I apologize
A. C. Scott
Please excuse my actions, Sharon. <g>
Sad, indeed. Am beginning to agree with those who feel the coaching is
substandard for the NHL.
What good is speed when you can't/won't shoot the damn puck?
What good is speed when you refuse to check?
We need some muscle, and not just what is on suspension, I mean REAL muscle.
This team seems to be a bunch of fast chumps.
Scottie
Sidd Finch
Damien Cristordero blows the Oh-Fer-the-season penalty kill... And AC puts
on the game.....
"A. C. Scott" <asc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uIIH5.4004$ze4.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Sharon
> I watched the game last night and, yup, we lose.
> Please excuse my actions, Sharon. <g>
OK, I'll let it go this time, but that's it!!
> Sad, indeed. Am beginning to agree with those who feel the coaching is
> substandard for the NHL.
> What good is speed when you can't/won't shoot the damn puck?
> What good is speed when you refuse to check?
Is this really coaching? I mean, do we really believe that Ludzik and
the assistant coaches have instructed the players not to shoot or
check? The key being "refuse," if the players aren't doing what they're
told, what's a coach to do? First thing that comes to mind is send 'em
to Detroit -- not even thinking about clearing waivers, who would we
call up? Bench 'em? Who else would play? Yell & scream at 'em? Then
you're accused of being "mean" to the players.
In this day and age, I think coaching amounts to teaching and strategy.
You can't force a player to do what he's told. It's up to the GM to
find the players who *will* do what they're told, however. Motivation,
as well, is really an intangible. These are professionals, they
shouldn't need to be motivated by anyone. The "problem" last night
seemed to be with the veterans, too -- perhaps they're looking to be
traded and the poor play is deliberate?
Who knows?
Add coach to the list of professions I have *zero* interest in
pursuing! Just like referees and GMs, you can't win, no matter what you
do.
-Sharon
(Remove the DOTs to reply by e-mail)
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/lightningalbum
MentalTossFlycoon
attention of their players. This happens when the players get tired of
being berated or come to the realization that the coach is not worthy of
respect. Maybe both in Ludzik's case.
--
Jon N.
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:39EF8AE9...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
Sharon
>Fact is, coaches are hired to be fired. At a point in time they lose the
>attention of their players. This happens when the players get tired of
>being berated or come to the realization that the coach is not worthy of
>respect. Maybe both in Ludzik's case.
But when has Ludzik "berated" his players? Closest thing that I can
remember is last year when he said Cloutier needed to step up and make
the easy saves. Wow. I've been to many, many practices & have never
seen him yell at his players other than to be heard over the noise.
I've observed Terry Crip blowing a gasket and *really* letting them have
it, and what about Scotty Bowman? Ludzik is mild in comparison.
I watched the press conference after the Pittsburgh game, and he was
fiercely loyal to the players, had *zero* negative remarks.
I've also observed the players' manner with Ludzik. There's no visible
signs of lack of respect whatsoever.
I'm just not sure where this business of him berating or being mean to
the players comes from. I've just never seen any real sign of it.
Bobby R
> I'm just not sure where this business of him berating or being mean to
> the players comes from. I've just never seen any real sign of it.
Even *he* admitted that "berating" was his coaching style. He mentioned
that he was going to take the more subtle "Tony Dungy" approach this season.
Problem is, you need to have experience and the player's respect in order to
do this- you have to be very convincing.
Ludz has a problem with continuously changing his coaching style, in order
to find "what works." However, the players never have time to adjust or
learn the "new system" by doing this. You lose the confidence of your
players because they see that even the head coach doen't know what should be
done. Successful coaches in the NHL don't change their coaching style.
Motivation is a big part of the game, and Ludzik's inability to motivate
during the intermission is a serious concern. 1 or 2 players is one thing,
but when an entire team is demotivated, it's signs of even bigger problems
(coaching, locker room problems, etc) especially this early in the season
when injuries, mounting losses, and fatigue are not a factor.
Sharon
>Even *he* admitted that "berating" was his coaching style.
Sheldon Keefe described it to me as "in your face." He said he prefers
a coach to be that way. All I can say is, it's got to be behind closed
doors, I've never seen it.
So, berating doesn't work.
> He mentioned
>that he was going to take the more subtle "Tony Dungy" approach this >season.
That ain't exactly working, either.
>Ludz has a problem with continuously changing his coaching style, in
>order to find "what works." However, the players never have time to
>adjust or learn the "new system" by doing this.
