Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

[PGT] Chicago Blackhawks at Vancouver Canucks | Feb. 12, 2020

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

That F***ing whistle had me livid. Officials playin' God, now?! If the Frackin play is an inch offside, let coaches gamble with a challenge afterwards.

 

It's a scam, & they consistently do these things to rig the deck.

Sure seems that way.  I've always thought these past several years that we get about the least benefit of the doubt when it comes to offsides calls.  Extremely frustrating.

  • Hydration 1
  • Sedinery 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Not enough space to describe complete changes.  One that stand out in systems is two forcheckers when the other team has clear possession.  We take away the D to D pass, which allows the other teams to move the puck to the neutral zone too easily to a forward with speed. That forces our D to back up too soon and we get a huge gap between those two forechecking forwards and our D.  This allows the other team to enter our zone with possession too easily, and we start chasing.  This causes us to play passive 

well.... I've heard the passive complaint all year about Green and I don't think its going to change. I don't mind the forechecking, if we win that battle then it gives us a good scoring chance but as you point out it comes at a cost. 

 

It seems to me like they've clearly decided that giving up a few more low % shots is a risk they're willing to take. What worries me is how a team like Winnipeg can take that and just dismantle us. I'd hate to match up with them in the 1st round.  

 

So for me the question is have they decided that another system just doesn't fit the skill set on the team? Can Green implement anything else? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well.... I've heard the passive complaint all year about Green and I don't think its going to change. I don't mind the forechecking, if we win that battle then it gives us a good scoring chance but as you point out it comes at a cost. 

 

It seems to me like they've clearly decided that giving up a few more low % shots is a risk they're willing to take. What worries me is how a team like Winnipeg can take that and just dismantle us. I'd hate to match up with them in the 1st round.  

 

So for me the question is have they decided that another system just doesn't fit the skill set on the team? Can Green implement anything else? 

Forecheck is great, but not when the other team has clear possession.  Then pressuring the D with the puck, and committing a second forward to taking away the d to d pass is a big mistake in systems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Just watched game (had to sleep after the very nice ceremony).    The game went pretty much as I expected.   Canucks were zapped for energy and never really caught up.   Playing on emotion is tough.   Very impressed they gutted the game out.   Marky was brilliant and positionally solid.   Players who seemed "out of sorts" and likely were overly impacted by the pregrame were EP40, Virtanen, Edler and Stecher.....perhaps interesting that two local kids and two Swedish players though Marky seemingly showed up so who knows.

 

Wouldn't put any barometer on this game whatsoever.    

Zep, have you noticed how we commit an extra forward on the forecheck to take away the d to d pass, even when the other team has clear possession?  What’s the advantage, if there is one, in doing that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Zep, have you noticed how we commit an extra forward on the forecheck to take away the d to d pass, even when the other team has clear possession?  What’s the advantage, if there is one, in doing that?  

It's just a 2-1-2 forecheck.

X1 pressures puck carrier to force a play/pass, X2 is moving into a passing lane or to pressure puck carrier outlet, and X3 stays high on strong side to get any clear attempts up the wall if X2 has taken away the low option.

  • Thanks 2
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, diesel_3 said:

It's just a 2-1-2 forecheck.

X1 pressures puck carrier to force a play/pass, X2 is moving into a passing lane or to pressure puck carrier outlet, and X3 stays high on strong side to get any clear attempts up the wall if X2 has taken away the low option.

But we’re doing that when the other team has clear possession.  This is the NHL.  Guys can all pass and skate.  If this is supposed to be a read by the forecheck (drop in to a 1-2-2 if the other team has clear possession) than I’m okay saying it’s a player’s mistake.  But we do it all the time, so I think it’s a systems mistake.  We are too often is a spot where the other team just passes the puck to a fast moving forward in the neutral zone.  Our D are then forced to back up, and we get a huge gap between those two forcheckers and out D.  It ends up being 3 on 3, with the other team having the puck, from our blue line in.  That’s really bad hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

The Canucks also are near the top of the NHL in takeaways and goals scored off of such which comes directly from that more aggressive approach.   I see a coaching style that is all about risk reward.   I find it funny that a fanbase who cried for more entertaining hockey now has a coach who is providing that but with that comes a lot more shot opportunities the other way.   While Marky/Demko have been forced to make some spectacular saves this season, the Canucks also have one of the best statistical trends in having clear shots (non-obstructed) which always have a very high %percentage and having one of the lowest "high chance" shot differentials in the NHL (e.g. the Canucks even when outshot are often ahead in the "high risk" shot differential).   

 

I would personally like to see the Canucks tighten up a bit but that is largely the job of having better skating Dmen and a bit more mobility up and down the lineup to play the style Green wants.   What I don't mind is how well the Canucks defend when "hemmed in" so to speak as they keep teams to the outside and give up few high % chances which can really frustrate another team.    

 

Canucks, like I have been saying all year Alf, are a work in progress.   I see them drafting and signing players who can first and foremost skate like the wind as that seems to be what the organization wants and they have a coach who embraces that.   It can backfire for sure but for now, it is nicely entertaining and currently at least has them on pace to make the playoffs.

Thank you for the detailed analysis.  Much appreciated.  

Zep are players in the NHL given the freedom to make reads on the forecheck?  Like be aggressive and take the d to d pass when opportunity is in our favour, but drop back into a more neutral zone trap when the possession is clearly theirs?  I see we do that when the other team has the puck on the stick, with head up, behind their net.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, diesel_3 said:

It's just a 2-1-2 forecheck.

X1 pressures puck carrier to force a play/pass, X2 is moving into a passing lane or to pressure puck carrier outlet, and X3 stays high on strong side to get any clear attempts up the wall if X2 has taken away the low option.

And to add, it only works well when the #2 forward can really anticipate where that pass is going. Lots of times you'll see a 2-1-2 and the second forward is kind of in a no-man's-land just guessing where it's going... and when it inevitably doesn't go there, the defending team is then off-balance and outnumbered going the other way.

 

I don't like the 2-1-2 as a general 'pressing' strategy. As a situational thing (IE Facing a "slower skating/not great passing defencemen" team/line) it can be just fantastic. But general day-to-day I wouldn't attach much success to it in the playoffs or any situation where you are facing the same opponent in a short stretch of time. The 1-2-2 where the 1 guy is very aggressive, and the next two are on 'their guy' is definitely safer and I've seen it lead to nearly the same number of turnovers as long as that #1 guy is relatively fast to really force the play and has lots of energy. That play breaks down when that forechecker is too slow or lacks endurance, which was our problem in past years - we just had no speed on that forecheck so they'd move the puck quickly.

 

 

I mean as a team we're winning, but we had no business winning that game last night. That game doesn't go that way 4 times in the playoffs.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

But we’re doing that when the other team has clear possession.  This is the NHL.  Guys can all pass and skate.  If this is supposed to be a read by the forecheck (drop in to a 1-2-2 if the other team has clear possession) than I’m okay saying it’s a player’s mistake.  But we do it all the time, so I think it’s a systems mistake.  We are too often is a spot where the other team just passes the puck to a fast moving forward in the neutral zone.  Our D are then forced to back up, and we get a huge gap between those two forcheckers and out D.  It ends up being 3 on 3, with the other team having the puck, from our blue line in.  That’s really bad hockey.

There needs to be pressure put on the puck carrier. It's not lacrosse or basketball where you give up possession and drop into a zone defense. X3 needs to stay high in order to be on the back check. If the D doesn't have FWD's backchecking, they are unable to gap up because it could cause a 2 on 1 coming in over the blueline, which happens a lot to guys like Myers who try to take away time and space at the blue line, just to have the opponent pass the puck over to his winger and create a 2 on 1 from top of circles in. 

 

If teams are going to forecheck, they need to still get back and put pressure in the neutral zone. It's not so much a systems error but the game being won or lost in the neutral zone, the Canucks need to be tighter checking and harder on the backcheck. I personally used to run the 1-2-2 because it is a really nice way to create turnovers using the '10 foot rule' on either side of the blueline, creating or having turnovers within the 10 foot rule is crucial. Plus, when you have the 2nd forward high as well, you have that much more support in the neutral zone.

 

But hey, it's Green's team and if the Canucks make the playoffs, he might have to adapt because you can't constantly give free passes in the middle of the ice.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brownky said:

And to add, it only works well when the #2 forward can really anticipate where that pass is going. Lots of times you'll see a 2-1-2 and the second forward is kind of in a no-man's-land just guessing where it's going... and when it inevitably doesn't go there, the defending team is then off-balance and outnumbered going the other way.

 

I don't like the 2-1-2 as a general 'pressing' strategy. As a situational thing (IE Facing a "slower skating/not great passing defencemen" team/line) it can be just fantastic. But general day-to-day I wouldn't attach much success to it in the playoffs or any situation where you are facing the same opponent in a short stretch of time. The 1-2-2 where the 1 guy is very aggressive, and the next two are on 'their guy' is definitely safer and I've seen it lead to nearly the same number of turnovers as long as that #1 guy is relatively fast to really force the play and has lots of energy. That play breaks down when that forechecker is too slow or lacks endurance, which was our problem in past years - we just had no speed on that forecheck so they'd move the puck quickly.

 

 

I mean as a team we're winning, but we had no business winning that game last night. That game doesn't go that way 4 times in the playoffs.

Exaclty, when I was with teams that ran 2-1-2, we always instructed X2 to hang around 'home base' mostly around the far post, so he is in position to put pressure in the opposite corner for D to D, or to pop back out front in case X1 gets a stick on the pass, causes a turnover, or a poor pass to a curling C ends up out front.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

Toews seems slow

just sayin

and he is still a whiner!

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, diesel_3 said:

There needs to be pressure put on the puck carrier. It's not lacrosse or basketball where you give up possession and drop into a zone defense. X3 needs to stay high in order to be on the back check. If the D doesn't have FWD's backchecking, they are unable to gap up because it could cause a 2 on 1 coming in over the blueline, which happens a lot to guys like Myers who try to take away time and space at the blue line, just to have the opponent pass the puck over to his winger and create a 2 on 1 from top of circles in. 

 

If teams are going to forecheck, they need to still get back and put pressure in the neutral zone. It's not so much a systems error but the game being won or lost in the neutral zone, the Canucks need to be tighter checking and harder on the backcheck. I personally used to run the 1-2-2 because it is a really nice way to create turnovers using the '10 foot rule' on either side of the blueline, creating or having turnovers within the 10 foot rule is crucial. Plus, when you have the 2nd forward high as well, you have that much more support in the neutral zone.

 

But hey, it's Green's team and if the Canucks make the playoffs, he might have to adapt because you can't constantly give free passes in the middle of the ice.

Nice answer.  Thanks 

You think Green plays this system because he believes if we give up 40 shots but get 30 ourselves that our players will score more on our thirty than the other teams’ 40 because we have great young players and better goalies?  

Even the Russians of the 70’s who always had the most talent and Tretiak in goal played a 1-2-2 when the other team had head up, puck on stick clear possession in their own end.   

I like your 1-2-2 philosophy better for us, even with Marky.  

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alflives said:

And how did that plan of shortening his bench early work out on the shot clock? Seriously, we got killed.  We needed young legs, and Bailey has those. 

Would you rather win the shots and lose the game?  Would that make you feel better?

 

I think Green did just fine here.  Bailey made at least one absolute bonehead play last night. In a must-win game for the fans, given the festivities, he made the right call.

 

The team was flat, no doubt.  Perhaps due to the Sedin show messing up their pre-game routines while they watch from an awesome perspective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Nice answer.  Thanks 

You think Green plays this system because he believes if we give up 40 shots but get 30 ourselves that our players will score more on our thirty than the other teams’ 40 because we have great young players and better goalies?  

Even the Russians of the 70’s who always had the most talent and Tretiak in goal played a 1-2-2 when the other team had head up, puck on stick clear possession in their own end.   

I like your 1-2-2 philosophy better for us, even with Marky.  

Who knows, he might feel that the 'new' NHL defenseman is all about that first pass. If you have a D man who can snap the puck up in quick transition, that's half the battle. Maybe he just wants time and space taken away and to force turnovers. The canucks have the speed and forecheck, but sometimes doesn't seem like it's consistent (which game in game out, consistency for all teams is pretty tough unless you're the '76 Habs or something). Green seems to trust that this offense can score in bunches, the D is more reliable than he thinks, and Marky is an animal (Fact).

 

Disclaimer: I was just a bum defensive systems Junior Coach, these guys know way more than I do and i'm sure there is plenty of rhyme or reason for what they do based on their specific personnel.

 

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
  • Sedinery 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.