White Bear Lake's defensive play

[wbhockey02]

So as you all saw the bears fell back into the trap against hill on friday night, it personally drove me insane to the point where i wanted to smack Sager upside the head. So i was just wondering what everyone else thought about it?

To me my reasoning for dislike is they showed they could skate with them early in the game, so why would you want to change it up if it's working, because I think if they would've forechecked hard it could've been a blowout, because they scored two goals playing that defensive style.
just my 2 cents

[WBLHockeyfan04]

So as you all saw the bears fell back into the trap against hill on friday night, it personally drove me insane to the point where i wanted to smack Sager upside the head. So i was just wondering what everyone else thought about it?

To me my reasoning for dislike is they showed they could skate with them early in the game, so why would you want to change it up if it's working, because I think if they would've forechecked hard it could've been a blowout, because they scored two goals playing that defensive style.
just my 2 cents

Are you serious!? WBL can't skate with Hill Murray for an entire 3 periods. Obviously they scored in the first 30 seconds to really get them going, but the trapped worked beautifully for much of the game. It really neutralized Hill's speed, and prevented alot of odd man rushes throughout the game. The Bear's weren't bringing the D too much into the offensive zone, and they played a very smart hockey game.

If anything, this was Sager's best coaching job against Hill Murray. Not only did they play great, MOST IMPORTATNLY THEY WON THE GAME!

[DMom]

Nothing bothers me more than watching a team with a one goal lead give up an odd man rush. If you are ahead in the game, make defense a priority of everyone on the ice. Whalin burned up almost an entire minute fighting on the boards from 6:30 to 5:something--approximately.

I know, I know, I know, that a lot of hockey whizzes say if your offense is winning the game for you, than stay on offense, but when you are playing an offensive power (and, yes, I like that pun ) like Hill Murray I think you have to limit their chances. Plus Hill was taking chances and gave up a large number of odd-man rushes to the Bears, which they were able to capitalize on. If you've proven you can score with less in the offensive zone, than play defense first, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion).

[PuckU126]

Playing the trap contained HM and caused turnovers; this is essential when playing a team like HM. It was a good strategy that was effective and conserved energy for the WB players.

If Shaughnessy didn't have a poor game and HM had the lead, I would say WB needed to switch to a 2-1-2 format and not a trap. But this wasn't the case. WB took advantage of their scoring chances and they controlled the game after that.

Those early goals gave WB the early advantage to control the momentum of the game.

[wbhockey02]

But to me it just seems like it gave Hill more of a chance to setup, and that is the last thing that I want to see, is Hill set up in your zone passing the puck around and being given the opportunity to make plays, because eventually they cash in, as they did 3 times in the last 8 minutes of the game!

[PuckU126]

But to me it just seems like it gave Hill more of a chance to setup, and that is the last thing that I want to see, is Hill set up in your zone passing the puck around and being given the opportunity to make plays, because eventually they cash in, as they did 3 times in the last 8 minutes of the game!

But that wasn't a trap WB was playing in their own zone.

WB played a trap in HM's zone. A 1-2-2 is a offensive zone converge, not defensive zone.

WB played a collapsing defensive zone coverage. HM was able to move the puck in their offensive zone; however, WB was able to control HM's rebounds and second chances a lot better.

WB was able to "kick back," conserve energy, and play D because they got those early goals.

[HSHockeyPurist]

I enjoyed watching it and was fascinated that Sager could convince his historically undisciplined squad to do it. It must have killed Wahlin to drop back when he excels in the forecheck, but it allowed him to create turnovers using a different skill and maybe rounded him out as a player. I have no problem changing the scheme when the earlier scheme was working, though do question sticking with it after HM scored the two goals on it, but I'm certain there's more to those decisions than I know and can see from the stands.

[wbhockey02]

But to me it just seems like it gave Hill more of a chance to setup, and that is the last thing that I want to see, is Hill set up in your zone passing the puck around and being given the opportunity to make plays, because eventually they cash in, as they did 3 times in the last 8 minutes of the game!

