GDT: 4/6/13 - 7:00PM EDT - Tampa Bay @ New York Islanders

[IdealisticSniper]

Don't worry about all those facts, bro. Bishop is garbage.

Where did anyone call him garbage? He let in a bad soft goal. That's a fact. It happens to any goalie. Doesn't change the fact that that is what it was.

 

[Butchered]

Oh ok. According to the Canes PBP guys we are resigning Garon next year.

You're a joke. For serious. Guy gets totally abandoned by his team, let's in a screened shot and he's worth criticizing. Cool logic.

I can't wait until Bishop gives up an actual softy, this board will spontaneously burst into flames.

 

[IdealisticSniper]

You're a joke. For serious. Guy gets totally abandoned by his team, let's in a screened shot and he's worth criticizing. Cool logic.

I can't wait until Bishop gives up an actual softy, this board will spontaneously burst into flames.

I'm a joke because I call a bad goal a bad goal? Interesting.

 

[Coopers Gum]

Don't worry about all those facts, bro. Bishop is garbage.

So the **** what if he couldn't see the puck? It's his job to track it. And a puck that goes from near the blue line five-hole is a horrible goal to let in. Don't deny it. It's true.

I am not in any way saying Bishop is garbage, he's been nothing short of outstanding for us. I'm saying that that's a goal that he needed to stop.

 

[TheDaysOf 04]

Don't know if this will help but

https://twitter.com/erlendssonTBO

Bishop said he never saw the winning goal, said he was completely screened

 

[IdealisticSniper]

So the **** what if he couldn't see the puck? It's his job to track it. And a puck that goes from near the blue line five-hole is a horrible goal to let in. Don't deny it. It's true.

I am not in any way saying Bishop is garbage, he's been nothing short of outstanding for us. I'm saying that that's a goal that he needed to stop.

No no. The goalie can close his eyes and if pucks go in the net it's ok, they couldn't see it.

 

[dbieon12]

So the **** what if he couldn't see the puck? It's his job to track it. And a puck that goes from near the blue line five-hole is a horrible goal to let in. Don't deny it. It's true.

I am not in any way saying Bishop is garbage, he's been nothing short of outstanding for us. I'm saying that that's a goal that he needed to stop.

Well Connolly and Killorn had 4 shots on goal each. Panik had a goal in limited ice time.

Stamkos, Le****alier, and St. Louis had 3 shots on goal combined. That is horse **** production especially when you consider their ice time.

I hate to quote myself. But that goal was a product of 91, 26, 4 and their continued absence and appearances for stat-padding (way to load on the points in a 5-0 game Stamkos). Bishop making that save doesn't really matter. The Islanders would have scored later anyway based on the momentum of the period.

 

[IdealisticSniper]

Don't know if this will help but

https://twitter.com/erlendssonTBO

No one is denying he could or couldn't see it. His reaction was obvious to him not being able to see it. The point is that he should have been able to track and see the puck when he's that big and the shot is from 40' away.

It's a bad goal. It happens. It was a sucky time for it to happen.

 

[zeykshade]

No no. The goalie can close his eyes and if pucks go in the net it's ok, they couldn't see it.

You're pretty much talking out of your ass regarding the GWG and Bishop's playing of it. Unless you're also calling him a liar now.

 

[Pointerspoint]

That was nowhere near a soft goal. But this game was crap.

Does anyone know what's wrong with Heddy? What is meant in this case by lower body injury? So vague. I hope he's back soon.

 

[IdealisticSniper]

You're pretty much talking out of your ass regarding the GWG and Bishop's playing of it. Unless you're also calling him a liar now.

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't even know how you came to this conclusion.

??

 

[Butchered]

I am...honestly baffled at someone saying "so what he couldn't see the puck". Like I almost don't even know if you're serious.

That's like saying "Hey, sucks you got hit by that car bro. You didn't see it coming but...you know, it's your job to ensure you don't get hit by a ****ing car. Tough luck"

Insanity. Children on this board.

 

[Butchered]

That was nowhere near a soft goal. But this game was crap.

Does anyone know what's wrong with Heddy? What is meant in this case by lower body injury? So vague. I hope he's back soon.

Think he's listed DTD

 

[zeykshade]

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't even know how you came to this conclusion.

??

Bishop explained that he was completely screened on the goal. He didn't see the release or the flight of the puck at any point. I described the play and how he was screened completely earlier. Bishop confirmed it post game. Unless it's your contention that Bishop should make it common practice to drop into the Butterfly randomly upon the puck entering the zone.

 

[The Wyzerhood]

I think this argument is meaningless. It was a soft goal in that it was not a great shot, not because it was Bishop's fault since he couldn't see the puck.

I guess we're all just venting after a **** game.

 

[Butchered]

Bishop explained that he was completely screened on the goal. He didn't see the release or the flight of the puck at any point. I described the play and how he was screened completely earlier. Bishop confirmed it post game. Unless it's your contention that Bishop should make it common practice to drop into the Butterfly randomly upon the puck entering the zone.

