As a hockey fan tracks the puck ricocheting around the ice between whistles, one might reasonably conclude that the sport is nothing more than improvised chaos (with sword shoes!). If you cast a broader gaze, though, the coordination of a ballet and the tactics of a chess match are revealed. Each foray is met with a coordinated response that is both instinctual and strategic.

Today, we’ll look at the defensive schemes new Seattle Kraken head coach Lane Lambert and his staff may deploy to meet opposing attacks, and how these may differ (or not) from what we’ve seen from the Kraken in the past. We’ll do that by examining the approaches Lambert utilized last season while helming the defense as the Associate Coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

We focused on Lambert’s time in Toronto and not his other coaching stops for two reasons. First, as Lambert told Sound Of Hockey, his strategies have evolved as he has seen changes in the game. Tactics he may have deployed in earlier coaching stops may be outdated given the way the game is now played.

Second, and more practically, there is still video available for review from last season (until ESPN+ purges its 2024-25 archive in August, at least). To that end, if you’d rather learn by watching Lambert’s defenses, we’re here for you: You can check Toronto’s defensive work from Apr. 15, 2025, vs. Buffalo, Mar. 19, 2025, vs. Colorado (part one and part two), and Feb. 6, 2025 vs. Seattle.

Decisions about Seattle’s defensive approach and strategies have likely already happened. “You make those decisions [about schemes] before you get to training camp,” Lambert told Sound Of Hockey in a June 12 interview. “Through the summer here, that’s where the work comes in, and you get prepared for training camp. It’s a little bit personnel-based, for sure, but you also [set schemes] conducive to the style of play you want.” So, there is no better time to dive in.

Let’s make this about the Leafs for a moment

Before looking at how Lambert’s Toronto defenses played, let’s briefly look at the quality of Leafs’ defensive work last season. The Maple Leafs were eighth in goals against overall—third in goals against at 5-on-5, and 24th on the penalty kill.  According to Evolving Hockey, Toronto was about average (17th overall) in total shot quality against per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, and in the bottom third of of the league (24th overall) in expected goals against on the penalty kill. Evolving Hockey suggests that Toronto received strong goaltending behind Lambert’s defenses, with Leafs goalies saving approximately 42 goals above expected last season.

Looking to shot maps produced by HockeyViz, generally speaking, we see that Toronto opponents tended to shoot more than league average from the outside (shown in red in the 5-on-5 chart and yellow/brown in the penalty kill chart) and created fewer shots than average closer to the goal (shown in blue and purple, respectively, in the charts).

Without further ado, let’s start with the neutral-zone forecheck, then turn to coverage in the defensive zone, and strategies in shorthanded situations.

The neutral zone: 1-2-2 forecheck

Whenever you raise the topic of defense with hockey coaches, they’ll tell you that it begins in the offensive zone. Lambert is no exception. “[Defense] starts in the offensive zone, and it starts with your gaps and your back pressure and taking away time and space,” Lambert told Sound Of Hockey.

Defensive play starts with a key read in the offensive zone: Pressure the puck deep in the offensive zone or assume a neutral-zone defense structure to disrupt a rush and, ideally, force a turnover farther up ice. “[T]he worst thing a defenseman can do is on the offensive blue line when the other team gets the puck, they start to back up,” Lambert explained.

The judgment call is “about spacing, it’s about gaps,” Lambert continued. “If the [opposing] defensemen are going back [to retrieve or control the puck] and you can see numbers on [their back], you can go with two [forechecking forwards], you can pressure them. And then the third [forward] will, you know, read off of that. [I]t’s all about playing on your toes and putting pressure and being aggressive.”

On the other hand, if the opponent is “what we say, ‘eyes up’ and they’re looking at you and they’ve got complete control of the puck, then you’re more into your [neutral-zone forecheck] structure,” Lambert said.

In the neutral-zone forecheck “you’ve got gap control, you’ve got space control, and eventually, the idea is to force something before or very near the red line,” Lambert said. “[I]f you do force that and turn the puck over, then. . . [y]ou can turn it into a half-ice game and just transition right back onto offense. And you don’t have to come 200 feet, you only have to come 100 feet.”

Lambert’s neutral-zone forecheck is a 1-2-2 system. This is similar to what the Kraken ran under both Dave Hakstol and Dan Bylsma and the most common neutral-zone system utilized in the NHL.

The forward farthest up ice and closest to the puck (F1) assumes a position at the top of the formation and presses the opponent to commit to an attack or allow his teammates to change. F1 will also look for turnovers opportunistically. The next level (F2 and F3) looks to deny the red line, which would cause the opponent to ice the puck if they simply fire it into the offensive zone. Secondarily, this layer is looking to either funnel the attacker into a small area that the defensemen can then rotate over and cut off or force a lengthy dump-in from just across the red line.

The last layer (D1 and D2) looks to deny controlled entries into the zone (meaning zone entries where the opposition can carry the puck over the blue line, rather than dumping it). But the defensemen are reading the play in front of them and will retreat toward their defensive-zone positioning if the opponent rush has broken down Seattle’s structure.

As mentioned by Lambert, the third forward’s read is often important, particularly if two forechecking forwards are caught up ice and are racing back to catch the play. The F3 may attempt to funnel the play to the side on his own or retreat further, conceding the neutral zone, in an effort to disrupt a controlled offensive-zone entry.

According to manually tracked data from All Three Zones, Toronto’s neutral-zone forecheck conceded a near-league-average number of controlled offensive-zone entries, but ranked sixth in the league at suppressing opponent controlled entries leading directly to a scoring chance. This is one area that distinguished Toronto from Seattle defensively last season.

The defensive zone: zone coverage (2-3 coverage)

Once the opponent gets the puck into the offensive zone, the coverage evolves into a different zone structure.

If the opponent has possession high in the zone, two high forwards (typically the wingers) each patrol the halves of the ice above the dots, keeping position between themselves and the potential shooters. The high forwards (W1 and W2 in the image below) can interchange and carry an opponent who is skating the puck side-to-side high in the zone. The defensemen (D1 and D2) patrol halves of the ice from the dots down, working to keep themselves between the post and offensive players in their zone. Finally, the third forward (typically the center) defends the slot and carries attacking forwards through that area and lower.

If the puck moves below the dots along the half wall or into the corner, the coverage shifts. The defenseman to that side of the ice typically moves to contain and pressure the puck carrier. The center follows in to provide support in the corner and join in a puck battle if necessary. The remaining defenseman moves to cover the net front.

The strong-side high forward, typically a winger (W1 in the image above) moves in support toward the half wall to limit the low-to-high passing lanes while the weak-side high forward, typically the other winger (W2), moves down to the slot area. His role is to monitor for a defenseman crashing down for a shot and any players who could sneak toward the net for a “backdoor” play.

Similar rules apply if the puck moves up the wall closer to the dots, though in those scenarios, the strong-side winger may activate to create pressure while the center provides support coverage low.

All of these principles are similar to the strategies Dan Bylsma’s staff deployed, but the difference is in the finer coaching details. Toronto displayed better connectivity and discipline working inside-out. Last year we often saw Kraken players attempting to create turnovers in the corner or at the half wall through individual effort, but this often pulled the team’s structure out of sync, creating gaps. Lambert’s approach creates strong-side pressure with its structure, subtly shifting all players a little more toward the strong side to take away space and passing lanes, while protecting the middle over all else.

The result was Lambert’s Leafs had fewer defensive breakdowns and conceded fewer high-danger slot chances, at least in the games I viewed. If Seattle’s in-zone defense improves in 2025-26 it is likely because this inside-out, connected approach takes hold, particularly with defenders like Jamie Oleksiak, Adam Larsson, and Ryan Lindgren.

