GDT: Defending Stanley Cup Champs St. Louis Blues vs. Chicago |The Rivalry Continues|

[execwrite1]

Way too much Faulk talk here so let me add more --

He just turns the puck over too much. Our other d-men are obsessed with possession - Faulk just throws the puck away to get rid off it.

A full training camp next season might be the solution. When Van Ryn can work with him extensively might solve the problem.

 

[542365]

Faulk 3:55 icetime at PK. 3 goals let at PK. Great job coaching staff. How about use Gunnar at PK instead of our worst defensive dmen. Gunnar had only 1:39 at PK. I understand Pietro and Parayko minutes at PK will increase at playoffs, so they get sheltered icetime at regular season. Try to keep them fresh. But I rather see Gunnar play as much as possible at PK not Faulk. That kid doesnt learn how to defend age of 27.

Lol this is so stupid that I don’t even know why I’m responding, but whatever. ROR and Faulk were both out there for 2 powerplay goals against, and ROR was actually at fault for one of them unlike Faulk. Does that mean ROR can’t defend? He’s also a career negative +\- Basically ROR f***ing sucks, right? Guess who led our Dmen in PK TOI and had a pass go right between his legs for a goal? Golden boy Marco Scandella. He’s garbage too. We’re going to run out of players if we’re holding them up to your ridiculously biased standards.

 

[Stealth JD]

The Blues could choose to protect only 3 defencemen, then they can protect 8 forwards. But if they protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, and Dunn, then they could lose Faulk or Scandella. But, IF they make a deal with Seattle, up front, for them to draft Faulk, they can assure keeping Scandella, Barbashev, and Blais. If Pietrangelo IS staying (and I think he will be), The Blues probably couldn't pay all 3 of him, Parayko, and Faulk, in any case. From what I've seen, I think Scandella is the better player, and the better fit with The Blues' team, and Berube's system.

For the expansion draft, you can either protect 7F and 3D, or 4D and 4F (along with 1G, obviously). While your point remains that the Blues could entice Seattle to take Faulk, it would almost certainly be at the expense of a forward that they like (Kyrou/Blais/Barby) and/or a high-draft pick; and then you start going down the path of the Panthers and Wild who really did Vegas a solid and gifted them some very nice pieces.

I dunno...if the cost of keeping Sandford, Sundqvist, Scandella, Kyrou & Thomas is losing Faulk & Blais (and maybe a pick too) that seems the way to go, rather than being stuck with Faulk for the duration of his abomination of a contract.

 

[Mike Liut]

Blais has not produced that much since he came back from injury. Bozak provides secondary scoring as he is tied for 6th on team in goals.

Additionally, im not sure why bozak would be man out for blais when steen is still in lineip

I think Berube loves Steen. But I’d have no trouble sitting Steen or Bozak. I’m not sitting Kyrou or Sanford

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

It was never that he couldn't do it, it's that he wasn't doing it. You don't get a free pass just because you're big and can shoot the puck, you've got to be able to put the work in and make things happen, even if it's uncomfortable for you. Rattie was touted as having a good shot, and proved it in the A. He came up and just couldn't play the game he needed to and that's why he's not in the league anymore. Sanford has more tools and has found a way to put it together. There's no doubt in my mind I would've liked Sanford in the lineup if he showed he had promise, but he has horrible consistency issues. We can all laugh and say told you so, but HE had to prove it.

As someone who was on Team Sanford pretty much from the beginning (I remember going back and watching his Caps and Boston College games when we traded for him... oh to have that kind of free time anymore!), I just feel like I have to say that the amount of rope this board gave him vs Ty Rattie couldn’t have been more different.

People here were very skeptical of Sanford from the beginning, and a lot of the arguments were petty, like “he was basically only a 3rd rounder,” or “we got the wrong prospect.” People had high expectations for what we could get for Shattenkirk after rumors of Drouin and Hall, so Sanford had an uphill battle from the beginning here. It really only got worse with time as people became fixated on what their mental image was of him instead of what he was doing. There was hyper-focus on his mistakes and full dismissal of his successes. The artifacts of that attitude are still with us in the snide little nicknames people have for him. I remember that beautiful set up he had on a Berglund goal, and it devolved into like a full thread about how he reached in to get the puck out of a scrum instead of playing the body. The Sanford hate got pretty hysterical for awhile.

Rattie, on the other hand, scored two goals off his butt and people were ready to hand him a top-6 spot on a platter, despite way fewer successes, and way more mistakes than Sanford ever had. But he scored like 130 points in Portland (where everybody was scoring like 130 points at the time), and we didn’t trade Shattenkirk for him, so people weren’t as ready to dismiss his learning curve.

Sanford has been through a lot, including three coaching changes, a big shoulder injury, the loss of his father, and being pummeled by a teammate in practice. He has found consistency, which is what he always needed to do, but the player he is right now was always what he was building towards, and his flashes indicated as much.

I just think it’s silly to say he got the same benefit of the doubt or was held to the same standard as someone like Rattie by posters here. He *always* had promise, he always had it in him to be this player, people were just introduced to him as the return player from a trade of a fan favorite and their patience level was extremely low.

He’s on pace to be a 50-point player this year. I’m glad that many people are coming around on him, and lord knows the Sanford-bandwagon has plenty of room on it, but trying to rewrite history to make it seem like people were pretty cruel and nasty towards him out of some equally-applied standard of performance for young players is just crazy. A lot of people just straight up didn’t like him, and didn’t need any more reason than that.

 

[Ranksu]

Lol this is so stupid that I don’t even know why I’m responding, but whatever. ROR and Faulk were both out there for 2 powerplay goals against, and ROR was actually at fault for one of them unlike Faulk. Does that mean ROR can’t defend? He’s also a career negative +\- Basically ROR f*cking sucks, right? Guess who led our Dmen in PK TOI and had a pass go right between his legs for a goal? Golden boy Marco Scandella. He’s garbage too. We’re going to run out of players if we’re holding them up to your ridiculously biased standards.

Great respond and not suprised one bit. Did I say single word those goals were Faulk's fault?

My point was we've better PK'er at d-core than Faulk who can play his spot. Like Gunnar or Bortuzzo for example. Coaching staff just misuse Faulk. It wasn't like Scandella was good game too. I don't defend Scandella and I've never said I'm sold on him.

What is wrong people when they try to put word on others people mouth and twist every word what has written.

 

[DatDude44]

Lol this is so stupid that I don’t even know why I’m responding, but whatever. ROR and Faulk were both out there for 2 powerplay goals against, and ROR was actually at fault for one of them unlike Faulk. Does that mean ROR can’t defend? He’s also a career negative +\- Basically ROR f*cking sucks, right? Guess who led our Dmen in PK TOI and had a pass go right between his legs for a goal? Golden boy Marco Scandella. He’s garbage too. We’re going to run out of players if we’re holding them up to your ridiculously biased standards.

No he’s right tho.... Faulk literally is our worst defenceman when it comes to Net front coverage, stick detail and D-Z awareness. Look at Saads goal. Gunnar is 1000% the better PK D-man and will actually block shots. Faulk has been much better since being moved to the right side with sheltered minutes at 5v5, he’s actually been effective because he’s not getting taken advantage of by every teams top lines and he’s been able to handle pucks and move it up ice much better on his natural right side.

not trying to **** on him, just saying compared to the rest of our D-core, he’s probably the worst at purely defending in zone(he’s usually fine off the rush when he gaps up) so it makes no sense to play him on the PK when we have better options, then he can take the next 5v5 shift following the kill.

 

[Reality Czech]

As someone who was on Team Sanford pretty much from the beginning (I remember going back and watching his Caps and Boston College games when we traded for him... oh to have that kind of free time anymore!), I just feel like I have to say that the amount of rope this board gave him vs Ty Rattie couldn’t have been more different.

