SDS Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 In the playoffs, I remember us just standing around as teams passed the puck around the perimeter unchalleneged. This season we are getting in some faces and disrupting the flow. Am I right on this?
BetweenThePipes00 Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Maybe a little ... I think it depends on who they play also ... against Ottawa last season, if you started chasing you could get burned, so maybe they dialed it back ... Also, all the defensemen are mobile now ... in the playoffs McKee and Fitzpatrick were getting a lot of time on the PK, so you can't be that aggressive because they could not recover ...
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 In the playoffs, I remember us just standing around as teams passed the puck around the perimeter unchalleneged. This season we are getting in some faces and disrupting the flow. Am I right on this? You are. A couple of reasons for this: 1. We've replaced McKee and Grier, who are plowhorses compared to Novotny and Spacek. 2. Against today's version of the Whalercanes, it's better to pressure them because they don't have Stillman (injured), Weight (StL), or Recchi (Pens). Those three guys are terrific on the puck and if you pressure them, they will find your weakness and exploit it. We did pressure the puck some last season, but it truly depended on the opponent. I think Lindy has been watching some Detroit film because that phase of the game looks eerily similiar to the stuff they regularly do.
Done Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Can someone help me out with why Lindy has such a man-rod for Pominville on the power play when the guy has been on the ice for almost every short handed goal we give up? He was on tonight, and last year he kept going with him on the point, only to create many odd man rushes the other way. I really can't figure it out.
bg17 Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Can someone help me out with why Lindy has such a man-rod for Pominville on the power play when the guy has been on the ice for almost every short handed goal we give up? He was on tonight, and last year he kept going with him on the point, only to create many odd man rushes the other way. I really can't figure it out. Seemed like a bad idea at that point in the game as well. It's not like another goal was needed. Better off protecting the two goal lead already in place. Two d-men seems proper in that situation. I do like four forwards on the PP in a normal situation however.
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Can someone help me out with why Lindy has such a man-rod for Pominville on the power play when the guy has been on the ice for almost every short handed goal we give up? He was on tonight, and last year he kept going with him on the point, only to create many odd man rushes the other way. I really can't figure it out. We were third in the league last season in PP scoring percentage. Last season Kotalik was on the ice for most of the shorties we gave up, not Pominville. Lindy believes the extra chances you generate from the PP is worth the occasional shorty. Since our PP was about 40% more successful than our opposition last season, I'd say he's not wrong. I really don't know why he bothered in this situation, since we were up 2 goals at the time. I doubt we see that again.
Done Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 We were third in the league last season in PP scoring percentage. Last season Kotalik was on the ice for most of the shorties we gave up, not Pominville. Lindy believes the extra chances you generate from the PP is worth the occasional shorty. Since our PP was about 40% more successful than our opposition last season, I'd say he's not wrong. I really don't know why he bothered in this situation, since we were up 2 goals at the time. I doubt we see that again. Is there a place to find that stat? I really remember 8-10 times where a Pominville mistake led to a breakout and maybe 4 or 5 goals. I know Kotalik isn't Tim Horton, but I don't remember him making such drastic goofs. Thanks
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Is there a place to find that stat? I really remember 8-10 times where a Pominville mistake led to a breakout and maybe 4 or 5 goals. I know Kotalik isn't Tim Horton, but I don't remember him making such drastic goofs. Thanks My head. I know we scored over 100 PP goals and gave up about 60. Our percentage was over 107 (the gold standard is 105). We gave up like 17 shorties and had about 10 or 11. You likely don't remember Kotalik's dramatic goofs because they came early in the year, when most people weren't really paying alot of attention to the Sabres. Everything got magnified as the season went on.
X. Benedict Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Is there a place to find that stat? I really remember 8-10 times where a Pominville mistake led to a breakout and maybe 4 or 5 goals. I know Kotalik isn't Tim Horton, but I don't remember him making such drastic goofs. Thanks 4 or 5 goals? wow. I can't remember one Pominville goof that has led to a goal in the past. He only had 16 giveaways all of last season. 16! Remarkable for a rookie. You must be thinking of someone else.
Done Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 4 or 5 goals? wow. I can't remember one Pominville goof that has led to a goal in the past. He only had 16 giveaways all of last season. 16! Remarkable for a rookie. You must be thinking of someone else. No way.....I think the kid is solid, but when he is at the point...I choke. There were consecutive games with about 20 or so games left where he was on the ice for a SH goal. He would bumble the puck and whoosh...the other team is off. I am paranoid over this since to me it is as obvious as Lonnie Johnson dropping passes back in the day, except nobody knows what I am talking about with Pominville. I did some research and I can only prove he was on the ice for 2, but it looks like more..... Mar 12 W 6-2 Bos 1SHGA Pominville +/- 0 Mar 11 W 6-5 Phi 2SHGA Pominville -2 Feb 9 L 3-2 Mon 1SHGA Pominville -1 Feb 7 W 3-2 Mon 1SHGA Pominville -2 Jan 26 W 8-4 Tor 1SHGA Pominville +1 Jan 19 L 4-1 Van 1SHGA Pominville -2 Dec 30 W 4-1 Atl 1SHGA Pominville 0 Dec 29 L 4-3 Tor 1SHGA Pominville -1 Dec 22 L 4-1 FL 1SHGA Pominville -2 So..in 9 games in which we gave up a Shortie, we were 5-4....outscored the other team 34-28. 17 goals for us were PP and 17 were Regular or short handed 10 for them were SH, 12 regular, and 6 PP Pominville had 5 points with 3 on the PP and was a -9 If I had even less of a life I would try to find some highlight reels. I see Darin's point about Risk reward....but I feel better with Spacek back there.
topshelfcookies Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 I think it all comes down to the situation. At that point in the game, late in the 3rd, ahead by 2, I would have liked to have seen two D-men back on the point. If we were only up by 1 or the game was tied, I would be less and less likely in both situations to send out 4 forwards. I'm a far cry from beginning to criticize Ruff...but that was a curious move. In my opinion Pominville is not a liability on the PP...at least not more so than any other winger would be on the point. If you disagree with having 4 forwards out there I can agree with that point, but arguing not to put Pominville out there I don't understand. Who else would be more defensively responsible, yet still create good PP chances? Tim Connolly, obviously, but Timmy's injured. Vanek plays down low, Kotalik is on the other unit, Roy, perhaps but he already logs a ton of ice time. I think looking at the roster Pominville is a solid choice for the point.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.