So far, it has been a complicated season for 2017 NHL Draft eligible defenseman Timothy Liljegren. He has
appeared at three different levels of hockey: mostly in SHL with Rogle BK, but
he has also seen time in Allsvenskan on a short loan to Timra and has (at the
time of writing) logged 12 games at the J20 level again with Rogle. He has also
been a regular for Sweden's U18 team internationally and has dealt with a case of mononucleosis earlier in the season that sidelined him for some time. Safe to
say, he has seen a bit of everything in his draft eligible season.
We received some
heat for placing Liljegren as the third best 2017 NHL Draft eligible prospect
coming out of Europe (behind Nico Hischier and Elias Pettersson respectively)
back in September and more recently still receive questions about his "stock"
as a draft eligible prospect. That has prompted us to offer an extensive
breakdown that should illuminate how we see Timothy Liljegren's game.
DECISION-MAKING
We will start this
breakdown with what we feel is the biggest question-mark in Liljegren's game
and also one of the main reasons for why we dropped him all the way back in
September. His biggest flaw this season has been decision-making. With that
said, let us continue with visual examples and their analysis.
EXAMPLE 1
This sequence starts with Liljegren actually doing a good job evading the forecheck, as he turns and
loses the Canadian forward he is left with quite some time to make a decision on how to move the puck forward. In frame III, it becomes fairly obvious
that the right option to take is to pass along the green arrow, that said there
is still a less than ideal orange path to take which would serve more just as
an outlet to get rid of the puck not necessarily move the play forward in a productive
way. Seeing as Liljegren isn't under pressure, it's not a particularly good
option in this scenario. While Liljegren does not pass immediately, he still
has ample amount of time to execute the green option pass in frames IV and V.
Yet, Liljegren fails to do so and eventually loses the puck to the forechecker.
In this sequence, we see something that has been fairly common in our viewings
this season and that is the failure to make decisions that use obvious positive
passing lanes (and simple quality options in general).
EXAMPLE 2
In example 2 we see
something similar, though not quite the same (or as clearly erroneous as in the
first example). This sequence shows off Liljegren's propensity to overhandle
and overcomplicate things beyond what would make sense. Liljegren does not use
his first option in the first two frames and instead opts to use his skating to
turn with the puck. Up to this point nothing is wrong per-se. However, even as he
turns he fails to complete a controlled pass in time to either of his options,
only managing to dish the puck by the time his teammate is running out of room into
the opposition's defensive pair on the offensive blueline. Again, Liljegren in
our viewings this season has been guilty of at times picking options that are
not only harder to execute but also carry less benefit than easier/more obvious
options.
EXAMPLE 3
In example 3, we have a
fairly obvious mistake within the same scope of decision-making issues that we've
seen so far. Liljegren here misjudges his ability to outskate/outmuscle the
Canadian forechecker while ignoring both the reverse pass as well as the
forward option towards his linemate that is gliding backwards to get into the
relevant position.
EXAMPLE 4
Example 4 is simply a
highly risky play as Liljegren attempts to cut and avoid the forechecker
getting hit in the process and has the puck trickle towards the blueline
uncontrolled. While executing the pass to the open teammate in frame II could
have been difficult, considering his teammate has barely turned by the time the
forechecker is already extending himself to cover that lane, one could also
argue it is something you'd want a projected top 5 pick be able to do. Even
that aside, what Liljegren opted to do is a very high risk play that close to his
net and illuminates another aspect of his game that we've seen, which is his
willingness to at times gamble on plays that aren't worthy of gambling on.
EXAMPLE 5
This risk-management
aspect becomes very obvious in example 5 where Liljegren simply commits an
awful turnover resulting in a goal against. In frame I, he should have seen the
two options of either passing/dumping the puck along the orange line out of
immediate danger, or skating it back to buy some extra time to see whether the
situation improves (considering the opposition is changing, that would likely
be the case). Instead he tries to outmaneuver the opposition as a last man back
with a move that has little chance of working. In frame II he actually has one
last chance to avoid taking that useless risk with an easy drop pass, but
probably doesn't realize his teammate is free behind him as the opponent
forward went for a change. In the end, he loses the puck in the process and the
opposition scores.
