[url]http://canucksarmy.com/2013/6/15/some-thoughts-on-vigneaults-new-job[/URL]
Good read from Canucks army on Vigneaut and the Rangers.
Expect Boyle to be the 3C,
During Vigneault's Canucks tenure, he was often reluctant to trust young players in big roles if they had any sort of two-way deficiencies in their game. I'm curious to see what that'll mean for Rangers roster players like Michael Del Zotto and Derrick Brassard in particular. Meanwhile I'd wager that Carl Hagelin, Brian Boyle and Derek Dorsett will quickly ingratiate themselves as Vigneault favorites. The jury is out on how Vigneault will react and deploy talented youngsters like J.T. Miller, Christian Thomas and Chris Kreider.
That canucksarmy place seem pretty clueless. They are more or less comparing Hodgson and Kassian with
MDZ and
Brassard.
MDZ and Brassard are established NHLers. MDZ's defense is not more or less than Edler's in Vancouver. People complain on MDZ' supposed brain lapses and what not, MDZ is a PMD on a team that didn't move the puck. When he got the puck people skated up ice looking away, it was not easy to try to do anything with the puck for us and at the same time, we needed just that. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with MDZ' game, he does not have elite foot speed but besides that he is as solid as you can ask a not super-solid mega star D to be. A guy in Weber in Nashville, not to mention guys like Burns in SJ and co, can be pressured. So what. If D's couldn't be pressured, we wouldn't have scored 100 goals over 82 games with Torts because we lived on pressuring D's.
I recon we will see Brassard give away the puck from time to time, but Kreider and Miller for example are players who might not be NHL ready like Hodgeson and Kassian, Brassard is definitely established. He will be a top 2 center for us.
When I read what that canucksarmy place writes its what you can expect from over entusiastic fans. They are extremely hung up on the few -- often irrelevant -- issues young fans tends to get hanged up on. If a coach plays their favorite -- extremely overrated -- kids. If a coach matches, or does not match, lines. Stuff like that...
The Power Play. If any area of the game is not coachable, it could very well be the Power Play. It is really not rocket science. Either you have the personell or you don't. I recon you can work with it and find ways, sure, but like I said, its not rocet science. I am sure its extremely easy to prove this by tracking coaches' PP stats. They would be all over the place depending on the personell they have. I've seen coaches not use the most effective set-ups on like 5 on 3 PPs, but besides that -- and especially in the NHL -- you seldom see a team set up a PP in a way that isn't in line with what the better team uses. I always gave Torts a pass for our PP. The one thing Torts deserved blame for was that our extremely destructive 5 on 5 game spilled over on the PP, when we all of a sudden tried to pass the puck to each other we just weren't comfortable. Because of that we were like 27th instead of 20th maybe. We lacked a right hand shot from the blueline and a left handed playmaker down low, hence BR was isolated and couldn't function on it. Without Richards, we didn't have the personell to have a good PP.
Look at Vancouver, they went from three concecutive top 5 PPs to being 24th when they lost their right handed shot (Salo/Samuelsson/Kesler among others).
It is relevant to describe that Alain Vignault employs more or less 2 units to get the puck up ice, and then 2 units to take advantage of those zone starts. I do hope he will lessen a little on that approch in NY, you can be more black and white with it if you have the Sedins or another super top line like that. I would like to see us balance our team more like Boston or Chicago, with more offense hidden away on the depth lines.
Comments on a few players:
I am not sold at all on
Brian Boyle being an AV type of player. Can AV get Boyle in a position to on a shift by shift basis get the puck up ice and get offensive zone draws??? That has not been a strength at all of Boyle here in NY, if anything he is good cutting down on damage done while spending time in our end. Not getting the puck up ice which is a weakness of him. I can't rule out that AV manage to put Boyle in another role and that Boyle in that role starts getting the puck up ice on a regular basis, I've only seen Boyle under Torts, but I am not sold on it...
If you want 2 lines that will spend time in the attacking zone and 2 lines that are good at getting the puck up ice, what line does
Carl Hagelin play on?
