Power Play Strategy

[Weitz]

Looking for some discussion on the apparent power play strategy. Comments? Concerns? Discussion?

Tonight while I was at the game I noticed the Flames were doing the stop and pass back to the late guy coming in. I'm not a fan of this, looking for comments and I on this.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Looking for some discussion on the apparent power play strategy. Comments? Concerns? Discussion?

Tonight while I was at the game I noticed the Flames were doing the stop and pass back to the late guy coming in. I'm not a fan of this, looking for comments and I on this.

Flames have been doing the "second wave" for a couple years now with some success. It can't be every time though like it has been

[djsFlames]

More Gaudreau.

[Poe969]

SWARM!!!!

I think the current method is pretty good but they'll have to adjust depending on the different players on the ice for both teams. That 5 on 3 looked good just had no finish.

[Steve Bozek]

I thought Pang made a good point - the lack of a right handed shot on the power play making ithe puck movement more predictable and easier to defend during the 5 on 3.

[Resolute 14]

The drop pass has actually been more effective at gaining the zone than anything else they do, typically. It's what to do when they get into the zone that is at issue. The entire five on three seemed to be built around the idea of trying to get a cross-crease pass in tight for the one-timer. They kept trying even after it was evident Vancouver had that lane blocked.

[SportsJunky]

Monahan was robbed of a PP goal on a nice cross crease pass from Hudler last night. Puck was tipped away by Sbisa I think. I liked the work the guys did with the 5 on 3 down low when they had the opportunity. Monahan would have cashed that pass in for sure without Sbisa getting his stick on it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The drop pass has actually been more effective at gaining the zone than anything else they do, typically. It's what to do when they get into the zone that is at issue. The entire five on three seemed to be built around the idea of trying to get a cross-crease pass in tight for the one-timer. They kept trying even after it was evident Vancouver had that lane blocked.

Yeah it was okay the first time they tried it and it just missed Monahan's stick at the side of the net but Hudler kept trying it and there was just nothing there. It was simply far too predictable which made it easy for the Canucks defenders to maintain their positions and force a shot from the outside.

[Ben_in_Canada]

I refer to it as a passive entry. I hate it because everyone is standing still on the blue line waiting (hoping) for the puck carrier to get in deep.

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

I thought Pang made a good point - the lack of a right handed shot on the power play making ithe puck movement more predictable and easier to defend during the 5 on 3.

Thing is Detroit has a good pp despite only having one rh shot on their roster. So while Pang has a point regarding lack of a rh shot, other teams are able to have a good pp without a rh shot. Will have to watch a Detroit game to see how they run their pp, maybe the coaches should too.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Ben_in_Canada

I refer to it as a passive entry. I hate it because everyone is standing still on the blue line waiting (hoping) for the puck carrier to get in deep.

The plan is to have the PKs go deep and standing still so the late guy can carry it in. The Flames have Hudler and Gaudreau who you can trust to get it in that way (Russell could probably do it as well).

[heep223]

I like everything about the current strategy but they need a guy in the high side-slot as another option on the strong side, as opposed to just cross-crease or back to the point. Watch Flyers PP for example.

[Weitz]

Yah I just find having everyone stand at the blueline you get no puck support right away if the carrier gets into trouble.

I think I noticed a few times this happened and a turnover occurred and the canucks dumped it down the ice.

[Gaskal]

This is a bit of a TL;DR, so:

TL;DR:

-Puck on Gaudreau's stick
-3 people open for one timers (Monahan, Gio, Brodie)
-Colborne/Glencross parked near net
-Mostly stationary/pass-based play instead of active movement (more PP time for top PP unit)


There's an excellent powerplay for the Flames to model their PP strategy after - at least in terms of having set up within the offensive zone: the Philadelphia Flyers. It's not that they had 5 excellent players on the ice, it had the right players in the right roles - roles that can be interchanged within the Flames system - so I'll be sticking whoever from the Flames I see fits the role best.

Unique Team Traits: Good luck stopping the Flyers' top PP Unit

Unlike a lot of other PP units...once the puck reaches Giroux's (Gaudreau!) stick near the faceoff circle, the Flyers fall back into their positions and let Giroux dictate the pace of the PP. They know their roles. Once Gaudreau has the puck, he has 3 one-timers available to thread the needle - the high slot (Monahan), the blueline (Giordano) and the opposite wing faceoff circle (Brodie). It's unrealistic to defend all 3 options at the same time.

Spoiler!

If Gaudreau gets rushed, he simply dishes it to the big winger(Glencross/Colborne/Hunter Smith) parked by the crease or feeds it back to Gio. If either PP defencemen are covered...the most dangerous area on the ice is open (Monahan).

The beauty of Giroux on that PP setup is he can simply take two steps down the boards to completely shift the PK defensive coverage to his whim. Immediately the defensive focus shifts to Monahan and Glencross, leaving the two d-men free.

What about the big net presence winger?

This doesn’t work if the net front presence is just some donkey the team trots out as a screen, and it doesn’t work if it’s some skill guy who can’t stand in against pressure to be effective on tips and rebounds.

As shown by stats all of Simmond's PP goals came from that prime scoring area of the ice - either from power moves to the net or off of rebounds. The net presence guy has to actually have hands and finishing ability in front of the net to be considered a real threat - as commitment from the PK'ers to cut off the one-timer pass often leaves him unbothered.

What about the high defenceman?

When the puck does go up top away from him, Timonen has his choice of three shooting spots - himself, or one-timers to Giroux and Voracek. The rich get richer.

And Voracek has options. He can shoot through a double screen, or use the seam to Giroux (that goes both ways, both of which can result in more one-timers).

Spoiler!

[PeteLFan]

Not sure why they kept going with all left handed shots. First thing I noticed and that glencross shouldn't be on the power play

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Not sure why they kept going with all left handed shots. First thing I noticed and that glencross shouldn't be on the power play

With no righties they just need to perfect the backhand one timer clap bomb, which you really don't see enpough of in the NHL these days.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Not sure why they kept going with all left handed shots. First thing I noticed and that glencross shouldn't be on the power play

Because of the way they like to set up their one-timers based off where Giroux is positioned. Simmonds is the only RH.

If Voracek, Timonen and Hartnell were all right-shots, they still have the shot but it wouldn't be a one-timer. They'd have to adjust their body position to take the shot too, giving the goalie time to square up to the shot. The Flyers PP setup makes it so the boards are essentially a non-factor, so they don't have to worry about digging the puck out from the boards.

[Red Menace]

as much as we all hate Wideman, he is a proven PP specialist and RH shot. If we are stuck with him at $5.25 for 3 more years we may as well play him on the PP at least....he doesn't provide value in too many other areas.