Why Vegas won

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jetfaninflorida

Southernmost Jet Fan
Dec 13, 2013
15,648
18,849
Florida
.950 goaltending against doesn't mean Maurice is a bad coach either.

100% Agree. And to reiterate, I don't believe Maurice is a bad coach. In my view, Maurice is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. He is a coach who has never won anything ever (not counting consolation prizes) - just a fact. He / we could have done more to try to throw MAF off his game, and neutralize Vegas' strengths imho.

Saw more commentary on SportsCenter again last night talking again about how Vegas was able to limit dangerous chances between the dots and secondary scoring chances (rebounds) against the other teams (Winnipeg) - which enables Fleury to put up the 0.950, but that Washington has made adjustments that are breaking that down. I say again because it has been discussed many times in the press by different hockey analysts. Quite a few posters here have observed the same. It's not all 'puck luck', what happens on the ice between whistles matter. Someone will probably try to sweep that one under the rug or twist the words or deflect the discussion, because it might imply that we / our really good coach could have tried some different tactics. Or say that I am calling Trotz a great coach - I am not. Thing is, you don't have to be a great or really good coach to take measurable steps to attempt to throw a team and their goalie off of their game / neutralize their strengths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eyeseeing

Fagheddaboudit
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2015
22,126
36,669
I think again we were tired and got away from playing physical.
Washington is man handling Vegas and now the Knights look done just like we looked done against them.
Washington is doing the very thing the previous 3 opponents did not do and that’s make Vegas pay physically.
Stick a fork in Vegas they’re done.
 

Saidin

Registered User
Mar 18, 2015
1,251
1,043
When they are saying that the High Danger Scoring Chances that WAS is putting up is better than what WPG/SJS/LAK did doesn't fly to me. I look at www.naturalstattrick.com and see in the series currently, and VGK is winning those changes by 40 to 35 vs WAS. Washington Capitals vs Vegas Golden Knights, 20172018 Playoffs

Yet in our series (WPG vs VGK), the whole time we beat them 60 to 40. Vegas Golden Knights vs Winnipeg Jets, 20172018 Playoffs

Game 3
upload_2018-6-5_9-25-2.png



Game 4
upload_2018-6-5_9-25-32.png


Those pics courtesy of Hockyviz
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: surixon

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,982
69,934
Winnipeg
When they are saying that the High Danger Scoring Chances that WAS is putting up is better than what WPG/SJS/LAK did doesn't fly to me. I look at www.naturalstattrick.com and see in the series currently, and VGK is winning those changes by 40 to 35 vs WAS. Washington Capitals vs Vegas Golden Knights, 20172018 Playoffs

Yet in our series (WPG vs VGK), the whole time we beat them 60 to 40. Vegas Golden Knights vs Winnipeg Jets, 20172018 Playoffs

Game 3View attachment 123699


Game 4 View attachment 123701

Those pics courtesy of Hockyviz

Good post. Washington isn't doing anything special. The biggest reason is once again goaltending. Holtby has posted a very respectable .919 save percentage while MAF has completely melted down posting a .845 save percentage this series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JetsWillFly4Ever

Howard Chuck

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 24, 2012
15,425
19,655
Winnipeg
There were some incredibly bad defensive errors on VGK's part last night. Cap players were just allowed to waltz right in and get some great shots off up close. If that has happened with the Jets, we would have scored plenty.
 

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
Good post. Washington isn't doing anything special. The biggest reason is once again goaltending. Holtby has posted a very respectable .919 save percentage while MAF has completely melted down posting a .845 save percentage this series.
Yep, pretty much this. The whole moving Fleury side to side, making the proper adjustments narrative is just too convenient. The horseshoe has simultaneously fallen out of Fleury's ass and the Vegas team as a whole. Also, forced to chase the game they look like an entirely different team, one not quite as equipped to chase as opposed to holding a lead.

All the claims made against Maurice can now be levelled against Gallant, 2 weeks later? No, his goalie hasn't been there to save them and playing from behind isn't easy. If the Jets had been able to convert on some of their many chances, this is the Vegas team we would have seen,
 

Jetfaninflorida

Southernmost Jet Fan
Dec 13, 2013
15,648
18,849
Florida
The idea that MAF used to have 'puck luck' and now it's gone is so one dimensionally simplistic it is off the charts silly. Yeah, the horseshoe fell out of his ass - that's why Winnipeg lost and Washington isn't. LOL! No analysis can be more subjective than 'horseshoe' and 'puck luck' as the reason for everything.

