Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan
Play well, get good results.
He’s not the greatest coach, but we can see that the effort level isn’t consistent.
|
The problem I have with that assessment is it ignores the other team. They're also paid $70M to have a consistent effort level, play well, and get good results. More often than not, the other team does show up.
Tonight vs. the Leafs, the Flames showed up and put in a good effort, and the Leafs put in a mediocre effort. That's not evidence that what we're doing is working. If Arizona shows up and Tampa Bay doesn't, Arizona's going to win that game 80-90% of the time - regardless of how bad Arizona's talent and coaching is or how good Tampa's are. Every team has 10-20 games per year where they win easily because only one team showed up, and every team has 10-20 where they lose for the same reason. It would be foolish for the Coyotes to beat Tampa in one of those games and conclude that all they need is a consistent effort level.
Our stated goal is to be a 100 point team, which means coming away with 60% of the available points. There are a number of ways to tilt the scales. Sometimes you can up your effort level over a long period of time, whether it's from something outside of hockey (e.g. Vegas at the start of this year), a strong motivational coach (Sutter), or a swell of confidence from a run of good luck (Flames in 2015), but eventually that runs out. Alternatively, you can acquire better players. Or you can improve the coaching, both in terms of systems and game management.
I just don't believe that any team can reliably work harder than the rest of the league. Sometimes you can catch lightning in a bottle (see: 2004, 2015), and when that happens you run with it. But you can't plan that. The parts you can reliably control are acquiring quality players, and playing a system that puts them in a position to succeed.
Do I believe that we have the players to be a 100 point team and win playoff series? Absolutely.
Do I believe we're playing a system that will allow us to be a 100 point team? I'm not sure. I like parts of it, but I see flaws that I think are really holding us back. I think that to evaluate it, you have to look beyond "did it work tonight?" and look more generally. Will it work against a team that's skating better? Will it work if we're not skating as well? Will it work when both teams are playing at the top of their games?
- I think our system does a good job of neutralizing dump and chase zone entries. Having our first D eat the fore-checking contact buys us time for our forwards to recover, and prevents quick scoring chances against. We also settle the puck well against passive to moderately aggressive forechecking with the reverse play.
- I think our system does a good job recovering loose and bouncing pucks in the slot. We often collapse 5 players into the slot and outnumbering the other team increases our odds of winning those battles if a rebound bounces between the circles.
- I think our system is pretty good at getting zone entries once we've settled the puck down. We get the puck in the hands of a good puck handler with speed and gain the blueline consistently.
- I think once we settle in defensively we defend the neutral zone and our blueline very effectively. We've had a ton of 0-0 third periods with few shots against when we take a lead into the 3rd period.
HOWEVER,
- We struggle to break the puck out of our zone under pressure. Our only play is to force the puck low along the boards and have the winger bump the puck to the center. When that play gets shut down by pinching D with good support, we can't escape our zone until the other team has to make a line change.
- A consequence of our breakout is we don't have a very strong counterattack. The strong side winger starts the breakout either stationary on the boards, or even skating towards our net. But the weak side D can't jump up too aggressively because if the puck is turned over, none of the forwards can get back. So we have at most 2 players with speed, and often 3 opponents back
- We're not very dangerous when we're set up in the offensive zone. Our D play very statically in the offensive zone, often leaving us outnumbered down low. This also causes a lot of 3 on 2's against. In order to have an effective cycle you need all 3 forwards supporting the puck, which sometimes gets us caught with 3 down low.
- Our PK is too passive. They fake pressure on the puck carrier but stop short of fully engaging, so we rarely win a puck without first giving up a shot attempt.
If we win a game where we never face a heavy forecheck, stay out of the box, and go up 3-0 early and sit back all game, obviously I'll be happy for the win. But that won't allay my fear that our flaws won't be addressed. However, if we play a game where we're under heavy forecheck pressure from the drop of the puck but break out of our zone reliably, we take 6 penalties and kill them all off without giving up a shot, and we have multiple shifts where we spend 30+ seconds in the O-zone generating dangerous chances, I'll feel good about the team even if we lose. I want to see signs that we'll be able to beat an elite team at the top of their game, because that's what I think we're capable of.