GDT: #15| New York Islanders @ Tampa Bay Lightning | November 8th | 7:30 PM | F/L 4-2

[seafoam]

They’ve already stole few points from other teams so far, so it’s only natural they fall short of a point that they could have earned last night.

Lets keep in mind Trotz is pushing Pulock to be a top pairing defenseman, and that’s still a work in progress. Leddy is playing some of the worst hockey of his career, and Barzal/Beauvillier have struggled to be effective for the majority of the year thus far.

Hopefully these guys will improve as the “system” improves and that will eliminate a lot of these weak puck plays that end up being turnovers.

Hopefully Toews gets a look soon, and Ho-Sang and MDC continue to rip it up in Bridgeport. This team is going to need some different looks at some point.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

Those players you're talking about not needing to take blame are partially responsible for the play. They all bailed on the zone early. You cannot do that in a tie game late in the third period. If his winger is supposed to pull up closer to him and not leave the zone, how is he at fault exactly? It's like a wide receiver running the wrong route.

Let's take a look:

Pulock retrieves the puck in the corner. All three forwards are in the zone and they are getting in position to break out.

The puck is passed up the wall. All three forwards are still in the zone. Nelson is even with his man in the zone while being in better position to retrieve a puck off the wall and Eberle is in front of the defenseman.

Uh, oh...what happened? Tampa's player peeled off Nelson (I think it was Kucherov) and stole the puck between the top of the circle and the blue line. There isn't an Islanders player within four or five feet of him. Coincidentally, that puck is taken right where Eberle and Nelson were just a second earlier. Do you really think the game plan, no matter how weak of an attempt from Pulock it may have been, was for all three forwards to leave the zone in a tie game late in the third period? The obvious answer is no, that wasn't the game plan. Someone or multiple players messed up their job here.





This is an over simplification. The veterans you mentioned play very simple games, that doesn't mean the others aren't smart. You can't win by having a team full of Filppula's, Komarov's, etc. because they don't take risks. Three of the guys you're blaming are still relatively young and it takes time to develop into an NHLer. I remember the same argument being made against Bailey, I guess he's a dumb player too.

Do you also notice in your pictorial evidence that once Pulock gives the puck away who is the one player standing right next to him? The guy who eventually scores the goal wide open in front of the net. So explain how that happens. Pulock does not even stick with his man after he gives the puck away. I cannot see a single thing Pulock did right in that sequence.

 

[SI90]

Trotz pissed

 

[PK Cronin]

Do you also notice in your pictorial evidence that once Pulock gives the puck away who is the one player standing right next to him? The guy who eventually scores the goal wide open in front of the net. So explain how that happens. Pulock does not even stick with his man after he gives the puck away. I cannot see a single thing Pulock did right in that sequence.

Are you done absolving the forwards of their responsibility for the goal though?

Pulock leaves "his man" because it's now a 3 on 2 inside the zone with no help coming, so he has to leave his man because that's how a 3 on 2 is played. He's not supposed to just let the puck carrier waltz into the slot area to rip a shot uncontested.

The mistake after the turnover was Leddy not anticipating the pass across and only applying light pressure there. It allowed for the pass in front of the net.

How do you want to see Pulock play the 3 on 2 after committing the turnover?

 

[PK Cronin]

Trotz pissed

Oh, hey, wow, who could've thought that the responsibility might not have been only on Pulock there?

 

[SI90]

Oh, hey, wow, who could've thought that the responsibility might not have been only on Pulock there?

Exactly. Bad all around by the whole unit

 

[Hunn]

I got an impression that Pulock panicked a little after the turnover. And on top of that Leddy was of no help absolutely during that sequence.

 

[ScaredStreit]

You're accounting for maybe 15 of the 60 minutes. If Tampa had scored on all their opportunities they could have won 6-2 but they didn't. I could have won Powerball if I had 4 more numbers.....

All the areas we fell short last night are noted by the coaches. You're breaking no new ground here.

6-2 loss, 4-2 loss, it's all the same. We walked away with 0 points.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

Are you done absolving the forwards of their responsibility for the goal though?

Pulock leaves "his man" because it's now a 3 on 2 inside the zone with no help coming, so he has to leave his man because that's how a 3 on 2 is played. He's not supposed to just let the puck carrier waltz into the slot area to rip a shot uncontested.

The mistake after the turnover was Leddy not anticipating the pass across and only applying light pressure there. It allowed for the pass in front of the net.

