wendythirteenthrashers Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I don't think we need our most offensively challenged dman on the powerplay just to play great defence. If this is in response to the SHG last night against the Canucks, Schneids should have never let that in. I would propose these lines: PP1 Sedin - Sedin - Kassian. Edler - Garrison. PP2 Higgins - Raymond - Burrows. Hamhuis - Barker. When everyone is healthy, that's a different story: PP1 Sedin - Sedin - Kassian. Edler - Garrison. PP2 Higgins - Kesler - Burrows. Hamhuis - Bieksa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Carell Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 tanev also rarely bobbles the puck at the line and is a smooth passer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 ??? What did AV have to do with letting Ehrhoff go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 KASS in front screening....garrison with a booming shot...Tanev for defensive safety....sedins HIGGY Raymond hansen.... Barker seems to find seams and get shots through.... Edler I guess ...at least Raymond can cover defensively with his speed .... I think the reason the game lines are always screwed with is because av always has to have defensively responsible peeps on each line.... ie...sedins/ burr That's why KASS isn't with them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 What's truly amazing to me about our most recent PP set-up is to have Schroeder on the 1st unit and then allow Edler to be the puck carrier rather than the off-side d-man, and then having him cover the point without Edler taking one timers. What is the point in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 There's the Rupert we all know and hate.....lol Nothing. AV is the one though who thinks any of those 4 guys is a good replacement for what Ehrhoff brought to the table....which is an epic failure in and of itself. And honestly, you think AV had no input on whether the rest of the team could make up for that loss? Absolutely he did. MG is the one who never should have let Ehrhoff go. He should have let Bieksa walk if they could only keep one or if AV was not going to try to use Ballard in that role. Bieksa brings a lot but his skillset is more replaceable especially when he becomes a high risk type guy like he has this year and last. If they used him and Hamhuis as shutdown guys I would think differently but once Ehrhoff was let go AV changed their role.....and sure they put up points but they caused a lot more against us too and were not nearly as effective overall. We already have Edler who is very high risk and shaky defensively......Ballard could have easily taken Bieksa's role on the team other than the coach's infatuation with right handed shots on D. At their best they are similar players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Nice work Wallstreet. I knew you could come up with some twisted way to blame AV for something that had nothing to do with him. You're always entertaining, I'll give you that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dildo_baggins Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 PP1 Sedin - Sedin - Higgins. (higgins is not afraid to stand infront of the net and has good hands in tight after rebounds) Hamhuis - Garrison PP2 Booth - Burrows - Kassian. Edler - Barker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 AV is the one who thinks any of those 4 guys replace Ehrhoff on the ice......that is absolutely a coaching fail as none are suited for it. I don't see how anyone could say that AV is isolated from that situation. He is the coach. h decides who does what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 He doesn't decide who gets offered what contract, which is what we were debating. He doesn't have a lot of choice regarding who replces Ehrhoff, since he can only play the guys that Gillis gives him. BTW: My reputation points say that I'm not nearly as "hated" as you seem to think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechamps Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 lack of confidence and determination. I think that sums it up. The skill is there but just the lack of confidence. 4-3 OT PP they were handling it like a hot potato. Except at the very end hansen drove it to the net that was the only power move. When Bieksa was around he would be the one that steps up when nobody wants it, carry it in, or take the shot when nobody's taking it. Same when erhoff was around. I think Barker will do well on the points. Tanev needs to work on his shot then he'd be a great fit, nice and calm. Schroeder's starting to look good too. Haven't bought in to garrison yet, he seems to playing like he's lost most of the time on what his role is offensively...just get open and pound it... the or's can be rotated out any given night PP1 Sedins -(Kassian/Burrows) Schroeder-(Garrison/Edler) PP2 Hansen-Raymond-(Higgins/Sestito) Hamhuis-(Barker/Ballard) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 There's the Rupert we all know and hate.....lol Nothing. AV is the one though who thinks any of those 4 guys is a good replacement for what Ehrhoff brought to the table....which is an epic failure in and of itself. And honestly, you think AV had no input on whether the rest of the team could make up for that loss? Absolutely he did. MG is the one who never should have let Ehrhoff go. He should have let Bieksa walk if they could only keep one or if AV was not going to try to use Ballard in that role or kept both and traded Ballard. Bieksa brings a lot but his skillset is more replaceable especially when he becomes a high risk type guy like he has this year and last. If they used him and Hamhuis as shutdown guys I would think differently but once Ehrhoff was let go AV changed their role.....and sure they put up points but they caused a lot more against us too and were not nearly as effective overall. We already have Edler who is very high risk and shaky defensively......Ballard could have easily taken Bieksa's role on the team other than the coach's infatuation with right handed shots on D. At their best they are similar players At the time, trading Ballard even for a pick would have actually amounted to trading Ballard for Ehrhoff (because they got t keep him for similar money). Any GM would do that deal I bet. The opportunity cost of stubbornly keeping Ballard to not use him was losing Ehrhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I agree letting Erhoff walk was big mistake... but it was the length... its obvious AV wanted him back its obvious Gillis wanted him back but in reality the length of the contract is what did it... imagine having Luongo's and Erhoff's Lifetime contracts on the books? I wonder what CDC would be like if the PP was still struggling and we still had Erhoff Erhoff was offered a pretty reasonable contract... Identical to Bieksa's if I'm not mistaken. Its not like they didn't try to sign him, sometimes the best you can offer is just not enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Can Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Changing the lines doesn't help anything if they don't change the plan. Every time a team struggles on the pp, eventually they seem to realize they need to simplify and get pucks on net with traffic and then they start to produce. They have one more guy then the other team, so any rebounds or loose pucks should be theirs most of the time. I see Burrows getting knocked around in front of the net out there, and for nothing, because they don't get the puck to the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I think our PP (and our whole game actually) would be much more unpredictable if Henrik would learn to shoot the puck a lot more than he does. He has a great shot when he uses it but you can see that teams know he will not shoot, so they cover the point guys like Edler much closer for the shot. Henrik still makes them look foolish with his sick passing of course but add in the unpredictability of a possible shot and it makes Henrik the focus leaving the points more open to shoot the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I completely agree with this, to add to it I would like Edler removed from the PP at least until he can be effective again as of right now it is not working at all. I saw one legitimate scoring chance all game on the PP, and it didn't come until the last few minutes of the game and was only because of Stuart getting hit with a puck making it basically a 5 on 3. I would also like to see Ballard and Garrison as the D pair on the first unit it is where they made names for themselves in the past. It was a little easier to keep Ballard off the point before when we had Edler playing well with Salo and Ehrhoff and Bieksa but no there is no excuse for Ballard not to be on the PP. It's not like we use him as a shut down D so AV and Bowness can't say we're saving his legs defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Guy who jostles in front of the net (doesn't have to be huge as Burrows and Kesler do a damn good job of this). This year Kes and Burr spend far less time here and it makes things far too easy on our opponents both on the original shot and gives them ample time to clear reboundsCollapse down when the opportunity presents itself. The perimeter is a good place to be for retaining possession after a rebound pops out of the slot, or to shake checks and shift the defenders. But if you're not taking one-timers, defense should collapse in and forwards should do the same. This makes passes and one-timers quicker, leaving the goalie and defenders less time to react and uses the PK group as a massive screen on the goalie. This also means rebounds are much less likely to be retrieved and cleared by the PKOh yeah, and 2 defenders who can one-time it aka Garrison and Edler That's pretty much it. Honestly, our ability to control and protect the puck on the PP is a huge foundation to build on. We're not as far off from being an offensive juggernaut on the PP as some people seem to think. It really does look like this team has taken a step back though, which I get is frustrating. Personally, I almost wonder if they're sandbagging because they've abandoned a lot of common sense hockey plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Sedin Sedin Kassin Edler Garrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 maybe instead of having 3 players standing on the blueline waiting for our defenceman to race up the ice and drop pass the puck to one forward racing to get it before the other team does, maybe try to enter the zone with speed and back the oppontent up in their own zone. watch games from 09-10 on how the pp worked in those seasons. Sami Salo point shot shoot the puck from the point, if it doesn't get through, that means you hit someone with it, in turn next time your take a slap shot someone might not be willing to take another puck shot to the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 For two days we were discussing AV's use of Ballard and his lack of PP time in the other thread. At the time you made no mention of support for Ballard getting PP time let alone 1st unit PP time. Instead you said that the 'cream rises to the top.' Today you say you agree with this assessment. What happened in the last 48 hours that made you decide that Ballard was now the cream and that the coaching staff is using him incorrectly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.