Babcock vs. Blashill

The Detroit Red Wings this year have been one of the most interesting teams for me to follow due to the coaching change that shocked the hockey world. When Mike Babcock left the Red Wings to join the Toronto Maple Leafs, many expected that Jeff Blashill would be able to step right in and continue the legacy of success that Babcock and the Red Wings organization in general have left behind. After all, the Red Wings organization has made the playoffs in 24 straight seasons and were expected to contend again this season after some interesting off-season additions and taking the Eastern Conference champion Tampa Bay Lightning to a hard-fought seven games. But no pressure Jeff.

This season has not gone exactly the way Blashill and the Red Wings would have hoped. They sit in 10th place in the Eastern Conference with a 7-6-1 record and a -3 goal differential. Their record is not the real cause for concern in Hockeytown though, and really it's actually a pretty good record for a team that is adjusting to a new coach. The real cause of concern is their troubling possession stats 14 games into the season after being the league's poster-child for dominant possession the last decade. The Red Wings currently boast the 29th best 5 on 5 score-adjusted possession numbers at 46.8%. To put this into perspective, the Red Wings were the proud owners of the league's #1 score-adjusted CF% from 2007-2008 until 2014-2015 when Babcock left the team with a ridiculous 55.0% (all stats courtesy of the fantastic War-on-Ice). The team possessed the puck a consistently tremendous amount of the time and this was a major reason for their continued playoff streak and their Stanley Cup victory during this span.

So the real question becomes, what has changed this season to result in the fairly substantial difference in possession numbers? Granted, the Red Wings have only played 14 games this season so there is still the complete possibility that they can turn these numbers around and return to their past dominance, but it is still worth considering this early into the Blashill era. It also would be wise to mention that the Red Wings are missing one of the game's best two-way forwards in Pavel Datsyuk and his absence surely has a massive impact on possession numbers as well. In order to examine the cause of this downturn, we will take a look at some film from the Red Wings last season versus the Red Wings this season and see if we can notice any patterns or trends that have changed the way the team plays.

Is Blashill's system substantially different from Babcock's and it has resulted in poor possession numbers or is the drop-off simply poor execution and/or small sample size? Let's see if we can find out.

The first thing that becomes apparent when watching the Red Wings this season from years past is the lack of consistent, controlled breakouts that were a staple of the Babcock-coached teams. As I mentioned in my post on the Avs last week, Babcock heavily stressed short and crisp passes that were important to establishing the breakout and moving the puck up ice with speed and control. As far as I can tell, that staple is missing with the Red Wings this season. Let's look at a few examples.

Here we can see that Jakub Kindl has control of the puck in the corner with the Canucks changing and only one forechecker actively applying pressure on the defender. The Red Wings have their center Riley Sheahan behind the net serving as an option to regroup, a winger posted on the half-boards and the other winger high in the zone who could retrieve a pass either from the defender in the corner or from a quick one-touch pass from the winger on the half-boards and he would be advancing up the ice with speed. The other Red Wing not currently in the picture is the other defenceman, Niklas Kronwall, who is positioned in the other corner directly across from Kindl.

Kindl decides to go behind the net and the puck inexplicably hops over both Sheahan's stick and eventually Kronwall's giving the Canucks an opportunity to pounce on the loose puck in a situation where this should never happen. This breakout is particularly strange to me, because the Red Wings had plenty of room to move the puck in the center of the ice but they have three players (2 D and a C) lined up behind the net. It will definitely warrant more investigation to see if this is an installed feature of their breakout.

Because of this, Kronwall is forced to relay the puck back behind the net to Kindl. Now the Red Wings have limited their options for a crisp, fast-paced breakout. Kindl still does have options, however, but instead he rings the puck around the boards without any player in position to accept it and the Canucks are able to re-gain possession in the neutral zone. This panicked breakout has become a concerning trend in the games I have watched.

Just over a year ago, Justin Bourne wrote a tremendous piece on how the Red Wings utilize the center of the ice to kickstart the breakout, contrary to common coaching tactics. The Red Wings played the Maple Leafs the other night and it was clear that Babcock not only employs this tactic frequently, but also applies this same logic on the forecheck.

