The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 308: You Know It When You See It

Episode Date: July 23, 2019

John Wroblewski joins the show to discuss working with USA Hockey’s historically prolific National Team Development Program draft class, the tricky balance of trying to get immediate results from young players while preparing them for the next level, and the practical application of some half-baked theoretical ideas.4:00 Developing future NHLers and working with USNTDP13:10 Establishing a working definition of ‘Hockey IQ’16:20 Pushing the envelope with early goalie pulls28:15 Turning the penalty kill into a power kill37:15 Experimenting with changes to offsides47:15 Keeping play going, decreasing stoppagesSee acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Are you ready for the most ridiculous internet sports show you have ever seen? Welcome to React, home of the most outrageous and hilarious videos the web has to offer. So join me, Rocky Theas, and my co-host, Raiders Pro Bowl Defensive Inn, Max Crosby, as we invite your favorite athletes, celebrities, influencers, entertainers in for an episode of games, laughs, and, of course, the funniest reactions to the wildest web clips out there. Catch React on YouTube, and that is React, R-E-A-X-X. Don't miss it. This podcast episode is brought to you by Coors Light.

These days, everything is go, go, go. It's non-stop hustle all the time. Work, friends, family. Expect you to be on 24-7? Well, sometimes you just need to reach for a Coors Light because it's made to chill. Coors Light is cold-loggered, cold-filtered, and cold-packaged. It's as crisp and refreshing as the Colorado Rockies. It is literally made to chill.

Coors Light is the one I choose when I need to unwind. So when you want to hit reset, reach for the beer that's made to chill. Get Coors Light and the new look delivered straight to your door with Drizzly or Instacart. Celebrate responsibly. Coors Brewing Company, Golden Colorado. Pressing to the mean since 2015. It's the HockeyPedioCast. With your host, Dimitri...

Welcome to the HockeyPedioCast. My name is Dimitri Filipovich. and joining me is my good buddy, John Robleski. John, what's going on, man? This is very exciting. Usually I've got bloggers and journalists on and other media members, and now that we have a member of the coaching fraternity, I'm really excited to chat with you.

Yeah, great being here, Demetri. I'm a big fan of your Twitter feed, and it's always touch and go with you. You kind of get your jabs in, and it's well-timed, and so I'm expecting a good, you know, 45 minutes to an hour, It would be fun. I'm really, I never know how to take it whenever I like meet someone or if I'm out at a bar or something and someone goes out through me.

He's like, oh, man, like I love your Twitter feed. I never know if it's like a compliment or it's like an insult. Like being funny online isn't necessarily like the best quality in the world. No, no. And I think, you know, it's teetering on the line of sarcasm as your primary crutch, I think is it doesn't always come across on the, on the internet. So I think, you know, you have to be around people that speak, kind of speak that same language and appreciate it. And, you know, I'm not averse to a little sarcasm and some, you know, kind of some, you know, backhand comments here and there.

I think it's pretty good. And I think your insight on top of it kind of ties it all together. So that's, you know, just kind of somebody's observations from the outside. Well, that's why I'm really excited to have you on because I know you and I have talked in the past offline before. and I think we can have a fun productive conversation here. I'm going to pitch some ideas to you. It's kind of the perfect off-season summer show because we're not really going to be talking about sort of present-day movement or free agency or players of the draft or anything like that.

And I just kind of wanted to, you know, I've been having certain ideas circulating my head. I'm always kind of looking at different sports and trying to figure out how we can refine hockey where we can find competitive advantages, sort of what we can do with some of this stuff. And you, obviously, as a coach, would be the perfect person for me to. to bounce some of these ideas off of because if there's anyone that can actually take some of this stuff from sort of just being kind of fantasy land pipe dreams in my head to actually getting practical, awnice, real, real life application for it. It would be a coach. So I'm really excited and I appreciate you indulging, but I know that sometimes coaches get a bad rap for sort of being

a bit overly conservative or stuck in their ways or trying to squeeze all the fun out of hockey as possible. But hopefully we'll, hopefully we'll have some fun doing this podcast together. Yeah, right. I think we're a unique entity at the NPDP where it's, you know, it really is a melting pot of experimentation where, you know, we're not stuck and we're not, we're not rooted into the product on any given Friday and Saturday night. For instance, it's, you know, much, much more about trying to, trying to, you know, take a dip a toe in the water and see, see what, you know, what the temperature is on being able to develop the athlete, develop the brain on. the hockey player. And so it's, you know, we're in a unique position where something doesn't work if there's, you know, if there's not a drill that doesn't, or some type of thought process that doesn't pan out.

We're pretty quick to be able to adjust on the fly. And we've, you know, we've got time, like whereas other teams, I think their, their practice hours are limited. We're, we're unlimited with our practice time. And so, you know, there's, there's room for mistakes and room for experimentation. Well, and that's what an interesting point because I think, you know, sometimes people like myself can get a bit frustrated with how set in its ways the NHL can be or sort of how traditional it can be. And it makes sense. I sort of, I get where coaches are coming from because,

you know, there's so much on the line, obviously, both financially, but also in terms of other people's careers, but also it's like you're typically dealing with, you know, veteran players in their 30s that have been playing a certain way for two decades now. And it's like trying to completely change things and flip it on its head and trying new crazy things might not necessarily be more conducive. But for you, dealing with the junior program and development young players, do you,

what kind of balance are you trying to strike there from like a perspective? Because I'm sure in the back of your head, you're obviously trying to do the best job possible to prepare a lot of these younger players for whatever the next stage of their career is and sort of equip them in the best way possible so that they'll be able to make that transition smoothly. But at the same time, you are

sort of, you know, selfishly personally trying to also creatively try some stuff and sort of spread your wings as well. Like, what's that kind of balance like as a coach dealing with such young players? Well, you know, we've got a pretty good blueprint over here where, you know, our drills are, you know, they're centered around creativity, speed power. Very rarely do you ever come across a drill where you're, you know, say, for instance, working on neutral zone forecheck.

And if you ever see 10 players on the ice, it might be the day before a game. but other than that, that's a rarity for even then to see 10 players. It is an anomaly. So with that, you know, there's also a lot of inspiration. And so what we'll do is we'll set up drills where it'll evolve from a two-on-one into a three-on-two into possibly a four-on-three, you know, something like that all within a 25-to-30-second window. And players will run different routes in those drills.

And there's kind of, there's a lot of different items that will, that'll kind of show their face within. And for us, it's always a two-way street in regard to the development process. And while we do set the template, and there's been a lot of fine coaches that have come through the program to help that process out, it really is the players that I think benefit from each other and really give us the inspiration to create new drills or to add different wrinkles. and of course, you heard it numerous times from the NTDB players that were drafted this year that, you know, how much better they got in practice going against their peers. And I think that's the most important thing that we set up is that our country's best players

are, I guess, the ones that are deemed the most promising for an NHO career at the time of the selection process, get to go against each other. And they're constantly having to either, you know, catch up to somebody or leapfrog an individual if they want to, you know, displace themselves or get a higher recognition within the hierarchy. Well, that's also such a high leverage point in a player's sort of developmental arc, right? Because, like, when you get a guy already in the NHL, especially now that we know that players' peaks are maybe younger than we would have thought

otherwise before. And it's like generally in your early 20s is when you're at your physical peak and then you start also maturing mentally and you really put it all together. Whereas when you're dealing with teenagers and guys who haven't been drafted, yet there's still like you're mentioning how sort of the selection process and players that get sort of tabbed or identified as the most promising for that future career i imagine there's also been countless cases where like a guy comes in and you would have thought he would have lived up to the hype and it goes the other way are players that suddenly take massive steps whether they grow a lot

or whether they physically improve or what happened whatever have have you that you kind of suddenly go oh i didn't even think we had this in this player so i imagine it also is such a high leverage point in their careers to be dealing with them. Yeah, and it's, there's definitely surprise as both ways, but I think that, you know, we're, we're getting better and better, I think, every year in regard to, you know, our selection process and what we, what we see in the future. And, you know, you can look, you can look back at guys who, who weren't selected and, you know, when had really good, whether it was prep or junior careers. And you said, well, this is, you know, why we didn't.

select him and look back and you're like it made sense at the time and you know it all goes with you know having a really strong fraternity that of managers and and coaches that you know bank off of each other and can reference to each other about about about the you know the different ways and methods that we uh that we select and develop do you have uh do you have any sort of uh i mean this can be a tough question because i haven't given you any uh prep. for it or sometimes it's tough to kind of a value yourself but I always like to ask people like do you have any personal like kind of tendencies or preferences for certain skill sets or player types whether it's you know more of a speed game a puck wound defenseman a playmaker a natural

goal score like is there any sort of like physical traits or um specific player types that you've found over time that you even subconsciously a little bit kind of gravitate towards or prefer Well, you know, besides the guys that stand out, so, you know, the guys that are obviously elite at a number of different facets, say it's Alex Chircott, well, you don't, everybody falls in love with Turks, you know, or, you know, Zegris, you know, his prowess in a few different areas, you don't have, you don't really have to, you have to go very far. I mean, almost anybody can walk into a rink and pick those guys out. But, you know, kind of the defining characteristic of a successful. class at the NTP is to make sure that you're rounding out the class with players that you think are going to be agreeable within the structure that you already have. So you need to take your five or six players that you're ready to kind of build around, whether it's a couple of center icemen. We were beneficiaries of having three elite center icemen, you know,

was Zegris, Turcott, and Hughes. You can start to kind of piece players in around those guys. And so as far as rounding out, the class is concerned, I'm always looking for players that, you know, that exhibit a high hockey IQ. And I think for forwards, for me, the number one thing is that you're able to go and you'll be able to make plays with your back to the puck.

When there's two players coming at you, you know you're outs. And it doesn't have to be as simple as, you know, making the saucer pass through guys skates, because I feel like those are physical attributes that of course we value, but it's knowing where to place pucks in situational adversity and being able to, you know, knowing the next play and being able to make plays that the guy around you might not be able to make and be able to show that consistently. I feel like if you place a bunch of guys around your main core

that won't take anything away from them, you know, with a sure stick and a high-eye, hockey IQ, what we'll do with that 15-year-old kid or what we'll attempt to do is to round out their athleticism accordingly. And so if they're not a great skater at that time, maybe if they're not, you know, say like Matt Boldie's only only 5, 10, and 160 pounds when we select them, you see the elite stick, you see the brain and what you, you know, in the creativity. And you say that, all right, that kid, he's, it might not work out if he doesn't grow, but you'll look at yourself in the mirror and say,

we made the right call within our circle because we're looking at that type of player. And so, you know, I guess, you know, it's something we got to make sure we don't get too enamored with because at the end of the day you watch where games are ultimately won and lost or in the trenches. And so you have to have to make sure you're not ignoring the power forwards and the guys like, you know, that you know, you use Brady Kitchuk as an example for that, who, you know, was such an abrasive player and, you know, didn't show the prowess that he had at the time when he went at the selection camp, you know, he was taking on potential and everything else there. And, you know, so there's got to be a balance to your attack and you can't just go for the,

for the players that, you know, might show the brain and the stick and you need to make sure you, you know, you've got some grit and some brawn to go along with it. So those are, you know, it's a long, it's a long-winded answer, but it's a very, it's a very, you know, involved situation to try to, you know, control and also one where, you know, you're at the whim of the class. And so it's, you know, it's a very, a lot of layers to it. And, you know, one that we take very, very seriously because we, you know, those spots are so valuable for a lot of different reasons. Well, the concept of hockey IQ is such a fascinating one to me. It's so interesting because it's like, you know, with other actual sort of physical, tangible qualities, whether it's speed or size or physicality or passing or shooting, like you can very sort of visibly quant, like kind of quantify those and everyone has the same working definition, depending on what your scale of it is. But with hockey IQ, it is one of those things. It's like, I always think of it as you sort of know it when you see it in terms of a guy just always in the right position of the right time. the puck seems to be chasing them. They're sort of anticipating stuff before it happens.

And then conversely, a guy who might be kind of struggling in that area typically seems to be sort of chasing the player always one step behind. Do you have a sort of kind of more concrete, tangible definition of what that actually entails or what you're looking for when you're identifying that scale? Or is it really just one of those kind of like everyone has their own definition, but you sort of can agree on that when you see it, you know exactly what it is? I mean, I like to use the reference point of a player going into a corner for a puck and whether it's an offensive guy or defensive guy and you've got your back to the play

and do you make an educated play? Do you make the smart release and can you find your teammates in those scenarios? It's, you know, and I think there's a lot of it, you know, that's a knack in our game and there's our areas of hockey IQ you can be taught, but they're, you know, the really smart players know how to fill lanes, and they know their depth and ready and sturdy and, you know, sturdy on their defensive zone coverage. If they'll balance out for their teammates,

if, you know, it's a center iceman with a high hockey IQ and their winger goes back and, you know, kind of overback checks a play, well, he'll instinctively just slide right into that winger spot. And those are things that, you know, you're processing the game, and while it's being played at such a high pace, you're still aware and cognizant at certain times of the contest

of what your job is. It's being able to think on the fly and manipulate that, you know, that beautiful game that's going at a torrid pace when you're down at ice level. I know, like, you start breaking things down on video and you watch a game at the arena if it's, you know, above the first bowl and even really, you know, that first 10 seats up, you really can't appreciate the speed until you get down to ice level with how fast those guys are moving

and how dangerous it is out there. I mean, those guys can, you know, they're massive, massive men. And at really any level, it's all, it's all comparative, you know, to the level you're at, but it's still a very, very dangerous sport out there. And one that, you know, to be able to process the game and keep yourself out of harm's way and also make plays is really, really impressive that, you know, for those guys at the highest levels in particular.

Yeah, no, that's well said. Okay, let's get into, I've got a couple of these ideas that I want to run by. So here's a question for you. So do you remember, when's the earliest you can ever remember pulling a goalie in a game? Oh, I did it in the CHL. It was, I think it was my fourth game as head coach, and we were, We were playing terribly, but only down a couple of goals. It was against the Greenville Road Warriors, was the name of the team at the time.

Now that's Swamp Rabbits. And I think it was seven minutes left is when I pulled them, and we didn't get scored on the whole time. But I also, let me track again. It was my first year in the ECHL. We were playing terribly, terrible against South Carolina. We were down four goals in the second period, three or four goals in the second period, went on the power play with like 30 seconds left in the second. And I was like, let's do this.

