Power Play Frustrations

[higgyfan]

Canucks have some great scoring talent.  They are still adjusting to all the new faces and the impact of top players missing training camp (and some season games).   Now that they have an extended home stand, they will have time to practice and experiment with the PP.

 

I am more concerned with the PK, as I don't believe they have the + talent.  They will improve with practice, but I don't see the PK becoming much more than average in the league.

[Makaramel MacKhiato]

I wonder if we'll seee something different now that we can actually have a practice?

[Grape]

8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Myers has a hard, inaccurate shot.

 

Hughes has an average, inaccurate shot.

 

OEL has a hard, accurate shot.

 

For the D shot to be an option, they have to fear it enough to spread the PKers out to guard against it. That one adjustment alone might be enough room for EP to uncork a one timer. 

Hughes' shot is inaccurate? Not disagreeing, it's just that I've always perceived him to have an accurate shot. There's no way he has that many goals with such an average velocity without the accuracy, right? The one thing I wish he did more was keep the puck closer to the ice, as it seems like he likes to elevate his shot, which makes rebounds harder to get to.

[combover]

Until they change everything the result will be the same regardless of who’s on the ice. 
 

shmidt is doing just fine in WPJ in fact his stats are better than oels 

 

N.S

3 power play assist 

6 points total 

+5 

oel

1 pp goal

2 points total 

+1 

 

coaching is this teams biggest problem 

new faces every season same results. 

green and baumer don’t know how two get the most out of the players they have it’s not a new problem. 
 

pp needs to be overhauled let the players that are creative create.

imagine if the sedins had to play this way no slap pass no cycle in the corner just pass around the perimeter till ep or BB get a one timer and don’t forget the slow motion drop pass.  
Same goes for stagnant pk the passive stand and watch.

 

 
 

 

 

[Tyndall2]

Didn't OEL run the Coyotes pp most of the time?  Why are we paying him big bucks to sit on the bench for 3/4 of the power play?  I totally agree with many of the suggestions about changing up the players and the style.  Put Schenn in front of the net and see what happens.  Like Boston did with Chara that one season.  Can't be any worse.

[J-P]

I agree that OEL should be on the PP1 with QH and that the formations should be more evenly balanced with Boeser and either Miller or Horvat on PP2.

 

But most of all, someone needs to tell Miller and EP to shoot the puck. Not one time out of 10 but more like one time out of 2.

[alt kilgore]

Chaisson is a one dimensional player. He has one job. Stand if front of the net on the PP. 

 

But we have to dress him for games, even if that is the only thing he does, because he's the only player we have with the incredible skills it takes to stand in front of the net I guess. Seems odd that that is such a difficult position to fill. Burrows is the last player that was willing to do that on a consistent basis.  

 

I agree with most that there is just not enough movement on the PP.  They seem committed to the collapse into a box approach not only for their PK, but their PP as well!  Just a different, bigger, but predictable box.

 

I don't have the same insight as an NHL coach, believe it or not, but by my eye test, watching the other more successful teams, that for both the PK and the PP, an attacking, mobile, method works best.  Yes there are risks.  On the PK, being caught out of position, chasing,  leading to a tap in.  On the PP, risking keeping possession, giving up the space up high between the points.  But in its favour is the chaos and confusion it causes for the other team. It leads to compounded mistakes, leading to more chances.....to either score, or if on the PK, to get possession enough to shoot it out. 

 

I also think that if players have this static box mentality on the PK, it's more difficult to flip a switch to the offence.  If the team is always in the attack mode, as a general game plan, it makes it easier. Even coming off of a static PP, its more difficult to flip to the more fluid pace of 5 on 5. Maybe I'm way off on that, that's just what it seems like watching, not only the Canucks, but other teams approach in comparison.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

Chaisson is a one dimensional player. He has one job. Stand if front of the net on the PP. 

 

But we have to dress him for games, even if that is the only thing he does, because he's the only player we have with the incredible skills it takes to stand in front of the net I guess. Seems odd that that is such a difficult position to fill. Burrows is the last player that was willing to do that on a consistent basis.  

 

I agree with most that there is just not enough movement on the PP.  They seem committed to the collapse into a box approach not only for their PK, but their PP as well!  Just a different, bigger, but predictable box.

 

I don't have the same insight as an NHL coach, believe it or not, but by my eye test, watching the other more successful teams, that for both the PK and the PP, an attacking, mobile, method works best.  Yes there are risks.  On the PK, being caught out of position, chasing,  leading to a tap in.  On the PP, risking keeping possession, giving up the space up high between the points.  But in its favour is the chaos and confusion it causes for the other team. It leads to compounded mistakes, leading to more chances.....to either score, or if on the PK, to get possession enough to shoot it out. 

 

I also think that if players have this static box mentality on the PK, it's more difficult to flip a switch to the offence.  If the team is always in the attack mode, as a general game plan, it makes it easier. Even coming off of a static PP, its more difficult to flip to the more fluid pace of 5 on 5. Maybe I'm way off on that, that's just what it seems like watching, not only the Canucks, but other teams approach in comparison.

Nope you are 100% correct.

[Maddogy]

I think the biggest problem is that PP is not shooting from the point enough. The most chaos you can generate for the opponent is to have a very hard low shot at the goalie, producing rebounds, everyone scrambles and the goalie is hanging on for his dear life. While many PP goals are scored with perfectly placed passes and shots many others were scored with broken plays and rebounds. They need to simplify the PP.