Spezza Shoots Sens Past Carolina: Senators 3, Hurricanes 2 SO
by Bob Wage on Oct 25, 2011 11:03 PM EDT
in Carolina Hurricanes Game Recaps
Email
PrintJason Spezza scored a goal in regulation, then scored the only goal in the shootout as the Ottawa Senators held on to defeat the Carolina Hurricanes, 3-2 in front of 12,083 at the RBC Center.
After a scoreless first period, the Senators took a 2-0 lead in the second and held onto it until there was just 4:52 left in the third period.
Zenon Konopka scored first on a 2-on-1 advantage as he whistled a shot past Cam Ward. Spezza scored the other during Ottawa's only powerplay of the game.
Late in the third, Tuomo Ruutu gave the home team some life as he buried a loose puck in front of the Ottawa net. The Sens failed to touch up on it, on what looked like an obvious icing call. Goalie Craig Anderson allowed the puck to roll in front of his net, and the Finn took full advantage.
"We had a guy down hustling on the play, and the puck bounced right to me," said Ruutu after the game.
The Canes could generate very little up to that fluky goal, but the score did give them new life and they spent more time in the Ottawa end after that. They tied the score with just 2:31 left when Jamie McBain fired a puck from the point which was touched by Jeff Skinner before skittering past Anderson. It was the team's first powerplay tally of the contest.
After a listless second period and over 10 minutes of zero shots on goal to start the third, the Canes had a hard time generating much of anything against the young Senators team, who won their third straight.
But the team was full of jump late as they finally were able to spend some time in the Ottawa zone while putting six shots on goal in the scoreless overtime period, which equaled their total for the entire third period.
In the shootout, Jeff Skinner, Jussi Jokinen, and Ruutu were each stopped by Anderson while Spezza beat Cam Ward 5-hole for the game winner.
Game Notes:
- It was an ugly game at times for the home team as they went long periods of time without generating scoring chances or shots. After a decent first period, (15 shots), they only got seven shots in the second and six in the third, all after the 10 minute mark.
- Jay Harrison led the way with six shots on goal. Joni Pitkanen had five.
- Captain Eric Staal, who has been the subject of several articles of late, was hustling all night long, but was not rewarded with any remarkable scoring chances. He did finish with a +1 and was credited with an assist on the Skinner goal late. He had 22:52 of ice time.
- After a strong start, the team finished up winning 53% of their faceoffs. (Staal 50%, Sutter 50%, Jokinen 50%, LaRose 40%) (LaRose was getting the call after Jokinen was getting booted).
- Paul Maurice said that he was pretty happy with Zach Boychuk's game, but he is not ready to take a right winger's spot in front of him yet. He was also asked about not using Brandon Sutter in the shootout, (because he has scored on a couple of breakaways) to which the coach replied that Sutter is traditionally not good at shootouts.
- The team had 18 hits, led by Bryan Allen with four.
- Pitkanen had a game high 28:56 of ice time.
- The Canes were 1-4 on the powerplay while the Sens were 1-1.
Post game interviews next:
149 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes, after giving Sutter many chances on the shootout, he has proven that he is just not good at them. (career 0 for 1)
I could have saved myself the trouble of copy and pasting entirely.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Is this carryover from the game thread?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I’d like to not use Mo going forward since he’s been traditionally not good.
"I'm not going to waste my time with Tuukka Rask" - Cam Ward
by anonymousJ on Oct 26, 2011 12:53 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Hoo-boy, this team's a hot mess!
Tough game to watch last night. Good to see Boychuk sit idly by and watch how NOT to play while the rest of the team flailed around helplessly.
‘Tis too much for this fan, I’m afraid. To the pure joy of 95% of fans on this board, ye ol’ Sergeant Stinky is running away from the rest of his battalion and going M.I.A. until major changes are made to the ’Canes.
Way too draining on my sports emotion supply to keep discussing the same mistakes over and over and over again while the organiSation fiddles while Rome burns.
Hope everyone understands. I truly have enjoyed chatting away with everyone for the start of this season. Sorry it seems as if it’s going to play out the exact same way as every other disappointing season. Y’all are good fans.
Hope things change and I can come back soon.
Peace.
- SS
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Oct 26, 2011 5:58 AM EDT reply actions
I'm somewhat (objectively) torn about this sort of situation
When you need change, which works better:
A. Stay away in droves so ownership sees that they need to make a change in order to bring the fans back.
B. Give strong enough support that ownership realizes they have a consistent cash flow and will go out and spend a little money.
My guess is that the objectively better option probably changes situationally. Subjectively, of course, I’m always inclined towards the second. Just can’t stay away from teams I love, even when watching can be depressing.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 26, 2011 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions
PK isn’t going to use any money in bettering this team. If he was, he would have spent the money to get a first linger it has need for years. Instead, they’ll continue to pick up players from the bargain bin and hope they miraculously turn into first line talent.
I’m personally fed up as well. I know 2 coworkers who dicontinued their season tickets this year for the first time based on the fact Mo is still coaching and they won’t spend the money to put a good product on the ice. I’ll continue to cheer for players and watch every game no matter how crappy it is but I am not spending another dollar on this organization until changes are made starting with the coach. Last night was the final straw for me with Maurice. Gotta love the message sent to our prospects. Work hard in Charlotte and create a little offense in your 5 minutes of ice time with the 4th line and you’ll ride the pine and have the pleasure of watching LaRose shoot pucks wide and over the net from the bench.
"I'm not going to waste my time with Tuukka Rask" - Cam Ward
by anonymousJ on Oct 26, 2011 8:59 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
First linger should have read first-line winger, darned phone. Ha!
"I'm not going to waste my time with Tuukka Rask" - Cam Ward
by anonymousJ on Oct 26, 2011 9:01 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I haven't been around here long enough to comment on this specific situation
I was more posing a general question and letting people run with it. obviously, we have at least two people here who find it obvious that (A) is the proper solution in this specific case, but I can’t say without more familiarity with the situation. That said, there’s no excuse for performances like minutes 20 through 50 last night, even if it’s Checkers vs Sens.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe I'm in the minority...
