Time For Consistency

First off, sorry for the lack of posts lately, I’ve been swamped, and unable to find the time to post.

But I have had the time to watch the past two games versus the Bruins and Leafs.

I for one wasn’t entirely disappointed by the Bruins loss. In fact, I was happy to watch the Sens continue trying to win the game, even though the effort only made for even more goals against.

For sure they didn’t play good hockey, but they did work hard, if not smart.
I left that game greatly disappointed in the loss, but with high hopes that the team was coming together.

Cue the Leafs game.

The Sens came out of the shute at full speed, and simply owned the Leafs, scoring 3 goals, all on the PP (one penalty shot) before, once again, backing off their opposition.

Thanks to some outstanding play from Elliott the Sens were able to hold on for the win.

But, win or lose, what mattered the most, in both games, was the desire to win, it was there, in spades.

Here’s hoping we’ll see far more of the version of the Sens vs. Leafs, then the Sens vs. Bruins.


Here’s the link to my latest b/r article.

Ottawa Senators Burn The Leafs, But Get Too Close To The Fire.


5 Responses to “Time For Consistency”

  1. GN .. the referees tried their best to win it for To . So blatant ..

    – delay of game penalty although the puck touched the glass
    – Kovalev goal .. (there was another game where a similar goal was allowed).
    – The first goal where Eliot was screened should have been disallowed if one used the Boston game as a guide.


    • It was pathetic…but whatryagunnado?

    • I agree. The reffing has been terrible and often stacked against the Sens. The worse it gets, and the more often it happens, the greater the fuel for conspiracy theories, right or wrong. The pattern is pretty convincing though I must say…

  2. Johnny_Spectacular Says:

    That Kovie goal being called back vexed me so hard – the ref fished the puck out of the net! What is wrong with a system wherein all evidence and logic points to ‘goal’ and they call it back based on a technicality?

  3. IMO the reason the Sens and most other teams play passively (ie a 1-4 trap) to defend a lead in the third period is that high powered two way hockey is very energy expensive for a (potentially) 100 game season – you will burn out by Christmas!

    To me the disturbing thing is not that the Sens played defensively in those situations but that they had difficulty doing so – as you pointed out they don’t have a shutdown pair and that is a major problem – all great teams have the ability to protect a one-goal lead and bring it home – the Sens are obviously not there yet

    I don’t quite get Clouston’s rationale for finally letting Gonchar and Karlsson play on their off wings on the PP – they looked pretty lethal against the Laffs – he seemed to say that because he had reservations about Karrlson’s defensive play he didn’t want risk trouble by having them play positions where the defensive responsibilities were greater – Aye Carumba!! – don’t you think when the other team is down a man their offensive chances are significantly reduced and you can take more offensive chances – but what do I know? – I am just a fan

    As always – enjoyed your comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: