Scott wrote:Here is the third line right now. No pressure,
F1 pressure, passive forecheck to neutralize speed in specialized situations against specific players. Not at all unique or strange to see.
Scott wrote:no fore check,
F1 is fairly aggressive in pushing the play...idea is not to let the offensive catalyst (65) get a head of steam up the middle of the ice. Direct them into the second layer (containing 16 for us), that layer (or that layer +1) forces a surrender of possession. Last layer (or last back) sets a pick and retrieve or just a straight retrieval. Once their main offensive catalysts lose the puck (65 and 19) we have much less to worry about it.
Scott wrote: no cycle, no puck possession time, no behind the net play,
Not their job. Not put in a position to do that. Note situational starts and even as far as straight line matching. Saying the same thing three times over though hardly makes for a list. Their job is to disrupt the Senators main offensive attack. Which sounds like an easy task, of course, but - of course, in reality - it is not. Sutter and Cooke and Kennedy and those guys have done a very good job on this front. Which is shown by Sutter not being out there for much in the way of goals against (one legitimately, right?), Cooke out for 1 and Kennedy out for 0 against. Cooke and Sutter especially are somehow expected to start most of their shifts hemmed into their own end against the best competition of a team in the Eastern Conference Semi-finals and hem the other team in their end the entire time as if other clubs have no good players that can also push the pace? It's as bad of an argument as it sounds...but here we are anyway...
Scott wrote: and instead of rambling on with the comments and commas...overall a total lack of play in the offensive zone.
How about facts and ellipses...?
Scott wrote:You have one player trying to hang out in the neutral zone, another player already at the goal line smashing a player creating a turnover that never realizes because nobody is there to grab the loose puck, and another one covering a guy for a breakout and the turnover hasn't even happened yet.
Good, you are watching. You just aren't seeing. Largely passive 1-2-2 forecheck. Explained above. F3 (usually Sutter, good wheels and hockey sense...best play reader should be there in this situation). Neutralize speed, keep pucks away from the middle of the rink, stifle creativity, manage gaps and spacing properly, separate player from puck...step by step and they're doing a fine job of it so far. They should be commended for keeping pucks out of the net. They leave us in a better position when they leave the ice.
Scott wrote:Two of the three forwards have given up on the offense before it got a chance to materialize. Every single shift.
By design. You want to see everyone playing shinny and going for offense and just doing whatever they feel like, I'll send you a copy of the 2012 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals. I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as most...but some people like that type of "hockey"
When 2 of 3 forwards are waiting to play defense, you certainly can say that line is sitting back. The Pens are not going to win the cup if the identity of the third line is to let the other team have the puck all shift and play good defense.
Their identity is abundantly clear and the players have embraced the mission and carried it out with a high amount of success to date. Just because you don't like that identity does not make it non-existent.