Left Wing Lock vs. The Trap

[ktang 34]

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.

I think there's a lot of confusion about where the intended turnover point occurs with a LWL or Weak Side Lock. I'm going with definitions that we learned at the Hockey Canada advanced level clinic this year (coaching), but other countries and organizations may have different terms.

Anyways, here is something that I found that gives some history and talks about the Scotty Bowman (Red Wings) LWL; the intended turnover point is about the top of the circles in the Attacking zone.

"The New Lock" - hockeyrodent.com - great diagrams

In the article above, "3rd Man High" would be like a weak-side lock, and again the intended turnover point is at about the top of the circles in the Attacking zone.

Against good teams, the LWL doesn't always work in the Attacking zone, so the LW has to read and react, and retreat to the Attacking blueline or to the neutral zone like a 3rd defenseman. He takes an outside lane like Leafsrok's team did. But, this is the "fallback plan", not the intended primary option.

The other bit of nomenclature is whether a system is defensive or offensive. For us Hockey Canada brain-washed guys (other organizations or countries probably have different terms and definitions), any time the puck is in possesion and control of the opposing team, the team not having the puck is defending (same nomenclature as the official playing rules, that's where it comes from). This is regardless of where the puck is on the ice. So, an aggressive system such as Iron Mike's pinching the Ds or the LWL / Weak Side Lock with the intended turnover point inside the Attacking zone, is still a part of the defensive system.

The team's defensive system can be broken down into 3 parts; Attacking Zone, Neutral Zone, and Defensive Zone (same nomenclature also for the official playing rules).

If a team plays the Neutral Zone Trap, it has little or no Attacking Zone defense, a strong Neutral Zone defense (5 players backing up in a chevron formation), and transition to its Defending Zone defense.

If a team plays the LWL or Iron Mike's pinching D, it has a strong Attacking Zone defense that can transition into a medium-strength Neutral Zone defense (the LW and 2 Ds each take a lane and back up, but the C and RW have to chase the play from behind), and transition to its Defending Zone defense.

This is a good discussion, hopefully ongoing. Thanks to Eazy_b97 for breaking it into its own thread.

[mrusse01 0]

Solid discussion, as fan who is forced to watch the Leafs on a nightly basis, this whole idea of a defensive 'strategy' is remarkable.

[#96 0]

Against good teams, the LWL doesn't always work in the Attacking zone, so the LW has to read and react, and retreat to the Attacking blueline or to the neutral zone like a 3rd defenseman. He takes an outside lane like Leafsrok's team did. But, this is the "fallback plan", not the intended primary option.

This is the point where I had accepted what a Left Wing Lock was, after the play has left the attacking zone and has entered the neutral zone and the attacking team is now in a defensive position.

Excellent explanations, and good references (The Rodent - I'm a Ranger fan). I stand corrected, at least somewhat, because I did not know where the point of the Lock actually began. I've been educated.

In terms of Keenan's Dpinch, you said it is technically a defensive strategy because it starts as his team does not have the puck (any team without the puck is in a defensive posture), but the intent is to create an offensive maneuver. So even though they posture defensively, the intent is to create an offensive opportunity - once they gain possession of the puck, they become the attackers, or are in offensive position as you put it.

I guess my confusion is that if a system is intended to create either offense or defense, again nomenclature, it should be called as such. A trap is intended to create a line of defense first, therefore defensive. The Keenan Dpinch is intended to create offense, so in my mind, is offensive in nature.

But I see your point that the difference between O and D positions can change as soon as puck possession changes. I never really looked at the game that minutely, and assumed the transition from O to D and back to O and so on, occurred once a team had positioned itself, not immediatley after gaining or losing possession of the puck. That is my error.

[gxc999 7]

Allow me to present a very controversial idea for making pro hockey more exciting, go to 4 on 4 during the last 5 minutes of every game! This will certainly inflame the traditionalists, but you've gotta admit that it would be a BLAST! It's sometimes so bad, I can't watch a whole period. The neutral zone play and clutch/grabbing is slowly returning, I think a radical problem needs a radical solution.

By the way, I really like the illegal defense penalty option! Each team would get 1 warning per period, which means the faceoff is put in their zone and every subsequent infraction would cost them two minutes each. Remember, at one point the NBA had no three point line and the NFL had no 2 pt. conversion, but everyone now loves these features.

[mack 44]

I still think hockey's fine. Maybe the regular season games tend to get annoying and painful to watch but the playoffs more than make up for it when it comes down to it.

[chippa13 1844]

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.

The free agent structure was changed by two offer sheets, one by the Rags to Sakic and one by the Canes to Federov, both matched by their teams. That brought everyone's salaries up a bit. Then Holik had a season and the Rags way overspent on him. That blew everything out of the water.

[JR97 2]

Those were the superstar notables. But equal of note were guys like Chris Gratton who hit 30 goals and then made bank on an offer sheet from the Flyers. I'm trying to remember the name, but the first offer sheet was buku bank to a clutch/grabber and that is what actually set the scale.

Another notable was the whole Kariya hold out. Peca as well.

[chippa13 1844]

Kariya was able to cash in on his holdout because of the Sakic and Federov deals. They established ridiculous levels for a team's top offensive player. From there it became a trickle down effect until everybody was well overpaid in the league.

Then the Bruins, of all teams, finished it off with the rookie deal that Thornton signed, laden with simple bonuses that made the rookie cap obsolete.

[mrusse01 0]

Kariya was able to cash in on his holdout because of the Sakic and Federov deals. They established ridiculous levels for a team's top offensive player. From there it became a trickle down effect until everybody was well overpaid in the league.

Then the Bruins, of all teams, finished it off with the rookie deal that Thornton signed, laden with simple bonuses that made the rookie cap obsolete.

That whole concept is retarded, it's just what the owners and the leagues want you to believe. I'm in banking, if a rival bank offers the same position as mine for a vastly inflated salary it doesn't 'trickle down' across the industry. Why? Because a firm couldn't be profitable paying those kind of salaries.

But I guess you can just keep on believing Bettman and the owners; they were all a bunch of big dummies who somehow stumbled into signing all these massive deals even though they didn't really want to and couldn't really afford it. Even though they were already some of the most successful business people in the world, they all screwed up this time and overpaid everyone to the point of them all going bankrupt. Makes sense.

[chippa13 1844]

Kariya was able to cash in on his holdout because of the Sakic and Federov deals. They established ridiculous levels for a team's top offensive player. From there it became a trickle down effect until everybody was well overpaid in the league.

Then the Bruins, of all teams, finished it off with the rookie deal that Thornton signed, laden with simple bonuses that made the rookie cap obsolete.

That whole concept is retarded, it's just what the owners and the leagues want you to believe. I'm in banking, if a rival bank offers the same position as mine for a vastly inflated salary it doesn't 'trickle down' across the industry. Why? Because a firm couldn't be profitable paying those kind of salaries.

But I guess you can just keep on believing Bettman and the owners; they were all a bunch of big dummies who somehow stumbled into signing all these massive deals even though they didn't really want to and couldn't really afford it. Even though they were already some of the most successful business people in the world, they all screwed up this time and overpaid everyone to the point of them all going bankrupt. Makes sense.

Sure, in the normal business world the salary trickle down effect doesn't happen. However, we don't have the luxury of salary arbitration where we can present stats and numbers which say if so and so is getting that much then I should be getting this much.

Owners got into a bind with the salaries because many times they couldn't afford not to pay what a player was asking. Teams couldn't risk losing star players or even second tier players because then they'd lose even more money with empty buildings than they would lose by overpaying the inflated salaries.

[#96 0]

Kariya was able to cash in on his holdout because of the Sakic and Federov deals. They established ridiculous levels for a team's top offensive player. From there it became a trickle down effect until everybody was well overpaid in the league.

Then the Bruins, of all teams, finished it off with the rookie deal that Thornton signed, laden with simple bonuses that made the rookie cap obsolete.

That whole concept is retarded, it's just what the owners and the leagues want you to believe. I'm in banking, if a rival bank offers the same position as mine for a vastly inflated salary it doesn't 'trickle down' across the industry. Why? Because a firm couldn't be profitable paying those kind of salaries.

But I guess you can just keep on believing Bettman and the owners; they were all a bunch of big dummies who somehow stumbled into signing all these massive deals even though they didn't really want to and couldn't really afford it. Even though they were already some of the most successful business people in the world, they all screwed up this time and overpaid everyone to the point of them all going bankrupt. Makes sense.

It's not the players fault. They are the skilled labor and can ask for whatever they want. It's the owners' fault for being willing to pay it.

If a player asks for a ridiculous amount of money, and nobody takes it, the player can A- lower his request B- play for AK Bars Kazan for 1 million.

So when these players stepped up and asked for these inflated salaries, what happened, I think, is that all the owners/Gms/whoever started playing a defense where the idea is "If I have him, you don't, so I'll pay it." Apply it to the Rangers deals this summer. Drury and Gomez are basically career 60 point guys that are now making over 6.5 each, Gomer a lot more. Inflated? You bet! But guess what...the Flyers don't have them, the Devils don't, nor the Habs, the Kings, and so on. It's an arms race, but applied to hockey players and their salaries.

The owners shot themselves in the foot and blamed the players. Thing is, the players know they got greedy and started asking for ridiculous salaries so they couldn't exactly deny blame, in some way.