Tampa Bay did not get the results they wanted in Game 1 on the powerplay (0/5) but they didn’t change much in their game plan in order to find success in Game 2 (3/7). The main difference was in their focus and execution.
The most noticeable issue in Game 1 was on their entries, and they did make one successful adjustment for Game 2. In Game 1, they attacked in too much of a straight line across, without much speed differential to disrupt Toronto’s stacked killers on the blue line. Toronto was able to hold the line and get in the way of kick-out options to disrupt entries.
In Game 2, their solution was to detach Point and Kucherov from being side by side on entry, and instead have one carry to the blue and drop the puck to the other who had built more speed. This made it easier for them to enter the zone with control as Toronto could not maintain such a tight gap.
In-zone, their tactics remained the same. They were just sharper on their execution. Toronto’s PK is very aggressive up top and Tampa Bay fell into their trap multiple times in Game 1. Although, that same powerplay was still creating looks that they scored on in Game 2.
They wanted to take advantage of Toronto’s aggressiveness by changing sides quickly from Stamkos to Hedman to Kucherov, and have Kucherov receive these pucks relatively low and ready to attack. Because Toronto wants their strong side D to flex out aggressively and their strong side F to sweep down aggressively, if you are able to change sides quickly out of a battle it leaves those two players racing back to spots. When there is a disconnect in communication/responsibilities, it leaves a prime option open.
This from Game 1 when Tampa’s PP was “bad”. Brodie races back to net front and Kampf goes to cover the bumper shot, leaving the seam pass open. Kerfoot also left a little early, not taking away any passing lanes.
From Game 1 again, neither Toronto F sorts out who has Point in the bumper and they leave him open for a Grade A chance. Muzzin is also far too interested in the net front F and pulls himself out of position, making him late to flex-out.
The pass from Kucherov to Point was a focus for Tampa Bay in Game 1, even before they converted on it in Game 2. Again, because of Toronto’s aggressiveness up top, if you pass the puck well you can get their Fs chasing pucks and spread out. On a change of sides, the now strong side D wants to flex out and their other D has been recovering back to net front. This can be an adjustment for the Leafs PK as they don’t need to be so engaged with the net front/goal line Tampa Bay F. Because Tampa has Kucherov positioned so low in the zone, the Leafs D don’t have time to be engaged with someone in front of the net and still flex out in time to take away Kucherov’s time and space. Specifically on Tampa’s first unit, they need not worry about Killorn beside the net and make sure they know who is responsible for taking away the pass from Kucherov to Point. They can’t be giving up this chance anymore this series.
Leafs PK Game 3 adjustments:
More communication and clarity between Fs on bumper responsibilities
Less focus on net front/goal line option from D. Better sticks and quicker flex-outs
F1 take away late drop on entry
Lightning PP Game 3 adjustments:
Stick with what works. Get pucks in Kucherov’s hands and trust he will make good decisions. Don’t be afraid to shoot
If they take away bumper and strong side D flexes to Kucherov, look to go down to Killorn then over to Stamkos or down to Killorn, up to Hedman, over to Stamkos