Jump to content
×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
OccamsRazor

Game 4 Flyers at Predators 10/10/17 8:00 pm

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, vis said:

Who else do you put out there in that situation?  On this team, he is among the top 4 defensive defensemen on the roster (Provorov, Gudas, Hagg and MacDonald).  I would not put Sanheim and Ghost out there.  In last night's scenario, Gudas and Provorov already spent time killing the 5v3 penalties.  Somewhat hard to put Hagg in that scenario, I think.

 

Eh, I'm not going to bitch about having Weise out there towards the end of his shift with more than two minutes to go with a road lead, especially when his line had a strong game.  I could see maybe some annoyance with the fourth line not getting more time down the stretch, but maybe the plan was for that to happen once the clock ticked below 2:00 minutes.

 

Pretty sure Couturier had just come off the ice and the Filppula line before that.  Seems like it was a natural rotation, though, as I said above, I think there is some argument to the fourth line having more ice time down the stretch.  Doesn't look like they got a lot of time in the third period, but they were on the ice in the third when Nashville scored to make it 5-4.

 

Thought it was interesting that Hakstol chose Raffl to serve the penalty.  Maybe he doesn't think much of that line's defensive chops yet?

 

Actually, it's not hard to put Hagg in that situation. You've got to see if the young guys can sink or swim and once again, Hakstol relies on MacTurd and MacTurd screws up. Personally, I would have sent out Hagg and Sanheim. If they give up a goal, it's because this is a new experience for them and it's a learning experience. MacTurd has already shown he can't do jack **** in these situations.

 

Hakstol is a clueless putz. Seriously, he's Berube bad and Gord Murphy is right there with him. With the talent that's on this club, they're better than a .500 team. Just watch them out there and they're disorganized with no clue. It's time for an entirely new coaching staff that understands fundamentals, systems and on ice positioning. Todd MacLellan would have been such a good fit for this club......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, hf101 said:

Looks onside

 

 

9 hours ago, vis said:

Did Hakstol not know the consequences of an unsuccessful challenge?  Legit asking because I still don't know why you challenge in that situation.  

 

Were they mistakenly focused on Hartnell on the far boards?  That's who the Flyers' broadcast crew thought was offside.   The broadcast didn't seem to have any awareness that the guy in the middle stayed onside and therefore Hartnell's position was a non-issue.  Nashville crew had it right...

 

I get the feeling that the Flyers staff didn't have the video shown above.  They only had what was seen on TV.  It was sort of deceiving with Johanson (the puck carrier) not touching the puck after it crossed the blue line and Forsberg coming back to tag up (even though he was on side to begin with), then Hartnell appearing to go in just before Forsberg tagged up. 

 

Kudos to the linesman for getting the call right in a confusing situation.

 

Why the hell doesn't the NHL release the blue line camera angle until after the review?  That baffles me!?!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brelic said:

 

I get what you're saying... but isn't that exactly how rookies are going to learn? They're going to make mistakes, and we're going to lose games because of it. I remember Laviolette (I think?) putting an 18-year old Couturier out on a 5-on-3 kill late in a game against Boston. And IIRC, it was like Couturier's 3rd NHL game.

 

I say that's how these kids learn!

 

 

I see your point, but Laviolette put Coots out there because Coots was his best option at the time.  

 

He and Homer repeatedly talked about it not being what they'd prefer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

I get the feeling that the Flyers staff didn't have the video shown above.  They only had what was seen on TV.  It was sort of deceiving with Johanson (the puck carrier) not touching the puck after it crossed the blue line and Forsberg coming back to tag up (even though he was on side to begin with), then Hartnell appearing to go in just before Forsberg tagged up. 

How do they not have the angle?  I thought the league put in cameras at the blueline so that teams would have the most relevant angle?  

 

If they don't have that angle, then it shouldn't be challenged.

 

Inexcusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

I would be he has played pretty damn good so far. And he plays the right side.

