Honestly, I respect the decision and the coach's explanation. They were working on it, it was early, they were ahead, why not try it out? The worst that could happen is a tie game still early with the two-man advantage still active. Sure, you get six skaters with a minus against three of theirs with a plus, but hardly anybody pays attention to +/- anyway.
It’s one of those things that’s odd but can make some level of sense (similarly to Roy pulling goalies with 10 mins left if down by 3-4) but it’s obviously just so high risk that it’s probably not practical outside of limited situations
yes it backfired but i honestly don't think it's a bad move. 6 on 3 is a massive advantage that should have resulted in multiple grade A scoring opportunities. But there is also a risk...The coach is right when he says it was the right time to try it; good ice and relatively early in the game.
It's a horrible move. Pulling the goalie is a desperation move that only is worthwhile when you have nothing to lose. In any given 1 minute span the chances are 90%+ that neither team is gonna score. You only pull the goalie when you're down because your chances of scoring go up by a LITTLE bit, but the other team's go up by like 10x. When you're down before the end of the game that is worth it because if nobody scores you're screwed anyway. So may as well. Any other time it's just dumb.
6 on 3 doesn’t give much greater chances than 5 on 3 - players run out of space. An empty net give much greater chances than a goalie in the net. How often you see an entire PP without the short handed team gaining possession and dumping it out? Here, that’s a scoring chance, with no icing.
Respect. I’m glad he has the creative liberty to try. All innovations were considered silly at one point - skating backwards, backhand shots, redirects, screening the goalie, Michigan/lacrosse goals, but look how they’ve all become incorporated or being worked into the game. 🤘🏻
That was a horrible sloppy pass attempt that led to the goal no matter if was a 6v3 or 5v3. Everybody was shocked when Patrick Roy started pulling goalies with still a lot of time left and nowadays it's pretty common to see it.
I always said pps should either pull the goalies or have icing work as usual. I like the pull the goalie option but more men on the ice is more points of failure too
I could see this actually being an interesting gimmick play early in games if an NHL team had a 5 on 3. It puts the opposing team into a position where the three people they put on the ice may not be the best fit for the style of play they will face.
Right now, the European Handball Championship is going on. Austria has been a historically bad team, but they have massively overperformed, getting great results against some powerhouse teams. One of their approaches is to regularly pull their goalie on attack to create a PP situation (which isn't really done too often otherwise). Against Germany (a rival and one of the best teams), this strategy got them to a pretty good lead late in the game. Then, they conceded an empty net goal and suddenly the coach got scared. No more pulling the goalie which lead to them not scoring for 10 minutes (after scoring 22 in 50 minutes) and eventually drawing the game. Long story short: Just because you sometimes look foolish when taking the risk, doesn't mean it's not the best move overall. Playing it "safe" yields a whole host of other dangers.
Even though the Comets were in last place going into that game, they were 4 wins 3 losses vs the Crunch for the season with five of the games requiring OT. This is also a fierce rivalry of cities and teams so that may also have played into the coaches figuring. That crunch goal with a second left was the heart breaker. Whenever these two teams play there always seems to some odd play that tilts the games one way or another. Still have a long season to go. Go Utica Comets !
Good play, tbh, good coach for trying and taking it well. Risky play, but actually good stuff to practice. I fully support plays like this. Kudos, coach and Crunch, also Comets played HARD that game.
In high school my buddies played on a small time roller hockey league at a local rec center and one game their goalie didn't show up for some reason. Somehow it was agreed that they would play 6 on 5 with the goal tipped onto it's side, cutting the area available for scoring by more than half. They won the game by a mile and I never saw an opposing coach so pissed. That was the funniest hockey game I ever watched, the whole thing was an absurd joke.
I think it depends on the design of the actual goal. Some of them are more of a triangular shape, kind of like a soccer net. It probably wouldn't work if it were too rounded. Still, I think you'd lose the advantage of one of the lower corners. Whichever side the bottom of the goal ends up on wouldn't have a side to it.
The reasoning behind the 6-3 play was pretty solid. Yeah I’d try something spicy when I’m leading against an opponent that’s at the bottom of the rankings. I think the biggest reason he’s content with the decision postgame is now the players see what happens when they screw up and have to dig themselves out. Even in a regular 2 man advantage that pass to the center is an absolute no go, now I guarantee that player is never gonna make that mistake again.
I think it’s a bit of a silly decision to do that (obviously easy to say that seeing the result) but I really like what the coach said and his explanation. The logic does make sense if you play the numbers and keep the puck to the outside you have a pretty good chance at getting a rebound. The risk/reward maybe isn’t there in a more competitive game (I doubt we’d ever see this in this situation in an NHL game. Unless a bad team is playing for nothing I guess)
In a game where you are down 1 with less than a minute left, you'd definitely want to pull something like this. Thankfully, their first crack at it wasn't in one of those situations, so they were able to learn what not to do in a real time game well in advance.
@@troybaxter Oh absolutely. I meant we’d likely never see it in the NHL in these exact circumstances (up a goal in the first period). But hey you never know
@@tateanderson213 I agree. Even though the Sharks are absolute garbage this year, they are still an elite level team. As such, you really can't pull stunts like this against them because they will beat you in response.
Started playing when I was 13 years old and finished up my career at 64. So that's a lot of men's legs games. Played some junior here in Philly but we called it travel hockey. The league I was playing in Delaware in the New Castle county men's League . So one night we were minus our goaler. There was nobody around to play goal. So we negotiated with the other team that we would play six on five all the time. And we lost and never scored a goal. We were really bad. But one point I want to make is that when you don't have a goal that you're always chasing the puck playing defense. Unusual situation with a at AHL game Great video I'm sticking around keep up to work!
Good call by the coach, the puck should never be turned over or even touched by the defense let alone and opportunity to shoot on net. Bench the player trying to make an unnecessary cross ice pass
On that 6 on 3, that 6th skater should hang out in the neutral zone until a play is set up for him to skate in hard and take a quality shot. Then if there is a turnover, he is in better defensive position to prevent a rink length goal.
The empty net on a powerplay (not delayed) is always a risk because the other team doesn't have to worry about icing the puck and can have a free shot on the net from distance with no risk. Doing that in the first was not strategic at all, kinda just doing it for fun, but I guess to practice it for what they consider a "real opponent"
Leaf logo You being a moron makes perfect sense. It was 100% strategic. It's early in the game. If it backfires you still have plenty of game left to make up for it. If it works you nice lead that can deflate the opposition early, or cause them to make mistakes trying to get back in in the game. But go ahead Leaf fan. Tell the world how it is.......................
@@CunuckHockey Do you have any idea why Carolina Hurricanes is the only NHL team without AHL team? And how do Canes organize sending players down, like happened to Raanta recently?
The current plan is to spread some of their talents to other AHL clubs through loans and for some of the European players to return to various European clubs. They've already done this with Alexander Pashin returning to Russia and Tieksola, Koivunen and Heimosalmi all loaned back to the Finnish Liiga.
@@imulippo5245Yaniv Perets when he plays in the minors is down with their ECHL affiliate the Norfolk Admirals. It’s a really bizarre setup and one that significantly affects prospects’ abilities to develop chemistry with one another
@@imulippo5245A bit late but Carolina and Chicago had a falling-out that led to Chicago going independent this last offseason. I think there's been some level of reconciling, a few Carolina prospects have been sent to Chicago if I remember right. It sure helped Syracuse though! Fans loved seeing Kochetkov play. 3 games, 3 wins.
ngl when i saw it i went "oh shoot kinda genius", leading 2-1 try to secure a 3-1 with an overwhelming PP to put up insurance early like stuff like that might be a thing eventually who knows, look at how early ppl are pulling goalies now, Lalonde been doing it with like 5 min and 2g down, that woulda been crazy in the past. With all the skill and space in the zone maybe a 6-3 could be a cool strat to see :0
been out of the hockey loop for a while so i was a little baffled at first, but hearing the post-game remarks i like the ingenuity and willingness to experiment with new tactics
I don't think that pulling the goalie was necessarily dumb...but attempting that pass past two of the three defenders on the ice certainly was dumb. Beyond dumb even. You have a 6 on 3 advantage and you're not smart enough to work the puck sround the perimeter?
With their jerseys covered, i would have totally believed this was NHL match. I'm often wondering different scenarios while watching a match, and powering your powerplay with goalie replacement skater is one of them. But it's more in a situation at middle of 3rd, it's tie and team badly need points, then yeah risk it early by making it 6 vs 4 so that you have time for correction if it doesn't pay off. But to do it in middle of first period when your team is leading.... 😆
@@CunuckHockey Wait... there has never been AHL vs. NHL match? I though there must have been a somekind of friendly match between first and second tier hockey teams in Canada? Now when i think about i don't think there has been such a match in Finland either. Damn, what kind of gaps do i have in my hockey knowledge, heh.
I remember reading a statistical analysis a few years back that did a bunch of modelling etc and concluded that there was never a 'too early' time to pull the goalie if you were down, based on the potential for a goal vs the risk of being scored on in any given scenario.
In professional soccer the top 3 teams in the lower league can move up 1 league and the bottom 3 are demoted. This would immediately change the NHL’s tanking for the 1st overall pick
i got a two man short goal in a college road game that was pretty crazy. i was the center on a line and both of my wings were defensive stiffs. if i didn't play defensively, we would get scored on every shift. our D men and goalie sucked, too, so we were bad defensively. one game we got two penalties at the same time and the coach leaves us out there. we didn't penalty kill at all and he left out two forwards and a defenseman. i wasn't feeling very optimistic as the puck was dropped in our zone. immediately, my wing starts chasing the puck, and i mean chasing it -- like it was five on five. he's all over the place, following the puck, like he's the only guy out there. so of course, the remaining two defenders were screwed because we had never seen anything like that before, but the big thing was the opposition had never seen anything like it, either. finally the puck came out to the center point and there was open ice between him and me covering at the net. i went out to cover him a little and hoped that someone would cover the two forwards behind me at the net. the guy had me at his mercy, but he put a hurried shot right into my shin pads, when all he had to do was slide the puck past me to two open guys alone with the goalie. the puck rebounds ( boing !!! off my leg ) straight back into center ice and i get a breakaway. i put a good move on the goalie and scored easily. then i got the hell off the ice and the other team was so messed up, they didn't score on the remaining time, either. we lost the game 6-5. we lost a lot of high scoring games like that because we sucked defensively.
In a beer league game a few years ago my team was killing a 5 on 3 and somehow the three guys we had on the ice got a 3 on 0. I can't remember if we scored or not, my mind was just so blown away that a team could give up a 3 on 0 when they're on a 5 on 3 power play that the outcome got blanked from my memory
@@chrismac5560 either that was the most careless and disorganized PP ever or maybe they were doing this stunt. i played for the #2 high school team in massachusetts so we were pretty good and we would often win by football scores. in this one game ( 10 -- 0 final ) my line was out with the first D pair who both decided to screw with our coach and go deep at the same time, leaving no one playing D. i saw this and got back defending a 2 on 1. i blocked the shot from a good pass play and that's all i remember from that lopsided game.
In slovakia top league, something similar happened in OT. Home team had 4 on 3 powerplay carrying over from the end of 3rd period and decided to pull goalie to make it 5 on 3. Got scored on and lost the game.
I've watched a lot of hockey too. I grew up In Pittsburgh, and I've always been a Penguins fan. I've also lived in Syracuse and been a Crunch fan. I have never seen that before, my initial glance (before the explanation) told me that Syracuse had too many men on the ice. I can't imagine what I would have thought if I had attended that game. I suppose I've now seen everything.
