#puck!script

MEDIA: You’re always, you’re always talking to Juice…

KUZMENKO: Mm-hmm

MEDIA: You’re always talking to Kopi.

KUZMENKO: Right.

REPORTER: Is that just you, your personality? You just like to…?

KUZMENKO: Ahh… Yes. I want, uh playing hockey on ice, I don’t want, uh think what’s happen in the future with Juice and Kopi. I want understanding next move. It’s little bit better for future, for good moment, for score, for passes, for good grade chance. And I love it, speak to my partners.

(Shrugging) I don’t know, probably too much and maybe more speak I, because it’s Kopi, (he imitates Kopitar nodding frantically) “Yeah,yeah, yeah, yeah, Kuzy, yeah, yeah!”

[...]

ROGALSKI: It's actually interesting you use the word 'storytelling', too, because I think Meghan's bang-on, I think, about a lot of inquiries coming our way now, which is great! But I think also in terms of, y'know, building a relationship with a coach, understanding what their schedule looks like, what their needs are, where they have windows of time to work through and educate on the data.

But also, I think packaging it in a digestible way, right? You're still, in some ways, doing the same thing with a coach where if there's a point you're trying to make, there is a time for a fact: "This guy's whatever on faceoff percentage," that's a fact, that needs to happen. But sometimes you gotta package it in a narrative that really helps them understand how they can then turn around and use that fact to improve the team or communicate to a player. So there is a component of that storytelling that's needed as well.

DESAULNIERS: To tack on what Jeremy was saying... So, I really see three things mainly that are important in order to have communications flowing between our group and the coaches.

The first thing is, really, it's really great to have a translator. You usually will have, like, someone on the team, or you want to have someone on the team who's able to speak the language with the coaches and who understands on the analytics side.

And so we'll be creating some reports, some setting up the information there so it can be consumed, and then you'll have, you, in our (the Montreal Canadiens') case it's Chris our Director of Analytics, who will be talking with the coaches and knowing what the coaches are expecting and presenting it in a way that they understand. So that's one thing.

The second thing that we found effective is, we've started creating some concepts that we try to keep as simple and as high-level as possible, but that then become part of the vocabulary that we have with the coaching staff.

So just to give an example, we'll be talking about players that are, that have a certain number of pillars, we call them pillars, which are at the bottom. They're metrics, very specific metrics, that we're tracking - you don't need to understand all the details to know that, okay, so this guy has a four pillar, or five pillar, and this way you know, like, where he stands at a very high level without having to dig into it.

The third thing that we do, that we've done, is get the coaches on board, so work on a way of organising the metrics based on what they're looking for, what their understanding of the game is, and organise the information that way. So then when they start digging into it they actually see what they were looking for.

And you get the buy-in from them, too, when you're doing that, because they've worked on it to build that structure.

ROGALSKI: I would add one thing, too, that I thought of. You raise a good point, too. I think visuals are huge here, too, right? Whether it's a heat map or just picking the right graphic or trend, or something that's -

DESAULNIERS: Colours!

ROGALSKI: I mean, reds and greens, like, it helps. It truly does help.

CHAYKA: Not to play your role Arda but I have a question for Jeremy, because you've been through some different coaches. Do you find, like, coaching staffs, as they change... From my work I find some are far more, just, ease of use and understanding and their ability to implement it in their game flow. Works a lot better for some people's style than others, have you seen that change with, like, different coaches?

ROGALSKI: Yes. It's definitely seen a change. Also, I think now you're starting to see coaches have worked with different teams, so. Before it's, you're educating on, "This is what we can offer you," now it's, you're coming in with a set of preferences, or, "This is what I worked with previously, " so.

Y'know, more recently it's been coming in with a set of expectations for, "I know this works for me, is there anything you want to add or change or do whatever?" So, it's definitely, there has been a change.

OCAL: That's a great question, I want to generalise that, like, y'know whether it's a first-time coach like Marty St Louis, whether it's a Jim Montgomery, or a long tenured coach... Let me start with you, Meghan, like, from different experience levels of coaches, in the NHL or otherwise, how have you found their acceptance and how they use that in their daily jobs?

CHAYKA: And I think it can be background, too. You know, you, you're a math grad, you like numbers. Some people come from engineering. People come to coaching in so many different ways, so they have such a different way of approach and understanding and ease with it.

And I think that they can just implement it and know what's assumptions and what's noise and what's actually important to them and their job that they need to do. So I think it's just being realistic about your personnel.

But I will say that I've noticed, doing the Draft a lot, and at ESPN and working with Draft people in the CHL and doing a lot of Junior work, that young people now expect data. They want it, they want to take control of their own, whether it's a coach or a player coming up. So I'm seeing, like, the 25-and-under crowd.

It's not, "Do I, should I use analytics?" it's like, "Why aren't we using analytics? Why isn't my agent doing that for me? Why isn't my team doing that for me?"

And I think that, too, both empowers people working in tech but also empowers, like, the person who that data is being used to dictate their career, right? Giving them some control and oversight and insight into what they actually have to improve. So it's kind of, like, flipping it on the head a little bit.

OCAL: The paradigm is changing!

[START Transcript]

Greg Revak: On the Hockey IQ Podcast today, we open up a new segment: we’re bringing back our favourite Will Scouch. If you’re on the Hockey IQ Newsletter you know his work by now.

Will, good morning. Earlier than most of us probably normally get up, but it’s a good day.

Will Scouch: Yeah, Greg, thanks for having me, it’s a lot of fun. Me and Greg go way back. We’re boys from years ago and I’m excited to hop on the show. I’m a keen listener, keen reader. 

[They exchange pleasantries]

GR: Beautiful. Well, today we’re gonna talk about three concepts. We’re gonna break it into three spots though, so everyone’s gotta come back next week and the week after that.

We’re gonna talk about defensemen, because everyone knows they’re important but how do we actually play the position well?

WS: Yeah, I mean, it’s a position that’s still, to me, being explored; both by, I’d say youth and junior coaches and pro coaches alike. There’s a lot of different ways that you can do it.

I mean, I watch a lot of hockey from around the world, all kinds of different levels. I’ve watched guys develop from 15 to 24 at this point, and just seeing how their games evolve and everything, and how effective various versions of this position is. And I think it’s a very interesting area that’s still being explored in a lot of really interesting ways, for sure.

GR: Yeah, I think back to David Savard; he comes out of the [QMJHL] as this high-flying offensive defenseman, and if we just forgot about the rest of his career and you just saw him today as this great shutdown, defense-first player, you’d be absolutely shocked.

I mean, you think about Rasmus Dahlin — kid didn’t even play full time defenseman until his actual draft year, he was still playing forward a ton. There’s so much to be explored here.

I feel like [to get a lot of] — for you NHL fans — to get a lot of value in the later rounds out of your defensemen, take those offensive players first, and we can find a lot of hidden gems later.

WS: Well, yeah. I mean, actually, I’ve said this a few times but your listeners probably don’t know, but I did a presentation during the pandemic at the Ottawa Hockey Analytics Conference about this topic exactly; how, when you look at the numbers and the defensive value of players in the NHL, I found that there were just as many in the top 50 defensive value of players in the NHL, there were just as many undrafted players as there were second round picks, second and third round picks combined.

So the draft isn’t really a great historical gauge on defensive ability. Offense is a different story from defensive players, which we could probably get into a little bit.

