GDT: Game 28: Coyotes @ Wild - 6pm (AZ) - FSA

[BUX7PHX]

I agree it was not deflected and it was a bad goal, but I have seen both Kuemper and Rants give up bad goals like that. Hill was not the reason we lost if that is what you are getting at.

You need to track the path of the puck better from the behind the goal camera. There are two distinct paths of the puck. One from when it leaves Kaprizov's stick to Oesterle, and then it changes direction slightly off Oesterle.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Not that it's going to help our playoff chances any, but this was game 27.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Here we go.

For what it's worth, no, you can't win a hockey game if you don't score any goals. But for any who might wonder why I think Adin Hill is maybe not suited for an NHL backup role, here is why.

I am not saying we would've won with a different goalie (it is hard to win without scoring any goals). But for those curious this is a description of why I think Adin Hill is not the best backup in the NHL.

Basically as a goalie you want to be on your angle -- which means you need to be square to the shooter and also in an appropriate place in your crease -- if you're on top of your crease (e.g., closer to the shot), that means there's less time to react BUT more shots will randomly hit you because you're taking up more of the net. Especially if you're tall / big like Adin Hill.

That said the biggest danger with being on top of your crease is that it opens you up to a backdoor pass/ goal. So a key part of being a good goalie (NHL or any other level) is to read the play to figure out when you should be on top of your crease (e.g., taking away the shooter's angle) or deeper in your crease / closer to the backdoor pass in order to take it away. In fact I'd argue this is the most important part of being a world-class goalie which everyone in the NHL should be.

Regardless, here is how the play developed during the second goal tonight:
View attachment 406896


As you can see at this point Hill's pretty much on his angle, there's most likely a screen going (2 Coyotes players between Hill and the puck) but by far the most important thing is there's really not a back-door option here. In other words #49 Rask is being pretty well taken care of by #26 Chaput, it's not like Rask is in any danger of getting the puck. So Hill can / should play the shooter and make that initial save.

Given this, Hill should've challenged the shooter. I mean, no risk of a back door play, take up as much of the net as you can, right? And even if there were a risk of a back door, then a goalie should overplay the risk of the backdoor play, not overplaying the near post. But unfortunately Hill overplayed the near post.

View attachment 406890


Here's the shot. As everyone can see, his angle was off and he was over-covering the near post. It'd be appropriate for him to cheat, but if he were to cheat he would cheat the other way, in other words toward Viktor Rask who represents the best chance of a deflection. Instead he's not only over-covering the near post, he's also maybe a foot or two too deep in his crease to take away the initial angle of the shooter.

Here's the shot:

View attachment 406891

You can kind of see the puck in the middle of the ice as it's going past Adin Hill. But as anyone who's played goal would say, a) Hill is square but not challenging enough (he should be at the top of his crease another foot or two closer to the puck or b) he's not playing the backdoor tip (e.g., Rask) enough. But as you can clearly see, playing the back door would actually mean he would overplay the far post, which actually would bring him closer to his angle / make this an easier save.

Also, as all of you can all see, MIN #49 Rask's completely tied up by the Coyotes defenseman (who is actually #26 Chaput a center). There is no way Rask has a play on this shot.

But even if Hill misread the play, he should've overplayed the far post (bc of Rask), not overcommited the near post without challenging the shooter. If he had appropriately challenged the shooter, the puck would've just hit him (similar to what Raanta did last game), and if he'd overplayed the chance of a tip the same thing would've happened as he would've been off his angle in the other direction.

This goal happened because 1) Hill did not challenge the shooter enough and 2) he was off his angle in the wrong direction, especially if he thought Rask had a chance for a tip. Hill overcommitted to the near post, even seeing the play in real time there is no reason he should have made a read that bad.

