Flyers fall to Sabres in OT, 3-2
by Travis Hughes on Mar 5, 2010 10:01 PM EST
in 09-10 Game Recaps
Email
Print[SBN Game Page] - [Buffalo Reaction]
The Flyers fell to the Buffalo Sabres 3-2 in overtime on Friday night at HSBC Arena. We'll have a full recap up either late tonight or early in the morning with some reaction to this one. For now, leave your thoughts in the comments.
Because it's so late, we're just going to answer our questions from last night.
Can the Flyers control the offensive tempo of the game?
Off and on, yes. They didn't out of the gate but as the game went on they did spend prolonged stretches in the Sabres end.
Will Michael Leighton bounce back after Wednesday's loss?
Refer to the comments on this one. Lots of mixed opinion, but I would say that the answer is a little bit of yes and a little bit of no. This comment from DragonGirl0583 sums things up nicely, I think:
I feel like I’m all alone in my position of feeling hot and cold over Leighton’s performance last night. There were definitely some very good decisions and some very bad ones, so I can’t really condemn him nor can I say I’m happy. I wasn’t home so I hadn’t read any stuff before the game, and I admit when I was listening to the first period on the radio I ran off a few expletives when I heard Leighton was starting, I honestly felt at the time that they should have started Boosh. He wasn’t looking too bad at the end of Tuesday’s game once he started to get his stuff together, and I want him to play a full game before he gets rusty again so we can actually evaluate where he is.
How does Ville Leino look with an increased role?
Leino displayed some instant chemistry with Jeff Carter and Danny Briere. The trio looked as if they had a scoring chance on each shift. Very entertaining.
Can the Flyers as a whole not make the same careless mistakes that they made in Florida?
As with the first question, the answer is kind of a yes, kind of a no. They improved from the Florida game but by no means was this game perfect.
118 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank God for the Charity Point.
1-1-1 since the Olympic break… hopefully we turn it around soon. Tonight was still a little sloppy but not anything like the Florida game.
Leighton has to get some better rebound control, but I’m not pinning the loss on him by any stretch of the imagination. He did fine.
One suggestion for Sunday: Bring back Powe and sit Hartnell. Keep the top two lines as they were tonight, put Asham back with JVR and Giroux, and put Powe on the 4th line.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
And...
… anyone who thinks we should trade Gagne and keep Hartnell here needs to get his/her head checked. It should be the other way around.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
My last point
At this time last year, the Flyers were 34-19-10. In other words, they were 34-29.
Now we are 33-26-4 – in other words, 33-30.
All things considered, we are one win and 6 regulation losses worse than last year.
I’ll say it again: Thank God for tonight’s charity point.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Where are we?
Yes mathematically we are worse off. If Leighton continues the gaffes hemade tonight forget about everything; but the team seems to be skating better, is more disciplined and its young guys are a year older. I think we are moving better now. There yet? No, but I think we have a better plan moving forward emphasizing speed, forechecking and hopefully getting smarter as well as hard on the puck. I saw a lot I liked – the gaffes ruined it.
by Fr. Orange and Black on Mar 5, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Right, but my point was that it’s not as if we had won a ton more games at this point last year. We did not. We were one win better off last year then we were now.
If our record was the same this year as it was last year, we’d probably be 4th in the conference again. No difference there.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Tough Loss
It was a toughloss – bad plays led to both regulation goals. What I loved was the composure when Kaleta Lydman and Roy tried to provoke them into dumb penalties after the whistle. I do wish they would have been rewarded with power plays there but if Lavi can get them disciplined to not respond to that garbage we will be in better shape. I was watching the Buffalo broadcast and they showed Ruff right after one time when Kaleta went and pulled some stuff. Carcillo apparently made some gesture at Myers. He is not that uniquely skilled to put up with the negativity he wil bring to the refs and the motivation he will give to the other team.
Leighton needs to prove he can keep his poise and attentiveness around guys lie Vanek or it will be a short post-season. Thought they deserved a little better but they needed to score and insurance goal. Close but not good enough.
by Fr. Orange and Black on Mar 5, 2010 10:40 PM EST reply actions
I’m in north carolina, and only saw the 8 minute highlight package on nhl.com The first and third Buffalo goals are absolutely atrocious. Thats now three games since the break, and three games Leighton has played poorly.
Leighton did not play poorly on Tuesday or tonight.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
His goals were weak. That said, This team should win games when our goalie only lets up 2 regulation goals. Again, another loss due to the stars not showing up.
