Stoner Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 It's entirely possible I have all this wrong. But here's what I think happened last night. This had to be on the Gerbe hooking call early in the game that ended a Sabres power play. A TB player in the box, a delayed penalty on Gerbe and the puck sliding down the ice behind the Buffalo net. Spacek (I think) went for a Sunday skate, in my mind appearing to try and take as much time off the clock as possible. He even held up for a second or two as he neared the puck before HAVING to touch it (not sure if you can be penalized for delay of game for this). Anyway, every second that Spacek delayed -- and I estimated he could have touched that puck five seconds before he did, if he had hustled -- added to the ensuing Lightning power play, since it took seconds off the penalty time of the TB player in the box. Right? Do coaches not go over these situations? Are they not as "sophisticated" as football coaches, who envision every possible scenario (think of the Jet player in Buffalo who knew the oddball rule about the out of bounds kickoff)? Are hockey players just dense? Speaking of touchups, here's something that really makes me want to become a hermit and mail special packages to people: not sure when it happened, but I think it was another delayed penalty touchup. The puck was FIVE FEET away from a Lightning player, headed for his stick, when the ref blew the whistle, assuming what was about to happen. It happens all the time, especially involving goalie cover-ups. Does the ref not consider the possibility the player will whiff on it, or the puck will hit a rut and jump over a stick? Someone talk me down. Rachel Maddow. Hey now.
bleedblueandgold Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 I saw that also and wondered why Miller didn't come out to touch it......
Stoner Posted December 7, 2008 Author Report Posted December 7, 2008 I saw that also and wondered why Miller didn't come out to touch it...... Thanks. Maybe I'm not crazy. Or maybe we both are. I hate to put too fine a point on it, given my recent criticism of Ruff, but this kind of thing goes to coaching.
tom webster Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 Thanks. Maybe I'm not crazy. Or maybe we both are. I hate to put too fine a point on it, given my recent criticism of Ruff, but this kind of thing goes to coaching. I just watched the tape and while I agree with the general premise that players aren't always thinking sharply, your estimate of 5 seconds is greatly exaggerated. From the time the puck crossed our blue line till Spacek touched the puck, a TOTAL of 5 seconds ran off. Full out skating could have saved maybe a second and since Miller couldn't touch it till it reached the trapezoid, he couldn't have saved any time either.
Taro T Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 It's entirely possible I have all this wrong. But here's what I think happened last night. This had to be on the Gerbe hooking call early in the game that ended a Sabres power play. A TB player in the box, a delayed penalty on Gerbe and the puck sliding down the ice behind the Buffalo net. Spacek (I think) went for a Sunday skate, in my mind appearing to try and take as much time off the clock as possible. He even held up for a second or two as he neared the puck before HAVING to touch it (not sure if you can be penalized for delay of game for this). Anyway, every second that Spacek delayed -- and I estimated he could have touched that puck five seconds before he did, if he had hustled -- added to the ensuing Lightning power play, since it took seconds off the penalty time of the TB player in the box. Right? Do coaches not go over these situations? Are they not as "sophisticated" as football coaches, who envision every possible scenario (think of the Jet player in Buffalo who knew the oddball rule about the out of bounds kickoff)? Are hockey players just dense? Speaking of touchups, here's something that really makes me want to become a hermit and mail special packages to people: not sure when it happened, but I think it was another delayed penalty touchup. The puck was FIVE FEET away from a Lightning player, headed for his stick, when the ref blew the whistle, assuming what was about to happen. It happens all the time, especially involving goalie cover-ups. Does the ref not consider the possibility the player will whiff on it, or the puck will hit a rut and jump over a stick? Someone talk me down. Rachel Maddow. Hey now. It was clearly boneheaded, but as Tom points out it cost the team 1-2 seconds tops. I find that to be a far more forgivable sin than when a player intentionally turns the puck over on a delayed call to maximize the 2 man advantage; completely overlooking the fact that they have a defacto 2 man advantage w/ the goalie pulled and that should they score during the delayed call, the offending player must still serve the full 2 minutes; whereas if they score right off the faceoff on the ensuing 2 man advantage they'd get ~1:57 left max on that 2nd penalty and probably a whole lot less than that. :doh:
