bignick33 {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:pick6pedro {l Wrote}:bignick33 {l Wrote}:pick6pedro {l Wrote}:bignick33 {l Wrote}:pick6pedro {l Wrote}:bignick33 {l Wrote}:pick6pedro {l Wrote}:bignick33 {l Wrote}:pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
How is it whining when there is a clear right and wrong and he's right? Yes, these things have a way of evening out, but when one leads directly to a deciding goal, one should just ignore it? Whatever you say...
I think he was questioning the "directly" part. If he wasn't, then I definitely am. In any event, the line between whining and excuse-making is razor thin.
As long as the goal/no goal call is not the issue, then technically you're right that it isn't direct. But I'm pretty sure that's obvious to both you and not really the issue here.
I don't see this as the difference between whining and excuse-making. One can bring up factual evidence without doing either. Nothing about the way it was brought up, Hunter's personality, or history of coaching tells me he was bitching about it.
It would have directly resulted in the goal if it were a pass leading to an odd-man rush. That wasn't the case; the Bruins held the puck in the zone for an extended period time before the shot (and, as elvii mentioned, the entire sequence was poorly defensed by Washington).
So the poorly defensed sequence would have never occured. It's pretty damned direct if the exact possession in that zone would have been cut off. And no just because it dragged and the puck didn't go right at the net doesn't change that.
And here is where the line is so razor-thin.
It's not. We're arguing on degree of directness but essentially saying the same thing. My main point was it's not really bitching if you're correct. In a series this close, things like missed calls matter even more and bringing them to the forefront so the same mistakes are not replicated is crucial.
Of the three factors that led to that goal (the missed offsides, the Bruins' offensive play, and the Caps' defensive play), the latter two were much more significant than the former. The Caps had control over exactly one of those factors. You're still missing the point that by emphasizing the missed offsides, the organization is marginalizing the role of their five players (it was a 4x4) who were on the ice in the end-result. That's the main reason I don't really like whining from anyone (and, fortunately for my own sake, whining comes from the team I root for far less than it comes from many of the other teams in the league). Unlike Don Cherry, I was all for Ference's and the front office's public criticism of Paille for an hit last year that results in (if anything) heavy-handed suspension.
Also, does anyone else hear a screeching noise coming from somewhere south of NYC but north of Washington.
Neither of the latter two factors come into play if the first one does not. Case closed. And it's all very direct. This isn't a case of "well, if there had been a stoppage of play 45 minutes before, a butterfly would not have landed in that exact spot."
Emphasizing the missed call to you means they are bitching and making it all about the missed call and taking away responsibility from the players. Emphasizing the missed call to me means they are trying to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again.
classic eggshell skull case. you take your victim as you find them. in this case the Caps can't play defense, so the Bs slight cheating had the same traumatic effect on the result as a more serious Penguins like form of cheating on a great team like the Flyers.
Do you buy into Philly's theory that Bobrovsky has sucked in the playoffs because he's inexperienced?
when yesterday or all of last year?