But I find, personally, that evaluating defensemen and projecting defense to the NHL is still really spotty and questionable. And I don’t know, in my line of work, watching a lot of defensemen, a lot of the ones who I think are some of the better defenders kind of go a little unheralded, because a lot of the time you don’t need to be particularly noticeable to be a good defenseman, but scouts are always looking for the noticeable guys.

So it’s a very interesting world and it’s a very interesting thing to pick through, but there’s definitely a lot of case studies you could dig into, and a lot of players you could look at as cases of, “Oh yeah, nobody was really paying a whole lot of attention to them!” or maybe people were thinking about them the wrong way. But if you think about things a little bit outside the box, you might be able to see something really interesting there.

GR: Yeah, so let's dive into why that may be. Classic example would be Lane Hutson, so maybe we'll pick on him a little bit, but I definitely want to talk about Rasmus Ristolainen, because he is an interesting case study that we wrote about on the newsletter.

So where I want to start with this is just modern day defending. How are defensemen defending today versus old times? A lot of times it was the big hit, separate the head from body. The puck’s somewhere, but let's separate the head from the body, and we’ll worry about the puck later — that is going bye-bye.

Every coach I talk to now, they prefer having the puck rather than having a head on a stake. So for me, it comes back to this old saying of, “position before possession.” We're gaining body positioning, we're not so much separating head from body, but puck from player.

All right, so we've got position before possession. It's super valuable in gaining the space that you need to have first whack in a puck or put the puck where you want it, or just push it to a teammate. Just having the idea of owning space and there's no better league at this and no league that values it more than the NHL. If you don't do this well in the NHL, sooner or later, you're going to find yourself out of a job making a heck of a lot less money in a league that probably no one really cares that much about. You want to be in the show, the big lights: you have to value this more than anything.

And this is actually the one thing that I noticed about Hunter McDonald. He's in the Flyers’ system now — he was an overager, but I was like, “This guy is unbelievable!” He’s a huge frame, you can’t miss him out there. He would just get the positioning before possession, and I was like, “Okay, that’s interesting, let me watch him further.”

And I feel like he’s going to be one of those bottom of the lineup guys who, unlikely, made it out of being an overager in the [United States Hockey League], going to college for a few years, but has those little details of a defenseman that you see in modern day play, which is positioning overall, which is an NHL trait to the nth degree.

WS: No, I know. I think I would definitely agree. Those are the players that are always really, really fascinating to me because you look at a guy like Hunter McDonald and the production just isn't amazing. But it doesn't — to me, when you look at defensemen, it almost doesn't really matter. That's kind of a very secondary-slash-bonus style of thing that comes with a player.

I see a lot of defenders every year and it seems like a thing where a lot of them, maybe at the lower levels, there is a little bit more of that “separate the head from the body”-type of player. And I think there are NHL scouts who still gravitate towards those guys but, at the end of the day when it all comes out in the wash, it's a lot of the time the guys that are kind of, I hate to say ”boring”, but just very effective, and just they're always in a good position.

The guy I always reference as a young defenseman who, I think, is just a really, really high-end defensive guy is Kaiden Guhle in Montreal. We're going to talk a little bit about Lane Hutson in a second, but Kaiden Guhle is a guy who, when he was in the junior level, just played such a great, balanced style of defense.

He was a good skater, but he had really good length. He was a guy who didn't just lay the body every single time, but he certainly could if he needed to. It was about his lateral mobility, it was about tracking rushes, keeping inside the dot lines, and preventing chances from inside and leading with his stick, but then finishing with the body if he had the opportunity or the need to do so. And he seemed to have a really good read of just how to do his job really, really well.

And so that's been a lesson for me for sure. He was a really interesting case study a few years ago, and he's become a pretty solid NHL defenseman. I mean, on a team this year that’s kind of struggling defensively I think he’s been one of the brighter spots on that defense group there, [he’s] doing a pretty good job at least suppressing chances against.

GR: I don’t watch as much as you do, prospects, but Guhle I did catch. For me, the play style wasn’t very good. He had elements of it, you could see the flashes, but he was just really brash. His decision making and his reads were quite poor. But the tools were there, and it was like, “Can he adjust?” Which I think he’s done a phenomenal job [of], and I think Montreal is probably the perfect place for him to develop a lot of that.

So I think you're spot on like, “Okay, how does he actually apply?“ Having assets is one thing, having the tools is one thing, but how do we properly apply those assets, those tools that you have in a good way? So I think another piece, for me, is if you do have the speed, is just making sure that you're controlling speed and then you're also keeping small gaps.

And just knowing with my high school team that no one knows what a gap is, let's define that real quick, which is: the difference in space between the forwards and the defensemen. So the space in between, “How much space are you [allowing]?” in hockey term slang. It's underneath you versus on the other side, which is above you or behind you. So, “How much space, what's that gap between D and O?”

(Editor’s note: He says O instead of F here, I assume because the person attacking isn’t always a forward. As in, “How much space between the defenseman and offenceman?”)

So you got the speed, shrink that gap as much as possible. Don't give them the space to operate or work in, or, I even call it the space to think, which [it often becomes] for forwards, especially unsophisticated ones.

WS: Yeah, I mean, that's really the bread and butter of a lot of the position. It's so much of this, like you said, gap control. I actually just did a bit of video work for a really high end player, [an] NHL draft pick playing in Sweden this year, who is producing really well.

But in terms of the defending side of the game, he's not the most incredible skater you've ever seen, he's not the biggest guy in the world. And a big thing that I noticed, that even at the professional level that was kind of a bit of a work in progress, was that gap management. Especially because the footwork wasn't amazing, [he was] keeping his feet a little too stationary, gliding backwards and sort of allowing that gap.

And when you watch the NHL that's the point of the whole exercise, watching the NHL and how they play. Forwards are fast and they're smart, largely. The guys who can score are the guys who know how to get through soft defensive pressure, the guys who know how to find lanes and cross up defensemen, and if you don't have the footwork or the mobility or the reach or all of it — all of the above — to track all that and manage it, then it's going to be a lot tougher to do your job.

But the interesting thing, though, is that there's a lot of different ways that you can get defensive jobs done. That's always been very interesting to me; seeing how different players approach the position in different ways and seeing the efficacy of that come out in the wash, and how their offense balances with their defensive ability. It's a very interesting world to dig into, for sure.

GR: Yeah, I think you've got a rabbit hole there. You just kind of opened up around defensive skating. What do clean feet look like? What does defensive posture look like, that actually allows you to have that kind of mobility?

So we'll leave that for another day. If anyone wants to go check it out on the Hockey IQ Newsletter, they can do so. Just look up defenseman skating development. We've got two good pieces there talking about building and maintaining defensive posture and keeping clean feet, which — actually massive base for anyone.

It allows you to have the proper gap that allows you to kill plays early, and ultimately, it's a lot about just controlling speed. You don't want McDavid building up to full speed. You don't want MacKinnon building up to full speed. You don't want anyone coming up to you at full speed. It's very hard to maintain that kind of speed going backwards [that we] even generate in the first place. 

How do you kill it early? How do you get a hand on someone? Or, my favorite example is just proper pivoting. A guy dumps a puck on you, how are you going back? What does that pivot look like?

I'll let you open that up because at the NHL it's almost too good, where you can't see what a bad example looks like, but you can see it's everywhere.

