Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
hopper915

Post Game Analysis vs. Washington 4/1

Recommended Posts

Guest
Samsonov would have, unless he's changed since his Montreal days.

Samsonov has thrown punches to stick up for himself as well as teamates in several games here. Guess he's changed, or just happy cause last night he racked up yet another point since coming here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samsonov has thrown punches to stick up for himself as well as teamates in several games here. Guess he's changed, or just happy cause last night he racked up yet another point since coming here.

Has he thrown down the gloves? Because i thought that's what he was implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many time have you see people get up, dust off and the go charging in head long into the fight. Happens all the tiem in the tame sport of baseball... Staal is a big boy not a little kid that a bully can intimidate... :angry:

I would have to say that is in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has he thrown down the gloves? Because i thought that's what he was implying.

He hasn't necessarily thrown down the gloves, but he did punch someone in the face. It was against Minnesota. I can't remember who the player was, but he went to take a cheap shot on Sammy and Sammy clocked him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are misconstruing both the look he gave, a sheepish grin b/c he knew he embellished and also had it coming after trying to knock the puck out of Huet's glove, and the role not the mention the circumstance.

Any interpretation of the look Staal had when he was cross checked into the boards after stoppage of play, is just that -- interpretation. I would expect to read yours, however, on the Craps board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good player VS superstar fight. Staal is good but not on level of Ovechkin.

Since the All-Star game or when Brindy went down, isn't Staal the leading scorer in the NHL? Don't confuse superstar with flash. Oh yeah, Ovenchicken throws himself into the boards after he scores in a little bit of ego display, I forgot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any interpretation of the look Staal had when he was cross checked into the boards after stoppage of play, is just that -- interpretation. I would expect to read yours, however, on the Craps board.

When you take into account the entire circumstances of what happened and why, which few want to take the time to do here in their haste to make generalizations, it is hardly an interpretation. He tried to get under Huet's skin, got a reaction and it happened to land Ovechkin in the penalty box during a time they were on a 4 minute PP. It's not too tough to understand why he had a smirk on his face.

For the record, I was giving Staal credit for what he did with the baiting and embellishment to sell the penalty so I'm not sure what your Caps board comment means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you take into account the entire circumstances of what happened and why, which few want to take the time to do here in their haste to make generalizations, it is hardly an interpretation. He tried to get under Huet's skin, got a reaction and it happened to land Ovechkin in the penalty box during a time they were on a 4 minute PP. It's not too tough to understand why he had a smirk on his face.

For the record, I was giving Staal credit for what he did with the baiting and embellishment to sell the penalty so I'm not sure what your Caps board comment means.

I'd go as far as to say Laviolette probably said to do it, at least in general.

[edit] referring to Staal in Huet's face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd go as far as to say Laviolette probably said to do it, at least in general.

[edit] referring to Staal in Huet's face.

I wouldn't be the least surprised and it was actually a very savvy play when you actually take time to analyze it. You have a 4 minute PP to kill off vs. a team with lethal skill and a primary killer in the box. It wasn't just happenstance.

Last year against the Caps at this time of year, Gleason got a knee-on-knee hit that was worthy of retaliation but it was in a close game during the playoff race and he was praised for being level-headed and smart.

Staal actually went one step beyond that and gets bashed for not standing up to AO. Go figure, but some people just don't understand circumstance and nuance I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be the least surprised and it was actually a very savvy play when you actually take time to analyze it. You have a 4 minute PP to kill off vs. a team with lethal skill and a primary killer in the box. It wasn't just happenstance.

Last year against the Caps at this time of year, Gleason got a knee-on-knee hit that was worthy of retaliation but it was in a close game during the playoff race and he was praised for being level-headed and smart.

Staal actually went one step beyond that and gets bashed for not standing up to AO. Go figure, but some people just don't understand circumstance and nuance I guess.

And others don't understand how one wins the hearts of those he's trying to lead. Staal could be a great leader, but it won't happen until he joins his teammates in the trenches and brings the complete game that Tripp Tracy keeps yammering about him already bringing. The physical element - be it clean checks or the will to mix it up - is just not there, your situational rationalizations notwithstanding.

There is nobody I'd rather see setting up our scorers or putting the puck in the net himself. But physical toughness is a part of this game too, and down 2-1 in the division-clinching game is the perfect time to respond to a cheapshot by the opposition's best player. If he does - and all it needed to be was to get up quickly and put his gloves in AO's face, which is rarely penalized - I think there's a good chance that the emotional boost it gives his team could have changed the tone and carried the Canes to victory in that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And others don't understand how one wins the hearts of those he's trying to lead. Staal could be a great leader, but it won't happen until he joins his teammates in the trenches and brings the complete game that Tripp Tracy keeps yammering about him already bringing. The physical element - be it clean checks or the will to mix it up - is just not there, your situational rationalizations notwithstanding.

