Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

chippa13

Left Wing Lock vs. The Trap

Recommended Posts

Chadd, that's ok if your hockey friends did not watch it. The idea was to draw a channel surfer off a boring college football bowl game. The idea was to see something different and unique. Put that game inside HSBC and on NBC and nobody stays with it that happens upon it channel surfing. Take it outside, add the snow and 70,000 fans and now TV viewers will check it out. Thinking outside the box is more of what the NHL needs, not the same old, same old.

If Bettman wasn't at the helm, I think the NHL would be fine. It would be thriving had he not allowed the short season after the rangers won the cup, when hockey was legitimately becoming a "big" sport in the states, but with that, over expansion, fixing what is not broken (uniforms, shootouts, website uniformity, scheduling) and instead focusing on the game as a team sport, a dynamic hard hitting skillful sport, rather than the NBA on skates, the game would be stronger

The first lockout didn't slow hockey's growth, the love of all things trap is what did the NHL in. NJ winning the Cup in '95 started the trend that set the league's popularity back a decade.

Here is a discussion I started in another thread, probably better here:

QUOTE(killthepoodle @ Jan 1 2008, 10:24 PM) *

In the retro XXXX shot of malkin....I love the shopping cart and cheap plastic catering chair.

You can tell the NHL doesnt have a lot of experience with sideline stuff- the NFL wouldnt let crappy looking stuff like that near the sidelines. Everything has to be professional and tidy- same as the NBA. It was distracting to me during the game, seeing all the random garbage, tripods, chairs, and other assorted stuff strewn randomly around the rink.

QUOTE(chippa13 @ Jan 2 2008, 02:45 PM) *

Try Ritalin.

QUOTE(killthepoodle @ Jan 1 2008, 10:24 PM) *

Try presenting your marquee event professionally to a (potentially) gigantic audience. Lets be honest- the NHL needed to this to come off well. It distracts me because this is the sort of thing I've routinely dealt with from these other leagues, and now I see why they are such pains in the asses about that sort of thing. One of the major leagues was going to ban jeans for sideline media at one point.

Instead of a shopping cart for the soaker's how about a black bin with the NHL shield on the side? Instead of randomly placed white plastic chairs against the blue backed boards how about a small set of VIP seating? Someone should have gotten that Tripod that was just sitting there a feet from the boards near the corner out of there in the 1st period- but it sat there the whole game. At one point I saw a security guy leaning on it. Just tacky. Maybe next year just run about 10 feet of black material out from the boards below the glass all the way around with a few little pits at the camera ports for media. This would make a nice clean shot for the broadcasts.

In an indoor NHL arena the fans right up to the edge block any view of cabling, tripods, bags, etc. The boards block any view of the trash around the benches, towels, etc.

I assure you if they do it again next year it will be tight and tidy around the rink, with far less personnel running around. If I noticed it, Bettman, with his NBA background sure as hell noticed it.

I want the NHL to succeed and get back on major networks, badly. You have to look 1st class to compete with the big three. The NHL did not with the classic. They should have figured out the corner ice cracking months ago as opposed to all the stoppages to fix it. If it was anticipated it was fixable.

They were very lucky to get their premiere product out there though (shootout).

And how exactly could they have tested the ice in the stadium months ago, politely ask the Bills to play home games at the local high school field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd, that's ok if your hockey friends did not watch it. The idea was to draw a channel surfer off a boring college football bowl game. The idea was to see something different and unique. Put that game inside HSBC and on NBC and nobody stays with it that happens upon it channel surfing. Take it outside, add the snow and 70,000 fans and now TV viewers will check it out. Thinking outside the box is more of what the NHL needs, not the same old, same old.

If Bettman wasn't at the helm, I think the NHL would be fine. It would be thriving had he not allowed the short season after the rangers won the cup, when hockey was legitimately becoming a "big" sport in the states, but with that, over expansion, fixing what is not broken (uniforms, shootouts, website uniformity, scheduling) and instead focusing on the game as a team sport, a dynamic hard hitting skillful sport, rather than the NBA on skates, the game would be stronger

The first lockout didn't slow hockey's growth, the love of all things trap is what did the NHL in. NJ winning the Cup in '95 started the trend that set the league's popularity back a decade.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd, that's ok if your hockey friends did not watch it. The idea was to draw a channel surfer off a boring college football bowl game. The idea was to see something different and unique. Put that game inside HSBC and on NBC and nobody stays with it that happens upon it channel surfing. Take it outside, add the snow and 70,000 fans and now TV viewers will check it out. Thinking outside the box is more of what the NHL needs, not the same old, same old.

If Bettman wasn't at the helm, I think the NHL would be fine. It would be thriving had he not allowed the short season after the rangers won the cup, when hockey was legitimately becoming a "big" sport in the states, but with that, over expansion, fixing what is not broken (uniforms, shootouts, website uniformity, scheduling) and instead focusing on the game as a team sport, a dynamic hard hitting skillful sport, rather than the NBA on skates, the game would be stronger

The first lockout didn't slow hockey's growth, the love of all things trap is what did the NHL in. NJ winning the Cup in '95 started the trend that set the league's popularity back a decade.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

The trap coupled with the clutch and grab...........better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devils were trapping in 94, too. Even in 95 they weren't that bad too watch because they had enough talent to get quality chances out of the turnovers in the neutral zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a different theory on the same kind of system. Yes, I'll say that the clutch/grab killed the league more than anything else but the trap only killed the league when bullcrap expansion teams used it and couldn't score off of the turnovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LWL is a "trap", and there are many variations of it now. Now anything with a passive defensive system is considered a "trap" in most hockey circles. Keeping an extra man in the neutral zone to stay back.

I agree, the lack of talent with the trap was the killer. Once expansion teams used it as a crutch it started slowing the game down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a different theory on the same kind of system. Yes, I'll say that the clutch/grab killed the league more than anything else but the trap only killed the league when bullcrap expansion teams used it and couldn't score off of the turnovers.

Clutch grab always existed. I've been watching some of the older games on google vids and their were plenty of on ice raping going on. But I think the amount of the crap escalated when RFA and UFA clutch and grabbers were getting superstar money for their "defensive" play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

I agree with Chippa on this one; the LWL uses the C and RW to forecheck agressively to funnel the play to the LW boards, where the LW is waiting high. But, the Red Wings also trapped, but when they did so people thought they were still doing the LWL, and called their trap the LWL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic earns higher ratings than any regular-season game in decade

i had fun watching it. i dont care about all that other crap, cables, the space around the rink.. who cares.

I enjoyed it, and apparently a lot of other people did too.

good ending.

Maybe the zamboni breaks are needed to give normal viewers a break in the action. :D

So, while those breaks interrupt the flow for die-hard hockey fans, maybe the casual viewers need the time for going to the bathroom, getting explanations, etc.

And, the not-so-perfect defensive play caused when players fell down led to some good chances, an element of luck that you don't see indoors. Except maybe at MSG.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

I agree with Chippa on this one; the LWL uses the C and RW to forecheck agressively to funnel the play to the LW boards, where the LW is waiting high. But, the Red Wings also trapped, but when they did so people thought they were still doing the LWL, and called their trap the LWL.

How is that not a trap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic earns higher ratings than any regular-season game in decade

i had fun watching it. i dont care about all that other crap, cables, the space around the rink.. who cares.

I enjoyed it, and apparently a lot of other people did too.

good ending.

Maybe the zamboni breaks are needed to give normal viewers a break in the action. :D

So, while those breaks interrupt the flow for die-hard hockey fans, maybe the casual viewers need the time for going to the bathroom, getting explanations, etc.

And, the not-so-perfect defensive play caused when players fell down led to some good chances, an element of luck that you don't see indoors. Except maybe at MSG.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

I agree with Chippa on this one; the LWL uses the C and RW to forecheck agressively to funnel the play to the LW boards, where the LW is waiting high. But, the Red Wings also trapped, but when they did so people thought they were still doing the LWL, and called their trap the LWL.

How is that not a trap?

In a trap there is only 1 forechecker, and he is passive. The other forwards are in the neutral zone (where the trap and turnover will occur); Neutral Zone Trap.

In a strict Left-Wing Lock the defending LW starts high along the boards in his attacking zone, even with about the top of the circles. The puck is funneled towards him by the other two forwards, who are forechecking aggressively but with a purpose to do this.

The turnover occurs in the attacking zone. All 3 forwards are in the attacking zone, so this is a more aggressive 2-1-2 system than the 1-2-2 Neutral Zone Trap. The Red Wings had the skaters and coaching to pull it off well, so opposing teams would be bottled up in their zone for long periods.

The LW is the one being funneled to because the majority of Ds are left-handed. When they get to the LW along the LW's boards, the left-handed LW would be on his strong side and the D trying to break out would be on his weak side, a battle that the LW should win most of the time.

Vancouver used the Weak-Side Lock when Renney was coaching there, where two forecheckers would always aggressively forecheck to funnel the puck towards a lock on the weak side boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic earns higher ratings than any regular-season game in decade

i had fun watching it. i dont care about all that other crap, cables, the space around the rink.. who cares.

I enjoyed it, and apparently a lot of other people did too.

good ending.

Maybe the zamboni breaks are needed to give normal viewers a break in the action. :D

So, while those breaks interrupt the flow for die-hard hockey fans, maybe the casual viewers need the time for going to the bathroom, getting explanations, etc.

And, the not-so-perfect defensive play caused when players fell down led to some good chances, an element of luck that you don't see indoors. Except maybe at MSG.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

I agree with Chippa on this one; the LWL uses the C and RW to forecheck agressively to funnel the play to the LW boards, where the LW is waiting high. But, the Red Wings also trapped, but when they did so people thought they were still doing the LWL, and called their trap the LWL.

What do you and Chippa think happens when the aggressive C and RW "funnel" the attackers into the LW side so he can then "lock". That's right kids, say it with me, TRAP.

Lesson concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we split the trap talk off to a new thread...and get this thread back to what was good/bad about the Buff-Pitt game.

[EDIT]: Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you and Chippa think happens when the aggressive C and RW "funnel" the attackers into the LW side so he can then "lock". That's right kids, say it with me, TRAP.

Lesson concluded.

When he says "trap," he is referring to the neutral zone trap. I've never heard "the trap" represent anything else.

I assume you can figure out that the neutral zone trap doesn't occur in the attacking zone like the left wing lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a thing on TSN years ago that had James Duthie talking to a Swedish coach who coached a "trap" system in the late 80's early 90's (I think).

His "trap" was a 2-2-1 offensive press system (possibly even 3-1-1...I can't remember) that "trapped" the team on their way out of the defensive zone, and turned the puck back on offensive quickly. With some of the speed in the NHL, I'd love to see a system like that done more here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, it was the "Torpedo" and was developed for offense. A trap is essentially forcing a player into a certain area you want him to be, one where your player is waiting and able to step up. There's alot of variations, it is used extremely passively, like SJ did when the first upset Detroit and had 3 guys at their own blue line or actively, like the coach you are referring to intended. Then there's the middle ground as well. The problem and boring play arises when it's all teams do. It can be used to create offense and counter attacks, but some teams turn down any opportunity that isn't a glaring error by dumping it in whenever possible. Babcock in Detroit is doing a good job to show how the trap can be offensive. At least he was earlier in his tenure, I haven't seen them enough this season to be sure he is still using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you and Chippa think happens when the aggressive C and RW "funnel" the attackers into the LW side so he can then "lock". That's right kids, say it with me, TRAP.

Lesson concluded.

When he says "trap," he is referring to the neutral zone trap. I've never heard "the trap" represent anything else.

I assume you can figure out that the neutral zone trap doesn't occur in the attacking zone like the left wing lock.

That's really splitting hairs. If you say "Trap" then it can take on any meaning, be it neutral zone, defensive zone, etc. His argument was that the Left Wing Lock was not a "Trap" but something else, and I believe he is wrong. The only way he would be right would be to clearly define a Neutral Zone Trap, a Left Wing Lock and so on, which he did not do.

And when you say the "attacking zone", I think you should more correctly be reffering to it as the "defensive zone" since the Lock is a defensive strategy, not an offensive one. When you refer to it as the attacking zone, it sounds like an O-fensive strategy, which it is not.

My take is that a trap is a trap is a trap. It doesn't matter where it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sudden concern for defensive forwards completely changed the free agent structure. This was a natural byproduct of the clutching and grabbing and the trap. The NHL just didn't give a crap because the product sold so well. I myself only got into hockey during the 94-95 season, largely due to the Panthers making it to the Stanley Cup Final out of nowhere. The real problem wasn't forwards playing defense, but GM's taking the concept too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic earns higher ratings than any regular-season game in decade

i had fun watching it. i dont care about all that other crap, cables, the space around the rink.. who cares.

I enjoyed it, and apparently a lot of other people did too.

good ending.

Maybe the zamboni breaks are needed to give normal viewers a break in the action. :D

So, while those breaks interrupt the flow for die-hard hockey fans, maybe the casual viewers need the time for going to the bathroom, getting explanations, etc.

