GDT: Game 2: Sharks vs. Ducks 7:00pm NBCSSharks

[TheBeard]

I assume he’s playing in the WJC?

 

[coooldude]

I know you do but you're not presenting any sort of plausible alternative explanations for this play. You're just disagreeing for the sake of it. I never said I was factually correct. Don't start playing the martyr because of a disagreement. What Smith did was far from out of the norm for defensive play in that situation and you just disagree with that for some reason. I don't think playing the trailer in that spot is at all Smith's play or the correct play. You've yet to give a compelling reason why it would be.

Dude, every single one of my posts has said the same thing that gives a compelling alternative to your interpretation.
- 3 on 3
- 2 defensemen back
- 2 forwards and a trailer with speed
- one defenseman (Thrun) is giving too much gap to the forward with the puck but at least the guy is in front of him
- second forward is in center ice, coming to support, and Smith is on him and Benning is shadowing him
- trailer coming to middle ice with speed
- center should see a typical 3v3 rush that should be slowing down since defensemen have both advanced F's in front of them; main responsibility is to pick up trailer, aka basic counting, and only IF there is backchecking support, C should support puck and go for turnover
- alternately, Benning should see Smith on second forward and look for the trailer, but then Smith needs to stick with his man
- Benning reads board zone entry and sticks with second forward; he could have read to leave the man and keep middle ice, but he probably didn't want to give a board chip and easy zone entry to his man
- Smith overcommits - his read is that he has back checking support and the trailer isn't a threat, so he goes for the turnover
- Benning fails to see this and back off to cover the crashing trailer, instead pivots to boards to stick with his man to prevent the free zone entry - now three players are sucked to the puck
- trailer has free middle ice and a good pass gets him the puck
- Zetterlund, who was the F1 on the forecheck, is now two steps behind so he's getting flack. F1 is apparently supposed to also be covering the third man on a 3v3 zone entry now???
- Benning makes a desperation dive that fails
- no save from goalie

Alternative universes where the goal is not scored:
1. Kostin isn't caught in no-man's- land as F2 on the breakout. Should have been higher, or harder to the puck, not in the middle
2. Thrun gaps up the winger in the NZ or at the DZ blue line
3. Smith doesn't cross the ice, even leaving his ostensible "man" who Benning is double covering, if we assume the system is to man up, to go for the turnover
4. Benning reads Smith's over commit (or let's even call it "decision") and sees the trailer and doesn't turn to the boards with F2 but instead preps for an in-zone odd man rush, zoning up in middle ice and giving his man the cut to the boards for a free-ish zone entry
- F1 Zetterlund magically skates 175 feet incredibly fast to pick up the trailer that Smith abandoned and Benning ignored
- great save by goalie

Smith failed to read the threat coming behind him from the third man, Benning made the last bad read, great pass, good finish, only goal of the game. I really can't understand how your POV sees that Smith's read was absolutely, positively correct. it's not 100% on him at all but his mistake was a key contributor - the second to last mistake. I would not want you coaching my beer league team let alone professional hockey if that's what you continue to believe with absolutely NO ROOM for discussion.

Regardless of this one play, what actually matters is that Smith needs to work on his strength with the puck and quickness in movement and reads off the puck. Where he has looked good is in transition and on the forecheck, so he should build on that as well. He could have had an assist or two and even had a few pouncey chances at his first goal. It'll probably come soon, but last night he looked overmatched and because of that, the line was ineffective.

I continue to believe we should keep him at 2C and give him a chance to keep learning. He also probably needs 1-3 more years of strength and conditioning. It's not time to panic or send him down.

 

[Star Platinum]

Dude, every single one of my posts has said the same thing that gives a compelling alternative to your interpretation.
- 3 on 3
- 2 defensemen back
- 2 forwards and a trailer with speed
- one defenseman (Thrun) is giving too much gap to the forward with the puck but at least the guy is in front of him
- second forward is in center ice, coming to support, and Smith is on him and Benning is shadowing him
- trailer coming to middle ice with speed
- center should see a typical 3v3 rush that should be slowing down since defensemen have both advanced F's in front of them; main responsibility is to pick up trailer, aka basic counting, and only IF there is backchecking support, C should support puck and go for turnover
- alternately, Benning should see Smith on second forward and look for the trailer, but then Smith needs to stick with his man
- Benning reads board zone entry and sticks with second forward; he could have read to leave the man and keep middle ice, but he probably didn't want to give a board chip and easy zone entry to his man
- Smith overcommits - his read is that he has back checking support and the trailer isn't a threat, so he goes for the turnover
- Benning fails to see this and back off to cover the crashing trailer, instead pivots to boards to stick with his man to prevent the free zone entry - now three players are sucked to the puck
- trailer has free middle ice and a good pass gets him the puck
- Zetterlund, who was the F1 on the forecheck, is now two steps behind so he's getting flack. F1 is apparently supposed to also be covering the third man on a 3v3 zone entry now???
- Benning makes a desperation dive that fails
- no save from goalie

Alternative universes where the goal is not scored:
1. Kostin isn't caught in no-man's- land as F2 on the breakout. Should have been higher, or harder to the puck, not in the middle
2. Thrun gaps up the winger in the NZ or at the DZ blue line
3. Smith doesn't cross the ice, even leaving his ostensible "man" who Benning is double covering, if we assume the system is to man up, to go for the turnover
4. Benning reads Smith's over commit (or let's even call it "decision") and sees the trailer and doesn't turn to the boards with F2 but instead preps for an in-zone odd man rush, zoning up in middle ice and giving his man the cut to the boards for a free-ish zone entry
- F1 Zetterlund magically skates 175 feet incredibly fast to pick up the trailer that Smith abandoned and Benning ignored
- great save by goalie

Smith failed to read the threat coming behind him from the third man, Benning made the last bad read, great pass, good finish, only goal of the game. I really can't understand how your POV sees that Smith's read was absolutely, positively correct. it's not 100% on him at all but his mistake was a key contributor - the second to last mistake. I would not want you coaching my beer league team let alone professional hockey if that's what you continue to believe with absolutely NO ROOM for discussion.

Regardless of this one play, what actually matters is that Smith needs to work on his strength with the puck and quickness in movement and reads off the puck. Where he has looked good is in transition and on the forecheck, so he should build on that as well. He could have had an assist or two and even had a few pouncey chances at his first goal. It'll probably come soon, but last night he looked overmatched and because of that, the line was ineffective.

I continue to believe we should keep him at 2C and give him a chance to keep learning. He also probably needs 1-3 more years of strength and conditioning. It's not time to panic or send him down.

I just wanted to compliment you on how well you let him have the last word.

On a more serious note though, since I never played the sport, I enjoyed reading your breakdown.

 

[coooldude]

I just wanted to compliment you on how well you let him have the last word.

On a more serious note though, since I never played the sport, I enjoyed reading your breakdown.

I can't help myself, these boards are a hell of a drug

 

[gaucholoco3]

Dude, every single one of my posts has said the same thing that gives a compelling alternative to your interpretation.
- 3 on 3
- 2 defensemen back
- 2 forwards and a trailer with speed
- one defenseman (Thrun) is giving too much gap to the forward with the puck but at least the guy is in front of him
- second forward is in center ice, coming to support, and Smith is on him and Benning is shadowing him
- trailer coming to middle ice with speed
- center should see a typical 3v3 rush that should be slowing down since defensemen have both advanced F's in front of them; main responsibility is to pick up trailer, aka basic counting, and only IF there is backchecking support, C should support puck and go for turnover
- alternately, Benning should see Smith on second forward and look for the trailer, but then Smith needs to stick with his man
- Benning reads board zone entry and sticks with second forward; he could have read to leave the man and keep middle ice, but he probably didn't want to give a board chip and easy zone entry to his man
- Smith overcommits - his read is that he has back checking support and the trailer isn't a threat, so he goes for the turnover
- Benning fails to see this and back off to cover the crashing trailer, instead pivots to boards to stick with his man to prevent the free zone entry - now three players are sucked to the puck
- trailer has free middle ice and a good pass gets him the puck
- Zetterlund, who was the F1 on the forecheck, is now two steps behind so he's getting flack. F1 is apparently supposed to also be covering the third man on a 3v3 zone entry now???
- Benning makes a desperation dive that fails
- no save from goalie