WS: Yeah, I mean, it's a make or break skill in the NHL. It's where a lot of defensemen die. I mean, it's a cliche at this point to talk about pucks in deep, to talk about [getting] pucks deep in the offensive zone, get below the goal line, dump and chase. People make fun of dump-and-chase kind of stuff. But if your team is built to do it, you can do it.

You can take advantage of defensemen in the NHL who just don't have the speed or the agility or the skating ability that some of your forwards might have. It is a lot easier to skate forwards than it is to skate backwards. That's just, you know, anecdotal, but also pretty factual — you're naturally going forwards.

I think an interesting trend that you're seeing a little bit more of [is] what they would call ‘scooting’. You're the coach; I don't know if that's exactly what the terminology would be, but [it’s getting] your defensemen in the neutral zone, kind of pinching a little bit more and having them skate forwards, tracking play towards the boards.

So it's not necessarily that they're doing their backwards crossovers, it's not necessarily that they're entirely skating backwards, but you see guys who are really talented skaters or do have a lot of quickness driving play to the boards in a more aggressive way than having the play in front of them. It's about them sort of tracking that play laterally, which is an interesting thing I think you're seeing more of now.

I think there are definitely coaches and systems that love to play their defensemen more that way, and the weak side defense can sort of fill between the dot lines for them and sort of leave the weaker side of the ice a little bit more open. That's kind of what I mean. There's a lot of different ways to achieve these kinds of goals, and I think you're seeing a lot of different things popping up to adapt to this. 

In situations where you have a dump and chase or something like that, or just getting pucks in deep or whatever you say, when you have a defenseman who has trouble with their footwork and turning around… Trust me, I'm a defenseman, when I play hockey, I strap on the skates — I play defense myself and that's where I fall apart, when I do fall apart. Which is often. But definitely, when play turns around and I’ve got to change directions or change my area of flow, it can be tricky. And in the NHL, I can only imagine how tricky it can be there. 

GR: Yeah. I mean, a good pivot you're looking at three steps total, like boom-boom-bam and you're there. You watch an amateur game and it could be like five, six, seven, eight chops before [they] finally get going and [it’s] looking like a proper forward stride again. [Or just] getting into a good defensive posture and positioning. It's total scramble mode.

A big one for me, too, is just the direction that you pivot. Do you wait for that offensive player to commit to their lane? It's just a great defensive habit in general, letting the offenceman make the first move. If you're making the first move, you're the one showing your cards. It's kind of like showing your cards first in Poker.

Let them make the decision and then you can pivot into them. Now you can get that position before possession, or at least get a chip on them, slow them down. You can either make it easier for yourself or your partner. So one, there's the clean footwork on the pivot, and two is making sure that we're controlling the speed and we're pivoting properly in the direction that we want to pivot.

There's a ton of times where I see, especially the lower levels, players coming up, they're in a bad spot, they're skating forward, defenseman skating backwards and they just chip it off the boards. And the defenseman is like a dog just following the puck and it ends up in the middle of the ice where the forward actually went. Again, the NHL is the best at this so it's really hard to see bad examples of pivoting into and controlling the space of the opponent.

WS: Yeah. I do a lot of work outside the NHL, and the biggest thing I notice is not necessarily the number of chops it takes, but the amount of time. You can see guys taking two seconds, maybe more, to get themselves turned around, tracking pucks below the goal line.

To me hockey is a game of milliseconds a lot of the time, right? I was working with someone years ago who really shared the idea with me that, in the NHL, generally goals are not scored if you have the puck on your stick for more than either half a second or a second.

I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's so fast in terms of; when you score goals in the NHL, it's when you touch the puck for a very short amount of time in the offensive zone and get a puck on net. And so, if you have guys who take too long — and “too long” might not be very long… If the difference is relatively short at the time you're making those pivots or those changes, but the [opponent has] got a lot more speed than you and you're [taking more] time to then start generating that speed to match the opponent, you're in trouble.

And in my opinion, I think that you want your defensemen to be more assertive. I always fall back on the strategy of; make them make a decision, make them commit. That might imply that you do the committing first, but that's where the importance of footwork and tactics come into question. 

You have to have strong support, whether it's from backchecking forwards or your partner. You want to be able to adapt to quick players who might fake one way, go another, and be able to use your stick or use your feet or both to be a factor regardless of what happens. 

It's very interesting to watch defensemen play. I find it really, really interesting to see the different approaches of different players and especially how they evolve and get into the NHL.

But yeah, I mean, [it’s so pivotal], the skating ability; defensemen who can skate, it unlocks so many doors for their career. If you're an elite level skating defenseman, it just unlocks so many doors that interest me. If you're not, and if that's not a strength of your game, then it can be a big struggle, especially against faster opponents. Even if you're big and physical and pretty good throwing the body or whatever, there's a lot more of the game in the NHL these days. Very, very interesting stuff. 

GR: I think that's actually the perfect segue into someone who, early in his career, threw the body too much and sold out too much on plays that he probably shouldn't: Rasmus Ristolainen.

Great case study, great case study from when [John Tortorella] started working with him to where he is now. Will, I'll send in the link here from the Hockey IQ newsletter so we can track a little bit better with each other. 

I found him to be a fascinating player. High draft pick, 8th overall in 2013. Really pretty, smooth skating, big body — has all of the tools that you would traditionally say, “Yep, that checks [out].” And then you looked at his stat profile and it was just abysmal. His micro stats were terrible. I think the only thing he was good at was D-Zone Retrievals, which, being able to take contact, it was kind of an easy thing for him.

WS: Yeah. I remember watching Ristolainen when he was in junior hockey, because that was the earliest years of me being kind of curious about that side of the game, and I did not really recall that being a premier area of his game.

I remember him being big, but pretty mobile, and has some skill to play around with. He did have a bit of a physical edge to him, but it feels like it was that tail end of an era in the NHL where those big, mean, physical guys were kind of in vogue, and people were kind of curious and needing guys like that. And I guess that's what Buffalo drafted him to be.

I remember being very surprised that he was in the NHL the year he was drafted. It just did not look like it was really working out there. And Buffalo just seems to have been not a great fit for him, they kind of turned him into something that he wasn't, but I do think that he's turned into some sort of serviceable defenseman.

But he, to me, is a great example of one that I always look back on and go, “Man, what if?” Like, what if things went a little bit differently for him? Because there was good stuff there, it's just I feel like the development was focused in the wrong areas.

To me, 65% of the work [is] scouting, and developing — the easy part is drafting good players, the hard part is developing them and bringing them along into being good NHL players.

So to me, if you can find the most amount of things that get in the way of that process being easy, then you're doing a really good job. And with Ristolainen, I feel like in his case they inserted more things to make that journey more difficult and sort of turned him into something that he wasn't, which is always a scary thing for me to think about doing to a player.

But it's not over for him, obviously. He figured it out. Obviously, Tortorella found something for him to do, and he has shown a little bit better. But yeah, he's always been a what-if guy for me.

GR: I always liked how Tortorella, after the 2022-2023 season, was doing his media stuff and he was like “Yeah, he's our most improved player.” You're a guy who's getting paid big bucks — I think he was making five million plus that year, still is, probably — and even him, he was like, “I was just bad the first half. And then around Christmas break, I started getting going. The second half was much better.”

Basically, the first half, they were just trying to rebuild his defensive game, and this is true for anything. Zach Benson's another good example of this. If you can't play defense in the NHL, you're going to be out quick. Benson can play defense despite being — I think they list them at five foot 10, but there's no way.

WS: Yeah, no, no. I know. He's a little guy, but he's another great example of a player where I, in my work, I do not care how big you are. I just care about how you play. Even in the NHL. And I feel like Benson's a really, really good example of that; a guy who, just forechecking alone is a really… The easiest way to defend is if he can cause turnovers in the opposing team's offensive zone, a guy like Zach Benson does that extremely well.

And if he needs to track guys through the neutral zone and backcheck, he'll do it, and he does it really well, and he does it at a speed that I found to be projectable to the NHL. And again, that's another one where I was a little surprised to see him in the NHL so fast, but he didn't really look out of place there.

He's had a bit of a slow start this season, but just a really, really talented player, and one where you kind of do look at and go, “Yeah, these smaller guys can definitely defend.” They just — the expectations are a little bit higher, and maybe for good reason, but he checks all the boxes for sure.

GR: Yeah. So for Rasmus (Ristolainen), there's two big things that, when I dug into this, that Torts was working at. At this point, I was so intrigued [that] I was tracking every single time Torts spoke and Rasmus spoke to the media. So I was like, “I wonder what they're actually doing?” Which, Torts can be tight-lipped, but he gives it away if you follow long enough.

The big one was just inside, like too much, he was finding himself, Rasmus was finding himself on the outside. So whether that be outside the dots, outside on bad ice, for whatever reason, or just finding yourself outside, like losing defensive side positioning to the offensive player.

If you finish contact, but now you're on the wall and your player's got to step to the net, that's trouble. There's a great, great clip the other night featuring, I think it was (Aliaksei) Protas [who] ended up scoring the goal and K’Andre Miller of the New York Islanders. So Caps — Rangers, not Islanders — Rangers… Where [Miller] went in soft, didn't really take positioning, got beat back to net, and Protas just put out a stick and just tapped it in, Igor Shesterkin never had a chance.

A similar idea of; okay, good, maybe you got some contact, you tried to make the stop, but you still need to maintain defensive side positioning. You still need to finish on the inside. So if you're doing contact, you can't overreach.

You just can't do that. You have to stay in good positioning.

And the second piece was just, finishing with contact to get stops, like stopping movement. Offensive play is a lot about movement, and defensive play is about stopping movement, AKA getting stops. So he would maybe make a play, or get a poke check, but the puck was still moving and could be easily on the other team's stick. 

So how do you make sure you're always staying in good positioning? Staying on the inside, as Torts put it. Or the other piece, which is getting stops, or finishing with contact — but smartly, not chasing the contact for contact’s sake? Being tactful in your play.

I feel like Risto really just learned how to play defense smartly. He was actually thinking and being intentional about what he was doing, rather than like, “I see a puck and a player, I'm going to go end that!” And then, boom, in the big scheme of things, it’s a net negative. Even though at the moment, it may have, especially to him — otherwise he wouldn't make the play — seemed like a positive, really it was a negative for the team.

WS: Well, that's the interesting thing too, going back to talking about junior players and the context in the draft and how defensive players might go a little bit underreported or undervalued in a sense.

I see this all the time, especially with North American defensemen, especially with Canadian ones, but there are definitely players who everybody talks about how good they are defensively, everybody talks about how solid they are. They're big, they're physical, they're mean, blah, blah, blah. But then when you watch things in detail, it's this sort of Ristolainen-style thing. You're talking about K’Andre Miller where it's like, they're along the boards, they're doing the thing along the boards, but they're losing.

They're allowing guys to get low on them, get through them, and even in the junior level, right? What good is it if you're trying to pin a guy against the boards and they give you a little shove, crouch down a little bit, chip the puck three feet out from you, you don't adapt to that, they get three feet of space on you, throw it out in front of the net, and boom, you got yourself a scoring chance, right? I see that all the time.

It's the focus on the body and not focus on the turnover, turning that possession back over, that really seems to be a tough lesson for a lot of defensemen to get over. I find that a lot of defensemen from the age of 18 to 23, in the grand scheme of things, their style of play doesn't drastically shift all that often.

And so, when I see things like that happening, I'm going, okay, I gotta either hope that this guy puts in the time in the gym and becomes, just, a strength nut, and pins that guy to the boards so they can't do anything, or they figure out a way to get into those situations, take a step back, chip at the puck. Really battle for the puck rather than focus on the guy.

Because I've seen it so many times with guys who are bigger and more physical, they apply it in a way where I feel like coaches will go, “Wow, look at you go, you're playing hard, you're playing the thing!” But then they escape, this opponent might escape, and create a little bit of space for themselves. And again, this is a game of inches, it's a game of a couple of feet, and every inch matters.

So in some cases, yeah, you get those situations where guys like Ristolainen, yeah, you're doing the thing, people clip the hits, people clip the physical play, but then five seconds later, someone's got some space on you and they generate a scoring chance. And so what do you really value, right? Personally, fewer scoring chances would be ideal.

GR: I love it. Last piece to wrap this up, because I think it'll go well into our next piece, which is point play. Shorting the zone.

I was able to find some phenomenal clips and do some photos of this for the newsletter. But the concept of; if you're watching a game in the NHL, if you can see all five of the people trying to break the puck out, low in the zone… A lot of it, you think about the NHL today, is like a swarm. We're going to do close support. I'm going to try to crowd the puck out.

A good way to respond to that is to short the zone, which basically means your defensemen, instead of hanging out at the blue line, are going to go into the offensive zone. And they're going to start with small gaps, they're going to be [at the] top of the circles, if not a little bit lower.

Tortorella is another big fan of this, so you can see it with the Flyers a lot, too. I would say [Sheldon] Keefe is another example of a coach who does this a ton. So you saw a lot in Toronto, now you'll see a lot more in New Jersey, which is  the perfect d-core to make all of this work. So I think Devils are going to be good for — that's going to be a great fit.

But just the idea of crowding in the space, setting small gaps, so when you do start defending, you can either cut a play off early — it's an easy pinch there if you don't have to go very far — you can cut it off. Or, 2; create a turnover in a much better spot than what is in your own zone. Why not make it in the o-zone? So from a positioning standpoint, phenomenal place to start, good way to kill plays early.

Before they can get going, before the team can build speed, and just being able to put yourself in a good spot to take advantage both from a defensive standpoint, but offensive standpoint.

WS: Yeah, I love when I see this being deployed. I think, again, I'm a geek, like I'm a math guy, and even just thinking about the numbers here, it makes such a difference if you think about it.

The offensive zone from blue line to goal line is 64 feet. So you're looking at the difference between a guy standing at the blue line being maybe 75 feet from the net or at the top of the face-off circle where you might be 20 feet closer, maybe 20, 25 feet closer. So you're cutting down the time at which you give the defense to adapt, the goaltender to adapt. You're cutting that time down by a third-ish, a quarter to a third. I'm ballparking here, but that automatically is just based on where you are on the ice.

If you can compress the offensive zone on your opponent, you're laughing. The second thing I wanted to mention here is this is, again, why skating ability and quickness and speed are so important to me. Because it is objectively a better position to be in when you're in that position — closer to the top of the face-off circles for your defensemen.

