| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 06:49:32
Was it a good idea to try to get the upper hand on Anaheim by checking Selane's stick? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest0521 |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 10:53:11
I would just like to point out one thing about this topic that nobody has mentioned yet. Don't you think that if MacT hadn't called for the stick check, that Anaheim would've called a time out? Everyone talks about momentum, but a 2 minutes time out is a long time when you're standing on the ice waiting for a face off. The adrenaline goes down, start to feel the heavy legs after playing 3 periods, I've been there (not at an nhl level, obviously). There is no doubt in my mind that Anaheim would've called one, to let their players rest, regroup and come up with a plan or play, and to take away some of the momentum.
i personally think that even with momentum on their side, with less than 2 minutes left the odds of scoring 5 on 5 are extremely low. But there are a few points to think about when considering if the Oilers made the right call.
1)If he's right, they get a powerplay. But then Anaheim can ice the puck without consequence, so you don't really want to pull the goalie knowing they can take a shot at it as soon as they touch the puck. But you don't have to pull the goalie until the last 45 seconds or so because you've already got a man advantage.
2) There are different kinds of man-advantages. There's the 6 on 5, pull your goalie one, but then you've got 5 bodies to try to get the puck through. Or, you can try for the 5 on 4, less bodies, better tactical advantage, more ice to move the puck around. Turn it into a 6 on 4 by pulling the goalie, have an extra guy to hang around the net on the opposite side of where you shoot the puck from to bang in a rebound.
3) Or you don't call for the stick check, pull your goalie, Anaheim can't freely ice the puck, but they call a time out to kill your momentum.
To me, the choice is obvious. With 'good information' you have to make the call. Best odds, most options, keeps you in control of the game. Didn't work out this time. |
| Guest9233 |
Posted - 04/04/2009 : 12:07:33
Bad Call, like someone said earlier the Risk vs. Reward was not there, it seems to me like McT is just "going through the motions" this year (calling players out in a very insincere way, not to mention he was overusing it and therefore diminishing it's value), I wouldn't be suprised if he wanted out of Edmonton next season and performed sub-par this year to get out of any contracts... seems that way to me at least. That 10-2 loss at Rexall is burned in my memory... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 17:55:27
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Why didn't Mac T make the same call yesterday? I am sure somebody on th Ducks plays with an illegal stick. It was a 1 goal game at that point if I am correct.
I would assume two reasons for this. Firstly, he didn't have any kind of information saying anyone was using an illegal stick. Secondly, if he was to make the same call again and have it backfire, he would not have made it off the bench. There would have been 18000 people ready to lay a beating.
As a side note, I was at the game against the Sharks yesterday and I made a point during the 1st intermission to ask people about the call. I didn't keep exact numbers, but I would say 3 out of every 4 people I talked to said similar things. Basically, right call in a tough spot that didn't work. Most of them said they would have done the same thing.
I know that doesn't mean anything, but I wanted to see if I was on glue for my opinion. Obviously, others share my opinion.
The thing to me is that this call is either right or wrong in all situations. You can't say it's a good call in the 1st period but not in the 3rd or a good call in game 15 but not game 75.
|
| tbar |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 11:33:33
Why didn't Mac T make the same call yesterday? I am sure somebody on th Ducks plays with an illegal stick. It was a 1 goal game at that point if I am correct. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 09:12:39
Now, to get back to the discussion - I really don't think that blaming the team for their effort for the first two and a half periods is relevant to MacT's decision on the stick call. You deal with the hand you are dealt, and at that point in the game, I would think that most coaches wouldn't take that same risk. Quoting former coaches who are now colour commentators doesn't hold much water with me either, as their opinion is coloured by their obvious interests - working in the NHL again as a coach, and defending their peers.
I wouldn't be willing to make the call for an illegal stick that late in the game, especially against a wily veteran, when my team is carrying the play and pushing hard on their own for the equaliser. Like I said, hindsight is 20/20, so it wouldn't be the sort of thing I am willing to gripe too loudly about; but it seems to me he made the wrong call. If the Oil had been down by two goals, I'd say he made the right call; one goal and the team is pressing (which gives them a very good chance to score as well), I wouldn't have taken the chance.
