GDT: Game 30 - BUF vs. STL at 7 PM ET on MSG-B and WGR

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

Kane is supposed to recognize Jack has that man and drop back as the last line of defense in support. He doesn't need to go to the 3rd guy who is no where near the play or a danger at that time. Man to man coverage ,if employed at 3v3, happens in our end not there.

No one is ever supposed to surrender being the last line of defense and go PAST the puck carrier to go cover a guy behind him over on the opposing blueline in that situation. Had Kane played it properly, they could have sealed Tarasenko off along the half wall.

I'm not denying if Kane stays left that goal doesn't happen. But that goal equally doesn't happen if Jack didn't engage glide mode a second too early. Again, you assume Kane was not told by Housley to do what he tried to do. Both players are at fault for me as they should give the other a verbal in such a situation and it seems neither did, the rest in terms of who to put the bigger blame on depends on what Housley is asking them to do. But everyone here is acting as if it was 100% Kane's fault and there is absolutely no doubt about it. And then I am framed as a hater of certain players...

 

[Jame]

I'm not denying if Kane stays left that goal doesn't happen. But that goal equally doesn't happen if Jack didn't engage glide mode a second too early. Again, you assume Kane was not told by Housley to do what he tried to do. Both players are at fault for me as they should give the other a verbal in such a situation and it seems neither did, the rest in terms of who to put the bigger blame on depends on what Housley is asking them to do. But everyone here is acting as if it was 100% Kane's fault and there is absolutely no doubt about it. And then I am framed as a hater of certain players...

That's because he knows what he's talking about. It's not an assumption.

Maybe there is a sport that will make it easier for you to understand.... If a batter lays down a bunt, and then runs to 3rd base. What you are saying is, "How do you know that's not what the manager has been teaching him to do"?

Nothing about Kane's movement/spacing on that play was correct. Under any system, coaching, or guidance (to be fair, Kane is not a D... but he was playing one).

 

[Jame]

It's absolutely hilarious how you guys assess this 3on3 situation as if it's 5on5 hockey. Housley and only Housley can state what the instructions to the team in the room are for such a play. Blaming either player without knowing what is being coached is just hating considering how little margin for error they both had here. If Kane goes to cover Tarasenko is completely capable to make a drop pass behind him for a 2on1. If Kane goes to cover the pass behind, we get what actually happened yesterday. Normally I'd expect Eichel to stay with his man there and Kane to go for coverage behind him on 3on3 situation but I still wouldn't blame Jack without knowing what Housley is preaching. You can make Kane scapegoat for this teams misfortunes but i promise you we will not suck any less when he's gone (and he will be gone almost surely so stay patient and wait for it to happen..)

This only makes sense (in the context of Kane's play on the OT goal), if the fundamentals of the game are not something you understand.

 

[brian_griffin]

That's because he knows what he's talking about. It's not an assumption.

Maybe there is a sport that will make it easier for you to understand.... If a batter lays down a bunt, and then runs to 3rd base. What you are saying is, "How do you know that's not what the manager has been teaching him to do"?

Nothing about Kane's movement/spacing on that play was correct. Under any system, coaching, or guidance (to be fair, Kane is not a D... but he was playing one).

Which is why I said earlier any d-man or the other listed Sabre forwards I named would have sealed Tarasenko to the boards.

@those who think blame was on Eichel, or shared 50/50 with Kane, do you think Risto heads up ice if he & Kane were switched sides? Do you think any other Sabre d-man or forward would have abandoned the puck-carrier's side of the ice and headed up ice to cover a Blue not yet to the red line?

Doesn't matter whether it's 5-on-5, 5-on-4, 4-on-4, 4-on-3, 3-on-3, when you are the last man back, facing the puck carrier, you play the puck carrier and let the lesser threats go.

For those hypothesizing Kane was "thinking" and waiting to pounce on a poached puck / Eichel takeaway: Isn't the higher percentage play for Kane to wall-off Tarasenko by moving laterally, and let Eichel either retrieve a dump-in to the Sabre zone, or hook left to recover the puck / break up a pass?

 

[Duddy]

You can blame Jack for thinking Kane would do the right thing.

 

[sabrebuild]

Just saw the replay of that it play.

Look it’s pretty clear that I am one of if not the most critical of Jack’s defensive game particularly for his effort.

In my deepest spot of rationalizing my gut thought that Eichel can do better on that play, I think with his attributes, the situation and The Who the puck carrier is, I want Eichel to go hero mode and hound tarasenko into the wall.

But that is dumb and could just as easily turn into Kane over committing to the puck and allowing an easy pass to the middle.

If you watch that replay and don’t think Kane was borderline Pejorative Slured.... I can only say go watch Bogo on crosby’s One hand goal last year.

This is not even remotely close.