Post-Game Talk: Stars @ Rangers
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
- Status
Both have qualities that the other doesn't. Both bring something that the other person doesn't.
At BC, Kevin made plays like this, but I always associated the time he had to make those plays to less speed of NCAA and also the fact that Gaudreau would be swarmed by defenders most games.
Kevin translated his skill to the NHL, much to my surprise.
Miller brings more physicality, more speed, while being able to stick handle arguably better than Hayes. His view on the ice isn't as good as Hayes', but Miller focuses on shooting while Hayes focuses on passing.
Different mentalities, different qualities they bring to the table.
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
Cole's shot was from the high slot, but when broadcasters and reporters mention "the slot" they generally refer to the area in from of the goalie between the entire circles.
Its really semantic BS. it was a shot that should of been stopped. Almost stopping it isnt good enough. Getting a piece of a long shot that goes in is like getting your glove on an error. Its still an error even if you were in good position.
If goaltenders were assessed errors, the Cole goal would be one of them.
Its really semantic BS. it was a shot that should of been stopped. Almost stopping it isnt good enough. Getting a piece of a long shot that goes in is like getting your glove on an error. Its still an error even if you were in good position.
If goaltenders were assessed errors, the Cole goal would be one of them.
Agreed.
2 incredibly useless arguments would be:
1. blaming the loss on Talbot
2. defending Talbot for letting in that softie
While no one wants that shot to go in (or any shot for that matter) Hayes caused a turn over which led to a 3-on-2...Cole had an open look and Talbot got a piece of it. How is that considered 'soft'?
Most members here define a soft goal as anything that they think should have been stopped from watching the play unfold on the TV in the comfort of their own living room.
Talbot has little to no reaction time from a wrist shot in that location. He MADE the save, but the puck trickled through his legs and over the goal line.
It's really unfortunate, but people need to chill out with calling every other goal 'soft'. True soft goals happen to every goalie in the NHL, but you aren't in the NHL if you gave up soft goals very often. It doesn't happen nearly as often as many people think.
Hank's mistake against the Canadiens was a soft goal. 50-feet away, he just misplayed it. No excuse for that. He admitted it was bad, and everyone else did here.
Bernier a week ago? My god...that must be one of the worst I've ever seen. If that happened to Lundqvist or Talbot this place would have imploded. The vBulletin board system here would have crashed and gone offline.
But when a player gets a great look in a high-percentage scoring area part of the ice, you don't blame your goaltender if it sneaks in, especially off of a horrible turnover, and an odd man rush.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Lots of talk about our backup when the team only scored 2 goals against one of the worst defensive teams in the league.
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
Well, to be fair, not all goals have to be as bad as OEL's on Bernier to be considered soft.
Also, just because Hayes made the turnover, doesn't make the goal soft either. He actually lucked out the Cole didn't take that good of a shot and he should've had it. He just misplayed it and it squeaked by him barely. Still a goal he knows he should've had, I know he should've had and you know he should've had.
If Cole was in that same spot and fanned on the puck and it trickled to Talbot and went in, would it also not be a bad goal because it was from a high percentage area and off of a Hayes turnover?
As goalies we really can make excuses for why every goal was scored because so many things have to happen just for the shot to even be taken, however, you know and I know when you give up a bad goal. Cam stops that 95 times out of 100 which is why it's a bad goal to give up.
Agreed, just hate that this thread turned into a Cam Talbot hate fest, when the loss had nothing to do with him.
The soft goal thing is thrown about way too easily here. I hold a higher standard for what is considered soft taking many things into consideration compared to others who throw it around without using any logic, or facts to back their case other then "He should have had that!"
When you have a 3-on-2 coming toward you, and the play develops fast, and from that area of the ice, its considered a high quality look/high percentage scoring area. In a situation like this, if he got beat clean, I still wouldn't blame him unless the shot was shanked and it ended up coming at him at 10mph and he missed it.
At the NHL level though, the velocity on a wrist shot from that area has enough movement to slip through the cracks if it isn't played absolutely perfect.
Another thing that most people here (especially non-goaltenders) have a hard time understanding are when goalies like Hank or Cam make routine saves, sometimes they are actually way harder/tougher than they look or that the announcers give them credit for. Those are never broken down, discussed or applauded for how great they were.
