GDT: Blues @ Sharks 12/20/14

[Mike Liut]

Thought Oshie played well last night. Good to see.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I never played hockey. Someone who understands strategy better may have a comment:

I see the transition passing as looking better and better (in general, depending who is on the ice). Is there any validity to the thought that the team is deliberately backing in to give up shots from certain areas of the ice on purpose.....so that they'll be better set to control the puck after the presumed save/block, and better positioned to quickly pass the puck up ice?

I'm seeing the backing off the blue line like everyone else, and wonder if it's coached that way for a reason.

I'm much less concerned with Pietro screening, since he leads the team in blocks by a tremendous margin and that's a big part of how he does it. I think getting screened or not is mostly the goalie's responsibility. As long as the defender is addressing the play and not just carelessly skating across the field of view, it's going to happen sometimes.

More thoughts:
How do you reconcile giving up the blue line so easily with periods like the first where the Blues practically don't allow a SOG?

I feel like there is an upside to this that I'm not getting.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

The only possible explanation is coaching. If it were only one or two players I could see it being just on them, but when every single defenseman is backing off I tend to seriously believe it's on the coach. It's absolutely infuriating.

Agreed. I have started to lose faith in Hitch, but what alternatives are there? Would Army fire Hitch and promote Muller?

 

[DeuceNine]

As much flack as we give hitch. He was spot on in his post game.

These unnecessary loses get to him it seems.

But....we've taken a point from LA and SJS in their barns, improvement from last year at least. This just seems like a mental thing......along with our top pairing playing like #7


Imo Pietrangelo and Bouwmeester have been the biggest weakness. With that said, it makes me a little optimistic about the year, we know what they are capable of if they find that level of play. Either that or other teams now know they are as soft as cotton and all you have to do is pressure them and they screw up.

We aren't taking points from these teams. We're giving them points they don't deserve. Letting LA come back and playing soft late in the third last night are two examples among many.

 

[Dbrownss]

We aren't taking points from these teams. We're giving them points they don't deserve. Letting LA come back and playing soft late in the third last night are two examples among many.

Well....that's one way to look at it. I'll stick with we didn't get crap from them last year....at all.

 

[Dbrownss]

More thoughts:
How do you reconcile giving up the blue line so easily with periods like the first where the Blues practically don't allow a SOG?

I feel like there is an upside to this that I'm not getting.

The forwards are suppose to backcheck and strip the other team of the puck since they won't drive the net as hard because the defender is still between them. It's a sound strategy, But when the forwards aren't back checking it backfires and we look like a marshmallow team. This should be something that requires an on ice adjustment and the defense know when to stand up at the line and when to back in

 

[Note Worthy]

The forwards are suppose to backcheck and strip the other team of the puck since they won't drive the net as hard because the defender is still between them. It's a sound strategy, But when the forwards aren't back checking it backfires and we look like a marshmallow team. This should be something that requires an on ice adjustment and the defense know when to stand up at the line and when to back in

It shouldn't be that hard of an adjustment. When the D see that there isn't a forward back checking then they should step up.

It's like the D and forwards aren't on the same page or something.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

Agreed. I have started to lose faith in Hitch, but what alternatives are there? Would Army fire Hitch and promote Muller?

Don't know how people would feel about him, but what about Bylsma?

 

[Thallis]

Don't know how people would feel about him, but what about Bylsma?

nonononononononononononono

 

[Meatball]

Mike Babcock would be ideal. Not happening though.

 

[execwrite]

Only watched parts of the tape from the game, but overall the Blues seemed to play pretty well. One bad goal by Jake and a fluky one to tie the game.

If we win in Colorado, that's a .500 road trip. Good enough.

 

[JustOneB4IDie]

Meh, sucks when the Blues are less then 30 seconds from a regulation win only to give up GTG then lose xtra point in a OTL. The NHL California Franchises in their lair continues to be toxic for the Blues.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

nonononononononononononono

I figured that's what the reaction would be. Only mentioned because he's the one bigger name coach still out there.

Mike Babcock would be ideal. Not happening though.

Would definitely prefer Babcock, but from what I've seen it looks like he's going to re-up with Detroit.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Only watched parts of the tape from the game, but overall the Blues seemed to play pretty well. One bad goal by Jake and a fluky one to tie the game.

If we win in Colorado, that's a .500 road trip. Good enough.

Not trying to troll, but that Vlassic goal wasn't fluky. Just because it goes off a skate doesn't make it a fluke. These goals happen all the time. It's part of the "throw the puck to the net" mentality.

That said, I thought it was a good game. A few defensive errors for your team cost the game, but it was a sold effort. Obviously I'm happy with the outcome.

 

[Thallis]

Not trying to troll, but that Vlassic goal wasn't fluky. Just because it goes off a skate doesn't make it a fluke. These goals happen all the time. It's part of the "throw the puck to the net" mentality.

That said, I thought it was a good game. A few defensive errors for your team cost the game, but it was a sold effort. Obviously I'm happy with the outcome.

Right, because you get fluky goals sometimes. When a guy is lining up to block a shot and it glances off his skate and into the net, that's a fluky goal

 

[Dbrownss]

Anyone else think Bouwmeester is still hurt?

 

[Robb_K]

Anyone else think Bouwmeester is still hurt?

I think so, and I think Stastny is as well. And I'm wondering if Pietrangelo is as well. What else could explain how horrible his play is?

 

[Dbrownss]

Stastny and Bouwmeester yea....


Pietrangelo he's been bleh all year

 

[LGB51]

Don't know how people would feel about him, but what about Bylsma?

What about Ottawa's recently relieved coach MacLean is it?

