Post-Game Talk: WCQF GM02 | Vancouver Canucks lose to Nashville Predators | 4-1 (Zadorov) | Stars Can't Score

[bossram]

Agreed, good leaders surround themselves with good people who fill in their own weak areas. Would love to see a PP coach brought in who also helps with drawing up o-zone plays that go beyond point shots and deflection attempts. Don't often see them creating opportunities off of an extended cycle or even on the rush.

They have absolutely zero rush game. it's why they consistently generate so few quality scoring chances.

 

[Cancuks]

If Demko was in the net they would've won this game even if he's injured. Not because he's the better goale but the team has zero confidence in Desmith and play scared when he's in. This is probably all stemming from the 9 goals in the Minnesota game. Silovs would have a better chance in net right now.

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

Anyone else fall asleep naked and crying?

I mean - I do most nights.

 

[VanJack]

It's one thing to wrack up points against lottery-bound teams; but quite another to do it against teams that finished with close to 100-points on the season,

A lot of these teams are in the post-season because they're successful shutdown teams, and the Preds are not exception. Canucks PP, which was a big concern down the stretch, has so far been true to that bad form through two games.

It's just too hard to score five-on-five. Their survival depends on getting this PP fixed in short order.

 

[TruGr1t]

I don't buy this whole narrative of being bad the second half of the season. If anything, the Canucks were much better in the second half of the season vs the first.

Since the All-Star break, the Canucks were 17-12-4. Canucks were 4th in the league in expected goals for, 5th in shot attempts for, 7th in unblocked shot attempts for, 4th in high danger shot attempts per 60, and 10th in shots for.

Before the All-Star break, the Canucks were 14th in expected goals for, 19th in shot attempts for, 19th in unblocked shot attempts for, 13th in high danger shot attempts per 60, and 21st in shots for.

The Canucks were a MUCH MUCH better team in the second half of the season compared to the first half of the season. Before the All-Star break their record flattered them because they were relying on a PDO hot streak, post All-Star break they were a legit top end team. I don't buy the whole "we were better early in the season." I think that's just objectively false.

Nashville also was right there with the Canucks in all of these metrics to end the second half of the season. During the begining of the season, everything is loose and you can get away with a lot more. There is a lot more space, players still haven't gotten into the swing of playing. This is why young teams often do pretty well at the beginning of the season; they have talent but no composure. The Canucks needed to adapt in the second half of the season. They did, and now they are a better team.

You're arguing the same thing, just spinning it slightly differently. Through the all-star break (49 games) they scored somewhere around 186-188 goals, for the next 33 games, until the end of the season, they scored the rest, so like 92-93 or something. That's a full goal-per-game lower rate.

I'm not sure how you say that's much much better in anyway really, regardless of any underlying numbers. They went from a 33-11-5 to basically a .500 team (OTL points included). So regardless, on an absolute basis (ie. how many goals you score and their points percentage) they were materially worse.

Nashville on an offensive basis was mostly quite a bit ahead of the Canucks statistically over the back-half of the season.

I would throw the attempted shots for stat out, as they have regularly registered a lot of shooting attempts while seeing their GF fall off significantly. You can statistically explain it however you like, or revert to "puck luck", but they've had this issue regularly over significant sample size.

Nobody is talking about their defensive play, which on average was quite good throughout the season.

 

[mossey3535]

@Bad Goalie @mossey3535


What are your takes on DeSmiths goaltending?

He was terrible.

I think he's been great at times this year. But he was just completely jittery. He has happy feet at the best of times, IMO he was basically tripping over himself.

First goal he's on his angle, if the shot is to his glove side there's still no reason to do a bail-out slide to his left. It was a very high and pretty slow deflection, he has a chance on that if he just keeps his feet.

Second goal you can attribute mostly to Forsberg but he's actually so close when he shoots that box control should have helped DeSmith out there. Basically he's uncovered, which Casey should have seen. And Soucy is blocking the lateral play and Forsberg approach is on his backhand. A glove side forehand is pretty predictable in that situation. He basically just freezes and doesn't give himself a chance to be reactive. Not that he would necessarily save it but he didn't give himself a chance.

Yeah I didn't like the 3rd goal rebound control, this is a known issue with him. Actually made the right move to stop the rebound but I think EP screwed him by running into him.

More importantly, he was just fighting the puck. Everything seemed shaky, and he didn't make a save where it was like 'oh he'll be ok'.

 

[mossey3535]

I think the point @TruGr1t and myself are making is that they never really had this ability. It was a mirage. Mostly good fortune. They've not been a strong offensive team all season.

