ECSF Game 2: Exhausted Flyers deservedly fall in 0-2 series hole to Bruins
by Travis Hughes on May 3, 2010 10:37 PM EDT
in 2010 Playoffs
Email
PrintThis is what happens when the other team completely, absolutely outworks you.
Say all you want about the fact that the Flyers were still in the game late in the third period. Say all you want about how bad the Bruins also played. Say all you want about the fact that the Flyers have zero depth whatsoever. None of it matters. All that matters is that the Bruins are moving their feet. The Bruins are controlling the play. The Flyers are standing around.
And guess which team has the 2-0 series lead?
The deck is stacked against the Flyers here, don't get me wrong. With Jeff Carter, Simon Gagne and Ian Laperriere out of the lineup, they don't have the luxury of rolling four quality lines. But to give Andreas Nodl, who has played quite well when given a chance, just four minutes of ice time, while Scott Hartnell, who has been absolutely terrible on every side of the puck, gets 20 minutes?
Well, that's an absolute joke, and you can understand why the entire team looks gassed in the third period. I don't usually do the bullet point format, but I have thoughts that I can't work into cohesive paragraphs, so....
- What the hell is up with the play in the defensive end? It's just a mess all around. I'm not going to go goal by goal, but Hartnell was at fault on at least one of them. Another reason why he needs his ice time cut.
- Dan Carcillo screwed up on a face off in the first period, got Mike Richards kicked out, and Hartnell then lost the draw. It led to Johnny Boychuk's goal. Richie didn't answer a question about it after the game, but according to Al Morganti on Post Game Live on CSN, that's not due to the subject of the question. It's because it was asked by Sam Carchidi of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
- The Flyers can't clear the puck out of the defensive end, either. It's a serious issue. Too much fumbling around with it.
- Boston is really good at capitalizing on mistakes in their own defensive end and turning them into chances the other way.
- Mike Richards and Claude Giroux both had great games tonight. Again.
- The Flyers haven't led at all in this series. Not one second. That's an issue. It's tiring to play from behind all the time. Factor in their record when scoring the first goal and you'll understand why this is so important.
- Hey, power play. What the hell happened? Both units looked atrocious tonight, and while there were a few differences in personnel, that's not an excuse. Needs to improve.
- Here's a tweet from Stanley Cup of Chowder: Hear what [CSN New England reporter Joe Haggerty] just said? Richards allegedly said to Savvy "You were out for 6 months. We're gonna take you out for another 6 months."
- A few thoughts on that last one: 1) if true, Richards probably just meant 6 months until next season. 2) and more importantly, this means that Savard took words from the ice and passed them on to the media. That's just not done, and I imagine he'll pay for that.
- In related news, he also apparently bit Dan Carcillo.
- Carcillo on Savard: "Last time I was bit was in grade school. Doesn't feel good. Pretty cowardly. Whatever, he bit me. [...] Men don't bite."
- Not surprising considering his past.
I'm starting to hate the Boston Bruins. How about you? This is a hole, but the Flyers are coming home and there's no reason they can't make the necessary adjustments and win two games on home ice. Dont give up hope just yet, guys and gals. The Flyers are the better team, and if they play that way come Wednesday, Friday and Monday, they'll win this series.
After the jump, questions with answers and the comment of the night.
Questions with Answers
- Does the switch between Giroux and Briere make a difference? I thought it made a difference. Briere looked much better in the Flyers end and Giroux was typically awesome.
- How does Shawn Thornton impact the game? Uh, he didn't.
- Can Boucher play as red hot as he did on Sunday? Boosh was great again, as usual.
- Do the officials keep the whistles away, similarly to how they did so in Game 1? Kinda... called more of the ticky tack stuff but it wasn't as bad as the Devils series.
- How does Leino react in the Gagne role -- playing with Richards and Carcillo? Leino was strong as well tonight. Continues to impress.
- Can Scott Hartnell benefit from playing with two noted offensive dynamos, Giroux and Briere? How many languages are there on Earth, and how do you say NO in all of them?
Comment of the Night
For the record, I want to f*ck Kristen Bell.
>> EREX21, responding to dreams of playing the Caps instead
224 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You went with the Family Guy comment of the night, eh? Interesting call.
I was hoping to get it with “He put that upstairs, where fatso keeps the beachballs”
Oh well, always next game.
I really don’t believe Richie said that and if he did I’m sure he meant taking the team out of the playoffs.
I think less of Savard now but have trouble believing that Crosby actually wanted to start an altercation.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
Family guy? I just said it because it was/is true.
Can't think of something catchy to say here...I suck.
Just meant it was an irrelevant, yet hilarious, comment.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on May 4, 2010 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
No shit Shawn Thornton didn’t impact the game. Overall I thought the redding was pretty awful, but I’ll take the result. Don’t know when the bruins last won a game by more than 2 that didn’t include an empty netter but…
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 3, 2010 10:46 PM EDT reply actions
I think Haggerty said that it was one of the guys that works the penalty box that he heard it from not Savard. Also Savard was only out 2 months, so there may have been a misquote somewhere along the line.
by Stanley Cup of Chowder on May 3, 2010 10:46 PM EDT reply actions
Haggerty is including the quote in something that he is writing, so he will have the exact quote as he heard it.
by Stanley Cup of Chowder on May 3, 2010 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks, post here when it’s up, if you don’t mind.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on May 3, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
The ice time allocation has me the most furious. The team had absolutely no energy at the end of the game, and it’s pretty obvious why. You already mentioned it, but Betts (11:02); Carcillo (11:36); Nodl (4:05); JVR (12:42); Ross (6:39); and Asham (6:04) were underused. Hartnell (19:12); Powe (16:41); and Briere (20:50) were overused. That’s not to take away from Powe, or to say Briere didn’t deserve his nearly 5 minutes of PP time, but those guys shouldn’t be playing that many minutes.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 10:53 PM EDT reply actions
On Richards-Carchidi:
I just wanted to point out this awesome intro paragraph:
“A broken pipe has left two million folks in Greater Boston without drinkable water, but the city’s hockey team is slowly quenching its thirst for a date in the NHL’s Eastern Conference finals.”
