In response to jmwalters' comment:

At the end of the day Ward should be "let-go". Unfortunately, he's being paid as a "special-teams" coach and the PP has not produced. As you all know, his firing in itself may jumpstart the PP. At this point, can it hurt?  An average power play can make the BRUINS 'lights-out". Tukka still has big skates to fill, and I'm sure he will. Thomas was the x-factor during the Cup run that featured a weak PP. A  20% effective PP can at least make up for a teams mistakes during the course of a game, and from a tactical stand-point, make the BRUINS a very difficult team to beat.

"But it's fool's logic to think that because it hasn't hurt them yet, it won't next time. Like the 2012 playoffs against the Caps perhaps ?"

There is no other way for me to look at the situation which is a joke of a PP.

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

 

"But it's fool's logic to think that because it hasn't hurt them yet, it won't next time. Like the 2012 playoffs against the Caps perhaps ?"

There is no other way for me to look at the situation which is a joke of a PP.

 

Exactly!  again, doesn't mean they had to have a PP running at 25% in that series. The difference of just 1 goal on the PP in that series could have meant the Bruins moving on.

 

 

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

Sandog, you're always harping about losing to the Caps because we had no power play.

We lost because we didn't have Horton, and they outworked us because of their coach. If they didn't have Hunter, we would have beaten them even without Horton.

In response to Wheatskins' comment:

And holtby.  And bergie scores if healthy.  

In response to Wheatskins' comment:

I think you're both right about no Horton & no PP, but to say "if they didn't have Hunter." I think that's a stretch. Sure his coaching style had an impact, but there were far more important things than Hunter.

It's nice that we are chugging along as well as we are without the PP. It will also be nice to know that come playoff's our PP will be a lot better.

I assume the Bruins are aware of the PP shortfall ( cam neely has made comments to this affect), so it will be interesting to see the different mixes CJ puts on the ice for our PP and more importantly, when the Bruins will get impatient with the personal they have and maybe try to bring someone else in at trade deadline.

In response to jmwalters' comment:

Hmm, yes.  Good point.

Scotty Bowman always said that if the PP and the PK are about even, then he was happy, so the Bruins okay. Keenan hoped for a 5% to 10% on the +side between the 2. 

PP is a Skills based activity. If you believe as I do, that today's coaching is very effective in negating PP plans, then it boils down to skill. Maybe the Bruins just don't have that skill level in order to be a great PP team. There are parts there, but not the true high-end talent, such as Mark Savard to set up the easy PP goals. Who on the Bruins can hold and control the puck? I can't think of anyone that has that skill, except Savard. Maybe Hamilton will be the able to develop into that player from the point. But at this time the B's don't have that type of player. 

It could also be that they do not have someone willing to pay the price in front of the net. These guys are rare. Dino the Dog Ciccirelli took a huge beating to score those goals, but others won't. Horton and Lucic should do this, but don't. I don't blame them as it would be a very painful way of making a living. 

So my point is this. We don't have the players to have a great PP, so nothing to worry about. 

Solution: get the players that can, or work on passing skills in practice. 

 

 

 

In response to perrysound's comment:

I disagree.  Or at least I will disagree for a while because I believe they do have players with adequate skills for a good PP.

When I will agree with you - is when they bring in some fresh coaching blood for the PP, then I will be convinced.  They have had the same guy coaching the same bad PP for years.  Bring in a PP coach - a coach specfically for the PP.  A fresh perspective and some new ideas can change a lot of situations that look like they can never be fixed.

In response to BadHabitude's comment:

If nothing else, the proof is in the pudding? This PP had been bad since Marc Savard left. I think we can agree on that. As good as Krejci and Seguin are, using either as the QB has not translated into a decent, let alone a good PP. I don't think a coach will make a difference, but I do agree that there is nothing to lose by making a chance. 

 

It may be an annoying and simplistic trend here, but I blame Geoff Ward.  I think other teams would laugh at the notion that Chara, Seguin, Horton, Hamilton and Krejci aren't talented enough to have a good PP.  

I think they have the horses, they just seem to lack the strategy and execution.  That may be the player's fault in the short term, but after three years you've got to look at the guy drawing it up and coaching the unit.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

I have to agree Fletch. Nashville led the NHL on the PP last year and I know Trotz would be drooling at the prospect of having the stable of forwards that CJ has at his disposal.

I heard somewhere that coaches look for PP + PK to equal 100. If above 100, your team will be fine and special teams shouldn't play a factor in wins and losses.

Boston = 9.39 PP + 93.5 PK = 102.89

However, Boston hasn't been as good at 5-on-5 as they have been in years past. Right now, they're 11th in the league even strength. So in a long series, one of three things would need to happen in order for them to increase their chances:

Improve PP (unlikely)

Improve PK (hard to do)

Improve 5-on-5 (likely)

In response to perrysound's comment:

Nailed it - great post

 

A good PP can be such a valuable weapon, not just because you'll put up points on the PP but because opponents will fear heading to the box, allowing a little bit more room to operate 5 on 5. I see a need to improve the powerplay, having said that, i do NOT see a need to move assets in order to acquire a player outside the organization to improve the powerplay. If you get a guy that has a role to play in other areas, and happens to improve the PP, that's great. But I don't want to hear another word about going out and giving up picks and prospects for a PP QB

In response to Wheatskins' comment:

Tangibles Wheat or lack there of....the Capitals were beatable without Horton. Hunters game plan was straight out of Torts and Lemaire's 90s playbook. Make it impossible to get into and through the neutral zone with 4 players on the blueline, fall back into a box to block shots and be agressive on the PK becuase Boston forwards have no confidence with the puck during the powerplay and didn't know where to be.

