i swear ya'l are just so doom and gloom after a loss. after wins all that is pointed out (typically) are how well players did. after losses its trade everyone! its hillarious. im out.
i swear ya'l are just so doom and gloom after a loss. after wins all that is pointed out (typically) are how well players did. after losses its trade everyone! its hillarious. im out.
Ditto. Team can go 4-1 or 5-1 in a stretch and people will absolutely lose their minds over the one loss. The guys on the other teams get paid too, folks.
We don't slow it down on the PP. We have an insane amount of talent up front (and for some reason, Brent and Corvo running the points WTF???), but we keep trying to score on transition, or we try to immediately enact a set play.
I can understand running plays, but why not get set up first and force the Capitals to establish their formation. You keep trying to run plays that are set to a formation the Caps aren't in, and of course our PP is going to suck.
Why isn't McBain on the PP? He's right handed, has a good shot and is great at walking the line and moving the puck around.
I would do: Staal, Tlusty, Semin, Skinner and McBain on the PP. 4 people deep. Skinner/Semin on the halfboards, Staal and Tlusty behind the net/in the slot, McBain at the point. Keep them out there a minute and a half, go big or go home. I have no confidence in the second unit's ability to convert.
__________________
"You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life." - Albert Camus
Ditto. Team can go 4-1 or 5-1 in a stretch and people will absolutely lose their minds over the one loss. The guys on the other teams get paid too, folks.
This wasn't a back-to-back and each game is its own entity, not part of a "stretch". Ellis put in a solid performance, so being critical of blowing a 2-goal lead by going scoreless for the next 48 minutes while watching a weak team like the Capitals score 3 unanswered in the remainder of regulation can hardly be equated to "losing one's mind".
Ditto. Team can go 4-1 or 5-1 in a stretch and people will absolutely lose their minds over the one loss. The guys on the other teams get paid too, folks.
And frankly, if it had been a hard fought loss, a lot wouldn't be *****ing so much.
But it wasn't. The Canes played the first period well, assumed the game was over after the 2 goals, then didn't start playing again until after the Riberio goal.
Skinner had a terrible game, play died on his stick far too often to count. Eric...what can you say? That penalty at the end of the 2nd was stupidity and frustration. Unsurprising as it was.
I can see what others are saying, Skinner tries to one man it far too often. I hope its selfishness/overconfidence, because once he realizes that there are other sightless eyes on the team, his assist rating will go way up.
The game was actually pretty even. Both teams had plenty of opportunities, and we limited the Capitals chances.
You have a point if we're going to take unnecessary penalties at the end of every second period from now on.
It has less to do with the unnecessary penalty and more to do with the fact that they stopped skating and were being outworked and out hustled after the 1st. If you want to ignore that, then fine.
Last edited by Boom Boom Anton: 03-14-2013 at 09:43 PM.
It has less to do with the unnecessary penalty and more to do with the fact that they stopped skating and were being outworked and out hustled. If you want to ignore that, then fine.
We outshot them in the 3rd 15 to 8, and were one Corvo/Gleason miscue away from getting at least a loser point.
The only reason it was tied in the first place was because our captain took a horrible penalty, giving the Capitals a PP on fresh ice.
This was much like the game on Tuesday. Ellis didn't have to make any great saves, and outside of their first goal, we dominated them at ES. They got very few grade A opportunities. The only period we got outplayed was the 2nd.
You're right, we layed it off after the 1st. That's unwise. But we still had several extended offensive zone possessions, and still limited their scoring opportunities.
But that doesn't change the fact that we are 10-1 if we are leading after the 2nd. Playing prevent defense, clogging the neutral zone and forcing the other team to the perimeter is great if you are ahead.
Last edited by Highway to Cap Hell: 03-14-2013 at 10:02 PM.
Reason: grammar
And actually, I'm optimistic about the fact that we have yet to put together a full game of hockey. If the issue really is "hard work" then the extra motivation of a tight playoff race and actual playoff hockey in Raleigh will fix that.
And given how this team has played in the last month, I am excited to see what they can do when they "try" for a full 60 minutes (if that is the problem).
We outshot them in the 3rd 15 to 8, and were one Corvo/Gleason miscue away from at least getting a loser point.
The only reason it was tied in the first place was because our captain took a horrible penalty, giving the Capitals fresh ice.
This was much like the game on Tuesday. Ellis didn't have to make any great saves, and outside of their first goal, we dominated them at ES. They got very few grade A opportunities. The only period we got outplayed was the 2nd.
You're right, we stopped skating. That's inexcusable. But we still had several extended offensive zone possessions, and still limited their scoring opportunities.
You are completely missing (or deciding to ignore) the point. Staal's penalty (which I agree was bad) isn't the "only reason" it was tied. It took 2 goals to tie the Canes. Carolina came out FLAT and were outplayed for much of the 2nd period which led to a first Washington goal. They were outworked and that first goal was due to that. Not working/skating and letting Washington back in the game via the 1st goal was a turning point. It was BOTH goals that led to them being tied, not just the PP goal. The Canes dominated the first and let off the gas and it came back to bite them.
After it was tied, Carolina did pick it up a bit, but within those 15 shots, there weren't a lot of high quality scoring chances (there were a few). They put themselves in a position where a penalty or defensive flub would lose them the game....and it ended up being a loss after leading going into the 3rd.
Anyhow, my concern remains. After this team gets a lead, they have shown in a number of games that they stop skating. Until tonight, it hasn't bitten them, but tonight, I contend it did.
But that doesn't change the fact that we are 10-1 if we are leading after the 2nd. Playing prevent defense, clogging the neutral zone and forcing the other team to the perimeter is great if you are ahead.
