travel_dude Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 23 minutes ago, JTech780 said: My pet peeve with the PP is the bump back play where the defenseman carries the puck to center ice and then drops it back to the forward. This isn't just a Gulutzan thing either, Hartley did it, most teams will do it from time to time. We just seem to do it on every entry, it's so telegraphed that you aren't catching any team by surprise. The reason I dislike it is that basically all your players except 1 end up stopping at the blueline and only 1 player is hitting the blueline with speed. When you have 4 of your players standing at the blueline plus 3 of the other teams players standing at the blueline where is the puck carrier supposed to go? I agree with you summary. I hate it. If you want Johnny to carry it in, then do it with the forwards moving at the same speed. If he chips it in, the forwards can go get it. If he carries it in, the defenders are not able to stand at the line and you have a better chance at setting up a trailer. I haven't seen much working with Brouwer on the 1st unit. Maybe they would be better off using him as a 4th forward. Load up the top unit with Ferland on RW. Having two d-men on the unit seems to set up for the point shot every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 One other note for me on the PP, is that Gaudreau and Bennett in particular have to move the puck quicker when they finally do get setup. Teams know that those two like to hold onto the puck and make plays so they are being extra aggressive with attacking them when they have the puck, and the best way to combat that is to move the puck quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 9 minutes ago, JTech780 said: One other note for me on the PP, is that Gaudreau and Bennett in particular have to move the puck quicker when they finally do get setup. Teams know that those two like to hold onto the puck and make plays so they are being extra aggressive with attacking them when they have the puck, and the best way to combat that is to move the puck quicker. I would like to see some movement from the other players when these guys have the puck, otherwise it's going to go back to the point. It's like they are playing tabletop hockey and just spinning instead of getting open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 I don't disagree with the zone entry and that it needs work but at the same time for me it doens't really matter. There is no urgency or 'desire" once they are in the zone anyway. Everyone sticks to the outside and just moves the puck around. No one drives, no don't tries to slip inside, no one tries to move down low to suck down defenders etc. Point shots are great, but when you are that easy to defend you are going to have 1-2 guys in the lane everytime and that prevents point shots. Got to get around that. That's also not really a "scheme" issue, that's individual players. If you are that ineffective when you have the puck it doesn't really matter how you ge into the zone. That's where my frustration lies in the PP, just no urgency jump or will from any of the PP guys right nwo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 3 hours ago, JTech780 said: My pet peeve with the PP is the bump back play where the defenseman carries the puck to center ice and then drops it back to the forward. This isn't just a Gulutzan thing either, Hartley did it, most teams will do it from time to time. We just seem to do it on every entry, it's so telegraphed that you aren't catching any team by surprise. The reason I dislike it is that basically all your players except 1 end up stopping at the blueline and only 1 player is hitting the blueline with speed. When you have 4 of your players standing at the blueline plus 3 of the other teams players standing at the blueline where is the puck carrier supposed to go? I believe that was Pat Quinn's contribution to the game in the 1990s. The idea was to break the Swedish line formation (they loved to trap) by dropping the puck to someone quickly coming in over the line. It is quite effective when done properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 PP was much improved tonight. They went away from the bump back play and seemed to be able to get into the zone much easier. Once in the zone they moved the puck around, they weren't holding onto it and got Chicago moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstrike Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 Not sure if this goes here but I don't want to make a new thread for shootouts nor do I want to hijack the goaltender thread. I guess shootouts are special enough. As well as BE played in the shootout, he wouldn't have needed to stop 7 shooters if the flames could've hit the dang goal. I had to listen on radio, so maybe I'll amend this when watching highlights, but it seemed the flames either missed the net or hit iron most of the time. At least make the goalie perform a save. Hard to win if your team can't put the puck on net. BE managed to hold the fort until someone scored. We need to do better at getting the puck on the net though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 8 hours ago, xstrike said: Not sure if this goes here but I don't want to make a new thread for shootouts nor do I want to hijack the goaltender thread. I guess shootouts are special enough. As well as BE played in the shootout, he wouldn't have needed to stop 7 shooters if the flames could've hit the dang goal. I had to listen on radio, so maybe I'll amend this when watching highlights, but it seemed the flames either missed the net or hit iron most of the time. At least make the goalie perform a save. Hard to win if your team can't put the puck on net. BE managed to hold the fort until someone scored. We need to do better at getting the puck on the net though. The Flames site used to have a full summary with videos of the shootout plays. But to your point, the Flames had shots that were inches wide or posts. The dekes tended to end up on the goalie's pads. The Hawks either missed the net or Elliott deflected it away. Some really goos saves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 9 hours ago, xstrike said: Not sure if this goes here but I don't want to make a new thread for shootouts nor do I want to hijack the goaltender thread. I guess shootouts are special enough. As well as BE played in the shootout, he wouldn't have needed to stop 7 shooters if the flames could've hit the dang goal. I had to listen on radio, so maybe I'll amend this when watching highlights, but it seemed the flames either missed the net or hit iron most of the time. At least make the goalie perform a save. Hard to win if your team can't put the puck on net. BE managed to hold the fort until someone scored. We need to do better at getting the puck on the net though. They hit 2 posts (squarely I might add) and 2 of the dekes beat Crawford but he got just enough to make the save. Need to give him credit too. It's frustrating when a team doesn't score, but not sure its something to worry about. Several of the Flames were literaly an inch away from scoring. Only thing that dissapointed me was Backlund. come on man you don't pull out the Forsberg when you have a chance to win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, cross16 said: They hit 2 posts (squarely I might add) and 2 of the dekes beat Crawford but he got just enough to make the save. Need to give him credit too. It's frustrating when a team doesn't score, but not sure its something to worry about. Several of the Flames were literaly an inch away from scoring. Only thing that dissapointed me was Backlund. come on man you don't pull out the Forsberg when you have a chance to win... Crawford was the only reason we even needed a shootout. Could have been 4-0 in the first. Gio and Brouwer were both posts in the shootout; Gio was dead on, while Brouwer's was crossbar. The 4 minute PP was deflating, a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 PP is a different beast now that Wideman is back. Just compare the PP while he was sitting to to his return.. huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstrike Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said: PP is a different beast now that Wideman is back. Just compare the PP while he was sitting to to his return.. huge difference. Question is, is that a function of Wideman or is it coincidence? Does Wideman help us get into the O-zone, which has been one of the biggest issues with the PP, for example? Not trying to knock a player, but not convinced it's all because of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, xstrike said: Question is, is that a function of Wideman or is it coincidence? Does Wideman help us get into the O-zone, which has been one of the biggest issues with the PP, for example? Not trying to knock a player, but not convinced it's all because of him. Wideman had two goals all of last season. He has 2 goals and 4 points in his 5 games this season. He is also tied for top spot in plus minus among Flames D. I don't know if the power play has improved just because of him. I don't know if this is a blip or a sign of a turn around. But at the least his play is much improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 9 hours ago, kehatch said: Wideman had two goals all of last season. He has 2 goals and 4 points in his 5 games this season. He is also tied for top spot in plus minus among Flames D. I don't know if the power play has improved just because of him. I don't know if this is a blip or a sign of a turn around. But at the least his play is much improved. Let's all hope his play stays "much improved", he is here and we need him to play well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Wideman has been good but IMO he is not the catalyst for the improved PP, he is a beneficiary of an improved PP. The PP got better becuae they stopped standing around and moved the puck. The last 2 games their puck movement has been excellent. Quick/Crip passes and not just around the perimeter but also throught he box and they are getting the PK and the goalie to move. The plus side Widmena has brought is he has been able to get his shots through and not many other dmen can, but he didn't prove the catalyst for the improved PP the group collectively started executing fundamentals much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC923 Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 So back to the same old incompetent PP last couple of games. And to top it off of PK is terrible as well. Do we give the coaches the season to figure out special teams? I'm not seeing a lot of progress here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertaBoy12 Posted November 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 2 hours ago, ABC923 said: So back to the same old incompetent PP last couple of games. And to top it off of PK is terrible as well. Do we give the coaches the season to figure out special teams? I'm not seeing a lot of progress here... Its 12 games into the season. Give it time, the flames arent about to fire the coaches 12 games in, they will get at least a season or two, if they didnt I would be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 Let's make Cameron a healthy scratch for a few games, see if that helps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 16 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Let's make Cameron a healthy scratch for a few games, see if that helps... Maybe trying the same units and same structure on a PP, when it doesn't work, makes no sense. The PK is ok, but it's a different coach. The PP should be easy to improve on from last year. They tried 4F and Brodie, but it seems to me Brodie was not playing that well. Kulak was good on the PP. Hamilton is usually good on the PP. Yokipakka isn't a ball and chain. Maybe try this for a change: JH-Bennett-Frolik Yokipakka-Hamilton Bennett-Backlund-Ferland Gio-Brouwer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC923 Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 Is the PK ok? Two more goals against this game, and we sit in the bottom 3 teams or so when it comes to the PK. I don't think we look good, and the results back me up on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 The PK was on the right track but it's been terrible lately. They seem to have gone back to the same PK system Hartley used, which was terrible. Lots of single man, high pressure with no net coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 One thing I have noticed recently is that Engelland is playing the PK more than say Brodie, Kulak and Jokipakka. Engelland with 2:36, Brodie and Hamilton with 15 seconds and Jokipakka with no PK time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertaBoy12 Posted November 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 23 minutes ago, travel_dude said: One thing I have noticed recently is that Engelland is playing the PK more than say Brodie, Kulak and Jokipakka. Engelland with 2:36, Brodie and Hamilton with 15 seconds and Jokipakka with no PK time. Engelland was at fault on the first pp goal, he gave perry far to much room in front of the net allowing for the play to the goal. Overall I have liked engelland on the pk tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 38 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said: Engelland was at fault on the first pp goal, he gave perry far to much room in front of the net allowing for the play to the goal. Overall I have liked engelland on the pk tho. 4 guys in close proximity, so I don't think you can point the finger at one. My point is that he is not super fast, so I am surprised that he is getting so much PK time. I didn't expect him to have more time than Brodie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstrike Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 7 hours ago, travel_dude said: Maybe trying the same units and same structure on a PP, when it doesn't work, makes no sense. The PK is ok, but it's a different coach. The PP should be easy to improve on from last year. They tried 4F and Brodie, but it seems to me Brodie was not playing that well. Kulak was good on the PP. Hamilton is usually good on the PP. Yokipakka isn't a ball and chain. Maybe try this for a change: JH-Bennett-Frolik Yokipakka-Hamilton Bennett-Backlund-Ferland Gio-Brouwer I'd go with Tkachuk over Ferland for the 2nd unit. Nothing against Ferland, but I think Tkachuk has better hands and better offense. Also you used Bennett twice so... was that supposed to be Tkachuk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.