Only 4 Things You Could've Done Differently...

Don Tootin' <capngroovy DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "Hockeyfan" <hof... DeleteThis @saltnet.com> wrote:
>> 1) Have a 1a/1b goalie tandem, w Manny Fernandes or similar. Giggy was
outplaying
>Emery (who was great in the previous series), and was looking like a wall
at times.
>You need the B goalie to come in at that point.
>
>Except for game 5, Emery was every bit Giguere's equal. He made some
>ridiculous saves himself and, particularly in game 2 and 3, was that
>wall Ottawa needed. The Ducks had that goalie tandem, but Bryzgalov
>was as good as a healthy scratch this series.

You were down 3-1. At that point, and after being down in game 5, you had
to have a good backup to go in and change the tide, especially the momentum
the Ducks had in game 5 after going ahead. You simply HAVE to have a good
backup goalie option, there is no denying this.

>> 2) Have a highly physical, fast and vicious forward, Jordin Tootoo or
similar,
>> crash the net and cause some chaos.
>
>I'd say Mike Fisher established himself as that. Check the tape on
>game 5. #12 was everywhere.

Don't have to check tape. Fisher was great. But I mean a winger, to maybe
sub in for Saprykin and do some genuine demolitions out there. Crash the
goalie, get under their skin.
Avery, Ott, Tootoo, etc.


>> 3) Have a 7th d-man, a purely physical defensive specialist, who can come
>> in and play simple & solid without the puck, and lean on people.
>
>I agree somewhat with this statement. Chris Phillips impressed me for
>the first three games, was less visible in the fourth, and enough said
>about the fifth. Wade Redden seemed to be playing hurt. No surprise
>after the battle against Buffalo then Anaheim.

We agree, a stay-at-home 7th d-men, again, as a backup depth option.


>One statistic that should be noted is the number of shots the Ducks
>got off per series:
>
>vs Minnesota: 146
>vs Vancouver: 198
>vs Detroit: 176 (six games)
>vs Ottawa: 124
>
>The Senators truly slowed down the Anaheim offense.

But they nearly got swept, and weren't even in the last game.

Look beneath the stats, and see the big picture.


>> 4) Murray should go to an aggressive 2-1-2 system (with the wingers forchecking
>> deep in the offensive zone), not a passive 1-2-2, when a team is all over
>> them. Fight fire with fire, it's not the trap era anymore.
>
>This would work with Fisher's line, but how well do you think this
>would go with the ASH line? Aggressive is great as long as you have
>the personnel to back it up.

No, the Sens DO have enough speed & grit to play an aggressive 2-1-2, WHEN
the other team is dominating them. The Sens, under Murray, went to a passive
1-2-2 instead in game 5 : you saw the result, watch the tape.


>> Your team (not mine, yours), the Sens , played very well other than that,
>> imo.
>
>Wholly agree with that statement.


Yep, give the Sens an "A" rating for an excellent season.

But how can they add more tools/weapons to match the Ducks "A+"
level ? That's the question.
 >> Stay informed about: Only 4 Things You Could've Done Differently... 

Hockeyfan <hof101.DeleteThis@saltnet.net> wrote:

> Yep, give the Sens an "A" rating for an excellent season.

> But how can they add more tools/weapons to match the Ducks "A+"
> level ? That's the question.

The only thing that the Finals proved was that over the five games
played, the Ducks were better in four of them. This does not mean
that the Ducks are any "better" than the Ottawas. It doesn't mean
that the Ducks are more likely to reach the finals next year or win
the Cup next year, than the Ottawas. All it proves is that the
Ducks were better in 4 games of 5. It may very well be the case
that in the next 5 games, if there had been a next 5, the Ottawas
would have own all of them.

What this means is that the Ottawas do not have to do anything to
"match the Ducks A+ level." The Ottawas, like all other teams, have
to go out and try to improve their team at every position they can.
But targetting a single team as the team to beat next year would be
incredibly foolish.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: Only 4 Things You Could've Done Differently... 

rm.RemoveThis@biteme.org wrote:
>Hockeyfan <hof101.RemoveThis@saltnet.net> wrote:
>
>> Yep, give the Sens an "A" rating for an excellent season.
>
>> But how can they add more tools/weapons to match the Ducks "A+"
>> level ? That's the question.
>
>The only thing that the Finals proved was that over the five games
>played, the Ducks were better in four of them. This does not mean
>that the Ducks are any "better" than the Ottawas. It doesn't mean
>that the Ducks are more likely to reach the finals next year or win
>the Cup next year, than the Ottawas. All it proves is that the
>Ducks were better in 4 games of 5. It may very well be the case
>that in the next 5 games, if there had been a next 5, the Ottawas
>would have own all of them.
>
>What this means is that the Ottawas do not have to do anything to
>"match the Ducks A+ level." The Ottawas, like all other teams, have
>to go out and try to improve their team at every position they can.
>But targetting a single team as the team to beat next year would be
>incredibly foolish.
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm

Eventually, the deficienices of the Sens (backup goalie, 4th line demolitions
expert, stay-at-home 7th d-man, optional aggressive 2-1-2 system) will have
them lose in 5 to another team that plays similar to the Ducks. And next
season, there will be many.
 >> Stay informed about: Only 4 Things You Could've Done Differently... 