…but I don’t think that the personnel is to complete issue as I don’t think coaching is the only issue. We’ve got a number of very good, skilled players who appear to either be mis-slotted or under coached. We have a number of prospects whom are chomping at the bit to contribute….Boychuk, when he was on the ice, played a complete game…hustling, getting a scoring chance, even back checking…but 6 minutes of time makes it tough to have a dramatic impact…agree that LaRose played a hard-nose typical hustling game. I thought this was one of his better games…wish he had a bit more of the sniper in him. McBain really played well; his passing might be the best on the team AND he has the most accurate shot of any of our defensemen. Just my random thoughts…
Hang on Stinky! I personally enjoy your input. I feel your frustration, but we need all the help we can get to run Mo out of town. He’s just not producing. Boychuck was the best forward on the ice in the first period, yet we didn’t see him rewarded with some ice time. Instead Mo went with the guys who played listlessly through the previous two games and played worse last night. Mo is killing our youngsters. I come to games to see a team that competes consistently. I can deal with losses if we are putting forth the effort. Then we know what the problem is, it’s just a lack of talent. But we are not even making the effort on the ice.
But with Mo, we play uninspired, boring, listless, crummy hockey with no discernible team identity. He’s not only killing your enthusiasm, his coaching is turning off most other fans including me and my wife’s.
Mo is JR’s boy! LaRose is Mo’s boy! That’s how this team is run. Sure, every player loves it here. That’s because they are not pushed. There is no competition for jobs here. There is just lip service from Mo. In retaining Mo, JR is cheating Mr. Karmanos and, at least in my case, Jr is losing some of the respect I have for his hockey acumen as he seems to be placing his loyalty totally in Mo while not holding him accountable.
P.S.: Boychuk deserves an opportunity to play with a chance to produce offensively. Not play as a 4th line grinder. You don’t draft a player No. 1 to be a grinder. Put LaRose, a 4th line grinder, on the 4th line.
Sorry for the rant. Just totally fed up.
by FoxtrotSierra on Oct 26, 2011 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I read an article yesterday about the Buffalo Sabres (can’t remember where I read it). Ruff discussed Brad Boyes and his lackluster performance so far. He said “that he will go with more of a shooting unit on the top PP. He will play tonight with Vanek, Pommer, Ehrhoff, andd Gragnani.” He also said “Boyes’ lack of production may be a result of a lack of quality playing time. When Ennis was hurt in Tampa, Boyes’ ice time was reduced.” So Ruff gave Boyes a little more time (specially on the PP) and Boyes gets a goal & an assist last night.
It just an interesting philosophy for a coach to put players in a position to succeed and they actually do.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Boyes has 501 career games and 352 career points. He has a history to back up his play.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
LaRose has 415 career games and 148 career points. He doesn’t have a history to justify getting top line or top 6 minutes.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m talking about the whole team in this regard. You have to slot EVERYONE in places that will maximize their abilities. Having 3 down low players like Skinner/Staal/Ruutu on a line together to start the season doesn’t make sense to me. If you are going to play with an agressive defense that pinches, you need to make sure you have a slot forward that will cover when that happens. Staal & Skinner’s horrible +/- is on them, but it is also on the coach for putting them in difficult situations.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Understand your frustration, but it's too soon to give up on this season
The team is falling behind, but isn’t in a hole too deep to climb out. At times the team looks good. At others, like last night’s 2nd period, the team looks awful. Wait until the team has 20 games under its belt. If there’s no improvement and the Canes still make no changes, that would be the time to head for the hills.
I think the NHL roster is considerably better than last season. Team performance should improve. If it doesn’t, after missing the playoffs in 4 of the last 5 years, by standards of any professional sport, either the coach, the GM or both should be fired. I would hope JR would fire Mo in those circumstances (since I believe JR did improve team personnel and has accumulated talent with a chance to improve the team more). If JR doesn’t take action at that point and the team is still on pace for an 82-point season, it will be tough to keep cheering for a franchise that dooms itself from the top down.
The next 11 games: Hawks, Flyers, Lightning, Capitals, Stars, Devils, Rangers, Penguins, Flyers, Canadiens, Sabres. The only teams on the list that are below the Canes in current standings are the Rangers (with 8 points in 7 games) and the Canadiens (with 4 points in 8 games). If the Canes can climb in the standings over these games, they’ll deserve our support.
You can set the marker where you like for points the Canes need after 20 games. I’d set it at 22. That would put the team on pace for a 90 pt season, which might make the playoffs. Since the Canes have 9 points now, they need 13 points in the next 11 games to keep hope alive. They could get there by going 5-3-3.
The Sabres game is Friday, November 18 at RBC. Hang in there until then.
by curiouscanesfan on Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Your first three paragraphs I can buy, but I would expect them (because of the spot they have already got themselves in) to have more than 22 points in 20 games if they want to really have a good shot at making the playoffs. They need more than 13 points in 11 games.
But not to quibble, my complaint is I have to give Mo 11 more games of rope. He doesn’t deserve it and if the team continues its historical pattern to date over these next 11 games you can pretty much write off the season. I’ve already given him 2 years and haven’t seen much from him. He gave Boychuk 6 minutes, Dalphe 0 minutes before relagating him to 4th line, Faulk 3 games before blaming him for the early season losses, etc. I’ve already treated Mo better than what he has done with our young players. This, not to mention the unimaginative coaching (or lack of any direction), failure to settle upon some line combinations and giving them a chance to develop some chemistry, etc. What have been the successes over the past 2 seasons plus that were Mo’s doing?
by FoxtrotSierra on Oct 26, 2011 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Good Morning Everyone
some how the message just didn’t get through …many of the Canes upper tier players are trying…but it you notce that for most of the game it was not the whole twam as one unit..it seemed to me in watching that it wasn’t until the lines starteds to all crash the nets as a unit did the canes suceed and score…i think the coaching staff needs to make all of the team sit and watch the whole game replay and stop it as they go along to point out who and what…but i am just a fan…what do i know ?/
9/11/01 - Never Forget !!
Long Live #63 The Condor
Go Canes & Checkers !!!
I am pretty sure the do video sessions, Steve, but I could be wrong.
No It’s time to do something to rattle cages. Trade one of the ‘untouchables.’ Fire the Coach. Heck just a good old fashioned bag skate would be a good start.
The system is complacent. We need to break it down so it can be rebuilt. Take a gamble for once. Look at Boston, they went out an got rid of Joe Thornton. That move shook that organization to it’s core. It took them from a perennial first round bust, into a team that has won the President’s trophy, and the Cup. The Pens saw that they had talent that wasn’t producing wins they put Therien out on his keister. It was what they needed to get over the hump. They have since been in the top of the standings year after year. Detroit let go of Dave Lewis in spite of his winning records with the team because of playoff failure. They gambled on Babcock who only had middling success as a head coach ( 2 year in Ana one appearing the Final and losing the other not making the playoffs at all). SInce then they have been to the conference finals 3 times, winning twice, and in one of those instances winning a cup.
I am not the biggest Torts fan in the world, but the year the lightning won the cup their motto was safe is death. This franchise is safe. Super conservative. Always going with a known quantity over a risk. Yet the one time we went out of our comfort zone, and took a risk ( Lavi, Big Name Free Agency acquisitions, playing a rookie backup in the postseason) we ended up with a cup.
He was also asked about not using Brandon Sutter in the shootout, (because he has scored on a couple of breakaways) to which the coach replied that Sutter is traditionally not good at shootouts.
Sigh.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
and this is what I am talking about above, CG, Mo ( and the org as a whole) is afraid to take a gamble. He doesn’t see the kid making S/O goals in practice so there is no chance he gets a look in the top 3 shooters. In spite of the fact that he has been productive this season in breakaways, as stated above. No gambles. Hell I am surprised he didn’t throw LaRose out as the 3rd shooter. Though I would have personally liked to have seen chucky get a shot at it.
I hear you. I get the logic behind putting Skinner-Ruutu-Jussi out there because traditionally they are the go-to shootout guys, but I can’t shake the thought that they only became the go-to guys because someone gave them a shot to do so. I’m not the coach and I don’t pretend to know all of the ins and outs of this team, but I’m not sure I buy Mo’s reasoning for not putting Sutter out there.
SN: he didn’t score, but I thought Staal looked really good last night. Possibly his best game of the season.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Staal had moments where he did look dominant. I have been harsher in my view of him this year. I feel like this is the year he steps up or I join his detractors. I just wonder where that fire has been? I feel like there is a pall over the locker room and it is effecting how well guys are playing. I think you have some guys buying in to MO, and some guys not. It was plainly stated that was the case last year. But like you, I don’t know the ins and outs so it is all just pure speculation on my part.
I saw more hustle at both ends of the ice from him than I have the past few games without a doubt. And IMO if he’s not scoring, that’s what he needs to be doing to lead this team.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
I think it was the right decision to go with Skinner, Jussi, and Ruutu for that reason. Although I may have swapped Dwyer and Ruutu.
What concerns me is that Jussi and Skinner had nothing. They just looked confused/out of it and Spezza scored a very easy goal that Cam should have had.
by JussiJuice on Oct 26, 2011 9:10 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Dwyer huh? Interesting. I guess for me it boils down to this, I get why he went with who he did, but I don’t necessarily understand his reasoning for not going with other guys. Sounds odd I know.
As for Jussi and Skinner (especially Jussi), I wonder if they’ve been scouted to the point where goalies know what’s coming from them and that’s why they looked lost.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Skinner was making too many moves all night long. He’d beat a man and then try to beat the entire team instead of putting a shot on goal using the defender as a screen. I think Anderson got to Skinner last night and made him change his game.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I gotta be honest. When I see a short-handed breakaway with Dwyer my emotions are as follows – Step 1: excitement “Yes! We are going to have a chance short-handed!”, Step 2: doubt “Oh, it’s Dwyer. He is going to shoot it right at the goalie for an easy stop.”, Step 3: disappointment “And…Dwyer shot it straight at the goalie for an easy stop.”
I imagine that’s what a Dwyer shootout experience would be like.
And that's another Hurricane's goal! WOOOOOOOO!
Would you say the same thing if the Canes had won last night?
This was the teams first shoot out of the season. You go with your horses at that point. It’s not like Skinner or Jussi or Ruutu are bad in that situation. They have proven through past experience to be the best in the shoot out. Why wouldn’t you put those three out there?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I’ll concede the point on the shootout. I just saw it as another opportunity to try being creative, and just falling back on the old standard check list.
I’m all for being creative, but I think it’s one thing to be creative based on experience and another thing to just try something and hope it works. For my money, putting Sutter in the shootout, especially if as the coach says he was struggling in practice, would have been the latter.
I’m not happy with where the team is after the last three games. It could be better. I think 4 points out of these three games should have happened, not just two. But at 9 games, sitting at .500, and the Captain at -9, I’m not yet ready to throw things at the wall and see what works. If Staal gets going, a lot of what plagues this team fixes itself. Personally, I don’t think it’s any coincidence that when Staal played well in the first the team played well and that it was off of a face off win by Staal that team tied the game.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I see the logic but you are looking at this season in a vacuum. The thing that concerns me is that this is groundhog day. How many years do we have to limp out of the gate and have these discussions in October/November before we start to say, Hey, the points in October are worth the same as the ones in January, Febrauary, etc….
I think it is time to start throwing some new things out there. I am not saying we scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, but maybe it is time to see that the methodology we have had for the past 3 years is garnering the same results. And I would hope no one is please with those results.
by wylde4canes on Oct 26, 2011 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
How many years do we have to limp out of the gate and have these discussions in October/November before we start to say, Hey, the points in October are worth the same as the ones in January, Febrauary, etc….
I can understand that thinking. I would say, however, that if the Canes had managed two more points out of the last three games they would be in 5th in the east right now. I would also say that I think the effort is better to start games this year then in years past. I also think they’ve bought in to the system more at an earlier time than in seasons past. They just need to have that buy in for 60 minutes more nights.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
The Canes are sitting at .500 only because the league doesn’t count OTL and SOL as ties. The Canes have won 3 games and lost 6. They are scoring 1 standings point per game, on pace for an 82 point season. In points per game, they rank in a tie with 4 teams for 19th-22nd in the league. Two of those 4 teams have a game in hand so the Canes are sitting at 21-22 out of 30 teams. In their division, they are 4th out of 5 teams. In their conference, they are 9th out of 15 teams, but every team below them but one has either one or two games in hand.
The Canes aren’t yet in too deep a hole to climb out, but they are not in a neutral position. They have fallen behind. They’ve got 5 tough games coming up. The patsies in the schedule, Winnipeg and Ottawa, both beat the mighty Canes.
by curiouscanesfan on Oct 26, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, above should say doesn’t count OTLs and SOLs as losses. My brain isn’t working this morning.
by curiouscanesfan on Oct 26, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
“If Staal gets going, a lot of what plagues this team fixes itself.”
True Indeed!
I know Skinner & Sutter are fan favorites, but this team still lives and dies with Staal & Ward. Is it just a coincidence that when Staal has got a point this season, the Canes are 1-0-2. And you could argue that he was pretty instrumental in screening the goalie in the Boston & Buffalo game, but did not register a point. If Staal is going, this team can be dangerous.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
INdeed. The whole forward group is built around Staal taking on the top D pairings and getting good match ups down the line. If he can’t do that the Canes don’t get the matchup and they don’t win. It’s not as centered on one player as say the Colts offense is on Peyton, but it still relies on him.
Cam’s at .919 and a 2.66, and that includes the 5 goals given up to Tampa. (at least that’s what it says on NHL.com when I looked, but that looks like it doesn’t have last night’s game. Hmmm,) Throw out that initial game against Tampa and the GAA is closer to 2.16. The D and the goal situation are good. The third line looks pretty good. Staal get’s going and that problem of top line scoring fixes itself and things look better.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I don't understand why one would make this gamble
if you fail on shootouts in practice, why would we want you in a shootout in the game? Being productive on breakaways doesn’t mean you’ll succeed in shootouts (see: Marty St. Louis).
The general “need to gamble here and there” point is well taken, but I don’t agree with this instance.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 26, 2011 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
to add to this a bit
after Tampa lost a shootout to the Caps a couple weeks ago, fans were attacking coach Boucher for putting out Nate Thompson and Dominic Moore and ignoring Vinny, Marty, and Stamkos (all of whom traditionally struggle in shootouts). This is a case where there’s going to be complaining either way if they fail.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 26, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Furthermore, Mo said he did not “want to introduce a negative” into Sutter’s otherwise great play.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure if you meant that to be encouraging to me, but it definitely is not.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
It wasn’t meant to be anything more than what his statement was. Bu I agree with you … my management style is to encourage people to challenge themselves and to not be afraid to fail.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Mo put our, historically, best shoot-out guys on the ice. Its what he should have done. Those guys just might want to be a bit more creative and/or not overthink what they are doing. The key point, in my mind, is that this game had no business going to a shoot out. We should have won this game, but after the 2nd period, if I was an Ottawa fan, I’d have been angry to have lost it.
Hindsight is 50/50. The trio of Skinner, Jokinen and Ruutu were 3 good choices. Predictable but good. Let’s see if he learns anything by the next shootout.
On the other hand Droshak’s article in today’s N&O fully supports the idea Mo just might be too set in his ways. He bodyslams the way our top six forward prospects are abused as fourth line chattle. Our rants and raves here won’t effect bench or management decisions. His comments just might. Way to go Dave.
No hindsight from me. I said Sutter should’ve gotten the call, with Skinner and Jokinen, before the shootout.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I have not been one of Boychuks biggest boosters here but I have always hoped he’d break through. Last night he was active and in my opinion under any other coach would have been bumped up to try and generate some offense. Last nights game tempo was right up Boychuks alley, and a great opportunity for him to shine. I firmly believe if someone gave Maurice a Ferrari he would put snow tires on it and fill it with regular gas. For anyone who argues that Mo doesn’t give young guys a chance, last night was your signature moment. I have been critical of Mo when I thought he deserved it but have never been in the “Mo must go” camp. Last night I took a big step in that direction.
No one has commented yet on the fact that Tlusty got promoted to the first line towards the end of the game while Boychuk continued his role as Canes statue on the bench.
Surprised? Mo alum with forever get preferential treatment while he is here. I like what Tlusty has done this year but there are others also worth a shot that don’t get it.
We direly need a new coach that does not have so many favorites/ties.
by JussiJuice on Oct 26, 2011 9:13 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Tlusty has a longer record this season of playing. He’s proven it more. Boychuk had a great game last night. I really liked what he did. It’s the type of game that I’ve been hoping Dalpe would have all season. But Tlusty has been busting his butt game in and game out. He’s earned that more than Boychuk.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
see I don’t like that mentality, though. He earned the first line by hustling. If so, then everyone who is chirping Rosey’s time on the first line needs a big steamy mug of STFU.
You don’t slot a guy into the top line based on how hard he hustles. Maybe you give him PK minutes for it. Maybe you roll his line more when you need a momentum swing. That, too me, makes sense.
You do slot a guy there (1st line) because you think with the ice time you are giving him he gives you the best chance to A) score goals B) Set up Goals or C)create opportunities for his linemates to do A and B.
I actually like Tlusty on the 1st line (hell, pretty much anyone on the team has a better chance at scoring than Larose). I think he does have the offensive skill to merit it given our roster.
Doesn’t change my opinion that the main reason he has gotten to that point is because he was a Mo fav. He gets the benefit of the doubt for a roster spot and playing time almost every time.
by JussiJuice on Oct 26, 2011 9:45 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Wylde, are you reading my comments about Tlusty in such a way that you think I think the reason for Tlusty getting up is hustle only? If so, that’s not what I intended, but I understand how you could get that. Let me clarify a bit:
Tlusty was written off to fourth line/healthy scratch duty prior to camp. When faced with that adversity he upped his game through the preseason and secured not only a spot on the team but in the top 9. Since the season started he’s been doing all the small things right and even showing some flashes of offensive creativity, one of the things that made him a first round pick. While hustle is a part of what I like about what he’s done, it’s not the only part. It’s the complete package. It’s the work ethic, the buy in to the system, the flashes of creativity, the ability to know when and when not to force the issue. All of these things I think Tlusty has done and done them repeatedly which is why I think he earned the shot over Boychuk.
Now, let me say this again. I really liked the game Boychuk played last night. It’s that type of game and effort I was looking for Dalpe to deliver when he was on the fourth line. The chance Boychuk had in the first was very impressive, and the way he went to the corners and finished checks at the same time was great to see. He had a few hiccups on zone entry about whether to send the puck deep or to put it in to a dangerous area around the crease, but I attribute that to being called up today more than anything else. I Boychuk puts together games like that in two of the next three I’m going to start pushing for him to have more ice time, maybe sooner if Staal continues to sputter.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
So I guess my question back to you is, do you think Tlusty being on the top line gives us a better chance of creating offense than Boychuck? Or do you think that putting Tlusty on the top line makes them less likely to be so defensively liable? I guess you have an argument on the latter, but I really think Cuck has more offensive upside.
by wylde4canes on Oct 26, 2011 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
First, I think Tlusty has earned it more. I think it’s important to reward guys that have done the work.
Offensive upside, that probably goes to Boychuk. But I’m not sure that one game is enough to give Boychuk that nod over Tlusty, especially when it’s only a two goal deficit. Now, if the team were down 5 and Ward had been pulled, I’d have said to play Boychuk. You need to know what you have. But in the particular game last night I would not have opted for Boychuk over Tlusty in that situation. If Boychuk puts a few more of these games together in the next three and Staal continues to struggle with Tlusty up there then I would say it’s time to insert Boychuk. Something maybe like:
Poni – Staal – Jussi
Skinner – Ruutu – Boychuk
Tlusty – Sutter – Dwyer/LaRose
Dwyer/LaRose – Brent – Brett Sutter
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Do we have like three debates going at once on here? LOL! This is when CC is really cooking to me. When folks are seriously discussing these things without breaking down into name calling, childish trolling, or just walking away cause they didn’t get told they were right.
by wylde4canes on Oct 26, 2011 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I like those lines as of right now. Good job CL!
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
I still feel very strongly that it’s important to reward Tlusty for his effort and his results. To me that sends the right message and it’s important early in the season to send the message that if you play well you get rewarded. I always thought that was one of Lavi’s better traits. But if they struggle for a few and Boychuk still looks good, I see no reason not to do it. Things aren’t terrible right now, but if the team gets 1 point out of the next 3 games it’s time to start trying things, especially if Staal is still around -9 and only 5 points.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
My only thing with Tlusty moving up is that I really like him with Sutter. Sure LaRose & Dwyer would work, but Sutter/Tlusty give that line offensive potential.
I still would like to see Dalpe in the top 6 when he returns from injury. I know your stance on that, so no need to rehash :)
I think a Skinner/Ruutu/Dalpe line could be productive.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Like those lines CL...could see this small tweak
….those lines are what I’d like to see next game, although, I’m such a fan of the Finner/Skinner line that I would probably replace Jussi w/Jiri and move Boychuk to the 3rd line….it would be small but fast…and pesky….and have a real good chance at scoring….a lot of people forget that Boychuk had a history of being very scrappy in the Jr’s.
It’s not clear which might be better on the 1st line now or if either will make it there. Both have shown playmaking flair. Tlusty is bigger and better defensively. We know Boychuk has been scoring in the AHL, but forget that Tlusty had 5 goals in a single game in the AHL in 2009. He had another game that season with 2 goals and 4 assists. Boychuk has had one NHL game with 2 goals, I think. As I recall, Tlusty has done that twice, and in one game with the Leafs against the Canes, Tlusty had 3 assists. His knee injury really slowed him down last season and then he hurt his shoulder. He’s finally back in good health. I see him more as a 2nd or 3rd liner, but he’s got talent, size and speed. I don’t think he should play second fiddle to Boychuk at this point.
I would also like to see Boychuk get to play at some point on a scoring line, but I won’t hold my breath. It would take a coaching change. Mo’s lack of interest in or enthusiasm for Boychuk is palpable. When Boychuk was called up, it seemed as though Mo was at pains to make it clear he had nothing to do with that decision. He said the decision was made by other people who had been watching Boychuk. He didn’t add anything to suggest that he cared one way or the other. Since Boychuk apparently was skipping some of the conditioning skates in the preseason, I am not sure that I blame Mo for not immediately promoting Boychuk to the 1st line.
by curiouscanesfan on Oct 26, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
CL, you and I have gone back and forth about the Dalpe thing and I believe now that we know he was playing injured, that explains a lot….but enough about that. I agree 100% about Boychuk vs. Tlusty. Jiri earned a promotion to a more visible line. I think that is a great option/opportunity. I’m hoping that he keeps Poni on that line as well so that they have a big body and a quick, “hands” guy to go w/Staal.
I really do hope that it was the injury that can explain the drop in Dalpe’s performance. He looked very good that first week. I think even I used the term “ready”. If it turns out it was an injury all along and Dalpe is able to plug the top 6 hole then praise be to the hockey gods.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Carolyn/HMo2 and I had a difference of opinion on this last night. She felt like the burying of the 4th line in the 3rd was justified by the results. I felt like the results were there in spite of this coaching gaffe. Who was right? No one, it is just opinions!
I just would have liked to have seen, after the 5 minute mark of the third the Canes looked like trash, is for the 4th line to have been given the green light to get out there and create havoc. Let Brent cover defensively for Chucky and tell him to shoot it every time it is on his stick. Have our other Sutter run around a bit. Guys like Gonchar and Spezza give up against physical pressure. Maybe we come back to life at the three of four shifts sooner. Maybe we find a way to get that 3rd goal in before it goes to OT. We were buzzing, the ice was ours from that point on until the skills competition…..
Again, I could be wrong. Maybe we needed the top 6 to be out there to get us going. Maybe without them getting so much ice time, we don’t even get a point out of this. Who knows.
How do you put out a line that combined has 18 career goals over one of the top two lines when down two goals? LaRose on his own scored more than that in one season. I can understand the desire to shake things up. That team looked awful heading in to the final TV stoppage of regulation. But man, I just don’t know how you send out a fourth line when you need to score.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I didn’t say I would be sending them out to score. Sometimes you don’t need a goal to wake up. Sometimes you need a shift full of furious activity. Big hits, scrum battles, create some chaos, knock the Sens back on their heels.
It’s like fighting, if you get behind on the judges card, you tend to get in more trouble trying to land that huge haymaker or uppercut with every swing. Instead, if you start to go to the body hard, you can open up the other fighter.
by wylde4canes on Oct 26, 2011 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Speaking of fighting I was saying in the third, especially about the 10 minute mark that Mo should send someone out there to drop the gloves. Even if it was Brett taking on Konopka, something needed to be done to spark momentum.
Speaking of the fourth line sparking momentum that’s one reason I’d like to see a top 6 winger come in and LaRose or Dwyer down on the fourth line. Brent and either of those two are defensively solid in their spots. They can also hustle and cycle. Add in a Stewart maybe, or even a Dalpe, and you’d have a hustle line that could cycle the puck, change momentum, and draw penalties.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I know. But the team needed to do something to get things going, and if that meant human sacrifice so be it.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Why would they?
It would’ve been a Horton v Gleason all over again, except this time we’re the goon who gets embarrassed.
This is a beef with Mo that I think the anti-Mo group should really play up. The third period the team looked horrible. Now, some credit for last night has to go the Sens who played a very good road game and were very nearly rewarded with a shutout. But in the third, down two goals, the team looked awful through the first ten minutes. At that point the coach needs to do something. Either he calls his timeout and yells and throws things, or he sends a line out to shake things up, or he sends a guy out to start a fight. Either way, he’s got to do something to spark a momentum change. it’s one of the few times a coach can really impact a game.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I wondered if there was a fight coming at some point … bur it never happened.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would the Sens take the bait?
Gleason was praised for not taking the bait from Horton and most people here jumped all over Horton for his tactics. Why would the Sens take the bait and risk sparking the Canes? I agree with a TO, and waking the team up, but my point is why would the Sens respond? I bet they wouldn’t have and if they did, Konopka would’ve wrecked Sutter42.
B/c they have their fare share of fighters on the roster.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what that response has to do with my point. I agree, I wanted a fight or PM to act like he cared at all, or something to spark the team. I’m only raising the point that in that situation, leading in a road game when they maybe shouldn’t have been and against an opponent that is widely thought of as superior, why would they take a risk and accept a challenge that may spark the team that they’re beating?
If the Send didn’t want to fight the coach should still at least try. No one wants to dance with Sutter, fine, at least he asked a few folks. No one was asked so we don’t know that no one wanted to dance. The sens aren’t a great team this year. Perhaps they would have come off of their discipline a bit last night to partake in a fight and that gets the rest of the team off. It’s happened before. The problem here is it was not even tried.
it would be one thing if Lavi was still coaching. He’s fundamentally opposed to fighting. That’s a policy issue. Mo doesn’t share that sentiment. It was a tactic at his disposal that he failed to employ.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
B/c it’s the norm to accept said fight. The fact that Gleason didn’t is why he was praised for it. Not everyone makes decisions as wise.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
why would Sens take the bait?
Guys like Chris Neil (210 penalty minutes last year) and Zenon Konopka (307 penalty minutes) don’t turn down fights. That’s what they live for. But I’m not sure it would have charged up the home team to see one of their own pummeled and possibly bloodied in an altercation.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
C-Leaguer
You know this one. Behind or not, you send out the 4th line because they played the way the coach wanted. They brought intensity, they brought effort and hitting. Things the rest of the team were not doing. You bring them out because in your words, the coach should reward effort and good play. You send them out because if they go out there, churn around, put forth effort, maybe get a good hit or a shot on goal it motivates the rest of the team to get moving. You know that as a hockey player. You know that because it’s what other coaches do…
It’s not a bad point you make. I would definitely support the fourth line earlier, especially right after that abysmal power play in the third. To me, that’s the time to send that line out and try to make something happen. Also coming out of the after 10 minute TV timeout, I would have thought about sending the fourth line out with the first change after the face off. With five to go, you have to go with the guys best able to score. Just not enough time for other options then.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Plus the added benefit of even if you short shift them like 30 – 40 secs max, have them create havoc, and during that time, it is an extra 30 -40 seconds of rest for the first and second line to catch there breathe before trying to mount the comeback.
I am not saying he should have played the 4th line all 3rd period, but getting them out there once or twice even for a short shift just to rest the start lines, and grind away at the opposition a bit… I am not sure how that could have hurt.
These are the same things that have been said a billion times.. last season… and the season before that… and that folks is when it becomes a bit disheartening.
I think the argument that Boychuk deserved more ice time is valid, however it’s hard to argue with Mo’s move to put Tlusty up there when his hustle generated the Ruutu goal. Where I stand: the overall philosophy Mo seems to have on working in the young players is flawed, but last night he pressed the right buttons to get his team back in the game.
Now … why they were in the game they were in is a discussion worth having on its own.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Now … why they were in the game they were in is a discussion worth having on its own.
THIS!
by wylde4canes on Oct 26, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Just to clarify, I’m not sure it was “justified” to bury them, but in hindsight it in fact worked. Which is frustrating because I do feel like the team would be better if the 4th line could generate some offense so that they could see 10 minutes instead of <7..
My saying that I was surprised that the reaction was so overly critical was intended to highlight “damned if you do damned if you don’t” mentality after a loss. To me was actually about stealing a point in what I was afraid would be 3-0 shutout at one point. The nightmare was the 30 minutes from the 1st intermission to the way the whole team’s mojo changed with the Ruutu goal. That they could reverse that feeling was fabulous, but it was troubling that they got there.
I would take Tlusty over Boychuk everyday of the week right now.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Oct 26, 2011 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It worked yes,
But more by luck….Ruutu’s goal was off a badly missed pass that would have been icing if recognized and touched by anyone. We did the right thing and went to the net. The Goaiolie didnt play the puck because he was thinking icing. Ruutu was the rigth man in the right place at the right time (imagine if Rosie won that race…would we have scored?).
The secong goal came off a 6 on 4 PP, with two deflections of the puck. We got lucky. Was it coaching? Yeah I guess, to pull the goalie for the PP with two minutes left….but everyother coach would have done the same.
Outside those two scores, what effect did any coaching changes really have??? Did burying the 4th line really help get the team back in the game?
Just for clarity’s sake, they had not yet pulled Ward. It was a normal 5-on-4.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, I'm not remembering this game very well
I was P.O’d too long after wards to post sooner. Thanks for the clarification…
I haven’t commented on how Boychuk was handled last night because it was a foregone conclusion. Any other course would have been astounding.
by curiouscanesfan on Oct 26, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t see the first period, so the weakness of the team was magnified in my eyes. Boychuk seemed invisible.
Mo countdown (revised):
At the end of the season, teams have 82 points plus the difference between their wins and losses (not counting OT/shootout losses). If a team is 10 in wins, they’ll have 92 points. 92 often makes the playoffs, but 94 or 95 (12 or 13) is much safer. So in each half of the season a team needs to be at least +6, or roughly +4 after 25 games.
After 9 games we’re at 0.
Another way to measure playoff progress is to estimate how many points a team needs to earn home and away. One point per game away = 42 points. 1.3 points per game at home is 54.6 points. That makes 96.5.
By that criterion, the Canes should have 6 points for away games plus 3.9 for home = 9.9 points. We’re at 9. That still sounds better than the first calculation.
I hear you on the stats, but I don’t think you can use that as a measure. Team can be slow out of the gate and make up the statistical differential down the road once they hit their stride. In those teams you see flashes of what is to come. You see systems that are being executed, but with holes. Holes that will be filled in. You see direction, if not momentum.
I won’t say what I see in this team. I just ask each of you to answer that for yourself. Do you see these things? Do you see a team that is trying to put it together, but just isn’t quite getting it. Or do you see a team that is just spinning like a top?
That is the Canes way of late. Fight our way into a top-5 Draft pick by Christmas and then storm back to make 9th place by Playoff time.
by JussiJuice on Oct 26, 2011 9:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
When (if) Mo goes, it will be stats, not what we see, that finally convince JR and PK.
What I see is an old-school hockey mentality that values “being a man” and “battling”. Do that 100% and then depend on superior goaltending to win. Sometimes it works. And it especially works well in playoffs. But it doesn’t work well enough in the regular season to ensure you get to the playoffs, unless you can take chances and spend up to the cap on players who might work out.
The old-school mentality is what leaves players we’ve developed on the bench or the 4th line. Only the players who shine brightly from the first (Skinner) can work into the lineup, or those who have become veterans in the minors (Dwyer).
Ottawa carried the puck into the offensive zone. Carolina dumped it in and “battled” to get it back. I’d prefer to play to keep it rather than give it away and get it back. Whether the players we have are up to that, who knows.
When (if) Mo goes, it will be stats, not what we see, that finally convince JR and PK.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. When he goes ( and let’s be honest EVERY coach does eventually, even one day for Lindy Ruff) it will be because he has lost the room completely, and they feel they have no other recourse.
Ottawa 'carried it in' Canes 'dumped'..Agree..surprised me!
I thought our defense would be better that theirs..(pre game opinions) and the opposite would be true..It’s hard to figure this team out…maybe that is the norm for most teams..we just don’t see it…ie ‘statistical anomalies’
You will be AWOL
By and large a very unremarkable hockey game by an unremarkable hockey team with unremarkable leadership. After a defensive blunder from the Sens we had a late surge that was tantalizing. Where was that hiding? To me the finish of the game is unneeded but further further proof from the Sens that trying to protect the dreaded 2 goal lead is near certain death. After 2 periods I was encouraged by not having the lead. Disagree about Staal showing great hustle all night. He was in the game at times, but when the offense disappeared for 35 minutes in the middle of the game he was invisible too. He didn’t lead the team to hustling he followed them when they found some jam in their game. Skinnner with help from Ruutu deserve all the credit for the comeback. Skiinner withstood a beatdown in front of the goal to get the final powerplay. Watch that replay. No getting up slowly to draw attention to the mugging. No lingering dirty looks at the ref. No slumped shouldered sauntering return to the bench. Just leadership by example. It is becoming novel on this team.
+53 on your last few sentences.
I like Staal, I absolutely hate when he acts like a big woe-is-me crybaby. Absolutely no way he sits there and gets knocked around, constantly getting back up and fighting, as Skinner did, to draw that penalty.
by JussiJuice on Oct 26, 2011 9:17 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Staal and Skinner
I saved this quote from last season, unfortunately I didn’t include who said it when I saved it:
With Staal, just from appearances, the main message seems to be "I was robbed! These noncalls are going to cost us the game! It’s unfair!" With Skinner, the main message is more like "I’ll show you! Call whatever you like, but you can’t stop us from winning this game!"
by LewPuls1 on Oct 26, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was at last night’s game and I will tell you that Staal battled for pucks, skated like a man possessed, and generally tried to take the team on his back. This year he seems to be having a bit of a problem keeping the puck on his stick and it is clearly frustrating him. Don’t know if he didn’t do enough drills in the offseason or if it is just bad luck. But I will heartily disagree that Staal did not give the type of effort last night that we would expect from our captain. To my eyes, the let down from about the 5 minute mark of the 2nd period to about the 10 minute mark in the 3rd period was actually a function of something that looked a lot like confusion. It was as if neither the offense or the defense was on the same page. Passes were made and the intended recipient wasn’t looking. Defensive assignments seemed to get botched (two guys covering the same guy/spot/gap). And “plays” (use that term loosely) seemed to always be missing a participant…it almost looked like a Cane would look up expecting somebody to be in a certain spot or to be breaking to a certain spot and not only wasn’t the player there, they looked like they were part of a different play….not sure if that was actually the case, but it certainly felt like that. I thought this was particularly unusual given that these lines had played together for a number of games now.
Lastly, it seems that Poni and Staal have a bit of Chemistry working…it isn’t where we want it to be, but it is coming along….also Poni has a bit of an edge that can get him out of position as he tries to lay a hit or “retaliate”….part of that I like, but it does lead to the occasional brain cramp (elbowing penalty vs. the Jets, for example).
Despite the sometimes ineffective play last night this team feels close, even when it does feel like a regression. I wonder if we looked at thinking about rolling 3 scoring lines and an energy/checking line if that would change our mindset. I could see a third line of Boychuk/Sutter/LaRose as a speedy, difficult to match up against-type of line. Just a thought…
One final thought before I try to actually get some work done today
Did anyone else notice in the article that Pits had 5 shots on goal. We are all arguing over a moot subject. I am pretty sure Pits having 5 SOG is a sure sign of impending Armageddon.
I am beginning to think Dave Lewis pulled a shiny watch out of his pocket spun in in front of Joni and stated “I will shoot the puck more…” in a distant faint voice Joni mumbles “I will shoot the puck more”
Dave quickly pockets the watch, Joni returns from Joni land and voi la, we now have fast skating, puck canon, who seems to have to be reminded to rest during the game.
LOL – you may be on to something!
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Oct 26, 2011 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Time for changes
Piss poor performance throughout the game until the 5 minutes of regulation and the entire overtime period which the Canes dominated. But their lack of skill showed and finish and couldn’t get it done. I’m tired of seeing LaRose and Tlusty continue to get chances and chances to perform on the top lines never to produce. Look at their games played to how many points they have in their careers??? These guys would be out of hockey!!! Boychuk needs a shot. When Dalpe returns he needs a shot. And by all means use Stewart more MO!!! This coach has got to go. He must be getting orders from up stairs in the GM office because no coach would continue to go with these guys over and over and over and over getting nothing done and no production. They may hussle and they may play hard but its all about production boys. They are not getting it done. I don’t mind who they used in the shootout but Sutter has been one of the better players in the early going and he has looked good scoring on breakaways. 2 goals and a post. That deserves a shot at the shootout.
by whalecanes@s... on Oct 26, 2011 10:44 AM EDT reply actions
Guess I can’t totally agree with all this. On the whole, yes … a disappointing night. But they dominated the first period (with effort) even though they didn’t score. And the criticism of Tlusty is unfair b/c he was one of the best forwards and created the Ruutu goal (Ruutu said as much after the game).
I’m with you on Sutter … he should’ve been one of the three. I don’t have any issue with criticism of the current regime (a lot of it is warranted), but I think some of your opinions, specifically singling out Tlusty, make it seem like you didn’t see what happened on the ice.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Created the Ruutu goal??? That should’ve been icing if the Sens play the puck. That was a FLUKE GOAL! What game where you watching? And that was Harrison that sent the puck down the ice I believe. I’ve watched every Hurricanes game and I’m singling out Tlusty for getting chance after chance to produce and he doesn’t. The numbers don’t lie. Same can be said for LaRose and Dwyer. These guys are the ones that should be buried on the 4th line and killing penalties. Tim Brent has more offensive skill then those 3 and he’s not being used correctly. Some guys deserve more minutes then the ones that are getting the most minutes.
by whalecanes@s... on Oct 26, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Right, it should have been icing and Tlusty outhustled Gonchar and Cowen to the puck. he lifted Gonchar’s stick as Gonchar went to touch up and Ruutu backhanded it in. Watch the play again. And if you don’t take my word for it, take Ruutu’s: “Obviously, we had one guy hustling and that helped a lot.”
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Furthermore, I don’t see where Tlusty has gotten “opportunity after opportunity.” He hasn’t cracked 17 minutes this year and get no PP time. He didn’t crack 15 minutes ONCE last year. 15:06 just once the year before.
Then you factor in that he has been mostly on a checking line that faces the other team’s top lines every night and has been an even or a plus player in all nine games. But don’t let the statistical or visual evidence get in the way. Again, I’m all for criticisms of the team — like you, I’ve been critical of LaRose getting top six and PP time; prospects not being given a legit shot to crack the top nine — but lumping Tlusty into this when he’s played so well to start the year isn’t a solid observation.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m confused by the call for Tim Brent to get more TOI.
Who exactly on the center chart ahead of him should get bumped?
by Iggy Reilly on Oct 26, 2011 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
You got me … think Brent knows his role as a fourth-line center.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I still don’t like the #2 center options, so I wouldn’t be opposed too much to trying Sutter at #2, Brent at #3, and then a checker at #4 for a time and then perhaps trading for a #3 center. I think Sutter is showing he has the chops for top 6. And I also think a #3 center is easier to trade for than a top 6 winger, especially a young one, especially this early in the season. Since it’s the Canes, that #3 could always be Cullen.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Fair enough point. I for one am not ready to give up a huge package to fix our top 6 with a band aid, so getting a top 9 sort of guy might be a more acceptable trade.
It is still puzzling to call out Tlusty and pine for more Brent in the same breath.
by Iggy Reilly on Oct 26, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
A #3 center, maybe there is where Turris enters the picture for the Canes.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 26, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Intriguing thing about Turris, to me, is he’s capable at wing too.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
More TOI for Brent
If you hold to the theory that Mo rewards consistent hustle with increased playing time in a higher line, then the opposite should also be true. Inconsistent hustle should cause a decrease TOI. If this is true then it is clear where Brent should get additional playing time.
I never said consistent hustle automatically means more TOI. LaRose hustles every shift, but talent-wise he’s limited. On top of giving top effort, Tlusty is a very talented forward — a high first round pick — who has been derailed by injuries, being forced into the lineup too early in Toronto, ect. and is now maybe finally showing that he can put the whole package together. That’s something that should be fostered … just like it should be with Dalpe, Boychuk, et al.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 26, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Tlusty
I, too, think Tlusty has all made a case for more minutes. He has excellent size, speed, hands, and hockey sense. His time at Toronto and injuries set him back; but he is playing better and better. He is much more assertive this year and is less afraid of making mistakes. I don’t quarrel at all with having Tlusty get more time or with experimenting with him in the top six. My quarrel is with the idea by the coaches that LaRose should ever be played in the top six. I struggle to concede he is even in the top nine best forwards available for the Hurricanes. Having Tlusty with Staal is the same approach to me as calling for Dalpe or Boychuk to get time with Staal, at least in my opinion. I like the concept and think Tlusty has earned the right to show he can be a first line forward.
by abramsdoug on Oct 26, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Asked before, will ask again. Who is better right now? Patrick Kane aint walking through that door.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Bah!!! ANd Yahoo better not change his position because I’m already loaded up at Center.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
So I see the Canes have reassigned Faulk to Charlotte this morning. What was the point of bringing him up? The moves made by this organization really make me wonder…
"I'm not going to waste my time with Tuukka Rask" - Cam Ward
Agreed. That’s a lot to pay a guy just to make a drive to and from Charlotte.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Late to the party.
OK, I’m going to go out on a limb and defend Mo here….
The team came out with jump and ready to play, they played hard and stuck to the system. No luck in scoring, but the team was ready and motivated.
The team lost personal and system discipline in the second. Hitting stopped (Think we got credited for like maybe two, think one came from Larose so no one noticed, the other came from 42Sutter taking him out of a play and leading to a goal)… The forwards were weaker on the backcheck in the second, and they exited our own zone early not helping the defense with the breakout—led to long passes and turnovers. That was all on the players. Should we have called a time out to ask what the heck they were thinking? Yes, I thought so. Clearly they lost something, and momentum needed to be addressed, it wasn’t, but Mo did use his timeout to help with the PP late…
In the third period, the breakout returned to a five man system, forwards stayed in the zone to bring the puck up—we got better again. Soemwhere late someone started hitting again and the Canes were off. The coach (or someone) fixed the issue and the team got better. The coach put Tlusty on the top line, which I think given time may pay benefits. Tlusty has been a good passer, and the 1st line started looking better in the third.
Mo also never went to a one man forecheck, and we didn;t have a blue line high forward out of the play. didn’t make a difference in the 2nd where no intensity meant no offensive zone time, but it worked in the first and third to keep some pressure on in the offensive zone.
So I’ll give Mo a pass on this game. But the players?? geeeez…Where was the 60 minutes of effort? Where was the heart to go to the net? What happend to physical hockey in the second and 1st ten minutes of the 3rd?? Where was the desperation and drive to get to the net and score prior to the last 7 minutes of the game??? Unacceptable.
So the team lost their discipline as the game progressed and strayed away from the system that has been ineffective for the game few seasons?
Sorry, but I consider that a coaching problem.
Not quite
The breakout system of having forwards back to move up ice as a five man unit (Red Wings stayle). We did it in the first and third (except for the first two shifts of the third…).
I guess you could call the players straying form a system—which has been working this year when followed. There have been previous issues, and Mo has addressed these before. Again, whether you call it coaching or not, Mo has tried to get these guys to perform the breakout consistently. I’ll give him that credit. After each time it’s been stressed in practice, we looked good. It worked last game early. Then the wheels fell off.
Don’t like Mo as a coach of this team, don’t like his offensive philosophy or ideas, don’t like how he uses his players…
…but i this case, yes, the players failed to stick to it.
I noticed that as well
Particularly in the 2nd and parts of the 3rd. You know its happening when the d-men are trying those long stretch passes that were so common last season. It means the forwards are not coming with enough back pressure – something that Tripp even pointed out during the game. Saw lots and lots of long passes from our zone out the the red line or beyond last season. None during the 2 nice wins in Buffalo and Boston. A few more the last 3 games.
The forwards know to do it – it just looks like they sometimes choose not to.
I thought the 2 best shifts I saw last night were by the 4th line. Like everyone else here, I sure would like to see more of them – if for no other reason than to be contagious.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canes Country
Related FanShots on Canes Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
