The Powerplay

[kipwinger 8,769]

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

 

[kipwinger 8,769]

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

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

11 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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

Too bad our coaches don't listen to what works but continues with the insane asinine ways that are getting the same results....

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Lol didnt Hudler play point on the 1-3-1 for like 2 games?

[kipwinger 8,769]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Lol didnt Hudler play point on the 1-3-1 for like 2 games?

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. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

30 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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. 

Not sure if i care so much about skating from the point man. Passing definately. The only time i want a shooter at the point is if its a guy who claps bombs. Like a Shea Weber, which obviously we dont have. Then clean up the rebounds.

Id rather see Nielsen at point than Jensen or Smith.

[krsmith17 7,191]

I'd like to see a different setup for each unit. 2-1-2 and 1-3-1...

Vanek                 Mantha

          Zetterberg

Green                 Larkin

Vanek and Mantha down low on their strong shooting / passing side. Zetterberg directing traffic and making plays from the middle. Green and Larkin on the points, again in position to make a one-time shot or pass.

           Athanasiou

Sproul   Nyquist   Tatar

              Nielsen

Athanasiou plays net front, has great hands to deflect pucks and speed to retrieve. Sproul and Tatar are the trigger men, on their strong shooting / passing sides. Nyquist is in the middle for the shot from the slot if it's open. Nielsen is up top as the QB, directing traffic and making plays.

[kipwinger 8,769]

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. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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. 

Completely disagree. Why would every player need to learn both systems? They wouldn't. If there's an injury now, with one system the new player still needs to learn the system. Makes no difference with two. You make it sound like hockey players are idiots... Every single player on both power-play units have learned how to play all the different power-play systems throughout their hockey careers. It's not rocket science. The ONLY thing two different systems would do, is make it harder on the opposing penalty killing units. It would force other teams to be on their toes and always keep them guessing.

[kipwinger 8,769]

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Completely disagree. Why would every player need to learn both systems? They wouldn't. If there's an injury now, with one system the new player still needs to learn the system. Makes no difference with two. You make it sound like hockey players are idiots... Every single player on both power-play units have learned how to play all the different power-play systems throughout their hockey careers. It's not rocket science. The ONLY thing two different systems would do, is make it harder on the opposing penalty killing units. It would force other teams to be on their toes and always keep them guessing.

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.

Edited January 21, 2017 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

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.

You're really making it seem a LOT more difficult / confusing than it really is. Again, even when there are two units with the exact same system, injuries happen. Does that mean, when the next man up comes in, they're completely out of place and have no idea what is going on? Hell no. You know why? Because they practiced for a day or two in that system and they now know it. That's what off day / game day practices are for... And no, hockey players in general are not idiots, far from it. Especially when talking about hockey sense, knowledge of the game they've played their entire lives and payed millions of dollars a year to play... 

Do you really think, in my scenario, if we had to for whatever reason, take Mantha off the first unit and put him on the second in Larkin's spot or even Athanasiou's spot, that he would forget how to play hockey? Probably not. He's told to play right point or net front instead, and he practices in that position for one day, everything is fine. Do you think everyone else on that second unit is going to be confused? S*** what happened to AA, where did Mantha come from... *gives puck away*...

So what happens mid game when a player from one of the units gets injured? Do we go with one unit for the rest of the game because the other unit is all of a sudden useless? No, we insert someone else, and they don't miss a beat.

In the end, whether it's even strength, power-play, penalty kill, they're just playing the game. There is always movement all over the ice, rotating coverage in the defensive zone, cycling in the offensive zone, so they're never set at one position, or at least they shouldn't be.

As for the "Nobody has EVER done it, in the 100 years of the NHL" part, I'd love to know where you came up with that... Is this fact, or are you just stating it as fact. Somehow I find it very difficult to believe that as fact...

[kipwinger 8,769]

6 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You're really making it seem a LOT more difficult / confusing than it really is. Again, even when there are two units with the exact same system, injuries happen. Does that mean, when the next man up comes in, they're completely out of place and have no idea what is going on? Hell no. You know why? Because they practiced for a day or two in that system and they now know it. That's what off day / game day practices are for... And no, hockey players in general are not idiots, far from it. Especially when talking about hockey sense, knowledge of the game they've played their entire lives and payed millions of dollars a year to play... 

Do you really think, in my scenario, if we had to for whatever reason, take Mantha off the first unit and put him on the second in Larkin's spot or even Athanasiou's spot, that he would forget how to play hockey? Probably not. He's told to play right point or net front instead, and he practices in that position for one day, everything is fine. Do you think everyone else on that second unit is going to be confused? S*** what happened to AA, where did Mantha come from... *gives puck away*...

So what happens mid game when a player from one of the units gets injured? Do we go with one unit for the rest of the game because the other unit is all of a sudden useless? No, we insert someone else, and they don't miss a beat.

In the end, whether it's even strength, power-play, penalty kill, they're just playing the game. There is always movement all over the ice, rotating coverage in the defensive zone, cycling in the offensive zone, so they're never set at one position, or at least they shouldn't be.

As for the "Nobody has EVER done it, in the 100 years of the NHL" part, I'd love to know where you came up with that... Is this fact, or are you just stating it as fact. Somehow I find it very difficult to believe that as fact...

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?

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

So in your scenario, both units the exact same system, Abdelkader gets injured. Either later that game or the next game, Sheahan is put in his place. He has absolutely no idea what to do because he hasn't been practicing on the power-play all season long. What happens? Learning curve equals reduced effectiveness right? Sheahan is lost out there, finds himself skating in circles, forgetting how to hockey, the power-play is a failure... Or maybe, Sheahan comes in and plays in front of the net and the power-play continues as normal..

Okay maybe a little hyperbole, but the point is, they're hockey players, they can adapt to different systems pretty quickly. 

I'm not sure if two different units has ever been done, and if not, why? But to say the reason it hasn't is because it's too much to expect of the players because they're dumb, is absurd. 

No point in arguing it though. Blashill or Torchetti aren't about to do it, but if it were up to me, which is what I thought this thread was about, that's what I'd do. Maybe it would be a huge success, maybe it would be a complete failure, but it can't be any worse than it currently is...

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

When comparing ourselves to other teams,  the biggest difference I notice is our complete lack of confidence and willingness to attack.  

That and we can't seem to put the puck on net very well at all.  We've got alot of the right pieces.  Just can't seem to put them together. 

It's kind of like watching a game of hot potato. 

[kipwinger 8,769]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

So in your scenario, both units the exact same system, Abdelkader gets injured. Either later that game or the next game, Sheahan is put in his place. He has absolutely no idea what to do because he hasn't been practicing on the power-play all season long. What happens? Learning curve equals reduced effectiveness right? Sheahan is lost out there, finds himself skating in circles, forgetting how to hockey, the power-play is a failure... Or maybe, Sheahan comes in and plays in front of the net and the power-play continues as normal..

Okay maybe a little hyperbole, but the point is, they're hockey players, they can adapt to different systems pretty quickly. 

I'm not sure if two different units has ever been done, and if not, why? But to say the reason it hasn't is because it's too much to expect of the players because they're dumb, is absurd. 

No point in arguing it though. Blashill or Torchetti aren't about to do it, but if it were up to me, which is what I thought this thread was about, that's what I'd do. Maybe it would be a huge success, maybe it would be a complete failure, but it can't be any worse than it currently is...

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. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

They may review tape with the "alternates", but very rarely do you have subs for power-plays during practice. You have two units practicing, and that's it. Others are practicing penalty kill, working on faceoffs, battle drills, or just skating / shooting. So no, Sheahan doesn't practice on the power-play unless he's expected to be playing on that unit in the next game...

You're really making it seem WAY more complex than it really is. Net front is net front, no matter what system. Same goes for half boards, point, slot, etc. No player is (should be) stationary on the power-play. Vanek (and any other player) can and does play down low, point, slot, all over the ice. Changing from a 3-1-3 to a 2-1-2 shouldn't change their mindset drastically. 

You're suggesting that they change from their current system to a 3-1-3. How long do you think it would take for the players to learn / get used to it? Weeks? Days? Or a practice or two? My guess is the latter... Again, these players are not idiots. They understand systems and strategies of the game, and it would take any one of them little to no time to adapt.

If for whatever reason, they decided to put Glendening on the power-play, after a single practice he would understand his role (whatever it is). He would suck at it, but he'd be capable of playing their despite never getting any reps in practice before.

Anyway, I don't see the harm in trying it. What we're currently doing clearly hasn't been working. You think it's a terrible idea. I'm okay with that.

[kipwinger 8,769]

6 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

They may review tape with the "alternates", but very rarely do you have subs for power-plays during practice. You have two units practicing, and that's it. Others are practicing penalty kill, working on faceoffs, battle drills, or just skating / shooting. So no, Sheahan doesn't practice on the power-play unless he's expected to be playing on that unit in the next game...

You're really making it seem WAY more complex than it really is. Net front is net front, no matter what system. Same goes for half boards, point, slot, etc. No player is (should be) stationary on the power-play. Vanek (and any other player) can and does play down low, point, slot, all over the ice. Changing from a 3-1-3 to a 2-1-2 shouldn't change their mindset drastically. 

You're suggesting that they change from their current system to a 3-1-3. How long do you think it would take for the players to learn / get used to it? Weeks? Days? Or a practice or two? My guess is the latter... Again, these players are not idiots. They understand systems and strategies of the game, and it would take any one of them little to no time to adapt.

If for whatever reason, they decided to put Glendening on the power-play, after a single practice he would understand his role (whatever it is). He would suck at it, but he'd be capable of playing their despite never getting any reps in practice before.

Anyway, I don't see the harm in trying it. What we're currently doing clearly hasn't been working. You think it's a terrible idea. I'm okay with that.

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. 

[kylee 727]

PP1:

Forward - Forward - Forward

Forward - Green

 

PP2:

all forwards 

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

Whenever I watch other teams it seems like they never stop moving their feet. The Wings are constantly standing will, and when they do move it's a very telegraphed shift.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

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. 

You know what I mean...  1-3-1...