That one wins the hearts because if Wallin doesn't pick up the penalty, Staal returns to the bench with a sheepish grin on his face from suckering Ovechkin into a dump penalty that would have negated 2 minutes of power play. There are more than tough guy dynamics on a team, otherwise guys like LaRose would be dead by now because their team mates wouldn't put up with their antics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And others don't understand how one wins the hearts of those he's trying to lead. Staal could be a great leader, but it won't happen until he joins his teammates in the trenches and brings the complete game that Tripp Tracy keeps yammering about him already bringing. The physical element - be it clean checks or the will to mix it up - is just not there, your situational rationalizations notwithstanding.

There is nobody I'd rather see setting up our scorers or putting the puck in the net himself. But physical toughness is a part of this game too, and down 2-1 in the division-clinching game is the perfect time to respond to a cheapshot by the opposition's best player. If he does - and all it needed to be was to get up quickly and put his gloves in AO's face, which is rarely penalized - I think there's a good chance that the emotional boost it gives his team could have changed the tone and carried the Canes to victory in that game.

But again you've already made up your mind and selectively applying your views and leadership criteria to the situation. How do you know if he has won his teammates over? I think they give him a lot of credit for stepping up in a primary role on the PK and or logging 25 mins/game routinely. Not to mention taking the team on his shoulders. In your estimation it would seem that non-physical guys like Koivu and Lidstrom aren't leaders either?

Right, a face-wash typically doesn't net a penalty but you've again ignored the situation. Staal would have had to get up and skate over to AO, and given the fact he had already gotten away with trying to poke the puck out of Huet's glove late, he would have most likely gotten a penalty. Ovechkin's cross-check was a reaction, not the initiation of a "cheap shot" as you keep stating. That is a huge difference.

No offense, but I'm not sure you even remember the situation correctly as you initially stated that "When the refs didn't buy in, Staal needed to stand up for himself and send a message to AO." They did buy in and Ovechkin got a roughing call. You must have also missed Staal nailing Ovechkin into the boards in their last game at the RBC when Cole wasn't.

If leadership equaled "clean checks of the will to mix it up" then why wasn't Craig Adams the C? :blink: Do you honestly think Brind'Amour at this stage of his career fits your narrow mold? Staal has more hits/game than Brindy does and more fights since the lock-out. But that really isn't the point. I criticized Staal for his half-hearted efforts earlier this year but there was nothing to criticize in that situation once you take everything into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But again you've already made up your mind and selectively applying your views and leadership criteria to the situation. How do you know if he has won his teammates over? I think they give him a lot of credit for stepping up in a primary role on the PK and or logging 25 mins/game routinely. Not to mention taking the team on his shoulders. In your estimation it would seem that non-physical guys like Koivu and Lidstrom aren't leaders either?

Right, a face-wash typically doesn't net a penalty but you've again ignored the situation. Staal would have had to get up and skate over to AO, and given the fact he had already gotten away with trying to poke the puck out of Huet's glove late, he would have most likely gotten a penalty. Ovechkin's cross-check was a reaction, not the initiation of a "cheap shot" as you keep stating. That is a huge difference.

No offense, but I'm not sure you even remember the situation correctly as you initially stated that "When the refs didn't buy in, Staal needed to stand up for himself and send a message to AO." They did buy in and Ovechkin got a roughing call. You must have also missed Staal nailing Ovechkin into the boards in their last game at the RBC when Cole wasn't.

If leadership equaled "clean checks of the will to mix it up" then why wasn't Craig Adams the C? :blink: Do you honestly think Brind'Amour at this stage of his career fits your narrow mold? Staal has more hits/game than Brindy does and more fights since the lock-out. But that really isn't the point. I criticized Staal for his half-hearted efforts earlier this year but there was nothing to criticize in that situation once you take everything into account.

Maybe I'm missing something here, storm, but it would seem that we all apply our views and criteria to the situation. That's the whole point of these analysis threads, after all.

In this case, your criteria is basically "Leaders don't risk negating the PP they've just earned by responding," and mine is, "Staal has a reputation as non-physical in AO's mind, and he needs to address that to compete against him effectively."

And we're both entitled to our positions. Yes, I do count the will to stand up for oneself crucial to effective leadership in this game. (Unless you're Wayne Gretzky. And Staal, while highly talented, is not). But more important in this situation is THIS TEAM, which halfway through the season was the non-physical laughingstock of the league. They turned that around thanks largely to Brookbank and Conboy. In the same way those guys were willing to stand up to their counterpart in Brashear, Staal needs to be willing to stand up to his, Alex Ovechkin.

I believe Eric has the respect of all his teammates, although, as you point out, I can't know that for certain. But regardless of that, this was an opportunity to stand up to Ovechkin on his home turf, and I think it's hard to see where his doing so would have resulted in anything other than a fired-up Canes bench. In a game that so much to do with attitude and momentum, I find his reluctance to seize that opportunity disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm missing something here, storm, but it would seem that we all apply our views and criteria to the situation. That's the whole point of these analysis threads, after all.

In this case, your criteria is basically "Leaders don't risk negating the PP they've just earned by responding," and mine is, "Staal has a reputation as non-physical in AO's mind, and he needs to address that to compete against him effectively."

And we're both entitled to our positions. Yes, I do count the will to stand up for oneself crucial to effective leadership in this game. (Unless you're Wayne Gretzky. And Staal, while highly talented, is not). But more important in this situation is THIS TEAM, which halfway through the season was the non-physical laughingstock of the league. They turned that around thanks largely to Brookbank and Conboy. In the same way those guys were willing to stand up to their counterpart in Brashear, Staal needs to be willing to stand up to his, Alex Ovechkin.

I believe Eric has the respect of all his teammates, although, as you point out, I can't know that for certain. But regardless of that, this was an opportunity to stand up to Ovechkin on his home turf, and I think it's hard to see where his doing so would have resulted in anything other than a fired-up Canes bench. In a game that so much to do with attitude and momentum, I find his reluctance to seize that opportunity disappointing.

Of course it's how fans view things but what I was referring to is that it seems that you a preconceived notion, i.e., that Staal won't stand up for himself, and you are viewing that situation solely from that perspective with a conclusion-first bias. A self-fulfilling prophecy of opinion, so to speak. With respect to criteria, you defined leadership very narrowly and if it was applied to the situation last year when Tanabe stepped up to fight after Brindy took a hit, you would be concluding that he isn't a very good leader. My point is that leadership is made up many things.

Sorry, but at the risk of beating an already dead horse you can't isolate the situation as you are. That was not the time to stand-up and draw matching roughing penalties. A leader sometimes lets a cooler head prevail and that was the time for it. Staal was not blindly run, AO was sticking up for Huet b/c Staal tried to agitate. That is a very different situation that AO coming up out the blue and cross-checking Staal. If he had for no reason, then I'm 100% in agreement with you but as it was, I think you're dead wrong. It was like a guy in basketball drawing a hard charging foul and you can only question him b/c he didn't offset the foul by shoving his opponent down. It makes no sense.

I never stated or implied you weren't entitled to your opinion but when you argue a point and get one of the key elements wrong, i.e., that the refs didn't buy it when they did, I think it's reasonable to challenge your perspective although you are certainly entitled to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it's how fans view things but what I was referring to is that it seems that you a preconceived notion, i.e., that Staal won't stand up for himself, and you are viewing that situation solely from that perspective with a conclusion-first bias. A self-fulfilling prophecy of opinion, so to speak. With respect to criteria, you defined leadership very narrowly and if it was applied to the situation last year when Tanabe stepped up to fight after Brindy took a hit, you would be concluding that he isn't a very good leader. My point is that leadership is made up many things.

Sorry, but at the risk of beating an already dead horse you can't isolate the situation as you are. That was not the time to stand-up and draw matching roughing penalties. A leader sometimes lets a cooler head prevail and that was the time for it. Staal was not blindly run, AO was sticking up for Huet b/c Staal tried to agitate. That is a very different situation that AO coming up out the blue and cross-checking Staal. If he had for no reason, then I'm 100% in agreement with you but as it was, I think you're dead wrong. It was like a guy in basketball drawing a hard charging foul and you can only question him b/c he didn't offset the foul by shoving his opponent down. It makes no sense.

I never stated or implied you weren't entitled to your opinion but when you argue a point and get one of the key elements wrong, i.e., that the refs didn't buy it when they did, I think it's reasonable to challenge your perspective although you are certainly entitled to it.

It doesn't matter that Staal drew the penalty. He wasn't going to get rung up for hustling to his feet and getting in AOs face, and bottom line, he didn't do it. I guess we'll have agree to disagree on this one, storm, but I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter that Staal drew the penalty. He wasn't going to get rung up for hustling to his feet and getting in AOs face, and bottom line, he didn't do it. I guess we'll have agree to disagree on this one, storm, but I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks.

I agree the conversation has been a good one but given the fact that Watson and his inexplicable rules interpretation were on the ice, that wasn't the time or place to risk and it absolutely mattered that he drew the penalty while the Caps explosive PP had a 4-min man advantage. And getting in AO's face? You have really downgraded the response now after talking about a physical response and using Brookbank and Brasher in the example. Hard to tell what your point is when it shifts so dramatically but so be it.

The Canes and Caps, including Ovechkin, remember Staal fighting Halpern when he was with Washington. Nobody took liberties with Staal in this last game and he basically goaded AO into a dumb penalty after he clearly buzzed Huet. If you want to define leadership in the narrowest of terms and correlate to responding in every instance without regard to circumstance, that's your call. I'll stick with the more traditional definition. Anyway enough of the dead horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the conversation has been a good one but given the fact that Watson and his inexplicable rules interpretation were on the ice, that wasn't the time or place to risk and it absolutely mattered that he drew the penalty while the Caps explosive PP had a 4-min man advantage. And getting in AO's face? You have really downgraded the response now after talking about a physical response and using Brookbank and Brasher in the example. Hard to tell what your point is when it shifts so dramatically but so be it.

The Canes and Caps, including Ovechkin, remember Staal fighting Halpern when he was with Washington. Nobody took liberties with Staal in this last game and he basically goaded AO into a dumb penalty after he clearly buzzed Huet. If you want to define leadership in the narrowest of terms and correlate to responding in every instance without regard to circumstance, that's your call. I'll stick with the more traditional definition. Anyway enough of the dead horse.

Ya know stormrider, I never downgraded anything. My overarching premise has been consistent: that Eric Staal needs to stand up for himself once in a while and that he let a great opportunity to do so slip by. Still you continue to your grammarian gymnastics in an effort to blow my basic point out of proportion. But what's a lot more interesting to me is that, despite my sincere effort to shake hands and simply disagree, you ABSOLUTELY MUST look right, and MUST have the last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya know stormrider, I never downgraded anything. My overarching premise has been consistent: that Eric Staal needs to stand up for himself once in a while and that he let a great opportunity to do so slip by. Still you continue to your grammarian gymnastics in an effort to blow my basic point out of proportion. But what's a lot more interesting to me is that, despite my sincere effort to shake hands and simply disagree, you ABSOLUTELY MUST look right, and MUST have the last word.

I'll end this discussion with this post and you can feel free to respond as many times as you like. The only reason I replied was b/c in your "final" commentary you fundamentally changed your premise. From a physical response to getting in his face. No verbal gymnastics there, those are your own words.

I think you are applying Broad Street leadership qualities to a situation where the right response was made. There you have it. Feel free to wrap it up and sorry if my points weren't clear enough. The thread is yours. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll end this discussion with this post and you can feel free to respond as many times as you like. The only reason I replied was b/c in your "final" commentary you fundamentally changed your premise. From a physical response to getting in his face. No verbal gymnastics there, those are your own words.

I think you are applying Broad Street leadership qualities to a situation where the right response was made. There you have it. Feel free to wrap it up and sorry if my points weren't clear enough. The thread is yours. ;)

O.K., now I see where the misunderstanding is. When I said "in his face" I wasn't using it in the colloquial sense but was still referring to the facewash, i.e., Staal coming up with gloves "in his face," so my apologies as well for lack for clarity.

More broadly, you're right that I am applying Broad Street leadership qualities. I think that if more of the veterans had responded to the more physical tone teams were taking against us early in the season rather than letting our AHLers do it later, the season's outcome would have been better and we'd have actually suffered fewer injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O.K., now I see where the misunderstanding is. When I said "in his face" I wasn't using it in the colloquial sense but was still referring to the facewash, i.e., Staal coming up with gloves "in his face," so my apologies as well for lack for clarity.

More broadly, you're right that I am applying Broad Street leadership qualities. I think that if more of the veterans had responded to the more physical tone teams were taking against us early in the season rather than letting our AHLers do it later, the season's outcome would have been better and we'd have actually suffered fewer injuries.

You are right about the injuries but as long as lavi keeps playing this system guys are going to be dropping out of the line up. I don't understand the softness on this team.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...