GDT: Hurricanes at Lightning | Dec. 21, 7:00 PM | Fox Sports

[jstaal]

yup

Raging caller on 99.9.

I call it passion..

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

disappoint

Sorry to disapoint you, but we beat Blue Jackets monday..

i am.

 

[Finnish Jerk Train]

I call it passion..

Haha was that you? I do remember an accent, but can't remember if it was a NY or Mass accent.

Not that I disagree with anything that was said. I rather enjoyed it actually. Usually the caller says something, Mike gives his thoughts, and that's that. There usually isn't any back and forth.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

With the way he played tonight, he certainly had the ability to stop that. I'm not blaming him in the least, since there's PLENTY of that to go around in the forward/defensive pool, but if we're going to treat Peters as the starter then we need to treat him as the starter, both the good and the bad. If every spectacular save (and he had a lot tonight) puts him closer toward that "legit" column, we can't use the "Oh, well, it's still Peters" mindset when he gives up a goal that a starting goaltender needs to have.

If Ward had let that goal in, it would have been "Glove-high again. Ward ", regardless of how he had played up to that point. And if he's considered the backup at the moment (which he should be with how he's played), then the starting goaltender should be held to an equal (if not higher) standard, yes?

Like I said, Peters earned us a point we didn't deserve with his play tonight. That's what matters in the end. And he'll get the start Monday and hopefully continue this play...but with the offense that appeared yesterday (with a little more finish) *fingers crossed*.

Your premise that Ward would have been (or has been) criticized for allowing that last goal is wrong. Ward is, justifiably, criticized for letting in softies and most of his happen to be glove side high. Just because this perfect-shot laser from the dot also happened to be glove-side high does not mean it was a softie, so therefore your attempt to compare the 2 as equal is invalidated. Being invalid, the 1st two paragraphs your post are as well since they were built upon a faulty foundation of nonsense.

 

[Unsustainable]

So a 1st and a 2nd to take our hindrances and a 3rd for Barkov and Kulikov then?

High quality meth.

 

[nobuddy]

what

Sorry to disapoint you, but we beat Blue Jackets monday..

we did ?? (question)

 

[get tanked]

Every team has bad contracts but the amount of money this team has tied up in long-term overpriced contracts is getting a bit scary... hopefully some of the underachievers pick it up or we're able to sucker another team into taking them Kaberle-style. Worst-case scenario is the team missing the playoffs, the owners deciding they can't afford to raise the budget, Faulk getting offer sheeted, continued mediocrity, etc.

 

[Ole Gil]

Great game from Peters for sure. Was very similar to the game Washington's goalie played last night.

Still, being willing to go allin on him requires no long term memory. (or medium term, or somewhat recent term)

And the playstyle tonight, again, was different than Ward last night. The difference from many other games being it was ineffective. They were playing defense first, but really poor defense first.

The shoddy breakouts and lousy transition game that we see in Peters games was there again. Compared to last night, where they were exploding out of the zone and getting breakaways all night long.

It's a weird phenomenon. If Peters plays like he did tonight, there's no reason to try to shelter him. Maybe just an odd coincidence.

 

[Lazyking]

Great game from Peters for sure. Was very similar to the game Washington's goalie played last night.

Still, being willing to go allin on him requires no long term memory. (or medium term, or somewhat recent term)

And the playstyle tonight, again, was different than Ward last night. The difference from many other games being it was ineffective. They were playing defense first, but really poor defense first.

The shoddy breakouts and lousy transition game that we see in Peters games was there again. Compared to last night, where they were exploding out of the zone and getting breakaways all night long.

It's a weird phenomenon. If Peters plays like he did tonight, there's no reason to try to shelter him. Maybe just an odd coincidence.

cosign.

Peters should start no question right now but it is a different team strategically in net.. Considering our record, maybe niether style is working.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Your premise that Ward would have been (or has been) criticized for allowing that last goal is wrong. Ward is, justifiably, criticized for letting in softies and most of his happen to be glove side high. Just because this perfect-shot laser from the dot also happened to be glove-side high does not mean it was a softie, so therefore your attempt to compare the 2 as equal is invalidated. Being invalid, the 1st two paragraphs your post are as well since they were built upon a faulty foundation of nonsense.

Whatever you say, bud. If you don't think Ward would have drawn criticism for letting in a goal like that, that's your prerogative. As I said, the original comment was more a comment about how well Peters played than a criticism of the goal against, but something tells me you were simply waiting for the slightest criticism to jump on. It's alright, I've been guilty of that myself.

 

[jstaal]

caller

Haha was that you? I do remember an accent, but can't remember if it was a NY or Mass accent.

Not that I disagree with anything that was said. I rather enjoyed it actually. Usually the caller says something, Mike gives his thoughts, and that's that. There usually isn't any back and forth.

Nope, wasnt we, love the math... Especially after a win, or when you steal one point

 

[jstaal]

me...typing too fast again..

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

Great game from Peters for sure. Was very similar to the game Washington's goalie played last night.

