Around the NHL: 2018-19, Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

GellMann

Registered User
Dec 16, 2014
4,281
3,779
Lancaster NY
I am shocked, shocked that Gudas is a danger to the players around him. After all, he never gets suspended! And then that precedent gets cited each new shit thing he does!

That guy should not be playing in the NHL, especially because he's not even good anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sabremike

tsujimoto74

Moderator
May 28, 2012
29,802
21,846
If Point gets less than 9M a year, state taxes are going to be a thing at the next CBA.

Why? It's clearly a non-issue. There are 4 teams located in states with no income tax (or in Tennessee's case, no tax on wages -- though there is some tax on investment income), and literally the only time anyone ever whines about it being a problem is with Tampa. Is the lack of state income tax giving Dallas an unfair edge? Nope, Seguin and Benn sure didn't take discounts to stay there. How about the Panthers? Nope. Nashville? Nope. Las Vegas? Nope.

Tampa gets players to take team-friendly deals because: (1) Yzerman has been a f***ing magician of a GM; (2) they have a great team that players want to play for; (3) their players all like it there.

If we're gonna pretend state tax is a real issue, we may as well give special cap perks to teams in "undesirable" locations or that are perennially noncompetitive or that have shitty GMs.
 

SnuggaRUDE

Registered User
Apr 5, 2013
8,950
6,481
Why? It's clearly a non-issue. There are 4 teams located in states with no income tax (or in Tennessee's case, no tax on wages -- though there is some tax on investment income), and literally the only time anyone ever whines about it being a problem is with Tampa. Is the lack of state income tax giving Dallas an unfair edge? Nope, Seguin and Benn sure didn't take discounts to stay there. How about the Panthers? Nope. Nashville? Nope. Las Vegas? Nope.

Tampa gets players to take team-friendly deals because: (1) Yzerman has been a ****ing magician of a GM; (2) they have a great team that players want to play for; (3) their players all like it there.

If we're gonna pretend state tax is a real issue, we may as well give special cap perks to teams in "undesirable" locations or that are perennially noncompetitive or that have ****ty GMs.

I'm not advocating for it, i'm prognosticating. But.... can we acknowledge that it's easier to look like a magician when you start with a 10% head-start?
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,463
39,917
Hamburg,NY
I always thought dump and chase was a symptom and not a problem of Bylsma's issues. Having his forwards sit still at the opposing blue line, while our D, in their own faceoff circles, whips pucks up to them for them to deflect in and then chase after from a dead stop, was the problem. And that teams quickly figured out that was our preferred transition method and sat on it.

Obviously you are more successful at retaining possession and thus scoring goals if you carry the puck in, but that sample size is only comprised of situations where the option to skate into the zone relatively unimpeded presents itself. Often the dump-in is a superior option, because no passing options are available and no open ice is there to skate into. It's good to be good at getting those pucks back, with all forwards on the same page with a full head of steam, to take care of all of the situations in which carrying the puck is a non-starter.

And then having a guy like Barzal for the controlled zone entries on top of that is pretty damn handy as well.

I'm not talking about Disco or his coaching so I'm not sure why you're mentioning him.

Carrying the puck in with possession increases the likelihood of a shot on goal compared to dump and chase. But thats a fairly narrow way of looking at an event (gaining the zone) and only breaking down one aspect of it (how the zone is gained). One of the aspects frequently missed or ignored when discussing this is that the more teams try to carry the puck through the neutral zone with possession the more they increase the chances of a neutral zone turnover. Which can lead to a prime scoring chance off the rush against.

