High Volatage Rock N' Roll Needed

by SamFels on Apr 22, 2009 1:01 PM CDT Comment 6 comments

Before we get to the preview, there's one aspect of tonight's game that I think is terribly important, though not a terribly original thought. The Hawks can make quick work of the Flames if they get their PP going. We know there'll be opportunities, and probably even more so tonight, as there's every chance the officials call this one tight to keep it from boiling over. 3 for 13 isn't horrible, but it could be so much better.

Q has gone on record saying that he's going to keep rotating personell until he finds a setup that works, but this seems weird. Whenever the man-advantage flickers out of service, it seems Brian Campbell get the crack of the whip first. We've all been back and forth on 51 Phantom, and we don't need to rehash all of that here, but not having him on the #1 unit is non-sensical. Though Barker, according to the stats, is more vital, his importance doesn't register until in the attacking zone. It is Phantom's speed and decision making that gets the Hawks into the zone, which they've struggled with lately. A top pairing of Seabrook and Barker does not include a carrier, and they've suffered for it.

With Kane's return, the second unit won't be the overturned short bus it was in Game 3. Either Havlat or Kane himself will improve that unit greatly. I've called for Bolland on the PP for months, but I never meant on the point, where he looks totally lost. Buff and Brouwer serve the same purpose on that, so Q needs to pick one, or better yet, Ladd, and put him between Versteeg and Havlat/Kane. The points, in this observer's opinion, should be Keith and Seabrook, as Keith can do some of the same things that 51 Phantom can.

Q also needs to just stick with a power play lineup and go with it. The constant shuffling isn't doing anyone's confidence any good. Also, during Game 2 you may have noticed Seabrook slipping into the high slot, which wouldn't be the worst idea to try again. It's pretty clear the Hawks have become predictable with the extra man, and doing something else would just give the Flames something to think about.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree, Matt. Another overlooked factor, though, is the inconsistency with which we station a man in front of Kipper. I hate to praise Scum, but there’s a good reason Detroit’s PP is borderline overpowering: net presence. Ya, they move the puck better than most teams, but that means very little if the goalie is seeing everything. We’ll often put someone there to start, but he always drops behind the net when the puck moves to the half-boards. I just don’t understand this.

by ChicoMaki on Apr 22, 2009 1:15 PM CDT reply actions

Sam wrote this one...

NOW STOP IT RIGHT HERE

by mjthor on Apr 22, 2009 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions

We’re 66.6% Matt – so it’s a fair assumption

Second City Hockey

by Matthew Dirt on Apr 22, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Keith...

should surely be on the point. He is good at carrying the puck, has a cannon of a shot, and is not hesitant to shoot (cough**Campbell**cough). However, I also feel 51 is too valuable/skilled to keep taking ice time from him/punishing him. He can either give the puck away, or make passes like the one that set up Seabrook’s breakaway against that team in Michigan. That’s just his deal this year, inconsistency. Let’s move on.

Also a big problem that I’ve noticed, has been keeping the Flames pinned in their zone. The PP point men need to be in position to keep the puck from crossing the blue line. This is how you tire out the defense, and get them to overcommit, which usually leads to someone being in good position to score.

Windy City Hockey

by The Admiral on Apr 22, 2009 1:35 PM CDT reply actions

You guys are bring up some excellent points.

You hit it right on the nose, we need ALOT more net presence. Need to keep Kipper on his toes not knowing what is happening up top. I understand that a guy is needed on the half boards, but whoever is currently occupying the slot can move over the half board if the point shot is not available/a bad choice. If the puck get pushed to that guy and he has time to control it the opposite wing really needs to haul ass and get some traffic going for the shot from the circle. I’m not sure why they don’t utilize it more often.

As far as getting a guy on the point, sometimes Campbell looks confused up top. He should be a Niedermayer/Boyle roving D-Man looking for shots off the wings and such, but he gets the puck and seems to make bad choices all the time. Keith is a great point man, as well as Seabs, and Barker is really starting to come around. Big Buff up top is an option because he has a laser beam for a shot, but his size is best utilized causing havoc in front of the cage.

by ven9898 on Apr 22, 2009 4:19 PM CDT reply actions

Ladd

Sam and I have both repeatedly called for Andrew Ladd to get some power play time. He’s proven more than capable of winning battles at even strength, so him along the boards with numbers would seemingly increase his likelihood of coming out with the puck. Additionally, he’s a big enough body to get in front, and has exhibited quicker and softer hands than he often gets to use in close. The only things that Byfuglien has over Ladd is about 30 lbs big right handed shot. But if he can’t catch a pass, or isn’t willing to get to the goal mouth on a consistent enough basis, which he has not shown (despite his inspired play at even strength of late). I’d honestly prefer Brouwer over Buff on the powerplay as well, because he at least knows exactly where he is supposed to be, and that’s giving the goalie an up close view of his backside.

Ideally, here are the two power play units I’d like to see

Sharp – Toews – Havlat
Campbell – Barker

Ladd/Brouwer – Versteeg – Kane
Keith – Seabrook

As Ven mentioned above, I would have ZERO problem letting Campbell float, if that didn’t put Barker on an island back there for shorthanded chances against. He doesn’t have the foot speed to even make it interesting against a streaking forward that’s picked up an errant/deflected pass.

by McClure on Apr 22, 2009 4:54 PM CDT reply actions