No kidding.

 

[Coopers Gum]

Well apparently I need to see the replay, because when I saw it, there wasn't anyone in front of Bishop. I will admit I was a little preoccupied talking to someone else, but yeah. My argument was based on my observation that he wasn't screened. That's why I say so what if he didn't see it.

 

[Butchered]

I think this argument is meaningless. It was a soft goal in that it was not a great shot, not because it was Bishop's fault since he couldn't see the puck.

I guess we're all just venting after a **** game.

That is like....the exact opposite of a soft goal. WTF? I don't even.

If you want to know about soft goals, see Garon's game against Jersey. Think he had about 3 that game. A soft goal is one that should be easily stopped and still goes in.

Bishop doesn't even MOVE on the goal. Not many NHL goalies just stand around and hang out when shots are taken at them. You can almost always spot a screened goal by the reaction of the goalie. If he couldn't see the shot and he couldn't see the puck....he's got no chance of stopping it.

If that goal Semin kicked in the other night was a legit goal with the stick, no one would say it was a soft goal. Bishop had no chance because Staal and Semin made a beautiful play. Same thing applies here.

I'm a tough critic. Bishop gives up a softie and I'll be all over it. This was in no way, under any definition a soft goal.

 

[dbieon12]

Sorry. Stamkos didn't show up. Lecavalier shouldn't have. St. Louis continued to be frou-frou.

That should be the headline.

 

[Cigar City]

Lol a soft wrister from the blue line goes 5 hole. NO WAY HE COULD HAVE SAVED IT!

I guess I should go to a goalie try-out and just shut my eyes. Sure way to make the team.

 

[Coopers Gum]

Sorry. Stamkos didn't show up. Lecavalier shouldn't have. St. Louis continued to be frou-frou.

That should be the headline.

I thought Lecavalier played well.

 

[zeykshade]

Well apparently I need to see the replay, because when I saw it, there wasn't anyone in front of Bishop. I will admit I was a little preoccupied talking to someone else, but yeah. My argument was based on my observation that he wasn't screened. That's why I say so what if he didn't see it.

Screens can be moving as they were in this situation. Gudas screened the release by playing the entire situation stupidly. Killorn was backchecking on another Islander player and they cut right in front of Bishop as the puck was in the air. If he had seen it, he'd have to have a new nickname...Kal-El.

 

[IdealisticSniper]

I am...honestly baffled at someone saying "so what he couldn't see the puck". Like I almost don't even know if you're serious.

That's like saying "Hey, sucks you got hit by that car bro. You didn't see it coming but...you know, it's your job to ensure you don't get hit by a ****ing car. Tough luck"

Insanity. Children on this board.

If I'm being paid to look for cars coming and I don't see one and it hits me, your damn right I should have looked harder.

And that's a horrendous analogy by the way.

Why don't you try and read the argument of it being a bad goal again, comprehend it this time, and this will be a much better conversation.

Bishop explained that he was completely screened on the goal. He didn't see the release or the flight of the puck at any point. I described the play and how he was screened completely earlier. Bishop confirmed it post game. Unless it's your contention that Bishop should make it common practice to drop into the Butterfly randomly upon the puck entering the zone.

I never said he saw it and therefore calling him a liar. No idea where you get that from.

What I'm saying is this, and Butchered pay attention.

The shot was 40' out. It was a weak wrist shot. He had two or three players skate by him during the shot but no one stood right in front of him. Bishop is 6'7. He wasnt expecting a shot there and wasnt looking around the streaking guys to track and target the puck. He should have been. He didnt.

It wasnt 100% his fault. He is not garbage. He let in a bad goal. At a bad time. It happens to every goalie but that doesn't make it not a bad goal.

Why is this so hard to understand what's being said?

The funniest thing about this, is if it was Garon, every single person would be complaining about the goal. And if you disagree with that, you are kidding yourself.

 

[zeykshade]

Recap Videos of Goals Here.

 

[The Wyzerhood]

That is like....the exact opposite of a soft goal. WTF? I don't even.

If you want to know about soft goals, see Garon's game against Jersey. Think he had about 3 that game. A soft goal is one that should be easily stopped and still goes in.

Bishop doesn't even MOVE on the goal. Not many NHL goalies just stand around and hang out when shots are taken at them. You can almost always spot a screened goal by the reaction of the goalie. If he couldn't see the shot and he couldn't see the puck....he's got no chance of stopping it.

If that goal Semin kicked in the other night was a legit goal with the stick, no one would say it was a soft goal. Bishop had no chance because Staal and Semin made a beautiful play. Same thing applies here.

I'm a tough critic. Bishop gives up a softie and I'll be all over it. This was in no way, under any definition a soft goal.

The definition of a soft goal is one that should never have gone in. Was the soft goal Bishop's fault? No, because he couldn't see the puck. But that would be considered a "soft goal" on any goaltender, on that basis that it was just not a good shot. Who's fault it was has nothing to do with it, something you fail to understand through your wildly emotional state.