[Locke]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I didn't have a problem with it. There were lots of stoppages and Brouwer is regularly deployed as the center when down two. Ideally Backlund would have been there, but he was in the box.

That being said I think the turning point was the brutal giveaway and sequence right after we score to go up one. That shift gave the Sabres life and reason to keep playing and engaged. The book on them is score early and take them out of the game. Instead we immediately gave them life. Very similar to the Winnipeg game where just getting one more would have been the difference and Buffalo would have just gone through the motions.

On the positive side, I thought Lazar had a great game. The Flames also with that point have earned the 8 points needed for this 7 game segment, and they still have LA and EDM left to try to add on to that total. A three point game outside the conference, so they got a point and didn't give two to any meaningful team. On to the LA game.

I disagree, I thought this post from the Gulutzan thread outlined it pretty well:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Monahan, Bennett, Stajan, Jankowski - they all have better face-off winning % than Brouwer. I don't care about handedness, Brouwer had lost two straight face-offs and Gully used him AGAIN - despite the fact he'd been on the ice for a minute and a half straight.

Even if Brouwer wins that face-off - what's the plan? Brouwer straight to the bench? Or was he planning to keep using him in the 4v4? So you're choosing to play the worst player on the team in 4v4 hockey while he's north of 90 seconds into a shift?

There's no defending leaving Brouwer on the ice. It was a coaching decision that directly led to the team losing the game.

Its pretty clear. He left tired players on the ice during a PK in OT. Just dumb.