During Tuesday night’s game, I noticed the Bruins were finding an easy way to exploit the Rangers aggressive 2-1-2 forecheck early in the first period. The Rangers just seemed a step behind making contact with the puck carrier. While I always prefer a 2-1-2 forecheck and I am glad it is the system Torts has installed, I couldn’t help but think an adjustment needed to be made. Generally speaking, when guys are a step behind, the 2-1-2 becomes very, very risky.
Anyway, so the Bruins were putting on a clinic, creating three quality scoring chances before the game hit the 10 minute mark. I started to think to myself, “Come on Torts, make the adjustment. Drop the third guy back.”
And what does Tortorella do? He makes the adjustment.
As you can see in the picture above, with six minutes left in the first period the Rangers ditched the 2-1-2 for a slightly more conservative 2-3 lock. If you don’t know the difference between these two forechecks, I humbly ask you to read up on my chalk talks here.
So the coaching staff makes the adjustment, and I was back to being a happy Suit. But here is where things get interesting. Late in the first period, McGuire was trashing Tortorella and going on and on about how he coached all of these years in the National Hockey League. This felt odd because the only time I remember him coaching was in the 90’s for the Whalers and it wasn’t even for a full season. But I dismissed it. McGuire always loves to exaggerate and toot his own horn.
Then McGuire went after the Rangers forechecking system and he criticized Torts for not making the proper adjustments. Specifically, he thought the Rangers should switch to a mid-lane lock, which is just another term for the 2-3. If you don’t remember this, here’s the video.
You’ll notice that this particular rant from McGuire (I know there were many) ends with just under four minutes left in the first period. Yet the adjustment was already made as evidenced above? This begs the question, why? Why ignore the adjustment? Did Pierre miss it? Or is this some sort of payback for abrupt interviews?
I normally respect Pierre. He’s been working in this game for a long time, but his analysis during this series has been pretty bad. Point in case, the Bruins had 16 giveaways on Sunday and the Rangers had one. We weren’t able to capitalize on those turnovers, but still – 16 is too high to ignore. Was there any mention of it by anyone? Nope.
Look, I get it. I know the Rangers are losing. They don’t deserve much praise right now, but fans deserve honest analysis and this post is proof we’re not getting it.
Share:
More About:Analysis Hockey Tactics