How many brought up the great saves he made in the game? No one does, they only remember the ones that go in. A lot of the saves he made in that game, the breakaway, and many others never get dissected or discussed.
Hank talked about this the other night when he blew the game with the soft goal against the Canadiens. No one will remember all the amazing saves he made that entire game, just the one soft goal he let in. The life of a goaltender as he called it...
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
That's the life of a goalie though. I remember goals I gave up YEARS ago and still remember what I could've done to stop them, even if I technically did everything right.
I could have an amazing game with tons of grade A saves but all I ever remember myself is the goals I gave up.
Only on HF is getting a piece of a shot somehow exonerates you from the actual goal. It's amazing. Who cares that he got a piece of the shot?
It was soft. Think you need to chill out about it. Not as soft as Lundqvist vs. Pacioretty, but it was soft.
30 feet out, untouched, goes right through you. Soft.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
It's like when a fielder in baseball makes a diving stop and then screws up the throw. People will always jump to his defense saying "it was a tough play." Yeah, but he already had it...
Mac n Gs
Gorton plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,592
- 12,920
The team also needs to tighten up better defensively as a unit. I agree that Cam should've had the second goal, but the OT goal was a mix of poor coverage by Boyle and Nash. Staal had Spezza tied up in front of Talbot, and Stepan was angled to cover Daley at the top right point. Boyle was directly in front of Staal and Spezza while looking at Daley, leaving Nash to pressure Jokipakka at the point, while Hemsky was in the lower left circle. Hemsky saw the opportunity and took advantage of it, and he and Jokipakka had a nice set-up (Jokipakka moved into the lower left circle and was wide open for a pass from Hemsky), but Hemsky took a perfect wrist shot and fired it top-left corner.
Could Talbot have tracked it better? Probably, but I'm not a goalie so I can't really offer any insight on the matter. It also looks like he was going down in the butterfly, which opened up a lot of room in the top corners. If Boyle is a few feet to his right, that goal might not even happen.
Could Talbot have tracked it better? Probably, but I'm not a goalie so I can't really offer any insight on the matter. It also looks like he was going down in the butterfly, which opened up a lot of room in the top corners. If Boyle is a few feet to his right, that goal might not even happen.
- May 30, 2013
- 43,116
- 18,718
Hemsky was originally Nash's man and he abandoned him, leaving Boyle caught and he had to scramble over to Hemsky. That goal was mostly Nash's fault IMO.
Jon Daniels says you don't have a contingency plan for losing your key players. Perfectly said. What a beast.
You have a very strange definition of "making the save."
----
Edit: I read back a page or two -- ok, I get what you're saying; but weak argument man. That's not making the save. You make that argument if he saves it and it bounces in off a teammate or something. If he gets a piece of it and it still goes in, that's not making a save.
Last edited:
Certain poster makes excuses for everything that a goalie does, because he doesn't want to be blamed for the same **** when he gives up a goal like that wherever he plays. It's very funny actually.
We actually scored 36 goals last game, unfortunately 34 of those goals the goalie saved.
I was replying to someone who said it was shot clean through him, he stopped the initial shot and it squeaked through. Yes, technically he didn't save it from being a goal, but he stopped the initial shot. That was the point I was trying to get across.
Hayes smashed his stick at the end because he realizes that whole play developed because of his turnover. 3-on-2 against with a shot while Talbot is moving to the side. If his pad is closed half an inch more the puck never squeezes through.
That is the margin of error that some people here are considering soft. I however, don't.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
ken, that was a great post overall. I just wanted to add something to this particular example.
We spend so much time watching our own players that it's easy to say something like that. It also is hard to acknowledge what opposing players do well. In your example, we never say "wow, that guy did a great job keeping the puck just outside Staal's incredible reach!"
Sometimes, your guy makes an excellent play and the opponent counters with an even better one. That's the way it goes.
Riche16
McCready guitar god
I don't think I'd classify this as Talbot bashing. Calling Dallas' 2nd goal soft is calling a spade a spade. I would have said the same thing no matter who was in goal.
- Status
