The Athletic Hockey Show - Controversial onside call shadows Colorado Avalanche win over Edmonton Oilers in game one of Western Final

Episode Date: June 1, 2022

Rob Pizzo of CBC Sports and Jesse Granger from the Athletic breakdown game one of the Western Conference final between the Colorado Avalanche and Edmonton Oilers, the questionable coaches review on Cale Makar's 1st period goal, the goaltending and all that offence.Shayna Goldman returns to the roundtable to give her take on the Eastern Conference series between Tampa Bay and the New York Rangers, offers her opinion on the onside goal in Denver and what she expects to see in game two.Plus, Rob and Jesse touch on Jordan Binnington's water bottle toss comments, Martin St. Louis officially being named head coach of the Montreal Canadiens and Jason Spezza retiring from the NHL.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What's going on, everybody? Welcome to another fine edition of the Athletic Hockey Show, the Wednesday Roundtable Edition. I am Rob Beasel from CBC Sports, joined as I am each and every week by Jesse Granger, who is in Vegas. How are you? I'm doing great. How are you?

I'm doing good, just the two of us today, because Sarah's out, you know, hurricane season's over. I've been using that dad joke for, like, for like, like, days now, by the way. So obviously, she's, she's busy with her gig with the, the hurricanes and closing up shop there for another season. So it's going to be myself and Jesse. And then Shana Goldman's going to join us in the second half of the show from The Athletic. Always love having Shana on to talk a little bit of everything.

Do we have anything talking about today, Jesse? I don't know. Did anything happen last night of interest? A few goals after last night. Wow. Talk about living up to hype. Unbelievable. Like, you know, I've been doing a lot of radio and TV hits.

preparing, you know, people for this series in Canada. And I kept saying, guys, this is going to be a crazy series. It's going to be wacky. They're going to see a lot of goals. You're going to see amazing talent. You're going to see questionable goaltending. You're probably going to see some drama and some controversy. But I meant over a seven game series.

I didn't think they would cram all of that into game one. It got so crazy last night that I got a text from somebody that said, quote, I've never done cocaine, but I have to imagine it's like watching this hockey game. And that text came from one, Jesse Granger. We're going to take a deep dive into this, Jesse, but just your impressions of just a crazy game one. Yeah, it was, it was insane. These playoffs, I feel like the trend in these playoffs, the overwhelming trend is like, they've lived up to the hype.

Like the battle for Alberta. We talked about it for 30 years. How many seasons have we thought we were going to get it? And we didn't. And then we finally did. And it's so much like sports for when you finally get that series for it to just suck. And it didn't. It lived up to the hype. It was amazing. Andrei Vasilevsky in the East shutting down the Panthers. I thought that he was like kind of, that kind of for me was living up to the hype. And now we've got two conference finals that could not be more different. And we talked about how the goalies in the other series and the offenses in this series. And game one did not disappoint even a little

bit. There was that one stretch from what first, end of the first and the beginning of the second period. I've never seen hockey played like that before. Like, I think there were five goals in five minutes. And there were also like seven high danger chances that didn't go in during that same five minutes stretch. Like, there could have been 12 goals in that five minutes, uh, just insane hockey. You know, every year around the All-Star break, we say, could you imagine if they actually cared about this game and actually tried? That's what I kind of felt like last. night was. Yeah.

Throw a ton of talent on the ice and give them stakes. Give them something that they want to, you know, to play for. Like I said, I knew it was going to be crazy. I didn't think it was going to be that crazy. And I know there were a lot of matchups people were focused in on. Obviously, McDavid versus McKinnon was kind of the marquey one. But I love the fact that so many other things dominated, you know, the, the storylines will call it that way.

Like, it's kind of funny. Like, really. McDavid had three points. McKinnon, what, two points. They both scored. And I feel like they're number like 12 on the thing we need to talk about today. Yeah. Yeah, I agree.

Definitely did not expect those two to be in the shadows. That goal by McKinnon, though, it's just, like, I don't know, maybe I'm wrong in this, but like I stereotype hockey players that like the crafty guys are usually the like slow guy, like the guy who might not be the most physically like commanding guy who's not flying up and down the ice. He's just crafty. He's got those little moves in tight. Like, don't let, don't give that guy time and space in front. McKinnon makes those crafty moves at 115 miles an hour. It's insane. Mike Smith tried to poke check him and looked like an idiot. It, it, he, McKinnon is just, he, like I said, you're not supposed to be that crafty moving that fast. It's

unbelievable to watch. And the best thing is we've got two of them in the series. Right. I mean, that we've got two guys who do that. Um, we're going to get into everything. I, I'm going to leave this one up to you. Do you want to talk the offside now or do you want to leave it to save for later? Let's do it. Let's talk now. Let's do it now because I know in the end people are going to say that's not why they lost or they're maybe even tired of hearing about it. But I've never felt this way about a call in all of my hockey watching lifetime.

clearly to me we're watching a game in which instant replay is used to determine calls 99% of the time when you're watching a replay and you know as the referees over there looking at his iPad you're going okay this is coming back this is going to count you have your opinions and there are times where you think okay um I know the answer to this question last night was one of those times for me Jesse I would have bet everything I owned Yep. Same. That this goal was coming back.

