Nyquist skates around Sens zone with puck for 28 seconds and scores OT winner

[Micklebot]

ottawa has been involved in 3 of these goals. The first was spezza against the leafs, then crosby against the sens and now nyquist against the sens

You forgot Hossa against the Leafs. Can't find a video as it was so long ago, but as I recall he did two laps and snipped it.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Because they chose the low-risk play of containing him, instead of going for it and risking a 4 on 3 or 4 on 2 odd-man opportunity down low. There was such a lack of danger for most of that that it wasn't worth the risk.

If it is a high risk play, then it isn't easy. Nyquist did a good job of keeping himself between the puck and the defender which is why he was able to go around the net twice.

Tell me how many are skating at anywhere near a speed or intensity, or in a location, to be effective in the result of a turnover.

If they are moving, they aren't stagnant. They also do not need to be going full speed to be a part of the play.

I saw the move, a move that could have been done at any time or in better areas, around Cowen that he did, which opened up a split second for him to get a shot off.

I'm talking about when Nyquist and Smith switch positions and Cowen made a mistake in backing off of Nyquist, which allowed Nyquist the ability to even make the move to the forehand to begin with.

I'm not discrediting the shot. I even said it was a nice shot, and a nice move right beforehand to get that space.

It's just not special or worthy of praise, unless we're going to have 1,000 goal threads every year.

The thing is the reason this is a thread is because Nyquist was able to protect the puck by himself while circling the zone twice (including keeping the puck behind the net which is a choke-point and doesn't give you nearly the same amount of space) and get into the middle lane for a goal. How often in a season does a player keep the puck for 28 seconds in the opponent's zone to score?

The only reason it's a thread is because of that stupid skate he went for, that did nothing.

He isn't able to get in the lane to score if Cowen doesn't back off. Cowen doesn't back off if Nyquist doesn't switch with Smith and force Cowen to switch with the other Ottawa player. Cowen doesn't switch with the other Ottawa player if Nyquist doesn't go behind the net and break away from MacArthur.

Trying to snipe tiny corners is usually a pretty bad strategy, since if you miss, 75% of the time it's going to go past the net, and then you open yourself up to odd-man rush counterattacks as the puck comes around the boards super fast. Especially if you've just skated around for 30 seconds and rendered the rest of your team ineffective.

Again, I feel like Detroit fans should know this, since the boards in Detroit are probably the worst for it.

Red Wings fans are aware of the phenomenon and what happens when you take a low angle shot from way outside. The problem was this was within the dots and below the top of the circle. How much of a guarantee does a player need for it to be a "good strategy"? Just about every play in the league has a risk to it. A pass could get intercepted and go the other way. A point shot could get blocked and lead to an odd man rush. A drop pass could be misread and intercepted.

Criticizing a play because it wasn't a guarantee (even though he was in a good position to score) is ridiculous.

 

[danincanada]

I wish I could find a video from years ago, or even remember which player it was. Part of me wants to say the same thing happened to Crosby too in his early years, but that's not the one I'm thinking of.

It was a pretty similar situation. OT, and the one player was skating around in circles in a similar way. The puck was stolen at the blueline, and the other team went on to score on a breakaway and win it.

That player, who I believe was still a rookie (or sophomore?), was BLASTED that night for a stupid rookie mistake. "Can't hold onto the puck that long", they said. "Too risky", they said. "He was just asking for it", they said. "He will learn with experience that you can't do that", they said.

Boy how perceptions change based on the player/team in question.

Nyquist pulled it off and won the game though. That's why people liked the goal.

If he turned it over and the Sens went down the ice and scored he would get blasted but that's not what happened. Posters are talking about what actually happened, not what could have potentially happened. You should give it a try.

 

[Derrty]

It's apparent why he only has 8 assists so far.

But in all seriousness, I was hoping for more after reading all of the comments. It was nice, no doubt; but I wouldn't put it anywhere near the discussion for goal of the year. Just kinda skated in circles and then was allowed to walk in and shoot it unimpeded. Nobody really made much of an effort to separate him from the puck or even try to take it from him, pretty sad.

Don't get me wrong, still nice, but not real exciting.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

If it is a high risk play, then it isn't easy. Nyquist did a good job of keeping himself between the puck and the defender which is why he was able to go around the net twice.

Yes, he did do a good job of keeping himself between the puck and defender. Problem is, this is not a game of keepaway. This is a game of hockey, and by doing that, he accomplished nothing. If there is little to no risk with him skating around in circles, why would you increase your own risk with 1 minute to go, when Detroit sucks in shootouts?

If they are moving, they aren't stagnant. They also do not need to be going full speed to be a part of the play.

Nitpicking. Fact is, they were all skating too low and too slow to help in the event of a turnover, which was the point being made. Utilizing all your teammates both makes it harder to defend, and makes your own players more engaged and ready for quick reactions.

The thing is the reason this is a thread is because Nyquist was able to protect the puck by himself while circling the zone twice (including keeping the puck behind the net which is a choke-point and doesn't give you nearly the same amount of space) and get into the middle lane for a goal. How often in a season does a player keep the puck for 28 seconds in the opponent's zone to score?

As has been repeated plenty of times, not many, since most hockey players remember that they have teammates, or are able to make their move before 30 seconds have passed.

It's pretty much praising Nyquist because he was able to be ineffective for longer before scoring.

Red Wings fans are aware of the phenomenon and what happens when you take a low angle shot from way outside. The problem was this was within the dots and below the top of the circle. How much of a guarantee does a player need for it to be a "good strategy"?

This was right at the top of the circle, and well within a zone where a missed shot would have resulted in a quick turnaround the other way.

 

[DanZ]

It's apparent why he only has 8 assists so far.

But in all seriousness, I was hoping for more after reading all of the comments. It was nice, no doubt; but I wouldn't put it anywhere near the discussion for goal of the year. Just kinda skated in circles and then was allowed to walk in and shoot it unimpeded. Nobody really made much of an effort to separate him from the puck or even try to take it from him, pretty sad.

Don't get me wrong, still nice, but not real exciting.

I'd say they made plenty effort to take the puck from him. Nyquist is just very good at protecting it. I don't know how a player keeping possession for 30 seconds and then capping it off with a nice move and a snipe off the bar for an OT winner isn't real exciting. Doesn't get much more exciting than that in my opinion.

 

[FinRuutu]

Yes, he did do a good job of keeping himself between the puck and defender. Problem is, this is not a game of keepaway. This is a game of hockey, and by doing that, he accomplished nothing. If there is little to no risk with him skating around in circles, why would you increase your own risk with 1 minute to go, when Detroit sucks in shootouts?


Nitpicking. Fact is, they were all skating too low and too slow to help in the event of a turnover, which was the point being made. Utilizing all your teammates both makes it harder to defend, and makes your own players more engaged and ready for quick reactions.


As has been repeated plenty of times, not many, since most hockey players remember that they have teammates, or are able to make their move before 30 seconds have passed.

It's pretty much praising Nyquist because he was able to be ineffective for longer before scoring.


This was right at the top of the circle, and well within a zone where a missed shot would have resulted in a quick turnaround the other way.

If if if if if if if.... if if if if if.... ifififififif....

 

[DanZ]

Discrediting that play makes you look hilariously ignorant about the sport of hockey. If the best option is to hold onto the puck, instead of passing it and risk it getting intercepted, than you hold onto the puck and wait for a better opportunity. Nyquist held onto it intelligently and patiently until he found the best opportunity to score. He took it and won the game for his team. Not one single player on the Wings was upset with him for winning the game.

Also, Nyquist put that shot exactly where he wanted it. Stamkos and Ovechkin aren't the only players that can snipe pucks.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

Nyquist pulled it off and won the game though. That's why people liked the goal.

If he turned it over and the Sens went down the ice and scored he would get blasted but that's not what happened. Posters are talking about what actually happened, not what could have potentially happened. You should give it a try.

So it's only the end result in one instance that matters? Cause I see a heck of a lot of pointing out "what could have been" (or in some people's minds, what "should" have been) around here, while ignoring actual results.

I should go tell Toronto fans to no longer worry about sustainability or making the right plays. Apparently HF mindset has once again shifted and all that matters is who scores, and who wins.

 

[Derrty]

I'd say they made plenty effort to take the puck from him. Nyquist is just very good at protecting it. I don't know how a player keeping possession for 30 seconds and then capping it off with a nice move and a snipe off the bar for an OT winner isn't real exciting. Doesn't get much more exciting than that in my opinion.

I didn't see "plenty effort" out of either player that was chasing him around. Still a nice goal, but unless I see some "delicious dangles", I'm not going to get too excited over another teams OT winner, I guess.

But like I said a few times, still a nice goal. And still plenty of skill involved.

 

[RedHawkDown]

It was a nice goal, whether or not it was the right play to make. Does anyone realize that whenever a player tries to make a deke through multiple dmen and fails, he's attacked for being way too fancy and that he'll learn that you can't do that in the NHL, but if he pulls it off, then it's goal of the year. It's literally all about pulling it off, what COULD have happened is irrelevant, as it is with all highlight reel plays..

 

[DanZ]

So it's only the end result in one instance that matters? Cause I see a heck of a lot of pointing out "what could have been" (or in some people's minds, what "should" have been) around here, while ignoring actual results.

I should go tell Toronto fans to no longer worry about sustainability or making the right plays. Apparently HF mindset has once again shifted and all that matters is who scores, and who wins.

Sustainability only works in the long-run. If Nyquist did this every shift and constantly failed than you can talk about how right you are. However, that's not the case. Nyquist felt his best option was to protect the puck and wait for the defense to break down and take advantage. It worked. Therefore hypotheticals are pretty much useless here.

 

[DanZ]

I didn't see "plenty effort" out of either player that was chasing him around. Still a nice goal, but unless I see some "delicious dangles", I'm not going to get too excited over another teams OT winner, I guess.

But like I said a few times, still a nice goal. And still plenty of skill involved.

What else did you expect the defenders to do? Nyquist was shielding the puck well, it's not easy to just shove a player over when they are skating away from you... MacArthur played that about as well as he could have. To each his own I guess.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yes, he did do a good job of keeping himself between the puck and defender. Problem is, this is not a game of keepaway. This is a game of hockey, and by doing that, he accomplished nothing. If there is little to no risk with him skating around in circles, why would you increase your own risk with 1 minute to go, when Detroit sucks in shootouts?

I already demonstrated what he did that led to the goal being scored. Keeping the puck can be better than passing depending on the circumstances. There was no point where Nyquist was at serious risk of losing the puck, where I went "he could have really hurt his team by holding on to it", because Nyquist did a good job of protecting the puck.

Nitpicking. Fact is, they were all skating too low and too slow to help in the event of a turnover, which was the point being made. Utilizing all your teammates both makes it harder to defend, and makes your own players more engaged and ready for quick reactions.

I'm not the one nitpicking. Players were moving and attempting to stay in a position for a pass or rebound. Nyquist is not required to pass it just because.

As has been repeated plenty of times, not many, since most hockey players remember that they have teammates, or are able to make their move before 30 seconds have passed.

Nyquist knew he had teammates and was looking for a good pass in overtime. He couldn't find one so he kept it and scored. That is not a bad thing.

It's pretty much praising Nyquist because he was able to be ineffective for longer before scoring.

Ineffective before scoring. Odd phrasing there. Protecting the puck is not being ineffective. He allowed his team time to take advantage of a mistake by the Ottawa defense and scored a goal in the process. That takes patience and ability to protect the puck.

This was right at the top of the circle, and well within a zone where a missed shot would have resulted in a quick turnaround the other way.

Now who is being nitpicky, here? The only Ottawa players who could have gotten the puck were right with Franzen and Smith, which would have at the very least led to a 50-50 fight for the puck. And it was below the top of the circle and between the dots. That is never a bad place to shoot the puck if you have a spot to score. Nyquist did, and he scored.

 

[Lord Helix]

What else did you expect the defenders to do? Nyquist was shielding the puck well, it's not easy to just shove a player over when they are skating away from you... MacArthur played that about as well as he could have. To each his own I guess.

Playing him as well as he could have would mean that he took the puck from him. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

Still a neat goal, but let's not act like he reinvented the wheel or anything.

 

[Derrty]

What else did you expect the defenders to do? Nyquist was shielding the puck well, it's not easy to just shove a player over when they are skating away from you... MacArthur played that about as well as he could have. To each his own I guess.

Trust me, I'm used to seeing piss poor defensive efforts. Chasing someone around the defensive zone for 30 seconds, isn't exactly a sound defensive strategy. Both players made little to no effort to disrupt Nyquists ability to do whatever he wanted. Good on Nyquist for capitalizing on the situation.

 

[danincanada]

So it's only the end result in one instance that matters? Cause I see a heck of a lot of pointing out "what could have been" (or in some people's minds, what "should" have been) around here, while ignoring actual results.

I should go tell Toronto fans to no longer worry about sustainability or making the right plays. Apparently HF mindset has once again shifted and all that matters is who scores, and who wins.

The Leafs get criticized because they are often getting badly outshot and it is difficult to sustain that and be successful over the course of a season. If they get subpar goaltending or get in scoring funk as a team for a stretch that style will probably end up burning them. That's what people are pointing to and we saw it happen near the end of last season.

The Leafs comparison has nothing to do with one player doing something in one shift. If Nyquist constantly tried to rag the puck like that then you'd have a point. He doesn't so you don't. He was smart about it and it paid off with the winning goal. It is what it is.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

I wish I could find a video from years ago, or even remember which player it was. Part of me wants to say the same thing happened to Crosby too in his early years, but that's not the one I'm thinking of.

It was a pretty similar situation. OT, and the one player was skating around in circles in a similar way. The puck was stolen at the blueline, and the other team went on to score on a breakaway and win it.

That player, who I believe was still a rookie (or sophomore?), was BLASTED that night for a stupid rookie mistake. "Can't hold onto the puck that long", they said. "Too risky", they said. "He was just asking for it", they said. "He will learn with experience that you can't do that", they said.

Boy how perceptions change based on the player/team in question.

Well, Ovechkin was mocked relentlessly for this, because he didn't score:

http://caps.dcsportsnexus.com/2013/01/alex-ovechkin-skating-in-circles-his.html

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Well, Ovechkin was mocked relentlessly for this, because he didn't score:

http://caps.dcsportsnexus.com/2013/01/alex-ovechkin-skating-in-circles-his.html

He also passed the puck into a Leaf stick and turned it over.