Power Play Question

[Commandant]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

 

Of course, a PP built around feeding CC on the left half-boards is as predictable as was the Weber-PP (whether he was on the point or on the left-side) ... it is worth noting that great PP scorers like Ovechkin and Stamkos often score from "Caufield's Kitchen" from cross-ice passes as that also maximizes how far the goalie has to move.

 

There is nothing wrong with setting up Caufield for a one-timer from that spot.  That should be one of the weapons we use, maybe even the most used weapon. 

 

However, the issue is that its being overused, to the detriment of any other option, and becomes too predictable.

[DON]

Suzuki-Anderson 3 shots each, Caufield 1.

I like when Suzuki shoots more and Anderson was "ON" yesterday: now can Andy do that more than 40 games/yr and not appear bit disinterested the other 1/2 of the games.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:34 AM, Commandant said:

 

There is nothing wrong with setting up Caufield for a one-timer from that spot.  That should be one of the weapons we use, maybe even the most used weapon. 

 

However, the issue is that its being overused, to the detriment of any other option, and becomes too predictable.

 

I thought that, during that embarrassing 4-on-3 in OT, it was crashingly obvious that Burrows's instructions on the bench had boiled down to "get Caufield the puck." The players really had no idea what else to do once it became clear the Leafs were 100% focused on preventing the puck from getting to Caufield. Suzuki did let a good shot go at one point, and that was it for any danger on the PP.

 

I can't decide whether to be annoyed at Burrows for the likelihood that he did not give them any "Plan B" in the event of the entirely predictable eventuality that the Leafs would anticipate and neutralize Plan A; or whether I should respect the Habs' general coaching philosophy of not trying to overload the players with instructions, and having them focus only on certain things, by stages. From the latter viewpoint, the Habs have not yet addressed the PP in depth, so it's not surprising they looked so lame 4-on-3. 

 

It might also be possible to be annoyed with the players themselves, for not seeing what was happening and dynamically adjusting. But to my mind what we saw was young players earnestly trying to implement the coaches' instructions - which is a good mindset, on the whole. Of course that depends on the coaches' instructions being sound.

[hab29RETIRED]

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I thought that, during that embarrassing 4-on-3 in OT, it was crashingly obvious that Burrows's instructions on the bench had boiled down to "get Caufield the puck." The players really had no idea what else to do once it became clear the Leafs were 100% focused on preventing the puck from getting to Caufield. Suzuki did let a good shot go at one point, and that was it for any danger on the PP.

 

I can't decide whether to be annoyed at Burrows for the likelihood that he did not give them any "Plan B" in the event of the entirely predictable eventuality that the Leafs would anticipate and neutralize Plan A; or whether I should respect the Habs' general coaching philosophy of not trying to overload the players with instructions, and having them focus only on certain things, by stages. From the latter viewpoint, the Habs have not yet addressed the PP in depth, so it's not surprising they looked so lame 4-on-3. 

 

It might also be possible to be annoyed with the players themselves, for not seeing what was happening and dynamically adjusting. But to my mind what we saw was young players earnestly trying to implement the coaches' instructions - which is a good mindset, on the whole. Of course that depends on the coaches' instructions being sound.

Not sure if that was his instructions, or the players were just too focused on looking for Caufield because he is the purest scorer they have.

 

either way, they need to make a concerted effort to use Caufield as a decoy only for a while and only try and art him up if he is clearly open. Yesterday it was clear they were trying to force a pass to him, when there was no opening.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

10 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Not sure if that was his instructions, or the players were just too focused on looking for Caufield because he is the purest scorer they have.

 

either way, they need to make a concerted effort to use Caufield as a decoy only for a while and only try and art him up if he is clearly open. Yesterday it was clear they were trying to force a pass to him, when there was no opening.

 

The thing is, Suzuki - while no Caufield - can also rip the puck. I see that as a key part of their dynamic: if the other team focuses too much on CC, Suze goes in and scores himself. That almost happened when Suze got that sharp shot off, but Samsonov made the save and that was all she wrote.

 

That being said, a secondary scorer on the PP is obviously desirable. I don’t think much of RHP, but he does seem to be able to score goals, and unlike Anderson, does not need to do so off the rush. Maybe he could occupy a niche role as “secondary PP sniper.” 🤷‍♂️ Give Suzuki and Matheson and second option to pass the puck to.

[DON]

Ylonen, Heineman, Xhekaj, Mailloux & Slafkovski i think? all have very strong shots, if that is what is needed, down the road 'post' rebuild.

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, DON said:

Ylonen, Heineman, Xhekaj, Mailloux & Slafkovski i think? all have very strong shots, if that is what is needed, down the road 'post' rebuild.

doesn't Kovacevic also have a good shot?

[Commandant]

I dont know that its the shot that matters.

 

If you are looking at an umbrella, right to left you have suzuki, matheson, and caufield.

 

The other options have to be players playing down low. 

 

Id have dach as one for his size, puck control, passing, creativity and some scoring.

 

So then you have one spot left to help retrieve loose pucks and cause havoc in front of the net and score in close.  Id likely use RHP there.

 

But i dont think we need another person firing one timers.  We need options to score in tight to the net, backdoor passed, rebounds, etc.

 

That will draw defenders away from the shooters.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

36 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

doesn't Kovacevic also have a good shot?

 

It takes more than just a good shot. You also need a little vision, good passing skills and be able to find a lane to the net. In my opinion Mailloux ticks off all those boxes and will eventually be the point man on the power play. Of course he needs to work on his defense a bit but if we are just talking power play then he will be the guy. 

[DON]

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

It takes more than just a good shot. You also need a little vision, good passing skills and be able to find a lane to the net. In my opinion Mailloux ticks off all those boxes and will eventually be the point man on the power play. Of course he needs to work on his defense a bit but if we are just talking power play then he will be the guy. 

On the 2nd PP unit behind Hutson you mean, or paired with Hutson on 1st PP?

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 minutes ago, DON said:

On the 2nd PP unit behind Hutson you mean, or paired with Hutson on 1st PP?

 

I think Mailloux will be a better point man than Hutson as his shot is better and longer reach will help.  But that's just my opinion and I am no scout.  Hopefully they both turn out great. 

[DON]

9 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I think Mailloux will be a better point man than Hutson as his shot is better and longer reach will help.  But that's just my opinion and I am no scout.  Hopefully they both turn out great. 

In the spring habsworld ranked Mailloux 4th and Hutson 7th; but they just did a fan poll of top ten prospects, my guess is Hutson will be higher. But obviously hope both tear it up, see how Mailloux does in game #1 as a pro today and Hutson plays, his 2nd game today.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

23 minutes ago, DON said:

In the spring habsworld ranked Mailloux 4th and Hutson 7th; but they just did a fan poll of top ten prospects, my guess is Hutson will be higher. But obviously hope both tear it up, see how Mailloux does in game #1 as a pro today and Hutson plays, his 2nd game today.

 

Hutson could very well be ranked higher (by fans?) but they bring different skill sets.  Hutson is the more dynamic rushing defensemen but I think Mailloux's skill set lends itself better to playing the point on the PP in the NHL. 

[hab29RETIRED]

On 10/13/2023 at 8:24 AM, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

The thing is, Suzuki - while no Caufield - can also rip the puck. I see that as a key part of their dynamic: if the other team focuses too much on CC, Suze goes in and scores himself. That almost happened when Suze got that sharp shot off, but Samsonov made the save and that was all she wrote.

 

That being said, a secondary scorer on the PP is obviously desirable. I don’t think much of RHP, but he does seem to be able to score goals, and unlike Anderson, does not need to do so off the rush. Maybe he could occupy a niche role as “secondary PP sniper.” 🤷‍♂️ Give Suzuki and Matheson and second option to pass the puck to.

I I agree - Suzuki has a great shot. He needs to shoot more and not just think pass. The other guys on the PP also need to find openings for themselves and be ready to let it rip. We have a lot of guys that can score aside from Caufield- Suzuki, Newhook,, Dach, Anderson, Slafkovsky up front. Matheson, and Wifi on the backend. These guys when they are on the power play need to get to find openings for themselves and shoot from their position or strength.

 

post Markov, our PP consisted of setting up Subban for the big windup, or Weber from the big sapper from the point, or Pactioretty and that was it.
 

before that, Markov used to control the PP and use and setup everyone. He made a pylon like Souray a rich man, over the years he looked at all options and would setup everyone - Subban,  Pactioretty, Cammalleri, Koivu, Kovalev, Gionta, Gallagher, Cole, Ryder and he would also shoot himself. We need a guy like that.
 

When they have tried Suzuki on the point, he hasn’t had the same mindset, maybe he can develop  to play that type of role. Maybe Hutson can be that QB. But we gotta get away from the post Markov rut of trying to setup one guy. We have skilled guys that can shoot the puck. They just gotta start doing it!!

 

As great as Dach looks least game, he also needs to get rid of his tendency of skating around looking for someone to pass to, and let it rip, because t ams are going to start expecting him to pass if he doesn’t start shooting more.

[hab29RETIRED]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:01 AM, Commandant said:

I dont know that its the shot that matters.

 

If you are looking at an umbrella, right to left you have suzuki, matheson, and caufield.

 

The other options have to be players playing down low. 

