Turn out the lights, the party's over

[BobRouse]

What I am saying is that ambition and heart can be exhibited for short durations.

Example: television initially rejected hockey: whenever the networks would attempt to televise a game, the weaker teams would grind the game out in order to avoid embarrassment.

Now, they'd still lose, but they'd lose by 3-1 or 1-2- to nothing, rather than being blown out, and embarrassed in front of family and friends on national television.

This, as many here observed during Hunter's tenure as coach, is not exactly fun to watch for the general audience.

There is but a fine line in athletic ability between professional athletes in any sport, and this can be hidden easily by short duration encounters. It's heart and ambition that separates the winners from the losers. That is the X factor.... the veiled difference.

Frankly, be honest....you know this.

Not following...so you are saying that a team that plays lower scoring games exhibits more heart than a team that plays higher scoring games?

The Caps had a ton of heart under Hanlon then. They would lose snoozefest 2-1 or 3-2 games consistently.

Bruce Boudreau took over (with the EXACT same team) and we actually won games but would lose the occassional 5-4 game or the 4-0 in Chicago. No heart.

Quite frankly I just think you are trying to find a fold in the space-time continium to justify bashing the Caps from another dimension....

 

[BTCG]

Not following...so you are saying that a team that plays lower scoring games exhibits more heart than a team that plays higher scoring games?

The Caps had a ton of heart under Hanlon then. They would lose snoozefest 2-1 or 3-2 games consistently.

Bruce Boudreau took over (with the EXACT same team) and we actually won games but would lose the occassional 5-4 game or the 4-0 in Chicago. No heart.

Quite frankly I just think you are trying to find a fold in the space-time continium to justify bashing the Caps from another dimension....

No, I think you're equating high scoring with effort: more goals must mean they're working harder.

What you omit is that the goals comes at the expense of other aspects of the game: pinching up, not spending time back checking, etc. AO hockey, in other words.

AO got 50 goals, so he must be doing a better job as a player than, say a Datsyuk.

 

[BobRouse]

No, I think you're equating high scoring with effort: more goals must mean they're working harder.

What you omit is that the goals comes at the expense of other aspects of the game: pinching up, not spending time back checking, etc. AO hockey, in other words.

AO got 50 goals, so he must be doing a better job as a player than, say a Datsyuk.

Datsyuk is an exceptional player. Alex Ovechkin is one of the great players of all time and a sure fire HOFer.

Come back to me when Datsyuk wins a single Hart or gets nominated to a single 1st team All Star. Datsyuk is an outstanding player but Ovechkin he is not. Ovechkin's individual accomplishments demolish his. Its not AOs fault that his GM and Owner have let him down.

I will give you this...Datsyuk has 4 Lady Byng trophies to his record and Ovechkin has 0.

Dozens of players have stats and individual awards along the lines of Datsyuk. He's in good company too.

A handful of players (Lemieux, Gretzky, Bossy, etc) have accomplished what AO has in his career.

 

[BTCG]

Datsyuk is an exceptional player. Alex Ovechkin is one of the great players of all time and a sure fire HOFer.

Come back to me when Datsyuk wins a single Hart or gets nominated to a single 1st team All Star. Datsyuk is an outstanding player but Ovechkin he is not. Ovechkin's individual accomplishments demolish his. Its not AOs fault that his GM and Owner have let him down.

I will give you this...Datsyuk has 4 Lady Byng trophies to his record and Ovechkin has 0.

Dozens of players have stats and individual awards along the lines of Datsyuk. He's in good company too.

A handful of players (Lemieux, Gretzky, Bossy, etc) have accomplished what AO has in his career.

Sorry, but I've got to chuckle at that.

The cherry picker has more value than the 2-way player.

Your notion is fundamentally the problem with this team and much of the fan base.

 

[BobRouse]

Sorry, but I've got to chuckle at that.

The cherry picker has more value than the 2-way player.

Your notion is fundamentally the problem with this team and much of the fan base.

In your book Steve Kasper>>>Hull or Bossy

Jiri Lehtonen>>>Mario Lemieux

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Not even a GDT huh? Can't believe my tickets sold at a profit for tonight's game. Guessing lots of Hawks fans in the house.

 

[RandyHolt]

Going to the game, make a sign and hide it in your shirt.

Unfold it and unleash the fury.

Kiss cam would be a good time to whip it out. Heck run down and tape it onto the glass if you are close.

 

[BTCG]

In your book Steve Kasper>>>Hull or Bossy

Jiri Lehtonen>>>Mario Lemieux

Scoring more goal MUST mean that you're giving more effort.

Low scoring MUST lean less.

Take team D, rushing back to get into the play, making every practice, etc, and throw it right under the bus.


Get 50 goals, and you're GREAT.... and those who'd note that your line gives up almost twice that are clueless.

 

[PucktotheHead]

Going to the game, make a sign and hide it in your shirt.

Unfold it and unleash the fury.

Kiss cam would be a good time to whip it out. Heck run down and tape it onto the glass if you are close.

Haha. I am taking my kids or I would. I am guessing a "Fire Oates" sign would get me tossed.

