Though attempting to withdraw even somewhat gracefully from an internet disagreement can result in you being called Sweetcheeks, I should admit for the record

Though attempting to withdraw even somewhat gracefully from an internet disagreement can result in you being called Sweetcheeks, I should admit for the record
- AllInForFlyers

your new name is Sweetcheeks don't get upset Sweetcheeks

Technically, a defenseman has a play on EVERY puck in the zone. SO you're saying a defenseman should go after every single puck, even dump ins from the red line?
- jmatchett383

I disagree that a defenseman has a play on every puck in the zone. That's where the read comes in, does the defenseman have a play on the puck, where he can keep the puck in the zone and keep the forecheck pressure on, or does he retreat and let the center lock forward cut off the breakout. All part of playing the system.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm saying that a defenseman should go after every single puck, even dump ins from the red line. I'll remind you of an earlier post where I described the difference between the Del Zotto pinch on the Ryder goal, and the bad decision to pinch by Streit on the game winning Zubrus goal.

Totally agree, save needs to be made. What's next, unless you've played an NHL game, don't criticize an NHL player?
- MJL

no, that's not what's next.

your new name is Sweetcheeks don't get upset Sweetcheeks
- 2Real

Well, since they are firm like boulders, I'm good with it -- never get upset with the truth

oh oh..pitkenen? he didnt turn into a stud dman? I win . I win

Though attempting to withdraw even somewhat gracefully from an internet disagreement can result in you being called Sweetcheeks, I should admit for the record
- AllInForFlyers

I didn't get a sweetcheeks.

no, that's not what's next.
- hammarby31

Glad to hear it. So we understand that you don't need to have played the position to make a criticism of a player on the play then?

- 2Real

oh oh..pitkenen? he didnt turn into a stud dman? I win . I win
- jmdodgeser4

we traded up for that bum too

I didn't get a sweetcheeks.
- Jsaquella

See, your opponent just decided not to keep it classy in their Internet victory

we traded up for that bum too
- 2Real

oh Im aware

I didn't get a sweetcheeks.
- Jsaquella

would you consider what you do "graceful"?

See, your opponent just decided not to keep it classy in their Internet victory
- AllInForFlyers

I got gypped.

would you consider what you do "graceful"?
- BulliesPhan87

I am the least graceful person on the planet.

I got gypped.
- Jsaquella

Hurtful, isn't it? I would give you one, but it just isn't the same if it isn't said in "I won the Internet" tone

I am the least graceful person on the planet.
- Jsaquella

truth

truth
- ob18

seconded

Hurtful, isn't it? I would give you one, but it just isn't the same if it isn't said in "I won the Internet" tone
- AllInForFlyers

Nah, I'm fine with it. I really don't need closure. I'd be happy if that was my last interaction with said person.

Nah, I'm fine with it. I really don't need closure. I'd be happy if that was my last interaction with said person.
- Jsaquella

I'm no expert on it, that's for damn sure -- I'm better than I was, but sometimes I find myself in rabbit holes, frantically seeking escape

Yes I did... I said "My issue last night was partially the D, primarily the forwards and Mason playing like junk. "

You can't be serious with the the stuff about how hard it is to play a position.

I don't think any of us are on this site because we aren't hockey fans or familiar with how to play any of the positions in that game. If you ask Mason 100 times if he should make a save in a 4-4 game on a wrist shot from the middle of a the circle at an angle with no screen which beats him short side I am willing to bet you he would answer 100% of the time that he should have made that save.

Their isn't a goalie anywhere that wouldn't say "I should have made that save" as a matter of fact regardless of if he is the starter, backup or plays in an over 30 mens league. http://video.nhl.com/vide...?hlg=20142015,2,6&lang=en

Yes , to this point Couturier is a really good young defensive forward, I don't disagree.
- opeth_pa

yes, i am serious. and just because you're a hockey fan and familiar with the game doesn't mean you truly understand and know everything about it. it's not an automatic stop no matter what you may think. if zubrus goes bar down over the blocker there and scores is it still an automatic, routine shot that should be saved? is it just because it's short side? is it because it was low?

any goalie worth his salt is going to say he should have made the save, pretty much no matter the scenario, because it's how we're wired and is the very object of the position. if you asked mason if he should have made the save, of course he's going to say yes. what you're leaving out is the potential cross-ice play for the back door goal. he has to play the shooter, and still anticipate having to fire over to try to make the save if zubrus passes it. he didn't. he fired a quick bullet in a very tough spot and just got beat. it happens. could he have stopped it? of course. it wasn't unstoppable. it's still not an atrocious goal and the reason for them losing the game.

