kipwinger

Sure would be nice to have a defenseman with an awesome slapshot for these late game offensive zone faceoffs. But where would we find a guy like that?

This is weird. I'm not proud to say this, but a couple of games ago I watched Ericsson throw the puck up the sideboards, blind, and turn it over for about the 3,000,000th time and I thought to myself, "why doesn't HE ever get hurt?". And then he did. It was purely out of frustration at having to watch him needlessly throw the puck away over and over and over. Now, I'm not saying I am or am not happy about this. But I am saying that I've probably got superpowers.

I legitimately thought that without Roy these guys would be really good this season, predicted they'd make the conference finals (yikes!) in the bold predictions thread. That one is smarting right about now.

The point is that we had a better powerplay with the same, or worse, personnel. Which implies that it's the system/coaching that's the issue. It's not like we're mentioning it for kicks. It seems to suggest that our PP COULD be good with who we have now. You know, critical thinking, drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence available, etc.

Literally every player has gotten worse under Blashill. Sheahan is just an easy target. When your powerplay goes from 2nd in the league to the bottom, and all your players offensive numbers decrease dramatically, it's probably a systemic issue. Sheahan's definitely not playing well, but the level of scapegoating around here is pretty intense.

It always makes me laugh when I see how much grown adults hate Justin Bieber. Like people genuinely loathe a 22 year old kid for basically no reason at all. Sure he's douchey, but so is basically every celebrity. Fair play to Bieber for getting out there and trying. Kid's a hockey fan, clearly. It's maybe the only thing that all of us have in common with someone like him and people DESPISE him for it. I genuinely hope I don't end up being some miserable, 50 year old cynic, sitting around hating on kids one day. It's also reassuring to see that Chris Pronger hasn't changed as a result of his injuries. Despite all adversity he's still willing to run much smaller players into the boards from behind. Kudos Pronger, still a class act.

"Never wants to leave" is a stretch, but he just said this weekend that he and his family love being in Long Island. Then again, everyone says that so we'll see.

What's the measure for "leadership"? Lol.

I did. Don't mind admitting that Blashill wasn't the answer, and that I was wrong about that. But I don't think Babs was right for the team any longer either. All of the s*** people get pissed at Blashill for (constant line juggling, over reliance on mediocre veterans, conservative systems, etc.) Babcock did too. He just got more out of the players while doing it. The problem wasn't getting rid of Babcock, the problem (admittedly in hindsight) was that they got a less good version of Babcock to replace him with. Both guys are completely mismatched for the personnel this team has. Also, the notion that Babcock is the "most dominant coach in the league" is absurd. Joel Quenneville is second all time in wins and has 3 Stanley Cups. When it comes to winning NHL hockey games, and Championships, no active coach is as successful as Quenneville. Period.

Time to address this baffling son of a *****. Our zone entries are awful, we don't shoot nearly enough, and it takes us forever to get guys set up in position so the defense is never forced into the box. Whatever happened to the 1-3-1 powerplay that Jim Hiller ran a couple years ago in Detroit with such success? Whatever happened to using Nyquist and Tatar in the middle where they had so much PP success? It's like our coaches haven't ever thought "didn't we used to do this well? Maybe we should try that again". Let's talk all things powerplay. Here are my ideal powerplay setups. Go. Abby Vanek-Nyquist-Zetterberg/AA Green Mantha Sproul-Tatar-Neilsen/Larkin Jensen/Smith

How long do I think it would take to get used to a 3-1-3 powerplay? I dunno. A long time lol. I mean, you don't really play with 7 guys on the ice too often.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Sheahan HAS been practicing all season long. As an alternate to the net front guys on both units. Teams don't only teach PP and PK systems to the guys on the units. They teach alternates as well. And it's no problem plugging them in if there's an injury because all the guys have been practicing the EXACT SAME system. Let's say AA is the net front on 1-3-1 PP (as you indicated above), and Abby and Vanek are the net fronts on the 2-1-2 unit (as you indicated), and Sheahan is the alternate (which is feasible). And now there's an injury to AA. Neither of Abby or Helm can take his spot because they've been playing in a totally different system with totally different responsibilities, passing and shooting lanes, screening areas, rebound areas, etc. So Sheahan has to take AA's spot. But since it's just as likely that Abby or Vanek get injured as AA does, Sheahan has to learn how to plug into their pp system as well. Whereas if both units run the same system ALL your possible net front guys (AA, Abby, Vanek, Sheahan in your examples) learn the EXACT same system. So there's no issue if there's an injury. Now, apply that example to every other position on the ice. A point man on a 1-3-1 has very different responsibilities than on a 2-1-2. Same for the winger on the halfboards. Different shooting lanes, different passing options, different open areas on the ice, different strategies for moving the puck. Your idea requires (at least) some guys to learn both sytems, and ensures that any work you put into getting good at one system won't translate to the other because you wouldn't be doing the same things.

They know what to do because they play the same system on both units. Which is my point. The net front guy (for example) on both units has the same job. So when injuries happen he moves from the second to the first unit with no trouble. In your scenario they wouldn't have the same job, so there would be a learning curve. And learning curves reduce effectiveness. Same reason why NHL teams' AHL affiliates run the same systems. So that players don't have to learn something totally new when they get called up. Only instead of the relatively infrequent situation of a call up, you're talking about varying systems situation by situation, pp unit by pp unit. Nobody does it. If you disagree with that I'm sure you can find a few examples. I scoured the recesses of my mind and the internet and couldn't find any. If it's such an obviously good idea I'm sure bunches of teams have done it/continue to do it right?

You would have to learn two different systems because if you moved from one to the other (which happens all the time to all players all season long for pretty much all teams), as a result of injury or because either unit wasn't doing well, you'd have totally different responsibilities. And hockey players, like most pro athletes, ARE idiots. Ever watch Ericsson, or Smith, or Abby play and thought "he seems like a bright guy"? I haven't either. Put it to you this way. Nobody has EVER done it, in the 100 years of the NHL. Which leads you to three possible conclusions. 1. People have thought about it and not done it because it's a bad idea. 2. People have never thought about it, you're the first. 3. People think it's a good idea, but don't do it because they don't want to do something that is obviously a good idea. I'd bet all my money it's the first one.

I actually think coaches are right to emphasize process driven results. In any system with multiple moving parts you want the entire thing to work together to achieve a result. If it's working then any one individual part may no reap the benefits, but as a whole you'll be better. Think about every job you've ever had. If everybody were trying to do everybody else's job it wouldn't work too well. Obviously the issue is that our system isn't getting results. And that may be the result of a bad "process". Or it may be because some of the individual parts aren't good enough. And I understand why Blashill's vague references to "the process" grate on some. But that's not a unique characteristic of Blashill. Babcock talked about it CONSTANTLY. But it's probably true. As fans we have a tendency to think that we're not getting results because player X "doesn't care" or player Y "isn't trying/hungry/engaged". But that's probably too simplistic. It takes a team effort to scores most goals, and if Sheahan is doing what he's supposed to (I don't know if he is or isn't), he might not be the problem regardless of his goal totals.

You've advocated two different powerplay setups for a while now. I think it's a terrible idea. Each player would have to learn two different systems, which is confusing enough for a bunch of pro athletes (who aren't notoriously intelligent). It increases the likelihood of confusion about what you're supposed to do whenever you hit the ice. Plus, if you had an injury you couldn't exactly plug one person in for another considering all their practice and training would have been for the other type of powerplay. Hence why nobody, ever, has done it. Same reason I can't stand when coaches move guys from wing to center to wing to center all season long. Better to teach each player to do one thing well then multiple things which get in the way of each other.

He did play the point, but that was before the 1-3-1 was instituted. They also tried Samuelsson back there as well. Both were disasters. The thinking was that they've got got a good shot, so naturally they should be on the point. Which is dumb. First, point shots almost never score on the PP because the box is loaded with bodies and the shots don't get through. Second, both of those guys are slow, so they couldn't keep the puck in or get back on shorthanded chances. The two qualities you want from your point man on the 1-3-1 are good skating and good passing skills. A guy up top has pretty much zero chance of scoring on the PP anymore. You're better off putting your best shooters on the half boards where you can swing the puck over for a one timer before the defense has a chance to rotate over.

