Hurricanes @ Leafs - Dec. 23rd, 2:00pm - SNO, Fan 590
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
hockeyfan1
New member
Dappleganger said:
Epic!
Guru Tugginmypuddah
Active member
Festivus miracle.
Phileas Fogg
New member
It was nice to see the 80's oilers play again. This was certainly the game to get freebie tickets to.
Champ Kind
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
ZBBM - amazing, but don't let it go to your head, ok?
You wouldn't happen to have six numbers between 1-49 you could share with me, do you??
ZBBM
Active member
Zee said:A Weekend at Bernier's said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
ZBBM - amazing, but don't let it go to your head, ok?
You wouldn't happen to have six numbers between 1-49 you could share with me, do you??
Give him 6 but I'll take all 7
8) 8) FYI Brownscombe has a real nice game recap on MLHS.
Kin
New member
Guilt Trip said:
I wasn't watching live as it happened but now that I've watched the play a few times I really think the heat Nylander took for that play is at least a little unwarranted.
He got the puck in a bad position, down low and in between two defenders and with no real options to move the puck other than to try and get it back to the point which was the smart play. He tries to make the pass but the puck hits Pesce and leads to the two on one.
To me there are a few important things here:
1. This feels like the perfect illustration of the difference between a turnover and a giveaway. To my mind a giveaway is effectively an unforced error whereas a turnover is a play where the puck changes hands, often due to pressure or getting knocked off the puck. I think that's probably why there aren't a lot of "giveaways" by the NHL statistical definition as counting turnovers doesn't seem particularly meaningful with this as a prime example. While I don't think Nylander is blameless, I think this was in a lot of ways a team screw up, both with the bunching up of players below the faceoff circle and Marner's giving the puck to him in a bad position.
2. Some people might say that the real issue was Nylander's lack of skating to get back into the play and the way that Nylander looked at the end of the play had bad optics but watching the whole thing I don't think that holds up. Pesce starts the play skating to get back to cover the point which is how he breaks up the play in the first place while Nylander is flat footed in an attempt to make the pass. Once the turnover happens, Nylander actually skates pretty hard to get back. Problem is Pesce had much too much of a lead on him for just about anyone to catch up and Nylander does indeed stop once it's clear that he's not going to catch him before Carolina gets the shot.
I get why people don't like how Nylander ended the play but I think a lot of that is that people want it to look like players are playing hard even if it has no effect on the play. It was pretty clear at that point that McGinn was taking the shot and if it was a quick rebound to Pesce, again, Nylander simply wasn't going to catch him in time to stop it.
It was an ugly play and nobody likes giving up a SH goal but the idea that it was some horrible giveaway that Nylander handled terribly really just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Given the lead that Pesce had on him and the angle of the shot/way Freddie was playing it I really don't think it mattered that much. If it was a quick kick out sort of save or something that bounced directly to where Pesce was then even if Nylander is skating full tilt I don't think he catches up. If it's virtually anything else then Barrie is probably in a better position to make a play on it than Nylander would be anyway.
Is it within the realm of possibility that Nylander skating as hard as he possibly could the whole way would have resulted in him breaking up a real scoring chance? I guess, but I'm really trying hard to picture in my head what sort of chance that would have been.
If I were Nylander's coach would I tell him to skate that way regardless? Probably but that would have much more to do with rah rah rah "Everyone gives 110% all the time" sort of stuff than any actual element of it having a big impact on an individual play.
Like I said, Nylander's not blameless. It was not great execution on a tricky play and the end of it looked bad. But to file it under "Ugh, here's another example of what Nylander always does" just doesn't ring true.