I'm not at all implying Darling should replace Crawford as the main goalie - just that he's earned the trust to start in at least a couple of playoff games. Shouldn't sport positions be based partially on the merit of performance? Didn't Darling break the NHL record for most stopped goals in a relief goalie playoff performance? If that level of aptitude doesn't move your ranking on the bench up even a modicum, then something seems amiss.In the playoffs, a team always plays their starter except in extreme circumstances (injury, stretch of awful play).
Crawford had one bad period which wasn't entirely his fault. His experience and resume is still far superior to Darling's, and he will start every game from here on out.
Coaches play coy about their starter to play mind games with the other team.
I love Crawford and think the Hawks are very fortunate to have him. His resume is definitely more extensive and tested in playoff games - but Wednesday was Darling's FIRST playoff appearance. He's gotta build his own resume somehow.
If not given the chance to start in any games, do you think Q will at least bring Darling in as relief again in a few more instances when they otherwise would have left Crawford in, had Darling not played so well Wednesday?
And it doesn't seem like a very effective mind game if the standard is that starters start every playoff game ever no matter what, barring injury or horrid play. Any coach would be able to see through that.
I'm not sure on the history of this though - i'm still relatively new to hockey Because of that, I apologize if I'm sounding like an idiot here. I just don't understand logic of a coach not rewarding exceptional performance in the playoffs by giving the person more time to continue being exceptional.