GDT: Wild @ Sharks 151212 7:30 CSNCA

[jakeytown]

So you want a Kudeta of Wilson taking over the coaching job?

Lol I'm tired as hell, but you know what I meant

 

[jakeytown]

Sadly I don't see this accomplishing much with this team.

At this point, might as well try it, let the captain think about it in the press box. Because he hasn't shown any captain material in my opinion

 

[Alwalys]

So you want a Kudeta of Wilson taking over the coaching job?

Is that when the Japanese take over something?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

There was no reason for Burns to be on Pominville there. Pominville was moving away from the net and Burns was next to the net. He should have released him, communicated with his forwards, and pick up Parise in front.

Well of course there's a reason. Pominville had the puck and they were physically engaged at the time. You can't sit there and say Burns should have released him and then ignore that Martin didn't release Granlund when he was way up on the boards and forwards were there to support. Communication is a two-way street and if you're going to sit there and say he should've communicated to the forwards, maybe one of them should've communicated to him when all three are above ALL three Wild forwards in the defensive zone. How on earth is that solely on Burns when no forward was on the defensive side of ANY Minnesota forward on that sequence? That is crazy.

 

[Thepainter]

You are wrong.

Oh, well in context it sure seemed like that, especially when looking at the posts. Not sure why you made the comment then...

Regardless, this was a total team loss.

 

[Alwalys]

On well in context it sure seemed like that, especially when looking at the posts.

Regardless, this was a total team loss.

His mistake led to the GWG yes, but my point is one defensive mistake should not have determined the outcome of the game. The game should not be decided on who plays better to not let the other team score. I think that's a major problem with the NHL now.

 

[Coily]

Is that when the Japanese take over something?

Probably, I'm no world traveler.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Well of course there's a reason. Pominville had the puck and they were physically engaged at the time. You can't sit there and say Burns should have released him and then ignore that Martin didn't release Granlund when he was way up on the boards and forwards were there to support. Communication is a two-way street and if you're going to sit there and say he should've communicated to the forwards, maybe one of them should've communicated to him when all three are above ALL three Wild forwards in the defensive zone. How on earth is that solely on Burns when no forward was on the defensive side of ANY Minnesota forward on that sequence? That is crazy.

I already stated Martin was high, but Granlund had the puck. Pominville actually did not have the puck at that time. There's more than one error on that play, but Burns' was the last and most costly.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I already stated Martin was high, but Granlund had the puck. Pominville actually did not have the puck at that time. There's more than one error on that play, but Burns' was the last and most costly.

Well then obviously you're contradicting yourself when you say it's all on Burns. However, I'm going to look at the fact that no forward on the Sharks is on the defensive side of any Wild forward in the defensive zone as a more costly thing. You're then asking for the two d-men to cover three forwards. Then with Martin going high, asking Burns to handle two-on-one down low.

I can at least see why Burns is chasing Pominville there when he just had the puck when he was engaged with him behind the net. I can't see any reason why none of the three forwards are even below the hash marks in their own zone when they don't have the puck. Forwards have down-low responsibilities too even if one of those guys is right in front of their net. Just because a guy is in front of the net doesn't always make it a d-man's guy.

 

[Mattb124]

I'd worry more about Burns' defense if it led the the Sharks giving up a lead, but when you don't score a single goal you can expect a win.

This team keeps making defensive miscues, and it goes beyond Burns. Donskoi was on Parise as the play went behind the net and the other players (including Burns) stayed man except Donskoi, who momentarily moved toward the point before he realized Parise was open. I'm not blaming Donskoi, just pointing out that the team is not on the same page.

This is similar to last game, where people blame Burns for having gone down to block the pass (which interestingly he did not do tonight in a very similar circumstance) - but no one seems to blame the guy whose job it was to cover the goal scorer but didn't (Thornton?).

 

[Internazionale]

Was there alot of empty seats tonight ?

 

[weastern bias]

Benching Pavelski is just silly, the team is not scoring goals, and he's clearly our best scorer, we can't afford to take away his minutes

Unfortunately, due to the tremendously flawed way this team is built, the same rings true of Burns at this point; he's become our 2nd best option offensively

The Sharks are a poorly assembled mess all over, F, D, G, it's all bad right now

Jones has been aight, but it's not enough to pick up the tremendous slack

 

[OrrNumber4]

His mistake led to the GWG yes, but my point is one defensive mistake should not have determined the outcome of the game. The game should not be decided on who plays better to not let the other team score. I think that's a major problem with the NHL now.

1) While I agree that the overall trend in the NHL favours defensive play, there are many individual games where that isn't the case.

