Post-Game Talk: Bart on the ice for the final minute..... Avs win in the final minute

[Kelly23]

But seriously-- it shouldn't be that surprising some here (including me) have defended Bart in this thread. How often is one player singled out in the Post-game Thread in a manner that suggests/implies the said player was literally the reason for the loss??

"______ on the ice for the final minute, [Bruins lose] in the final minute"... That's about as much as you can single one player out as possible.

Bartkowski wasn't the reason why we lost... this team should be winning games in which they allow 2 goals. I guess that is what passes as being fair to Bart around this place.

It was a shot at The coach as much as Bart, but Bart sucked all game many many bad plays were he got away with it because the Avs missed on plays, not to mention the ones that did become negative plays.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How is this still a topic? Bart came out and admitted he was wrong. How much more do you need??!

Bart said he made a mistake.

Coach said he made a mistake.

To Bartkowski fans that means:

Bart took one for the team, great teammate. Coach is a jackass.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

It was a shot at The coach as much as Bart, but Bart sucked all game many many bad plays were he got away with it because the Avs missed on plays, not to mention the ones that did become negative plays.

Sorry, calling BS on this. I watched the 2nd half of the game and he had one TO coming out of the B's end. He made the right play, puck just slipped off his stick.

"Many, many bad plays"?

Don't think so.

 

[Kelly23]

Sorry, calling BS on this. I watched the 2nd half of the game and he had one TO coming out of the B's end. He made the right play, puck just slipped off his stick.

"Many, many bad plays"?

Don't think so.

Brick called out atleast three of his plays as poor and should have been turnovers, he wasn't good.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Brick called out atleast three of his plays as poor and should have been turnovers, he wasn't good.

Should have been turnovers? What does that mean? Either they were or they were not.

Just so you know, I don't think three, if there was that many, qualifies as "many, many". The NHL.com box score listed him with one giveaway and one takeaway.

 

[bb_fan]

Should have been turnovers? What does that mean? Either they were or they were not.

Just so you know, I don't think three, if there was that many, qualifies as "many, many". The NHL.com box score listed him with one giveaway and one takeaway.

facts schmactssss

 

[GloveSave1]

why does anyone hate bart?

he's a bottom pairing defensemen so far with potential for a bit more, probably playing more than he should.

how about we all Hate On Hamilton? Golden boy future Norris winning #1 d-man who has also been playing like a bottom pairing d-man so far this season?

As long as Bart isn't trusted above the 3rd pair, I'm fine with continuing the growing process. I see him as a 7th defenseman on this team making under a million. So...he's overpaid...

I gotta give the Bruins credit for not just giving him the 2nd pair spot. McQuaid deserved first look.

I fully expect a rotation, for better or worse.

Chia is going to get his info.

Don't look at me about Hamilton...the sky's the limit...but I've said for years he can be had/makes bad choices...

But Hamiltons ceiling is on another level way above Barts. Bart has got a shorter leash.

I hear plenty from Bart supporters about him being young, but he's got 2 playoffs under his belt, it's time...

Let's go...let's go...

 

[GloryDaze4877]

For the record, I have zero issues if they deal Bart...as long as the B's have another guy on the roster that can carry the puck in his place.

IMO, one of their biggest issues is transitioning the puck from D to O coming out of their own end. The reason I like Bart is because he's a better skater than Miller (or McQ, or Seidenberg), and when he's in the lineup with Sides, each pair has a guy that can move the puck. With the size/speed of today's NHL and a good forecheck, the D to D passing that the B's love employ is a slow and painful death.

This is why I was not super upset about Boychuk getting dealt. He was gone at the end of the year anyway and he and Sides are both slow (44 is slower this year), so I didn't like the pairing. I like his D, but he's not a great puck mover (and before anybody says anything about his offense in NY this year, 5 of his 6 points have come on the PP, where his shot is his best asset).

The problem with Bart is that his head is not as fast as his feet. All the tools are there, but he hasn't quite put it together enough to be a good Top 4. I would love for Morrow or Trotman to be able to step into a Top 4 role in Boston, but I just don't think they are ready, and would make more mistakes than Bart. Warsofsky is not big enough or strong enough defensively. Right now, I think Bart is the best option. He wasn't great (in his one game), but he wasn't "bad" either as many are suggesting.

