FlucoDpole
03-01-2008, 10:07 PM
Can anyone see any holes or trouble with this idea for changing a backer zone somewhat to deal with a 3-2-1 or 3-3 (with crease attack at X) offensive set:
We run a normal backer zone,with the exception of how we play the man at X. Instead of running the crease dpole behind,we leave him covering the crease as the backer,and the center middie (usually he's the backer) pressures the man behind.
We run our dpole wings very tight to the crease anyway,so it's very rare that anyone scores or even tries driving from X;they always get hammered by 2 poles collapsing. So I'm wondering if it makes more sense to guard the threat area (front of the crease) with a long pole instead of just the normal middie backer. It seems like running your pole aggressively back to X just invites hard cuts to the crease,which at that point is only covered by a short stick middie.
The only downside I'm seeing to this is that it probably runs the short stick backer pretty hard.
Comments/criticisms?
We run a normal backer zone,with the exception of how we play the man at X. Instead of running the crease dpole behind,we leave him covering the crease as the backer,and the center middie (usually he's the backer) pressures the man behind.
We run our dpole wings very tight to the crease anyway,so it's very rare that anyone scores or even tries driving from X;they always get hammered by 2 poles collapsing. So I'm wondering if it makes more sense to guard the threat area (front of the crease) with a long pole instead of just the normal middie backer. It seems like running your pole aggressively back to X just invites hard cuts to the crease,which at that point is only covered by a short stick middie.
The only downside I'm seeing to this is that it probably runs the short stick backer pretty hard.
Comments/criticisms?