 

[BTCG]

Going to the game, make a sign and hide it in your shirt.

Unfold it and unleash the fury.

Kiss cam would be a good time to whip it out. Heck run down and tape it onto the glass if you are close.

BUT, here is a fundamental problem Mr Holt: the fan base would mostly agree with Rouse.

AO MUST be the best because he has more goals.

If you're Ted (and even GMGM), why would you bring in a new regime that would preach defencieve responsibility? This would cost AO goals.

All the more reason I see Ted as retaining GMGM.

 

[BobRouse]

I think you and the other poster have done a great service to the board. The reader will note what you're really saying:

Scoring more goal MUST mean that you're giving more effort.

Low scoring MUST lean less.

Take team D, rushing back to get into the play, making every practice, etc, and throw it right under the bus.


Get 50 goals, and you're GREAT.... and those who'd note that your line gives up almost twice that are clueless.

You do realize that this year Ovechkin's linemates are shooting well under 4% at ES right? Thats the lowest in the league.

His PDO is in the bottom 30 at 965.

Its part of the whole package. 50 goal scorers are rare. In fact this year they are unique. The guy is in elite company.

Jay Beagle's are a dime a dozen.

Also Ovechkin is a physical force. I don't believe there has been a year where he didn't finish in the top 20 among hits for forwards.

Brett Hull had an open disdain for defense. He was even outspoken about it. He refused to serve penalties like too many men or such.

Are you saying he was worthless???

 

[RandyHolt]

Haha. I am taking my kids or I would. I am guessing a "Fire Oates" sign would get me tossed.

Freedom of speech! Whip that line out and the usher will pee his pants thinking he will be up on DrudgeReport in no time, facing a lawsuit of massive proportions.

Pull it out late in the 3rd

Nothing makes a statement like the tried and true paper bag head; facepalm for that extra umph needed on special events like today

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

BUT, here is a fundamental problem Mr Holt: the fan base would mostly agree with Rouse.

AO MUST be the best because he has more goals.

If you're Ted (and even GMGM), why would you bring in a new regime that would preach defencieve responsibility? This would cost AO goals.

All the more reason I see Ted as retaining GMGM.

You don't honestly believe he's keeping McPhee, you're just expecting a trainwreck in some shape or form like most of us are...

 

[g00n]

I don't see how anyone can argue against the phenomenon that playing in a weak division can result in a deceptively strong looking regular season.

You played the same teams 8 times or whatever in an unbalanced schedule so you could build your organization JUST to beat those teams and make the playoffs. Then one, maybe two teams from your division get in and from there it's a different animal.

If your team isn't winning the division with a style that carries over into the playoffs then you get bounced if you fail to adjust. In the regular season against inferior teams with less skill you can skate circles around them and run 'n' gun your way to big numbers. Then things get tight in the playoffs and you either have to capitalize on your chances (like on the PP) or get effort from everyone that kicks things up a gear or two.

The Caps failed on all counts after wiping the floor with weaker teams. The playoff losses were called "bad luck" or attributed to "hot goalies" or "?????" Just making the playoffs was taken as proof that the plan was working, and eventually it would pay off.

When they tried to change the style of play in the regular season it was a botch job that continued to ignore issues with the defense. So they doubled down on team-wide, stifling play. It got them to within a game of the ECF, but it neutered the star players in order to compensate for a flawed defense and a disconnect between the GM and the coach regarding style and roster.

Then, Oates.

 

[BTCG]

I don't see how anyone can argue against the phenomenon that playing in a weak division can result in a deceptively strong looking regular season.

You played the same teams 8 times or whatever in an unbalanced schedule so you could build your organization JUST to beat those teams and make the playoffs. Then one, maybe two teams from your division get in and from there it's a different animal.

If your team isn't winning the division with a style that carries over into the playoffs then you get bounced if you fail to adjust. In the regular season against inferior teams with less skill you can skate circles around them and run 'n' gun your way to big numbers. Then things get tight in the playoffs and you either have to capitalize on your chances (like on the PP) or get effort from everyone that kicks things up a gear or two.

The Caps failed on all counts after wiping the floor with weaker teams. The playoff losses were called "bad luck" or attributed to "hot goalies" or "?????" Just making the playoffs was taken as proof that the plan was working, and eventually it would pay off.

When they tried to change the style of play in the regular season it was a botch job that continued to ignore issues with the defense. So they doubled down on team-wide, stifling play. It got them to within a game of the ECF, but it neutered the star players in order to compensate for a flawed defense and a disconnect between the GM and the coach regarding style and roster.

Then, Oates.

He knows this. All of this.

But sadly, the majority of Caps fans judge the season on how many goals AO gets. So all is well.

 

[BTCG]

You don't honestly believe he's keeping McPhee, you're just expecting a trainwreck in some shape or form like most of us are...

I'm keeping my powder dry.....

Tell ya what though... the longer this goes on, the least likely that changes will be made.

Can't you just hear George and Adam talking to Ted after tonight:

"see Ted, we just beat one of the top 3 in the league, we need to stay the course"