It depends on the shift honestly, there are occasions where he has attacked, gone inside, tried to make moves, but most of the time he wants to get to the outside and make a pass.
That's where things break down for him.
I have to agree that he doesn't cut the middle often enough and, through game tape, that becomes predictable and easier to defend against.
Gomez, for example, who was the same, became easy to completely shut down, in the end. They gave him free rein from behind his own net to take the puck all the way to the corner in their own zone, but cut off all passing lanes and options.The play died there afterwards, as soon as they applied pressure on Gomez.
He wouldn't shoot net from a bad angle because there was no chance he could score à la Caufield from there, he had nobody to pass to and he could not win one on one battles.
Pretty, but totally ineffective and entirely predictable.
It's the same way with all players, especially good playmakers who fall back on that skill when they lack confidence in their game.
Suzuki is much less effective if he just looks to set up Caufield, for example. At the start of last year, he was on firebug also had as many goals as Caufield at that time because he was shooting the puck. That risk, for defending opponents, actually increased the odds of seeing Caufield ALSO score at a high clip because he doesn't need fourteen opportunities to actually score one and better passing lanes created by Suzuki's greater propensity to shoot assured that he would get a premium pass to score from.
Suzuki's obsession with setting up Caufield in the season's first few games is also entirely unwarranted as an approach because Caufield has demonstrated he can create scoring chances for himself by opening shooting lanes as he skates with the puck. Scoring opportunities, for him, aren't strictly required to come from one-timer opportunities, even if those tend to lead to good outcomes...
I've noticed that Slafkovsky is a pretty good playmaker and Honestly don't see why some posters were predicting or expecting 30 or 40 goals from him at his peak. Yes, he does have a good shot when he has a shooting lane open, but the shot still lacks consistency, for one, and Slafkovsky's default mode, when not at his optimum confidence levels either to pass the puck directly, or to move it forward to open space for a team mate to pounce on in full fight. He has a keen eye for those possibilities and, to me that actually demonstrates a hockey IQ that some rather claim doesn't have!
Slafkovsky still needs to harness his size and use it effectively.
Someone needs to tell him to shoot more often and be more selfish with the puck, but that includes telling him he must cut more often to the middle and create better shooting lanes through which the puck will be harder track in the process.
At his peak, however, Inever expect Slafkovsky to become a consistent 40+ goal scorer, although that could, one day, be a career year for him.
I expect Slafkovsky to become a puck-possession beast that can swat away opponents like flies, dig in and bring the puck to the net, whether it is by carrying it towards the crease, or by finding an open line-mate near the crease.
I always expected that Slafkovsky would be the type of player to have significantly more passes than goals if he were to become a 70-point player.
On a line with Dach, the pivot needs a pure sniper. That's not Slafkovsky, nor should it even be his role! However, Slafkovsky could also benefit from such a sharp-shooter.
Ultimately, the ideal scenario would have Slafkovsky develop into a winger that can complement Caufield and Suzuki because both players can really shoot the puck, even if Caufield is still a notch above Suzuki. Slafkovsky could get loose pucks in the O-zone, drive them the net, or feed either of his line mates.
Dach, who also doesn't shoot enough could do well with a player like Roy who can shoot and pass the puck. Newhook would be a good, complementary option on that line because of his speed, his playmaking skills, his shot and his vision as a Center himself. It would also a good mix of size and speed with a strong hockey IQ as a unifying trait.
Despite visions of Dach helping develop Slafkovsky, I don't think that this is the right place either for Juraj, in the end.
A strong top-6 of the future -- just not yet -- could well be made up of:
Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Newhook - Dach - Roy
