Toggle sidebar

Habs at the World Championships

Adam Michaels said:
Hutson and Mailloux will change the PP.

You already have Suzuki, Caufield & Dach who are bright spots on one of the worst PPs in the league. Bring in guys like Hutson and Mailloux to play with them and you're in good shape.
Click to expand...

I think Hutson will change the PP. The way the NHL is going, two D-man PPs are just less effective than one D-man PPs. Mailloux may be a 2nd unit guy, but his value will be more based on his size and how he uses it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redux91, MarkovsKnee and Ozmodiar
Skip Bayless said:
That goal was pure luck.
Click to expand...
Somewhat true..........I do remember a goal like that once, and the Crosby kid got lucky too.............funny how some can make that happen.

Loads of space on the big ice surface, that wont be in the NHL when he gets there, but the kid looks great at this point.
 
Captain Mountain said:
I think Hutson will change the PP. The way the NHL is going, two D-man PPs are just less effective than one D-man PPs. Mailloux may be a 2nd unit guy, but his value will be more based on his size and how he uses it.
Click to expand...

They don't need to be on the same wave of the PP to change our PP. But if they are on the same wave, should it really matter if there are 2 D's on the PP instead of 1 if they are effective on it?

Mailloux has that booming shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rapala and dackelljuneaubulis02
Adam Michaels said:
They don't need to be on the same wave of the PP to change our PP. But if they are on the same wave, should it really matter if there are 2 D's on the PP instead of 1 if they are effective on it?

Mailloux has that booming shot.
Click to expand...
they’ll run the 1-3-1 with 1 D.

Half-wall players are dual shooter / playmakers, and may end up down low. Some looks from 1-3-1 result in players switching based on the read. In other words, they have to be comfortable working down low.

Usually, one side has a player more prone to shooting, but that guy is Caufield.

So, ideally, 1 D for 1st unit.
 
Adam Michaels said:
They don't need to be on the same wave of the PP to change our PP. But if they are on the same wave, should it really matter if there are 2 D's on the PP instead of 1 if they are effective on it?

Mailloux has that booming shot.
Click to expand...

I think it does. Its not just about tools, its how they think and play the game. Maybe Mailloux and Hutson are so different that the data is different, but I doubt it. distribution and getting shots for rebounds is more important than a booming shot. 1-3-1 PPs are better because you have more dual threats and can make adjustments depending on how the play develops. You can make having an extra skater on the ice more relevant in more situations.

And for the shot specifically, the booming shot doesn't necessarily help the PP. We saw that with Weber here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victoire HuGo
Adam Michaels said:
Hutson and Mailloux will change the PP.

You already have Suzuki, Caufield & Dach who are bright spots on one of the worst PPs in the league. Bring in guys like Hutson and Mailloux to play with them and you're in good shape.
Click to expand...
For sure our PP is good at times but the play always end up dying on the weakest link(s) stick. I never understood trying to get two waves out of the talent we have it makes no sense. Go with one wave and play whoever decided to show up on that second wave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrom
Rapala said:
For sure our PP is good at times but the play always end up dying on the weakest link(s) stick. I never understood trying to get two waves out of the talent we have it makes no sense. Go with one wave and play whoever decided to show up on that second wave.
Click to expand...

I guess it’s hard to justify having one wave when the powerplay isn’t working. Especially with many veterans on the team. If your first wave is producing, no one on the bench will complain.

Having a lot of players in the same mold probably didn’t help either. Drouin, Hoffman and to a lesser extent Dadonov couldn’t be effective without powerplay time.

The lack of elite talent forced them to have Gallagher/HP/Anderson in to complete our best offensive players.

Dvorak is good around the net, but he’s mostly there because we can’t win a face off to save our lives.

They should run one wave, we don’t have enough talent to split it in half.
 
Captain Mountain said:
I think Hutson will change the PP. The way the NHL is going, two D-man PPs are just less effective than one D-man PPs. Mailloux may be a 2nd unit guy, but his value will be more based on his size and how he uses it.
Click to expand...
It is true that the 1-3-1 and umbrella have taken over but I would hesitate before calling them 1 Dman PP units as some teams have employed 2 dmen with one at the point and one on the wall/dot. I could see a scenario for example that has Hutson at the top with Mailloux on the left dot if Caufield was hurt. We even played Petry at the top with Weber at the left dot at times as well. San Jose had both of Karlsson and Burns in an umbrella scheme as well .
 
Estimated_Prophet said:
It is true that the 1-3-1 and umbrella have taken over but I would hesitate before calling them 1 Dman PP units as some teams have employed 2 dmen with one at the point and one on the wall/dot. I could see a scenario for example that has Hutson at the top with Mailloux on the left dot if Caufield was hurt. We even played Petry at the top with Weber at the left dot at times as well. San Jose had both of Karlsson and Burns in an umbrella scheme as well .
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd use the Petry-Weber and Karlsson-Burns PPs as an argument in favour of having two 2-man PP units. Those PP units under-performed their talent.

My issue with putting D-men on the half wall is that D-men need to approach and think the game differently because they have different responsibilities. It leads to more static PPs with shots from the point and near the crease, but less shooting from the slot and worse pre-shot movement. Florida's improved PP when they took Ekblad off the 1st unit (with Montour as the sole D remaining) is the latest example.
 
Captain Mountain said:
I'm not sure I'd use the Petry-Weber and Karlsson-Burns PPs as an argument in favour of having two 2-man PP units. Those PP units under-performed their talent.

My issue with putting D-men on the half wall is that D-men need to approach and think the game differently because they have different responsibilities. It leads to more static PPs with shots from the point and near the crease, but less shooting from the slot and worse pre-shot movement. Florida's improved PP when they took Ekblad off the 1st unit (with Montour as the sole D remaining) is the latest example.
Click to expand...

The position that a player normally plays is entirely irrelevant, you are applying stereotypes as absolutes and that is never the right approach. Almost every team is using the 1-3-1 and umbrella and there are plenty of terrible ones including Montreal's that use just one dman. You can't cite an example and copy and paste it on to everything.

We obviously agree on the current trend of PP strategy and you are absolutely correct that in most cases it is better to have 4 forwards because most teams don't have two dmen among their top 5 offensive talents. But....for teams that have two Dmen with 1st unit PP talent then their inclusion is no different than a 4th forward. I think the days of 1 dimensional clapper happy dmen is over and this is what I believe you are really getting at but there is always room for two dmen if their skillset is optimal for offensive zone possession
 
Estimated_Prophet said:
The position that a player normally plays is entirely irrelevant, you are applying stereotypes as absolutes and that is never the right approach. Almost every team is using the 1-3-1 and umbrella and there are plenty of terrible ones including Montreal's that use just one dman. You can't cite an example and copy and paste it on to everything.

We obviously agree on the current trend of PP strategy and you are absolutely correct that in most cases it is better to have 4 forwards because most teams don't have two dmen among their top 5 offensive talents. But....for teams that have two Dmen with 1st unit PP talent then their inclusion is no different than a 4th forward. I think the days of 1 dimensional clapper happy dmen is over and this is what I believe you are really getting at but there is always room for two dmen if their skillset is optimal for offensive zone possession
Click to expand...

Its not though. My point is, there isn't really ANY examples of a good PP in recent memory that has 2 D-men on it. And 1st PP units that go from two D-men to one D-men improve. Even if the unit has "two Dmen with 1st unit PP talent". And we're not talking about that, we're not even talking about D-men like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom