Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Giroux and the 200-Foot Game, Rookie Camp Day 3

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Giroux and the 200-Foot Game, Rookie Camp Day 3
- bmeltzer

Excellent post, right on the money as usual. Even worse than Giroux when it comes to defensive play was that of Voracek and Simmonds. While his offensive play was fantastic, Voracek spent way too many shifts floating out by the blue line while the puck was in the defensive zone. Simmonds never lacks for hustle, but time and time again he forces plays at the opponent's blue line which leads to turnovers and odd man rushes going the other way.

IMHO, this falls on the coach. You hit the nail right on the head in your post; players who commit these types of offenses need to be benched. Lavy needs to do a MUCH better job at stressing defensive responsibility for the forwards. If not, it really doesn't matter who is on D or in goal, the team will still struggle defensively.

This blog just mirrors what some of us have been getting ripped for all summer.

Giroux is adequate defensively. But he can be much better as we have seen many times, and it is his defensive consistency that needs to be worked on most. Accountability is what is needed from the coach on down. If there are no consequences for playing like this, then how will it change? Losing doesn't seem to be enough motivation apparently. So it falls on Laviolette to set an example.

True about Giroux Bill, but if Giroux gets me above 90 points and plays 20 mins in all situations, I pretty much give him a pass on that as he is not horrible defensively. His value is to produce and if he makes the Olympic Team, he is being noticed and is certainly doing something right

True about Giroux Bill, but if Giroux gets me above 90 points and plays 20 mins in all situations, I pretty much give him a pass on that as he is not horrible defensively. His value is to produce and if he makes the Olympic Team, he is being noticed and is certainly doing something right
- Daceroni

Unless he is getting three points a night and they are losing 5-3 every game.

all the more reason this team could have benefitted from murray as an interim last yr. he would have benched giroux in that instance.

there is enuf here for a plyoff run, but the flyers will not be a top tier contender w/o a better team d commitment and a young dman of a higher caliber than what they have on hand the nxt couple of yrs.

reading that couts has bulked up somewhat...

listening to a replay of the TOR preview on XM yesterday and thinking that james reimer could end up in O&B in a yr or 2...just seems like the flyers MO and TOR will do everything they can to make sure bernier lands the #1 spot up there.

The 200 foot game is a big key...and as always an informative and entertaining read.

I remember twitting back and forth with you (BILL) about G's not back checking in a home game that you were in the press and I was watching on TV. In the live feed you could not see him dogging and in the primary replay angle you could not see it...but then they showed that wide angle and it was plain as day...he just coasted...and I felt really bad for disagreeing with Bill...

That said, G is not the only forward who takes shifts/plays off in the defensive zone. Not now and not looking back at past teams. Hartnell, Simmonds, Voracek...all have taken more than a few shifts off. And they have all been around enough to know their positions.

As for the coaching part of the equation. Even Terry Murray would have benched G for that play. He did on more than one occasion hold Lindros off for a shift when he dogged a play (yes, a shift, but that could be up to 3 minutes of ice time when talking about Lindros). That said, when Murray was here people thought he was too conservative and lacked fire, much like John Stevens. Neither is true (of both men).

Just let them drop the flipping puck already....

Is Giroux a good enough skater to do well on the big ice?

Is Giroux a good enough skater to do well on the big ice?
- LeftCoaster

Making an annual presence here

Making an annual presence here
- ob18

Flyers are my second favorite team. I like to follow what Bill writes about them.

Flyers are my second favorite team. I like to follow what Bill writes about them.
- LeftCoaster

Fair enough, what do you think of Todd now covering the Canucks?

Bill- great write up. I've been telling people for years that if you want a non BS view of the Flyers, then reading your work is a priority.

With that said, You could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply writing:
It was all Bryz's fault

Fair enough, what do you think of Todd now covering the Canucks?
- ob18

I think it's good to get two different perspectives on my team. As long as they don't write about the same thing on a daily basis.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Giroux and the 200-Foot Game, Rookie Camp Day 3
- bmeltzer

I'm hopeful that the team will be more responsible defensively, but I also think there needs to be some sort of onus on the coach.

I'm not ignoring things like Giroux's lazy backcheck, but I am saying that to some extent when the entire team is not doing a good job in paying attention to the defensive side, at some point the coach has to adjust.

We all saw what happened when Laviolette "simplified" the system late in the season. The Flyers, with basically Luke Schenn and a worn out Kimmo Timonen leading an AHL defense, went 11-5 down the stretch, beating 9 playoff teams and playing solid team defense.

It's in this team to be competent defensively. But they have to embrace it and the coach needs to emphasize it.

