Anyone else unable to religiously follow this team atm ?
View Single Post
08-02-2013, 07:53 AM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
"Execute". If only Neal hadn't dinged it off the post in Game 3 a minute before we lost the game, we'd have executed. If only Malkin's shot hadn't caught Chara's arm when he flailed it out in desperation, we'd have executed. For the record, we had good defense and goaltending that series too outside of Game 2, though that's overlooked because of our inability to score.
It's a game of inches, and the Bruins got those breaks in the final two games after the Game 1 debacle and our inability to recoup the following game. Kudos to the Bruins for taking advantage and not letting up in Game 2 though. They obviously outplayed us there.
I understand your take on the series. I also don't feel like butting heads re-iterating my take. We disagree and we're not going to agree.
If we scored on more of our scoring chances, we'd have scored more goals. That's how I interpret what you just said. James Neal needs to hit the net, not the post. What makes a post bad luck or a bad bounce? Hitting a post isn't some random act that a player can't avoid. The closer you are to hitting the net, the better chance it will bounce in off the post. There's a reason a post isn't a shot on goal. Hitting a post simply means you missed the net. In game 1 Kunitz should have tied it up and completely blew a golden scoring chance 3 feet from the net with Rask out to lunch. I just absolutely hate the idea of this team sitting at home right now feeling like they lost because of bounces, like they don't need to fix anything. But I do believe that's how a lot of them feel.
Also, I've repeatedly said our defense and goaltending were solid in that series. My issue with the defense is that they weren't helping enough in the offensive zone. Our offensive zone chances were typically 3 on 5 because our d-men were rarely ever up there to help. Letang and Martin were the only two who did. Between this problem and our inability or unwillingness to crash the net, our lack of scoring doesn't seem at all random to me. It seems like the outcome of a team that didn't properly support the puck or get into the dirty scoring areas.
As a unit, our defense is just about as good as Chicago's at either end of the ice. The issue is our defense is much worse at doing both at the same time. They can either play shutdown defense, or they can support the forwards. Chicago's can play good defense and then still support the forwards up the ice. This was the main part of why I didn't really want to spend money on Scuderi. He's a really good player, so I'm still happy he's here. But he adds to the side of our defense that I thought we were quite good at when it mattered, but brings practically nothing on the side where our defense struggled. He's obviously an upgrade, I just don't think it was the best position to look for an upgrade.
Last edited by Ogrezilla: 08-02-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ogrezilla