And, the not-so-perfect defensive play caused when players fell down led to some good chances, an element of luck that you don't see indoors. Except maybe at MSG.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

I agree with Chippa on this one; the LWL uses the C and RW to forecheck agressively to funnel the play to the LW boards, where the LW is waiting high. But, the Red Wings also trapped, but when they did so people thought they were still doing the LWL, and called their trap the LWL.

How is that not a trap?

In a trap there is only 1 forechecker, and he is passive. The other forwards are in the neutral zone (where the trap and turnover will occur); Neutral Zone Trap.

In a strict Left-Wing Lock the defending LW starts high along the boards in his attacking zone, even with about the top of the circles. The puck is funneled towards him by the other two forwards, who are forechecking aggressively but with a purpose to do this.

The turnover occurs in the attacking zone. All 3 forwards are in the attacking zone, so this is a more aggressive 2-1-2 system than the 1-2-2 Neutral Zone Trap. The Red Wings had the skaters and coaching to pull it off well, so opposing teams would be bottled up in their zone for long periods.

The LW is the one being funneled to because the majority of Ds are left-handed. When they get to the LW along the LW's boards, the left-handed LW would be on his strong side and the D trying to break out would be on his weak side, a battle that the LW should win most of the time.

Vancouver used the Weak-Side Lock when Renney was coaching there, where two forecheckers would always aggressively forecheck to funnel the puck towards a lock on the weak side boards.

It doesn't matter where it takes place, neutral zone or somewhere else,

itsatrapkv7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you and Chippa think happens when the aggressive C and RW "funnel" the attackers into the LW side so he can then "lock". That's right kids, say it with me, TRAP.

Lesson concluded.

When he says "trap," he is referring to the neutral zone trap. I've never heard "the trap" represent anything else.

I assume you can figure out that the neutral zone trap doesn't occur in the attacking zone like the left wing lock.

That's really splitting hairs. If you say "Trap" then it can take on any meaning, be it neutral zone, defensive zone, etc. His argument was that the Left Wing Lock was not a "Trap" but something else, and I believe he is wrong. The only way he would be right would be to clearly define a Neutral Zone Trap, a Left Wing Lock and so on, which he did not do.

And when you say the "attacking zone", I think you should more correctly be reffering to it as the "defensive zone" since the Lock is a defensive strategy, not an offensive one. When you refer to it as the attacking zone, it sounds like an O-fensive strategy, which it is not.

My take is that a trap is a trap is a trap. It doesn't matter where it happens.

Whether or not a team has control of the puck, the zone farthest from its goal is the "Attacking Zone". The team without control of the puck is the "Defending Team". When the Defending Team is forechecking in the other team's zone, it is forechecking in its "Attacking Zone".

The Left Wing Lock, the Neutral Zone Trap, and all Attacking / Neutral Zone defensive systems, have the same goal; regaining control of the puck before it enters the Defending Zone. There are just risk/reward tradeoffs about how aggressively the team tries to regain control of the puck.

I differentiate between the neutral zone trap, which is boring to watch, and lock systems a few ways. It is mainly nomenclature.

A neutral zone trap used the red line, when 2-line passes were illegal, and now the blue line, to limit flow so that, with 5 defenders in the neutral zone, a turnover would eventually occur. The forward entering the attacking zone is only doing so to pick up some speed for a retreat into the neutral zone.

It's boring to watch because all the players end up going slow or standing still, and the resulting turnover is hard to transition out of or generate offense from. Combined with clutch-and-grabbing to further slow players, it was perfect for protecting leads and frustrating / tiring out more skillful teams.

LWL (or Weak-Side Lock) forechecking to get a turnover in the attacking zone is more high-risk high-reward and exciting to watch. If the LWL works, the LW has the puck and, because most goalies catch left-handed, the newly attacking team is on the "good" side for an immediate quick shot+rebound, a cycle in the "good" corner, etc. If it doesn't work, the team breaking out can get an odd-man rush with speed going through the neutral zone.

In the '70s and early '80s it was possible for the forechecker to check the puck off the D because those D were not mobile. The Bruins and Flyers back then could dump the puck into the corner, beat everybody up on the way to the corner, smack the D around, and get the puck.

Now the Ds are frequently among the best skaters on the teams, so forechecking is now about pressuring to create a mistake off the turnover, angling players, and cutting off passing lanes. Sagging back into a Neutral Zone Trap is about not pressuring at all, slowing down all the players, pushing the puck towards the boards / blue line junction, and gobbling up a turnover.

Among the worst things to watch is 2 teams playing the neutral zone trap; one team turns it over or dumps it in at the blue line / boards junction, the other team picks it up and rounds the net while the newly defending team retreats to the neutral zone, and then the same thing happens going the other way. No chances, no flow, no speed.

2 teams playing more aggressively on the forecheck, e.g. the Red Wings with the LWL and Iron Mike's Flames going for the first goal by pinching the Ds on every play, is much more exciting to watch because they are trading chances and going through the neutral zone with speed.

Where the intended turnover occurs makes all the difference in the world to me; if it's in the Attacking Zone (LWL, aggressively pinching Ds, etc.), it's a lot more exciting with high-risk high-reward. If it's at the junction of the defending blue line / boards, it's safe but boring with little offensive upside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our team has played variations of both this year. against better teams, the trap has worked to perfection they cough up the puck in the neutral zone, and we take it the other way and get a scoring chance.

we've used left wing lock when were up by one or two in the last 5 or 10 mins of a game. it works like having a thrid defenseman in that if one pinches, you still have two back, and if no one pinches you have at least a man in each lane. left wing lock makes it very hard to create odd man rushes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic earns higher ratings than any regular-season game in decade

i had fun watching it. i dont care about all that other crap, cables, the space around the rink.. who cares.

I enjoyed it, and apparently a lot of other people did too.

good ending.

Maybe the zamboni breaks are needed to give normal viewers a break in the action. :D

So, while those breaks interrupt the flow for die-hard hockey fans, maybe the casual viewers need the time for going to the bathroom, getting explanations, etc.

And, the not-so-perfect defensive play caused when players fell down led to some good chances, an element of luck that you don't see indoors. Except maybe at MSG.

QFBS. The lockout ended all momentum the NHL had, which was pretty impressive as it was getting the ratings the NBA was at the time or damn near them. As for the trap, it's been round for decades and the Canadiens using it didn't seem to hurt anyone back in their heyday. The Devils take all the heat for the trap in the 90s but I never hear the Red Wings getting crap for using it at the same time.

Now mack...everyone knows the Wings relied on the "Left Wing Lock" TOTALLY different from the Trap. <_<

The LWL is different from the neutral zone trap that the Devils made so popular. The Lock employs a defense first winger who stays high without possession, the trap has everyone sagging into the neutral zone once possession is lost.

I agree with Chippa on this one; the LWL uses the C and RW to forecheck agressively to funnel the play to the LW boards, where the LW is waiting high. But, the Red Wings also trapped, but when they did so people thought they were still doing the LWL, and called their trap the LWL.

How is that not a trap?

In a trap there is only 1 forechecker, and he is passive. The other forwards are in the neutral zone (where the trap and turnover will occur); Neutral Zone Trap.

In a strict Left-Wing Lock the defending LW starts high along the boards in his attacking zone, even with about the top of the circles. The puck is funneled towards him by the other two forwards, who are forechecking aggressively but with a purpose to do this.

The turnover occurs in the attacking zone. All 3 forwards are in the attacking zone, so this is a more aggressive 2-1-2 system than the 1-2-2 Neutral Zone Trap. The Red Wings had the skaters and coaching to pull it off well, so opposing teams would be bottled up in their zone for long periods.

The LW is the one being funneled to because the majority of Ds are left-handed. When they get to the LW along the LW's boards, the left-handed LW would be on his strong side and the D trying to break out would be on his weak side, a battle that the LW should win most of the time.

Vancouver used the Weak-Side Lock when Renney was coaching there, where two forecheckers would always aggressively forecheck to funnel the puck towards a lock on the weak side boards.

It doesn't matter where it takes place, neutral zone or somewhere else,

itsatrapkv7.jpg

Admiral Akbar is my homeboy. Just watching that last night on HBO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you and Chippa think happens when the aggressive C and RW "funnel" the attackers into the LW side so he can then "lock". That's right kids, say it with me, TRAP.

Lesson concluded.

When he says "trap," he is referring to the neutral zone trap. I've never heard "the trap" represent anything else.

I assume you can figure out that the neutral zone trap doesn't occur in the attacking zone like the left wing lock.

That's really splitting hairs. If you say "Trap" then it can take on any meaning, be it neutral zone, defensive zone, etc. His argument was that the Left Wing Lock was not a "Trap" but something else, and I believe he is wrong. The only way he would be right would be to clearly define a Neutral Zone Trap, a Left Wing Lock and so on, which he did not do.

And when you say the "attacking zone", I think you should more correctly be reffering to it as the "defensive zone" since the Lock is a defensive strategy, not an offensive one. When you refer to it as the attacking zone, it sounds like an O-fensive strategy, which it is not.

My take is that a trap is a trap is a trap. It doesn't matter where it happens.

Whether or not a team has control of the puck, the zone farthest from its goal is the "Attacking Zone". The team without control of the puck is the "Defending Team". When the Defending Team is forechecking in the other team's zone, it is forechecking in its "Attacking Zone".

The Left Wing Lock, the Neutral Zone Trap, and all Attacking / Neutral Zone defensive systems, have the same goal; regaining control of the puck before it enters the Defending Zone. There are just risk/reward tradeoffs about how aggressively the team tries to regain control of the puck.

I differentiate between the neutral zone trap, which is boring to watch, and lock systems a few ways. It is mainly nomenclature.

A neutral zone trap used the red line, when 2-line passes were illegal, and now the blue line, to limit flow so that, with 5 defenders in the neutral zone, a turnover would eventually occur. The forward entering the attacking zone is only doing so to pick up some speed for a retreat into the neutral zone.

It's boring to watch because all the players end up going slow or standing still, and the resulting turnover is hard to transition out of or generate offense from. Combined with clutch-and-grabbing to further slow players, it was perfect for protecting leads and frustrating / tiring out more skillful teams.

LWL (or Weak-Side Lock) forechecking to get a turnover in the attacking zone is more high-risk high-reward and exciting to watch. If the LWL works, the LW has the puck and, because most goalies catch left-handed, the newly attacking team is on the "good" side for an immediate quick shot+rebound, a cycle in the "good" corner, etc. If it doesn't work, the team breaking out can get an odd-man rush with speed going through the neutral zone.

In the '70s and early '80s it was possible for the forechecker to check the puck off the D because those D were not mobile. The Bruins and Flyers back then could dump the puck into the corner, beat everybody up on the way to the corner, smack the D around, and get the puck.

Now the Ds are frequently among the best skaters on the teams, so forechecking is now about pressuring to create a mistake off the turnover, angling players, and cutting off passing lanes. Sagging back into a Neutral Zone Trap is about not pressuring at all, slowing down all the players, pushing the puck towards the boards / blue line junction, and gobbling up a turnover.

Among the worst things to watch is 2 teams playing the neutral zone trap; one team turns it over or dumps it in at the blue line / boards junction, the other team picks it up and rounds the net while the newly defending team retreats to the neutral zone, and then the same thing happens going the other way. No chances, no flow, no speed.

2 teams playing more aggressively on the forecheck, e.g. the Red Wings with the LWL and Iron Mike's Flames going for the first goal by pinching the Ds on every play, is much more exciting to watch because they are trading chances and going through the neutral zone with speed.

Where the intended turnover occurs makes all the difference in the world to me; if it's in the Attacking Zone (LWL, aggressively pinching Ds, etc.), it's a lot more exciting with high-risk high-reward. If it's at the junction of the defending blue line / boards, it's safe but boring with little offensive upside.

I agree with most of what you said, and thank you for taking the time to type all that out.

But I disagree with one major point, that being where the Lock takes place. Your explanation would lead you to beleive the Lock can and does occur in the "Attacking Zone" or "Offensive Zone". I believe this is wrong. I believe the Lock occurs from the Attacking Zone back (from the blue line backwards to your own zone) and not from the blue line forwards into your attacking zone. That would make it an offensive strategy, which by definition it is not. If you watched the Red Wings from the Mid 90s on, their system, which I thought to be a derivative of the Soviet system, was a defensive system where an opposing player entered the Neutral Zone (not his own defensive zone), was immediately engaged by the C and RW whos intent was to "Funnel" the play towards the left side of the ice where the LW had now stationed himself inline with the 2 other defenders, creating a defensive wall. This "pinching" or "funneling" or "trapping" (as I am arguing) is what caused the turnover and would then turnaround to create an offensive push. Don't forget the main element of the trap, which is to use an outnumbering amount of players (2 to 1 usually) and to isolate the loan player and cause them to turnover the puck. In a LWL, the trap is succeeded by the presence of the LW, the C and possibly even the RW and LD around one or two opposing players.

If I'm wrong, then so bet it. That's how I take it to mean. Iron Mike's "Pinching Dmen" which he effectively used last night against my Rangers within the first 2 minutes of the game, is not a defensive system, but an offensive one where the Dmen pinch up and to cause a turnover by attempting to outnumber opponents at that portion of the ice, leading to a potential turnover-shot-goal, what have you. Also, just my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...