Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ramcharger440

Power Play?

76 posts in this topic

Do we have a power play? hard to understand how we can be so bad! we have some good folks here who know how to get it done and Muller has run some very strong ones as coach in the past but we are in pathetic shape right now!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ramcharger440 said:

Do we have a power play? hard to understand how we can be so bad! we have some good folks here who know how to get it done and Muller has run some very strong ones as coach in the past but we are in pathetic shape right now!

I've always wondered why teams don't try a different approach than what seems to be almost standard throughout the league. Mix up all your lines trying to find chemistry, almost on the fly, and ignoring set lines that are rotated throughout a game 5-on-5. Why change what got you to the point of drawing a penalty? Short shifts, rolling the lines that have established chemistry, while giving a chance to everyone to contribute as if it was 5-on-5 should work if a team has success scoring 5-on-5 as the Habs have done this year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I caught almost none of the game last night but i did see a few minutes of PP in the first & I thought it looked better than it has for a while.  Still no luck (obviously) but we controlled play well & got a lot of good looks.  Maybe a couple of bounces & things will start going in? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maas_art said:

I caught almost none of the game last night but i did see a few minutes of PP in the first & I thought it looked better than it has for a while.  Still no luck (obviously) but we controlled play well & got a lot of good looks.  Maybe a couple of bounces & things will start going in? 

On 1 particular PP, our 2nd wave started, and they kept the puck in the Wild's end for almost a minute. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

On 1 particular PP, our 2nd wave started, and they kept the puck in the Wild's end for almost a minute. 

I think thats the one i watched because JK seemed to have the puck on a string - we'd take a shot & it would come back to him & he'd dish it out again. Lehkonen was trying to be Weber but didnt have the power/accuracy in his slapper.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What units have we been running recently? I keep noticing that when Weber is on the ice he seems to be right at the blue line, center of the ice. I'm not really sure that's the most effective place for him to be. I feel like he'd be more effective lower down, closer to the circle. One-timers and all that. He doesn't strike me as an exquisite distributor of the puck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also curious if our face-off woes are playing a role in the functionality (lack of functionality, that is) of our powerplay. We have the second worst face-off percentage in the league at 47.2%. Michael Chaput and Phillip Danault are 53.48% and 52.23% respectively. Everyone else is well below 50%. Do we want to consider establishing Danault on the main unit in order to increase our chances of winning offensive zone face-offs and starting with possession in the attacking zone?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip Danault

Jonathan Drouin

Jesperi Kotkaniemi

Jeff Petry

Brendan Gallagher

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I'm also curious if our face-off woes are playing a role in the functionality (lack of functionality, that is) of our powerplay. We have the second worst face-off percentage in the league at 47.2%. Michael Chaput and Phillip Danault are 53.48% and 52.23% respectively. Everyone else is well below 50%. Do we want to consider establishing Danault on the main unit in order to increase our chances of winning offensive zone face-offs and starting with possession in the attacking zone?

A long time ago Calgary used to do this with Joel Otto.  He'd come out for offensive zone faceoffs and they would dress 3 other forwards.  Once won, he'd skate to the bench to be replaced by a point man (usually a forward). As he was going off, the other 3 forwards would establish the zone so that the guy coming on would seamlessly slot into one of the back positions.

 

I think, if nothing else, id break Domi & Drouin up on the PP.  They need to try something.  Not just keep doing the same things over and over. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maas_art said:

A long time ago Calgary used to do this with Joel Otto.  He'd come out for offensive zone faceoffs and they would dress 3 other forwards.  Once won, he'd skate to the bench to be replaced by a point man (usually a forward). As he was going off, the other 3 forwards would establish the zone so that the guy coming on would seamlessly slot into one of the back positions.

 

I think, if nothing else, id break Domi & Drouin up on the PP.  They need to try something.  Not just keep doing the same things over and over. 

Danault's probably good enough to hang around on the PP.

I mean, I guess it depends on how many minutes you want him playing each night. PP, PK, even strength. Maybe it would be too much. Anywho, it's something I would consider. The PP is garbage... mixing it up by having Danault take the face-off wouldn't be a terrible idea. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Danault's probably good enough to hang around on the PP.

I mean, I guess it depends on how many minutes you want him playing each night. PP, PK, even strength. Maybe it would be too much. Anywho, it's something I would consider. The PP is garbage... mixing it up by having Danault take the face-off wouldn't be a terrible idea. :D

Yeah - and so was Otto (and some times he did stay out).  I think its an option.  We wouldnt need to do it every time, but offensive zone FO losses are hurting us right now on the PP because losing possession means we are spending time trying to regain the zone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Yeah - and so was Otto (and some times he did stay out).  I think its an option.  We wouldnt need to do it every time, but offensive zone FO losses are hurting us right now on the PP because losing possession means we are spending time trying to regain the zone.

