GDT: Game 62: Sharks @ Maple Leafs 4:30pm NBCSCA

[karltonian]

My one complaint other than the second goal given up by Georgiev is I didn't like them running out the clock in OT. It worked out, but they had a chance to get one or two scoring chances and that felt to me like they were afraid to let Toronto touch the puck again. Even if you're not as good as the other team, you have to play without fear.

i thought celebrini was setting up smith at the buzzer?

 

[Star Platinum]

i thought celebrini was setting up smith at the buzzer?

He did, but rewatch the end of the game. They skated the puck out of the offensive zone multiple times and all the way back to their defensive zone before that.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[Juxtaposer]

Liljegren revenge game success.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[Pavelski2112]

Hell of a win to get the vibes back

Georgiev was locked in

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[coooldude]

Awesome game, great fight from the guys. A random collection of thoughts:

• The kids were real close to some highlight reel goals.
• Smitty and Macklin need to spend the offseason learning how to beat NHL goalies on the breakaway.
• It has been said lately by many: Ferraro looks solid lately.
• Also, Mukh looks more and more solid, using his length and mobility to his advantage and playing a sound positional game with a few fun risky pinches per game. Keep going and he'll be a solid middle pair or a steady pair for an adventurous OFD... Long way to go but way more promising of late.
• Man, say what you want about Toffoli but dude knows how to shoot.
• Also, you have to give credit to Ferraro/Walman/Goodrow especially, but also the full PK units today. Sure they gave one up, but the kills looked pretty effective, and that Toronto PP is insanely talented.
• Lily sure looked motivated today. If he plays like that all the time, he too could pass for a 4/5 on a decent team.
• Georgie is a total spaz but he probably deserves first star tonight.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[OrrNumber4]

that thinking is the treadmill to nowhere plan, they need the talent like Zetterburg who can relate better to the 25 and under shark talent coming up. GMMG would just be looking for another player like him next summer. This team needs continuity and stability, they don't need any more marginal prospects which is all Zetterburg is going to get them, or a draft pick that is 5 years away.

1) Absolutely the Sharks could use a talent like Zetterburg. But we're talking about Zetterlund...
2) Of course, if the Sharks can only get draft capital or futures for him they shouldn't trade him, but I thought it obvious that I would want to dangle him in exchange for a premium asset like a young, potential #1 defenseman.
3) So GMMG trades Zetterlund for a premium piece and then acquires another player like him (hopefully with more experience). Win-win?

 

[Star Platinum]

Of course, if the Sharks can only get draft capital or futures for him they shouldn't trade him, but I thought it obvious that I would want to dangle him in exchange for a premium asset like a young, potential #1 defenseman.

Zetterlund would be a throw-in in a deal like that

 

[tiburon12]

He did, but rewatch the end of the game. They skated the puck out of the offensive zone multiple times and all the way back to their defensive zone before that.

That's called puck management. Would you preferred they forced a bad play and lost the puck? Like, just seconds before that, Marner hounded eklund and forced him to dump the puck in and give up possession.

Possession is the name of the game in OT

 

[Jargon]

So the trick is to be losing in the third period to win the game — we’ve obviously gotten it wrong lately. Simple, effective tweak by Smartsofsky.

 

[Star Platinum]

That's called puck management.

That is not what that is called.

Sharks took a timeout in OT at 1:03. Got a 2 on 1. Walman shot and Eklund got the rebound at their goal line. He passed to Walman at the blue line who immediately skated it out instead of continuing to apply offensive pressure. Wennberg skates the puck back in, passes to Eklund, and Eklund skates it back to his own defensive faceoff circle allowing Wennberg and Walman to change with Celebrini and Smith, nearly losing the puck to Marner. and makes a weak entry back into their zone. The only thing that salvaged that possession from being a zero at best and disaster at worst is that Celebrini skates hard into the corner and makes a great no-look pass to Smith for a premium scoring chance with 3.6 seconds to go.

Sharks could have potentially had at least two chances to try to score had they actually managed the puck well there and if they had been fortunate to get the puck back after the first attempt, may have even held it in the Toronto zone for the rest of the 1:03.

 

[OrrNumber4]

That's called puck management. Would you preferred they forced a bad play and lost the puck? Like, just seconds before that, Marner hounded eklund and forced him to dump the puck in and give up possession.

Possession is the name of the game in OT

I agree somewhat...but this team has been playing not to lose for a long time. In OT they don't take chances for fear up giving up a chance the other way.

 

[tiburon12]

That is not what that is called.

Sharks took a timeout in OT at 1:03. Got a 2 on 1. Walman shot and Eklund got the rebound at their goal line. He passed to Walman at the blue line who immediately skated it out instead of continuing to apply offensive pressure. Wennberg skates the puck back in, passes to Eklund, and Eklund skates it back to his own defensive faceoff circle allowing Wennberg and Walman to change with Celebrini and Smith, nearly losing the puck to Marner. and makes a weak entry back into their zone. The only thing that salvaged that possession from being a zero at best and disaster at worst is that Celebrini skates hard into the corner and makes a great no-look pass to Smith for a premium scoring chance with 3.6 seconds to go.

Sharks could have potentially had at least two chances to try to score had they actually managed the puck well there and if they had been fortunate to get the puck back after the first attempt, may have even held it in the Toronto zone for the rest of the 1:03.

I think you should look at the play that caused Walman to get that puck in the first place. Reilly tried to force a play instead of smartly buying more time and retaining possession. If we score on that play Reilly wears the goat horns for horrible puck management. So, the inverse must also be true. Deciding not to force a bad play with tired players, as the team clearly was as evidenced by a change, was the smart play. Imagine if Walman forced a play and the leafs got a break, how would you feel then?

I agree somewhat...but this team has been playing not to lose for a long time. In OT they don't take chances for fear up giving up a chance the other way.

NHL teams don't score on 3-3 by cycling it in the zone for an extended period. Instead, they regroup when there is no space and use speed and movement when entering the zone to do create space and score. Literally no team would be supportive of forcing a bad play or shot just because it's "a chance". Sorry, but this isn't debatable. For years this has been the case.

I don't think retaining possession and not forcing a bad play is the same as playing not to lose.

 

[karltonian]

That is not what that is called.

Sharks took a timeout in OT at 1:03. Got a 2 on 1. Walman shot and Eklund got the rebound at their goal line. He passed to Walman at the blue line who immediately skated it out instead of continuing to apply offensive pressure. Wennberg skates the puck back in, passes to Eklund, and Eklund skates it back to his own defensive faceoff circle allowing Wennberg and Walman to change with Celebrini and Smith, nearly losing the puck to Marner. and makes a weak entry back into their zone. The only thing that salvaged that possession from being a zero at best and disaster at worst is that Celebrini skates hard into the corner and makes a great no-look pass to Smith for a premium scoring chance with 3.6 seconds to go.

Sharks could have potentially had at least two chances to try to score had they actually managed the puck well there and if they had been fortunate to get the puck back after the first attempt, may have even held it in the Toronto zone for the rest of the 1:03.

I think that was a deliberate modification of their too-risky approach heretofore. I think it was justifiable and even good. Just winging it in to Eklund who was recovering from his net crash would have probably turned it over.