Maybe the controller just got disconnected in that video replay.

Is Giroux a good enough skater to do well on the big ice?
- LeftCoaster

He's not fast, but he's quite shifty. I think the big ice will only hurt if he's surrounded by slower players. If he plays with Stamkos then there shouldn't be too much of a problem. On the other hand, the bigger the rink, the more time and space G has to create plays so the bigger rink may end up helping. Only time will tell.

Team defense has been my primary concern as well. They don't have Pronger anymore and need to adjust to it. They were spoiled by his and Timonens ability to move the puck up the ice quickly and efficiently.

I'm glad you also mentioned Giroux's lack of two-way play at times this past season. So many fans and writers seem to give the superstars (except several Russian players) the benefit of the doubt for poor defensive play. I feel guys like Crosby and Malkin are at fault for some of the Penguins defensive problems over the last few years. Yet, no one in Pittsburgh seems to want to hold them accountable.

I feel Giroux will be better defensively this season because the team has more defensive balance. Giroux had to match up against the top lines and top pairings, produce a lot of points, captain the team and take all important faceoffs in the defensive zone. Now, the team has more offensive balance to help out and better faceoff guys to help in the defensive zone. The team put too much on Giroux last year.

Maybe the controller just got disconnected in that video replay.
- jmatchett383

My thoughts exactly.

I'm hopeful that the team will be more responsible defensively, but I also think there needs to be some sort of onus on the coach.

I'm not ignoring things like Giroux's lazy backcheck, but I am saying that to some extent when the entire team is not doing a good job in paying attention to the defensive side, at some point the coach has to adjust.

We all saw what happened when Laviolette "simplified" the system late in the season. The Flyers, with basically Luke Schenn and a worn out Kimmo Timonen leading an AHL defense, went 11-5 down the stretch, beating 9 playoff teams and playing solid team defense.

It's in this team to be competent defensively. But they have to embrace it and the coach needs to emphasize it.
- Jsaquella

I always agreed that the buck stops with the coach when it come to on the ice accountability. If the players stop back skating hard defensively, then it's up to him to send a message that it will not be tolerated. Sometimes benching the best player resonates down through the line-up and make the rest sit up and take notice.

That said, there were times when the overall majority of the team fell brain dumb when it came to the defensive side of the puck. Not much for a coach to do at that point. He can't bench them all. When they continually play lackadaisically, the coach has said to have lost the room. When the team overachieves, it is said they have bought into the system. If I'm the GM and the players I've selected fail/refuse to buy into the system that both the coach and GM settle upon, then my first reaction would be to find players who will.

I never considered last years system so complex that this group of both established NHL forwards and defenseman couldn't handle, which may be a reason why he refused to simplify it.

Personally, if I'm coaching a group of d-men with good pedigree, I'd demand that they preform accordingly. I wouldn't dummy down my system to ease off on their assignments. I'd continue to hold them accountable of their talents. And if they failed to rise to their expected levels, then I'd be sitting in the GM's office with a few requests for player address changes.

Playing a simplified system may be fine at the end of the year with call-ups who oft times overachieve to try and make an impression, but that usually only works for a short period. Extending this reasoning out further, to continue to ice the cast of d-men used at the end of last year playing a much simplified system would give the team a better chance to make the PO's.

I don't believe that for a second.

It needs it's best forwards and D-men all playing on the same page at the top of their game buying into a NHL driven system throughout the whole year to be able to compete day in and day out. That will give the team it's best chance to not only make the PO's, but to advance. Not a simplified AHL game plan, but one commensurate with the talent the players bring to the rink with them.

Tweek it accordingly along the way, but do not allow players to dictate what system to run merely to accommodate lazy skaters and plays like Giroux's in Bill's video .

Just a thought.

Is Giroux a good enough skater to do well on the big ice?
- LeftCoaster

Yes, it won't be a problem. He did fine at the World Championships this spring.

I

CAN'T

WAIT

Will nhl game center carry any of the pre season games? I live in ny.

I always agreed that the buck stops with the coach when it come to on the ice accountability. If the players stop back skating hard defensively, then it's up to him to send a message that it will not be tolerated. Sometimes benching the best player resonates down through the line-up and make the rest sit up and take notice.

That said, there were times when the overall majority of the team fell brain dumb when it came to the defensive side of the puck. Not much for a coach to do at that point. He can't bench them all. When they continually play lackadaisical, the coach has said to lost the room. When the team overachieves, it is said they have bought into the system. If I'm the GM and the players I've selected fail/refuse to buy into the system that both the coach and GM settle upon, then my first reaction would be to find players who will.

