guitarguyvic
Registered User
- Mar 31, 2010
- 8,856
- 7,059
Decided to re-watch highlights and...f***ing Ray Ferraro blatantly displaying his anti-Devils bias once again. Wildly unprofessional.
Really? I don't know, I thought he wasn't too anti-Devils. I'm not sure if he works for the Canucks now as John Garrett's permanent replacement on color commentary or if he's just a SportsNet color commentator they bring in for whatever games. That was definitely the Canucks broadcast though, so he was probably more pro-Canucks.Decided to re-watch highlights and...f***ing Ray Ferraro blatantly displaying his anti-Devils bias once again. Wildly unprofessional.
Is this just the new NHL in a whole? I see this exact game league wide every week multiple times.
Obviously we need better d coverage and goaltending but is this just the new norm?
We weren’t the only team to go with god and potentially garbage goalies. The Kings passed on keeping Korpisalo and added Talbot (36 yo)I’m all for Schmid more but wasn’t the talk from Fitz at the beginning of the summer that he could even be sent down? Thought this was a bit ridiculous coming off his fairly strong performance in the playoffs, but if I remember those quotes I can see why they are reluctant to effectively make him the #1.
Leads me to the questions: If you thought Schmid would be in Utica, what were you doing to help NJ? Was Hellebuyck the way they were going and it unraveled? Something else? What was plan B? Just give up and have the kid you thought was an AHL goalie potentially be thrust into the #1? Thoughts and prayers that Vitek would turn into a Cup winning goalie? I don’t get it.
When you're making an extremely simplistic point, maybe you should expect a simplistic response. Everybody knows that goalies have bad games and also that goalies can have good games where they give up 5 or more. It's very possible. The trouble is that Vitek just never has good games anymore.
My issue with that poster is this is not a game where Vitek should be getting blamed. He had a shaky 1st period and a strong 2nd period. Had the team kept their strong performance in the 3rd period, we would not be talking about a 3 goal collapse.
It's ridiculously mind boggling to me that people can blame Vitek for this. And before all you jump in, there are people who came in here and only saying Vitek sucks, and those are the people I responded to, so spare me the "we also blamed the defense".
Idk how anyone who could watch this game just think "man we need a new goalie". They completely forgot how to play in the 3rd period. Stop blaming Vitek. I think I'll just start using the convenient feature on this board instead of getting fed up with this constantly.
he wasn't ..... they had tired guys he was trying to buy time for them to change... turned into the wrong play but I think thats what he was doing.Honestly, I don't even think it's the "bad defense" that's the issue with this team, it's their mindset. This game really solidified that for me. They just regained the lead, goes on pk to a team with a very good pp and Nico decides to gun for offense instead of ensuring a clear out of the zone. 3rd period, up 5-2 and the team does a million risky plays. I can't remember all of them but I remember a couple risky passes in the dzone that could've been bad. The one play with Jack holding onto the puck in the dzone comes strongly to mind as well.
He looked very comfortable, even got to PK a bit and did a solid job. He got a couple passes intercepted trying to do a little too much and lost coverage on one goal, but those are things we’ll have to live with playing a rookie. We had to live with those things with Hamilton too lol.66 pages!! Impressive!
I am from Vancouver, but missed the game...how did Nemec look?
Luke
What if they finally made the long overdue move of firing Dave Rogalski?I know that convenient feature has already been used on me, but Vitek gets blame because he's playing like a guy that lost his ability to play the game. And all the while the other guy, who hasn't been quite as bad as him, doesn't get anywhere near the length of rope Vitek gets.
And I firmly believe Vitek will not regain his ability to play the game until he's off of this team, other than maybe a couple of good games here or there.
I don't know when the last time a team fired just a goalie coach midseason. I seem to remember Jeff Reese and the Flyers parting ways midseason under some strange circumstances back when Steve Mason was playing there and back when he was actually having success. It was really weird.What if they finally made the long overdue move of firing Dave Rogalski?
How he‘s still employed is a complete mystery to me Considering all of Ruff’s original assistants are long gone while this part of the team continues to under perform.
he wasn't ..... they had tired guys he was trying to buy time for them to change... turned into the wrong play but I think thats what he was doing.
that was absolutely bewildering to watch. It was like he looked behind him and saw a Canucks jersey closing on the puck, but thought it was a Devils jersey.you're thinking of the wrong play. He literally flew out of the zone when his team never had posession.
Honestly, I don't even think it's the "bad defense" that's the issue with this team, it's their mindset. This game really solidified that for me. They just regained the lead, goes on pk to a team with a very good pp and Nico decides to gun for offense instead of ensuring a clear out of the zone. 3rd period, up 5-2 and the team does a million risky plays. I can't remember all of them but I remember a couple risky passes in the dzone that could've been bad. The one play with Jack holding onto the puck in the dzone comes strongly to mind as well.
My recollection is that Hischier tried to buy time because NJ really needed a change at that point and he was sort of left alone. Now could he have gotten the puck on his forehand and just shot it past the Canucks? Maybe. Did he have some thought that he'd be able to pass it to fresh legs with numbers to attack if he got it past the Canucks near him? Maybe.Nico was not 'trying to gun for offense', he was trying to waste more time by carrying the puck more and got himself into trouble. In general, teams are far too conservative on the penalty kill when it comes to ragging the puck.
Jack held the puck in the d zone and was fine because he has a better spatial awareness than 99% of players. If he threw the puck to a Canuck there, everyone would've been all over him.
Nico was not 'trying to gun for offense', he was trying to waste more time by carrying the puck more and got himself into trouble. In general, teams are far too conservative on the penalty kill when it comes to ragging the puck.
Jack held the puck in the d zone and was fine because he has a better spatial awareness than 99% of players. If he threw the puck to a Canuck there, everyone would've been all over him.
My recollection is that Hischier tried to buy time because NJ really needed a change at that point and he was sort of left alone. Now could he have gotten the puck on his forehand and just shot it past the Canucks? Maybe. Did he have some thought that he'd be able to pass it to fresh legs with numbers to attack if he got it past the Canucks near him? Maybe.
Another person who seemingly didn't even notice the play because another misunderstanding lol. That's not the play I'm talking about.