I would agree...but I don't see them playing "prevent defense". Many of the games they are just giving up shots (and quality scoring chances) and being dominated in their own zone. If you really think they are clogging the neutral zone and forcing the team into low percentage shots, then I recommend you go re-watch some of those games. Do you think in the NJ game that Muller needed a timeout because they were playing "prevent defense"? Or in the FLA game where in his post game interview where he commented about how the team needs to play 60 minutes when they have the lead? Does that really sound like a planned, prevent defense? Doesn't seem like the coach thinks so.
I would be FINE with that approach...it's just not how they are playing.
You are completely missing (or deciding to ignore) the point. Staal's penalty (which I agree was bad) isn't the "only reason" it was tied. It took 2 goals to tie the Canes. Carolina came out FLAT and were outplayed for much of the 2nd period which led to a first Washington goal. They were outworked and that first goal was due to that. Not working/skating and letting Washington back in the game via the 1st goal was a turning point. It was BOTH goals that led to them being tied, not just the PP goal. The Canes dominated the first and let off the gas and it came back to bite them.
If your issue is with the laying off the gas pedal, then what does that have to do with your first post about prevent defense? Or did I attribute something that wasn't there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton
After it was tied, Carolina did pick it up a bit, but within those 15 shots, there weren't a lot of high quality scoring chances (there were a few). They put themselves in a position where a penalty or defensive flub would lose them the game....and it ended up being a loss after leading going into the 3rd.
And outside the 3rd Caps goal, and their PP, they had no quality chances.
I disagree, we outplayed them in the third. Like I said, we were 1 Corvo/Gleason miscue away from at least a loser point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton
Anyhow, my concern remains. After this team gets a lead, they have shown in a number of games that they stop skating. Until tonight, it hasn't bitten them, but tonight, I contend it did.
Then tonight's loss will hopefully serve as a powerful reminder to play 60 minutes.
A couple of other comments from the game tonight. Nash really seems to be getting more comfortable. He's a smart player who is good along the boards and anticipates where to be.
And I'm a bit surprised that McBain isn't on the PP. I've often thought he was very good at getting his shot through and walking the line. He's gotta be better than Faulk, Harrison and Brent...no?
I would agree...but I don't see them playing "prevent defense". Many of the games they are just giving up shots (and quality scoring chances) and being dominated in their own zone. If you really think they are clogging the neutral zone and forcing the team into low percentage shots, then I recommend you go re-watch some of those games. Do you think in the NJ game that Muller needed a timeout because they were playing "prevent defense"? Or in the FLA game where in his post game interview where he commented about how the team needs to play 60 minutes when they have the lead? Does that really sound like a planned, prevent defense? Doesn't seem like the coach thinks so.
I would be FINE with that approach...it's just not how they are playing.
I see it as prevent defense, because we pull back from a 3 man forecheck with defense pinching to a 2 man forecheck, 3 men back with no pinching.
If it really is hard work, then it can easily be fixed. Optimistically, this very good team will be dynamite when they put it together. Agree to disagree?
If your issue is with the laying off the gas pedal, then what does that have to do with your first post about prevent defense? Or did I attribute something that wasn't there?
I never said anything about a "prevent defense". Others had commented about "prevent" the other day, but my point was that I didn't think the Canes were playing prevent. They were coasting IMO.
Quote:
I disagree, we outplayed them in the third. Like I said, we were 1 Corvo/Gleason miscue away from at least a loser point.
We may have outshot them, but I disagree that we outplayed them. A lot of others in this thread have also commented that the Canes didn't show up for 2 periods so I'm not alone here. Anyhow, by early third, the Canes were tied, so even if you say they outplayed them, it still backs my point. The habit of getting a lead and letting up is what concerns me.
Quote:
Then tonight's loss will hopefully serve as a powerful reminder to play 60 minutes.
Agree. My concern in the first place was exactly that (and was told numerous times don't worry, record when leading after two...etc...)
I see it as prevent defense, because we pull back from a 3 man forecheck with defense pinching to a 2 man forecheck, 3 men back with no pinching.
If it really is hard work, then it can easily be fixed. Optimistically, this very good team will be dynamite when they put it together. Agree to disagree?
3 man forecheck? The Canes almost always have a 3rd man high. Anyhow, that's not even the point. The issue is that they aren't skating and losing battles. That has nothing to do with the style of play.
3 man forecheck? The Canes almost always have a 3rd man high. Anyhow, that's not even the point. The issue is that they aren't skating and losing battles. That has nothing to do with the style of play.
I've always seen the change from the 2nd to 3rd period has been a result of the 3rd man becoming less active in the forecheck. Our offense isn't nearly as effective as a result.
I've always seen the change from the 2nd to 3rd period has been a result of the 3rd man becoming less active in the forecheck. Our offense isn't nearly as effective as a result.
But whatever, agree to disagree.
I understand what you are saying. And honestly, if the focus truly was clogging up the neutral zone and prevent scoring chances, then I'd have no problem with it (I couldn't care less if they scored or had less shots). My concern IS and has been that there have been a number of games where the seem to stop skating and losing battles..and end up either taking a penalty or giving up good scoring chances.
I realize there is no team in the league that plays 60 min every game. It's unreasonable to expect that. It's also unreasonable to think that there won't be the occasional bad penalty or defensive gaff. So I try to look for trends. Is one player having more than his fair share of bad penalties or defensive gaffs? Other than Sanguinetti earlier this year, I would say no to both of those so I won't crucify Staal (or Faulk for his bad penalty on the PP) or Gleason/Corvo on defense unless it becomes a trend.
Two trends I do see that concern me are:
1) Terrible power play
2) Not skating/competing when they have a lead.
There have been some positive trends also, so this isn't an all negative thing, just saying those are the things that concern me.
