Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
IMFC wrote: Not that they need a lot of them, but one a game would be nice.
GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
headh wrote:Winning is a habit.....it's not something that can be turned on like a light......any adult understands this basic concept. Why would the Pens allow their team to develop a habit of a playing style in the regular season that by definition needs to be altered in order to succeed in the post season...Why?
Rugbymuffin wrote:2. They are just not physical enough.
Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.
Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.
Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."
If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:
1. New York Islanders series.
- Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle.
- This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice.
- Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.
2. Boston Bruins series.
- Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock.
- In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.
Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.
So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.
All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.
GSdrums87 wrote:Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.
Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.
Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."
If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:
1. New York Islanders series.
- Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle.
- This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice.
- Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.
2. Boston Bruins series.
- Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock.
- In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.
Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.
So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.
All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.
I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.
Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.
Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.
Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."
If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:
1. New York Islanders series.
- Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle.
- This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice.
- Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.
2. Boston Bruins series.
- Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock.
- In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.
Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.
So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.
All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.
I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.
The power-play failed in virtually every aspect of it, and that was definitely cause for concern. I think you mentioned before the lack of traffic in front of Rask. Part of that is the Penguins seemingly outright refusal to get to that area, part of it is when you play against the left-wing lock, you don't have a lot of room to work the middle of the ice.
There are, no question, things Bylsma could have done differently. No question. But the series, for me, wasn't about coaching. It was about the hottest offense in the league going cold at the worst possible time. It hearkened me back to 2010 against Montreal in a way. You play a team that is staunch at the defensive blueline with a hot goaltender. That's what you have to solve for. Bylsma has failed at that twice. I blame the players more this time than I do him.
The Penguins system is complicated. Probably more complicated than any team in the Atlantic Division. From the forcheck, to the defensive approach, they have a lot of things going on all the time. That's great if you're Sidney Crosby. It's not so great if you're Tyler Kennedy. A simpler approach would work wonders I think.
RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:I beat this dead horse regularly but I think our age took us out of this. 13 guys over age 30, the Kings had 1 last year, the Blackhawks have 7 (I'm excluding their back-up goalie as he never sees the ice), and the Bruins have 8 most of which didn't see the ice against the Pens. We were soooo painfully slow and until Shero made us the old-folks home, we were lethal in the regular season. I can't believe I am backing DB here but Ray gave him a bunch of sludge to clog up his fast moving, pressing style and it just killed us. The playoffs are about one word "relentlessness". We just didn't have the horses to play that style. It isn't about hitting people, it is about winning puck battles and sustaining pressure. Every cup is won that way.
GSdrums87 wrote:Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.
Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.
Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."
If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:
1. New York Islanders series.
- Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle.
- This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice.
- Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.
2. Boston Bruins series.
- Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock.
- In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.
Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.
So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.
All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.
I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.
topshelf wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.
Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.
Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."
If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:
1. New York Islanders series.
- Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle.
- This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice.
- Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.
2. Boston Bruins series.
- Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock.
- In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.
Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.
So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.
All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.
I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.
The Bruins power play was equally as ineffective.
GSdrums87 wrote:topshelf wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Jesse wrote:GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.
Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.
Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.
Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."
If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:
1. New York Islanders series.
- Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle.
- This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice.
- Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.
2. Boston Bruins series.
- Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock.
- In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.
Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.
So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.
All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.
I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.
The Bruins power play was equally as ineffective.
Difference being the Bruins didn't struggle at even strength. They didn't need to struggle; they got that first goal and shut the Pens down. Remember the Islanders series, the PP is what saved them a few times. The Pens NEEDED it to click to at least tie the game up and make the Bruins open up more.
RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:What "saved" us against the Isles was the fact that the Isles G could "save" anything. We lose that series if Rask is in net.
RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:What "saved" us against the Isles was the fact that the Isles G could "save" anything. We lose that series if Rask is in net.
RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:What "saved" us against the Isles was the fact that the Isles G could "save" anything. We lose that series if Rask is in net.
Users browsing this forum: DelPen, Penspal, SteelCityFan and 34 guests