This is the reason AV is blamed for not playing "kids". He has very defined roles, and --
certain -- kids does not give him what he wants in those roles. We should remember that we can't bank on AV being as strict in NY as he was in VAN. His approch of having lines that got the puck up ice to the benefit of his extreme scoring line with the Sedins isn't per automatic translated to NY. We do not have a Sedin's line. But if he wants to try this approch in NY, I do not think that a
Zuccarello is a good fit for a line that is supposed to get the puck up ice, just like I am sure that a young Hodgeson wasn't a fit on a line that he wanted to get the puck up ice. So for a player like Zuccarello, or Hodgeson in VAN, they would challenge for fewer positions than on a team that rolled more or less three lines that 5 on 5 had simular dutys. Both are good fits under his style, but only on the top 2 lines and not on the bottom 2 lines (if he applies the same strategy as in Vancouver).
Where in that equation does Carl Hagelin fits in? Carl Hagelin is a grey hound on ice. He is great at bring his team closer to the puck when they do not have it. That's really his strength. On the forecheck, instead of getting behind on a forecheck Hagelin manage to put so much pressure on the guy fetching the puck that the first pass is atleast affected and when the 2nd and 3rd guy jumps in, they just gets more to work with. Hagelin is getting better and better maybe, but he is not that great on the circle or at distributing the puck.
I think Hagelin under AV is hard to pin down. He might function on a unit with Step and Callahan, but how well would he work on a unit that is intended to set up shop?
Callahan would of course work under any coach, but its noteworthy that on a "set up shop" unit, he would function more in a Burrows type of role. Under Torts, Cally was essential in the transition game and in our attack. Under AV with that 2+2 unit set-up, he might get a little diffrent role...
Clowe is of course a good fit on a line that gets alot of O-zone starts and that are supposed to stay there. Needless to say.
McD, Girardi, Staal, Strålman and
MDZ are all five good at making a first pass and defending. The only downside with our blueline is that they haven't made that first pass in 3 years. AV needs to be given time there.
Power play
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...ousted+coach/8427083/story.html#ixzz2WJzxH6Dw
Brown knew things weren't right when he had too many left shots.
“You have to look at the pieces of the puzzle that are necessary and we had great chemistry that first year,” he explained. “Everything gelled. This year, we were forced through injury and whatnot and changes in personnel to try and build a new group.
“When you're trying to run a power play with five left shots, which we were forced to do a lot this year, you're really swimming upstream. Seventy-seven per cent of the power-play goals are scored with at least two right shots, so that tells you a lot right there. Not to say there are exceptions to the rule, but when you have five left shots, or even four, your chances of scoring are diminished.
“Teams are so fast to get into the shot lanes these days,” Brown continued, “that if you can't take one-timers, if you aren't in position to take one-touch passes and move the puck quickly to shooters and shoot off the pass, you're at a big disadvantage. That was something we were dealing with this year.”
AV will not be pleased to play another season without a right handed power play QB. The PP was not all Torts fault, we miss a player here.
Have's and have nots
I think a AV lineup (if he keeps the strategy he had in Vancouver), would be formated something like this (Alt 1 if BR is bought out, Alt 2 if he is not bought out):
Alt 1.
Unit 1
Clowe-Stepan-Nash//The line only get O-zone starts. They take the FO in the attacking zone, and go after the puck and tries to circle it.
McD-Girardi
Unit 2.
Kreider-Brassard-Zucc//Brassard and Zucc plays a good puck-possesion game together. Decent not-go-to second line. AV's second line has not had a massive role 5 on 5 in Vancouver. Kesler had a big role, but he played both PP and PK.
MDZ-Moore
Unit 3.
Hagelin-Lindberg-Callahan//Would be the line that takes every important defensive zone draws. Especially in the 3rd period. Just get the puck out of our end and into the attacking zone. Get a FO there.
Staal-Strålman
Unit 4.
Asham/Pyatt-Boyle-Dorsett//Same as unit 3. I don't think AV would mind a strong a little stronger skaters on this unit.
Alt 2
Unit 1
Clowe-Richards-Nash
McD-Girardi
Unit 2.
Kreider-Brassard-Zucc//Is the second a little bit more offensive minded unit, but would be the 3rd line in terms of ice time.
MDZ-Moore
Unit 3.
Hagelin-Stepan-Callahan//As above, get the puck up ice and get FO's there.
Staal-Strålman
Unit 4.
Asham/Pyatt-Boyle-Dorsett
Analysis
Both alt's are built on us retaining Clowe. Without him, or even with him, we are still a little short on puck protection ability. Zucc and Brass aren't overly strong on the puck. Neither is Stepan. We are not a top heavy team in that sense.
I recon Boyle could function on a line with Hagelin and Callahan, but he is not Malhotra II. Lindberg is probably not ready for the role he is in alt 1...
Our PP would have the same flaws it has had for a while now.
.
