Proposal: Fire DJ Smith

[RickyLafleur]

Not sure how any GM with half a brain doesn't fire DJ after that 7 game losing streak.

Feels like we've had multiple 7 game losing streaks with DJ at the helm.

 

[Big Muddy]

Where exactly does it say we don't have a system? You're the one who appears to be allergic to reading.

I guess it depends on this part: ""They're really good at making scramble plays... it's not always structural for them."

The people that are criticizing the DJ system or lack thereof are probably looking at that part of the tweet.

I'm only pointing this out because you asked. I've stayed out this debate because I can't see (or hear) what's happening in practices or in the dressing room.

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

Dudes biggest contribution to this team would possibly be getting them a generational talent at the draft.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Just my opinion.
Shuffling the deck on the top 6 and doubling down on an identity which is centered around being hard on the forecheck when
1. cannot defend in your end to save your life
2. have no depth scoring .. even though the bottom 6 is more responsible defensively,
3. have issues managing the puck

may spark them but it ignores improving play without the puck in all 3 (not just the ozone) ; and puck recovery with transition

Depth has been pointed out as an issue with this team .. and it was identified early. Losing Norris hurt ... true. It hurt more because of our depth even though Dorion tried to address C depth with Gambrell and Brassard in the off season. Bottom 6 W depth is an issue as well. Losing both Brown, Paul and Formenton is understated. Those are 3 good hockey players and the hole they left was not close to being addressed.
But not to worry ,, We will get Joseph and his 2 goals in 25 games back soon. Line mates .. sure blame the lack of line mates which is what ? Depth. I have a lot of trouble believing Formenton, Paul or Brown would not have more ... heck they'd probably have more out of short handed situations alone.

We are trading 1st round picks + for 40 goal scorers we may not be able to sign , continuing not to address the top 4 D hole, and moving away or quality depth. Goaltending is close to average + or -

Patience. The 2 way needs of forwards we need to graduate will take some time to see what we have and for them to give us consistently good games. Not ready right now. Our D prospects are still marinating.. they will take some NHL reps .. don't expect Jake Sanderson curves. Not ready right now. We will be able to slot Pinto and Joseph and lets say an ELC like Greig as our 3rd line... and they will be really good .. ? Maybe. Wait and see . Probably better than the 3rd line we have currently but can they move the needle enough? 4th line will have some combination of players on the 3rd and 4th line currently. Not terrible not great.

There are Cap challenges as well as players continue to eat away at ELCs and with the expected addition of a couple quality pieces .. we still need to move a bad contract and the Sens are paying for recent past mistakes from the current management in both assets and in contracts.

When the top 6 is firing on all cylinders and Chabot and Sanderson and Zub are rocking .. this is a really fun team to watch .. We get sucked in to thinking they have turned a corner and the team is really good. Oh and the deserve to win o meter which hides all the holes defensively.

McDavid could get 150 pts Draisaitl 120+ , Nugent Hopkins 90+ and they are currently holding down the last wildcard spot and very likely go 1 and out if they get in.

End Rant

 

[Beech]

I've asked multiple times, yet nobody has provided such an explanation. If you can find a post anywhere that explains in specifics our system and why it does not fit our roster's strengths, please link it. I've searched far and wide.

where in the problem lies. No one can explain it, as I do not believe one exists.

Boucher had his defensive system, he liked to force the other team up the right side (their right, the Sens left), this way they could run into Methot and the 2 other left side D. (Phan when he was here, Boro and Claeson). The left side D were big and robust.

the right side, Karlesson, the Ceci and Wideman where skilled offensively and could carry the puck forward effectively (The Ceci lost his confidence shortly thereafter and his offensive skills have since died).

The right sided D, being right handed, would find it easier to pass to the centremen. Of the 5 used in 16-17, 3 were lefties, 2 were rights. For 3, it was easier to accept a pass from a D man.

the right wingers (Ryan, Stone, Neil and Burr.) were big and robust, thus acted as power forwards and could fight through traffic and receive the pass from 3 of the 5 right handed centers or a backhand dump in from the 2 right handed ones.

The left wingers were SOFT, smallish and incomplete. Often a centreman played Left. They typically trailed the entry, hung back to assist the left Dmen and further clogged the left side (opponents right) to assist with the defensive play.

Boucher's system in a nutshell. Tailored for the players he had. It worked well for one year then all hell broke loose. Expansion and Methot, Phan slowed, the Ceci lost his confidence, Turris wanted money, Zack smith was Cinderella and it hit midnight and we found out Hoffman and Karlsson wanted to kill each other.

But it was a system, a good system for the talent they had.

Now DJ:

Brady T cheats and does want to play high and assist the left D. As does Timmie. Tylor Mott is 5' 10".
The left D is: ZUB..no one else...Brannie boy ain't Bobo..he will not kill you will a check.
their centers are weak..only 1 of the 4 is a lefty
their right wingers are soft..so no power forward to barge through
Brannie boy is a Left D. So only 2 Dmen on the right side can carry the play.

So no left side/their right side corridor.

2 right D, 1 Left d..so if you reverse the order. Do you really want the other team to come crashing in on Chabot and Sanderson????

so no right side/their left side corridor

The system is; Dorion not learning anything from Boucher...And not building either a right side or left side defensive scheme/puck carry scheme.......

Their is your explanation.

 

[Big Muddy]

where in the problem lies. No one can explain it, as I do not believe one exists.

Some people have provided an explanation, some have not. Some are most likely repeating something they've heard. Generalizing has its limitations.

But, there are explanations that have been provided in here. Whether those posts are being read, or whether they are being acknowledged is another matter entirely.

This is the extent to which I want to become involved in this subject.

 

[Beech]

Some people have provided an explanation, some have not. Some are most likely repeating something they've heard. Generalizing has its limitations.

But, there are explanations that have been provided in here. Whether those posts are being read, or whether they are being acknowledged is another matter entirely.

This is the extent to which I want to become involved in this subject.

there are 97 pages thus far, at ~ 10 posts a page, we are talking 970 posts. At 20-200 words a post, we are talking 100,000 words. War And Peace had ~ 550,000 .

You can appreciate the difficulty. It is only natural to see small snippets. And so, it is difficult to filter.

But, this is also entertainment for us, not a court of law. Nor are we CNN. So, repeating, arguing, bashing, neglecting, bypassing, dismissing, etc. are all part of the process. Entertainment.

Safe to assume that you gave an explanation at some past time. If so, my apologies if what I wrote is a duplication of your work. I did not read it and generated by post from my immediate and past thoughts

 

[Big Muddy]

there are 97 pages thus far, at ~ 10 posts a page, we are talking 970 posts. At 20-200 words a post, we are talking 100,000 words. War And Peace had ~ 550,000 .

You can appreciate the difficulty. It is only natural to see small snippets. And so, it is difficult to filter.

But, this is also entertainment for us, not a court of law. Nor are we CNN. So, repeating, arguing, bashing, neglecting, bypassing, dismissing, etc. are all part of the process. Entertainment.

Safe to assume that you gave an explanation at some past time. If so, my apologies if what I wrote is a duplication of your work. I did not read it and generated by post from my immediate and past thoughts

Yes, I know. I understood that it's hard to follow every post from every poster. I recognize this.

I was pointing out that there have been some explanations provided by a variety of different posters.

The things I've seen posted include forwards flying the zone too early when possession is gained in the d-zone and not providing support to the puck carrier, rimming it along the wall as a d-zone exit strategy while forwards do not position themselves to get the puck, lack of picking up an opponent that is a scoring threat in the slot (or somewhere else on the ice), etc.

I think the harder part is to know whether its lack of execution by the players, or the "so called" coaches system that is at fault.

I'm also not in the dressing room, or on the ice during practices, so I can't really comment on what is being said by coaches, or what is going on there. It's doubtful that anyone here has the opportunity to do this.

 

[Beech]

I've been very critical of Batherson ...............

Also, this "system" excuse is starting to get so f***ing lame. No one on here could accurately describe an NHL system and what that entails. You wanna talk about the really simple stuff? Guys with lots of time to make plays routinely make bad choices, commit turnovers or straight up whiff on clearing pucks out of the zone. That has nothing to do with "system" or coaching. If you're in the NHL, you should be able to get the puck out of your zone unless someone is committing an infraction against you. Period. This team constantly shoots itself in the foot making bad plays with the puck and it is guys like Brannstrom, who leads the team in giveaways/60 by the way, who are often the culprits in tough moments. I just don't understand why he gets so much grace from some people in this fanbase when he literally does nothing. He's just there. It's like some have projected what they want him to be over top of what he actually is.

there is a documentary on Bein Sports on Louis Van Gaal (Dutch coach/Manager, was also a manager of Barcelona, Ajax, Man United and others). It is a few years old and in Spanish, so you have to strain to understand..Either understanding Spanish or correlating it to French can help.

They asked about the Dutch total Football concept. And he explained it in real easy terms. Constant motion of players to ensure a constant triangle. So that a player who posses the ball always has two or more passing options. This takes away the need for him to dribble around players or to kick the ball away in panic and in an attempt to get it out of harms way..

Hockey is the same, a player always needs two options to quickly and effectively pass the puck off and out of trouble. A d-man who is deep in his own zone needs a player on the half board and a center looping to give him two possible targets. If those two are not there, he is in trouble. And must either try and skate/stick handle out or shoot the puck out. Both are difficult. I am hoping that you have played the game and possibly played it on defense. You will understand.

that is part of structure.... and is part of system.

Total Football can also be Total Hockey. Only it is more important in hockey, the puck cannot go out and allow your team time to regroup. You loose it, it can be in the back of your net.

 

[Beech]

Yes, I know. I understood that it's hard to follow every post from every poster. I recognize this.

I was pointing out that there have been some explanations provided by a variety of different posters.

The things I've seen posted include forwards flying the zone too early when possession is gained in the d-zone and not providing support to the puck carrier, rimming it along the wall as a d-zone exit strategy while forwards do not position themselves to get the puck, lack of picking up an opponent that is a scoring threat in the slot (or somewhere else on the ice), etc.

I think the harder part is to know whether its lack of execution by the players, or the "so called" coaches system that is at fault.

I'm also not in the dressing room, or on the ice during practices, so I can't really comment on what is being said by coaches, or what is going on there. It's doubtful that anyone here has the opportunity to do this.

Think back to elementary school and high school. To recess and to lunch. We sat around and talk shit. We all played coach or GM.. this is the same.

back then, we shouted at each other, argued, heck: fist fight.. this is the same. It brings back my youth.

There really is no right and wrong, there is opinion. As long as we don't slander, who cares. It's not like we are accusing DJ or Dorion of something aggreges.

 

[Cosmix]

It's weird how all these DJ defenders keep appealing to authority when we have a literal quote from a Nashville coach that said this team doesn't have a system, but relies on the talent of it's individual players to do anything.

I don't think the quote says what you are saying it says.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

It's weird how all these DJ defenders keep appealing to authority when we have a literal quote from a Nashville coach that said this team doesn't have a system, but relies on the talent of it's individual players to do anything.

I think he just listens to too much Dean Brown. Which occurs very rapidly once you start.

With the white boards out DJ draws up the systems he wants in all 3 zones ..when we don't have the puck , when we do have the puck... It quickly becomes a bunch of indiscernible black lines going all over the place.
One key phrase keeps recurring . and one that they seem to be able to remember most.

Improvise.
beyond that
Offense
Improvise
When in doubt Dump it in; even when not in doubt
Track it down
Be hard

Neutral zone
track it back
Good gaps
Be hard
Improvise

Dzone
Block shots
Try Man to Man coverage
If you lose coverage collapse to the middle
Improvise
Stretch the zone when we look like we might get it

 

[Big Muddy]

Think back to elementary school and high school. To recess and to lunch. We sat around and talk shit. We all played coach or GM.. this is the same.

back then, we shouted at each other, argued, heck: fist fight.. this is the same. It brings back my youth.

There really is no right and wrong, there is opinion. As long as we don't slander, who cares. It's not like we are accusing DJ or Dorion of something aggreges.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you are making, or all the points you are making, but yes, it's a forum where people share their opinions. That is both obvious and a truism.

My main point in my post was that that there is info in here that people have expressed about the coaching systems & structure (or lack thereof). Some people provide specifics, some don't. Some are probably repeating the idea because it sounds good no doubt. But, the info is there, and generalizations have their limitations.

 

[Big Muddy]

I don't think the quote says what you are saying it says.

It's a tweet. So, basically it's a sound bite. With so few words to explain, its difficult to figure out context and what exactly is being said.

 

[swiftwin]

where in the problem lies. No one can explain it, as I do not believe one exists.

Boucher had his defensive system, he liked to force the other team up the right side (their right, the Sens left), this way they could run into Methot and the 2 other left side D. (Phan when he was here, Boro and Claeson). The left side D were big and robust.

the right side, Karlesson, the Ceci and Wideman where skilled offensively and could carry the puck forward effectively (The Ceci lost his confidence shortly thereafter and his offensive skills have since died).

The right sided D, being right handed, would find it easier to pass to the centremen. Of the 5 used in 16-17, 3 were lefties, 2 were rights. For 3, it was easier to accept a pass from a D man.

the right wingers (Ryan, Stone, Neil and Burr.) were big and robust, thus acted as power forwards and could fight through traffic and receive the pass from 3 of the 5 right handed centers or a backhand dump in from the 2 right handed ones.

The left wingers were SOFT, smallish and incomplete. Often a centreman played Left. They typically trailed the entry, hung back to assist the left Dmen and further clogged the left side (opponents right) to assist with the defensive play.

Boucher's system in a nutshell. Tailored for the players he had. It worked well for one year then all hell broke loose. Expansion and Methot, Phan slowed, the Ceci lost his confidence, Turris wanted money, Zack smith was Cinderella and it hit midnight and we found out Hoffman and Karlsson wanted to kill each other.

But it was a system, a good system for the talent they had.

Now DJ:

Brady T cheats and does want to play high and assist the left D. As does Timmie. Tylor Mott is 5' 10".
The left D is: ZUB..no one else...Brannie boy ain't Bobo..he will not kill you will a check.
their centers are weak..only 1 of the 4 is a lefty
their right wingers are soft..so no power forward to barge through
Brannie boy is a Left D. So only 2 Dmen on the right side can carry the play.

So no left side/their right side corridor.

2 right D, 1 Left d..so if you reverse the order. Do you really want the other team to come crashing in on Chabot and Sanderson????

so no right side/their left side corridor

The system is; Dorion not learning anything from Boucher...And not building either a right side or left side defensive scheme/puck carry scheme.......

Their is your explanation.

You can't really compare Boucher to DJ. Boucher was way too strict and rigid with his system. The whole left side / right side thing was a byproduct of his 1-3-1 NZ Trap which is a pretty unique and rigid system that can't be adjusted easily. After Boucher was fired, Anderson said to the media “We didn’t show the ability to change it or try something new,” and “Over time, the system gets exposed and then you have to adapt your system . . . as the years went on, we kind of got stuck in that rut and didn’t try to adapt,”. (source) When your goalie is the one complaining about your systems, you know you done f***ed up. Boucher was a one trick pony.

The vast majority of teams don't run unbalanced systems that lean more on the left vs right. What I see in our system is pretty straightforward. Our weakness is undeniably our defense. One our biggest strengths is the work rate and tenacity of our forwards on the forecheck. On breakouts, the solution to that is what we're doing right now: Instead of expecting our defensemen to come up with magical breakout plays all the time, we get our defensemen to just clear the puck (assuming there's no easy breakout play) and have a forward at the red line chip it to negate the icing. It doesn't allow for too many rush plays and odd-man rushes in our favor, but it does play right into one of our biggest strengths, which is our forecheck. Just like that, we kill two birds with one stone.

Once we have the offensive zone, we aim to keep possession by play high to low hockey. I forget who, but I believe it was Chabot who spoke specifically about how we want to play high to low in the offensive zone. That means retrieving the puck down low, then cycling it to the point, and lots of play around the net. Here's an article about this. This is what I believe that Nashville assistant means by "making scramble plays". We smother them with a ferocious forecheck, then cycle the puck and score on scramble plays by throwing puck on net. It's not structural in the sense that we play some sort of structured neutral zone trap to generate offense on the counter. To quote General Patton: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future.” Also note that the article is a few years old, and talks about how the Kings metrics were very good (they were usually 1st in the league in those days), but they failed to make the playoffs. It was out of this deficiency in those metrics (corsi) that the newer xGF/xGA metrics were born to also show the quality of shots taken. Either way, we're still 7th in xGF/60, which is pretty good. In the defensive zone, we're 17th in xGA/60 which is dead middle average. That's why I don't believe our systems are the problem.