But that wasn't a trap WB was playing in their own zone.

WB played a trap in HM's zone. A 1-2-2 is a offensive zone converge, not defensive zone.

WB played a collapsing defensive zone coverage. HM was able to move the puck in their offensive zone; however, WB was able to control HM's rebounds and second chances a lot better.

WB was able to "kick back," conserve energy, and play D because they got those early goals.

I agree with you to a certain degree, but i still don't want to let a team set up in my zone and pass and shoot at will. and you're right it was easier to control rebounds, but I still don't like those shots from the point with traffic out in front of the net.

[PuckU126]

But to me it just seems like it gave Hill more of a chance to setup, and that is the last thing that I want to see, is Hill set up in your zone passing the puck around and being given the opportunity to make plays, because eventually they cash in, as they did 3 times in the last 8 minutes of the game!

But that wasn't a trap WB was playing in their own zone.

WB played a trap in HM's zone. A 1-2-2 is a offensive zone converge, not defensive zone.

WB played a collapsing defensive zone coverage. HM was able to move the puck in their offensive zone; however, WB was able to control HM's rebounds and second chances a lot better.

WB was able to "kick back," conserve energy, and play D because they got those early goals.

I agree with you to a certain degree, but i still don't want to let a team set up in my zone and pass and shoot at will. and you're right it was easier to control rebounds, but I still don't like those shots from the point with traffic out in front of the net.

I agree, but it did pay off for WB!

They were able to skate with HM longer and capitalize on their chances.

[Goldfishdude]

The arguments about the trap with Sager is not that he hasn't tried it before, it's just that in most (conference) games, the Bears have better players, better skaters, and they don't have to employ as disciplined a trap.

As I have stated in the past, the winning percentage for Sager is below .300 now for quality teams outside the conference, because when the trap is planned, the execution isn't always there, because the better teams match up better personnel-wise, AND, as has been pointed out, the "discipline" to run the system has been a major factor in failure.

[mnpuckster]

The trap won the game for the Bears

Maybe 1 line could skate with HM, but not all 3 for all 3 periods.

Great gameplan Sager, finally got the best of the man in the charlie brown sweater

[Goldfishdude]

puckie... Since I wasn't there, it certainly sounds/appears the kids stayed disciplined and executed what was taught to garner the success with the trap.

I don't know if they failed at using the trap the first two games, or didn't even attempt, but if my memory serves me, Sager has tried the trap vs H-M in previous years and some games they lose 7-1 and others 3-2 in OT..

The main thing I had heard was there was limited odd-man rushed for H-M in comparison to any other games, which tells me that Sager made an adjustment to enforce limited pinching in the offensive zone, because we all know how that has killed this program for years.

[WBLHockeyfan04]

I think the goal in the first 30 seconds of the game really gave the Bears a huge confidence booster. Alot of things went right early and often, and it seemed to take alot of pressure off having to try and do too much and just go with the game plan. Which was to play the trap game. They were playing with so much confidence and ease, that at times I felt I was watching a completely different team play. Yes, the 3rd period was an exception, but the Bears overcame it all and were able to finish off what was a great game.

With all that being said, I feel more confident than ever in this WBL team. They're playing with so much confidence right now, and I see no reason why they can't win Thursday.

[GordonBombay99]

I think the goal in the first 30 seconds of the game really gave the Bears a huge confidence booster. Alot of things went right early and often, and it seemed to take alot of pressure off having to try and do too much and just go with the game plan. Which was to play the trap game. They were playing with so much confidence and ease, that at times I felt I was watching a completely different team play. Yes, the 3rd period was an exception, but the Bears overcame it all and were able to finish off what was a great game.

With all that being said, I feel more confident than ever in this WBL team. They're playing with so much confidence right now, and I see no reason why they can't win Thursday.

Getting the first goal in any game against any team should give the scoring team a ton of confidence. White Bear Lake rode that confidence and never looked back.

[PuckU126]

puckie... Since I wasn't there, it certainly sounds/appears the kids stayed disciplined and executed what was taught to garner the success with the trap.

I don't know if they failed at using the trap the first two games, or didn't even attempt, but if my memory serves me, Sager has tried the trap vs H-M in previous years and some games they lose 7-1 and others 3-2 in OT..

The main thing I had heard was there was limited odd-man rushed for H-M in comparison to any other games, which tells me that Sager made an adjustment to enforce limited pinching in the offensive zone, because we all know how that has killed this program for years.

WB tried it before; but they didn't have a 2-0 lead in the beginning of the game... Putting HM in that position made them play catch-up for the entire game; causing them to take chances.

These chances were countered to a 4-1 WB lead; however, WB went back into its shell and allowed HM to tack on 3 goals.

WB was able to regroup after the first OT and then capitalized on their chances.

That first period was the beginning of HM's demise.

[Weekend_Warrior]

If White Bear would have stuck with what was working in the first and the majority of the second period... *yes. That's two periods, folks. They skated with them* then they probably could have buried Hill 6 or 7 to 1. But instead they started dumping the puck in Hill's zone and then waited for them at the blue or red line, let them all skate in and essentially take a bunch of shots at their goaltender until they miss, or the shot was blocked (which didn't happen much).

This strategy obviously did not work because they allowed 3 goals in the 3rd period and almost lost the game in the final minute(s) when the Hill player had practically a wide open net to shoot at but somehow managed to miss.

To think this was somehow a good strategy is absurd. I mean, the entire White Bear crowd around me was frequently yelling "WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?" "GO GET THE PUCK!" "YOU CAN'T LAY BACK - YOU GOTTA STAY OFFENSIVE AGAINST THIS TEAM!!" And yeah, I was right there yelling along with them. It was extremely aggravating to watch. Many times I just wanted to pull my hair out and go yell at the coach.

Any fool knows that if you keep letting the other team take repeated shots on the net sooner or later it's going to find its way in. And that's exactly what happened, but the coach let it happen 3 TIMES.. and once again it almost cost them the game. There's no excuse in the book for that.

To some degree, the same logic almost applied to Childress' coaching (if you want to call it that) for the Vikings football team. If you've got Adrian Peterson running the ball repeatedly and it's working.. you don't just up and decide to have Favre throw it. Especially on first or second down. But they did this often and many times the pass was intercepted (sometimes even run back for a TD) and I'm just sitting there screaming.. "WHY!? WHY WOULDN'T YOU JUST RUN IT ALL THE WAY DOWN THE F'N FIELD? WHY TAKE THE UNNEEDED RISK IF WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WORKING??"

But see.. that's part of the reason why they never made it to the Super Bowl, and had a horrible season this past year - too many stupid calls like that.

Anyway... you stick with what works. ALWAYS! When it no longer seems to work, THEN you change your game. I mean, c'mon.. this is like Coaching 101 here. It's common sense. Or at least it should be.

[Goldfishdude]

Weekie.... The part that has always puzzled me is that when the Bears play a team with lesser talent, they never have issues in burying teams. They keep being the aggessor.. I don't know if they ever would sit back on a 4-1 lead in those games.. After all, that's how they become 7-1 games.

I stated on the game day thread that Sager needed to make sure they employed an aggressive forecheck and didn't pinch the defense in the offensive zone, and maybe I have misread things.... Am I now to understand that they completely played a different style the 3rd period versus the first 2? Because, I have also read on this thread the it took until the 3rd period before H-M finally figured it out.

