Post game analysis - Game 1, Ottawa @ Pittsburgh

N4L wrote:That 2nd goal Elliott let in went right off of Phillips, how he can prepare for a deflection of his D man's leg Ill never know. The goals that went in on Elliott last night were good goals, end of story.

Elliott getting a win in his first game is a pass.

You beat me to it.

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

So every goal should have been stopped? Really?

N4L wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

So every goal should have been stopped? Really?

pretty sure that malkin goal was a huge screen

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

All goalies want all goals back to be fair. As for the first Malkin goal I can't comment as I missed it and only heard and read about it. The second Malkin goal was deflected off the inside of Phillips knee and changed direction. To suggest he should have had that one is a bit far fetched.

Not only is Phillips in the way of Elliott getting a clean look it goes off of him on it's way into the net. Fluke plain and simple. No way Elliott should have been expected to anticipate the puck hitting his D man's knee and changing direction like that.

I can understand why the 2nd Malkin goal is in question when it comes to my post.

But, I am not saying that the best goalie in the world would have stopped it. I think Elliott has a very bright future and actually the majority of my post today speak highly of him. I am also not saying that Elliott lacked the reflexes to adjust to the deflection. But again, something as simple as coming out to challenge the shot a bit more may have cut down the angle enough to get a bigger chuck of the puck. I am just saying that Elliott wants another crack at that shot and he knows what he did wrong in his mind to make the save next time.

Does this make sense? I hope it does.

SpezDispenser wrote:
Agreed on pretty much everything here as well. No matter what happens, Chris Kelly, Ruutu and Neil have all cemented themselves here. They all had great years and now they're not trying to do anything fancy, just play their games in the playoffs. Paid in the arses, tough as nails, love it! They earned their pay cheques this year, this is an awesome bonus.

Umm, was that in bills or in loonies?

N4L wrote:That 2nd goal Elliott let in went right off of Phillips, how he can prepare for a deflection of his D man's leg Ill never know. The goals that went in on Elliott last night were good goals, end of story.

Elliott getting a win in his first game is a pass.

How can he prepare for that deflection?

Be further out of his crease. By cahllenging a bit more, he cuts the angle down from the shot and the potential deflection, thereby allowing him to maybe get a bigger piece of the puck.

I agree that all the goals were good goals (except for Adams - bad angle by Elliott), but my conversation started by saying Elliott wants every goal back and the reasons why he wants them back.

I hope nobody thinks I am saying he should have stopped them as I am a big supporter of Elliott, but with that said, Elliott wants all those goals back in his mind.

That is all I was trying to say by breaking each goal down.

I hope this makes sense.

N4L wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

So every goal should have been stopped? Really?

In goalies minds...yes.

N4L wrote:Ok, people crying about Elliott or saying he needs to be better should probably stop talking about goaltending (like they usually should) because he doesnt. He didnt give up a lead once, he made the saves he had to when it mattered, he shut the door.

Other than about 3-1/2 minutes into the game.

We cannot assume that Fleury will continue to give up goals he should be stopping (Neil) or that we will continue getting lucky bounces (Kelly -- and I'm pretty sure either Winch or Smith could have pout that one in).

Take away the bad bounce and that backhander could be the back breaker. The Sens forwards (with a little luck) save Elliott's bacon last night. If he returns the favour tomorrow then it's just the way it ought to be. I'm not putting ash on my head and ripping my shirt because Elliott let in a a bad goal or two, but I'm not going to sit there and say nothing matter except the W. I do not expect to win on Friday if we gives up another 4 goals on 21 shots; nor do I expect that he will do that. As someone already mentioned, this kid has a pretty good head; he rebounds well after so-so outings.

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

All goalies want all goals back to be fair. As for the first Malkin goal I can't comment as I missed it and only heard and read about it. The second Malkin goal was deflected off the inside of Phillips knee and changed direction. To suggest he should have had that one is a bit far fetched.

Not only is Phillips in the way of Elliott getting a clean look it goes off of him on it's way into the net. Fluke plain and simple. No way Elliott should have been expected to anticipate the puck hitting his D man's knee and changing direction like that.

I can understand why the 2nd Malkin goal is in question when it comes to my post.

But, I am not saying that the best goalie in the world would have stopped it. I think Elliott has a very bright future and actually the majority of my post today speak highly of him. I am also not saying that Elliott lacked the reflexes to adjust to the deflection. But again, something as simple as coming out to challenge the shot a bit more may have cut down the angle enough to get a bigger chuck of the puck. I am just saying that Elliott wants another crack at that shot and he knows what he did wrong in his mind to make the save next time.

Does this make sense? I hope it does.

How can you come out and challenge when your D dont clear the crease? That takes him right out of the play. Does that make sense? I hope it does. That 4th goal he had no where to go.

wprager wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:
Agreed on pretty much everything here as well. No matter what happens, Chris Kelly, Ruutu and Neil have all cemented themselves here. They all had great years and now they're not trying to do anything fancy, just play their games in the playoffs. Paid in the arses, tough as nails, love it! They earned their pay cheques this year, this is an awesome bonus.

Umm, was that in bills or in loonies?

Sounds uncomfortable any way you look at it.

CockRoche wrote:

shabbs wrote:What was nice to see was that after each goal the Pens put in, the Sens came back with more intensity and stepped it up to quash any momentum Pitt got. Great to see.

That shows a lot of character and a lot of confidence in the system that Clouston preaches. Keep skating, be accountable and when you are on the ice, you better work your Donkey off. Results will follow.

Yep, Clouston deserves props for his role in this.

wprager wrote:

N4L wrote:Ok, people crying about Elliott or saying he needs to be better should probably stop talking about goaltending (like they usually should) because he doesnt. He didnt give up a lead once, he made the saves he had to when it mattered, he shut the door.

Other than about 3-1/2 minutes into the game.

We cannot assume that Fleury will continue to give up goals he should be stopping (Neil) or that we will continue getting lucky bounces (Kelly -- and I'm pretty sure either Winch or Smith could have pout that one in).

Take away the bad bounce and that backhander could be the back breaker. The Sens forwards (with a little luck) save Elliott's bacon last night. If he returns the favour tomorrow then it's just the way it ought to be. I'm not putting ash on my head and ripping my shirt because Elliott let in a a bad goal or two, but I'm not going to sit there and say nothing matter except the W. I do not expect to win on Friday if we gives up another 4 goals on 21 shots; nor do I expect that he will do that. As someone already mentioned, this kid has a pretty good head; he rebounds well after so-so outings.

Great post.

wprager wrote:

N4L wrote:Ok, people crying about Elliott or saying he needs to be better should probably stop talking about goaltending (like they usually should) because he doesnt. He didnt give up a lead once, he made the saves he had to when it mattered, he shut the door.

Other than about 3-1/2 minutes into the game.

We cannot assume that Fleury will continue to give up goals he should be stopping (Neil) or that we will continue getting lucky bounces (Kelly -- and I'm pretty sure either Winch or Smith could have pout that one in).

Take away the bad bounce and that backhander could be the back breaker. The Sens forwards (with a little luck) save Elliott's bacon last night. If he returns the favour tomorrow then it's just the way it ought to be. I'm not putting ash on my head and ripping my shirt because Elliott let in a a bad goal or two, but I'm not going to sit there and say nothing matter except the W. I do not expect to win on Friday if we gives up another 4 goals on 21 shots; nor do I expect that he will do that. As someone already mentioned, this kid has a pretty good head; he rebounds well after so-so outings.

True, but we cannot assume that the Refs will not learn anything from Talbot and his great diving performances and grant the type of brutal penalties that they did twice in game 1.

Take away those two power plays and they only score 2 goals not 3 and even then I'd almost guarantee that Elliott either saves the Adams shot again, or I doubt seriously Adams can get it up twice in one year. I'll leave the comments about my last statement to Dash.

EDIT should have said

Take away those two powerplays and they only score 2 quality goals, not 3 (I don't count Adams goal as one that would go in again).

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

The Adams one bothered me, but the Malkin ones were pure snipes IMO, one of them deflecting, the other one was just a bullet. If given another chance on the one that wasn't deflected, I'm sure Elliott could stop it, but in his first ever playoff game, I'd probably give him a pass on that one.

At first I thought the 4th one was a waste until I saw the replay and saw how fast Crosby got it to Goligoski.

You guys are right though, I'm not saying that Elliott was anywhere near as good as he needed to be - but he won, so that's what counts. He needs to be a lot better in Game 2 though. A lot better.

CockRoche wrote:

N4L wrote:That 2nd goal Elliott let in went right off of Phillips, how he can prepare for a deflection of his D man's leg Ill never know. The goals that went in on Elliott last night were good goals, end of story.

Elliott getting a win in his first game is a pass.

How can he prepare for that deflection?

Be further out of his crease. By cahllenging a bit more, he cuts the angle down from the shot and the potential deflection, thereby allowing him to maybe get a bigger piece of the puck.

I agree that all the goals were good goals (except for Adams - bad angle by Elliott), but my conversation started by saying Elliott wants every goal back and the reasons why he wants them back.

I hope nobody thinks I am saying he should have stopped them as I am a big supporter of Elliott, but with that said, Elliott wants all those goals back in his mind.

That is all I was trying to say by breaking each goal down.

I hope this makes sense.

So, on the pk if he is out past the blue paint and Malkin makes the pass to the left he's totally out of the play and there is an open net. You realize there is more to goaltending then just challenginf the shooter right? I hope this makes sense.

wprager wrote:

N4L wrote:Ok, people crying about Elliott or saying he needs to be better should probably stop talking about goaltending (like they usually should) because he doesnt. He didnt give up a lead once, he made the saves he had to when it mattered, he shut the door.

Other than about 3-1/2 minutes into the game.

We cannot assume that Fleury will continue to give up goals he should be stopping (Neil) or that we will continue getting lucky bounces (Kelly -- and I'm pretty sure either Winch or Smith could have pout that one in).

Take away the bad bounce and that backhander could be the back breaker. The Sens forwards (with a little luck) save Elliott's bacon last night. If he returns the favour tomorrow then it's just the way it ought to be. I'm not putting ash on my head and ripping my shirt because Elliott let in a a bad goal or two, but I'm not going to sit there and say nothing matter except the W. I do not expect to win on Friday if we gives up another 4 goals on 21 shots; nor do I expect that he will do that. As someone already mentioned, this kid has a pretty good head; he rebounds well after so-so outings.

Really? Sens started the game with a 1-0 lead eh?

Devo wrote:
True, but we cannot assume that the Refs will not learn anything from Talbot and his great diving performances and grant the type of brutal penalties that they did twice in game 1.

Take away those two power plays and they only score 2 goals not 3 and even then I'd almost guarantee that Elliott either saves the Adams shot again, or I doubt seriously Adams can get it up twice in one year. I'll leave the comments about my last statement to Dash.

Yeah, I don't know how that Adams dude did that, but I'd bet he couldn't do it again in 1000 tries.

CockRoche wrote:

N4L wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Don't get carried away. Do you mind if if disagree with you for a quick second?

Elliott wants the first Malkin goal back. He was in position and the puck got through him with no screen. He knows he has to read that play a bit quicker which would have allowed him be more upright and tight.

He wants the second Malkin goal back as well. He was way to deep in his net.

The Adams goal was a poor angle, he knows that one must be stopped.

I can make and excuse for the 4th goal as well, but I won't. Ask Elliott and he will tell you he wants that one back as well though.

Goalies are perfect, Elliott is no exception.

So every goal should have been stopped? Really?

In goalies minds...yes.

Ok, we are talking about reality here.