Then if you go over to the PP, it becomes very clear how well our systems are working. We play a low 1-3-1, where most of the play is driven at the half boards by our most skilled players like Stutzle, DeBrincat and Giroux. From the half boards, we can either go for a fast bumper play or a cross-crease to the other side. Chabot at the point is just a relief valve. Which is also why I don't understand why the outcry to take Chabot off the PP. He does a very good job at keeping things simple, making simple passes, and not giving the puck away, especially since he's the only one back there. Chabot giveaways from the point on the PP are very rare. That's all you need from the pointman in this PP scheme. You don't need a booming shot or dazzling dancing at the blue line. The magic happens at the half boards, not the point.

I'm not super familiar with PK schemes, but from what I see, it looks like some sort of 2-1-1 where the two forwards are constantly circling and rotating. Either way, it appears to be working because we have the 5th best PK in the league.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

I've asked multiple times, yet nobody has provided such an explanation. If you can find a post anywhere that explains in specifics our system and why it does not fit our roster's strengths, please link it. I've searched far and wide.

I'm not sure I was replying to you specifically but I've outlined what I think is wrong, systematically, with how we play.

I'm not going to re-post the whole thing but the talking points are:

1. Not covering the points. This is not specific to our team but it is a pet peeve of mine.
2. Way too spread out on the breakout; too much gap between D and the forwards.
3. Relates to #2: the stretch pass with a tip into the offensive end is way overused by this team. Getting pucks in deep seems to be the sole goal but it does no good when you don't have others moving with speed in to forecheck. We do this way too much and it's just a free breakout for any competent defense.
4. Way too passive in the neutral zone. Our D back up too much and we don't get enough back pressure on the opposing team's transition game.

I'm not a professional coach but these are things I see that frustrate me when watching the DJ version of the Sens.

 

[swiftwin]

2. Way too spread out on the breakout; too much gap between D and the forwards.
3. Relates to #2: the stretch pass with a tip into the offensive end is way overused by this team. Getting pucks in deep seems to be the sole goal but it does no good when you don't have others moving with speed in to forecheck. We do this way too much and it's just a free breakout for any competent defense.

I cover this in the post right above. If our biggest weakness is our D's ability to make breakout plays, and our biggest strength is our forecheck, then these two things are exactly what we should be doing as it covers our biggest weakness and plays into our biggest strength.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

I cover this in the post right above. If our biggest weakness is our D's ability to make breakout plays,...

Except he's not saying the problem is "our D's abillity to make breakout plays".

He specifically said the problem is we are "Way too spread out on the breakout; too much gap between D and the forwards."

IE, you're claiming our system is well suited to the deficiencies of our personnel, and he's claiming that our system for breakouts is just bad.

And I agree with him.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

I cover this in the post right above. If our biggest weakness is our D's ability to make breakout plays, and our biggest strength is our forecheck, then these two things are exactly what we should be doing as it covers our biggest weakness and plays into our biggest strength.

Our D's weakness in breaking out stems from a lack of options. Because our forwards are way too far up in the neutral zone.

And chipping the puck in by a lone stationary forward does nothing for our forecheck. It's just giving the puck away. This happens too often and it sure looks like it's because that is option A for our team. Having a forward breaking for a stretch pass can push back the D for sure but when they are just stopping or skating towards the boards in order to tip the clearance (almost always near the boards it seems) they are making themselves very easy to defend. Way too often our forwards are committed to this before we have clear possession or numbers to effectuate a forecheck.

We have at least one defenseman on each pairing who can, to varying degrees, skate the puck out of trouble. Problem there is that that gets harder when the defending team knows they have almost no outlets where they can cleanly complete a pass of less than 60 feet. It's a terribly simple breakout scheme that leaves little room for A) creativity on the rush B) flexibility and C) the ability to defend should things go awry on that clearance.

You may like it as a system. I don't. Our numbers 5-on-5 seem to suggest that trying something else might be a good idea.

 

[Loach]

Our D's weakness in breaking out stems from a lack of options. Because our forwards are way too far up in the neutral zone.

And chipping the puck in by a lone stationary forward does nothing for our forecheck. It's just giving the puck away. This happens too often and it sure looks like it's because that is option A for our team. Having a forward breaking for a stretch pass can push back the D for sure but when they are just stopping or skating towards the boards in order to tip the clearance (almost always near the boards it seems) they are making themselves very easy to defend. Way too often our forwards are committed to this before we have clear possession or numbers to effectuate a forecheck.

