Tweet
A team that gives up only 2 goals will lose 100% of the time if they don't score 2 goals.
I've heard all too often about how this team was built from the back...defense would be the basis. Sure they are talented, and yes...sometimes good. But two defenseman per shift can't cover five in the zone. I've watched and watched, and perhaps I see the game differently from being between the pipes so long in my life, but go back and watch the goals we gave up all year. Go look and see where the position of the two defenseman or forwards were. Too many times, we left players unattended in front or were scrambling back to try and keep up with them on a 3 on 2 break. That isn't a flaw of the defenseman, it is a flaw of the forward's positioning and where you want your players to be in position. Who is covering who? We have an imbalance of sticks (which I mentioned earlier this year) which has a serious impact in developing excellent break-out plays.
Much of those defensive woes start in the O zone. When you finally have the puck in there - with all five players in that zone, how many times were the two wings and center behind the freakin goal line? Who is in the slot? When the puck is controlled by one of those forwards, who is the puck going to be passed to? Sadly, more often than not, though, the errant pass would be picked off and the opposition had a 3 on 2 forming with those forwards either heading to the bench or dragging behind the play trying in vain to catch up. In summary, we just allowed our opposition too many quality escapes from their defensive zone than we had...and quality escapes create quality scoring chances.
How many times did you hear Bob on the radio say "great save" for an opposing goalie? Many of the shots we put on net could have been stopped if their goalie was sitting in a lawn chair. To shoot from 25 degrees or less from the goal line is a waste of a shot....there is virtually no space to put that puck. We needed, but didn't get enough of, the shots from the slot or passes across to open players that have clear avenues to the net. Shots are shots and not necessarily quality scoring chances. That is the key stat which is missing on USCO or CHN stats, and from all the games I saw and attended, is the one stat which we lost in.
As for the comparison of George Roll and Casey, it was just that. George's first 4 vs. Casey's first 4. The data for George, not in that comparison, also shows that his last year was a much improved year vs. his previous two - so what Casey got was a team "coming back". With Casey's teams, has there been improvement year on year? That is all I was trying to show. Domination is a much better method of hockey than dump and run.....and we don't seem to maintain wings as wings and centers as centers to DEVELOP a clear pattern for domination style offensive hockey. Hockey philosophy 101 and Casey's grade is questionable passing. That is all.
I've heard all too often about how this team was built from the back...defense would be the basis. Sure they are talented, and yes...sometimes good. But two defenseman per shift can't cover five in the zone. I've watched and watched, and perhaps I see the game differently from being between the pipes so long in my life, but go back and watch the goals we gave up all year. Go look and see where the position of the two defenseman or forwards were. Too many times, we left players unattended in front or were scrambling back to try and keep up with them on a 3 on 2 break. That isn't a flaw of the defenseman, it is a flaw of the forward's positioning and where you want your players to be in position. Who is covering who? We have an imbalance of sticks (which I mentioned earlier this year) which has a serious impact in developing excellent break-out plays.
Much of those defensive woes start in the O zone. When you finally have the puck in there - with all five players in that zone, how many times were the two wings and center behind the freakin goal line? Who is in the slot? When the puck is controlled by one of those forwards, who is the puck going to be passed to? Sadly, more often than not, though, the errant pass would be picked off and the opposition had a 3 on 2 forming with those forwards either heading to the bench or dragging behind the play trying in vain to catch up. In summary, we just allowed our opposition too many quality escapes from their defensive zone than we had...and quality escapes create quality scoring chances.
How many times did you hear Bob on the radio say "great save" for an opposing goalie? Many of the shots we put on net could have been stopped if their goalie was sitting in a lawn chair. To shoot from 25 degrees or less from the goal line is a waste of a shot....there is virtually no space to put that puck. We needed, but didn't get enough of, the shots from the slot or passes across to open players that have clear avenues to the net. Shots are shots and not necessarily quality scoring chances. That is the key stat which is missing on USCO or CHN stats, and from all the games I saw and attended, is the one stat which we lost in.
As for the comparison of George Roll and Casey, it was just that. George's first 4 vs. Casey's first 4. The data for George, not in that comparison, also shows that his last year was a much improved year vs. his previous two - so what Casey got was a team "coming back". With Casey's teams, has there been improvement year on year? That is all I was trying to show. Domination is a much better method of hockey than dump and run.....and we don't seem to maintain wings as wings and centers as centers to DEVELOP a clear pattern for domination style offensive hockey. Hockey philosophy 101 and Casey's grade is questionable passing. That is all.
Comment