People here were very skeptical of Sanford from the beginning, and a lot of the arguments were petty, like “he was basically only a 3rd rounder,” or “we got the wrong prospect.” People had high expectations for what we could get for Shattenkirk after rumors of Drouin and Hall, so Sanford had an uphill battle from the beginning here. It really only got worse with time as people became fixated on what their mental image was of him instead of what he was doing. There was hyper-focus on his mistakes and full dismissal of his successes. The artifacts of that attitude are still with us in the snide little nicknames people have for him. I remember that beautiful set up he had on a Berglund goal, and it devolved into like a full thread about how he reached in to get the puck out of a scrum instead of playing the body. The Sanford hate got pretty hysterical for awhile.

Rattie, on the other hand, scored two goals off his butt and people were ready to hand him a top-6 spot on a platter, despite way fewer successes, and way more mistakes than Sanford ever had. But he scored like 130 points in Portland (where everybody was scoring like 130 points at the time), and we didn’t trade Shattenkirk for him, so people weren’t as ready to dismiss his learning curve.

Sanford has been through a lot, including three coaching changes, a big shoulder injury, the loss of his father, and being pummeled by a teammate in practice. He has found consistency, which is what he always needed to do, but the player he is right now was always what he was building towards, and his flashes indicated as much.

I just think it’s silly to say he got the same benefit of the doubt or was held to the same standard as someone like Rattie by posters here. He *always* had promise, he always had it in him to be this player, people were just introduced to him as the return player from a trade of a fan favorite and their patience level was extremely low.

He’s on pace to be a 50-point player this year. I’m glad that many people are coming around on him, and lord knows the Sanford-bandwagon has plenty of room on it, but trying to rewrite history to make it seem like people were pretty cruel and nasty towards him out of some equally-applied standard of performance for young players is just crazy. A lot of people just straight up didn’t like him, and didn’t need any more reason than that.

While I don't recall fans being so high on Rattie, I agree 100% with what you said about Sanford. When people decide they don't like a player, they will look for any little thing to roast him for. Like many players, Sanford is a bit of a late bloomer and has had some unfortunate injuries that stunted his development. But hopefully his recent surge will remind people to keep a more open mind about players in the future. Some guys just need more time and experience. He's starting to look like a damn good all-around player. Pierre was so over the top with his praise of Sanford, it was almost comical.

Few other observations:

Despite getting two assists, it seems like Perron has been "off" lately. We're lucky that Sanford has done so well because DP57 is in a funk. We need our sniper back! (Both of them)

Really pleased to see Kyrou start to assert himself. Him, Thomas and Sanford were our most dynamic forwards last night, along with ROR. The kids are alright!

For all the talk of possibly sitting Steen and/or Bozak, let's not forget they are two of our top PKers and defensive forwards. No way Blais is playing over those guys in the playoffs.

Last but not least, let's lay off Faulk a bit shall we? If he's getting this much heat after a game where he had a huge goal and was +3, then it's clear this guy just can't get a fair shake from fans who've already made up their minds about him. Sound familiar?

 

[Chet Manly]

I turned the game off when Cago scored at the 11 minute mark in the 3rd.

womp womp

 

[Dbrownss]

As someone who was on Team Sanford pretty much from the beginning (I remember going back and watching his Caps and Boston College games when we traded for him... oh to have that kind of free time anymore!), I just feel like I have to say that the amount of rope this board gave him vs Ty Rattie couldn’t have been more different.

People here were very skeptical of Sanford from the beginning, and a lot of the arguments were petty, like “he was basically only a 3rd rounder,” or “we got the wrong prospect.” People had high expectations for what we could get for Shattenkirk after rumors of Drouin and Hall, so Sanford had an uphill battle from the beginning here. It really only got worse with time as people became fixated on what their mental image was of him instead of what he was doing. There was hyper-focus on his mistakes and full dismissal of his successes. The artifacts of that attitude are still with us in the snide little nicknames people have for him. I remember that beautiful set up he had on a Berglund goal, and it devolved into like a full thread about how he reached in to get the puck out of a scrum instead of playing the body. The Sanford hate got pretty hysterical for awhile.