Because it would be stupid? If you're going to make a coaching change why wouldn't you wait until the offseason to see who else is available and then hire the best of those options? As the season goes along you might see a Laviolette, Tippet, etc. become available and they would obviously be better choices. Then again, I assume much of modern hockey baffles you Frank.

If you think "everyone is available" I don't know what to tell you. Sure, in theory, everyone should be available for a better player, but that's not how trades work anymore. You don't get high end returns anymore. You get prospects, picks, and rentals. I'm not trading any of AA, Larkin, Mantha, Nyquist, Tatar, Dekeyser for rentals, prospects, or picks. The return isn't worth what you'd be losing. I would take picks for Vanek, Smith, and/or Green, although they would have to be first rounders to make it worth while. There's no market for trading a goalie, so that's pointless. Abby, Ericsson (who I'd give away for nothing), and Helm have contracts that are hard to move and I'm not sure I'd move Helm and/or Abby anyway. Marchenko, Glen, Miller, Ott, etc. don't have any value so you wouldn't get anything worthwhile for them. Realistically the only trades worth making are a package around Nyquist, Tatar, or Dekeyser OR Vanek, Smith, Green for picks. That's pretty much it. So no, not everyone is available.

Also, given that there's absolutely no market for goalies at the moment there's really no easy way to move one. I think we're far better off holding on to both of them into the offseason to see if anything changes (which is doubtful). Trying to force a trade would require you to A) eat some of Howard's contract, which is dumb considering he's our better goalie right now, or B) sell low on Mrazek, who's been bad enough that you couldn't get good value for him. Neither is a good idea. I'm all for moving assets if you can get a return, but I'm never in favor of giving assets away (unless it's someone abjectly terrible like Kindl).

Here are a couple good articles explaining who should be in which positions on the ice, as well as another detailing the overall strategy of the 1-3-1. This one was written about the Penguins, but it details what players should be used in each position, and what skillsets you need where. You can easily plug our guys in for theirs based on their skillsets. http://www.pensburgh.com/2015/6/12/8769605/mike-johnston-wrote-the-book-on-the-1-3-1-power-play-so-why-dont-the This one is written about the Caps and does a good job of explaining how the puck should be moved around the perimeter, and which shots should be available as you do. http://www.japersrink.com/2013/1/18/3888886/capitals-1-3-1-power-play-oates-ovechkin Finally, here's one that discusses the different types of zone entries and their effectiveness. I'm surprised that the drop pass entry leads to the most shots per PP, something we desperately need to get better at. But I'm not surprised to see that it's the slowest and takes the longest to set up, which are things that play away from our skill set. http://www.nhlspecialteams.com/blog/2016/3/1/are-power-play-drop-pass-entries-effective

Which is the reasonable point of view. Clearly.

I think Marchenko is decent enough. He's good positionally, is a pretty solid passer, and is strong. He's not aggressive or physical (which I don't really care about), and he's not a great skater (which I do). I just don't really value the skillset he DOES have. The primary skill I think all defenseman need in today's game is the ability to get back to loose pucks quickly, turn, and get the puck up ice quickly either via pass or skating. He doesn't really get back that quickly, though he can pass the puck. I'd be fine with him as a 7th defenseman on the cheap. 3rd pair if someone is really struggling and you need to bench them. But not much more.

It might say something about your character Lefty lol. You seem to have a compulsion to find a team scapegoat regardless of their talent. Better take a long hard look man :-)

This Mrazek debate is hysterical. On the one hand you've got folks who think you completely dump a goalie who's struggling in favor of our veteran goalie who has struggled in the same way for big patches of his career. On the other side you've got someone who basically refuses to admit that Mrazek has every played a bad game in his career, or at least not one that was his fault.