Alternative universes where the goal is not scored:
1. Kostin isn't caught in no-man's- land as F2 on the breakout. Should have been higher, or harder to the puck, not in the middle
2. Thrun gaps up the winger in the NZ or at the DZ blue line
3. Smith doesn't cross the ice, even leaving his ostensible "man" who Benning is double covering, if we assume the system is to man up, to go for the turnover
4. Benning reads Smith's over commit (or let's even call it "decision") and sees the trailer and doesn't turn to the boards with F2 but instead preps for an in-zone odd man rush, zoning up in middle ice and giving his man the cut to the boards for a free-ish zone entry
- F1 Zetterlund magically skates 175 feet incredibly fast to pick up the trailer that Smith abandoned and Benning ignored
- great save by goalie

Smith failed to read the threat coming behind him from the third man, Benning made the last bad read, great pass, good finish, only goal of the game. I really can't understand how your POV sees that Smith's read was absolutely, positively correct. it's not 100% on him at all but his mistake was a key contributor - the second to last mistake. I would not want you coaching my beer league team let alone professional hockey if that's what you continue to believe with absolutely NO ROOM for discussion.

Regardless of this one play, what actually matters is that Smith needs to work on his strength with the puck and quickness in movement and reads off the puck. Where he has looked good is in transition and on the forecheck, so he should build on that as well. He could have had an assist or two and even had a few pouncey chances at his first goal. It'll probably come soon, but last night he looked overmatched and because of that, the line was ineffective.

I continue to believe we should keep him at 2C and give him a chance to keep learning. He also probably needs 1-3 more years of strength and conditioning. It's not time to panic or send him down.

Not to come to the argument late but that goal is on both Thrun and Benning not Smith.

Smith is back checking and from his perspective it is a 2 on 3. He can’t see the trailer behind him. The D are facing the play and responsible for sorting out the rush. IF the D communicated to Smith take the trailer behind him that is the only way it’s his fault.

Smith is applying back pressure and Thrun should have either stood up at the blue line aggressively attaching the puck carrier in which case Smith stays with #26 allowing Benning to stay on his side. Or Thrun could recognize that Smith was providing back pressure and cede the blue line and staying with #26. Thrun got caught in no man’s land and the attacked the puck carrier after Smith committed to him. Benning also should have kept his gap and not drifted all the way to the opposite dot clearing the entire middle of the ice.

That goal is on both Thrun and Benning. The D are responsible for reading the play and sorting out the coverage. The forwards backchecking have their back to many of the opponents and can’t be expected to sort out coverage. They are tasked with providing back pressure. The D need to sort out the play and both Thrun and Benning committed to the puck carrier late when they should have read how Smith played it and reacted to him.

Smith might not be compared to Sidney Crosby like Celebrini but that doesn’t mean that he should be blamed for a goal that wasn’t his fault. Celebrini probably makes the same read but maybe has better skating and can actually stop the puck carrier instead of only applying pressure but Smith absolutely did not make an incorrect read on that play. (Unless he was told to take the trailer, which he would have reacted differently if he was)

 

[Shark Finn]

Damn I hope every time Smith is on the ice for or against a goal a similar scrutinization ensues.

 

[tiburon12]

What's gonna be cool is when Smith figures this all out and we look back on this criticisms as his learning moments.

