Post-Game Talk: #1| New York Islanders @ Buttplugs | May 29th | 8:00 PM | F/L 5-2

[Seph]

My God, they had that defensive forward and the Bruins top line did work the Islanders over. Surely after 19 shots, a hat trick and 6 points you guys would have let this go....

I mean, that defensive forward was the only player on the team with a positive +/- in that game, but sure, he makes sense to single out here for the Islanders getting worked over at even strength.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

I mean, that defensive forward was the only player on the team with a positive +/- in that game, but sure, he makes sense to single out here for the Islanders getting worked over at even strength.

Not singling him out, I am simply saying we were worked over even with him in there.
No sense in continuing to sacrifice offense if the end sum is still the same defensively.

 

[Seph]

Not singling him out, I am simply saying we were worked over even with him in there.
No sense in continuing to sacrifice offense if the end sum is still the same defensively.

If you're expecting a player to prevent goals when he isn't on the ice, then maybe your expectations are unreasonable.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

I mean, if you're expecting a player to prevent goals when he isn't on the ice, then maybe your expectations are unreasonable.

Again, I am talking about totality. Not much difference between a +1 and 0 with those guys, especially when Komarov wasnt out there on the PK nor when we were already trailing in the third (needing offense)

It isn't just preventing goals but also SCORING GOALS.

Their top line got 19 shots, 12 scoring chances, a hat trick and 6 points; while our top line barely managed any offensive zone time, continue to lose face offs (Matt and Leo are a combined 15% in last 4 games against them- 4 for 22) and had a measly 3 SOG.

Absolutely no reason to continue to use Komarov on that top line if they are still getting scoring chances at will while our offense continues to struggle

I think the cat is out of the bag (I hope) and BT will finally replace him in G2

 

[Seph]

Again, I am talking about totality. Not much difference between a +1 and 0 with those guys, especially when Komarov wasnt out there on the PK nor when we were already trailing in the third (needing offense)

It isn't just preventing goals but also SCORING GOALS.

Their top line got 19 shots, 12 scoring chances, a hat trick and 6 points; while our top line barely managed any offensive zone time, continue to lose face offs (Matt and Leo are a combined 15% in last 4 games against them- 4 for 22) and had a measly 3 SOG.

Absolutely no reason to continue to use Komarov on that top line if they are still getting scoring chances at will while our offense continues to struggle

I think the cat is out of the bag (I hope) and BT will finally replace him in G2

You do understand that having a positive +/- means the team outscored the opponent when he was on the ice at ES, right? Singling him out when the team played better when he was on the ice than they did when he wasn't seems pretty biased, but ok.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

You do understand that having a positive +/- means the team outscored the opponent when he was on the ice at ES, right? Singling him out when the team played better when he was on the ice than they did when he wasn't seems pretty biased, but ok.

Of course I know what +/- means. What is getting missed on all of the pro-Leo types on here is that scoring also effects your plus/minus, not just preventing goals.

The Bruins top line was toying with us the entire game, and I doubt that an offensive minded winger would have made it even worse than what transpired defensively, but I am pretty confident it would have been different offensively.

Yes, Leo is the better defender than both Matty and Jordan (who had 0 on +/-) but the only reason they too were NOT also +1 (they were all three on the ice for the Pelech goal that Leo got the secondary assist on) was because Beau was in there in a 2-2 tie (needing offense) instead of Komarov on McAvoy's top of the key wrister. No, Leo wouldn't have changed anything on that goal going in, as he probably would have joined in on the board battle that was happening prior. It was just one of those shots (with about a 1-2% success rate, I mean he was almost touching the blue line) that found its way in and Sorokin didn't see it

But for the millionth time, I am not singling Leo out; I am simply saying that if the Bruins are still outshooting us by 20 and that line is going off, then no need to go with the obviously limited Komarov on that top line. Especially if you think that the Islanders must get Barzal going if they have any realistic chance of winning this series

 

[Seph]

Of course I know what +/- means. What is getting missed on all of the pro-Leo types on here is that scoring also effects your plus/minus, not just preventing goals.

The Bruins top line was toying with us the entire game, and I doubt that an offensive minded winger would have made it even worse than what transpired defensively, but I am pretty confident it would have been different offensively.

Yes, Leo is the better defender than both Matty and Jordan (who had 0 on +/-) but the only reason they too were NOT also +1 (they were all three on the ice for the Pelech goal that Leo got the secondary assist on) was because Beau was in there in a 2-2 tie (needing offense) instead of Komarov on McAvoy's top of the key wrister. No, Leo wouldn't have changed anything on that goal going in, as he probably would have joined in on the board battle that was happening prior. It was just one of those shots (with about a 1-2% success rate, I mean he was almost touching the blue line) that found its way in and Sorokin didn't see it

But for the millionth time, I am not singling Leo out; I am simply saying that if the Bruins are still outshooting us by 20 and that line is going off, then no need to go with the obviously limited Komarov on that top line. Especially if you think that the Islanders must get Barzal going if they have any realistic chance of winning this series

Dude, I can read the several posts where you single him out. Why would you even try to lie about that?

Also, Barzal is an adult and supposedly a star talent. He needs to get himself going.

 

[MJF]

Dude, I can read the several posts where you single him out. Why would you even try to lie about that?

Also, Barzal is an adult and supposedly a star talent. He needs to get himself going.

If Barzal can't self-start in a big spot then he's got a serious problem.

You can't be stubborn about changing your style. We've seen Barzal thrive in regular season games as a north-south player. We saw him playing like that later in the Penguins series and it was a lot better showing than what he brought to Game 1 against the Bruins.

The Bruins are a team whose skilled players can play a heavy game. What would make Barzal or anyone think he's going to be allowed the space to be elusive on his skates? Is his plan really to just skate around guys? It's not going to work. At least not while the Bruins have the last line change and Barzal won't get a favorable matchup.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

Dude, I can read the several posts where you single him out. Why would you even try to lie about that?

Also, Barzal is an adult and supposedly a star talent. He needs to get himself going.

If stating the obvious (that he is extremely limited offensively) is singling him out then fine, sure I was (have been).

Singling him specifically out that we didn't (and haven't in the last 4 games in Boston where they have outshot us by 63 and outscored us 18-8) stop them- that I did not do. Komarov BY FAR has been the best defender of the three- but he is also a complete black hole on the offensive end.

 

[Seph]

If stating the obvious (that he is extremely limited offensively) is singling him out then fine, sure I was (have been).

Singling him specifically out that we didn't (and haven't in the last 4 games in Boston where they have outshot us by 63 and outscored us 18-8) stop them- that I did not do. Komarov BY FAR has been the best defender of the three- but he is also a complete black hole on the offensive end.

If you are going to single out players for not scoring, it makes more sense to start with the supposed offensive talents who aren't providing as much on the other the side of the puck.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

If you are going to single out players for not scoring, it makes more sense to start with the supposed offensive talents who aren't providing as much on the other the side of the puck.

Only when one has been hurting us more than the other. I see no indication that Barzal/Eberle in these playoffs are hurting us defensively as much as the collective line has struggled offensively

 

[Seph]

Only when one has been hurting us more than the other. I see no indication that Barzal/Eberle in these playoffs are hurting us defensively as much as the collective line has struggled offensively

That they aren't hurting us defensively with Leo on the line is more reason to keep him there, not the other way around. They do need to pick up their game offensively, but giving up 4 goals is not indication that we should be sacrificing defense, it should tell you we need to do a better job of it.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

That they aren't hurting us defensively with Leo on the line is more reason to keep him there, not the other way around. They do need to pick up their game offensively, but giving up 4 goals is not indication that we should be sacrificing defense, it should tell you we need to do a better job of it.

Who said anything about sacrificing defense? We had Komarov out there and their first line still went bananas on us. I repeat, I dont think an offensive minded winger would have done worse (and most certainly would have done better than giving us three measly SOG and ZERO points). That top line had 19 SOG, one scored a hatty and they combined had 6 points. It simply didnt work.

ABSOLUTELY cannot continue to be outshot by a large margin and expect to win the game.

We are 5-1 against the Bruins when shots are close, 0-3 when they are not. We have been outshot by 63 in the last four games (outscored 18-8) and are 0-4- and that is with Leo being out there.....

 

[Seph]

Who said anything about sacrificing defense? We had Komarov out there and their first line still went bananas on us. I repeat, I dont think an offensive minded winger would have done worse (and most certainly would have done better than giving us three measly SOG and ZERO points). That top line had 19 SOG, one scored a hatty and they combined had 6 points. It simply didnt work.

ABSOLUTELY cannot continue to be outshot by a large margin and expect to win the game.

We are 5-1 against the Bruins when shots are close, 0-3 when they are not. We have been outshot by 63 in the last four games (outscored 18-8) and are 0-4- and that is with Leo being out there.....

Yes, that is all good reason to focus on playing better defensively and not lessening the minutes of one of the few players who did play well defensively that game. And especially does not indicate we should put our two weakest defensive forwards with a less defensively capable forward, especially in a road game where the opposing team is better able to line match than we are.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

@MattMartin I don't mean to intrude, but I have to know if there is any significance to calling the Bruins "buttplugs" because it kind of cracked me up and I'm curious.

 

[MattMartin]

@MattMartin I don't mean to intrude, but I have to know if there is any significance to calling the Bruins "buttplugs" because it kind of cracked me up and I'm curious.

They call us the fish sticks, I call them the butt plugs.

 

[Big L]

They call us the fish sticks, I call them the butt plugs.

There was probably a good joke there about him being curious about butt plugs.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

They call us the fish sticks, I call them the butt plugs.

Fish Dicks at Buttplugs, can't-miss TV!

This sounds like something GWAR would have written a song about in the 1990's.

 

[Mr Misunderstood]

ABSOLUTELY cannot continue to be outshot by a large margin and expect to win the game.

1. You do know who coaches this team and what his philosophy is, right?

2. The shot discrepancy is grossly exaggerated because the Boston home official's bias and the quality of those chances.

 

[SayItAintSoJohnny]

1. You do know who coaches this team and what his philosophy is, right?

2. The shot discrepancy is grossly exaggerated because the Boston home official's bias and the quality of those chances.

I have no idea how "quality" or "bias" those shots are counted really. I do know people in here were complaining about us only having 6 shots (Eberle 3, Defense 3) in the first period the last game but couldn't for the life of them tell me who else got a shot on net. Answer of course in no one.

What I do know is this:

We are now 6-1 against the Bruins when we keep that discrepancy at -10 or lower and we are 0-3 when we don't. Both the games we have won in Boston this season were in OT and the shot differential was marginal (combined -7). Three of the other four losses we were outshot by 60 and outscored 12-5. I don't know how many of those sixty were exaggeratedly counted, but my guess is not half of them.

Worse is that top line of theirs, which is the best in the NHL; is usually where the discrepancy comes from. In game 1 the Marchand/Bergeron/Pastrnak line outshot ALL OF OUR FORWARDS 19-16.

I know our philosophy is quality over quantity, and I realize we generally get outshot (we have been outshot in these playoffs in 6 of the 8 games and yet are 5-3); but such a large discrepancy puts us behind the eight ball.

Sure, you can win those type of games against the likes of Jarry (Pens outshot us by almost 40 in the last 3 games with Sorokin standing on his head- many of those shots came after we had 2 and 3 goal leads in G4 and 6- and we still won all of them); but Rask is a different breed entirely

 

[Mr Misunderstood]

I have no idea how "quality" or "bias" those shots are counted really. I do know people in here were complaining about us only having 6 shots (Eberle 3, Defense 3) in the first period the last game but couldn't for the life of them tell me who else got a shot on net. Answer of course in no one.

What I do know is this:

We are now 6-1 against the Bruins when we keep that discrepancy at -10 or lower and we are 0-3 when we don't. Both the games we have won in Boston this season were in OT and the shot differential was marginal (combined -7). Three of the other four losses we were outshot by 60 and outscored 12-5. I don't know how many of those sixty were exaggeratedly counted, but my guess is not half of them.

Worse is that top line of theirs, which is the best in the NHL; is usually where the discrepancy comes from. In game 1 the Marchand/Bergeron/Pastrnak line outshot ALL OF OUR FORWARDS 19-16.

I know our philosophy is quality over quantity, and I realize we generally get outshot (we have been outshot in these playoffs in 6 of the 8 games and yet are 5-3); but such a large discrepancy puts us behind the eight ball.

Sure, you can win those type of games against the likes of Jarry (Pens outshot us by almost 40 in the last 3 games with Sorokin standing on his head- many of those shots came after we had 2 and 3 goal leads in G4 and 6- and we still won all of them); but Rask is a different breed entirely

Okay, I hear where you are coming from and that you understand the Isles general stance on shot differential.

I was specifically referring to the first period shot differential of Game 2. Apparently Barry was frustrated at the count when he got to the room after the first and Staple & AJ talked about it how wide the discrepancy was on their latest installment of No Sleep Til Belmont.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

So when is @MattMartin going to post the GDT game 3 vs the Buttplugs, I mean Bruins?

 

[TheGreenTBer]

So when is @MattMartin going to post the GDT game 3 vs the Buttplugs, I mean Bruins?

Who are the Bruins? This GDT clearly states the New York Islanders are playing against the buttplugs.