Post-Game Talk: Stars @ Rangers

[BarbaraAlphanse]

All jokes aside, this isn't a problem with our back up goaltender. This is a problem with certain posters on this board. The inability to think positively, or even rationally, in place of brute and illogical cynicism.

When Henrik is healthy - he is taken for granted.
When Kreider has an off game - half of you are ready to join up in front of his apartment with pitchforks and blowtorches... because "he should be able to play the same exact way every game". (LOL @ that sentiment, btw).
When Zucc was put in a position to fail against defenders that prevented his bread and butter - "I can't wait until this bum is off our team".
When Girardi is on the ice for a goal he couldn't prevent - "Most over rated defender in the league"
When Staal's incredibly long stick isn't an inch longer to poke check a goal - "This guy sucks"

The list goes on. Every game. Something negative to harp on about someone. The problem isn't always the players... it's your lack of ability to think positively... and maybe not even that, logically would suffice, too.

Goalies have the toughest job. Mentally. I don't just say that because I used to play as one. Every play a goalie makes is under the microscope. That is because the goalie is the last man back. There is usually no one to bail out one of his mistakes. And people are much more forgiving for wingers/centers/defenders when they make a mistake and someone else on the team bails them out... when in reality, a goalie can rarely be bailed out.

That quote from Henrik after the Habs game summed it up perfectly... A goalie can be playing perfectly, and one moment can haunt him for the rest of eternity. One mistake. Mistakes happen. The negative nancies on this board don't let anyone forget the mistakes. Goalies' mistakes are magnified far worse in the scope of perception, because they almost always lead to goals.

Problem wasn't Cam last night. He let in 1 goal that he'd like to have back. The 2nd. Sure. But the team played like ****ing **** for 55 minutes. They expected to win having Cam save their ass and then show up for the final 5 minutes of the game. That's an automatic recipe for disaster. The OTL was on the team. Particularly our 1st line, 4th line, and McDonagh.

 

[pld459666]

I was trying to do that with the GW as well.

Three bodies in front of Talbot, great shot placement.

Nothing to be done other than hope the puck hits you.

 

[nevesis]

All jokes aside, this isn't a problem with our back up goaltender. This is a problem with certain posters on this board. The inability to think positively, or even rationally, in place of brute and illogical cynicism.

When Henrik is healthy - he is taken for granted.
When Kreider has an off game - half of you are ready to join up in front of his apartment with pitchforks and blowtorches... because "he should be able to play the same exact way every game". (LOL @ that sentiment, btw).
When Zucc was put in a position to fail against defenders that prevented his bread and butter - "I can't wait until this bum is off our team".
When Girardi is on the ice for a goal he couldn't prevent - "Most over rated defender in the league"
When Staal's incredibly long stick isn't an inch longer to poke check a goal - "This guy sucks"

The list goes on. Every game. Something negative to harp on about someone. The problem isn't always the players... it's your lack of ability to think positively... and maybe not even that, logically would suffice, too.

Goalies have the toughest job. Mentally. I don't just say that because I used to play as one. Every play a goalie makes is under the microscope. That is because the goalie is the last man back. There is usually no one to bail out one of his mistakes. And people are much more forgiving for wingers/centers/defenders when they make a mistake and someone else on the team bails them out... when in reality, a goalie can rarely be bailed out.

That quote from Henrik after the Habs game summed it up perfectly... A goalie can be playing perfectly, and one moment can haunt him for the rest of eternity. One mistake. Mistakes happen. The negative nancies on this board don't let anyone forget the mistakes. Goalies' mistakes are magnified far worse in the scope of perception, because they almost always lead to goals.

Problem wasn't Cam last night. He let in 1 goal that he'd like to have back. The 2nd. Sure. But the team played like ****ing **** for 55 minutes. They expected to win having Cam save their ass and then show up for the final 5 minutes of the game. That's an automatic recipe for disaster. The OTL was on the team. Particularly our 1st line, 4th line, and McDonagh.

Excellent post, and insight. One of the select few members here who gets it.

 

[silverfish]

I was trying to do that with the GW as well.

Three bodies in front of Talbot, great shot placement.

Nothing to be done other than hope the puck hits you.

Which it would have if he was in correct position.

Screens happen on a lot of shots. Goalies need to work around that.

Again, I know I need to keep saying it because it is becoming lost in this discussion...

LAST NIGHT'S GAME IS NOT COMPLETELY ON CAM, BUT HE SHARES PART OF THE BLAME. MY FOCUS IS CURRENTLY ON CAM BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS THREAD IS.

*ahem* Thanks

 

[nevesis]

I was trying to do that with the GW as well.

Three bodies in front of Talbot, great shot placement.

Nothing to be done other than hope the puck hits you.

He saved it too, it just trickled through his legs, and slowly crossed the goal line.

The play never happens if Hayes doesn't turn it over. If that was Glass who did that, no one would even be talking about Talbot, ALL the discussion would be about the turnover.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

He saved it too, it just trickled through his legs, and slowly crossed the goal line.

The play never happens if Hayes doesn't turn it over. If that was Glass who did that, no one would even be talking about Talbot, ALL the discussion would be about the turnover.

Hfboards would have crashed. Mass pandemonium would have ensued on this board.

 

[McRanger]

Except he starts his shot from above the circles and has already released the puck in that picture.

And that is putting aside the fact that no one, ever, has referred to that high up as the slot. He would have to be another few feet closer to the hash marks and it would be extremely generous to call it the high slot.

And please, save the emoji's. You make Chico Resch seem reasonable when it comes to discussing goalies.

 

[nevesis]

Which it would have if he was in correct position.

Screens happen on a lot of shots. Goalies need to work around that.

Again, I know I need to keep saying it because it is becoming lost in this discussion...

LAST NIGHT'S GAME IS NOT COMPLETELY ON CAM, BUT HE SHARES PART OF THE BLAME. MY FOCUS IS CURRENTLY ON CAM BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS THREAD IS.

*ahem* Thanks

Talbot on Ales Hemsky’s winner: “No, I didn’t see it. I looked around to see the initial shot and he went straight back the other direction. Once it left the stick, I lost it completely.â€

The net is 6 feet wide and 4 feet high. When you're leaning/crouching one way around a screen to locate a shot, you sacrifice the other side. This is universally understood in goaltending circles, and players know it too.

This is the NHL, these guys have the ability to pick corners and areas with ease.

Hemsky sniped the top left corner. It was a great shot that had eyes for the net.

 

[klingsor]

Lucky to get a point.

I hate the "delay of game"penalty to begin with. And if you're gonna call it get it right at least.

 

[silverfish]

Excellent post, and insight. One of the select few members here who gets it.

It's an excellent post and insight for someone to say the team played like **** for 55 minutes when they allowed 2 shots on goal the entire third period?

Okay.

I get the point he's trying to make, but he's making it wrong.

The board just seems that way because there are a ton of posters here. When that happens, you're going to have times where when one player messes up, a lot of people are going to come out of the woodwork and harp on that player -- this is just a sample size thing. We have a lot of regulars here on HFNYR, it's a good thing.

The best thing isn't to generalize the entire board into a group of insane people. And realize that just because someone is saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean they are wrong. It's just how they're seeing the game. I don't think nevesis is wrong in his evaluation of Talbot yesterday, but I disagree with his evaluation.

As an example, I harp on Miller a lot. Everyone knows that. I usually don't have problems with goalies (check my post history), but I thought Cam could've been better yesterday. I also think McDonagh could've been better. And Girardi. St. Louis is a train wreck of invisibility right now. Stepan looked like he had the flu. Hayes with a brutal turnover but an otherwise solid game. Glass is the worst NHLer of all-time.

People are going to disagree with some of the things you think, Rust and nev. It doesn't mean that they're operating with "brute illogical cynicism"

 

[pld459666]

Which it would have if he was in correct position.

Screens happen on a lot of shots. Goalies need to work around that.

Again, I know I need to keep saying it because it is becoming lost in this discussion...

LAST NIGHT'S GAME IS NOT COMPLETELY ON CAM, BUT HE SHARES PART OF THE BLAME. MY FOCUS IS CURRENTLY ON CAM BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS THREAD IS.

*ahem* Thanks

I think you are way overstating things with regards to the GW'er. Almost impossible for a goalie to stop that shot.

He's trackign Hemsky from his (Cam's) right to left, the ONLY viewing angle he has is to look around the two guys right in front of him was a little further to his left than he would have liked. Anything else and he is COMPLETELY blind to not only the shot, but the shooter as well.

If we're talking positioning, then Cam should have been at least few feet further out to cut down the angle. Should he be blamed for not being there? Again, he was prevented from doing that due to the traffic in front.

I get it that yoiu are not laying the blame at his feet solely. But there are at LEAST a half dozen other reasons this team lost last night before even thinking Talbot is part of the next half dozen reasons.

 

[McRanger]

I was trying to do that with the GW as well.

Three bodies in front of Talbot, great shot placement.

Nothing to be done other than hope the puck hits you.

I hope you are talking about the GWG. Because there was plenty that could be done on that 2nd goal.

Even if he lost it momentarily when it went through the D-man, it was a wrister from 25 feet out.

 

[silverfish]

The net is 6 feet wide and 4 feet high. When you're leaning/crouching one way around a screen to locate a shot, you sacrifice the other side. This is universally understood in goaltending circles, and players know it too.

This is the NHL, these guys have the ability to pick corners and areas with ease.

Hemsky sniped the top left corner. It was a great shot that had eyes for the net.

No doubt. The puck was right in the corner. Allow me to want my goalie to make that save from a wrist-shot from that area of the ice from a guy like Hemsky - not necessarily noted for his lethal wrist shot. If it was a guy like Stamkos, Ovechkin, Neal... I'd be a little more sympathetic. I want more out of Cam than what he showed yesterday, and I know he's capable of it.

Thanks for the lesson on how big the nets are though, had no clue. Been watching hockey for 24 years and had no idea! Always thought they were 30 yards wide.

 

[nevesis]

Except he starts his shot from above the circles and has already released the puck in that picture.

And that is putting aside the fact that no one, ever, has referred to that high up as the slot. He would have to be another few feet closer to the hash marks and it would be extremely generous to call it the high slot

Hrmm, most every definition of it on the web says otherwise.

The deep slot area is closer to the goaltender, while the high slot is farther away from the goalie near the top of the faceoff circles.

The "deep" or "high" slot refers to the area from the top of the circles, farthest from the goaltender, to the end of the slot at the hash marks.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

It's an excellent post and insight for someone to say the team played like **** for 55 minutes when they allowed 2 shots on goal the entire third period?

Okay.

I get the point he's trying to make, but he's making it wrong.

The board just seems that way because there are a ton of posters here. When that happens, you're going to have times where when one player messes up, a lot of people are going to come out of the woodwork and harp on that player -- this is just a sample size thing. We have a lot of regulars here on HFNYR, it's a good thing.

The best thing isn't to generalize the entire board into a group of insane people. And realize that just because someone is saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean they are wrong. It's just how they're seeing the game. I don't think nevesis is wrong in his evaluation of Talbot yesterday, but I disagree with his evaluation.

As an example, I harp on Miller a lot. Everyone knows that. I usually don't have problems with goalies (check my post history), but I thought Cam could've been better yesterday. I also think McDonagh could've been better. And Girardi. St. Louis is a train wreck of invisibility right now. Stepan looked like he had the flu. Hayes with a brutal turnover but an otherwise solid game. Glass is the worst NHLer of all-time.

People are going to disagree with some of the things you think, Rust and nev. It doesn't mean that they're operating with "brute illogical cynicism"

I specified certain posters. That implies that I meant not the majority. I don't generalize.

And my point stands. It was not done incorrectly. I think I was quite clear and spot on with hitting a demographic on this board that is present. That demographic does not speak to the majority of the board.

I am not saying that posters should not be critical. I am critical of our players. Sometimes unfairly so. But for some, endless berating is the norm. In which case, I'm saying that last night's criticism of Cam Talbot in particular, is out of line.

 

[silverfish]

I think you are way overstating things with regards to the GW'er. Almost impossible for a goalie to stop that shot.

He's trackign Hemsky from his (Cam's) right to left, the ONLY viewing angle he has is to look around the two guys right in front of him was a little further to his left than he would have liked. Anything else and he is COMPLETELY blind to not only the shot, but the shooter as well.

If we're talking positioning, then Cam should have been at least few feet further out to cut down the angle. Should he be blamed for not being there? Again, he was prevented from doing that due to the traffic in front.