"NO HONOR"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
First goal was kind of a freak play. Second goal was a broken / surprise play. The OT goal wouldn’t have happened if he had better rebound control, but then again no one took out Connolly.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
“freak play” ??
He left the net to play the puck and failed to play the puck. It’s a total fuckup.
Then, he had terrible positioning which allowed the Sabre to bank the puck in off of him.
Two horrible decisions.
Wait a minute that play was not on Leighton alone. Pronger got caught impersonating a pylon and signaled his goaltender to come out and play a puck he was never going to get to faster than the forward. That puck wasn’t even past the top of the circles. Leighton realized this mid jump and started back to the goal and then his responsibility broke down by not reestablishing his position in front of the net. And all the while this took place Pronger still never got back to at least take the shot away. And I would give Vanek 10 tries at that again and bet he would not score 7 times. But even after that they had a 1 goal lead with under 6 minutes left and did not shut them down. That is IMO.
Progner, an Assistant captain and play caller of our D, didnt want to stake hard ( he was tired) and misread the puck and called him out of his net
2nd goal Carle was lazy with his back pass and bounced right in front of the net with no help from D
3rd goal I turned off before I could see who screwed it up.
Also, I wouldn’t say the stars “didn’t show up.”
I thought the Richards line and the Carter line played well. Carter’s line especially had a lot of chances. They just didn’t score. And our goals came from Richards and Gagne – two of the guys who are supposed to score.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Poorly? For a 3rd string goalie, I’d say he’s doing pretty damned well. It’s the D who hasn’t been able to handle their own load, nor the greater portion they need to be taking on with such an obvious deficit in net.
by BroadStreetBully on Mar 6, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions
Leighton
I am amazed at the critics about our goalie. He is playing extremely well. On the radio tonight, the announcers stated, in agreement, that 2 saves were the best in the NHL tonight. He is still playing very well. We need our defenders to start playing hockey and stop making dumb turnovers. The 2nd goal was due to Carter being lazy.
And, when you get mad at Leighton, just remember last year and Marty. He averaged over 1 weak goal a game. I am not a big fan like many of you, but his playing last year is far worse than Leighton this year.
Bottomline, our defenders need to start playing like they ought to be playing.
I’m all for keeping Leighton around. He has played well. But next year, we absolutely need a goalie. Whether that’s a healthy Ray Emery or someone else with some sort of pedigree, it needs to be different that Leighton. He’s similar to Biron. He’s OK but he doesn’t have enough complete shut down nights like the premier goalies do.
So far from what I’ve seen a healthy Emery is the same as Leighton but that aside. That first goal was all Pronger. You don’t just let a guy fly by you with the puck that close the the goalie then stop skating and have the nerve to point to your goalie. Hey Pronger its not his job to play defense. So Leighton comes out and a cluster f is born. I do agree with everyone here on one thing thank God for the charity point.
That’s incorrect.
Leighton came out to play the puck. Pronger has to leave the dman there to give someone to play the puck to. If he stays with the defender, there’s no separation between him and Leighton.
It’s totally on Leighton. You don’t leave the crease unless you are going to get to and play the puck.
Not totally on Leighton really. It was a miss communication between him and Pronger. Pronger assumed Leighton would come out to play the puck, which apparently Leighton never intended to do. Once Leighton realized Pronger wasn’t coming for it (or slowing up the forchecker) he tried making a play on the puck and failed to get there first. After that it was more a heads up play by Vanek and a little bit of bad luck for Leighton. 9 times out of 10 that shot misses the goalie or hits him and just lays on the ice next to him. So really the fault on the play should be both Pronger and Leighton. Leighton for trying to make a play when he should have just stayed in the net. Pronger for letting Vanek fly past him without knowing where the puck was and what Leighton planned on doing. Also Pronger should know as the last guy back you shouldn’t rely on your goalie to break the puck out for you with forecheckers barring down. Stupid plays like this are bound to happen in situations like this.
And actually, now that I watch it again, that was just lazy defense by Pronger, just leaves Leighton out to dry with Vanek flying down the boards.
Pronger did nothing wrong. Leighton fucked up playing the puck, and fucked up getting back in the net.
How does Tomas Vanek get from the neutral zone to the puck before Leighton can get from the crease to the puck? That’s not on Pronger.
Leighton should’ve been playing the puck out near the faceoff dot.
But what those still shots don’t show is Pronger just coasting back. Wasn’t like that puck was blasted around the boards. Pronger needs to bust his ass to get to that puck, not really on a goalie to break the puck out for you. And he took that angle because he never intended on leaving his net until he realized that Pronger gave up on the play. Again, no matter which way your trying to spin this, Pronger was lazy on the play.
How many times can I say this before you read it:
He WASN’T coasting back. He cuts over to the boards to give Leighton an outlet. Then he sees Leighton still hasn’t left the fucking crease and has nowhere to go.
Pronger wasn’t supposed to go back at all. Leighton should’ve played the puck near the faceoff circle, and sent it off the boards to Pronger who should’ve been just inside the blue line.
That’s how Pronger played it. Leighton screwed up.
He WAS coasting back. He needs to bust his ass until he knows, 100% knows, that his goalie is the only one that can get to that puck. He just turns and points. That’s lazy defense. Pronger assumed Leighton would be playing the puck instead of busting his ass back. And the only time a goalie should be out by the faceoff circle is when the pucks been dumped and there’s no pressure.
He needs to bust his ass until he knows, 100% knows, that his goalie is the only one that can get to that puck.
No, actually, that’s exactly the WRONG play.
That play results in Leighton, Vanek, and Pronger all within five feet of one another.
Pronger needs to keep seperation distance from Leighton, and be along the boards (not up the middle) so Leighton can pass him the puck in the least dangerous way possible.
No, because he would have realized Leighton wasn’t leaving the net and been in position to either A) get to the puck first or B) neutralize Vanek, who would have never been able to bounce the puck off Leighton because he would have still been in his net and in position.
You go where you’re supposed to be to make the correct play, not where you need to be when other people fuck up.
And actually I agree with this statement. Leighton should have stayed in his net instead of making up for Pronger playing lazy hockey.
You can continue to be ignorant all you’d like. But if you watch the video and see Pronger skate over to the boards, then look up and sprint to the front of the net, there’s one, and only one, logical way to reconstruct the events:
1) Pronger told Leighton to do what he was supposed to do (get the puck)
2) Leighton delayed
3) Pronger did what he was supposed to (get in position to be an outlet for Leighton), then realized Leighton hadn’t
4) Leighton then stupidly tried to do what he was supposed to (get the puck) , even though it was too late
5) Pronger did what he was supposed to do (cover the net)
Leighton didn’t know what to do, then screwed up doing it. Pronger told Leighton what Leighton’s job was, then did his own job, then adjusted to cover Leighton’s screw up.
I agree with you that Pronger signaled for Leighton to get the puck. I can only guess that Leighton was watching the puck when Pronger told him to get it. In other words, he didn’t see Pronger’s gesture.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
That’s what I take out of it…. basic miscommunication on it. You either blame both of them or neither of them.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 6, 2010 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
Except Pronger shouldn’t have to tell Leighton to go get that puck.
He should be doing it on his own.
Yes he did Leighton did screw up by leaving the net period, but on what planet do goalies get taught how to take away angles on a bank play like that? He was hurrying back to the net and at the same time getting himself in a position to make a play if the puck came out in the slot.
but on what planet do goalies get taught how to take away angles on a bank play like that?
Are you kidding me?
You never ever give up the short side. That’s basic fucking goaltending.
Are you kidding me, how can that be considered a short side goal when it hit behind him? He was trying to get back in position and it got shot off of him. It was a bank shot from behind the goal line, not a shot to the short side.
Yeah, when the goalie isn’t scrambling back into the net after getting beat to the puck. He banked it off him, wasn’t firing at the short side, shot at the goalie. There’s the difference.
In the first picture Pronger is pointing instead of cutting Vanek off. And the puck is at the top of the circle. How fast can you skate with 60 lbs of equipment on and flat bladed skates? He was never going to beat Vanek to that puck, ever. But he shouldn’t have even left the crease and squared up the shooter for a shot that was definitely coming to the short side. It was a communication problem from the minute Pronger got caught flat footed and didn’t even try to cut down the angle from leaving Vanek a short side shot only.
instead of cutting Vanek off
That’s an interference penalty
He was never going to beat Vanek to that puck, ever.
Vanek was in the neutral zone and didn’t get to the puck until two feet from the red line. Leighton could’ve easily gotten there first.