I never considered last years system so complex that this group of both established NHL forwards and defenseman couldn't handle, which may be a reason why he refused to simplify it.

Personally, if I'm coaching a group of d-men with good pedigree, I'd demand that they preform accordingly. I wouldn't dummy down my system to ease off on their assignments. I'd continue to hold them accountable of their talents. And if they failed to rise to their expected levels, then I'd be sitting in the GM's office with a few requests for player address changes.

Playing a simplified system may be fine at the end of the year with call-ups who oft times overachieve to try and make an impression, but that usually only works for a short period. Extending this reasoning out further, to continue to ice the cast of d-men used at the end of last year playing a much simplified system would give the team a better chance to make the PO's.

I don't believe that for a second.

It needs it's best forwards and D-men all playing on the same page at the top of their game buying into a NHL driven system throughout the whole year to be able to compete day in and day out. That will give the team it's best chance to not only make the PO's, but to advance. Not a simplified AHL game plan, but one commensurate with the talent the players bring to the rink with them.

Tweek it accordingly along the way, but do not allow players to dictate what system to run merely to accommodate lazy skaters and plays like Giroux's in Bill's video .

Just a thought.
- 77rams

I think that a lot of the issues stem from the over-aggressiveness built into the system.

Far too often I have seen the forwards take off out of the zone, leaving the defenseman to make a longer outlet pass or carry the puck through the neutral zone himself, only to find 3 stationary forwards at the other blue line.

Or worse, having 3 guys go Hell bent for a dump in, only to get beat and get caught deep.

I'm not excusing stuff like the Giroux play highlighted in the blog, but I feel the system is as much to blame as the players in general, if not more to blame than the players.

The Giroux video is an example of a guy being lazy. But as Bill points out, laziness is not usually the case

I always agreed that the buck stops with the coach when it come to on the ice accountability. If the players stop back skating hard defensively, then it's up to him to send a message that it will not be tolerated. Sometimes benching the best player resonates down through the line-up and make the rest sit up and take notice.

That said, there were times when the overall majority of the team fell brain dumb when it came to the defensive side of the puck. Not much for a coach to do at that point. He can't bench them all. When they continually play lackadaisical, the coach has said to lost the room. When the team overachieves, it is said they have bought into the system. If I'm the GM and the players I've selected fail/refuse to buy into the system that both the coach and GM settle upon, then my first reaction would be to find players who will.

I never considered last years system so complex that this group of both established NHL forwards and defenseman couldn't handle, which may be a reason why he refused to simplify it.

Personally, if I'm coaching a group of d-men with good pedigree, I'd demand that they preform accordingly. I wouldn't dummy down my system to ease off on their assignments. I'd continue to hold them accountable of their talents. And if they failed to rise to their expected levels, then I'd be sitting in the GM's office with a few requests for player address changes.

Playing a simplified system may be fine at the end of the year with call-ups who oft times overachieve to try and make an impression, but that usually only works for a short period. Extending this reasoning out further, to continue to ice the cast of d-men used at the end of last year playing a much simplified system would give the team a better chance to make the PO's.

I don't believe that for a second.

It needs it's best forwards and D-men all playing on the same page at the top of their game buying into a NHL driven system throughout the whole year to be able to compete day in and day out. That will give the team it's best chance to not only make the PO's, but to advance. Not a simplified AHL game plan, but one commensurate with the talent the players bring to the rink with them.

Tweek it accordingly along the way, but do not allow players to dictate what system to run merely to accommodate lazy skaters and plays like Giroux's in Bill's video .

Just a thought.
- 77rams

I think that a lot of the issues stem from the over-aggressiveness built into the system.

Far too often I have seen the forwards take off out of the zone, leaving the defenseman to make a longer outlet pass or carry the puck through the neutral zone himself, only to find 3 stationary forwards at the other blue line.

Or worse, having 3 guys go Hell bent for a dump in, only to get beat and get caught deep.

I'm not excusing stuff like the Giroux play highlighted in the blog, but I feel the system is as much to blame as the players in general, if not more to blame than the players.

The Giroux video is an example of a guy being lazy. But as Bill points out, laziness is not usually the case
- Jsaquella

I can't really say for sure whose to really blame without sitting in a practice as they implement the system in general and the game plan in particular and understanding each player's responsibilities at a given time during the game.

Not to say you're incorrect, it just seems when a boneheaded play is made like the examples you've described above, the exasperated look on Lava's face says to me there was a screw up on the ice somewhere.

It's just hard for me to fathom that a SC winning coach would place such an obviously defective system in place. But then again, without being on the inside, I really can't argue that strenuously against your point.