Recap - Rangers 4, Capitals 3
by David Getz on Apr 16, 2009 7:00 AM EDT
Email
Print[AP Recap - Game Summary - Event Summary - WashingtonCaps.com Postgame]
Guess it's a good thing Game Two is just as important as Game One, right?
The easy thing to do at this point would be to try and pin the Capitals loss on a single factor or, even better, a single player, because then we could have an immediate identifiable problem and, potentially, and easily identifiable solution. But the reality is that there were several factors which individually would not have been overwhelming, but collectively were too much for the team to overcome. Among them:
Schultz's spill - The most obvious of the team's mistakes, Jeff Schultz's mis-play that led to Brandon Dubinsky's goal was the result of his two biggest weaknesses, a lack of agility and a tendency to be too tentative, being exploited effectively by the Ranger center who, to his credit, made a pretty nice play. The danger now is that Schultz loses confidence and becomes even more susceptible to his tendency to over-think rather than trust his instincts and starts playing as tentatively as he was in late February and early March.
Theo's average outing - Although Schultz's miscue was the single play that's most likely to be in the spotlight, Jose Theodore may be the Capital who's going to take the most heat for the loss (though this is probably in part due to the obvious an potentially viable Plan B of Simeon Varlamov). Theodore looked uncomfortable in net all night, and while it's hard to fault him too much for any of the Rangers' last three goals, it would have been nice if he'd stopped at least one of them. The good news is that Theodore, who described himself as "not happy" with his performance, has done a good job of bouncing back from disappointing outings this season.
Avery goes unchecked - We're not generally ones to complain about officiating (and please, for the love of all that is holy and good, if you want to complain about last night's officials in the comments do it in a restrained, mature manner and point to specific examples) and you'd have to include the "small sample size" caveat in this discussion, but our theory that the officials were going to be keeping a close enough eye on Sean Avery to prevent him from being effective didn't seem to be in effect last night. Sure, Avery was whistled for a (blatant) penalty on John Erskine, but he was allowed to set an obvious pick that led to Scott Gomez's goal, and his slash-crosscheck-slash on Theodore near the end of the game was four penalties rolled into a five second span - none of which were called.
A lack of discipline -The Caps only had four minor penalties but three of them - the two puck-over-the-glass penalties and Erskine's high stick - were completely avoidable - and the precursors to two of New York's four goals.
Some other thoughts on the game:
- What did Bruce Boudreau, Craig Laughlin, Joe Beninati, Al Koken, and Ivan Carter all have in common last night? They were wearing red ties. Well played, gentlemen.
- The new red supports for the glass around the rink were a nice touch too.
- The Capitals dominated on faceoffs, winning 46-of-66 (70% on the night), led by Nicklas Backstrom (13-of-18, 72%). No Capital was below 57% on the dot.
- Alexander Ovechkin's first period: one assists, eleven shot attempts, six shots on goal, and six hits in 7:53 of ice time. Alexander Ovechkin's game: two assists, 28 shot attempts, 13 shots on goal, six hits, three takeaways, and a +1 rating.
- In the pregame, Laughlin called Henrik Lundqvist "big" and "imposing." 6'1'', 195 doesn't earn you that distinction in today's NHL - even if you are a goalie.
- No one ever said he was a great skater, but it's amazing Nik Antropov doesn't get called for interference and/or diving a half dozen times a game.
- Viktor Kolzov looked about as good as he has all season.
- Mike Green's backcheck in the first period to save a shot after a the puck jumped his stick at the Rangers' blue line was beautiful.
- The Capitals fourth line wasn't as effective as we'd hoped going in, especially considering Boyd Gordon's return to the lineup.
While the good news for the Capitals is that the problems that cost them last night's game are ones that fixable, the fact is they have, for the time being, squandered their home ice advantage and put themselves in a hole that it's not going to be particularly easy to pull themselves out of.
340 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Antropov’s tackle of Fleischmann and the trip of Green that sprung Gomez for the goal on the same play were two dreadful missed calls.
That and the offsides call on the PP where the puck was CLEARLY kept in the zone.
Ron and Fez Noon to Three
by YvonLabresMoustache on Apr 16, 2009 7:24 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Ummm
Antro was curling back to the bench and collided with Fleischmann. The trip is the real issue.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Homer ;)
Ron and Fez Noon to Three
by YvonLabresMoustache on Apr 16, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
hahaha
But seriously, that guy does it at least a few times a game. He curls with his eye on the puck and runs into someone. If it’s on purpose he does a hell of a job looking surprised.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
I don’t think Antropov intentionally tried to trip up Fleischmann in that instant. He’s not that type of player from what I’ve seen. Then again, for a tripping call, there is no requirement of intent, only that you did it.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Apr 16, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
We should not bitch about the officiating. It’s a fast game, we got a PP 18 seconds into a playoff game on a completely phantom call, and regarding the plays on the Gomez goal: the Flash pick was behind the flow of the play, and Green helped contribute to the pick by kind of getting tangled up with Avery. Yes, either could have been called, but we’ve all seen them NOT called this year, as well. Finally, losers bitch about calls. The Caps are not losers, and therefore we, their fans, by extension must not be either. Right?
So, enough with the officiating.
The reason for the loss was giving up 4 goals to an offensively challenged club.
1 soft goal – potentially fixable.
1 bad shift change – totally fixable
2 bad penalties – totally fixable
1 lethargic period – better be fixable
The other factor I would point to is allowing Green and AO to camp out on the power play for 2 whole minutes is too long. Get ‘em off the ice. Green’s fatigue was the other contributory factor in the Dubinsky goal, I though.
Anyway, the Caps beat themselves, to a large extent. They were and are the better team. A win on Saturday and a win on Monday and we’re back in the driver’s seat.
No time to panic.
It’s really not “enough with the officiating.” I mean, if Bruce thought it was enough of a problem that he pulled the refs over to talk to them for three minutes before the start of the third, I think it’s fair for us to discuss the events that led him to do so.
But I guess he’s a loser if he’s bitching about calls, eh?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
But I guess he’s a loser if he’s bitching about calls, eh?
C’mon. What a coach does during the game is completely different from what goes on after, or in the press, or in the comments on a blog for that matter. Could the Caps have gotten some calls that they did not get? Yes. Did the Caps get some calls that they might not have? Also yes. Can the same be said about the Rangers? For a third time, yes.
There’s always going to be something to bitch about with regards to the officiating.
What were the biggest reasons for the loss? Not the officiating.
That’s all I’m saying. Seems reasonable to me, no?
The refs did not cost the Caps that game.
I just don’t like some folks telling other folks what they can or can’t discuss. That’s my job! :)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I agree completely with this statement.
You can’t give up 2 goals on the Power Play to a team with a shit Power Play, and you can’t give up 4 goals to a team that can’t score…bottom line.
Ron and Fez Noon to Three
by YvonLabresMoustache on Apr 16, 2009 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions
The “you can’t give up 4 goals to a team that can’t score” part is a little off, imo, in that the Rangers under Torts scored at a per game rate that was above the League average. That said, no team averaged 4 goals per game this season, so “you can’t give up 4 goals to ANYONE” might be more fitting.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
How big is that sample size though? 20 games? Most of those as i’m looking were one goal games (and after they got Antropov). I still think they’re massively deficient offensively.
What’s so annoying about last night in general is when you KNOW you’re much better than another team, and you just can’t put it together enough to beat them, or you let them hang around enough until they do eventually.
Ron and Fez Noon to Three
by YvonLabresMoustache on Apr 16, 2009 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions
That said, no team averaged 4 goals per game this season, so "you can’t give up 4 goals to ANYONE" might be more fitting.