The penalty kill: triangle and one

One area where Lambert’s approach has evolved over the years is on the penalty kill. “You’re always adjusting. [I]n New York, we were a little bit more of a diamond [formation penalty kill],” Lambert told Sound Of Hockey. The “diamond” formation is the system Seattle has utilized in recent years. Lambert moved away from that in Toronto, utilizing a “triangle and one” (or “wedge and one”) PK.

“There’s a lot of thought and detail that has to go into the penalty kill. And it is based a little bit on personnel and personnel who we have and what the plan is in terms of who’s killing penalties.”

That said, “when I came into the league 14 years ago, and I ran the penalty kill in Nashville… it used to be 19 or 20 percent [conversion rate] was a really good power play. And now 20 percent is the standard,” Lambert explained. “[T]he players are getting more skilled.” So, “last year with Toronto, we needed to have some pressure.” This led Lambert to adopt the triangle and one.

The two defensemen default to positions just above the outer edges of the crease (forming the base of the triangle), and a forward is positioned in the mid-to-high slot (completing the triangle). These defenders form the core of the defense and will look to thwart cross-seam passes and scoring opportunities with active stick checks.

The second forward (the “one” penalty killer) activates in a straight line from the goal toward the opposing player in possession of the puck. The player’s goal is to be in a position to block a shot and then either force the opposing player to concede possession or angle him to a lower-danger portion of the ice.

Since the offense can move the puck via pass more quickly than the “one” skater can reposition to renew his pressure, the forwards are taught to interchange, with the forward at the top of the triangle activating to become the “one” defender if he is closer to the puck while the previous “one” defender backfills the vacated point of the triangle.

Will Lambert utilize the triangle and one in Seattle? It’s an issue to watch when training camp arrives. As Lambert mentioned, penalty kill schemes are selected with an eye toward roster ability. In Toronto, he believed he had forwards better suited to be aggressive at the top of the triangle and one. In Seattle we know that Dave Hakstol’s staff made the opposite decision to move away from the triangle and one scheme in favor of the diamond scheme during the 2022-23 season. Matty Beniers’ defensive skill could be a reason to favor the relatively active triangle and one, but we’ll have wait and see where Lambert’s staff comes down.

Coaching hockey is equal parts art and science

Fans may discount it when a coach talks postgame about “toughness,” “discipline,” or “buy-in” as contributing factors to a loss. One might reasonably suspect that there are deeper reasons for a defeat—owing to scheme breakdowns or personnel disadvantages—that are left unsaid. This may be true, in part, but every coach goes into a game with confidence that success will follow the proper implementation of an attack plan. Failure is not always a question of the “science” of gameplay; the “art” matters too.

Today, we discussed some “science”—the defensive schemes Lambert and his staff may deploy. It must be underscored, though, that the “art” of coaching matters with equal measure. The job of the coach is not only to impart fundamentals and scheme, he must mold off-ice approach and on-ice temperament. The best coaches balance these crafts in a volatile alchemy that elevates individual players as a cohesive whole.

Though there were positives, with hindsight we know the 2024-25 Seattle Kraken did not achieve at a level greater than the sum of its parts. To the contrary, despite adding multiple high-priced free agents and enjoying progress from multiple young core pieces, the team remained mired in mediocrity. The vision of the team was never realized.

If Lambert and his staff are going to re-write the story this season, it will be as much about mentality and character as it is about gap control in the neutral-zone forecheck. The schemes discussed in this piece are all widely utilized in the NHL. None will surprise opponents or win games on their own. Success will hinge on how players work within the schemes.

“You set a standard and you don’t deflect from that standard, you don’t deviate from that standard,” Lambert said at his introductory press conference. “It’s an everyday thing. You do the same things every day, repetition, and if something isn’t right, you take care of it. You have to nip it. That is the key to the accountability. You can’t turn a blind eye and let something slide.”

The Kraken are betting structure and accountability will elevate the team this season.