Bottom line: Why would I take the chance on the illegal stick call backfiring, thereby completely taking away any good opportunity for a tying goal? As a coach, you want to give your team the best chance to win, without taking unnecessary risks to eliminate that chance.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| MSC |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 08:33:25
I didn't get involved in this one in the first place....there,their, and they're is just a pet peeve of mine and I find it hard to ignore. It's my OCD kicking in. I pumped "Some of us are due for our daily English lesson" into word and didn't get the red text of grammar death. Not that that's the be all end all. Either way the comment wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, just a general statement.
Now to keep this relavent....
I understand the arguement about the Oilers already having momentum but they already beat the odds by scoring the second goal, the odds were extremely stacked against them scoring a third goal under the same circumstances as the previous two. He didn't just pick a random player and hope for the best, he had enough reason to suspect the call would work in his favor. If he was going to pick a random player he would have checked Pronger who is the biggest barrier (other then the goalie) between them and a goal. He took a chance (educated albeit) and made the call hoping to get his team into the playoffs. He had to make the call because it was obvious that the team was unwilling to fight for their play off lives when it mattered (the first 50 minutes of the game). |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 04:44:35
Let's keep out the personal attacks, boys. Attack the point of view, not the person . . . it strengthens both your argument and your character.
MSC - People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
"Some of us are due for our daily English lesson."
Correction: Some of us are due our daily English lesson. {grammar}
The correction of spelling and punctuation remains as a last resort for someone who is losing an argument. You were doing well enough before all that . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest9235 |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 03:15:45
I agree with beans, it was the right call to make. The Oilers were lucky they even had a chance in the game, And Mactavish obviously had some info as to the stick being illegal. He was the unfortunate scapegoat of a team who didnt deserve to be in the game |
| shazariahl |
Posted - 04/03/2009 : 00:00:51
I don't like Mac T, and I feel he needs to be replaced. That being said, it was the only call he could make. Beans is right - the entire team played badly for 50 minutes. If they'd have played better, they wouldn't have been in that possition. Sure, he was wrong, and that may have cost them the game. But not showing up for 50 minutes also will cost teams a lot of games.
Mac T's problem isn't calling for a stick check, its an inability to motivate and fire up this team down the final stretch. The Oilers need to be picking their game up, and that simply hasn't happened lately. |
| Thrasher17 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 22:31:22
My opinion when i first heard about the call was that it was a bad one. But after thinking about it for a while, I realized that it all depends on the situation, which as fans we will most likely never know for sure. If someone informed MacT that Selanne was using an illegal stick (which is the likely scenario) then it would almost be irresponsible for him not to make the call, knowing whats on the line. I mean you get a 6 on 4 PP, a face-off in the Anaheim zone, and even more momentum??? You have to be able to take that risk as the coach and live with the consequences.
|
| Guest4180 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 21:23:20
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2101
Well lets put this in another perspective. Had Mac T been correct on his call does that impove the chances of getting the tying goal? Yes. Does it garuntee they're going to score? No.
If Mac T is wrong does it hurt the team? Yes. Does it gaurentee they're about to lose the game? Yes 99% of the time. The risk reward factor is astronomicly weighted against the Oil if thy are wrong.
Lets say your chances are 50/50 of scoring 5 on 5. Now you call the stick check your chance increase 20 - 25%. So lets say the Oilers now have a 75 % chance to score not bad.
Now the Oilers call the stick check and they are wrong. Yur chances of scoring short habded are (I dont have any offical stat) but I would say around 5%. So your chances just went from 50% - 5%.
Risk vs. Reward. Not so Black and White to make that call IMO.
You only make the call unless you are 100% certain. If he doubted himself he wouldn't have made the call. Yes it turns out he was wrong. I don't have the stats on stick calls but I would presume that the percentage of correct stick calls is HUGELY in favour of the coach making the call - i'd bet in the neighborhood of 80%+. Mac T made the right choice. |
| Guest4180 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 21:17:39
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Beans, firsly I ant stand basketball
Jesus! what the hell did you say here? Man take some pride. Maybe a little. |
| Guest4180 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 21:13:43
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Some of us are due for our daily English lesson.
Their - shows ownership
They're - they are
There -
1. in or at that place (opposed to here ): She is there now.
2. at that point in an action, speech, etc.: He stopped there for applause.
3. in that matter, particular, or respect: His anger was justified there.
4. into or to that place; thither: We went there last year.
5. (used by way of calling attention to something or someone): There they go.
6. in or at that place where you are: Well, hi there.
–pronoun 7. (used to introduce a sentence or clause in which the verb comes before its subject or has no complement): There is no hope.
8. that place: He comes from there, too.
9. that point.
–noun 10. that state or condition: I'll introduce you to her, but you're on your own from there on.
–adjective 11. (used for emphasis, esp. after a noun modified by a demonstrative adjective): Ask that man there.
–interjection 12. (used to express satisfaction, relief, encouragement, approval, consolation, etc.): There! It's done.
Thanks tbar, the correct usage of words does help to make a point clear. So does a reasonable use of punctuation, both of which are sadly lacking around here. I can't count the amount of times i've been baffled by what people have wrtten in this forum so I'm glad you brought this up. A reasonable use of English should be expected when you consider that we are in a forum and the medium relies entirely upon WORDS. |
| Guest2101 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 19:28:12
Beams, Hope your haveing fun at the game it looks like a good one on the tube. |
| Guest2101 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 19:27:02
Well lets put this in another perspective. Had Mac T been correct on his call does that impove the chances of getting the tying goal? Yes. Does it garuntee they're going to score? No.
If Mac T is wrong does it hurt the team? Yes. Does it gaurentee they're about to lose the game? Yes 99% of the time. The risk reward factor is astronomicly weighted against the Oil if thy are wrong.
Lets say your chances are 50/50 of scoring 5 on 5. Now you call the stick check your chance increase 20 - 25%. So lets say the Oilers now have a 75 % chance to score not bad.
Now the Oilers call the stick check and they are wrong. Yur chances of scoring short habded are (I dont have any offical stat) but I would say around 5%. So your chances just went from 50% - 5%.
Risk vs. Reward. Not so Black and White to make that call IMO. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 16:29:42
Couple of things:
1) Let's not get personal and start correcting people's grammer or telling others to do what ever with their A$$. Everyone has a responsibility to manage their own posts, which means proper spelling and grammer. Please see the three forums below.
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=609
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=608
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2160
2) Tbar, thanks for proving my point. The fact that you had issue with it but would not have if the call was in favor of the Oilers is exactly what I expected. That is where we will have to agree to disagree. I will support a coach who takes a risk to give his team a chance to win every time, not just when it works.
Enjoy your evening, I am off to Rexall to see the mighty Oil take down the Sharks!
|
| tbar |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 14:09:04
quote:
Originally posted by Matt_Roberts85
Just so you know Tbar, WIlsons stick call happened with 2 minutes left in the 3rd, just like MacTs.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E".
OK I wasn't sure on that. Still its a huge difference in a nothing game to a everything game.
And Dangel that is absolutly halarious. |
| DangleFest89 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 13:56:14
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Tbar, I did play sports. In fact, I played a high level of basketball. So let's do a comparison.
My team is down 2 points with 20 seconds left. Winner goes to the Provincial final, loser goes home. My team just made a steal the previous trip down the floor and scored. Obviously, the momentum is in my teams favor. So there are two choices. One, let your team try to steal the ball again. Or two, foul the other team to stop the clock and put the other team on the foul line. The first option is far riskier as the other team has a chance to pass the ball around for 20 seconds and let the clock run out. The other opportunity ensures that your team will have at least one more possession if not 2 or 3.
Not fouling the other team put the game in the other teams hands as much as it is mine. Fouling the other team puts the game in my hands.
So which is the right call??? 99.999999% of every basketball player, coach, fan, or anyone else who knows the sport would say foul the other team.
Just a couple of other quick things. I may have jumped the gun to be defensive. I have had people on here question me because I never played organized hockey. If I was out of line, my apologies.
The reason that most coaches do not call for stick measurements is not that those coaches are bad. It's that you have to be quite certain that the call will go in your favor. Obviously MacT wasn't making the call on a gut instinct. Something was there. And as I said a few posts ago, there was many indications (ie taking a few minutes to measure the stick, keeping the stick in the box and telling Selanne to get a new stick) to say that the measurement was closer than one thinks.
And just answer one question for me. Would your opinion be the same if the stick was illegal??? If the penalty was called against the Ducks and gave the Oilers at 5 on 4 with the potential with a 6 on 4 advantage, would you be saying, "MacTavish is a complete moron for giving his team the extra advantage."
I guess what I am trying to understand is if it's the decision that you disagree with or the outcome of the decision. It's two completely separate things.
Did you just compared basketball to hockey? lol
Moderator Edit - Again, inappropriate content. There is "colorful" language in video from your link to say the least. If you have a problem with me removing the link, contact admin. I will continue to remove the link as have other moderators. Thanks |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 13:34:01
Just so you know Tbar, WIlsons stick call happened with 2 minutes left in the 3rd, just like MacTs.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 12:33:57
Beans, firsly I ant stand basketball so I have no idea what I would do in the example you presented.
If Mac T was right I probably would have no issue with it. If Mac T was wrong and it was to start the 3rd period wouldn't be as big a deal. The facy that he took the chance to put his team on the PK at that point in the game with everything that had just happened is what I dont like. Like I said before if the game had been in limbo for the last 10 minutes try something. In this game leave it alone your team finally has a leg to jump on. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 12:25:47
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
Some of us are due for our daily English lesson.
Their - shows ownership
They're - they are
There -
1. in or at that place (opposed to here ): She is there now.
2. at that point in an action, speech, etc.: He stopped there for applause.
3. in that matter, particular, or respect: His anger was justified there.
4. into or to that place; thither: We went there last year.
5. (used by way of calling attention to something or someone): There they go.
6. in or at that place where you are: Well, hi there.
–pronoun 7. (used to introduce a sentence or clause in which the verb comes before its subject or has no complement): There is no hope.
8. that place: He comes from there, too.
9. that point.
–noun 10. that state or condition: I'll introduce you to her, but you're on your own from there on.
–adjective 11. (used for emphasis, esp. after a noun modified by a demonstrative adjective): Ask that man there.
–interjection 12. (used to express satisfaction, relief, encouragement, approval, consolation, etc.): There! It's done.
If this was directed at me I will simply tell you to [inappropriate content]. If you have not realized that this is not a forum on proper use of the word their, they're or there then you are [inappropriate content]. I am not sending an email to my peers or boss or clients on here so why do I care if my English is not correct. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 12:16:06
Tbar, I did play sports. In fact, I played a high level of basketball. So let's do a comparison.
My team is down 2 points with 20 seconds left. Winner goes to the Provincial final, loser goes home. My team just made a steal the previous trip down the floor and scored. Obviously, the momentum is in my teams favor. So there are two choices. One, let your team try to steal the ball again. Or two, foul the other team to stop the clock and put the other team on the foul line. The first option is far riskier as the other team has a chance to pass the ball around for 20 seconds and let the clock run out. The other opportunity ensures that your team will have at least one more possession if not 2 or 3.
Not fouling the other team put the game in the other teams hands as much as it is mine. Fouling the other team puts the game in my hands.
So which is the right call??? 99.999999% of every basketball player, coach, fan, or anyone else who knows the sport would say foul the other team.
Just a couple of other quick things. I may have jumped the gun to be defensive. I have had people on here question me because I never played organized hockey. If I was out of line, my apologies.
The reason that most coaches do not call for stick measurements is not that those coaches are bad. It's that you have to be quite certain that the call will go in your favor. Obviously MacT wasn't making the call on a gut instinct. Something was there. And as I said a few posts ago, there was many indications (ie taking a few minutes to measure the stick, keeping the stick in the box and telling Selanne to get a new stick) to say that the measurement was closer than one thinks.
And just answer one question for me. Would your opinion be the same if the stick was illegal??? If the penalty was called against the Ducks and gave the Oilers at 5 on 4 with the potential with a 6 on 4 advantage, would you be saying, "MacTavish is a complete moron for giving his team the extra advantage."
