The lack of puck movement is at once a model issue and a personnel issue. If your coach accepts negative shot differential and is risk averse to inner ice passing, he will defer to glass-and-out trees and rely on high conversion rates to save him. Granted, it worked last year... Until it didn't against the Oilers.
It's because their ceiling is lowered by the controlled system the play. Tocchet wants rush chances, sure, but he's not willing to accept to the risks to get it (Brannstrom's creativity). It's fine if all you want to do is control for your floor. As in, stay in games. But if you want to get the cup, you need shot generation. Tocchet's model isn't providing this.
Fair enough, I might not agree with your conclusion but I understand where you’re coming from.
To me, the moment Brannstrom was asked to step up from playing super soft minutes his play cratered. He was able to make great breakouts through the middle against weak competition, but against tougher players he was constantly hemmed in his own end.
I’ve seen Hronek and Hughes allowed to do their thing, and Big Z was given the latitude to carry the puck end to end as well. Tocchet has shown frustration with his d not willing to hold on to the puck to make the play too in pressers, so to me it feels like way more of a personnel issue than anything structural.
If you want to call him risk-averse, I get that, but I also think it’s the correct move with the current roster as constructed.