zzzzzz fest

Didn't the Mighty Ducks win?

 

[TiLoBrown]

I dont know, but the Bolts did...

 

[MCDevils]

Great Quote from Bobby Holik:

On the Flyers refusing to try to advance the puck against the Lightning***8217;s 1-3-1: ***8220;Philadelphia didn***8217;t even attempt to break through it. I would put all the emphasis on what the Flyers did not do. I was on the radio with a couple of shows the next day because they were like, ***8216;You played on a trap team.***8217; I said, ***8216;We did not play on a trap team.***8217; I said take me out of it, but that team they won three Cups and had four trips to the Finals. What happened was with all the expansion, you brought weak teams, the talent diluted and some of the teams resorted to a system that helped the less talented. If you***8217;re going to call a team that was in eight years a three-time Stanley Cup champion and four trips to the Final as a boring, trapping team, I was offended. I was offended because it was nothing like that. We had just as much talent as any other team. You can***8217;t win with destruction only. You still have to create. You still have to control turnovers. And that system helped us to create a lot of turnovers. But, because in the late ***8216;90s and early 2000s, we went from 24 team or 26 to 30, you had all of these players being diluted. So, these Columbuses of the world and Florida and who knows who else, they resorted to this passive, passive system. When you don***8217;t have talented players to play any other way to be competitive, you have to play that way. But that wasn***8217;t the Devils***8217; case. And what the Flyers did last week, I heard that (coach Peter) Laviolette was trying to prove a point and in the meantime he lost a point (from losing in overtime). But the team that has the puck is in charge of the game. If you have the puck more than the other team, then you***8217;re giving yourself a better chance to win. They didn***8217;t attempt to break that. That was some kind of purpose of it. I don***8217;t have enough facts. I wasn***8217;t here. I didn***8217;t hear the press conference, but I think they were trying to prove a point. And everyone got on Tampa and Tampa was just in a good 1-3-1. It***8217;s funny. There***8217;s a way around it. There***8217;s a way to break it, especially a team like the Flyers who have all this talent, mobile defensemen. There***8217;s a fairly easy way to break that. If that system was fool proof, if Guy Boucher***8217;s system perfect, they would be 82-0 and 16-0 last year (in the playoffs). But I love when people go on TV and the radio and one says something and everyone agrees with them because it***8217;s a lot easier to be in with the majority than present the facts or the points yourself.***8221;


Sorry about those random numbers, for some reason the forum replaces quotes with them, and there's too many to change.

 

[nj_cup]

BecUse its a conversation we are having. If we didnt then this board would have a million threads with 1 reply each.

All systems can be broken the devils didn't go 82-0 but they played the system to perfection then they had countless other teams doing it. Is that what you want to see here? Half the nhl doing the 1-3-1?


You dont think that was cheesy but good defense. Let me ask you what do you think if a team is down a goal and just parks a forward out at the redline and bombs passses at him for a breakway or 1on1? Is that good creative offense or just lazy cheap offense?

 

[nj_cup]

I agree 100% on what happened in the 90s and believe me this will if proven successful other teams will pick it up

 

[MCDevils]

I think the biggest reason Philly was pissed because, at least when they play us, they like to carry the puck over the line, then work down low, making them dump it in is the last thing they wanted to do.

 

[Indian Chief]

I never said it was good defense, I said it was successful.

 

[MCDevils]

I never said it was good defense, I said it was successful.

My personal opinion is that there's a monumental problem with that statement. Besides, just like any defense scheme, it comes down to execution. Is it easier for lesser skilled players to do it? Definitely.

 

[Indian Chief]

My personal opinion is that there's a monumental problem with that statement. Besides, just like any defense scheme, it comes down to execution. Is it easier for lesser skilled players to do it? Definitely.

I am totally with you. I just don't think it is good for the game.