I guess what I am trying to understand is if it's the decision that you disagree with or the outcome of the decision. It's two completely separate things.
|
| MSC |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 12:05:47
Some of us are due for our daily English lesson.
Their - shows ownership
They're - they are
There -
1. in or at that place (opposed to here ): She is there now.
2. at that point in an action, speech, etc.: He stopped there for applause.
3. in that matter, particular, or respect: His anger was justified there.
4. into or to that place; thither: We went there last year.
5. (used by way of calling attention to something or someone): There they go.
6. in or at that place where you are: Well, hi there.
–pronoun 7. (used to introduce a sentence or clause in which the verb comes before its subject or has no complement): There is no hope.
8. that place: He comes from there, too.
9. that point.
–noun 10. that state or condition: I'll introduce you to her, but you're on your own from there on.
–adjective 11. (used for emphasis, esp. after a noun modified by a demonstrative adjective): Ask that man there.
–interjection 12. (used to express satisfaction, relief, encouragement, approval, consolation, etc.): There! It's done.
|
| leigh |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 12:02:33
I liked the decision to make the call. It took a lot of balls to do it and you know he wouldn't have done it without some input from some of the players (his information was only as good as what his player's were giving him)
Yes, it was a very risky call but considering that they were down a goal and are on the ouside of the playoffs looking in, I liked it. If he was right, instant "genius!", but because he was wrong he looks bad, that's the way it goes, you take the good with the bad...a few years ago when he was in the playoff finals, he was a genius.
As for him coaching the Oil next year, I'd say pretty strongly it will be a no. Like he said himself, you only get so long to make it happen. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 11:34:33
Well Beans did you play any sports? Because yes momentum has a whole lot to do with the game in any sport for that matter. Had the Oilers not made that call and kept going the flow of the game doesn't change. It puts a tone of pressure on the Ducks players on the ice to keep the puck out of the net because their are also fighting for a playoff spot. They might grip their sticks a little tight and make some mistakes. Instead they stoped the play, checked the stick, were wrong and brought a tone of relief to the Anahiem players. Even if they were right it still gives the Ducks a chance to regroup and it slows down the pace of the game (not what I would want to happen at that point).
Anybody can say they would do this or that till they are put in the situation and they can very easile change their mind. Look at toterella, he said something along the lines that Avery does not belong in the NHL. Guess what he is coaching him now. So what some guy says on tv should not be worth a pot to piss in, because it's all speculation.
Beans said "Any coach in any league who is worth his salt will take the chance for a 6 on 4 advantage with 2 minutes left at the end of a must win game over hoping that momentum continues."
If me tlling you that people who actually played the game is a personal attack then this would classify as well.
And in response to that statement one more time whay is it that other coaches are not doing the same thing more often. I belive Ron Wilson is the only other coach to question another players stick all year. He also did so to start the third if I remember correctly. He happened to be bang on that time. If this is what all so called good coaches do why dont we see one every night around this time of year? Their are a tone of games where teams need points but their not calling for stick checks. Those teams must all have bad coaches.
|
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 11:00:56
MacT is definatley being painted as the scapegoat here, he took an educated risk and it backfired. Beans is right, the team didnt play well for 50 minutes when the game was still up for grabs. It was mentioned above, hindsight is 20/20, desperate times call for desperate measures. The same thing worked for Wilson a few weeks back, it very well could have gone the other way then as well.
Do you guys think MacT is standing behind the bench on opening night next fall?
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 09:37:14
Interesting Tbar, as I watched theof coverage on the story from TSN and Sportsnet. When they asked the Panel on TSN, the former coach on the panel (and Cup winner) Peter Laviolette emphatically stated that he would have done the exact same thing. So did Bob MacKenzie. So did most any other coach that they asked about. When asking Selanne himself, he said he would have done the same thing.
With all due respect to your level of coaching, I take the words of wisdom from the pro's over most anyone else. And it really doesn't matter if I have played the game or not. That point is irrelevant and I take that as a personal shot. Because I grew up in a family that could not afford the cost of playing hockey, how does that make my opinion any more or less valid??
And the funny thing is that everyone is calling his decision stupid. However, if the call goes his direction, he looks like a God regardless if they win or lose. As Slozo said, Hindsight is 20/20. And the absolute bottom line is that a team that is out of the playoffs and fighting for a spot should not have put themselves in the position to be down a goal. That entire game, save the last 10 minutes of the 3rd, was a completely weak effort from every member of that hockey team.
However, MacT takes a risk to try to give his team an advanatage in the last 2 minutes and he is the scapegoat. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 06:53:47
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
It would have been a bad coaching move to not take the risk.
Any coach in any league who is worth his salt will take the chance for a 6 on 4 advantage with 2 minutes left at the end of a must win game over hoping that momentum continues.
I am a coach their bud. I coach Midget Hockey not the highest level but my players still want to win. I would NOT have made that call.
And anybody that has actually played the game knows that momentum has a whole lot to do with what happens on the ice.
If I were coaching I put my top 5 guys on the ice that I think can get the job done and once we are established in the attacking zone pull my goaltender. (There is the powerplay you so despritly want).
I would have to assume their would be a stop in play somewhere in those 2 min. where I would then call a timeout and let my 6 guys rest a bit and go try to get the job done.
And how come other coaches are not making this call more often if only good coaches do this??? |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 04:18:08
Must have been a tough call to make knowing several things:
1. Selanne is well known to have an illegal stick (I seem to remember he's gotten caught before).
2. As a wily veteran, you'd have to know he has a legal stick as well, specifically for times like this with a tight game and a lead.
3. Your team has the momentum in a comeback, but there's only 2 minutes left, and frankly, your season might be on the line here. Stakes are extremely high.
Myself, I wouldn't have made the call knowing all these things, which we would have to assume MacT knew as well or better than we do. But, we also don't have the kind of pressure that coaches have when they are on the cusp of making the playoffs in a game where they are down by one goal with 2 minutes to go.
I'd say it's the wrong call probably, but hindsight is 20/20. You win some, you lose some.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 18:19:28
Again, I ask, think with your head and not your heart.
I have been a die hard Oilers fan for longer than some on here have been alive. I bleed Blue and Orange, but I am also a realist.
Ultimately, the Oilers roster is average or just slightly above. Sure, their defense is solid offensively, but they also turn the puck over as often or more than any other team out there. Their goaltending has been sensational towards the end of the year, but their forwards are below average. They have only one legitimate 1st line player on the team (and he is very inconsistant), and maybe 4 players that would be considered 2nd line players. They don't have the offensive skills to pay the bills. They are at least 2 top 6 forwards away(at least one of them being a top 3 forward) from contending, regardless of who is coaching.
Now, I agree that MacT's time in Edmonton has run out, but not because he is a bad coach. The needs that the Oilers have he can not meet and his system has run it's course. It is time for a change.
However, I would agree with the call that MacT did every single time. As a coach, you can not ride momentum. You have to play the percentages. And a 6 on 4 advantage is has a much higher likelihood to produce a goal over "momentum" any day of the week.
And again, it's not like it was a shot in the dark. Did anyone actually see that the measurement took more than a few seconds?? Did anyone see that at one point the ref told Selanne to go get another stick?? That is almost always an indication that it was a penalty. I think (in my opinion) that the stick was borderline illegal and the refs decided to play on.
That's my piece and I am done. There is nothing that anyone can say that would change my mind on this specific situation. MacT did the absolute right thing on challenging the stick to give his players an opportunity to win. It's didn't pan out. That's what happens sometimes when you take a risk. |
| DangleFest89 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 18:00:03
Your right its the players fault there coach took a dumb chance he wasn't right on I still would never praise him even if he was right they were playing good hockey and just like Tbar said it killed the the momentum if you really think the team needs a 6-4 to score a goal that bad to risk it your not really saying alot of confidence with just one extra man yes blame the players for the medicoracy Macblender has been doing all these years this "When one player slumps its his own fault, When the whole team slumps its the coaches fault" anyone know the answer to the Oilers longest winning streak this year and anyone else no when it happen? Its time for him to go time for change hes a brutal coach and always has been 2006 fluke run means nothing cough cough all roli and pronger when we can't play one full sixty minute game in a season.
Let give this old boys club some new blood fire Mact after we miss the playoffs for the 6th year outta his 9 year span. Oh wait lets keep him he will coach any other team to a stanley cup NATTTTTTT. He probably try to turn Sidney Crosby into a 3rd line grinder if he ever got the chance.
Ever notice its always the players fault in interviews?
Moderator Edit : The link was removed. Inappropriate Content. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 16:53:48
You can say all you want about momentum and anything else. It would have been a bad coaching move to not take the risk. Sure, it didn't work out. But it's still a risk that I would have definately taken in the same position.
And getting back to momentum, there is no way to judge that the momentum would have continued a the Oilers would have scored a goal in their were not short handed. However, consider that if the stick was illegal and it was the Ducks in the box, that would have given the Oilers a destinct advantage of being on the PP, and more than likely would have pulled their goalie for an extra attacker making it a 6 on 4.
Any coach in any league who is worth his salt will take the chance for a 6 on 4 advantage with 2 minutes left at the end of a must win game over hoping that momentum continues.
Please, think with your head and not with your heart.
And MacT didn't cost the Oilers the game. It was the 20 players on the ice who decided that they were not going to show up until the 3 period. Last time I checked, MacT wasn't out there playing. |
| Guest6177 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 16:21:38
lost them the game. FIRE HIM!!!!!! |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 15:16:19
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5898
it shouldnt be a penalty if your wrong , that way u can sneak an illegal stick in and the other coach might not call it due to the risk
There would be NO risk if you were wrong then.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| Guest9235 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 12:34:39
quote:
Originally posted by Canucks Man
The thing with that call is that MacT couldn't have waited any longer because he couldn't have been sure that Selanne was going to be on the ice again, as you can't call a stick check on someone off the bench, so it might have been the last chance to do it. MacT isn't stupid, he obviously had enough informantion to think that stick was illegal otherwise he would not have called it. If it had been an illegal stick then everyone here would be praising MacT for making the call, and not throwing him under the bus.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
Thats exactly what i was going to say. Although a different point could be seen as Mact went with a hunch on playing Stortini as the extra man with roli pulled, and he scored in being out there for 10 seconds, so maybe mactavish thought if one thing worked, why not try another and get the man advantage? I disagreed with the thought and thought it too risky, even if they wouldve got the call go there way. If they were still down by 2 id have been fine with it |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 12:00:06
The thing is that it’s a 50/50 chance that you’re right. Knowing that and considering the time left in the game and the momentum your team has at the moment why not let them keep attacking and take your chances 5 on 5. The 2 goals they previously scored were 5 on 5. And yes if Mac T was right people probably would be praising him. But like someone mentioned the players are not stupid, if they normally play with an illegal stick they will change it in the later minutes of a game with that much importance. Far too risky of a decision in my opinion. |
| Bozonator |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 11:38:22
It should be a penalty, cause the coach could ask for a billion stick checks without a problem or a consequence. It is the same with the goalie rule if you keep switching the goalies over and over again.
As for the stick call, it is a good call, cause like a guest said, you have all the momentum which is when you want a powerplay. You have the team on the ropes and then you go on a power play. MacT risked it though and wasn't right. Too bad. But worth the risk. |
| Guest2972 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 11:19:22
Most players who use illegal sticks also keep legal sticks for the late moments of the game, because that's when opposing coaches tend to get sticks checked.
MacTavish probably had very reliable information that Selanne had an illegal stick (perhaps Penner, perhaps a spy who inspected the sticks)...it doesn't matter...it's very likely that Selanne was using an illegal stick, and, out of habit, changed to a legal stick for the last 5 minutes of play.
|
| Guest5898 |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 11:15:56
it shouldnt be a penalty if your wrong , that way u can sneak an illegal stick in and the other coach might not call it due to the risk |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 11:14:11
The thing with that call is that MacT couldn't have waited any longer because he couldn't have been sure that Selanne was going to be on the ice again, as you can't call a stick check on someone off the bench, so it might have been the last chance to do it. MacT isn't stupid, he obviously had enough informantion to think that stick was illegal otherwise he would not have called it. If it had been an illegal stick then everyone here would be praising MacT for making the call, and not throwing him under the bus.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