I think it's much simpler. We have young players who don't know what
they're doing, and "experienced" players who either won't or can't do
what they're supposed to. I don't think *any* coach could be successful
with what we have. In 2 years, yes. This year? Not a chance. Anyone
who ever thought otherwise is looking to be bitterly disappointed.
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
coach. At least, Terry won a Stanley Cup using his style, and that guy in
Detroit has only won 8 of them , using his style. The reason we keep
bringing up the kids, is because they're the ONLY players that would listen
to the BS of Ludzik. We don't have veteran leadership, and that is very
important, if you're going to have so many kids on the roster.That's not to
say Svoboda is doing a bad job, but you need to realize, he can't do it
alone. Vinny is going to be a great player in this league, but he ain't
there yet. Stan Drulia is nothing more than a scrub player , who happens to
have a good relationship with the puke. I like Stan, but he doesn't have the
kind of experience to pass on , that these kids need. Hell he's a career
minor leaguer. One or two more veterans, wouldn't be bad for this team.
Sharon, you seem to be under the impression that Ludzik is the answer, and
that's fine, I just happen to disagree, with you on this matter. You can't
keep believing that the owners don't have the money to spend, or there isn't
enough players out there that would suit this team. This thing with Ludzik
is sort of like an experiment, while they build from within the
organization. You know , kind of like the good ole' boy thing in football.
Be loyal to your friends at all costs. ( WIlson, Dudley & Ludzik). The kids
are going to be great one day . We have a ton of up and coming talent here,
but the key to it all coming together will be the help they receive as they
grow. And without that veteran leadership, it's just going to take a little
longer. And if the coach isn't convincing the players, that he knows how to
win, and
commanding their undivided attention and dedication, then it's time to look
for another coach, instead of trading away the future, and beginning again.
So, he's nice to his players, big deal ! It's not working, plain and simple.
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:39EF9750...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
> MentalTossFlycoon wrote:
>
> >Fact is, coaches are hired to be fired. At a point in time they lose the
> >attention of their players. This happens when the players get tired of
> >being berated or come to the realization that the coach is not worthy of
> >respect. Maybe both in Ludzik's case.
>
> But when has Ludzik "berated" his players? Closest thing that I can
> remember is last year when he said Cloutier needed to step up and make
> the easy saves. Wow. I've been to many, many practices & have never
> seen him yell at his players other than to be heard over the noise.
> I've observed Terry Crip blowing a gasket and *really* letting them have
> it, and what about Scotty Bowman? Ludzik is mild in comparison.
>
> I watched the press conference after the Pittsburgh game, and he was
> fiercely loyal to the players, had *zero* negative remarks.
>
> I've also observed the players' manner with Ludzik. There's no visible
> signs of lack of respect whatsoever.
>
> I'm just not sure where this business of him berating or being mean to
> the players comes from. I've just never seen any real sign of it.
>
Sharon
>I think Crisp And Bowman have a little better track record than our puke
>coach.
I think they've got a teeny bit of experience on our coach, don't you?
>At least, Terry won a Stanley Cup using his style, and that guy in
>Detroit has only won 8 of them , using his style.
In their rookie & sophomore seasons as coaches? To be fair, you'd have
to wait a few years before you can make this comparison, don't you
think?
>The reason we keep
>bringing up the kids, is because they're the ONLY players that would
>listen to the BS of Ludzik.
Hardly. The only reason we keep bringing up kids is that Rick Dudley
has decided to build the team with youth. We don't have anyone *but*
kids to bring up, whether they listen to the coach or not.
> We don't have veteran leadership, and that is very
> important, if you're going to have so many kids on the roster.
I couldn't agree more. I've been screaming for a veteran defender and
goaltender since before the season ended last year.
> That's not to
> say Svoboda is doing a bad job, but you need to realize, he can't do it
> alone.
I couldn't agree more. I have no clue where you got the idea that I
don't think we need veteran help.
>Stan Drulia is nothing more than a scrub player , who happens to
>have a good relationship with the puke.
Name calling trivializes what you're saying, which is a shame, because
you make valid points.
> I like Stan, but he doesn't have the
> kind of experience to pass on , that these kids need. Hell he's a career
> minor leaguer.
What he *does* have is the ability to calm the kids down, which is
exactly what we need a veteran to do. What he also has is the respect
of his teammates. Sad to say, perhaps, but this team simply does not
play the same when he's not out there. That was true last season and
it's true this year. Look how well our PK did against the Wild.
> One or two more veterans, wouldn't be bad for this team.
I couldn't agree more. I've been screaming for a veteran defender and
goaltender since before the season ended last year.
>Sharon, you seem to be under the impression that Ludzik is the answer, >and that's fine, I just happen to disagree, with you on this matter.
I never said that at all. I am "under the impression" that he's not
100% to blame, either.
The point was made that coaching might be a problem, that we don't shoot
and we don't check. What *I* said is that I don't believe the coaches
are instructing the players not to shoot the puck. I don't believe the
coaches are telling them they are not to check their opponents. Do you
feel otherwise?
It is my personal opinion that a coach can tell a player all the right
things, but if the player can't/won't do them, that's the player's
fault. They lace up the skates and hit the ice. I don't think all of
Ludzik's decisions are correct. But I don't think he is solely to
blame, either. He had crap to work with last year and children this
year. I personally believe that is part of the problem.
>You can't keep believing that the owners don't have the money to spend,
>or there isn't enough players out there that would suit this team.
Are you speaking of me personally? If so, please know that I have
*never* said any such thing. I happen to agree with the route they are
taking, i.e., waiting until a "superstar" player would actually do us
some good before spending a bazillion bucks on someone, but I have
*always* maintained that the money is there & that I believe it will be
spent when the time is right.
>We have a ton of up and coming talent here,
>but the key to it all coming together will be the help they receive as >they grow. And without that veteran leadership, it's just going to take a
>little longer.
As I said before, I couldn't agree more. That's the GM's
responsibility, however. He acquires the players, not the coaches.
>And if the coach isn't convincing the players, that he knows how to
>win, and commanding their undivided attention and dedication, then it's
>time to look for another coach, instead of trading away the future, and
>beginning again.
How do we know this is the situation here? Have you heard rumors that
we're going to trade away our future and start again? Are you making
assumptions? Is it impossible that we are simply an extremely young and
extremely bad hockey team with an inexperienced coaching staff?
>So, he's nice to his players, big deal ! It's not working, plain and
>simple.
*Exactly* what I said in another post. He tried what we term
"berating," it didn't work. Now he's trying to be nicer, a method I
personally don't agree with, and it doesn't appear to be working,
either. Of course, it's only 5 games into the season and I personally
believe there is a chance that we may still improve, but I'll probably
be criticized for taking that into account. :-)
Don't you think firing Ludzik right now and bringing in a new coach
would be upsetting to the kiddies? We saw how the players reacted to a
coach who *really* berated them, Terry Crisp -- they banded together,
tanked & got him fired. Seems like there needs to be a happy medium to
me. I don't think Ludzik walks on water by any means, but I do think
he's trying to find that medium, and 5 games into the season is simply
too early to fire the coach, no matter who he is.
MarlboroCB12
"learning" coaches like that. We have players out there that need some
better experience behind the bench. It's just a kid leading the kids. I
personally would prefer seeing Ludzik getting his experience on the side of
someone like Cashman or even Melrose! Ludzik is being brought way too
quickly for this league.
--
J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
La foudre gagnera la tasse l'année prochaine!
Please visit:
http://Welcome.to/HockeyOnline
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:39EFCDB9...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
"MarlboroCB12" <marlbo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:P82I5.64317$65.6...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
Sharon
>
>Well, in the Doctor's defense, we shouldn't be messing around with
>"learning" coaches like that. We have players out there that need some
>better experience behind the bench. It's just a kid leading the kids. I
>personally would prefer seeing Ludzik getting his experience on the side
>of someone like Cashman or even Melrose! Ludzik is being brought way too
>quickly for this league.
You may well be right, but Cashman is employed elsewhere, as is
Melrose. We've got Ludzik, we're not going to get rid of him, so we may
as well get used to it. He may be the absolute wrong man for the job,
but we're not going to find that out for a while. If they learn
together it could be disastrous, and it could be miraculous. But only
time will tell.
I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be. If someone has factual
information that Ludzik is *100% at fault* for *100% of the team's
problems*, let's get him out of here. However, if there's even a remote
possibility that some small percentage of the team's problems could be
related to: (1) unskilled or uninspired veterans; (2) too many young
players/lack of experience; (3) lack of veteran leadership; (4)
assistant coaches; etc., etc., yada, yada, I can't see blaming 100% of
the problems on the head coach.
