Whine, whine, whine ... yet no fortitude to say who should have been out so your boys could play.
Radulov, 1 SOG in two games. That equals Yip's GOALS. AK with a break in goal and a tip in on a goal scramble ... or the same place numerous players failed tonight, and AK has failed in other games.
Complaining is easy ... having a solution is hard.
You gave no solution to speak off. I'm sorry, are you saying Yip is better than Radulov? I'm sorry I don't take that seriously.
Once again, the point is that Trotz announced to everyone that he was going to make no adjustments 2 games in advance. Why do you do that? What's the strategy?
Yip's goal was a result of an unlucky bounce for the Yotes by the way.
By the way, I said Tootoo should have been benched this game. Look back a few pages and you will see.
Radulov controlled the play more than any other player in game 1 vs Phoenix. He's still leading our team in playoff scoring; he has the highest goals per playoff game of any Predator in our history. The reason we lost game 1 was because Pekka was only OK and defensive lapses.
Game 2 tons of our players sucked.
Radulov in his best game put the puck on net fewer times than Yip did tonight, or game one. We got our chances ... we failed to capitalize ... it is that simple. Hornqvist missed how many times with Smith out of the way? Second guessing is easy ... but the guys we sat performed in a similar manner while in to the guys we had in tonight.
on the "Lost sight of the puck" and "Intent to blow the whistle" rule. I think the whole thing needs to be scrapped.
The first part of it is backwards. It shouldn't be when the ref loses sight of the puck, because that is too many times based entirely on his positioning. The whistle should be blown when he sees the goalie has control of the puck. It used to be that way, should still be that way.
Second, intent to blow should never be allowed into the rulebook. Although referees are supposed to be impartial and professional, it leaves the door open for shady calls. This should be one cut and dry rule, if the puck goes across the line before the whistle is blown, it's a goal. The ref should have the whistle ready when there's a flurry in front of the net, the fact that there are moments when players are jabbing away at a puck under the goalie and it still takes 2-3 seconds for the ref to get the whistle to his lips is just poor officiating or poor instruction being communicated to the officials. I feel that making it simple as "in before whistle equals goal" would make everything a lot more simple and keep the refs on their game more as they would be forced to have the whistle ready in those situations.
sure tonight the Preds had more chances than just the disallowed goal, but that doesn't change the fact that they were still hurt by that one play as well.
If others want to be pessimistic and claim it's all over when we haven't even played game five yet it's their choice. My choice is to look at the positives and be optimistic: I'll be plenty pessimistic if/when we end up losing this series, key word being WHEN we lose the series.
on the "Lost sight of the puck" and "Intent to blow the whistle" rule. I think the whole thing needs to be scrapped.
The first part of it is backwards. It shouldn't be when the ref loses sight of the puck, because that is too many times based entirely on his positioning. The whistle should be blown when he sees the goalie has control of the puck. It used to be that way, should still be that way.
Second, intent to blow should never be allowed into the rulebook. Although referees are supposed to be impartial and professional, it leaves the door open for shady calls. This should be one cut and dry rule, if the puck goes across the line before the whistle is blown, it's a goal. The ref should have the whistle ready when there's a flurry in front of the net, the fact that there are moments when players are jabbing away at a puck under the goalie and it still takes 2-3 seconds for the ref to get the whistle to his lips is just poor officiating or poor instruction being communicated to the officials. I feel that making it simple as "in before whistle equals goal" would make everything a lot more simple and keep the refs on their game more as they would be forced to have the whistle ready in those situations.
sure tonight the Preds had more chances than just the disallowed goal, but that doesn't change the fact that they were still hurt by that one play as well.
Radulov in his best game put the puck on net fewer times than Yip did tonight, or game one. We got our chances ... we failed to capitalize ... it is that simple. Hornqvist missed how many times with Smith out of the way? Second guessing is easy ... but the guys we sat performed in a similar manner while in to the guys we had in tonight.
I don't view SOG as a great indication of how good someone is playing offensively. If so, Detroit would have killed us, and Chicago would have killed Phoenix.
"Similar manner theory" you speak of-- Radulov has a PPG. So if he plays in a similar manner, he would have had a point and we would have had at least one goal.
I have little doubt Radulov would have created better offensive changes than Yip, Spaling, SK, Bourque, just to name a few.
What's done is done. I disagreed with the decision before the game and I disagree with it now.
You gave no solution to speak off. I'm sorry, are you saying Yip is better than Radulov? I'm sorry I don't take that seriously.
Once again, the point is that Trotz announced to everyone that he was going to make no adjustments 2 games in advance. Why do you do that? What's the strategy?
Yip's goal was a result of an unlucky bounce for the Yotes by the way.
By the way, I said Tootoo should have been benched this game. Look back a few pages and you will see.
