The Canuck Power Play (discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

Ok, it is only 2 games, but this issue, and was a topic of discussion all last year as well.

 

So, I asked myself, Self, is our break out and zone entries, really the way, in which to create the best scoring chances and results?

 

I then took the next 30 seconds to google #1 The top PP teams from 2018 - 2019, and zone entry video, from the Washington Capitals

 

Again, this took approx. 30 seconds (actual Time)

 

I came up with a very interesting read, which I suggest our most vocal of fans should read (More ammo for you)

 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/04/18/zefr-rate-a-new-and-better-way-to-evaluate-power-plays/

 

I love things like this, it shows you what being stuck with only one system will do to you (Canucks) and what multiple systems can do for you.

 

It also, spells out very clearly, that the neutral drop pass, is not the most effective way, to gain the offensive zone, or in the end produce PP goals.

 

In the end, it also spells out where and how the goals are scored...aka.....off the entry, after the team has set up, or on a broken, none system type of scramble

 

I suggest you take a look...…….IMO, this is worth a read

 

Lastly, my final thought is....Are our coaches capable of recognizing there are better, more proven entries?

 

Here is a peek

 

This is the Single Swing, the Capitals’ primary zone entry play; they didn’t invent it, but they use it more than any team in the league, and it’s alarmingly effective. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the above diagram looks like a page out of a football playbook, and note how every player on the ice has a specific role. Even T.J. Oshie, who likely won’t touch the puck, is used as a decoy to open space at the top of the ice, making the puck carrier’s task significantly easier. This play is also designed and implemented in the interest of limiting the time it takes the team to get set up once in the zone. Every player enters at the east-west location where they will ultimately reside and quite possibly score. The Caps can consistently be in formation 2-3 seconds after entering the zone, something very few other teams can say. Here are a few examples of that entry scheme:

 

For those that are not hockey players/coaches...…..the dotted lines are 3 options, that the defenseman has to chose from, when breaking out of his zone

The dashes are players movements, during the PP breakout...….(Notice Oshie, skating along the blue line ( that is to pull the Defenseman with him....as illustrated by the blue defenseman having shown movement, by the dashes, as it pulls the defenseman out of position and allows the offensive players to gain entry unattested.....

 

This system gives Washington a 44% success rate, on their entries with possession...….the rest you can read for yourself

 

Regards Jan

 

PS...…...there is no video, as when I got to this, I pretty much stopped looking (again, after 30 seconds)

 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by janisahockeynut

[singing chef]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ok, it is only 2 games, but this issue, and was a topic of discussion all last year as well.

 

So, I asked myself, Self, is our break out and zone entries, really the way, in which to create the best scoring chances and results?

 

I then took the next 30 seconds to google #1 The top PP teams from 2018 - 2019, and zone entry video, from the Washington Capitals

 

Again, this took approx. 30 seconds (actual Time)

 

I came up with a very interesting read, which I suggest our most vocal of fans should read (More ammo for you)

 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/04/18/zefr-rate-a-new-and-better-way-to-evaluate-power-plays/

 

I love things like this, it shows you what being stuck with only one system will do to you (Canucks) and what multiple systems can do for you.

 

It also, spells out very clearly, that the neutral drop pass, is not the most effective way, to gain the offensive zone, or in the end produce PP goals.

 

In the end, it also spells out where and how the goals are scored...aka.....off the entry, after the team has set up, or on a broken, none system type of scramble

 

I suggest you take a look...…….IMO, this is worth a read

 

Lastly, my final thought is....Are our coaches capable of recognizing there are better, more proven entries?

 

Here is a peek

 

This is the Single Swing, the Capitals’ primary zone entry play; they didn’t invent it, but they use it more than any team in the league, and it’s alarmingly effective. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the above diagram looks like a page out of a football playbook, and note how every player on the ice has a specific role. Even T.J. Oshie, who likely won’t touch the puck, is used as a decoy to open space at the top of the ice, making the puck carrier’s task significantly easier. This play is also designed and implemented in the interest of limiting the time it takes the team to get set up once in the zone. Every player enters at the east-west location where they will ultimately reside and quite possibly score. The Caps can consistently be in formation 2-3 seconds after entering the zone, something very few other teams can say. Here are a few examples of that entry scheme:

 

For those that are not hockey players/coaches...…..the dotted lines are 3 options, that the defenseman has to chose from, when breaking out of his zone

The dashes are players movements, during the PP breakout...….(Notice Oshie, skating along the blue line ( that is to pull the Defenseman with him....as illustrated by the blue defenseman having shown movement, by the dashes, as it pulls the defenseman out of position and allows the offensive players to gain entry unattested.....

 

This system gives Washington a 44% success rate, on their entries with possession...….the rest you can read for yourself

 

Regards Jan

 

PS...…...there is no video, as when I got to this, I pretty much stopped looking (again, after 30 seconds)

 

 

 

This is spectacularly impressive but........................instead of making it available to all the readers on this site,  SEND IT TO NEWELL BROWN !!!!!

 

Well done.   Cheers.

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 minute ago, singing chef said:

 

This is spectacularly impressive but........................instead of making it available to all the readers on this site,  SEND IT TO NEWELL BROWN !!!!!

 

Well done.   Cheers.

That crossed my mind...lol

 

That was a funny one! Good job!

[singing chef]

In the very late 60's and early to mid 70's the Montreal Canadiens were dubbed "The Flying Frenchmen" and focussed on "headmanning the puck";  i.e. forward passes exiting the D zone to forwards who were in full stride.   I believe what you have shown in your presentation is the Capitals copying just that concept.  It worked well back then too  ! 

[Snapshot85]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ok, it is only 2 games, but this issue, and was a topic of discussion all last year as well.

 

So, I asked myself, Self, is our break out and zone entries, really the way, in which to create the best scoring chances and results?

 

I then took the next 30 seconds to google #1 The top PP teams from 2018 - 2019, and zone entry video, from the Washington Capitals

 

Again, this took approx. 30 seconds (actual Time)

 

I came up with a very interesting read, which I suggest our most vocal of fans should read (More ammo for you)

 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/04/18/zefr-rate-a-new-and-better-way-to-evaluate-power-plays/

 

I love things like this, it shows you what being stuck with only one system will do to you (Canucks) and what multiple systems can do for you.

 

It also, spells out very clearly, that the neutral drop pass, is not the most effective way, to gain the offensive zone, or in the end produce PP goals.

 

In the end, it also spells out where and how the goals are scored...aka.....off the entry, after the team has set up, or on a broken, none system type of scramble

 

I suggest you take a look...…….IMO, this is worth a read

 

Lastly, my final thought is....Are our coaches capable of recognizing there are better, more proven entries?

 

Here is a peek

 

This is the Single Swing, the Capitals’ primary zone entry play; they didn’t invent it, but they use it more than any team in the league, and it’s alarmingly effective. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the above diagram looks like a page out of a football playbook, and note how every player on the ice has a specific role. Even T.J. Oshie, who likely won’t touch the puck, is used as a decoy to open space at the top of the ice, making the puck carrier’s task significantly easier. This play is also designed and implemented in the interest of limiting the time it takes the team to get set up once in the zone. Every player enters at the east-west location where they will ultimately reside and quite possibly score. The Caps can consistently be in formation 2-3 seconds after entering the zone, something very few other teams can say. Here are a few examples of that entry scheme:

 

For those that are not hockey players/coaches...…..the dotted lines are 3 options, that the defenseman has to chose from, when breaking out of his zone

The dashes are players movements, during the PP breakout...….(Notice Oshie, skating along the blue line ( that is to pull the Defenseman with him....as illustrated by the blue defenseman having shown movement, by the dashes, as it pulls the defenseman out of position and allows the offensive players to gain entry unattested.....

 

This system gives Washington a 44% success rate, on their entries with possession...….the rest you can read for yourself

 

Regards Jan

 

PS...…...there is no video, as when I got to this, I pretty much stopped looking (again, after 30 seconds)

 

 

Absolutley.... pre planned high speed moving options makes for way faster passing and setups. The plays over and your in before the PK realise exactly what's going on.

 

There's a reason  football teams draw plays like this... its so everyone know there roll and can help execute a successful play.

They sure dont wing it!!!!

 

Nice read Jan !

[GhostsOf1994]

Boeser Horvat Pettersson 

              Ferland

              Hughes

 

Baertschi  Miller Gaudette 

         Edler Myers 

 

P.k.

 

Sutter Roussell 

Edler Tanev

 

Beagle Virtanen

Benn Myers

 

Ferland Pettersson Boeser 

Miller Horvat Virtanen

Baertschi Gaudette Sutter

Roussel Beagle Leivo

Motte

 

 

Edler Myers 

Hughes Tanev

Benn Stecher 

Fantenberg 

 

Eriksson, Schaller & Pearson waived or traded Schaller or Pearson for RHD depth?

 

 

[BrockBoester]

Yeah, I cringed a little bit inside every time I saw that neutral zone drop pass on the powerplay last year.

 

It worked maybe like 1 out of 5 times.

 

Definitely helps to have multiple plays and set-ups for your powerplay units, not just the same one for all situations. They should be tailored and refined to exploit the type of PK that they are playing against.

 

That being said I think there will be a lot of experimentation early on this year to try to find the right mix with our newly revamped line-up. A little bit of growing pain early on, sure, but once they fall into the right groove, I personally believe it will be magical to watch.

 

Now if only big Ferkland can channel some Todd Bertuzzi-esque net front chaos, I have a feeling we'll start seeing a lot more one-timers from Boeser and/or Petey, a few of which will inevitably bounce off the big man and be credited to his goal total.

 

I honestly would like to just load up the first unit with Miller, Ferland, Boeser, Petey and Hughes, and then run Bo with maybe two of Gaudette/Pearson/Virtanen/BAERTSCHI and have Eddy and Myers on the blue line ripping shots while Bo fights for the middle of the ice.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

Long breaks between pre- and reg-season games to start. The team will find their groove when they have a dense stretch of meaningful games.

[Tinky-Winky]

Canucks powerplay will always suck till they fire newell brown ...hes past his prime and we need someone fresh and new ...dont know why he still with us, his PP style sucked last year, that shoulda been enough to let him go

[Glug Datt]

I've despised that drop pass for years, it's like watching a slow motion car wreck.. I think it used to be more effective with the Sedins but now it's painful. you mention Caps 44% success rate at zone entry - where are we at? 25?

 

getting set up is hard enough, without watching Leivo bobble a pass and starting over..

 

I've also noticed sometimes Bo will make a great rush and gain the zone, only to make a shot - why not wait for help and set up? 

 

I think it's a confidence thing, and as the team gels and Hughes gets more comfortable, the pp will improve.. if not, NB will likely be flipping burgers

[Chickenspear]

I understand why the drop can be effective, backs the defense to their own zone, offense hits the zone with speed. What I don't understand, is why they continue with that drop pass every time, when the opposing team has a floater ready to pick it off between the 2 drop options... saw it numerous times over the past couple years where our d man took a look, waited, then tried to pass around the defender as if it was absolutely critical to get the pass back... that being said, you don't have to entirely change everything. Keep them guessing. Leave one drop option, pull the other forward up to the opposing neutral zone. If the drop is covered, then its a 4 on 3 rush where you can skate it in, do the old sedin blueline give and go, or chip and chase. After a few entries that way, they may stop covering the drop to defend the odd man rush. That's where you re-employ the drop effectively. It's hard to watch them go back to a well that dried up years ago, gotta let it fill up a bit.

[Neutral]

Throw Virtanen a bone and give him a few games on the 2nd PP unit. Kid deserves some kind of offensive linemates does he not? got to give the 6th overall pick a proper opportunity to thrive playing with our top 6 talent in my opinion. Otherwise waste of a pick if they peg him as a bottom 6 grinder

[brownky]

26 minutes ago, Chickenspear said:

I understand why the drop can be effective, backs the defense to their own zone, offense hits the zone with speed. What I don't understand, is why they continue with that drop pass every time, when the opposing team has a floater ready to pick it off between the 2 drop options... saw it numerous times over the past couple years where our d man took a look, waited, then tried to pass around the defender as if it was absolutely critical to get the pass back... that being said, you don't have to entirely change everything. Keep them guessing. Leave one drop option, pull the other forward up to the opposing neutral zone. If the drop is covered, then its a 4 on 3 rush where you can skate it in, do the old sedin blueline give and go, or chip and chase. After a few entries that way, they may stop covering the drop to defend the odd man rush. That's where you re-employ the drop effectively. It's hard to watch them go back to a well that dried up years ago, gotta let it fill up a bit.

That's the worst part of this.

 

They leave that floater high, that's fantastic. Now if everybody hits the jets and skates in, it's a short zone-time 5 on 3 because their guy got trapped waiting to pick off that drop pass.

 

It's not easy to plug the zone with only 3 defenders. Pick a side, the one with the 'worse' defence and blow in along the wall. Congrats, zone gained. Set up, because the PK is going to either start chasing (which is awesome, but unlikely) or drop immediately into the box, just without the benefit of catching their breath as somebody skates it back from Markstroms crease after having seen it at centre ice.

 

[Chickenspear]

7 minutes ago, brownky said:

That's the worst part of this.

 

They leave that floater high, that's fantastic. Now if everybody hits the jets and skates in, it's a short zone-time 5 on 3 because their guy got trapped waiting to pick off that drop pass.

 

It's not easy to plug the zone with only 3 defenders. Pick a side, the one with the 'worse' defence and blow in along the wall. Congrats, zone gained. Set up, because the PK is going to either start chasing (which is awesome, but unlikely) or drop immediately into the box, just without the benefit of catching their breath as somebody skates it back from Markstroms crease after having seen it at centre ice.

 

Did you mean 4 on 3? Sorry, it's early, not enough coffee in me yet. Because they wouldn't leave a floater high if there wasn't a drop pass recipient waiting. Even then on a 4 on 3 zone entry as the PK gets back into position, there's a lot of soft spots that open up. 

[luckylager]

It's not just their entries, it's the static positioning once they actually gain the zone.

Not enough player movement / fluidity to get the keeper moving east west; cross ice passes have to travel 50ft tape to tape and give him too much time to square up.

I'd love to see more player movement in the cycle

Edited October 9, 2019 by luckylager

[Chickenspear]

3 minutes ago, luckylager said:

It's not just their entries, it's the static positioning once they actually gain the zone.

Not enough player movement / fluidity to get the keeper moving east west; cross ice passes have to travel 50ft tape to tape and give the him too much time to square up.

I'd love to see more player movement in the cycle

It's not like they're creating 2nd and 3rd chances off a shot either. Too many 1 and done's where either the goalie sees the shot the whole way and absorbs the rebound, or the shot misses the net, giving the PK time to reset or  recover and clear the puck. 

[brownky]

37 minutes ago, Chickenspear said:

Did you mean 4 on 3? Sorry, it's early, not enough coffee in me yet. Because they wouldn't leave a floater high if there wasn't a drop pass recipient waiting. Even then on a 4 on 3 zone entry as the PK gets back into position, there's a lot of soft spots that open up. 

No, it'd be theoretically 5 for a short time. The floater would be heading in the wrong direction (to pick up that pass) or stationary-ish to pick up the drop pass, and be caught flat footed if everybody just powers forward and the drop guy isn't back behind our net or something. Especially if that 'drop guy' is someone with big wheels like Jake or something and he gets rolling as a bit of a decoy.

 

I mean the lag time would be a few seconds at best, but that can make all the difference.

[J.I.A.H.N]

52 minutes ago, luckylager said:

It's not just their entries, it's the static positioning once they actually gain the zone.

Not enough player movement / fluidity to get the keeper moving east west; cross ice passes have to travel 50ft tape to tape and give the him too much time to square up.

I'd love to see more player movement in the cycle

This is a good point LL

 

I mean, we see, how the drop pass is such a risky, and easily defended attack scheme, when it is your only PP  scheme. Which it appears to be.

 

But, in saying that, it is not the only thing which appears to be wrong, is it? Because, because the players are way too stationary, once they have entered......

 

At the end of last year, when the Canuck's were 3 on 3, and they had Petey, Brock and Quinn out there, it was electrifying, and my thought was

WOW, they just keep moving and attacking......to be honest, it was so refreshing and successful

 

I thought, I could not wait too see our PP, with that much motion...….I have not seen it yet this year, as the players are very stationary

 

Then I watch other teams and there the motion is, and its fun to watch and successful...…….

 

I am not a Newell Brown fan, but some blame falls on Green, because ultimately, he guides the ship, so I guess, really, as much as I like Green

it is up to him, to the larges extent.

 

What baffles me more, is that we all see it, and they don't. What baffles me, is the other teams using these schemes, and we don't...…..

 

To me, these are the reasons that Newell Brown gets roasted on here......maybe we should be giving Green a little love as well

 

It is early...….there is time to improve...…..IMO, we have the personell

Edited October 9, 2019 by janisahockeynut

[luckylager]

28 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

This is a good point LL

 

I mean, we see, how the drop pass is such a risky, and easily defended attack scheme, when it is your only PP  scheme. Which it appears to be.

 

But, in saying that, it is not the only thing which appears to be wrong, is it? Because, because the players are way too stationary, once they have entered......

 

At the end of last year, when the Canuck's were 3 on 3, and they had Petey, Brock and Quinn out there, it was electrifying, and my thought was

WOW, they just keep moving and attacking......to be honest, it was so refreshing and successful

 

I thought, I could not wait too see our PP, with that much motion...….I have not seen it yet this year, as the players are very stationary

 

Then I watch other teams and there the motion is, and its fun to watch and successful...…….

 

I am not a Newell Brown fan, but some blame falls on Green, because ultimately, he guides the ship, so I guess, really, as much as I like Green

it is up to him, to the larges extent.

 

What baffles me more, is that we all see it, and they don't. What baffles me, is the other teams using these schemes, and we don't...…..

 

To me, these are the reasons that Newell Brown gets roasted on here......maybe we should be giving Green a little love as well

 

It is early...….there is time to improve...…..IMO, we have the personell

What's really killing me about our 0/10 season start on the PP is that NB hasn't even tried to change anything.

 

Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result is insanity. Some really smart guy said that once.

[JayDangles]

2 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

Throw Virtanen a bone and give him a few games on the 2nd PP unit. Kid deserves some kind of offensive linemates does he not? got to give the 6th overall pick a proper opportunity to thrive playing with our top 6 talent in my opinion. Otherwise waste of a pick if they peg him as a bottom 6 grinder

No. Stop saying this, No. Virtanen should not be gifted anything. Virtanen should earn things. After 4 years, he should have figured this out, after 4 years CDC should have figured this out. No