Rattie, on the other hand, scored two goals off his butt and people were ready to hand him a top-6 spot on a platter, despite way fewer successes, and way more mistakes than Sanford ever had. But he scored like 130 points in Portland (where everybody was scoring like 130 points at the time), and we didn’t trade Shattenkirk for him, so people weren’t as ready to dismiss his learning curve.

Sanford has been through a lot, including three coaching changes, a big shoulder injury, the loss of his father, and being pummeled by a teammate in practice. He has found consistency, which is what he always needed to do, but the player he is right now was always what he was building towards, and his flashes indicated as much.

I just think it’s silly to say he got the same benefit of the doubt or was held to the same standard as someone like Rattie by posters here. He *always* had promise, he always had it in him to be this player, people were just introduced to him as the return player from a trade of a fan favorite and their patience level was extremely low.

He’s on pace to be a 50-point player this year. I’m glad that many people are coming around on him, and lord knows the Sanford-bandwagon has plenty of room on it, but trying to rewrite history to make it seem like people were pretty cruel and nasty towards him out of some equally-applied standard of performance for young players is just crazy. A lot of people just straight up didn’t like him, and didn’t need any more reason than that.

While I don't recall fans being so high on Rattie, I agree 100% with what you said about Sanford. When people decide they don't like a player, they will look for any little thing to roast him for. Like many players, Sanford is a bit of a late bloomer and has had some unfortunate injuries that stunted his development. But hopefully his recent surge will remind people to keep a more open mind about players in the future. Some guys just need more time and experience. He's starting to look like a damn good all-around player. Pierre was so over the top with his praise of Sanford, it was almost comical.

Few other observations:

Despite getting two assists, it seems like Perron has been "off" lately. We're lucky that Sanford has done so well because DP57 is in a funk. We need our sniper back! (Both of them)

Really pleased to see Kyrou start to assert himself. Him, Thomas and Sanford were our most dynamic forwards last night, along with ROR. The kids are alright!

For all the talk of possibly sitting Steen and/or Bozak, let's not forget they are two of our top PKers and defensive forwards. No way Blais is playing over those guys in the playoffs.

Last but not least, let's lay off Faulk a bit shall we? If he's getting this much heat after a game where he had a huge goal and was +3, then it's clear this guy just can't get a fair shake from fans who've already made up their minds about him. Sound familiar?

Sanford did not get a fair shot due to "should have gotten Vrana". While he is a better player, I dont think he was available. I was rather impressed with Sanford to begin with but the last 2 seasons were meh. As was mentioned, the guy did deserve more time do to off ice issues. But he's proven the haters wrong in the end. He's built up a good bit of equity imo. With that said though, the criticism was valid.

As to the similarities between Faulk and Sanford....I dont see it. Faulk is an established veteran. So far he's been the only to gel and he's had almost the whole season. I also think there's the Pietrangelo factor that creeps in the mind of some. That's not Faulks fault but it does seem to hint that DA may not be confident in Pietrangelo staying.

 

[Oberyn]

I don't really know what Faulk was doing on that Saad PP goal, there was only one threat and he didn't cover it. But the PK as a whole was just bad, our forwards gave the Hawks point men way too much time and freedom.

 

[Blueston]

As someone who was on Team Sanford pretty much from the beginning (I remember going back and watching his Caps and Boston College games when we traded for him... oh to have that kind of free time anymore!), I just feel like I have to say that the amount of rope this board gave him vs Ty Rattie couldn’t have been more different.

People here were very skeptical of Sanford from the beginning, and a lot of the arguments were petty, like “he was basically only a 3rd rounder,” or “we got the wrong prospect.” People had high expectations for what we could get for Shattenkirk after rumors of Drouin and Hall, so Sanford had an uphill battle from the beginning here. It really only got worse with time as people became fixated on what their mental image was of him instead of what he was doing. There was hyper-focus on his mistakes and full dismissal of his successes. The artifacts of that attitude are still with us in the snide little nicknames people have for him. I remember that beautiful set up he had on a Berglund goal, and it devolved into like a full thread about how he reached in to get the puck out of a scrum instead of playing the body. The Sanford hate got pretty hysterical for awhile.