 

[member 96824]

For the record, I have zero issues if they deal Bart...as long as the B's have another guy on the roster that can carry the puck in his place.

IMO, one of their biggest issues is transitioning the puck from D to O coming out of their own end. The reason I like Bart is because he's a better skater than Miller (or McQ, or Seidenberg), and when he's in the lineup with Sides, each pair has a guy that can move the puck. With the size/speed of today's NHL and a good forecheck, the D to D passing that the B's love employ is a slow and painful death.

This is why I was not super upset about Boychuk getting dealt. He was gone at the end of the year anyway and he and Sides are both slow (44 is slower this year), so I didn't like the pairing. I like his D, but he's not a great puck mover (and before anybody says anything about his offense in NY this year, 5 of his 6 points have come on the PP, where his shot is his best asset).

The problem with Bart is that his head is not as fast as his feet. All the tools are there, but he hasn't quite put it together enough to be a good Top 4. I would love for Morrow or Trotman to be able to step into a Top 4 role in Boston, but I just don't think they are ready, and would make more mistakes than Bart. Warsofsky is not big enough or strong enough defensively. Right now, I think Bart is the best option. He wasn't great (in his one game), but he wasn't "bad" either as many are suggesting.

They've got two in Hamilton and Krug...which is more than they had for pretty much an entire decade haha.

At the end of the day, Bartkowski is the 7th D man on this team, who will probably play 20 to 30 games. IMO, you don't have to really worry about a "replacement" for him.

 

[DominicT]

Should have been turnovers? What does that mean? Either they were or they were not.

Just so you know, I don't think three, if there was that many, qualifies as "many, many". The NHL.com box score listed him with one giveaway and one takeaway.

facts schmactssss

Sometimes the term "give away" is misunderstood. Take for instance the Eriksson "give away" a couple of games ago along the boards that wasn't credited to him as a give away yet people here were calling it that.

When a pass is offline, behind the player that he has to reach back for it, to far ahead that he has to stretch for it, even if he makes contact, or even if he has possession for a second or two, it's not his giveaway, it goes to the passer. In Eriksson's case he had to turn back and then turn back up ice. Yes he had possession for two second's and lost it, but not his giveaway. It becomes that stat-keepers opinion of the play.

 

[bb_fan]

Sometimes the term "give away" is misunderstood. Take for instance the Eriksson "give away" a couple of games ago along the boards that wasn't credited to him as a give away yet people here were calling it that.

When a pass is offline, behind the player that he has to reach back for it, to far ahead that he has to stretch for it, even if he makes contact, or even if he has possession for a second or two, it's not his giveaway, it goes to the passer. In Eriksson's case he had to turn back and then turn back up ice. Yes he had possession for two second's and lost it, but not his giveaway. It becomes that stat-keepers opinion of the play.

yeah, its not a stat I have ever followed at all, it seems pretty subjective as to how its assessed.

I was just being a wise ass.......

 

[bb_fan]

As long as Bart isn't trusted above the 3rd pair, I'm fine with continuing the growing process. I see him as a 7th defenseman on this team making under a million. So...he's overpaid...

I gotta give the Bruins credit for not just giving him the 2nd pair spot. McQuaid deserved first look.

I fully expect a rotation, for better or worse.

Chia is going to get his info.

Don't look at me about Hamilton...the sky's the limit...but I've said for years he can be had/makes bad choices...

But Hamiltons ceiling is on another level way above Barts. Bart has got a shorter leash.

I hear plenty from Bart supporters about him being young, but he's got 2 playoffs under his belt, it's time...

Let's go...let's go...

I have no problem dealing him, but as you pointed out, he's playing a bit over his head.

but so far all the D not named Chara or Seidenberg are, which makes them all look that much worse I think.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

They've got two in Hamilton and Krug...which is more than they had for pretty much an entire decade haha.

At the end of the day, Bartkowski is the 7th D man on this team, who will probably play 20 to 30 games. IMO, you don't have to really worry about a "replacement" for him.

Think I did an OK job of explaining myself? Whether it's Miller, Bart, McQ, whomever...I want a guy that can lug or pass the puck out of the D zone quickly and effectively on each pair.

Not OK with just two because we never had any before