Blueliner 69 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) I watched replays of the three goals scored against tonight and both Kronwall and Stuart were on the ice for all three goals and were greatly responsible for the goals. The first goal, Stuart was just coming out of the box and wasn't able to help out. But the big mistake was Kronwall getting caught flat-footed at the blueline and letting Recchi take the inside part of the ice. Much blame can't be put on them on the second goal because they were on the PK and it looked like they were in good position. Just that Osgood was slow to getting over again. On the third goal they were both the reason why the goal was scored. They both refused to leave their man to go after the guy with the puck. The guy with the puck walked right in and scored. I can see why Kronwall stayed on his man in the low slot, but he should have left him when Stuart made a dumbass move by following his guy behind the net. Also, they are turning the puck over too much. Don't get me wrong here. I like both guys and think they are very good hockey players. But the last few games have shown some weaknesses. Edited November 14, 2008 by Blueliner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwedeLundin77 460 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 I watched replays of the three goals scored against tonight and both Kronwall and Stuart were on the ice for all three goals and were greatly responsible for the goals. The first goal, Stuart was just coming out of the box and wasn't able to help out. But the big mistake was Kronwall getting caught flat-footed at the blueline and letting Recchi take the inside part of the ice. Much blame can't be put on them on the second goal because they were on the PK and it looked like they were in good position. Just that Osgood was slow to getting over again. On the third goal they were both the reason why the goal was scored. They both refused to leave their man to go after the guy with the puck. The guy with the puck walked right in and scored. I can see why Kronwall stayed on his man in the low slot, but he should have left him when Stuart made a dumbass move by following his guy behind the net. Also, they are turning the puck over too much. Don't get me wrong here. I like both guys and think they are very good hockey players. But the last few games have shown some weaknesses. Well there's just an overall weakness in our defensive game right now, it should all get worked out since we've seen games or at least parts of certain games where we are on the ball - so we're capable of it, no doubt. We just need to get back to basics and work from there I believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rick zombo 3,739 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 On the third goal they were both the reason why the goal was scored. They both refused to leave their man to go after the guy with the puck. The guy with the puck walked right in and scored. I can see why Kronwall stayed on his man in the low slot, but he should have left him when Stuart made a dumbass move by following his guy behind the net. Also, they are turning the puck over too much. Don't get me wrong here. I like both guys and think they are very good hockey players. But the last few games have shown some weaknesses. Kronwall and Stuart have to stay with their men. That's a forward's job to take the puck carrier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blueliner 69 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Kronwall and Stuart have to stay with their men. That's a forward's job to take the puck carrier. The guy was coming from the corner. Stuart should have left his man to take him and let the other guy go behind the net. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted November 14, 2008 The guy was coming from the corner. Stuart should have left his man to take him and let the other guy go behind the net. Players on the ice do not have a 360-degree field of vision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Is Bida 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 The guy was coming from the corner. Stuart should have left his man to take him and let the other guy go behind the net. I've watched the replay numerous times because I, too, thought they (actually 3 Wings cause the Mule was standing there too) just let him walk right in front. After having a short talk with someone in the GDT about it and watching the replay I've come up with this... Stuart had to go back behind the net to follow his man. This was DEFINITELY the best decision. If not and Stuart goes after the puck carrier, the puck carrier has an EASY back-door pass to the player who Stuart followed behind the net. Zero blame is on Stuart and truthfully, I think overall he's been our best defenseman thus far this year. The part that is a little iffy was what Kronwall did. Had he left his player and went after the puck carrier the puck carrier could've slid it towards the face off circle/slot area and it would've been a nice one timer by that Tampa player. You can't really tell from the angle but it seems that the Mule was also covering someone but he must be out of picture cause you can see him look over his shoulder. Truthfully, I don't know. But if there was a guy he was more out towards the blue-line. So if you wanna place blame it would have to be on Kronwall or the Mule. If Kronwall leaves his man then the Mule should've picked up the guy in the slot area. What this REALLY all boils down to is that is a save that Osgood MUST make!!! The guy skates out from basically the corner. Osgood should be down, butterfly style, right up against that post (knowing the Stuart picked up the man on the far post). This way if the guy skates towards the middle (which is EXACTLY what he did) he can simply poke check the puck away or atleast put his paddle down to get in the way of the skater. All in all, (and again keep in mind I said the same thing as you did until I looked at replay at my house) it wasn't so much either of the defensemans fault. The both were covering a man. In the end that is a save that Osgood should've made and unfortunately the puck came lose. What really interests me is that the guy clearly kicked the puck INTO the net. However, the puck was clearly moving in and would've gone in regardless. What I want to know is what the rulebook says about it. If the rulebook says that a puck is CLEARLY gonna end up in the net and a player pushes it a millimeter of an inch past the line then it counts, I'll be fine with that. I just don't see that being the case. I gotta think that no matter what if a player uses an kind of KICKING MOTION (which that was) even while the puck is going in, it's no goal. I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories or any of that crap but I truthfully just think they wanted a closer game and thats why they called a goal. If we were up 4-2 and that exact play happened to us, I would bet a million dollars it wouldn't be a goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Is Bida 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Oh yea... P.S. Keep in mind that the guy who went 'behind the net' actually circled behind the net and ended up FAR corner. Stuart leaves his man it's an easy tape to tape pass in the back door (can't remember if I mentioned that in my first post.. I'm a little buzzed) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellowknife Redwing 57 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 The primary issue I have with Stuart is the same reason I feel that Dion Phaneuf is not yet an elite defenseman - they're always going after the big hit. Stuart is constantly putting himself out of position by trying to cream the oncoming winger with a devastating hit and I think our opposition has recognized this and begun to capitalize on it. Stuart just needs to watch how Nick handles himself when dealing with rushing forwards. I'm all about guys finishing their checks, but Stuart's timing has been all wrong this season. As for Kronner, I honestly think he's just having a run of bad luck, because the majority of the time he looks composed and is making smart plays. That said, the major weakness of our second pairing is their inability to make quick plays against aggressive forecheckers. Kronwall is arguably one of the best puck moving d-men in the game, but unlike Lidstrom, he needs time to eye up the pass. Stuart, on the other hand, panicks with the puck the way Rafalski does and makes a lot of really poor choices against forecheckers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedWingsRox 614 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Apart from defensive plays and/or breakdowns, I haven't seen Kronwall do his thing like he did during playoffs. He put the fear in players's eyes that came flying into the neutral zone with some mighty hits but where is that presence as of late? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 The part that is a little iffy was what Kronwall did. Had he left his player and went after the puck carrier the puck carrier could've slid it towards the face off circle/slot area and it would've been a nice one timer by that Tampa player. Exactly, it was going to be a s***ty situation anyway you move the two, but they made the best move by staying with their men and giving the shooter one path that we all knew he was going to take, straight to the net for ozzie to make the save. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrossoverThrash 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Kronwall had a nice hit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim 5 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 I'll take the odd big hit... those tend to intimidate finesse players from waltzing in without retribution. What worries me are these lulls in the puck-possession game, especially late in a game and/or after a two goal lead. maybe its because our top-liners are worn out after all the early special-teams play? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 What really interests me is that the guy clearly kicked the puck INTO the net. However, the puck was clearly moving in and would've gone in regardless. What I want to know is what the rulebook says about it. If the rulebook says that a puck is CLEARLY gonna end up in the net and a player pushes it a millimeter of an inch past the line then it counts, I'll be fine with that. I just don't see that being the case. I gotta think that no matter what if a player uses an kind of KICKING MOTION (which that was) even while the puck is going in, it's no goal. I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories or any of that crap but I truthfully just think they wanted a closer game and thats why they called a goal. If we were up 4-2 and that exact play happened to us, I would bet a million dollars it wouldn't be a goal. What it looks like to me is the refs were more concerned about the net moving and missed the kick, because they gave the goal to the guy who took the initial shot. The puck had not fully crossed the line before Prospal kicked it, so it was kicked in. It all maters on who last touched the puck before it goes in. Some could argue on the definition of distinct kicking motion. His foot never left the ice, but it change direction from going foward to going sideways right at the puck. However, I don't even think they were looking at that, because of who they gave the goal to. It probably wouldn't surprise me if the NHL has some rule that if something else is discovered in replay, other than what you were looking for, it can not be used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Players on the ice do not have a 360-degree field of vision. Just because a guy's behind a D-man doesn't mean he's not responsible for him. There's a reason coaches harp on keeping your head on a swivel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