I've been in a couple six on four six on three situations, and unless you have a few set plays, there comes a point of diminishing returns. The zone can actually get too crowded with your own players. Only so many lanes can exist in such a small space, and in some ways you either have to make two small passes to move the puck or somehow pass through one of your own players to get enough lateral movement to achieve anything. So again, unless you have a couple set plays, the advantage is best used by peppering shots, getting rebounds, and maximizing chances. As a PKer, I sure as hell am not chasing anything. So they can pass the puck around as much as they want. I'm stuck with my two partners in a tight triangle in front of the net, playing for a desperate rebound.
I remember back when Patrick Roy was the head coach of the Colorado Avalanche, he had try this a couple times on normal Power Play.. it never worked back then either.
Daily Planet did a story on pulling the goalie years ago. Running purely on statistic models and simulations, the result was always to pull the goalie. Down by 7 with .3 seconds left? Pull the goalie, up by 5 only 6 mins into the game? Pull the goalie. Tied in triple OT of game 7? Pull the goalie.
I was totally confused about the decision until I heard the coach’s explanation. He was trying out a new play with very little downside risk. The worst outcome happened, but they had a lead on an inferior team, there was tons of time left to make up the score (they did) and they got a little game time practice with the play
This coach should be thankful his players bailed him out by winning the game - in an absolutely dramatic fashion, scoring in the last second of overtime. What made Utica's shortie more unreal was that the penalty killer was just trying to get the puck out of his own end by BLINDLY backhanding it down ice.
TLDR: Up by one goal means the other team is just one goal away from tying you up. Up by two goals means you're thinking if I get a flat tire its not bad, I got a spare right? So with the 6 on 3 - it's not like no one has ever thought of doing a 6 on 3; seen it plenty of times in a last period scenario when the team that needs a goal already has a 2 man advantage - might as well double down. But this also makes sense because the difference mentally between being up 2 goals instead of just up by 1 is substantial. This... "Okay we're up by 1 but if they score then it's all tied up and we may just lose the momentum." So if early on in the game you can give your team a 2 goal lead, the players are thinking... "We have an insurance goal. If we lose one, okay well we're still up by 1. We got this. We get another goal cool, if not that's cool too. Keep up the pressure but nothing to overly stress about."
I made a shot like that in gym class as a kid in floor hockey. We didn't have enough players, so the coach put the net down on it's back and put the pads in the middle. I got the ball back by our goal and tried to hit a centering shot so one of our players could get a shot. Apparently no one on either team was paying attention and it went down the floor and rolled between the gap between the pads and the post. By the time it got there it was barely moving.
What's fun is some players who go to the AHL came from the CHL leagues, like the OHL and the great hockey skills showed in the first 2 goals are shown in the OHL
Washington Capitals did this on January 5th against the Carolina Hurricanes, although much later in the game, the cost/benefit is really high, especially since the team on the kill gets free icing.
AHL Hockey is great. Cheap seats, good beer, and players trying thier hardest to get in the show. Add in the hardend vets just playing for the love of the game.. Can't beat it!
Not a hockey fan to say the least, but from a common sense/statistical POV...the call made sense... Crunch are 36 & 36 Comet are 33 & 39 2nd place team vs last place team You're up 1 goal early.... Worst case, game is tied 2 ~ 2 if the 6 on 3 backfires, which it did! Stick to your overall game strategy and the 2nd place team should still come out victorious...which, they did!
Last day of 69-70 Montreal and New York were going to be tied for fourth with the same won loss records. It came down to goals. New York was playing Detroit, pulled the goalie with four minutes left while having a 4 goal lead. Montreal was playing Chicago they pulled the goalie with 12 minutes left couldn't score. New York made the playoffs buy having 2 goals more then Montreal.
I heard this was common for some NHL teams way back in the day. I think a National broadcast of a game a few years ago was talking about it at an intermission.
In 1970 Montreal pulled the goalie with nine or ten minutes to go in the third period against Chicago. Down 5 -2. In order to get into the playoffs they needed to beat the Rangers total goals that year, but were behind by four. So, needed three more goals to get into the playoffs. Didn't matter how badly they lost as long as they got five in the last game of the season. That never happened. Chicago scored five empty net goals (likely a record) and won 10 - 2.
I was streaming this game at home in Utica, and my God, I think I was laughing for rest of the first period after watching Schmelzer's goal. Shame about the OT loss, but at least I can mock the Crunch for the rest of the season.
Mocking the Crunch for a freebie goal in a game that the Comets STILL couldn't win is about the most Utican thing you can do. Rivalries are more entertaining when the opponent is decent.
I'm not sure if this is entirely correct or not, but i think i saw another video recently that said that if you were to do something similar in Overtime - i.e. pull the goalie for a man advantage - then if you concede a goal, your team DOES NOT receive the point for an OTL.
Even as a Crunch fan I am not surprised they would do something boneheaded. Remember this a team that choked a 2-0 series lead to Rochester last year in the playoffs and got reverse sweeped. Time for another drink.
I never like pulling the goalie when it’s not the end of the game and there’s a penalty. The other team is free to take shots at the empty net without having to worry about missing the goal and getting called for icing.
It’s one of those things where if it works, you’re a genius. If it doesn’t work, you’re a momo. Coach had balls to try it. And his explanation after the game was good.
I know it backfired, but honestly, I don't disagree with the decision. What are the odds a team would actually score down 3-on-6, empty net or not? I know it's a rare situation, but I've never seen a team score down 3-on-6. After all, it should be almost impossible to gain control of the puck in that situation.
I'd think that it's definitely worth it to use this tactic. Just need to avoid cross passes like that and try give pressure for the defending team so they don't get a chance to shoot. But we'll never know for sure unless teams start using this tactic more often.
I don't have a problem with it. It was something they were working on in practice, it was early in the game, and it was against a weaker (according to the standings) opponent. It was the perfect time to try it and see if it would work and gives them live experience instead of just practicing it.