Doc O'Boogie, it's clear you hate the man, but you can't seem to see the
difference between my spreading the blame fairly as opposed to giving a
blanket endorsement to the man. I don't think he's always right. I
also don't think he's always wrong. I don't think he walks on water. I
question why Freadrich is riding the pine. I wonder about many things
he does. But I am realistic enough to know that it's not *all* his
fault. That's all I'm saying. If I'm not making that clear, blame it
on my communication skills. I've explained it as best I can.
Jbadams jr
> Melrose. We've got Ludzik, we're not going to get rid of him, so we may
> as well get used to it. He may be the absolute wrong man for the job,
> but we're not going to find that out for a while. If they learn
> together it could be disastrous, and it could be miraculous. But only
> time will tell.
Cashman and Melrose had the options of coming here at one point or another.
I think there are worse coaches out there besides Ludzik but I don't see how
we need a guy with his lack of experience leading our kids.
I wouldn't mind it so much if we had a team with veteran experience like
Dallas or a young but matured team like Colorado and had a sophomore coach
but we need someone that can say "Been there, done that, don't do it.".
> I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be. If someone has factual
> information that Ludzik is *100% at fault* for *100% of the team's
> problems*, let's get him out of here. However, if there's even a remote
> possibility that some small percentage of the team's problems could be
> related to: (1) unskilled or uninspired veterans; (2) too many young
> players/lack of experience; (3) lack of veteran leadership; (4)
> assistant coaches; etc., etc., yada, yada, I can't see blaming 100% of
> the problems on the head coach.
Oh, the problem with this team is NOT 100% the coach. I will say though
that the team in whole is at fault BUT Luds is a portion of all the problem
in almost every area. We have Mara who gives up game-costing SH goals,
Weekes and Clouch are being left up to dry, LeCav/Richards' goals don't
matter because they still end up on the losing side of the scoreboard.
> Doc O'Boogie, it's clear you hate the man, but you can't seem to see the
> difference between my spreading the blame fairly as opposed to giving a
> blanket endorsement to the man. I don't think he's always right. I
> also don't think he's always wrong. I don't think he walks on water. I
> question why Freadrich is riding the pine. I wonder about many things
> he does. But I am realistic enough to know that it's not *all* his
> fault. That's all I'm saying. If I'm not making that clear, blame it
> on my communication skills. I've explained it as best I can.
Ludzik will stay here for a while because as I see it Dudley has this thing
with kids evreywere- on and off the ice. He's still cutting Luds some slack
and since their good friends off the rink, he won't have the guts to say
"kid, you're really sucking...bad".
We've started over 3 times in the past 3 years.
Sharon
>Cashman and Melrose had the options of coming here at one point or
>another.
Ah, as you see, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Doesn't make a
darn bit of difference now, tho, I'm afraid.
>Oh, the problem with this team is NOT 100% the coach.
See, you understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks.
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
have a difference of opinion but, it's no big deal. I like a lively
discussion, and it's a whole lot better than these idiotic flame wars that
rear their ugly heads, from time to time. I respect your opinions, maybe it
doesn't exactly come across that way, but, I do.
DWOB
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOTcom> wrote in message
news:39F0BCDB...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
> MarlboroCB12 wrote:
> >
> >Well, in the Doctor's defense, we shouldn't be messing around with
> >"learning" coaches like that. We have players out there that need some
> >better experience behind the bench. It's just a kid leading the kids. I
> >personally would prefer seeing Ludzik getting his experience on the side
> >of someone like Cashman or even Melrose! Ludzik is being brought way too
> >quickly for this league.
>
> You may well be right, but Cashman is employed elsewhere, as is
> Melrose. We've got Ludzik, we're not going to get rid of him, so we may
> as well get used to it. He may be the absolute wrong man for the job,
> but we're not going to find that out for a while. If they learn
> together it could be disastrous, and it could be miraculous. But only
> time will tell.
>
> I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be. If someone has factual
> information that Ludzik is *100% at fault* for *100% of the team's
> problems*, let's get him out of here. However, if there's even a remote
> possibility that some small percentage of the team's problems could be
> related to: (1) unskilled or uninspired veterans; (2) too many young
> players/lack of experience; (3) lack of veteran leadership; (4)
> assistant coaches; etc., etc., yada, yada, I can't see blaming 100% of
> the problems on the head coach.
