Amen to this. DeBrusk is completely bipolar when it comes to compete-level. He’s been utterly feckless to my eyes. I know he potted a couple early-on against the Caps, but he’s been playing heartless hockey (again) of late.He's been useless and a non factor since early in the Cap's series. Not even leveraging his speed and the Isles D has manhandled him.
He had like 20 pucks bounce off his stick, that was my biggest note.Has DeBrusk done anything of note outside of the first games of the Caps series? All I recall from the last game is him sending about 8 weak backhand passes to the slot that were easily intercepted.
I'm good with Lauzon playing instead of Zboril or Tinordi and it looks like Butch feels the same way. Lauzon makes mistakes but also is a big D with upside.I know a lot in being hung on Lauzon for the ill advised cross ice pass. I could see him sitting. But, he's also the reason they were still playing, saving a sure goal earlier in the OT that Tuukka seemed very late to react on the pass across.
View attachment 41609
Lauzon taketh away, Lauzon giveth...
I think DeBrusk plays below the level advanced stats give him credit for because the has the physical tools but not the mental tools to be a top 6 W. He seems to generally be in the right place but almost never makes the right play with the puck. Shoots when he has guys open, passes when the shot was the better option. He might look good statistically because he can possess the puck and has the speed to get it but his outcomes seem to be suboptimal time and again. Krejci and Bergeron think the game 2X faster than they play where as DeBrusk plays 2X faster than he can think.Looking at Krejci's line a bit closer over the two games:
Game 1:
w/ Smith: 9:48 TOI, 16-4 attempts, 7-3 shots, 8-2 chances, 3-0 HDC, 0.77 to 0.13 xGF
w/ DeBrusk: 3:31 TOI, 1-3 attempts, 1-2 shots, 1-1 chances, no HDC, 0.06 to 0.07 xGF
Game 2:
w/ DeBrusk: 17:07 TOI, 22-13 attempts, 12-9 shots, 12-5 chances, 3-1 HDC, 0.97 to 0.43 xGF
I'm not seeing anything that would suggest DeBrusk has been awful or even bad here in comparison to Smith. He was mediocre filling in for Smith in Game 1 but settled in for game 2 just fine. I'd be interested in keeping him together with Hall for a bit because both of them skate really well, and that gives Krejci another target for a homerun pass.
I don't think anyone will argue that he didn't make a bad play in OT that resulted in the GWG. I was guilty of railing on him in the immediate aftermath of the OT goal. However, upon further review, I think the idea that he has been bad or useless is wrong.He was on the ice for three goals against and was an absolute pylon. He's useless.
He was on the ice for three goals against and was an absolute pylon. He's useless.
you both make compelling argumentsI don't think anyone will argue that he didn't make a bad play in OT that resulted in the GWG. I was guilty of railing on him in the immediate aftermath of the OT goal. However, upon further review, I think the idea that he has been bad or useless is wrong.
The caveat here is that he missed time so the sample size is small but, defensively speaking, Lauzon has been one of their better D in the playoffs. Among the 8 D they have used in the playoffs, Lauzon ranks:
4th in shots against per 60
4th in scoring chances against per 60
3rd in high danger chances against per 60
2nd in expected goals against per 60
So when he's on the ice, he's doing a good job limiting chances against, and I'd probably argue has been one of their better defenseman in that area. He's been on the ice for 5 goals against at even strength. That's due to Rask having a .792 save percentage when Lauzon is on the ice. That's by far the lowest among the 8 D the Bruins have used in the playoffs. Lauzon's high danger rates indicate he hasn't been a pylon, either. He's not giving up breakaway after breakaway either, nor is it constant d zone meltdown.. Pucks have just found a way into the net. The breakdown on the OT goal was really due to his limitations offensively than anything he's done defensively.
Other than the breakaway goal, he's basically been the victim of point shots that have found away through or been tipped/deflected on the way in. His 5 goals against are the Dillon and Dowd goals in game 1 against Washington, the Pelech bomb in game 1 on Saturday, the Palmieri scramble goal on Monday and the OT winner. It's hard to really change much there. You always want to do a better job of moving traffic out of the goalies line of sight, but if teams are shooting from long range when you're out there you're doing well.
Sitting him for Tinordi would be a significant downgrade. I could buy an argument for a healthy Miller, but to be honest, Lauzon's been better than Miller too.
This is a great, thoughtful response.I don't think anyone will argue that he didn't make a bad play in OT that resulted in the GWG. I was guilty of railing on him in the immediate aftermath of the OT goal. However, upon further review, I think the idea that he has been bad or useless is wrong.
The caveat here is that he missed time so the sample size is small but, defensively speaking, Lauzon has been one of their better D in the playoffs. Among the 8 D they have used in the playoffs, Lauzon ranks:
4th in shots against per 60
4th in scoring chances against per 60
3rd in high danger chances against per 60
2nd in expected goals against per 60
So when he's on the ice, he's doing a good job limiting chances against, and I'd probably argue has been one of their better defenseman in that area. He's been on the ice for 5 goals against at even strength. That's due to Rask having a .792 save percentage when Lauzon is on the ice. That's by far the lowest among the 8 D the Bruins have used in the playoffs. Lauzon's high danger rates indicate he hasn't been a pylon, either. He's not giving up breakaway after breakaway either, nor is it constant d zone meltdown.. Pucks have just found a way into the net. The breakdown on the OT goal was really due to his limitations offensively than anything he's done defensively.
Other than the breakaway goal, he's basically been the victim of point shots that have found away through or been tipped/deflected on the way in. His 5 goals against are the Dillon and Dowd goals in game 1 against Washington, the Pelech bomb in game 1 on Saturday, the Palmieri scramble goal on Monday and the OT winner. It's hard to really change much there. You always want to do a better job of moving traffic out of the goalies line of sight, but if teams are shooting from long range when you're out there you're doing well.
Sitting him for Tinordi would be a significant downgrade. I could buy an argument for a healthy Miller, but to be honest, Lauzon's been better than Miller too.
I haven't watched the play since seeing it live, but Im pretty sure Coyle was not the intended target there-he was trying to go d to d to McAvoy, who was down a bit lower/not on the blue line?I'm still clinging to the belief that the idea of the OT play wasn't bad in and of itself it was just a bad pass. If it's a nice soft one Coyle is wide open coming down the slot has basically a mini 2 on 1 with the other d-man (I think it was McAvoy?)
could well be that he was going to McAvoy which would explain the speed. Which still, he'd have had a big open lane to the net with some traffic in front (first pic shows someone just to the left of the net heading to the front)I haven't watched the play since seeing it live, but Im pretty sure Coyle was not the intended target there-he was trying to go d to d to McAvoy, who was down a bit lower/not on the blue line?
Sometimes you see what you want to see. I generally see a young player who does a good to sometimes great job of steering plays wide. He is nicely aggressive at moving below the goal line to disrupt cycle behind the net and in the corners. (Seriously, watch for this. Young D-men can often get caught in between holding position and chasing the puck. He looks to have good instincts here and some good tight space quickness to go with some size. ) He is completely willing to step into lanes and block shots. He might be a little on the anxious side to move pucks quickly, but the opposite of that is that he holds the puck too long and misses on potential outlet passes. The OT pass was clearly a mistake, but it wasn't completely indefensible. He made up his mind before the puck got to him that he was going to swing it D to D which is the problem. There was a ton of open ice when the puck was coming up the boards and if Coyle doesn't turn low McAvoy has a one-timer from 25 feet with a forward probably in position for a tip. He couldn't feather a short pass to Coyle because Cizikas would have been in position to disrupt so he had to fire it cross ice to McAvoy. He should have picked up on Coyle moving into the passing lane and safely dumped it back down to the corner. Terrible outcome, but if I'm Cassidy I see a guy willing to make an aggressive play and not the routine safe one. It's a coachable play and Cassidy knows at this point if Lauzon is a guy that will take the coaching or needs to sit and think about it. He apparently thinks he'll learn from it and he's the best option for tonight.This is a great, thoughtful response.
I just... I don't know. He sucks, according to the eyeball test. Facts and observation (under stress and alcohol) don't often match up correctly so I'm open to being emotional and wrong, but my eyes tell me he's been awful. Not clearing out the crease, allowing forwards to get position for screens and tips. Not winning puck battles. Gaining defensive position but just allowing forwards to skate by him. Screening Tuukka but not blocking the shot. The boneheaded play leading to the breakaway goal was egregious but my complaints go far beyond that one.
I'm overall pretty high on his career trajectory, but he needs to be benched right now.
Someone in the game thread mentioned T. Hall as must-see-tv. I agree. And he’s kicked his 200 foot game into high gear since joining the Bruins.Charlie McAvoy and Mike Reilly have been on the ice for 15 minutes together at 5-on-5 this postseason. In those 15 minutes, the Bruins have outshot their opponents 20-7 and outscored them 4-0.
https://mobile.twitter.com/smclaughlin9During Taylor Hall's 16:37 of 5-on-5 ice time tonight, the Bruins outshot the Islanders 15-0.
I mean, this news is about a million times better than I expected today. The fact that his season isn't immediately over is huge news.Carlo is day-to-day. We'll see if he plays tomorrow.
View: https://twitter.com/mattyports/status/1400841026730921990
So true. Hitting the glass (which gives) is better than hitting the boards (which don't), but he was clearly hit hard enough to be unsteady on his feet as he was helped off the ice.I mean, this news is about a million times better than I expected today. The fact that his season isn't immediately over is huge news.
I'm standing by this line here. What was different last night is that the Bergeron line was mediocre and the Krejci line was bad. The focus should be on getting them going again.Line-by-line 5v5:
Line Attempts Shots Chances High-Danger Chances Expected Goals Marchand-Bergeron-Pastrnak 11-11 2-8 6-8 2-3 0.44 to 0.42 (51%) Hall-Krejci-Smith 9-12 6-3 2-7 0-2 0.12 to 0.32 (27%) DeBrusk-Coyle-Ritchie 12-9 5-3 4-8 1-2 0.27 to 0.47 (37%) Kuraly-Lazar-Wagner 8-10 4-5 4-6 4-1 0.48 to 0.23 (67%)
Not going to win too many games when the 4th line is your best line. The 3rd line's been bad the whole series, the difference tonight is that the top 2 lines played well below their standards.
I think Bergy and Marchy played their normally excellent game...Pasta being off really does affect them overall though.I'm standing by this line here. What was different last night is that the Bergeron line was mediocre and the Krejci line was bad. The focus should be on getting them going again.
The "third" line had the least 5v5 TOI of the four last night, so Cassidy does recognize the problem. They need to start playing more like a fourth line unit: tighter checking, more effort in puck battles, simple plays instead of low percentage passes and stick-handles around defenders. If plugging in Kuhlman or Frederic does that, I'm all for it.
But it's all pretty moot if the top two lines fail to show up.
But 4 cross-checks don’t even warrant a penalty
I think - but have no way to prove, that losing Carlo made (either by choice or necessity) the forwards start deeper, or simply get stuck deeper on D. I know they were only down Carlo from the previous game, but the Dmen really looked inept in starting the play.I think Bergy and Marchy played their normally excellent game...Pasta being off really does affect them overall though.
Some of that was due to the NYI forecheck. I actually think most, but who knows, I was watching live while drinking.I think - but have no way to prove, that losing Carlo made (either by choice or necessity) the forwards start deeper, or simply get stuck deeper on D. I know they were only down Carlo from the previous game, but the Dmen really looked inept in starting the play.
Not an expert but I'd sack Ritchie for Frederic. 4th line played pretty well the other night, no need to mess with them.What are the opinions of the experts here on how best to shake up the 3rd line? And if you were coach, would the shakeup include any other changes, presumably to the 4th line?
I'm by no means an expert, just a clueless nerd who scrolls through NaturalStatTrick. Giving their Line tool a spin, here's each member of the dreaded 3rd line without the other two:What are the opinions of the experts here on how best to shake up the 3rd line? And if you were coach, would the shakeup include any other changes, presumably to the 4th line?
Jake DeBrusk (39:30 TOI) | 39-44 attempts | 19-23 shots | 19-19 chances | 3-3 HDC | 1.51 to 1.33 expected goals | 1-0 goals |
Charlie Coyle (16:21 TOI) | 12-23 attempts | 7-13 shots | 7-12 chances | 3-3 HDC | 0.55 to 0.93 expected goals | 2-2 goals |
Nick Ritchie (4:49 TOI) | 4-7 attempts | 1-4 shots | 1-2 chances | 0-1 HDC | 0.13 to 0.2 expected goals | 1-0 goals |
DeBrusk+Ritchie (3:57 TOI) | 2-2 attempts | 0-2 shots | 1-0 chances | no HDC | 0.07 to 0.02 expected goals | no goals |
DeBrusk+Coyle (7:10 TOI) | 5-8 attempts | 1-4 shots | 2-5 chances | 2-2 HDC | 0.31 to 0.43 expected goals | 0-2 goals |
Coyle+Ritchie (25:28 TOI) | 24-29 attempts | 10-16 shots | 8-14 chances | 1-5 HDC | 0.55 to 1.17 expected goals | 1-2 goals |