Like, let's try to get one here in the last 30 seconds. And they scored right off the face off on that one. But those are the two that I can remember, you know, pulling them very early. Well, so the reason why I asked, a while back, a listener emailed about this, and I couldn't find it. So I can't give them credit. But if you're listening, you'll know who you are. but they kind of pose a question of, you know,

obviously we think back to like Patrick Wall, most notably during this time of the, I was doing it with like 10 minutes left or whatever, and everyone was like freaking out. Like, that's crazy. But I was thinking, so obviously there's a time in place and it's situational and you wouldn't necessarily have like a defined sort of cutoff line. We do know that research has shown that sort of from a numbers perspective,

you're better off doing it sooner rather than later because you give yourself a bar of a fighting chance. And we know that. And so it ultimately comes down to having, a feel for your team and how you're playing and sort of what your chances are. But I was thinking, like, in theory, as you get closer to the final buzzer, even if it's three minutes left or so, the other team is sort of at least kind of in the back of their minds bracing for it or preparing for themselves or the opposing coach is sort of thinking,

okay, we want to sort of cover our bases by making sure we have certain players out there to protect ourselves against that potential threat. I was thinking, like, let's say there's, I don't know what the earliest would be. Let's say there's 14 minutes left in the third period and you're down. three or four goals or whatever. And the other team has, let's say, their fourth line, their third defensive pair, and let's get really extreme with this, and they ice the puck. And your first line, your best players are on the bench, they're fresh, they're ready to go.

Why don't we see more teams go, all right, well, we have this kind of competitive advantage now. Let's try to do it now and sort of hem this team in the defensive zone and see if we can create something now when they're not expecting it, as opposed to sort of waiting and really playing out the string. I guess the answer is you want to sort of delay that potential empty net goal against for as long as possible, but it does seem kind of strange and counterintuitive that you're sort of doing it when the other team knows to expect it as opposed to kind of sort of sneak attack when you can jump in and create it sort of on the fly, maybe even. Strategy-wise, I think you're on to something, and it gets talked a lot about in the different

circles as high up as National League coaches. And I think what you'll end up with in our game with 82 contests. And the slightest, you know, the locker room at all levels of hockey is volatile. And a decision that, you know, we are a very traditional game and a decision like that that might be one more move that you might use up, you know, one of your bullets with a key player on your team. You cost them another minus by trying to get your team back into the game. And those are realities in hockey with 82 games and, you know, it being such a passionate sport.

One that's very, very difficult. The players, you know, the coaches can do a lot out there, but the players ultimately, are the ones having to, you know, play on the fly and have to make these split-second decisions, and they're the ones putting them, you know, their bodies on the line out there. I think it's a really, really delicate decision to make in that you can lose your room by making too many of those, like, you know, just trying to dabble in the experimentation process. I think that, I do believe that you're on to something with that. I think, like, say you're a college coach,

and you've got 36 games, and you're not having a good game. And I don't know enough about the pair-wise, but if you're, you know, if margin of loss doesn't play in, I think you're on to something with that idea. And I think, you know, it might be as simple as right off. I think off of icings at that point of the game, I think three or four down at, you know, with around the 12-minute mark. Right. And here it's 15, even 15-minute mark.

and there's an icing, I think that's something that you're, you will see that in the junior levels and I think college levels. And I think as far as the national hockey league is concerned, I mean, the media is all over NHL guys. There's another spot that, you know, you're, you've only got so many bullets, especially in certain markets that you have to be, you have to be careful with, I shouldn't say careful. You need to be very calculated with your, with your decisions in those spots.

and then be ready to take on. Because if you're going to do something like that, it's outside the box. You best be prepared to answer all questions and, you know, be ready for the media as well. Well, yeah, it's sort of some, like, obviously, if you don't pull your goalie, or if you wait and then do it late or whatever,

no one's going to be that kind of questioning it that much because you can be like, oh, you know, I believe in our team's ability to create here and I wanted to give them a chance without worrying about the empty net where as opposed to if you pull your goal early and you have a random bounce that winds up in the back your net is that sort of scenario that you were outlining in your first season in the CHL. All of a sudden, that's very easy to point to for detractors or critics to go like, oh, there we go. What a bad coaching decision.

If only he hadn't done that, maybe his team would have had a chance to claw their way back into this. It sort of similar reminds me of, like, with baseball, when defensive shifts started first happening, and then, like, a guy, a defender would be in a different place where the pitcher maybe would, wasn't expecting them to be over time. And then all of a sudden, like, a random dribbler would go through there and wind up being a hit that wouldn't have otherwise been. And obviously, fans and pitchers are freaking out about it and complaining about how the shifts ruining the game.

And it's sort of a similar thing where it's like it's a lot easier to identify one thing, even if the risk-reward balance is favoring being a bit more aggressive. Well, you know, I think it was Nightingale. Not Jared. We have Jared working for us there at the program. his brother Adam there with Buffalo, I believe it's Adam, my mind's

racing on me a little bit here, but I did a presentation one time on analytics and, you know, as far as really any sport on the planet is particularly the four major ones and then let's throw football or soccer into that mix as well because if you're talking about a, you know,

worldly sport, then you're you best be in there. And hockey is the most amount of luck out of any of those sports involved. It's not even close. You know, how pucks can bounce off of shin pads or flip up over a stick. And

you know, at that juncture of the game, say you're, you know, you've got three minutes left in a tight game, one goal game, and you move your goalie from the from his net.

I guess you're putting yourself at at the advantage, but you're, you know, one one of those lucky bounces or unlucky in that case and your game's over for all intensive purposes. And so, you know, I guess at that point, you're, you know, it's just, it's a very risky move. I feel to pull a goalie, you know, outside of two minutes. I think you want to give your, you want to give your team the most opportunity,

you believe in your players to get the job done. You're confident in your schemes. You know that if we press the right way, you're going to get guys down to the net front and you're going to, you know, something's going to open up with the tenacity of your guys wanting to win and the other team trying to protect a little bit. You know, you weigh those things.

