The hawks PK

[Illinihockey]

Again, that's not my problem with the PK. My problem is what I saw with my eyes, and the lack of aggression. Now, maybe it's just because they were on their heels because of how potent the Caps PP is and they were being a little conservative vs aggressive, who knows... But if that is how the PK is going to be going forward, then we could be in some trouble with it. It was far too relaxed.

Its the same power play they ran last year, they have almost the same personnel with the exact same coaching staff. Do you really think they met all summer and said...we need to change this power play, it just worked too well last year.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

I'm assuming you meant PK?

 

[RayP]

Yeah, I meant PK.


I didn't have any issues with the PP.

 

[hawksfan50]

Well,Wash was the #1PP in the NHL last yr...and they look better more so this yr with Grabovski and with Green looking like a few yrs ago in top form..so jard for any PK to stop the best in the league...they make PPs look easy unless you are willing and able to block cannon shots...which despite our sag clog we were not doing or inable to till Hammer when it countred most at the ens on that 5 on 3...Secondly, we stunk on faceoffs in our D zone...only 7 won of 18 and of that Kruger and Toews lost key draws on 2 maybe all 3 of the Wash pp goals so we never got control of the puck...as to the sag tooclose to our net, if you do that you must intercept in the passing lanes and must bloc shots which we did too little of on the 5 on 4s Wash got 3 goals on...the good news is that Toews cannot possibly be that bad on Dzone draws that often im the next 81 games (2/6) AND nobody else is as good as the Wash PP..The uncertainty is whether Nordstrom can block shots as opposed to merely attempting to do that...and wbether Keith is willing to do that..if they are willing and able to do that it would help our PK a lot more than this first game lame PK effort.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Well,Wash was the #1PP in the NHL last yr...and they look better more so this yr with Grabovski and with Green looking like a few yrs ago in top form..so jard for any PK to stop the best in the league...they make PPs look easy unless you are willing and able to block cannon shots...which despite our sag clog we were not doing or inable to till Hammer when it countred most at the ens on that 5 on 3...Secondly, we stunk on faceoffs in our D zone...only 7 won of 18 and of that Kruger and Toews lost key draws on 2 maybe all 3 of the Wash pp goals so we never got control of the puck...as to the sag tooclose to our net, if you do that you must intercept in the passing lanes and must bloc shots which we did too little of on the 5 on 4s Wash got 3 goals on...the good news is that Toews cannot possibly be that bad on Dzone draws that often im the next 81 games (2/6) AND nobody else is as good as the Wash PP..The uncertainty is whether Nordstrom can block shots as opposed to merely attempting to do that...and wbether Keith is willing to do that..if they are willing and able to do that it would help our PK a lot more than this first game lame PK effort.

Sure, but what does any of this have to do with trading Kane?

 

[Nothingman*]

Of al the posters on here.....I wonder what Fiddy looks like the most.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The Washington powerplay is dynamite good. Ovechkin and Green on the points is almost unfair. It's no coincidence it was then our PK struggled against. Will face another really tough one with Tampa Bay featuring St. Louis and Stamkos. Gotta give it a few games before panicking yet.

 

[Sir Psycho T]

Of al the posters on here.....I wonder what Fiddy looks like the most.

 

[slappipappi]

Sss.

 

[zac]

I trust the guy who's coached us to 2 cups in 4 years, thanks.

He gets way to much credit around here and the league. There's worse guys out there, but it would have taken a massive numbskull to screw things up with the rosters we had both years. With the talent and the lack of injuries (as well as individual play that likely had nothing do do with Q) there's no reason why we shouldn't have won the Cup both years.

 

[madgoat33]

zac, I gotta say, I agreed with a decent amount of the stuff you said last year; but you've gone off the deep end this season.

 

[zytz]

zac, I gotta say, I agreed with a decent amount of the stuff you said last year; but you've gone off the deep end this season.

 

[zac]

I haven't seen a PP that aggressive, and not just for one PP, but consistently over the whole game, in years. What can you do when the D-men are at the top of the circle...Hawks needed to stay in front of them and get in the way.

Lol, you are making our point. They were there because we let them be there unimpeded. We didn't come out to challenge the puck handlers, and they looked to collapse close because it was unabated.

If anything the Caps PP showed us several things. One is that you can't be that passive against a good PP, especially if they have perimeter threats. Two is that the Hawk PP needs to look to do more of the same; we are too apt to let our pointmen meander by the blue line. The third is that they had their pointment opposite of their shot sides which allowed them to shoot one-timers.

Granted it was just "one game", but that doesn't mean you can't take away valuable lessons from the play, or even moreso each team's offensive and defensive set-ups. Those scenarios could be played a million different times with various teams and personnel around the league. The likelihood of a similar result is rather high if we implored the same lackadaisical strategy.

 

[zac]

zac, I gotta say, I agreed with a decent amount of the stuff you said last year; but you've gone off the deep end this season.

The fundamental flaws with Q are still there, with or without the Cup result. I just think he does a poor job of managing the areas that a coach can realistically influence. Obviously there's a difference of opinion around here, but I think our roster and the individual performances were at least 90% of our success in those seasons.

 

[wladyslaw]

It really did. There were 2-3 times when it was 5 on 4 that I looked up to make sure I didn't miss a 2nd penalty. I had never seen a PK collapse that far into the goal like that before. I'd have to imagine that is absolute hell for Crow trying to see anything at all in front of him, but never got a good view of what his sight lines looked at while on the PK.

What no one here has mentioned yet- the Successful Caps and now Tampa PP's used a 1-3-1 PP set do create more passing (shorter passes too) lanes and shooting lanes vs. the Hawks standard 2-2 zone PK. Because of all of the Lanes- Hawks were forced into a tiny 2-2 (10 foot box/shell zone)... which just make the passes shorter and shots closer to the net!

What the Hawks should do vs. this 1-3-1 PP set- is go into a 1-2-1 zone D to make these passes longer and take away some of the passing lanes/angles.

Either way- the PK cannot account/defend the Middle Player in the 1-3-1 PP set!!!
Which is why- I am amazed/shocked/perplexed... that the Hawks don't employ the same PP set as Caps/Tampa. Do the math- there are more passing lanes/options open for whoever has the puck!!!!!!!

The PK cannot attack the players with puck on boards because that would leave an open player in the center of the ice. And create a 4 on 3 or worse yet a 3 on 1 in one quadrant of the O-zone... other teams can successfully attack Hawks PP because Hawks employ 2-2-1 PP... the Right point is pressured - his options are a 50 foot pass to left point (harmless), or a 40-60 foot pass to Kane on Right boards- no shooting angle and Kane now has only one passing option to Toews below the Goal (can't shoot from there!!!). If Hawks had a player in between circles- the pressure would be relieved!!! SIMPLE. This IS why Hawks could not attack 1-3-1 and should employ a 1-2-1 vs. that set... AND why Hawks need to use 1-3-1 PP.

Am I crazy!!! what am I missing here???

 

[BobbyJet]

Kruger not only can't win these important draws, but he also looks like a pylon out there without at least some aggression. Right now it seems quite obvious that Frolik led this PK last season and was quite effective (by rushing the ops to make bad plays, not just sitting back waiting).

Our PK won us a lot of games last season - so far that is missing.
It's only been 2 games but this team certainly can't expect to do well with both specialty teams struggling for any length of time. The league is too good to allow that.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Kruger not only can't win these important draws, but he also looks like a pylon out there without at least some aggression. Right now it seems quite obvious that Frolik led this PK last season and was quite effective (by rushing the ops to make bad plays, not just sitting back waiting).

Our PK won us a lot of games last season - so far that is missing.
It's only been 2 games but this team certainly can't expect to do well with both specialty teams struggling for any length of time. The league is too good to allow that.

He's more of a natural 2C.

 

[pvr]

What no one here has mentioned yet- the Successful Caps and now Tampa PP's used a 1-3-1 PP set do create more passing (shorter passes too) lanes and shooting lanes vs. the Hawks standard 2-2 zone PK. Because of all of the Lanes- Hawks were forced into a tiny 2-2 (10 foot box/shell zone)... which just make the passes shorter and shots closer to the net!

What the Hawks should do vs. this 1-3-1 PP set- is go into a 1-2-1 zone D to make these passes longer and take away some of the passing lanes/angles.

Either way- the PK cannot account/defend the Middle Player in the 1-3-1 PP set!!!
Which is why- I am amazed/shocked/perplexed... that the Hawks don't employ the same PP set as Caps/Tampa. Do the math- there are more passing lanes/options open for whoever has the puck!!!!!!!

The PK cannot attack the players with puck on boards because that would leave an open player in the center of the ice. And create a 4 on 3 or worse yet a 3 on 1 in one quadrant of the O-zone... other teams can successfully attack Hawks PP because Hawks employ 2-2-1 PP... the Right point is pressured - his options are a 50 foot pass to left point (harmless), or a 40-60 foot pass to Kane on Right boards- no shooting angle and Kane now has only one passing option to Toews below the Goal (can't shoot from there!!!). If Hawks had a player in between circles- the pressure would be relieved!!! SIMPLE. This IS why Hawks could not attack 1-3-1 and should employ a 1-2-1 vs. that set... AND why Hawks need to use 1-3-1 PP.

Am I crazy!!! what am I missing here???

An HF50 post with paragraph breaks.

 

[pvr]

He's more of a natural 2C.

If he can't contribute on the PK, he offers very little to the team beyond 5 minutes per game to rest the other three centers.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

If he can't contribute on the PK, he offers very little to the team beyond 5 minutes per game to rest the other three centers.

Agreed and while our in zone PK is much too passive, it starts elsewhere. We can't win a PK draw in our zone, if we could and send it down, we could try a more aggressive forecheck-like last year- and not allow such easy entries.

 

[BobbyJet]

If he can't contribute on the PK, he offers very little to the team beyond 5 minutes per game to rest the other three centers.

Meanwhile Frolik and Bolland are off to good starts with their new teams.... just sayin'

Personally I'm hoping Danault is up here before long. I liked what I saw from him (without the puck especially) in pre-season.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

That schooling at the dot, by a WINGER, says it all for me about MK. He is an NHLer by a thread.

To allow that to happen as the 2nd center on the ice is absolutely ridiculous. He didn't even know what happened to him.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Agreed and while our in zone PK is much too passive, it starts elsewhere. We can't win a PK draw in our zone, if we could and send it down, we could try a more aggressive forecheck-like last year- and not allow such easy entries.

Weren't you complaining about how we couldn't win a faceoff all last year? Nothing's changed their and our PK is much less aggressive.

Or maybe it's been two games and coming to any clear concise conclusions at this point is tantamount to crediting Bollig as a forty goal scorer.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Weren't you complaining about how we couldn't win a faceoff all last year? Nothing's changed their and our PK is much less aggressive.

.

We couldn't win a draw last year either when needed but we had Frolik's speed and aggressiveness to use when it was out of our zone.

So yes, one problem not fixed-faceoffs and a positive component is gone. So now there are 2 issues. Will be a tough go on PK as a result.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

I was probably Frolik's biggest backer last season and most vocal critic about trading him. He wasn't some penalty killing god that made an average team great on the PK.