I haven't noticed who's been trying to gain reentry lately. I remember Drouin being good at it. However, maybe I'm just recalling the handful of times it worked and forgetting about all the times he's failed at entering the zone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power play is lost cause that continues to be used as is regardless... How long would you continue to make the same mistakes without being held accountable?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan O'Rielly ATE US UP on the circle last night. Especially when we were on the PP. I'm not really getting a sense of much creative planning for our PP. It seems like the excuse was, "Weber's not here." Then Weber came back... and it feels like, "It'll work itself out eventually, right?" Well... no. It won't. Even the goal we ended up scoring was a mistake.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. On the PP, Danault is 9 of 12 on the draw (75%), so good but on a small sample size. But wait! Drouin is 65%, Domi is 52%, and Shaw is 50%. The other guys really aren't doing that bad when we're a man up, and the question is whether a difference of 10% in the face-off circle really has a big effect. The end result is that none of these shifts are really resulting in goals, and it's been shown that at least at ES, face-off wins have little to do with generating scoring chances or goals.

2. With that in mind, Danault actually has the worst numbers on the team on the PP... again, grant it, based on low ice time totals, but when he's on we're generating the fewest scoring chances per ice time. So even if he's winning most of his draws, it's not resulting in scoring chances, so does it really matter?

3. So who are the best players statistically on the PP? Mike Reilly is #1 right now. The best forwards are in order Shaw, Tatar, Lehkonen, and Kotkaniemi. So maybe those should be our 5 guys to try on the first unit. The next 5 guys are Agostino, Armia, Domi, Drouin, and Weber. It's very clear those players are inferior at generating chances on the PP.

All this to say, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in face-off wins as being the reason why our PP stinks. It's much more important to find guys who can make good controlled zone entries and who can attack the defensive box and generate quick puck movement. Danault isn't that guy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Ted. Lots of interesting information there.

Next step, get Mike Reilly back in the lineup!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

1. On the PP, Danault is 9 of 12 on the draw (75%), so good but on a small sample size. But wait! Drouin is 65%, Domi is 52%, and Shaw is 50%. The other guys really aren't doing that bad when we're a man up, and the question is whether a difference of 10% in the face-off circle really has a big effect. The end result is that none of these shifts are really resulting in goals, and it's been shown that at least at ES, face-off wins have little to do with generating scoring chances or goals.

2. With that in mind, Danault actually has the worst numbers on the team on the PP... again, grant it, based on low ice time totals, but when he's on we're generating the fewest scoring chances per ice time. So even if he's winning most of his draws, it's not resulting in scoring chances, so does it really matter?

3. So who are the best players statistically on the PP? Mike Reilly is #1 right now. The best forwards are in order Shaw, Tatar, Lehkonen, and Kotkaniemi. So maybe those should be our 5 guys to try on the first unit. The next 5 guys are Agostino, Armia, Domi, Drouin, and Weber. It's very clear those players are inferior at generating chances on the PP.

All this to say, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in face-off wins as being the reason why our PP stinks. It's much more important to find guys who can make good controlled zone entries and who can attack the defensive box and generate quick puck movement. Danault isn't that guy.

somebody did their homework......good info

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The efficiency is now down to 12.5 % — a goal on one of every eight power plays they receive — ranking dead last. Only three teams have fewer goals while an opposition player sits in the box, and that’s despite being seventh in total opportunities, with 152.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kinot-2 said:

 The efficiency is now down to 12.5 % — a goal on one of every eight power plays they receive — ranking dead last. Only three teams have fewer goals while an opposition player sits in the box, and that’s despite being seventh in total opportunities, with 152.

Its brutal.  I mean i get we dont have a Crosby or McDavid but this is getting ridiculous.


We have guys like Drouin, Domi and JK who all should be able to dish out passes.  We have arguably the best point shot in the league in Weber.  We have guys like Gallagher and Tatar who can finish.  And we have supporting players like Petry, Lehkonen, Byron - etc -  

There is no reason this PP should be any worse than middle of the pack.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to rag on Muller, but this has turned us into the joke of the NHL. At some point ( and i believe we've surpassed it) somebody's head needs to roll. I've always liked Captain Kirk but it's time to part ways IMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

I hate to rag on Muller, but this has turned us into the joke of the NHL. At some point ( and i believe we've surpassed it) somebody's head needs to roll. I've always liked Captain Kirk but it's time to part ways IMO.

I think Kirk has been inducted into the Bergevin foxhole :rolleyes:, which is the only fathomable reason why he got the 2 year contract extension in spite of the poor PP.  

Edited by PuckPundit
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PuckPundit said:

I think Kirk has been inducted into the Bergevin foxhole :rolleyes:, which is the only fathomable reason why he got the 2 year contract extension in spite of the poor PP.  

I'd still be OK with him on the staff (player development?) but something needs to change on the PP strategy. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.