How do you want to see Pulock play the 3 on 2 after committing the turnover?

Actually I am pretty sure I have always heard and been taught that on an odd man approach to the net, the dman is supposed to take the pass away. Going to the shooter is exactly what you are not supposed to do.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

Oh, hey, wow, who could've thought that the responsibility might not have been only on Pulock there?

Maybe it is not ONLY on Pulock. But there is no way you can say that if not for his incredibly soft chip off the boards when he could have done like 5 other things, it would not have matter what anybody else did.

 

[Hunn]

BTW, how Nelson, Eberle, and Kuhnhackl happened to be on ice for a defensive zone faceoff in the last 1.5 minutes of a tied game?

 

[PK Cronin]

Actually I am pretty sure I have always heard and been taught that on an odd man approach to the net, the dman is supposed to take the pass away. Going to the shooter is exactly what you are not supposed to do.

So there's a 3 on 2, you want both defenders to then play man on the open players and leave the puck carrier alone. Got it. At least I now understand why you think Pulock was 100% at fault and how he didn't do anything right on that sequence.

Just to make it perfectly clear, your interpretation of the play is wrong and you've provided nothing as to why it's correct.

 

[MJF]

6-2 loss, 4-2 loss, it's all the same. We walked away with 0 points.

Correct. Frustrating loss.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

Also, many of you are missing my main point in the original criticism I lobbed at Pulock. This guy is supposed to be an offensive dman. I actually remember (and can probably go back and get proof if it is disputed) how many people on here were like giddy about him during the preseason claiming he was going to score 20 goals, maybe have 50-60 points, etc. The guy has not even approached being an offensive threat through 15 games. Right now he is a ZERO in the offensive threat category. His shot misses the net more than any player I have seen. So, once again, if this guy was in fact a 20 goal, 60 point dman, nobody would care about mistakes like last night. But when you are doing crap for your team offensively and then cost them the game in a hard fought effort like last night with an awful giveaway, it is not acceptable. I promise you, if he had 4-5 goals and a dozen points right now and we had won an additional game or two, I would not care about last night. But he has not been good, and he gets a pass on here for some unknown reason.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

So there's a 3 on 2, you want both defenders to then play man on the open players and leave the puck carrier alone. Got it. At least I now understand why you think Pulock was 100% at fault and how he didn't do anything right on that sequence.

Just to make it perfectly clear, your interpretation of the play is wrong and you've provided nothing as to why it's correct.

No, Leddy was the one in front of the net, so yes it was up to him to make an attempt at the shooter. Pulock was off in the corner and let the guy who scored the goal go right to the front of the net untouched. It was on Pulock to cover the most likely pass in that scenario. You give your goalie a chance to stop a straight on shot in an odd man rush whether 2 on 1 or 3 on 2. He is much more likely to stop a straight on shot than a lateral pass to an uncovered guy.

 

[PK Cronin]

Maybe it is not ONLY on Pulock. But there is no way you can say that if not for his incredibly soft chip off the boards when he could have done like 5 other things, it would not have matter what anybody else did.

What are those 5 other things?

He has a few options:

1) Make the same play, just harder.
2) Hold the puck and tie up in the corner.
3) Reverse the puck behind the net, where Leddy wasn't and Tampa Bay's defenseman would've pinched in to get it.

That's about it. Breaking out traditionally given where his players were located on the ice is probably the smartest of the choices, as options 2 and 3 either result in a turnover or prolong the breakout and risk having a turnover. The issue is that his forwards left early, providing him no support, and he pass the puck harder. That's it. He didn't make some gross miscalculation and try some dumb flip pass up the middle on his backhand or some spin-o-rama pass. He made the proper decision, just executed poorly. The forwards make the wrong decision at the same time and it ended up in the back of the net. It happens. This isn't an example of him being a dumb player because there isn't actually a better play to be made, unless you'd like to enlighten everyone as to what the better play would've been.

This idea that "it wouldn't matter what anybody else did" is so foolish and goes against hockey strategy 101. Everything your teammates do on the ice is impacting you as the puck carrier. If they're too close, if they're too far away, if they're on their backhand or their forehand, if they leave the zone early or late, etc. Systems are run for a reason, to make the decision making process easier and provide less variables for the puck carrier to deal with. He expects his players to be in a particular spot and the windows of time allowing for a successful play are very small. Being off by a step or two means the difference between a clean breakout and a turnover. Guys like Barzal, and Leddy to an extent, have the ability to re-set on their own and improvise because of their elite skating ability, most other players can't. If they get hung out to dry, there is no recovering for them.