Still, being willing to go allin on him requires no long term memory. (or medium term, or somewhat recent term)

And the playstyle tonight, again, was different than Ward last night. The difference from many other games being it was ineffective. They were playing defense first, but really poor defense first.

The shoddy breakouts and lousy transition game that we see in Peters games was there again. Compared to last night, where they were exploding out of the zone and getting breakaways all night long.

It's a weird phenomenon. If Peters plays like he did tonight, there's no reason to try to shelter him. Maybe just an odd coincidence.

The weirdest phenomenon of all is trying to hang sloppy transitions, losing puck battles, and poor offensive production on this "They play differently in front of Peters" myth as if his presence has hamstrung the skaters as much as his improved play has hamstrung the reasoning of those who've invested so much time and effort bagging the guy in the past.

The fact is, Peters has faced more shots-per-minutes played than Ward (.521 vs .511), more shots total (568 vs 484), but has given up 8 fewer goals (40 vs 48). He's faced 30+ shots in 11 of his 18 games, including 2 with 38, a 47, and today's 50. There is nothing in those numbers to suggest that the team shelters Peters, and taking it a step further, the suggestion that they can't win a puck battle, maintain possession in the O-zone, or find another skater's tape with a pass or the twine in the opposing goal because of the guy standing 195' away is one the funnier hypothesis to ever run through here.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

You can't deny that the team was much better offensively in the Capitals game than last night. And in the Edmonton game rather than Calgary.

There could be any number of factors that play into it, but it does seem that, more often than not, the transition game seems to struggle when Peters is in net as opposed to Ward.

It could also be a complete coincidence that will even out over the course of the year. Without a much larger sample size, there's no point in reading into it.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

You can't deny that the team was much better offensively in the Capitals game than last night. And in the Edmonton game rather than Calgary.

There could be any number of factors that play into it, but it does seem that, more often than not, the transition game seems to struggle when Peters is in net as opposed to Ward.

It could also be a complete coincidence that will even out over the course of the year. Without a much larger sample size, there's no point in reading into it.

And yet, that's exactly what you've done, implying that through some vague notion of causal-connection that the guy who has the least to do with the transition in the game of hockey somehow, some way, is what ails those who's job it is to do so. Because you can't, you know, point to Peters' SV % or GAA there must be some other nebulous way he brings the team down, right?

 

[rocky7]

I think the problem is an ineffective game plan rather than some sub-conscious difference in the way they play collectively.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

And yet, that's exactly what you've done, implying that through some vague notion of causal-connection that the guy who has the least to do with the transition in the game of hockey somehow, some way, is what ails those who's job it is to do so. Because you can't, you know, point to Peters' SV % or GAA there must be some other nebulous way he brings the team down, right?

Except that's not what I've said at all. Don't get your panties in a bunch and quit looking to pick a fight that isn't there.

I said there are many factors that could play into the team's up and down offense (mostly the transitional game), one of which may be the goaltender, or it could be a complete coincidence.

The team has struggled with that same transitional game in front of Ward (the recent Vancouver game) and found success with it in front of Peters (the recent Nashville game).

It's an inconsistent team in general. Attempting to establish a pattern to that inconsistency without a much larger sample size is a fool's errand.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

From now on let's just call these nebulous connections where the mere presence of certain players in the line-up are blamed (through the use of cherry-picked, unconnected stats or simply because it seems that way) for team-wide ills the LaRose Hypothesis.

Using the LaRose Hypothesis, one can pretend to detect that there is some sort of anti-chemistry at work within the team, an evil alchemy that turns golden scoring opportunities into whiffing or missing the net and is the cause for all boneheaded plays. The LH conveniently points the way for where to lay blame, and the beauty of it is one can ignore all failings of others they observe with their own eyes because, well, that's the whole point of the LH in the first place.

It does put us in a singular position on HF boards though…blaming our 6th in League SV% goalie for lack of offensive production.

Hey everyone, look at us. In the Carolina Hurricanes World we can't handle that fact that our backup's backup is looking great, but instead of taking that gift we're gonna find a way to downplay it and fool ourselves into thinking we have all these top-flight skaters who are handcuffed into mediocrity by him.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

If we're using the LH to blame players for missing the net and/or screwing up golden scoring chances, it applied more to the Washington game than the Tampa one, no?

Against Wasington, the offense and defense was there. The finish wasn't and the goaltending wasn't. Against Tampa, it was the opposite. The goaltending was obviously there and what little chances they had in the game, they (or Tlusty) buried. But the defense was a mess (so many defensive zone turnovers...) and the offense wasn't much better.

Though the Tampa game definitely had much more boneheaded plays.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

Except that's not what I've said at all. Don't get your panties in a bunch and quit looking to pick a fight that isn't there.

I said there are many factors that could play into the team's up and down offense (mostly the transitional game), one of which may be the goaltender, or it could be a complete coincidence.

The team has struggled with that same transitional game in front of Ward (the recent Vancouver game) and found success with it in front of Peters (the recent Nashville game).

It's an inconsistent team in general. Attempting to establish a pattern to that inconsistency without a much larger sample size is a fool's errand.

It has nothing to do with sample size, there is no pattern. It was opined on another thread as a handy excuse for Ward's shoddy play and to downplay Peter's improved play, suggesting that the team hangs Ward out to dry and shelters Peters based soley on Goals For statistic. Yet the Shots Against numbers fly in the face of this implication and were therefore ignored…Peters has faced more shots per minutes played and in gross than Ward.

However, for those members of the Ward Fanboy Sisterhood, this notion…ignoring variables even as obviously pertinent as as the quality of the opposing team's D and goalie, injuries, etc….was glommed onto and quickly became and pushed as the conventional wisdom.

There was nothing of merit to base the original opinion on in the first place. It begged the question. An unproven premise, and a bigger sample size isn't going to prove something that was scapegoating garbage in the first place.

 

[Identity404]

The team was visibly gassed last night. I think that explains the poor offense and transition game.

I also think there is no denying that the team adopted a different playing style after the first disastrous five games with Peters.

The whole team has made a more conscience effort to collapse and clear the punk in front of the net.The coach and players have confirmed this in interviews. If the team is skating this should have little to no effect on the offense. When Ward came pack from injury they didn't change their game plan. It just happens that this style benefits Peters more than Ward. Ward has better rebound control, but is prone to give up more softies. The team can't compensate for softies, but they can compensate for Peters who has been consistent in making the first save and the ones that a goaltender should stop.

Ward is the goaltender the Hurricanes deserve, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll bench him. Because he can take it. Because he's not on his game. He's a silent netminder. A watchful benchwarmer. A Cam Wardo.

EDIT:

Wasn't trying to say that Peters play and stats were a product of a system. Just that the system benefits Peters more than Ward.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

The team was visibly gassed last night. I think that explains the poor offense and transition game.

I also think there is no denying that the team adopted a different playing style after the first disastrous five games with Peters.

The whole team has made a more conscience effort to collapse and clear the punk in front of the net.The coach and players have confirmed this in interviews. If the team is skating this should have little to no effect on the offense. When Ward came pack from injury they didn't change their game plan. It just happens that this style benefits Peters more than Ward. Ward has better rebound control, but is prone to give up more softies. The team can't compensate for softies, but they can compensate for Peters who has been consistent in making the first save and the ones that a goaltender should stop.

Ward is the goaltender the Hurricanes deserve, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll bench him. Because he can take it. Because he's not on his game. He's a silent netminder. A watchful benchwarmer. A Cam Wardo.

Well that supposedly big change in team playing style isn't working..it's forcing Peters to stop more shots than Ward. The only clear, noticeable difference game to game has been the change in Peters himself. He's swallowing a lot more shots, his rebounds don't carom back out to the slot, and he hasn't flopped for no reason in ages. He's developed and found his game. Why the hell is that so hard for some to believe?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

There was nothing of merit to base the original opinion on in the first place. It begged the question. An unproven premise, and a bigger sample size isn't going to prove something that was scapegoating garbage in the first place.

That's where we'll disagree. The notion started based off the team clearly changing its game after they lost the first 5 games Peters started after Ward went down. As Identity stated above, this was confirmed by Muller and the players.

It was then believed that this change in the game plan was limiting the offense (to the point where some on the board were claiming Muller was telling players not to score...) because the team couldn't score for **** and/or generate shots in the games after.

What's ignored is that those same stretch of games came at the same time as Skinner's injury, who obviously has a much bigger effect on generating offense than whoever's in net.

It's a matter of assuming correlation (Peters starting, the gameplan changing, and the team not scoring) proves causation while ignoring the more obvious factor (The only guy able to generate offense by himself being injured).

As for Peters himself, who's denying that he's come into his own? IIRC, wasn't a debate during last night's GDT about how much longer he needs to keep this kind of play up before he's considered "legit"? If it was believed to be the system, such a debate wouldn't come up, no?

 

[Identity404]

Well that supposedly big change in team playing style isn't working..it's forcing Peters to stop more shots than Ward. The only clear, noticeable difference game to game has been the change in Peters himself. He's swallowing a lot more shots, his rebounds don't carom back out to the slot, and he hasn't flopped for no reason in ages. He's developed and found his game. Why the hell is that so hard for some to believe?

It may not prevent less shots, but it certainly prevents less quality shots! Did you watch the game last night. The only good thing they were doing was protecting the net. Forslund and Tripp commented on it multiple times last night.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Peters. He has certainly elevated his game to a whole new level. He is making not only the routine saves, but the spectacular ones. His rebound control has been much better, but it is still his weakness.

They only thing I have a hard time believing is that Peters has developed and found his game for good and this is NOT a hot streak.

 

[Mr Whipple]

The team was visibly gassed last night. I think that explains the poor offense and transition game.

Plus Murphy, one of our puck-moving defensemen, was out of the lineup.

Not like the Canes have had a great record in back-to-back games since, well, forever, too.