|
Post by seventeen on Mar 31, 2015 17:12:34 GMT -5
What I will give Therrien is that he's done a really good job of encouraging a togetherness aspect to the team. They work for each other and it's one reason they don't often give up. I think he's a B+ or an A in that aspect. Where we need improvement is in the tactical, x's and o's part of the game. If it's not his strength, hire an assistant that does that part of the game really well. For next year, anyway. Let's see how this year pans out. The team has a habit of proving us wrong and turning it around when you least expect it.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Mar 31, 2015 17:29:04 GMT -5
What I will give Therrien is that he's done a really good job of encouraging a togetherness aspect to the team. They work for each other and it's one reason they don't often give up. I think he's a B+ or an A in that aspect. Where we need improvement is in the tactical, x's and o's part of the game. If it's not his strength, hire an assistant that does that part of the game really well. For next year, anyway. Let's see how this year pans out. The team has a habit of proving us wrong and turning it around when you least expect it. Agreed!! MT knows how to motivate his players, its the tactical he needs help with.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Mar 31, 2015 17:44:51 GMT -5
What I will give Therrien is that he's done a really good job of encouraging a togetherness aspect to the team. They work for each other and it's one reason they don't often give up. I think he's a B+ or an A in that aspect. Where we need improvement is in the tactical, x's and o's part of the game. If it's not his strength, hire an assistant that does that part of the game really well. For next year, anyway. Let's see how this year pans out. The team has a habit of proving us wrong and turning it around when you least expect it. Agreed!! MT knows how to motivate his players, its the tactical he needs help with. our pp had sucked since 09-10 when we were 2nd and 7th in 10-11 during the regular season. i recall the habs d dropping down along the boards on the backside and getting a pass with a wide open net. Markov used to do that all the time. I don't see that any more.
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Mar 31, 2015 19:32:02 GMT -5
As poor as our coverage was, I am still unimpressed with our ability to exit the zone efficiently and with speed. Tampa isn't afraid to use the middle of the ice on breakouts and they are lightning quick in transition. We still seem to prefer to use the boards, which usually results in a contested puck battle near the blue line or the winger gets the puck standing still and his only play is to find the centerman. Tampa frequently uses the middle on breakouts, which is riskier I suppose, but they get the benefit of hitting the centerman with speed who then has a carry or pass option through the neutral zone. I saw too many zone exits that were easily thwarted and just resulted in lost possession and another wave of Tampa offense. That's still my beef with Therrien. The wins and losses have been there, but the X's and O's seem lacking. The PP is a coaching problem, IMO, and we are too risk averse on breakouts. That's been my take all year. It could very well be that we had a bad game last night, but c'mon now, that's 4 bad games against these guys. Is that really the reason? A system without a centre option is an illusion of safety. Yes, if you lose the puck down the middle, it's a dangerous spot for a turnover. But these are NHL players. They can make a 10 foot pass most of the time, especially if the forechecking team has all it's players along the boards. Guess what's open? It's also much easier to make a good 10 foot pass than a good 60 foot pass, which would make even a marginal defenseman look good. Tampa was using Barberio and Witkowski as a 3rd pairing. Seriously? They were missing Johnson, Coburn,, Garrison, Sustr...half their defense and their second leading scorer. Partway through the game they lost Hedman, and they still won relatively easily. I can't be the only guy who's concerned after losing to a team weakened that much. It's pretty hard to use the center of the ice when your back is turned and you have a fore checker on you. This is what teams try and do to us. Turn our d and get on them. And why not? Force us to the wall where we are weak. Our d is not fast and our forwards are not big. It all starts with our problems along the wall. Can't win enough battles in either end. This is what we end up with.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 1, 2015 9:45:31 GMT -5
I'm not happy about them being swept by the Bolts but they mentioned last night that TB is also 3-0 against the Rangers. It eases the pain for me a little.
BTW. The Leafs beat TB last night 3-1.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Apr 1, 2015 10:03:32 GMT -5
I'm not happy about them being swept by the Bolts but they mentioned last night that TB is also 3-0 against the Rangers. It eases the pain for me a little. BTW. The Leafs beat TB last night 3-1. But Bishop did not play and TB had over 40 shots on net. TB has our number. Don't think we can play them in the first round so I'll worry about them if we both advance.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 1, 2015 10:29:25 GMT -5
I'm not happy about them being swept by the Bolts but they mentioned last night that TB is also 3-0 against the Rangers. It eases the pain for me a little. BTW. The Leafs beat TB last night 3-1. But Bishop did not play and TB had over 40 shots on net. TB has our number. Don't think we can play them in the first round so I'll worry about them if we both advance. I don;t think we can either but I would love to play them in the first round. Either we get the monkey off our backs or we lose to them. Either way we win because if we lose to them, then it means we don't have the talent or the coaches or both to go far in the playoffs and that last year was a fluke. It also means MB has to do something because going out in the first round is not what GM wants, he wants playoff revenue.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Apr 1, 2015 23:49:08 GMT -5
I'm not happy about them being swept by the Bolts but they mentioned last night that TB is also 3-0 against the Rangers. It eases the pain for me a little. BTW. The Leafs beat TB last night 3-1. THe Bruins sometimes give them trouble. Why can't the Habs? They let them into the offensive zone with ease, then they compound the problems by not back checking vigorously. The Dmen are left to cope. The Lightning can score but particularly against the Habs, who son't score enough to offset what they give away. Are the Lightning better than the Habs? Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 2, 2015 0:02:16 GMT -5
Are the Lightning better than the Habs? Definitely. I'm not convinced of that yet. They certainly look better when they play us. But not quite so good when they play others. I think if we change up a few things the next time we play them, either in the playoffs or next year, they won't look dominant.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 2, 2015 10:18:26 GMT -5
Are the Lightning better than the Habs? Definitely. I'm not convinced of that yet. They certainly look better when they play us. But not quite so good when they play others. I think if we change up a few things the next time we play them, either in the playoffs or next year, they won't look dominant. Our defense always let their forwards gain the zone ... yes Pateryn got caught last game, but we need our defense to make gaining our blue line harder for them.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 2, 2015 11:28:12 GMT -5
If the forwards are backchecking, then the D can step up and create more collisions such as the one that Pateryn had planned. Eller was there in that case, and if he'd covered Pateryn's position, or if Pateryn had stayed in place, that goal wouldn't have happened. The key part is simply don't have two of your guys checking one of their guys unless you've got numbers on your side.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Apr 2, 2015 12:21:19 GMT -5
I am praying for Tampa to be upset in first round
|
|