Jump to content

Round 3, Game 2, Canadiens @ Golden Knights, 9:00PM EST


 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

And I think Danault (who has also dominated faceoffs in this series) has also seen a goal scored from one of the face-off set pieces.

 

Given that we'll never in 100% of the faceoffs, how does one defend against those effectively? Do the wingers need to be gunning for the Vegas D-men as soon as the puck is dropped? Blocking the lanes just results in heavy traffic and lack of visibility for Price, as we sa on the first Vegas goal last night.

Ice the puck less. More support on the breakout.  Price can play the puck a bit more instead of freezing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

And I think Danault (who has also dominated faceoffs in this series) has also seen a goal scored from one of the face-off set pieces.

 

Given that we'll never in 100% of the faceoffs, how does one defend against those effectively? Do the wingers need to be gunning for the Vegas D-men as soon as the puck is dropped? Blocking the lanes just results in heavy traffic and lack of visibility for Price, as we sa on the first Vegas goal last night.

Aim for scramble draw to let the defense setup, winger on the boards (outside winger) supports the centre to win the draw, winger in the slot (inside winger) goes to the point to cover the outside defenseman and get into the shooting lane.

 

The biggest key is to buy time from puck drop to possession.  Right now it’s seconds between the draw and the shot, not enough time to get into shooting or passing lanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as mitigating the vegas D men, the Habs wingers seem to be leaving them very open. So much so, that it can only be on purpose as they focus on collapsing and staying more to the centre of the ice.

perhaps it is strategy to allow these perimeter shots since Price is so solid.

Otherwise it is bad back checking as Vegas seems to be able to find the trailer (often a dman) joining the rush, again that would be the responsibility of the 4th/5th man back into the zone usually, and for whatever reasons the Habs forwards are being beat back up ice on their back check. Seems the two Habs d and first back checker do a good job eliminating options for vegas but the 4th or 5th man are coming in unchecked.

 

The 2nd vegas goal last night was direct result of left winger (Armia) not doing his role off the draw,  commentators were criticizing Petry, but that dman was the sole responsibility of the left winger off of the lost draw. Petry has the winger closer to the net to deal with as planned. That dman should never be that open, it was Armia’s responsibility on this play. He went to Perry’s man off the draw, along with Perry. With one pass they were both out of position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JoeLassister said:

I kinda blame the wingers a little bit for not being able to block the shot or at least cut the lane.

 

For sure.  I just thought it was an odd stat.  If you'd have asked me if I'd have been happy with Suzuki winning 70% of the draws in his own end, I'd have taken that in a heartbeat.  Three goals on three lost draws is hard to duplicate, that's one of those small sample size variances (as long as they tweak up the rotations off a lost faceoff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, hockeyrealist said:

The 2nd vegas goal last night was direct result of left winger (Armia) not doing his role off the draw,  commentators were criticizing Petry, but that dman was the sole responsibility of the left winger off of the lost draw. Petry has the winger closer to the net to deal with as planned. That dman should never be that open, it was Armia’s responsibility on this play. He went to Perry’s man off the draw, along with Perry. With one pass they were both out of position.

 

Nice catch.  A quick clip of that exact point:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Nice catch.  A quick clip of that exact point:

 

 

It would appear that Ducharme has not given them specific assignments. Otherwise it's hard to imagine them messing up this badly on a set play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

  Price can play the puck a bit more instead of freezing it. 

On the 1st goal, he passed puck directly to his d-man, who proceeded to immediately ice it. Not sure that this is the issue to worry about.

 

Anderson & Gallagher chipping in more on offense would surely help, not that Anderson didnt play well last game...checking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DON said:

On the 1st goal, he passed puck directly to his d-man, who proceeded to immediately ice it. Not sure that this is the issue to worry about.

I believe that was the play that Edmundson threw it up the ice at Armia to tip into the Vegas zone and Armia missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

I believe that was the play that Edmundson threw it up the ice at Armia to tip into the Vegas zone and Armia missed it.

Thought was Chiarot, but irrelevent and am sure Price was rolling his eyes a minute later when they scored.

Anyways, a win is a win and basically is all gravy since defeating the evil empire in the 1st round.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

I heard it argued that faceoff winning wasnt that important?:popcorn:

 

Its not... and winning 70% but giving up 3 goals on the three you lose show that.

 

The problem isn't with winning or losing the faceoff.   You can't expect better than 70%.  So the goal isn't to improve the number of faceoffs you win.

 

The problem is with what the wingers are doing .... and you have to fix what the people away from the puck are doing. 

 

So yes... faceoff win% doesn't matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Meller93 said:

Everyone loves a good Petry dish

Like Yvonne???!! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Its not... and winning 70% but giving up 3 goals on the three you lose show that.

 

The problem isn't with winning or losing the faceoff.   You can't expect better than 70%.  So the goal isn't to improve the number of faceoffs you win.

 

The problem is with what the wingers are doing .... and you have to fix what the people away from the puck are doing. 

 

So yes... faceoff win% doesn't matter. 

 

Safe to say that FO% doesn't matter, but specific FOs in specific game situations do.

 

What we really need is some sort of "key faceoff" metric. I'm sure it's out there, but that might be a more meaningful stat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DON said:

On the 1st goal, he passed puck directly to his d-man, who proceeded to immediately ice it. Not sure that this is the issue to worry about.

 

 

It's not a big issue. Icing and forwards coming back in support is bigger. He asked what the team can do. I said don't ice the puck. More forward support on breakouts. Don't freeze it unless you have to. Those are things they can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Its not... and winning 70% but giving up 3 goals on the three you lose show that.

 

The problem isn't with winning or losing the faceoff.   You can't expect better than 70%.  So the goal isn't to improve the number of faceoffs you win.

 

The problem is with what the wingers are doing .... and you have to fix what the people away from the puck are doing. 

 

So yes... faceoff win% doesn't matter. 

If its not icing, maybe a fast winger like Byron, Evans, Lehkonen on the outside of the circle, so he can disrupt the defenseman. I'm sure they're practicing this today. The nice thing is that it's a set play which can be countered with practice. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Safe to say that FO% doesn't matter, but specific FOs in specific game situations do.

 

What we really need is some sort of "key faceoff" metric. I'm sure it's out there, but that might be a more meaningful stat.

 

I dont think reducing the sample size is helpful.

 

One of the issues with face off percentage is that a faceoff is essentially a one-on-one puck battle... in a hockey game faceoffs are like 10% of the one on one puck battles in a game.  But we look at players faceoff percentage to see who wins that puck battle more often but we dont assign wins and losses to 90% of puck battles on the ice.  Thats a major issue. Imagine if we learned that our C1 is 45% in the faceoff circle but 60% winning battles on the boards.  Would it make us look at him differently? What about a C2 who is 58% in the circle but 35% on the boards.  Is he really a good matchup guy we want taking faceoffs in our own zone?  Thats the issue i have with faceoff percentage.

 

Then on top of that every D-zone faceoff is important.  We still have the same issue with suzuki.  He won 70% of his dzone draws through two games.  Most would say that is excellent.  His three losses are all goals against.  Part of that is losing the draw clean... yes.

 

Part of the goals against are also how his wingers have failed to get out to the points.  Thats gotta be a mark against his wingers and not against suzuki too.  So its more than just the centres faceoff percentage that matters.

 

But we look at one number on a page... faceoff percentage... and decide some centres arent getting it done and others are even though there is so much more to playing centre than draws.

 

How do they defend in the zone without the puck? How do they attack? How is their vision, passing skill, stickhandling, shot, hockey IQ, etc...

 

We put way too much emphasis on one small portion of a centre's game.

 

And really 4 goals on faceoffs on two games feels like something random happening over a tiny sample size that should not continue and is able to be fixed quickly by competent coaching before game 3.  I dont think this rate of scoring 2 faceoff goals a game will continue.  It cant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

If its not icing, maybe a fast winger like Byron, Evans, Lehkonen on the outside of the circle, so he can disrupt the defenseman. I'm sure they're practicing this today. The nice thing is that it's a set play which can be countered with practice. 

 

Icing hurts.

 

On the second vegas goal suzuki was clearly exhausted and would have headed to the bench as soon as the puck was out of our zone.

 

Instead, with no pressure on him.  Edmundson iced the puck.

 

Suzuki was so exhausted he couldnt tie up the draw and it was a clean win for vegas.  A few seconds later, we have another faceoff... now at centre ice.

 

So yes the icings are huge.

 

A chiarot icing led to the first goal in game 1 too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

The last 2 games were almost copies of each other.  Habs came out strong in the first and Vegas took over from the second on.  Vegas is dangerous off the face offs, as 4 of their 5 goals this series are from the face offs.  That’s from an outside perspective.  

What isn’t so apparent is Habs are doing a great job defensively.  Game 1 they had problems breaking out.  Game 2 it wasn’t nearly as bad, clear sign of adjustment.  The number of rush chances were lower in game 2.  Habs are winning more draws vs Vegas, which is odd as they were one one the worse in the playoffs up to this point at winning draws.

 

it’s been pointed out here already, Habs need to not lose the draws cleanly in their own zone.  They aren’t being punished for losing draws, just losing them cleanly.  Centre needs to tie up other centre and make every defensive zone draw a scramble draws, inside winger helps with draw and outside winger gets out into the shooting lane of his defenseman. That should negate nearly all the danger from the lost draw goals.  Which as of now is 80% of Vegas’ offense.  Habs are showing they can defend them, thanks to Price, so if they can clean that next aspect up, Vegas may be in trouble.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

Appreciate the smartidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

I dont think reducing the sample size is helpful.

 

One of the issues with face off percentage is that a faceoff is essentially a one-on-one puck battle... in a hockey game faceoffs are like 10% of the one on one puck battles in a game.  But we look at players faceoff percentage to see who wins that puck battle more often but we dont assign wins and losses to 90% of puck battles on the ice.  Thats a major issue. Imagine if we learned that our C1 is 45% in the faceoff circle but 60% winning battles on the boards.  Would it make us look at him differently? What about a C2 who is 58% in the circle but 35% on the boards.  Is he really a good matchup guy we want taking faceoffs in our own zone?  Thats the issue i have with faceoff percentage.

 

Then on top of that every D-zone faceoff is important.  We still have the same issue with suzuki.  He won 70% of his dzone draws through two games.  Most would say that is excellent.  His three losses are all goals against.  Part of that is losing the draw clean... yes.

 

Part of the goals against are also how his wingers have failed to get out to the points.  Thats gotta be a mark against his wingers and not against suzuki too.  So its more than just the centres faceoff percentage that matters.

 

But we look at one number on a page... faceoff percentage... and decide some centres arent getting it done and others are even though there is so much more to playing centre than draws.

 

How do they defend in the zone without the puck? How do they attack? How is their vision, passing skill, stickhandling, shot, hockey IQ, etc...

 

We put way too much emphasis on one small portion of a centre's game.

 

And really 4 goals on faceoffs on two games feels like something random happening over a tiny sample size that should not continue and is able to be fixed quickly by competent coaching before game 3.  I dont think this rate of scoring 2 faceoff goals a game will continue.  It cant.

 

Great post!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

And really 4 goals on faceoffs on two games feels like something random happening over a tiny sample size that should not continue and is able to be fixed quickly by competent coaching before game 3.  I dont think this rate of scoring 2 faceoff goals a game will continue.  It cant.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Petry’s bloodshot eyes were related to his upper body injury according to his wife.  
 

I’m no doctor, so how does broken fingers give you bloodshot eyes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

Petry’s bloodshot eyes were related to his upper body injury according to his wife.  
 

I’m no doctor, so how does broken fingers give you bloodshot eyes?

Possibly due to the blood-thinning effect of the anti-inflammatories he is surely taking for his finger injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TurdBurglar said:

Petry’s bloodshot eyes were related to his upper body injury according to his wife.  
 

I’m no doctor, so how does broken fingers give you bloodshot eyes?

Maybe he got slingshot face first on the board when he got his fingers stuck?

broke his nose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


Surely his moustache would have protected his nose. It’s like a car bumper  

As long as the moustache doesn’t tickle his nose making him pop a vein , we are in business 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...