Well we will agree to disagree. But I truly believe you are wrong. 5 on 5 maybe a different story with rotations and zone coverage but 4 on 4 is man on man and Im done with this argument I've commented on it enough.

Can anyone else on this thread comment on the fact that 4 on 4 the defense covers the forwards and vice versa?
- mvp0207

Well, in zone, I would assume they would shadow them within reason. For example, a forward should not be covering a forward low, although covering a high forward is acceptable. Just as the D would not cover a high forward, but would cover a low D-man, for example Salo? sneaking backdoor at the end of the game. I also believe the the Sedins belonged to the D once they were below the goal line and in/near the slot.

You really need to quit repeating the man on man thing. If Hendrik decide to skate out to the point then I guess Seabs or Kieth should just follow him to the point. That is not how coverage works. You rotate your responsibilities so you are not chasing guys around the ice.
- tokked

YES Thats exactly what Im saying and its 100% true. Its different then 5 on 5 hockey.

WITHIN reason as Wally said before this post. They should not camp out with them on the blue line and at some point a switch would be made so they can get back down low. But if Herik skated to the blue line he would essentially be playing the point, or defensive position.

The Sedins were the forwards on that play CLEARLY. The better way to say this is not man on man BUT the forwards have the Dee and the Dee have the forwards.

I guess you missed the 3 times he's called me tool today.
- Ogilthorpe2

For you that's a compliment from me...a term of endearment if you will.

If you think Crawford will lead you through the playoffs you are sadly mistaken. Even the bandwagon Hawk fans I talk to can see this. Ogilthorpe just doesn't like to hear the truth so he resorts to name calling. It's okay I understand you're frustration.
- CanUSA17

Pot, meet kettle.

YES Thats exactly what Im saying and its 100% true. Its different then 5 on 5 hockey.
- mvp0207

Its different in that there are probably more clearly defined roles. If D-men were following forwards high though, that would be a recipe for disaster. D are usually slower skaters and forwards are too small to protect the net. Pretty soon you have forwards luring D-men to the blue line and then skating around them back down low and driving the net on the forwards.

Well, in zone, I would assume they would shadow them within reason. For example, a forward should not be covering a forward low, although covering a high forward is acceptable. Just as the D would not cover a high forward, but would cover a low D-man, for example Salo? sneaking backdoor at the end of the game. I also believe the the Sedins belonged to the D once they were below the goal line and in/near the slot.
- Walky

Well said

Pot, meet kettle.
- Ogilthorpe2

Its different in that there are probably more clearly defined roles. If D-men were following forwards high though, that would be a recipe for disaster. D are usually slower skaters and forwards are too small to protect the net. Pretty soon you have forwards luring D-men to the blue line and then skating around them back down low and driving the net on the forwards.
- Walky

Agreed clarified my answer a bit.

Its different in that there are probably more clearly defined roles. If D-men were following forwards high though, that would be a recipe for disaster. D are usually slower skaters and forwards are too small to protect the net. Pretty soon you have forwards luring D-men to the blue line and then skating around them back down low and driving the net on the forwards.
- Walky

Either way its silly to blame Kane for that goal. Seabs and Keith on the ice and were negatively involved in ALL THREE goals tonight. They had their heads up their cracks.

I just said the Canucks played like crap. They were sloppy all game and too much standing around in the defensive zone. Believe me they can play much better than they showed tonight.
- CanUSA17

I agree, if they were playing the Blue Jackets they likely would have looked much better tonight.

Either way its silly to blame Kane for that goal. Seabs and Keith on the ice and were negatively involved in ALL THREE goals tonight. They had their heads up their cracks.
- mvp0207

Eh, I think they played fine. I don't remember the first goal too clearly, but the second, looked to me like hodgson was banking on Stals turning it over and was going the other way before Stals lost it. D-men are still in, lets get some offense going mode. The third was some absolutely brilliant passing which confused a tired 72 a little, and opened up the Hawks D. The last pass was absolutely gorgeous on my terrible online feed. Looked like it was a nice little saucer over Keith's stick right on the tape of the scoring Sedin.

You never know until you play the games. And dont the two teams have about the same amount of points this year. There is more then one way to skin a cat. Lets just see what moves they make and how things come together.

Vancouver has not proved to be much of a play-off team either. So are you writing them off also?
- mvp0207

Actually the only reason the 2 teams are close is because Vancouver got off to a horrible start once again. Honestly I believe this years team is better than last years team who was 1 win away. More scoring depth with Booth and the ROY Hodgson. They can play more physical than last years team and if they add another good defenseman and scorer then I believe the Cup is theirs to lose. We'll see how it all plays out.

Either way its silly to blame Kane for that goal. Seabs and Keith on the ice and were negatively involved in ALL THREE goals tonight. They had their heads up their cracks.
- mvp0207

What so difficult to grasp here? Keith has to deny that pass from where it originated and Kane has to eliminate the option that his man represented to the man with the puck. He didn't and his man scored the goal.

I agree, if they were playing the Blue Jackets they likely would have looked much better tonight.
- Ogilthorpe2

Actually what's funny is Bowman is secretly f'n up your team with the moves he makes. Wasn't his dad a big part of the Red Wings organization?

Eh, I think they played fine. I don't remember the first goal too clearly, but the second, looked to me like hodgson was banking on Stals turning it over and was going the other way before Stals lost it. D-men are still in, lets get some offense going mode. The third was some absolutely brilliant passing which confused a tired 72 a little, and opened up the Hawks D. The last pass was absolutely gorgeous on my terrible online feed. Looked like it was a nice little saucer over Keith's stick right on the tape of the scoring Sedin.
- Walky

The first went in off a half hearted attempt by Keith to block the shot and he delected it on as well as screened Cory. I know the second was an awful turnover by Stahlberg but a supposed eilte tandem should not allow a rookie to get behind them when they had a one goal lead.