 

[Inglorious Backes]

What about Ottawa's recently relieved coach MacLean is it?

I want nothing to do with Bylsma, Mac is interesting since he's a Babcock guy. His Sens squads have been mostly unimpressive, but it's pretty brutal having a team built around two guys (Karlsson/Ryan) who are floaters and refuse to play a lick of defense.

 

[Meatball]

So...seems we're starting to point out the coaching?

 

[Multimoodia]

So...seems we're starting to point out the coaching?

Meh, Hitchcock has earned a stay until the end of the year at least and I'm pretty sure this is his last year regardless. The problem for him is the Blues as currently constructed don't really mesh that well with his style of play. The Blues need someone more concerned with the possession/transition game and hopefully someone that encourages the team to keep running the score up instead of attempting to keep them from being scored on. Babcock would be fantastic but that's probably not a feasible option.

The issue I see though is this: much of this Blues squad's leadership is the same one that has gone through two previous coaches and there have been similar issues each time.
So, while I have issues with Hitch's scheme (the defensive collapsing thing I mentioned earlier) it seems just as likely that Babcock may find himself having similar issues with the Blues until there's a change in culture/leadership.

Maybe. Dunno because I'm not in the room, but things seem a little too common to be coincidence.

 

[Multimoodia]

I never played hockey. Someone who understands strategy better may have a comment:

I see the transition passing as looking better and better (in general, depending who is on the ice). Is there any validity to the thought that the team is deliberately backing in to give up shots from certain areas of the ice on purpose.....so that they'll be better set to control the puck after the presumed save/block, and better positioned to quickly pass the puck up ice?

I'm seeing the backing off the blue line like everyone else, and wonder if it's coached that way for a reason.

Theoretically:

By collapsing to the middle with backside pressure that keeps the shots to the perimeter and should allow for faster, more consistent transition from the defensive zone. This is due to forcing the offensive team to either take a very low percentage shot that is blocked by the one of the defensemen while the other takes control of the puck moving it up-ice or forces the other player to make a mistake in attempting to force a play that isn't available at which point the pursuing forward makes the exit pass and one of the defensemen exits the zone with the other forwards.

It's a nice idea, however it requires absolute perfect execution and it runs into issues against:
Very heavy teams
Very skilled duos/lines
High hockey IQ players
Players who excel from behind the net
If the offensive rush doesn't at least manage to get the puck deep
If the opposition's defense/back checking is especially active in the neutral zone

Also if the pass cannot transition well to the forwards (either due to opposition's play or due to inability of players on the ice) this wears the Blues down quickly.


Which is my complaint about the system. It has to be run at such a high level all the time that it's pretty much impossible to do with regularity. Then when it starts to fail the high slot and crossing passes become available and a good team can burn the Blues.

Add that to a team that does show more mental fragility than it really should and you can get a loser soufflé pretty easily.

 

[LGB51]

Theoretically:

By collapsing to the middle with backside pressure that keeps the shots to the perimeter and should allow for faster, more consistent transition from the defensive zone. This is due to forcing the offensive team to either take a very low percentage shot that is blocked by the one of the defensemen while the other takes control of the puck moving it up-ice or forces the other player to make a mistake in attempting to force a play that isn't available at which point the pursuing forward makes the exit pass and one of the defensemen exits the zone with the other forwards.

It's a nice idea, however it requires absolute perfect execution and it runs into issues against:
Very heavy teams
Very skilled duos/lines
High hockey IQ players
Players who excel from behind the net
If the offensive rush doesn't at least manage to get the puck deep
If the opposition's defense/back checking is especially active in the neutral zone

Also if the pass cannot transition well to the forwards (either due to opposition's play or due to inability of players on the ice) this wears the Blues down quickly.


Which is my complaint about the system. It has to be run at such a high level all the time that it's pretty much impossible to do with regularity. Then when it starts to fail the high slot and crossing passes become available and a good team can burn the Blues.

Add that to a team that does show more mental fragility than it really should and you can get a loser soufflé pretty easily.

At what temp. do you cook a loser soufflé? Oh and how about some delicious side dish recommendations that best compliment said soufflé? Now, to just come up with a tasty wine list that ties the whole meal together.

 

[Thallis]

Theoretically:

By collapsing to the middle with backside pressure that keeps the shots to the perimeter and should allow for faster, more consistent transition from the defensive zone. This is due to forcing the offensive team to either take a very low percentage shot that is blocked by the one of the defensemen while the other takes control of the puck moving it up-ice or forces the other player to make a mistake in attempting to force a play that isn't available at which point the pursuing forward makes the exit pass and one of the defensemen exits the zone with the other forwards.

It's a nice idea, however it requires absolute perfect execution and it runs into issues against:
Very heavy teams
Very skilled duos/lines
High hockey IQ players
Players who excel from behind the net
If the offensive rush doesn't at least manage to get the puck deep
If the opposition's defense/back checking is especially active in the neutral zone

Also if the pass cannot transition well to the forwards (either due to opposition's play or due to inability of players on the ice) this wears the Blues down quickly.


Which is my complaint about the system. It has to be run at such a high level all the time that it's pretty much impossible to do with regularity. Then when it starts to fail the high slot and crossing passes become available and a good team can burn the Blues.

Add that to a team that does show more mental fragility than it really should and you can get a loser soufflé pretty easily.

What would you say the weakness is against heavy/forechecking teams? The idea of having your defensemen give the blueline, close your gaps at the circles or hashmarks, and have backcheckers pressure the high areas should give you a few seconds advantage over the dump and chases that those types of teams tend to prefer. The weakness against that would seem to be if your defense or goalie fumbles the puck behind the net, not with the system.