League News: Out of Town Scoreboard (Metrosectional Edition)

[BTCG]

I've read these on-going posts of Lib's, Halpysback's, and KSD's with great interest.

One reason is that I think all 3 have shrewd hockey minds, and having read them all closely in the past, I believe that I can read somewhat, between the lines, here.

AND... I don't think there's a right or wrong: all 3 make valid points.

Recently, I drove to Michigan to pick up my 75 year old Mom for a extended-week vacation with my Missus and I here in Gaithersburg. While driving there, I got a chance to listen to this call-in show I LOVE on the NHL XM channel. It features Phil Esposito.

One of the callers asked Phil to comment on AO's physical play in game 7 of the Ranger's series, and, I was quite surprised by Espo's comments.

Phil no longer likes AO after watching that game. He felt that AO's checks were not done to inspire his team, rather, he felt that they were punitive... done to punish the other team, and one was, to quote him was "a damn dirty check on that kid."

Espo says that he will no longer root for any AO led team.

Interesting take, I thought.

 

[SimplySensational]

I've read these on-going posts of Lib's, Halpysback's, and KSD's with great interest.

One reason is that I think all 3 have shrewd hockey minds, and having read them all closely in the past, I believe that I can read somewhat, between the lines, here.

AND... I don't think there's a right or wrong: all 3 make valid points.

Recently, I drove to Michigan to pick up my 75 year old Mom for a extended-week vacation with my Missus and I here in Gaithersburg. While driving there, I got a chance to listen to this call-in show I LOVE on the NHL XM channel. It features Phil Esposito.

One of the callers asked Phil to comment on AO's physical play in game 7 of the Ranger's series, and, I was quite surprised by Espo's comments.

Phil no longer likes AO after watching that game. He felt that AO's checks were not done to inspire his team, rather, he felt that they were punitive... done to punish the other team, and one was, to quote him was "a damn dirty check on that kid."

Espo says that he will no longer root for any AO led team.

Interesting take, I thought.

Jackass. Him, not you.

 

[BTCG]

Jackass. Him, not you.

I gotcha... I know I have misunderstood you in the past. Not this time, though.

 

[Ajax1995]

Espo says that he will no longer root for any AO led team.

Now we're really screwed...

 

[SimplySensational]

I gotcha... I know I have misunderstood you in the past. Not this time, though.

No, I did that so I wouldn't get an infraction. Leave no shadow of a doubt that it was directed at Esposito.

Also, Pens suck so badly.

 

[Langway]

Marchand is the best. (When he's not diving anyway.)

 

[Halpysback*]

Would people say Morrow is a great leader? What about Iginla? I'm sure Crosby gets pretty expensive praise for his leadership, not to say anything of Kunitz, Neal or Orpik (see where I'm going with this...)

And Chara, Bergeron, Lucic, such a collection of great leaders, not the kind who could blow a 3-0 playoff lead and a 3-0 playoff game 7 (again, see where I'm going with this...)

The thing about all these postulations about leadership is that people ignore any data that flies in the face of their assumptions about it. Iggy and Morrow are still gonna be considered amazing leaders after the Pens are flushed later this week. Zetterberg is everyone's dream captain even though the Wings choked away a 3-1 lead. Is Getzlaf, Beauchemin and Perry's leadership gonna be re-evaluated after the Ducks pulled a caps? Because it seems all those teams with amazing leadership are/have fallen flat.

The one thing we do see consistently is that any time "leadership" succeeds it is backed by a competently assembled playoff team. Replace Marchand or Lucic with Johansson on the Bruins and I guarantee you that line and that team as a whole is having a much harder time simply because of how much strength they lose on the puck, leadership having nothing to do with it. They have 4 lines and 3 pairings where all players on the same page. That's not leadership, that's synergy amongst quality players. And it's up to the GM to assemble players capable of that level of play and that mindset and the coach to get them on the same page. It's clear the GM isn't capable of it and there are question marks about the coach as well.

I'd go as far as say that until Ovechkin fails with a playoff build team in place and a competent coach (maybe Oates, maybe not Oates, but someone who you can see gets it, an anti-Boudreau if you will) these leadership questions are a distraction from actual, fixable, concrete on paper issues with the roster.

 

[Liberati0n*]

I never said the playoff losses were the evidence for him not being the right leader, although obviously they aren't entirely unrelated. I also never said leadership was the biggest issue. Of course the overall makeup of the roster is more important.

 

[Stewie G]

Would people say Morrow is a great leader? What about Iginla? I'm sure Crosby gets pretty expensive praise for his leadership, not to say anything of Kunitz, Neal or Orpik (see where I'm going with this...)

And Chara, Bergeron, Lucic, such a collection of great leaders, not the kind who could blow a 3-0 playoff lead and a 3-0 playoff game 7 (again, see where I'm going with this...)

The thing about all these postulations about leadership is that people ignore any data that flies in the face of their assumptions about it. Iggy and Morrow are still gonna be considered amazing leaders after the Pens are flushed later this week. Zetterberg is everyone's dream captain even though the Wings choked away a 3-1 lead. Is Getzlaf, Beauchemin and Perry's leadership gonna be re-evaluated after the Ducks pulled a caps? Because it seems all those teams with amazing leadership are/have fallen flat.

The one thing we do see consistently is that any time "leadership" succeeds it is backed by a competently assembled playoff team. Replace Marchand or Lucic with Johansson on the Bruins and I guarantee you that line and that team as a whole is having a much harder time simply because of how much strength they lose on the puck, leadership having nothing to do with it. They have 4 lines and 3 pairings where all players on the same page. That's not leadership, that's synergy amongst quality players. And it's up to the GM to assemble players capable of that level of play and that mindset and the coach to get them on the same page. It's clear the GM isn't capable of it and there are question marks about the coach as well.

I'd go as far as say that until Ovechkin fails with a playoff build team in place and a competent coach (maybe Oates, maybe not Oates, but someone who you can see gets it, an anti-Boudreau if you will) these leadership questions are a distraction from actual, fixable, concrete on paper issues with the roster.

Very well stated.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

I never said the playoff losses were the evidence for him not being the right leader, although obviously they aren't entirely unrelated. I also never said leadership was the biggest issue. Of course the overall makeup of the roster is more important.

The problem is that Ovechkin's white knights like to use the roster holes as an excuse to overlook questions about his leaderships. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

No one questions the Bruins leaders because they have bounced back and succeeded more often than they have failed. They have answered any questions about their leadership with their play.

Zetterberg has a Conn Smythe and multiple finals appearances.

Morrow has captained a team with Ribeiro to the conference finals.

Part of leadership is knowing how to deal with failure. If the supposed leader of a team better known for failure than accomplishment can't deal with questions about his leadership while his own playoff production is declining as the captain, then it's only logical to let another player who can handle that be the captain.

 

[hb12xchamps]

The problem is that Ovechkin's white knights like to use the roster holes as an excuse to overlook questions about his leaderships. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

No one questions the Bruins leaders because they have bounced back and succeeded more often than they have failed. They have answered any questions about their leadership with their play.

Zetterberg has a Conn Smythe and multiple finals appearances.

Morrow has captained a team with Ribeiro to the conference finals.

Part of leadership is knowing how to deal with failure. If the supposed leader of a team better known for failure than accomplishment can't deal with questions about his leadership while his own playoff production is declining as the captain, then it's only logical to let another player who can handle that be the captain.

The difference here is the true leader of the team, the general manager. He makes all the decisions and the difference between GMGM and Shero, Chirallei, etc is that they have a surrounding cast of leaders and great players. They get it. GMGM on the other hand likes to plug in cheap options that just don't work. He's a dumpster diver. In the past he has acquired guys who are good leaders with experience (Feds, Walker, etc) but he has trouble retaining those guys. Ovechkin, Green, Backstrom, etc. have never had true veteran leadership or mentorship and when they did it was a short period of time. McPhee loves to use his cheap options and young guys. Zetterberg has been surrounded by great veterans and good leaders. The Bruins team is a solid mixture of vetarans and younger role players. The Penguins have a plethora of veteran leader. The great teams have more than just one guy leading the team. McPhee made a mistake by not paying Feds his money. Feds was the best thing that happend to Ovechkin and Semin.

 

[Langway]

Ovechkin's captaincy is a huge Catch 22 and pretty overblown. If there was a logical alternative or anything approaching discipline overall there wouldn't be a need to strip him of it to begin with. Storylines of individual players lifting teams on their shoulders don't really withstand scrutiny anymore outside of maybe goaltenders.

The whole organization has zero clue how to deal with failure so to single him out would be useless without any sort of coherent strategy beyond the boldness of the act itself. Change just for the sake of it is likely to be equally random as their usual approach.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

Ovechkin's captaincy is a huge Catch 22 and pretty overblown. If there was a logical alternative or anything approaching discipline overall there wouldn't be a need to strip him of it to begin with. Storylines of individual players lifting teams on their shoulders don't really withstand scrutiny anymore outside of maybe goaltenders.

The whole organization has zero clue how to deal with failure so to single him out would be useless without any sort of coherent strategy beyond the boldness of the act itself. Change just for the sake of it is likely to be equally random as their usual approach.

It's less about singling him out and more about him not being immune from criticism. He gets more credit than anyone else when the team's successful so it's logical that he gets more criticism when his lackluster play then caused it to fail.

Fact is as a captain his playoff production has declined every year. It is also not the only area where there needs to be improvement. No amount of roster work is going to help when the captain of the team would rather be known as captain of a failure than a non-captain on a Stanley Cup winner. This team shouldn't be more afraid of its own captain than other teams.

 

[hb12xchamps]

It's less about singling him out and more about him not being immune from criticism. He gets more credit than anyone else when the team's successful so it's logical that he gets more criticism when his lackluster play then caused it to fail.

Fact is as a captain his playoff production has declined every year. It is also not the only area where there needs to be improvement. No amount of roster work is going to help when the captain of the team would rather be known as captain of a failure than a non-captain on a Stanley Cup winner. This team shouldn't be more afraid of its own captain than other teams.

So you are saying that the playoff failures on this team rests on our "failing captains" shoulders? I'm sorry but thats a load of ****. A roster with John Erskine in the top 4 and Oleksy and Hillen in on D isn't gonna win a cup. A roster that doesn't get production from all 4 lines whether it's goals, hits, physical play, instigating, etc. isn't going to win a cup. A team that has no secondary scoring isn't going to win a cup. A team that has very little veteran leadership isn't going to win a cup. The Kings, Blackhawks, Bruins, and Penguins are still in the playoffs because of those reasons. Let's face it, using Ovie as a scapegoat isn't fair to him. There are 11 other forwards on the ice who also weren't producing including the assistant captains. Maybe Ovechkin isn't the best leader but when a guy is unanimously voted as the leader by his teammates who had nothing else to say that speaks volumes about the guy.

The team needs a new architect. We are sick of the playoff failures and that lies on McPhee and Teds shoulders. I don't blame Oates too much for the early exit because he was a rookie coach and is learning. He should have changed the lines up to find something that worked but didn't. He didn't have a lot of options because McPhee dumpster dived. Hillen, Oleksy, Wolski, Crabb, Fehr, and Volpatti were cheap moves and Fehr was the only one who ended up being a success. Other GM's get it. Build around the core with solid secondary scoring and the right role players not cheap dumpster dives.

 

[SimplySensational]

"Can Nick Backstrom, center for the Washington Capitals, get the puck out of the defensive zone in 15 attempts. Of course he can't."

 

[Brad Tolliver]

So you are saying that the playoff failures on this team rests on our "failing captains" shoulders? I'm sorry but thats a load of ****. A roster with John Erskine in the top 4 and Oleksy and Hillen in on D isn't gonna win a cup. A roster that doesn't get production from all 4 lines whether it's goals, hits, physical play, instigating, etc. isn't going to win a cup. A team that has no secondary scoring isn't going to win a cup. A team that has very little veteran leadership isn't going to win a cup. The Kings, Blackhawks, Bruins, and Penguins are still in the playoffs because of those reasons. Let's face it, using Ovie as a scapegoat isn't fair to him. There are 11 other forwards on the ice who also weren't producing including the assistant captains. Maybe Ovechkin isn't the best leader but when a guy is unanimously voted as the leader by his teammates who had nothing else to say that speaks volumes about the guy.

The team needs a new architect. We are sick of the playoff failures and that lies on McPhee and Teds shoulders. I don't blame Oates too much for the early exit because he was a rookie coach and is learning. He should have changed the lines up to find something that worked but didn't. He didn't have a lot of options because McPhee dumpster dived. Hillen, Oleksy, Wolski, Crabb, Fehr, and Volpatti were cheap moves and Fehr was the only one who ended up being a success. Other GM's get it. Build around the core with solid secondary scoring and the right role players not cheap dumpster dives.

Again, part of being captain and leader is to take criticism even when it isn't necessarily "fair." There is no logical reason for you to want him to be the captain if you think he isn't mentally capable of handling that. You also can't make the argument that the roster is worse than crap and then take their choice in leaders seriously. Hell, the only regulars on the team that "voted" for him to be captain that are still around are Backstrom, Green, Laich, Erskine, Schultz, and Fehr.

GMGM should be fired, no question. But again, it doesn't mean questions about Ovechkin's leadership are mutually exclusive. Bottom line is no team is going to be a playoff success when its captain scores only 2 points in 7 games in the 1st round.

 

[IafrateOvie34]

Here's to hoping for a sweep in game 4.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

Whoever it was that questioned Bergeron's leadership, please keep doing it.

 

[SimplySensational]

Suck it Pittsburgh.