Bourne highlighted numerous plays in which the center of the ice would often be vacant of opposing forecheckers and would thus be the perfect area to exploit in order to break the puck out with control. Here is one example where the Red Wings try to break out by moving the puck to the strong-side winger who is being pressured by the other team. The ideal play for the winger would be a quick redirection to the middle where his C, in this case Henrik Zetterberg, could retrieve the puck with momentum up ice. Instead, #26 Daniel Winnik is hugging Zetterberg as he streaks through the middle and eliminates him as an outlet.

Due to Winnik effectively cutting off the middle of the ice as an option, the Red Wings winger is forced to spin and flip the puck Off the Glass (I chose this blog's title for a reason - one of my least favourite plays in hockey is the chip off the glass and out). Now, this is a tremendous example of Babcock's coaching adjustments to restrict the middle of the ice when he is familiar with the team's strategy. It is also another example of this year's Red Wings being forced to take the least favourable method to exit the zone without control of the puck.

The main difference in the Red Wings breakout I have noticed has been their departure from using the center of the ice as the catalyst for the breakout. Whereas Babcock stressed it as the ideal method for exiting the zone, the Red Wings are far more content to use the wingers along the boards to advance the puck. Noticeably, the Red Wings execution has been remarkably poor so far and that is likely the result of an adjustment period being necessary. Once the breakout begins to run smoother and passes are being made more efficiently, the breakout should be far improved.

In terms of the forecheck, the Red Wings have a fairly aggressive 2-3 system where the first two attackers in will pressure the defenders and the third forward will sit back and float to the open areas. I say fairly aggressive because the F3 will often engage in the play and is not afraid to hunt for loose pucks even if it means there is no forward back.

In this frame we see the two original Red Wings forecheckers battling for the puck in the corner. The F3, Zetterberg, is a few feet from the battle even though there is only one Oiler battling the two forecheckers. Of course, the score at the time was 3-0 so the Red Wings would be inclined to press further at this time, but it is something I have noticed often with the Red Wings forecheck that the F3 is often involved in board scrums and corner play.

The forecheck the Red Wings have employed under Blashill is really not that different from what the team utilized under Babcock. Studying the Red Wings film from last season, we see that they too used an aggressive 2-3 system that was very lenient on the high forward activating in order to sustain offensive pressure.

This frame is taken from a game last year against the St. Louis Blues. All three forecheckers are involved in the battle for the puck and are willing to sacrifice the consequences of a turnover for maintaining possession. In the same game from last year we see the same aggressive forecheck once again:

This forecheck has remained relatively consistent from the games I have viewed both last season and this season. Blashill has definitely adopted Babcock's forechecking strategy this season and is confident in his forward's ability to commit to the backcheck and minimize the risk of odd-man rushes.

In both the D-zone and the O-zone, the conclusion of this post is that there has been little change
in the systems ran by Babcock and Blashill. The one notable change is the reluctance to use the middle of the ice this season on the breakout by the Red Wings defenders while that was one of the go-to options for the defencemen last season. While that certainly hinders the ability of the Red Wings to exploit the center of the ice and decreases their speed advantage, the breakout has also been constantly plagued by poor execution and sloppy play. Once the team becomes more coherent as a unit, the breakout should dramatically improve, especially if they are more liberal with taking advantage of the open ice.

It may be a little too early to condemn Blashill's systems in Detroit. The absence of Pavel Datsyuk and Mike Green for the last few games have removed two of the game's best players at tilting the ice and should have a considerable impact on the Red Wings underlying numbers. Furthermore, the team is just getting acclimated to a new system that may be familiar to them from Grand Rapids, but not on the NHL stage. If the Red Wings continue to hover around the bottom of the league in CF% 20 or 30 games into the season and there are no signs of improvement, perhaps then will red flags be warranted. But right now it appears as if there is not too much separating Babcock's Red Wings from Blashill's Red Wings.

Examining the Avs D-zone breakdowns

The Colorado Avalanche are atrocious this season, there is no mincing words when discussing the tire fire currently occurring on Mile High. Going into Thursday night's games, the Avalanche were sitting dead last in score-adjusted possession by a whopping 4.1%. That is extremely hard to pull off and yet the Avalanche are committed to being a team that is consistently stuck in its own end and unable to take advantage of the incredible skill the team boasts. They are also 4-8-1 on the season and, realistically, if nothing changes in Colorado in the near future they will have a legitimate shot at being a lottery team.