 

[DG93]

What's gonna be cool is when Smith figures this all out and we look back on this criticisms as his learning moments.

Which is what this season (where the Sharks will finish bottom-3 regardless) is all about...development!

 

[Sharksfan83]

Smith is the most talked about prospect I’ve ever seen from a Shark. Including Macklin.

When he was drafted, people either loved or hated him. He’s been overrated, underrated, not rated. We’ve argued that he is a byproduct of college line he was on, and also that he was driving that line. Should he be sent down? Play 4th line minutes? Be our #2 Centre? Will he ever be good enough to be our Malkin?..

I have loved reading it, I hope he isn’t!

 

[mogambomoroo]

It's a development year for the Sharks and so far there has been a lot more good than bad.

Celebrini is a star, Askarov had a SO on his first AHL game like a damn boss, Dickinson had a hattrick in OHL, Cagnoni and Halttunen are playing meaningful minutes in the AHL and we have a very nice pipeline with a lot of opportunities.
Warsofsky wants to build a winning team and he has already installed a whole different look to this team.
We have cap space, we have a good GM that recognizes the problems and addresses them to the best of his abilities. We will get defence from somewhere, just watch MG cook.
Even with Celebrini injury right now, we are doing good and we have a lot to look for.

 

[Lebanezer]

I can't help myself, these boards are a hell of a drug

 

[Mattb124]

Dude, every single one of my posts has said the same thing that gives a compelling alternative to your interpretation.
- 3 on 3
- 2 defensemen back
- 2 forwards and a trailer with speed
- one defenseman (Thrun) is giving too much gap to the forward with the puck but at least the guy is in front of him
- second forward is in center ice, coming to support, and Smith is on him and Benning is shadowing him
- trailer coming to middle ice with speed
- center should see a typical 3v3 rush that should be slowing down since defensemen have both advanced F's in front of them; main responsibility is to pick up trailer, aka basic counting, and only IF there is backchecking support, C should support puck and go for turnover
- alternately, Benning should see Smith on second forward and look for the trailer, but then Smith needs to stick with his man
- Benning reads board zone entry and sticks with second forward; he could have read to leave the man and keep middle ice, but he probably didn't want to give a board chip and easy zone entry to his man
- Smith overcommits - his read is that he has back checking support and the trailer isn't a threat, so he goes for the turnover
- Benning fails to see this and back off to cover the crashing trailer, instead pivots to boards to stick with his man to prevent the free zone entry - now three players are sucked to the puck
- trailer has free middle ice and a good pass gets him the puck
- Zetterlund, who was the F1 on the forecheck, is now two steps behind so he's getting flack. F1 is apparently supposed to also be covering the third man on a 3v3 zone entry now???
- Benning makes a desperation dive that fails
- no save from goalie

Alternative universes where the goal is not scored:
1. Kostin isn't caught in no-man's- land as F2 on the breakout. Should have been higher, or harder to the puck, not in the middle
2. Thrun gaps up the winger in the NZ or at the DZ blue line
3. Smith doesn't cross the ice, even leaving his ostensible "man" who Benning is double covering, if we assume the system is to man up, to go for the turnover
4. Benning reads Smith's over commit (or let's even call it "decision") and sees the trailer and doesn't turn to the boards with F2 but instead preps for an in-zone odd man rush, zoning up in middle ice and giving his man the cut to the boards for a free-ish zone entry
- F1 Zetterlund magically skates 175 feet incredibly fast to pick up the trailer that Smith abandoned and Benning ignored
- great save by goalie

Smith failed to read the threat coming behind him from the third man, Benning made the last bad read, great pass, good finish, only goal of the game. I really can't understand how your POV sees that Smith's read was absolutely, positively correct. it's not 100% on him at all but his mistake was a key contributor - the second to last mistake. I would not want you coaching my beer league team let alone professional hockey if that's what you continue to believe with absolutely NO ROOM for discussion.