We have at least one defenseman on each pairing who can, to varying degrees, skate the puck out of trouble. Problem there is that that gets harder when the defending team knows they have almost no outlets where they can cleanly complete a pass of less than 60 feet. It's a terribly simple breakout scheme that leaves little room for A) creativity on the rush B) flexibility and C) the ability to defend should things go awry on that clearance.

You may like it as a system. I don't. Our numbers 5-on-5 seem to suggest that trying something else might be a good idea.

So this would work with a rebuilding team with limited talent...but limits what a team with more talent can do?

 

[Alf Silfversson]

So this would work with a rebuilding team with limited talent...but limits what a team with more talent can do?

Why would it favour one or the other?

 

[Beech]

You can't really compare Boucher to DJ. Boucher was way too strict and rigid with his system. The whole left side / right side thing was a byproduct of his 1-3-1 NZ Trap which is a pretty unique and rigid system that can't be adjusted easily. After Boucher was fired, Anderson said to the media “We didn’t show the ability to change it or try something new,” and “Over time, the system gets exposed and then you have to adapt your system . . . as the years went on, we kind of got stuck in that rut and didn’t try to adapt,”. (source) When your goalie is the one complaining about your systems, you know you done f***ed up. Boucher was a one trick pony.

The vast majority of teams don't run unbalanced systems that lean more on the left vs right. What I see in our system is pretty straightforward. Our weakness is undeniably our defense. One our biggest strengths is the work rate and tenacity of our forwards on the forecheck. On breakouts, the solution to that is what we're doing right now: Instead of expecting our defensemen to come up with magical breakout plays all the time, we get our defensemen to just clear the puck (assuming there's no easy breakout play) and have a forward at the red line chip it to negate the icing. It doesn't allow for too many rush plays and odd-man rushes in our favor, but it does play right into one of our biggest strengths, which is our forecheck. Just like that, we kill two birds with one stone.

Once we have the offensive zone, we aim to keep possession by play high to low hockey. I forget who, but I believe it was Chabot who spoke specifically about how we want to play high to low in the offensive zone. That means retrieving the puck down low, then cycling it to the point, and lots of play around the net. Here's an article about this. This is what I believe that Nashville assistant means by "making scramble plays". We smother them with a ferocious forecheck, then cycle the puck and score on scramble plays by throwing puck on net. It's not structural in the sense that we play some sort of structured neutral zone trap to generate offense on the counter. To quote General Patton: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future.” Also note that the article is a few years old, and talks about how the Kings metrics were very good (they were usually 1st in the league in those days), but they failed to make the playoffs. It was out of this deficiency in those metrics (corsi) that the newer xGF/xGA metrics were born to also show the quality of shots taken. Either way, we're still 7th in xGF/60, which is pretty good. In the defensive zone, we're 17th in xGA/60 which is dead middle average. That's why I don't believe our systems are the problem.

Then if you go over to the PP, it becomes very clear how well our systems are working. We play a low 1-3-1, where most of the play is driven at the half boards by our most skilled players like Stutzle, DeBrincat and Giroux. From the half boards, we can either go for a fast bumper play or a cross-crease to the other side. Chabot at the point is just a relief valve. Which is also why I don't understand why the outcry to take Chabot off the PP. He does a very good job at keeping things simple, making simple passes, and not giving the puck away, especially since he's the only one back there. Chabot giveaways from the point on the PP are very rare. That's all you need from the pointman in this PP scheme. You don't need a booming shot or dazzling dancing at the blue line. The magic happens at the half boards, not the point.

I'm not super familiar with PK schemes, but from what I see, it looks like some sort of 2-1-1 where the two forwards are constantly circling and rotating. Either way, it appears to be working because we have the 5th best PK in the league.

excellent post.

Boucher is not my brother, so this defense of him is not personal, nor that vociferous. Most were lightly highlighted by me earlier.

summer 017--Methot is gone..Huge loss on left side
017/018..It became somewhat clear that Karlsson had paid a small price for the 17 playoffs and he has a "slower year"
017/018..Codi Ceci gets the Yips..handling the puck started becoming like handling a grenade
017/018 Phanuef does not wave, it led to Methot leaving. I often wonder whether that rubbed everyone the wrong way. He seemed to play poorly
017/018 Turris seemed to want a boat load of money and is gone. He is replaced by Duschene .. in my opinion an un-wise trade and a player that had and would continue to have a 3-4 year period of sub-par play
017/018 Zack Smith returns to being a middling player...Never recovers
017/018..AND THIS IS THE BEGGIE...the Karlsson-Hoffman issues.... which we would later learn may have led to a splintered room

to be fair to Boucher...A ton of issues that were not of his doing..so things unraveled. In the end you are right, he may have been a one trick pony, but less all the above, would he have done better and lasted longer???

