But you are taking that risk when you leave your net. As you said, puck bounces are unpredictable. So you are gambling on that as well. At that situation, in the final minute of the game, you need to trust your teammates more than ever. You need to trust yourself that you can make the saves necessary if the puck doesn't leave the zone.
- Streit2ThePoint

Except it's not a gamble. That's a play that 99 out of 100 times, the puck ends up on his stick where it should and gets flipped off the glass. It's a play that's done 2 or 3 times a game by every goalie in the league. That's a 1 in 100 bounce at best for it to flip over his stick. If we're now defining anything that could even happen on a fluke bounce as a gamble, then every single play ever is a gamble because something (frank)ed up COULD happen even if it's a 100 to 1 odds or a million to 1 odds. It COULD happen so it's now a gamble.

if you give maf enough time, he'll always find a way to (frank) things up
- Flyfreaky

Not true, if you watch the following MAF makes the safe play and steers the puck to the open corner for his Dman to retrieve - which sets up a beautiful rush and a gold for Canada. At least that's the way I remember it.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...ure=player_detailpage#t=8

So 40-ish shots against and 12 for after the 11 minute mark of the 1st period is defending? On what planet is that even marginally defined as "defending"? Because that's called playing the prevent defense in football. And we all know how well that works. It's not defending.
- ScienceJesus

You just answered your own question.

yeh. as a goalie myself I have to wonder what I would have done given the way the D had played. If he gets to that puck and gets it out...game over.
- Eklund

But he didn't. And they lost.

LOL we said the same thing about Lalime until there was burning effigies on people's front lawns. Then they figured ahhhh, maybe we should get this guy out of town.

Come on people, let's be realistic here. None of this would've happened if Pittsburgh had Wayne Simmonds instead of Crosby.
- Sandus

If both teams get there heads out of there backsides maybe we will find out in the next round.

Except it's not a gamble. That's a play that 99 out of 100 times, the puck ends up on his stick where it should and gets flipped off the glass. It's a play that's done 2 or 3 times a game by every goalie in the league. That's a 1 in 100 bounce at best for it to flip over his stick. If we're now defining anything that could even happen on a fluke bounce as a gamble, then every single play ever is a gamble because something (frank)ed up COULD happen even if it's a 100 to 1 odds or a million to 1 odds. It COULD happen so it's now a gamble.
- ScienceJesus

I have watched MAF play the puck behind the net many times...for him...IT'S A GAMBLE...pure and simple.

Sounds like a goalie defending a goalie to me.

Not his fault?

He never should have tried to play that puck with Columbus pushing as hard as they were. Even if he didn't get it, he'd be scrambling to get back in the net because his teammates had Blue Jackets right on top of them. So he shouldn't have played it. Sure, it was a crummy bounce, but one that shouldn't have affected the outcome of the game.

And that wrist shot from Foligno? Sorry, his fault. NHL goalies need to make that save in overtime, especially in a playoff game. Game 20 of the regular season, regulation goal, sure. Everyone makes mistakes. But NHL goalies need to make THAT save in those circumstances 100% of the time.

All that said, I hate the Penguins and I hope they lose the next two.

You just answered your own question.
- icedog97

If you consider a prevent-style defense as actually "defending", then we're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. It's the antithesis of defending. It's hanging on for dear life.

Not true, if you watch the following MAF makes the safe play and steers the puck to the open corner for his Dman to retrieve - which sets up a beautiful rush and a gold for Canada. At least that's the way I remember it.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...ure=player_detailpage#t=8
- KarlKarlsson

I don't recognize him without his penguin garb

Ek, you should have made this a poll

Now you're just wrong. First, they were essentially on a penalty kill. 6 skaters to 5. And 2nd, that's in EVERY goaltender's playbook. You have space to clear the puck out of the zone before the forechecker can get there, you do it 100 out of 100 times. He did. That the puck bounced over his stick was entirely unforeseen by absolutely anybody. 99 out of 100 times, that puck hits his stick off the boards like usual, he flips it off the glass and it gets, at minimum, to the high point or more likely out of the net. That's a play that a goalie makes twice a game and it's the right play every single time.
- ScienceJesus

haha you got me...clearly i didnt mean they were on a powerplay...i meant defending a power play...sorry...

as for the play...its not made with less than a minute to go with 11 guys on the ice. what are the chances that the 1 time out of 100 it bounces over the stick in game 3 of the playoffs in the final minute TO marc andre fluery...come on. its a bad play.

If you consider a prevent-style defense as actually "defending", then we're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. It's the antithesis of defending. It's hanging on for dear life.
- ScienceJesus

Well...it's certainly not called offensive hockey...except that it's potentially offensive to watch.

You cited the shot totals...the difference between them...then essentially went on to explain why...because we played the prevent defense.

Unless you think you play defense by playing offense...which is what Bylsma and other coaches try to attain...then what they did was exactly that...defended their lead...or tried to.

Along the way too, they were shorthanded a good bit...not sure how many of those shots were power play shots on goal...but figure it's a decent number since they had 6 of them.

It's not his defenders fault the tying and game winning goals were scored.

Stay in net...be the goalie. End of story

Well...it's certainly not called offensive hockey...except that it's potentially offensive to watch.

You cited the shot totals...the difference between them...then essentially went on to explain why...because we played the prevent defense.

Unless you think you play defense by playing offense...which is what Bylsma and other coaches try to attain...then what they did was exactly that...defended their lead...or tried to.

Along the way too, they were shorthanded a good bit...not sure how many of those shots were power play shots on goal...but figure it's a decent number since they had 6 of them.

It's not his defenders fault the tying and game winning goals were scored.

Stay in net...be the goalie. End of story
- icedog97

Defense prevents shots and scoring opportunities. Either through offense, puck possession, tight checking, shot blocking, breaking up passes or blocking lanes. None of which were accomplished. 45 shots against is not prevention. It's holding on for dear life. By definition, that's not defense. It's wishing & hoping.

blog should be entitled "not ONLY his fault".

sorry EK, but when you let in an atrocious goal with less than a minute in regulation, and then a weak ass, floating, unscreened, wrister from the blueline in OT.............you gotta take the, justifiable, blame that is coming your way.

if fleury had never done this before, MAYBE you give him a pass. but this has become almost routine for him in the playoffs.

yes, the rest of the team also deserves lots of blame...but fleury poop the bed when it mattered most.

haha you got me...clearly i didnt mean they were on a powerplay...i meant defending a power play...sorry...

as for the play...its not made with less than a minute to go with 11 guys on the ice. what are the chances that the 1 time out of 100 it bounces over the stick in game 3 of the playoffs in the final minute TO marc andre fluery...come on. its a bad play.
- LetsGoIsles

So bad luck or just expecting an unlucky bounce is justification for not making a routine play? Because it is a VERY routine play. But alright, I mean... I guess so. But overcautious never won anyone anything.

Kids in Pittsburgh Will One Day Tell Their Kids They Were There....

So bad luck or just expecting an unlucky bounce is justification for not making a routine play? Alright, I mean... I guess so. But overcautious never won anyone anything.
- ScienceJesus

It may be a routine play but not with less than a minute when your team is up 1 goal and the other team has 1 extra attacker.

It may be a routine play but not with less than a minute when your team is up 1 goal and the other team has 1 extra attacker.
- Streit2ThePoint

It's actually a very routine play in that situation. I've seen it made against the Pens when they were trying to tie a game up on more occasions that I can count. Maybe made with a tiny bit more urgency and attention to detail (ie. not looking up ice for where you want to throw the puck before actually having it on your stick), but extremely regularly.

We will gladly take MAF in Calgary, play a little defense in front of the guy and he might be pretty good.

We will gladly take MAF in Calgary, play a little defense in front of the guy and he might be pretty good.
- cmpdave

I understand that everyone wants to rip the Pens.

Maybe someone on here ought to give the CBJ credit for taking it to the Pens after going down 3-0 early in the first period and working their way back into the game. It seems to me most all of you think this series was a slam dunk for Pittsburgh from the moment the pairings were announced, and you are wrong.

The Blue Jackets have played their style of game in the series and used their talent to the best of their ability. Pittsburgh hasn't, and that is 100% on the Pens' players. MAF kept them in the game last night, and Johansen's hustle to even get to the puck after MAF missed it is the reason why the game got tied up. Two teams are involved in this series, not just one who controls everything including whether the sun rises in the east or the west every morning, at least in the opinion of some of you here.

Go CBJ!

yes, but because of the way it ended Fleury is being scapegoated. Sid needs to step up and take this off of MAF
- Eklund

2 Soft goals in the playoff game, with the history of soft goals for
the last 3 years for a "contender" is not exactly scapegoating,
but rather stating the facts that MAF is a choker.
You don't get a nick name of Flower for no reason.

I understand that everyone wants to rip the Pens.

Maybe someone on here ought to give the CBJ credit for taking it to the Pens after going down 3-0 early in the first period and working their way back into the game. It seems to me most all of you think this series was a slam dunk for Pittsburgh from the moment the pairings were announced, and you are wrong.

The Blue Jackets have played their style of game in the series and used their talent to the best of their ability. Pittsburgh hasn't, and that is 100% on the Pens' players. MAF kept them in the game last night, and Johansen's hustle to even get to the puck after MAF missed it is the reason why the game got tied up. Two teams are involved in this series, not just one who controls everything including whether the sun rises in the east or the west every morning, at least in the opinion of some of you here.

Go CBJ!
- jkumpire

Why do I have the feeling you jinxed it

That goal CANNOT go in... period. Go JACKETS!!