GDT: is it stars or Skating Together Aggressively, Really Something!

WreckingCrew

Registered User
Feb 4, 2015
13,486
41,183
The 1-0 win against FLA was a hell of a game with goalies stealing goals and both teams playing well. Tonight we also only scored 1 but rarely ever looked dangerous, and when we did, we passed it (seriously how do you f*** up a 3v1 so horribly)
 

Joe McGrath

Registered User
Oct 29, 2009
18,537
39,947
Is what it is. At least the Rongos beat Philly so we have some cushion for second in the metro.

Also I agree, Fast on the first line makes no sense. I'd love to see Nachos replace him. Or really any number of players lol.
I agree that Fast on the first line is nonsensical. He also made the pass that led to the only 2 goals they scored in the last 2 games.
 

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
40,667
47,338
Yeah, our PP sucked last night, so complaining about not getting more calls (justified or not) seems like a pointless exercise.
 

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
40,667
47,338
I don’t think asking for things to be closer to fair, especially over an extended period seems okay to do

But it's not supposed to be "fair." Officials are supposed to call the penalties they see, regardless of the score, penalty differential, etc.

Now we all know that isn't how it works. We have recorded proof officials do try to "even it out" (Thanks Tim Peel), and we can suspect that there are times when certain penalties are basically unofficially declared "not penalties" based on the blatant lack of calling it in the game.

But last night, Dallas was the better team for basically the entire game. Thus, it makes sense (to me, at least) that Carolina would take more penalties than they drew.

Was there inconsistent calls? Yeah, there were. The standard of what determines a "hold" apparently changed throughout the game. Likewise, the "slashing" call we drew late in the game was one that could have been called a dozen times over on both teams before then. But I chalk stuff like that up to human error than any kind of intentional ploy, barring some very obvious tells
 

Joe McGrath

Registered User
Oct 29, 2009
18,537
39,947
But it's not supposed to be "fair." Officials are supposed to call the penalties they see, regardless of the score, penalty differential, etc.

Now we all know that isn't how it works. We have recorded proof officials do try to "even it out" (Thanks Tim Peel), and we can suspect that there are times when certain penalties are basically unofficially declared "not penalties" based on the blatant lack of calling it in the game.

But last night, Dallas was the better team for basically the entire game. Thus, it makes sense (to me, at least) that Carolina would take more penalties than they drew.

Was there inconsistent calls? Yeah, there were. The standard of what determines a "hold" apparently changed throughout the game. Likewise, the "slashing" call we drew late in the game was one that could have been called a dozen times over on both teams before then. But I chalk stuff like that up to human error than any kind of intentional ploy, barring some very obvious tells
There doesn’t have e to be a ploy. The officiating was dog shit last night. The Drury hold was a letter of the law hold, but if that was the standard they could have called 30 other ones. The Orlov interference straight up wasn’t a penalty at any level that allows body checking. It’s ok to call that out, but it shouldn’t be used as an excuse.

On the PP itself, Burns
was just firing shit on net. It was weird. He started forcing everything towards the net which isn’t at all what they had been doing and being successful. Not sure if Dallas was doing something with the PK forcing that or Burns was just out to lunch.
 
Last edited:
Jul 18, 2010
26,721
57,556
Atlanta, GA
Yeah, I don’t know what is the chicken and what’s the egg here, but man I’d love to get to the point where refs don’t even things up and fans don’t expect things to be evened up.

Seems like the NFL is the only league that’s truly like “took 9 penalties for 110 yards? Sounds like that’s on you bucko.” Even basketball has some level of evening up, but not nearly as bad as the NHL. To the point where both players and Tripp were just flat out saying “you gotta think the refs will give the Canes a powerplay in the third here.”


Here’s my working theory on the Canes and their penalty issues. Penalties happen, more often than not, on the puck carrier. Carolina’s whole offense is based on not being the puck carrier (dump and chase, heavy forecheck). All of their puck “carrying” happens in the corners, where everyone is aware there’s going to be a bit more leeway when it comes to clutching and grabbing. So the whole lean of the offensive system doesn’t inherently lead to doing the types of things that draw a large portion of the penalties in the game.

Meanwhile, defensively… it’s a man to man system. Which has a lot of benefits when played well, but what’s the drawback? If you lose your man, you’re screwed. You’ve got no help. So what’s your recourse? Probably more than other defensive systems where you’d have more help, you’ve gotta take a penalty.

The disparity being something about the way the Canes play has always sat better with me than “the refs, when they all go home to the same ref house they all live in and are drinking beer together after their games bitch about Rod and his mean words and have collectively decided he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on anything.” The above is the best I’ve got.
 
Last edited:

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
40,667
47,338
There doesn’t have e to be a ploy. The officiating was dog shit last night. The Drury hold was a letter of the law hold, but if that was the standard they could have called 30 other ones. The Orlov interference straight up wasn’t a penalty at any level that allows body checking. It’s ok to call that out, but it shouldn’t be used as an excuse.

On the PP itself, Burns
was just firing shit on net. It was weird. He started forcing everything towards the net which isn’t at all what they had been doing and being successful. Not sure if Dallas was doing something with the PK forcing that or Burns was just out to lunch.

As far as Burns goes, he's a few weeks away from being 39-years old, 10 games away from 1400 games played (and 818 of those are in a row, longest active ironman streak), and we're still playing him 22-23 minutes a night.

He's firing everything on net because that's about all he CAN do, most of the time. He's not mobile enough to dance around PK pressure and often too gassed to catch up if the puck carrier gets behind him.

And I know we keep playing him because of that iron man streak, and right now with Chatfield injured, we can't really mix up the pairings, but I'd hope down the stretch, we ease off the ice time of Burns because it's getting painful to watch.
 
  • Love
Reactions: chaz4hockey

Joe McGrath

Registered User
Oct 29, 2009
18,537
39,947
As far as Burns goes, he's a few weeks away from being 39-years old, 10 games away from 1400 games played (and 818 of those are in a row, longest active ironman streak), and we're still playing him 22-23 minutes a night.

He's firing everything on net because that's about all he CAN do, most of the time. He's not mobile enough to dance around PK pressure and often too gassed to catch up if the puck carrier gets behind him.

And I know we keep playing him because of that iron man streak, and right now with Chatfield injured, we can't really mix up the pairings, but I'd hope down the stretch, we ease off the ice time of Burns because it's getting painful to watch.
He had a rough game, that happens to just about everyone……
 

MinJaBen

Canes Sharks Boy
Sponsor
Dec 14, 2015
21,377
82,960
Durm
And I know we keep playing him because of that iron man streak, and right now with Chatfield injured, we can't really mix up the pairings, but I'd hope down the stretch, we ease off the ice time of Burns because it's getting painful to watch.

So the answer is to sit him vs just reducing his minutes a bit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: geehaad

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
40,667
47,338
So the answer is to sit him vs just reducing his minutes a bit?

I suggested both. We won't sit him because of the iron man streak, and we can't currently reduce his ice time, because that'd likely give Orlov or TonyD (or both) too much responsibility. Maybe when Chatfield returns, it's something to consider.

We aren’t just playing Burns because of the iron man streak, goodness

Perhaps I should have been clearer: We're not giving him a maintenance day/game (something that isn't unheard of when older players are showing their age) because of the iron man streak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chaz4hockey

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad