#I really love basically this entire season

[puckpocketed]

PART 3 of the modern defensemen transcripts I started a while back. You don’t need to have read/listened to the other parts to understand what’s being said, but they’re very fun reads if you have the time! Topics of discussion:

Broadly, more on Lane Hutson and how he defends (he is SOOO the main character of this entire series and I’m very happy about that)

passive vs aggressive defending

reading the pinch

surfing (skating forward when defending the rush)

inside vs outside leverage

the weak-side fold

Another archival effort as always… so many podcasts live and die by the whims of the services they’re hosted on + the guys who own the channels. </3 This is full of random extra media which is why it took so long. I ended up just making my own damn diagrams and archiving stuff and making gifs so I could put them here. This part is tactics-heavy and they kinda get into a little debate about passive/aggressive defending which I really liked! Will need to go over parts 1 & 2 soon when I can to clean them up <3

Published 20th November 2024, Hockey IQ Podcast: Modern Defensemen (with Will Scouch) Ep #3 - By Hockey’s Arsenal, hosted by Greg Revak (apple / spotify / youtube)

If you missed them: part 1 / part 2

[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.

[END Transcript]

[cblgblog]

Fucking bullshit man, come on. They put an apparently non-evil Hela in the same 'verse as Captain Carter, say they've been together for weeks, and then disappear Hela at the start of the ep without letting them exchange so much as a line of dialogue?

This is the Cinderella thing again man, except this time they killed Cate's character instead of Hayley's.

Let my wives interact, dammit, stop taunting me.

[secondbeatsongs]

when you're into the Big Ship™ in a Big Fandom™, you have the luxury of having an OTP - a real One True Pairing, where you can read about just them for ages, and you will never run out of fics, and everything is perfect and beautiful and nothing hurts

but when you go to a smaller fandom, you'd better pray to whatever god you worship that someone else in this room ships the same thing that you do, and that if they do, they're writing more than late-night crackfic, because you're on thin fucking ice!

and how small is your small fandom? is it less than 100 fics? maybe even...less than 20 fics?

welp, then it's time to make peace with that god and either open up a text document or learn how to ship everything, because it's swim or drown babey! and your ship is sinking fast

anyway all of this is to say that after hanging out in small fandoms and shipping less-common pairings for a while, going back into a Big Huge Fandom™ is wild because suddenly it's like...wait, why didn't I ship these people again? I don't remember. why was I only sticking to one ship in this fandom?? boring of me, honestly. these guys should make out.

[666silco]

This is something I’ve wanted to do since my first one, I have updated my character tierlist from s1 to s2 now that it’s finished! I always think these are fun so I just wanted to post them. As you can see my opinions on many characters changed quite a bit. Also these are in order, even for very minor characters. The “first” one is accurate to the one I made in 2022 when I first watched the show, I just remade it so the tierlists match.

[coldflasher]

People were mad bc Karolsen was broken up to put Kara with a white slave owner.

yeah actually now you mention it... he did own slaves. that is very much a thing that he did. was own slaves. not gonna lie i totally forgot about that part

[autumnrory]

i figure they’ll drop it in a few eps like they have with everything else but it would be a little funny if after all the barchie vs varchie shit that they just made beronica endgame

[madegeeky]

Hannibal (the TV series) seasons in one sentence:

Season 1: The least amount of police procedural you will ever see in a police procedural.

Season 2: Reins are off now, fuckers, let's do some goddamn character work!

Season 3: Wherein the first half is Hannibal writing fanfiction and the second half has completely new main characters.

[batsplat]

Donington Park 2008: When Casey Stoner was signed by Ducati for 2007, he was on a one year contract and intensely aware that he was not Ducati's first choice for the seat. While his talent had already been apparent in the lower classes, his initially promising rookie season had been tarnished by his frequent crashes (bagging him the nickname 'Rolling Stoner'), and he also had acquired a reputation for being difficult to work with. Ducati's first choice was not available until 2008 - the expectation was that Stoner might well be axed once Marco Melandri was signed to the team. Nobody expected Stoner to clinch his first premier class victory in the opening race of the season; he was not even expected to be a title contender, let alone dominate the class as he went on to do. Ducati had responded best to the introduction of the 800cc regulations, building a capricious bike that in the right hands would prove to be blindingly quick - while also benefiting from the supposed performance advantage provided by the Bridgestone tyres at most circuits of the calendar. They were responsible for the bike... but it was pure dumb luck that led to them hiring the one rider capable of riding it to such heights. Stoner stormed to the title well clear of his championship rivals, capable of both unassailable dominance of races from start to finish and triumphing in all-out wheel-to-wheel battles. He memorably defeated Valentino Rossi in duels in both Qatar and Catalunya, proving himself immune to the sort of pressure Rossi's past rivals had proven so susceptible to. As for his other rival, Dani Pedrosa, who had beaten Stoner to the 2005 250cc title - he was supposed to be the main young challenger to Rossi's throne until Stoner wrenched that role away from him.

Stoner went into 2008 as the clear favourite to defend his title. He was dismissive of Rossi's choice to switch to the Bridgestone tyres, believing he had not gotten the credit he deserved for his title amongst all this talk of straight line speed and tyre advantages. His title defence got off to the perfect start with another victory at Qatar... but life quickly got more difficult for the defending champion from there. His race at Jerez was messy, with multiple dramatic off-track excursions - and his Estoril experience was tough enough even before a loose Dorna-provided camera began swinging off his bike. By the time he got to Shanghai, he was increasingly vocal and irate in his frustrations with Ducati, who he felt had approached the season with too much complacency. Stoner was in no way mollified by the third place he secured at that race, telling a reporter in parc fermé that "a podium this far off is just about not worth it". With a crisis meeting of sorts within Ducati as everyone involved aired their grievances, Stoner's season was going to need some serious transformation to put him back in championship contention. Shanghai was followed by a horrendous race in Le Mans, but there were already some more positive noises from inside Ducati - and their home race of Mugello proved a happier hunting ground, with a second place secured in a tight fight against Pedrosa. Catalunya brought another podium as Stoner repeated his duel with Rossi of the year before, this time having to narrowly concede defeat and settle for third.

More important than the podium, however, was the post-race test, with Stoner immediately confident that the team had finally gotten on top of their struggles that season (primarily with the electronics). He carried that confidence into the pre-event press conference at Donington and confirmed just how justified it was by dominating the practise sessions. Rossi's front row grid position led to some hope there might be a fight for the victory, but Stoner had no interest in hanging around at the start of the race. As Rossi attempted to hunt him down, he found himself in Stoner's position of the previous race - being waylaid by enthusiastic rookie Andrea Dovizioso, who once again had managed to embroil the second place runner in a fight that allowed the leader to escape out front. Once Rossi had freed himself of Dovizioso, he had the fast-charging Pedrosa to deal with. With Stoner's lead increasingly unassailable, it was now Rossi and Pedrosa's turn to hash it out for second place - with Rossi prevailing ahead of Pedrosa in third, both far adrift of Stoner's dominant display. Stoner was not a popular winner with the British crowd, which had taken a disliking to him the year before and to Stoner's considerable irritation expressed that hostility all weekend. Regardless, Stoner moved up to third place in the championship standings ahead of Jorge Lorenzo, taking his first victory since the opening round and reestablishing himself as a title threat. It signalled a return to the form that had proved so very ominous for rivals the year before - who had good reason to be worried that once Stoner started winning, he simply would not stop.

[mozart-the-meerkitten]

My parents and I watched the season 3 finale of Star Wars: Rebels tonight and I can't believe my mom was the one who was like "WHY ARE THEY* ALL DYING?!" and I was the one being all, "don't worry I'm sure it will be fine." this is the most role reversal we have ever done.

(*to clarify I mean the rebels in general, the main cast was fine)

[indigodawns]

watching any edition of in the soop really never fails to make me 1) want to eat steak fried rice or noodles and 2) move to korea to go live in the mountains

[fairydriver]

speedroid is such a fun fucking deck... i wuv speedroid. warning the tags on this are a magnitude 3 Special Interest Zone

[unproduciblesmackdown]

remembering a fun marble hornets trans wrights element throwback where i managed to show up for one of their first convention features & while this was ofc already [serious "hmm...Not Cis: me??"] occasions i wasn't yet out or anything like well time to suffer being known & perceived thusly....while i Was out by the same occasion the next year like well here i am again, different name, binder, no plans to give anyone any rundown about this thing, hope it goes smoothly anyways and/or i'm effectively giving a reintroduction anyhow even though i May have been up to more memorable things that last time....no conversations needed to be had, i think i had the impression i was recalled as the same person but it was an entirely chill time, just this as like an early and pretty unique Occasion of like, here's people who know me from In Person (and ig Kind of online, i also don't recall ever like distinctly linking said in person appearance to onlineness lol. it just may also have not been an unsolveable mystery or a mystery at all. but mostly in person, and that's the element i was focusing on anyways) and my showing up transly in person with a whole other name this time as the major difference really lol. like well hope this goes swimmingly....And It Did. and at some point not eons later ya boy tim with some cringe comp sincerety like oh let me make this post somewhere about how an epic element of being a known internet creator is meeting new & various people including explicitly the [mh fans are like exclusively The Gays. and then some unfiction posters] factor & i'm like lol well you're welcome. just doing my part. but fr that was neat like i'm glad to get chill indirect & direct trans validation from internet horror series contributors in that immediate period of coming out & having to sweat it like damn wasn't at this point last time around

[readingwriter92]

like idk how excited I am about the plots of any of this newest season of doctor who but man if I'm not loving the shit out of Ncuti Gatwa's doctor. And also Ruby, I love her.