He's been fine in his role.  Curious how he'd be getting first line minutes.  He and Ghost are the most sheltered pairing in terms of zone starts.  I wouldn't mind seeing Hagg paired with Provorov, but I'm not certain that would yield better results than Provorov/MacDonald.  And, in reality, MacDonald has not been terrible the first few games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

Actually, it's not hard to put Hagg in that situation. You've got to see if the young guys can sink or swim and once again, Hakstol relies on MacTurd and MacTurd screws up. Personally, I would have sent out Hagg and Sanheim. If they give up a goal, it's because this is a new experience for them and it's a learning experience. MacTurd has already shown he can't do jack **** in these situations.

See above.  Giving the young guys a big role doesn't necessarily mean the team will be better.  Sometimes developing young players and winning games are not co-existent.  If your primary focus is development, then, yeah, all the young guys should be getting critical minutes.  If your primary focus is on winning, then I don't think the young guys are guaranteed to be better than MacDonald.  And I definitely do not think a Hagg/Sanheim pairing is the way to fly late in the 3rd period with a one-goal lead on the road (again, assuming winning takes priority over development).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vis said:

How do they not have the angle?  I thought the league put in cameras at the blueline so that teams would have the most relevant angle?  

 

If they don't have that angle, then it shouldn't be challenged.

 

Inexcusable.

 

That angle shows it was obviously onside while the angle they showed on TV made it look like Hartnell was off.  The league put the cameras there so they could more definitively determine if the play was offside.  I'm just guessing the teams don't have that angle until after the challenge.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

I'm just guessing the teams don't have that angle until after the challenge.    

I think the point of the cameras was to give the teams the best information possible when making a decision to challenge.  Would be counterproductive to not give teams access to that angle until after the challenge.  If teams don't have that angle, then the current rules are ludicrous and the NHL should just do away with challenges altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vis said:

I think the point of the cameras was to give the teams the best information possible when making a decision to challenge.  Would be counterproductive to not give teams access to that angle until after the challenge.  If teams don't have that angle, then the current rules are ludicrous and the NHL should just do away with challenges altogether.

 

Welcome to the NHL.  :NinjaLookLeftRight1:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vis said:

I think the point of the cameras was to give the teams the best information possible when making a decision to challenge.  Would be counterproductive to not give teams access to that angle until after the challenge.  If teams don't have that angle, then the current rules are ludicrous and the NHL should just do away with challenges altogether.

 

Yeah and the whole damn point of the challenge is to get the call right not punish someone for using a tool to help in that matter.

 

Just moronic as hell to hand out a penalty on a challenge.

 

Sure only allow one or take away a timeout or something else but to penalize a team for using it is the dumbest thing ever...only in hockey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yeah and the whole damn point of the challenge is to get the call right not punish someone for using a tool to help in that matter.

 

Just moronic as hell to hand out a penalty on a challenge.

 

Sure only allow one or take away a timeout or something else but to penalize a team for using it is the dumbest thing ever...only in hockey...

 

I don't disagree with you but I also understand why the rule was instituted.  Last year there were 117 challenges for offside. 78 were upheld and only 39 were overturned.  Each review wasted time (some more than others).  And when you think about it, the challenging team didn't lose their timeout if they didn't win the challenge, they just used it for the challenge.  So there really was no penalty and the time spent for the review could have an effect on the scoring team's momentum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, elmatus said:

Were folks expecting a major upgrade of any sort anyway? I have no reason to believe Elliott is any better than Mason. He's never been a superstar anywhere else, why would he be one now for us?

I was expecting a lateral move.

I didn't see goals 5 and 6 but goal 4 was pretty fing sick. 

I think Elliot will be a steady .910 -  2.80- ish type goalie.  So for me all he needs to do is not, give up the constant back breaker, and then when he does occasionally, not throw his teammates under the bus.  The Flyers didn't sign Carey Price, that's not lost on me.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

 

I don't disagree with you but I also understand why the rule was instituted.  Last year there were 117 challenges for offside. 78 were upheld and only 39 were overturned.  Each review wasted time (some more than others).  And when you think about it, the challenging team didn't lose their timeout if they didn't win the challenge, they just used it for the challenge.  So there really was no penalty and the time spent for the review could have an effect on the scoring team's momentum.

