It was only one game — I stress only one game — but the differences on the Oilers penalty kill were quite noticeable to me.

Let’s go through them.

The first one I noticed was they are using a box in the neutral zone to make zone entries more difficult. They don’t use it every time, but it was a new wrinkle that worked well.

Vancouver struggled often on zone entries. Part of that might be because it was the first game, but at various times Edmonton’s new neutral zone approach seemed to cause some havoc for the Canucks.

It is a small wrinkle, but this set up led to a few turnovers, both in the neutral zone and high in the offensive zone.

Another difference was how aggressive they were, and the blueliners were standing the Canucks up at or near the blueline.

Here is another clip about being aggressive. Both Josh Archibald and Oscar Klefbom pressed down on the puck carrier on the wall. The defence were very active with the stick.

Another positive for me was how they didn’t let the seam pass through as easily as last year. That was a major weakness on the PK and here Archibald reads the play nicely and intercepts the pass through the seam.

The changes on the PK are quite noticeable and they seemed more aggressive, but also more in sync. One man would pressure the puck carrier, and if he was in a bad spot then the other penalty killer on that side would quickly slide over and limit the passing options. It led to Edmonton rarely being hemmed in for long periods of time on the PK.

On each of the first three penalty kills the Oilers cleared the puck four times. They were rarely hemmed in. They had three clears on the final PK and for much of the eight total minutes on the PK, they kept the Canucks to the outside.

Vancouver had seven shots on the PP, and none of them came from within 10 feet. Only two were inside 21 feet. The shots came from 13 (Leivo), 14 (Pearson), 21 (Leivo), 21 (Ferland), 34 (Horvat), 56 (Boeser) and 63 (Myers) feet. Shot distance doesn’t always tell the story, as a well set up one-timer from distance can be very dangerous, but the Canucks had very few, if any, really dangerous shots on the PP. The fact Elias Pettersson had none, and Boeser only one, illustrates the Oilers did a good job taking away Vancouver’s best options.

It was only one game, but it was a much needed good start for the PK units.

I didn’t understand the need for a “wear your helmet” rule and last night confirmed why I don’t like it. When was the last time an NHL player was injured due to playing without a helmet? I don’t see why the rule needed to be implemented.

It cost the Oilers a goal, and I won’t be surprised if it costs other teams. Trying to put on your helmet and get back in the play is difficult. The commentators suggested McDavid struggled getting his helmet back on. I’m not sure how much quicker he could have put it on. Try grabbing your helmet with gloves on.

I think the rule is unnecessary.

The exact wording states:

It will be a judgement call by the referee. If a referee tells the player to put his helmet on and the player doesn’t then he is open to a penalty.

I believe this is a case of the NHL worrying about what ifs. What if a player who losses his helmet and keeps playing gets hurt? Oversensitive in my eyes.

Just watch in the playoffs. This type of scenario will unfold and cost a team an important goal. Then they rule will be altered.

The small plays in the game can become major plays when you do them well, or when you do them poorly. Archibald made some great reads on the PK, and his speed is a welcome asset. But he has to be better on getting pucks out.

Archibald was on the ice for the final 2:48 of the first period. So maybe fatigue was part of it, as he was close to two minutes into his shift, when he failed to get it out, but he has to make a stronger clear.

Then later in the game he has another chance to clear and he doesn’t get it out. Seconds later the Canucks score.

It is only one game, but you know Tippett will be discussing these plays with Archibald. I like his speed and tenacity, but he has to be better at getting pucks out.

@Leon Draisaitl was a force all night. The lazy narrative is he excels because of McDavid. Any person still pushing that angle needs to grab a clue. He was the best player on the ice by a large margin and I sense he and McDavid are going to push each other, in a healthy, competitive way, all season.

@Zack Kassian looks more comfortable every game in a top-six role. It has only been 40 games, but will people be that surprised if he sets another career high in goals this season? Twenty goals look very attainable for him.

@Ethan Bear was very steady. Dave Tippett hinted yesterday he’d move Kris Russell to the right side in place of the injured Adam Larsson, but if Bear continues to play well I wonder if in a few games we see Tippett revert back to three righties and three lefties.

@Matt Benning is a solid NHL defenceman. I sense those who don’t like him gravitate towards the errors he makes and unconsciously value them higher than a positive play. A few years ago I had watched a game with three different scouts. As we watched, I noticed them jot down all the plays, both good and bad. “You have to try and avoid getting hung up on the errors. You have to count a good pass equal to a bad pass. If you start grading a player harder on their errors, you will stop seeing what they do well, and only focus on what they don’t. You can miss a lot of the players’ attributes if you do that,” said one scout.

It is great advice.