The analysis from the pros - (don't bother to blast me, just watch the games and some coverage from the guys that played pro hockey for a living and won Stanley Cups and then go blast them) - is that Washington's game plan is being successful in breaking down Vegas' structure defensively, while stimieing their offense in the neutral zone. This is enabling Washington to get more of the high quality chances, that previous teams including Winnipeg didn't get. More clean looks and rebounds between the dots. Shot metrics charts are often limited in usefulness at showing traffic between shooter/ keeper, how the goal was scored from a primary / secondary assist perspective, puck movement before the shot. You can't rely on shot metrics solely and make sweeping statements about a goalie's play. Well, unless your analysis boils down to 'puckluck' and 'horseshoes', then I guess you can.

Also, all of the traffic in an around MAF including being in his face since Game 2 is believed to be throwing him off - this commentary is more subjective - but it is undeniable that Washington has been crashing him and the netfront a lot more than Winnipeg did. Smith-Pelly got too zealous about it when he shouldered MAF in the face and took a penalty in Game 3. But there has been a lot of 'incidental' contact with MAF these games.

What Gallant did and didn't do against Winnipeg should not be used as a judgment on Maurice. What Maurice did and didn't do against our opponents should be discussed and used as a judgement on Maurice and a learning opportunity.

Sorry - I have to post this every time because people make claims that I said things about Maurice that I didn't. I don't think Maurice is a terrible coach. I think he is a mediocre coach with a lot of experience. He has never won anything ever (not including consolation prizes) as a coach - just a fact.
 
Last edited:

Howard Chuck

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 24, 2012
15,425
19,655
Winnipeg
Also, we would have scored lots if we could have hit a few of the many open nets we had, and then how many posts/crossbars did we hit?

It's just a game of inches and we lost that game.
 

Jetfaninflorida

Southernmost Jet Fan
Dec 13, 2013
15,648
18,849
Florida
Also, we would have scored lots if we could have hit a few of the many open nets we had, and then how many posts/crossbars did we hit?

It's just a game of inches and we lost that game.


I agree with you.

With this additional detail - If the shooter hits the post because that's all the keeper gives him to shoot at, that's on the goalie and as good as a save even though it doesn't count as one. If the shooter hits the post instead of net that the keeper has left open, then it's on the shooter for not executing. If it is a bouncer/ricochet/pinball thingy that hits the post then you shouldn't have been expecting that one anyway, but don't worry, they even out in the end cause that happens to the other guys too. Remember, they hit posts in the series too.
 

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
The idea that MAF used to have 'puck luck' and now it's gone is so one dimensionally simplistic it is off the charts silly. Yeah, the horseshoe fell out of his ass - that's why Winnipeg lost and Washington isn't. LOL! No analysis can be more subjective than 'horseshoe' and 'puck luck' as the reason for everything.

The analysis from the pros - (don't bother to blast me, just watch the games and some coverage from the guys that played pro hockey for a living and won Stanley Cups and then go blast them) - is that Washington's game plan is being successful in breaking down Vegas' structure defensively, while stimieing their offense in the neutral zone. This is enabling Washington to get more of the high quality chances, that previous teams including Winnipeg didn't get. More clean looks and rebounds between the dots. Shot metrics charts are often limited in usefulness at showing traffic between shooter/ keeper, how the goal was scored from a primary / secondary assist perspective, puck movement before the shot. You can't rely on shot metrics solely and make sweeping statements about a goalie's play. Well, unless your analysis boils down to 'puckluck' and 'horseshoes', then I guess you can.

Also, all of the traffic in an around MAF including being in his face since Game 2 is believed to be throwing him off - this commentary is more subjective - but it is undeniable that Washington has been crashing him and the netfront a lot more than Winnipeg did. Smith-Pelly got too zealous about it and took a penalty in Game 3. But there has been a lot of 'incidental' contact with MAF these games.

What Gallant did and didn't do against Winnipeg should not be used as a judgment on Maurice. What Maurice did and didn't do against our opponents should be discussed and used as a judgement on Maurice and a learning opportunity.

Sorry - I have to post this every time because people make claims that I said things about Maurice that I didn't. I don't think Maurice is a terrible coach. I think he is a mediocre coach with a lot of experience. He has never won anything ever (not including consolation prizes) as a coach - just a fact.