Hunter couldn't predict his goalie would get hot but he could get an agressive plan together for a mighty mite powerplay. Lots of reasons why the Bs lost in the 1st round last season, the PP and not having Horton were certainly among them. I could name a few more as well.

If the powerless play were clicking with the offensive talent that Boston has and had last year, even without Horton, Boston would have advanced. Has Neely kept his promise from last year to fix the PP ?

Big F****** NO!

 

Question.

And I don't know the answer.

That's why I'm asking.

 

Granted it is a very small sample size, but how is it that they are much better 6 on 5 than they are 5 on 4?   The 6 on 5 they had against the Rangers they looked ferocious.  Even ignoring the goals they were buzzing around the net and getting great shots.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

 

It may be an annoying and simplistic trend here, but I blame Geoff Ward.  I think other teams would laugh at the notion that Chara, Seguin, Horton, Hamilton and Krejci aren't talented enough to have a good PP.  

I think they have the horses, they just seem to lack the strategy and execution.  That may be the player's fault in the short term, but after three years you've got to look at the guy drawing it up and coaching the unit.

 

 

Agree totally, Ward has the majority of the blame, he's not utilizing what he has properly .He's mimicking other PPs from other teams !  He's just not a PP specialist.

In response to JWensink's comment:

 

In response to perrysound's comment:

 

Scotty Bowman always said that if the PP and the PK are about even, then he was happy, so the Bruins okay. Keenan hoped for a 5% to 10% on the +side between the 2. 

PP is a Skills based activity. If you believe as I do, that today's coaching is very effective in negating PP plans, then it boils down to skill. Maybe the Bruins just don't have that skill level in order to be a great PP team. There are parts there, but not the true high-end talent, such as Mark Savard to set up the easy PP goals. Who on the Bruins can hold and control the puck? I can't think of anyone that has that skill, except Savard. Maybe Hamilton will be the able to develop into that player from the point. But at this time the B's don't have that type of player. 

It could also be that they do not have someone willing to pay the price in front of the net. These guys are rare. Dino the Dog Ciccirelli took a huge beating to score those goals, but others won't. Horton and Lucic should do this, but don't. I don't blame them as it would be a very painful way of making a living. 

So my point is this. We don't have the players to have a great PP, so nothing to worry about. 

Solution: get the players that can, or work on passing skills in practice. 

 

 

 

 

Nailed it - great post

 

 

 

Sure, that explains why the NYR have such a stellar PP. Put all of your studs out there and they'll score for sure. If only we could get Nash and Gaborik and Richards. Then the team could win some games. I look forward to hearing about how this post makes me a communist.

              Yours truly,

                               Selective Highlighter

 

In response to BadHabitude's comment:

BadHab - it might be that with the 6-on-5 there are more bodies to pursue the puck, b ang the bodies and retrieve the puck after a shot. Also more bodies to protect the blueline so the puck can't be cleared.

Luck plays a part too and they have to stay desparate and keep chasing the puck.

 

If you look at the more sucessful PP teams you see lots of player movement and player switching positions.  The Bruins have 5 players standing still and that makes them easy to defend.

3rd in shots, 4th in shots against   don't know pp shots

12th in goals for, 7th in goals against, 7th in +/-,

4ppg 0 SHGA

3ppga  1 shg  for a total of a +2 in pp situations, makes it hard to believe we have only 1 loss.

4th in wins, 2nd in losses, 4th in pts

Yet we are still only 1 pt ahead of the shabs and 5 ahead of the 9th place team.

 

The team is winning and playing well for the most part, would be nice to see the dominant team come back and that will happen when we get on track.

 

I prefer Bqe to Panda, that is not really an addition unless Kelly goes down.

 

Sure, that explains why the NYR have such a stellar PP. Put all of your studs out there and they'll score for sure. If only we could get Nash and Gaborik and Richards. Then the team could win some games. I look forward to hearing about how this post makes me a communist.

              Yours truly,

                               Selective Highlighter

 

[/QUOTE]

Sorry Dez, but I have no idea what point you are making. 

I've made my points so I'm not going to beat them to death. This is a very good team. Well balanced and a favourite to win the Cup, so I don't care if they score a bunch of PP goals or not. It'd make life easier if they could bump that PP% up 5 or 6 points. 

I like Commies. They are simple and easy to infuriate. :-)

 

It's an interesting concept NAS, I think there is definitely validity to what you're saying. The Boston Bruins, in my opinion and I'm sure many others, have set up this team to be dominant @ 5v5. I think it was a conscious decision to build a group of players that were sound defensively and tenacious on the forecheck. This probably originated as a strategy when the bruins were re-building through free-agency and decided to invest in Zdeno Chara as the cornerstone of the franchise. He really set the whole team building in motion. The idea was, the Bruins would build a stanley cup contender from the goalie out, build a team that was 4-lines deep and could dominate their opponents through a relentless pace. 

It worked. It works.

I highly suspect the Bruins management understood that as consequence of their strategy, they might not have the high skill offensive guys that excel with extra space on the power play. I think they looked at the high salaries typically associated with those players and said screw it. They are trying to build a team that wins in the post-season, and it hasn't been lost on me that the refs whistles tend to go quiet in the post-season, a major major advantage for the Bruins. I will never forget for 1 second that series against Tampa Bay, when we assaulted their players for 7 games yet didn't draw penalties. Sure, a good portion of that was smart play on our side, but my bet is there were penalties to be called, and the refs didn't do it because it was the playoffs. Tampa was one of the best Power Play's in the whole NHL that season. Huge huge advantage for the bruins.

Maybe a lot of teams employ these kinds of skill players like Alexander Semin as a gimmick, paying a premium to give their fans the illusion of a contending team.

In the era of the salary cap, you can't have it all. The patriots don't have a secondary, the bruins don't have a power-play. It's a reflection on how management prioritizes their cap investments.