GAME DAY: San Jose Sharks @ Ottawa Senators - 7:30pm ET - THUR. Dec. 2, 2010

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

Elliott is Clouston's guy. Leclaire gets playing time by Clouston only when Elliott needs a rest/injured, or Clouston is told to play Leclaire (the Vancouver game).

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

3.22 GAA .898 S% 1-5-1 record

His numbers are awful. Elliott's aren't much better, but he's (generally) the stable option.

I do agree though, CC has lost his sheen. I thought he did a great job when he got here, but some of his choices seem so boneheaded lately. Holding onto his timeout as though he can cash it in for a prize after the game, Kuba playing the right point on the PP (with SG on the left and EK on the second unit), playing injured guys for games and games on end, etc. He's made some bad calls, but I draw the line at conspiracy against his own players.

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

3.22 GAA .898 S% 1-5-1 record

His numbers are awful. Elliott's aren't much better, but he's (generally) the stable option.

I do agree though, CC has lost his sheen. I thought he did a great job when he got here, but some of his choices seem so boneheaded lately. Holding onto his timeout as though he can cash it in for a prize after the game, Kuba playing the right point on the PP (with SG on the left and EK on the second unit), playing injured guys for games and games on end, etc. He's made some bad calls, but I draw the line at conspiracy against his own players.

Point is Leclaire was in the net for 3 straight and during that time had a 2 GAA and 920 something SV% and there was NO reason to take him out against the Leafs.

Ya there was, it was a back to back with a guy who gets hurt sitting on the bench.

Give his body time to rest and put in the more successful goalie against a divisional opponent.

I have no issue with Elliott being put in that game.

stempniaksen wrote:Ya there was, it was a back to back with a guy who gets hurt sitting on the bench.

Give his body time to rest and put in the more successful goalie against a divisional opponent.

I have no issue with Elliott being put in that game.

You can't play him like you're afraid he's going to get hurt. He sat on the bench for 11 straight games. No way you can say he needed a rest.

Hemlock is right, though. Elliott is Clouston's guy. That, and the fact that, at the end of the day, what matters is the W combined to get Elliott back in net. Just like in the playoffs last year, Leclaire may have a good game or even a couple good games, but it's too little, too late IMO. He's had chances upon chances to take back the job and come up short. This last example may not have been his fault (lack of goal support), but them's the breaks. Short of a complete meltdown by Elliott, Leclaire doesn't have a shot at taking the reigns this year.

Look at it this way, between Elliott and Leclaire, who do you think has a shot at getting resigned in the off-season?

Then I hope for Leclaire's sake he regains the form he had in Columbus and strings together a couple shutouts and forces Clouston to play him.

Even then It wouldn't shock me if he put Elliott in if Ottawa was only winning 1 or 2 nothing.

Sharks' lines for tonight:

Marleau - Thornton - ASSHOLE
Clowe - Couture - Ferriero
McGinn - Pavelski - Mitchell
McCarthy - Nichol - Mayers

Moore - Boyle
Vlasic - Joslin
Murray - Braun

G: Niemi

Sens lines for tonight:

Regin - Spezza - Alfredsson
Michalek - Fisher - Kovalev
Foligno - Kelly - Neil
Ruutu - Winchester - Shannon

Phillips - Gonchar
Kuba - Karlsson
Campoli - Carkner

G: Leclaire

Number Twenty Nine wrote:https://www.youtube.com/user/OttawaGh0st4#p/a/u/0/XiNZ2QSXl44

I should have known it wouldn't be safe for home.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Leclaire deserves another start IMO. This is a rough one though...

again, Chucky has set him up to fail....

I've said this before. Leclaire has the ability to beat the best team and lose to the worst. Just out him in when he deserves it. Like now or the game before

spader wrote:

Michallica wrote:Here are some videos, including Heatleys press scrum. Courtesy scoreottawa (http://scoreottawa.wordpress.com/)

They let him off easy. I wish someone had pushed the point that he left for selfish reasons. I get that the media generally won't ask tough questions in that sort of circumstance, but it would have been great if someone had really let him have it and put him in a position that would force a real answer.

Or punched him in the mouth. Either's good.

Did they? He said it was "best to move on" and the immediate follow-up question was "For whom?"

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:

Michallica wrote:Here are some videos, including Heatleys press scrum. Courtesy scoreottawa (http://scoreottawa.wordpress.com/)

They let him off easy. I wish someone had pushed the point that he left for selfish reasons. I get that the media generally won't ask tough questions in that sort of circumstance, but it would have been great if someone had really let him have it and put him in a position that would force a real answer.

Or punched him in the mouth. Either's good.

Did they? He said it was "best to move on" and the immediate follow-up question was "For whom?"

What was the response to that?

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:

Michallica wrote:Here are some videos, including Heatleys press scrum. Courtesy scoreottawa (http://scoreottawa.wordpress.com/)

They let him off easy. I wish someone had pushed the point that he left for selfish reasons. I get that the media generally won't ask tough questions in that sort of circumstance, but it would have been great if someone had really let him have it and put him in a position that would force a real answer.

Or punched him in the mouth. Either's good.

Did they? He said it was "best to move on" and the immediate follow-up question was "For whom?"

What was the response to that?

He said that it was better for both sides and then alluded to the fact we picked up "a couple of good players".

I can't believe none of the media called him out on that, but I guess it would be throwing Cheech under the bus.

Maybe he meant Michalek and Cullen

Meanwhile, Cody Ferriero (the 5th round we gave to San Jose for the 2nd round in the Heatley trade) is playing on the 2nd line tonight.

wprager wrote:Meanwhile, Cody Ferriero (the 5th round we gave to San Jose for the 2nd round in the Heatley trade) is playing on the 2nd line tonight.

It's actually Benn Ferriero playing for the Sharks tonight. Cody is Benn's younger brother.