Not exactly relevant, but ugh.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 10:58 PM EDT reply actions
Ick. That’s just such a terrible reference.
by DragonGirl0583 on May 3, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
And now you know why his stories are so rarely linked to in the Fly By. It’s just bad writing.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
/Laughs
You say that as if we didn’t already know how bad his writing is…
by DragonGirl0583 on May 3, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
please tell me someone didn’t get paid to write that.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Ok, I won’t tell you.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 4, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Not happening. He hasn’t skated.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on May 3, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
JVR’d Again!
Definitely give him more ice time. I mean, he can’t possibly be getting tired from not skating for 50 seconds and then sitting and then not skating for another 50 seconds.
haha, you’re such an incredible troll.
a) The puck was in the air, why would his stick be on the ice?
b) Krajicek? missed the puck and didn’t clear
c) JVR came down to support!!! His defensive responsibility is the point, yet you blame him for goals scored by men he isn’t responsible for defending.
d) You’re a troll.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Travis…..put some popcorn in the microwave will ya. I think this is going to be a full bagger
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on May 3, 2010 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
a) The puck, in the second picture, is six inches from his foot on the ice. His stick is at his waist.
Even if the puck was up in the air, his stick still shouldn’t be at his waist.
b) Krajicek tried to bat the puck out of the air and missed it. Not a bad play, just a very difficult play that he failed to pull off.
c) He didn’t come down to support. He took one stride and wound up gliding five feet staring at the floating puck (it’s so pretty!) while the other players on the ice played hockey.
d) Making up definitions doesn’t really accomplish anything.
As much standing around as JVR did on that play, was there anything else he should have done anyway?
In the first frame, thats not JVR’s puck.
Second frame, now its JVR’s puck but Lucic has the momentum in the right direction and picks it up
Third, he’s trying to block the shot.
I see as well times when JVR plays poor defense, but sometimes you blame goals on him when its not just on him.
Also, look how deep Boosh is in net on that third frame. That’s not ideal and probably why the puck was able to get past him
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
I have a very simple principle: Try to take the man, or try to take the puck.
Krajicek misses the puck in the air. But he decided to ignore the other team’s players and try to play the puck. It wasn’t successfully executed, but he tried to do something.
JVR clearly saw the puck, he didn’t try to play it with his stick, or his glove, or his skate. He just skated past it. Either try to play the puck, or throw a hit on Lucic (I know JVR checking someone is a joke, but this goes for any player).
JVR had to know Lucic was right there, and he didn’t do anything about that. Lucic skates completely past JVR, turns 180 degrees, and shoots.
was there anything else he should have done anyway?
1) Bump Lucic as he skates past
2) Drop to the ice to block the shot and allow Boucher to see the shot
Bouch is deep in the net because he didn’t know where the puck was. In the second picture, you can see he’s halfway into the butterfly because he can’t see the puck (due to Krajicek screening him from it)
Right, so JVR gets the blame because he couldn’t cover Krajicek’s fuck up, or bail out his teammates who couldn’t clear the zone, or interfere with a guy – because hitting a guy who hasn’t touched the puck IS A PENALTY.
No matter what he did, you would have blamed him. Until you realize that you blame JVR even when it isn’t his fault (Like Briere’s three fuck ups in Game 1), you are just as immature and petty as you accuse Richards of. And that makes you a troll.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Good principle.
We’re going to disagree because I think JVR did all he could, aside from throwing a body check. The puck was going the other way, he had to turn and by the time he did Lucic already had the puck. Possibly do a sliding shot block?
Boosh was too deep. In the second pic he’s starting to move out of the crease from his behind the net position. He needed to rush out faster on that play.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
He had plenty of time to drop to the ice because Lucic goes past and then does a 180 before shooting.
Boosh is too deep, I’m just not blaming him for being there. He clearly couldn’t see the puck as Lucic took it, and played it as if Lucic would one time the puck sitting there instead of skating around the pylon, err, skating around JVR and using him for a screen.
He had plenty of time to drop to the ice because Lucic goes past and then does a 180 before shooting.
So did Krajicek.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, cause he can’t lay down. He didn’t have any ice because of a “”http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pilon" target="new">conical loaf of sugar" standing on the ice.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s no point in laying down to block a shot from more than about three feet away.
But I’m sure you don’t understand that, either.
No, I understand that. When there’s a conical loaf of sugar in between the puck and the net, why should Krajicek lay down?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions
He shouldn’t.
The loaf of sugar wasting $1.6m of cap space should’ve. And that’s why he lost them the game.
That’s an expensive loaf of sugar!
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Looking at the goal from the second angle on the full highlights, the only thing I can see that he could have done would be lie down on the ice. Is that a good hockey play? Of course.
Is it a good hockey play when you are in the middle of the playoffs and have already lost 3 forwards to shot blocking? I’m not so sure anymore.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
Is it a good hockey play when you are in the middle of the playoffs and have already lost 3 forwards to shot blocking? I’m not so sure anymore.
With 3 minutes to play in a tie game? I don’t hesitate to think he should go down.
Hell, its not like they’re going to miss him anyway. Oh no, now who will stand around for 12 minutes a night and telegraph every shot they take?
Shot blocking probably isn’t his forte, so I wouldn’t imagine its the first thing he thinks about. I don’t see how you can place the blame entirely on him, when the whole played with very little effort in the last period.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
Because he’s the player that got taken advantage of on the game winning goal. And because he made no effort to play either the puck or the man. He just stood there and screened his own goalie.
Despite the fact that he played well the rest of the game?
As an aside, Geoff and Mario, do you enjoy your little “debates”?
I’d like to say that for the most part, when you are both on topic and not name calling (I understand you’re both lawyers, so whatever) I actually learn a lot. Take from that what you will.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
Despite the fact that he played well the rest of the game?
Even if that were true, and it’s not: Absolutely.
As an aside, Geoff and Mario, do you enjoy your little "debates"?
I enjoy educating people. I do a lot of teaching/coaching of high school kids. And trial lawyering is basically teaching the jury, whether it be teaching them facts of the case, the law, etc.
Geoff used to want to learn from me, but now he just wants to prove he doesn’t need to learn from me anymore (which is how you know he does).
So I just write for the rest of you guys to learn from what I’m saying and try to correct his mistakes (like his assertion that NHL teams play man-to-man defense).
Even if that were true, and it’s not
Because you saw it with your eyes!
Except Corsi begs to differ.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
1st point: Fair. I do think he played well and Corsi numbers says he played well but whatever.
