Kepler 186f
Red Shifted
- Dec 17, 2007
- 15,680
- 413
That "other D-man" is Whitney, not Potter. Potter is watching his man, who is at the far face off dot.
Here, let me make this very simple for you:
In the green circle is Potter and the player he is covering. In the red circles are Whitney and the man he is supposed to be covering. Plain and simple, the second goal was either Whitney or Gagner's fault, depending on the system and responsibilities; the coach tells us it's not Gagner, so we know it's Whitney.
Any questions?
I like Potter as a 5th or 6th guy.
I went back and re-watched replay and Potter did not play it well. He had to pivot and skate to catch Lapierre coming out of the box is true, but it was obvious while Potter was still in neutral zone that (a) pass wasn't going to Lapierre (b) Lapierre was of no danger since he was straddling blue line, going away from the net and (c) he had help in the shape of Smid coming off the bench to take Lapierre.
Potter should've turn and pressured Edler andnot given up 20+ feet inside the blueline. A guy can make a bad read or a bad play a not be garbage. Chalk it up to being out of practice and timing is off a little bit.
I also considered calling part 2 " Are neutral zones shorter in North American Rinks? "
I am baffled and amazed by the extent and diligence of some posters in attempts to highlight who was responsible for the goals against in a team win.
I am baffled and amazed by the extent and diligence of some posters in attempts to highlight who was responsible for the goals against in a team win.
I am baffled and amazed by the extent and diligence of some posters in attempts to highlight who was responsible for the goals against in a team win.
Tencer says Potter is likely playing tomorrow. Eager has a swollen eye and might not.
Taking 3 minutes to post based on facts is much better use of your time than taking 10 seconds to post some BS you came up with by not paying attention.
Tencer says Potter is likely playing tomorrow.
The goal was the second time that Eberle walked around him, and the first time Eberle did it he drew a penalty. I thought it was nicer too.You know we could probably analyze Edler's errors leading to a goal as well... he's a top pairing guy that was walked around and it lead directly to a goal. **** happens.
That "other D-man" is Whitney, not Potter. Potter is watching his man, who is at the far face off dot.
Here, let me make this very simple for you:
In the green circle is Potter and the player he is covering. In the red circles are Whitney and the man he is supposed to be covering. Plain and simple, the second goal was either Whitney or Gagner's fault, depending on the system and responsibilities; the coach tells us it's not Gagner, so we know it's Whitney.
Any questions?
Late man belongs to a winger or centre. The d should be the first to cover the first in, usually wingers or centre
Gagner or yak is to blame whatever coach says to make em feel rosey.
Regardless 3 players followed the man with the puck and it wasn't Gretzky so no excuse.
Late man belongs to a winger or centre. The d should be the first to cover the first in, usually wingers or centre
Gagner or yak is to blame whatever coach says to make em feel rosey.
Regardless 3 players followed the man with the puck and it wasn't Gretzky so no excuse.
You know we could probably analyze Edler's errors leading to a goal as well... he's a top pairing guy that was walked around and it lead directly to a goal. **** happens.
?????? Not sure where we went from talking about the Oilers to analyzing Canucks blunders. But whatever. Eberle made Edler look like a pylon. So what does that have to do the conversation about the Canucks first goal?
Horcoff was great. Nice to see.
Are we seriously dumping on Gagner for getting beaten by the Sedin line? Is that how far the bar has been raised for him?
Was he? He looked exactly like Horcoff to me. Decent defensively and on the draw, fumbled a bunch of scoring chances.