 

[Halpysback*]

Again, part of being captain and leader is to take criticism even when it isn't necessarily "fair." There is no logical reason for you to want him to be the captain if you think he isn't mentally capable of handling that. You also can't make the argument that the roster is worse than crap and then take their choice in leaders seriously. Hell, the only regulars on the team that "voted" for him to be captain that are still around are Backstrom, Green, Laich, Erskine, Schultz, and Fehr.

GMGM should be fired, no question. But again, it doesn't mean questions about Ovechkin's leadership are mutually exclusive. Bottom line is no team is going to be a playoff success when its captain scores only 2 points in 7 games in the 1st round.

Toews had a pretty abysmal 1st round this year. The Kings can take a whole round off and still advance thanks to Quick. Pretty much every player goes hot and cold in the playoffs at some point, especially if they get keyed in on. Them be facts. The teams that advance have high end depth to compensate for the inevitable. For all the leadership accolades Bergeron is getting for his tip in Lucic-Krejci-Horton controlled the the play for most of the game while they were on the ice and softened the pens up to get to that point in the first place. Marchand and Jagr made the play happen. But hey, leadership.

Ovechkin being a martyr and taking the blame for John Erskine having to play top 4 minutes is nice and all but it is still completely irrelevant to the actual primary problems with the team. All these great leaders, including Bergeron, failed with crappy teams and succeeded once their GMs assembled the rosters to succeed. For some reason Ovechkin isn't given the same benefit of the doubt all of them got.

 

[Icetime]

The Washington Capitals have never won... ANYTHING

It's getting really really really old that the only thing a Caps fan might find solace in after another playoff fail is the chance to root against teams that have...RINGS.

Dear GMGM.

You. ARE A JOKE.

PS Vokoun was a beast tonight. Rask was even better.

 

[PuckBuddy]

Wow. Bylsma's post-game presser:

 

[InfernalDark*]

I should keep my mouth shut, but..... suck it ****tsburgh ahahahahhahhaha.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

Toews had a pretty abysmal 1st round this year. The Kings can take a whole round off and still advance thanks to Quick. Pretty much every player goes hot and cold in the playoffs at some point, especially if they get keyed in on. Them be facts. The teams that advance have high end depth to compensate for the inevitable. For all the leadership accolades Bergeron is getting for his tip in Lucic-Krejci-Horton controlled the the play for most of the game while they were on the ice and softened the pens up to get to that point in the first place. Marchand and Jagr made the play happen. But hey, leadership.

Ovechkin being a martyr and taking the blame for John Erskine having to play top 4 minutes is nice and all but it is still completely irrelevant to the actual primary problems with the team. All these great leaders, including Bergeron, failed with crappy teams and succeeded once their GMs assembled the rosters to succeed. For some reason Ovechkin isn't given the same benefit of the doubt all of them got.

You are trying to make Ovechkin a martyr by refusing to hold him responsible for the team's failure under any circumstances. Just because there are other problems on the team doesn't mean he isn't one of them. Some of us care more about winning than personality cults and would rather address them no matter where it is.

Fact is, Ovechkin's playoff production as a captain has not run "hot and cold," it has consistently declined from year to year. You must think he is mentally weaker than a 12 year old if you think he can't even handle that criticism.

 

[Halpysback*]

You are trying to make Ovechkin a martyr by refusing to hold him responsible for the team's failure under any circumstances. Just because there are other problems on the team doesn't mean he isn't one of them. Some of us care more about winning than personality cults and would rather address them no matter where it is.

Fact is, Ovechkin's playoff production as a captain has not run "hot and cold," it has consistently declined from year to year. You must think he is mentally weaker than a 12 year old if you think he can't even handle that criticism.

The teams he had were/are objectively not good enough to win with. Substitute him for just about any of these perfect captains and keep the roster intact. It still doesn't go anywhere. How effective is Bergeron for us if his linemates are Backstrom and Johansson with their heads up their *****, rather than 2 guys that have been all over the place? Or did Bergeron lead them into playing the way they have? If you cared about winning and paid attention to teams that won recently and how they got there you'd see that practically all these great leaders choked on **** teams and took it all once their teams got ridiculous depth, though it's all attributed to "leadership".

Once you have a roster built to a playoff blueprint that doesn't have major weakpoints and it implodes, like the Pens or Sharks have, then there's something to look at with leadership. Who knows, maybe if we get a deep, balanced offense and a defense that doesn't have anyone playing way over their heads perhaps Ovechkin would find that magical leadership elixir Chara and Bergeron seemed to find after 2010 and Brown after 2011.

Sure, take the c away from Ovechkin and give it to Alzner or something, but it will all be for naught until the team is actually built to go deep. If leadership is that big of a concern coaching has far more impact as far as single moves go. Bring Torts over and he can probably scare the team into getting to the ECFs before they tune him out.