2nd point: Teaching is cool, but do you ever question your style of teaching that you use on here?
I like reading what both of you have to say, but I’m not going to believe either one of you just because you said it.
What I dislike is the name-calling etc that goes on. I’m sure both of you should just agree to disagree on some points and determine what you agree on (if such a thing exists).
But seriously, both of you, its not a good look. Its actually kind of disturbing. Its cool that you’re both so passionate about what you believe in, but the inanity of the comments back and forth dilutes the point that you are both trying to get across.
My New Zealand 10c.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
Yeah, I agree with that. I’m not proud of these arguments, mainly because they diverge from the point (JVR cost the team the game) into stupid arguments (forced v. offered).
I really do need to just laugh and move on, and I’ll continually try to get better.
My apologies.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I know, I was replying to Todd. But I’m not going to claim innocence on your comment, either. I’ll just claim provocation and lack of self-control.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
1) What did he do well? He didn’t get a good shot on net, he didn’t set up anyone else, he didn’t block a shot, hit a player, or really do anything other than stand around and periodically skate. I can do that.
2) The thing is, I really don’t give a shit what people think about me. I just want to talk about hockey. But that’s really difficult ever since Geoff decided he would ignorantly just disagree with everything I say, and pretend its true.
3) As for “believing” me, I don’t think you should. That’s why I don’t come in here and post “JVR cost them the game!”. I post the pictures that show JVR staring at the puck then skating past it with his stick off the ice.
It’s the same thing I do in court. I never ever want to convince the jury to believe me. I want to lay out a story that the jury believes themselves. So I would never in opening argument say “Ladies and Gentlemen, the light was red and the defendant sped through the intersection.” I would say “Ladies and Gentlemen, there will be five witness in this trial, three of them will tell you the light was red and one will say he doesn’t know. Only the defendant will claim that the light wasn’t red when he drove through it. And the photos from the scene of the accident will show that the traffic perpendicular to the defendant was in the intersection at the time of the accident while the car coming in the opposite direction to the defendant was stopped before the intersection. Ultimately, while you’ll hear testimony on a number of other issues, this case boils down to you deciding whether that light was red when the defendant entered the intersection.”
If you tell someone something, they might believe you when they go to the jury room. If someone comes to the conclusion on their own, they’ll argue for you in the jury room.
1) I’m not going to bother
2 and 3) When you’re snarking about other teams etc its funny, as well as other people invading the site you generally make good points.
When you and Geoff hijack threads to talk about the same thing over and over its not fun. We all get the point, you guys disagree.
The way you go about certain arguments makes me believe you less. If you were to stand in court and abuse the other lawyer, I’m sure you would get the same result from the jury.
There has to be some kind of balance.
You’re both well more knowledgeable in all things hockey than me, thats why I find (usually the start) of the discussions valuable.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
I’m perfectly willing to let things go and often do. Hell, someone in this thread said I would post my point and then vanish like I did on Saturday (because I have things to do on a saturday afternoon, not so much on a late Monday night).
What I dislike is the name-calling etc that goes on
By the way, you’ll rarely if ever see me start calling someone names. Unlike Geoff, I try to keep to an intellectual discourse.
Read the oringinal post I made:
JVR’d Again! [Picture] [Picture] [Picture] Definitely give him more ice time. I mean, he can’t possibly be getting tired from not skating for 50 seconds and then sitting and then not skating for another 50 seconds.
The first reply:
haha, you’re such an incredible troll.
.
a) The puck was in the air, why would his stick be on the ice?
b) Krajicek? missed the puck and didn’t clear
c) JVR came down to support!!! His defensive responsibility is the point, yet you blame him for goals scored by men he isn’t responsible for defending.
d) You’re a troll.
We both know that just because that was the first post today, it wasn’t the first part of the argument.
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
I agree.
But I very rarely call people names. (I can’t say never, because I may have at some point, but its just not something I do.)
I’ll say an idea is stupid, or idiotic, or someone is ignorant of an idea, or whatever.
But I never talk about people on here, I talk about hockey. And I certainly never have posted something like:
“You’re a troll!”
“You’re an idiot”
I called out the Penguins dude, Frank, during the last regular season game, but even then I said “stop fucking trolling”. I almost always talk about content, not the person.
For someone who is learning to understanding the game on a more analytical level other than the casual fan “get the fucking puck” approach I find this stuff helpful. Secondly each of them are furthering the cause for advanced hockey metrics which is no easy task. Once the dust has settled there always good stuff to take away from the fray.
I too find it helpful. Whats not helpful is having to wade through the crap to get the gold
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
Its more like a custody battle, but custody was split. And each of them got the son they hate the most, Mario got JVR and Geoff got Hartnell
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
I’m not getting into this defensive zone responsibilities battle. But wasn’t the whole sequence that led to the game-winning goal initiated by a JVR turn-over in the offensive zone?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on May 4, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Could you do this the way NBC does it with the 3d thing and the horrible photoshop movements? I’d be impressed if you could.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on May 3, 2010 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t even know what that is.
Do they do that at intermissions? I’ve never seen it. But I DVR and jump past intermissions.
Sometimes intermissions sometimes after TV timeouts. It’s like they have one camera angle and then switch to another but it makes it look like an old school bubble hockey game b/c the players look like cardboard cut outs. Then they move them in the freeze frame to where they go during the play…all of this while shining a “spotlight” (colored as per their team) on the player in question. It’s so bad you can’t help but watch.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on May 3, 2010 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t even watch replays on NBC. I heard them talk enough idiocy about how the Flyers should’ve been forechecking more on Saturday that I knew they had no idea how the team plays and skipped to purely game action.
I’ll try to watch one if the Flyers are still playing hockey next weekend, but I’m 100% sure I can’t do that. All I do is print screen, paste to mspaint, and upload to imageshack
Not a bad strategy I am repeatedly infuriated by the idiocy of NBC’s “experts.” Though I do enjoy (in a weird sense of the word) watching them weasel Crosby or Ovechkin or Malkin into a conversation about, say…goaltending.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on May 3, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Hartnell’s Second Goal:
Floating around in the defensive zone, no Bruin within 12 feet of him:
Stick in the air, not in the way of a shot or a pass, just aimlessly doing nothing:
Out of position, gliding into the boards, not covering anybody while the goal scorer is being stared at by the puck carrier, wide open:
But don’t worry! He tried the one-handed stick check!:
Yeah, this guy deserves 20 minutes of ice time.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I particularly like when you show a picture of him covering the point, then take a screen cap 1 second later that doesn’t have the point man in it, and say he’s not covering anyone.