 

I don't care you want them to get it right.

 

The whole purpose of it.

 

Just like the NFL they do the reviews they aren't alwasy overturned but the team who challenged it doesn't get penalize with the other team getting a free field goal or free hail mary.

 

They lose a timeout.

 

I get it. It's the whole point of it is because refs are human they make mistakes.

 

All we want is them to get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, fan4ever said:

I agree completely....

but

but

but

where are our $8M men?

Giroux has been pretty good so far. 3 points in 4 games, -2...he looks way better to me than he did last year.  

Voracek despite looking like a monkey ****** a football has 6 points in four games and is -2, so he's been on the score sheet.

They're doing what they're supposed to be doing. I'd like to see them as + players and think if they keep playing with 14 he'll lift them up  :hehe:    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yeah and the whole damn point of the challenge is to get the call right not punish someone for using a tool to help in that matter.

I get why they did it.  The GMs intended challenges to be used for instances where a linesman missed a clear offsides.  They did not intend challenges to be used for  ticky tack situations, especially when the offending offsides was in the distant past. They felt coaches were going beyond the spirit of what they intended and, in some cases, I think they thought coaches were abusing it.  The rule had no teeth.  So they implement a harsh penalty (literally) to make coaches think twice about using a challenge unless they are 100% sure.

 

I tend to agree with the GMs but I also get the sentiment that you should get the call right no matter how small the infraction.  I just think the implementation of the latter has flaws that are difficult to address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

Personally, I would have sent out Hagg and Sanheim.

Seriously?  You'd put out 2 players with 7 NHL games between them nursing a one-goal lead with about 2 minutes left?  No coach worth a pound of s### would do that in anything resembling reality and then have to explain to his team, his GM and the gathered press why he didn't have his #1 pair out there--or at least A pair that had worked together at all.

 

And when you'd lose with that, which you would, everyone would correctly be yelling, "what the hell is that idiot coach doing putting two rookies who haven't played together all game out there in the final minutes protecting a lead?"

 

And yeah you want to get the kids experience, but you're also trying to get a win.  You don't have "the kids" doing trig when they're just getting their feet wet in algebra.     There will be a time for that kind of experience.  Seven games between them ain't it.  

 

He had the right defense out there.  I don't like his choice of forwards.   Even that would have been okay.  They ended up with two unfortunate calls.   The only real travesty was the challenge call.   The other travesty was done in the GM office when he zeroed in and bargain-shopped for a goalie.

 

Todd McLellan?  Seriously?

 

I'm sorry.  Can't say I agree with a single word.

 

Edited by ruxpin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

Seriously?  You'd put out 2 players with 7 NHL games between them nursing a one-goal lead with about 2 minutes left?  No coach worth a pound of s### would do that in anything resembling reality and then have to explain to his team, his GM and the gathered press why he didn't have his #1 pair out there--or at least A pair that had worked together at all.

 

And when you'd lose with that, which you would, everyone would correctly be yelling, "what the hell is that idiot coach doing putting two rookies who haven't played together all game out there in the final minutes protecting a lead?"

 

And yeah you want to get the kids experience, but you're also trying to get a win.  You don't have "the kids" doing trig when they're just getting their feet wet in algebra.     There will be a time for that kind of experience.  Seven games between them ain't it.  

 

He had the right defense out there.  I don't like his choice of forwards.   Even that would have been okay.  They ended up with two unfortunate calls.   The only real travesty was the challenge call.   The other travesty was done in the GM office when he zeroed in and bargain-shopped for a goalie.

 

Todd McLellan?  Seriously?

 

I'm sorry.  Can't say I agree with a single word.

 

2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

Seriously?  You'd put out 2 players with 7 NHL games between them nursing a one-goal lead with about 2 minutes left?  No coach worth a pound of s### would do that in anything resembling reality and then have to explain to his team, his GM and the gathered press why he didn't have his #1 pair out there--or at least A pair that had worked together at all.

 

And when you'd lose with that, which you would, everyone would correctly be yelling, "what the hell is that idiot coach doing putting two rookies who haven't played together all game out there in the final minutes protecting a lead?"

 

And yeah you want to get the kids experience, but you're also trying to get a win.  You don't have "the kids" doing trig when they're just getting their feet wet in algebra.     There will be a time for that kind of experience.  Seven games between them ain't it.  

 

He had the right defense out there.  I don't like his choice of forwards.   Even that would have been okay.  They ended up with two unfortunate calls.   The only real travesty was the challenge call.   The other travesty was done in the GM office when he zeroed in and bargain-shopped for a goalie.

 

Todd McLellan?  Seriously?

 

I'm sorry.  Can't say I agree with a single word.

 

 

really? You must be :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

The only real travesty was the challenge call.   The other travesty was done in the GM office when he zeroed in and bargain-shopped for a goalie.

 

Yup. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leach27 said:

 

really? You must be :beer:

Yeah really. And I'm not. I mean,  let's keep this honest and grounded in reality. 

 

Had he had two rookies who DON'T play together out there and we cough that up, this board would be howling, and that's the God's honest truth. And justifiably. That was simply not a realistic option. 

 

And Todd McLellan? I'm not the one that needs a breathilizer. 

Edited by ruxpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the argument is MacDonald shouldn't be in the lineup at all and Hagg/Sanheim should be a regular pair, okay, I'll entertain that. But then I have whomever is paired with Provorov. But there is too much time left so you have to change. If in this hypothetical Sanheim /Hagg is a regular pair (I'd like to eventually see that pair) then yes. 

 

But no way in the context of that actual roster and the pairings available. If he has them out there out of nowhere and they lose, he gets crucified. 

 

And as it played out, MacDonald being out there is the least of my issues in that last 3+ minutes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ruxpin Good last few posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vis said:

@ruxpin Good last few posts.

 

Yeah, but to be fair, the rest of his posts are shite

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Yeah, but to be fair, the rest of his posts are shite

Agree.  Someone else must be ghost writing for him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vis said:

Someone else must be ghost writing for him.  

 

I've always suspected this. Hell, he's basically admitted it I think. Could be the bear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Yeah, but to be fair, the rest of his posts are shite

No doubt! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 5
      Post
      Wow where to begin with this comedy of blunders...   Terrible decision to have Weise and McDud out there at the same time I recall losing a in game OT last season  with this dynamic duo out there...   Horrible call on Weise to begin with...they could have given both players a penalty and just gone 4 on 4.  Horrible play by McDud to take a second penalty.   Then an equally horrible decision to challenge the goal at this stage with the new penalty rules in place for a lost challenge.  I mean this is a Western conference team so getting to OT was a priority.  No way you challenge there unless is is clear cut!!   I would fire the video guy after the game and put Haks on notice as this is a mental back breaker for the confidence of a young team who came back from 3 down only to blow a 2 goal lead and come away with nothing to show for it.   Absolutely sickening!!
    • 4
      Post
       lol...  
    • 4
      Post
      Are you calling him a Democrat? Please leave politics out of this LOL!
    • 4
      Post
      Upon further reflection, I still think Hakstol is dumb.  Unless you are 100% sure you win that challenge, you don't challenge.  Just atrocious decision-making.  Cost his team a point.   Elliott and Giroux didn't have strong games.  MacDonald and Gudas go the ice way to frequently.  Weise and MacD were pretty decent until The Shift.  Oh, and Sean Couturier had an opportunity to clear the puck before the Forsberg goal.  I think he would have liked to have that one back.   Look back at this one when they are hunting for a PO spot at the end of the year...
    • 4
      Post
        Controller disconnected?
    • 4
      Post
        Yeah, but to be fair, the rest of his posts are shite

About us

We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and the great game of hockey in our Forums. Our members may write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more. If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 Contact Us

 

Recent tweets

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×