smith Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 It was clearly boneheaded, but as Tom points out it cost the team 1-2 seconds tops. I find that to be a far more forgivable sin than when a player intentionally turns the puck over on a delayed call to maximize the 2 man advantage; completely overlooking the fact that they have a defacto 2 man advantage w/ the goalie pulled and that should they score during the delayed call, the offending player must still serve the full 2 minutes; whereas if they score right off the faceoff on the ensuing 2 man advantage they'd get ~1:57 left max on that 2nd penalty and probably a whole lot less than that. :doh: agree...and this is JARO we're talking about...my impression is that his game isn't based on good thinking
Stoner Posted December 7, 2008 Author Report Posted December 7, 2008 I just watched the tape and while I agree with the general premise that players aren't always thinking sharply, your estimate of 5 seconds is greatly exaggerated. From the time the puck crossed our blue line till Spacek touched the puck, a TOTAL of 5 seconds ran off. Full out skating could have saved maybe a second and since Miller couldn't touch it till it reached the trapezoid, he couldn't have saved any time either. Miller couldn't have skated out to intercept the puck? Yeah, I had a feeling my five seconds was off. So I am crazy. I guess it's more the principle of it. Didn't it seem like Spacek was trying to let time run off the clock?
tom webster Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 Miller couldn't have skated out to intercept the puck? Yeah, I had a feeling my five seconds was off. So I am crazy. I guess it's more the principle of it. Didn't it seem like Spacek was trying to let time run off the clock? The puck was sliding along the boards, I doubt that Miller gets to the puck before it crosses the red line,and if he does, we're still talking a second and not worth the risk.
Stoner Posted December 7, 2008 Author Report Posted December 7, 2008 OK here's another scenario. Roy won that final faceoff cleanly. Lydman I think grabbed the puck and tried to ring it around and out. As almost always happens, it doesn't get out. Now you're into a hockey schmozzle. Could Lydman have taken the puck and pinned it against the boards in the corner for 10 seconds? I'll answer that. No. Too likely it would have been jarred free and then schmucks like me would say why didn't he shoot it around. But if only five seconds were left, why not? How many times has that shoot around been almost instantly returned on goal?
thesportsbuff Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 OK here's another scenario. Roy won that final faceoff cleanly. Lydman I think grabbed the puck and tried to ring it around and out. As almost always happens, it doesn't get out. Now you're into a hockey schmozzle. Could Lydman have taken the puck and pinned it against the boards in the corner for 10 seconds? I'll answer that. No. Too likely it would have been jarred free and then schmucks like me would say why didn't he shoot it around. But if only five seconds were left, why not? How many times has that shoot around been almost instantly returned on goal? I agree, they ALWAYS fail at getting the puck out along the glass. Why not just launch it down the middle?
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 I agree, they ALWAYS fail at getting the puck out along the glass. Why not just launch it down the middle? if you fail to clear it down the middle....you are giving up an extremely high percentage shot.
thesportsbuff Posted December 7, 2008 Report Posted December 7, 2008 if you fail to clear it down the middle....you are giving up an extremely high percentage shot. It's a big rink. I've never played hockey at a real competitive level, but it's not that hard to find a hole. Don't believe me? Watch the Sabres powerplay, and see how many times teams get clears RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER of the ice. Not around the boards.
Taro T Posted December 8, 2008 Report Posted December 8, 2008 It's a big rink. I've never played hockey at a real competitive level, but it's not that hard to find a hole. Don't believe me? Watch the Sabres powerplay, and see how many times teams get clears RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER of the ice. Not around the boards. After a play has been going for a while and you've gotten the puck up towards the high slot, yes, there is oftentimes a reasonable opening up the middle. From behind the net, right off the faceoff, w/ 6 opposing skaters; you might get it out, but as X points out, the odds of getting scored on off that attempted clear are FAR higher than they are off moving it along the boards. Even in your short handed example, the puck gets out of the zone along the boards an awful lot.
darksabre Posted December 8, 2008 Report Posted December 8, 2008 I dont see what the problem is with their clearing attempts on the PK. Our PK has been the only bright spot on the team this year.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.