In the first picture when Vanek and Pronger are in the neutral zone the puck is just over the line and closer to them not Leighton. Besides, When you get beat you need to take a penalty rather than let the guy have a breakaway or in the worst case what ended up happening. And in truth a couple whacks at the blue line would not have ended up in a penalty. I am not saying hook him in the face.
In the first picture when Vanek and Pronger are in the neutral zone the puck is just over the line and closer to them not Leighton.
Seriously? And one second earlier, the puck was behind the Buffalo net. That’s what happens when two object move at different speeds in the same direction.
And in truth a couple whacks at the blue line would not have ended up in a penalty.
I’m pretty sure if Pronger slashes Vanek while the two of them are skating, it’s likely to be called. And it wasn’t necessary. Leighton should’ve played the puck. But even having screwed that up, Vanek still never even had a good scoring chance.
It was not a play that merited taking a penalty.
I am not letting Pronger off the hook for quitting on the play. Even after what you believe to be Leighton’s error, Pronger didn’t adjust to obvious indecision on Leighton’s part. You note Pronger changing course to then go to the net. For what, to play goalie. The other d man was in the picture going to the net. He should have stayed the course to the corner and hit Vanek when he gained the puck. But even after what we believe to be different views of the play it was one goal in the second period and they gained the lead in the third only to lose it again.
In the second picture Pronger knowing he is toasted should have gotten a stick on Vanek. At worst getting a penalty at that point is acceptable rather than a break away. And still Leighton is not out skating Vanek the puck.
Pronger was even with Vanek. He made a conscious, and correct, decision to go to the boards to give Leighton an outlet pass.
Leighton fucked that up.
Leighton has a hand in the goal but Pronger is not blameless and I still don’t believe Leighton was getting to that puck any sooner than Vanek at the top of the circle.
The third picture is where Leighton should be establishing square to the shooter drifting backwards to at least attempt to get in front of the shot. And in the end from the angle Vanek finally shot the puck from and odds of it going in are dumb luck. This is a break down that started in the neutral zone and the worst case scenario for Pronger not being as mobile as he ever was. In my opinion the whole game was summed up in the first ten minutes of the first period when the Sabres established that they are a better team with the puck then the Flyers. When the Sabres needed to they controlled the play with offensive zone puck movement and superior puck support. They are not a team that depends on dumping, chasing, pounding and getting to the front of the net for a goal.
I feel like I’m all alone in my position of feeling hot and cold over Leighton’s performance last night. There were definitely some very good decisions and some very bad ones, so I can’t really condemn him nor can I say I’m happy. I wasn’t home so I hadn’t read any stuff before the game, and I admit when I was listening to the first period on the radio I ran off a few expletives when I heard Leighton was starting, I honestly felt at the time that they should have started Boosh. He wasn’t looking too bad at the end of Tuesday’s game once he started to get his stuff together, and I want him to play a full game before he gets rusty again so we can actually evaluate where he is.
But I do agree that our defense made mistakes last night too, Leighton was put in some situations that shouldn’t have happened. He made saves in a lot of those cases, but they just didn’t seem to be in sync last night.
Mario, you’re good at figuring these things out, and I don’t know if you read the game thread last night…. I wasn’t able to see a camera angle that showed who should have picked up Connelly in front of the net at the time of the OT goal. I think mikefive is right that Hartnell squared him up at the blue line, but then I think (not 100% sure) Hartnell went after the guy at the point to try to block his shot. Do you know who should have picked up Connelly after Hartnell moved away? I saw Richie skate past him coming back right after the goal, but I couldn’t tell if it was Richie who was trying to get back to cover him. And even if Richie was trying to get back to him, I don’t know if it was actually supposed to be his man or if he had been covering someone else until he saw Connelly open. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated, it was bugging me last night.
There are two completely independent fuck-ups.
1) Leighton has to do better with that flip shot. It was weakly in his chest. He should be smothering and covering, but if he can’t do that, don’t bounce it into the slot. That was awful.
2) Richards just starts play ice capades. Connolly was his man, and Richards just skated out to the neutral zone for no reason at all and was never in the play.
2a) As a result of Richards’ not playing, Krajicek thinks he has to cover the other point. In fact, Hartell makes a great effort and gets out there to force the initial shot. This leaves Krajicek in the middle of nowhere doing nothing.
This I completely agree with you. This is shades of the past sins where the forwards start the breakout before the defense controls the puck and end up in the neutral while two or three opposing forwards are still in the zone hanging the d and the goaltender out to dry.