And I think it's just a combination of those items. I think that they kind of, you know, it really would keep keeping me away from pulling the goaltender much outside of that two-minute mark. That's true. Although I guess you could argue, like if you, if your best, while your best player is on the ice and you have an extra player as well compared to the opposition, if you can't keep control of the puck and do something with it, or at least make them kind of stress a little bit and we get some sustained pressure,

then you probably have some bigger, bigger issues. But okay, so here's another question for you then. What are you guys doing with your power play sets? this year in terms of formations. Were you guys running more traditional three forward two defensemen sets or has the trickle-down effect from the NHL really taken hold in terms of

with most teams now running kind of more modern four-forward one defenseman sets? We would dabble in a lot of different sets. We had six different sets from the players and they were all. We practiced it pretty often because we knew that we had a slew of guys that were, you know, slated for the first round that needed to get those, that deserved to get those premier minutes on the power play.

So we wanted to make sure that other guys weren't getting left at the wayside. And so we did practice it quite off. So players became regulated with what was expected in each position within our power play structure. And a lot of times, you know, pretty much all the way until the very end, we would throw at random players at different spots. And a lot of times you were going to see Cole, either in that, you know, Vetchkin spot off the backside

or in the bumper spot where he'd be a primary shooter. But, you know, as far as like Zegris and Hughes and where they would set up and where they would run the power place from, Turcott revolved around, he'd be a net front guy, he'd be a half-wall guy. There's a lot of different players that saw time at different spots. And I felt like, you know, when push came to shove, we had one unit that had four forwards and then one one defenseman and then we had another unit that had three four or three fours and then uh had two d and we actually um we activated the defensemen to kind of move into the more of a more of a forward uh dominated spot and i think that's kind of a luxury uh that we have you know with the assembling some talented players is you're going to you're going to get some defensemen that have a really really uh you know high end uh skill set and are able to you know, kind of can display attributes that a forward might be able to.

So, I mean, obviously, I think over the past couple years, people like myself and analysts have put a lot of time with public work and to sort of try to identify stuff like this, like the advantages of having four forwards, sort of this east-west passing across the royal road, setting up behind the net and working that kind of low-to-high action. And so we've spent a lot of time because it's very easy to sort of identify, like, oh, if you improve your power play, you're going to increase your goal. production by X amount and that'll lead to a certain amount of wins.

The less kind of glamorous thing to talk about is penalty kills and the other area of special teams. And that's something I'm really interested in now because I want you to answer this for me as a coach. Would you like the idea why, I'm trying to phrase this, why do teams not experiment more with using three forwards on a traditional four-man power play? By penalty kills head, sorry. Well, the primary goal of,

the kill is to, yeah, absolutely that. I mean, that's a traditionalist mindset, but one that I agree with, you've got to kill that thing off. Like, that's, you have those boards. And so you're putting out your two, you know, most sturdy defensemen to start off. And then, and you're putting out the two forwards that you feel are going to be able to play in the trenches and, you know, win the draw and get that thing 200 feet. And if they lose it, then they're going to, they're going to be able to be quick, reactive

with really good sticks and they're going to be regimented in all facets of gritty play. You know, where they're landmarks, the different, you know, we're going to reverse them and all the different tendencies of the other team, and that's going to be their job, you know, to be aware of that. Now, I think where you could be, you know, onto something, again, is I think you want to, you would have to time it perfectly. and this is achievable but somewhere around like the

55 second or minute 5 mark where the other team if you're confident that they're a two minute power play and they're starting to tire out maybe they've already had to break out once or twice maybe they've had a couple really hard battles that never got a shot on net

but they were keeping on the yellow and having to chip it around and they're maybe even a little bit frustrated and you know that they're going to stay out there and they're going to probably push for for another opportunity. At that point, if you wanted to start getting aggressive, and that's where we would utilize players like Hughes and Cawfield is when,

you know, in those spots. And like, say, you know, we had numerous shorthand opportunities and a few goals by strategically getting Turcott and Boldie out there, you know, in those around that 45-55 second mark where, you know, the other team's starting to wear it out just a little bit, and you put two of your most skilled hounds out there, and then they go and make something happen off of it. And, you know, when you start putting your best players out there,

you do run the risk of giving up, you know, a five-on-three. And we have done that before. And I remember it was at the Worlds, we gave up basically a two-on-oh. It was with Cole and Jack, and I think was Cole that saw the opportunity to go, and it wasn't a bad read. And, you know, we were up, we were up in the game, so it wasn't, it wasn't the end of the world. But certainly in, you know, in various spots, it's, you're getting your chips in. And, you know, you better, you better hope the right, the right hand hits when you're, you know, when you double down.

