C
Out shot nearly every game
Wildly inconsistent efforts from a large swath of players
No coherent strategy for breakouts or the attack
LOL. If they are a C, then the rest of the NHL is F-
C
Out shot nearly every game
Wildly inconsistent efforts from a large swath of players
No coherent strategy for breakouts or the attack
Far too many red flags with this team right now. Dead last in shot generation. Second to last in offensive zone faceoffs (ie forcing the opponent to ice the puck or cover in their own zone). Dead last in offensive zone faceoff wins. Sub 50% possession metrics. Even worse possession metrics in Score Close and Score Tied situations. Bottom third of the league in high danger shot attempts. Floundering third defense pairing (and sometimes second pairing). Struggling powerplay in recent months. Practically non-existent 2nd PP unit. 22nd ranked PK unit. Still no perceivable difference in Barry Trotz's transition or neutral zone schemes. Still no perceivable improvements in team speed. Still too reliant on individual efforts from defensemen to create breakouts that can result in controlled entries.
Obviously not everything is terrible. Ovechkin is once again scoring at a 50G pace. Vrana is exceeding expectations. Djoos is exceeding expectations. Wilson has shown flashes of offensive potential. Stephenson has shown he belongs in the NHL. Kuznetsov's offensive numbers are impressive. Eller has turned around a slow start. Connolly is riding a red hot shooting percentage currently (this could also be a red flag, though). DSP and Chiasson can be useful role players.
The best thing the Caps have going for them right now is that it's been a rough year for the rest of the Eastern Conference (save Tampa) as well. They are still in a good standings position as a result. They have plenty of time to correct the flaws in their game. But make no mistake, these flaws need to be corrected.
Do you really believe our coaching staff is able to correct the flaws? I still see no strong system, the game completely is based on individual effort of our talented roster. When 2 or 3 talents slightly underperform the game momentally becomes "bad bad bad bad bad"(c).They have plenty of time to correct the flaws in their game. But make no mistake, these flaws need to be corrected.
I gave them a B mostly because they’ve struggled against crappy teams and that bugs the shit out of me. But I have to agree here. What is the deal with “the underlying numbers”? They are first in their division. Do those results mean less than they would if the magical fancy stats were good? Would they somehow be more in first place if they had a better CF? I don’t get it. You win or you lose. The rest is window dressing.Sounds awful. At least it’s a good draft and it sounds like the Caps should be drafting top 5 or so. No? Not top 5?
At least top 10. Commensurate with those rankings you quoted...as their record has to be terrible. No? Not top 10?
They must be getting lucky then. Middle of the pack. Those stats paint a grim picture. Sounds like a fringe playoff team, yes? No? Not fringe?
Ok...I’m seriously confused.
You are skeptical of Stephenson's hockey IQ? The hockey IQ is there. He usually makes the right decisions at both ends of the ice. He isnt the most skilled player on the team and he isn't as big and strong as a lot of players. But he has more hockey IQ than the majority of players on this team. Who has a higher hockey IQ than him on this team? Maybe Backstrom.Agreed. The end results are strong but a lot of the underlying stuff is indeed worrisome.
It also seems like a lot of the forwards (and lines) aren't very consistent offensively. They're getting enough from a wide range of players, including the fourth line, but the underlying stuff and that inconsistency or flatness make it hard to consider them serious contenders. This formula may work in the regular season but eventually they need to start pivoting more towards crisper, more aggressive and consistently engaged play. When relatively engaged their structure affords them the ability to be a bit funky offensively but it's going to need to tighten up. I'd be more inclined to give an A if 13/92/65 were playing a much more assertive offensive game. Those guys are key for secondary scoring when it matters and I still don't think they've found the right mentality or mix. Wilson's development will help and I like Stephenson's game but I'm still skeptical of the hockey IQ. The East isn't terribly impressive so they may be able to ride the same old approach to the top seed again but I'd hope they're doing a bit more in planning ahead beyond that.
I meant their collective IQ and team play generally. It's sound but I don't know how much elevation they have. They're still not that good through the neutral zone, they struggle to create odd-man rushes and I'm not sure we can expect the likes of DSP, Chiasson, Connolly and Burakovsky to raise their games in the playoffs. So much of what they do overall is effort-based and defensive structure-based but when sheer intensity isn't a factor I wonder about their fundamentals.You are skeptical of Stephenson's hockey IQ? The hockey IQ is there. He usually makes the right decisions at both ends of the ice. He isnt the most skilled player on the team and he isn't as big and strong as a lot of players. But he has more hockey IQ than the majority of players on this team. Who has a higher hockey IQ than him on this team? Maybe Backstrom.
LOL. If they are a C, then the rest of the NHL is F-
I agree about the hockey IQ as a group. We are lacking there a bit. A couple if our stars make poor decisions on a regular basis.I meant their collective IQ and team play generally. It's sound but I don't know how much elevation they have. They're still not that good through the neutral zone, they struggle to create odd-man rushes and I'm not sure we can expect the likes of DSP, Chiasson, Connolly and Burakovsky to raise their games in the playoffs. So much of what they do overall is effort-based and defensive structure-based but when sheer intensity isn't a factor I wonder about their fundamentals.
As for Stephenson, the big thing missing is more of a shot mentality. He's a very savvy perimeter playmaker and skater but he needs to add that element at times. He needs to dip his shoulder and take it to the net a bit. I'd like to see him at center thanks to that IQ/skating at some point (certainly if there's an injury he deserves it).
I gave them a B mostly because they’ve struggled against crappy teams and that bugs the **** out of me. But I have to agree here. What is the deal with “the underlying numbers”? They are first in their division. Do those results mean less than they would if the magical fancy stats were good? Would they somehow be more in first place if they had a better CF? I don’t get it. You win or you lose. The rest is window dressing.
As Ajax said...if they can fix the fancy stats, I think they have a good chance to go 40-0-1 the rest of the way. May lose one shootout. Maybe.
Well, before the season everyone (me included) thought it was highly doubtful if the would make the play offs. Considering that it's definitely a B.
By my recollection very few posters here had them outright missing the playoffs.
I'm giving them an A. Why? Because no one expected us to lead the division again, and no one thought that we would get the kind of contribution we've been getting out of the depth players. DSP, Chiasson, Connolly, Wilson are all producing way more than expected. The offense is just clicking, and Holtby is back in his groove. I don't care if the advanced metrics say that our play is unsustainable, we just have to get to the playoffs. The goal isn't to win the President's trophy here. We're doing exactly what we need to do: winning games in the most competitive division in the league.
Sounds awful. At least it’s a good draft and it sounds like the Caps should be drafting top 5 or so. No? Not top 5?
At least top 10. Commensurate with those rankings you quoted...as their record has to be terrible. No? Not top 10?
They must be getting lucky then. Middle of the pack. Those stats paint a grim picture. Sounds like a fringe playoff team, yes? No? Not fringe?
Ok...I’m seriously confused.
I gave them a B mostly because they’ve struggled against crappy teams and that bugs the **** out of me. But I have to agree here. What is the deal with “the underlying numbers”? They are first in their division. Do those results mean less than they would if the magical fancy stats were good? Would they somehow be more in first place if they had a better CF? I don’t get it. You win or you lose. The rest is window dressing.
Wins/losses don't have much predictive value in the future. The underlying numbers do. There's always 1-2 teams each season that make the playoffs with poor underlying numbers. They almost never go far, and almost always implode the next season.