GDT: Blues vs. Sharks| 7pm, FSMW| First Home Game in 10 Months

[Thallis]

On their 3rd goal, Faulk steps up to deliver a hit just inside our blue line on a zone entry while we are short. He stays on his feet and this is the position of everyone on the ice a second or so later:

View attachment 385895

Gunnar then inexplicably leaves the slot to go toward the corner and make a non-committal play towards a puck carrier who is largely still covered by Faulk.

View attachment 385900

The pass gets through Gunnar and Burns is wide open in front.
View attachment 385910

We're blaming Faulk for that? He was a step behind Kane, but was close enough that he had forced Kane into the very corner of the ice. He had clear body position to take the body on Kane if he drove to the net, so the only consequence of his hit near the blue line is that a SJ player had possession below the goal line.

These are absolutely ridiculous critiques to claim that his defensive gaffes almost negated his 2 goals, 8 shots and +2 rating for the night. Faulk was no defensive stud last night and his tendency to chase guys to the boards and subsequently lose a board battle is irritating. But if these are the types of plays we are bringing up to demonstrate how terrible he is, then we are judging a player for his contract and/or reputation.

Faulk had a really good game last night so this is basically inconsequential, but your screenshots aren't really helping your argument. Faulk's position is basically forcing Scandella to move forward like he does. If he goes in hard and commits heavily, a passing lane to Couture opens up for a completely wide open goal. If he hadn't moved forward, a clear lane to the goal mouth is opened for an option pass between Burns and Couture, or he can try and put it short side. An aware play by Faulk would be to peel off towards Burns in the slot, which also doubles up the traffic in the passing lane to Couture while covering Burns. It's a mistake, but he's been good enough overall that it doesn't matter.

 

[Blueston]

I don't want to belabor the Faulk point too much, but here are my general thoughts on Faulk (and the general consensus around him)

No current Blues D man has played better than Faulk since the playoff bubble began. That is a damn small sample size and I'm about 95% sure Parayko had COVID in the summer so his mediocre playoffs is of zero long-term concern to me. Parayko has been better in the 3 games so far this season, but I'd put Faulk as our 2nd best D man over those 3 games. I don't believe that will continue, but if he continues his currently level of play than he will be pretty far down my list of concerns.

It seems that the people who don't like Faulk are interpreting conversation about his strong play as people saying that he has for sure turned a corner, will be worth the money for all 7 years and should absolutely be protected from Seattle. It also seems like there are a number of people that seem to think that the last 10-15 games of his are who he truly is and that everything else doesn't need to be considered. This forum is going to be a dumpster fire for the next 4 months if the current vitriol around Faulk doesn't cool off.

I read posts blaming him on goal #1 because he screened Binner. The reality of that goal is that Faulk did not plant in front of Binner. He moved in front of Binner's sight line in the process of bodying out a SJ player who was planting in front of Binner. This happened well after the release of the initial shot and I'm really not sure what you would want Faulk to have done here. Additionally, Binner tracked the initial shot and was beaten not from a screen but because a deflection. When the shot is taken, Binner is looking to the right of the Sharks' player and Faulk is on that player's left side:
View attachment 385906

Faulk crosses Binner's line of site to clear the Sharks player out of the way, but to put that goal on Faulk for a screen is an large nitpick. It was a great tip on a very well-delivered point shot through traffic. It doesn't have to be anyone's fault and I'm not sure what any D man would have done differently. This place would be losing their minds if Faulk just allowed the Sharks player to screen Binner instead of making a play to clear him out.

On their 3rd goal, Faulk steps up to deliver a hit just inside our blue line on a zone entry while we are short. He stays on his feet and this is the position of everyone on the ice a second or so later:

View attachment 385895

Gunnar then inexplicably leaves the slot to go toward the corner and make a non-committal play towards a puck carrier who is largely still covered by Faulk.

View attachment 385900

The pass gets through Gunnar and Burns is wide open in front.
View attachment 385910

We're blaming Faulk for that? He was a step behind Kane, but was close enough that he had forced Kane into the very corner of the ice. He had clear body position to take the body on Kane if he drove to the net, so the only consequence of his hit near the blue line is that a SJ player had possession below the goal line.