So, but, you know, there is definitely times, I think, to risk on the P.K. I just don't, I don't know, I just, free forwards, I still, I still like to think. You know, you get, you know, you look at Carlo and the scoring that surety for St. Louis. And with all the skill development that goes on and the more and more that you'll see it, we work so much on, you know, off-handed one-timers with our D-Men for those exact situations. There's even strong side, like things that you're getting, the D might see as a forward. We're putting them into those, into those skill spots all the time. And I think that's something that, you know, that there's NHL teams that I think are progressive in that area.

And there's, you know, we go to being right downtown Detroit, you've got the ability to be able to go and watch practices a day before games or morning skates. And to see how teams practice and to see what they work on for skill. Some of it is still antiquated and some of it is very progressive and things that work, you know, that, well, that I think are progressive. and, you know, things that we're trying to work on it with our young players. So I like your thought, though. I mean, that's an observation and a pretty keen one that, you know, there are opportunities out there for offense. And, you know, you just got to be ready to, you know,

to take the consequences if you go for it. Well, I think that's a great point that you make there about sort of the positional delineation where it's like, I think maybe 10, 15, 20 years ago. It was much more black and white. in terms of like positional requirements and sort of the skill sets players would have. And it's like, you know, you're much more like kind of like that traditional conservative, like stay at home defensemen who just block shots. And so you wouldn't expect those guys to jump up in the rush and create if the opportunity

arises, whereas now a lot of these defensemen are just as good at skating and creating as some forwards out there. And so in that case, it might not be as big of an advantage. I was just thinking like when I watch certain penalty kills, I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, maybe like the coyotes earlier in the, the year or the hurricanes over the years. Whenever I see my favorite or best penalty kill, it's these ones that play a more sort of tenacious, aggressive style in their own zone when they're defending on a penalty kill where I think if you're on opposing power play and you're,

you would love to be able to sort of just set up unbothered in your office, especially if you're the shooter from like the left circle and you just kind of wait and hang out. Like that's probably your Bren and Bada. You're licking your lip. at that. I think what you don't want to deal with is guys who are constantly kind of limiting your time and space and getting up in your business and trying to get the puck away from you and having active sticks. And so you could obviously pull that off with two forwards and two defensive. But I just think of like if you have the more forwards you have out there and you sort of just let them loose to just be absolute hounds and chase the puck and try to create deflections and get into

passing lanes and then create the other way against opposing attackers that aren't used to skating backwards and defending. I feel like there's obviously a risk reward. there and it's situational and maybe it depends on the certain personnel you have, but it seems like something that is just kind of written off or hand-waved in a lot of in angel circles. I was like, well, we've always just done it a certain way, so we're not going to try it. And as it's adapted with four forwards, one defense, on the power play, I just think there's going to be a time where we're going to transition to maybe different formations and different

personnel setups with a penalty kill as well. It just seems kind of logical. Yeah, and I'm with you on the, on the mindset, with the, the, with the, a tenacious penalty kill, particularly at that level. And, you know, we have to, we run a kind of, kind of, you know, an interesting gamut in that we have to prepare for an Olympic ice sheet. And with having that extra space on the outside wall, there are times where you have to, you do have to play it a little bit more conservatively.

But as far as the NHL athlete is concerned and being able to manipulate time and space with good offensive reeds, you know, turning to defense using what, get in the mind of what the offensive player, where his release points are. If you've got four players that are dedicated to the endeavor and they're, you know, set out with, you know, with clear instructions to back each other up and, you know, you're ready to take a couple, you're ready, you know, to make a big mistake or two, you know, I definitely prefer it. I'm with you. I love the way that Carolina has finally killed in the past, and I think it's one that I'm envious of and one that we try to implement.

I think it gets players hunting properly. It gets guys in the mindset. And all, you know, as far as, you know, if we call it a fronting penalty kill teams, it'll kind of diamond and try to stay in the way of shooters. And all you have to do is watch a few clips of players like Hughes or Zegress against those fronting, you know, penalty kills. And they get time and space to be able to,

And, you know, there's going to be times when really good players beat your aggressive kill. And they'll talk to some players are like, I love it when a guy comes rushing at me. And into a point you do, but not when there's specific backup to your release points as well. Like really good players that are taught well, you can sniff out those release points. And then good players don't like that because now you're talking about, you know, them being the attackee instead of the attacker. Okay, so I'm really curious for your take on this one. I really want to talk about offsides and potential solutions

that drives me crazy, especially at the NHL level, with some of the reviews we get and some of the discussions that we wind up having and watching these like grainys, the pruder-style films of if a guy's skate was slightly elevated or not. But, you know, I don't know if necessarily I'd go to the absolute extreme of completely eliminating off-sides, but it's funny, whenever I mentioned that or whenever I seen anyone talk about it online, the common pushback or refrain you get from fans is, well, what's going to happen if you get rid of off sides is you're going to have cherry pickers

and it's going to ruin the integrity and structure of the sport. And when I think you as a coach are a perfect example or a person to run this by because I imagine if a player was, let's say there weren't off sides and a player was cherry picking or hanging back and it wound up resulting in sustained pressure and potentially a goal against, like you would probably either staple that player to the bench or buy them a first class ticket to the sun and just never give them or you'd be very furious with them right because it's like it just seems like that wouldn't happen i feel like that's sort of a concern from fans that wouldn't actually ever uh manifest itself and on ice play like what would the concerns be beyond that really well okay let's let's let's start the this conversation

has has many many layers to it would our games be better without off sides and my answer I guess I'm going to answer with another question, does more goals make the game better? Yes and no. It does from the perspective of obviously, there's the highlight real plays if we're talking about those types of goals, but obviously I think also there's the element of lead changes are good. They make for entertainment.

Like when you believe that even if you're down two or three goals early in a game, that your team can generate enough offense to come back and potentially tie it up or take the lead, that keeps people tuned in and it keeps people watching. If we're getting to a point where there's just not enough goals where a team goes up 1-0 or 2-0 and it's over, that is not good for entertainment value. So from that perspective, I do think goals are important. That's fair. And I guess I look at it from this perspective that if you start taking away the emphasis on work ethic

and if you used to take away from some of our games's true roots, I think that you're compromising the integrity of the game. And just to reuse that phrase. I can't envision a game where there could be somebody hanging out at the top of the blue paint while there's still a five-on-four going on at the other end. And that would be a strategy the teams would implore. And I just can't see it making that making our sport any better. And, you know, then you would, you'd need a whole, whole different strategy base.

And, you know, to me, I love, I love the off sides. I think that, I think it's a great rule. I, you know, if we wanted to talk about possibly, you know, shortening the blue lines, I think that that creates, you know, making it closer to the goal line, closer to the net, you would, you would create a whole new game of flux, even just like three or four feet. You, you'd also take away some of the pull.

that you see in the offensive zone. I think the game is in a really good space right now. I think as far as entertainment is concerned and the skill that's being displayed on a nightly basis, I think the game is tremendous. I love where it's at, you know, with one exception, not to stick with the offside theme, just, you know, the idea of like, you know,

a quarter of an inch of a skate, and go off the ice and now coaches can go back 30 seconds later and say that the player is off sides and I just, I don't get that and I think if we're going to, if we're going down the road of being able to challenge things like that, you better be able to go back and challenge the icing call with the refs missed three minutes ago before you scored too

because it's like, you know, what do you want to use, a butterfly effect for a cliche? Our game is so cyclical, a poor puck drop on a face-off that costs your team possession and they score two minutes later. Those things count and you should be able to go back and challenge penalties. If you don't like the penalty, if it's a trip and the guy never touched the, you know, the guy tripped over his own feet, but it looked really bad. Well, you know, you better be able to go back.

And I'm kind of, I'm a believer that in that scheme, the only thing you should be, you should be able to go back and check is if the puck crossed the goal. line. And that's it for me. Other than that, the referees have a job to do. And I think, I think you go with it. And, you know, there's so much controversy happens, you know, with, you know, this playoff. But I can almost guarantee there was something along the lines that, you know, that prevented. I mean, what was the, there was, there was one of the games when a team ended up winning the game and they had six players on the ice right before they scored their goal. And how, you should be able to go back, and it was belate six guys.

You should be able to go back and review that if you can review a quarter of an inch of an off sides. So that's just my thought. There was the one where, like, Columbus Square, the puck went into the netting and came back into play, and I guess the refs missed it. Yeah, there was that one. There was the glove pass, and there was also too many men one. I forget which team it was now because it was, you know, so many games going off. But it was, go ahead.

Well, the thing that gets me, like in terms of the review and offside, is especially when they go back and you review and you kind of nitpick a guy that wasn't even involved in the play like that stuff drives me absolutely crazy like the Gabriel Annescog one from the game seven of the Asharks where he's like trying to get back to the

bench he's not even involved in the play at all. There's no competitive advantage for the avalanche that he's not checked like tacked back or or he's not involved in the play at all and they score and then they go back and by the letter the law he was off side and so they take that goal off and the avalanche wind up losing and stuff like that is

Like, I'm all for getting the call, right? But it's like in the spirit of the rule that seems like the off sides rule and the blue line being in place there. That's not what it's there to sort of protect or enforce. It's just kind of an unnecessary byproduct or an unfortunate one. Well, you know, you talked about, say, protecting the lead and how good teams are at that, you know, late in games. Well, if I'm, if my team's down a goal and I don't like that extra stick length, the player X took on the other team on his line change, then at that rate, I should be able to go back and challenge that.

If you can challenge all these inches, you should be able to go back and challenge massive violations of rules. And, you know, it's part of our game. It's a game of mistakes and how you react to them. And referees are a huge part of that. So, you know, it's a slippery slope and one that I'm scared to see where it leads to. The reason why I brought up the off-sizing, I agree there's obviously unintensive and I think the game would look different.

I really want to experiment with the idea of opening up the ice a bit more, however that would look in terms of changing the geometry a little bit so that there's more space to operate with and more room for creativity to shine through. Like one of my favorite things to watch, and it's obviously a lot easier to pull off when there's only, when it's three on three and there's only six skaters out there as opposed to 10. But like that sort of like soccer mentality of if you don't have a play open for you, pass it back and sort of regroup and maybe change and get fresh skaters out there and then try to sort of probe again and attack. And sometimes the game certainly has sped up now in 2019

compared to where we were at in the past. But there are certain times where I do wish like certain actions like that were being created as opposed to the puck just being up against the boards and guys kind of just like hammering away at it with their sticks for 90 seconds at a time. Yeah, and I think, you know, you're, again, you're progressive with your thoughts there. And, you know, I really, I appreciate them. I just think, you know, they might be, they might be limited a little bit to what your, what your final taste of the season is.