And I, do you ever have like an instance where you feel like you're almost like dreaming? You know what I mean? Like, oh, they just said it's a good goal. No, I misheard that. Like that can't, that can't be the answer to this question. Were you as shocked as I was? I mean, that's as shocked as I've ever been watching a replay goal allowed in hockey. Yes, it is because I think I've, I've had, it's not the first time I've felt.

that way because pretty much every time there's a review for goal interference, I feel this way, where I feel like I know the answer and then it's wrong. But we kind of just expect it with goal interference. Like I've trained myself to say, okay, I'm like 90. I'm like 99% sure this is goal interference, but they are going to call that. So don't be surprised when they don't. I've prepared myself. With offside, I have not given myself the same preparation for them to just blatantly get it wrong. And we're, we can talk about it. And there is a, there is a specific ruling and then there's a spirit of the rule. And I, I'll argue with anyone on this planet that's offside. I was under the mistaken impression that I knew the rules to the sport. A sport I've been playing and watching

since I was five years old. Here's, here's, and I love that you said the spirit of the rule, because that's what I think is really at the heart of this whole thing. I've heard all the people in the world explain to me why this is a good goal. Basically, it's a delayed offside. Basically, when he crosses the blue line with the puck, Kail Makar, for that fraction of a second, is not touching the puck with his stick, because he's in the middle of, what's that thing called again?

Just stick handling, okay? he's going from his backhand to his forehand. And that just happens to be the instance where we have a player tagging up. So it's, like I said, essentially a delayed offside. That's not what delayed offside is. That's not why it's in the game. Delayed offside is to keep the game moving. You've got a forward trapped in there and you go, okay, I'm going to chip it in.

Had Keel McCar just, like I said, even if he chipped into just a few feet to give himself a couple of seconds, To do it, I'm on board. That's not what he did. No one on planet Earth is going to convince me that he didn't have 100% control of this puck throughout the entire play. That's offside. Now, if we're going to lawyer the hell out of this, if this is a court of law and this is going to determine whether or not somebody is given the electric chair, guess what?

It's on side because his stick is not touching the puck. That doesn't mean it's not ridiculous. Yeah. Where I think I disagree with the way that it was ruled is, and you kind of touched on this, I think you and I have a disagreement with the NHL on what possession is, because to me, Kail McCar has possession. And there's no argument. And if there was no blue line, say this was in another part of the ice, and you watched that

video and you said, at any point during this three second clip that we just showed you, Did Kail McCarr lose possession of the puck? Any logical person would say, no, he has it the whole time. So just because his stick isn't touching it doesn't mean he doesn't have possession. And what drives me even more crazy is they have used, like they interpret this rule when you're, when you're talking about offside, they interpret possession. Sometimes guys will cross the blue line before the puck does. If a guy turns around and catches the puck skating backwards, right?

Yeah. We've seen this play ruled where a guy. will turn around and catch the puck and now he's skating backwards into the zone and it's not offside. Yes, his skates are crossing the blue line before the puck does, but he has possession. He has possession of the puck. So if if he can not be offside skating backwards because he's got possession, then how are we not considering McCarr having possession on that play, thus ruling, I forgot who it was, the player trying to get back outside the blue line offside. I don't understand how you can, in one of those instances,

say he's got possession, so it's not offside, which, by the way, I agree with that ruling. If a guy skates in backwards, but he's got the puck, he shouldn't be offside. He's got the puck.

He's bringing it into the blue line. I just totally disagree with this. I feel like they're doing to this rule. And this is, by the way, this is the first time we've ever seen this happen. This isn't a constant thing like we are with goal interference. I don't ever remember this happening in offside,

but I feel like it might happen more going forward. Now that it's happened once, now the referee is going to be looking at it. And I feel like we're heading in the direction of catches in the NFL where they're just, come on, guys, you know what a catch is. Stop trying to micromanage this with ultra slow motion into a way where you can find a way to lawyer it into not being a catch. Like, we're heading in the same direction and they need to change this ruling in the offseason or whenever the next time they can negotiate it. This has to be changed to where we don't get into this.

Kail McCar had possession. That's offside. A couple things you said I want to touch on. Overtinking, I think is 100% what we're doing here. Slow motion. You know, I saw some people actually tweeting last night with the super ultra slow motion replay of it saying, Kail McCar knew exactly what he was doing. He pushed the puck over the blue line without touching it because he knew his player had to tag up.

Watch this play in regular speed. And there's not, like I said, not a human on the planet who's going to tell me he's, lost possession. But knowing all this, and you know, I know you mentioned it's never happened before, people are now diving into, you know, old shots and saying, but I think all of them are a little bit different than what we saw last night. This being said, if I'm ever a player near a blue line and I see a player racing out to, to tag up, just don't touch the puck. Right. And I'm not saying put your hands in the air. I'm saying move your stick up like an inch away from the puck and cross the blue line.

Yep. And you should be good. You know what I mean? Like your first five feet into the blue line. Just glide with the puck gliding with you. Don't touch it. Jesse, you know me. I hate completely where we get.

Right. And then like we're doing the like slippery slope right here. But still, if we get to a point where now every time players are going in like to the offensive zone, they're just not touching the puck for the first three feet so guys can be offside or not. It's like, what are we doing? Yeah. By that rationale.

Okay. By the rationale. that that was an allowed goal. For that split second where he doesn't touch the puck, where he's going from the backhand to forehand, he's not eligible to be hit. That's interference. Right.

Yeah, he doesn't have the puck. He doesn't have the puck. He doesn't have possession of the puck. You cannot hit him. So again, when someone's coming to hit you, just don't be touching the puck. Right.

And meanwhile, guys are finishing checks. Oh. Three seconds after the puck's gone and it's a perfect. And it's a clean hit. Like, I, again, I'm a huge fan of law. I'm a huge fan of, and look, the rules are set there for a reason.

We need a rulebook. You need because you're always going to have one team that says one thing and the other team that says the opposite. But again, I want everyone to watch Keomacar enter the zone at regular speed and tell me that he lost possession or purposely did not touch the puck as it crossed the blue line. And this was not a six one goal. This was a response to the tying goal in the dying seconds of the period. You know, what's the age old thing in hockey, never gave up a goal in the first minute of the period or the last minute of the period? And that's exactly what happened.