Strategy and the players in the lineup are not linked. Keep complaining ... it's what you're good at. If you don't like what Trotz did ... full lines, full roster .. you've had since MONDAY TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION. Still, all you do is complain and overlook it was Hornqvist missing the net that cost us tonight ... Fisher missing the top corner repeatedly that cost us .... Gill falling along the boards in the first ..... it wasn't our Russian speaking chuckleheads sitting that cost us.
I don't view SOG as a great indication of how good someone is playing offensively. If so, Detroit would have killed us, and Chicago would have killed Phoenix.
"Similar manner theory" you speak of-- Radulov has a PPG. So if he plays in a similar manner, he would have had a point and we would have had at least one goal.
I have little doubt Radulov would have created better offensive changes than Yip, Spaling, SK, Bourque, just to name a few.
What's done is done. I disagreed with the decision before the game and I disagree with it now.
Move on and hope for a miracle from here.
Radulov's defensive play would indicate a 4-0 Yotes win tonight.
Hornqvist had numerous chances that were as good or better than AK's goal in game 1, and missed the net. Fisher missed the net repeatedly. Weber missed the net more than he hit it.
What has AK brought? A lot of drive to the net (a staple of Preds hockey) and the ability to fight for the puck and win it in heavy traffic areas (without always ending up on his arse) while playing solid D. Oh, and 2 goals. All while playing with two guys who pass the puck like Hal Gill skates. Only Hal does actually skate, no matter how slowly he does it.
As for saying Hornqvist's chances have been better than the goal AK scored in game 1, I think I'm with you, but I'm not certain. You mean that the chances he has had have been better scoring chances than the one Andrei scored on, right? Because otherwise, comparing failed attempts on great scoring chances to an actual goal sounds like a really dumb comparison, especially when keeping in mind how this series is going. And regardless of how you view the rest of his game, AK has proven in this series that he can take the chances he gets, even at key stages of the game. Is that not something Nashville needs right now? The fact he brings more to the team than just that and fits the style of play that Nashville have had success with also helps his case for why he should be back in, does it not?
He deserves it. 8 minutes left in the game, down by 1, on the powerplay and possibly being on the brink of elimination and Yip is still getting powerplay time.
Yip was out there with 1:31 to go. I let fly with a string of curse words that would make Al Pacino blush. That was just... unbelievable.
Trotz took a gamble that blew up in his face royally. I get where he was coming from, but round two of the playoffs, down 2-1, is not the time to explore a hunch; now is the time to make the sensible decision and put, at the very least, your best offensive player (Radulov) back in. I mean, the whole reason we brought Rads back over was to get a game-breaking offensive talent in the lineup. What's the point of sitting him tonight? So you could put Brandon freaking Yip on the power play again?
I hope Trotz gets lambasted in the morning. I don't think we have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning at Phoenix. We can't lift the puck to beat Smith, and Phoenix's defense is totally neutralizing us around the net. Our aggressive forecheck was totally gone in the third, when we needed it most. We're getting beaten to every loose puck, and making bad decisions with the puck when we do get it.
Oh, and Brandon Yip is terrible. Just in case that hasn't already been established.
Strategy and the players in the lineup are not linked. Keep complaining ... it's what you're good at. If you don't like what Trotz did ... full lines, full roster .. you've had since MONDAY TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION. Still, all you do is complain and overlook it was Hornqvist missing the net that cost us tonight ... Fisher missing the top corner repeatedly that cost us .... Gill falling along the boards in the first ..... it wasn't our Russian speaking chuckleheads sitting that cost us.
Complaints without a solution is just
Not sure what you have against the Russian speakers but the point hasn't been explained was why do you tell everyone what your plan is going to be. Where was Tootoo by the way? I could hardly hear his name announced this game.
If you believe Preds did everything right - that's your opinion. My view early on was that Trotz made a strategic mistake by giving away our plans. You don't do that. Keep the Yotes on their toes trying to figure out who we play.
I watched the game and all the chances we missed. My point again, is that we didn't have the right skill on the ice to FINISH the plays in their net.
Please clarify because I'm growing tired of your snide attitude and calling me a Nuck fan? **** off.
It''s like you get a kick out of kicking your fellow fans when they're down, like a fan of an opposing team, except your a f-ing mod for god's sake, of the preds no less. I'm sure this will be deleted anyway so who cares.
It''s like you get a kick out of kicking your fellow fans when they're down, like a fan of an opposing team, except your a f-ing mod for god's sake, of the preds no less.
When have I ever kicked my own fans when we're down?
Radulov's defensive play would indicate a 4-0 Yotes win tonight.
OK Keith Jones.
Radulov was actually decent defensively vs Detriot. He wasn't that good in game 2 but either was a loooong list of Predators. Some who made much worse mistakes than Radulov.
If there's any scape goat for games 1 and 2, it's Rinne. He wasn't horrible, but he wasn't a 7 million dollar goalie.