>
> Doc O'Boogie, it's clear you hate the man, but you can't seem to see the
> difference between my spreading the blame fairly as opposed to giving a
> blanket endorsement to the man. I don't think he's always right. I
> also don't think he's always wrong. I don't think he walks on water. I
> question why Freadrich is riding the pine. I wonder about many things
> he does. But I am realistic enough to know that it's not *all* his
> fault. That's all I'm saying. If I'm not making that clear, blame it
> on my communication skills. I've explained it as best I can.
>
Sharon
I'm not upset, it just... bothers me when I say one thing and it
suddenly goes so far afield and I can't figure out how it happened!
Now, I totally expect to be flamed from here to there for sticking up
for Mike Johnson over Darcy Tucker, but I guess Stormy hasn't seen that
one yet!!
>I respect your opinions, maybe it
>doesn't exactly come across that way, but, I do.
Feeling's mutual, and that's exactly why it bothered me. If that moron
from Buffalo got what I said all discombobulated, I wouldn't bat an eye!
Let me ask this. I posed this question in another forum and I'd be
interested in the response here. Mention has been made that we're not
checking or being aggressive enough. Does anyone here think that the
"crackdown" on hooking, etc., could be having an inluence on the
kiddies' lack of aggression in this area? It's pretty well a given that
we're not going to get *any* breaks on calls, so could it be that,
perhaps even only subconsciously, they're afraid of taking even more
penalties and are laying off somewhat because of that? I think it could
be a factor, even if only a slight one. I also think it's somewhat
understandable, but a habit that will need to be broken, or style of
play adjusted, which will require effort by both coaches and players.
And, on an even more pleasant note -- how 'bout them Flyers? Not to
mention that the Stinkin' Kitties are losing 4-0 zip to the Avs as we
type...
Even in the face of adversity, sometimes life is good.
:~)
MentalTossFlycoon
the buck bring in a top level coach and strategist when there is not much to
work with.
Tough to make chicken salad from chicken crap. I hope it gets better, the
ass kicking the Bucs took last night has me more pessimistic than normal.
--
Jon N.
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:39F0C976...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
> Jbadams jr wrote:
> >Cashman and Melrose had the options of coming here at one point or
> >another.
>
> Ah, as you see, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Doesn't make a
> darn bit of difference now, tho, I'm afraid.
>
> >Oh, the problem with this team is NOT 100% the coach.
>
> See, you understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks.
>
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
"MentalTossFlycoon" <MentalTo...@movintomontana.com> wrote in message
news:Tu8I5.6511
>
> Tough to make chicken salad from chicken crap. I hope it gets better, the
> ass kicking the Bucs took last night has me more pessimistic than normal.
>
> --
> Jon N.
Yeah, and after that fiasco last night against the Lions, it doesn't look to
be a very promising winter in Tampa Bay. The only thing worse, would be for
the DAMN Yankees to win another Damn series.
Bobby R
> "Dr. Winston O'Boogie" wrote:
> interested in the response here. Mention has been made that we're not
> checking or being aggressive enough. Does anyone here think that the
> "crackdown" on hooking, etc., could be having an inluence on the
> kiddies' lack of aggression in this area? It's pretty well a given that
> we're not going to get *any* breaks on calls, so could it be that,
> perhaps even only subconsciously, they're afraid of taking even more
> penalties and are laying off somewhat because of that? I think it could
> be a factor, even if only a slight one. I also think it's somewhat
> understandable, but a habit that will need to be broken, or style of
> play adjusted, which will require effort by both coaches and players.
I personally don't feel that the "crackdown" has anything to do with it. I
watch many many games each week (sometimes 2 a night!) and it's pretty even,
league wide. The refs are calling the stick penalties (slashing, hooking)
more than anything. Good checking (not boarding or charging) is still going
on quite regularly. The aggressive edge we're missing is the knocking guys
off the puck in the corners, clearing the front of the goal, and finishing
checks. Where you see these plays being called is when guys are using
sticks to move opponents (cross checking, getting the stick up during
checks, etc).
I feel that what's killing this team the most is speed. I think that the
speed (or lack of) coming out of *our* corners is what's causing alot of the
turnovers in our zone. As soon as our guys get the puck, opponents are
jumping all over them forcing a blind pass. I think San Jose is a very good
team in their own zone and their forechecking is outstanding. They
overwhelmed St. Louis in the playoffs last season because of this....
Sharon
>to be a very promising winter in Tampa Bay. The only thing worse, would
>be for the DAMN Yankees to win another Damn series.
Ack, I hate the Yankees.
However, Sharon the Eternally Optimistic One sees a warped upside to the
Bucs' current situation. Namely, the worse the Bucs get, the less their
fans harass me for being a Lightning fan. Last year they were
unmerciful. This year they are strangely silent. Mind you, I don't
want the Bucs to lose a single game, but it *is* a relief to have these
people off my back!! :~)
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
cannot get away with in the league,and pushing it to the limit. At least
that's what I'd be trying to do.
> I'm not upset, it just... bothers me when I say one thing and it
> suddenly goes so far afield and I can't figure out how it happened!
> Now, I totally expect to be flamed from here to there for sticking up
> for Mike Johnson over Darcy Tucker, but I guess Stormy hasn't seen that
> one yet!!
>
> >I respect your opinions, maybe it
> >doesn't exactly come across that way, but, I do.
>
> Feeling's mutual, and that's exactly why it bothered me. If that moron
> from Buffalo got what I said all discombobulated, I wouldn't bat an eye!
>
> Let me ask this. I posed this question in another forum and I'd be
> interested in the response here. Mention has been made that we're not
> checking or being aggressive enough. Does anyone here think that the
> "crackdown" on hooking, etc., could be having an inluence on the
> kiddies' lack of aggression in this area? It's pretty well a given that
> we're not going to get *any* breaks on calls, so could it be that,
> perhaps even only subconsciously, they're afraid of taking even more
> penalties and are laying off somewhat because of that? I think it could
> be a factor, even if only a slight one. I also think it's somewhat
> understandable, but a habit that will need to be broken, or style of
> play adjusted, which will require effort by both coaches and players.
>
> And, on an even more pleasant note -- how 'bout them Flyers? Not to
> mention that the Stinkin' Kitties are losing 4-0 zip to the Avs as we
> type...
>
> Even in the face of adversity, sometimes life is good.
>
> :~)
>
Sidd Finch
> Jbadams jr wrote:
> >Cashman and Melrose had the options of coming here at one point or
> >another.
>
> Ah, as you see, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Doesn't make a
> darn bit of difference now, tho, I'm afraid.
Ted Nolan could have come here.... But that was how many years ago?
Can't dwell, must move forward.
> >Oh, the problem with this team is NOT 100% the coach.
>
> See, you understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks.
>
Not the coach, just the experience level of the club, and the impatience of
some of the fans....
Sidd Finch
> Keeping Ludz is much like the Rays keeping Rothschild. Not much bang for
> the buck bring in a top level coach and strategist when there is not much
to
> work with.
I have got to disagree with this assessment Jon. Rothschild had a hell of a
lot more talent thrown under his control than what Ludzik has had. Larry
has also been around longer. The only excuse Larry has had is that "He's a
teaching coach and he hasn't had the young players to teach!" (arguement
from Ted Fleming of 142 Crew fame)
Ludzik is taking the chicks and raising them -- they'll either turn out to
be Chickens or Roosters and Steve can't control the outcome.
A. C. Scott
know.
Scottie
Jbadams jr
> for Mike Johnson over Darcy Tucker
Oh god Sharon, what's happening??? Mike Johnson's a scrub who leeched off
of good teams. Tucker just kicks asses and scores goals. Granted he hasn't
done too well with the Leafs this year but he's played a lot better than
Johnson has ever done here!
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
finesse type player with some speed, and not the grinder that Tuckers was.
But, still it takes a blend of all types of players, and the hierarchy
here, felt like Mike would be a better fit for this club. I don't think
we've seen just what he is capable of, yet. It is only a few games into the
season and some, (NOT ALL) players start slower than others. We don't know
exactly how he started out last year, unless someone here followed the Leafs
last year.
"Jbadams jr" <jbad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WymI5.65091$65.7...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
MentalTossFlycoon
--
Jon N.
Sidd Finch
Ever since he left the Sabres job, there's been something about him...
Either "he doesn't want to go there because of family", or there is an
unwritten law in the NHL that denounces Ted for one reason or another.
"MentalTossFlycoon" <MentalTo...@movintomontana.com> wrote in message
news:s4nI5.10054$x47.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Jbadams jr
that's it. His speed is good but he can't run through a brink wall like
Tucker could. On a penalty shot, I would take MJ, on a 2 on 2, Tucker,
hands down. Tucker's attributes are more rounded for the common play of the
game whereas Johnson's is fitting for about only when the other team is
caught sleeping for a sec and he has the open shot,
And he usually plays consistently from the beginning to the end of the
seasons, hypes a little more at the end. But his stats are scattered well
throughout the year evenly, according to a few online sources- ESPN, NHLPA,
hockeynet
But I think that 99% of the fan base here would be in cheers for a re-trade
for Tucker for Johnson.