But if you do have a situation where the opponent has possession of the puck you have to get set up, you have to cover that gap, you have to cover for yourself, or you have to have some sort of system in place where a winger can cover for you if you're caught in the offensive zone. Ideally, you have your defensemen who can wheel up, get some speed going, get positioned well to counter that attack, and have a system that can swarm whoever has that puck in the offensive zone.

I think it's a really interesting trend for sure. It's a simple little thing, it's a concept that you see definitely a lot more now than you used to, but I'm all about it. It just makes sense mathematically, and it plays into exactly the styles of player that I always look for: guys who do pinch a little bit more aggressively, but have the mobility and the skating ability to cover for themselves.

I would rather have a player who tries something creative, or tries some sort of play that could lead to a high scoring chance, but may relinquish some space on the ice, but has the ability to cover for themselves.

And I can at least as a coach, rely on them — not that I'm a coach — but rely on them to cover for themselves. To go, okay, I can rely on them to try these things, because I know that if it doesn't maybe go their way, which happens in hockey all the time, I'm not going to be upset at this player, but I know that I want them to backcheck, cover for it, because I know they're capable of it.

I think that that's sort of the trade off that you have to live with, but I'm totally cool with it.

GR: All right, so we're going to call this end of the day on some modern day defending, and we'll pick up on point play in episode two.

[END Transcript.]

[START Transcript]

Greg Revak: Alright, welcome back. Week three of our series here with Will Scouch, we're looking at defensemen.

First week, we talked about modern day defending. Last week, we talked about point play, so; shorting the zone, why point shots are truly the worst… Point shots just suck, point shots suck. I mean, everyone knows it, we all know it.

Will Scouch: The crusade, yeah.

GR: We looked at Zach Werenski; he was leading the NHL in goals — he's consistently up there leading the league in goals from defensemen. And Will, you had a great study there showing the offensive increases that we've seen have all basically come because of defensemen being more involved in the offense.

It was perfect for our point play piece — making sure [we’re] going into the details; catching with movement, catching in good spots, giving ourselves spaces to operate in; and common mistakes of players [where] they start in wide open spaces rather than maybe starting in more congested spaces, but having space to go into. So, common mistakes there.

This time, we're going to talk about defending the rush. So [the team has turned] the puck over, we're now having to play defense. There's that transition moment where we're going from offense to defense. And now, just straight, we're playing defense.

Two ways I think about this when we're playing the rush is one, passive; and two, aggressive. [If we’re being] aggressive, we have an opportunity to maybe kill the play early, we can really get in the attitude of “We play you.” Versus passive; maybe we're not in a good spot or our team hasn't set us up in a good spot as a defenseman, maybe there's some kind of scramble, whatever it may be.

And then the third piece I'd love to dive into is reading the pinch.

So where do we want to start? I feel like this is maybe a good opportunity to start with our main man Lane Hutson because I feel like he's someone who has the ability to play aggressive, but often he's pretty passive in his rush defense.

WS: Yeah. I think that you're dead on with that. I've seen a lot of Lane Hutson over the last few years. I remember when he was a draft-eligible kid, I remember watching him in college. Now he's in the NHL and actually he's been quite effective on paper in the NHL.

I know people are throwing around player cards, and throwing around this, and throwing around that. But in aggregate, on the whole so far this season, relative to the rest of the team in Montreal, he's been — for a kid who's, again, 20 years old, playing upwards of 25 minutes a night — he's doing pretty well.

I think that that's asking a lot out of a kid, and he's doing quite well, especially [at] 5 foot 9, with all the question marks people have with players like that. With him, I think he's a really good showcase of how smaller players can play defensively and be a positive impact player, right?

There have been… I mean, I wrote for you in the newsletter over the summer. It's the area where I think, in the context of the NHL draft, there is still a lot of work that could be done of discovering some good value. Of looking at these really, really mobile and creative guys that may lean a little more offensively, but… may not actually.

A great example, while we're talking about Lane Hutson; a guy who doesn't score a whole lot, but every single time I watch him, he just does the right things all the time and has done so since his draft year, is Tyler Duke.

He's in Michigan now, and that kid is 5'10, I think, 5'9, and doesn't score a tremendous amount. But I remember watching him at the NTDP, and I remember a few interviews with his teammates going, “This guy is the most underrated guy on the team. He's small, but he works his tail off.” Just like his brother Dylan — Dylan Duke is having a great year in the AHL too — but that's beside the point…

GR: Both are Ohio boys, just say that.

WS: Ohio, yeah, exactly.

GR: I gotta rep the state that I'm from. Ohio kids!

WS: Yeah, I mean, hey, I love me some Ohio, for sure. But yeah, I think that guys like that, and Lane Hutson, showcase a lot of the same things.

Number one, possession is good defense. If the opponent doesn't have the puck because you have it they're not scoring, so that's number one. And number two, Lane Hutson does a really good job using his feet to at least put himself in good position to block play from occurring. Like we said; staying between the dots, not over-committing but not opening up too much of a gap.

I think you mentioned surfing off the top of the show, but he is an aggressive neutral zone defender as well. He can track that play laterally, challenge guys with his stick and force them to make plays, force them to make decisions, before the puck even gets in the defensive end.

And from there, if you've got good support from your partner or a forward that's backchecking, then you're golden.

To me, it's the little things that you may not notice or that may not jump out at you, but when you watch game after game after game, you kind of go, “Oh, I see how this guy has got the trust of a coach. I can see how this guy is playing so many minutes relative to the rest of the guys on his team because of the things that he brings, even though he's not the biggest guy in the world.”

He's not perfect.. There have been situations where I'm watching Lane Hutson going, “Well, that didn't really go your way, and that's unfortunate.” But that’s any hockey player.

GR: That's also learning as a 20-year-old rookie defenseman — at five foot 10, if you're lucky.

WS: And that's hockey. Hockey is a game where sometimes things are going to go your way and [sometimes] they're not. If I got upset every time a big physical guy lost a physical battle, then… But nobody really does that, nobody really is concerned when that happens once in a while.

So with Lane Hutson, he loses a physical battle once in a while. He's not involved in as many because they often have the puck, and if they don't have the puck he's doing work in the offensive zone or neutral zone to prevent [the opponent] from keeping the puck.

There's a lot of good things that happen in his game that I think brought him to this point in the NHL. Faster than I thought to be perfectly honest. I thought Hutson was going to take a little bit more time, but he hasn't really looked out of place and I think he's a really fascinating case study as to guys like him and how they might be able to work.

GR: Yeah. You wrote on the Hockey IQ Newsletter, so I'm just going to reference it exactly. You mentioned, “Hutson shows off a number of strong defensive moments that highlight his style of blocking offensive zone exits, keeping opponents to the perimeter, and establishing body position on retrievals.” Three very translatable things to the NHL.

Note: one of my very first Lane Hutson gifsets was a sequence like this. He beat Robby Fabbri on a puck retrieval by gaining body position on him — this was from his 2 games with Montreal at the end of last season. I’m so glad the broadcast chose to highlight that play. He really is something special.

Yes, he's going to continue to grow and fill out, so he's got more progress [to make]. I mean, we talk about the deficiencies and my actual areas of worry [are] more around his skating base and feet and all that. But from a standpoint of, “Can you survive in the league?” The answer is yes.

