GDT: We're in Brooklyn Now for Game 5. 4:30 PDT

[Timos Death Stare]

Agree that the team defense didn't help Stalock. At the same time I have zero confidence in him. He's too small in the net and we don't play the style that lets these types of goalies succeed (see Bruins with Tim Thomas)

 

[hohosaregood]

Agree that the team defense didn't help Stalock. At the same time I have zero confidence in him. He's too small in the net and we don't play the style that lets these types of goalies succeed (see Bruins with Tim Thomas)

I remember watching the highlights for Tim Thomas a lot during their cup run. Fairly often, he'd make an awesome save but it would also just leave the puck sitting in the crease and he'd absolutely need a defenseman to clear the puck. Difference between what we saw last night and that is that there wasn't really an opportunity for the defense to clear a puck or anything. A good chunk of those goals were fairly weak.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If two were, three were (ENG)--I know you said completely, but 2 softies (or one softy and one stooge goal) led to having to pull the goalie that early and maybe even psychologically having less gas in the tank to boot.

One softy can make a big difference. From there, it can be geometrically worse for each softy.

I'd like to know which is being considered softies by people because I don't think there were even two softies, let alone three and that doesn't include the ENG because that's just pure scapegoating. The team got themselves behind not just the goalie.

Every goal that happened against had a defensive breakdown attached to it. While it is reasonable to expect the goalie to make some of those saves, it doesn't make it good odds to have it happen.

And if they are having psychological issues on goals given up, then the team has issues...not the goalie. That's a weak cop-out for a poor performance. Soft goals happen to every team a lot. It's not a good excuse.

 

[Hold the Pickles]

I'd like to know which is being considered softies by people because I don't think there were even two softies, let alone three and that doesn't include the ENG because that's just pure scapegoating. The team got themselves behind not just the goalie.

Every goal that happened against had a defensive breakdown attached to it. While it is reasonable to expect the goalie to make some of those saves, it doesn't make it good odds to have it happen.

And if they are having psychological issues on goals given up, then the team has issues...not the goalie. That's a weak cop-out for a poor performance. Soft goals happen to every team a lot. It's not a good excuse.

you and i seem to just either fully agree or fully disagree. Your argument is a cop-out for stalocks poor performance. Many, if not most, goals scored are on plays with defensive break-downs. To let your goalie off the hook for goals because of defensive breakdowns that only led to a mediocre scoring chances isn't fair to the players. And that throwing off his own mask thing, that was embarrassing and not exactly confidence instilling.

Despite the team having played the night before down at least 3 men, they managed to give stalock 3 leads and he didn't respond. I've been one of the boards biggest stalock supporters. I actually think he was given a bit of a raw deal last year. But if even average stalock showed up last night, the Sharks would have at the very least only needed one goal in the final minutes.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

you and i seem to just either fully agree or fully disagree. Your argument is a cop-out for stalocks poor performance. Many, if not most, goals scored are on plays with defensive break-downs. To let your goalie off the hook for goals because of defensive breakdowns that only led to a mediocre scoring chances isn't fair to the players. And that throwing off his own mask thing, that was embarrassing and not exactly confidence instilling.

Despite the team having played the night before down at least 3 men, they managed to give stalock 3 leads and he didn't respond. I've been one of the boards biggest stalock supporters. I actually think he was given a bit of a raw deal last year. But if even average stalock showed up last night, the Sharks would have at the very least only needed one goal in the final minutes.

And what exactly would you consider a mediocre scoring chance? Boychuk's goal, he was screened. If we take Stalock at his word, he did what he was supposed to do on Lee's goal. He had no chance on Bailey's goal. Okposo is just given the ability to walk out front on his goal on a poor effort by Dillon and Goldobin. And Nelson's goal was soft D by Braun and Vlasic letting the attackers get in to about the hashes before even engaging them with their sticks on the rush and allowed Nelson to use Braun as a screen from that distance.

It's not simply up to Stalock to respond when given leads. The defense has to do it too and they were far too soft and didn't have the legs to handle the Isles' speed as they took time and space in the Sharks' zone quite easily.

 

[Hold the Pickles]

And what exactly would you consider a mediocre scoring chance? Boychuk's goal, he was screened. If we take Stalock at his word, he did what he was supposed to do on Lee's goal. He had no chance on Bailey's goal. Okposo is just given the ability to walk out front on his goal on a poor effort by Dillon and Goldobin. And Nelson's goal was soft D by Braun and Vlasic letting the attackers get in to about the hashes before even engaging them with their sticks on the rush and allowed Nelson to use Braun as a screen from that distance.

It's not simply up to Stalock to respond when given leads. The defense has to do it too and they were far too soft and didn't have the legs to handle the Isles' speed as they took time and space in the Sharks' zone quite easily.

Do you think Stalock played well? Do you think Stalock even played his average? If you can at least admit that he didn't, I'll extend and olive branch. How about maybe i'm putting too much of this on Stalock and you're not putting enough of this on him?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Do you think Stalock played well? Do you think Stalock even played his average? If you can at least admit that he didn't, I'll extend and olive branch. How about maybe i'm putting too much of this on Stalock and you're not putting enough of this on him?

I don't think he played well but it isn't really anything to do with the goals scored. My point is people thinking that there were three goals completely on Stalock are just using the goalie to scapegoat...a common thing done among fans...and it's wrong.