So far I actually really liked Boom? And the last one I just watched was Rogue and I did have a lot of fun with the character of Rogue and his and the doctor's relationship. I knew it was going to happen, didn't know outcome/specifics. So it was a lot of fun.

[milesofstars]

dick grayson in fanon: sweet silly older brother, pretty but stupid, favourite child, happy robin, basically batman 2.0 but a nice person, his brothers are more skilled and could outpace him but they love him anyways, goody-two-shoes, good relationship with batman, responsible eldest child, mentally stable and supportive

dick grayson in canon:

became robin so he wouldnt commit first degree murder

like all of his appearances young justice season 1 are about how hes a maniac and a genius

leader and strategist of the teen titans

actually Murdered the joker

considered an equal by the worlds most dangerous and deadly mercenary

was literally fired by batman and only really continued working w him because of jason and babs

managed to keep up with angsty new-to-the-job batman

has had so many arguments with bruce its a miracle he hasnt cut him off forever (hes tried though)

can take down the entire teen titans if he wanted despite being the only one of them with no superpowers/abilities

was the definition of angsty teenager

inherits his insane paranoia from bruce

a thread away from breaking the no-kill rule, give him a rest

hes literally feral guys i mean cmon

[friendshiptothemax]

I was on a plane this weekend, and I was chatting with the woman sitting next to me about an upcoming writer’s strike. “Do you really think you’re mistreated?” she asked me.

That’s not the issue at stake here. Let me tell you a little something about “minirooms.”

Minirooms are a way of television writing that is becoming more common. Basically, the studio will hire a small group of writers, 3-6 or so, and employ them for just a few weeks. In those few weeks (six weeks seem to be common), they have to hurriedly figure out as much about the show as they can -- characters, plots, outlines for episodes. Then at the end of the six weeks, all the writers are fired except for the showrunner, who has to write the entire series themselves based on the outlines.

This is not a widespread practice, but it has become more common over the past couple of years. Studios like it because instead of paying for a full room for the full length of the show, they just pay a handful of writers for a fraction of the show. It’s not a huge problem now, but the WGA only gets the chance to make rules every three years -- if we let this go for another three years and it becomes the norm? That would be DEVASTATING for the tv writing profession.

Do I feel like I’m mistreated? No. I LOVE my job! But in a world of minirooms, there is no place for someone like me -- a mid-level writer who makes a decent living working on someone else’s show (I’d like to be a showrunner someday, but for now I feel like I still have a lot to learn, and my husband and I are trying to start a family so I like not being support rather than the leader for now). In a miniroom, there are only two levels -- the handful of glorified idea people who are already scrambling to find their next show because you can’t make a decent living off of one six-week job (and since there are fewer people per room, there are fewer jobs overall, even at the six-week amount), and the overworked, stressed as fuck showrunner who is going to have to write the entire thing themselves. Besides being bad for me making a living, I also just think it’s plain bad for television as an art form -- what I like about TV is how adaptable it is, how a whole group of people come together to tell a story better than what any of them could do on their own. Plus the showrunner can’t do their best work under all of that pressure, episode after episode, back to back. Minirooms just...fucking suck.

The WGA is proposing two things to fix this -- a rule that writers have to be employed for the entire show, and a rule tying the number of writers in the room to the number of episodes you have per season. I don’t think it’s unreasonable. It’s the way shows have run since the advent of television. It’s only in the last couple of years that this has become a new thing. It’s exploitative. It squeezes out everyone except showrunners and people who have the financial means to work only a few months a year. It makes television worse. And that is the issue in this strike that means everything to me, and that is why I voted yes on the strike authorization vote.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Since you've mentioned Scarlet Lady in one of your posts, what's your opinion on it?

I've mentioned before that I'm a big Scarlet Lady fan, which is the only reason that I'm comfortable answering asks like this one. I don't publicly criticize the content of hobby creators. That's wildly inappropriate! Punch up, not down.

The linked post was a general discussion of the adaptation process and how @zoe-oneesama did a fantastic job, so for this one, I'm just going to do some general gushing because I do actually like praising and enjoying things!

Scarlet Lady's chosen format (comic) allows it to have this wonderful conversation with canon where it can rely on the framework of canon to tell it's own story while also using canon for jokes and meta commentary. This means that Scarlet Lady is about as close as fan content can get to a direct reboot because it's able to have moments like this one from the comic's first post:

[Image description: Adrien standing in his room after transforming into Chat Noir for the first time. He is beaming and his eyes are shining with excitement as he exclaims, "This is gonna be awesome!"]