What so difficult to grasp here? Keith has to deny that pass from where it originated and Kane has to eliminate the option that his man represented to the man with the puck. He didn't and his man scored the goal.
- RickJ

Then whats Seabrooks job there, cover the side of the net? Or skate out to the point and cover the point man. Of Course not. If you claim Keith was where he needed to be then Seabrook should have had the other FORWARD. Thats the way it works 4 on 4. Kane COULD have helped better but 4 on 4 thats not his man. I can ask the same rhetorical question, WHATS SO HARD TO GRASP HERE?

Actually the only reason the 2 teams are close is because Vancouver got off to a horrible start once again. Honestly I believe this years team is better than last years team who was 1 win away. More scoring depth with Booth and the ROY Hodgson. They can play more physical than last years team and if they add another good defenseman and scorer then I believe the Cup is theirs to lose. We'll see how it all plays out.
- CanUSA17

Yeah sure that...and the sh!t division the Nucks have luxury of being in.

YES Thats exactly what Im saying and its 100% true. Its different then 5 on 5 hockey.

WITHIN reason as Wally said before this post. They should not camp out with them on the blue line and at some point a switch would be made so they can get back down low. But if Herik skated to the blue line he would essentially be playing the point, or defensive position.

The Sedins were the forwards on that play CLEARLY. The better way to say this is not man on man BUT the forwards have the Dee and the Dee have the forwards.
- mvp0207

Maybe this will help you understand.

The first went in off a half hearted attempt by Keith to block the shot and he delected it on as well as screened Cory. I know the second was an awful turnover by Stahlberg but a supposed eilte tandem should not allow a rookie to get behind them when they had a one goal lead.
- mvp0207

Its kind of a reflex to get your stick in the way of the puck, whether its actually a good idea or not. I wouldn't go as far as calling Hogdson's play cherry picking, but he certainly left early and if there were no turn over there would have been a nice 5 on 4. That was a heads up play to capitalize on a unique situation and pretty good for a rookie. Its something Kane and Sharp do regularly.

This was a pretty good game overall and if they replicate this effort they'll get a good amount of points down the stretch. I'm tired, be back to read/possibly comment tomorrow.

- kneughter

Best avatar ever.

Yeah sure that...and the sh!t division the Nucks have luxury of being in.
- Ogilthorpe2

Are they poop? Or does Canucks give that illusion. Put Vancouver in any division and the same thing happens... the other 4 teams are out of the playoffs. The best team in the league playing against you 6 times in a season is going to keep you out of the playoff picture.

I'd love to see some facts to prove me wrong.

Maybe this will help you understand.

f]
- tokked

Your illustration shows Seabrook should have been moving to the middle of the net (NEVER HAPPENED) and one of the two forwards Bolland or Kane coming OFF their point men to help. Bolland did just this and missed the stick but Seabrook DID NOT move off the post to cover the front of the net. HE WAS COVERING NOBODY. He was watching Henrik behind the net. Your illustration also shows both forwards leaving the point men which doenst quite make sense.

Look Im done with this I think you are wrong if you think you are correct then Fine Im OK with that. But you are missing the simple coverage to try and talk about switches and silly illustrations. I've always been taught and I hear game in and game out that 4 on 4 the Dee covers the forwards and the forwards cover the Dee. Over and Over again I've heard this. On that play the sedins were the forwards and Seabs and Keith were on dee. So I'm not going to change MY mind by a internet blog disagreement.

Your illustration shows Seabrook should have been moving to the middle of the net and one of the two forwards Bolland or Kane coming OFF their point men to help. Bolland did just this and missed the stick but Seabrook DID NOT move of the post to cover the front of the net. HE WAS COVERING NOBODY. He was watching Henrik behind the net. Your illustration also shows both forwards leaving the point men which doenst quite make sense.
- mvp0207

Seabrook did move off his post on the play but the goal was scored at the opposite post. Seab's and Keith were protecting the house. The point of the illustration is to show how the rotation should have worked. That black X in the corner is Kane. If he cuts off Daniel's lane to the net that goal never happens. Bolland being in the High slot can easily move to cover Kane's dman and Seabs can step out if the pass manages to make it's way to Bolland's dman.

Then whats Seabrooks job there, cover the side of the net? Or skate out to the point and cover the point man. Of Course not. If you claim Keith was where he needed to be then Seabrook should have had the other FORWARD. Thats the way it works 4 on 4. Kane COULD have helped better but 4 on 4 thats not his man. I can ask the same rhetorical question, WHATS SO HARD TO GRASP HERE?
- mvp0207

There is no way Seabrook is responsible for going to his opposite side of the ice where the other forward was to pick up that forward as if it was man to man. The goal scorer came from the zone Kane was in and should have been covered by him. Seabrook could or should have moved more toward the front of the net but not beyond there.

The Sedins have confused and victimized plenty of teams so its not like its the first time this has happened. Q probably knew he was sunk when he realized Kane was out there having to play defense in his own zone.

There is no way Seabrook is responsible for going to his opposite side of the ice where the other forward was to pick up that forward as if it was man to man. The goal scorer came from the zone Kane was in and should have been covered by him. Seabrook could or should have moved more toward the front of the net but not beyond there.

The Sedins have confused and victimized plenty of teams so its not like its the first time this has happened. Q probably knew he was sunk when he realized Kane was out there having to play defense in his own zone.
- RickJ

Just be happy no one skated off the ice to get a new stick while it was in the defensive zone..............