That's a terrible argument...saying that ROR is the best at faceoffs so we don't even bother to put out a centerman that might have a higher chance?
Yea well, I guess we should not have even taken the draw, sat everyone on the bench at let them play it out 3-0 cause ROR was gonna win it at we had no chance on the play eh?

The coach's job to put the best players, the freshest players that gives us the best chance. Brouwer was NOT IT. Yes even if we won the draw, who knows, they may have gotten it back and scored, but you still have to give your team the best shot at it and having the 3 tired players on the ice and one of the worst faceoff % wingers take a crucial PK draw was ludicrous

as much as I've accepted Brouwer in the role he plays (and he's been playing some good hockey lately), this was a coaching misstep, if you think Gully made the right call, then I really question your hockey IQ
- cpltanto

Haha maybe read what I write before you go off yammering...

You idiots keep going off about Gully and his player selection for OT, but half the team that played like $HIT for the WHOLE GAME get a free pass??? hahaha.

Haha maybe read what I write before you go off yammering...

You idiots keep going off about Gully and his player selection for OT, but half the team that played like $HIT for the WHOLE GAME get a free pass??? hahaha.
- The-O-G

Obviously I agree that it's not just on those 3 players
I mean this game should have been a clear win in regulation if they played the way they can. Nonetheless, the issue being questioned is Gully's OT decision

You said "Fresh guys would not have prevented what happened when that goal was scored. You can female dog about the faceoff thing, it's a valid argument, but ROR is the best faceoff guy in the NHL, you're probably losing that one regardless. "

I'm disagreeing with the fact that fresh guys or a better faceoff centerman COULD have (not guaranteed) prevented what happened and in fact likely WOULD have a different outcome. It's also not valid to say you're probably gonna lose the faceoff anyway, so we might as well not try because our best faceoff man vs our worst faceoff man would lead to the same outcome....the fact is, the 50% faceoffman still has a higher chance of winning that draw than the 35% faceoff winger, or at least not letting it be won so cleanly regardless if ROR is 60% at draws

Obviously I agree that it's not just on those 3 players
I mean this game should have been a clear win in regulation if they played the way they can. Nonetheless, the issue being questioned is Gully's OT decision

You said "Fresh guys would not have prevented what happened when that goal was scored. You can female dog about the faceoff thing, it's a valid argument, but ROR is the best faceoff guy in the NHL, you're probably losing that one regardless. "

I'm disagreeing with the fact that fresh guys or a better faceoff centerman COULD have (not guaranteed) prevented what happened and in fact likely WOULD have a different outcome. It's also not valid to say you're probably gonna lose the faceoff anyway, so we might as well not try because our best faceoff man vs our worst faceoff man would lead to the same outcome....the fact is, the 50% faceoffman still has a higher chance of winning that draw than the 35% faceoff winger, or at least not letting it be won so cleanly regardless if ROR is 60% at draws
- cpltanto

Putting your three best penalty killers on the ice in OT is not poor coaching. It's not The coach's fault that Backlund took a bad penalty and was unavailable. They had done a good job killing the penalty up to that point and saying they were tired is silly considering how the penalty kill went and the breaks they had.