Guillaume Brisebois | D

[Stierlitz]

 

[TheRussianRocket.]

 

[Derp...]

Would love to see him come out strong and make team Canada. Will probably need to be around a point per game though to do so.

[TheRussianRocket.]

 

[Derp...]

34 minutes ago, TheRussianRocket. said:

 

When you accidentally look at Fridays boxscore on Saturday?

 

Charlottetown lost 5-2 Breezer had 1 shot no points from what I could see

[stonecoldstevebernier]

A goal and an assist for Brisebois today in a 10-1 blowout vs Moncton. Up to 2-3-5 in four games now.

[TheRussianRocket.]

That's the definition of having hockey IQ.

[stonecoldstevebernier]

One goal for Brisebois today gives him 3-3-6 in five games now.

[elvis15]

On 10/11/2016 at 0:49 PM, TheRussianRocket. said:

That's the definition of having hockey IQ.

How so? It's a shot from the point that got through a screen during a PP for a team leading 7-1.

Edited October 14, 2016 by elvis15

[TheRussianRocket.]

7 hours ago, elvis15 said:

How so? It's a shot from the point that got through a screen during a PP for a team leading 7-1.

If it was that easy, everyone could/would do it.

 

Guessing you haven't played much hockey. Those simple/easy looking plays are the toughest to pull off. Easier said than done.

[elvis15]

It hardly proves hockey IQ. That's pretty basic on the intelligence scale to try and get a puck through a screen. It may take skill to achieve it with consistency, but not really IQ.

[Alflives]

On 10/14/2016 at 0:27 PM, elvis15 said:

It hardly proves hockey IQ. That's pretty basic on the intelligence scale to try and get a puck through a screen. It may take skill to achieve it with consistency, but not really IQ.

Hockey Q is an extension of keeping one's head up, while possessing the puck at speed and while under pressure.  If he's getting his shots through, he must be seeing the play in front of him.  This is a very good sign.

[Stierlitz]

 

[WeneedLumme]

On October 14, 2016 at 0:27 PM, elvis15 said:

It hardly proves hockey IQ. That's pretty basic on the intelligence scale to try and get a puck through a screen. It may take skill to achieve it with consistency, but not really IQ.

Actually it does require hockey IQ to get a shot through traffic. The players are not standing still, they are moving. To get the shot through consistently you need to project where they will all be when the puck gets to the net. Hitting the spot you are aiming for takes skill. Knowing where the opening will be when the puck gets to the net takes hockey IQ.

[elvis15]

8 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

Actually it does require hockey IQ to get a shot through traffic. The players are not standing still, they are moving. To get the shot through consistently you need to project where they will all be when the puck gets to the net. Hitting the spot you are aiming for takes skill. Knowing where the opening will be when the puck gets to the net takes hockey IQ.

I disagree. Maybe it's each person's definition of what hockey IQ is, but I only see a limited amount of what it'd take to essentially read a play and see when the screen will be at it's best and find a hole to get it through. For me, that's more geometry and skill to be able to actually put it where you want it than hockey IQ. It may take an intelligent person, but not necessarily one with high end hockey IQ to do it.

 

But for this particular situation he had the advantage of the extra man due to the PP and his team was already far outplaying the other team based on the score. Good for Brisebois to get the puck through, but I'm not going to use it as his shining example of the definition of hockey IQ.

Edited October 27, 2016 by elvis15

[Salmonberries]

The kid's real cool 'brise'.

[Alflives]

19 hours ago, Stierlitz said:

 

Stierlitz, I don't know how you find all the quotes, but I REALLY APPRECIATE them.

[Ray_Cathode]

22 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I disagree. Maybe it's each person's definition of what hockey IQ is, but I only see a limited amount of what it'd take to essentially read a play and see when the screen will be at it's best and find a hole to get it through. For me, that's more geometry and skill to be able to actually put it where you want it than hockey IQ. It may take an intelligent person, but not necessarily one with high end hockey IQ to do it.

 

But for this particular situation he had the advantage of the extra man due to the PP and his team was already far outplaying the other team based on the score. Good for Brisebois to get the puck through, but I'm not going to use it as his shining example of the definition of hockey IQ.

I disagree with you.  The skill involved in getting a shot through also involves seeing the play not from where your eyes are, but projecting where the gaps are from the location of the puck on your stick, it also requires moving and processing the visual field in front of you for an opening from the location of the puck on your stick to the net, through numerous players.  The same thing plays when in close to the net - picture the openings from where the puck is on your stick, not from the perspective of your eyes.  If you are a player, try it - if you are a left hand shot, there is a lot more room on the goalie's stick side than you think there is - your eyes tell you there is nothing there, but from the location of your stick - several feet to the left, if you are a left shot, there is an entirely different angle.  This was Morrison's, Messier's, and Coffey's favourite shot coming in off the right wing - left hand shot, low stick side goal - on a goalie with a left hand glove.  High skilled players have automatized that thinking method, so that it is an automatic, subconscious process, guys like Edler don't do it at all, which is why most of his shots hit someone's pads and too large a percentage of those cough back out behind him - so that we have the pleasure of watching him stumble as he tries to turn and chase.  Sadly, it's a teachable skill, too bad nobody bothered.

That skill has to be combined with walking the line, to change the angles, and to find a lane to shoot through.  If you don't think those aren't high hockey IQ plays, why don't more players do it?

 

[Alflives]

3 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

I disagree with you.  The skill involved in getting a shot through also involves seeing the play not from where your eyes are, but projecting where the gaps are from the location of the puck on your stick, it also requires moving and processing the visual field in front of you for an opening from the location of the puck on your stick to the net, through numerous players.  The same thing plays when in close to the net - picture the openings from where the puck is on your stick, not from the perspective of your eyes.  If you are a player, try it - if you are a left hand shot, there is a lot more room on the goalie's stick side than you think there is - your eyes tell you there is nothing there, but from the location of your stick - several feet to the left, if you are a left shot, there is an entirely different angle.  This was Morrison's, Messier's, and Coffey's favourite shot coming in off the right wing - left hand shot, low stick side goal - on a goalie with a left hand glove.  High skilled players have automatized that thinking method, so that it is an automatic, subconscious process, guys like Edler don't do it at all, which is why most of his shots hit someone's pads and too large a percentage of those cough back out behind him - so that we have the pleasure of watching him stumble as he tries to turn and chase.  Sadly, it's a teachable skill, too bad nobody bothered.

That skill has to be combined with walking the line, to change the angles, and to find a lane to shoot through.  If you don't think those aren't high hockey IQ plays, why don't more players do it?

 

Don't you think hockey IQ has a lot to do with having the elite skill of handling the puck with one's head up?  The elite IQ players rarely look down, and when they do (it's only for the briefest of moments) they are still processing the play.  I really like Jannik Hansen's understanding of this.  He doesn't try to stick handle oo much, because he lacks that skill.  He pushes the puck ahead, allowing him to  keep his head up, and still read the play.  

[elvis15]

15 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

I disagree with you.  The skill involved in getting a shot through also involves seeing the play not from where your eyes are, but projecting where the gaps are from the location of the puck on your stick, it also requires moving and processing the visual field in front of you for an opening from the location of the puck on your stick to the net, through numerous players.  The same thing plays when in close to the net - picture the openings from where the puck is on your stick, not from the perspective of your eyes.  If you are a player, try it - if you are a left hand shot, there is a lot more room on the goalie's stick side than you think there is - your eyes tell you there is nothing there, but from the location of your stick - several feet to the left, if you are a left shot, there is an entirely different angle.  This was Morrison's, Messier's, and Coffey's favourite shot coming in off the right wing - left hand shot, low stick side goal - on a goalie with a left hand glove.  High skilled players have automatized that thinking method, so that it is an automatic, subconscious process, guys like Edler don't do it at all, which is why most of his shots hit someone's pads and too large a percentage of those cough back out behind him - so that we have the pleasure of watching him stumble as he tries to turn and chase.  Sadly, it's a teachable skill, too bad nobody bothered.

That skill has to be combined with walking the line, to change the angles, and to find a lane to shoot through.  If you don't think those aren't high hockey IQ plays, why don't more players do it?

To be clear: I'm not saying it takes no hockey IQ, just that it's not the primary ability, nor is that play the definition of hockey IQ. If you have a high level shot with accuracy and understand the angles, that does more to getting a shot through than all the rest. And don't forget the circumstance I'm referencing - a game where they're on the PP against a team they're already far outplaying for the night - which probably makes the play a little easier.