Very true, so how about “you can’t give up 3 goals to a team that struggled to average 2.5 gpg on the season”
Point being they didn’t struggle to score 2.5 gpg under Torts. Why is what they did under Renney relevant, y’know?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
What really grinds my gears is the fact they gave up two PP goals to a team that has struggled (need a stronger word here) on the PP all season.
The guy (Avery) that should be under the biggest microscope by the refs commits a blatant intereference that leads to a pivotal goal and we can’t complain about it? Please. We all know that the game was lost by Theo, but obvious calls like that have to be made. And we should be allowed to say so without being slapped on the wrist.
For the record, I did not mean to say it ought not be a valid topic for discussion (although I grant you that that is a reasonable interpretation of the actual words I chose).
With regard to the Green and Avery thing, I thought that was a play that might or might not get whistled. It appeared that Avery didn’t change direction or alter his speed, but continued his line and Green, while skating backwards, bumped into him and got tangled up.
It ended up as a pick, all right, and that gets a call some (most of?) the time. But I didn’t think it was textbook obstruction.
it would be one thing if Sean Avery held all 6 players on the ice at the same time giving them an open net. Even with two players down, there were still 4 our there that could have broken up the play His interference did not create that goal, it created an opportunity that was capitalized on.
In that regard, the tripping penalty Ovechkin drew was a bad call that lead to a penalty in the same way…it was avoidable, and they weren’t directly related (that said, Ovechkin didn’t dive, it was just a bad call)
I hate make up calls, they need to get it right from the get go, and the caps had plenty of opportunities to put in 2 or 3 more goals that they didn’t capitalize on. The refs may have taken the wind out of the sails of the caps a bit, but a better effort from the caps would have made up for it.
The only comment I will make on the officiating is that the blown calls that allowed the first goal allowed a goal that changed the momentum of the game. From then on, the flow of the game was completely different. Before that, the Caps were buzzing. After that they spent the whole game backpedaling.
Need to shoot high on Lundqvist – he’s a wall down low.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Some folks were doing it, to their credit.
From where you were J.P., how’d the Green hit on Sjostrom look? Thought he was leading with the elbow a bit, but I was at the other end of the rink.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 7:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Definitely – just need more of it.
Green’s hit was highly questionable. Let’s put it this way – if someone with a reputation for dirty hits (perhaps even someone with AO’s reputation) threw it, it would have been far less likely to have gone unpenalized. And if Avery did it, there would have been a line brawl and calls for a suspension.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, from where I was, it looked higher than say, the AO hit on Heward. Oh, and the Fedorov cross check on Avery near the end? That’s a call if the names and circumstances were different.
Oh well, two days to analyze into a lather.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 7:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Thought Semin in particular was aiming high. He just missed a couple corners.
Thought the Caps were by far the better team, and with one of either A) a big stop, or B) a better PK here or there, the Caps are winners.
They’ll win in Saturday.
Agreed – the PK was atrocious and Jose had very few (no?) big saves, which he desperately needs not only to keep the puck out of the net (duh) but for his confidence.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The Rags also had two posts where Jose was just flat beat. Last nights game played out exactly like the Rags wanted it too. Keep it close, let Henrik make a couple of big saves, and a few will go in against Theo.
Semin fired a shot in the third, skating backwards on his right foot, that floored me because he was able to get even a little heat on it. Just got me remembering is all.
Those 3 goals were Semin picking up a rebound, Kozlov charging the net and a screened deflection. Just saying…
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Those 3 goals were Semin picking up a rebound, Kozlov charging the net and a screened deflection. Just saying…
Had the same thought. The Caps scored the type of goals the goalie has no chance to stop. And they got three (!) of them against a very good goaltender. That bodes well.
That might (heavy emphasis) bring 17 back a little sooner, depending on practice the next couple days.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Heh. My first reaction was, now who the hell wears 17? Had to go look at the roster to find out. Been a long time since Clarkie has graced the ice.
With regard to Clark in particular, on one of the goals, and I think it was the Dubinsky goal but it might have been the Gomez goal, Nylander had an opportunity to tie up his stick, but he did his best pylon imitation instead. Clark probably at least takes a hook to prevent that one from happening.
The defensive breakdowns were troubling, for sure.
He might do that, but he’ll also go to the crease for you, moreso than what was occurring last night anyway.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Blasphemy!
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
And I might add, a little traffic wouldn’t hurt either. What he sees, he stops.
by b.orr4 on Apr 16, 2009 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Caps lost because they did some of the same incomprehensible stuff they’ve done all year. Dumb penalties is the obvious example. But also: Witness the 3-on-2 on which Flash shot a weak wrister from just inside the offensive blue-line. (Groan.) It got blocked (of course) and led to a NYR odd-man rush and a goal.
And I’d like to see the D shoot the puck 5-on-5.
Ranger's 2nd or 3rd goal
I know Schultz’s misstep was a defensive breakdown, but I was screaming at the TV on the ranger’s 2nd (maybe their 3rd) goal when Poti was screening JT60. Poti needs to step up on that play. Bruce needs to go over some defense drills the next two days at practice.
Wether you think you can or you can't, you're right! - Stewie Griffin
Eh, we sit behind the net and it didn’t seem like he was screened to me. There was a clear lane with a view of the shooter between the 2 d-men IIRC, he should have seen that one all the way. I don’t have the advantage of a TV replay though.
Well, it seemed from the view of the replay that he was screened and Craig L. made a comment about it, but then again, I’m not close to the ice like you. Even if he was not screened, as a defensmen, you don’t back up until your 3’ from the crease, you have to make a stand against the player.
Wether you think you can or you can't, you're right! - Stewie Griffin
by SoMD Capsfan on Apr 16, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
In theory, true. However, that goal was the result of an horrific line change by the Caps. Locker pointed it out after the game on his illustrator how the D had no choice but to back up because they were outnumbered since the two Cap forwards were hopelessly behind the play. The coaching staff has to take some blame for that.
Btw, I don’t know why I do this to myself, but I listened to the call-in show post-game. As if the game itself wasn’t enough to put me in a mood…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
For this being the aftermath of a loss, and I’ve seen my fair share of ‘em, I am as cheerful as I’ve ever been.
The Caps dominated in shots, faceoffs, and general flow of play. They were completely dominating in the third, got a power play, and I was completely confident that they were going to get one past Lundqvist to salt it away. A turnover, a couple of fatigued guys on the ice, a bit of a sloppy change, a defensive breakdown, and no bailout from the Goalie, and there you had it.
But, seriously, if the play continues this way, the Caps will take this series.
I was surprisingly indifferent to the outcome of the game. Is it because I know the Caps can overcome this?
uhhh...uhh...uuh...uuh...uhh...uhh...
Basically saying the same thing, but I think it’s because it was Game 1. I wanted that game bad, but I’m not overly troubled. After all, there’s plenty to do and plenty of time in which to do it.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I do this as therapy. It comforts me to know that there are some constants in the world….
- If the Caps lose one game, it is the end of civilization as we know it
- If Jose Theodore has an off night, he is the worst goaltender in the history of earth
- The refs scrooed us
- Start Varlamov, start Don Beaupre…somebody find Jim Carey, quick!
- Schultz sucks
- McPhee sucks
- hello?…caller, are you there?…hello?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Apr 16, 2009 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not gonna lie, I cut myself off from everything Caps related last night. And it sure as hell helped (although I still picture Schultz’s matador skills woke me up a few times last night). This is my first stop of post game 1 analysis.
I don’t know how you could listen to the post game, especially after yesterday… whooooo. You’re a stronger man then I.
Today’s a new day, not going to panic.
I loathe the post game show even after wins. I don’t know the DJs (that’s all they are) names…but between them and the fans that call in frustrate me to no end…not to mention most of the callers make me feel embarrassed to be from virginia
The thing is, the blowhards who think they know better than everyone else are always the loudest. For everyone guy who’s screaming his head off with panic and insisting 2/3 of the team sucks, there are a dozen people who appreciate what the franchise has built.
