Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
At least it doesn't take away from evaluating teams in what they give up.
But yeah if you're a below average finishing team (think the Flames are) you don't necessarily do as well as your underlying stats suggest.
|
-Disagree with below average finishing team. It's about the chance created - if you are in hdsc area but the goalie had his feet set and had to move very little it's not a great chance (low shooting %)
-If that chance is again in the hdsc area but it's a seam pass with the goalie having to extend side to side and the top half of the net is open (different shooting %)
That was the difference between Gulutzan and Peters IMO - in terms of quality of chance not location on ice.
18-19 Flames had this kind of offensive attack: creativity and movement. All that starts with a breakout that is fluid that starts you with puck on the tape and the receiver of pass in dangerous posture: head up, puck on stick, moving forward and attacking the middle. Opponent collapses on you and it opens the seams.
TOR and Keefe seem to be using that now:
https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...-sheldon-keefe
It's obviously not the only (forecheck works if the opponent is clogging the nz) but if you can take the ice and take the blueline then take it.
18-19 was not a fluke. It was playing a style suited to the players: high iq, creativity, chemistry, anticipation etc.
You don't want to give up odd man chances against but you have to trust the players and trust their abilities. Have structure, sure - I want to see them limit chances: take away time and space but I want a team that is playing to their strengths, their best assets : skill and hockey iq.