Does Marner get Boo’d?

[thusk]

Turnover is on Marner, he should have released behind the net so the D could exit. In the corner he draws a few TB players, so there's time and space there.

Instead he turns it over in the neutral zone forcing the D to reset gap with an oncoming attack. He blows coverage on the boards then creating an odd man situation low.

Others could have helped but there's a few critical mistakes he makes in the sequence

Hockey is a game of mistake... thing doesn't always goes like you anticipate.. But whatever what happened, no body can argue than it was a 3v3 and the dump doesn't put his team in trouble at any time. I bettet want to see player dump the puck than trying a high danger play, missed it and gave up a breakaway or whatever.

And send it behind the net doesn't come without any risk , if d dont anticipate it, possible than its tampa who be 1st on puck or if you do it a little too far its tampa player coming the bench who get it... At least when you dump it, its a safe play who giving a chance to everyone to reset.

 

[rumman]

True, but I specified "stars"

stars are available every year, perhaps getting two or four lesser stars would equate to a better overall team than losing one or two star that can't perform in the playoffs..........

 

[Gallagbi]

Hockey is a game of mistake... thing doesn't always goes like you anticipate.. But whatever what happened, no body can argue than it was a 3v3 and the dump doesn't put his team in trouble at any time. I bettet want to see player dump the puck than trying a high danger play, missed it and gave up a breakaway or whatever.

And send it behind the net doesn't come without any risk , if d dont anticipate it, possible than its tampa who be 1st on puck or if you do it a little too far its tampa player coming the bench who get it... At least when you dump it, its a safe play who giving a chance to everyone to reset.

Behind the net is the least risky play because it's the safest area. The flip has more risk. Him blowing coverage on the 3on3 creates the odd man opening for the 3on2 low.

It's a game of mistakes this one cost us

 

[Gary Nylund]

True, but I specified "stars"

More stars doesn't always mean better team, I think all Leaf fans know this by now.

 

[DarkKnight]

news flash, UFA's are available every year...........

And you always have to grossly over pay.

 

[thusk]

Behind the net is the least risky play because it's the safest area. The flip has more risk. Him blowing coverage on the 3on3 creates the odd man opening for the 3on2 low.

It's a game of mistakes this one cost us

- The fact Holl doesn't react pretty well
- Marner missed his play on coverage
- Bunting took a shift off

You just add exemple Bunting just working, tampa never got anyone alone ib front of the net

If Holl doesn't look lost and doesn't overplay it in the corner for no reason, his goal never happen

If Marner doesn't missed his coverage this goal doesn't happen

If campbell just control a pretty basic rebound who had no reason at all to go in, thus goal doesn't happen...

This goal was a comedy of mistake by everyone

 

[rumman]

And you always have to grossly over pay.

In Toronto of course, but it’s isn’t necessarily the case, besides the players hypothetically being replaced are already grossly overpaid so what’s the dif?

Tre didn’t sign some UFA’s this summer because as much as he wanted them they weren’t worth the ask in his opinion, this is a good sign, let the other tesms make those mistakes……..

 

[Antropovsky]

You continue to prove that you're not actually listening to any response. You only seem interested in tag spamming me to repeat your already disproven takes and get what I said wrong. It seems as if you're so used to posting misleading stills, that you don't realize that the puck isn't actually stationary. You keep acting like Matthews and the puck are getting further apart, but that is not true. The puck is still moving forwards Matthews, and will get to him first without the fall. You keep acting like the Tampa player is skating towards where the puck is in the still, and is going to intercept it there, but his initial trajectory is back towards the Tampa end, and he doesn't get to the puck until it's behind the center line, and behind where Matthews initially falls (as even seen in your image). Without the fall, there is no intercept.

View attachment 907448

It was a simple clear to neutral ice, towards a player going up ice. It happens dozens of times a game, and wouldn't have been notable without the fall. Hockey players are able to understand trajectory, and he doesn't need to be superhuman to estimate where it will drop. Basic humans have these wonderful things called necks and brains. Players do not skate up ice without any awareness of what is happening behind them. In the end, his miscalculation doesn't really matter anyway, because Matthews is still in position to get the puck, and without the fall, they likely get a decent offensive chance from the play.

All it takes to see your bias is to look at your last few posts. You describe a simple ECHL level boards-and-out dump as a "challenging, skilled play" just because Marner didnt do it. Meanwhile, you claim Matthews should’ve received a pass while traveling 20 miles per hour, with the puck 8 feet behind him. He would’ve needed to flip 180 degrees at full speed, reach for the puck, fight off an opponent moving forward and perpendicular to the play, and then flip 180 degrees again wuth the puck lol.

Show me the highlight reels where players are expected to pull off that kind of move to "receive a puck." As far as I know, offense is supposed to move forward, with the puck in front of the player not in reverse, trying to grab it from behind..

 

[Gallagbi]

- The fact Holl doesn't react pretty well
- Marner missed his play on coverage
- Bunting took a shift off

You just add exemple Bunting just working, tampa never got anyone alone ib front of the net

If Holl doesn't look lost and doesn't overplay it in the corner for no reason, his goal never happen

If Marner doesn't missed his coverage this goal doesn't happen

If campbell just control a pretty basic rebound who had no reason at all to go in, thus goal doesn't happen...

This goal was a comedy of mistake by everyone

Holl's adapting to Marners missed assignment. He really doesn't do anything wrong. He needs Marner to backfill after being beat wide, but doesn't get the help. The primary breakdown is in two places, both Marner. The turnover and being beat wide. You could argue the lack of support at the net front, which is also on Marner.

It would be great if Matthews covered the poor dump to disrupt, or if Bunting is back quicker, but really it's an opportunity that shouldn't have happened. And both openings come from Marner misplays.

I want the save from Campbell but it doesn't excuse any of those easy fixes by Marner.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You describe a simple ECHL level boards-and-out dump as a "challenging, skilled play" just because Marner didnt do it.

Actually, what I said is that "The puck is right up against the boards, and Marner doesn't have much time, making a "boards and out" play (which requires an angle) difficult". A play like that isn't inherently challenging. The situation just made it a less viable option. Even when it is viable, it's not always best. Same thing holds true no matter who it is.

Meanwhile, you claim Matthews should’ve received a pass while traveling 20 miles per hour, with the puck 8 feet behind him. He would’ve needed to flip 180 degrees at full speed, reach for the puck, fight off an opponent moving forward and perpendicular to the play, and then flip 180 degrees again wuth the puck lol.

Actually, all Matthews had to do was pick up the puck coming right towards him, and not fall down. Not that hard.

 

[Gary Nylund]

And you always have to grossly over pay.

Not always.

 

[Antropovsky]

Actually, what I said is that "The puck is right up against the boards, and Marner doesn't have much time, making a "boards and out" play (which requires an angle) difficult". A play like that isn't inherently challenging. The situation just made it a less viable option. Even when it is viable, it's not always best. Same thing holds true no matter who it is.

Actually, all Matthews had to do was pick up the puck coming right towards him, and not fall down. Not that hard.

Do you normally see players do a 180 at full speed,"receive a puck", fight off a oncoming checker while in reverse, do another 180 and continue with said puck? Do you have a few highlights you can show of this seemingly simple "all he had to do" play? Lol

Got to love also how you said Matthews "overskates" the puck.. the puck was behind him the entire time and from the time it left Marners stick to it hittinf the tampa forwards stick was 2 seconds. Wow... NHL players at full speed sure can make real quick reads and adjustments!!! But apparently...according to @Dekes For Days a simple clear using the boards under pressure is beyond them.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Do you normally see players do a 180 at full speed,"receive a puck", fight off a oncoming checker while in reverse, do another 180 and continue with said puck? Do you have a few highlights you can show of this seemingly simple "all he had to do" play? Lol Got to love also how you said Matthews "overskates" the puck.. the puck was behind him the entire time and from the time it left Marners stick to it hittinf the tampa forwards stick was 2 seconds. Wow... NHL players at full speed sure can make real quick reads and adjustments!!! But apparently...according to @Dekes For Days a simple clear using the boards under pressure is beyond them.

You're still having trouble getting things right. Matthews overskated the area where the puck was going to drop, not the puck itself, though even that wasn't that consequential because Matthews was still in position to receive the puck first. I never said that "a simple clear using the boards under pressure is beyond them". I said that it's not the correct play in every single situation. With the puck buried up on the boards, it adds extra motions and increased risk to an off-the-board clear.

With limited time, and no reason not to advance it up ice towards a pretty open Matthews, it's unnecessary. If they took extra time to put it off the boards, and either the closing Tampa player disrupted the play or Bunting was the one that fell instead, the same thing happens and you're here blaming Marner for not just going to an open Matthews. We do in fact regularly see players receive pucks in all sorts of ways as they advance up ice, without falling down, though this one wasn't even particularly difficult. Sometimes players catch a rut. It sucks that it happened when it did and what it led to, but it's time to move on.

 

[Racer88]

More stars doesn't always mean better team, I think all Leaf fans know this by now.

We are living proof of that

 

[thusk]

Do you normally see players do a 180 at full speed,"receive a puck", fight off a oncoming checker while in reverse, do another 180 and continue with said puck? Do you have a few highlights you can show of this seemingly simple "all he had to do" play? Lol

Got to love also how you said Matthews "overskates" the puck.. the puck was behind him the entire time and from the time it left Marners stick to it hittinf the tampa forwards stick was 2 seconds. Wow... NHL players at full speed sure can make real quick reads and adjustments!!! But apparently...according to @Dekes For Days a simple clear using the boards under pressure is beyond them.

clear around the board when you dont have any option would not change anything. Too far its an icing, not enough far its a turnover with even less tile to regroup, too high is a risk of delay of game penalty.

I just dont understand ll the buzz on a basic play happening all the time. On pressure if you dont have any option, you dump it. Its a basic hockey play and 5he play who had the less impact on that goal.