stanleycaps18
I cheer for laundry
I thought Eller scored as well. If you look under the pad as the puck is going in, the puck is there, but NBC never blew up the shot the way they did for Pitt. I am glad it ended up not mattering, but still...
18-19-65 would not be a shutdown line. I think it would work really well actually.
That would force Nick in a shutdown role, and I'm not sure I want an injured superstar to be doing that.
That's very common after having chemo treatments.
Sure, they had a few fortuitous bounces offensively tonight but that's what happens when you believe and when you are the constant aggressor. Keep it going.
There is a big difference between turtling and an offensive push by your opponent. This wasnt even close to turtling. Really guys. Is that the only hockey term you know. Learn something new.
We came out for the third with an obvious, huge change in our gameplan.
I guess that depends on what you mean by huge. In your opinion on a 100 point scale with 50/50 being right down the middle between emphasis on offense and defense what were they doing in the first 2 periods and what did they start the 3rd period with? And with a 4 goal lead going into the 3rd what kind of change in emphasis should a team have, if any?
I disagree. Yes the Caps have turtled few times this year. I don't think last night was one of them. And the term is used here every game. It is overused. Definitely the mist overused term on the Caps board.Condescending much? Insisting that you're the only one who knows what you're talking about is the reason you're cast as the villain on 3 separate Capitals forums.
Yes, it can get tiresome when fans that aren't hockey savvy rely on platitudes to diagnose things they don't understand. But that's not what's happening here. This isn't the official forum or its castoff cousin. The hockey IQ here is much higher.
The Caps turtled at the start of the third last night. It was a choice. We cut back dramatically on the forecheck, stopped backchecking as hard to cover the point, and were chipping it out to get fresh legs on instead of playing anything resembling a strong possession or transition game. It was NOT in any way just TB asserting themselves, pressing and overwhelming us.
We came out for the third with an obvious, huge change in our gameplan. If you didn't see that, then it's your hockey IQ that needs work.
Maybe they use the word "turtle" here a bit too much. Can't say that I've noticed it, but maybe. But it was not even a little out of place last night. What they called turtling was absolutely turtling.
I like your optimism.I'm predicting a game 3 Backstrom return when we head home 2-0.
You do realize when a team is putting pressure on your defense sometimes the only option is to chip it out. You guys think you have all the answers. When a team us trailing in the 3rd they are going to take more chances especially dmen pinching not allowing their opponent to use their transition game and forcing them to chip it out. You cant stick with what was working earlier because your opponent has completely changed their game plan."Huge" has its own meaning.
Systems in hockey aren't as linear as saying, "We're focusing 50% on offense and 50% on defense," and then, later, "Okay, let's go 75% D." There's no simple explanation for the change, but if I had to try, here's an oversimplification:
Periods 1 and 2: A nuanced, proactive approach in both ends that emphasized pursuit -- heavy forecheck and backcheck, yielding possession for us and disruption for them.
Start of Period 3: "Come at me, bro."
We collapsed around our own net, tried to give them only bad looks and low-risk opportunities, chipped it out instead of transitioning with possession, focusing more on platooning fresh legs on than dictating play and challenging them in all phases. We switched from proactive to reactive hockey, daring a team that punches well to punch us. We went from dominating and breaking their spirit to basically inviting their players and fans to get back into it.
That seems huge to me. Your mileage may vary.
Should we have let up with a 4-goal lead? The gung-ho among us would shout "No!" But yeah, you should switch things up a bit. Make adjustments, but stick with what's working.
"Huge" has its own meaning.
Systems in hockey aren't as linear as saying, "We're focusing 50% on offense and 50% on defense," and then, later, "Okay, let's go 75% D." There's no simple explanation for the change, but if I had to try, here's an oversimplification:
Periods 1 and 2: A nuanced, proactive approach in both ends that emphasized pursuit -- heavy forecheck and backcheck, yielding possession for us and disruption for them.
Start of Period 3: "Come at me, bro."
We collapsed around our own net, tried to give them only bad looks and low-risk opportunities, chipped it out instead of transitioning with possession, focusing more on platooning fresh legs on than dictating play and challenging them in all phases. We switched from proactive to reactive hockey, daring a team that punches well to punch us. We went from dominating and breaking their spirit to basically inviting their players and fans to get back into it.
That seems huge to me. Your mileage may vary.
Should we have let up with a 4-goal lead? The gung-ho among us would shout "No!" But yeah, you should switch things up a bit. Make adjustments, but stick with what's working.
You do realize when a team is putting pressure on your defense sometimes the only option is to chip it out. You guys think you have all the answers. When a team us trailing in the 3rd they are going to take more chances especially dmen pinching not allowing their opponent to use their transition game and forcing them to chip it out. You cant stick with what was working earlier because your opponent has completely changed their game plan.
I'm predicting a game 3 Backstrom return when we head home 2-0.
txMD calling for sources on medical diagnoses? What is happeningBased on what?
You do realize when a team is putting pressure on your defense sometimes the only option is to chip it out. You guys think you have all the answers. When a team us trailing in the 3rd they are going to take more chances especially dmen pinching not allowing their opponent to use their transition game and forcing them to chip it out. You cant stick with what was working earlier because your opponent has completely changed their game plan.
I don't have all the answers but I am not second guessing the game plan the coaches put in place.You think you have all the answers too, hasn't stopped you from being wrong plenty of times. Take a moment, remember you're not the board appointed "expert" either, and take yourself down a peg or three. You would think that you'd have learned some humility after the crow you were willing to choke down (and good for you for doing so unprompted, for what it's worth) by the end of the last series....
In this case, it's not about chipping the puck, it's about the lack of pursuit and support after the chip. That's the turtle, right there. When you've decided that X goals is "enough", and outside of the chances that fall directly into your team's lap, you're not interested in creating any more. Believe it or not, you can actually defend a lead without having to play in the defensive zone. Get pucks in deep, support them, stifle their breakout, basically do all the same things the Capitals were doing through two periods. They can't score if they don't have the puck, playing the game like it's still 0-0 is another way to win.
Forcing them to take desperate penalties down late, instead of adopting a reactive, defensive game that could force Capitals into taking penalties instead. Don't give them an entire third period to analyze and pick apart your team's defensemen, avoid epiphany moments where they suddenly solve a goaltender, etc.
You can win games that way. They won Game 6 in Pittsburgh that way.