GAME DAY #7: Devils @ Sens - 7:30pm ET - Thursay Oct. 22, 2015

Ev wrote:we've also only lost 2 games this year

Pretty sure we lost to Montreal 3-1 and were shutout by the Penguins. Then the SO losses the last two games (Nashville and Jersey). They are winless at home. They are also 3rd i the Division so not even in need of a Wildcard spot.

In three OT games this year the Sens have taken 3 minor penalties. 3 minors in 15 minutes of icetime is like taking 12 minors in a game. They *have to* fix this.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:The Smith penalty that put us down 2 guys was so unnecessary and dumb.  Lucky he scored later to tie it because at least one of those were on him.

Scratch-worthy?  

I don't think you scratch a guy for accidentally flipping the puck over the glass.  The fourth line is not the reason the Sens are losing games.

I was actually specifically asking SD since he agreed with me on the severity of that penalty.  You simply cannot "accidentally flip" the puck when you are killing a penalty.  That puck should have been directed exactly where it needed to go unless it was deflected.  It's not like he dove to knock it away and, thus, had little control over where it went.  It was on his stick, on his forehand, I believe, and he was not bothered very much or rushed.  This was not an accident but, rather, a mistake.

So you're suggesting they healthy-scratch Smith after he scored a goal and call someone up from the AHL and pay an extra NHL salary because Smith got a puck over the glass penalty?

If you think that this is something in the realm of possibility, you're nuts.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:The Smith penalty that put us down 2 guys was so unnecessary and dumb.  Lucky he scored later to tie it because at least one of those were on him.

Scratch-worthy?  

I don't think you scratch a guy for accidentally flipping the puck over the glass.  The fourth line is not the reason the Sens are losing games.

I was actually specifically asking SD since he agreed with me on the severity of that penalty.  You simply cannot "accidentally flip" the puck when you are killing a penalty.  That puck should have been directed exactly where it needed to go unless it was deflected.  It's not like he dove to knock it away and, thus, had little control over where it went.  It was on his stick, on his forehand, I believe, and he was not bothered very much or rushed.  This was not an accident but, rather, a mistake.

Definitely not, he showed a lot in that game to like. That play was 100% dumb, but he made up for it.

The whole line was great. Prince there added a huge dimension of speed and skill.

I'd like chiasson to go away now please.

Also really liked zibanejad and Ryan and michalek last night. Big breakthrough night for them I hope.

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:The Smith penalty that put us down 2 guys was so unnecessary and dumb.  Lucky he scored later to tie it because at least one of those were on him.

Scratch-worthy?  

I don't think you scratch a guy for accidentally flipping the puck over the glass.  The fourth line is not the reason the Sens are losing games.

I was actually specifically asking SD since he agreed with me on the severity of that penalty.  You simply cannot "accidentally flip" the puck when you are killing a penalty.  That puck should have been directed exactly where it needed to go unless it was deflected.  It's not like he dove to knock it away and, thus, had little control over where it went.  It was on his stick, on his forehand, I believe, and he was not bothered very much or rushed.  This was not an accident but, rather, a mistake.

So you're suggesting they healthy-scratch Smith after he scored a goal and call someone up from the AHL and pay an extra NHL salary because Smith got a puck over the glass penalty?

If you think that this is something in the realm of possibility, you're nuts.

You're still not getting it -- I was asking what SD thought. It was a question. With a question mark at the end of the sentence instead of a period. You know, when your voice kinda goes up a bit at the end? Just like it did that time? Or this one? You know what I'm saying? Or do I need to give more examples?

SpezDispensed wrote:Also really liked zibanejad and Ryan and michalek last night.  Big breakthrough night for them I hope.

That one pay where Michalek cut around the defender and in front of the goal gave me shivers. Wonder if he can teach Zibanejad how to do that.

SpezDispensed wrote:

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:The Smith penalty that put us down 2 guys was so unnecessary and dumb.  Lucky he scored later to tie it because at least one of those were on him.

Scratch-worthy?  

I don't think you scratch a guy for accidentally flipping the puck over the glass.  The fourth line is not the reason the Sens are losing games.

I was actually specifically asking SD since he agreed with me on the severity of that penalty.  You simply cannot "accidentally flip" the puck when you are killing a penalty.  That puck should have been directed exactly where it needed to go unless it was deflected.  It's not like he dove to knock it away and, thus, had little control over where it went.  It was on his stick, on his forehand, I believe, and he was not bothered very much or rushed.  This was not an accident but, rather, a mistake.

Definitely not, he showed a lot in that game to like.  That play was 100% dumb, but he made up for it.

The whole line was great.  Prince there added a huge dimension of speed and skill.

I'd like chiasson to go away now please.

Chiasson was instrumental on Hoffman's rocket, though.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:The Smith penalty that put us down 2 guys was so unnecessary and dumb.  Lucky he scored later to tie it because at least one of those were on him.

Scratch-worthy?  

I don't think you scratch a guy for accidentally flipping the puck over the glass.  The fourth line is not the reason the Sens are losing games.

I was actually specifically asking SD since he agreed with me on the severity of that penalty.  You simply cannot "accidentally flip" the puck when you are killing a penalty.  That puck should have been directed exactly where it needed to go unless it was deflected.  It's not like he dove to knock it away and, thus, had little control over where it went.  It was on his stick, on his forehand, I believe, and he was not bothered very much or rushed.  This was not an accident but, rather, a mistake.

So you're suggesting they healthy-scratch Smith after he scored a goal and call someone up from the AHL and pay an extra NHL salary because Smith got a puck over the glass penalty?

If you think that this is something in the realm of possibility, you're nuts.

You're still not getting it -- I was asking what SD thought.  It was a question.  With a question mark at the end of the sentence instead of a period.  You know, when your voice kinda goes up a bit at the end?  Just like it did that time?  Or this one?  You know what I'm saying?  Or do I need to give more examples?

You're in a mood. If you want to ask one person specifically, please direct your smarmy attitude to the PM function on this very page. If you want to post publicly and have people (sometimes other than the ones you really really hoped would answer) answer your questions, post on the boards.

It's really quite simple.

Obviously not a Family Guy fan or you would have gotten it.

wprager wrote:Obviously not a Family Guy fan or you would have gotten it.

You made two separate comments about how you didn't intend for others to respond. You only wanted a response from SD. Was that on Family Guy? I must have missed that one.

It was a dumb question. And then you prattled on about how it was a mistake that Smith made, not an accident.

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:Obviously not a Family Guy fan or you would have gotten it.

You made two separate comments about how you didn't intend for others to respond. You only wanted a response from SD. Was that on Family Guy? I must have missed that one.

I asked a question based on someone's post. I never suggested he should be sat out, just was wondering if SD thought so (if anything, he was even more upset with Smith on that penalty).

The Family Guy reference was the repeated questions with the voice rising at the end of the sentence. It's a bit where Stewie repeatedly asks Brian how his book writing is going. After a few questions his voice goes really high.

tim1_2 wrote:It was a dumb question.  And then you prattled on about how it was a mistake that Smith made, not an accident.

The hell it was. And you'd better believe that if that happened more than once it would certainly be considered. Smith got a goal and his line played well, but I didn't see anything that Smith himself did that made me take notice. One shot. One hit. No blocks or takeaways. Did well on face offs. He did slightly more than Chiasson which is not saying much.

And, yeah, it was *not* an accident. If you do everything right and something bad happens, then it's an accident, otherwise it's a mistake.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:It was a dumb question.  And then you prattled on about how it was a mistake that Smith made, not an accident.

The hell it was.  And you'd better believe that if that happened more than once it would certainly be considered.  Smith got a goal and his line played well, but I didn't see anything that Smith himself did that made me take notice.  One shot.  One hit.  No blocks or takeaways.  Did well on face offs.  He did slightly more than Chiasson which is not saying much.

And, yeah, it was *not* an accident.  If you do everything right and something bad happens, then it's an accident, otherwise it's a mistake.  

Anyway.......he's not going to get scratched because of it for the reasons I already mentioned.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:It was a dumb question.  And then you prattled on about how it was a mistake that Smith made, not an accident.

The hell it was.  And you'd better believe that if that happened more than once it would certainly be considered.  Smith got a goal and his line played well, but I didn't see anything that Smith himself did that made me take notice.  One shot.  One hit.  No blocks or takeaways.  Did well on face offs.  He did slightly more than Chiasson which is not saying much.

And, yeah, it was *not* an accident.  If you do everything right and something bad happens, then it's an accident, otherwise it's a mistake.  

Is that the dictionary definition?

What's the status of Hoffman? If he can't go, I'd like to see Prince get a few reps in the top 6.

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:It was a dumb question.  And then you prattled on about how it was a mistake that Smith made, not an accident.

The hell it was.  And you'd better believe that if that happened more than once it would certainly be considered.  Smith got a goal and his line played well, but I didn't see anything that Smith himself did that made me take notice.  One shot.  One hit.  No blocks or takeaways.  Did well on face offs.  He did slightly more than Chiasson which is not saying much.

And, yeah, it was *not* an accident.  If you do everything right and something bad happens, then it's an accident, otherwise it's a mistake.  

Is that the dictionary definition?

It's what I keep telling my kids when they repeatedly do what I tell them not to do (eating in front of the tv and making a mess, staying up late/sleeping in and missing the bus, playing with a ball inside and breaking something, etc.) and then tell me I shouldn't get upset because it was just an accident. If it's avoidable it's not an accident, it's negligence.

Cameron says Hoffman is day to day.