James Mirtle on the Leaf Report
“Marner hired private security to harass media members”
Mitch is in for a wild ride if he chooses to not waive his NMC.
Full qoute
“Part of that. He pays attention to everything, right? He and his camp pay attention to everything, like, to such a degree. I mean, you know, Marner's camp has been mad at me and blackballed me going back, like, five or six years, and I have no idea why, like that.
No one ever said to me, like, oh, I didn't like this thing you wrote. Like, I think that our coverage of Marner has been largely positive. You know, going way back to when he was drafted and when he first came into, I mean, his rookie season, he was phenomenal, you know, and, like, he's had, he's regular season, he's been a great, great player, and I think that we've written that.
But there's such a sensitivity there. Um, you know, so there's all these feuds going on, and you hear about, you know, he's got, like, private security people that harass media people, and there's just, uh, there's really weird stuff that's going on. It's really strange things that go on with, with Marner, and sometimes I feel bad for him.”
- Santo_44
That accusation that he hires security to harass media is ridiculous. First of all, maybe everybody forgets Marner was carjacked. At that point, he'd be an idiot not to have security around him 24/7. And an easy way to get close to a guy like Marner is to pretend to be media or a fan. Having security is perfectly logical. And if this writer can't deal with that, that's his problem. I'd keep the vultures in the media away from me too. They're mostly a bunch of idiots just looking to spin some bullpoop for a story because reporting on reality just doesn't sell like it use to.
Instead of listening to an idiot like Mirtle, who "likes" "ums" "I means" more than a 14 year old valley girl on TikTok, how about you read something with substance?
Enjoy.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/...e-game-7-ot-goal-against/
Throughout any hockey season, different events and stories dominate a news cycle and sometimes coaching and team structure gets pulled into the spotlight.
For example, suddenly something as "boring" as neutral zone defence is dominating the season-ending headlines in Los Angeles, where the 1-3-1 system they utilized is being scrutinized, and in Toronto because of how the overtime-winning goal in Game 7's loss unfolded.
So let’s dive into the coaching world and learn more about defensive systems in the neutral zone and the impact they have had on the NHL in the past week.
In light of the 150th running of the Kentucky Derby, let’s start with a horse racing analogy. While working with Jacques Lemaire (the father of the neutral zone trap) there was a common refrain, “getting through the neutral zone should be a muddy track.” Like a horse running on a rainy day, struggling to gain and maintain speed in the wet soil, the job of the defensive team is to eliminate all of the pace coming from the offensive team through structure and effort.
Think of a neutral zone system as the muddy track, and the jockey as the defensive player on top weighing the horse down.
TYPES OF NEUTRAL ZONE DEFENCE
Defensive play in the neutral zone can be broken into five main categories:
1. Pressure out of zone: When a puck is chipped out of the defensive zone into the neutral zone, how do you pressure out of your zone into the middle of the ice?
2. Backchecking/sorting from the rush: When the puck is leaving the opponent's zone and you are defending the rush, how do you handle the opposing players?
3. Neutral zone forecheck: When the opponent regroups, often by passing the puck D-to-D, what structure do you get into to defend the neutral zone?
4. Controlled forecheck: When the opponent stops behind their own net and you are passively defending them, what structure do you use?
5. Line change forecheck: How do you defend the neutral zone while changing your players on the fly?
For the sake of this article we’ll focus on the defensive play in the news, the neutral zone forecheck.
WHAT SYSTEMS DO TEAMS PLAY?
Teams in the NHL use three basic “formations” in the neutral zone, which are defined by the number of players within each layer of the system. So throughout this article we’ll speak of the 1-2-2, the 1-3-1 and the 1-1-3.
THE 1-2-2
Why is it popular? Natural and easy to play while allowing passive interference.
This is the most “natural” of the neutral zone forechecks because you have F1 as a layer steering traffic, your two other forwards are above the red line, and your defenders are gapped up and protecting your blue line.
If you put five random players on the ice and don’t tell them where to go, chances are this is the structure they will default to. It just feels natural to defend this way and coaches take advantage of instincts so they use this system often.
Many teams will also use the 1-2-2 as an opportunity to interfere with players through the middle of the ice. Because you are skating forward, players can bump, cut off and work to passively interfere with the opposing forecheck.
THE 1-1-3
Why is it popular? Takes away rush chances against by forcing dump-ins
There has never been more skill in the NHL, and as a defender it’s never been more terrifying to have a Ferrari-like Connor McDavid attacking you on the rush. Coaches have responded to this by using the 1-1-3 “trap” to try and take away all the lanes at the defending blue line.
In this system F1 and F2 are there to force the puck to one side of the ice (generally the strong side where the defence is) and to eliminate cross-ice passes through the neutral zone. Especially popular in the Eastern Conference, teams use this strategy to keep numbers on the rush, while not worrying about the hard forechecks that you see in the West.
THE 1-3-1
Why is it popular? Takes away the opponent's rush and forecheck chances
Easily the most maligned system in hockey, when well executed the 1-3-1 can be an absolute nightmare to create chances on the rush against. By shifting your three-man wall to the red line, teams take away the dump-in and eliminate both the opposition's rush and forecheck chances. This allows teams to be more aggressive in transition and forces the opposition to make mistakes in the neutral zone.
SO WHO IS TO BLAME FOR TORONTO'S GAME 7 OT GOAL AGAINST?
After the fateful goal Saturday night there were many hot takes on the internet:
• Why didn’t Mitch Marner cut off David Pastrnak?
• Why isn’t William Nylander skating harder?
• Why isn’t Morgan Rielly defending Pastrnak better?
Who is actually to blame in this situation? Because from a coaching perspective, the answer is really none of the above.
To understand who is to blame, you first need to understand what the players were supposed to be doing in the first place.
The Leafs play a common 1-2-2 neutral zone forecheck and, in general throughout the Round 1 series, they were able to limit Boston’s ability to create chances both from the rush and on the forecheck.
Sometimes fans will refer to the Leafs' neutral zone setup as a 1-3-1, and it can look like that at times. The reason for this is that Toronto plays a style of 1-2-2 with a detail that includes the weak side (non-puck side) defenceman (D2) gapping up or “absorbing” the rush on the weak side of the ice. Like you can see in the clip below, the defence is gapped up and ready to take away time and space if the puck changes sides of the ice.
The difference between a true 1-3-1 and a 1-2-2 “D Absorb” is that the defensive team only steps up or absorbs if a play is made to the weak side of the ice, where in a 1-3-1 the defenceman is always standing up to protect the red.
So what went wrong with Toronto?
While many are blaming what happened at the end of the play, the real issue on the game-winning goal started well before Pastrnak ever touched the puck. All tactical systems rely on multiple players executing their role to aid their teammates towards accomplishing a goal.
While it’s easy to blame Marner (F2) and Nylander (F3) as the players closest to the action, truthfully the biggest issue starts with Tyler Bertuzzi and John Tavares not establishing F1 within the forecheck.
The F1 on a neutral zone forecheck is the most important piece. You are the tip of the spear, the captain of the ship steering the opposition in the direction you want them to go. But in the clip below you can see that after Bertuzzi chases up ice (while also breaking one of Lemaire's cardinal rules to never skate behind the opposing net without the puck) he changes and the Leafs don’t establish a new F1 to control the direction of the play.
This allows Hampus Lindholm to gain the red line and dump the puck to Pastrnak flying down the ice. In an ideal world, Tavares would re-attack the puck and allow Marner to get on the ice and establish the second layer of the forecheck. Bertuzzi and Tavares put Marner and Rielly in tough spots to have one of the top players in the league attacking on the forecheck with a ton of speed!
And this wasn’t the first time it happened in Game 7, either. Toronto got caught several times without an F1, allowing Boston to dump pucks and establish their strong forecheck game.
TLDR: Keefe (wrong system for this team), Bertuzzi and Tavares are main reason the Leafs allowed that game 7 goal but you have to actually be able to understand hockey to know it.
