A question of tactics: What was the key mistake of the Edmonton Oilers playoff loss? (2024)

Article content

Both plays brought about crucial goals for Vegas.

Both came as Vegas cycled the puck in the Oilers zone, having full possession but looking like no threat to score.

And yet they were able to manufacture goals, in large part because on both goals against Oilers d-men were pulled far from their traditional stomping grounds protecting their own net.

Article content

The first play came in Game Three, the series tied at one, with Vegas up two goals to one in the second period. Vegas forward Reilly Smith circled the Edmonton net with the puck, then passed it back off the boards to the point ,where defender Zach Whitecloud took it. Edmonton winger Warren Foegele went out to block Whitecloud, who at once put the pass back to Smith, who was skating towards Whitecloud. At that moment, Oilers d-man Darnell Nurse charged out of the defensive slot to cover Smith. The Vegas attacker continued to skate back towards the blueline in full possession.

Just before he crossed the blueline, Smith made a nifty back pass to Whitecloud, Foegele’s check. But Foegele’s path to Whitecloud was blocked by Nurse, still on Smith.

Indeed, Nurse skated out all the way out and over the blueline in pursuit of Smith. But with Foegele’s path blocked and Nurse not even in the defensive zone, Whitecloud had a clear break down the wing, with all kinds of time to pick his spot and fire a nasty wrist shot by Edmonton goalie Stuart Skinner to make the score 3-1, a lead Vegas would hold.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Fast forward to Game Six, a must-win for Edmonton, but this time it’s Jack Eichel in the corner with the puck, moving back to the blueline, and this time Cody Ceci in pursuit.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

Eichel also took the puck high and just before he moved out of the o-zone, just like Smith, hemade a quick back pass to d-man Shea Theodore. Theadore didn’t rush in like Whitecloud but fired it hard and fast on net. The shot rebounded off Nurse, who was covering Ivan Barbashev in the slot, and went straight to Jonathan Marchessault in the slot for a wide-open goal, tieing up the game at two. Vegas grabbed the momentum and never gave it up.

After both goals, Edmonton fans turned on Oilers players. In the first instance, Nurse was deemed to be the culprit for wandering afar and blocking Foegele. On the second it was Leon Draisaitl, who had failed to read the play and move back to cover Marchessault in the slot.

Perhaps the real culprit was a flaw in the Edmonton’s aggressive man-to-man defensive scheme that Vegas exploited.

But I wasn’t sure.

For one thing, I needed to know how common such mistakes were. Did they just happen on these two goals against? And did Vegas make the same kind of mistakes? Did their d-men also wander far off to the blueline to stick with Edmonton forwards?

Article content

To get answers, I’ve again went over the video of all Grade A shots for and against the Oilers at even strength in the Vegas series, all 108 of them, 54 by Vegas on the Oilers net, 54 by the Oilers on the Vegas net.

Based on this review, I’ve now concluded that Edmonton did indeed have a major tactical flaw in the series.

Essentially, Vegas played much more of a zone defence against Edmonton, while the Oilers attempted to play man-to -man. That meant if Ceci or Nurse or Mattias Ekholm was covering a forward like Jack Eichel and he had the puck, they stuck with Eichel even if he moved way out to the point area, pulling Ceci or Nurse or Eckholm far away from their own net front.

This wasn’t a bug in the Oil defence, it appears to have been a feature. It was evidently the game plan.

This meant there was a top defender on Eichel at all times, but it also meant there wasn’t always a top defender covering the front of the Edmonton net. If Eichel spun and got a shot on net, or made a quick pass to a d-man who put it on net, there was often an Oilers forward left to cover the net front, at least if that forward remembered it was his job to do so.

Article content

Often the Edmonton forwards were slow to cover for their roving d-men. And it’s also the case that forwards tend to be much less defensively able to tie up sticks and block out opposing attackers at the net than d-men.

Vegas did not employ such a man-on-man tactic. The Vegas coaches did not trust the forwards with so much responsibility, hard slogging and quick reading in front of the Vegas net. Instead Vegas used more of a zone, always endeavouring to have their two defencemen back to cover the slot area in front of their goalie.

Article content

I have a pile of numbers based on this video review, but the issue can be boiled down to three sets of numbers: first, how many more of the most dangerous kinds of shots Vegas was able to muster at even strength, 31-to-21 in their favour; second, how many more times Oilers centres got beat for Grade A shots in front of the net as compared to Oilers d-men, 19-to-14; and, third, how many more times on Grade A shots against Oilers d-men wandered out of the inner slot or their own defensive corner, often heading way out above the face-off circles, as compared to how many times that happened to Vegas on Grade A shots against VGK. This was 9 to zero in favour of Vegas, with VGK scoring four goals on such plays, the Oilers not any.

31-to-21 for Vegas

As I mentioned earlier, the two teams had the sasme number of even strength Grade A shots, 54, each, but it’s crucial to note here that Vegas had higher shot quality.

Grade A shots go in about 25 per cent of the time on average, but there’s a subset of far more dangerous shots, 5-alarm shots, that go in about 33 per cent of the time on average.

According to the video review that Bruce McCurdy and I do at the Cult of Hockey — and have done on every single scoring chance shot since the 2010-11 season — Vegas had 31 5-alarms shots at even strength, while Edmonton had just 21 5-alarm shots.

Article content

I’m gong to suggest that the 31-to-21 edge in 5-alarm shots didn’t come about because Vegas had better attackers, but because Vegas d-men were superior and their zone defence was a better plan to stop the most dangerous of types of shots from ever occurring.

The edge in 5-alarm shots contributed to Vegas getting 16 goals at even strength to just nine for the Oilers.

19-to-14

As a group, in the entire series against Vegas, individual Edmonton defenceman allowed their check to get away from them and get off 14 Grade A shots in the slot, this happening to Ekholm six times, Ceci, four, Evan Bouchard and Nurse, two each, Kulak, Desharnais and Broberg, not once.

It’s worth noting that on 37 of the 54 Grade A shots against Vegas, 69 per cent of the time, both VGK d-men were in proper position, either in front of the net or battling on their defensive corner for the puck.

But Edmonton had this traditionally sound defending on only on 31 out of 54 Grade A shots against, 57 per cent, with the centre or some other forward supposed to cover for the roving d-man.

Article content

But the Edmonton centres weren’t that effective at covering attackers in the defensive slot. Of course, why would they be? They’re not d-men. They’re not defensive specialists.

You might hope they’ll be aggressive and conscientious one-on-one defenders, and you might reason your team will be a killer squad if everyone takes up his defensive chores with great gusto and intensity.

But is that really the best plan?

Vegas did much better by leaving the heavy lifting — the bashing, hacking, blocking, hitting and thwarting in the inner slot — primarily in the hands of its d-men, with the forwards also asked to pitch in, but not to carry the biggest load.

Sound like a plan for Edmonton next season?

9-to-0 in Vegas’ favour

When you look at the 54 Grade A shots against both teams, not once did such a shot occur against Vegas where a d-man was following his check and roving up and out of the inner slot. As soon as their check left the net area, the VGK d-men retreated back into their shield around the Vegas net, leaving the forwards to pick up the puck carrier.

But on nine Vegas Grade A shots, an Oilers d-man was seen following his check away from the Edmonton net and outside of the slot area, often up to the blueline or out to the boards. On four of those Grade A shots, Vegas scored goals. This kind of play was habitual enough that it’s evident it was the Edmonton plan for d-men to stick with their checks in this manner.

Article content

Now, the Vegas d-men were not perfect. They sometimes made bad pinches and got caught up-ice on dangerous Edmonton attacking plays. They often got beat off the rush or out of the corner by Edmonton’s marvellous and aggressive array of attackers. But they did not beat themselves. They played it safe with their two-man tag team zone in front of their own net, making sure McDavid, Draisaitl, Zach Hyman, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Evander Kane never had an easy path for a goal.

I don’t think any one Oilers d-man was at fault, in particular, against Vegas. I’m more inclined to question the team’s defensive tactics. I do wonder, however, at the high number of bad pinches Nurse made outside his own zone that led to Grade A shots against. He’s got to cut down on that kind of thing.

As for Vegas, Alec Martinez was a monster of defence for that team. He didn’t get beat out of his own corner on even Grade A shot at even strength in the six games. He was not beat on the rush. He made only two plays where I deemed him to be out of position on Grade A shots against.

That is remarkable defence.

That is the kind of defensive play and defensive reading the Oilers will need to win the Cup in 2023-24.

Article content

Make sense to you? Or do you see some problem with my analysis?

Maybe I’ve got it wrong.

After all, I’m just a crappy beer league player and I’ve never coached a higher level of hockey than mid-level U-16.

What do I know?

All I’ve got is my video review to go on.

Nonetheless, this is where such video review has led me, to conclude defensive tactics were a big part of the Vegas win and a big part of the Edmonton loss.

Staples on politics

Not one Edmontonian in Danielle Smith’s cabinet, but a major nod to the city’s concerns

At the Cult of Hockey

Article content