Good start

[HockeyDoug]

I'm ready to jump off of the bridge when it comes to the pp. I'm just hoping that they'll finish in the top 25 on the man advantage.

 

[gmalis1]

I'm ready to jump off of the bridge when it comes to the pp. I'm just hoping that they'll finish in the top 25 on the man advantage.

Head scratching to say the least. Great talent but a lousy scheme.

 

[HockeyDoug]

We know it's not Kitchen now. Amazing that it can continue to suck. Eventually they have to be decent, at least by accident, right?

 

[ChicagoIrish]

We know it's not Kitchen now. Amazing that it can continue to suck. Eventually they have to be decent, at least by accident, right?

You would think so.

From what we saw last season, this team just tries to be to pretty. Instead of making dazzling passes during our advantage, just shoot for rebounds, get dirty, get in front of the net.

Who knows.

 

[JBM73]

Well, that's what happens when you hire a guy (Kompon) who was unsuccessful in that position with his former team, as Kings fans were quick to let us know when we hired him.

 

[gmalis1]

Watched the video of the Caps power play and the Hawks power play from the other night.

Caps didn't really have two guys at the point. They have one guy at the blue line, two guys each at the circles and two guys down the middle, one in the slot and one in front of the goalie. They cycle it to the blue line guy who walks the line to the middle. He can shoot from there (which Mike Green did three times) using the slot guy and the goalie screen both as screens awaiting rebounds or tips (which Grabovski did twice). Or he can dish to either guy at the circles. Interesting setup.

It's one of the reasons the Hawks penalty killers looked so packed in down low with no one defending up high. There's only one shooter up high and four down low, so you don't really want to send a defender there.

Hawks have two guys one each at the point. One guy screening the goalie and one guy each at the circles. This causes two defenders to put pressure on the point guys, resulting in a 3 on 2 type of situation. But the pressure really rushes the Hawks into making hurried passes and setups. That and most of the passing is back and forth between the guys at the point. Not much down low. And if they do get it to a guy at the circle, he's usually setup too far off to the boards to have a good quality shot. They need to pinch in more toward the center of the ice.

I'd like for the Hawks to try the Caps setup for a few power plays. See what happens with that. It certainly can't be much worse.

 

[anotheridiot]

It works for washington til you give up short handed goals. Dont think the hawks were prepared for that setup, but Q wont allow an easier 2-1 or 2-0 shortie goals.

 

[gmalis1]

It works for washington til you give up short handed goals. Dont think the hawks were prepared for that setup, but Q wont allow an easier 2-1 or 2-0 shortie goals.

Yep, because being totally ineffective on the power play is a better choice.

Did you see the Caps losing posession during ANY of their power play attempts? They controlled the play completely. Hawks barely touched the puck.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

Hawks have two guys one each at the point. One guy screening the goalie and one guy each at the circles. This causes two defenders to put pressure on the point guys, resulting in a 3 on 2 type of situation. But the pressure really rushes the Hawks into making hurried passes and setups. That and most of the passing is back and forth between the guys at the point. Not much down low. And if they do get it to a guy at the circle, he's usually setup too far off to the boards to have a good quality shot.

This is a great post. Specially in the bold.

Last season this was very obvious. Our power plays were always pressed at the point, that's when we'd make bad passes, or simply lose control of the puck out of the offensive zone, causing us to reset. Very frustrating.

 

[anotheridiot]

Yep, because being totally ineffective on the power play is a better choice.

Did you see the Caps losing posession during ANY of their power play attempts? They controlled the play completely. Hawks barely touched the puck.

The caps are averaging a little over one shot on goal per powerplay. 9 powerplays, 11 shots, 5 goals.
They try to lul the team to sleep and get a one timer with this setup. The hawks are a defensive mindset and were probably fine with washington passing the puck around if it only yielded one attempt. If it clears the zone, the Hawks switch lines. The hawks want to enter the zone and get the puck to the net. I can also assume that the same 5 were on the ice for the entire powerplay for washington since they were keeping the puck away, so that means their best players are not pulling regular shifts and that probably leads to their league leading 10 goals against.

But then again, the hawks prove they dont need goons to protect their stars, even though Bollig gets the nod over Smith, so I guess you can say they dont need powerplay goals at 50% to win either. 25% is not totally ineffective, when for the most part, it means 8 minutes of the other teams offense not getting shots on goal.

 

[gmalis1]

I think we can all agree that giving up 3 power play goals in a game is usually a recipe for disaster.

I know we all agree that the Hawks could be much better on their own power play.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

Sorry you don't agree and you're happy with the status quo.

 

[HockeyDoug]

Well, that's what happens when you hire a guy (Kompon) who was unsuccessful in that position with his former team, as Kings fans were quick to let us know when we hired him.

Q's rabbit's foot?

 

[55briggs]

Looking good so far!

 

[gmalis1]

Yeah one game. That's a great sample size.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

Lol