Post game analysis - Game 1, Ottawa @ Pittsburgh

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.

N4L wrote: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.

The point of it all is that Elliott was good enough to win, but nowhere near as good as he usually is, right?

N4L wrote:

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.

It actually doesn't make sense to me. You are inter-twinning the 2nd goal against with the 4th goal.

I am not sure how to properly give a response because I never said what Elliott was probably thinking on the 4th goal. I gave him a pass on that one even though he would like it back as well.

SpezDispenser wrote:

N4L wrote: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.

The point of it all is that Elliott was good enough to win, but nowhere near as good as he usually is, right?

Point is Elliott never gave up a lead, Elliott made the saves he had, Elliott got the job done. End of story.

N4L wrote:

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.

This whole time I have been talking about a goalies reality.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Indeed but far enough away from 4 GAA and 810 save percentage to prove my point.

Yeah but...this is game one and we took some bad penalties and Elliott didn't have a prayer on at least 3 of those goals. Maybe 4.

Are you saying maybe he had no prayer on the backhander? I disagree. I've seen him stop much more difficult shots. In the end he didn't have to, but it would be nice if he stops that backhander in game 2. If it ends up that he didn't have to in game two either, I'm fine with that, too.

He had butterflies in his belly at the start when he bobbled the shot. Then a couple of shots later he gets beat on the PP. After that he had one shot to face over something like 21+ minutes. That's really tough on a goalie. This was, by no means, an easy game. Same can be said about Fleury's game. I expect both to have better games on Friday.

The only goal I call into question whether Elliott should have saved it was the Adams' backhander. Mind you, even the guys calling the game said that they are a tricky shot for goalies to handle.

Like I said, yes he won, the Sens won, but to keep it going he's going to have to tighten up a lot. It's okay when your team can score 5+ goals, but it is definitely a lot more important to not allow 4+ goals.

I'm still very confident with this team. I think it has a clot of character guys (so cliché), and the guys that have the experience where it is needed the most. For a young, and relatively inexperienced team, they played very well, and you have to give them a lot of credit for beating the reigning champions in their own arena.

I think we are going to see a different game and different series starting tomorrow night. If this series plays out like the first game, I would be worried about defence.

N4L wrote:
Point is Elliott never gave up a lead, Elliott made the saves he had, Elliott got the job done. End of story.

You know I'm a huge Elliott fan, but he'll have to be better than that if we want to do any damage. And he can do better, he's an excellent goaltender. Not saying he had that much of a chance on some of them, but I think he can probably clean things up a little more once he gets over a little of the playoff jitters.

N4L wrote:Nothing at all but everyone's opinion of his game last night should be "not his best game but it was only his first NHL playoff game. He got the job done and he will get better as the series goes on". That's all that should have been said about him today.

The only thing Elliott has proven if he has proven anything is he shuts people up and proves them wrong, he wins, and he bounces back after he doesnt play up to his own standards.

I seem to remember another rookie goalie that took us far. What's his name again? This one's got a better attitude.

Dash wrote:The only goal I call into question whether Elliott should have saved it was the Adams' backhander. Mind you, even the guys calling the game said that they are a tricky shot for goalies to handle.

Like I said, yes he won, the Sens won, but to keep it going he's going to have to tighten up a lot. It's okay when your team can score 5+ goals, but it is definitely a lot more important to not allow 4+ goals.

I'm still very confident with this team. I think it has a clot of character guys (so cliché), and the guys that have the experience where it is needed the most. For a young, and relatively inexperienced team, they played very well, and you have to give them a lot of credit for beating the reigning champions in their own arena.

I think we are going to see a different game and different series starting tomorrow night. If this series plays out like the first game, I would be worried about defence.

Couldn't agree more.

Really reading the Pitts boards today everyone is talking about how much better Fleury has to be.

Ok, so you guys get fleury playing better for next game. We need Elliott, Alfie, and SPezza and Regin.

That top line wasn't a great line for us yesterday and Elliott needs to improve just as Fleury does. I'm not sure Sidney and Malkin can play that much better than they did (They can get better but I don't believe it will be a lot) whereas Spezza, Alfie, and Regin can be much much better.

CockRoche wrote:

N4L wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

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.

You guys are both goalies -- surely you should be able to agree

CockRoche wrote:

N4L wrote:

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.

It actually doesn't make sense to me. You are inter-twinning the 2nd goal against with the 4th goal.

I am not sure how to properly give a response because I never said what Elliott was probably thinking on the 4th goal. I gave him a pass on that one even though he would like it back as well.

Malkin has the puck, not Ovechking. You respect the pass and you respect the shot. Phillips is taking away part of the shooting lane which allows Elliott to play the pass a little more agressivly. Deflections no goaltenders are in position for because they are deflections, those are stopped mostly because of reflexes.

Elliott played that 2nd goal perfectly. Even the first one Gonchar is at the point on his one time side with a cannon shot, at the same time the crease is totally crowded and Elliott still cant get out to challenge like he would. He tooks the shortest route to the shooter (Malkin) and slide across. He could have had that one but it found the 5 hole, oh well. Challenging the shooter on that goal had nothing to do with Malkin finding the 5 hole.

wprager wrote:
Are you saying maybe he had no prayer on the backhander? I disagree. I've seen him stop much more difficult shots. In the end he didn't have to, but it would be nice if he stops that backhander in game 2. If it ends up that he didn't have to in game two either, I'm fine with that, too.

He had butterflies in his belly at the start when he bobbled the shot. Then a couple of shots later he gets beat on the PP. After that he had one shot to face over something like 21+ minutes. That's really tough on a goalie. This was, by no means, an easy game. Same can be said about Fleury's game. I expect both to have better games on Friday.

My mistake, I keep thinking they scored 5 for some reason. Yeah, the backhander was the one that could have been a back-breaker.

CockRoche wrote:

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.

To be fair, Neely said "never gave up the lead" and 0-0 is not a lead. I didn't catch that immediately.

Dash wrote:The only goal I call into question whether Elliott should have saved it was the Adams' backhander. Mind you, even the guys calling the game said that they are a tricky shot for goalies to handle.

Like I said, yes he won, the Sens won, but to keep it going he's going to have to tighten up a lot. It's okay when your team can score 5+ goals, but it is definitely a lot more important to not allow 4+ goals.

I'm still very confident with this team. I think it has a clot of character guys (so cliché), and the guys that have the experience where it is needed the most. For a young, and relatively inexperienced team, they played very well, and you have to give them a lot of credit for beating the reigning champions in their own arena.

I think we are going to see a different game and different series starting tomorrow night. If this series plays out like the first game, I would be worried about defence.

100% agree.

I have tried to say the same thing and I did in the other Game 1 thread.

I have never once put down Elliott, he has a bright future and is mature beyond his years. My analysis of the goals against were meant to be from Elliott's perspective.

I have never been more confident in the Sens (and Elliott) then I am right now.

CockRoche wrote:100% agree.

I have tried to say the same thing and I did in the other Game 1 thread.

I have never once put down Elliott, he has a bright future and is mature beyond his years. My analysis of the goals against were meant to be from Elliott's perspective.

I have never been more confident in the Sens (and Elliott) then I am right now.

I don't see how anyone can argue with this. Elliott's our best goaltender in a long time, he'll be great. Last night he was not great, but good enough.