I get it that yoiu are not laying the blame at his feet solely. But there are at LEAST a half dozen other reasons this team lost last night before even thinking Talbot is part of the next half dozen reasons.

The bolded is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[nevesis]

No doubt. The puck was right in the corner. Allow me to want my goalie to make that save from a wrist-shot from that area of the ice from a guy like Hemsky - not necessarily noted for his lethal wrist shot. If it was a guy like Stamkos, Ovechkin, Neal... I'd be a little more sympathetic. I want more out of Cam than what he showed yesterday, and I know he's capable of it.

At the NHL level, most every guy has a lethal wrist shot given that time and space. You don't have to have a household name to be able to snipe a corner at this level. That argument is comical.

Again, I posted the quote from Cam himself, he didn't see it.

 

[silverfish]

At the NHL level, most every guy has a lethal wrist shot given that time and space. You don't have to have a household name to be able to snipe a corner at this level. That argument is comical.

Again, I posted the quote from Cam himself, he didn't see it.

Yes, but there are guys who unload that wrist-shot at 50 mph, and guys who unload that wrist shot at 75+mph.

I'm glad my arguments amuse you, though.

A lot of condescending bull**** on the board today.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

At the NHL level, most every guy has a lethal wrist shot given that time and space. You don't have to have a household name to be able to snipe a corner at this level. That argument is comical.

Again, I posted the quote from Cam himself, he didn't see it.

He had that time because Nash played him horribly defensively. He over committed to Hemsky passing the puck and as a result he flew right past Hemsky while he held onto the puck. Then as a result for overcommitting, he took himself offbalance as he reached back wildly to try and pokecheck the puck in case Hemsky skated around his back. After that Nash scrambled towards the point man, and overcommitted his positioning again. He left a huge gap of space between where he was and where Hemsky was freely able to stick handle the puck and locate a position where the goalie was screened to take a quick wrister. Ales Hemsky is known for his wrister. This isn't some random run at the mill guy who can't locate his wrist shot, or doesn't know when the optimal time to shoot the puck is.

Not Cam's fault. Not Staal's fault. Nash blew his defensive assignment.

 

[pld459666]

He saved it too, it just trickled through his legs, and slowly crossed the goal line.

The play never happens if Hayes doesn't turn it over. If that was Glass who did that, no one would even be talking about Talbot, ALL the discussion would be about the turnover.

I was talking about the game winner.

you get hit with the puck in that spot as opposed to making a save.

that was a great shot by Hemsky in that spot.

 

[pld459666]

I hope you are talking about the GWG. Because there was plenty that could be done on that 2nd goal.

Even if he lost it momentarily when it went through the D-man, it was a wrister from 25 feet out.

I was referring to the GW'er.

the 2nd goal could have been stopped. But that goal was no worse than the GW'er Hank gave up to Patches against Montreal.

 

[pld459666]

The bolded is exactly what I'm talking about.

Had he maintained position and not looked to his left around the screen, he STILL gets beat by the snipe becasue he doesn't see the shot being taken and where the puck went.

It's a no win for him there.

 

[nevesis]

In case some missed it, below is a nice piece Maloney just did on Sports Final with Bruce Beck about Talbot...he's right on with his assessment. Check it out below:

https://vid.me/Mgvk

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

In case some missed it, below is a nice piece Maloney just did on Sports Final with Bruce Beck about Talbot...he's right on with his assessment. Check it out below:

https://vid.me/Mgvk

Countless expert testimonials on the subject won't convince the arm chair coaches on this board, Nev.

 

[McRanger]

Hrmm, most every definition of it on the web says otherwise.

Truthfully I've never read an online glossary of hockey definitions. In all the years of playing and watching I have never heard a coach or announcer ever refer to inside the top of the faceoff circles as the slot. Especially when describing a play on the rush, since the slot is usually a term reserved for describing in-zone defenseive coverage. I wouldn't consider someone coming in on a breakaway and blasting a slapshot past the goalie scoring from the slot.

Not that it matters. He shot from right at the top of the faceoff circles. Actually his release starts about 2-3 feet out.

Which means at the end of the day its an unscreened 25-35 foot wrist shot.

Which is a shot that needs to be stopped.