Lol, keep trying to narrow down people's assertions to a single talking point. It's been stated and re-stated that there were a number of reasons that the Jets lost, but goaltending and some unfavourable luck were among the bigger reasons, not the only ones. The "pros" as you refer to them observed this as well, that rubs both ways so I find it rather amusing you keep referring to that, while conveniently ignoring the many others "pros" who have stated goaltending was a huge factor.

The questioning of shot metrics when they don't quite lineup with your argument is also pretty funny. "Hey, you can't just trust shot metrics, you also have to believe what I saw".

This sweeping over generalization is a real good one. A nice talking point to use up some air time that says pretty much nothing and shows even less. It's a classic talking head comment, almost as cliché as it gets.

The analysis from the pros - (don't bother to blast me, just watch the games and some coverage from the guys that played pro hockey for a living and won Stanley Cups and then go blast them) - is that Washington's game plan is being successful in breaking down Vegas' structure defensively, while stimieing their offense in the neutral zone. This is enabling Washington to get more of the high quality chances, that previous teams including Winnipeg didn't get. More clean looks and rebounds between the dots. Shot metrics charts are often limited in usefulness at showing traffic between shooter/ keeper, how the goal was scored from a primary / secondary assist perspective, puck movement before the shot. You can't rely on shot metrics solely and make sweeping statements about a goalie's play. Well, unless your analysis boils down to 'puckluck' and 'horseshoes', then I guess you can.

Washington isn't doing anything special, they are taking advantage of breakdowns and converting their chances against a goalie who isn't playing anywhere near as well as he was previously, helped by the fact his team is now chasing games and being forced to change their play. Holtby providing average goaltending and Washington playing with the lead have been significant factors. They are simply executing better than Vegas and have been able to control the game. And if you don't believe luck exists in hockey, particularly in small samples, well then you missed game 2 and game 4. Just ask Alex Tuch and James Neal.

Anyway, this has become way too boring and repetitive, may apologies for my part, I'm done.

GJG!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JetsWillFly4Ever

thegr8one66

Registered User
Mar 22, 2010
427
282
Winnipeg
Lol, keep trying to narrow down people's assertions to a single talking point. It's been stated and re-stated that there were a number of reasons that the Jets lost, but goaltending and some unfavourable luck were among the bigger reasons, not the only ones. The "pros" as you refer to them observed this as well, that rubs both ways so I find it rather amusing you keep referring to that, while conveniently ignoring the many others "pros" who have stated goaltending was a huge factor.

The questioning of shot metrics when they don't quite lineup with your argument is also pretty funny. "Hey, you can't just trust shot metrics, you also have to believe what I saw".

This sweeping over generalization is a real good one. A nice talking point to use up some air time that says pretty much nothing and shows even less. It's a classic talking head comment, almost as cliché as it gets.



Washington isn't doing anything special, they are taking advantage of breakdowns and converting their chances against a goalie who isn't playing anywhere near as well as he was previously, helped by the fact his team is now chasing games and being forced to change their play. Holtby providing average goaltending and Washington playing with the lead have been significant factors. They are simply executing better than Vegas and have been able to control the game. And if you don't believe luck exists in hockey, particularly in small samples, well then you missed game 2 and game 4. Just ask Alex Tuch and James Neal.

Anyway, this has become way too boring and repetitive, may apologies for my part, I'm done.

GJG!!
Let it go, Elsa. Admit you're wrong. WSH is making simple adjustments our coach simply couldn't. That's why they're winning. I knew everyone would see the real Fleury during this playoffs. Here he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jetfaninflorida

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,965
6,063
Love it, the revisionist approach to those selling the snake oil that we lost because of coaching, the hypocrisy coupled with sheer ignorance is comically annoying.

Previously, Gerard Gallant was being hailed as an amazing coach, one that out coached, out classed and out maneuvered our apparent incompetent coach, in Maurice.

Today, Gallant is being hailed as an average coach, one that is being out coached, out classed and out maneuvered by the new best coach ever in Barry Trotz.

Of course Barry's track record as a head coach is very similar to Maurice's, and some would argue that he has had much better rosters through his coaching career, but lets not let some facts step in the way of a good false narrative.

Truthfully though, the names of the coaches do not matter to these posters, the names are interchangeable.

Had we lost to Nashville, then Peter Laviolette would be the amazing coach that outclassed Maurice, or had we lost to the Wild, then they would be telling us that Bruce Boudreau is miles better than Maurice.

Basically the nuts and bolts of their argument was to wait for the team to lose a playoff series, and seeing as only 1 team wins a cup, the odd were good that we would lose that series eventually, then take the coach of the team that beat us, proclaim their brilliance, and somehow declare Maurice's incompetence.

