Tryblot
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2009
- 8,124
- 2,871
Let's play devil's advocate briefly... If a poor goaltending performance can affect how defence plays, in that they alter their game slightly in an attempt to better compensate for said goaltender's faults, exposing exploitable tendancies for a good opposing team to take advantage of - could the opposite be true as well?
Could a good goaltender who has lost faith in his defence, question whether or not his defence has taken away the pass in a 2 on 1, hesistate a split second therefore exposing more net in attempt to cover both the pass and the shot?
Or for a defence that doesn't clear the crease, allow himself to shift slightly to better cover for deflections from the attacker that shouldn't be allowed to camp in the blue paint by a dcore, thereby exposing more openings for a shot from the puck carrier?
How about the default complaint against Allen - that he's constantly out of position... Could it be that he over commits, to take away space from the attackers, because his defence isn't doing it? The back door is left wide open, but if the defence was committed to taking away space, Allen wouldn't attempt to do so himself (however poorly and ill-advised said actions are)?
I'll admit seeing Allen swim/flail out of position attempting to make saves that would be routine had he been in position frustrates me - when he's on, he's absolutely incredible. So, what if it's not as one sided as most of us on the Board make it out to be? How many of you have stopped to consider the flipside of what a bad/poorly performing goalie does to his defence in front of him?
Brian Elliott. Carter Hutton.