A good example of Richards getting burned believing Hartnell has the puck when clearly he dose not
Another Defensive breakdown, and another goal I do not pin on the Goalie
Thanks Mario. I’m glad to at least know who was supposed to be covering him, so I’m not calling out the wrong person. It was Richie who dropped the ball, not Hartnell abandoning his man for no reason at all. Your screen shots are always helpful.
by DragonGirl0583 on Mar 6, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Lost in all this blame of Leighton is the fact that without some really amazing saves and staving off that first period flurry by the Sabres this game would have been so far out of reach it would not have mattered what happened later when Pronger looked all of 35.
If not for Leighton and Richards, we would have lost this game in regulation. I totally agree.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I’m really starting to get sick of the WIP bitching and hate-spewing that’s going on around here.
I hate losing as much as anyone else, but I don’t think that if we act like petulant 5th-graders it’s going to make anything better.
All of our fanbases (except the Phillies in recent years) focus on why their teams CAN’T win. And then they wonder why they don’t.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Mar 6, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Rec’d 100 times.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 6, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed. Too much venom—I mean, it’s OK to bitch about what the team lacks but when that’s all we ever do, you have to wonder why we even bother watching or calling ourselves fans of the team. If you get no enjoyment whatsoever from watching the game, then you need to find a new hobby.
However, I don’t subscribe to the theory that negativity is what causes these teams to lose. Poor construction or execution is the root of losing. Negativity just isn’t good for the ticker (or blood stream if it causes you to ingest lots of alcohol).
‘Nova broke the camel’s back for me today. I am officially depressed.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
All of our fanbases (except the Phillies in recent years) focus on why their teams CAN’T win. And then they wonder why they don’t.
There’s no wonder why here. The Flyers can’t win because they have an AHL-caliber goaltender.
I’m not talking about this season – or the Flyers – exclusively. I’m talking about Philly sports in general.
We’re never going to see eye-to-eye on Leighton so I’m not going to discuss him any more. Yes, I know his career in the NHL hasn’t been good, but he’s clearly learned some things and is playing better FOR THIS YEAR.
As for doubleh’s comment, I’m not saying that fan negativity causes teams to lose. But it doesn’t help. I think positivity CAN help, on the other hand. Some examples:
1. Pat Croce’s joy was visible and infectious during the Sixers’ playoff run of 2001. He was loving life and the team managed to survive two 7-game series on a row to get to the finals.
2. RJ Umberger during the 2008 series against Montreal let out yelps, danced around, and did all of this stuff when he scored. By the end of the series, the entire team looked like they were having fun.
3. Before the Phillies started the playoffs in 2008 someone (Phil Sheridan?) wrote a column in the Inky which basically said, “Let’s be positive about the Phillies as they begin the playoffs. Instead of saying why they won’t win anything, let’s focus on all of the reasons why they CAN win.”
All the stat freaks will tell me that my point of view is unscientific, can’t be proven, etc. Fair enough. I don’t care, though. In my experiences as a sports fan and as a human being, the right mindset counts for a lot.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
but he’s clearly learned some things and is playing better FOR THIS YEAR.
Well, he wasn’t playing very well for Carolina. And isn’t playing very well right now.
But for a small segment of this season, he was playing better, yes.
All the stat freaks will tell me that my point of view is unscientific, can’t be proven, etc.
The problem with your statement, very simply, is that players don’t read the paper or listen to talk radio and thereby can’t be effected by it.
But they are in the building during games, they live in the area and they interact with fans on some level every day of the season. To say that just because they may not read the paper or listen to WIP means they’re oblivious to the way the fans feel isn’t correct.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 6, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
they interact with fans on some level every day of the season.
That’s really not true. First off, they spend more than half the season in other parts of the country. Second, I doubt 50% of people in the Philly metro area would recognize a single Flyer on the street. The idea that their entire day is interacting with people who want to discuss the Flyers is a bit much.
Third, whether or not they know how the fans feel, do you really think they care? Does Pronger play worse at Western Conference teams where they all hate and boo him everytime he touches the puck? No.
No adult should have their work performance effected by the general public. And certainly not guys who have spent their adolescence and adult life being criticized at that profession.