The reason their argument becomes transparent is because they refuse to acknowledge any positives that were achieved by this team, and relate it to coaching. Nope, they tell us that anything positive this team accomplished was 100% because of our talented roster, and anything that did not work out was because of coaching.

This is why many of us are tired of reading their ignorant dribble, its fact less finger pointing void of any intelligent inside analyses. Jetsinflorida keeps spewing that we were a 1/2 step slower, and that was because Maurice game planned us to play slower. When asked if a 5 days rest for the Knights, compared to 1 days rest for the Jets, would contribute to that 1/2 step, we get silence from him, because he knows he cannot intelligently support the notion that days rest would not contribute to being a 1/2 step behind.

There is zero logic to their take. Throughout the entire season, back to last season, and the one before, the same couple of posters have been trying to hardest to pin anything negative on the feet of Maurice and Chevy. Now that Chevy is being proven as a top end GM, their attention is fully on Maurice.

Reading this dribble, trying to convince the world that losing in a Conference finals is a negative and our coach has to be blindly blamed, its sadly misplaced finger pointing that really comes from a group of finger pointers that have been trying for years to paint a picture that only they see.

Until they can show us something fruitful, meaningful, something from a hockey insider, analysts, analytics, something that specifically shows that what Maurice tried to execute, was execute fully but was the wrong plan, you got nothing.

Today the best JetsfaninFlorida has was articles written in 2015. Yup, ya got nothing.
 

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
Let it go, Elsa. Admit you're wrong. WSH is making simple adjustments our coach simply couldn't. That's why they're winning. I knew everyone would see the real Fleury during this playoffs. Here he is.
Let what go? I'm not the one who's wrong.

You're just saying the same shit the other guy is saying.
 

Jetfaninflorida

Southernmost Jet Fan
Dec 13, 2013
15,648
18,849
Florida
Love it, the revisionist approach to those selling the snake oil that we lost because of coaching, the hypocrisy coupled with sheer ignorance is comically annoying.

Previously, Gerard Gallant was being hailed as an amazing coach, one that out coached, out classed and out maneuvered our apparent incompetent coach, in Maurice.

Today, Gallant is being hailed as an average coach, one that is being out coached, out classed and out maneuvered by the new best coach ever in Barry Trotz.

Of course Barry's track record as a head coach is very similar to Maurice's, and some would argue that he has had much better rosters through his coaching career, but lets not let some facts step in the way of a good false narrative.

Truthfully though, the names of the coaches do not matter to these posters, the names are interchangeable.

Had we lost to Nashville, then Peter Laviolette would be the amazing coach that outclassed Maurice, or had we lost to the Wild, then they would be telling us that Bruce Boudreau is miles better than Maurice.

Basically the nuts and bolts of their argument was to wait for the team to lose a playoff series, and seeing as only 1 team wins a cup, the odd were good that we would lose that series eventually, then take the coach of the team that beat us, proclaim their brilliance, and somehow declare Maurice's incompetence.

The reason their argument becomes transparent is because they refuse to acknowledge any positives that were achieved by this team, and relate it to coaching. Nope, they tell us that anything positive this team accomplished was 100% because of our talented roster, and anything that did not work out was because of coaching.

This is why many of us are tired of reading their ignorant dribble, its fact less finger pointing void of any intelligent inside analyses. Jetsinflorida keeps spewing that we were a 1/2 step slower, and that was because Maurice game planned us to play slower. When asked if a 5 days rest for the Knights, compared to 1 days rest for the Jets, would contribute to that 1/2 step, we get silence from him, because he knows he cannot intelligently support the notion that days rest would not contribute to being a 1/2 step behind.

There is zero logic to their take. Throughout the entire season, back to last season, and the one before, the same couple of posters have been trying to hardest to pin anything negative on the feet of Maurice and Chevy. Now that Chevy is being proven as a top end GM, their attention is fully on Maurice.

Reading this dribble, trying to convince the world that losing in a Conference finals is a negative and our coach has to be blindly blamed, its sadly misplaced finger pointing that really comes from a group of finger pointers that have been trying for years to paint a picture that only they see.

Until they can show us something fruitful, meaningful, something from a hockey insider, analysts, analytics, something that specifically shows that what Maurice tried to execute, was execute fully but was the wrong plan, you got nothing.

Today the best JetsfaninFlorida has was articles written in 2015. Yup, ya got nothing.