Dawg, that’s something you try during preseason when points are not on the line. It would still be questionable if you had a 4-1 lead as that goal could create momentum and your team feels less confident after getting scored on. No matter the circumstances it doesn’t feel good getting scored on.
Something interesting here is that this is the AHL...winning is important, but less important than player development. Thats why the coach is talking about it the way he does...he is teaching AND trying to win.
Actually, it's not a bad play if you're down and it's late game. So props to the coach for seeing an opportunity to get on the ice during a game. The lesson here shouldn't be "stick to the plan" though. The plan needs to change, imo. If you're going 6v3, three of your players should man up on the defensemen (because they have to be tight to the tendie and in the crease anyway). Shoot from the points and scramble for the rebounds. By manning up though, you prevent time and space for the defensemen to collect the puck and lob it down the ice.
The AHL has always been close, if not equal, to the NHL in skill and talent. In fact, there was a time in the 1950s when the Springfield Indians were so good, that they were considered to be better than some NHL teams, and there was even talk of them joining the NHL.
If your net is empty, the probability you're going to get scored on is very high, which is *precisely* the very reason why it's only ever an absolute _last resort._ What a total dingus.
Honestly, I kind of respect the coach for defending his attempt rather than giving some generic answer, who knows maybe it'll come up again in some clutch situation rather than early in a random game
If being 6 on 3 with an empty net has a better expected value than 5 on 3 then I agree we the coach and you can't know that if no one has ever tried 6 on 3. I hope he does it more so we can see if it's actually good in a better sample size.
This play at the time of the game makes total sense. They had the lead and it was early on. In baseball it is much easier to make the decision to steal bases with a lead vs being behind. BTW 6 on 3's have been done in the NHL but very rarely.
But has it been done by a team that was leading the game and not in the dying minutes of the third period? I wasn't able to find any instances like that when I was doing my research haha
On the one hand I understand going for it in a lower leverage situation, but he ignored the one advantage of being on the penalty kill. Plus it was a division game. They gave Utica an extra point
That was actually a good response by the coach, and what I was thinking was happening. Why not try something new and then maybe you use it in the playoffs with confidence.
I don't see an issue with it, even if they lost the game they knew they were good enough to hold their spot. They had to try it in a game situation, no doubt they've practiced that but nothing is like in-game pressure. Nice catch here, I see so many videos that are just reposts from others normal content.
As a newer hockey fan i have done this in NHL 23, very similar results. Note I do suck at the game so its defiantly an execution issue like the coach said lol.
I don't think it was a statiscally sound strategy, but it was a fun thing to try, and that game now made history! I completely side with the coach on that one.
Thanks for the spotlight, Cunuck :)
Haha this is amazing! Thanks for the comment and I loved the tweet lmao. Your social media person deserves a raise!
The exposure by the media for my Utica Comets based off this play is overwhelming
@@CunuckHockeythe Crunch player you were referring to as #39 is Gage Concalves
Utica! A Wolf Pack fan but crazy
Underrated comment!
A game-tying, shorthanded, empty-net goal in the middle of the first period. Did anyone have that on their 2023-24 hockey bingo card?
2023-24? I didn't even have it on my all-time hockey bingo card.
Yes. B-2. 😂
Me N-37
6 on 3, too
Honestly, I respect the decision and the coach's explanation. They were working on it, it was early, they were ahead, why not try it out? The worst that could happen is a tie game still early with the two-man advantage still active. Sure, you get six skaters with a minus against three of theirs with a plus, but hardly anybody pays attention to +/- anyway.
Plus minus is not counted on PP or PK
@@toddmurphy390 it is if the shorthanded team scores…. the shorthanded team’s players get a plus and the power play team’s players get a minus.
It wasn't such a bad idea, in theory. Hell, give it a shot.
It’s one of those things that’s odd but can make some level of sense (similarly to Roy pulling goalies with 10 mins left if down by 3-4) but it’s obviously just so high risk that it’s probably not practical outside of limited situations
You respect that explanation? It's incompetence...
yes it backfired but i honestly don't think it's a bad move. 6 on 3 is a massive advantage that should have resulted in multiple grade A scoring opportunities. But there is also a risk...The coach is right when he says it was the right time to try it; good ice and relatively early in the game.
It's a horrible move. Pulling the goalie is a desperation move that only is worthwhile when you have nothing to lose.
In any given 1 minute span the chances are 90%+ that neither team is gonna score.
You only pull the goalie when you're down because your chances of scoring go up by a LITTLE bit, but the other team's go up by like 10x.
When you're down before the end of the game that is worth it because if nobody scores you're screwed anyway. So may as well. Any other time it's just dumb.
6 on 3 doesn’t give much greater chances than 5 on 3 - players run out of space. An empty net give much greater chances than a goalie in the net. How often you see an entire PP without the short handed team gaining possession and dumping it out? Here, that’s a scoring chance, with no icing.
Respect. I’m glad he has the creative liberty to try. All innovations were considered silly at one point - skating backwards, backhand shots, redirects, screening the goalie, Michigan/lacrosse goals, but look how they’ve all become incorporated or being worked into the game. 🤘🏻
That was a horrible sloppy pass attempt that led to the goal no matter if was a 6v3 or 5v3. Everybody was shocked when Patrick Roy started pulling goalies with still a lot of time left and nowadays it's pretty common to see it.
Haha I remember that
I always said pps should either pull the goalies or have icing work as usual. I like the pull the goalie option but more men on the ice is more points of failure too
An Oilers coach was pulling early a couple seasons earlier but nobody noticed because he wasn't crazy famous like Patrick Roy.
Coaches explanation made perfect sense to me.
You learn more from your failures than your successes.
What was that coach?
We're a farm team, we're training, you're watching. Where's the downside?
@LemonStirsounds a bit dramatic to impose a worldwide hockey permaban on someone for pulling their goalie at a bad time.