if zubrus scores that same exact goal with no cross ice play to make, then i would say it's one mason should have had, despite it still being a quick shot shot in a difficult spot.

to be clear, i'm not being a mason apologist, nor is my position on this play union-based. if i thought it was a bad goal, i would certainly say so, and say why. i was very critical of some goals mason gave up during the pre-season, and i will continue to be critical during the rest of the way.

yes, i am serious. and just because you're a hockey fan and familiar with the game doesn't mean you truly understand and know everything about it. it's not an automatic stop no matter what you may think. if zubrus goes bar down over the blocker there and scores is it still an automatic, routine shot that should be saved? is it just because it's short side? is it because it was low?

any goalie worth his salt is going to say he should have made the save, pretty much no matter the scenario, because it's how we're wired and is the very object of the position. if you asked mason if he should have made the save, of course he's going to say yes. what you're leaving out is the potential cross-ice play for the back door goal. he has to play the shooter, and still anticipate having to fire over to try to make the save if zubrus passes it. he didn't. he fired a quick bullet in a very tough spot and just got beat. it happens. could he have stopped it? of course. it wasn't unstoppable. it's still not an atrocious goal and the reason for them losing the game.

if zubrus scores that same exact goal with no cross ice play to make, then i would say it's one mason should have had, despite it still being a quick shot shot in a difficult spot.

to be clear, i'm not being a mason apologist, nor is my position on this play union-based. if i thought it was a bad goal, i would certainly say so, and say why. i was very critical of some goals mason gave up during the pre-season, and i will continue to be critical during the rest of the way.
- hammarby31

You're just a Mason apologi -- wait, what?

yes, i am serious. and just because you're a hockey fan and familiar with the game doesn't mean you truly understand and know everything about it. it's not an automatic stop no matter what you may think. if zubrus goes bar down over the blocker there and scores is it still an automatic, routine shot that should be saved? is it just because it's short side? is it because it was low?

any goalie worth his salt is going to say he should have made the save, pretty much no matter the scenario, because it's how we're wired and is the very object of the position. if you asked mason if he should have made the save, of course he's going to say yes. what you're leaving out is the potential cross-ice play for the back door goal. he has to play the shooter, and still anticipate having to fire over to try to make the save if zubrus passes it. he didn't. he fired a quick bullet in a very tough spot and just got beat. it happens. could he have stopped it? of course. it wasn't unstoppable. it's still not an atrocious goal and the reason for them losing the game.

if zubrus scores that same exact goal with no cross ice play to make, then i would say it's one mason should have had, despite it still being a quick shot shot in a difficult spot.

to be clear, i'm not being a mason apologist, nor is my position on this play union-based. if i thought it was a bad goal, i would certainly say so, and say why. i was very critical of some goals mason gave up during the pre-season, and i will continue to be critical during the rest of the way.
- hammarby31

You're just a Mason apologi -- wait, what?



- AllInForFlyers

he gave a well formatted response to the mason hate

yes, i am serious. and just because you're a hockey fan and familiar with the game doesn't mean you truly understand and know everything about it. it's not an automatic stop no matter what you may think. if zubrus goes bar down over the blocker there and scores is it still an automatic, routine shot that should be saved? is it just because it's short side? is it because it was low?

any goalie worth his salt is going to say he should have made the save, pretty much no matter the scenario, because it's how we're wired and is the very object of the position. if you asked mason if he should have made the save, of course he's going to say yes. what you're leaving out is the potential cross-ice play for the back door goal. he has to play the shooter, and still anticipate having to fire over to try to make the save if zubrus passes it. he didn't. he fired a quick bullet in a very tough spot and just got beat. it happens. could he have stopped it? of course. it wasn't unstoppable. it's still not an atrocious goal and the reason for them losing the game.

if zubrus scores that same exact goal with no cross ice play to make, then i would say it's one mason should have had, despite it still being a quick shot shot in a difficult spot.

to be clear, i'm not being a mason apologist, nor is my position on this play union-based. if i thought it was a bad goal, i would certainly say so, and say why. i was very critical of some goals mason gave up during the pre-season, and i will continue to be critical during the rest of the way.
- hammarby31

I don't think it's an automatic save, but it's one he should make, and he should've made. I don't think you have to be a goalie to know all of the variables involved there. It's a pretty basic play. And even a casual fan can see those variables. It's not a clear cut 2 on 1. Voracek is in good position on the back check. There still is potential for a pass, but Mason should trust his defense on that play, and concentrate on the shooter.
I agree that a Goalie is going to say that he needs to make that save. But in this case, it's not just talk. It's a save he has to make. And it's not really a difficult one either. And yes, sometimes goalies do get beat on make-able saves. Part of the game. But the best goalies make that save in that situation.