Victor Mete would be the anti-example, I would say, where he didn't have the way of deploying the things that Hutson does. The brain wasn't there to the extent that Hutson was while being small — also a Habs draft pick, so track that one as well for those that want to nerd out.

There were some great quotes that Hutson had talking about his defensive game. I'm just going to read them out because I think they're so good, and then we can dive into the details here.

So from Hutson talking about defense, “I just think it's more about being in the right spot, being more skillful and knowing the game rather than just being a big frame. It's about making the right plays and the right reads.” 

And continuing on, [he’s talking about how he does that], he says, “Being able to get up in their face,” so having great gap control, “…without getting pulled out of position,” [as in] not overextending yourself, “Controlling my speed and my gap and my spacing around the inside of the ice to keep guys to the outside.”

He just keeps talking about the things we're talking about, which are playing the game with intentionality, playing it very smartly. Basically, the opposite of how Rasmus Ristolainen came into the league, which was like, “I'm a big body, I'm gonna go make things happen.” This is just more tactful.

It's not gonna scream at you — like you said, he's gonna have his moments — but from an overall standpoint, he's gonna drive positive results. He has a way of playing the game smartly, especially for his size, where it has to be a very intelligent game, where he can't make as many mental errors and be able to recover from it. He's shown so far we're off to an absolutely great, great start.

WS: Yeah, I mean, it's like a different side of the coin. I talk a lot on my show and with you about players who seize control of the ice when they're on the ice, but that doesn't necessarily mean physical play.

It's a lot of other stuff that happens, and I think Hutson's a really good example of what that means, and it’s everything you said. It's this understanding of the game, and this understanding of what your opponents are doing.

How to minimize… Really, it’s like, “I'm going to take control of this possession and I'm going to minimize their opportunity to do anything. As many things as they can possibly try, I'm going to minimize as much of it as I can.” 

And there's ways of doing that that aren't that physical style of play that you see out of defensemen that is unheralded, a lot of it just kind of flies off by the wayside. I think people look at a guy like Hutson and see the way he plays, and if you have a really strong [tactical and aggregate] understanding of what is going on when he's on the ice, both the offensive-good, but also the defensive-good, you see a lot of really interesting traits there.

Guys like him, I agree with you, that the skating base and the quickness and all of that, like it's not… He's not Quinn Hughes, right? That's not really his brand, so he has to think of other things and have an understanding of the game that can help patch that up.

And so, yeah, the things like gap control and guiding guys laterally and being a little more aggressive are definitely key areas of interest for me. Especially because earlier on in this series, we were talking about how much I love defensemen who can skate and how many doors it unlocks.

But if you're not an elite skater, which I don't think I would consider Lane Hutson an elite skater — at least defensively — you have to… It doesn't mean you're automatically not an option, it's just that the equation changes.

The things that you need out of that player shifts and you have to help guide them in the right direction so that they can use what they do have to the best of their ability while the rest sort of develops around them. It’s fascinating to me, it's a really, really interesting thing, and I love seeing guys like Lane Hutson figure it out and play the way that they do, because it just goes to show that you could, you know…

He's obviously special in a lot of ways, but it just goes to show that all kinds of different players have a place at the highest levels of hockey. It's just a matter of how you approach the game, how you see the ice, how you manage your behavior, and what you bring to the table.

GR: Yeah. I want to dive into some of these ways to play, starting with if you're playing it passively. So say we're just doing our normal two defensemen coming back; passive, letting the offense kind of have some space. First step needs to be inside.

You need to get inside ice, you need to get good positioning, you need to get within the dots, that's first and foremost. So, first step is inside. I've heard a few coaches call it lateral gap. For me, I just say you need to get inside positioning.

And really, if I take this to the football field, so American football, Canadian football, think about it as leverage. So either you have inside leverage or outside leverage. 

Note: this next section on inside/outside leverage was reaaally messy sentence-wise. I tried my best to clean it up and make sense of it. Whenever anyone says “inside” or “outside” in hockey they’re referring to areas of the ice defined by an imaginary line we draw through all the faceoff dots where the side closest to the boards is the outside and the side closest to the center of the ice is the inside.

Inside leverage means you're taking away the inside, that's where you are and you're giving the outside. Outside leverage is [when] you're on the outside, you're taking away the outside, the boundary, and you're giving away the inside.

Now, the question is, everyone's like, “Why wouldn't you always [want] inside leverage?” And that's the most common [way]. But when would you [want] outside leverage? When you have help on the inside; like, you're pushing them to a bad spot, into a teammate, into support, into someone who's there to help you.

But for the most part, we want to be starting with good leverage. Some coaches call it lateral gap, where we're taking that first step inside, getting inside the [faceoff] dots, and being able to passively let them have the bad ice.

We may not be in a great spot to finish the play [or] stop the movement yet, but we're going to put them in a bad spot where they're no longer an A-plus threat that we need to address immediately, like we're in deep doo-doo.

You can pokecheck out there, just don't extend yourself. The time that you finally get aggressive off of that pass [is], “Okay, I'm able to get this puck, I'm able to separate, I'm able to get position before possession, I'm able to cut it off, able to seal it off,” that kind of stuff.

When I'm developing my defensemen, that's what I'm talking about with them. Like, if you have to, if you’ve gotta play passive, just get inside leverage. Unless you have a good reason to play outside leverage, just let them have the wall until they overextend, whatever it may be, and give you an opportunity to seal it off.

Great example would just be good pokechecking. You're kind of like a cobra, you wait, wait, wait, and then boom, pounce! Rather than overextending.

Showing your stick early is another classic terrible example of something you don't want to do, or we call it declaring your stick. You declare where your stick is. You're overreaching stick on puck, because some coach told you to go stick on puck, and now you're reaching, you've lost good posture, good balance, good weight distribution. That's bad. 

We want to keep all of the good things, the posture, don't want to overextend, but just make sure we're positionally sound.

WS: Have you been watching me at beer league? Like is that what you've been doing here? Is that what the prep is for this show? Because I gotta take some notes for sure. But yeah, I agree fully.

I think playing passive defense is something that can work. Personally, I think that it's something that is not as successful as being a little bit more aggressive, which we'll get to in a second. But everything you said is, to me, bang on.

If you're gonna do it you do have to play a little bit more… I guess the word would be cerebral? A little bit more unpredictable and positionally aware.

Be aware of what's going on elsewhere on the ice. You gotta keep your head up and scanning in front of you, and really just try to force them into… Nothing. Force them into a situation where they go, “Well, crap, now I have to rim it around the corner, or dump it back to my defensemen and hope that they're there with a drop pass.” [Keep] them in a position where they're not getting inside space on you or getting the puck through you into scoring areas, whatever it takes to get that done.

I think handedness plays a part in this as well, depending on which hand your defenseman is and what hand the forward is. It just makes things like stickchecking both easier or more difficult depending on the situation.

There's all kinds of things to sort of keep in mind with more passive defenders. And it can work. I think a lot of NHL teams still deploy their defensemen a little more passive.

They go, “Yeah, here ya go. You can have the defensive zone, but we're not going to give you many options. We're not gonna give you so much space that you can pull the puck around us and get in deep with a carry or get around our defensemen with a carry.”

In my view, I think that it invites a lot of potential for really talented NHL players to do just that; sort of tuck the puck between your feet and the stick. Or drive, drop a shoulder, drive down low, and make a play. You see more and more of that in the NHL these days.

But… that doesn't mean it's everybody, and I think that there's still a place in the game for this kind of thing. It's just a matter of, do you have defensemen who are aware of their surroundings, aware of where their partner is, aware of where the other offensive players are, aware of their positioning? [Are they] staying within the dots, like you said, and just keeping options as low-risk as possible?

If you [are] aggressive you may suppress risk initially, but you may increase risk down the road, assuming things don't go your way, which again, in hockey definitely happens.

So it’s, again, it's all a balancing act. And that's kind of the thing I love about hockey, there's a lot of different ways to do stuff and they all have trade-offs.

GR: Yeah, I like how you put that. It may be low-risk now, but it could be high-risk later. Where do you want to start making your defensive plays? Is it in your own zone or is it higher up the ice? Modern day [defending] is finding ways to, as West Point says, be an active defender. When you're thinking about military doctrine, you're talking about keeping the initiative.

Note: West Point is a U.S. Military Academy. I honestly thought he was referencing a movie <3

Who has the initiative? It's super important. Even if you're playing defense and you're almost in a siege perspective or you're in a fixed position, you still need to be active so they can't have free maneuvering, [so] they don't have the freedom of setting up in a good spot to challenge you.

You still need to have a way to be active and find ways to keep the initiative in some way, shape or form, which will lead us directly into our other way of playing defense which is a little more aggressive, where we're talking about concepts like surfing.

So surfing [is like] angling [while] skating forward. My personal favorite, I call it the weak-side fold. So you‘ve got a weak-side defenseman, they're able to see the whole play. There's no real threat on their side, whether it be from a forward coming back or just no one's really there.

Note: Imagine the ice bisected through the middle of the goal posts. The side that the puck is on is considered strong-side, the side the puck is not on is considered weak-side. Strong-side and weak-side are relative to where the puck is! Diagram here

They've got good defensive positioning, they're able to go and skate and angle actively over to the strong-side to take out the puck carrier, [who] inevitably ends up chipping the puck right to the strong-side defenseman.

So, weak-side fold, boom, pull that over. That means that your strong-side defenseman needs to at least get inside the dots, just like they should anyways. If not, start going over to the weak-side in case that play does get made there, whether it be an area pass or whatnot.

Note: per Greg Revak: “An area pass can be defined as a tactic where the passer spots the puck into an area of the ice currently unoccupied but allows the receiver the space to skate to that area.”

So surfing would be the first concept I think we should dive into, [where] you're on the offensive blue line, you see the play starting up, rather than skating back and playing it passive, you're skating forward and going to attack the offense.

WS: I love it. I love seeing this deployed all over the place. If I were coaching a high-level team, that's how I would want to deploy the types of players that I would put on a team.

Again, I think a lot of the battle in hockey is understanding who you have on your team, what they can do, and putting them in a position to do what they're best at as much as possible. Not everybody is good at everything, but that's okay.

So for me, I look at guys and I go, well, the types of players that I like, this is kind of how they should be utilized. Be a little more aggressive.

I love the weak-side fold idea. I think it gives a little bit more of a sense of safety because you have that strong-side defensemen who can play that more traditional style between the dots, but you're utilizing their partner to cut across the ice and apply pressure.

And in my world, again, this is where skating [becomes important.] You have the opportunity to go, “Yeah, okay, the weak-side guy is coming over to the strong-side and you have two defensemen on one side of the ice.” That opens up a whole half of the ice where there might be a lot of space, but then I'm going, “Right, but that's what you have a really good skating center for, that's what you have a really intense 200-foot winger for!”

It's why, when I look in the draft, I see guys who are more offensive leaning… I say a lot; you don't get the chance to really produce offensively a whole lot if you don't chip in defensively, at least in my books.

And so when I see guys like Zach Benson, for example, who we talked about in a previous episode… [He’s] a guy who did not take a shift off, a guy who covered for defensemen, a guy who chipped in defensively as a winger, and brought a lot to the table, that allows him to push play up the ice and be part of that, and allows his defensemen to be a little more aggressive.

That style of play definitely resonates with me; the style of defenders that I always value, those really high-end skating guys that, regardless of their size, those stick-first, body-later type of defenders, I think it works for those types of guys.

I love seeing this kind of play personally. I'm a person who, I think, on the ice, with my strategy and my view of the game, I'm a lot more risk-tolerant than a lot of people. But I think it's because in this situation and in the data work I've done over the years, no matter which way you slice it, when it all comes out in the wash, generally being aggressive is a better approach than not — on paper.

Obviously, though, that depends on the types of players you have on your roster.

To me, this is exactly what I want to see out of the game, this is exactly the kind of strategy that I think is a modern development that really benefits a good type of hockey player that I love to see more of. So I'm all about it. I'll throw it back to you, but this stuff gets me going.

GR: I can already feel that the passion has risen in Will Scouch.

WS: Well, it's also after 9 a.m. now, so I'm good, yeah.

GR: Yeah, the other piece here is… I'll call it the strong-side surf. That's that inside, like, you're getting inside or starting inside positioning. So either [your] first step is inside or you're already starting inside the dots, and you're able to just surf very short.

Rather than a big weak-side fold, you're able to do a short surf into the player. Again, position before possession, feel free to take their head off if the opportunity presents it, but really, you can do this all over the ice.

And finding ways to defend skating forward is a good thing. I've yet to find the defenseman that skates better backwards than they do forwards. I don't know any player that does that. It's probably impossible, unless you're that bad of an offensive skater and you need to absolutely skate backwards to have any ability. [It’s] something that we should all try to find; more opportunities to skate forward to defend.

The other piece that I think is super important is finishing with contact and staying on the inside.

So, going back two episodes where we were talking about Rasmus Ristolainen, where he would finish with contact, or he'd try to finish contact — or even if he made it, he was the last guy getting up and the other player ended up on the inside.

If we do go stick-on-puck, we are doing position before possession — you still need to rub that player out, you still need to hit the player; have some level of contact where you're now jarring them, you're getting in the way, you're limiting their freedom of movement.

In which case, advantage [to] you and your team.

And then [we’re] making sure we're smartly staying on the inside where we've gotta win the race off the wall, where we've gotta continuously have inside leverage over the opponent.

That's a common mistake I see with guys, we just do stick-on-puck and that's it. 

Well, now the other team still has the opportunity to get a second crack at a puck, or they're still very fast to get to it. Rather than finishing it, sealing it off, [the defender has] to now restart their speed, restart their feet, all of that, where they're in a terrible, terrible position.

So making sure that, boom, you may have got [the hit, then maybe take] another step or two to ride [the attacker] into the wall. That's a step or two well taken.

WS: Yeah, no, I totally agree. I don't have any real notes to expand on that, to be honest. It's a multi-stage process defending like that, and [you] don't want to give your opponent too many opportunities, you don't want to overcommit.

I think, being a guy who's played defense my whole life I can attest skating forwards is a lot easier than skating backwards, and so if you can have defensemen who can defend by skating forwards, it's probably going to be easier for them, especially at the NHL level. So yeah, definitely something that I'll get behind fully regardless of the risk.

GR: Yeah. The last piece I want to touch on before we go into reading the pinch [is] around keeping clean feet. One of the best opportunities for a forward to change direction — and this is something that I've been toying around with and it's been absolutely great for my offensive production off the rush — is just reading the defenseman's feet.

One; I gotta figure out, “Okay, where's their stick? Are they declaring it or are they not?” And after that, “Can I get them to cross their feet? Or are they really good at shuffling [and] therefore, they're able to move wherever I move and be able to respond easily.”

So, as much as humanly possible, defensemen that are [defending] the rush should be shuffling, not crossing feet.

Basketball would be the prime example, they do a ton of drills on shuffling your feet. [It’s] similar here with defensemen, we’re making sure we're able to shuffle — so going back to our passive [concepts], now that I'm thinking about this further — making sure that we're not putting ourselves in bad positions to [defend] the rush.

So if you have anything on that, feel free to add. Otherwise, we'll go towards reading the pinch.

WS: No, I see what you're saying, I get it. I think that lateral motion is extremely, extremely important. And, again, I have no notes on that situation. I'm all about all of this stuff, I'm learning lots.

GR: Prime example of this, for anyone who wants to see Connor McDavid absolutely burn someone. This exact example of changing direction when the defenseman crosses their feet — like, just starts the crossover — would be Connor McDavid. The goal against Toronto where he just absolutely burned Morgan Rielly there.

It's so noticeable, you can't unsee it once you're looking at Rielly's feet. As soon as he makes that crossover movement, McDavid changes, boom! And he's behind him already. It's insane, so feel free to look that one up if you want to.

Note: I looked it up. Good lord. Here is the clip, and I gifed it:

The last piece here is reading the pinch. So this is maybe more of a team component, [of] seeing more than just your role. [As opposed to how] Rasmus Ristolainen, early in his career [would] just go for the pinch, destroy the guy because he could. Like, he's got him, but is that good for your team? Maybe not.

For me, you‘ve gotta look. Do you have help? Where's that help coming from? Is your team’s system to always have F3 high where it's almost like a left-wing lock in the offensive zone?

Note: here’s a fun article I archived on the left-wing lock if interested!

WS: I mean, that's the difference between a two or three-on-one coming your way, or a neutral zone stop.

I think that it highlights the importance of mobility, especially from your forwards, because if you have a center who is caught between the hash marks in scoring position and your defenseman goes for a pinch and misses, it certainly helps to have a guy who can really skate and help backcheck and help cover for that. It sort of mops up for what might be a mistake from the defenseman, or maybe the defenseman thinks they have the support from a better skater. But that absolutely is a big thing.

It goes back to hockey sense, or awareness; being aware of where your linemates are, being aware of,  “If I cause a turnover in this situation, who is probably going to have the puck at the end of this? Does this guy — who I'm about to hit 20 feet inside the blue line — does this guy have someone directly behind him, supporting him, who's just going to get the puck after I hit this guy? And then just toss it to a breakout option coming up the middle, and I'm caught a third of the way into the offensive zone.”

It's these little decisions, and in the NHL…. Again, I go back to my work doing stuff outside the NHL, but the NHL is fast. These things happen really, really, really quickly. If you're caught, you can be caught for a while.

It's about finding and identifying players who can, if they are doing that kind of thing, they are either really, really effective at it, or they cover their own butt really, really well, or they just play it a little more safe and a little more reserved, and it works out for them in that way.

But in terms of reading it, yeah, I mean, awareness is so, so important. Head on a swivel, peripheral vision-type things, it's all super important.

GR: I like your point about, who's going to get the puck once you do smoke this player? Or if you go for the contact…

WS: It might not be you, you know.

GR: It’s probably not going to be you. So who's it going to be? Like, do you have F3 support? Is there someone on the other team? Thinking is always a good thing.

I know everyone wants to read and react, but there is an opportunity and there's time and places where [you can think, you know?] Like, “Oh, okay. Should I go? Yay or nay?”

Or team rules, if you're a coach, “Hey, if you have F3, go for it. You think you can get it, go for it!”

Or just reading, I always like reading the winger. “Did they scan up ice? Do they even have an idea where I'm at? If they're looking directly back at the puck, [I’m] probably going to go.”

[If] their best option is like, “Oh, crap!” And when you go, “Oh, crap!” rarely do you make the best play possible. Often, it's a turnover.

WS: Yeah. And I think the point about having support — winger support makes a huge difference as well. I think it's a really interesting thing. I mean, all of this, this whole discussion about defensemen, it just goes to show why guys might take longer to develop, why guys might take longer to play more premier roles in the NHL, because there are so many little details.

They might have an area of the game that when they're 18, 19, 20, 21 years old, they hit the NHL and they're comfortable with it, right? That's totally fine. But then, they play game after game, after game, after game. And opponents start going, “Okay, well, here's the thing they're good at. So let's try to target blah, blah, blah…”

But the better that they can be at these little fine details of monitoring defensive rushes, pinching in the offensive zone and trying to pick the right timing on all of these things… Not trying to do everything themselves, but chipping in as much as they can in a positive way. It’s all really complicated and very on-the-fly, considering how fast all this happens in the NHL.

It’s thinking a little bit more beyond the thing that's right in front of your face, that I think is a huge thing that makes the difference between a guy who may be able to play in the NHL and a really good player at that level.

If you have that ability to read the ice, take a good survey of what's going on, not take on too much risk, but take on risk here and there when you see an opportunity to do so, I think you're laughing at this point.

GR: I think the key piece for me in what you mentioned was, you're reading the ice beyond what is directly in front of you. I think this may be just a maturity thing as well, but the more mature a person becomes, the better they are at surveying their surroundings. They take in more of the picture, they're not just hyper focused on, “This is my thing. This is what I do.”

[In life and in hockey], having a better picture of, “How does my little detail play into the bigger picture?” [That’s a big part of] reading the pinch and the thing I love that you brought out there. [We’ve got to] survey the ice and understand, “More than just my little piece, is there speed ripping? All this guy has to do is chip it and they're off on a two-on-one or a breakaway. Bad time to pinch.”

If you're not reading beyond the one player that you're trying to pinch on, [you’re] likely to make a bad decision there. That is super critical. Read the winger, read your support, read the whole play. How is it playing [into] everything?

Will, I think this has been a phenomenal series on defensemen. I feel like everyone should send this out to their favorite defensemen in the world, or just send this to your favorite NHL hopeful prospect, or just like anyone in the AHL. What’s their (inaudible)?

Anyone in player development at the NHL level should send this out to the defensemen. And if you're at any kind of level of player development, which is pretty much every other coach, yeah, send this out to your defensemen.

There's no way some of this information isn't one; going to get them thinking about “How do I play the game better?” [and] two; it's probably actionable items for them to go and work on in their own game.

WS: Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to find a way — as we talk about this and all these little subtleties of playing defense and all the things that kind of go undervalued — I'm trying to find a way to shoehorn Brad Hunt into this discussion but unfortunately I'm not sure I'm going to be able to.

I think he's just a really good example of a lot of these things going his way and seems like a beauty of a dude. And, I don't know, if Brad's a reader of this I want to have him on the show to talk about his experiences as an NHL player because I find him fascinating for a lot of the reasons we're talking about. 

It's just [he] might have been a little bit ahead of his time, but a lot of this good stuff is there with him. I don't know, it was the last thing on my mind before we call it a day.

GR: Beautiful. Alright, someone knows Brad Hunt — or, Brad, [if] you're out there, please reach out.