@LemonStir Hey man I really don't think it's that serious
Honestly I like the aggressive strategy. If they capitalize on that 6 on 3 they have a 2 goal lead and complete control of the game
I could see this actually being an interesting gimmick play early in games if an NHL team had a 5 on 3. It puts the opposing team into a position where the three people they put on the ice may not be the best fit for the style of play they will face.
doesn't prove shit @LemonStir
@LemonStir That's results oriented thinking (in a bad way).
Right now, the European Handball Championship is going on. Austria has been a historically bad team, but they have massively overperformed, getting great results against some powerhouse teams. One of their approaches is to regularly pull their goalie on attack to create a PP situation (which isn't really done too often otherwise). Against Germany (a rival and one of the best teams), this strategy got them to a pretty good lead late in the game. Then, they conceded an empty net goal and suddenly the coach got scared. No more pulling the goalie which lead to them not scoring for 10 minutes (after scoring 22 in 50 minutes) and eventually drawing the game.
Long story short: Just because you sometimes look foolish when taking the risk, doesn't mean it's not the best move overall. Playing it "safe" yields a whole host of other dangers.
Even though the Comets were in last place going into that game, they were 4 wins 3 losses vs the Crunch for the season with five of the games requiring OT. This is also a fierce rivalry of cities and teams so that may also have played into the coaches figuring. That crunch goal with a second left was the heart breaker. Whenever these two teams play there always seems to some odd play that tilts the games one way or another. Still have a long season to go. Go Utica Comets !
Good play, tbh, good coach for trying and taking it well. Risky play, but actually good stuff to practice. I fully support plays like this. Kudos, coach and Crunch, also Comets played HARD that game.
I don't even watch hockey all that often anymore, but the rationale behind the coach's explanation made complete sense to me.
In high school my buddies played on a small time roller hockey league at a local rec center and one game their goalie didn't show up for some reason. Somehow it was agreed that they would play 6 on 5 with the goal tipped onto it's side, cutting the area available for scoring by more than half. They won the game by a mile and I never saw an opposing coach so pissed. That was the funniest hockey game I ever watched, the whole thing was an absurd joke.
I think it depends on the design of the actual goal. Some of them are more of a triangular shape, kind of like a soccer net. It probably wouldn't work if it were too rounded.
Still, I think you'd lose the advantage of one of the lower corners. Whichever side the bottom of the goal ends up on wouldn't have a side to it.
He has the choice of 5 open teammates to pass to, and he tries to pass the puck through an opposing player. Time to sit on the pine !
Why does this coach remind me of Michael Scott?
BRUH. 🤣💀💀💀
The nose. If his hair was darker, definitely. Michael Scott was a Wilkes-Barre Scranton fan.
I thought the same thing 😂
The way he speaks and how he genuinely doesn’t accept a small bit of blame definitely gives some office vibes
@@stivvits1067 he was like someone's gotta clean that up. His players were like we the ones who gotta clean this up.
The reasoning behind the 6-3 play was pretty solid. Yeah I’d try something spicy when I’m leading against an opponent that’s at the bottom of the rankings. I think the biggest reason he’s content with the decision postgame is now the players see what happens when they screw up and have to dig themselves out. Even in a regular 2 man advantage that pass to the center is an absolute no go, now I guarantee that player is never gonna make that mistake again.
Sometimes you try thinking "outside the box" and learn why the box is where it is. 😂
"the box" I see what you did there 🤣🤣🤣
In this case I think's more "hey, maybe the box is a bit bigger than we think it is... Ok, not that big, we still gotta stay closer to home than that"
I think it’s a bit of a silly decision to do that (obviously easy to say that seeing the result) but I really like what the coach said and his explanation. The logic does make sense if you play the numbers and keep the puck to the outside you have a pretty good chance at getting a rebound. The risk/reward maybe isn’t there in a more competitive game (I doubt we’d ever see this in this situation in an NHL game. Unless a bad team is playing for nothing I guess)
In a game where you are down 1 with less than a minute left, you'd definitely want to pull something like this. Thankfully, their first crack at it wasn't in one of those situations, so they were able to learn what not to do in a real time game well in advance.
@@troybaxter Oh absolutely. I meant we’d likely never see it in the NHL in these exact circumstances (up a goal in the first period). But hey you never know
So the wild and the sharks should be trying this out daily.
@@tateanderson213 I agree. Even though the Sharks are absolute garbage this year, they are still an elite level team. As such, you really can't pull stunts like this against them because they will beat you in response.
Started playing when I was 13 years old and finished up my career at 64. So that's a lot of men's legs games. Played some junior here in Philly but we called it travel hockey. The league I was playing in Delaware in the New Castle county men's League .
So one night we were minus our goaler. There was nobody around to play goal. So we negotiated with the other team that we would play six on five all the time. And we lost and never scored a goal. We were really bad. But one point I want to make is that when you don't have a goal that you're always chasing the puck playing defense.
Unusual situation with a at AHL game Great video I'm sticking around keep up to work!
Good call by the coach, the puck should never be turned over or even touched by the defense let alone and opportunity to shoot on net. Bench the player trying to make an unnecessary cross ice pass
On that 6 on 3, that 6th skater should hang out in the neutral zone until a play is set up for him to skate in hard and take a quality shot. Then if there is a turnover, he is in better defensive position to prevent a rink length goal.
The empty net on a powerplay (not delayed) is always a risk because the other team doesn't have to worry about icing the puck and can have a free shot on the net from distance with no risk. Doing that in the first was not strategic at all, kinda just doing it for fun, but I guess to practice it for what they consider a "real opponent"
Leaf logo You being a moron makes perfect sense. It was 100% strategic. It's early in the game. If it backfires you still have plenty of game left to make up for it. If it works you nice lead that can deflate the opposition early, or cause them to make mistakes trying to get back in in the game.
But go ahead Leaf fan. Tell the world how it is.......................
unrelated, but both teams were canucks farm teams at one point.
That's a good catch lmao. I knew about Utica obviously, but Syracuse completely skipped my mind as it was a bit before my time.
@@CunuckHockey Do you have any idea why Carolina Hurricanes is the only NHL team without AHL team? And how do Canes organize sending players down, like happened to Raanta recently?
The current plan is to spread some of their talents to other AHL clubs through loans and for some of the European players to return to various European clubs. They've already done this with Alexander Pashin returning to Russia and Tieksola, Koivunen and Heimosalmi all loaned back to the Finnish Liiga.
@@imulippo5245Yaniv Perets when he plays in the minors is down with their ECHL affiliate the Norfolk Admirals. It’s a really bizarre setup and one that significantly affects prospects’ abilities to develop chemistry with one another
@@imulippo5245A bit late but Carolina and Chicago had a falling-out that led to Chicago going independent this last offseason. I think there's been some level of reconciling, a few Carolina prospects have been sent to Chicago if I remember right.
It sure helped Syracuse though! Fans loved seeing Kochetkov play. 3 games, 3 wins.
Insiders saying it's actually an exposure move.Both teams have nothing to lose or gain.
ngl when i saw it i went "oh shoot kinda genius", leading 2-1 try to secure a 3-1 with an overwhelming PP to put up insurance early
like stuff like that might be a thing eventually who knows, look at how early ppl are pulling goalies now, Lalonde been doing it with like 5 min and 2g down, that woulda been crazy in the past. With all the skill and space in the zone maybe a 6-3 could be a cool strat to see :0
OT winner: Goalie should've poke checked, it would've been enough to get to the buzzer.
I love it! Talk about thinking outside the box, this is thinking outside the universe. Great move by the coach.
been out of the hockey loop for a while so i was a little baffled at first, but hearing the post-game remarks i like the ingenuity and willingness to experiment with new tactics
I remember this being used a lot when I played lacrosse. I like the attempt! Could totally work
That Puck looks like it hit dead center of that net. On a backhand!
considering the crunch are the lightning ahl affiliate pulling the goalie way too early seems about right
Yeah, the Lightning organization should really figure out what they are doing…
For the slower folks, that was sarcasm
I don't think that pulling the goalie was necessarily dumb...but attempting that pass past two of the three defenders on the ice certainly was dumb. Beyond dumb even. You have a 6 on 3 advantage and you're not smart enough to work the puck sround the perimeter?
With their jerseys covered, i would have totally believed this was NHL match.
I'm often wondering different scenarios while watching a match, and powering your powerplay with goalie replacement skater is one of them. But it's more in a situation at middle of 3rd, it's tie and team badly need points, then yeah risk it early by making it 6 vs 4 so that you have time for correction if it doesn't pay off. But to do it in middle of first period when your team is leading.... 😆
I do wonder sometimes how big the gap between the best AHL team and the worst NHL team would be. I would love to see that one day 😂
@@CunuckHockey Wait... there has never been AHL vs. NHL match?
I though there must have been a somekind of friendly match between first and second tier hockey teams in Canada? Now when i think about i don't think there has been such a match in Finland either. Damn, what kind of gaps do i have in my hockey knowledge, heh.
As far as I know, it's never happened before!
I remember reading a statistical analysis a few years back that did a bunch of modelling etc and concluded that there was never a 'too early' time to pull the goalie if you were down, based on the potential for a goal vs the risk of being scored on in any given scenario.
In professional soccer the top 3 teams in the lower league can move up 1 league and the bottom 3 are demoted. This would immediately change the NHL’s tanking for the 1st overall pick
I know the social media manager for the comets. He’s a great guy and has a wicked sense of humor. Solid tweet.
I honestly don't mind this idea, but what was the guy with the puck thinking in that situation? Like, who was that pass even to? 😂
Agreed lmao, I have NO clue what was going through his mind. It's not like the pass was close to getting through anything
And that's exactly what the coach was saying in that interview without actually saying it.
The ice was fresh......more then 10 minutes into the period.
i got a two man short goal in a college road game that was pretty crazy. i was the center on a line and both of my wings were defensive stiffs. if i didn't play defensively, we would get scored on every shift. our D men and goalie sucked, too, so we were bad defensively. one game we got two penalties at the same time and the coach leaves us out there. we didn't penalty kill at all and he left out two forwards and a defenseman. i wasn't feeling very optimistic as the puck was dropped in our zone. immediately, my wing starts chasing the puck, and i mean chasing it -- like it was five on five. he's all over the place, following the puck, like he's the only guy out there. so of course, the remaining two defenders were screwed because we had never seen anything like that before, but the big thing was the opposition had never seen anything like it, either. finally the puck came out to the center point and there was open ice between him and me covering at the net. i went out to cover him a little and hoped that someone would cover the two forwards behind me at the net. the guy had me at his mercy, but he put a hurried shot right into my shin pads, when all he had to do was slide the puck past me to two open guys alone with the goalie. the puck rebounds ( boing !!! off my leg ) straight back into center ice and i get a breakaway. i put a good move on the goalie and scored easily. then i got the hell off the ice and the other team was so messed up, they didn't score on the remaining time, either. we lost the game 6-5. we lost a lot of high scoring games like that because we sucked defensively.
In a beer league game a few years ago my team was killing a 5 on 3 and somehow the three guys we had on the ice got a 3 on 0. I can't remember if we scored or not, my mind was just so blown away that a team could give up a 3 on 0 when they're on a 5 on 3 power play that the outcome got blanked from my memory
@@chrismac5560 either that was the most careless and disorganized PP ever or maybe they were doing this stunt. i played for the #2 high school team in massachusetts so we were pretty good and we would often win by football scores. in this one game ( 10 -- 0 final ) my line was out with the first D pair who both decided to screw with our coach and go deep at the same time, leaving no one playing D. i saw this and got back defending a 2 on 1. i blocked the shot from a good pass play and that's all i remember from that lopsided game.
In slovakia top league, something similar happened in OT. Home team had 4 on 3 powerplay carrying over from the end of 3rd period and decided to pull goalie to make it 5 on 3. Got scored on and lost the game.
I've watched a lot of hockey too. I grew up In Pittsburgh, and I've always been a Penguins fan. I've also lived in Syracuse and been a Crunch fan. I have never seen that before, my initial glance (before the explanation) told me that Syracuse had too many men on the ice. I can't imagine what I would have thought if I had attended that game. I suppose I've now seen everything.
I've been in a couple six on four six on three situations, and unless you have a few set plays, there comes a point of diminishing returns. The zone can actually get too crowded with your own players. Only so many lanes can exist in such a small space, and in some ways you either have to make two small passes to move the puck or somehow pass through one of your own players to get enough lateral movement to achieve anything. So again, unless you have a couple set plays, the advantage is best used by peppering shots, getting rebounds, and maximizing chances.
As a PKer, I sure as hell am not chasing anything. So they can pass the puck around as much as they want. I'm stuck with my two partners in a tight triangle in front of the net, playing for a desperate rebound.
I remember back when Patrick Roy was the head coach of the Colorado Avalanche, he had try this a couple times on normal Power Play.. it never worked back then either.
I was at this game. The empty netter came from **NOWHERE**. Even the soccer mom's x3 rows up from me we like "DAFUQ..?". It was crazy to see.
Daily Planet did a story on pulling the goalie years ago. Running purely on statistic models and simulations, the result was always to pull the goalie. Down by 7 with .3 seconds left? Pull the goalie, up by 5 only 6 mins into the game? Pull the goalie. Tied in triple OT of game 7? Pull the goalie.
I was totally confused about the decision until I heard the coach’s explanation.
He was trying out a new play with very little downside risk.
The worst outcome happened, but they had a lead on an inferior team, there was tons of time left to make up the score (they did) and they got a little game time practice with the play
This coach should be thankful his players bailed him out by winning the game - in an absolutely dramatic fashion, scoring in the last second of overtime. What made Utica's shortie more unreal was that the penalty killer was just trying to get the puck out of his own end by BLINDLY backhanding it down ice.
TLDR: Up by one goal means the other team is just one goal away from tying you up. Up by two goals means you're thinking if I get a flat tire its not bad, I got a spare right?
So with the 6 on 3 - it's not like no one has ever thought of doing a 6 on 3; seen it plenty of times in a last period scenario when the team that needs a goal already has a 2 man advantage - might as well double down. But this also makes sense because the difference mentally between being up 2 goals instead of just up by 1 is substantial. This... "Okay we're up by 1 but if they score then it's all tied up and we may just lose the momentum." So if early on in the game you can give your team a 2 goal lead, the players are thinking... "We have an insurance goal. If we lose one, okay well we're still up by 1. We got this. We get another goal cool, if not that's cool too. Keep up the pressure but nothing to overly stress about."
I liked this. Creativity, trying something new, have fun and learn more. It's what hockey should always be about. Go Syracuse coach :-)!
I made a shot like that in gym class as a kid in floor hockey. We didn't have enough players, so the coach put the net down on it's back and put the pads in the middle. I got the ball back by our goal and tried to hit a centering shot so one of our players could get a shot. Apparently no one on either team was paying attention and it went down the floor and rolled between the gap between the pads and the post. By the time it got there it was barely moving.
What's fun is some players who go to the AHL came from the CHL leagues, like the OHL and the great hockey skills showed in the first 2 goals are shown in the OHL
Washington Capitals did this on January 5th against the Carolina Hurricanes, although much later in the game, the cost/benefit is really high, especially since the team on the kill gets free icing.
Emil Frances did that with the NY Rangers back in the 60s. They needed more goals to advance in the standings.
Well I'm from Utica and I've never heard of a 6 on 3 powerplay.
Oh no, not Utica. It's a Syracuse thing (+1 for the reference, sir 👍)
i've always been curious about this sort of thing. obviously its risky, but also has a lot of upside if it works. glad to see a team did it
Outstanding post......thanks! (I liked the coach's strategy......and mostly that he was willing to try it).................
Glad you enjoyed it!
As far as you can tell....which is about 1mm
AHL Hockey is great. Cheap seats, good beer, and players trying thier hardest to get in the show. Add in the hardend vets just playing for the love of the game.. Can't beat it!
Not a hockey fan to say the least, but from a common sense/statistical POV...the call made sense...
Crunch are 36 & 36
Comet are 33 & 39
2nd place team vs last place team
You're up 1 goal early....
Worst case, game is tied 2 ~ 2 if the 6 on 3 backfires, which it did!
Stick to your overall game strategy and the 2nd place team should still come out victorious...which, they did!
UMass tried the same thing against Boston U in a game I was at about 20 years ago, with the same result.
Last day of 69-70 Montreal and New York were going to be tied for fourth with the same won loss records. It came down to goals. New York was playing Detroit, pulled the goalie with four minutes left while having a 4 goal lead. Montreal was playing Chicago they pulled the goalie with 12 minutes left couldn't score. New York made the playoffs buy having 2 goals more then Montreal.
I heard this was common for some NHL teams way back in the day. I think a National broadcast of a game a few years ago was talking about it at an intermission.
I don't think so. I've been watching hockey since the late 1960s.
In 1970 Montreal pulled the goalie with nine or ten minutes to go in the third period against Chicago. Down 5 -2. In order to get into the playoffs they needed to beat the Rangers total goals that year, but were behind by four. So, needed three more goals to get into the playoffs. Didn't matter how badly they lost as long as they got five in the last game of the season. That never happened. Chicago scored five empty net goals (likely a record) and won 10 - 2.
I was streaming this game at home in Utica, and my God, I think I was laughing for rest of the first period after watching Schmelzer's goal.
Shame about the OT loss, but at least I can mock the Crunch for the rest of the season.
The Crunch were mocking Utica by trying it.
Mocking the Crunch for a freebie goal in a game that the Comets STILL couldn't win is about the most Utican thing you can do.
Rivalries are more entertaining when the opponent is decent.
I'm not sure if this is entirely correct or not, but i think i saw another video recently that said that if you were to do something similar in Overtime - i.e. pull the goalie for a man advantage - then if you concede a goal, your team DOES NOT receive the point for an OTL.
Yep this is correct!
Even as a Crunch fan I am not surprised they would do something boneheaded. Remember this a team that choked a 2-0 series lead to Rochester last year in the playoffs and got reverse sweeped. Time for another drink.
I'd much rather have him say "we tried it, it backfired" rather than throw his team under the bus.
What's amazing about this event is how it wasn't a completely terrible idea. It's just something that kinda happened.
Good honesty coach. No biggie as an alcoholic plan must be followed daily 8808...❤
I was half expecting the Crunch to pull their goalie in OT to play 4 on 3.
I never like pulling the goalie when it’s not the end of the game and there’s a penalty. The other team is free to take shots at the empty net without having to worry about missing the goal and getting called for icing.
It’s one of those things where if it works, you’re a genius. If it doesn’t work, you’re a momo. Coach had balls to try it. And his explanation after the game was good.
Ya this is terrible.
a) you have 2 open guys.
b) you have guys on the ice capable of trying to make that pass on that read.
Im actually surprised that more teams dont try this 6 v 3
I know it backfired, but honestly, I don't disagree with the decision. What are the odds a team would actually score down 3-on-6, empty net or not? I know it's a rare situation, but I've never seen a team score down 3-on-6. After all, it should be almost impossible to gain control of the puck in that situation.
I'd think that it's definitely worth it to use this tactic. Just need to avoid cross passes like that and try give pressure for the defending team so they don't get a chance to shoot. But we'll never know for sure unless teams start using this tactic more often.
I don't have a problem with it. It was something they were working on in practice, it was early in the game, and it was against a weaker (according to the standings) opponent. It was the perfect time to try it and see if it would work and gives them live experience instead of just practicing it.
Dawg, that’s something you try during preseason when points are not on the line. It would still be questionable if you had a 4-1 lead as that goal could create momentum and your team feels less confident after getting scored on. No matter the circumstances it doesn’t feel good getting scored on.
I think trying something stupid as a coach, and then blaming your players for not following through is awful. This guy needs a lesson in leadership.
0:48 What a pass!
3:20 Honestly what a ridiculous pass
Something interesting here is that this is the AHL...winning is important, but less important than player development.
Thats why the coach is talking about it the way he does...he is teaching AND trying to win.
What an absolutely ridiculous pass to attempt on a 6-on-3.
Actually, it's not a bad play if you're down and it's late game. So props to the coach for seeing an opportunity to get on the ice during a game.
The lesson here shouldn't be "stick to the plan" though. The plan needs to change, imo. If you're going 6v3, three of your players should man up on the defensemen (because they have to be tight to the tendie and in the crease anyway). Shoot from the points and scramble for the rebounds. By manning up though, you prevent time and space for the defensemen to collect the puck and lob it down the ice.
The AHL has always been close, if not equal, to the NHL in skill and talent. In fact, there was a time in the 1950s when the Springfield Indians were so good, that they were considered to be better than some NHL teams, and there was even talk of them joining the NHL.
I think its funny that John Tortorella is the face of being in the coaches dog house LOL.
This deserve a sub !
Thanks so much!
If your net is empty, the probability you're going to get scored on is very high, which is *precisely* the very reason why it's only ever an absolute _last resort._ What a total dingus.
that 6 on 3, Utica should have sent their centerman right up to Syracuse' blueline the moment their goalie went to the bench
Honestly, I kind of respect the coach for defending his attempt rather than giving some generic answer, who knows maybe it'll come up again in some clutch situation rather than early in a random game
If being 6 on 3 with an empty net has a better expected value than 5 on 3 then I agree we the coach and you can't know that if no one has ever tried 6 on 3. I hope he does it more so we can see if it's actually good in a better sample size.
With coaches trying new stuff is how plays like pulling the goalie at the end of the game .
wasn't it somewhere in time both these teams were part of the Vancouver Canucks farm team system maybe not together?
I think there needs to be more discussion about how that goalie has GOT to play that puck at the end.
This play at the time of the game makes total sense. They had the lead and it was early on. In baseball it is much easier to make the decision to steal bases with a lead vs being behind. BTW 6 on 3's have been done in the NHL but very rarely.
But has it been done by a team that was leading the game and not in the dying minutes of the third period? I wasn't able to find any instances like that when I was doing my research haha
On the one hand I understand going for it in a lower leverage situation, but he ignored the one advantage of being on the penalty kill. Plus it was a division game. They gave Utica an extra point
That was actually a good response by the coach, and what I was thinking was happening. Why not try something new and then maybe you use it in the playoffs with confidence.
Cleveland Rocks baby! Go Lake Erie Monsters!!! But yeah, this guy is okay as a coach. He wanted to take a risk. I respect that.
I don't see an issue with it, even if they lost the game they knew they were good enough to hold their spot. They had to try it in a game situation, no doubt they've practiced that but nothing is like in-game pressure. Nice catch here, I see so many videos that are just reposts from others normal content.
As a newer hockey fan i have done this in NHL 23, very similar results. Note I do suck at the game so its defiantly an execution issue like the coach said lol.
I did it too sometimes when I played goalie be a pro nhl legacy on ps3 recently
This set up of the 6 on 3 is done in the khl sometimes
2:19 This is where JaguarGator9 says "Welcome to Dumb Decisions"
I picked Smid in one of my pools 😢
I don't think it was a statiscally sound strategy, but it was a fun thing to try, and that game now made history! I completely side with the coach on that one.