|
Observations for a Potential Lightning-Leafs Matchup |
|
|
|
|
|
It was February 25th, shortly after Steven Stamkos left the game in the second period. Anthony Cirelli was moved to play with Brayden Point and Nikita Kucherov, and with the score 4-2 Toronto and less than a minute left in the second period, the Lightning were starved for offense. A Mitch Marner dump-in was gracefully defused by Victor Hedman, and the Bolts defenseman passed the puck to Cirelli to lead the rush.
The Lightning forwards sprinted out of the zone. Recognizing Point on his left, Cirelli decided to make a cheeky move to free up space for his teammate. He passed the puck right before the blue line, and then skated into Leafs defenseman Justin Holl, pushing the enemy rearguard toward the middle and freeing Point to attack the space that opened up around the left circle. Point failed to register a goal on the raid on the Leafs’ crease, but it was one of the chances Tampa Bay collected off the rush in that contest.
If the season resumes—and that is a big if—the Lightning are going to play Toronto. So the fact that the Lightning played the Leafs twice in the final eight games before the stoppage is noteworthy. Here are three more things I observed.
It is unclear if the Maple Leafs can forecheck against the Lightning.
The NHL regular season moves quickly. Now that time has frozen, I rewatched the Lightning’s last two contests against Toronto and realized I had not emphasized an important point. The Maple Leafs are explosive and replete with skill, but they may not be able to forecheck against Tampa Bay. Therefore, if the Lightning forwards exert suffocating back pressure to contain the the Leafs’ transition offense, Toronto’s offense becomes far more muffled.
This declaration comes with a caveat. In the Bolts’ loss on February 25th, both Maple Leafs goals by Jake Muzzin and John Tavares were a result of failed breakouts by the Lightning at 5v5. The former was caused by a Braydon Coburn blunder while the latter was triggered by a lost offensive zone faceoff. Both goals fail to capture how Toronto engineered the majority of their scoring chances: on the rush.
On March 10th, it was more of the same. The Leafs outshot the Lightning 11-0 in the first nine minutes of the game. Tampa Bay was overwhelmed and was being dominated. Yet, Toronto amassed their shot-total advantage through clean entries. The Lightning struggled to exit their zone, but that was after a Leafs forward carried the puck in on the initial entry.
When the game tilted in the Lightning’s direction it was because Mitch Marner, William Nylander, John Tavares, and Auston Matthews didn’t have the same time and space on entries. Tampa Bay forced Toronto to dump and chase. The Lightning defensemen became more confrontational and kept tighter gaps once they identified that they would have pressure underneath. During the game in late February, the Lightning were without Ryan McDonagh, and in the March contest they were without Hedman. Still, in both games it was unclear if the Leafs had the wherewithal to consistently forecheck against the Lightning. The irony of this is delicious. It is very possible that the Lightning could expose a skilled but kludgy Leafs squad as one-dimensional, much like the Blue Jackets did to the Bolts last year.
The Lightning defensemen’s role on offense will be significant, for better or worse.
Toronto’s gap control is erratic at best. If the Lightning can exit the zone decisively, they can feed their defensemen on the rush. That exact scenario unfolded on the Yanni Gourde goal on February 25th.
In the offensive zone, Tampa Bay can spread out the Leafs’ wobbly defensive coverage and pepper Frederik Andersen with shots. Patrick Maroon scored the Bolts’ second goal on February 25th when Kevin Shattenkirk opened up a shooting lane by fanning out and then shooting into Cedric Paquette’s stick in the middle slot.
In both games, it became clear that the way Tampa Bay wants to play against Toronto is through territorial advantage. They want to shoot and retrieve. They want to manage the puck well and not overpass. On the Nikita Kucherov goal in the February contest, Hedman held the zone after a lazy indirect pass and the broken breakout allowed Tampa Bay to swiftly seize on the open space. Toronto is fast in space, but in the condensed space of their own end, they can be brittle.
While opportunity abounds, the Bolts defensive corps’ decision-making needs to be steady. On the same shift where Point swooped in off the left side and almost jammed a shot past Andersen, Sergachev tried to win a race to a loose puck against Matthews but didn’t get there in time. This allowed Matthews to pass the puck to himself and create a two-on-one against Hedman. Hedman did cut off Matthews’ path before he reached the low slot, but Matthews slapped a shot from inside the left circle, an area he could easily score from.
These games aren’t overly physical, so penalties need to be minimized.
A Bolts’ hallmark from last season was their lack of discipline as they led the league in minors. They were temperamental and sloppy, and they floated through the regular season without repercussions. In the postseason, their heedlessness accelerated an early exit.
Against Boston, playing a more physical, hardnosed game might make sense. But against Toronto, the Lightning need to be on their best behavior, especially since the Leafs’ power play felled them in both recent games. Even in defeat, the Lightning combined to outscore the Leafs 4-2 at even strength. But Toronto was buoyed by two power-play goals in both games, and these propelled them to wins.
Transition defense and accountability are vital to the Lightning’s success, but understanding where their sticks are and trying not to tempt fate with reckless physicality are paramount. Ultimately, if the Lightning can stay at even strength, they are the better team.
Tampa Bay Lightning Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»