Leighton has absolutely nothing to do with Mike’s comment, so I don’t see why it’s necessary to turn the conversation in that direction. The fact of the matter is, whether Leighton is Terry Sawchuk or Arturs Irbe or Al Montoya, he’s won the Flyers more games than he’s lost for them. The fact that he may or may not be a good goalie is irrelevant to the conversation in this instance, because clearly the Flyers troubles start somewhere else.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 6, 2010 6:11 PM EST up reply actions
Mike said they lose because we are negative and its a self-fulfilling cycle.
I’m saying they lose because Michael Leighton sucks and his performance has nothing to do with my opinion of his skill.
Mike said they lose because we are negative and its a self-fulfilling cycle.
I didn’t say that. Look at my reply to you and doubleh above:
I’m not saying that fan negativity causes teams to lose. But it doesn’t help. I think positivity CAN help, on the other hand.
Look up educational self-fulfilling prophecies for an example of how negative expectations can lead to bad results.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I’ve been keeping a spreadsheet of the team’s stats post break. I’ll start putting a link in the post game threads once I update them.
Tired
Get off Michael Leightons nuts MarioD. My God I’ve never seen someone go so far out of their way in every post on here to be wrong. From your still photos that only tell one side of the story to your referring back to him in Carolina which has no current barring on the Flyers. Do us all a favor and just come out of the closet as the Devils/Rangers/Pens fan that you truely are.
by darkside3744 on Mar 6, 2010 7:25 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
He can’t help it, he’s a chronic masturbator.
A point from the EC leader, in their barn, against the hottest goaltender in the world – pretty danged good.
A point from the EC leader
Washington, Pittsburgh, and New Jersey all won in regulation this weekend.
Buffalo is in a tie with Ottawa for fourth place in the East.
Correcting people who don’t know what they’re talking about and make up facts?
No. It’d be much better if you had used actual facts instead of made up numbers and I didn’t have to correct it.
Interesting article
Hey all, I’m not a huge Flyers fan (Go Flames!) but I saw an article written by one of the best in the business, Jonathan Willis.
If you guys see this, hopefully you can put it up with the morning links or whatever it is you regularly do here. It is pretty bleak, but must be considered nonetheless. Anyways, sorry for being the bearer of bad news, but hey, at least you don’t cheer for a team that is now 25% Maple Leafs, also starring Ales Kotalik and Steve Staios. Ugh.
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 7, 2010 10:48 AM EST via mobile reply actions
No. Jon pointed out the pluses and minuses in Leighton’s career and came to this conclusion:
He should still be okay; 0.922 is a respectable even-strength number, but expecting more than that from him would be a mistake.
That is a fair assessment. If you took that tack as opposed to “Leighton sucks and every loss is his fault,” then you might have more people agreeing with you.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Well, no, thats not really what he said about Leighton.
I strongly suspect he’ll be able to maintain a number in the 0.915-0.920 range at even-strength.
Is Leighton as good as he’s been lately? No.
However, I have no doubt that his overall save percentage is going to plummet.
Conclusion:
He’s performing at a super-human rate right now, and there’s no reason to expect it to continue and every reason to expect it not to.
Also, when Leighton stops sucking and giving up one or more goals a game, and maybe controls a rebound or two, then every loss won’t be his own fault.
Thanks for pointing that out. We’re big fans of Jon around here.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 7, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Why did the Flames get rid of Boyd? Is Steve Staios really an upgrade from Aaron Johnson?
We get to see Phaneuf tonight. Should be fun. Hopefully he shows us all why the Flames got rid of him.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
On the Willis front, he lampooned the Flames for their deadline moves. Especially the Staios move.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 7, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Haha man, I have no idea what Sutter is doing. I give up. Let’s see how it goes is the sentiment in Calgary, nothing else can be said.
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 7, 2010 7:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Penguins, Bruins face their challenges in Eastern Conference showdown
- Olli Jokinen’s slump-buster is a Big Mac meal from McDonalds (Video)
- Friday’s Three Stars: Brassard wins it for Blue Jackets in overtime; Halak blanks Kings
- Puck Previews: Blues host Kings in first game after break; Blackhawks’ road struggles
- Best barometer of the St. Louis Blues’ success? Gifts from political lobbyists
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- WHL Roundup: A look at Friday's games
- Gabriel and Leipsic two goals each as the Winterhawks defeat the Silvertips 7-3
- Feser solidifies Americans win with two empty-net goals against the Thunderbirds
- Holberg scores winner in shootout as the Chiefs beat the Royals 6-5
- Brown makes 26 saves to lead the Rockets over the Cougars 2-1
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.