Dump and chase , like any other tactic, can be effectively used as part of a teams overall strategy. In the Isles case its helped their focus on defense. More dump and chase leads to less neutral zone turnovers which leads to less odd man rushes surrendered. Isles are 4th in neutral zone turnovers and have allowed the fewest odd man rushes and scoring chances against off the rush in the NHL. Last year the Isles were top 10 in controlled zone entries and ranked 26th in odd-man rushes against and 22nd in rush scoring chances against and gave up a ton goalies against. By mitigating the neutral zone risks Trotz has transformed the Isles into one of the better defensive teams in the league. (the numbers are from the article)
 

sabremike

Friend To All Giraffes
Aug 30, 2010
22,544
33,789
Brewster, NY
I am shocked, shocked that Gudas is a danger to the players around him. After all, he never gets suspended! And then that precedent gets cited each new **** thing he does!

That guy should not be playing in the NHL, especially because he's not even good anymore.
The greatest thing I saw last season was this guy getting into a fight with Travis Zajak and Travis beating the hell out of him and continuing to pound him when he was down on the ice.
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,463
39,917
Hamburg,NY
@GellMann

The summary of that article says it best.......

...... So, while controlled entries are preferable from a pure offensive standpoint, it’s not always the best strategy if you want to come out on the right side of the goal differential at even-strength. The Islanders pick their spots and while they don’t enter with possession often, they do have the 3rd best success rate in the league when entering the attacking end with the puck. Take it if it’s there but don’t force it.

What works for one team doesn’t necessarily work for another and thus far this season Barry Trotz and his coaching staff have clearly done a masterful job understanding what works best for the Islanders. A clear plan of attack, low-risk play in the neutral zone and solid puck retrieval off dump-ins. That’s been the recipe for success for the New York Islanders.

Great example of the impact of good coaching
 

Icicle

Think big
Oct 16, 2005
6,055
1,007
A combination of our defenseman overall not being skilled enough, and our wingers being too low IQ to get open properly for quick break-out passes, is why Housley's system is failing to create quick breakouts like its designed to. Teams just play their defenseman deep and never give us a quick break because they know all our forwards will gobble the puck after carry-ins because all those not named Eichel or Mittelstadt will reliably choke the entry. Early season Dahlin would make those quick passes, and our wingers would miss it because they embarrassingly weren't expecting it. Now he doesn't even try them anymore.

Meanwhile, our fourth line dumps and chases and maintains possession, while rarely even trying to get into a dangerous scoring chance.

Our middle-6 winger talent is not there and teams have learned to forfeit the offensive zone since our forwards aren't that skilled. Problem is, Housley keeps screwing the lines with poor talent, and not adjusting anything to make other team's honest. Not many other teams do I ever see the puck carrier frequently skating into FOUR defenders boxing them in. Why on earth are they always able to have FOUR players back already when we enter the zone? Not enough stretch passing to build some honesty, and a lot of that falls back on not having trust between defenders making passes and wingers collecting passes in stride. I wish we could have a coach who would get us back to that.

Good on the Islanders coach to recognize their star talent is gone and they shouldn't run and gun like Toronto, et. al. Our coach is pushing this team towards the latter, given we're supposed to have the talent to do that now, but the depth of talent is not there to execute. Toronto's lesser players are at least fast, keeping defenders on their heels. Can't say that about much of ours.
 

GellMann

Registered User
Dec 16, 2014
4,281
3,779
Lancaster NY
@GellMann

The summary of that article says it best.......

...... So, while controlled entries are preferable from a pure offensive standpoint, it’s not always the best strategy if you want to come out on the right side of the goal differential at even-strength. The Islanders pick their spots and while they don’t enter with possession often, they do have the 3rd best success rate in the league when entering the attacking end with the puck. Take it if it’s there but don’t force it.

What works for one team doesn’t necessarily work for another and thus far this season Barry Trotz and his coaching staff have clearly done a masterful job understanding what works best for the Islanders. A clear plan of attack, low-risk play in the neutral zone and solid puck retrieval off dump-ins. That’s been the recipe for success for the New York Islanders.

Great example of the impact of good coaching
That's kinda what I was getting at too. It was long enough ago that I don't remember why I brought up Disco, maybe another poster had mentioned him in the discussion, but that was often a talking point that slightly missed the problem with his transition structure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->