A single picture that communicates everything we need to know about Adrien getting his miraculous. When I've done this same thing in fanfic, I had to write out the full scene because that's how novels work. You have to give the full picture. With a comic, you can just quickly acknowledge this thing that we all already know and then move on to the new stuff. A picture really is worth a thousand words! (Or, in my case, more like two thousand...)

This allows Zoe to keep the same akumas that we get in canon without her story feeling like a boring rehash because she can focus on what's different in her version. A novelization of the same content would have to show both the stuff that stays the same and the stuff that changes for it to be coherent. That's a lot less fun to read and write. It's why I basically never revisit canon akumas in my own stuff. It's just too derivative for the written word.

This is one of the big reasons that I loved Scarlet Lady. Because it was able to have that more directly conversation with canon, it was able to take canon and say, "hey, why don't we embrace the tone that you established in season one and retell the story with that vibe?" That's something that I desperately wanted to see, but that is totally unsuited to my chosen artistic form. It couldn't be a novel. It had to be a comic.

If you want to know what a true formula show version of Miraculous would look like, Scarlet Lady is it. It does everything that Miraculous should have done:

Sticks to a lighthearted tone where nothing is ever super serious

Keeps Gabriel entirely unsympathetic

Has slow character development and background hints at a bigger plot as the only serial elements, allowing the individual episodes to be their own story while never feeling incomplete or rushed

Allows characters other than Marinette to shine while keeping Marinette as the clear main character

Makes Adrien narratively important

MAKES THE LOVE SQUARE CUTE SO I CAN ACTUALLY SHIP IT

Understands that Lila and Chloe can't coexist as antagonists

Reverses the love square, which is the best way to tell their story. Yes, I will die on my "love diamond" hill. It's a good hill. Come join me. I'll bring cookies.

I could keep going, but you hopefully get my point. While Scarlet Lady is certainly not the only way to do a formula version of canon, it's proof that a formula version does work! You don't have to go the serious route for Miraculous to be successful.

I want to take some time to gush about the ending, but I don't want to spoil it, so I'll put that gushing under a "read more" in case anyone hasn't seen it. I'll finish out this less spoilerish section with this:

I feel like some people are surprised when they learn that I love Scarlet Lady because - as some of you have probably picked up - it is quite different from my ideal version of canon. I'm not sure why that would stop me from enjoying a thing, though. It's important to remember that our personal ideals are not the only way to tell a good story. There are lots of ways to take what canon gave us and make something wonderful! It's part of the reason that I enjoy being in a fandom.

If I only wanted to see my ideal take on canon, then I'd stick to writing/imagining my own stories. But I don't want that! I like seeing alternate takes, too. Scarlet Lady is one of my personal favorites. It's completely different from anything that I'd ever think to write and that's why I'm so glad that it exists! I like being entertained just as much as I like creating my own entertainment and I don't want to only read stories that look like something I'd write. That's boring!

Spoilers below:

I've mentioned before that there are many, many ways to properly handle Chloe's character and Zoe did such a good job with her take on that! Chloe isn't absolved of all the things she did wrong, but she's also treated as a young woman with the ability to change.

While the comic bares the name of Chloe's alter ego, she was the never the main character. She never went on a journey. The story kept her to her shallow season-one self: a petty brat who just wanted attention. It did this because that's who Chloe was in canon and who Chloe needed to be for the comic to work.

The first time we see any complexity from Chloe is in the comic's final few episodes, which was absolutely the right call for Zoe to make! In a recent post, I talked about how the end of a formula show is the only time when you can break the formula in catastrophic ways and that's what Zoe did. She kept Chloe static until it was time to end the story and that's when the formula breaks. That's when Chloe gets depth because, once she has depth, the formula doesn't work.

That depth is not used to redeem Chloe, but to show us that there's hope for Chloe. That this petty brat who we've been dealing with has some serious issues and needs help. Help that she's going to get far away from the people that she's hurt because her issues aren't an excuse for what she's done. They don't erase the harm that she caused. At the same time, understanding her issues makes us hope that she can be better now and Scarlet Lady took a moment to give us that hope. To show us the START of Chloe's true story.

That is the kind of ending that I have wanted to see in so many properties!!! It was so wonderful to finally get one that did this right. A story that understood that full redemption to the team and damnation to death/suffering are extremes on a scale of possibilities. You don't have to go to extremes! You can fall in the middle and the middle is a perfect, natural place for Chloe to land in this kind of story. Fully redeeming or even fully damning Chloe simply doesn't work in lighthearted formula content. It's too big a lift as canon has already demonstrated.

I also loved Zoe's take on Emilie. I've mentioned that I don't like evil Emilie in part because it makes her revival feel like the start of a new story. She's back and she'd bad, so we have to take her down now! But I don't want that. I want the story to end when Gabriel is stopped. Zoe does this by giving us an Emilie that is another perfect middle ground. She matches canon's uncomfortable implications without feeling like a true villain who is a threat to society.