Hockey 101: Firebirds players, coaches discuss the art of 6-on-5 defense at end of games

The Coachella Valley is still in its infancy as home to a professional hockey team, so from time to time we like to examine the intricacies of the game to learn about the sport and what we're watching from the Coachella Valley Firebirds on the ice.

Today, we're taking a deep dive into something that has been featured a ton already in this year's playoff run, and that's 6-on-5 hockey at the end of the game.

Six-on-5 hockey happens late in a game when the trailing team on the scoreboard pulls its goalie to have an extra offensive player, thus creating a 6-on-5 advantage. It's an all-or-nothing proposition as the empty net leads to an almost certain goal from the team that's ahead if they can get control of the puck.

There are different rules and strategies for defending a 6-on-5 situation compared to a normal 5-on-4 penalty kill. The biggest, of course, is that the game is usually on the line, so the tension is ratcheted up.

"It is extra tense in those moments for sure," Firebirds defenseman Connor Carrick said. "You've got to stick to your structure. They’ve got six, you’ve got five, you want to close the book on the game with an empty-netter, but you have to be disciplined."

A remarkable 6-on-5 stretch

We've seen this situation often in the last five games for the Firebirds. In Game 3 against Calgary, the Firebirds led 6-5 and the Wranglers pulled their goalie with about two minutes left. The Firebirds defended it well, and Max McCormick eventually found himself free with the puck and skated in for an empty-net goal and a 7-5 lead to help secure the win.

Since that goal, it's been a pretty remarkable stretch of 6-on-5 (or 6-on-4) hockey for the Firebirds.

• Game 4 against Calgary saw the Firebirds play with the 6-on-5 disadvantage for a whopping six minutes in the closeout game. The Firebirds were determined to secure a shutout for goalie Chris Driedger, which they did in a 3-0 win.

• Game 1 against Ontario saw the Firebirds hold a 3-2 lead and withstand two minutes of 6-on-5 hockey for the win.

• Game 2 against Ontario saw the Firebirds up 5-3 late, and this time the Reign pulled their goalie with about 3 minutes left. Again, neither team scored.

• In Game 3 against Ontario, the Firebirds led 3-2 and the Reign pulled their goalie with about three minutes left. A minute into that the Firebirds were called for a penalty, meaning the final two minutes were played at a 6-on-4 advantage. The Firebirds' defense dug in, blocked a bunch of shots, Driedger was strong and again neither team scored.

Add that all up, and since the McCormick goal in Game 3 vs. Calgary, that's an almost incomprehensible 14 minutes of 6-on-5 hockey in which the Firebirds did not allow a goal, and simultaneously somehow never scored an empty-net goal.

Here is what the players and coaches had to say about the strategies and emotion of a 6-on-5 situation to close out the game. How is it different than a normal 5-on-4 penalty kill? If you get the puck, how do you decide whether to shoot for the empty net or do something different? What is coach Bylsma's philosophy at that time in the game?

The defensive part

Killing a 6-on-5 disadvantage does have some tactical differences than a traditional 5-on-4 penalty kill. For starters, two more bodies are on the ice so there's one more player to worry about, but on the plus side for the defense there is less open space for the offense to operate. Also, of course, the game is on the line, so there is a tension that adds an emotional element to that part of the game.

The defensive team must decide whether to go into a full defensive posture, in essence, a five-man shell in front of the goalie, or to have guys engage with the other team's players at the blue line to prevent them from just passing the puck around and having full control the entire time. In 6-on-5, the most dangerous guy isn't always the guy with the puck.

"We've had a lot of 6-on-5 situations and not just for 30 seconds, but for two minutes, three minutes, meaning multiple lines of players have to be involved," Firebirds coach Dan Bylsma said. "There's a balance you try to find of putting the pressure on and just sitting back five guys tight around the back end.

"It doesn't feel great when you give a team like Ontario all that time and space (by the blue line), but you've got to find a balance and try to do both," he said. "You have to be disciplined in your net-front defense, because a lot of the goals come from the back side of the net. Your instinct is to maul the guy in front of the net, but the protection of the backside is critical."

With so many bodies in the mix, there's less room for the offense to make traditional goal-scoring plays, so the offensive team is just looking to fire a puck on net and see what happens with a rebound or a tip, knowing they'll have an extra man fighting for the loose puck.

That's why the defense is often structured in a "zone" concept, staying in an area and defending your turf. So for example, if the puck goes into the corner and an offensive player goes to retrieve it, you might see a defensive player stay in his position closer to the net, as opposed to following the offensive player to crunch him against the boards and fight for the puck.

"Usually, there are a lot of guys in the zone and less space so a lot of teams are just kind of throwing pucks and trying to create rebounds," said Firebirds defenseman Jimmy Schuldt. "Each guy's got a job to do and I'd say it’s a little bit more zone than a normal penalty kill. You have to stay in the right spots and then win those one or two puck battles that are critical."

