GDT: #29| New York Islanders @ Boston Bruins| December 9th | 7:00 PM | F/L 3-1

PB37

Mr Selke
Oct 1, 2002
25,297
19,299
Maine
I don't disagree, but Bergeron just has his number.

It's not just Tavares, so don't feel bad. Bergeron wins something crazy like 95 ( 97 maybe? it's been awhile since I last checked ) out of his top 100 matchups over his career. He's a defensive freak who will go down as the best defensive center of all time.
 

LeapOnOver

Mackenzie is a hack!
Jan 23, 2011
12,471
3,674
Iksan, S. Korea
www.leaponover.com
Or if they score 1 goal with the 4 PP, they got , they get at least 1 point , see it can work both ways

This...when a goalie lets in 2 goals the whole game and one of them was stoppable, yet he gets ragged on when a team doesn't cash in on 4 PP, that's atrocious. Too many amateur posters out there putting blame in the wrong spot. When your goalie lets in 2 goals and you can't win, something failed up front.

With that said, I hope Doug Weight took notes. That sir, is what team defense looks like.
 

LeapOnOver

Mackenzie is a hack!
Jan 23, 2011
12,471
3,674
Iksan, S. Korea
www.leaponover.com
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.

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.
 

LeapOnOver

Mackenzie is a hack!
Jan 23, 2011
12,471
3,674
Iksan, S. Korea
www.leaponover.com
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.

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.
 

YearlyLottery

The Pooch Report
Feb 7, 2013
11,361
7,615
South Carolina
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.

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.
 

Groin Of Bates

Registered User
Jan 11, 2007
4,320
230
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.
 

LeapOnOver

Mackenzie is a hack!
Jan 23, 2011
12,471
3,674
Iksan, S. Korea
www.leaponover.com
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.

Well I would argue they "used" to not match up well against Boston. Things change, their team is not the same. We dominated them last year. If this year we finish poorly against them then i'll say last year was an aberration. If we finish strong against them you'd have to agree the tides are changing.

But sure, if your point was that from 2011-2016 we didn't play well against Boston...okay. I also know the price of tea in China if you are interested.
 

LeapOnOver

Mackenzie is a hack!
Jan 23, 2011
12,471
3,674
Iksan, S. Korea
www.leaponover.com
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.
 
Last edited:

YearlyLottery

The Pooch Report
Feb 7, 2013
11,361
7,615
South Carolina
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.

Well you were the one who said he went top corner, not me. Before you start making claims make sure you know exactly what went on, or else somebody is obviously going to call you out.

The screen did not stop him from coming out and addressing the shooter, also the way Hickey was turned at the time makes me believe it was not a full on screen. I do watch replays of other games, and when a shot like that goes in when it is that weak of a shot usually:

a.) The goalie did not come out enough
b.) The goalie was screened
c.) The goalie just drops to his knees and he gets beat up high

All three happened against Halak and he could've done something about two of them. I'll just agree to disagree, he had an awesome game against Washington and I am happy about that. No point in dwelling on a goal he let up against Boston, I just wanted to reply to you at least.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->