[Edwardo]

I say in the past seven or eight years that this is the only game that I have actually seen Sager coach. Which makes me believe that he had nothing to do with the neutral zone trap idea, I give credit to the younger coaches for coming up with the idea. But I have to give Sager credit for finally listening to someone else instead of knowing it all. However when Sager did attempt to coach and changed up the game plan that was working for the first 2 periods, he once again almost lost the game for the Bears, they were one open net miss from yet another loss. I thought WB's defense played well although I believe 3 of the 4 goals scored were from the back door, which tells me that no body was being moved in front of the net which is typical, Birkinebine & David did a brilliant job in the "D" zone supporting the defense and that was the difference. No body can give this coach any Kudos for this brilliant game execution, it was won by the team, because the team wanted to "WIN" it was supported by the younger coaches because they care about the players over and above there "EGO's". Last thing, Schletty well all I can say is "Awesome" good for you for not letting all of the mind games that have been played all year getting to you and staying on your game.

[DMom]

Weekie.... The part that has always puzzled me is that when the Bears play a team with lesser talent, they never have issues in burying teams. They keep being the aggessor.. I don't know if they ever would sit back on a 4-1 lead in those games.. After all, that's how they become 7-1 games.

I stated on the game day thread that Sager needed to make sure they employed an aggressive forecheck and didn't pinch the defense in the offensive zone, and maybe I have misread things.... Am I now to understand that they completely played a different style the 3rd period versus the first 2? Because, I have also read on this thread the it took until the 3rd period before H-M finally figured it out.

GFD, I'm not sure what game some people were watching but shots were 13/11/7/2 for Hill. The third period seemed very different. The Bears won the face-off, controlled the puck, got a shot off and when Hill came back with the rebound the Bears had dropped back to the neutral zone and spread out like a football team. The Bears than killed off a penalty and scored first in the period. Hill had been giving up odd-man rushes the whole game and that didn't change in the third. Allowing seven shots, in a period that included three Hill power plays, is playing pretty good team defense, the fact that three shots went in is a testament to the skill that Hill brings. Good for Sager and his coaching staff, good for the Bears, good job for #12 on D-he worked his butt off all night. BTW, not a Bears fan, but I can appreciate good hockey and the Bears seemed to want it more.

[PuckU126]

Weekie.... The part that has always puzzled me is that when the Bears play a team with lesser talent, they never have issues in burying teams. They keep being the aggessor.. I don't know if they ever would sit back on a 4-1 lead in those games.. After all, that's how they become 7-1 games.

I stated on the game day thread that Sager needed to make sure they employed an aggressive forecheck and didn't pinch the defense in the offensive zone, and maybe I have misread things.... Am I now to understand that they completely played a different style the 3rd period versus the first 2? Because, I have also read on this thread the it took until the 3rd period before H-M finally figured it out.

GFD, I'm not sure what game some people were watching but shots were 13/11/7/2 for Hill. The third period seemed very different. The Bears won the face-off, controlled the puck, got a shot off and when Hill came back with the rebound the Bears had dropped back to the neutral zone and spread out like a football team. The Bears than killed off a penalty and scored first in the period. Hill had been giving up odd-man rushes the whole game and that didn't change in the third. Allowing seven shots, in a period that included three Hill power plays, is playing pretty good team defense, the fact that three shots went in is a testament to the skill that Hill brings. Good for Sager and his coaching staff, good for the Bears, good job for #12 on D-he worked his butt off all night. BTW, not a Bears fan, but I can appreciate good hockey and the Bears seemed to want it more.

You're right. They had about the same number of blocked shots as well.

[Goldfishdude]

Thanks, Eddie and Mommy for adding additional perspectives..... Maybe we need to add some kudos to former player Matt Greer, who was added to the staff this year. My son had said the players seem to have liked what he has brought to the team.

[mnpuckster]

Greer was a great addition to the staff. Very smart hockey player, and an absolute class act. Cant find a better kid.

About WBL trying the trap in previous games, I never has seen them play it to this extent. Forechecking no one almost the entire game. But it worked, and the Bears heading to the X