Rattie, on the other hand, scored two goals off his butt and people were ready to hand him a top-6 spot on a platter, despite way fewer successes, and way more mistakes than Sanford ever had. But he scored like 130 points in Portland (where everybody was scoring like 130 points at the time), and we didn’t trade Shattenkirk for him, so people weren’t as ready to dismiss his learning curve.

Sanford has been through a lot, including three coaching changes, a big shoulder injury, the loss of his father, and being pummeled by a teammate in practice. He has found consistency, which is what he always needed to do, but the player he is right now was always what he was building towards, and his flashes indicated as much.

I just think it’s silly to say he got the same benefit of the doubt or was held to the same standard as someone like Rattie by posters here. He *always* had promise, he always had it in him to be this player, people were just introduced to him as the return player from a trade of a fan favorite and their patience level was extremely low.

He’s on pace to be a 50-point player this year. I’m glad that many people are coming around on him, and lord knows the Sanford-bandwagon has plenty of room on it, but trying to rewrite history to make it seem like people were pretty cruel and nasty towards him out of some equally-applied standard of performance for young players is just crazy. A lot of people just straight up didn’t like him, and didn’t need any more reason than that.

Exactly. Folks on here give way more rope to high picks (Schmaltz anyone?) than they do trade acquisitions. Picks just need time to blossom while guys we trade for (Sunny, Sanford, Faulk, DLR, etc..) are deemed trash if they don't look great right away.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The Blues could choose to protect only 3 defencemen, then they can protect 8 forwards. But if they protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, and Dunn, then they could lose Faulk or Scandella. But, IF they make a deal with Seattle, up front, for them to draft Faulk, they can assure keeping Scandella, Barbashev, and Blais. If Pietrangelo IS staying (and I think he will be), The Blues probably couldn't pay all 3 of him, Parayko, and Faulk, in any case. From what I've seen, I think Scandella is the better player, and the better fit with The Blues' team, and Berube's system.

I think the types of deals Vegas did were more of the nature of being able t name additional players to protect. I can’t think of any where they named who the Knights drafted. So, I think the Blues would have to give something to be able to remove another player or two from the list. Maybe Faulk looks like the best option then and maybe he doesn’t.

 

[Dbrownss]

Exactly. Folks on here give way more rope to high picks (Schmaltz anyone?) than they do trade acquisitions. Picks just need time to blossom while guys we trade for (Sunny, Sanford, Faulk, DLR, etc..) are deemed trash if they don't look great right away.

People have more of an investment in prospects. We see them added to the team as 18yr old and some watch them grow into the league. Sometimes trades involve one of your favorite players, so you may be biased against the incoming player.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

As someone who was on Team Sanford pretty much from the beginning (I remember going back and watching his Caps and Boston College games when we traded for him... oh to have that kind of free time anymore!), I just feel like I have to say that the amount of rope this board gave him vs Ty Rattie couldn’t have been more different.

People here were very skeptical of Sanford from the beginning, and a lot of the arguments were petty, like “he was basically only a 3rd rounder,” or “we got the wrong prospect.” People had high expectations for what we could get for Shattenkirk after rumors of Drouin and Hall, so Sanford had an uphill battle from the beginning here. It really only got worse with time as people became fixated on what their mental image was of him instead of what he was doing. There was hyper-focus on his mistakes and full dismissal of his successes. The artifacts of that attitude are still with us in the snide little nicknames people have for him. I remember that beautiful set up he had on a Berglund goal, and it devolved into like a full thread about how he reached in to get the puck out of a scrum instead of playing the body. The Sanford hate got pretty hysterical for awhile.

Rattie, on the other hand, scored two goals off his butt and people were ready to hand him a top-6 spot on a platter, despite way fewer successes, and way more mistakes than Sanford ever had. But he scored like 130 points in Portland (where everybody was scoring like 130 points at the time), and we didn’t trade Shattenkirk for him, so people weren’t as ready to dismiss his learning curve.

Sanford has been through a lot, including three coaching changes, a big shoulder injury, the loss of his father, and being pummeled by a teammate in practice. He has found consistency, which is what he always needed to do, but the player he is right now was always what he was building towards, and his flashes indicated as much.

I just think it’s silly to say he got the same benefit of the doubt or was held to the same standard as someone like Rattie by posters here. He *always* had promise, he always had it in him to be this player, people were just introduced to him as the return player from a trade of a fan favorite and their patience level was extremely low.

He’s on pace to be a 50-point player this year. I’m glad that many people are coming around on him, and lord knows the Sanford-bandwagon has plenty of room on it, but trying to rewrite history to make it seem like people were pretty cruel and nasty towards him out of some equally-applied standard of performance for young players is just crazy. A lot of people just straight up didn’t like him, and didn’t need any more reason than that.

Good post, including Rattie’s ass-goal streak. But the nicknames for Sanford are not mean-spirited. They’re funny.

You’re referencing Easton’s break down of that finesse play where the criticism was that his positioning and use of the body would lead to failure more often than not. I don’t have strong feelings about that opinion, but we sure haven’t seen much of Easton these days.

 

[Blueston]

I think the types of deals Vegas did were more of the nature of being able t name additional players to protect. I can’t think of any where they named who the Knights drafted. So, I think the Blues would have to give something to be able to remove another player or two from the list. Maybe Faulk looks like the best option then and maybe he doesn’t.

I think there were some of both.

 

[MissouriMook]

I don't really know what Faulk was doing on that Saad PP goal, there was only one threat and he didn't cover it. But the PK as a whole was just bad, our forwards gave the Hawks point men way too much time and freedom.

His job there was to stop the outlet on that side of the ice. Saad was left all alone in the slot with two Blues forwards standing behind him, neither of which challenged him physically or even attempted to tie up his stick. The pass to Saad came from the other side of the net, past the other D. So of the five Blues on the ice for that goal, including Binnington who failed to make the stop, you decide to pick on Faulk?

 

[542365]

Will Sanford make the Sunny transition from board whipping boy to fan favorite? I think Perron has made that same transition as well the past two years. Maybe not a whipping boy, but many people were not too happy with bringing him back, but I'm sure they're thrilled with how we he's played here.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Good post, including Rattie’s ass-goal streak. But the nicknames for Sanford are not mean-spirited. They’re funny.

You’re referencing Easton’s break down of that finesse play where the criticism was that his positioning and use of the body would lead to failure more often than not. I don’t have strong feelings about that opinion, but we sure haven’t seen much of Easton these days.

The whole time that argument was going on, I was just like “look, did he do it or not?” It just seemed like a big stretch to basically say yeah that was neat, but it’s the only time he’ll ever do anything good. He made the play, but he didn’t do it the way a fan preferred, so it just didn’t count. Madness.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I mean, who knew that Sam Bradford could become such a good hockey player.

 

[542365]

Great respond and not suprised one bit. Did I say single word those goals were Faulk's fault?

My point was we've better PK'er at d-core than Faulk who can play his spot. Like Gunnar or Bortuzzo for example. Coaching staff just misuse Faulk. It wasn't like Scandella was good game too. I don't defend Scandella and I've never said I'm sold on him.

What is wrong people when they try to put word on others people mouth and twist every word what has written.

"Faulk 3:55 icetime at PK. 3 goals let at PK. Great job coaching staff."

Can we agree those are your words or are you going to pull a politician's mental gymnastics and claim somehow you didn't say that?

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from those words? You say Faulk had a lot of PK time(and failed to mention that he was probably our best PKer last night, no real surprise) and then say that the PK let in 3 goals. If it's not Faulk's fault(which it most certainly is not) then what is the point of even bringing him up? Just to bitch some more about him? Which of the two goals that Faulk was on the ice for would Gunnar have made a difference? Neither of them if he was actually playing his position, like Faulk was.

Faulk scored a critical goal, broke up several plays defensively, and was not at fault for any of the goals against and STILL you're bitching about him. I guarantee if you put him in Mikkola's jersey last night we'd be hearing all about the great defensive reads and the bomb from the point. It's just blind hatred and it's f***ing annoying.