2.) Phu, what you want and what is reality are two different things. That is the way this game was played; it was a highly defensive matchup. The Sharks and their players have to be judged on how they play relative to the game/the NHL is, not on how you want the game to be.

 

[jakeytown]

Benching Pavelski is just silly, the team is not scoring goals, and he's clearly our best scorer, we can't afford to take away his minutes

Unfortunately, due to the tremendously flawed way this team is built, the same rings true of Burns at this point; he's become our 2nd best option offensively

The Sharks are a poorly assembled mess all over, F, D, G, it's all bad right now

We lose despite pavelskis scoring, when he does score that is, so it's not gonna hurt too much. But maybe it'll light a fire under his ass because he's ****in slacking

 

[Alwalys]

1) While I agree that the overall trend in the NHL favours defensive play, there are many individual games where that isn't the case.

2.) Phu, what you want and what is reality are two different things. That is the way this game was played; it was a highly defensive matchup. The Sharks and their players have to be judged on how they play relative to the game/the NHL is, not on how you want the game to be.

Of course, no one is talking about the lack of scoring in the NHL now. Just me. Of course.

 

[Coily]

Was there alot of empty seats tonight ?

NHL summary has 16,766.

 

[jakeytown]

NHL summary has 16,766.

Almost 1000 under capacity. Gross

 

[OrrNumber4]

Of course, no one is talking about the lack of scoring in the NHL now. Just me. Of course.

How does that make any sense?

1) Argumentum ad populum is a poor way to go about things
2) Just because many people want something, doesn't change the reality of what something is.

 

[Alwalys]

How does that make any sense?

1) Argumentum ad populum is a poor way to go about things

Wrong, when the argument is about the popularity of the view, it is the correct way to disprove a claim. Your claim is disproven by it.

2) Just because many people want something, doesn't change the reality of what something is.

The reality is the league views it as a problem and will be doing things to address it. Scoring right now is equivalent to the dead puck era and the league completely remade itself to address that. Things are regressing and will have to be fixed again.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Well then obviously you're contradicting yourself when you say it's all on Burns. However, I'm going to look at the fact that no forward on the Sharks is on the defensive side of any Wild forward in the defensive zone as a more costly thing. You're then asking for the two d-men to cover three forwards. Then with Martin going high, asking Burns to handle two-on-one down low.

I can at least see why Burns is chasing Pominville there when he just had the puck when he was engaged with him behind the net. I can't see any reason why none of the three forwards are even below the hash marks in their own zone when they don't have the puck. Forwards have down-low responsibilities too even if one of those guys is right in front of their net. Just because a guy is in front of the net doesn't always make it a d-man's guy.

The forwards being high wouldn't have been an issue if Burns realizes he was the only guy on the defensive side of the puck and stayed by Jones. Pominville wasn't heading to a high % scoring area.

 

[Alwalys]

The forwards being high wouldn't have been an issue if Burns realizes he was the only guy on the defensive side of the puck and stayed by Jones. Pominville wasn't heading to a high % scoring area.

Defensive breakdowns happen. You should not have to play 100% defensive hockey to win games, but that's where we are at in the league now. It's wrong and bad.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The forwards being high wouldn't have been an issue if Burns realizes he was the only guy on the defensive side of the puck and stayed by Jones. Pominville wasn't heading to a high % scoring area.

Like hell it wouldn't. It would've just ended up as a two on one down low. That's still an issue. While Pominville wasn't heading to a high scoring area, if Burns releases him, Pominville gets the puck with a wide open lane to a high scoring area. Makes no real difference because Martin will be out of position being too high and all the forwards are too high as well.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Wrong, when the argument is about the popularity of the view, it is the correct way to disprove a claim. Your claim is disproven by it.

You haven't proven that a majority of fans want more scoring.

In any case, that doesn't change the fact that the game CURRENTLY isn't paid that way.

Do you want to go back in time and reassign all wins and championships to teams that won the "right way".

The reality is the league views it as a problem and will be doing things to address it. Scoring right now is equivalent to the dead puck era and the league completely remade itself to address that. Things are regressing and will have to be fixed again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7mekhFTrXM

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Like hell it wouldn't. It would've just ended up as a two on one down low. That's still an issue. While Pominville wasn't heading to a high scoring area, if Burns releases him, Pominville gets the puck with a wide open lane to a high scoring area. Makes no real difference because Martin will be out of position being too high and all the forwards are too high as well.

Parise was the only Wild player in the area. It would have been one on one.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Parise was the only Wild player in the area. It would have been one on one.

No...I'm saying that if Burns releases Pominville, Granlund passes to Pominville and he walks it to the high scoring area because nobody is there to cover him and it's a 2 on 1 with Parise and Burns in front in your scenario.