Jesse wrote:All five guys, ALL FIVE, were literally standing still watching the puck. It was a meltdown of epic proportions.
topshelf wrote:I like Bylsma and think he's one of the better coaches in the league. The players got lazy on that play, plain and simple. Ottawa took advantage of it and capitalized. Things happen and you adjust. The players have two days off, which should be enough to let any momentum from this win settle.
At least we know that if Bylsma ever gets fired, Shero just needs to visit this forum to find 10-20 candidates who feel they are qualified to win some games.
Idoit40fans wrote:If you put a pp unit out, run it like a pp. If you're gonna send a one man forecheck and line up 4 in the defensive half, send the appropriate personnel out.
newarenanow wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:If you put a pp unit out, run it like a pp. If you're gonna send a one man forecheck and line up 4 in the defensive half, send the appropriate personnel out.
I wouldnt' have minded the players out there that were out there if they were attacking and playing like they were on the power play.
But if you are going the defensive route they took, but the more defensive minded players out there.
Beveridge wrote:The personal didn't fit the plan in hindsight. Execution by the players on the ice share equal blame in this. The best plan in the world will be a waste if poor execution. Not saying the coach
Froggy wrote:If Bylsma had put out Dupuis, Adams & Cooke and they got scored on, people would have complained it was too passive. The goal was a result of poor play from the players on the ice.
Great58 wrote:I have a hard time how having some of our best puck handlers on the ice for the final minutes is a bad coaching decision. I just don't get it. So we should put the slow Adams, the struggling Sutter and Murray on the ice instead because they are our shutdown guys?
Idoit40fans wrote:Froggy wrote:If Bylsma had put out Dupuis, Adams & Cooke and they got scored on, people would have complained it was too passive. The goal was a result of poor play from the players on the ice.
...What? It was too passive. The point is that if you are going to play passive, you put guys like Dupuis, Adams, and Cooke out there.
mikey287 wrote:The personnel out there would dictate that we are going to play "four corners" with the puck. Otherwise, Malkin wouldn't be out there, and Kunitz might have been replaced by Dupuis.
The instruction was 1-4 and stack the blueline. The Penguins thought and even Martin's thought, was force the play at the line and force them to put into the corner...the Letang corner. Should be an easy pick (at the line) and retrieval by Letang. Exit the zone 5-on-5 with an empty net ahead. It should work out for us.
Unfortunately, too many players were waiting for the puck to come to them...namely 71 and 58 and they were just sitting, waiting, wishing...
EDIT: The 1-4 was the choice because of the clear possession for the Senators coming out of the zone. The goal of the 1-4 is to make Ottawa surrender the puck. And generally it's effective. It's tough to enter the zone in any meaningful way against a 1-4...unless, everyone on the other team is standing still and watching the play unfold, of course. Then it's a walk right down Main St. to the net. As we painfully saw...
Users browsing this forum: IMFC and 13 guests