 

[bleedblue1223]

On a more serious note, we gotta give a ton of credit to guys like Sundqvist and Sanford. The coaching staff and vets play a part too, but those guys clearly put the work in to up their games in big ways. They had more to do than a guy like Thomas who had the skill and just had to figure the game out to get the production like he has now.

 

[Dbrownss]

His job there was to stop the outlet on that side of the ice. Saad was left all alone in the slot with two Blues forwards standing behind him, neither of which challenged him physically or even attempted to tie up his stick. The pass to Saad came from the other side of the net, past the other D. So of the five Blues on the ice for that goal, including Binnington who failed to make the stop, you decide to pick on Faulk?

I dont think its soley Faulks fault but he bit hard on Stromes "wrap around" attempt. Scandella was defending the lane back to Dach. The whole PK was terrible, though goal 1 was achieved because Toews interfered with Orielly and should have been called but they missed it. Orielly should have just come up hard on him in a later F/O, bust him in the chops with his helmet or shoulder . Like they say though....ain't cheating if you don't get caught.

 

[bleedblue1223]

"Faulk 3:55 icetime at PK. 3 goals let at PK. Great job coaching staff."

Can we agree those are your words or are you going to pull a politician's mental gymnastics and claim somehow you didn't say that?

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from those words? You say Faulk had a lot of PK time(and failed to mention that he was probably our best PKer last night, no real surprise) and then say that the PK let in 3 goals. If it's not Faulk's fault(which it most certainly is not) then what is the point of even bringing him up? Just to bitch some more about him? Which of the two goals that Faulk was on the ice for would Gunnar have made a difference? Neither of them if he was actually playing his position, like Faulk was.

Faulk scored a critical goal, broke up several plays defensively, and was not at fault for any of the goals against and STILL you're bitching about him. I guarantee if you put him in Mikkola's jersey last night we'd be hearing all about the great defensive reads and the bomb from the point. It's just blind hatred and it's f*cking annoying.

There was a group effort failure on the Saad goal, and Faulk was one that carries some burden on that one. Just saying we shouldn't say he was not at fault for any of the goals against.

He's having a season like he had in 17/18, but without the added PP production. I'm not so worried about him as a player, but I think there should be some general concern about finding a role for him that maximizes his attributes, whiles also not hurting another player on the team or hurting the team overall. Sure, we could give him PP1 time, but the PP is better with Petro. Finding that fit has been difficult, but hopefully training camp next season helps.

 

[MissouriMook]

"Faulk 3:55 icetime at PK. 3 goals let at PK. Great job coaching staff."

Can we agree those are your words or are you going to pull a politician's mental gymnastics and claim somehow you didn't say that?

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from those words? You say Faulk had a lot of PK time(and failed to mention that he was probably our best PKer last night, no real surprise) and then say that the PK let in 3 goals. If it's not Faulk's fault(which it most certainly is not) then what is the point of even bringing him up? Just to bitch some more about him? Which of the two goals that Faulk was on the ice for would Gunnar have made a difference? Neither of them if he was actually playing his position, like Faulk was.

Faulk scored a critical goal, broke up several plays defensively, and was not at fault for any of the goals against and STILL you're bitching about him. I guarantee if you put him in Mikkola's jersey last night we'd be hearing all about the great defensive reads and the bomb from the point. It's just blind hatred and it's f*cking annoying.

Faulk is turning into the new Sanford. He is catching a lot of heat on this board, some deserved but (lately) much of it not, and yet the coaching staff seems to be trusting him more and more each game. His play has been (dare I say) great the last couple of weeks. He has looked decent when paired with Petro and he and Dunn have looked great together as a traditional L-R. They are both hyper aggressive defenders, so as long as one of them keeps covering for the other like they have been they will continue to be a great third pairing, a luxury even a lot of playoff bound teams don't have. What a remarkable turn of events it would be if Faulk turns up his game going into the playoffs and becomes this year's Schwartz.