Taro T

1st, to the Boudreau thing: clearly the Bolts aren't intentionally giving up high danger chances to anyone. But they sure as heck are going to be more concerned about giving up a high danger chance to Barkov than giving one up to Lomberg in similar conditions. And because their best defenders are going to be working against Barkov, Lomberg isn't going to be facing those defenders & truth be told, they aren't sweating him getting a chance nearly like they are about 12 other guys on their team. Nobody's saying they want to give him a great scoring chance, but it's probably not as big a deal & on the whole there'll be a ton fewer goals against given up per each time they lose him relative to losing Barkov. And, if your team gave up 5 high danger chances in the 1st and 4 were to Lomberg, you're likely only looking at having given up 1-2 goals. If you gave up 5 high danger chances, 4 of which went to Barkov & the other Verhage, you've probably given up at least 3 and likely 4. In the Girgensons example, why are you assuming the pass to Z is coming from Eichel or ROR? No, there are 2 additional skaters on the ice for the Sabres, either of which if the cycle works back to the point have options & again, nobody's saying the other team is TRYING to give up shots, but if the man that's uncovered is Girgensons at the backdoor there's a heck of a lot better chance that he'll be beat by the goalie than there is Eichel will be stopped from the slot. Really not seeing what Boudreau is saying is so controversial. Seems like common sense. All things equal, giving up a high danger chance to Thompson is far more likely to result in a goal than giving up the exact same chance to Eakin. And the comparison is between a Girgensons high danger chance & a Skinner one. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANT ANY HIGH DANGER CHANCES. But, given the 2 scenarios, which one is the coach showing his D-man something he might have done better and which one is the coach screaming at his player for the massive breakdown? And lastly, on Carrier, do you not understand the meaning of emoji's? It's a joke you ______. (Fill in your own mad-lib in the blank. If you're too young to know what a mad-lib is, wake up PA, he should be able to help you out. 😉 )

Of all the Amerk F's to give a freebreakaway, the Rocket did their homework. Murray tried to shoot it through the Rocket logo on Primeau's chest. Unsurprisingly, it was not effective. 😞

Quinn was listed as wearing an A, but that doesn't seem to be accurate.

Dog it! Rocket 1 - Good guys Zilch

Definitely looks like Amerks are trying to go for faster & more offensive minded tonight. Hopefully it works.

Yup. Drew a total blank on Boka's name. Thus, listing him as the "tough" guy. D'oh!

Laaksonnen, Teves, and Warren listed in the lineup. Quinn wearing an A. Holmstrom out. Boka, too. Tischke the 3rd not dressed from last night.

If Girgensons were on the ice w/ Eichel & O'Reilly & the D kept the puck away from either of those guys in the low slot, giving Z an opportunity backdoor, the other team would likely consider it a win. Giving Skinner a clean back door look rather than an outside shot from Johansson or a slot shot from Sobotka is a big loss. Context matters. Every time Carrier got an opportunity for Vegas in THAT game, it was a win because somebody that might actually score DIDN'T have the opportunity. 😉

Any of 3 different flavors.

Which is why teams hold the rights to NCAA players for 4 years rather than just 2. CHL players that were drafted at 18 & don't sign w/in 2 years go back into the draft & if somebody selects them, their rights are held for 2 more years by the team that selects them as a 20 yo. The team that held a player's rights at 18 can redraft him if they want & he's still available at their selection. Nobody can be "locked up" for more than 4 years,

Because NHL teams only hold CHL players' rights for 2 years. If they don't sign after their 1st post draft year, there is a real possibility they'll lose their rights to sign that player if he's any good.

PS - to the robe thing, that's why Gretzky started tucking his sweater into his pants. 😉 Since he was always way smaller than the rest of his team, his sweater was always a dress on him growing up & he'd catch his stick into it when stickandling, so he tucked it in to keep from having that issue.

Like the old bumpersticker said: Jesus saves! Gretzky gets the rebound. He shoots, he scores! 😉

And Peterka had a very nice shift at both ends of the ice just before Laval went on the PP. Nearly gave up a goal at the beginning of it because the D-man panicked and turned it over, but JJ was solid at both ends.

They looked like crud in Games 1 & 4 last round, but were the better team the other 3. Hopefully UPL can play tomorrow.

At least you tried. 😉

Amerk PP coming up. Woody, you know what you need to do. 😉

Maybe you can duck out towards the end of this period too to change the mojo back?

And yet, not a single beret?

Some of us might say thesame thing about Ra-cha-cha's goalie. 😉

He was the 3F and charged directly at the man breaking out rather than coming at an angle which caused him to face plant. He then was doing his best "broken controller Ovechkin" drift back into the zone.

And Peterka's play on the Laval 2nd goal is an example of how he still has room for improvement before getting "penned" in for the Sabres.

You'd better not miss anymore actual game play!

Only 4? Which 3 didn't you think were solid enough? 😉

Play under review. Goal judge turned on the light; ref said no. Goa judge correct. 1-1.