Hate to break up the stretch pass party (I know that's
always the reason we lose
), but I think it's illustrative that when talking about what NJ did to win,
both Bylsma and Crosby stressed that the Devils succeeded by getting the puck deep, being strong on the puck, and playing extended shifts in the offensive zone.
The Pens weren't committed enough to move the puck the puck out consistently, and consequently got worn out.
Maybe Bylsma and Crosby just aren't clued into the all-encompassing evils of the stretch pass. Or maybe there were other, more pressing issues tonight.
I don't understand why this functions as an argument against critiquing our breakouts? New Jersey did what Bylsma would like us to do, ie. we didn't prevent them from establishing zone time, which they did by picking apart our breakout.
None of their goals were scored playing in the offensive zone; rather they did that exploiting two occasions where one of our D-men got trapped behind the play and their puck carrier beat Vokoun cleanly with our remaining D-man choosing to cover the trailing forward (pretty much text book although you see D-men to a good job of taking some of the shooting angles away). These goals had nothing to do with what system either team was playing. It was converting on the kind of transition chances that virtually any team will get once or twice in a game.
But having said that, the argument that
we weren't committed to move out the puck consistently.... what does that even mean, CW?
They were committed to do the same things over and over and the Devils gladly moved their D high with 3F coverage to pick it off. It has nothing to do with commitment and everything to do with being easy to read. Perhaps you can say that they weren't committed to chase the dump-ins and win 50/50 battles, but I would add that there is a systemic component to setting yourself up to challenge for those battles that we clearly didn't have.
Now, Mtl.Pen will then point to Dupuis' stone hands as an argument that we cannot short pass our way out of the first forechecking waive to get into position to chip it behind their D and go to work.
That is probably where I disagree with him the most. When you can have Fayne or Volchenkov short pass to Josefsson who short passes to Stephen Gionta or Bobby Butler, who chips it behind our D for Steve Bernier... or Krys BARCH! to chase... ie what passes for a Devils 4th line.... regularly.... then it isn't lack of skill that prevents us from doing the same.
It COULD be a lack of structure on our part though. Ie. passing/break out routines that are actually drilled in practice. Our guys can take a tape to tape pass like most NHL'ers, but it is a lot easier making those passes and receiving them while coming forward with speed, if players instinctively know where the other forwards are going. We display very little such understanding and haven't for a long time, which is what I was cautioning even while we were winning. Unless our top players are freelancing and making things happen on account of their superior skill and vision, we have very little going on.
If we were to suggest that Ogelthorpe is or could be right that the stretch pass is a good way to beat.... lets say 'the Devils solid team defense and neutral zone interference'.... then clearly when it isn't working on the day, or two days running, you need to have other options to go to. And if we are basically doing the same thing also when meeting teams that play very different from the Devils, not to say virtually any team we meet, then clearly it isn't just a design to beat.... a defense such as the Devils'.
I just cannot accept that we are a team with a set notion of what our game is, when we rarely get to it, and it isn't what gets us wins... certainly not goals... either.
When Neal scored, I was trying to remember the last time we made a sweet comeback in a game. 