Hockeyfan <hof101 RemoveThis @saltnet.net> wrote:

> Eventually, the deficienices of the Sens (backup goalie, 4th line
> demolitions expert, stay-at-home 7th d-man, optional aggressive
> 2-1-2 system) will have them lose in 5 to another team that plays
> similar to the Ducks. And next season, there will be many.

And if the Ottawas had won 4 of 5, and they just as easily could
have, you might say the same thing, but with the teams reversed.

In any case, more teams have won the SC with one good goalie than
two. Fourth lines and seventh D-men seldom have enough ice time in
the playoffs to make a difference. And as for systems, the success
of any system depends upon how well the players adhere to the
system, and not the system itself.

Furthermore, if S. Niedermayer had been playing with Heatley's ribs,
and Heatley with Niedermayer's ribs, Heatley might have won the Conn
Smythe and the Ottawas might have won the Cup. That's how close it
was.

Finally, a seven game series is too small to say anything definitive
about either team. You list what you feel are the Ottawas'
deficiencies, while implying by omission that the Anaheims don't
have any. But over the course of the entire season, a much better
test, the teams came up essentially even. In fact, based upon
regular season performance, any one of about 10 teams could have won
the Cup, and nobody would have been surprised.

We think you are over-analyzing. If the Ottawas have holes, they
can figure out what those holes are without any reference to
Anaheim. And vice versa. In the meantime, more teams can model
themselves after Ottawa with solid goaltending and a big line, than
they can Anaheim, whose "secret" is two Norris Trophy finalists.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: Only 4 Things You Could've Done Differently... 

rm RemoveThis @biteme.org wrote:
>Hockeyfan <hof101 RemoveThis @saltnet.net> wrote:
>
>> Eventually, the deficienices of the Sens (backup goalie, 4th line
>> demolitions expert, stay-at-home 7th d-man, optional aggressive
>> 2-1-2 system) will have them lose in 5 to another team that plays
>> similar to the Ducks. And next season, there will be many.
>
>And if the Ottawas had won 4 of 5, and they just as easily could
>have, you might say the same thing, but with the teams reversed.

No, it's already happened. Reality has spoken. Those *few* but significant
deficiencies of the Sens are what allowed the Ducks to beat the Sens in 5
games, the 5th game beaing a no-contest.

Deal with reality. And deal with future probabilities that might arise, and
have the same manifestations, indicated by recent history.


>In any case, more teams have won the SC with one good goalie than
>two. Fourth lines and seventh D-men seldom have enough ice time in
>the playoffs to make a difference. And as for systems, the success
>of any system depends upon how well the players adhere to the
>system, and not the system itself.

You're simply ignoring Sens deficiencies and coaching errors, while blindly
rationalizing.


>Furthermore, if S. Niedermayer had been playing with Heatley's ribs,
>and Heatley with Niedermayer's ribs, Heatley might have won the Conn
>Smythe and the Ottawas might have won the Cup. That's how close it
>was.


Now you're back to your "iffian" delusion.

It's irrational, and not allowed.



>Finally, a seven game series is too small to say anything definitive
>about either team. You list what you feel are the Ottawas'
>deficiencies, while implying by omission that the Anaheims don't
>have any. But over the course of the entire season, a much better
>test, the teams came up essentially even. In fact, based upon
>regular season performance, any one of about 10 teams could have won
>the Cup, and nobody would have been surprised.

Nope, you are still ignoring what occured, and what is probable based on
verified deficiencies. The Ducks had a proven backup to go to, the Sens did
not. The Ducks had stay-at-home 7th d-man depth, the Sens did not. The Ducks
had an overabundance of demolitions experts, the Sens did not. The Ducks
used an aggressive 2-man forcheck, the Sens did not.



>We think you are over-analyzing.

Incorrect thought. They are glaring deficiencies, exposed by the near-sweep
by the Ducks. Facts.


> If the Ottawas have holes, they
>can figure out what those holes are without any reference to
>Anaheim. And vice versa. In the meantime, more teams can model
>themselves after Ottawa with solid goaltending and a big line, than
>they can Anaheim, whose "secret" is two Norris Trophy finalists.

Nope, no "ifs" allowed.

My points still stand.
 >> Stay informed about: Only 4 Things You Could've Done Differently...