Regardless of this one play, what actually matters is that Smith needs to work on his strength with the puck and quickness in movement and reads off the puck. Where he has looked good is in transition and on the forecheck, so he should build on that as well. He could have had an assist or two and even had a few pouncey chances at his first goal. It'll probably come soon, but last night he looked overmatched and because of that, the line was ineffective.

I continue to believe we should keep him at 2C and give him a chance to keep learning. He also probably needs 1-3 more years of strength and conditioning. It's not time to panic or send him down.

Smith made a questionable read on the play which put the D a bit out of position (communication issue), but that goal is ultimately on Benning for not identifying the 3rd ANA player coming into the zone and adjusting his positioning to account for that. He got caught puck watching and was not able to defend against the pass or the attacker. Had Zetterlund made a couple more hard strides in the NZ, he would have been in a position to break up that pass as well but also understand why he didn't (3v3 shouldn't be a dangerous play). Regardless, Benning should have identified the goal scorer was coming into the zone uncovered and adjusted accordingly.

 

[hohosaregood]

I think in the end, it's multiple mistakes from multiple players but I do think it's on the defense to direct traffic here and/or adjust to what's happening in front of them. I think Smith attacking the puck carrier is probably a system call but the execution was subpar here. Actually an interesting read from Smith if it's not. He's not really the type to go after the puck carrier on a backcheck

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Dude, every single one of my posts has said the same thing that gives a compelling alternative to your interpretation.
- 3 on 3
- 2 defensemen back
- 2 forwards and a trailer with speed
- one defenseman (Thrun) is giving too much gap to the forward with the puck but at least the guy is in front of him
- second forward is in center ice, coming to support, and Smith is on him and Benning is shadowing him
- trailer coming to middle ice with speed
- center should see a typical 3v3 rush that should be slowing down since defensemen have both advanced F's in front of them; main responsibility is to pick up trailer, aka basic counting, and only IF there is backchecking support, C should support puck and go for turnover
- alternately, Benning should see Smith on second forward and look for the trailer, but then Smith needs to stick with his man
- Benning reads board zone entry and sticks with second forward; he could have read to leave the man and keep middle ice, but he probably didn't want to give a board chip and easy zone entry to his man
- Smith overcommits - his read is that he has back checking support and the trailer isn't a threat, so he goes for the turnover
- Benning fails to see this and back off to cover the crashing trailer, instead pivots to boards to stick with his man to prevent the free zone entry - now three players are sucked to the puck
- trailer has free middle ice and a good pass gets him the puck
- Zetterlund, who was the F1 on the forecheck, is now two steps behind so he's getting flack. F1 is apparently supposed to also be covering the third man on a 3v3 zone entry now???
- Benning makes a desperation dive that fails
- no save from goalie

Alternative universes where the goal is not scored:
1. Kostin isn't caught in no-man's- land as F2 on the breakout. Should have been higher, or harder to the puck, not in the middle
2. Thrun gaps up the winger in the NZ or at the DZ blue line
3. Smith doesn't cross the ice, even leaving his ostensible "man" who Benning is double covering, if we assume the system is to man up, to go for the turnover
4. Benning reads Smith's over commit (or let's even call it "decision") and sees the trailer and doesn't turn to the boards with F2 but instead preps for an in-zone odd man rush, zoning up in middle ice and giving his man the cut to the boards for a free-ish zone entry
- F1 Zetterlund magically skates 175 feet incredibly fast to pick up the trailer that Smith abandoned and Benning ignored
- great save by goalie

Smith failed to read the threat coming behind him from the third man, Benning made the last bad read, great pass, good finish, only goal of the game. I really can't understand how your POV sees that Smith's read was absolutely, positively correct. it's not 100% on him at all but his mistake was a key contributor - the second to last mistake. I would not want you coaching my beer league team let alone professional hockey if that's what you continue to believe with absolutely NO ROOM for discussion.

