Because Shane Price was activated and put on a conditioning stint (requires roster spot).The team is carrying a bunch of extra defensemen. I doubt it, but I guess maybe. Why else IR?
I don't disagree, but Bergeron just has his number.
Or if they score 1 goal with the 4 PP, they got , they get at least 1 point , see it can work both ways
One of the most concerning things to me is that we always seem to play Boston the same way and I feel we never win against them. I mentioned it in another post, but it feels like we've been playing the Bruins the same way for the past 10 (or 12 ) years. It doesn't matter the roster. It's the same game every single time and I feel like we have lost the vast majority of them. We don't play those tight games well. We never have. We never adapt. We need to figure these things out as we approach the half-way point. It is absolutely imperative.
Look at the second goal. Good goalies don't let bad goals up in close games. In case you haven't noticed, Halak does that daily.
Did you forget to watch Pittsburgh game too? Florida? Gimme a break.
Because Shane Price was activated and put on a conditioning stint (requires roster spot).
Now we are bringing up the second goal? You mean the one buried in the top corner on a perfect shot? The kind of goal that goes in nightly across the league as a guy spins and uses the defender as a screen? You are talking about that goal correct? Or maybe Halak was supposed to save the empty netter?
Geez, Halak has been miserable this season, but the peanut gallery can just stop with the ridiculousness. He let in a marginally bad goal on an uncontested semi breakaway. Make many key saves throughout the game. The PP let this team down last night. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
roster is already full with prince backHickey on IR, eligible to come back on Saturday against LAK.
I wonder if we see Toews make a cameo? He might not play, but maybe he gets a call up?
Guess you listen to the game on mute and didn't hear Butchie and Brendan talking about how Rask lasted all of 45 minutes total in the two games we played against them last season. He got lit up and yanked twice. Again, folks only remember the downs, completely ignore the ups. There is a Rounders quote there for you somewhere.
Or, I can simply watch the game and see that they literally don't play well against Boston the vast majority of the time.
2008-2009:
0-4 vs. Boston
6-17 goals for and against
2009-2010:
2-2 vs. Boston
12-10 goals for and against
2010-2011:
1-3 vs. Boston
11-16 goals for and against
2011-2012:
1-3 vs. Boston
8-20 goals for and against
2012-2013:
1-2 vs. Boston
5-9 goals for and against
2013-2014:
2-1 vs. Boston
11-10 goals for and against
2014-2015:
1-2 vs. Boston
6-9 goals for and against
2015-2016:
0-3 vs. Boston
5-10 goals for and against
2016-2017:
2-1 vs. Boston
9-4 goals for and against
2017-2018 (so far):
0-1 vs. Boston
1-3 goals for and against
A team will win a game here and there, sure. However, in the previous 9 completed seasons and 1 current season we have a staggering 10 wins against Boston and 22 losses. I don't care how many times they chased Rask last year, they don't match up well against Boston and haven't for almost 10 years.
I actually watched the replay because I thought I remembered it wrong. When you said "top corner on a perfect shot" I thought you were wrong and after watching the replay you are 100% wrong.
Maybe if Halak wasn't INSIDE THE CREASE the puck wouldn't have gone in. Cut down the angle, it is not that difficult. The angle was off on the first goal despite Halak coming out to cut the angle down, but the second goal is laughable how he played that. My coach from high school would lay into me for letting the second goal in, not because the shot beat me, but because I stayed inside the crease on a shot that was taken from the HIGH SLOT.
Or we can say it was top corner on a perfect shot that goes in nightly across the league, that's good too I guess.
Was a wicked wrister on a screen shot. no goalie is going to come charging out if he can't even see the puck. Sitting back he has time to pick it up. Have to agree to disagree but saying i'm 100% wrong just because it didn't go top "corner" even though it did beat him up high is silliness. You aren't addressing the screen at all. And watch some other replays of other games and you'll see how often those go in.