Dicdonya
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2011
- 4,441
- 2,588
The problem with our PP is its too predictable.
I really liked the Peng article, but the one issue I had with it was when he tried to compare Ovi being predictable to any other PP being predictable. Ovi is just one player being predictable, and a generational shooter to boot, the rest of the PP is quite creative on their own, and at getting passing lanes to Ovi. They use him to open up other opportunities, and he can just straight up beat goalies even if they force him the puck. We don't have a shooter like that, not even close.
However our whole PP is as predictable as Ovi, minus the generational talent to get past it. Karlsson, Burns/Cooch, and Labanc are ALWAYS at the exact same spot. Hertl too, and he is basically useless on the PP after entering the zone, because they never have him do a single thing besides stand in front of the net. No movement whatsoever. No timing plays to screen the goalie as the shot is coming, as opposed to just hoping Hertl blocks the goalies vision while a shot comes from basically 3 spots on the ice every single time.
Our PP isn't atrocious every year because luckily we have had guys like Pavs, Thornton, Hertl, Karlsson and Burns who despite the utterly dense PP system, still find way to individually overcome it and score points. I can only imagine how good they could be if our coaches could be even slightly creative.
However they cant be, as is evidenced by the team as a whole being so predictable.
Oh yeah, and they took Hertl off the PP last game too, not sure if that was talked about in the GDT. Kane taking half the game off forced Hertl back on, but its just shows how stupid our coaches are. Sadly, the fact that Labanc made a nice shot, completely unrelated to anything anyone else was doing, will probably make DeBoer or Spott think it was a good move. As Peng pointed out however, Hertl is key to our PP both on faceoffs and zone entries, so despite the one off goal, our PP will probably stink even more with someone else taking faceoffs and trying to enter the zone. We will see I guess.
I really liked the Peng article, but the one issue I had with it was when he tried to compare Ovi being predictable to any other PP being predictable. Ovi is just one player being predictable, and a generational shooter to boot, the rest of the PP is quite creative on their own, and at getting passing lanes to Ovi. They use him to open up other opportunities, and he can just straight up beat goalies even if they force him the puck. We don't have a shooter like that, not even close.
However our whole PP is as predictable as Ovi, minus the generational talent to get past it. Karlsson, Burns/Cooch, and Labanc are ALWAYS at the exact same spot. Hertl too, and he is basically useless on the PP after entering the zone, because they never have him do a single thing besides stand in front of the net. No movement whatsoever. No timing plays to screen the goalie as the shot is coming, as opposed to just hoping Hertl blocks the goalies vision while a shot comes from basically 3 spots on the ice every single time.
Our PP isn't atrocious every year because luckily we have had guys like Pavs, Thornton, Hertl, Karlsson and Burns who despite the utterly dense PP system, still find way to individually overcome it and score points. I can only imagine how good they could be if our coaches could be even slightly creative.
However they cant be, as is evidenced by the team as a whole being so predictable.
Oh yeah, and they took Hertl off the PP last game too, not sure if that was talked about in the GDT. Kane taking half the game off forced Hertl back on, but its just shows how stupid our coaches are. Sadly, the fact that Labanc made a nice shot, completely unrelated to anything anyone else was doing, will probably make DeBoer or Spott think it was a good move. As Peng pointed out however, Hertl is key to our PP both on faceoffs and zone entries, so despite the one off goal, our PP will probably stink even more with someone else taking faceoffs and trying to enter the zone. We will see I guess.