GDT: Canucks @ Sens Nov. 12.

[Holdurbreathe]

2nd nuck goal was all on Hammond.

So was the first.

 

[BonkTastic]

So was the first.

Wasn't the first goal a deflection right in front of the crease?

Hard to blame the goalie on that, regardless of who it is in nets.

 

[Engineer]

Hammond played a strong game.

Goal 2 was poor, goal 1 was a deflection.

Miller let in a softy in Wideman's goal as well.

 

[Micklebot]

Wasn't the first goal a deflection right in front of the crease?

Hard to blame the goalie on that, regardless of who it is in nets.

I was a pass attempt that deflected off Widemans skate in the slot. It looked terrible at first as the 'shot' came from a low % area but not really the kind of goal you blame on a goalie imo.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Nah, not really. The opposite is true though.

Many of the in close shots were due to rebounds Hammond was giving up.

Hammond didn't play well and credit to him he stands up and admits it post game.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Wasn't the first goal a deflection right in front of the crease?

Hard to blame the goalie on that, regardless of who it is in nets.

While the shot did hit a skate, Hammond deflects the puck with his stick and it goes up and over into the net.

Had he stayed square and just let the puck come to him, I don't believe there is a goal.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

I was a pass attempt that deflected off Widemans skate in the slot. It looked terrible at first as the 'shot' came from a low % area but not really the kind of goal you blame on a goalie imo.

The puck definitely hit a skate, but that isn't what caused the goal IMO.

 

[Micklebot]

Many of the in close shots were due to rebounds Hammond was giving up.

Hammond didn't play well and credit to him he stands up and admits it post game.

Rebound chances are in a larger font, based on what I see there, they only had one rebound chance (rush shots are larger and italics).

Now, some of the rebounds may have lead to the opposition recovering the puck and getting another chance long enough afterwards that it wasn't considered a rebound chance, so you could still be right.

Hammond admiting to not playing well post game is likely more just disapointment with the late goal than a true reflection of his overall performance.

 

[BonkTastic]

Had he stayed square and just let the puck come to him, I don't believe there is a goal.

And staying square and just letting he puck come to him would probably result on goals on other deflections.

Deflections are often times a crap-shoot for a goalie to stop.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Rebound chances are in a larger font, based on what I see there, they only had one rebound chance (rush shots are larger and italics).

Now, some of the rebounds may have lead to the opposition recovering the puck and getting another chance long enough afterwards that it wasn't considered a rebound chance, so you could still be right.

Hammond admiting to not playing well post game is likely more just disapointment with the late goal than a true reflection of his overall performance.

Actually what he referred to was his rebound control which allowed the second and third opportunities.

I believe he said something along the line that the shot count was a lot his doing.

Personally I like him in the net, I think his demeanor gives the D confidence even when he isn't at his best.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

And staying square and just letting he puck come to him would probably result on goals on other deflections.

Deflections are often times a crap-shoot for a goalie to stop.

Don't disagree, but I still believe when a pass or shot is coming from the wall almost at the goal line, the goalie needs to stay square and rely on his D/forwards to protect the backside.

The goal was misfortunate for sure but was stoppable IMO.

For the record I hope Hammond plays Saturday simply because the team seems to play better when he is in the net, though it is likely Andy plays.

 

[Cosmix]

Isn't that our tactic ? Didn't people analyze this last year, and basically attributed the entire Hammond run on the fact that he gives up rebounds right into the slot, and since we always collapse, we get possession a lot of the time.

While Andy, who is a much better goalie technically, kicks his rebounds (when realistically possible) to the corners, where our guys never go, so we end up chasing everyone in our own zone?

I distinctly remember that being a thing and then telling a coworker about it.

It also explained why Hammond sucks in all other leagues but is somehow a god on the Sens (who are too lazy to move out of the slot)

I agree that Anderson is the better goaltender, and that the collapsing forwards in front of the net does help to get pucks from rebounds, but it is the slowness of some of the defensemen that is the problem with getting the puck in the corners and then making passes to get out of the defensive zone.

Last season we had three slow defensemen: Cowen, Wiercioch and Gryba. Far too many for this modern era game. We still have two which is one if not two too many.

However, It is not easy to find and develop or trade for better defensemen. Chabot might develop into one, but he is one and probably at least two years away. Other than him, there are no solutions with potential in the Senators system. A trade would require giving up some good assets as no team will part with good assets without getting some back. If the team wants to get better now (I.e., in the next year or two), it will likely have to part with some of its future assets (I.e., first round draft picks), as its current assets are not sufficiently abundant to give up without creating problems elsewhere in the lineup.