You name me in this post, but you need to learn to read if you think you are talking about me and what I said.

Other people here are trying to objectively discuss what the Jets could have done differently / better to have increased our probability of success and why Vegas won. There is a lot of public professional analysis going on given the Vegas / Washington series as well that is worthy of discussion here too. We may face Vegas again next year - would be good to know what works against them. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings that Maurice couldn't figure some of this out - Trotz sure isn't a coaching genius imho. But if you had actually read what I have written you would know that already.

I understand that some people when they can't discuss things rationally or they have no value to add, they just attack the poster and make things up about what they said. If you have nothing to add but personal attacks against me, fine, go to town - I put you on ignore. But you have now been completely exposed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thegr8one66

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,965
6,063
Let it go, Elsa. Admit you're wrong. WSH is making simple adjustments our coach simply couldn't. That's why they're winning. I knew everyone would see the real Fleury during this playoffs. Here he is.

Yes, WSH has made the best coaching adjustment a coach can make, the adjustment of better goal tending.

Yup, its a proven winner, and to be honest, its astonishing more coaches don't implement that adjustment.

I mean some really strong HOF coaches have failed to adjust their goatending to be better, when the positive effects it has on the outcome of a series is undeniable.

That old adage, goaltending wins cups, is a load of crap. Coaching that adjust their goaltending, wins cups.
 

thegr8one66

Registered User
Mar 22, 2010
427
282
Winnipeg
Yes, WSH has made the best coaching adjustment a coach can make, the adjustment of better goal tending.

Yup, its a proven winner, and to be honest, its astonishing more coaches don't implement that adjustment.

I mean some really strong HOF coaches have failed to adjust their goatending to be better, when the positive effects it has on the outcome of a series is undeniable.

That old adage, goaltending wins cups, is a load of crap. Coaching that adjust their goaltending, wins cups.

I fell like you aren't able to follow what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, is that I feel the Jets lost to Vegas because of a lack of coaching adjustments (line up and offensive/defensive strategies). Not because Fleury was playing out-of-this-world. He was the product of a fantastic team-defense in front of him limiting the Jets' scoring chances to low percentage chances.

Our coach is not the type of coach who seems able to make these kinds of adjustments (like Barry Trotz has for WSH)....until it's way too late. After Game 1, WSH has made life miserable for Fleury because of strategic changes from their coach. It has exposed Fleury to the goalie I've followed since 2005 (when I started following the Penguins....because of Crosby and we had no team in Winnipeg at that point). The Jet's let Fleury see everything. Hence, simple routine saves for him. He also tends to make saves look harder than they are with scramble/dives (instead of being square to the puck like a Price or Holtby).

Maurice kept trying the same thing game after game with the same result. Vegas simply laughed. Maybe we had more zone/possession time, but never did I feel like we were a threat to score with it. We were held mostly to perimeter play. Our PP was stagnant and stationary. I would've put Buff in front of Fleury and had more movement amongst our other guys. It was way too easy to defend. Our PK is a terrible formation (in my opinion) that allows the opposing team to pass around up top and fire at will. They either score, or one of our players ends up blocking a shot and is injured. Recipe for disaster.

Bottom line, I disagree with you that we lost because of their goaltender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jetfaninflorida

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
Q: why did Vegas win?

A: Fleury, and capitalizing on Jets' mistakes.
Lol, it's really not that hard is it?

People can try to dress it up and do the whole tactics, adjustments, lineup changes hockey speak that makes them sound as if they know what they're talking about, but at the end of the day it was mainly this.
 

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,965
6,063
You name me in this post, but you need to learn to read if you think you are talking about me and what I said.

Other people here are trying to objectively discuss what the Jets could have done differently / better to have increased our probability of success and why Vegas won. There is a lot of public professional analysis going on given the Vegas / Washington series as well that is worthy of discussion here too. We may face Vegas again next year - would be good to know what works against them. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings that Maurice couldn't figure some of this out - Trotz sure isn't a coaching genius imho. But if you had actually read what I have written you would know that already.

I understand that some people when they can't discuss things rationally or they have no value to add, they just attack the poster and make things up about what they said. If you have nothing to add but personal attacks against me, fine, go to town - I put you on ignore. Your personal attack posts seem to earn the same one like from the same one poster. But you have now been completely exposed.



We lost because the execution of the game plan failed, NOT THE GAME PLAN ITSELF,

When you state we played a half step slower than Vegas, that is not a game plan, that is the execution of the game plan. Any game plan, when not executed fully will fail. You can have the best game plan out there, but if the players cannot play at the pace, speed, and physicality to execute the plan, it will fail.

So when you say we played a half step slower than Vegas, and you somehow try to tell us that this half step is coaching related, and you conveniently ignore the 5 days rest Vegas had heading into that series compared to 1 days rest for us, your argument becomes void.

When you are asked to cite any respected analyst, and come up with a quote that specifically states the game plan that Maurice tried to implement, was implemented fully, and executed properly, and we still lost, and you produce the same silly quotes that cite us being slower, THAT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE of coaching in-competencies. It is an exact example of performance related to execution.

When you refuse to acknowledge the 2 series we won had anything to do with coaching and everything to do with the players, your argument becomes VOID.

When you state that Maurice failed because of a bad game plan, then ignore that the exact same game plan beat a team that was not only better than Vegas, but played a very similar style, then proclaim that the game plan was wrong, its easily dissected.

The game plan was the correct game plan, that needed our team to play at the pace and speed it did in the NAshville series. That speed and pace was heavily effected by us having 1 days rest, Vegas having 5. Those are just plain facts, that all media analyst and insiders agree with.

Anything else is simply execution. You can pin it on a coach, you can pin it on players or both. Hate blaming anyone for such an excellent season, seems pity and sad IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luc Labelle

JetsUK

Registered User
Oct 1, 2015
6,805
14,418
Q: why did Vegas win?

A: Fleury, and capitalizing on Jets' mistakes.

I think both strands of analysis have something to offer, and I guess I'm in the boat that looking hard at those decisions that might have contributed to the Jets' collapse is likely to be more beneficial than attributing that collapse to puck luck and a generational performance from MAF (note: not accusing posters here or Jets management of the latter).

Fleury was insane, but the Jets' and especially Helle's fatigue was something that several sharp posters had warned about earlier in the season -- specifically, Unholy's (and possibly also Puck Stoppa's) observations that PoMo has a history of riding goalies hard, and that Helle was going to need a rest at some point in order to avoid exhaustion come playoff time. It seems pretty clear that he wasn't as sharp in the Vegas series as he'd been against MN and NSH, and I wonder if resting him -- and maybe spotting a game to Vegas in the process -- might have resulted in a Helle who makes the saves that keep us in the games that follow, and so on.

I guess I'm asking, if you were PoMo and Chevy and company, what do you differently -- that's reasonable, and under your control -- in order to aim for a better outcome next time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jetfaninflorida

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
I fell like you aren't able to follow what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, is that I feel the Jets lost to Vegas because of a lack of coaching adjustments (line up and offensive/defensive strategies). Not because Fleury was playing out-of-this-world. He was the product of a fantastic team-defense in front of him limiting the Jets' scoring chances to low percentage chances.

Our coach is not the type of coach who seems able to make these kinds of adjustments (like Barry Trotz has for WSH)....until it's way too late. After Game 1, WSH has made life miserable for Fleury because of strategic changes from their coach. It has exposed Fleury to the goalie I've followed since 2005 (when I started following the Penguins....because of Crosby and we had no team in Winnipeg at that point). The Jet's let Fleury see everything. Hence, simple routine saves for him. He also tends to make saves look harder than they are with scramble/dives (instead of being square to the puck like a Price or Holtby).

Maurice kept trying the same thing game after game with the same result. Vegas simply laughed. Maybe we had more zone/possession time, but never did I feel like we were a threat to score with it. We were held mostly to perimeter play. Our PP was stagnant and stationary. I would've put Buff in front of Fleury and had more movement amongst our other guys. It was way too easy to defend. Our PK is a terrible formation (in my opinion) that allows the opposing team to pass around up top and fire at will. They either score, or one of our players ends up blocking a shot and is injured. Recipe for disaster.

Bottom line, I disagree with you that we lost because of their goaltender.

Well now that you've cleared that up :sarcasm:

It's pretty clear you've built up this great assessment all year based on your posting history. Let's face it, this was always going to be the narrative for certain posters, unless the Jets won the Cup. Even then I get the impression it would have been entirely because of the players.

Carry on.
 

Gabe Kupari

Registered User
Jul 11, 2013
15,269
14,859
Winter is Coming
A few reasons but mainly... Fleury.

If people honestly dont think a goalie putting up a 950 save percentage is a huge difference.. Then i dunno.

Hes not putting up 950 now tho.. Hes closer to 840... How many more goals is that? Theres your difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad