Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
The Snapshot wrote:Criticism does not equal insight. Chemistry is not a science in sports, so the term is probably misplaced, but the chemistry is off. That I'll agree on. The system is a good one if executed properly. The lack of adherence to it is an issue - which I guess you can blame on the coach, even though some of the best players are the worst offenders on the bad nights.
"Passive" PK is not a correct description of the PK system, yet I see it said on here over and over. The PK system is designed to pressure at appropriate times and then retreat to an active box when the team gains full control and possession. What the Pens have executed well in the past is designed to prevent prolonged control by denying entry and then pressuring whenever control is tenuous. It works, if executed.
The system defensively is still predicated more on possession than it is on allowing possession. It works as well, if executed properly.
Letang is capable of games like last night. In fact when he is playing well these games are more the norm. This system allows for him to play his game, and he just needs to play better. That can be said for every player on this team. The only thing I see as miscast in this system is the 4th line. Two guys there are just not fast enough to consistently wear the other team down in their own end.
The rest of the players just need to play better. Fire the coach, but the players play.
Mr. Colby wrote:The Snapshot wrote:Criticism does not equal insight. Chemistry is not a science in sports, so the term is probably misplaced, but the chemistry is off. That I'll agree on. The system is a good one if executed properly. The lack of adherence to it is an issue - which I guess you can blame on the coach, even though some of the best players are the worst offenders on the bad nights.
"Passive" PK is not a correct description of the PK system, yet I see it said on here over and over. The PK system is designed to pressure at appropriate times and then retreat to an active box when the team gains full control and possession. What the Pens have executed well in the past is designed to prevent prolonged control by denying entry and then pressuring whenever control is tenuous. It works, if executed.
The system defensively is still predicated more on possession than it is on allowing possession. It works as well, if executed properly.
Letang is capable of games like last night. In fact when he is playing well these games are more the norm. This system allows for him to play his game, and he just needs to play better. That can be said for every player on this team. The only thing I see as miscast in this system is the 4th line. Two guys there are just not fast enough to consistently wear the other team down in their own end.
The rest of the players just need to play better. Fire the coach, but the players play.
4 assists must negate his horrible defensive play on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th goals
The Snapshot wrote:Mr. Colby wrote:The Snapshot wrote:Criticism does not equal insight. Chemistry is not a science in sports, so the term is probably misplaced, but the chemistry is off. That I'll agree on. The system is a good one if executed properly. The lack of adherence to it is an issue - which I guess you can blame on the coach, even though some of the best players are the worst offenders on the bad nights.
"Passive" PK is not a correct description of the PK system, yet I see it said on here over and over. The PK system is designed to pressure at appropriate times and then retreat to an active box when the team gains full control and possession. What the Pens have executed well in the past is designed to prevent prolonged control by denying entry and then pressuring whenever control is tenuous. It works, if executed.
The system defensively is still predicated more on possession than it is on allowing possession. It works as well, if executed properly.
Letang is capable of games like last night. In fact when he is playing well these games are more the norm. This system allows for him to play his game, and he just needs to play better. That can be said for every player on this team. The only thing I see as miscast in this system is the 4th line. Two guys there are just not fast enough to consistently wear the other team down in their own end.
The rest of the players just need to play better. Fire the coach, but the players play.
4 assists must negate his horrible defensive play on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th goals
He didn't let up the soft rebounds on those goals. The goalie has a job too.
columbia wrote:I'd like to hear someone make a coherent argument for this team - as is - winning the Stanley Cup.
Mr. Colby wrote:A 7-6 win is a **** embarrassment. You leave there thanking your lucky stars that you have enough talent to bury 7 and that the other team's keeper played like dog ****
Mr. Colby wrote:
The 2nd goal was no fault of Vokouns... Gallagher (Letang's man) walked right out to the net and put a shot into TV's pad, a well placed shot for a rebound by Orpik's unguarded man.
1st goal - bad rebound but the defenseman (44/58) were standing next to their guys... it's ok to actually tie them up you know
4th goal - questionable goaltending but WHY was letang chasing behind the net wih 3 seconds left and WHY did PK walk into the slot uncontested?
The Snapshot wrote:Mr. Colby wrote:A 7-6 win is a **** embarrassment. You leave there thanking your lucky stars that you have enough talent to bury 7 and that the other team's keeper played like dog ****
Montreal would say the same if they had gotten the W. It was a crap game for both goalies. Both teams scored goals that shouldn't have been there.
columbia wrote:More direct:
I want to hear the argument that another coach can lead this team to the Cup, because I don't see it happening (regardless of who is behind the bench).
Mr. Colby wrote:The Snapshot wrote:Mr. Colby wrote:A 7-6 win is a **** embarrassment. You leave there thanking your lucky stars that you have enough talent to bury 7 and that the other team's keeper played like dog ****
Montreal would say the same if they had gotten the W. It was a crap game for both goalies. Both teams scored goals that shouldn't have been there.
It's different if it only happens every once in a while.
Montreal had given up 4 or more goals only 3 other times this season (4, 5, and 6) to the Pens 3 times in the previous 5 games (4, 6, 6)
Mr. Colby wrote:And we are now 2 games from the halfway point of the season and are team defense is in absolute shambles
columbia wrote:So no accountability for the high priced superstars?
Despite all that money, no requirement to play the game the right way?
Jesus, my 3rd grade social studies class had more rigorous standards for success.
The Snapshot wrote:columbia wrote:So no accountability for the high priced superstars?
Despite all that money, no requirement to play the game the right way?
Jesus, my 3rd grade social studies class had more rigorous standards for success.
It is the coach's fault that $65M in players can't play defense as a team. Somebody will come in as a new coach and magically transform them into a defensive juggernaut.
Mr. Colby wrote:The whole idea that suggesting a new coach without suggesting alternatives is such a fallacy.
1. There's no **** way to know who is available (and willing) to take the job
2. It's not who it is, it's just that it's someone new. This cannot be emphasized enough. What the **** resume did Dan Bylsma have before taking over? None. He was a new voice that the players cared to listen to.
Any further "Well you can't say you want a new coach and not suggest one" comments are now debunked
Mr. Colby wrote:I just don't understand these "it's the players' fault comments"...
Obviously it's the players' fault, they're the ones playing the game
But we've all been around the game long enough to know that the coach is the fall guy.
Stop acting like I'm arguing with you over whether to blame the coaches or the players.
Users browsing this forum: Antonio and 15 guests