As if the player being outside the picture suddenly means he doesn’t exist.
PS: Hartnell on that play did exactly what JVR should’ve done on Saturday and wouldn’t have cost them the game. When the puck comes across the ice, instead of recklessly attacking someone, just play the position and force the puck along the wall.
The Bruins had to make two passes to get the shot on goal. Krajicek, unfortunately, made the same mistake as JVR did on Saturday, abandoning the position and taking himself out of the play, which opened up Satan at the face-off dot to score.
If by “covering the point” you mean not covering his man, but skating lazily to a position that wasn’t blocking a shot on goal or a pass, yeah, Hartnell “covered the point”.
And if “screen cap 1 second later” is referring to when Hartnell skates into the wall at the top of the circle, with his back to the defenseman, not in the passing lane is still “covering the point”, then all I can do is laugh at you.
Maybe if Hartnell wasn’t skating around aimlessly the ENTIRE shift, he would have been in a position to defend against something. But he wasn’t. That’s terrible defense. Wait. That’s not even defense, that’s skating around like you should be in the AHL.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
By “covering the point” I mean being in both the shooting and passing lane and forcing the puck down the wall.
Also known as “the correct defensive play”.
When Hartnell turns back into the zone (keeping his skates moving! unfathomable!) he has his stick clearly in the passing lane to the point cutting it off.
You’ve demonstrated you don’t really understand how defense is played, and thats fine. Just don’t show off you ignorance.
He didn’t do any of that! He was floating around aimlessly when the puck goes to his man – who he’s 12 feet away from. His man skates to the boards and has two options – shoot or pass – that Hartnell hasn’t taken away. He CHOOSES pass. Hartnell glides to the boards, watching Satan wide open. He doesn’t SKATE to Satan, he stands there.
But you also think JVR was to blame for covering the point while Briere failed to follow his man into the crease, so what do I know.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
who he’s 12 feet away from.
Just how big do you think a hockey rink is? Two football fields?
In the real world, Hartnell is blocking the cross-ice passing lane and the shooting lane and forcing the puck up the wall without skating wildly out of position. Exactly what JVR should’ve done on Saturday.
First picture, troll.
And nice placement of the black lines. Not only is Hartnell not blocking the pass to Satan as you’d like to illustrate, your other line is nowhere near the direction of the net. Where exactly do you think the net is? In the far faceoff circle? Hartnell isn’t blocking the pass to the wall, the slot, or the shot.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Go back to grade school geometry.
Hartnell isn’t blocking the pass to the wall
No shit! He’s FORCING the pass to the wall. That’s his defensive responsibility.
Did you forget how to read at a 3rd grade level? A comma means the sentence continues.
Hartnell isn’t blocking the pass to the wall, the slot, or the shot.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow, you don’t know what a serial comma is?
Here you go: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
Without a conjunction after the comma, it means you made a list.
A list of things Hartnell isn’t doing. Exactly. The Defenseman had THREE options, none of which were FORCED on him.
But please, can you teach me more English?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions
So now that you’ve taken yourself around in a big circle…
A list of things Hartnell isn’t doing
Hartnell isn’t blocking the pass to the wall
No shit! He’s FORCING the pass to the wall. That’s his defensive responsibility.
He can’t “force” anything when the guy has two other options.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s got three conceivable options. And only the least dangerous (passing down the wall) was unobstructed by Hartnell.
That’s called “forcing” the play. It’s also called “good defense”.
Oh, so now it wasn’t “forced” so much as it was “offered”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
But you know if he forces it down the wall, JVR will just take the stupid penalty and slash his man….
by JerseyDriver on May 4, 2010 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
You do realize that everytime you disagree to prove to the world that you don’t agree with me you just make your website dumber, right?
He “forced” the play:
3 : to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity
hahaha, ok Stephen.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Is that from the flyers.nhl.tv site? It’s pretty cool that it’s got an orange progress bar. The bruins site only has the default blue one. Harrumph.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 4, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions
not hartnell’s guy actually. As you can see from the last screen shot, there are two flyers covering the bruin in front of the net. That’s great defense right there.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Then why is this JVR’s fault? I’d just like some consistency.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
hate to agree with him...
but he’s right. jvr continues to look lost game in and game out, although he actually tried to be physical tonight… tried
How is JVR responsible for the man in the slot, but Hartnell isn’t?
How is Laliberte unable to cover Kovalchuk because Kovalchuk plays the point, but JVR (also a winger) needs to cover the guy in the faceoff circle??
He’s mindlessly blaming JVR because he hates him.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
i just thought he looked lost for the 3rd goal. i wasn’t disagreeing about hartnell, there’s no denying how bad he is
Two things:
1) The Flyers had about 3 failed clears on that play, resulting in JVR being on the ice for 1:12 at the time the goal was scored;
2) He was covering the point like he should, but when the puck bounced in the air, he came down to assist in the slot. That’s not his job. But he went to help out. Krajicek couldn’t clear the puck, and JVR created a 2-on-1 against the Bruin. The puck bounces away, to the Bruin, and he looks lost?
He did more than was asked of him, and he’s being blamed. It’s ludicrous. Did he overskate a bouncing puck? Yeah. Is he supposed to cover that man? No. Is he supposed to cover that position? No. He moved down to help, but couldn’t. So blame the guy who couldn’t bail out his teammates? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
The top of the circle on his side of the ice is not JVR’s defensive responsibility? Wow.
Did he overskate a bouncing puck?
No, he overskated a puck that was lying flat on the ice.
Is he supposed to cover that man?
The winger skating three inches away from him? Yes.
Is he supposed to cover that position?
As long as he’s going to stand there and pick screen Krajicek from being able to cover the position, yes.
The top of the circle on his side of the ice is not JVR’s defensive responsibility? Wow.
Not when his man (you know, cause no NHL team plays zone) is at the blue line, no.
The winger skating three inches away from him? Yes.
The winger that Lukas Krajicek is already standing next to? No. The defenseman standing at the point? Yes.
As long as he’s going to stand there and pick screen Krajicek from being able to cover the position, yes.
Who could have laid down and blocked a shot, but instead stood there and hope JVR covered for him missing the puck? Not what happened.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Not when his man (you know, cause no NHL team plays zone) is at the blue line, no.
You’re kidding, right?
EVERY SINGLE TEAM IN THE NHL plays zone defense. None of them play man-to-man.
Wow.
You really have no clue what you’re talking about.
Right, because having one player (the center) patrolling the slot while the other four player are matched up man-to-man is “zone.” Penalty killing is “zone defense”. 5-on-5 defense is man-to-man.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Here are the wikipedia definitions:
Zone defense is a type of defense used in team sports, which is the alternative to man-to-man defense; instead of each player guarding a corresponding player on the other team, each defensive player is given an area, or a “zone”, to cover.
Man-to-man defense is a type of defensive tactic used in American football, association football, and basketball in which each player is assigned to defend and follow the movements of a single player on offense
If you still think there’s a single hockey team playing man-to-man defense in the NHL, then you must be mentally challenged.
So in your set of photos, where every Flyer follows a Bruin around the ice, that’s not man-to-man? Of course not.
Or when Briere accepts responsibilty for not following HIS MAN to the crease, it’s because he was playing zone in the slot, right? No, he was below the face off circle. Why was he there? Because Coburn followed HIS MAN above the dot.
But no, that’s not man-to-man.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
So in your set of photos, where every Flyer follows a Bruin around the ice, that’s not man-to-man? Of course not.
Wow.
Seriously, you have absolutely zero credibility left to comment on defensive positioning or assignments.
Everyone has a zone. The defensive end is cut up into four quadrants for each dman and winger, and the center patrols the slot.
I can’t believe I have to explain this…
Just go here: http://www.knyght.net/hockey101/hockey102.htm#Everyone
and try to educate yourself.
Seriously, you have absolutely zero credibility left to comment on defensive positioning or assignments.
This from the guy who blames JVR for standing at the point while Briere leaves his man unattended in the slot?
Either you don’t understand what you’re now claiming I don’t (JVR was in his “zone” and Briere wasn’t) or Briere was to blame for not following HIS MAN to the front of the net.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
What are you talking about?
Did you not read the link like you were told? How can we have a conversation if you won’t even take the time to know what you’re trying to converse about, but insist on spouting opinions?
I was very clear with words, and the picture is very graphically clear.
4 quadrants with the center overlaid through all of them.
There is no position on the ice where the center has sole responsibility.
How is JVR responsible for the man in the slot, but Hartnell isn’t?
Because there were only 2 players on that side of the ice when JVR fucked up on Saturday.
In the identical play today, there were three Bruins on that side of the ice.
On Saturday, the puck never went to the point, and JVR never forced the play to the wall. He idiotically attacked a player not in scoring position (taking a penalty for it) and left a prime scoring area open.
Hartnell maintained his position, instead of attacking the point, and forced the puck to the non-dangerous wall instead of the middle of the ice.
How is Laliberte unable to cover Kovalchuk because Kovalchuk plays the point, but JVR (also a winger) needs to cover the guy in the faceoff circle??
Because Kovalchuk doesn’t play the point. He plays from the dot to the top of the circle.
He’s mindlessly blaming JVR because he hates him.
You’re mindlessly contradicting me because you’re jealous.
In the identical play today, there were three Bruins on that side of the ice.
Not at all. First picture, there’s only one Bruin on that side of the ice, and Scott Hartnell is nowhere near him.
the puck never went to the point, and JVR never forced the play to the wall.
That’s because the point man charged down the wall, and JVR was there to force him up against it. That’s just blatantly untrue.
You’re mindlessly contradicting me because you’re jealous.
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Neither does everything you’ve posted for the last half hour.
The Flyers have lost three games in the post season. JVR has been standing around within three feet of the shooter on the game-winning goal, all with less than five minutes to play in regulation, all three times.
Danny Briere single-handedly allows 3 goals in Game one, but it’s JVRs fault.
Scott Hartnell forces Richards out of the faceoff, loses the draw cleanly resulting in a goal, then stands around doing nothing on the second goal, but it’s all JVRs fault.
We get it, you stroke Hartnell’s hair every night and put needles in a JVR voodoo doll because he killed your dog.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Scott Hartnell forces Richards out of the faceoff,
Back in reality, Carcillo got Richards tossed.
Danny Briere single-handedly allows 3 goals in Game one, but it’s JVRs fault.
I know, why didn’t he remember to wear his blocker and catching mitt on Saturday!
Let’s try this again:
Danny Briere single-handedly allows 3 goals in Game one, but it’s JVRs fault.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
oh, you know what? I totally get it now. You’re hysterical and I never realized it. You’re the Stephen Colbert of BSH.
You’re playing a character. Pompous, ignorant, “well-intentioned, poorly informed high-status idiot, the character is a self-obsessed right-wing commentator with a strong distaste for facts.”
He’s funny. I like him.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions
hate to agree with him...
but he’s right. jvr continues to look lost game in and game out, although he actually tried to be physical tonight… tried
Man, thought that first pic hard JVR shoting the puck out of mid-air with his Heat Vision
by JerseyDriver on May 3, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I love these please keep this up.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 4, 2010 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Stifle!
Seriously, it’s getting old.
To steal a phrase from you, I’m going to explain as simply as I can exactly why the Flyers lost:
1. Their leading scorer, most well-rounded forward, and best 4th line/energy/PK player are all out of the lineup and the Flyers have no real depth to speak of.
2. The depth players added are getting jack shit for ice time.
3. The best players on the team are getting way too much ice time and have nothing left in the tank at the end of the game.
4. Some of the ostensibly “best” players on the team are doing jack shit with their copious ice time.
5. The power play sucks, at least for now.
6. The Flyers do not match up well against the Bruins, who play too similar a style to their own.
7. The right guys are heating up at the right time for Boston. They’re getting goals from guys like Lucic and Satan, while the Flyers are only getting production from their top players for the most part.
8. The Flyers’ 3rd defensive pair leaves a lot to be desired.
Soooo… this all has WHAT to do with JVR?
Answer: Nothing.
Leave the kid alone. It’s not the Flyers’ year, and it’s not JVR’s fault, nor is it Laviolette’s fault for playing him. Give it a rest.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Yes, you are pretty much on point with your 8 points and I agree that Hartnell has been awful as well. He definitely needs to contribute more.
Sad thing is that without point #1 hampering us, Boston hasn’t really dominated us and they definitely could have won this series (and still might).
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t care what Geoff says or Mario either. JVR has been useless for most of the playoffs thus far. I mean, it’s not even a debate. The guy has done absolutely nothing. Not once have i said to myself “wow, nice play JVR”
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
You have to keep in mind that the kid has never played this long, at this high of a level, before.
The Flyers learned their lesson with Sbisa, even though they traded him.
When the team got healthy last year, Sbisa did not want to return to Lethbridge because he felt it would stunt his development. And he followed a similar pattern for the Ducks this year – great training camp, made the team, then back to juniors.
JVR is only going to get better. For someone who ostensibly has nothing left in the tank at this point, he showed an awful lot of jump out there. You can say that he’s done nothing so far, and I understand why. But he’s been working his ass off, and really that’s all you can ask of him at this point.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I agree to a certain point, but he’s not really contributing anything, but turning over the puck. He gets in the corner and he gets bumped off it. He’s really not even competing anymore. Yes, he’s probably exhausted at this point, but really, I have to say that he isn’t working his ass off, like you maintain. He skates into the corner and get’s easily bumped off the puck. He skates down the wing, and gets his well telegraphed shot blocked. I have no answer, but he isn’t even at the level of the AHL players that are in the lineup right now. (ie. Leino, Ross, Nodl)
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Is it wrong that Richie’s apparent decision to never talk to Sam Carchidi ever again makes me like him even more?
haha, not at all. See above intro paragraph to Carchidi’s recap.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the best part for me is that Richie said when the epic locker-room confrontation happened that he wouldn’t answer questions from Carchidi, and Richie kept his word. That deserves respect, so I don’t think it’s wrong at all to like Richie better for do it.
by DragonGirl0583 on May 3, 2010 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep. Good to know that after going down 2-0 in the series, he’s focussed on petty, unjustified, unprofessional grudges he’s been holding since November. Thats the sort of focus and dedication that has been the source of this team’s great success for the last six months.
If the media jumps back on Richie’s case that means there’s less crap flying around calling out his teammates. I can see a way in which it’d be a good move for the room by trying to take some things out of the spotlight by putting himself in.
I don’t know, maybe I’m stretching.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on May 3, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. It’s not effecting how he plays the game. It’s not answering a question because he doesn’t respect the guy asking the question. That’s all it is and nothing more should be read into it, IMO.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on May 3, 2010 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously, Richards on Carchidi: Mario on JVR
It’s the EXACT same thing.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Ignoring the horrible lack of relation in the comparison, the fact is Richards is paid to talk to Carchidi, and I’m not… well I can’t finish the sentence because your analogy is so crappy.
Richards is paid to talk to Carchidi?
Then I wonder why he’s been receiving a paycheck all year while not talking to him since November.
Oh wait, you’re an idiot.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh wait, you’re an idiot.
Wow, I call someone an idiot for saying Brodeur should’ve won more Cups and is overrated, and I get warned and told we can’t use that language.
Then, a guy who runs the board uses that language.
What’s the word for that? Hypo- ??, it’s right on the tip of my tongue.
Are you crying? I can get you a tissue.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Im laughing at your persistent attempts to take a moral highground amidst a sea of hypocrisy and ignorance.
So if I’m on the highground, in an argument with you, that must mean you’re the sea of hypocrisy and ignorance?
Perfect! Thanks Stephen.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Rrrring-a-ding-a-ding-ding-donnnng!
Hello, Stephen!
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
You know Mario, I find it appalling that you even come here. You obviously have no life or a very boring one, but then you come in here like you are the most knowledgeable guy in the world. We should all email friends and colleagues and get you a job where you belong at CSN or with the Flyers so there is never a wrong decision made by the team again. Then you say the entire blog/discussion is “a sea of hypocrisy and ignorance”. Why are you here? Please be less of a troll and just go away. Thanks
by JerseyDriver on May 4, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
dude, that’s ridiculous. Richards has been a monster so far this playoffs and the Flyers best player on the ice. If he continues to play like he is, he can tell the whole Philly media to eat spit and I’m fine with it.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
If Richards was going out of his way to make a scene about it, we’d be hearing that from other sources. But that’s not the case, he’s simply choosing to keep his word and not answer his questions. That’s it.
But we didn’t agree about this back when the confrontation happened, so there’s no reason to expect us to agree about it now.
by DragonGirl0583 on May 3, 2010 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Good to know that after going down 2-0 in the series, he’s focussed on petty, unjustified, unprofessional grudges he’s been holding since November. Thats the sort of focus and dedication that has been the source of this team’s great success for the last six months.
Wait, “petty”, “unjustified”, “unprofessional”, “grudges”, “since November”, “focus”, “dedication”… are you talking about your hatred for JVR?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I just amazed it takes that much focus not to talk to one person. Wish all of us in here cold have that much focus…..
by JerseyDriver on May 3, 2010 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
More like I’m not…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 3, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
All good, Mario will have his last word on everything and then go ____ off again like Sat.
by JerseyDriver on May 4, 2010 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, and he’ll magically ignore Corsi because it’s “antiquated” while simultaneously requiring stats to prove a claim. And then he’ll use his eyes to tell you your wrong. Unless he can find some stats that tell him he’s right, in which case anyone who uses their eyes is an idiot. Unless it’s him…
I’m dizzy.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re probably dizzy because you don’t understand simple sports terms like what a “zone defense” is. How could you understand advanced analysis.
Corsi is “antiquated” but GVT includes it. I know that because you told me that.
Wait, that’s completely incorrect. I’m dizzy again.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Corsi is "antiquated" but GVT includes it.
Let me fix that for you:
Corsi is "antiquated"butbecause GVT includes it.
See, “antiquated” means “outdated”. It is “antiquated” to own a typewrite and a telegraph now that the computer exists.
Typewrite:Computer;Corsi:GVT
Again, you do realize that GVT doesn’t include Corsi.
You no longer have any standing to discuss statistical analysis. You are forced to use your eyes, since you don’t understand GVT or Corsi. And since you HATE people who use their eyes, you might as well not talk any more, lest you display your ignorance for all to see.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow Geoff, the people who agree with you really set the bar high for logical discourse.
Internet meme pictures and “lols”. Congrats on sending this this site on the road to pensblog.
Thanks Mario, coming from your “bludgeon my point home” way of thinking, I’ll take that as a compliment.
by JerseyDriver on May 4, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Outworked?
I am dissapointed to hear our fans say that the Flyers were outworked. No – I’m sick to my stomach. The boys gave a ton of effort here tonight. I have always defended our fanbase when people tell me that we are fair-weather fans, but i’m starting to believe them. I honestly don’t know what game some of you were watching tonight. I’m pissed off that we’re down 2-0, but you can’t blame the effort. If anything, undisciplined play and breakdowns in the defensive zone were the keys to the loss.
They did get outworked. In the defensive end, at least. The Bruins beat them to all the loose pucks. They showed up in the B’s end for the most part, but they looked terrible in their own end.
We can agree to disagree, but calling someone fair weather for calling out a bad performance by their team is the exact opposite of being fair weather.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on May 3, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
People call us fairweather? The Flyers have averaged ~100% capacity at home games for the past 37 or 38 years and have some of the best local TV ratings in the NHL (and there were some really awful years in that span). Call a lot of Phillies fans fairweather and I’ll agree, but I don’t think fairweather is the right term for Flyers fans. Overcritical at times? Maybe, but when your team hasn’t been to the Final in 13 years and hasn’t won a game in the Final in 23 years despite every year being hyped as “the year,” it gets a little annoying. You know, I don’t know if it’s even being overcritical. I know a lot of us (on BSH anyway) watch a ton of non-Flyers hockey and so it’s a lot easier for us to be objective about our own team’s shortcomings.
Anyway, the Flyers were outworked. But unlike many games during the regular season, I certainly don’t think it was from a lack of effort. They were tired. They certainly gave it everything they had, and you could tell — but they looked exhausted by the end there. It’s certainly no excuse but that (alongside the lack of depth at forward and apparently defense) is the reason they are down 2-0 in the series. As a final point, undisciplined penalties come from either exhaustion, or simple lack of effort — not wanting to put in the extra energy to catch up to a guy along the boards, so instead you hook them to keep them from getting any further past you. It’s hard to determine which is the reason for each individual penalty, of course. Fortunately the Flyers really haven’t done that in the playoffs.
by Ben Feldman on May 3, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If anything, undisciplined play and breakdowns in the defensive zone were the keys to the loss.
Absolutely.
Overall, they played a solid game and lost because of the same weaknesses they’ve shown all season (stupid penalties, no 3rd d-pairing, and JVR/Powe fucking up defensive zone coverage).
put something here
I may not always agree with Mario but he dose contribute to the site.
If your going to put up J pegs over and over, please at least put a header on top so we can collapse your reply/same photo as the thread grows
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on May 4, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions
He embelishes stuff. Bottom of the pile he tried to pull out my front teeth. Is that a bite? He tried to yank ’em out. I don’t know if he wanted me to look like him. But he tried to pull [my teeth] out. That’s for sure.
Those are quotes post-game from Savard. So did Savard bite Carcillo because he was trying to pull out his teeth, or was it the other way around? I mean, take those quotes for what they’re worth (I don’t see why Savard would lie), but I can see Carbomb trying to rip someone else’s teeth out…don’t know about the rest of you, but it wouldn’t really surprise me.
Unless a fan had a camera in the front row filming the whole incident, no camera angle is ever going to tell us what really happened. There were so many people crowded in that area that all we have is the he said-she said bullshit that goes both ways and will never get anywhere.
That being said, you can’t deny the various quotes are riveting reads.
Proudly supporting a Flyers team with "no honor."
I’m with JFein, too much potential for my-word-vs.-his in this situation. And while I’m not accusing Savard of lying, I don’t think we can actually rule out embellishment of the story from his side either, simply because we can’t rule out anything about either one. We will never know anyway, but I don’t think it’s fair for one of us to say “This one wouldn’t lie” only to have the other side say “Well the other guy wouldn’t lie either!”. It’s an impossible conundrum unless we see something to give us a better look.
by DragonGirl0583 on May 3, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
One guy has a record of biting. The other guy has a record of embellishing.
The only thing this will do is provide fun fodder and even more entertaining future quotes and claims.
Proudly supporting a Flyers team with "no honor."
Biting in hockey used to never be a topic for public discussion.
Its odd how this is the 3rd time its been brought up with the flyers.
One biter, and two bitten……. allegedly
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on May 3, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh boy, Travis, this is totally shaping up to be a popcorn thread!
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on May 3, 2010 11:38 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Corsi for the game:
JVR: Even
Hartnell: minus-6
Hartnell’s linemates: Leino (8), Briere (5) Who was dragging down that line again?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 12:18 AM EDT reply actions
Going to bed. Boog609 was lmao from your posts. Thanks
by JerseyDriver on May 4, 2010 12:49 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
This is the best, right here. Rec Rec Rec
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 4, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Honestly, I wish this was it’s own fanshot and/or post. It’s quite delightful.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 4, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I was gonna read this thread
but instead i get the jist of it just seeing the pictures.
Look, ever since I found out about this site I have completely abandoned following articles on Philly.com and CSNPhilly. The articles on those sites offer absolutely no hockey analysis but provide, for the most part, incredibly superficial coverage. I’ve been playing hockey for eight years, but this site and its commentors have definitely contributed to my understanding of the game on a more sophisticated level. I have to say, I find myself agreeing with Mario on the vast majority of the arguments (the exception being the persistent concern with Richards’ attitude towards the media; honestly, who cares? I understand you want to use this as a reflection of his maturity but the guy is producing in the playoffs and why does he have to respond to a member of the media who consistently trashes him?). I think people get upset with him because the majority of his comments are focused on the negative. That may be true, but he is absolutely correct in his arguments regarding defensive zone coverage and player responsibility (man-to-man? come on, Geoff). Geoff, as one of the administrators of this site, you have to admit when you’re wrong. And Mario’s right, it hurts your credibility when you blatantly ignore it and resort to the trolling accusations. He’s not trolling, he’s accurately pointing out the deficiencies that cost our team games. My question to Mario is who would you replace JVR with? Maroon?
Again,
That’s JVR “standing around” but this:
Is good defense?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
concern with Richards’ attitudeto… a member of the media who consistently trashes him?
Carchidi didn’t consistently trash him, though. Paul Holmgren in June 2009 said there was a problem with guys going out and drinking and not being dedicated enough to being prepared for hockey. Then he traded Lupol away. And Carchidi asked Lupol if one of the reasons he was traded was to break up the group of guys that were going out and drinking.
Holmgren raised the conversation, at the time of the trade everyone discussed that aspect of it, but Richrds’, given his years of journalistic experience, decided it was an inappropriate question?
who would you replace JVR with? Maroon?
Kalinski is still available. It just depends on whether they want to continue the charade of having a 3rd scoring line (in which case Maroon probably is more offensively capable) or they want to just make another checking line (which is what they should do).
Since I won the comment of the night I felt like I should address this, normally I have a big speech for these types of awards but I am too lazy and kinda bummed about the lose, so instead I will say this.
Wanting to play the Caps, or wishing we were playing the Caps because we are in an 0-2 hole vs the Bruins makes no sense.
We aren’t losing 0-2 because we can’t score, something the Caps lack of defense would have allowed us to do, but rather we are losing because we can’t defend. We can’t clear the puck and we can’t take advantage of mistakes. If we were playing a team with the talent and fire power of the Caps I would be willing to bet we would still be in an 0-2 hole but 5-4 and 3-2 loses would instead be blow outs.
This team is down 0-2 despite playing pretty poorly. Wednesday night we go back to the Wach and begin a processes of taking it one game at a time. Let’s focus on chipping away. Win game 3 and worry about game 4 after. This team can very easily go back to Boston tied at 2 if they make some adjustments and play smarter. It’s not going to be easy, we have injuries to 3 of our best defensive forwards, we have guys who aren’t stepping up and we have others, (Richie, and Giroux) who are playing out of their mind. Win as a team and lose as a team, it’s time for some of the other guys to pick it up. Do that and the Flyers can get back in this.
Can't think of something catchy to say here...I suck.
by EREX21 on May 4, 2010 9:19 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I can’t believe I’ve read my way through most of this post…but this is the best comment I’ve read so far. The Flyers aren’t out of this series by any stretch, and they are getting hurt by the injuries to Gagne, Carter and Lappy. Trying to pin the blame on Hartnell or JVR is a meaningless endeavor. Both are not playing as well as they can and need to step it up. Hopefully some home-cooking will get us right back in this thing. No reason that they can’t still win this thing.
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
by Jordan Ellel on May 4, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
all i have to say is were undefeated at home this postseason, lets try and capitalize on that, and go back to Boston 2-2
I don’t know how much popcorn was eaten.
Plus, things are getting nasty around here. To paraphrase “Steve Yzerman” from that Canada Olympic Rap video, this is NOT super fun.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I’m having a great time!
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I swiped a bowl of the popcorn from here and took it over to our Nucks/Hawks game thread last night… There was too much tension in here.
by DragonGirl0583 on May 4, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I am just going to watch as long as they are playing and then when the season is over I will become a critical a-hole about move they make or fail to make over the summer. My expectations for the playoffs have already been exceeded. Good thing my golf league starts this week.
Just Call Me "M"!
by MJDII on May 4, 2010 10:15 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
nothing is over.
in 2001, the flyers played like garbage in the first two games and easily put themselves into an 0-2 hole. then came 5 OT.
the talent is here to do the same. Just have to stop making horrible defensive plays leading to turnovers (i would rather they just ice it than force a pass), get hartnell’s ice time down to 8 minutes (and he shouldn’t be on special teams), and stop letting bouch play the puck. he looks like fleury in that respect.
i still believe this team can take out the bruins. but it can’t all be done by giroux, briere, and richards.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Oh yeah, this series is far from over. I’m taking nothing for granted and I’m pretty sure the Bruins feel the same way.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on May 4, 2010 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Nothing is fucked here, Dude.
However,
The Flyers are the better team, and if they play that way come Wednesday, Friday and Monday, they’ll win this series. is a little too Kovalchuk-y for me.
The Bruins are not exactly a bunch of fuckin’ amateurs.
Tomorrow we must come back and cut off their Johnson.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
which team wants to get F’d by the Pens next round!?!
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on May 4, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Very well put.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on May 4, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
um
With all the emphasis on jvr and carcillo talk you’d think that they were intrumental in the win or loss. Hate to tell you, but they were not. Yas, yas two lawyers arguing monoplysing a thread can take up some space….but as only a few others stated, the flyers problem is defense and goaltending…..not hartnell.
Which B's team is this?
by eyebob on May 4, 2010 1:11 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
And the power play, faceoffs, ice time allocation, etc.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I’ve already covered that. And you don’t need advanced stats or fancy pictures:
7 games, 0 goals, 2 assists, 2 points, minus-5, 6 penalty minutes, 8 shots on goal, 15:36 TOI/G
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on May 4, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
2 cents from someone who doesn't know jack squat...
All i got to say is I hate Boston right now…this is playoff hockey, the fans and players are running high on emotions because this means so much to them. I’m all for being a good sport about things but last night seeing anything from a Boston person just wasn’t going to go over well for me (esp. in a negative sense). I don’t know if that is a hockey mentality or just being angry, but I want to always stick up for my team because I love the Flyers. NO MATTER WHAT! Right or wrong, I can’t abandon my team and after losing and going down 2 games to none…I wasn’t going to hear it from no one. I haven’t given up hope but it is not looking good. We’ll see how this series goes with 2 games at home in Philly. I’ll just try to keep my temper in check – but what are you suppose to do when you become invested in a team?
http://www.easports.com/player-hub/360/zsmooth0 - (NHL 10)
Might not have been born in Philadelphia, but sure got the attitude.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Capitals’ Vokoun shuts out Panthers: ‘We don’t want to be a bubble team’
- Snow building up: Isles sign Frans Nielsen to 4-year deal, avoid free agency
- Puck Previews: Capitals, Panthers in Southeast showdown; Winter Classic announcement day
- Tribute to Owen Nolan: 10 moments that best celebrate his hockey legacy (Video)
- Puck Headlines: Canucks split Sedins; Ovechkin’s $4M house; Coyotes booster club folds
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.