Last night they just kept blasting perimeter shots right into Nashville shot blockers. Dumb offensive scheme.

I agree they didn't really get much in the way of good fortune on the bounces (*screams in Joshua chance*), but they're at the point now with CDS in net where they basically have to get luckier than NSH if they're going to win. That's not a great place to be.

Way back on Feb 29th I said:

So one interesting question I have about Tocchet .... to be clear I think overall he is f***ing amazing ... but is how a structured coach reacts to being out-structured.

It's basically why DeBoer keeps going midway through the playoffs only to lose in the end. It's how Florida beat Carolina last playoffs. Generally structure wins out in the playoffs but is the coach creative and adaptable enough to somehow squeeze offence out of a highly structured team in a mirror match?

Then on April 7th, I said this:

Offensively we've gone too much towards the Carolina model, too many point shots in general especially low danger ones. You can argue Hughes taking a point shot is always a good idea but other than that I think we have to try to make more plays. We don't have the problems that Carolina does in terms of finishing talent IMO. Also, flood the net front doesn't work as consistently well in the playoffs if the other team is going to Florida it up and just collapse which is super common.

A HUGE issue is that we don't have modern concepts of offence going here.

First of all, it's great we are layering our screens. But we are not doing it in the right way. Also this strategy falls down in the playoffs. Nashville is collapsing so our screens are just more shot blockers.

The other issue is that we have skilled players as the screen right on top of the goalie. This doesn't work as well in today's NHL. First of all, goalies like Aiden Hill are now known to be point blank chance specialists. The tighter you are to the goalie, the harder it is to roof the puck and the more you play into "box control" which is where we cut off aerial angle with hand positioning.

Like if you watch EP even in this diminished state, he is "trying" by standing in front of the net. But he is right on the goalie. Unless the defenceman completely loses him and let's him not only grab a rebound but swing it to either side, this is now one of the lowest percentage plays.

The better offensive lines in the NHL now are doing a rotating swing for the net front. You carry the puck behind the net which should pull the defenceman, preferably with another forward going the opposite way. That guy going the opposite way re-enters the slot in the dead spot in the zone. If he's not open or the puck carrier can't make that pass, you reload, rinse and repeat.

Every player on the line at some point will end up in the slot. This does a few things - lots of movement makes it easy to "lose" coverage. Because the slot player reads the right depth, you're generally higher and it is easier to try for aerial angles. Finally, it is easier on the bodies of your skilled guys. They are not simply just standing there and eating cross-checks in exchange for a chance at whacking it back into the goalie's pads.

 

[bossram]

Way back on Feb 29th I said:


Then on April 7th, I said this:



A HUGE issue is that we don't have modern concepts of offence going here.

First of all, it's great we are layering our screens. But we are not doing it in the right way. Also this strategy falls down in the playoffs. Nashville is collapsing so our screens are just more shot blockers.

The other issue is that we have skilled players as the screen right on top of the goalie. This doesn't work as well in today's NHL. First of all, goalies like Aiden Hill are now known to be point blank chance specialists. The tighter you are to the goalie, the harder it is to roof the puck and the more you play into "box control" which is where we cut off aerial angle with hand positioning.

Like if you watch EP even in this diminished state, he is "trying" by standing in front of the net. But he is right on the goalie. Unless the defenceman completely loses him and let's him not only grab a rebound but swing it to either side, this is now one of the lowest percentage plays.

The better offensive lines in the NHL now are doing a rotating swing for the net front. You carry the puck behind the net which should pull the defenceman, preferably with another forward going the opposite way. That guy going the opposite way re-enters the slot in the dead spot in the zone. If he's not open or the puck carrier can't make that pass, you reload, rinse and repeat.

Every player on the line at some point will end up in the slot. This does a few things - lots of movement makes it easy to "lose" coverage. Because the slot player reads the right depth, you're generally higher and it is easier to try for aerial angles. Finally, it is easier on the bodies of your skilled guys. They are not simply just standing there and eating cross-checks in exchange for a chance at whacking it back into the goalie's pads.

I agree. I've also been talking about this all season. At the deadline, I was saying they needed to add a winger with a rush threat (I suggested Duclair multiple times) to diversify their offence. Their chance creation was never great all season, it was masked by PDO. They weren't going to get by forever with perimeter shots and tips/deflections. They create zero on the rush and very few chances in the OZ with quality passing.

Yeah, they have too many guys that just stand in front of the net. That is way antiquated offensive play. They need to use moving screens, guys darting in and out of the low slot. This would also have the corollary of opening up some space for East-West passes in the OZ, which they also don't utilize.