Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Sam Reinhart throws his goaltenders under the bus...Sabres imploding?
Quote:
"Too many mistakes. We can't expect to win hockey games, 6-5, 7-6," Reinhart said. "We need more from our goalies and we need it from the start of hockey games. It's frustrating."
Evan Rodrigues had a different view of things...kind of.
Quote:
"It's unacceptable. You're not going to win games playing defense like that," Rodrigues said. "We're scoring enough goals to win games but we're not defending. It's 50 games in. The learning's over. We just have to defend. You're not going to win giving up six goals. It's a valuable point but we should win that game. We gave them five easy ones."
Housley blaming his GM somewhat
Quote:
"That's Jason's job," Housley said pointedly. "Obviously, we're going to take a hard look at this game tonight and evaluate that tomorrow, but we're going to show it to them again and review it."
It stands to reason the head coach's evaluation should count big time and it seems like Housley isn't too big on what's going on at his old position. Memo to the GM: The trade deadline is 17 days away and counting.
"It's a choice you've got to make, protecting your own net and having respect for it," Housley said. "You look at the game and five of the six goals come right in front of our net. That's an area that players from the opposition should be very wary of going into. We've got to be tougher to play against. We've got to start pushing guys out."
Don't see this working out how Reinhart imagines it...
Here's the recap from the game that prompted this:
Goal 1: Wide open from the hashmarks, and Ullmark got a piece of it
Goal 2: Weird play from a broken stick that Ullmark made a weird windmill to keep attempt #1 (technically #2, I guess), but left the puck sitting in the crease and zero Sabres around to clear it
--- 3rd Period, 2-2
Goal 3: Pass through FOUR Sabres to a wide-open Hurricane uncovered at the far post. Easy goal with no chance for Ullmark. Greg McKegg even had a chance to recover it off the post and tap it in without a single defenceman touching him... and Ullmark on the ice
Goal 4: Ullmark makes a point blank save that pops high in the air landing behind the net. The 3 Sabres surrounding the Hurricane posted outfront do nothing at all, and it's an easy passing play from behind the net for another point-blank shot
Goal 5: Shot past the net that bounces to the far side for another uncontested passing play to the player standing right infront of the net again
--- OT, 5-5
Goal 6: Teravainen breakaway beats Ullmark
That's a pretty tough game to put on your goalie, especially from someone who was -3 and 0 points in their 7-3 loss to Chicago a few games ago. Defence was definitely a problem here, as the Hurricanes found some peaceful space right in front of Ullmark for most of these goals. There was a few good saves smattered in there, but he was getting trampled all night, and saves on those goals would have been highlight reel. Can't imagine after being run over and left for dead multiple times by his team that he's going to love having a bus roll over him to finish it off.
Really glad that the Flames stayed away from this non-sense seeing how it looks from this side of the fence.
Last edited by Split98; 02-08-2019 at 10:26 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
Bad reporting. He misspoke but in the context of his full quote he obviously meant they need more "for our goalies", not "from". Criticized the team commitment to defending the front of the net to help the goalies. https://www.tsn.ca/reinhart-we-need-...lies-1.1254320
"That's not what I meant at all," Reinhart said, per the Buffalo News. "I think if you follow through the interview a little bit and - obviously, I was frustrated - but I think if you follow around in the interview near the end, I'm saying we all need to come back and defend more. I was trying to say we need more for our goalies. It doesn't take a hockey genius to know those have been our two best guys all year.
"So I think that's on me. It was lost in translation. I wasn't trying to be hard on them at all. I was trying to be harder on the guys skating around the ice to come back and defend more. I mean, if you guys look at the way I handle myself in the media, I'm probably the most boring guy ever that you guys have come across in your how many years here. That's on me, and that's not what I meant at all. But we're already joking around today, so we're all good."
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
Bad reporting. He misspoke but in the context of his full quote he obviously meant they need more "for our goalies", not "from". Criticized the team commitment to defending the front of the net to help the goalies. https://www.tsn.ca/reinhart-we-need-...lies-1.1254320
"That's not what I meant at all," Reinhart said, per the Buffalo News. "I think if you follow through the interview a little bit and - obviously, I was frustrated - but I think if you follow around in the interview near the end, I'm saying we all need to come back and defend more. I was trying to say we need more for our goalies. It doesn't take a hockey genius to know those have been our two best guys all year.
"So I think that's on me. It was lost in translation. I wasn't trying to be hard on them at all. I was trying to be harder on the guys skating around the ice to come back and defend more. I mean, if you guys look at the way I handle myself in the media, I'm probably the most boring guy ever that you guys have come across in your how many years here. That's on me, and that's not what I meant at all. But we're already joking around today, so we're all good."
Ummm, OK. But in his interview he said "we need more FROM our goalies" Not "for". And needing something more "from" X is usually what someone would say. His explanation makes more sense from a "what would a decent guy usually say" perspective, but actually less sense from a common phrase sense, if that makes any sense.
Ummm, OK. But in his interview he said "we need more FROM our goalies" Not "for". And needing something more "from" X is usually what someone would say. His explanation makes more sense from a "what would a decent guy usually say" perspective, but actually less sense from a common phrase sense, if that makes any sense.
Again, he misspoke. He's clearly frustrated and phrased it badly, but he's literally talking before and after about making defensive mistakes and not committing as a team.
Maybe he meant to say "we need (to do) more for our goalies" then. If you watch his full interview and hear the comment in context, it should be obvious.
Asked about too many defensive breakdowns. Starts by talking about making too many mistakes. Comment about the goalies. Not enough fight from many in this room, defensive lapses. "Need more respect for our own end", defending the other team's top guys, etc.
In the context, he's absolutely not throwing the goalies under the bus. He's calling the team out for not helping the goalies out.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
Again, he misspoke. He's clearly frustrated and phrased it badly, but he's literally talking before and after about making defensive mistakes and not committing as a team.
Maybe he meant to say "we need (to do) more for our goalies" then. If you watch his full interview and hear the comment in context, it should be obvious.
Asked about too many defensive breakdowns. Starts by talking about making too many mistakes. Comment about the goalies. Not enough fight from many in this room, defensive lapses. "Need more respect for our own end", defending the other team's top guys, etc.
In the context, he's absolutely not throwing the goalies under the bus. He's calling the team out for not helping the goalies out.
Sure, I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. Like I said, the statement seemed odd from a team perspective. I'm sure he was embarrassed when rehearing it. Though I don't think it was as obvious as you do (I did hear the whole thing before this thread).
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Ummm, OK. But in his interview he said "we need more FROM our goalies" Not "for". And needing something more "from" X is usually what someone would say. His explanation makes more sense from a "what would a decent guy usually say" perspective, but actually less sense from a common phrase sense, if that makes any sense.
Yeah its pretty clear the Sabre PR staff hit defcon 1 after being told of the quote and then had Sam reel it back in as soon as he could.
Sam Reinhart throws his goaltenders under the bus...Sabres imploding?