 

[swiftwin]

Our D's weakness in breaking out stems from a lack of options. Because our forwards are way too far up in the neutral zone.

And chipping the puck in by a lone stationary forward does nothing for our forecheck. It's just giving the puck away. This happens too often and it sure looks like it's because that is option A for our team. Having a forward breaking for a stretch pass can push back the D for sure but when they are just stopping or skating towards the boards in order to tip the clearance (almost always near the boards it seems) they are making themselves very easy to defend. Way too often our forwards are committed to this before we have clear possession or numbers to effectuate a forecheck.

We have at least one defenseman on each pairing who can, to varying degrees, skate the puck out of trouble. Problem there is that that gets harder when the defending team knows they have almost no outlets where they can cleanly complete a pass of less than 60 feet. It's a terribly simple breakout scheme that leaves little room for A) creativity on the rush B) flexibility and C) the ability to defend should things go awry on that clearance.

You may like it as a system. I don't. Our numbers 5-on-5 seem to suggest that trying something else might be a good idea.

First of all, our forwards are not far out of our zone. It's usually one winger at the red line. The center is usually deep on our zone to help with the breakout. Like, how often have we seen Stutzle behind our net skating in circles shaking off the opposition? Very often. This breakout scheme seems to have helped reduce the number of brutal turnovers that were plaguing us in November. This shows that DJ can and will adjust his system, and it has helped us get more wins since December.

Also, we don't *just* dump the puck in. We still generate chances on the rush. I can't find the tweet right now, but earlier in this thread someone posted that we're 9th in the league in generating chances off the rush. Our 5-on-5 numbers show that we're 7th in xGF/60, and 7th in SAT%.

I'm sorry, but there's no way we'd be 7th best in the league in shot attempts, if the fours point you posted were true. If we constantly left the points open (implying that we collapse the net and let them shoot from the outside), constantly gave the puck away by dumping it in and "giving the opposing team a free breakout", and constantly backed up too deep in the NZ when the opposition is coming towards us, we would NOT be 7th best in shot attempts. No way in hell. We USED to do those things during the depths of the rebuild, and our SAT% was atrocious. But this season, we are clearly playing a different, more possession based system, and both the underlying metrics and the eye test show it.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

excellent post.

Boucher is not my brother, so this defense of him is not personal, nor that vociferous. Most were lightly highlighted by me earlier.

summer 017--Methot is gone..Huge loss on left side
017/018..It became somewhat clear that Karlsson had paid a small price for the 17 playoffs and he has a "slower year"
017/018..Codi Ceci gets the Yips..handling the puck started becoming like handling a grenade
017/018 Phanuef does not wave, it led to Methot leaving. I often wonder whether that rubbed everyone the wrong way. He seemed to play poorly
017/018 Turris seemed to want a boat load of money and is gone. He is replaced by Duschene .. in my opinion an un-wise trade and a player that had and would continue to have a 3-4 year period of sub-par play
017/018 Zack Smith returns to being a middling player...Never recovers
017/018..AND THIS IS THE BEGGIE...the Karlsson-Hoffman issues.... which we would later learn may have led to a splintered room

to be fair to Boucher...A ton of issues that were not of his doing..so things unraveled. In the end you are right, he may have been a one trick pony, but less all the above, would he have done better and lasted longer???

There was a compounding effect mostly stemming from essentially losing their top pairing on D. Everything went to absolute chaos without Methot and a healthy Karlsson. Nobody came in even remotely capable of filling Methot's role or helping Karlsson carry the load. Karlsson looked like shit with the bad ankle basically all year. That led to higher slotting for Phaneuf and Ceci which completely ruined their effectiveness from the year prior and turned them both in to major liabilities. Then you've got too much riding on the 3rd pairing with nobody of consequence stepping up. All the while goaltending had dropped off hard from the year prior, likely as much their own fault as it was to do with the above.

 

[Ice-Tray]

DJ needs to do a personality change a la Paul McLean, now that the stakes are high and the kids have more professional expectations on them…

…. conversely, we saw how that worked out for McLean when he decided that he needed to clamp down and get serious…