 

Id have dach as one for his size, puck control, passing, creativity and some scoring.

 

So then you have one spot left to help retrieve loose pucks and cause havoc in front of the net and score in close.  Id likely use RHP there.

 

But i dont think we need another person firing one timers.  We need options to score in tight to the net, backdoor passed, rebounds, etc.

 

That will draw defenders away from the shooters.

Exactly. Markov used to use everyone that was out there and he would also get the writer through for rebounds. He didn’t just setup Souray and Subban for the big shots he used the whole unit. Right now they all seem to be passing around looking for their trigger man. We should have trigger men getting themselves open and ready to shoot and always having a couple of guys rotating in front of the net creating havoc for the goalie.

[hab29RETIRED]

23 hours ago, DON said:

On the 2nd PP unit behind Hutson you mean, or paired with Hutson on 1st PP?

Yeah, I think Hutson with his hockey IQ probably is the more likely PP QB.

[hab29RETIRED]

23 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I think Mailloux will be a better point man than Hutson as his shot is better and longer reach will help.  But that's just my opinion and I am no scout.  Hopefully they both turn out great. 

Your main point guy has to be able to control the play. I don’t see Mailoux playing that role. He can shoot it and looks to be a good passer. But I don’t see him being the main QB on the point. As a best case scenario I see him more in the Lapointe role, as opposed to being Robinson or Savard.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

17 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Your main point guy has to be able to control the play. I don’t see Mailoux playing that role. He can shoot it and looks to be a good passer. But I don’t see him being the main QB on the point. As a best case scenario I see him more in the Lapointe role, as opposed to being Robinson or Savard.

 

I guess time will tell. I was pretty impressed with Mailloux on the PP in an exhibition game against Toronto.  He seemed very confident. If Hutson turns out to be fantastic then I will be very happy. 

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Yeah, I think Hutson with his hockey IQ probably is the more likely PP QB.

 

2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I guess time will tell. I was pretty impressed with Mailloux on the PP in an exhibition game against Toronto.  He seemed very confident. If Hutson turns out to be fantastic then I will be very happy. 

 

 

 I think ultimately Hutson's quickness/agility in walking the line will put him ahead of Mailloux ... but having an effective QB on the 2nd unit can only make the PP more dangerous.

 

[Commandant]

On 10/13/2023 at 2:51 PM, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I think Mailloux will be a better point man than Hutson as his shot is better and longer reach will help.  But that's just my opinion and I am no scout.  Hopefully they both turn out great. 

 

I think the key is the smarts and the ability to create at that position.  Markov was more important to the PP than Souray/Subban/Weber IMO, and they all had a better shot and longer reach than him.  I think Hutson is gonna be the guy, much like Quinn Hughes is for Vancouver. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

55 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I think the key is the smarts and the ability to create at that position.  Markov was more important to the PP than Souray/Subban/Weber IMO, and they all had a better shot and longer reach than him.  I think Hutson is gonna be the guy, much like Quinn Hughes is for Vancouver. 

 

If Hutson turns out to be a great PP quarterback then great, since Hutson is a lefty and Mailloux a righty then they could be out at the same time. 

 

I never saw Souray as a particularly great PP quarterback, he had a big shot and that was it. Weber always looked for the big shot and was pretty one dimensional.  I think Mailloux has far better passing skills than both.  I absolutely agree that Markov was far more important to the PP. 

[GHT120]

5 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

If Hutson turns out to be a great PP quarterback then great, since Hutson is a lefty and Mailloux a righty then they could be out at the same time. 

 

I never saw Souray as a particularly great PP quarterback, he had a big shot and that was it. Weber always looked for the big shot and was pretty one dimensional.  I think Mailloux has far better passing skills than both.  I absolutely agree that Markov was far more important to the PP. 

Souray was never the PP-QB ... he was the howitzer

[IN THE HEARTS OF MEN]

I for one think newhook or Slav should be on right side of first wave. We need that one timer on both sides with Matheson on top

[Sir_Boagalott]

Umm, crazy question but is this issue really limited to just their PP?  I tend to think not.  i.e. they generally seem to have an issue when they're in the Ozone for a prolonged period.  ex: when they have the puck for 60-90 secs in the Ozone and have numerous chances yet produce 0 goals.  That scenario has become common for them in the last 4-5 years.  

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Umm, crazy question but is this issue really limited to just their PP?  I tend to think not.  i.e. they generally seem to have an issue when they're in the Ozone for a prolonged period.  ex: when they have the puck for 60-90 secs in the Ozone and have numerous chances yet produce 0 goals.  That scenario has become common for them in the last 4-5 years.  

Ideally, yes, but five-on-five is not nearly the problem that PP is.