Post-Game Talk: Zatkon, Zatkoff. Penguins keep their EYE on the prize, beat Rangers 5-2

Status
Not open for further replies.

mpp9

Registered User
Dec 5, 2010
32,613
5,067
I'm just happy they're replacing Kunitz and not PH on Sid's line. I was really worried that they wouldn't separate those two when changing that line up.

I'm definitely all for Malkin on wing if it means 71-87-72.
 

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
More ass-covering for Sullivan. :laugh: The "Sheary gets less effective with more TOI" thing is as dumb as the "We wanted Murray to get experience in a high pressure situation" defense for Murray playing a meaningless game against the Flyers and getting concussed.

How would we know if Sheary would get worse with top line minutes? Have we ever tried it? I don't care what Sullivan saw in WBS. He wasn't playing on a line with Sidney Crosby and Patric Hornqvist.

We might not know, but Sullivan probably has an idea. Look, I know all coaches make mistakes, are stubborn as hell, and play favorites, but let's not act like Sheary is some stud that the coach is misusing. I actually think Sully has done a really nice job maximizing the usefulness of the kids. He tries not to give them too much too soon. Would I like to see Sheary with Sid more? Sure, but it wasn't long ago most of us had him as an extra forward. I think we need to exercise a little patience here. Kunitz played less than 16 minutes. That's a damn good sign.
 

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
To be fair though would our last two coaches have even given Sheary a chance with Sid.

Gibbons got a shot so maybe with DB. It really depends on the options. DB certainly wouldn't have demoted Kunitz for Gibbons though. Of course, Kunitz was a better player 2 years ago.
 

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
40,091
18,198
Our last two coaches would not have given Sheary a chance on the team. Same for most of the other contributing rookies.

No but this is also why I can not wait for Kunitz to be off this team. He represents the last of the "old regime" or "old ways". After him, everyone earns their spot.

Gibbons got a shot so maybe with DB. It really depends on the options. DB certainly wouldn't have demoted Kunitz for Gibbons though. Of course, Kunitz was a better player 2 years ago.

I was about to mention the Gibbons fluke :laugh:
 

MtlPenFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2010
15,629
754
I think both teams have better efforts in them frankly. Neither played bad or anything, I just don't think we saw either's best.

Rangers may have somewhat outplayed us (maybe) but it doesn't really matter when Zatkoff is in net and you're not creating rebounds or driving to the net. If they were willing to pay more of a price (similar to Hornqvist honestly) they would stand a great chance to win any game we start Zatkoff in, but they didn't do that.

Pretty convinced that was as well as the Rangers could play.
 

mpp9

Registered User
Dec 5, 2010
32,613
5,067
Yeah, the Rangers played a good game. They just don't have the speed they had in years past. And their defense sucks.
 

Joejosh999

Registered User
Mar 13, 2014
2,738
465
Pretty convinced that was as well as the Rangers could play.

Agreed. For the first 20-30 mins they smothered us.

I thought for a road team starting first game , they came out as well as they possibly could. Outshot, outhit, won puck battles.....Their weaknesses were exposed eventually (Staal / Girardi for ex) but that is just who they are, not a huge collapse off their norm. I get tickled by NY writers saying they were awful. They were actually great for at least half the game, then they were themselves , and they lost 5-2 to a depleted team playing its #3G.

This series is ours to win or lose, Zat or not.
 

Joejosh999

Registered User
Mar 13, 2014
2,738
465
My greatest concern was how we seemed extremely cautious, I'm assuming to protect Zat.
Perhaps it was all nerves but I don't think so.

The story was told on PK, which was the first time we really let our wheels roll - and it was so obvious how that could overwhelm the Rags. We seemed to finally be ourselves on the PK first. Then once we got the shorty, we relaxed and became ourselves the rest of the way.
 

IcedCapp

Registered User
Aug 7, 2009
35,854
11,225
he didn't have a choice with Gibbons, IIRC. Dupuis was injured, along with just about everyone else.
 

mpp9

Registered User
Dec 5, 2010
32,613
5,067
Cullen was terrible in the 1st. I don't think he's had a bad game in months. That was definitely a sign the team wasn't going to be on top of its game.
 

MtlPenFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2010
15,629
754
And perhaps more importantly, the Pens have to compensate in other areas to minimize those risks. Changing a goalie has a lot of ripple effects.

It's not just that, but the timing of it.

Think about it. The Rangers had to be amped up knowing they were going from thinking they were going to face Fleury to a third string goalie. I know I'd have an extra spring in my step.

By contrast, the Pens players find out an hour before the game that MAF isn't playing and while probably not instructed to do so, nature being what it is they're thinking they should maybe dial back their aggressive nature, something they've been honing for months now.

