Mikkola could improve his game substantially merely by working extremely hard in weight training to build up substantially more strength and to add bulk, even if he doesn't improve his mental game. But, he should have been doing that at ages 20-23. Why should he need to be told that at 25?
Your analogy is literally proving my point - even good players make mistakes, pretty much every game, and most players hold themselves accountable when they do. But a fan saying "Player X sucks" when one player makes a mistake and "Look at how well Player Y played before that mistake" when the other one does is a bias. Constantly glossing over one player's mistakes and pointing out his good qualities while constantly being outraged when a different player makes the same mistakes as the good player has made, never acknowledging their good qualities is a bias. It's possible to point out when a player makes a mistake, any player making any mistake, without overgeneralizing their play and their worth as a player.
No one will respond to him by that nickname. Try again.
What if I told you he was exactly where the coaches told him to be?
think he's got a whopping 28 games played in the NHL.. I'd like to see what a little more playing experience does for him. I think he'll get better.. he might not.. needs to play to find out
some people have a hard time putting on weight.. it's a curse I wish all of us had lol
that far out is the Center's manThen the coach's defensive structure is overly static and has a giant soft spot in the middle.
Right before this, Sanford disengages with Kaprizov to cover the backdoor pass through the middle, and because he and Faulk were right on top of him. At this point, everyone but faulk is in a useful position. Sanford as F1 covers the backdoor while applying back pressure, Schwartz was applying pressure to the puck carrier, Bozak was covering the point options, and Scandella was covering the net front and backdoor. Faulk, having been on Kaprizov not 5 seconds before, should have drifted with him towards the dot. that would have covered the passing lane in front and allowed him to disrupt the threat in the middle. Instead he's caught at the moment he's disengaging, and his feet aren't set to challenge the play at all. In fact, he was drifting towards the corner at that point, opening up the lane to the man in front too. You'd like Sanford to be a little closer, but the backdoor man was also on the far dot right before the pass was made. Scandella probably could have communicated better as well, but ultimately, that's Faulk's puck to challenge.
It's not rigid. The events of the play dictate that Faulk should have stayed with him, because seconds before he was on him in the slot. There's not enough time for the center to recognize the movement, peel off, and react.
Here's where they are right after Sanford peels off from the crease. Sanford is covering the wing option as Fiala walks down. Faulk should be moving with Kaprizov as Kaprizov bumps up with the play, and Scandella should sink to the crease to deal with the backdoor option and the netfront presence. Without Faulk moving with Kaprizov, Sanford is making an either/or choice between 2 extremely dangerous options.
That’s a lot to digest, but let me just say that I have a hard time believing that any coach would want one of the two defensemen he has on the ice to be at or above the dots when the opponent has 4-5 forwards on the ice and the puck is controlled by the opponent in the defensive zone.Then the coach's defensive structure is overly static and has a giant soft spot in the middle.
Right before this, Sanford disengages with Kaprizov to cover the backdoor pass through the middle, and because he and Faulk were right on top of him. At this point, everyone but faulk is in a useful position. Sanford as F1 covers the backdoor while applying back pressure, Schwartz was applying pressure to the puck carrier, Bozak was covering the point options, and Scandella was covering the net front and backdoor. Faulk, having been on Kaprizov not 5 seconds before, should have drifted with him towards the dot. that would have covered the passing lane in front and allowed him to disrupt the threat in the middle. Instead he's caught at the moment he's disengaging, and his feet aren't set to challenge the play at all. In fact, he was drifting towards the corner at that point, opening up the lane to the man in front too. You'd like Sanford to be a little closer, but the backdoor man was also on the far dot right before the pass was made. Scandella probably could have communicated better as well, but ultimately, that's Faulk's puck to challenge.
I know that very well. They used to say I have a tape worm, definitely a superfast metabolism. From young childhood I ate about as much as four adult lumberjacks. I also had a fairly small frame for my height, with not very wide shoulders. So, it was a frame that wouldn't hold a lot of weight well. Back in Midgets in 1962, I was a skinny 6' 160 lb and after weight training and diet changes, by 1964, I was able to build up to 185. So, if I can do that, I KNOW Mikkola can. And the weight training and food science is MUCH better now than back in my youth 60 years ago, when we played with no helmets!
My point is (and has been) that the coaching staff, under those circumstances, would not want him to chase out as far as he would have needed to in order to reasonably be able to defend the shot from Kaprizov. Connecting the dots, at that spot on the ice (i.e. - above the dot), the job of defending Kaprizov would have fallen to one of the forwards so that the D could stay lower in the zone in a 6-on-5 situation. You may disagree, at which point we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Isn't great thing that Faulk play almost 30min a night and I found only one situation where he plays badly?
If you want to spend your time combing thru every minute Faulk plays looking for the slightest mistake he makes to post in the GDT and feel good because you decided a long time ago that Faulk was trash and are unwilling (or unable) to re-examine your beliefs, that's your business.Isn't great thing that Faulk play almost 30min a night and I found only one situation where he plays badly?
I know that very well. They used to say I have a tape worm, definitely a superfast metabolism. From young childhood I ate about as much as four adult lumberjacks. I also had a fairly small frame for my height, with not very wide shoulders. So, it was a frame that wouldn't hold a lot of weight well. Back in Midgets in 1962, I was a skinny 6' 160 lb and after weight training and diet changes, by 1964, I was able to build up to 185. So, if I can do that, I KNOW Mikkola can. And the weight training and food science is MUCH better now than back in my youth 60 years ago, when we played with no helmets!
