The Approach to Game Two vs. the Vegas Golden Knights – From a Scout’s Perspective [VIDEO]

After the Vancouver Canucks’ disastrous game one effort against the Vegas Golden Knights, there were some crucial lessons to be learned. Not only could the Canucks not generate any real sustained pressure on the forecheck against the Knights at any point during the match. On most of the breakout attempts, they could not even move the puck up the ice without losing it at the Vegas blue line.

The Golden Knights were prepared for Vancouver’s north-south style of play and executed their game plan to perfection. Throughout all of game one, Vancouver attempted to make north-south entries from just one side of the ice. They rarely deviated.

The Canucks’ forwards often waited high in the neutral zone as the defence tried to force long-distance passes to them. The Knights countered by having three, sometimes even four of their players stay back in the neutral zone with at least two on the same side as the north-south breakout. They effectively swarmed the intended recipient of the puck.

On plays where the Canucks tried to carry the puck up the ice, they often attempted to skate with it along just one side of the rink. The Golden Knights, in response, simply swarmed the puck carrier. With so many opposing skaters blocking the puck carrier’s path, most of the Canucks’ neutral zone plays resulted in dump-ins and ultimately easy puck retrievals for Vegas. The Golden Knights are a heavier team than the Canucks. They use their strength, speed, and numbers to gain inside position along the boards and ultimately possession of the puck. In game one, Vegas actively targeted and neutralized the Canucks’ carry-in attempts, forcing Vancouver to play a dump-and-chase, grinding game that pales in comparison to the forechecking of the Knights.

Unlike Vegas and the Canucks’ qualifying round opponent, the Minnesota Wild, Vancouver did not often attempt many lateral passes or much east-west puck movement through the neutral zone. They instead suffered from tunnel vision with their transitions.

Our footage today looks at the Canucks’ offensive zone opportunities, including their defensive zone exits. It is clear why the Canucks’ up-ice transition was so ineffective once the footage is reviewed.

To make matters worse for Vancouver, there was a certain degree of sloppiness in terms of the team’s ability to pass the puck. Their passes were not crisp, and the recipients often fumbled with the puck long enough for Vegas to surround them and take their time away. There were quite a few errant passes that did not connect with the intended recipients. Slow, imprecise puck movement was a factor in Game One for the Canucks.

The Vancouver Canucks are familiar and comfortable with their north-south attack strategy, but if they do not adjust to counter the Knights’ game plan, their neutral zone play will continue to suffer and they will struggle to cross the offensive zone blue line with the puck on their stick. They must move up the ice as a unit and forecheck as a unit.

Puck support on their breakouts is crucial. There need to be more outlet options when they come out of their own end. If the Knights swarm, it is important that the Canucks have open teammates to distribute the puck across to. Usually, the far side of the rink was more exposed in game one due to the Vegas backcheckers’ aggressive focus on the puck carrier.

The Golden Knights are an excellent puck support team, and against the Canucks we saw numerous diagonal outlets from the defence, as well as many instances when the Knights’ forwards moved up the ice as a trio. Short passes, creativity, and patience on the part of the wingers usually allowed the Knights to gain entry into the offensive zone. They waited for one another to move through the neutral zone and did not force the puck up the ice.

Vegas also executed a number of north-south entries, but with the exception of a few plays, the Canucks were better at handling this approach.

On the Golden Knights’ powerplay, the drop pass entry made numerous appearances despite its lack of use in their previous matches against Chicago. We discussed this aspect of their game before Game One against Vancouver. In neither game four nor five of the Vegas-Chicago series did the Golden Knights opt for the drop-pass entry on any but two occasions. The Knights made an adjustment to counter the different penalty-killing method of the Canucks. Whereas the Blackhawks were more vulnerable to the Knights’ aggressive outlets with their 1-1-2 formation (one forechecker, the centre further out, and a defencemen behind on each side), the diamond formation of the Canucks prompted changes to the Knights’ entry strategy. They had done their homework.

Vegas was ready for Vancouver.

The Vancouver Canucks must also be mindful of the Golden Knights’ preference to out-number their opposition along the boards, especially at the ends of the rink. The Knights were able to hem the Canucks in their own end due to their aggressive forechecking methods. They also prevented the Canucks from keeping possession of the puck deep in the Vegas zone by being more aggressive down low. The Canucks played a passive game along the boards with not enough puck support. They were slow to skate into the corners as well, giving Vegas too much time and space to recover the puck. On some occasions, the Vancouver player with the puck along the boards was simply out-muscled by the Vegas player, who would then regain possession for his team. When strength was not the determining factor, speed was.

The Canucks have a strength disadvantage, but their work along the boards has been inconsistent throughout the postseason. They have not placed a strong enough emphasis on applying pressure deep in the offensive zone. If they wish to generate more pressure on the forecheck, they need to employ a more aggressive game so as to take away the Vegas puck carrier’s passing options along the boards. Currently, once a Golden Knights skater gains possession of the puck at the boards, it is quickly relayed to one of at least two adjacent options also along the boards. The Canucks need to anticipate and insert themselves between those players to increase their pressure against Vegas.

When the puck is at the point in the Vegas zone, a Knights forward will quickly begin to close their distance towards the defenceman with the puck, often in hopes of poking it out of the zone and creating a break the other way. They successfully stifled Quinn Hughes in Game One and pressured the point very aggressively. When Canucks’ defence attempted to carry it low, the Knights usually had a player chasing them at the half-wall. The Canucks need to be quicker along the blue line than they were on Sunday. On their lone powerplay in Game One, they never established a successful, in-zone setup. Twice on the powerplay, Hughes was pressured into a turnover along the point as he attempted to distribute the puck. The Knights pressure aggressively.

Vancouver must also be more creative in transition. As soon as they dump the puck into the offensive zone, they are effectively chasing the play and fighting for space on the perimeter instead of attacking with authority.

The Vegas Golden Knights sometimes allow their defence to jump up the ice on the far side of the neutral zone in transition. There were times in Game One when, instead of Vancouver forcing the puck up the clogged side of the ice, the Canucks’ defenceman on the opposite side could have jumped up and received the puck with enough room to enter the zone.

Such creative plays should be considered and implemented.

We can contrast Vancouver’s attack with that of the Golden Knights in Game One. Here is footage of every shot on the Canucks’ net by Vegas on Sunday.

A discernible difference between the Canucks and Knights’ forechecking is the work of the forwards on the goal line and behind the net. Vegas’ forwards will often all be behind the goal line to provide options for puck distribution. The forwards will control possession down low before having one of them sneak into the crease. They provide strong puck support in the bottom half of the offensive zone, sometimes involving a pinching defenceman. As we discussed in our Sunday article, backdoor plays, cross-seam passes, and active defencemen — Nate Schmidt, #88, recorded six shots on goal that night against the Canucks — in the offensive zone are additional threats that make the Vegas attack so dangerous. These were all evident against Vancouver in Game One. The Knights possess a dynamic forecheck.

Vegas also generated a significant number of rush opportunities. I’ve included numerous entries in our footage to illustrate the difference between the Canucks and Golden Knights’ strategies and execution in Game One.

The Vancouver Canucks must now demonstrate everything they’ve learned from Game One and execute a quicker, more intelligent, more aggressive game plan in their rematch against the Golden Knights on Tuesday.

We’ll reconvene again soon to evaluate further.