Regardless of this one play, what actually matters is that Smith needs to work on his strength with the puck and quickness in movement and reads off the puck. Where he has looked good is in transition and on the forecheck, so he should build on that as well. He could have had an assist or two and even had a few pouncey chances at his first goal. It'll probably come soon, but last night he looked overmatched and because of that, the line was ineffective.

I continue to believe we should keep him at 2C and give him a chance to keep learning. He also probably needs 1-3 more years of strength and conditioning. It's not time to panic or send him down.

By the time the second Ducks forward reaches the neutral zone, Smith is above both him and the puck carrier. He should be attacking the puck carrier in that spot. That's why your premise and thus everything else about this is faulty and not compelling in the slightest.

 

[coooldude]

Smith made a questionable read on the play which put the D a bit out of position (communication issue), but that goal is ultimately on Benning for not identifying the 3rd ANA player coming into the zone and adjusting his positioning to account for that. He got caught puck watching and was not able to defend against the pass or the attacker. Had Zetterlund made a couple more hard strides in the NZ, he would have been in a position to break up that pass as well but also understand why he didn't (3v3 shouldn't be a dangerous play). Regardless, Benning should have identified the goal scorer was coming into the zone uncovered and adjusted accordingly.

This is basically what I said. Smith made the second to last mistake, Benning made the last mistake. I just disagree that your F1 should be expected to backcheck hard enough to cover the 3rd man on the rush. That is completely unrealistic especially when your center is in front of you.

By the time the second Ducks forward reaches the neutral zone, Smith is above both him and the puck carrier. He should be attacking the puck carrier in that spot. That's why your premise and thus everything else about this is faulty and not compelling in the slightest.

I put the effort in, and shared my point of view in extensive detail, including multiple options for all players given different reads Smith or any of them might have made, but no, you choose not to read or respond to the detailed points and instead just claim unquestionable victory once more by dismissing everything I wrote out of hand.

I guarantee I played more and higher level hockey than you, and I know I've watched just as much Sharks hockey as you. I still don't claim to be the only one with answers on this board - but you pretty much always do and never, ever admit you're wrong or even allow for other points of view. It's tiresome man.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I put the effort in, and shared my point of view in extensive detail, including multiple options for all players given different reads Smith or any of them might have made, but no, you choose not to read or respond to the detailed points and instead just claim unquestionable victory once more by dismissing everything I wrote out of hand.

I guarantee I played more and higher level hockey than you, and I know I've watched just as much Sharks hockey as you. I still don't claim to be the only one with answers on this board - but you pretty much always do and never, ever admit you're wrong or even allow for other points of view. It's tiresome man.

I appreciate the effort but nothing about this changes that to my view your premise is faulty and the rest that you draw from it is faulty because of it. That isn't claiming unquestionable victory contrary to your histrionics. If you want to give me shit over not admitting I'm wrong, you can't pretend like what you've been doing isn't in the same vein of stubbornness. You have thrown a huge fit over me disagreeing with you and pretended I've done something I haven't like claim unquestionable victory or claim to be the only one with answers on this board. That shit is you making bad faith responses because you didn't like that I disagreed with you. Look in the mirror about things being tiresome. My disagreements with anyone is not me not allowing for other points of view. I have not once tried to censor anyone's view points and it's ridiculously over the top to imply that I am.

As it pertains to the goal against, all I ever said is that what Smith did there is pretty par for the course on what he's to do in that spot. You can speak to the higher level of hockey or how much you've watched. Those don't really speak to how well an analysis of a play actually go. We don't have all the information needed to really make a conclusion unless the three players involved say what they saw and what all happened. Communication is pretty key in a spot like that.

 

[Star Platinum]

I appreciate the effort but nothing about this changes that to my view your premise is faulty and the rest that you draw from it is faulty because of it. That isn't claiming unquestionable victory contrary to your histrionics. If you want to give me shit over not admitting I'm wrong, you can't pretend like what you've been doing isn't in the same vein of stubbornness. You have thrown a huge fit over me disagreeing with you and pretended I've done something I haven't like claim unquestionable victory or claim to be the only one with answers on this board. That shit is you making bad faith responses because you didn't like that I disagreed with you. Look in the mirror about things being tiresome. My disagreements with anyone is not me not allowing for other points of view. I have not once tried to censor anyone's view points and it's ridiculously over the top to imply that I am.

As it pertains to the goal against, all I ever said is that what Smith did there is pretty par for the course on what he's to do in that spot. You can speak to the higher level of hockey or how much you've watched. Those don't really speak to how well an analysis of a play actually go. We don't have all the information needed to really make a conclusion unless the three players involved say what they saw and what all happened. Communication is pretty key in a spot like that.

One thing's for sure, the team has discussed has to play that situation better the next time.

 

[coooldude]

I appreciate the effort but nothing about this changes that to my view your premise is faulty and the rest that you draw from it is faulty because of it. That isn't claiming unquestionable victory contrary to your histrionics. If you want to give me shit over not admitting I'm wrong, you can't pretend like what you've been doing isn't in the same vein of stubbornness. You have thrown a huge fit over me disagreeing with you and pretended I've done something I haven't like claim unquestionable victory or claim to be the only one with answers on this board. That shit is you making bad faith responses because you didn't like that I disagreed with you. Look in the mirror about things being tiresome. My disagreements with anyone is not me not allowing for other points of view. I have not once tried to censor anyone's view points and it's ridiculously over the top to imply that I am.

As it pertains to the goal against, all I ever said is that what Smith did there is pretty par for the course on what he's to do in that spot. You can speak to the higher level of hockey or how much you've watched. Those don't really speak to how well an analysis of a play actually go. We don't have all the information needed to really make a conclusion unless the three players involved say what they saw and what all happened. Communication is pretty key in a spot like that.

"We don't really have all the information needed to really make a conclusion" - you got there in the end, wish you had at least read the part of my posts where I considered all the different reads players might have made rather than "I disagree on Smith's read therefore your entire post is invalid".

"Unquestionable victory contrary to your histrionics" is exactly what you said immediately after: "nothing about this changes that to my view your premise is faulty and the rest that you draw from it is faulty because of it."

Nobody said anything about censoring viewpoints. What I said is that you flatly declare yourself right and others wrong, and refuse to budge or admit much grey area. Hard to deny.

I did look in the mirror and I realized that interacting with you brings out the worst in me far more than other posters, and it sucks. I wish given your post count it weren't this way. I like listening to others, interacting, and learning, but I hate having conversations with arrogant posters, brick walls, and trolls. You're a passionate and knowledgeable contributing fan, but you're also an exemplary brick wall often, and your dismissiveness can border on arrogance. Maybe that can change. I'll certainly keep trying to avoid these interactions. Bummer all around.

 

[TheBeard]

All this for a goal in the second game of the season?

Oy.

 

[Jargon]

All this for a goal in the second game of the season?

Oy.

Yeah I was going to say the same thing - if he was at fault, sort of at fault or not at all at fault, we can move on, I think? Let’s give the kid maybe more than two games to get used to the best league in the world and allow him some mistakes.

 

[TheBeard]

Yeah I was going to say the same thing - if he was at fault, sort of at fault or not at all at fault, we can move on, I think? Let’s give the kid maybe more than two games to get used to the best league in the world and allow him some mistakes.

Agreed. He’s gonna make mistakes. He’s 19. All the players are going to make mistakes. We were the worst team in the league last year. We also have an insane amount of turnover which means there’s also gonna be a lot of miscommunication. I don’t mind Will making mistakes so long he learns from them. That’s basically the only way to learn.

 

[vortexy]

Lots of people chimed in on what went wrong on that Ducks goal if anyone is interested in others opinions (some are credible hockey scouts/analysts)

https://x.com/i/web/status/1845827699274608791