 

[Strait2thecup]

Lol the last few pages of this thread are my bar convo last night.

Goal happens someone goes: “what an awful play by pulock”

Instinctively replied “... why was nobody in the Zone”

It was a weak attempt by pulock but failed clears happen all the time and there’s usually not that much space to work. Everyone involved is to blame there

 

[PK Cronin]

Also, many of you are missing my main point in the original criticism I lobbed at Pulock. This guy is supposed to be an offensive dman. I actually remember (and can probably go back and get proof if it is disputed) how many people on here were like giddy about him during the preseason claiming he was going to score 20 goals, maybe have 50-60 points, etc. The guy has not even approached being an offensive threat through 15 games. Right now he is a ZERO in the offensive threat category. His shot misses the net more than any player I have seen. So, once again, if this guy was in fact a 20 goal, 60 point dman, nobody would care about mistakes like last night. But when you are doing crap for your team offensively and then cost them the game in a hard fought effort like last night with an awful giveaway, it is not acceptable. I promise you, if he had 4-5 goals and a dozen points right now and we had won an additional game or two, I would not care about last night. But he has not been good, and he gets a pass on here for some unknown reason.

You're right about the proclamations that Pulock was going to be a beast offensively. Unfortunately, he's not on the PP and that definitely limits his offensive output (obviously). I don't think he's been bad, but he hasn't been dominating at all offensively.

No, Leddy was the one in front of the net, so yes it was up to him to make an attempt at the shooter. Pulock was off in the corner and let the guy who scored the goal go right to the front of the net untouched. It was on Pulock to cover the most likely pass in that scenario. You give your goalie a chance to stop a straight on shot in an odd man rush whether 2 on 1 or 3 on 2. He is much more likely to stop a straight on shot than a lateral pass to an uncovered guy.

I'm really struggling to understand.

Leddy is in front of the net covering another player when the puck is turned over between the top of the circle and the blue line. Pulock is in the corner area with the eventual goal scorer. You're suggesting that Leddy is responsible for the puck carrier? If that happens, the puck carrier is going to just pass the puck wide and now it's a 2 on 1 with all kinds of time and room to work with. You cannot just leave a shooter uncontested at the NHL level, there needs to be some kind of pressure or else the goalie will be sniped.

Edit: After looking at the play again, if Leddy steps up to the puck carrier it actually increases the risk of the play. He's not in a good defensive position to defend the puck carrier and if he gets walked or passed around, all of his momentum is going away from his own net and could lead to a 3 on 1. I'm standing by Pulock making the right play there, I just wish he or Leddy were able to disrupt the passing on either pass 1 or pass 2.

 

[Rehabguy]

Minus 8 between 3 players again...#7,13 & 18, the 4th line got bounced around with Martin out due to injury...Blaming Pulock is not the answer.

The three #'s mentioned are a minus 25 for the year so far?....moving them around is only thinning the lines that can contribute with offence/grit.....The 4th line looked like smurfs with the addition of #18....anyone thinking bringing up more surfs?.. is happy with the clubs last 2 years performance.

Better get #17 healed up quick this isn't the same team without he..nor was it the past 2 years.


Some poster mentioned the other day Ciz and Clutt make room for Martin thats why you put #18 on the line too get him going?.....Really? ..the poster of that actually thinks Ciz and Clutt make room for Martin?.......All adding #18 to the 4th line did was water down the line further .

The Barzal line is not responsible defensively, get pushed around too easily. They need some size on that line. Beau needs to sit. Try Ladd again on that line or call up Bellows. He deserves a shot right now over Beau.

 

[SI90]

6-2 loss, 4-2 loss, it's all the same. We walked away with 0 points.

Not really. 6-2 loss is way better because PDO

 

[Seph]

What are those 5 other things?

He has a few options:

1) Make the same play, just harder.
2) Hold the puck and tie up in the corner.
3) Reverse the puck behind the net, where Leddy wasn't and Tampa Bay's defenseman would've pinched in to get it.