@Foggy1097 -- my apologies if I came across condescending, that wasn't my intention. XX and I have significant history, a few days ago he proactively decided to bring it up again so what do you do. Anyway, like you said Hill didn't have much time to react to the shot but if he were in proper position, he wouldn't have had to react, the puck would've just hit him. As you can see from the multiple screenshots Hill didn't challenge the shooter enough, if he had this would have been a routine save rather than a goal against

EDIT: for whatever reason the first screenshot didn't take in HFBoards, I just edited the post to make sure the picture was included (the picture tells a thousand words)

It’s square to the puck, not square to the shooter (harder to do). Cut down the angle when you can, different coaches have different philosophy’s though and many prefer large goalies do less of that.
As for the goal itself, it indeed went off the toaster. In regard to the angle Hill plays, you’re overlooking a pass back to the right D, that requires Hill to remain cognizant of a shot possibly going to his left.
It’s best you give this anti Hill thing a rest, or at least until it’s warranted. Hell, the kid’s barely had more than a cuppa.

 

[PainForShane]

The screenshots look like he is correctly square to the shooter, and if he comes out any further, it actually would prevent Hill from getting back in position, considering there is a Wild and Coyote player to his right on a pass that would go back to the opposite point.

Besides, the shot deflected off Oesterle, and while I think we all understand that coming out to the shooter may have changed that from a goal to a potential save, that is a huge risk to take when there is a player in front of Kaprizov in Oesterle, which means a pass could still occur.

Hill is square to the shooter but he's in the wrong spot in the crease, you can tell in the 2nd and 3rd screenshots. Too deep and too far to the left. I'm not sure what you mean by your first point, are you saying that if he challenged the shooter he wouldn't be able to get set for the next shot in case the puck went to the point to his right (bc Rask / Chaput are in the way and would be blocking his movement to the new position)? I'm not sure that's relevant, but I'm also not sure what you're saying.

Regardless of whether Hill is challenging the shooter or not, he's still not playing his angle right, and if anything he should be cheating over to his right (not his left) to try to take away a back-door deflection. There's no reason to hug the short side as the biggest non-shooting threat is the back door play from Rask (even though Chaput does a great job tying him up). Yes there is another Wild player to Kaprizov's right (Hill's left) but that's a lesser threat because a shot from that player would be coming from a worse shooting angle and also from slightly farther away.

Hill should be worried about the shot and the backdoor play, both are better options than the Wild player on Kaprizov's right / Hill's left.

I also don't understand your second point, Oesterle is front of Kaprizov so you say a pass might occur. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that a pass might occur so Hill should be anticipating / playing the pass (rather than a shot) even though Kaprizov is in a shooting position? I honestly do not understand what you just posted

EDIT: To everyone I'm ok letting this go, thx @Coyotedroppings . Hill let up a bad goal, we didn't lose bc of it. We lost because we didn't score any goals, our offense was anemic again. That's more relevant than ragging on our backup goalie

 

[Coyotedroppings]

In fairness to RT, he’s not the one missing opportunities, or lacking execution. We should have come out with a win, had we capitalized on just half of our golden opps and not paraded the box in the second.
BUT - SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE and in instances like these it’s the coach. It should be a no brainer given the mans track record.

 

[Prarievarg]

why I hate Adin Hill.

Is that you tocchet? Honestly though this is where I know I should stop reading your takes. Why tf hate a goalie that has only started 25 games at the nhl level, and done so decently. This is not Loui Domingue

 

[Tom Polakis]

They are back to missing the net on all of their chances. When I opined that Crouse should be moved the reaction from members on this board was I knew nothing about hockey.. He is awful and along with Fischer they should both be benched for the foreseeable future. Allowing a player to circle the net and move into the slot and score two goals in a short time made me turn the game off and switch to the Oilers.

I'm with you. I wouldn't miss Crouse one bit if we moved him. His reaction time is awful, and he has hands of cement. I think we already saw his ceiling last season. Players like him are a dime a dozen in the NHL.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Hill is square to the shooter but he's in the wrong spot in the crease, you can tell in the 2nd and 3rd screenshots. Too deep and too far to the left. I'm not sure what you mean by your first point, are you saying that if he challenged the shooter he wouldn't be able to get set for the next shot in case the puck went to the point to his right (bc Rask / Chaput are in the way and would be blocking his movement to the new position)? I'm not sure that's relevant, but I'm also not sure what you're saying.

Regardless of whether Hill is challenging the shooter or not, he's still not playing his angle right, and if anything he should be cheating over to his right (not his left) to try to take away a back-door deflection. There's no reason to hug the short side as the biggest non-shooting threat is the back door play from Rask (even though Chaput does a great job tying him up). Yes there is another Wild player to Kaprizov's right (Hill's left) but that's a lesser threat because a shot from that player would be coming from a worse shooting angle and also from slightly farther away.

Hill should be worried about the shot and the backdoor play, both are better options than the Wild player on Kaprizov's right / Hill's left.

I also don't understand your second point, Oesterle is front of Kaprizov so you say a pass might occur. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that a pass might occur so Hill should be anticipating / playing the pass (rather than a shot) even though Kaprizov is in a shooting position? I honestly do not understand what you just posted

EDIT: To everyone I'm ok letting this go, thx @Coyotedroppings . Hill let up a bad goal, we didn't lose bc of it. We lost because we didn't score any goals, our offense was anemic again. That's more relevant than ragging on our backup goalie

That is exactly what I am saying - as you can see, there are 5 Coyote players in the screenshot, but only 4 Wild players. The one at the top of the blue line is a possible pass, or there might be someone in the deadspace above the right circle. If Hill comes out on his line any further (let's say 3-6" more), any pass made to the blue line or to the opposite side actually would create a potential issue in finding the puck and proper position with Chaput and Rask right there. It is possible for a goalie to come out so far that it presents an issue.

I don't necessarily see an issue with the angle either. Goalies, in general, are going to compensate a little more on the short side, especially because that is where the puck originates from. If the shot starts to go short side, any rebound likely gets kicked to the player on Hill's left, where it is clear that no Coyote can slow that down. Preferably, the goalie sees the shot and essentially baits the player into shooting to the far side. From there, the goalie has already positioned himself so that he can push off of the left skate to get to the puck. If very wide, yes, it can deflect off of Chaput or Rask, but if that takes place, the only chance for a save on that scenario is if Hill was playing very deep in the crease, which you already argued was not right. If the shot is low right on Hill, a kick save means we have 2 D to hold off Rask.

The entire reason why it looks poor is because the puck hits off Oesterle. If you envision a shot from Kaprizov where Oesterle's right shin is, that is a tough angle, because the closer to net the puck is shot from, the wider certain angles become. Very few goalies would be able to make the save anyhow.

If you watch the behind the net replay at full speed, Hill actually sets himself properly at release of the puck. He drops his right knee and goes butterfly on the right side, but still has the ability to push off left skate. So if the shot is low, he can kick the right pad out and Hammer is there to clear. Because it hit off Oesterle, that deflection changed the shot angle. In fact, the third screenshot, the puck is actually the little dot right above Hill's helmet. Draw a line from the puck to Oesterle's knee/shin, and that is the deflection angle. You can see Hill bringing the blocker arm in slightly because the original path of the shot appears headed between the armpit, blocker side.

 

[Jakey53]

You need to track the path of the puck better from the behind the goal camera. There are two distinct paths of the puck. One from when it leaves Kaprizov's stick to Oesterle, and then it changes direction slightly off Oesterle.

I disagree. You can see space between Oesterle's leg and the puck. I don't think it was deflected rather he used Oster for a screen. Regardless, this kid killed us in one of the games in Phoenix and was killing us with his play and as usual, we did not or could not adjust. The kid is a hell of a player, but teams will makes adjustments on how they cover him.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I disagree. You can see space between Oesterle's leg and the puck. I don't think it was deflected rather he used Oster for a screen. Regardless, this kid killed us in one of the games in Phoenix and was killing us with his play and as usual, we did not or could not adjust. The kid is a hell of a player, but teams will makes adjustments on how they cover him.

It hit off of his right knee. It did not go between Oesterle's legs. You are right that Oesterle was screening Hill some, but the original shot angle was to the outside of Oesterle, and he skated into where the shot was headed.

EDIT: Look at the screenshot that was provided. When still shots are taken, there is still a motion of the puck. If you were to draw a line from the middle of the puck through the trail of the puck, it goes the knee/shin of Oseterle, and not between the legs. If the trail went back directly to where Kaprizov's stick was when the puck was shot, then you are correct, but then the shot went to the outside of Oesterle in Oesterle's right. That little trail of the puck line strongly suggests that it hit off Oesterle. Remember that the change in angle does not need to be big to create a difference. When it hit off Oesterle's leg, I had to rewatch a few times to make sure that I did see a direction change, and each time, it was a clearly different path from the stick to Oesterle's knee or shin, then a slightly different angle from Oesterle to the net

 

[PainForShane]

It hit off of his right knee. It did not go between Oesterle's legs. You are right that Oesterle was screening Hill some, but the original shot angle was to the outside of Oesterle, and he skated into where the shot was headed.

EDIT: Look at the screenshot that was provided. When still shots are taken, there is still a motion of the puck. If you were to draw a line from the middle of the puck through the trail of the puck, it goes the knee/shin of Oseterle, and not between the legs. If the trail went back directly to where Kaprizov's stick was when the puck was shot, then you are correct, but then the shot went to the outside of Oesterle in Oesterle's right. That little trail of the puck line strongly suggests that it hit off Oesterle. Remember that the change in angle does not need to be big to create a difference. When it hit off Oesterle's leg, I had to rewatch a few times to make sure that I did see a direction change, and each time, it was a clearly different path from the stick to Oesterle's knee or shin, then a slightly different angle from Oesterle to the net

Yeah the puck definitely deflected, easier to see if you watch the replay rather than the screenshots. Not sure if it deflected off Oesterle, there was another Coyote with his stick in the shooting lane. Either way the puck did deflect / change angles etc.

But, if Adin Hill was in the right spot in his net and / or appropriately challenging at the top of his crease, the deflected puck would've just hit him in his right shoulder. Sure, maybe there's reasons he decided not to challenge or stayed too much on the short side etc but it's a bad read regardless.

That said we wouldn't have won the game anyway, we didn't score any goals. That seems like a bigger / more pressing issue. Obvi I am not a fan of Adin Hill, but he's a young 3rd string goalie making just above league minimum and clearly not the cause of all of our problems

 

[BUX7PHX]

Yeah the puck definitely deflected, easier to see if you watch the replay rather than the screenshots. Not sure if it deflected off Oesterle, there was another Coyote with his stick in the shooting lane. Either way the puck did deflect / change angles etc.

But, if Adin Hill was in the right spot in his net and / or appropriately challenging at the top of his crease, the deflected puck would've just hit him in his right shoulder. Sure, maybe there's reasons he decided not to challenge or stayed too much on the short side etc but it's a bad read regardless.

That said we wouldn't have won the game anyway, we didn't score any goals. That seems like a bigger / more pressing issue. Obvi I am not a fan of Adin Hill, but he's a young 3rd string goalie making just above league minimum and not the cause of all of our problems

Like I said, i had to re-watch multiple times, because the location of the release relative to when it hit Oesterle is so quick, that it doesn't immediately register.

I also have a theory as to why the short side was played. Watch Kaprizov's shot on the first goal he scored. Notice anything about where he is shooting when it hits off Dvorak's skate?

Kaprizov is a rookie, and if Hill has never played against him, maybe he was seeing him purposely go glove side a few times, and that feeds into the process.

I had the same thing when I was a lacrosse goalie. You pick up on tendencies from players, and usually the opposition only changes tendencies if you force them to.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Cross checking is very inconsistently enforced.

 

[Neighborhood Coyote]

Cross checking is very inconsistently enforced.

It's weird isn't it? Super easy to spot when it happens and it's specifically spelled out in the rule so it's almost not even a judgement call. If they decided to crack down on it like the did with hooking or slashing... It would be easy enough to do.

 

[Jakey53]

It hit off of his right knee. It did not go between Oesterle's legs. You are right that Oesterle was screening Hill some, but the original shot angle was to the outside of Oesterle, and he skated into where the shot was headed.

EDIT: Look at the screenshot that was provided. When still shots are taken, there is still a motion of the puck. If you were to draw a line from the middle of the puck through the trail of the puck, it goes the knee/shin of Oseterle, and not between the legs. If the trail went back directly to where Kaprizov's stick was when the puck was shot, then you are correct, but then the shot went to the outside of Oesterle in Oesterle's right. That little trail of the puck line strongly suggests that it hit off Oesterle. Remember that the change in angle does not need to be big to create a difference. When it hit off Oesterle's leg, I had to rewatch a few times to make sure that I did see a direction change, and each time, it was a clearly different path from the stick to Oesterle's knee or shin, then a slightly different angle from Oesterle to the net

I didn't say between his legs.

 

[ParisSaintGermain]

This was a winnable game but I am going to be blunt: Kessel failed. The missed opportunities are one thing (sometime coming from cheating at the defensive end...), the penalties are another. I see that Tocchet rewarded him with 18:28 of ice time, way to go.

On another note, I am starting to worry a bit about Schmaltz's hockey sense. The talent & the effort are most definitely there but so are the brain cramps. He never seems to process the game correctly. Pass when he should shoot, hug the puck when he should pass. I wish he would keep it simple most of the time and he might break out of that 2 points in 11 games funk.

Finally, I really feel a bit sorry for Hill and the D as a whole. These guys play with so much pressure knowing that the forwards are unlikely to score and this has been the way for just about 3 years (probably more tbh).

Looking forward to another head coach.

 

[Imaravencawcaw]

Cross checking is very inconsistently enforced.

You'd think the NHL would figure out it's actually in their best interest to enforce the cross-checking rules just like they had refs crack down on slashing. Nobody is buying Ian Cole jerseys, nobody buys a ticket or NHLTV package to see Ian Cole play, but people want to watch Connor Garland play hockey. You can't have 3rd pair plug defensemen maiming young talented players like Garland.

 

[RemoAZ]

You'd think the NHL would figure out it's actually in their best interest to enforce the cross-checking rules just like they had refs crack down on slashing. Nobody is buying Ian Cole jerseys, nobody buys a ticket or NHLTV package to see Ian Cole play, but people want to watch Connor Garland play hockey. You can't have 3rd pair plug defensemen maiming young talented players like Garland.

This is why they need to leave Crouse on his line. Need immediate retaliation every time something like this happens. It's the only thing that might slow it down.

 

[Jamieh]

This is why they need to leave Crouse on his line. Need immediate retaliation every time something like this happens. It's the only thing that might slow it down.

Nobody is afraid of Crouse.

 

[Heldig]

This is why they need to leave Crouse on his line. Need immediate retaliation every time something like this happens. It's the only thing that might slow it down.

Agree except Crouse is not the guy. Coyotes need one crazy Dman OR someone destroys Kaprizov next opportunity.

Oh how I miss hockey player Derek Morris.

 

[BigJCaRoach]

Agree except Crouse is not the guy. Coyotes need one crazy Dman OR someone destroys Kaprizov next opportunity.

Oh how I miss hockey player Derek Morris.

I also greatly miss that “one stalwart hombre”

 

[Edenjung]

We need a sign that say:" Mr. Tocchet we are sorry, but you have to go" Standing infront of the arena.
And the next day this sign:" Didn't we tell you to leave? Get your things and go."
And so on.

 

[Tyler Durden]

What do you guys think about trading for Mattias Ekholm?

 

[Ebb]

What do you guys think about trading for Mattias Ekholm?

I'd be fine with adding another Swede to the blue line; I'm just not sure what would be the return.