I think it's got to be reassessed. I think possession has to be reassessed. Everything. Again, and you know what? I haven't heard anything from the NHL from this. All I've heard from analysts and everybody else. And, you know, I saw somebody point out on Twitter. When Blake Coleman's goal was disallowed for the kick.

we got an explanation from the NHL. Why haven't we got an explanation as to why this was allowed? So maybe I'm wrong. We're recording this at 1219 Eastern Times. So, you know, something comes in the afternoon. So you know, but yeah. But usually you get it during the game. Like when they're in a review, we usually like,

whether it's goal interference or whatever, they send us all a press release saying like at 18, 15 of the second period, this was the review. Like, this was the ruling. They usually give you one. That's surprising they didn't. But let me ask you this real quick. and then we'll move on from this, I promise.

Watching it live, I said, offside. Like, I thought that was offside to the naked eye without a replay. And the reason I bring that up is in an effort to get everything 100% right, and for the record, I like instant replay and challenges, have we started to shoot ourselves in the foot by saying things like this? Do you think it's, are you insinuating that the referees like kind of let it go if it's close just so we can get a replay? Is that what you're saying? No, I'm insinuating that if we don't have instant replay there, like instant replay was put in for like egregious mistakes. Right.

Right. Like we've seen, you know, the Duchayne offside, which is offside by three feet, but the referee just, or the linesman just didn't see it. But the fact that we're so in an effort to get everything 100% right with replay leads us to watch things in slowbow and go, oh, for this fraction of a fraction of a second, he's not touching the puck. That's not what offside is. That's not what delayed offside is. Maybe in that effort to make sure we get everything 100% right, we're hurting the game is what I'm saying. Yeah, I mean, it's, it's a fine line. Like, I like replay. I like challenges. I like going back and watching it. I just think, I think when you slow things down as much as we can now with the high-deaf cameras and like, this is not something that's been happening for years and years.

This is a very recent development in sports. And it's not just hockey. Like, to me, football is the sport that does it more than anyone. Like football, it's ridiculous how they slow everything down and look at all these replays. And they say, oh, it wasn't a catch because whatever crazy reason, whereas any normal person watching that is going to say, yeah, he caught that ball. It's a catch. Yeah. Right.

In, in, I think the slow motion replay changes the way things look. I think you can watch that kale McCar play in slow motion and say, look, there's no possession right here. but no normal. I do think that there is an aspect of the slow motion that changes. And like, I think spirit of the rule is the word. We keep coming back to it. There's a reason that rules in place. And you have to me, you have to think, okay, why is this rule here so that players can't do X, X, X, whatever. That's why offside exists. Are we ruling this is, are we ruling this in the spirit of the rule? And in that case, I don't think it was. And I think, again, I think slow motion makes it easier to lawyer your way around rules than it does when you're just watching it in full speed.

Even if it was a replay, even if you can watch it four or five times, but if it's in full speed, you're going to look at it differently than when you can, you can like micromanage every millisecond of the replay. And you know what? I highly can't wait to hear the press release after a GM meeting hearing the league is not. going to change anything with their offside rules. They think everything is hunky, dory, and not, you know, change possession rules. Anyways, let's move on and we might as well just stick with McCar. I think, you know, I know we've been talking quite negatively about this play, but man, oh man, are we lucky to be watching Kael McCar right now and to be able to watch this guy for the years to come? Every time I see him, I feel like he takes it to a new level

of awesome, if I could use that. word because we know his ability, we know his skill, but I just feel like his poise is just is crazy right now. Yeah, I mean, he's got so much confidence on the puck. If, if I would have told you three years ago, Nathan McKinnon, you could argue Nathan McKinnon isn't the best player on this team. Crazy. You would have laughed in my face. Yeah. Like, that's unbelievable. Like, in, and this kid is still so new. And he's the best player on this team. I mean, I honestly think if, if, if you told me you're the avalanche and you've got to be missing one of these guys for the next six games of this series, I would rather be without McKinnon than without McCar. I think he's that important and I think he's that good. He floats on the ice. I'm still convinced he's not using normal ice skates. This guy's got something else on his feet. I refuse to believe that he can do those things with with blades on his feet. He is doing things that no other player does. Like, I think he's more than any player in the league.

He does things. No one else can do. Like McDavid does it too, but McDavid does the same things everyone else does. He just does it faster. McKinnon, I mean, sorry, McCar makes moves and travels in directions that no other player in the NHL is doing. And it's like, he frees himself up. He finds space in the zone.

He just, like you said, he's so calm. He just, every time you think he's cornered and it's like, oh, they've got him cornered at the blue line. going to, he's going to have to exit the zone. He finds, he's a magician. He finds a way to find that soft spot in the zone. And then he's got the presence of mind to make the pass, make the shot. He's just so good right now.

And like you said, confident and poised with the puck. I find him to be one of those players that you think he's impossible to defend. Because his options are always almost infinite. When he's got the puck, you don't know, like you look at some of the stretch passes he makes through the neutral zone, which the abs were able to. to do a million times last night. That's something definitely the Oilers are going to have to try to plug up. Like every pass through the neutral zone seemed so easy.

He could either make the pass. He could rush the puck. He can regroup, which we've seen him do all the time where he kind of just goes, okay, this is, it's, he's just incredible. And you look, that was his sixth career, three point game in the postseason, which is fourth in these playoffs, which is just bananas for a kid his age. Only two other defensemen in history had more before their 24th birth. they. Paul coffee and Ray Bork. That's good company to be in. Come on. I think the abs,

what they do better than any, I think what they do best, like if I were to pick one thing that I think the abs do best that makes them dangerous is they just transition from defense to offense. You mentioned the neutral zone passes. Like to me, there's no, it's just blends. Like they're, they're playing defense and it's a breakaway. And it's a two on one. Like they had so many odd man rushes and the oilers deserve some blame. They defended those odd man rushes about as poorly. as humanly possible. But the reason they're caught in those is because it's such a fast-flowing game. And like the aves, they don't have the puck.

And then the moment they touch it, it's already a chance the other way. Like before you can even blink your eye. It's unbelievable. And it's McCar, it's TAVES, it's all those guys on the blue line. They just transition from defense to offense so fast. Got to ask you about goaltending. Mike Smith yanked after allowing six goals. Not a surprise at all.

We know that Mike Smith is one of those. goaltenders where you just don't know which Mike Smith is going to show up. He's now 0 and 3 in game ones. Listen to his game ones. Four goals allowed, three goals allowed, six goals allowed, pulled in two of them. He does have a bounce back ability that we'll talk about in a second. But on the other end, Darcy Kemper, late coming out for the second period, I think it was over three minutes of a delay, which I understand why the Oilers were so upset. I don't care if your goal he's ready or not. Get him out on the ice. And then leaves with an upper body injury, no word yet on how long he's going to be.

out. Who would have thought midway through the second period, we'd have backup versus backup in game one? Yeah, it was crazy. Um, I, it's, if Darcy Kemper's out for a long time, I'm concerned for the abs. Um, I think Pavel Fransous actually looked pretty good in that game, to be honest. I think he was better than, I think he was better than Kemper. Yeah, yeah. He, if you, if you look at at just that game, I think he was the better goal. I think he was the best goalie of, well, maybe Koskin. I don't know. He was definitely stronger than Kemper in that game, but I mean, this Avs team is talented. Like, if any team can win with just any goalie, it's these guys, but that's just a goal, like he's just a guy. Like, Pavel Francius is, is a obviously belongs in the

NHL, but he is not a high caliber starting NHL goalie. And I just, it concerns me. I don't, I don't know if it'll matter against Edmonton, because this team might score eight goals a game. So it's like just get in front of a couple of them. But in the final, if you get through this series, I don't, like, they need Darcy Kemper back. I am very interested to hear what happens in the next day or two, what we see from him. It's going to be interesting because I think that is a major, major problem for the avalanche if he can't go. It's pretty crazy that the Oilers in the last two game ones scored six goals in each and lost. It's because they play as bad of defense as they do.

do good on offense. Like it's, it's crazy that these players can be that good with the puck. And then when the other team has the puck, they're just, they are completely clueless. Yeah. And like I was talking about earlier, they, I don't know how you, NHL players can be that bad at defending two on ones. The abs had two on one after two on one after two on one. And every time the defender gave the shot to the goalie, he said, okay, goalie, you've got the shot. I'm going to take the pass. Then watch the pass go through him for a one timer on the back end. Like, you either need to challenge the guy or don't let the pass through. You can't give the goalie the shot and then let him pass it through clean. That's like, and they did it time after time after time. It's unbelievable. If I was coaching 10 year olds,

I'd be screaming at them. What are you doing? And these guys are NHL players. You took the words out of my mouth. Everything you're saying right now are things I remember my coach is telling me when I was five. Right. You know, if you're going to leave the shot to the goalie, you make sure that if that forward decides to make a pass, it ain't getting through. And every time it was getting through, Jay Woodcroft after the game said, quote, to a man, we weren't good enough defensively. And like I said, for me, it was the neutral zone. I know you talk about the transition.

And yes, look, this is a ultra fast, ultra talented hockey team. I'm not trying to say that, hey, it's so simple to stop the Colorado Avalanche. I'm not saying that in any way, shape, or form. But make it tougher on them. make it tougher on them. One more thing before we go to a break. Secondary scoring for the Oilers. You and I talked about this last week.

The last two or three years has always been stop. McDavid, stop, dry-siddle, you win the hockey game. Again, last night, I know they lost the hockey game, but Ryan Nuget Hopkins with a goal and assist. Evander Kane, 13th goal of playoffs. Zach Hyman, six straight games of the goal right now. I think that's going to be the deciding factor. If they can continue to get secondary scoring,

and even mediocre goaltending from Mike Smith, it's going to be a series. Yeah, for sure. And we talked about it last week. They're just playing with a lot of confidence right now. Like it just, it feels like a different team. It feels like they believe that they're going to score a lot of goals because they've been so hot with the puck. And I think when McDavid and Drysidal are leading in the way that they do, I think it gives confidence to the confidence kind of permeates through the rest of the lineup. And we're seeing it. Like, to me, Hyman's the best example. He looks so confident right now. Nugent Hopkins is a good example, too. I agree with you, I think. Because the Aves have the star power to match Edmonton's star power.

Like, they've got McCar and McKinnon. Like, they've got the top end guys just like Edmonton does. The difference is like the Aves have depth scoring, a ton of it. If the Oilers can match that. If the Oilers, depth guys can match the Aves' depth guys, then we've got a series. It's going to be interesting. I think, like, watching to Nazim Cadre after the game, they were not happy. The aves were not happy with that performance. Despite scoring all those goals, like,

they clearly went into the locker room and said, look, we're glad we got that one. It's better to win game one than to lose game one. But that can't happen for the rest of this series because that was insane. And if you're the abs, you want to play a little more structured. So it's going to be, it's going to be fascinating to see what happens in game two if that was just talk and they go back to playing roller hockey or if we're going to actually see some defensive structure out of one of these sides. Well, as you mentioned, the Eastern Conference Final and the Western Conference Final could not be two more different series. And we're going to try to break down the Lightning and the Rangers game one kicking off tonight with Shana Goldman, who's going to join us after the

break. She better not say that was an onside goal. We'll talk to her after the break. Don't go anywhere. Well, in describing these two conference finals, Jesse jumped on Twitter. Jesse, you made me laugh with this one. East, two of the best goalies on planet Earth face off in the conference finals, West, what are goalies? I don't think I could have said it better myself. So let's go from the West to the East and we'll also talk to West again a little bit later on. Lightning and Rangers game number one goes tonight. Shana Goldman back on with us. How are you Shana? Oh good. Thanks for having me. Which series are like are you going to, you're obviously going to watch every second of both series, but I mean, have you ever seen two series that seem

this different? I almost feel like they're playing a different sport. when you try to break these two things down. You're going to get whiplash going from series to series. I love it. It's like the great Hannah Montana once said. We get the best of both worlds. You just quote Hannah Montana? I did.

I'm sleep deprived. Don't blame me. Oh my God. Let's start. Let's go Lightning and Rangers. Game one. I mean, is there any other matchup that everybody's talking about

except the best goalie in the world taking on the goalie who's going to win the Vesna trophy? it's the best goalie from this year who from this year alone is the best goalie in the world versus the best goalie of the last few years you know like it's tough because you literally have best on best here you have the goalie with the playoff resume who's been elite for two years consmise winning and javaselowski versus vesna and potentially heart winning igor shasturkin like it doesn't get much better than that but there are other matchups i feel like that aren't getting the traction they should.

And like, rightfully so to an extent, we should be talking about the goalies, but you still have like Adam Fox against Victor Headman. You have Nikita Kutchev against Artem-Penar and neither of which are playing up to the level we know they can. So like there's more intrigue than just the goalies, but we should be talking about the goalies. Yeah, I mean, I kind of like when the goalie matchup is front and center because as we talked about in the first segment, you know, everybody was, you know, bringing up the matchup of McDavid versus McKinnon.

And those can get lost if other people. do well or if other people kind of steal the spotlight, if one of these goalies slips, they are going to take the blame for losing this series. Yeah. But I guess, like, we also have to be like, if they slip in a game, how do they bounce back? Because you could look at Chess Sturkin from round one and see how he did slip in games three and four. And like, to his credit, he had legitimately zero support.

So it's not like it was entirely on him, though he didn't respond well to the workload. Then again, who would facing that workload? But it was all about how he responded to it. And he did, you know, he was better in game five, six, seven. And he was really great, you know, all around too. So hopefully neither goalie gets the blame here. And maybe it'll be completely opposite of what we saw last night. But it'll be cool to see if there are these one-nothing games and two-one games and things like that.

It's who can beat these goalies. Like you want to see them at their best in this series. It's not which goalie falls apart quicker. Like I really hope it is a legitimate goalie duel. And we see who's the better team in front of those goalies to support them. I'm glad you brought up Kuchurao v. Panarin. You mentioned two guys who have not been the star players that you kind of expect them to be putting up the points that they have in the past. If you had to pick one, who do you think is more likely to break out of that? Like watching both of them go through their struggles and maybe not put up the points, which one do you think is more likely to come alive in this series? Kuturo. He's the player. I think it's not, I'm not calling Panera. I'm not saying Panarra. I'm not saying Panarans is not a playoff.

player. I know that has been said so far in this postseason. I don't find that to be true. We saw him thrive in Columbus. He doesn't look like he's playing his game. He's not playing to his strengths enough. And it could be injury-based for all we know. He did miss the end of the regular season, you know, a couple games there. It could be something, you know, entirely altogether. Kutrov, though, I feel like we're seeing like sparks of him a little bit more than we're seeing a Pinaran that I expect him to pull it together a little bit more. I do think maybe part of it's the fact that he doesn't have Braden Point. As great as Stephen Stamco's is, and we know that Stamco's Kutraff is a perfect one-two punch, any team would kill to have that.

We also know in the playoffs in the last couple years, it's point with Kutraff. That's the duo for the lightning. And the fact that they don't have that might be, you know, playing against them. And the fact that they don't have point on that second line, you don't have the same two one-two punch on your, you know, top two scoring lines. So you're going to have, you don't have that same challenge of going who gets, you know, top defensive minutes. Right. It's going to be, we know we're targeting Kutroff and Stan. Samco's and slowing them down and everyone else can handle the rest.

The other matchup you mentioned Adam Fox and Victor Headman. Am I the only one who thinks Adam Fox is underrated? Like I feel like if you grabbed 100 hockey fans and said, give me the elite defenseman in the NHL, I don't know if everybody's saying Adam Fox and what he's doing, even offensively, I mean, a couple more points and he's the first ranger since Gretzky to get 20 points in the playoffs. Like, it's, I just feel like we're not talking about him enough.

Well, you're right. we could always talk about it. All right. Let's leave it. Let's leave it at that. Anytime somebody says I'm right, we go ahead. You know, in his rookie season, he jumped out as the Rangers' best defenseman within one month, one month of NFL experience, and it was very clear. And he was getting, you know, less ice time. But it was, he was so good on both ends of the ice.

We knew he was going to be a top tier of puck distributor. But he's so sound defensively, which is what I don't, I would say, wasn't expected of him. Does he have shortcomings? Yes. This foot speed is one of them. And he has, you know, that's been on display, I think, at times in round one. and even in round two. And the fact that if he has like an average defenseman, he's fine. But if he has a below replacement defenseman on his side,

he's not going to be able to drag them along as much in the postseason. We saw that without Ryan Linger in there. But he's such a smart player. It's his positioning. It's his gap control. It's his stick work. You know, he sees plays developing before that they do so he can anticipate him and react accordingly.

That's why he won the Norris last year. And if you asked a lot of people, you know, who is on their Norris ballot, it initially a lot of them didn't have Fox's top three. They had headman who wasn't playing at his best in the second half the year. They had McCar who didn't go against top competition as much last year. And then you look at this year and Fox rightfully wasn't in the top three, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a top 10 defenseman in the league this season. Even though it was technically a step back, it was still the caliber that most teams would want from their number one. I feel like Fox's plays are a little more subtle. Like we talk about like McCar and

and those guys, and Yossi and even headman, they pop on the screen. And I think Fox, he may make more plays than those guys, but they're subtle plays. They don't, like, stick out as much. And I think that's part of the reason he's underrated. But I think coaches and I think the players realize how dominant he is on the ice. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Because you'll see the flashier plays on the power play, sure. But it's what he does, it even strength.

And it's the poise that he has and the calmness. And he'll be under pressure at the blue line. and you can see the keepings he makes or the way he can just walk the blue line. Like, it's all these plays. We definitely watch them with McCar and we see him with Yossi and we see him with Hedman and, you know, Jacob Slavin has these standout plays. Amiro Heiskin and there's so many good defenders around the league. And Charlie McAvoy, you know, you can keep going.

Boxes in that conversation and it's because of the subtle things he does, absolutely. We talked a lot about Tampa Bay's ability to block shots. And that was like such a huge factor in that Florida series. And I was looking up the stats for this. You look at the Rangers. They also like to get in front of pot. over 18 block shots per 60 minutes. The lightning, 19.25 block shots per 60 minutes.

What are the odds of somebody's leg exploding? Because every time I see, especially the way the lightning do it, they line up players so that if one guy doesn't get the block shot, the next guy will get it and the next guy will get it. And then the fourth guy just happens to be Vasilevsky. I think we're going to see a lot of the same in this series. Do you agree? Yes, but I do think we're going to have to see,

we're going to see the lightning have to block fewer shots. Like the Panthers were one of the best teams of generating shots in the regular season. Obviously, they didn't play to their strengths in round one or two. But the Rangers are not a great team at generating offense. So there's going to be, I would imagine, unless things somehow open up, which I don't fully see happening. You know, we'll see a lower rate of shot attempts, probably a lower rate of quality chances. So Tampa will still get in the way of the ones that they do see. But I think it'll be less overwhelming than the other two series.

but I'm sure both will be blocking a ton of shots. And that's a stat I love and hate because block shots can be great. You know, they can take away opportunities. Block passes can be great. But sometimes they are reactionary too because the defenders weren't able to stop the chance before it. Could have even developed. They couldn't get their stick in the way. They couldn't stop them from entering the zone.

They couldn't stop something that they throw their bodies in the way. And then sometimes you see that next chance is developing and they can't even get up in time to do it. So it's such a tricky. you live by the blade, die by the blade kind of thing because it can burn you. And I'm really curious to see if the lightning need to be blocking as many shots this series and if the Rangers keep up with it or find a way to try to force it out with their sticks a little bit more. To continue along that and also bring it back to the goalies, because you know how I am. I got to bring it back to the goalies. To me, that's an interesting dynamic because I agree with

you. The Rangers have not been good at generating a lot of offense, especially a five-on-five this year. And I'm, I'm curious to see how each goalie reacts to that because we're talking about how this is going to be a goalie duel. But Schisturkin might be getting double the volume that Vasilevsky's facing. And like, logic tells you if you're a goalie, would you rather face more or less shots? Well, obviously less. But that's not always the case. Like some of the hardest games to play as a goalie are the ones where the whole game is spent in the other zone. And then suddenly it's a two-on-one that you've got a face. And when possession is heavy on one end of the ice, the chances on the other end tend to be fast break, tend to be odd man rushes. And to me, it's going to be interesting to see how

these goalies handle. I think Shosturkin's going to get more volume, but sometimes that's easy. That helps you. If you feel the puck, you start to feel the rhythm. And then Vasselowski's going to have to be sharp in limited volume. Do you kind of see a similar dynamic happening in this series? Yeah, absolutely. That's how the Rangers, you know, derives. sometimes they can take a ton of shots against and then you notice, you know, they get that one quality to look and look what happens. So absolutely like that that might be a factor. It is interesting because I think Vaselowski's work with has been a little bit tougher in this postseason. And I know we expect the lightning to be one of the best defensive teams. And they've had some, you know,

drawbacks in certain areas in the regular season and in the playoffs. And in the regular season, I think some of it was injury based in the playoffs. They were playing high octane teams like the Maple Leafs and the Panthers. So, it's going to be an adjustment for them too now that Vaselowski isn't, I would assume, isn't going to be as exposed. You know, I think it was cycle chances like you saw Vaselowski facing a lot, you know, a lot like Chesterkin was, but he was responding to them better. And Chastirkin's so accustomed to facing so many chances off the rush, but he's so used to stopping

them. So it definitely makes for an interesting dynamic. It's the Rocky 4 style of playoff hockey. Just take a whole bunch of shots over and over again and then just take advantage of the 15th round. Let's slide over to the west for a minute. we beat this to death in the first segment because Jesse and I both were in agreement, but we just agreed with each other for about 15 minutes.

