weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,782
- 13,339
I agree that werent not completely capable of playing any style, but i dont think any (or many) can. Its more about creating diversity of chances which it felt like we did. We had traffic, we had possession opportunities and we scored a few times off the rush while flubbing lthers.
Take a look at Florida and most of their goals were quick strike off either rushes or forecheck. The werent overly dangerous when they had sustained pressure. You could say they didnt need to because they won, but 2 OT games and a win or two on some unforced errors doesnt scream unstoppable attack.
At the end of the day with as well as Bob was playing we could and should have squeezed out a few 2-1 victories. No reason for us tp piss away game 2 or 3.
Is this a consistent thing in series or even in game though, that you can change tactics very quickly when something isn't working?
Alot of times it all starts with the mindset to be willing to play different ways even if plan B is more physically taxing.
Our PP has struggled plenty in the playoffs and for long stretchs we would have issues at making clean zone entries. Our entry strategy is very obvious and teams just started crowding the blueline knowing that unit 1 will almost never flip it into the Ozone and win a 2v1 footrace/puck battle. That doesn't mean I want them to just dump it in everytime but a balanced approach is important to keep the opposing PK honest.
Just feels like we can do very well to become a more balanced overall team winning games in multiple ways and being able to exploit teams if they try to heavily implement one defensive strat.
Last edited: