Leafs @ Blackhawks - Oct. 22nd, 7:00pm - CBC, TSN 1050

[BrownRolo]

Andersen deserves to be getting crapped on. I'm sorry but the Leafs signed him to a 5-year deal (so stupid) so the fans expect him to play better than the two guys we just shipped out.

 

[Kin]

They mentioned Holland as being something like 5 for 12 in shootout attempts. Nylander, although this isn't much to go on, is 0 for 2.

 

[Al14]

Stop what?  Facing reality, that at the moment, our goaltending is bad.

Blaming everything on the goalie. That was a team collapse.

You're right, if, timely bad rebound control is a team issue!

When goals are being scored because opposing forwards are all alone in front of the net then, yes, it's a team issue.

You must be related to Andersen some how.  He is brutal, and your defending him to the nth degree!  8)

 

[Kin]

You must be related to Andersen some how.  He is brutal, and your defending him to the nth degree!  8)

The nth degree apparently being actually judging him on the goals being scored rather than reflexively criticizing the goalie for everything.

 

[Al14]

You must be related to Andersen some how.  He is brutal, and your defending him to the nth degree!  8)

The nth degree apparently being actually judging him on the goals being scored rather than reflexively criticizing the goalie for everything.

How can you defend poor rebound control, and, 2 goals scored high glove hand in the shootout?  How?

 

[Kin]

How can you defend poor rebound control, and, 2 goals scored high glove hand in the shootout?  How?

1. I dispute, rather than defend "poor rebound control".
2. The two guys who scored those goals in the shootout are pretty good players and those are hard shots to stop.
3. Even if those points are conceded, there's no way around the fact that the team's defensive coverage sucked and that Andersen was very good for most of the third. There's blame to go around. Not even mentioning Rielly or Hunwick/Polak on the late goals is a sign you're not fairly assessing responsibility for those goals. It's trying to get the facts to suit the narrative.

 

[mr grieves]

Guys come on. Win as a team. Lose as a goalie.

There are about 20 goalies who've played 3 or more games ahead of him in save percentage. It's a small sample, early yet, and all that, but the whole point of getting Andersen was to get a steady, reliable presence in net, with the understanding that the young team in front of him would be prone to such lapses. So, at some point, he has to be that.

 

[BrownRolo]

You must be related to Andersen some how.  He is brutal, and your defending him to the nth degree!  8)

The nth degree apparently being actually judging him on the goals being scored rather than reflexively criticizing the goalie for everything.

How can you defend poor rebound control, and, 2 goals scored high glove hand in the shootout?  How?

Contrarian. Gotta do something on a Saturday night.

 

[McGarnagle]

Heh, I turned it off with about 5 minutes to go and had a shower. Thought I'd come on here to revel in the win against a good team.

 

[Kin]

There are about 20 goalies who've played 3 or more games ahead of him in save percentage. It's a small sample, early yet, and all that, but the whole point of getting Andersen was to get a steady, reliable presence in net, with the understanding that the young team in front of him would be prone to such lapses. So, at some point, he has to be that.

I didn't like the trade but if anyone ever thought that the "idea" behind the trade was that Andersen was going to stand on his head when the team made huge defensive lapses then they confused him for Dominik Hasek.

I always read the idea behind the trade as being that when the team was ready, Andersen would be a goalie who could credibly play a majority of the starts. Not that he'd be the reason they'd be winning right off the bat.

 

[Al14]

How can you defend poor rebound control, and, 2 goals scored high glove hand in the shootout?  How?

1. I dispute, rather than defend "poor rebound control".
2. The two guys who scored those goals in the shootout are pretty good players and those are hard shots to stop.
3. Even if those points are conceded, there's no way around the fact that the team's defensive coverage sucked and that Andersen was very good for most of the third. There's blame to go around. Not even mentioning Rielly or Hunwick/Polak on the late goals is a sign you're not fairly assessing responsibility for those goals. It's trying to get the facts to suit the narrative.

Andersen is getting a pretty hefty salary.  His performance, thus far, has not matched his salary IMHO.

I'm not going to argue about how bad our D is.  The goalie is part of the D.  He has been as bad as the rest of our D.  I expected better from him.  He's got to bail them out, not add to the misery.  JMHO.

 

[BrownRolo]

There are about 20 goalies who've played 3 or more games ahead of him in save percentage. It's a small sample, early yet, and all that, but the whole point of getting Andersen was to get a steady, reliable presence in net, with the understanding that the young team in front of him would be prone to such lapses. So, at some point, he has to be that.

I didn't like the trade but if anyone ever thought that the "idea" behind the trade was that Andersen was going to stand on his head when the team made huge defensive lapses then they confused him for Dominik Hasek.

I always read the idea behind the trade as being that when the team was ready, Andersen would be a goalie who could credibly play a majority of the starts. Not that he'd be the reason they'd be winning right off the bat.

But you have to admit he doesn't look very good right now. Sure he has stretches where he makes some good saves, but every goalie has that.

I think most fans were hoping for a solid presence in net, someone the team could depend on. But as of right now he doesn't look great. He overplays shots quite often and his positioning seems off. Plus his glovehand looks way wose than Reimer's which people always seemed to say was his big weakness.

 

[McGarnagle]

A goalie's stats are largely impacted by the defense in front. It's easy to pad save percentage and gaa when shots are coming from long range or bad angles with low traffic.

Personally, while everyone wistfully thinks of Tuuka Rask as the leaf that was lost, I think he should take half his contract and give it to Chara who helped him justify it. He's being exposed far more over the last few years as the D corps have gotten thinner and older.

The leafs really don't have a #1 or #2 defenceman in the organization at this point, IMO. That's a huge liability.

 

[Kin]

Andersen is getting a pretty hefty salary.

As has been mentioned, he's got the 18th highest cap hit among goalies. He's being paid like a middle of the pack starter and, right now, that's more or less how he's played.

I'm not going to argue about how bad our D is.

Argue about it or not, when you say that the entire reason the team lost is the goalie you don't look very smart.

 

[Kin]

But you have to admit he doesn't look very good right now.

If someone were to say "The Defensive coverage late in games has been awful and Andersen hasn't been very good" I'd have absolutely no problem with that. Saying he's the only reason they're blowing leads is just flat out wrong. 

 

[mr grieves]

I always read the idea behind the trade as being that when the team was ready, Andersen would be a goalie who could credibly play a majority of the starts. Not that he'd be the reason they'd be winning right off the bat.

Well, there's a good deal of real estate between an .880 sv% and Dominik Hasek.

Anyhow, I thought Mirtle or someone else reported that Babcock and Lou didn't want to take the path many thought they would -- cheap, short term experiments in net, making use of the time they have -- but instead went with a steady, league-average hand this season, because they didn't want to risk the negative effect that a goaltending disaster would have on the kids' development.

 

[Kin]

Well, there's a good deal of real estate between an .880 sv% and Dominik Hasek.

Sure, but that's where small sample sizes come into play. Right now the difference between league average and .880 is a few goals.

 

[mr grieves]

But you have to admit he doesn't look very good right now.

If someone were to say "The Defensive coverage late in games has been awful and Andersen hasn't been very good" I'd have absolutely no problem with that. Saying he's the only reason they're blowing leads is just flat out wrong.

I don't think I've said that. If you're going to play Polak and Hunwick, you need your goalie to come up big. If your goalie's nothing coming up big, you shouldn't be playing those two.

[tweet]790024557633601536[/tweet]

[tweet]790024725078609920[/tweet]

[tweet]790007432139407360[/tweet]

 

[ZBBM]

To turn the subject a bit I don't know about his stats but I for one am a bit concerned about Rielllys defensive play. He largely escapes the criticism heaped on the lower guys but he wasn't good tonight and hadn't been all that good so far this year.

 

[Kin]

I don't think I've said that.

That was not in reference to you.