EXAMPLE 6
Example 6 is yet another
sequence from the same root of questionable decisions. The puck is dumped back
on the boards towards Liljegren, it's a fairly soft dump so Liljegren has
plenty of time to decide what to do with it. He could have skate towards the
puck and moved it up to his teammate who is presenting his open blade ready to
receive a pass, or (if the forechecker below him opts to take a more direct
straight route upwards towards Liljegren and the open teammate instead of
approaching from under an angle on the boards) opted to move it back down
behind the net to the other side of the ice. Instead, Liljegren waits for the
puck to come to him and hopes he can fake his way out of pressure. With this,
the forechecker has plenty of time to close the gap on Liljegren and strips him
of the puck when the puck finally gets to that area.
EXAMPLE 7
Example 7 is another
quite obvious sequence where Liljegren takes on unnecessary risk and fails to
utilize easier and better options. In this case he has ample time and not one
but two open linemates in good position with speed to hit them with a pass, but
instead opts for a complicated diagonal stretch pass through three Czech
players hoping to hit a teammate on the offensive blueline that is already
covered by a Czech defenseman to boot. Even if he managed to complete that
pass, his team would have been in a worse position than had he opted to pass to
either of his teammates in front of him. So, not only is the risk significantly
higher, the reward is lower as well.
DEFENSIVE COVERAGE
While decision-making has
been a key factor in Liljegren's stock going down in our eyes, we will also
take a look at other components of his game. The next one being defensive
coverage.
EXAMPLE 1
Example 1 starts with
what is not an unusual concern with young defensemen. We would like to see
Liljegren become better at controlling the space in front of and around the net
and pushing the opposition outside of it. In frame III, Liljegren actually
loses the ideal position and had the rebound gone the other way it could spell
trouble. Later in the same shift, Liljegren ends up chasing the play and to end
it off after chasing him out, he ends up being late on picking up his man who
beats him to the net.
EXAMPLE 2
In example 2 Liljegren
shows off his skating which allows him to easily close the gap on the forward
and poke the puck away from him. Being a strong skater, that is something that
certainly can be used in defensive situations as well. That said, we would like
to see Liljegren finish the play off by obtaining the puck or eliminating the
forward out of play. While the forward was stopped from proceeding further on
the initial play, he still manages to obtain the puck and control it on the
second effort play.
EXAMPLE 3
Example 3 has a similar
start as example 2 as Liljegren is defending a zone entry play. In this one
Liljegren ends up guilty of puck-watching. While he doesn't struggle in keeping
up with his skating and attempting a pokecheck, he doesn't really look to use
his body in this instance at all and ends up being fooled on a nice play by the
forward. Seeing it is a 2 vs 1 (with the 3rd Rogle player changing) situation
in frame I, it is obvious Liljegren should have been less naive here and made
sure he effectively closed down the forward, forcing a dump-in at worst that
would easily be picked up by his backchecking teammate. In frames V and VI he
bites hard on the move by the same forward who cuts inside on Liljegren.
EXAMPLE 4
While we would like to
see Liljegren use his body better on a consistent level as far as tying up
forwards and closing them down goes, we have seen him occasionally throw his
body around and go for hits. In this sequence, you can see him completing a
nice hipcheck.
EXAMPLE 5
Like with puck-movement,
we would like to see Liljegren pay attention to all the options on ice. In this
case, he is unaware of a big hole developing behind him and oncoming opponents who will take advantage of it (though, it is clearly the fault of Team Sweden
as a whole considering there are 3 unmarked USA players coming into a prime
scoring area, Liljegren still carries his share of blame in this sequence,
especially as he is moving towards the 2 Swedish players who already are paying
attention to the puck-carrier and instead isn't aware of the space behind him).
SUMMARY
In part one of the
breakdown we took a look at Liljegren's decision-making and defensive coverage
which tend to be some of Liljegren's weak points. In part two we will take a
look at his skating, transitions and offensive play which are obviously some of
the stronger aspects in Liljegren's game.