And, and then, of course, once the stakes go up in the NHL playoffs, the players are, you know, they're talking about right around the central. mark, if not like 1-10 after exhibitions, with their number of games they've played. I mean, they are physically, they are down to their, you know, their last straw. They're wounded down right. I mean, there's not a guy playing in May, late May and in June that's up to the task. So the games get, you know, they start to get, you know, for lack of a better phrase, they get dumbed down a little bit.

You're chipping in, you're chipping out. you don't want to make a mistake. And I think throughout the norm of the regular season, you're still seeing the brilliance and lots of playmaking on any given night. It's just, you know, there's just certain times. And I think you have to appreciate that some games are going to be a little bit grittier than others. You know, it's kind of like a really strong American football game where you've got a team that's got a potent offense.

There are a couple teams that have potent offenses that, you know, are really, putting up big numbers in the end of final scores, 63 to 50. And then there's other games where teams don't have great offense and they got great defenses. And, you know, those are equally impressive games. It's just, you know, it's, I again, I can't reiterate enough. I think our game's in a really good spot right now.

And I don't want to see too many things get toyed with. But I do like the mindset that you got with a number of these things. Okay, well, what about, this is obviously a crazy one that's out there as well, but what about either not allowing or limiting the number of times a goalie can cover the puck for a face-off? The IHF rules are great on that. They make you play the puck, and it's very entertaining. I'm not sure how sponsors would like that because, you know, they're paying some bills, and there might be some times where they go, you go a little bit too often,

or without a face-off. But it was really cool. I thought this was this IHF event, the U-18s, was the best that I'd seen in that capacity where the referees just had a great feel for yelling. And they were vocal, and the goalies knew, like, hey, I got to play this puck, and they're trying to swirl it off to the side

and they're almost scoop into their own net sometimes. Those are times. I do agree that I really like the way that that kept the game going. I think there's too many your face-offs that just are like, no, that goalie should have played that puck. And I think that's another area where I don't have a ton of answers as far as, you know, what the rules should be with the goalies playing the puck, but I think it's a very interesting one that you could delve into

and make the game, continue to make the game, you know, more exciting. And always with that, you have to put in mind, know, the speed of the game and what the implications are for defensemen taking hits. And I think that's something that is an important thing. More goals play the puck, the less guys get run with those at full speed. That's true. That is a good unintended consequence or a battle, but one important to think about. I guess the game is like when it's absolute best, when it's free-flowing and no stop

because of years going back and forth. And I can't remember like your mileage on sort of the importance of face-offs can vary and we don't need to relitigate that right now. But it's like, I don't know anyone that's like, oh, man, I can't wait to watch this face off. Let me get my PVR going and rewind 15 seconds so I can see that puck drop again. That was a thing of beauty.

It's like, I think even the biggest peers are like, can we just like see them play and move up and down the ice? That's the fun part, not the battle at the circle. Yeah, I hear you on that one. But, yeah, you're on to something with that, with the free flowing and keeping the goalies, you know, moving that puck, I think is a very, very positive thing for the game. Is there anything before we get out of here that, like, you wanted to touch on in terms of

maybe something you've either preliminarily started thinking about or you saw kind of someone talk about, but, you know, it's in its kind of infancy stage so you never actually utilize it in real life. Like, is there anything that kind of comes to mind on that? Or are you just kind of, I mean, you clearly think that the game is, or believe that the game is where it needs to be right now and that we're maximizing all of our potential tools for like increasing both entertainment value, but also productivity and offensive utilization and all that.

Yeah, I really do feel like we're in a great spot. I think we've got to be careful to not, not delve too far into that, you know, the instant replay. I think is that, that's my concern as, Even just, you know, I think as a fan, as a coach and you adjust and that's what you're paid to do, but as a fan of the game, I just like to see that. It adds for drama. It adds, it adds, you know, the human element.

And even with instant replay, you're still going to have a lot of controversy at times. So, you know, it's not a perfect science. So, no, other than that, I mean, I'm, you know, it's always, it's always a pleasure to get on with different minds in our game, and I always take something out of it, and there's very little, it actually gets regurgitated through each interview once you get into, you know,

with interviewers like yourself. And so it was a blast being on that. Well, I'm glad we finally got to do this. Thanks for indulging me with some of my crazy ideas. And, yeah, I'd say enjoy your summer, but I know that in coaching circles, the season never really stops. The grind never stops or subsides.

enjoy your summer as much as you can and hopefully we'll be able to chat sometime down the road. I'd love to get you back on. All right, Dimitia, take care of man. Cheers. The Hockey Pediocast with Dmitri Philipovich. Follow on Twitter at Dim Philipovic and on SoundCloud at soundcloud.com

slash hockeypedocast.