Defensive breakdowns in the playoffs, ECQF Game 2
And now, we continue our look at where to place the blame for the defensive breakdowns in the playoffs. You can find a detailed analysis of the first playoff game here.
Game 2 against Buffalo was a 5-4 win that featured six shots that I counted as being dangerous -- you'll notice that four goals on six dangerous shots is not a great ratio, and you may recall that Bobrovsky got put in detention for this performance. After the jump, we'll see how much of it was his fault.
The video for the first chance against can be seen here, or hopefully the embedded video below will work.
The first question is why Hartnell is on the ice on a PK -- his bad roughing penalty was followed by a questionable hooking call on Timonen, and the video starts just after the 5-on-3 ended and Hartnell rejoined the play.
The Flyers recover quickly after a shot goes behind the net and gets thrown back up the boards, and we start from this spot with everyone in good position.

From here, Hartnell drops his stick and Coburn then comes to help along the boards. Meszaros then feels compelled to follow his man into the area Coburn has just vacated along the far boards, and when Betts drifts over too, we reach this moment, where the Flyers have all four skaters to the right of the right faceoff dot:
Hartnell: "This seems like a good time to fall down."
This situation is already dangerous, and a series of mistakes in the recovery are about to make it a lot worse. Hartnell falls down over Vanek's stick and takes four seconds to get back up, during which time Vanek goes to the net uncovered. After Hartnell goes down, the puck comes across the ice to a wide-open Gragnani. Meszaros hustles to get back to Gragnani, and Betts mistakenly follows him there instead of picking up Pominville.
Seeing his teammate all alone, Gragnani dishes it back to Pominville. Again, both Meszaros and Betts chase the puck; this time Meszaros is the one leaving his man to do it. The play becomes comically absurd as they knock each other down and Pominville fans on the shot. The comedy becomes tragedy when Gragnani decides to give Vanek a try this time and Vanek buries it into the wide-open net.
Blame points: One for Timonen for being in the box. Two for Hartnell for dropping his stick to start all this and lying on the ice through most of the rest of it. Betts and Meszaros each get four points for their terrible positioning throughout the play. No blame to Coburn, who earnestly covered the right man amidst the chaos. No blame to Bob, who had no chance.
We start the next one on the PK again, this time with Powe in the box for a borderline cross-check call. First, video of the play.
This is by far the toughest one for me to assign blame on so far. The initial set-up has Coburn and Timonen covering men down low, Betts pressuring the puck, and Versteeg covering the man at the near boards. When Buffalo wheels it back to the far boards, we get to this critical point:
The pass has shifted the 2-on-1 from being Pominville and Connolly up top against Betts to Connolly and Stafford on the wing against Coburn. I actually think Coburn has pretty good positioning here -- Connolly doesn't have much of a lane and Coburn can recover to Stafford if necessary. But as Connolly winds up, Coburn skates towards him, and in pressuring the puck he makes Stafford dangerous.
The pass comes to Stafford, and Timonen comes to help. His slide will usually wipe out the threat, but Stafford has enough space to pull off a nice toe drag and get off a shot that Bobrovsky stops. Coburn gets back and plows into Stafford, but Vanek gets control of the puck and and before Betts or Versteeg can get to him, he gets a couple of whacks at the puck and pokes it past Bobrovsky.
Blame points: This is our first goal that wasn't the result of catastrophic breakdowns -- Buffalo just made good use of small advantages. A point to Powe for being in the box. Two points to Coburn for opening Stafford up more than he needed to. Two points to Timonen for getting so cleanly beaten by Stafford. And two points to Bobrovksy -- I don't really expect him to stand up to two men whacking at him from a foot away for very long, but I think he was too passive here; there were opportunities to poke the puck away or to cover it.
>> Because this article is large and heavy on graphics, it has been broken into a few pages. Click here to continue to the next section. <<
12 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lavi is racking up points for horrible line changes – i assume this becomes a trend? :)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon!
Sabres took the scenic route, but they still MADE IT TO THE PLAYOFFS!!!1
It does.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on May 12, 2011 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Eric are last few really Defensive Breakdowns. Did they even lead to technical scoring chance?
On the fourth example Butler got a shot from the faceoff dot with no traffic in front. Pretty much the exact type of shot Boston allowed the Flyers get all series.
Mez got 3 points on that play and what he didn’t do was allow Stafford to come around the net for the wrap around. Shots from the outside like that perfectly allowable in my book pretty much the goal of good defense is to keep the shooters to the outside, give the goalie a clean look and tie up everyone in front. We watched Boston do exactly that the entire series against us.
And on the 5th example it was another shot from the just outside the dot not a really dangerous scoring opportunity. The Flyers negated the man going to the net in Pominville and provided Boosh a clean look at the shooter who was firing from a long way out. I am not sure I would classify that as a breakdown either.
Just throwing out my two cents. Discuss these plays in detail is pretty fun and certainly beats discussing over-blown comments and all the leadership blah blah blah.
The standard scoring chance is this:
A scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area — loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net.
But that’s definitely not what I’m doing here — I tend not to count shots that don’t go on net (since we won’t have video of those) and I’m more likely to count one if a guy has a lot of space for his shot. So a wraparound attempt by a guy who’s being harassed is usually not going to make my list, while a wide-open guy at the dot usually will.
The selection of which chances to count is obviously subjective. I’m basically just skimming through the video on nhl.com and saying “hm, that shouldn’t happen” and pulling it for analysis.
That is fine but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think breakdown #4 or #5 where that bad of plays. The PK was all over the place on those two goals two guys going at the same guy was a constant in these playoffs. When you get to Boston’s series videos of 2 guys going after 1 is going to take up many pages.
IMO opinion that is over-playing Flyers did a lot of running around and got up of position trying to be too perfect on Defense because they didn’t trust the goaltending. And that distrust stems from 65% the head coach juggling guys and 35% from the goaltending core’s inability put together either a solid opening 10 minutes or solid back to back performances to help restore confidence.
When you get to Boston’s series videos of 2 guys going after 1 is going to take up many pages.
I agree with this. But you seem to be saying it to imply that leaving guys free at the faceoff circle isn’t bad defense, whereas I think it means that the defense played like shit against Boston.
IMO opinion that is over-playing Flyers did a lot of running around and got up of position trying to be too perfect on Defense because they didn’t trust the goaltending.
I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, but I really hate this line of argument. Blaming the goalies for the bad play of the skaters just seems really unfair in general, and particularly unfair in a series where so far the skaters have had much worse errors than the goalies.
Well really everyone is the blame coach the goalie then players because just because I can rationalize their mistakes doesn’t mean that are allowable errors. The players shouldn’t lose confidence, should start slow, and should play through the adversity, they showed some of that with the comebacks against Buffalo but it went away and it shouldn’t have.
I had to take a mental health break from hockey for a few days. I’m still emotionally fragile (no joke) but somehow reading this analysis is strangely cathartic. Keep up the good work.
Oh, I don't know. I think the GM should sign that free agent velociraptor to fortify the bench. He's a playoff veteran who still shows a lot of hustle.
Also, when hartnell /hartnell’s on the first goal, he stepped on the puck. Just a clarification.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon!
Sabres took the scenic route, but they still MADE IT TO THE PLAYOFFS!!!1
I couldn’t figure out exactly why he had fallen. Stepped on the puck makes sense, but since it’s Hartnell, it could’ve just been because he stepped on the slippery part of the ice.

by 
























