Frosty415
Registered User
Man, I hope the Pens lose game 6.
all these journalists blowing the pens will start to look silly
all these journalists blowing the pens will start to look silly
Well we just got lucky and if the pens play exactly like that but not give up 3 goals they will win.
Sigh
I don't believe any of the goals were lucky, but the results of working puck. Burns' goal was from likely seeing a weakness of Murray before the game, and as a result, they worked to exploit that weakness.
I'm wondering if by lucky, you mean the post ringers.
Both Karlsson and Pavs goals were misdirection executed extremely well. Couture and Thornton sold the fake of driving the puck further, but execute a pass for the score. Couture's, in particular, was a thing of beauty.
Pens have been biting and over-committing throughout most of this series, and it's nice to see the Sharks waking up and take advantage of that. They need to keep doing that, avoid losing momentum on the PK, and get their PP back.
Karlsson's goal wasn't luck. Murray has been beaten above the left pad and under the glove 3 games in a row (Ward game 3, Karlsson game 4, Karlsson game 5). It's a weak spot the Sharks need to keep aiming for. If he adjusts, the top part of the net will be open.
They certainly tried to keep Pittsburgh to the outside while not taking many risks offensively in the final 40.
I know Pitt is dominating the shot clock, and a lot of that credit should be going to their shot blocking ability. However, most of SJ's goals were legit deflections or snipes. Pitt keeps scoring off weird bounces. Despite that, the entire media narrative is that SJ is getting all the lucky breaks. I guess it's easier to just watch the shot clock and stick with that narrative though.
Yes, Murray should better have that angle on Burns's goal, but Burns' shot (just like Donskoi's) was indeed a perfect snipe.
Haha, Braun just "sent the puck towards the goal". I'm fine with that in isolation, but wait until you see the next goal description:
What. The. ****.
Bouncing off Hagelin's body is pure skill.
Wait, what? An unguarded wrister from the slot is a bad goal now? W.T.F. Murray hasn't been great, but the Sharks scoring chances, while few, have been dynamite.
Well, okay, maybe the coverage of officiating will be a bit unbiased.
I'm ok with this, although I'd say the hooking on Pittsburgh was let go most of the game as well, and it took several scoring chances negated by too many men before the refs finally called it. I'm not sure why only the Sharks are called out here.
In conclusion, I'm not saying the Sharks are dominating. I'm not saying Murray hasn't let in a couple stinkers (Ward's slapper comes to mind). But man, the Sharks are ****ing burying their opportunities and Jones is stonewalling Pitt's. I agree Pitt is carrying the play and the difference has been Jones. But, if we're talking just about bounce goals, it's Pitt who's been lucky.
P.S. And no, when you hit the post with your shot that wasn't unlucky, that was you lacking the skill to find space between the goalie and the post---if it even existed. There's a reason that's not even considered a shot on goal.
I think any goal that involves Brenden Dillon getting an assist constitutes lucky.
Obviously we're getting lucky. 45 saves from Jones? But we've been on the other side of this many times and been called chokers for losing. I don't care how we do it as long as we win.
The Pens have also been lucky. First two games of the series could have easily gone the Sharks way.
I sort of see where they're coming from on the first and third goals on Murray. The Burns goal unfolded a lot like the Donskoi goal but Burns' goal didn't go over his shoulder. It didn't ramp up like Donskoi's did and go bar down. It was a pretty clean shot that beat him short side because he wasn't on the post. He was on the post for Donskoi's goal but either Schultz or Malkin's stick ramped it up and right over his shoulder.
The third one was a little tougher because that was a changeup shot due to it being on edge. They're going to look at it as soft because it wasn't a hard shot but a goalie is expecting a hard shot there and a changeup can screw things up from that close. So I can see both arguments on that one.
I guess, because the scores were close, but they outshot us by a lot. Even more so if you believe shot blocking is a skill. Again, don't care if we're lucky if we win.
I disagree about the Burns goal. That's a type of goal that we saw victimize Jones so many times during the early season and that's a result of poor post work by the goalie. Have the player swing a little wide and there are just a ton of holes that a shooter can get through.
Here's an article about it:
http://ingoalmag.com/technique/reverse-vh-common-issues-proper-execution/
I disagree about the Burns goal. That's a type of goal that we saw victimize Jones so many times during the early season and that's a result of poor post work by the goalie. Have the player swing a little wide and there are just a ton of holes that a shooter can get through.
Here's an article about it:
http://ingoalmag.com/technique/reverse-vh-common-issues-proper-execution/
Murray leaves holes everywhere. Why I'm frustrated with the Sharks shooters.
This is certainly hyperbole. Patty is right on Pavs' heels as a producer on the power play and is miles better as an option in that situation defensively if you're going to go that route but I would've sat Couture in that spot and gone Marleau-Thornton-Pavs with Vlasic-Burns on the point.
I think pointing to that article is a good argument on the Donskoi goal but the Burns goal, it didn't even look like Murray got from one side to the other in time because he never even established position whether reverse-VH or just getting off the post because he was coming out to the dot. He just looked slow getting over entirely. It's a bad goal just because he didn't establish any sort of positioning to try and make the save and it's on the American league side which is never good. lol
Agreed, every one was talking about Murray being weak high glove and the Sharks were aiming there earlier in the series but man he leaves a bunch of openings to put the puck past him if only the Sharks would put more shots on the nets.
That's what I was getting at. Marleau is #5 on that unit so he was first off for Vlasic to protect against the SH but still have an offensive threat on the PP.
Defensively, Patty > Pavs but Couture and Patty are a wash defensively but offensively, Couture >> Marleau - at least that's what I infer from Deboer's move.
Anyhow, not trying to stir up the Patty hater crowd. I just, for once, would love to see him absolutely take out the body or block an absolutely ridiculous shot like Vlasic, Pavs and Couture have. The kind of "holy **** this dude is really giving it" type. Is that too much to ask?
https://streamable.com/uul7
The clip of the goal does show Murray dropping into the reverse-VH and recognizing too late that he needs to transition out of it.
I don't believe any of the goals were lucky, but the results of working puck. Burns' goal was from likely seeing a weakness of Murray before the game, and as a result, they worked to exploit that weakness.
I'm wondering if by lucky, you mean the post ringers.
Both Karlsson and Pavs goals were misdirection executed extremely well. Couture and Thornton sold the fake of driving the puck further, but execute a pass for the score. Couture's, in particular, was a thing of beauty.
Pens have been biting and over-committing throughout most of this series, and it's nice to see the Sharks waking up and take advantage of that. They need to keep doing that, avoid losing momentum on the PK, and get their PP back.