Your thoughts on the Kale-McCarr on-side goal? That was a really tricky play because I didn't know the rule. And I think it's interesting because the Oilers under Woodcroft went 5 and O'N-O on off-side challenges in the regular season. So they've been really proficient with that and have challenged in, you know, plays that they know that they're going to be right. Here, I'm assuming they thought so because if not, your... not just going down three, two, now you're going to go on, you know, the penalty hill.

And they've only lost one challenge in the playoffs. It was for goalie interference. And they didn't allow a power play goal against. And maybe they thought because it was going to be a carryover power play that they can manage that too. Like maybe the timing worked out that it was a risk to take. But it's a rule that so many of us didn't know. And I would be curious what the Oilers video coaches thought was on that too. If they thought this is the rule that didn't come to mind.

Like, I don't know. It really surprised me that it was. in an offside play. And when you hear their explanation, I think Bob McKenzie had it best, it's like, okay, I guess that makes sense. Yeah. But I just, I like the idea of having coaches challenge, I think especially for goal interference because there's so many plays that you should be taking a second look at it.

But it's meant for those big egregious plays. And with this, that, like, I'm not sure. Yeah, that's, we were saying if you're a lawyer and you're in court, you argue this. In the end, the jury is going to say, yeah, he wasn't touching the puck. But it's not the spirit of the rule. And it's interesting, you use the word risk. I'm telling you, I don't know anyone who would have looked at that real quick. Because you know that it's a split second after a goal scored.

They're quickly looking to see if they should challenge it. They don't have 10 minutes to look at it from every angle. You look at that replay. You go, yeah, challenge. A hundred percent. You're challenging that. There was 100 percent of people watched as we waited for that referee to make the call and said, oh, that's offside.

This goal is coming back, two, two going into the second period. and were completely shocked. I'm just, I really hope they, they examine what possession is in the off season and maybe add a little, you know, a little line to that,

that rule that says, no, like the, as long as they've maintained 100% possession, that's offside. Yeah, there's too many definitions for possession right now. And I understand having human error in it.

That's, you know, rolled by robots or whatever. You know, some sports are doing it and it works and some feel that they shouldn't at all. You know, you have to find that balance somewhere. As someone who watches a French Open and watches that they don't use Hawkeye and they have to get down and point at the clay and go it's good or bad. Like, sometimes human error, like there's too much of it and we have the technology,

why not use it? But there should be more clarity in the rules all around, more definitions. So there aren't these calls, especially in the playoffs, like of all time. This is, again, it was a two, it could have been a two, game going into the second period instead it ended up being four two as a result right wrong or sideways that's what happened and even if yes that was the rule yes they deserve the penalty yes you're going against colorado's power play that was the risk you decided to take challenge to play it's a huge game changer it's interesting you bring up the the the french open too i just love

when they it's not in the background yeah no i this is my life at some random you know scuff in the clay every time go there that that's the ball like really like they haven't been playing tennis here for two and a half hours. And there's a million scuffs on the damn court. Anything else from this game, game one that obviously had a little bit of absolutely everything from goals to wackiness to drama? I mean,

what are you looking forward to seeing in game two after watching that crazy game last night? More chaos. More of it. I just want more. I would like to see if Kemper's healthy, and I do hope he is. There was a goalie duel between Kemper

and I think it was Kosken and if I remember correctly from the regular season, the two of them put on this incredible game. If I remember it went to overtime, and it was one of the best games of the regular season. I remember watching going like, I want a playoff series like that. If I get one of those games,

I'd be happy, but I feel like we're going to get it from the east. So I'm not going to be like too picky with it. I just want to be entertained. I think blowouts can get kind of boring. So I'm just hoping whatever it is. It's these, these games matter throughout the majority of regulation

that we're all like on the edge of our seat. What's going to happen next? Jesse got to mention that these playoffs have everything. The one thing I've been loving about the playoffs are that fact that no lead feels safe. And we saw the Oilers battle back in game one against the flames. We saw them last night make a game of it. I love the fact that a blowout doesn't necessarily mean, you know, all right, I'm going to see if I can catch up on some of my sleep,

but Shane is really tired. As you mentioned, no, you want to watch all 60 minutes because you never know what's going to happen. That's what we're waiting for, right? It was what, seven to three? And I'll be completely honest. I never thought it was over. Like, not at, when it was seven to three, I not even for a second thought this game is out of reach, which is crazy. It's like, you know, earlier in round one, there were a couple of those games that were a bit one-sided.

And then when it really mattered, you saw it tighten up and that's what we're seeing moving forward. So like, that's what I'm hoping for. Because like, I mean, I'll be honest, round two didn't thrill me. You know, round one, I thought was really great. Round two was okay. But now we have these great matchups. And we got what we were asking for from game one of the West that now I'm hoping we get more of that this round to really like. like bring it up from from round two.

That was just, it was okay. Maybe I'm too picky. Maybe I'm asking. Outside of, yeah, Battle of Alberta was awesome. But outside of that, the other three series were a little lacklust. Battle of Alberta was the best five game series you can have.

Like it was the closest five game series you can have to. Like on paper, it doesn't look like it, but that's what you want from every playoff series. Yeah. And then the East was just like, we're not doing this. We got a game seven.

You gotta love the Stanley Cup playoffs Shana it's always a pleasure having you on always fun we'll talk to you soon get some sleep go finish watching your French open then go to sleep now that I don't have to watch the lightning reindeer game later yeah so you got to rest up for the gate I mean we'll see yesterday's match went till 7 o'clock I had one hour and I was like I'm not sleeping now running on adrenaline thanks for having me after the break rapid fire things we didn't get to in the first segment so don't go anywhere All right, Jesse, rapid fire time. Some of the things we haven't gotten to in the show. Number one, Jordan Bittington, um, fully admitting that, yeah, I tossed a water bottle at Nassam Kodry. Not that we didn't think it was him. I didn't think Nassam Kodry was lying about this, but I don't know.

I kind of like this stuff. Me too. I, like, there's no harm there. He threw it three feet away from him is how Biddington described it. By the way, his like in-depth breakdown of how he threw it at him was amazing. Yeah. If we can get that for, if we can get that for, kind of candid answers for everything, it'd be great. The one thing I will say, though, is I think

I don't think throwing the water bottle is a bad look for Jordan Bittington, but I think the fact that it bothered him that much, he needs to get out of his own head a little bit. I think he, I like his fieriness. Like most goalies are very, like, calm. Like, they're not that guy that's, like, yelling at the other team and getting into it with him like him, and I kind of like that. But at the same time, I do think he lets it get to him a little too much. Well, he kind of said, I saw him doing the interview and laughing and smiling after a win, and it bothered me, and the opportunity was there. I liked it. I thought it was funny, but I agree with you. Is that conducive to, you know, being a good goaltender and being a good hockey player? Who knows? Number two,

Nathan McKinnon was asked about the matchup between himself and Connor McDavid in this series. and all he said was, well, let's just hope it, I'm paraphrasing, hope a lot of people are watching because then it should lower our escrow. Just like, okay. I mean, and I like Nathan McKinnon a lot, and I get what he was trying to say there. But to me, it also kind of came off a little bit,

like, I don't have enough money to put gas in my Ferrari. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. But also it's like with the, people like to get angry at the players for asking for more money. But the way I look at it is it's a battle between millionaires and billionaires for that money. So it's like he's trying to get gas for his Ferrari. And the guy who doesn't want to pay it to him is trying to fill up his private jet.

So I can have a hard time going with that. I don't know. It was a funny comment. Damn you, Jesse, and your good points. Because I always bring that up to when people go, oh, athletes are overpaid. And I'm like, would you rather he has it and he's, you know, doing this? Or the owner who's sitting on their yacht have that money, right? So yeah, you make a good point.

Marty St. Louis, no longer interim head coach of the Montreal Canadiens. Now the head coach of the Montreal Canadian signing a three-year extension. I'm not surprised, but I'm still, I'm still surprised that this whole situation laid out the way it did. Yeah, it's kind of funny because I, I feel like when I hear this, I think, oh, yeah, slam dunk. But then when you really look at it, it's like, why does it feel like a slam dunk? Because the team still sucked. They had the worst record in the league.

Maybe it's just because I wasn't paying that much. Maybe it's because early in the year I was paying attention to Montreal sucking because they were coming off the conference final appearance. And I wouldn't say high expectations, but certainly higher than they lived up to. And then I guess once San Luis took over, I kind of just ignored the Canadians and didn't really pay attention to them because they were so far out of it. So maybe I didn't like pay attention to their failings. But I don't know. Like there's there's a very weird aspect where this feels like a good hire, but I don't know why it does because they suck. Yeah. I just, I just mean even just

just how little experience he has in coaching and suddenly you're put into one of the biggest hot seats of a coach. Like you automatically are hired in Montreal to be on the hot seat. From day one, you're going to get scrutinized for every single thing that you do. Uh, Jason Spetsa. retired is going to take a front office job with the Toronto Maple Leafs. Kind of feel for the guy. He was one of those. Really hope he wins a Stanley Cup before he retires. Maybe he's going to win it as, as, you know, an executive,

but not too surprised on this one either. Yeah, I agree with you. Would have been nice to see him get one. And it would be cool if he gets one as an exec, but that's not the same. You're not in the room. You're not down there on the ice. It's just not the same.

So it is definitely sad to see him go without one. Well, it wraps up another show. Sarah's going to be back next week, but anything you got going on that you want to plug? Yeah, I've been working on some cool offseason stuff right now in the middle of doing a, I did a mailbag, and one of the more interesting questions I got from a fan was, what would the Golden Knights look like if they didn't make any of these big trades or signings? What if they had kept Nick Suzuki and Eric Brandstrom and developed all those draft picks that they had early? And rather than going out and trading for Stone and Patcheretti and Eichol and signing patronage.

Transylo. So I worked with Dom. He came up with the GSVA numbers. We crunched the numbers to see what team looks better. The current Golden Knights built as if you're playing NHL-22, making every signing and trade you possibly can, or if they had just left it alone and stuck with the golden misfits, and to be honest, the numbers were a little surprising to me. So have that coming out in the next few days. I know Golden Knights fans are excited for it. I really like that concept because I think a lot of things that come into play too is where this expansion team is. You need to sell a product in certain places. I mean, if suddenly there's an expansion team in Canada or near Toronto, it's a little

different, whereas if you're trying to sell a product, you want to win now and you want to get butts in the seats. So, Jesse, we'll see you next week and make sure to head to the athletic to read that. I want to let people know what else we got going on at the athletic. Logan Cooley and Shane Wright, two guys that are going to be. the NHL draft, I guarantee you. We're going to join Arpaon Basso and Mark Antoine Godin, excuse me, on Le Support Athletic. Do you like my French pronunciation there, Jesse?

Fantastic. I came so close to failing grade 9 French. My pronunciation is pretty bad. And you can follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Don't forget leave a rating and a review. You can subscribe to the Athletic Audio Plus on Apple Podcast. You get all the bonus content from the entire network. You start with a 30-day free trial.

Then it's just 99 cents a month after that. Right now, you get an annual subscription to the Athletic for just a dollar a month for six months when you visit the athletic.com slash hockey show. The Athletic Hockey Show returns on Thursday with Ian Mendez and down goes round. For Jesse, for Sarah. I'm Rob. We'll talk to you next week.