That's about it. Breaking out traditionally given where his players were located on the ice is probably the smartest of the choices, as options 2 and 3 either result in a turnover or prolong the breakout and risk having a turnover. The issue is that his forwards left early, providing him no support, and he pass the puck harder. That's it. He didn't make some gross miscalculation and try some dumb flip pass up the middle on his backhand or some spin-o-rama pass. He made the proper decision, just executed poorly. The forwards make the wrong decision at the same time and it ended up in the back of the net. It happens. This isn't an example of him being a dumb player because there isn't actually a better play to be made, unless you'd like to enlighten everyone as to what the better play would've been.

This idea that "it wouldn't matter what anybody else did" is so foolish and goes against hockey strategy 101. Everything your teammates do on the ice is impacting you as the puck carrier. If they're too close, if they're too far away, if they're on their backhand or their forehand, if they leave the zone early or late, etc. Systems are run for a reason, to make the decision making process easier and provide less variables for the puck carrier to deal with. He expects his players to be in a particular spot and the windows of time allowing for a successful play are very small. Being off by a step or two means the difference between a clean breakout and a turnover. Guys like Barzal, and Leddy to an extent, have the ability to re-set on their own and improvise because of their elite skating ability, most other players can't. If they get hung out to dry, there is no recovering for them.

I agree that chipping it off the boards was the right play. And even if he did it harder, it still could've been picked off, so there's still no excuse for the forwards exiting early with less than two minutes left in a tied game. One forward (RW, typically) should've been there to support the clear while another (center) exited the zone to give them an outlet -- this is basic hockey and I agree with you that it was reasonable for Pulock to assume his forwards would do this. While there is fault on Pulock's end for a soft clearing attempt, the unit as a whole misplayed and should all be held accountable (well, except maybe Kuhnackl, I guess, not much he could've done without being wildly out of position).

 

[PK Cronin]

I agree that chipping it off the boards was the right play. And even if he did it harder, it still could've been picked off, so there's still no excuse for the forwards exiting early with less than two minutes left in a tied game. One forward (RW, typically) should've been there to support the clear while another (center) exited the zone to give them an outlet -- this is basic hockey and I agree with you that it was reasonable for Pulock to assume his forwards would do this. While there is fault on Pulock's end for a soft clearing attempt, the unit as a whole misplayed and should all be held accountable (well, except maybe Kuhnackl, I guess, not much he could've done without being wildly out of position).

100% spot on.

 

[doublechili]

I haven't watched multiple replays, but at the time it seemed like Pulock had a slight problem getting the puck under control and then flubbed the pass a bit (maybe the puck hopped or his stick clipped the boards?). That's on him. However, forwards are not supposed to race out of the zone assuming (late in a tie game) that the puck is heading out. That was the crap we saw all last year under Weight. They'll learn (or leave).

 

[crasherino]

I haven't watched multiple replays, but at the time it seemed like Pulock had a slight problem getting the puck under control and then flubbed the pass a bit (maybe the puck hopped or his stick clipped the boards?). That's on him. However, forwards are not supposed to race out of the zone assuming (late in a tie game) that the puck is heading out. That was the crap we saw all last year under Weight. They'll learn (or leave).

I'm jumping in late here and already going over covered ground but my main thought last night was "WTF is Eberle doing?" Regardless of how hard that pass was, he was nowhere to be found. He was halfway between the blue line and center ice when the puck was intercepted. It was almost as if they had a set play where Pulock was going to lob in down the ice to Eberle but he instead played it up the boards.

Could Pulock have played it harder up the boards? I'm sure he could have. But, at the end of the day, our forward (Eberle) should have been there to receive the pass. No matter how hard Pulock plays the puck there, there's no one to play it to.

JMO, Pulock is not the guy to blame there.

 

[BelovedIsles]

They’ve already stole few points from other teams so far, so it’s only natural they fall short of a point that they could have earned last night.

Lets keep in mind Trotz is pushing Pulock to be a top pairing defenseman, and that’s still a work in progress. Leddy is playing some of the worst hockey of his career, and Barzal/Beauvillier have struggled to be effective for the majority of the year thus far.

Hopefully these guys will improve as the “system” improves and that will eliminate a lot of these weak puck plays that end up being turnovers.

Hopefully Toews gets a look soon, and Ho-Sang and MDC continue to rip it up in Bridgeport. This team is going to need some different looks at some point.

Re: Pulock. That’s the thing, don’t think he was ever projected to be a top pairing D; I think he’ll settle in as a two-way, second pairing. So essentially he’s playing mins as a 24 yr old that’s above his skillset for the first time in his career.