But the Avalanche roster has absolutely no business being in the lottery discussion. As discussed heavily on Twitter tonight as they were getting brushed by the Arizona Coyotes, this is a team with a ton of the game's most exciting, dynamic, and youthful talent. Sure, management has done a fairly poor job the last few offseasons as Joe Sakic has proven to be out of his element so far in his young management career, but the pieces are still in place for the Avalanche to be a competent playoff team. Inspired by this tweet from Travis Yost , I am really interested in digging into what plagues the Avalanche so heavily in their quest to move the puck up the ice and sustain offensive pressure. Through examining Avalanche film from this season, we can hopefully identify what the fundamental problem is with the way the Avalanche play.

Let's get to it.

It's pretty clear that two things are largely responsible for the Avalanche inability to possess the puck and win hockey games: Patrick Roy's abysmal coaching preparation and the Avs lackluster defencemen. This combination means plenty of defensive breakdowns and overall, just a mess in the defensive zone. Once the puck is set up with control in the Avs end, there's a good chance teams will be able to maintain possession for awhile. Let's take a look at the Avs game against the Coyotes tonight to identify some of the breakdowns in defensive coverage.

In this frame we can see that the Avalanche should have this play under control. There are four Avs in the picture with relatively good positioning while the Coyotes have two in the frame and are not in a threatening stance. The Avalanche, I have noticed in examining their games, are entranced by the puck. The five defenders follow the puck relentlessly with their eyes but fail to take into account anything else happening around them. In the next picture, a mere four seconds later, my point about the Avs puck-watching is illustrated perfectly.

How, how does this happen? In a mere four seconds the Coyotes have managed to park two forwards in front of the net with only one Avalanche defender back to cover the both of them. Take note of the Avs player wearing #2, that is Nick Holden and he is a defenceman yet he is stuck at the top of the blueline completely out of position. The Avs player standing in no man's land is Jack Skille who should have taken note of the fact that there is a Coyote standing wide open in front of the net. This breakdown rests squarely on the shoulders of the coaching staff and their lack of preparation. The Avs run around their own end with no idea about role or responsibility and this is the result. A Coyote player setting up a drive-thru window in front of Semyon Varlamov. Fortunately for the Avs they didn't score on this play but it is only reminiscent of too many plays throughout any hockey game they participate in.

The Coyotes third goal in this game is really one of my personal favourite goals I have witnessed. It is pure ineptitude, in its finest form. If there were a goal to sum up the Avalanche the last two seasons, this would be it without a doubt. It alone warrants an entire post but I will try and summarize it as much as I can.

The Avs have just lost a defensive-zone draw and the Coyotes shot from the point is deflected wide. In this frame we can see that #16 Nikita Zadorov is retrieving the puck in the corner with plenty of time to take a look and move the puck so the Avs can begin their breakout. The Avs defender standing in front of the net, ideally, would be shifting behind Varlamov to provide an outlet for Zadorov as the Coyotes forechecker applies pressure. This would be a feature of a functioning NHL breakout. Not the Avs, however. Not the Avs.

Now based off of where the defender is in front of Varlamov, one would assume this is the same frame as the one directly above. It is not. For some reason Brandon Gormley does not provide Zadorov with the outlet option and the Coyotes forechecker is able to strip the unsuspecting Zadorov (who failed impressively in moving the puck but even if he did shuffle it behind the net, there would be no one there to accept it). The successful NHL teams provide plenty of support for defencemen so that they can have options for the transition game and they can make the shorter pass to a teammate instead of the desperate stretch pass. This is where effective coaching comes in and has players in position to provide support. Without effective coaching, players are left to fend for themselves as we see here. But hold on, we're not done.

Now, after about 15 seconds of defensive scrambling and shot attempts hurling towards the Avs netminder, the Coyotes retrieve a loose puck in the corner. Note the Avs defensive positioning here. Three defenders are lined up virtually on a straight line staring directly at the puck with no concept of zone coverage or filling in space. The Coyotes player should be immediately pressed and his passing options should be cut off immediately. Instead he has time to look around and as all five Avs players are staring at the puck and failing to adjust to passing lanes, he has plenty of options coming out of the corner.

As the Coyotes player shuffles up the boards with the puck he has the pointman, who is out of the frame, wide open because Skille is staring right at the puck serving essentially no purpose. If he had adjusted himself two feet towards the blueline he would have effectively cut off the pass back to the point and the Coyotes player would have no option but to cycle the puck back around. But Skille has no concept of where he needs to be and fails to make the small adjustment necessary to remove the pass to the point as an option.

This is where it goes from head-scratching to downright hilarious. After the Coyote on the blueline shoots the puck towards the net there is no one in the home plate area save for the Avs center #10 Ben Street. He is somehow beaten to the rebound by Steve Downie of the Coyotes (yes, that Steve Downie) and is forced to hook Downie to prevent him from getting a clean shot at the rebound. Comically, Street's failed attempt to obstruct Downie results in him falling directly into Varlamov's pads where the puck was lying. Street's momentum then pushes the puck backwards over the goal line to make the game 3-1 and it would inevitably serve as the game-winning goal. Inexcusable defensive play all-around by the Avalanche and this much scrambling and incoherence often ends with disastrous results. Wanna know what this is even funnier? Roy actually challenged this goal, claiming goaltender interference, despite it clearly being the Avs pathetic attempt at playing competent defence. The referees seemed to agree.

Now a totally fair argument here is that the two plays I have highlighted have been a result of the Avs bottom defensive pairings and bottom six forwards being victimized rather than poor coaching and preparation. But while they may be more exposed because of their lack of skill to compensate for poor coaching, the Avs star players and reliable defencemen often become victimized due to confusion over defensive coverage as well. Let's take a look at the San Jose Sharks game-breaking goal with 1:39 left in their 4-3 win over the Avalanche on November 1.

We see here that the Avs are once again well-positioned originally. The Sharks enter the zone with possession but Tyson Barrie has contained the winger from streaking past him towards the net. There are four Avs players in the frame here including Matt Duchene and young superstar Nate MacKinnon and only 2 Sharks players in on the attack. But, once again, the common theme is the Avs backcheckers becoming frozen on the puck-carrier and losing their surroundings.

Let's pause here. Patrick Marleau's move here completely fools Barrie and he is left trailing towards the red line. Meanwhile, Duchene and MacKinnon are still eyeing the puck but have collapsed to the hashmarks, failing to cut off the pass to any trailing Sharks and leaving the offensive zone with plenty of room to maneuver.

This is nothing if not damning. We've got three of the Avs best players (Barrie, Duchene and MacKinnon) once again lined up in a straight line with no knowledge of attacking Sharks and no spatial awareness. And once again, they are all staring directly at the puck failing to notice the incoming caveman, er, Sharks defender Brent Burns who is wide open with a clear passing lane to feed him with half of the Avs defensive zone exposed.

Burns receives the pass and doesn't end up getting the best positioning to shoot the puck but when he does he's got a Shark player standing unopposed in front of the net. The Avs defender, Holden, fails to make an effort to remove him from the front of the net and Burns shot squeaks through Varlamov. Not the best shot for your goalie to let in, but a shot that should have never been allowed in the first place. 3-2 Sharks and game, set, match.

Regardless of the players the Avs deploy, their defensive zone play is honestly inexcusable for an NHL hockey club and it is directly attributable to the failure of the Avs coaching staff to adequately prepare their team for defensive coverage and positioning. The Avs do not have the most mobile or smart defenders and that surely exacerbates the mess but that should inspire the coaches even more to prepare a gameplan that allows for short, touch passes that support a competent breakout and zone coverage that pressures the attacking team and cuts off passing lanes.

Compare Roy with a coach like Mike Babcock, for example. Babcock was commenting on the fact that the Detroit Red Wings had lost tons of defensive talent so they had to adjust their gameplan in the defensive zone. Babcock's reasoning can be seen here:

“We don’t move the puck as well, so it’s real simple,” Babcock said.

“When you’ve got Lidstrom, Rafalski, Stewie (Brad Stuart) and Kronner (Niklas Kronwall), they go back, they turn the corner and they fire it to someone who hasn’t had to work quite as hard to be quite as close, to be in the exact position.

“We can’t play like that anymore. We have to be closer and tighter and more available, and better defensively.

“Sometimes it’s not very pretty, but that’s just the way it is.”

This quote by Babcock is a succinct summary of what the Avalanche need to be able to do effectively and on a consistent basis. From what we have seen so far under Coach Roy, that is something they are woefully inept at doing. It really is a shame because the Avalanche have the potential to be one of the league's most terrifying and electric teams (similar to the Stars) but coaching has been severely lacking and is a prime example of the horrendous negative consequences subpar coaching can have on a team in the modern game.