These are absolutely ridiculous critiques to claim that his defensive gaffes almost negated his 2 goals, 8 shots and +2 rating for the night. Faulk was no defensive stud last night and his tendency to chase guys to the boards and subsequently lose a board battle is irritating. But if these are the types of plays we are bringing up to demonstrate how terrible he is, then we are judging a player for his contract and/or reputation.

Not to nitpick a thoughtful post, but that was Scandella and not Gunnar.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Finally rewatched the game. And here we go with the Nitpicking!!!

Bad.
Dunn, Dunn is just, uuuggghhhh. For every good play he has like 4 bad plays. He needs to be better.
Scandella. Man has he totally done a 180. If he has to be on the Same pair as Parayko to play well I think we'd be better shopping for another 2LHD.
The 4th line just was not clicking after period 1.
Too many pucks were getting to the net that should have been stopped long before, and Sharks players were getting open too easily in front of the net.

The Meh.
Gunner was rusty. But got better as the night went on.
Krug still looks off, but, its still early.

The Good.
Faulk continues to look better and is playing better defensively and offensively than expected.
Hoffman got on the board.
Schwartz-Schenn-Kyrou is clicking, and clicking oooh so well.
And on the topic of Kyrou, oh my Cthulhu, adds 8lbs of muscle and STILL gets faster. And is currently sitting at a point per game. Please let this kid go off this season.

 

[Celtic Note]

I don't want to belabor the Faulk point too much, but here are my general thoughts on Faulk (and the general consensus around him)

No current Blues D man has played better than Faulk since the playoff bubble began. That is a damn small sample size and I'm about 95% sure Parayko had COVID in the summer so his mediocre playoffs is of zero long-term concern to me. Parayko has been better in the 3 games so far this season, but I'd put Faulk as our 2nd best D man over those 3 games. I don't believe that will continue, but if he continues his currently level of play than he will be pretty far down my list of concerns.

It seems that the people who don't like Faulk are interpreting conversation about his strong play as people saying that he has for sure turned a corner, will be worth the money for all 7 years and should absolutely be protected from Seattle. It also seems like there are a number of people that seem to think that the last 10-15 games of his are who he truly is and that everything else doesn't need to be considered. This forum is going to be a dumpster fire for the next 4 months if the current vitriol around Faulk doesn't cool off.

I read posts blaming him on goal #1 because he screened Binner. The reality of that goal is that Faulk did not plant in front of Binner. He moved in front of Binner's sight line in the process of bodying out a SJ player who was planting in front of Binner. This happened well after the release of the initial shot and I'm really not sure what you would want Faulk to have done here. Additionally, Binner tracked the initial shot and was beaten not from a screen but because a deflection. When the shot is taken, Binner is looking to the right of the Sharks' player and Faulk is on that player's left side:
View attachment 385906

Faulk crosses Binner's line of site to clear the Sharks player out of the way, but to put that goal on Faulk for a screen is an large nitpick. It was a great tip on a very well-delivered point shot through traffic. It doesn't have to be anyone's fault and I'm not sure what any D man would have done differently. This place would be losing their minds if Faulk just allowed the Sharks player to screen Binner instead of making a play to clear him out.

On their 3rd goal, Faulk steps up to deliver a hit just inside our blue line on a zone entry while we are short. He stays on his feet and this is the position of everyone on the ice a second or so later:

View attachment 385895

Gunnar then inexplicably leaves the slot to go toward the corner and make a non-committal play towards a puck carrier who is largely still covered by Faulk.

View attachment 385900

The pass gets through Gunnar and Burns is wide open in front.
View attachment 385910

We're blaming Faulk for that? He was a step behind Kane, but was close enough that he had forced Kane into the very corner of the ice. He had clear body position to take the body on Kane if he drove to the net, so the only consequence of his hit near the blue line is that a SJ player had possession below the goal line.

These are absolutely ridiculous critiques to claim that his defensive gaffes almost negated his 2 goals, 8 shots and +2 rating for the night. Faulk was no defensive stud last night and his tendency to chase guys to the boards and subsequently lose a board battle is irritating. But if these are the types of plays we are bringing up to demonstrate how terrible he is, then we are judging a player for his contract and/or reputation.

On the 3rd goal: I would prefer no one goes out of the way to make a hit while we are on a PK. The name and number are of no consequence to me. If you finish a hit on the PK you are taking the opposition and yourself out of the play. Typically, I don’t like how that favors the team that is one man up. It opens up more time and space for the team on the PP.

5v5 is a different assessment and one that is even more situational IMO.

Moving on from generalities and to the actual play, you already have a forward over there when Faulk steps up. With SJ coming with numbers, I would have preferred that our D be more passive and push the play to the outside using defensive positioning (a less risky approach) and let the forward do more of the following until he needs to peel off and relinquish responsibility to the D. As an alternative, if you want to be aggressive, step up a bit to front the man and then push wide. Do not try to go through him.

While I didn’t like that play, Faulk wasn’t the main culprit. Scandella was the real problem. When you are the last man back, especially with numbers against you, you do not get aggressive and go out of position. Ending up behind the goal line is a sure fire way to give up a high danger chance in that situation. If Scandella literally stands still, he is in a better position to defend multiple players. Instead, he is late to the play and defends no one as a result. I am not sure the offense would have had a harder time with him completely off the ice. I am being a bit facetious, but only a tiny bit.

Despite not loving that play by Faulk, I think it’s pretty easy to admit he has been one of our top 2 defensemen so far this year and overall had a very strong game. I hope he continues this type of play with some improvements as to when he plays aggressively.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It’s not the 3 games. Point is last season was aberration. New system, no defined role, he never got comfortable. This year is much more like how he has played his entire career. But many of y’all already made your minds up and refuse to admit that he is actually good.

Really? Was last year the aberration? Because while he was decent in '18-19, he was poor the year prior to that. And not particularly good the year prior to that. To be really honest, he's riding the aura of his '14-15 season where he was 15-34-49 and got votes - sorry, a vote, a single 5th-place vote - for the Norris. He's been OK since at his best, he's been less than that when he's not. Say, like last year. Or '17-18.

I haven't made my mind up on anything, other than "giving him 7 years, $45.5 million before he'd played the first game here was a dumb move." I think he underperforms it, and I'm not alone on that by any stretch. I'm willing to have my mind changed on that, but I'm sure as hell not doing it based on three (3) games to start a season. You are apparently willing to sink all your faith into him based on three (3) games, because ... long list of reasons you've provided.

That's fine. Go ahead and do that. But quit bitching about those who refuse to show the same undying devotion you have because they'd like to see more of a proven track record on the season than three (3) games.

 

[Majorityof1]

I don't want to belabor the Faulk point too much, but here are my general thoughts on Faulk (and the general consensus around him)

No current Blues D man has played better than Faulk since the playoff bubble began. That is a damn small sample size and I'm about 95% sure Parayko had COVID in the summer so his mediocre playoffs is of zero long-term concern to me. Parayko has been better in the 3 games so far this season, but I'd put Faulk as our 2nd best D man over those 3 games. I don't believe that will continue, but if he continues his currently level of play than he will be pretty far down my list of concerns.

It seems that the people who don't like Faulk are interpreting conversation about his strong play as people saying that he has for sure turned a corner, will be worth the money for all 7 years and should absolutely be protected from Seattle. It also seems like there are a number of people that seem to think that the last 10-15 games of his are who he truly is and that everything else doesn't need to be considered. This forum is going to be a dumpster fire for the next 4 months if the current vitriol around Faulk doesn't cool off.

I read posts blaming him on goal #1 because he screened Binner. The reality of that goal is that Faulk did not plant in front of Binner. He moved in front of Binner's sight line in the process of bodying out a SJ player who was planting in front of Binner. This happened well after the release of the initial shot and I'm really not sure what you would want Faulk to have done here. Additionally, Binner tracked the initial shot and was beaten not from a screen but because a deflection. When the shot is taken, Binner is looking to the right of the Sharks' player and Faulk is on that player's left side:
View attachment 385906

Faulk crosses Binner's line of site to clear the Sharks player out of the way, but to put that goal on Faulk for a screen is an large nitpick. It was a great tip on a very well-delivered point shot through traffic. It doesn't have to be anyone's fault and I'm not sure what any D man would have done differently. This place would be losing their minds if Faulk just allowed the Sharks player to screen Binner instead of making a play to clear him out.

On their 3rd goal, Faulk steps up to deliver a hit just inside our blue line on a zone entry while we are short. He stays on his feet and this is the position of everyone on the ice a second or so later:

View attachment 385895

Gunnar then inexplicably leaves the slot to go toward the corner and make a non-committal play towards a puck carrier who is largely still covered by Faulk.

View attachment 385900

The pass gets through Gunnar and Burns is wide open in front.
View attachment 385910

We're blaming Faulk for that? He was a step behind Kane, but was close enough that he had forced Kane into the very corner of the ice. He had clear body position to take the body on Kane if he drove to the net, so the only consequence of his hit near the blue line is that a SJ player had possession below the goal line.

These are absolutely ridiculous critiques to claim that his defensive gaffes almost negated his 2 goals, 8 shots and +2 rating for the night. Faulk was no defensive stud last night and his tendency to chase guys to the boards and subsequently lose a board battle is irritating. But if these are the types of plays we are bringing up to demonstrate how terrible he is, then we are judging a player for his contract and/or reputation.

As Celtic pointed out, he left his spot on the PK to make an ineffectual hit on a guy Barbashev already had covered. He further blocked Barbashev from pursuing the puck with the hit. That left 2 players trailing the puck and Scandella alone to cover 3 guys. Yes, Scandella probably shouldn't have gone into the corner after the puck, but he was left in a bad position by a totally unnecessary hit when you are down a man.

As for the screen, it looked worse in motion. Faulk did nothing about the guy in the crease until the Shark started to shoot. Then he jumps right in front of Binnington screening his view from the deflection. The deflecting player was far enough out that Binnington may have been able to adjust. While I do want Faulk to clear the crease, I want his timing to be a lot better. Maybe Binnington fails to stop the shot if he sees the deflection. But we won't know.

Mistakes absolutely happen to every player. Those 2 did not make him a terrible player, or even give him a terrible night. I gave him credit for his offensive night. I also absolutely said that my qualms were him were about team fit and contract. I was nitpicking intentionally because of how hyperbolic the praise swung on him in the other direction. Like he was suddenly better than Parayko because he had a 2 goal night while everyone is ignoring his defensive gaffes. I highlighted those 2 gaffes because it is easier to track down footage of goals to refresh my memory than justt general gaffes where others covered for him or the Sharks player missed the net or whatever. Nonetheless they were absolutely poor plays that highlights that he is not good defensively despite making improvements over last year.

 

[stl76]

While I didn’t like that play, Faulk wasn’t the main culprit. Scandella was the real problem. When you are the last man back, especially with numbers against you, you do not get aggressive and go out of position. Ending up behind the goal line is a sure fire way to give up a high danger chance in that situation. If Scandella literally stands still, he is in a better position to defend multiple players. Instead, he is late to the play and defends no one as a result. I am not sure the offense would have had a harder time with him completely off the ice. I am being a bit facetious, but only a tiny bit.

When defending in your zone, as a dman you never want to leave good ice for bad. There was no reason for Scandella to leave to front of the net to pressure literally the least dangerous man on the ice (who was already covered). Would've been nice if Sunny would have been collapsing towards the slot a little quicker as well. Faulk wasn't perfect last night, but choosing this play to critique his overall game is just dumb IMO.

 

[Reality Czech]

When defending in your zone, as a dman you never want to leave good ice for bad. There was no reason for Scandella to leave to front of the net to pressure literally the least dangerous man on the ice (who was already covered). Would've been nice if Sunny would have been collapsing towards the slot a little quicker as well. Faulk wasn't perfect last night, but choosing this play to critique his overall game is just dumb IMO.

Yes, I really don't like putting anyone under a microscope and analyzing every play like this. Because if one truly wants to find faults, I'm sure we could identify "mistakes" that every player makes...even guys like ROR and Parayko. What matters most is do the positives outweigh the negatives? I had no idea we had so many Faulk experts in the forum who have been watching him so closely throughout his career. This is going to be a long season if we're going to do this after every game.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Yes, I really don't like putting anyone under a microscope and analyzing every play like this. Because if one truly wants to find faults, I'm sure we could identify "mistakes" that every player makes...even guys like ROR and Parayko. What matters most is do the positives outweigh the negatives? I had no idea we had so many Faulk experts in the forum who have been watching him so closely throughout his career. This is going to be a long season if we're going to do this after every game.

 

[Brian39]

I have much less of a problem with Fualk's hit on goal #3 than a lot of people seem to. Barby absolutely did not have the man covered, and it was a step up at the blue line attempting to disrupt a zone entry. That is way different than chasing a guy to make a hit. Here is the play as the Sharks are crossing the blue line. Faulk is in the middle of our 3 players behind the line and is directly in front of the puck carrier. Kane is along the boards and is squarely Barby's man at that point.

Barby gets caught a bit in no man's land, taking a swipe at the puck as it crosses the blue line. At this point, Faulk is bracing to hit the puck carrier (who is dishing the puck as Faulk commits to the hit).

The next still is post-check, where Faulk is deciding where to go and Barby pursues Kane.

Kane beats Barby, who takes a lazy stick swipe and then lets up pursuing Kane. Sunny peels of of Karlsson when Karlsson stays high and Faulk decides to pursue Kane since he beat Barby along the boards and Kane would otherwise have an unimpeded drive to the goal.

If Faulk peels off and goes to Burns here, then Kane is all alone with a lane to Binner. The gap between him and Burns is way too large to allow Scandella to effectively defend Kane without Burns being wide open. At this point in the play, the RD chasing the puck carrier into the right corner while the LD stays in front is absolutely the play the PK should make. If the forward isn't going to pursue low and let both D cover the middle, then the D has to fill the RD position. it was Faulk's position and not Scandella's that caused Kane to drift into the corner and not drive the net.

It wasn't a perfect play by Faulk. He should have committed to the hit about one stride sooner to better disrupt the entry. But the lack of commitment by Barby and his poor play on Kane is just as bad if not worse. If Barby had continued pursuing Kane instead of letting up, it would have allowed Faulk to play toward the center of the ice. I'm not a fan of hits on the PK, but stepping up at the blue line is absolutely acceptable. Faulk didn't chase a hit there, he simply stopped retreating. Again, he should have made that decision a split second sooner, but it wasn't by its nature an over aggressive play.

In order of blame, I put this play on Scandella, Barby and then Faulk. Sunny did his job and Binner was hung out to dry.

 

[MilesNewton]

Thoughts on Krug the first couple of games?

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Thoughts on Krug the first couple of games?

Still getting use to the system and team.

 

[mk80]

Thoughts on Krug the first couple of games?

He's looked fine, I think he's still adjusting a bit

 

[Blueston]

I have much less of a problem with Fualk's hit on goal #3 than a lot of people seem to. Barby absolutely did not have the man covered, and it was a step up at the blue line attempting to disrupt a zone entry. That is way different than chasing a guy to make a hit. Here is the play as the Sharks are crossing the blue line. Faulk is in the middle of our 3 players behind the line and is directly in front of the puck carrier. Kane is along the boards and is squarely Barby's man at that point.
View attachment 386215

Barby gets caught a bit in no man's land, taking a swipe at the puck as it crosses the blue line. At this point, Faulk is bracing to hit the puck carrier (who is dishing the puck as Faulk commits to the hit).

View attachment 386217

The next still is post-check, where Faulk is deciding where to go and Barby pursues Kane.
View attachment 386219

Kane beats Barby, who takes a lazy stick swipe and then lets up pursuing Kane. Sunny peels of of Karlsson when Karlsson stays high and Faulk decides to pursue Kane since he beat Barby along the boards and Kane would otherwise have an unimpeded drive to the goal.
View attachment 386221

If Faulk peels off and goes to Burns here, then Kane is all alone with a lane to Binner. The gap between him and Burns is way too large to allow Scandella to effectively defend Kane without Burns being wide open. At this point in the play, the RD chasing the puck carrier into the right corner while the LD stays in front is absolutely the play the PK should make. If the forward isn't going to pursue low and let both D cover the middle, then the D has to fill the RD position. it was Faulk's position and not Scandella's that caused Kane to drift into the corner and not drive the net.

It wasn't a perfect play by Faulk. He should have committed to the hit about one stride sooner to better disrupt the entry. But the lack of commitment by Barby and his poor play on Kane is just as bad if not worse. If Barby had continued pursuing Kane instead of letting up, it would have allowed Faulk to play toward the center of the ice. I'm not a fan of hits on the PK, but stepping up at the blue line is absolutely acceptable. Faulk didn't chase a hit there, he simply stopped retreating. Again, he should have made that decision a split second sooner, but it wasn't by its nature an over aggressive play.

In order of blame, I put this play on Scandella, Barby and then Faulk. Sunny did his job and Binner was hung out to dry.

Great analysis. Thank you.

 

[Blueston]

I have much less of a problem with Fualk's hit on goal #3 than a lot of people seem to. Barby absolutely did not have the man covered, and it was a step up at the blue line attempting to disrupt a zone entry. That is way different than chasing a guy to make a hit. Here is the play as the Sharks are crossing the blue line. Faulk is in the middle of our 3 players behind the line and is directly in front of the puck carrier. Kane is along the boards and is squarely Barby's man at that point.
View attachment 386215

Barby gets caught a bit in no man's land, taking a swipe at the puck as it crosses the blue line. At this point, Faulk is bracing to hit the puck carrier (who is dishing the puck as Faulk commits to the hit).

View attachment 386217

The next still is post-check, where Faulk is deciding where to go and Barby pursues Kane.
View attachment 386219

Kane beats Barby, who takes a lazy stick swipe and then lets up pursuing Kane. Sunny peels of of Karlsson when Karlsson stays high and Faulk decides to pursue Kane since he beat Barby along the boards and Kane would otherwise have an unimpeded drive to the goal.
View attachment 386221

If Faulk peels off and goes to Burns here, then Kane is all alone with a lane to Binner. The gap between him and Burns is way too large to allow Scandella to effectively defend Kane without Burns being wide open. At this point in the play, the RD chasing the puck carrier into the right corner while the LD stays in front is absolutely the play the PK should make. If the forward isn't going to pursue low and let both D cover the middle, then the D has to fill the RD position. it was Faulk's position and not Scandella's that caused Kane to drift into the corner and not drive the net.

It wasn't a perfect play by Faulk. He should have committed to the hit about one stride sooner to better disrupt the entry. But the lack of commitment by Barby and his poor play on Kane is just as bad if not worse. If Barby had continued pursuing Kane instead of letting up, it would have allowed Faulk to play toward the center of the ice. I'm not a fan of hits on the PK, but stepping up at the blue line is absolutely acceptable. Faulk didn't chase a hit there, he simply stopped retreating. Again, he should have made that decision a split second sooner, but it wasn't by its nature an over aggressive play.

In order of blame, I put this play on Scandella, Barby and then Faulk. Sunny did his job and Binner was hung out to dry.

Barby is secretly a pretty crappy defensive player. He is great on forecheck but he is generally a liability in own zone.

 

[Ranksu]

Thoughts on Krug the first couple of games?

He just played his best game as a Bluenote. He's still misused in this team what limits his best attributes to shine and shows up his worst ones. Tweaking his usage would help team in long run and could help Faulk himself too. We are asking too much from him to be what he isn't. Face reality and solve d-problem other way.

Bigger picture Faulk isn't exactly Blues type player at all, so him playing defensive minded game, well how I say it nicely. It looks awfull.

 

[Brian39]

He just played his best game as a Bluenote. He's still misused in this team what limits his best attributes to shine and shows up his worst ones. Tweaking his usage would help team in long run and could help Faulk himself too. We are asking too much from him to be what he isn't. Face reality and solve d-problem other way.

Bigger picture Faulk isn't exactly Blues type player at all, so him playing defensive minded game, well how I say it nicely. It looks awfull.

I agree with you about putting him on the PK. However, I do want to say that he currently leads the Blues in PP time. I think we are asking him too do too much defensively, but we are also still giving him heavy minutes in situations where his offensive skills can shine.

 

[Blueston]

I agree with you about putting him on the PK. However, I do want to say that he currently leads the Blues in PP time. I think we are asking him too do too much defensively, but we are also still giving him heavy minutes in situations where his offensive skills can shine.

Challenge with playing him with Parayko is he gets disproportionate number of D zone starts. Our 3rd pairing has been super sheltered, almost always starting in O zone. Would like to see Krug get more of that, even if it means pulling him off of Parayko pair at times.