MayonnaiseOreo
I Hate the Flyers
NO ONE STOPS STAMOS WITH THE GAME ON THE LINE
Not with that hair and those eyes! Pure 90s goal-scorer right there.
NO ONE STOPS STAMOS WITH THE GAME ON THE LINE
A false choice, of course. I prefer fundamentally sound hockey most of all and this team rarely delivers that. Part of it's roster shortcomings in terms of balance but overall they still don't do the little things very well. I like polished mechnical teams from an execution standpoint and the Caps hardly find themselves near that level. The PP is the main area where they resemble a coherent team but that's not enough.
It's the first game...yadda yadda yadda...but I don't expect much improvement from the 4-6D or for them to suddenly become a much more poised team overall. Goaltending should straighten out and Laich ought to play center but that game was pretty reflective of what this team is for the most part. Competitive? Sure but not a powerhouse in terms of overall chemistry.
Rids - Good point on Dale. I was one of the few that supported him. I originally thought his approach was to force Ovi to play defense, but agree, he saw young goalies a sketchy D leaning hard on kids, and figured it was easier to win 2-1 than 5-4. And probably knew our studly PP wouldn't get many chances in the playoffs.
It says something about George always patting himself on the back for his mobile defense. He had no idea that Dale would get so defensive.
Translated, he has no idea that he has assembled a backend that is not cup worthy. I guess Dale fishing for a job didn't have the heart to tell him his D/G was lacking. Would you tell your prospective boss, that he needs to rethink things, before he asks you if you want the job?
We have rolled young Gs and a largely a young D (Green Alzner Carlson etc) - are there any cup winners that did that? Sure we mix in a Theo and a Hammer, but our core pieces are young.
Rids - Good point on Dale. I was one of the few that supported him. I originally thought his approach was to force Ovi to play defense, but agree, he saw young goalies a sketchy D leaning hard on kids, and figured it was easier to win 2-1 than 5-4. And probably knew our studly PP wouldn't get many chances in the playoffs.
It says something about George always patting himself on the back for his mobile defense. He had no idea that Dale would get so defensive.
Translated, he has no idea that he has assembled a backend that is not cup worthy. I guess Dale fishing for a job didn't have the heart to tell him his D/G was lacking. Would you tell your prospective boss, that he needs to rethink things, before he asks you if you want the job?
We have rolled young Gs and a largely a young D (Green Alzner Carlson etc) - are there any cup winners that did that? Sure we mix in a Theo and a Hammer, but our core pieces are young.
Again, a false choice. Fundamentally sound hockey doesn't have to be trapping, droningly-slow hockey. Look at Detroit. HunterHockey was that way but, again, that wasn't fundamentally sound two-way hockey either. I don't find poor defense and sloppy breakouts to be exciting (in a good way) or entertaining. They're entertaining in a brawling, reckless sort of sense but that gets awful old after a while. I won't be sold on Oates until those areas are cleaned up to a much greater extent. Until then they're the same immature, questionably-constructed team as they've ever been.I don't care for emotionless, trapping, chip and chase hockey. I don't get excited about shot blocking angles.
Thats me. I want to see my team win games and win them in exciting fashion. I want them to play an entertaining brand of hockey. Again thats just me.
We have rolled young Gs and a largely a young D (Green Alzner Carlson etc) - are there any cup winners that did that? Sure we mix in a Theo and a Hammer, but our core pieces are young.
Again, a false choice. Fundamentally sound hockey doesn't have to be trapping, droningly-slow hockey. Look at Detroit. HunterHockey was that way but, again, that wasn't fundamentally sound two-way hockey either. I don't find poor defense and sloppy breakouts to be exciting (in a good way) or entertaining. They're entertaining in a brawling, reckless sort of sense but that gets awful old after a while. I won't be sold on Oates until those areas are cleaned up to a much greater extent. Until then they're the same immature, questionably-constructed team as they've ever been.
Sure, they were territorial in some senses against Chicago but they still lost the ES shot battle 25-18. Chicago was more readily able to create prime chances, in part thanks to Washington's coverage issues.
Lets be real...Dale decided to take a Mustang and mud bog with it.
Bruce had an even crappier D and perhaps lesser goaltending and took the team just as far as Dale did.
Our team isn't perfect but we decided post lockout to build from within and at least have stuck to that plan. Being a young team (even younger this year with the loss of some veteran guys who were replaced with younger counterparts) means we have room to grow. Get better.
I've seen lesser teams make runs to the Cup. Its all about getting hot at the right time (team confidence) and excellent goaltending.
Our playoff struggles have pretty much always been due to the disparity in goaltending. Our goalies simply getting outplayed in large part. This has happened to the Caps pretty much from the mid 80s til now.
The one year where OUR goalie outplayed his counterparts? We made it to the cup finals.
I call Horse **** to the last part. Varlamov clearly outplayed his counterparts in 2009' and we lost in the 2nd round. Bruce had how many cracks at the playoffs? 5? Dale had one. Dale, on average, was our most successful playoff coach ever, short of Wilson.
Don't bang on Dale. He saw the Forrest thru the trees with this team, and did what he could. You didn't like the style, as it wasn't "fun", but it almost made us winners.
Again, it shows what you stand for, and that's fine. But don't get your panties in a bunch when some of us stand for winning the cup, not just to be entertained (reminds me of Russell Crowe as Maximus...."Are you not entertained?!?!?)
PS-- and what team won the Cup with a magical run? Don't tell me LA, as they had a dynamic team that underachieved most of the year. And they had the best goalie going, in Quick. Their team was leagues better in D&G, which is why they won it all
This first game was entertaining to watch, but was not exactly inspiring as a Caps fan. So our PP is looking great and so did Grabo.. what else? Our defense looks thin and at ES only one line generated pressure consistently. And on top of that PK looks unimpressive and Holtby had a very shaky start to the season..
They'll win games, sure, but that first game sure gave lots of flashbacks to the flawed Caps teams of the past..
I wonder what Nick and Ovi think about MJ or bust as their LW. Screw what us fans think. Do they want Laich, or Erode err Erat, a board beast like Ward, or... do they love MJs speed?
Clearly the team is making a committment to developing MJs offense, and make him a wing, and that is their decision, but when you move a top prospect for a possible 1LW and you have him on 4, it does open the door to question the trade all over again.
One game, lets wait for injuries and failures and go from there. I was pissed Oates never adjusted lines in the playoffs, but all early indications are that he is shuffling the decks. Fehr at Center, Erat at C. Erat on 4. Carrick a 7 in practice, starting in Chicago.
Chuck Gormley @ChuckGormleyCSN 14s
#CapitalsTalk Brouwer, Green happy that Grabovski got 3 goals in debut but both want him to stay in position on power play.
wtf?
Maybe you are misremembering 2009...Lundqvuist nearly stole that series for them. Rangers were an extremely average team and we were superior. Varlamov played good but I wouldn't say he outplayed Lundqvuist.
In the first 3 games vs the Pens he clearly outplayed Fleury. That changed and Fleury played better and better as the series went on. Varlamov was bad in games 4 and 7. Real bad.
Quick was not that great until the playoffs started for LA. They came out of nowhere as the #8 seed and no one was picking them. Hindsight is 20/20 and thats why you seem to have perfect vision.
Montreal in 93 made a great run as did many teams that fell just short like the Caps, Ducks, Canucks (94 and early 80s), Panthers, Oilers, Canes (when they lost), North Stars twice.
LA was the BEST possession team from the Carter trade on. They were good before that but were unlucky shooting the puck (Quick was great that regular season as I recall). Most of the rest of those teams you mention including the 98 Caps came up short. To win it all you need to be good. You need to be probably a top 5-7 possession team. And you probably also need some luck.
So you have one example in the last 20 years of a team that got lucky and won it all (93 Montreal) and you want the Caps to base their cup chances on that model?
Edit: oh yeah Quick was awful that year
2011–12 Los Angeles Kings NHL 69 35 21 — 13 4099 133 10 1.95 .929
Is Green playing for his next contract already?
Sounds like Grabs got in trouble for doing what our PP design guy should have designed in the first place. Green holding the puck up top, what is wrong with Grabs drifting to the crease for a moment. Distract or screen the G perhaps. Green is not passing it to him anyways. Nor is Brouwer, who seems sour that the Hawks collapsed down on him and took him out of the PP scoring fest.
Maybe Grabs adjusted to what they were doing himself, without having to wait for the PP to expire and have Oatsie draw up for him to go to the crease and screen if Brouwer is collapsed on. Thanks Grabs. Maybe our PP design ace had no idea Grabs had great deflections on his resume.
I only recall Neuvy giving up two soft goals in the Tampa series. We lost because our defense had no answer for Tampa's aggressive forecheck (they didn't just use the 1-3-1 trap) or Tampa's transition game. Neuvirth was regularly hung out to dry by our defense in that series.
Agree Rouse. It's a team game. Calling him out to the media of all places, after a hat... seems like there is an I somewhere in that word Team. Shouldn't coaches try to fix it first?
If Green is just going to stand on the point and hold the puck, I think Grabs natural instincts kicked in. Move a little bit. Make a defender adjust. The goalie turn his head.
Maybe if Green made quicker decisions, he need not feel the need to help.
Based on his physical positioning, I am not sure how much he could have screwed up. He simply drifted to the slot when nothing was happening.