pilldoc Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 ...this might seem over reactionary...and it is only game #1..but when given 7 PP ..you need to score on more than just 1 of them!!! 1 for 7 is not a good start. And another thing...practice penalty shots!! that attempt by Simmer was weak. Do we ever practice them? This will be a long season if they can't score on PP........ end of rant for game #1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 It would have been nice, but Simmonds isn't a sniper in any sense of the hockey term.Now full team accuracy drills at full speed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 agreed about Simmer on the penalty shot...but for the love of god you need to find away to score on PP. Pretty or not pretty...i really don't care...you just need to find a way to score while on them........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 agreed about Simmer on the penalty shot...but for the love of god you need to find away to score on PP. Pretty or not pretty...i really don't care...you just need to find a way to score while on them........Agreed. PP looked miserable. It's one game, and tomorrow they are off, so let's see improvement Saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Not trying to be a braggart or anything, but to be fair the Leafs had an excellent penalty kill last season (in stark contrast to the Wilson era). Also, Bernier was on fire from what I saw. Edited October 3, 2013 by Commander Clueless 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedZep Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 If only it was within the rules to decline the penalty shot and accept a two minute power play instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakinFlyersFan Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 If only it was within the rules to decline the penalty shot and accept a two minute power play instead.Ha! No doubt, that was a weak breakaway attempt from Simmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 dk what you saw Doc but the first 5 PPs were excellent. The last 2, both in the 3rd - one early one late - were bad. In the 3rd the Leafs found energy and they were all over us - their PK went up a notch too. But the PPs in the 1st and 2nd were real good. The only reason - by far - we didn't go 2 for 5 or 3 for 5 was Bernier. People say "Don't tell me it was a 'hot goalie' just find a way!" but that's ridiculous. There is no "way" - if the goalie makes the stop he makes the stop. The Flyers fired a dozen great chances on their first 5 PPs and Bernier had the answer for all but 1 - 20%. I'll take that any day. Including the last 2 brings it down to 14%...obviously not good enough. But it wasn't the PP that was bad (in the 3rd) it was the energy, the focus, the decision-making, the mental side of the game. The Leafs turned up the pressure and the Flyers didn't adjust. 5 on 5 or man-advantage, if you let your game get confused by pressure you'll make bad plays. The Flyers looked strong while the Leafs were down but once they turned it up it went bad. The good news is it's only G1. And while it lasted - how they played periods 1 and 2 - was some of the best Flyers' hockey I've seen in 2 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) dk what you saw Doc but the first 5 PPs were excellent. The last 2, both in the 3rd - one early one late - were bad. In the 3rd the Leafs found energy and they were all over us - their PK went up a notch too. But the PPs in the 1st and 2nd were real good. The only reason - by far - we didn't go 2 for 5 or 3 for 5 was Bernier. People say "Don't tell me it was a 'hot goalie' just find a way!" but that's ridiculous. There is no "way" - if the goalie makes the stop he makes the stop. The Flyers fired a dozen great chances on their first 5 PPs and Bernier had the answer for all but 1 - 20%. I'll take that any day. Including the last 2 brings it down to 14%...obviously not good enough. But it wasn't the PP that was bad (in the 3rd) it was the energy, the focus, the decision-making, the mental side of the game. The Leafs turned up the pressure and the Flyers didn't adjust. 5 on 5 or man-advantage, if you let your game get confused by pressure you'll make bad plays. The Flyers looked strong while the Leafs were down but once they turned it up it went bad. The good news is it's only G1. And while it lasted - how they played periods 1 and 2 - was some of the best Flyers' hockey I've seen in 2 years.Oh I know the 1st 5 PP were pretty good. Just frustrated that they only got 1 PP goal out of that. Somehow I just feel you need to try to get another one in the net somehow. I even said in my opening post that I was probably being a bit over reactive. With a good nights sleep and a good work out in the yard today....cooler heads are prevailing. Bernier played outstanding and the Flyers just could not get one by him. Hopefully Saturdays game will have better results. PS I loved the energy the Flyers displayed in the Periods #1 and #2......period #3 was just disappointing. Where did the Leafs get their energy from in period #3? Edited October 3, 2013 by pilldoc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Where did the Leafs get their energy from in period #3? damn good question...I sure wish we were talking about the incredible energy the Flyers showed in all 3 periods. It bothers me that they didn't or couldn't raise their game in the last 20. Instead they give up 2 goals and don't score any themselves. ...recipe for failure if there ever was one. Maybe it was mental maybe they just "ran out of gas" but whatever it was I hope it doesn't happen very often. Scoring just 1 PP goal in 60 minutes is bad enough but giving up 3 unanswered just sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) I disagree with a lot that was said here. About the PP, to say that it looked terrible isn't very accurate. They do need to score more than 1 of 7 but I thought they were moving the puck really well. They need to finish better. About Simmer not having a good attempt on the PS because he's not a sniper is not an excuse. I watched Chris Kelly of the bruin deke the goalie out of his pads last night. Simmer has to have more than a weak shot at the 5 hole. Edited October 4, 2013 by icehole 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Sample size... It's no more indicative of their PP ability than if they had gone 5 for 7. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 If only it was within the rules to decline the penalty shot and accept a two minute power play instead. seriously, they really should allow that choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 They need to ditch Hartnell from the top pp. The in front net presence is needed of course, but Simmer can fill that role. Put Read on the top pp, he is way more talented, has much more hockey sense, is faster and does not fall when touched. Read would provide the creativity we need right now. Maybe move Vorachek from the point and put him down low. Why did we get Striet if he's not gonna be on the top pp? I want to see Timonnen and Striet at the points, with G, Vorachek and Read down low. This would provide much more firepower. That frees up Vinny, Hartnell and Schenn to be the forwards on the second unit. Put Gus at the point on the second pp also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 seriously, they really should allow that choice.Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Giving back a power play would be the football equivalent of having first and goal on the 1 yard line and kicking a field goal on the 3rd down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 @jammer2 the scoring odds are better with the penalty shot, but it's all or none. and a missed PS has a deflating effect. there is something to be said about being awarded offensive control for two minutes, even a failed powerplay can build momentum. besides, i know of 6 penalty shot attempts by simmonds, and he scored on one of them. 16% is below a decent powerplay conversion rate. i'd say if he is the shooter, taking the PP is opting for the 1st and goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I like Hartnell on the 1st PP Jammer. To me he's exactly who we want there, just off the post - PP or full strength that's his office. When the opposition gets whistled for a penalty their goalie knows he'll be dealing with Scott Hartnell directly, 1st unit - and that is not a fun prospect. Read can't bring the agitation and the "getting under their skin" that Hartnell does, he's too soft to work that "office." IMHO we need Hartnell, a real SOB in front of the net, screening, banging, bitching, needling - and slapping in the garbage goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 @canoli I just think having Simmer and Harts on the 1st pp is overkill. One big thug in front of the net is enough. More emphasis on skill and skating is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.