Talk about Capitals hockey & more! > Washington Capitals & Other Hockey Discussion
GDT R3G1 Capitals @ Lightning 2018-05-11 8:00pm EST NBCSN, CBC, SN, TVAS
DC_1908:
--- Quote from: chas on Saturday May 12, 2018, 07:40:19 PM Eastern ---But you risk making the strong lines weak by giving them too many minutes and tiring them out. Otherwise we could just play two defenseman the entire game.
--- End quote ---
Which is why you shouldn’t put players that cant and/or will only play offense on your roster. It’s a mute point if 18, or even just 15 skaters can shut down the enemy
As for just playing two Dman, we’ve played four forwards for 10 years and have a 10% score (one of 10) of winning 8 of 14 in that time
DC_1908:
--- Quote from: chas on Saturday May 12, 2018, 07:44:43 PM Eastern ---In order for Ovie to get some respect in the league he needs to do more than one timers on the power play. It didn't seem that bad. We dominated the third period with the exception of the first five or ten minutes. There wasn't much concern.
--- End quote ---
You don’t dominate when you give up two goals.
That’s two failures when your up by two, that is in no way, shape, or form, dominanting, let alone forgivable, or acceptable.
Allowing 2 goals is bad enough, but worse when your up by four.
BlackIce:
--- Quote from: DC_1908 on Saturday May 12, 2018, 08:10:23 PM Eastern ---You don’t dominate when you give up two goals.
That’s two failures when your up by two, that is in no way, shape, or form, dominanting, let alone forgivable, or acceptable.
Allowing 2 goals is bad enough, but worse when your up by four.
--- End quote ---
So is the other team's giving up of four goals to us worthy of the death penalty? Why are first goals somehow excusable, but later goals once someone has scored inexcusable? Or are all goals inexcusable and the only righteous outcome would be that no one ever scores?
I would submit that giving up two goals (or three, see Pittsburgh G1) when you are up by two is absolutely worse than giving up two goals when you are up by four.
DC_1908:
--- Quote from: BlackIce on Saturday May 12, 2018, 09:16:05 PM Eastern ---
So is the other team's giving up of four goals to us worthy of the death penalty? Why are first goals somehow excusable, but later goals once someone has scored inexcusable? Or are all goals inexcusable and the only righteous outcome would be that no one ever scores?
I would submit that giving up two goals (or three, see Pittsburgh G1) when you are up by two is absolutely worse than giving up two goals when you are up by four.
--- End quote ---
YES!!
This ain’t video games, or the co-ed Sunday night Red league at the Reston Ice Rink.
Maybe 5%, at most 10% of goals are scored by “skill”, the rest are defensive and/or goalie failures that should not be excused or tolerated by players or fans.
So what would your CEO, CFO, Director etc say if you told them 10% of the year/quarter/or month cost you 50% gain (ie 4-2), but it’s OK because you came out at least 50% ahead instead of the 100% expected or the 75% minimum accepted. . . ?
Maacoshark:
It is true that most goals come off some kind of error. Whether its a defensive breakdown or a bad goal by the goalie or a bit of both. I can understand Tampa's first goal since it was on the pp and the penalty wasnt a bad penalty. The 2nd goal really is unacceptable. You are up 4-1 late in the game and you give up an odd man rush. I'm not even sure which dman it was that got caught. Carlson was the guy back so I assume it was Kempny. Doesn't really matter who it was it was a play that never should have happened. That last goal was an example of being aggressive in the offensive zone when it isn't necessary.
Maybe I am too critical but I am a firm believer in taking care of your own end first, the offense will take care if itself. When you have a 3 or 4 goal lead you don't need to take chances offensively. Just make the smart play.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version