Interestingly, the extended 6-on-4 penalty kill at the end of Game 3 against Ontario was not part of the plan, but Bylsma said it took away much of the strategic guesswork. When you're down 6-on-4, you are going to be in and stay in a four-man box in front of the goalie. The other team will control the puck the whole time and you're just trying to block every shot or make it as easy as possible for the goalie to see the action.

"I didn't ask for it, but 6-on-4 allowed us to be a little more compact and not be as aggressive on our penalty kill so you had four guys in the house and in lanes to be able to combat their excellent shooters," Bylsma said. "Seemed like we had about six or seven blocks. Driegs made a couple big saves, but it didn't feel like many were getting through to him because the guys were sacrificing their bodies and that's what you need."

Blocking shots

Going down on the ice and sacrificing your body for a blocked shot is the hockey play that receives the most admiration from teammates and coaches, and it's the hallmark of surviving a 6-on-5 situation. The Firebirds have been impeccable with their shot-blocking in this postseason.

In Game 3 against Ontario, John Hayden, Cale Fleury, Gustav Olofsson and Cameron Hughes all had memorable blocks and then limped back to their feet to try to block another one. Schuldt said blocking a shot is a mindset.

"Against Ontario we got blocks from forwards, blocks from defensemen. We always say you have to want to block a shot and the more you want it, the more the chances are the puck will hit you," Schuldt said. "Guys are selling out for each other, and that's because this is a close group."

But the obvious question is how much does it hurt to block a shot?

"Sometimes you feel it, sometimes it hits you in a good spot," Schuldt said. "Connor (Carrick) always says sometimes when these pucks hit you and the adrenaline's flowing you don't even feel it and it is kind of like that. When you hear the guys cheering you on after a block and the stick taps coming back to the bench, it's easy to shake off."

Driedger has loved what he's seen from his vantage point this postseason, particularly after the 6-on-4 action in Game 3 against Ontario.

"We had great blocks by our group. We had guys laying their bodies on the line, which is kind of what playoff hockey is all about," Driedger said. "So shoutout to the guys in front of me. A couple of shots hit me, couple of shots hit the guys and we were able to get the job done."

Going for the empty net

One rule difference that a new hockey fan might not understand is that in a traditional 5-on-4 penalty kill, when you clear the puck and send it down the ice, the other team has to go back and get the puck while time ticks off the clock. Because a 6-on-5 situation isn't a true penalty kill, when you send the puck down the ice, it's an icing penalty that results in a faceoff back in front of your own net where you don't want the action to be.

That's why the decision to try a long shot at the empty net isn't as cut-and-dry as one might think. Sure, if the shot is made, that's huge and usually clinches the game. But if the shot is missed, you're basically putting the puck back in the danger zone you just fought to get it out of.

"It’s a quick decision," Schuldt said. "You’ve gotta know if there’s a guy in front of you. If you have a lane and sometimes you go for it and guys are reading you, it also depends on how much gas you have left and how much time is left."

Bylsma elaborated on that last point, noting he's fine with a player going for a long shot at an empty net if there is a lot of time left in the game like an attempt Kole Lind tried with 1:40 remaining in Game 1 against Ontario. But when the clock reaches a certain point, Bylsma would prefer that his troops don't try for the empty net but instead control the puck and try to usher it out of harm's way and kill the clock.

"Generally speaking, there’s a time frame on the clock that when it's under that time frame we don’t want to shoot for the empty net," Bylsma said, without revealing the amount of time. "When it’s over that time frame, if you have a good shot we like to take it, because if you put it in the back of the net, you've pretty much ended the game."

So when you're watching the rest of the postseason and the game comes down to a 6-on-5 situation at the end, now you know what to look for. See if the team is in a defensive shell or trying to disrupt the offensive flow. Keep an eye on the offensive player lurking behind the net. Check the clock when someone tries for a long empty-net goal. And watch the players sacrifice their bodies to block shots.

It's been a part of the game the Firebirds have executed to perfection so far this postseason, and a big reason they are 6-1 in the playoffs so far.

Shad Powers is a columnist who covers the Coachella Valley Firebirds for The Desert Sun. Have a question for him about the team or the Calder Cup playoffs? Shoot him a message at shad.powers@desertsun.com.

Western Conference final

The Firebirds will host either the Milwaukee Admirals or the Grand Rapids Griffins for the Western Conference title in a best-of-7 series. Milwaukee leads Grand Rapids 2-1 in their best-of-5 situation.

Game 1 — Wednesday, May 29: Milwaukee/Grand Rapids at Coachella Valley, 7 p.m.

Game 2 — Friday, May 31: Milwaukee/Grand Rapids at Coachella Valley, 7 p.m.

Game 3 through Game 5: TBA based on opponent

Game 6 — Monday, June 10: Milwaukee/Grand Rapids at Coachella Valley, 7 p.m. (If nec.)

Game 7 — Wednesday, June 12: Milwaukee/Grand Rapids at Coachella Valley, 7 p.m. (If nec.)

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: AHL Calder Cup: Firebirds have excelled in 6-on-5 defense to close out games