Getting mad at players, like getting mad at Schultz or Theo after last night, I can at least understand. What I can’t understand is people who really think they can do a better job than McPhee.
Just to be clear, I’m assuming you mean since the start of the 1998-99 season, because GMGM had 3 playoff series wins his first year.
As for the general notion that GMGM should be replaced (not that you’re advocating it, F&B), obviously it all depends on what happens this season. Even if the Caps lose in the first round this year, I still think you have to view McPhee’s work the past five years or so as outstanding. Especially if Varlamov, Alzner, and Carlson are for real.
As for the general notion that GMGM should be replaced (not that you’re advocating it, F&B), obviously it all depends on what happens this season.
What the question really is, and always is, is whether or not someone else would do a better job. Right now, I don’t see any reason to think anyone else would do a better job than McPhee and his staff.
I am NOT advocating removing GMGM. I’m just saying that there are not a lot of GMs that go 11 years without a playoff win and have secure jobs. He won those playoff rounds his first year with a team someone else assembled. I don’t remember any major roster changes under his watch that year. I think when you talk about GMGM you have to separate it into pre- and post-rebuild. This rebuild has been extremely successful and he deserves the chance to see it through for at least another year or two. He hasn’t only made hay on the obvious choices (hello PIT) but he has found later gems in the draft (SDR, Osala, Holtby, Perreault), and skillfully stockpiled draft picks (Green and Schultz). Looking at the organizational depth he has put together I have a hard time seeing another GM doing better than that so I also agree with DMG’s response.
I never ever ever listen to call in shows. The screeners look for the most outlandish and least knowledgeable people to put on the air.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Theo Average?
Wow jp, you’re in a very charitable mood this morning calling Theo’s outing “average”. Given the importance of the game, I thought it was his worst performance as a Cap. I can only recall one save that was outstanding and the four that were scored were very stoppable. Admittedly, they would have required good saves, but isn’t that what goalies on championship-aspiring teams are supposed to do? I’m not saying he should make every save, but if he just stops one or two of those we’ve got a different storyline this morning. Two plays summed up last night for me. On the first, the best player in the game, Ovechkin, turns the Ranger defender inside out and is stopped on a breakaway by Lundqvist. On the second play, Dubinsky, who’s not even the best player on his team, turns Schultz inside out and scores easily on Theodore. Game over. Luckily, it’s just game one. I fully expect a far different result on Saturday.
by b.orr4 on Apr 16, 2009 8:39 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
One, if you’re going to lose one, Game 1 is the one to lose.
Two, Theo has almost always bounced back during the season.
Three, in general Theo HAS been good for a big stop or two along the way, even while allowing a questionable goal to sneak by. No big stops that I can recall last night, and a couple bad goals…he was not sharp.
In going over the goals, in order of worst to best:
1. The Gomez goal – that’s got to be stopped. It was shot right at him and just leaked through.
2. Dubinsky’s goal – Theo had a clear look at it, had plenty of time to square up, but he went down too early and give him the top of the net to shoot at. To credit Dubinsky, he hit his spot, but that’s a makeable save.
3. Antropov’s goal – There was traffic, and Antropov was below the dots and is a bit of a sniper. That would have been a big save.
4. Naslund’s goal – top shelf, from the slot, in traffic. That would have been a stellar save.
It was pretty clear the Rangers were told to shoot high, blocker side on Theo. To their credit they did and, more importantly, they put their shots on net. The Caps could learn from that.
I said something similar, but only called out Ovechkin in the previous thread. He’s got to do a better job of picking his shots. Ovechkin is an amazing shooter, but it seems like he’s shooting just to shoot, not because he actually sees an opening. Granted, that can also lead to goals, but he gets so many shots blocked or deflected, it seems like he needs to take another 5 milliseconds and wait for a path to open.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
DMG did the recap. I don’t think I’d have used the word “average” here.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Heh.
Wish I could, but when I go to night games and have to be up at 5:30 the next AM, I like to get a little help. DMG’s been a godsend to this site in too many ways to mention.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I think it’s just quibbling over semantics, but I really think it’s hard to blame Theo for any of the last three, although it would have been nice if he’d stopped them. Maybe ‘mediocre’ would have been a better word, but it doesn’t roll off the tongue in the same way.
I think just about everyone, Jose included, thought he had a good chance to make those saves, and didn’t. He had a bad game.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree that they were certainly stoppable on the one hand, on the other hand it’s hard to blame the goalie entirely on screens, partial breakaways, and unchecked wristers from the below the circles. What it came down to for me is that if he lets in one of those you can say “well he could have stopped that, but I can live with it”, but when you’re saying that several times in one game, the guy isn’t playing well.
Wasn’t the concensus around the world that Theo only had to be “Average” to win this series? I’ve heard many times that he doesn’t have to Win the game for the Caps, he just can’t lose it.
While I agree he probably could’ve played better, I feel like, as DMG pointed out, the last 3 goals were the result of weak/porus defense and good shots.
The Gomez goal, as any goalie will attest… should have been stopped, BUT it’s those “change of pace” floaters that seem to always find a way through as you’re expecting something completely different to happen when the shooter takes his shot. And I think even BB said something yesterday or earlier this week that one of Theo’s greatest strengths is reading the shooter, hence why he does as well as he doesn in the shootout/breakaways.
There were plenty of other reasons to pin the goals on, than to only pin it on Theo. (but I agree…he could’ve been better, much better)
that loss really hurt the soul.
not saying we’re done, it just freakin’ stung.
Semin was invisible most of the game save for his PP goal. That can’t contninue…
i don’t usually pick on Jose but I’m going to now. this is the time HE HAS TO step it up more than anyone else. he did not keep them in the game. in fact, i would say he sucked.
agreed on Kozzie. he played damn well.
a different play stuck out for me when it came to Schultz. They were on the PP and Lundqvist lost his stuck. the puck came out to Schultz while Lundqvist and the defensemen were scrambling and he holds for a second and passes it off to Juice for a shot. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT SHOT!! i don’t care how positionally sound he is touted to be, you have to be more than just that. take the shot!
sooo many Caps shots were blocked last night.
Jose didn’t “keep them in the game.” You know… I will admit that it wasn’t Jose’s night, but I think that goalies are given more blame than they’re due.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: there are FIVE other guys on the ice who are responsible for minding the net. And let’s not forget that the scoring on our side was crap. Until they create traffic and actually crash the net, I refuse to blame a loss on JT. If the boys hold up their end of the bargain, JT shouldn’t have to keep them in the game. They knew from the start that Dapper Dan Ludqvist, as I call him, was an amazing goalie. They knew that those crappy shots from a mile away wouldn’t work. Why waste the time? Skill, strategy, and physical pressure at the net should have been the focus.
"For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion; that it may sing; " - The Prophet
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: there are FIVE other guys on the ice who are responsible for minding the net.
Well, really I’d say that they are responsible for their own assignments and positioning. Not really minding the net, that is in fact, the goaltenders job. But there were certainly occasions where some people on the ice did neither.
Until they create traffic and actually crash the net, I refuse to blame a loss on JT.
Flash goal: redirect from traffic in front of net
Kozlov goal: redirect from driving directly to the net
Semin goal: rebound from Laich’s shot attempt from about 2in in front of the net aka crashing the net
If your criteria are in fact the one’s you state, then Jose should get the blame. I don’t think he deserves all of it, far from it, but he didn’t help himself or his team out and he said as much post-game. The Caps shouldn’t have to score 4 or more to win every game, sometimes it seems like they do, but they shouldn’t have to.
I think it’s kind of hard to fault the offense here – four goals shouldn’t need to be the minimum to expect a win, especially against a team like New York.
I don’t think generating traffic was a problem; there was only one time I thought there should have been someone there and wasn’t and Fleischmann and Semin both scored because they were near the net.
For comparison’s sake, if we imagine a “good shot area” that’s more or less a triangle formed one line running parallel to the goal line that extends to the faceoff dots and two lines that run from the faceoff dots to the posts, and compare each team’s shot chart, Washington does much better – they had 13 and the Rangers had 7.
For comparison’s sake, if we imagine a "good shot area" that’s more or less a triangle formed one line running parallel to the goal line that extends to the faceoff dots and two lines that run from the faceoff dots to the posts, and compare each team’s shot chart, Washington does much better – they had 13 and the Rangers had 7.
I’m actually going to have to retract that statement – the shot chart I was looking at was a disaster.
RE: Schultz: a lack of agility and a tendency to be too tentative
This is a situation that DUH! is going to exploited. There was another moment, earlier in the game, when the Caps were in the attack zone — and doing well — but the puck slid slowly out in the direction of the point, with a Ranger in the general (but not immediate) vicinity. Ninety-nine defensemen out of a hundred would have taken the (small) risk, made one step forward and poke it back down the boards to keep it in play.
Not Our Too Tentative Teddy Bear Schultzie. He backed off. And in a flash the Rags went on the attack. An indication. If you’re Boudreau, what do you do about this?
Overall, however, I have to admit to some very unusual (for me at least) optimism. The Caps took it to them almost all night. If (a) JT can settle down just a little bit (he should have, MUST HAVE, at least two of those 4), and (b) the Rangers continue to be morons with regard to penalties, then I think we may have a shot at this.
Is Saturday big or what? [shiver]
I do recall the keep that 55 backed off on. He was tentative. Hopefully just Game 1 nerves.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I wouldn’t either. Not sure it’d be the right move, necessarily, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I think Pothier gets in regardless Saturday, and, given Fehr’s/Flash’s play, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see Clark in on Saturday, either.
Varlamov to complete the trio?
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Flash had a goal, on a tip in no less… I think that one of the guys on the 4th line gets a seat if Clark is coming back.
Flash was in the right place at the right time. All credit to him for that, but the rest of his game wasn’t all that impressive. I think Clark gets in next game, though, either way.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Pothier gets in the game at the expense of the double nickel…
I would not be surprised to see atleast Clark and maybe The Donald. I’m not sure who I bench, but I’ll guarantee it won’t be Flash.
Not a chance Varls starts on Saturday.
I don’t think so. I think Schultz stays in: he made a mistake, but it should also have been a save. Schultz had a decent game otherwise – maybe just a little nervous.
Granted, I can’t say who else played worse to be sitting on Saturday…
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
None of the D were especially stellar. The worst? Tough for me to say, would have to watch tape for that, I think.
Feds was real bad.
He was. Again.
What’s happened to him, lately? Is he tired? Injured? Homesick? Something?
He’s been steady all year until about 3 weeks ago.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I actually thought Erskine had a great game, fwiw.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Apr 16, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ditto. Not having the TOI numbers, I think him and Poti were assigned to the Avery line for much of the night and did well.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t really fault Schultz on that one – I’d prefer he errs on the side of caution at the point given his puck handling and agility – but this tendency to be too tentative is driving me nuts. I think he’s better about it than he’s been in the past and as he gets bigger and stronger and works on his skating, it’ll happen less and less.
The Shultz Thing
Shouldn’t have Green slid there? Isn’t there a point where he’s got to commit to the guy with the puck?
I agree, I think Green played it pretty well. In retrospect, maybe he should have dove but hindsight is 20/20.
I think he did the right thing — the goalie makes the save while the D keeps the backdoor closed. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
If we’re thinking about the same play, Green played it right. Theodore has to commit to the shooter there and Green to the pass. Not only did Theo not commit to the shooter, but his right pad was OUTSIDE the crease on the board side when the shooter cut inside.
Theo was in terrible position for their 2 softest goals. Schultz didn’t have a great game, but with decent goaltending he gets bailed out. I’m fine sitting him for Potheir, but he’s really not the big problem.
At the risk of being too stat driven
As was pointed out in a previous post, game two is almost always the pivotal game and from an historical perspective, the Caps are not in a bad situation. Through the history of all seven game first round NHL series, when the visiting team wins game one, they lose game two 68% of the time. And to make you feel even better, the game one winner’s chances of taking the series are just 50-50.
You’re scooping my 10:30 post! :)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
After a browse...
Let’s do our best not to lose game 2. That .500 series winning percentage goes to .700 with a 2-0 lead going back to NY
game one winner’s chances of taking the series are just 50-50
Hey, we’re Caps’ fans. To us these odds are Certain and Complete Doom.
The Ice
For those of you at the game, how bad was the ice? I remember three or four occasions during 3rd period power plays were Ovie cut from the left side like he usually does and the puck went nowhere near him, in fact almost always way behind him, like it was slower than he expected. The puck looked all over the place down there. How’d it look from at the game?
Pretty terrible.
Did I say pretty terrible? I meant incredibly terrible.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Damn hippies.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
TSN
They mentioned it a tonne.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
within the first 2 minutes the refs had to stop play to fill holes in the ice. it was warm in there…
by ns on Apr 16, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, if the ice was bad you can’t blame Verizon Center for not trying. Apparently, they brought in the NHL’s ice guru to help get the surface ready.
I can blame the Verizon Center for scheduling a Dead concert the week of the Playoffs. I can also blame the NHL for not scheduling the Caps for Thursday night. Not only was it the day after a concert…which was days after the Frozen Four. But it also creates to long of a break between two games for overly obsessed fans such as myself.
It was significantly colder at the Frozen 4 then it was last night.
by vt caps fan on Apr 16, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Additional observation: Fedorov (outside of his draws) was horrible. And old.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
At least he had some zip in his step to get back and touch those icings at the end of the game, there.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Except when he was playing D at the very end. He showed some legs, then.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
To my eyes Feds hasn’t been the same since coming back from his prolonged injury layoff in the middle of the season. He looked great at the beginning of the season, but lackluster since. Even though he may still be hurting, what has been the most disappointing aspect to me has been his numerous mental errors. He couldn’t have had more time than he did last night before lofting that pass into the crowd resulting in the delay of game penalty.
"Stunning admission"
Why is it a “stunning admission” that Bruce might put Varley in? That would be a coach making a move to better the club. Taking one player out who can not perform and putting someone else in who could do better?
Stunning…riiiiight
There’s a difference between “can not” and “did not” perform. If you think Jose “can not” perform, I don’t know what team you watched for the first 82 games of the season.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I suppose he can because he has been awesome in year’s past. But as for this season, I guess I could turn the question around to you if you think Theodore somehow did great in the first 82 games.
He plays on a high scoring team to where you only have to have a decent performance to win games. When it comes to the playoffs, hockey gets taken to the next level to where goaltenders can win and lose games for their club. Theo isn’t that guy anymore. Henrik won it for NYR last night and I’d at least want to see what Varley can do. He had one shaky performance in his few games this season. Other than that, he looked pretty darn good.
Jose proved during the regular season that he can perform – in 24 of 55 appearances he allowed two goals or fewer.
He’s not Henrik Lundqvist. He doesn’t have to be. He has to be better than he was last night, to be sure, but he has demonstrated that he usually is.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Apr 16, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Last night, though, he had to be serviceable, and he was barely that. Lundqvist stood on his head, and likely will again. It’s Jose’s job to match that effort.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Right. He has to give them a chance and last night he didn’t. But that doesn’t mean that he won’t on Saturday or throughout the rest of the series.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I agree. I like Theo, but I’m going to be disappointed about last night until after Saturday’s win.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
How did he not give us a chance to win when we only lost by 1 goal? Seems to me even with his crap game he gave us a chance to win.
Because had he come up with the “one big save” everyone touts as his strong point we would have won. Take away a horribly weak first goal and make that “one big save” and then he’s giving us a chance to win.
Are we more comfortable with a 20 year old with 6 NHL appearances than a NHL vet that has 4 playoff series wins? I’m not. As bad as Jose was last night, if he gets sat for Varly this series/season is as good as over.
The problem is that Jose showed all of his usual problems in game 1 of the playoffs. Maybe he needed last night to get his mind in the series, but if it happens again, then, hell yeah I’m gonna be more comfortable with the Iron Curtain in net.
That said, Jose is known for learning from his miscues – I think he’ll steal Saturday.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
There was also a kid a few years back named Cam Ward. So it’s definitely possible a youngin’ could do well.
Not to mention Carey Price. No Cup, but a hell of a playoffs.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, getting bounced back and forth with Halak and flaming out last year.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, not playoffs, reg. season is what i was thinking.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
And BP’s point about the playoffs is all the more reason not to play Varly now – look what it did to Price.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I think Varly’d be fine. He didn’t get the workload in the regular season for exactly that reason. He’s got no chance of getting burned out in the same fashion – especially if he’s only facing 21 shots a game.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but the only big club he’s played in the last month who wasn’t Tampa or Atlanta was Buffalo, where he got lit up.
To be sure, Varlamov being up here is a nice new shiny toy, but he’s also got the inside shot on not going anywhere for the next decade, and might make a push for #1 at some point next year. Theodore’s leash might be shorter, but if putting Varlamov in now means he underperforms in the long term, I’m fine with keeping Theodore where he is.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
He got lit up on two deflections and an own goal. Varly was just fine that game, but terribly unlucky.
I’m also not saying ride Varly the rest of the playoffs. Jose is a rebound goalie, and will bounce back. He may just need a game or two on the bench before it happens. I don’t think Bruce will do to Jose what he did to Kolzig last year.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Bruce will do to Jose what he did to Kolzig last year.
I don’t think the two are even comparable. What BB did to Olie last year was essentially bench him for the last 15 games of the season. He never saw a minute of playoff time. You’ll recall that Huet got lit up during the playoffs last year also…to the tune of a 3+ GAA.
What folks are saying here (and I vehemently disagree) is that Jose should be benched for Varls after GAME 1 of the playoffs.
Do those same people believe Ward should be benched after his performance last night against NJD? I doubt it.
I think they are, and the only way in which I mean so is by straight replacement. If Varly gets in, I don’t think he’ll be the # 1, I think it’ll start a tandem of Varly and Jose.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Bruce will do to Jose what he did to Kolzig last year.
I think Kolzig’s age and performance would refute this. Not to go down that road too far, but Kolzig had a helluva less in the tank than Theodore does now.
I don’t think he’ll be the # 1, I think it’ll start a tandem of Varly and Jose.
That’s too small a window to determine who the “hot hand” is going to be. Aside of Detroit, I can’t think of a recent post-season tandem that’s worked, off the top of my head.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Cam Ward has a Conn Smythe. Theodor has a history of implosion. How many games do you give up before you make a move? One soft goal is too many in an NHL playoff game. Theo let in 2. I don’t think he should be benched yet but if he lets in 2 soft goals on Saturday I move to Varlamov for at least one start.
Ward didn’t exactly set the world afire in his first game back in the playoffs last night and don’t forget, had Theo-like stats for 2 years after.
"Thank God there is a sport for middle-sized white boys.."
by Bald Pollack on Apr 16, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
My point was that Ward won a Cup at a young age.
Cool thing about Bruce is that he’s not big on doing what everyone thinks he should do. I actually wouldn’t be surprised to see Varley in…although I’m still doubting that we will.
Considering he played 30-some straight games and was largely responsible for getting the ’Canes to the playoffs, no.
The Caps didn’t get to the playoffs because of Jose. We got there because of guys like Alex, Alex and Greenie.
When the Caps were white-hot (from Dec. 23 through early March), so was Jose.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
He had some great games, sure. But racking up wins with the third best offense in the league in front of you doesn’t mean anything come playoff time. Thus why we saw all the concerns/polls about the goaltending situation in the days preceding game 1.
racking up wins with the third best offense in the league in front of you doesn’t mean anything come playoff time
Sure it does. It means you can rack up wins come playoff time.
But if you want to take your lead from Tarik’s commentors, be my guest.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Playoff hockey is a different game entirely. That’s about all I can say. Because of the more intense, physical style of play, goaltenders more often than not are the players who win the games. I think Henrik certainly helped win that game for NYR last night because he made several huge stops.
That playoff hockey is a different game entirely is a myth. Teams play their game and when they run into poor match ups or they play poorly, it trips them up, just as it would and does during the regular season. Simple as that.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The intensity is different, but the game is the same. Until you get into OT # 4
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Playoff hockey is a different game entirely. That’s about all I can say.
Really? And here I was expecting a philosophical breakthrough.
Playoff hockey IS NOT any different than the regular season. The only difference is that it’s a sprint not a marathon…so the games have a more intense feel to them.
Hockey is still hockey regardless…I’m not sure how you can so easily discount the 3rd best offense in the league come playoff time.
The Caps basically couldn’t lose at the end of the regular season last year. Then they lost four of seven in round 1. I can’t believe I’m arguing this point, so I’ll stop.
I can’t believe I’m arguing this point, so I’ll stop.
Finally we agree on something. Though you’re not really arguing or debating. All you’re doing is throwing out hockey cliches with expectation others have to agree with you.
I don’t get your point about last season and the playoffs…
My whole point is that you have no point. All you’ve brought to the table are a bunch of reworded quotes that hockey analysts consistently bring up. Then when someone tries to counter one of your cliches all you do is throw another cliche out there.
Try doing a little bit of leg work to actually research whatever point you’re trying to get across.
So when someone has a viewpoint that you disagree with, you automatically discount it as not really being one? I thought there were good points on both sides. After all, if everyone had the same opinions, discussion would be pretty darn boring. My apologies. I’ll stay away from your elitist Caps-bubble and try to learn from your all-knowing self. I’ll be looking forward to your next super-intelligent post.
Interesting that most teams that win Game 1 seem to lose Game 2. Maybe there’s hope for us after all, despite losing a game we should have won. Yes, I was P.O’d last night. And wondered if we were doomed this go ’round.
I don’t think Theodore was average — more like below average.
Why do the Caps get so close to killing off a penalty only to give up a goal in the last few ticks (11 seconds to go)?
Anyway, if we win game 2 (and game3 in NY), then we’re back in business. It seems that the Caps play better as underdogs anyhow. And now they are the underdog.
I called Kozlov scoring a goal in the Chris Clark update post.
I would be having a happier birthday today if the Caps won.
When Ovechkin scored and I saw that spotlight go on him it was like all was right with the world.
Why would Bruce say he didn’t pull the goalie because that would look like panicking? Doesn’t that sound like panicking?
I thought similarly. I’d have rather heard, “We didn’t pull him because he’s our guy” than “We didn’t pull him because of how it would look,” but that’s just semantics and over-analysis.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
No Reason To Panic...
Some observations from section 421:
- Sean Avery is a dirty bleep. No other way to describe his play. He blatanly tripped Green and later shoved Green into the bench, trying to keep him there. He also, on one occasion, jostled a Caps player in play while going off for a change. It was a Too Many Men penalty that wasn’t called. To Green’s credit in dealing with Avery, he didn’t retaliate.
- The officials let a lot of stuff go on both sides. Some of the hits (Bradley’s on Mara for example) were charges as the Caps left their feet. Feds also committed at least two hooks that might have been called earlier in the season.
- The Rangers were able to take more advantage of their scoring chances. They may have had about 7 challenging shots, and Theo only got 2 of them (four goals and they hit the post once too). The Caps had about 15 challenging shots, and Lunqvist was outstanding.
- The Caps outhit the Rangers by 4 after one period, but by game’s end, the Rangers had outhit the Caps. Not good.
- In the peripheral areas, the Caps were the better team. The faceoffs were great, they managed to get above their season average on the powerplay against the league’s top PK unit (28% last night).
What I’d like to see next game is better penalty killing. The Caps only took 4 penalties, but the Rangers cashed in 2 of them. I’d also like to see more accuracy from the shooters. Ovie had 13 on goal, but he missed just wide at least twice.
Oh, and I’d also like to see Avery bleeding from the aftermath of a fight with Donald…but that won’t happen.
If the Caps can reduce the mistakes they made in this game by about one third, and play as hard as they did, there’s no reason they can’t win Game 2.
Let's go Caps!
most of ovie’s shots went right to Henrik’s gut or chest with no rebound…there was also no one creating traffic during those shots, they’re low percentage shots that seem to just inflate his shot numbers, henrik’s save percentage and make henrik feel comfortable.
I’m not saying Ovie’s not giving his all, just that he needs help in the crease
I think he needs to be a bit more selective when it comes to shooting. I mean 28 attempts, 15 of which are blocked or miss the net? Too many.
I dunno, there’s no such thing as a bad shot on goal. Some of Ovie’s misses were just a couple of inches from going in, too. Sure Lundqvist doesn’t give up many rebounds, but he is human and Ovie should shoot if the opportunity arises (all of the player should).
Green didn’t take too many shots in the game… he could have been a little more selfish…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Apr 16, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
He needs to be a little more generous with the puck, too. 15 shots of his missed or were blocked. Share the wealth, AO – you don’t have to do it yourself.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, what DMG said.
Btw, AO drew three penalties, which is fantabulous.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
it was special teams, it wasn’t avery (except the mike green pick) it wasn’t anything at all but theodore
you switch goalies, and we won tonight. we won big. 6-0 big.
in fact there are eight starting goalies in the eastern conference right now…would you take theodore in net over any single one of them? honestly would you? (remember cam ward has a conn smyth)
brodeur
fleury
thomas
lundquist (or however you spell it)
biron
ward
carey
any of them are in net for us, we won last nights game. any of them.
whoops should be “wasn’t special teams” sorry
by luketheriault on Apr 16, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Agree about special teams not being the problem.
Caps PK was able to clear the puck pretty routinely.
Both of the rangers PP goals scored were from behind the faceoff dot, one where Flash didn’t have a stick (though he should have been out there trying to block the shot rather than push the screener already covered by the D man)
Caps PP had a lot of zone time and was able to set up pretty easily. They had a lot of chances and were able to work several set plays.
The rangers just got the saves when they needed them and the Caps didn’t.
This is over reaction. The Gomez goal was the only really bad one. The other three would have required varying levels of a good save. Taken as a whole, the failure to make any of those saves means he did not have a good game. But I would not call it a meltdown.
The Naslund goal in particular probably gets past most guys on most nights.
Should they have won? Yes.
But it’s only Game 1, come back in off the ledge.
I don’t see this as a relevant question. Would I rather have the best goalie in the world than Theo? Sure, but that isn’t an option.
The question that matters is if you would rather see Varly than Theo. To me, its an resounding NO.
Well, I’d rather have Theo than Varly for Game 2.
If Theo reprises his performance from last night, then I think you have to go with Varly.
No doubt. At some point you’ll have to switch something up. There is no reason that Caps should go down with a sinking ship Theo.
I just don’t agree that it would have been 6-0 if it hadn’t been Theo in net.
I meant, “Of course – it’s ridiculous to throw out ‘6-0 with Varly’.” I was concurring completley with your complete concurrence.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
well, you see, thats not what i said
i said it would have been 6-0 if “you switch goalies”…lundquist making saves for us and theodore watching pucks sail past him…
then yeah its 6-0 nothing… or worse.
basically its my way of saying we grandly outplayed them, especially in the first period where lundquist (am i even close on spelling this name?) was the only reason they weren’t down at least two nothing.
by luketheriault on Apr 16, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I expect the first shakeup to be Pothier for Jurcina/Schultz/Poti. Maybe even the addition of Clark. Varlamov comes after another curddy Theo performance.
normally I'm down on Poti
but he looked like the main guy with attitude yesterday, answering all of Avery’s snipes and hacks. Seemed valuable.
you switch goalies, and we won tonight. we won big. 6-0 big.
I can’t even pay attention to the rest of your post. How do you figure the caps win 6-0 by switching goalies?
Exaggeration for fun and profit, my friend. The internet is rife with it. :-)
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
sorry i wasnt clear..i meant if hendrick started for us and theodore started for them…and btw drinking partner pointing out internet douchebaggery is, in and of itself, internet douchebaggery…
by luketheriault on Apr 16, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
it was special teams, it wasn’t avery (except the mike green pick) it wasn’t anything at all but theodore
I think it’s putting too much of the onus on Theo to say that it wasn’t Avery (except for one goal that was the result of blatant penalty in a one goal game that shifted momentum). But discipline and the PK were huge. The Caps took three bad penalties and they resulted in two goals and the PK unit on the night was 2-4 on a whole.
“But discipline and the PK were huge. The Caps took three bad penalties and they resulted in two goals and the PK unit on the night was 2-4 on a whole.”
I’m trying to figure out where the discipline issue is. The Caps took four penalties. Two were delay of game calls. I attribute that more to bad luck because I strongly doubt Green and Feds were purposely trying to shoot the puck over the glass. Gordon’s hook was an instinctive play as he tried to slow down Avery as he shot past him. That happens all the time and Gordo just got caught. Erskine’s high stick was the only call that you could classify as a discipline problem. I’ll take four penalties in a game any day of the week. In a normal game, we’d be praising them for being disciplined. It’s only because the Rangers scored twice on the PP that we’re even talking about this.
Delay of Game penalties may not be “discipline” issues, per se, but certainly imply a lack of focus. Overall, I thought the team was very well disciplined, with the exception of Erskine taking the Avery bait.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Green’s DoG was purely accidental, purely reactionary. Fedorov’s though was just bad. Or was it bad ice?
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
The issue is with the penalties being necessary. A team with five penalties, but five that were good penalties that broke up high quality scoring chances, has more discipline than a team that only takes three but takes three bonehead plays like hooks behind the net or retaliation penalties, for example. The Capitals last night has one penalty that could be classified as a good penalty (Gordon’s hook near his own net), one that was not all that bad (Green’s) and two that were a lack of focus (Fedorov and Erskine).
When it comes to last night, those three bad penalties clearly hurt the team and if they’re not taken, the Capitals probably win. Longer term, a team can survive committing four penalties a game, but they can’t survive taking 2-3 completely unnecessary penalties a night.
Dunno…I probably would rate Theo above Biron, and even above Carey Price in terms of consistency (yes, Theo is more consistent than Carey Price….almost every goaltender is, just that when Price gets hot, he get HOT).
If you have to rank the 8 playoff starters in the East:
1) Lundqvist – He’s the reason the Rangers are in the playoffs
2) Thomas – Outstanding season… has emerged as a top-notch goalie in his mid-30’s
3) Brodeur – Stil lthe man
4) Ward – Is becoming more consistent and durable as he matures
5) Fleury – He looks a lot like a young Marty Brodeur
6) Theodore – Not consistent, when he’s hot, he’s very good
7) Price – Again, very inconsistent, highs and lows are extreme with this guy
8) Biron – An adequate journeyman, could win the Cup with a better team than what he has in front of him (See Chris Osgood).
Theodore was a part of the problem. You ask your goaltender to make the routine saves (he did) and get 50% of the tough ones, and Theo didn’t, he got one or two of about 7 or 8. Lundqvist had an outstanding game and turned aside at least 10 top-quality chances by the Caps. I don’t see that happening again in this series. If the Caps have this sort of effort and tighten up a little bit on the PK, they’ll win this series.
And as JP noted, Game 2 is the most critical game of a series…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Apr 16, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
see i tended to agree with you about biron, but as a friend of mine pointed out in real life, biron beat huet last year, and in the playoffs results are all the matters
by luketheriault on Apr 16, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Huet has never won a playoff series in his career and last year was the closest he’s come. This year, he’s a back up as the playoffs start.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Apr 17, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Koz
Keep it up, buddy! I want to be able to gloat after defending you all year and saying this would be the year you break out of your playoff slump!
Real quick. I know its not the people here… but I’ve got to get this off my chest.
I really really hate the D-Bags that throw crap on the ice. I don’t care what it is, don’t freaking throw the damn towels on the ice. Act with some class. We lost, we’ll come back and play again. Don’t be a D-Bag.
I hope those bastards get banished from the arena.
by vt caps fan on Apr 16, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
sorry this should have been under the main thread not under your comment Bonzai
by vt caps fan on Apr 16, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. Throwing things on the ice is an embarrassment to the rest of us. Stop it, idiots.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Apr 16, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Theo, meet the under-carriage of a bus, because you've just been thrown under it.
I don’t blame Theo. Some were soft, but most of those goals were opportunities the Rangers should not have had. Whether it was due to bad penalties, bad officiating, or bad plays by the D in front of him, it should not have happened.
The only goal I can agree with you (for your specific opinion) is the first goal. There were two separate penalties (Antropov/Avery, both interference) that should have been called, therefore, no goal.
The others, though, I can’t say Theo’d have stopped them with better D.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
What? He got sniped. The D has little to do with being sniped. Is it bad D to only allow 4 shots in a period? 20 all game?
Getting sniped with little interference is the problem. He got sniped on goals 2, 3, and 4, and had nearly perfect sightlines, according to us, for all 3 of them.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Admittedly, that’s the most forgivable in my mind, but it was still painful.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
They only took four penalties and two of them were the result of bad luck (delay of game). I hardly think they were undisciplined last night.
Yeah, last night was great in that field. It only seems bad because of the 2 bad goals that allowed NY to have a 50% PP.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree. They only took four, but three were unnecessary. I guess it’s an issue of how you frame it. Four penalties is okay; three needless ones isn’t.
It’s more disappointing that it was Fedorov putting the puck over the glass, AGAIN. how many of those has he had over the past few weeks? 6? 7?
Other teams barely get that many in a month! What the hell is going on with that?
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Jesus, that’s a little premature, don’t you think? Wise is an ass.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Nah – he knows nothing about hockey so he’s just playing the field. If ESPN says theo sucks, then theo sucks.
He’s usually pretty good with respect to other sports, but with hockey he’s not.
by vt caps fan on Apr 16, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
After his article yesterday about the series resting on Theo’s shoulders, I get the impression he had this one half written at the time and was just itching for Theo to implode so he can say – “See, I told you so, I do know about hockey!”
Yep (though I don’t think a columnist like Wise needs any reality-based validation to puff his chest out).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
“I don’t blame Theo.”
You don’t have to, Theo blamed himself. Admitting the truth isn’t throwing him under the bus. I’ve defended Jose all year, but he was bad last night. Plain and simple. I don’t expect him to be Lundvqist good, but he needs to be better than he was in Game 1. The Caps showed last night they’re a significantly better team than NY, but they can’t keep coming back from back-breaking goals.
by b.orr4 on Apr 16, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agree.
The loss isn’t all on Theo, but he clearly had a bad/terrible game.
We never got momentum or domination going b/c we gave up a goal every time we scored one.
Yeah, I think the game’s significantly different if he stops that first goal.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
You can say that about any game. If either goalie had stopped just any 1 more goal the game is significantly different.
Worth noting that most of those great stops by Lundvist were down low. Gotta go upstairs, boys!
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
If Jose makes a save on a single softie, the game is different. All I’m saying is that the game goes an entirely different direction if he makes that first one. I don’t think the game changes much if he makes saves on 3 or 4, as he’s already let in 2 softies and is prone to another. But that first one set the tone.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
A few minutes into the game, the Rags didn’t yet have a shot on goal. I turned to my dad and said, “Jose needs to get a stop or two soon to get into the game.” Not exactly the point you’re getting at, I realize, but I think a little more action early (he only faced four shots in the first) would have helped him overall.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I’ll agree with that, he does need work to get into a groove, but he’s going to have to adjust if the Caps carry the momentum like they did early. The dominated them in the 1st, Jose’s going to have to learn to feed off of that.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree. He often talks about getting in a rhythm and needing consistent play. To me, he just never looked like he got into it last night. You can usually tell pretty early in the game with Theo whether or not he’s on.
It’s hard to argue that you want the opposing team to get more shots on goal, but with Theo, he seems to settle in once he’s made some saves. Last night, he just never made those saves that allow him to do so.
Agreed completely b.orr4. I credit Theo for manning up and taking the blame, but you just can’t let in pretty much every decent scoring chance, which is roughly what he seemed to do (to say nothing about the pucks off the posts or the ones loose in the crease that NY couldn’t bang in). I hope the Caps have short memories, because I would have no confidence in my goalie with that kind of play if I were them.
Agreed completely b.orr4. I credit Theo for manning up and taking the blame, but you just can’t let in pretty much every decent scoring chance, which is roughly what he seemed to do (to say nothing about the pucks off the posts or the ones loose in the crease that NY couldn’t bang in).
In my mind, that’s the difference between an NHL starter and an NHL backup. A backup makes he save he needs to make, but not really anything more. A starter makes those stop, and then some. Theo did not look like a starter last night, by any stretch.
by David Getz on Apr 16, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
you were just waiting for an opportunity to drop these pics weren’t you?
by vt caps fan on Apr 16, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I think… can you start Saturday? :)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
“Anyone’s better than Jose”
Sincerely,
Dummies
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Okay so I’ll rid myself of lurker status to say. Great. Comment. I’m sooooo freaking hooked on this blog.
I think you get about an extra 20" of coverage when you butterfly, just like Lundqvist!
I don’t doubt Lundqvist’s pads are legal; I’m saying they shouldn’t be. The leg pad extensions that stick out an extra 10" above the knee are not needed for protection. And yes, obviously this applies to virtually all of the goalies in the NHL.
I will say that you are correct that it doesn’t need to be so high. Lundy uses like a +4inch rise I think. These pictures are when my pads were taller. I have them an inch shorter now. It helps your games in someways but hurts in other ways so it’s not a total solution. It does help make more saves though. Even Broduer moved to a taller thigh rise.
+4 is crazy. My Koho 700s are +1…for me, the extra mobility from a smaller rise trumps the extra 5-hole coverage. Then again, I’m a beer-league and he’s a Vezina finalist!
by Kerry Fraser's Hairspray on Apr 16, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Lundy wears a 37 inch pad and is 6’1. I don’t know if I’m accurate on his thigh rise number but they are at the legal limit.
Price wears really tall pads too but Lundy gets the looks more often just because of the style he plays.
At least none of the goalies look like this anymore.
RIP SNOW.
This whole canard about the pads needing to be this big for protection just needs to go. Was there some rash of secret injuries we never learned about in the 70s when leg pads covered nothing more than…..the leg?
Clearly the primary purpose of these things is to cover a huge amount of real estate when the goalie goes into the butterfly. It’s not about protection. What body part are your protecting by having a 10" protrusion stick out above your knees?
