Like many of you, I was quite surprised to see Scott Stajcer starting the tie-break game between Owen Sound and Kootenay last night. The decision really didn't (and still doesnt) make a ton of sense to me.
Inspired by a discussion with a co-worker today, I decided to send out a few feelers around the league to get some more feedback on the decision. Here's what I got...
"I think I understand why it was done. No Hishon. No Wilson. With the two best players and leaders of the team out, Stajcer was probably put in for a veteran moral boost. But I don't think it was the right decision."
"An obvious ploy to rally the Attack around a veteran player giving it his all, it's just too bad that Stajcer just wasn't up to the task. He can't be solely blamed for the loss, but he certainly wasn't as good as Binnington was previously."
"The decision to start Stajcer was a real head scratcher. What was Reeds thinking? You play the goalie who gives you the best chance of winning the game and that goalie wasn't Scott Stajcer. Binnington has been standing on his head all the way back to Game 6 of the OHL Final. I don't get it."
Basically, these people have summed up what I've been thinking. I think I understand the reasoning behind it, but I certainly don't agree with it. It all comes down to the fact that I'm not convinced that Scott Stajcer is completely healthy and rehabbed, because he hasn't looked very good in these playoffs. With Binnington playing sensationally, why would you not ride the hot goalie?
I also feel pretty bad for Stajcer. It's been a damn tough year for him and to give up 6 goals (why did it take so long for him to get the hook too?) in a season ending game, you could just tell how frustrated and upset he was.
So what are your thoughts OHL fans? Why do you think Stajcer started? Did you agree with the decision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I'm with you on this one Brck. Don't understand the decission at all. I just dont buy the "veteran presents" arguement at all. You go with the guy that gives you the best chance to win and that's Binnington. Heck even Michael Zador gave them a better chance.
The comments are way off the mark, there are more things in play then appears to casual fans, also don't forget if you look at who got them to the Memorial Cup - it was Stajcer, he was 8-1 in the western conference semi and final, Dominic - sorry buddy you have no clue of what your talking about.
Stajcer has been an excellent goaltender for Owen Sound all year up until his injury, and showed very well in the Plymouth and Windsor series'
HOWEVER
Scott struggled heavily against Mississauga, going 0-3, 5.00 GAA and a .851 SV%, before Binnington came into the picture and stood on his head.
Scott hadn't played for 16 days before that game, in the meanwhile, Binnington had been outstanding. I agree
Zador would have made more sense. He struggled in Game 5, and I think it's possible the Majors' figured out his weakness, but he would have been the better choice.
It's nothing against Stajcer, or his talent, but based on recent results, any way you put it unless Zador or Binnington were both injured to the point it would severely affect their performance (which it didn't affect Binnington in his relief effort)
This isn't a knock against Scott Stajcer's ability, because I love his competiveness, and he's been great this season. It's a knock on Mark Reeds' decision as a coach, which had pretty much left everyone trying to figure out what he was thinking.
Agree with Dominic and previous poster, Reeds should have gone with Binner.
Even the COTY can make the biggest mistake of the year.
Post a Comment