1.) Paul MacLean let off a pretty bold statement after last night's 4-2 loss to the New York Rangers, stating that he thought his team played a pretty solid game of hockey save a few mental lapses.
"The last four, maybe five minutes of the second period ... and early in the third period, if you could take away those six minutes, we are pretty happy with how we played he game," Senators coach Paul MacLean said. "We will build on the 54 minutes we played reasonably well and try to see what we can do to correct the six minutes that we didn't."
Down four goals for a stretch during Thursday night's tilt, the statement at face value might appear a bit over-the-top. After all, the New York Rangers were the first - and only - team in the 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs to hold such a commanding lead.
And yet, I couldn't agree more with the head coach. While the New York Rangers played a far more complete team, the effort and compete level from Ottawa last night wasn't bad. Nor was their overall play. Last night was a case study in why just one or two mental lapses over a sixty-minute stretch can be the decisive factor in the outcome of a game.
That's not to say there aren't issues to patch up -- I'l get to that a bit later. Perhaps my rationale for backing Paul MacLean's statement here is simple: During stretches of last night's tilt, Ottawa was the more dominant team. The Senators simply didn't catch the right amount of breaks that can pick up a road team in a tough environment. And, further to the point, the Rangers capitalized on every big opportunity, especially in the offensive zone.
Playoff hockey is quite results-oriented, but when you look at the bigger picture, Ottawa did play a respectable game last night. If they can clean up some of the miscues on both ends of the ice, this team could go into Madison Square Garden and steal game two.
2.) The second-leg of Paul MacLean's statement - cleaning up the ugly six minutes from last night - also holds true. There aren't any moral victories in playoff hockey - just wins and losses. If Ottawa's serious about going the distance with New York, they're going to have to bury some of last night's ugly right on 32nd Street, NYC.
While the team did give up four goals, I had more of an issue with the offense than the defense. Ottawa's a strong offensive, puck-moving team, but they let New York throw them off of their game early and often. When they did generate cycle and flow in the offensive third, everything was held to the outside. Hey, credit to the Rangers - that's their game, and they do it as well as anyone else.
It'll be up to Paul MacLean and the rest of the coaching staff to force the Rangers back on their heels. Rangers shot-blockers were far too comfortable jumping into the zone on perimeter chances and turning everything aside. And, truthfully, you're not going to beat Henrik Lundqvist from fifty-out that often. Or ever.
It's not surprising that when Ottawa did start to gel again in the third and move New York around in their defensive third, the Senators ran off back-to-back goals, both coming from high-quality scoring areas. Daniel Alfredsson's redirection was just a few feet from Henrik Lundqvist, as was Erik Condra's finish on the two-on-one chance late.
Defensively, it looked much like the same Ottawa team we've seen all year. Some highs, some lows. The fact is, this team is going to remain a bit of a question mark defensively against elite teams until talent is developed and/or brought in through trades and free agency. Right now, they have to work with what they have.
This team's looked best defensively when they're stripping pucks early and sending the puck right back up ice. Once they're bottled in their own zone, they start to run around like lost souls. Part of that has to do with the fact that this team ices three players - Erik Karlsson, Sergei Gonchar, and Matty Gilroy - who are more offensive-oriented in nature.
More to the defensive woes: Your stay-at-home types in Chris Phillips, Jared Cowen, and Filip Kuba do play well at times in front of Craig Anderson, but all are prone to mistakes.
For the rest of the series(and playoffs, really), Ottawa should focus on thwarting the opposition right at the blue line, ripping the puck and generating the counter-attack. This team's at it's absolute best when they're rushing back up ice and making the most of their inherent offensive talent.
Alternatively, they're at their worst when they're forced to play defensive hockey shift after shift after shift.
3.) Last night, I mentioned that the hill for Ottawa to cilmb steepened a bit when they lost game one. Per the Globe and Mail, I can now quantify that statement. Teams that have won game one have gone on to win the same series 68% of the time, posting a 393-183 record.
Generally, that number isn't all that surprising. The home team in game one is the stronger seed and largely the better team overall. Still, it speaks volumes about how important the second game of this series is. If Ottawa heads back to Scotiabank Place down two games, they're going to force themselves into a precarious spot where winning consecutive games is a necessity.
My guess? Paul MacLean goes balls-to-the-wall for a split this weekend in Manhattan.
4.) The best player on the ice last night? Ryan Callahan. By about a quarter-mile. Talk about the penultimate leader of a hockey team. Not only does the guy have tremendous offensive talent, but he does all of the little things right. He plays an unbelievable two-hundred foot game, and is more than willing to launch his body in the direction of the opposition with almost reckless abandon for his own health.
And please, save the injury concerns. Ryan Callahan's cut from a different cloth. That's his game, and he's not going to change it. New York gave him the "C" for that exact reason.
At some point in his career, Ryan Callahan looked himself in the mirror and asked what he would have to do to become an elite National Hockey League player. He doesn't have the frame of an Evgeni Malkin. He doesn't have the all-world scoring ability of an Ilya Kovalchuk. He doesn't have the unrivaled playmaking ability of Sidney Crosby.
So, how does he make up for it? Bust it harder than every single player on every single shift. Last night, he out-skated all of his teammates and every Ottawa Senators player. Rinse, wash, repeat.
5.) The roller coaster ride of Nick Foligno took a thousand-foot drop after Brad Richards' goal to give the New York Rangers a 4-0 lead last night. Talk about Vlade Divac levels of softness here. In the playoffs, you simply have to be stronger on the puck. Foligno was beaten like a cheap rug in his own corner, coughed up the biscuit in a prime scoring area, and led to an eventual goal.
Again, the theme: New York taking advantage of every opportunity.
6.) Last but certainly not least, I want to talk about the abomination of a broadcast by CBC on Thursday night, headed by the likes of Bob Cole - play-by-play man - and Garry Galley - color commentator.
Look - Bob Cole is a legend in the hockey world. A transcendent talent. A generational voice. There's no questioning the guy's resume, and CBC's Hockey Night in Canada won't be the same when he's not mic checkin' the classic Toronto and Montreal rivalry.
With that said, I'm beyond mystified as to how CBC's green-lighted him for yet another playoff series.
Cole, just a calendar turn away from the age of eighty, was a walking, talking comedy of errors on the Thursday night broadcast. Cole was a step or two-thousand behind the play all night long, and generally seemed disinterested with calling the game accurately.
At eighty, it's hard to imagine that the guy has the same work ethic and drive that's pushed him into immeasurable success for decades. And, it shows. Cole didn't appear to know many of the Ottawa Senators skaters on the ice, constantly referring to them by a generic name, moniker, or number.
Further to this, I lost track of how many times Bob Cole confused the thirty-eight year-old Sergei Gonchar for the twenty-one year old Erik Karlsson. In all seriousness, the only thing similar between the two right now is that their numbers are close and fairly easy to confuse from distance - 65 and 55, respectively.
Still, getting the names and numbers of players right isn't an issue for many - check that, any - broadcasters in sports.
What's most irritating, though, isn't Cole's lack of awareness about a team; Ottawa or otherwise. His job as a play-by-play man is to audibly relay the on-ice events in a coherent manner. It's here that Cole has continued to push the diminishing marginal returns curve - so much so, I think it's about time that CBC considers yanking him from full-time coverage.
Cole's job isn't to delve into opinion or conjecture - that's left up to the color commentator. Play-by-play work should be an authentic relay of on-ice happenings to viewers at home. That's where it starts, that's where it ends.
If I'm questioning if Bob Cole is even watching the same game as the rest of us, there's reason for flags and smoke. Last night, the train came off of the tracks after Brandon Prust's one-on-one rush - defended quite clearly by Chris Phillips - turned into a breakaway by Bob Cole's own verbiage.
It only went downhill from there.
Right now, the maudlin relationship between CBC fans and consumers and Bob Cole is waning. At some point in time, sentimental value and the infinite respect for the game's greatest voice will continue to push towards negative return value.
My guess - and really, this is about as accurate as a guess can be - is that CBC is keeping Cole in his role as the #2 man - squarely behind Jim Hughson - because of his iconic stature. The respect level for his career accomplishments is off the charts, as it should be.
Still, it shouldn't stop CBC from at least considering a business decision, nor should it act as a shield for Bob Cole to avoid any kind of criticism thrown in his direction. I don't think anyone on this planet is above appraisal and judgment - Bob Cole included.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of others who think otherwise. That's their opinion, and naturally, I respect it. For example, consider Paul Hendrick of Maple Leafs TV, who decided to fire off some shots in my direction after I expressed displeasure with Bob Cole and CBC's work.
You've gotta love the classy parting shot about taxes. Listen - if I can dish it out, I better damn well be able to take it. Twenty-three years young, all age jabs are welcome - and expected.
Back to the point: My guess is that Hendrick has a dog in this fight, having built a relationship with Cole over the years. Any kind of legitimate debate, then, would almost positively turn into a dick-measuring contest, and I truly don't have interest in trying to breakdown one's partisan beliefs.
What's worth noting, though, is how easily offended Paul Hendrick - and others - were with an anti-Bob Cole take. And yet, it's not all that surprising. There's so much emotional attachment to a guy who has ran the sport for years, it's almost as if any criticism - no matter how accurate - is going to be railroaded for a lifetime.
If there's anyone I feel bad for, it's Garry Galley, who spent half of his time that should've been spent on color analysis trying to thwart full-blown broadcast derail.
Galley, though, didn't do much to endear himself to an Ottawa Senators fan base that he's distanced himself with for years now with CBC. Galley's quite critical of players at times, and with the relationship between Galley and Otawa already tense, any kind of negative commentary is going to turn into a clusterfuck.
In the interest of full disclosure, I didn't really have that much of an issue with Galley's work last night -- although Twitter was ripe with opposing sentiment. I don't love his work and generally find him as a curmudgeon of sorts looking for any reason to get negative, but the guy does a decent job of keeping an even keel on the HNIC broadcasts.
What I want from a color commentator is analysis of the game, and in that respect, Galley delivers. Do I desire his overall call? Eh. Not a fan.
Which brings me to my next point: Why wasn't the #2 team for CBC's post-season broadcast Dean Brown and Garry Galley? Or Dean Brown and X? It can't be because Dean Brown works Ottawa Senators games in the regular season, can it? After all, Jim Hughson's working the Vancouver broadcast out west for their series with Los Angeles.
It's sad that I'm spending this much time on a product like hockey broadcasting, but as a consumer of CBC's product, I speak on behalf of the vast majority who were wildly displeased with last night's work.
And if you don't believe me, look at the barrage of tweets I received earlier this morning, blaspheming the work of CBC and Bob Cole.
Ottawa Senators Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»