Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Ducks @ Canes 1/17 7:30

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Uh no, it's not. It was on all on Svech in the neutral zone for allowing the breakaway, and even having played an outstanding 60 minutes, Reimer couldn't make that save.

Uh yes.  Watched it again.  Gardiner is guarding a phantom opponent over by the boards (doing a very good job of preventing no one from getting by him wide) while allowing the bigger threat inside to unfold in front of him just fast enough whereupon he can not recover to deny the opportunity, and yes, Reimer had no chance.  Very poor defensive play, don't know what you are watching.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, beboplar said:

Uh yes.  Watched it again.  Gardiner is guarding a phantom opponent over by the boards (doing a very good job of preventing no one from getting by him wide) while allowing the bigger threat inside to unfold in front of him just fast enough whereupon he can not recover to deny the opportunity, and yes, Reimer had no chance.  Very poor defensive play, don't know what you are watching.

Gardiner was irrelevant in that play. Gardiner was joining the rush until Svech turned the puck over. The turnover caused the entire breakaway. Cant blame Gards for Svech making a bonehead play and bonehead play for 60 mins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

Gardiner was irrelevant in that play. Gardiner was joining the rush until Svech turned the puck over. The turnover caused the entire breakaway. Cant blame Gards for Svech making a bonehead play and bonehead play for 60 mins.

If you say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

Gardiner was irrelevant in that play. Gardiner was joining the rush until Svech turned the puck over. The turnover caused the entire breakaway. Cant blame Gards for Svech making a bonehead play and bonehead play for 60 mins.

 

 

I can see it both ways.  It's hard not to shake your fist at Svech for fumbling the puck but if i'm the defenseman, i'm recognizing the fact that regardless what happens ahead of me, there's an opposing forward behind me so i'm holding back a couple strides rather than going all-in on the rush - gotta know when to pinch and when not to.  That kind of thinking isn't in Gardiner's arsenal, though - while he's made a couple great defensive plays recently that saved goals, he's still an offense-first defensemen (who we all know i have little use for) whose defensive positioning has never been a strength, and those were his downfalls here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

I can see it both ways.  It's hard not to shake your fist at Svech for fumbling the puck but if i'm the defenseman, i'm recognizing the fact that regardless what happens ahead of me, there's an opposing forward behind me so i'm holding back a couple strides rather than going all-in on the rush - gotta know when to pinch and when not to.  That kind of thinking isn't in Gardiner's arsenal, though - while he's made a couple great defensive plays recently that saved goals, he's still an offense-first defensemen (who we all know i have little use for) whose defensive positioning has never been a strength, and those were his downfalls here.

Just to follow up, anyone here who thinks Gardiner's play on the game losing goal was adequate/sufficient/smart defensive work should start preparing for losing games, more than once in a while.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just to follow up, anyone here who thinks Gardiner's play on the game losing goal was adequate/sufficient/smart defensive work should start preparing for losing games, more than once in a while.

We gained control of the puck on a turnover leaving the opposing O man behind us. We then had an opportunity for an ideal 3 on 2 with posession. No one would of questioned Gards joining the rush for a great scoring opportunity if Svech didnt hand it over on a platter. 3 on 3 is not the same as 5 on 5. Most OT wins come off of an odd man rush. I certainly dont want a D man sitting on the blue line watching 2 O men trying to break through 3 defenders.  Yeah Gards couldn't catch him but Reims was also sitting to deep, he should of come out to challenge him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

We gained control of the puck on a turnover leaving the opposing O man behind us. We then had an opportunity for an ideal 3 on 2 with posession. No one would of questioned Gards joining the rush for a great scoring opportunity if Svech didnt hand it over on a platter. 3 on 3 is not the same as 5 on 5. Most OT wins come off of an odd man rush. I certainly dont want a D man sitting on the blue line watching 2 O men trying to break through 3 defenders.  Yeah Gards couldn't catch him but Reims was also sitting to deep, he should of come out to challenge him. 

Of course, since you have 6,913 posts, you must be correct.  Having watched hockey since the early '60's I wouldn't have a clue.  "Gards" was guilty of guarding nobody except the boards.  Just for the record, the boards did not score the winning goal.  The player "Gards" did not cover adequately scored the goal.  Nothing to do with Reimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slapshot02 said:

Totally burying Svech.

I didn’t see the play he made against Columbus that may have set up the winning goal, but he definitely fumbled away the Kings game. Maybe this is a message to him that we will play you on a line with more defensively responsible players, even at the expense of losing some offense. Everyone has been saying that Rod needs to require more accountability. Maybe this is it. And maybe these lines change in one period if our offense is still inept. Svech still gets PP time though, so he can score there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, beboplar said:

Of course, since you have 6,913 posts, you must be correct.  Having watched hockey since the early '60's I wouldn't have a clue.  "Gards" was guilty of guarding nobody except the boards.  Just for the record, the boards did not score the winning goal.  The player "Gards" did not cover adequately scored the goal.  Nothing to do with Reimer.

Yeah,  blame the guy who got hit by the car not the guy driving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bluedevilcane said:

I didn’t see the play he made against Columbus that may have set up the winning goal, but he definitely fumbled away the Kings game. Maybe this is a message to him that we will play you on a line with more defensively responsible players, even at the expense of losing some offense. Everyone has been saying that Rod needs to require more accountability. Maybe this is it. And maybe these lines change in one period if our offense is still inept. Svech still gets PP time though, so he can score there.

 

 

Decent point but then RB follows it up by putting Svech out in OT with our least-defensively responsible defenseman and off it goes.  Not sure if this is a contradiction or simply validation that in today's NHL, coaches are more-concerned with forwards being defensively-responsible than they are with defensemen being defensively-responsible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

Yeah,  blame the guy who got hit by the car not the guy driving it.

I am actually blaming the toll booth operator who decided to take a break and let the car run the toll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, beboplar said:

Just to follow up, anyone here who thinks Gardiner's play on the game losing goal was adequate/sufficient/smart defensive work should start preparing for losing games, more than once in a while.

I don't think anyone thinks that but to single out the miscue of just one player doesn't make any sense either. The bottom line is if Svech had not coughed up the puck unnecessarily, who knows how the game would have turned out. One thing that stood out the most to me the entire OT was the total lack of patience, by every line Brindy put out there. 3 on 3 you have a lot more room and time but there was no regrouping or allowing guys to get into position to open up the ice and pick their entries. For the most part it seemed like they were all fixated on breakaways and stretch passes.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 9:15 PM, top-shelf-1 said:

, Everybody else deserves to, but letters don't sit, so get used to seeing Jordan and Martinook in the lineup too.

 

I thought this too, but it turns out letters can sit in Rod's world.

 

I gotta think nook is still hurting from his surgery.

Edited by wxray1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Whaler1 said:

I don't think anyone thinks that but to single out the miscue of just one player doesn't make any sense either. The bottom line is if Svech had not coughed up the puck unnecessarily, who knows how the game would have turned out. One thing that stood out the most to me the entire OT was the total lack of patience, by every line Brindy put out there. 3 on 3 you have a lot more room and time but there was no regrouping or allowing guys to get into position to open up the ice and pick their entries. For the most part it seemed like they were all fixated on breakaways and stretch passes.     

There is truth to that, however, like basketball, that is what rim defenders are in the game for.  Forwards make plays knowing they have a line of defense behind them to compensate for chances gone wrong.  Those defenders are counted on to make sound plays and if they (removed*) there is still a goalie behind them.  In this case the goalie had 0 chance of stopping that puck because the defender was not in position to prevent the shooter from getting off the shot he wanted from the position he wanted.  Again, "Gards" had the boards very well protected and even though I haven't ever since the boards score a goal, hmmm, it may happen someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, beboplar said:

Again, "Gards" had the boards very well protected and even though I haven't ever since the boards score a goal, hmmm, it may happen someday.

 

Every now and then the stanchions on the glass score a nice goal when the goalie goes back behind the net for the rim-around.  Not something that even "Gards" could protect against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wxray1 said:

 

Every now and then the stanchions on the glass score a nice goal when the goalie goes back behind the net for the rim-around.  Not something that even "Gards" could protect against.

Have you wondered why "Gards" was on the trading block forever with no takers and remained unsigned as a free agent until the Canes surprisingly took a flyer on him?

Share this post


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

Have you wondered why "Gards" was on the trading block forever with no takers and remained unsigned as a free agent until the Canes surprisingly took a flyer on him?

 

Because he can't guard the goals off the stanchions?  :sarcasmalert:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, wxray1 said:

 

Because he can't guard the goals off the stanchions?  :sarcasmalert:

Who would you rather have on defense, Jake Gardiner at $4.05M for 4 years or Haydn Fleury at $850K?

 

Who would you rather have on defense, Jake Gardiner or Haydn Fleury at the same price?

Edited by beboplar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wxray1 said:

I thought this too, but it turns out letters can sit in Rod's world.

 

I gotta think nook is still hurting from his surgery.

Yup. I should have been clear: Letters who aren't hurt/still recovering don't sit. Nookie has not been the same since his surgery. The goal in EDM was sweet, but that's been about it.

 

I also can't help noticing that (the other) Marty's drop-off set in about a week after taking that puck to the face and the hard check into the boards the night after. I hope he's still being monitored for post-concussive symptoms.

 

The energy that would come from getting some guys up here from CLT could be just what the doctor ordered... as someone (constantly) says...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...