The issue is players keep being allowed to changed their equipment where the are faster, have harder shots, etc. Take everyone back to flat blades, 10lb wooden sticks and I’ll put on 11inch 32inch pads.
The goalies now face more shots that are more accurate and faster. Why can’t they evolve too?
How about you put on some gear from the 70s and go play a D1 college game. Let me know how comfortable you while your icing down after the game. =]
You guys aren’t addressing my point. My issue isn’t with the thickness or lightness of the pads, it’s with the parts that extend beyond the profile of the body. How do parts that cover nothing but air protect the goalie? Composite sticks and faster shots have got nothing to do with thigh rises (I learned a new term!) and the various upper body pads that make a goalie look like he’s twice as big as he is.
Again, what body part is protected by leg pads that extend way above the bend of the knee? DMG, you mentioned part of the leg being unprotected by older pads. Which part? If you’re talking about the sides of the lower leg, then that’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about the sides or back of modern leg pads, but the thigh rises. If you’re talking bout the upper leg, then that can be protected by pads that….wait for it…..are under the pants and snug to the thigh. The only purpose served by those giant extensions above the knee is to create a massive wall across the lower part of the net when you go into a butterfly. Heck, I bet if I looked up leg pad marketing materials, they’d say the same thing.
If you’re talking bout the upper leg, then that can be protected by pads that….wait for it…..are under the pants and snug to the thigh.
I am aware. When I was younger and played in goal I wore knee pads between the top of the leg pads and the bottom of the pants. However, those pads weren’t enough even at that level, and I can’t imagine playing with them in the NHL.
The pads are ok, the jersey is awesome…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Apr 16, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no idea what the answer to this is, but I think it would be cool to see a post of some comments from last year’s stretch run regarding the goaltending situation then. Like I said, I have no idea what was said, but it would be some interesting reading material.
Huet got lit up a little, but it was mostly the players not adjusting to the playoff intensity quickly enough. I mean, everyone here was screaming for Huet to get signed before July 1.
by DrinkingPartner on Apr 16, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but we polled “Who do you want to start Game 4?” and Kolzig won big (plenty of comments for wesvenis there, too).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Go to the old site (http://japersrink.blogspot.com) and go nuts.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
You didn’t bring over your archives?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
We did, but the comments that were 30+ days old didn’t make it for some reason.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Here’s a question someone might know the answer to:
In the third, when Ovechkin got his helmet knocked off, he came back on for his next shift wearing Bradley’s. However, there wasn’t a stoppage of play to return helmets to their rightful owners, so Bradley ended up playing a shift with someone else’s lid…anyone know whose it was?
by Kerry Fraser's Hairspray on Apr 16, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions
Gotcha, thanks. Good think the headwear didn’t inspire Brads to shoot the puck off the rink :P
by Kerry Fraser's Hairspray on Apr 16, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Was it? I saw them bring him one while on the bench, but thought maybe they’d gotten it from off-ice.
Btw, we should start the meme that AO wanted a visorless helmet b/c he’d just challenged Avery to a fight, but Avery was too scared to engage him. :)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
you have got to be kidding me...
I thought I, being a rangers fan, was reasonable in complaining about the officiating in the game. I never really expected caps fans to complain about the officiating last night.
The penalty 18 seconds in was completely fortunate for the caps because it wasn’t a penalty. And that penalty basically led the capitals to a dominating period, (all the momentum was instantly shifted to the caps side and the rangers were on their heels for the period), and got the rangers to question themselves about being agressive.
Dan Girardi’s penalty against Ovechkin during the game was, in my opinion, (and for talking about avery getting some benefits to calls) protecting Ovechkin. He was hit off of the puck and basically dove forward to get it back. And Girardi gets a penalty for a perfectly good defensive play.
In my opinion, Antropov accidentally ran into that caps player during Gomez’s goal. And that Avery play, was brilliant. Green really skated backward into Avery holding the line. And Avery skated behind him on purpose, like a pick, but Green fell down. But, I doubt that play would be talked about if Theodore didn’t let in the goal to Gomez.
And in fairness, about the Avery confrontation with Theodore, I thought Avery would get a penalty because he usually gets called a penalty in those situations. But, he didn’t. And you would have to admit Fedorov would get a penalty for crosschecking or unsportsmanlike for hitting Avery from behind, knocking him to the ice during the confrontaion. If Avery gets a penalty there, so does Fedorov.
Still, the Rangers gave the Capitals powerplays that game, because of obvious dumb penalties.
And I’m curious to your thoughts about my thoughts. Im not in anyway trying to start anything, just a fan, talking to opposing team fans about the game between the teams and about discussions already brought up.
I thought I, being a rangers fan, was reasonable in complaining about the officiating in the game. I never really expected caps fans to complain about the officiating last night.
And that Avery play, was brilliant. Green really skated backward into Avery holding the line. And Avery skated behind him on purpose, like a pick, but Green fell down.
So, basically, even though Avery’s play was intentional, and a pick, and against the rules, and it cost the Capitals a goal in a one goal game and resulted in a significant momentum change, Capitals fans shouldn’t be upset it wasn’t called? That doesn’t make sense.
And you would have to admit Fedorov would get a penalty for crosschecking or unsportsmanlike for hitting Avery from behind, knocking him to the ice during the confrontaion. If Avery gets a penalty there, so does Fedorov.
If we’re going to call it like that, Avery should have had two slashing penalties, a cross check, and an unsportsmanlike conduct.
nooo.
First, your second comment is overexaggeration.. if Avery was to get called a penalty for the confrontation with Theodore, (not any other play you all are whining about) then Fedorov should get a cross-checking penalty, because it was blatent. Stop complaning.. seriously.
Second, Avery skated behind Green and held the line. Green tripped over Avery, Avery didn’t trip Green. I said it was like a pick, because of his positioning. Avery didn’t get a penalty because he didn’t do anything wrong at all. It was a brilliant play, that legally got a defenseman out of position. If you balme anyone, blame Green, because he skated into Avery. Not the reverse.
All I’m saying is that, by the book, Avery committed three fouls – he slashed an Theodore’s glove, cross checked him in the chest, and slashed at his leg pad – and that he deserved an unsportsmanlike in my opinion for trying to goad an opponent into a penalty.
As for Avery and Green – Avery moved into Green skating lane and took away his space. That’s interference.
one more thing… do you guys, in the back of your minds, possibly think of the chances the Rangers could pull out a sweep if they win game 2? I think its reasonable- and, somewhat possible.
Great question! Not trolling at all!
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I should've known.
capitals fans are too ignorant. Get a grip, and answer the question maturely. wow…
And to think… i thought no one would continue to whine and complain about the loss. HAHA, lets go Rangers!!! and yes, there is a possible sweep, and Avery didn’t do anything blatant for a penalty.. its just you guys wetting yourselfs. Oh my god, Am I starting something? oh, no, im just replying to immature comments because clearly, no mature reply would work any better.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
55 | 27 | 17 | 11 | 65 |
|
Washington
|
55 | 28 | 22 | 5 | 61 |
|
Winnipeg
|
57 | 26 | 25 | 6 | 58 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
55 | 24 | 25 | 6 | 54 |
|
Carolina
|
56 | 20 | 25 | 11 | 51 |
(updated 2.12.2012 at 10:06 PM EST)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Sunday’s Three Stars: Perry tricks Blue Jackets; another shutout for Halak
- Shut up about asterisks and Red Wings’ NHL home wins record chase
- The Phoenix Coyotes continue to complicate everything by winning
- As West playoff race gets tighter, Kings’ scoring woes far from disappearing
- Evan Trupp scores behind the net goal, stuns Las Vegas in ECHL (Video)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