I won't put it all on that, but you have to think it played a pretty big role.
 

Joejosh999

Registered User
Mar 13, 2014
2,738
465
The NYR thread says no permanent damage to Lundquist's eye. Relief there. As a G myself using that Cats-Eye cage, always the nightmare scenario that a stick tip finds its way through somehow.

Glad Hank's eye is OK.

But no word on whether he will play Sat and as we know they've brought up a guy from the A.
 

Joejosh999

Registered User
Mar 13, 2014
2,738
465
It's not just that, but the timing of it.

Think about it. The Rangers had to be amped up knowing they were going from thinking they were going to face Fleury to a third string goalie. I know I'd have an extra spring in my step.

By contrast, the Pens players find out an hour before the game that MAF isn't playing and while probably not instructed to do so, nature being what it is they're thinking they should maybe dial back their aggressive nature, something they've been honing for months now.

I won't put it all on that, but you have to think it played a pretty big role.

Thought about that myself.....it seemed it would give a jump to the Rags, and (maybe) give our guys just that little bit of pause? Dunno. I thought we sure looked very cautious for the first half.

So was Sully's mind game so smart ? Esp given Jarry was stone cold as the backup.

Not convinced it was all worth it.
 

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
40,091
18,198
Cullen was terrible in the 1st. I don't think he's had a bad game in months. That was definitely a sign the team wasn't going to be on top of its game.

Everyone was bad but when they built that 2-0 lead, everyone relaxed a bit and came into their own - Cullen included.
 

IcedCapp

Registered User
Aug 7, 2009
35,854
11,225
Cullen also seemed to be *trying* to play chippy. He was getting in people's faces, shoving, slashing, etc... I think he was just settling into the fun
 

Headshot77

Bad Photoshopper
Feb 15, 2015
3,887
1,822
Props to the woman showing off the Tarnstrom jersey about five rows behind Raanta in the second period. Hey, not many defensemen can brag that they led their team in scoring for a season.

So, should we be saying that Simon Despres is no Dick Tarnstrom instead?
 

UnderratedBrooks44

Registered User
Sep 13, 2005
17,564
315
Miranda's house
Pretty convinced that was as well as the Rangers could play.

We'll see. Unless they're just completely incapable of going to the net or getting ahold of a rebound I think they could be better. For them I think it's just going hard to the crease and creating second chances and for us it's simply having the puck more and figuring out how to break up ice as a unit with speed.
 

BlacknGold4life

Registered User
Sep 22, 2014
444
13
Our last two coaches would not have given Sheary a chance on the team. Same for most of the other contributing rookies.

Thats why I am a firm believer that you replace a head coach in the NHL with the AHL coach. He knows the prospects the most. He knows the team and their strengths and weaknesses and bring in an outside prospective for a veteran team like we were. You should be using the AHL to groom your next head coach (ALWAYS). Sometimes they will leave if a team offers them a job (like John Haines) and they will leave but that ok get your next coaching prospect.
 

pucky

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
8,079
172
The NYR thread says no permanent damage to Lundquist's eye. Relief there. As a G myself using that Cats-Eye cage, always the nightmare scenario that a stick tip finds its way through somehow.

Glad Hank's eye is OK.

But no word on whether he will play Sat and as we know they've brought up a guy from the A.
Do they think he'll return this series?

The 'Cats-Eye' cage has been around for a while, at least from the early-to-mid-80s, in which goalies wore them usually with a helmet. IIRC, Andy Moog ('83/'84 thereabouts) was one of the first to wear them, often with a Cooper helmet. I can't remember any incidents in which a stick went through the mask - which was then attached to helmets.

Which makes me wonder about the equipment manufacturers and why they haven't come up with a safety 'add-on' for the Cats-Eye cages that are the norm nowadays coupled with the fiberglass portion? I don't see why they don't try something like attaching a face shield section to cover the cats-eye space much like the common throat shield pieces that are attached to some of the masks. Just clip it on to the cage and maybe drill small holes to ensure it doesn't fog up?

I guess I went off topic.

So, questions: Will Hank return? When will Fleury return? Will Murray miss the series or is there any chance he'll be healthy enough even to be back-up at some point this series?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Thats why I am a firm believer that you replace a head coach in the NHL with the AHL coach. He knows the prospects the most. He knows the team and their strengths and weaknesses and bring in an outside prospective for a veteran team like we were. You should be using the AHL to groom your next head coach (ALWAYS). Sometimes they will leave if a team offers them a job (like John Haines) and they will leave but that ok get your next coaching prospect.

Yeah, we did that before with very mixed results.

This is not a team that you train a green NHL head coach on.

We got lucky with Sullivan, just like we got lucky and got a good game from Zatkoff.

That does not make it the rule though.
 

Finesse

nostromo
Dec 9, 2013
4,632
426
Do they think he'll return this series?

The 'Cats-Eye' cage has been around for a while, at least from the early-to-mid-80s, in which goalies wore them usually with a helmet. IIRC, Andy Moog ('83/'84 thereabouts) was one of the first to wear them, often with a Cooper helmet. I can't remember any incidents in which a stick went through the mask - which was then attached to helmets.

Which makes me wonder about the equipment manufacturers and why they haven't come up with a safety 'add-on' for the Cats-Eye cages that are the norm nowadays coupled with the fiberglass portion? I don't see why they don't try something like attaching a face shield section to cover the cats-eye space much like the common throat shield pieces that are attached to some of the masks. Just clip it on to the cage and maybe drill small holes to ensure it doesn't fog up?

I guess I went off topic.

So, questions: Will Hank return? When will Fleury return? Will Murray miss the series or is there any chance he'll be healthy enough even to be back-up at some point this series?

My guess is Lundqvist won't be out for too long. Perhaps a game. I think he'll be back by Tuesday, unless his condition is worse than currently advertised. I'd also guess that one of Fleury or Murray are back for that Tuesday game as well. I don't see the battle of the backups going on for too much longer. But who knows.
 

Sjoelbak

Registered User
Oct 5, 2015
184
9
Leiden, Netherlands
Do they think he'll return this series?

The 'Cats-Eye' cage has been around for a while, at least from the early-to-mid-80s, in which goalies wore them usually with a helmet. IIRC, Andy Moog ('83/'84 thereabouts) was one of the first to wear them, often with a Cooper helmet. I can't remember any incidents in which a stick went through the mask - which was then attached to helmets.

Which makes me wonder about the equipment manufacturers and why they haven't come up with a safety 'add-on' for the Cats-Eye cages that are the norm nowadays coupled with the fiberglass portion? I don't see why they don't try something like attaching a face shield section to cover the cats-eye space much like the common throat shield pieces that are attached to some of the masks. Just clip it on to the cage and maybe drill small holes to ensure it doesn't fog up?

I guess I went off topic.

So, questions: Will Hank return? When will Fleury return? Will Murray miss the series or is there any chance he'll be healthy enough even to be back-up at some point this series?

And some windshield wipers for the snow on it every time you go down and someone gives you a snow shower? Fogging up isn't the problem. I played with glasses and some shampoo keeps the fog away, but the snow...

The high sticks was my main reason to never play with a cat-eye, but a normal cage on my goalie helmet.
 

pucky

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
8,079
172
My guess is Lundqvist won't be out for too long. Perhaps a game. I think he'll be back by Tuesday, unless his condition is worse than currently advertised. I'd also guess that one of Fleury or Murray are back for that Tuesday game as well. I don't see the battle of the backups going on for too much longer. But who knows.
Didn't Fleury miss a month (why do I think it was 8 games?) after his 2nd concussion? That potentially means that Murray would miss the 1st round series at least?

They are usually very conservative in their return nowadays - timing but also must stay symptom free for so many days consecutively?

As for Lundqvist, it depends on how well the eye heals, I think. There's the vision factor but also whether the eye is 100% and no irritation or problem. I don't know if he wears contacts, too, but that's another intangible.

I would like to add to my previous post with the acknowledgement that there are 'certified' cats-eye cages to the masks nowadays but not yet required/mandatory by the NHL. Hrudey and the other analysts did mention something about the GMs/NHL probably discussing a new rule on goalie masks so look at them possibly discussing such a change for next year?

They look like this:
http://www.goaliemonkey.com/vaughn-goalie-mask-7700-certified-cat-eye.html
http://www.goaliemonkey.com/bauer-goalie-accessories-nme-certified-cat-eye-cage.html
 

pucky

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
8,079
172
And some windshield wipers for the snow on it every time you go down and someone gives you a snow shower? Fogging up isn't the problem. I played with glasses and some shampoo keeps the fog away, but the snow...

The high sticks was my main reason to never play with a cat-eye, but a normal cage on my goalie helmet.
They get a snow shower all the time no matter what mask they wear.

Most won't want a regular cage unless it becomes mandatory. I think they claim it interferes with vision and it's hard to get used to. Hrudey says it doesn't take long and he used the regular cage his entire career.

I just posted about a 'certified' cats-eye cage and I suppose a stick or puck can't get through? I suppose the NHL and goalies will look at which options provide the best combination of safety and vision?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->