J
> I'll defend MJ a little here. I like his scoring ability. He's more of a
> finesse type player with some speed, and not the grinder that Tuckers was.
> But, still it takes a blend of all types of players, and the hierarchy
> here, felt like Mike would be a better fit for this club. I don't think
> we've seen just what he is capable of, yet. It is only a few games into
the
Jbadams jr
he will beat out Scotty Bowman for the best coach title(in a few peoples'
opinion). But if we don't at least make a run with the talent we do have
here this year, I will be very pissed at Steve, maybe to the point of
begging to bring back, gulp, Demers. At least Demer's excuses were that he
didn't have that much canvas to paint on. Steve has no excuse, he just
needs to shut up and coach hockey, not be the blanket of the team.
J
"A. C. Scott" <asc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8biI5.9935$x47.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Sharon
>
> Thanks, Sidd. Ted Nolan would have been the man. But alas, we will never
> know.
> Scottie
Weren't Ted Nolan, Melrose, et al., being considered when they finally
hired Demers? Odds are that when the Davidson group took over, whoever
was the coach would have been fired, anyway... (We have to assume the
team would have been in bad shape, or Williams wouldn't have sold, so
there wouldn't have been a winning record to fall back on to save the
job for whoever was coach..)
Sharon
>
>The scary thing about Ludzik is that MAYBE if we keep him a few more
>years, he will beat out Scotty Bowman for the best coach title(in a few
>peoples' opinion). But if we don't at least make a run with the talent
>we do have here this year, I will be very pissed at Steve, maybe to the
>point of begging to bring back, gulp, Demers.
Get ready to beg, then. If you actually expect this team of toddlers
and babies to "make a run" at anything more than, hopefully, 25 or so
wins, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
The talent is there, but I don't think there's a coach in the league who
could take them to the playoffs, they're just too young &
inexperienced. Next year.
Sharon
>
>> Now, I totally expect to be flamed from here to there for sticking up
>> for Mike Johnson over Darcy Tucker
>
>Oh god Sharon, what's happening??? Mike Johnson's a scrub who leeched
>off of good teams. Tucker just kicks asses and scores goals. Granted he
>hasn't done too well with the Leafs this year but he's played a lot
>better than Johnson has ever done here!
J, read the stats. I posted them in another thread. They had the exact
same number of goals last year, Darcy had more assists, but Johnson was
way ahead in +/-. Mike also scored more goals after the trade on a
crappy team than Darcy did on a good one.
In 5 years in the NHL, Darcy's goal totals were 0, 7, 7, 21 and 21.
That's a total of 56 goals, average 11.2 per year.
In 4 years in the NHL, Mike's goal totals were 2, 15, 20, 21. That's a
total of 58 (2 more in 3 less years) for an average of 14.5 per year.
For someone whose emphasis is on scoring, seems to me you'd want Johnson
over Tucker.
True, Johnson doesn't get in fights, take acrobatic dives or play dead
on the ice. But he scores goals, is faster, a better skater and is more
skilled. I think he'll get better, especially as the players around him
improve. Darcy, as much as I loved him while he was here, in my
personal opinion is as good as he's ever going to be.
Sharon
Jbadams jr wrote:
> >Mike Johnson's a scrub who leeched
> >off of good teams.
Oh, I also forgot to mention... Johnson has only played for 2 NHL
teams, Toronto and the Lightning.
MarlboroCB12
| same number of goals last year, Darcy had more assists, but Johnson was
| way ahead in +/-. Mike also scored more goals after the trade on a
| crappy team than Darcy did on a good one.
But that's also saying that Darcy did better on a bad team than Johnson did
on a good team before the trade. +/- I gnore for this team due to their
defensive dillemas.
| In 5 years in the NHL, Darcy's goal totals were 0, 7, 7, 21 and 21.
| That's a total of 56 goals, average 11.2 per year.
|
| In 4 years in the NHL, Mike's goal totals were 2, 15, 20, 21. That's a
| total of 58 (2 more in 3 less years) for an average of 14.5 per year.
Well jeez, when you're playing on a team that has more assits for their guys
than our team has total points(exaggerations, of course). Montreal wasn't
hot and neither were the Lightning. We have no Mats Sundin or Derek Kings
on this team to get those tape-to-tape passes that mostof Johnson's goal
have come from.
| For someone whose emphasis is on scoring, seems to me you'd want Johnson
| over Tucker.
Tucker has done a lot with scoring plays though. He's cleared out centers
for shots, good screener(I remember a particular Svaboda goal), and is a
freak around the net. I don't see Johnson contributing to others' goals.
| True, Johnson doesn't get in fights, take acrobatic dives or play dead
| on the ice. But he scores goals, is faster, a better skater and is more
| skilled. I think he'll get better, especially as the players around him
| improve. Darcy, as much as I loved him while he was here, in my
| personal opinion is as good as he's ever going to be.
I hope he gets better or learns to fight back other teams a little better.
We'll talk after the season on this.
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
of the year for Toronto? I do remember him as a scoring threat, fairly early
in his career.
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:39F21D89...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
"MarlboroCB12" <marlbo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:U2rI5.65112$65.7...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
Sharon
>
Well, now, you've really hit on the crux of the matter there. He'd had
enough (who could really blame him), admitted he didn't want to be a
leader. He wanted out. I'm sure that's partially (if not mostly) the
reason his play was tailing off before he was traded. He didn't look
the same, even to a novice like me.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a classic good trade. It was good for
both teams (they got what they needed), and good for both players (Darcy
got out, Mike gets more ice time & a spot on the first line -- until
tonight).
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
hockey club anymore. I like the guy, but I also think Mike Johnson will be
just fine here.
"Sharon" <sl...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:39F25649...@tampabayDOT.rrDOT.com...
Jbadams jr
knock me over" plays. I'm sorry but right now, we don't stat-packers, we
need guys to slow down the game when it gets out of hand and get things back
on track. Johnson's leadership skills are 0%. We're still depening on a
3rd year player who, while he may deserve it, has proven to be better than
everyone on the team. I wouldn't mind it if Johnson TRIED to be a man uot
there, but he thinks his only job is to skate, pass, and shoot(some go with
that philosophy, some the contrary- that's where some of our problems are).
A very pissed off J
"Dr. Winston O'Boogie" <groc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:A_BI5.12595$x47.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Sidd Finch
> "A. C. Scott" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Sidd. Ted Nolan would have been the man. But alas, we will never
> > know.
> > Scottie
>
> Weren't Ted Nolan, Melrose, et al., being considered when they finally
> hired Demers?
Like I said "We could have had Ted Nolan" -- like I said later, there have
always been excuses why Ted hasn't gotten/taken jobs. Reportedly he wasn't
interesting in the TB job because of his family being in Canada...
> Odds are that when the Davidson group took over, whoever
> was the coach would have been fired, anyway... (We have to assume the
> team would have been in bad shape, or Williams wouldn't have sold, so
> there wouldn't have been a winning record to fall back on to save the
> job for whoever was coach..)
>
Sharon
>I wouldn't mind it if Johnson TRIED to be a man uot
>there, but he thinks his only job is to skate, pass, and shoot(some go
>with that philosophy, some the contrary- that's where some of our
>problems are).
J, are you actually wanting these guys to play *defense*???? I thought
all they needed to do was score many many goals to win games?
You're really confusing me, here, which do you want?
Jbadams jr
> all they needed to do was score many many goals to win games?
>
> You're really confusing me, here, which do you want?
Okay, I apologize, i was wrong. Offense is not the only thing to a game.
What I said sounded good if you have an invicible team but the Lightning
don't even compare with that. Okay Okay Okay, defense is just imporant as
scoring. I'm sorry.
Still pissed off J
Bobby R
> Okay, I apologize, i was wrong. Offense is not the only thing to a game.
> What I said sounded good if you have an invicible team but the Lightning
> don't even compare with that. Okay Okay Okay, defense is just imporant as
> scoring. I'm sorry.
Just think.... if we were to limit opponents to only 2 goals , we'd be
5-0-2 right now.
Sharon
> Still pissed off J
Well, cheer up. Jekyll showed up tonight instead of Hyde. We won,
Modin got his first NHL hat trick. Enjoy it!
Stormy In FL
> Jbadams jr wrote:
> >
> >> Now, I totally expect to be flamed from here to there for sticking up
> >> for Mike Johnson over Darcy Tucker
> >
> >off of good teams. Tucker just kicks asses and scores goals. Granted he
> >hasn't done too well with the Leafs this year but he's played a lot
> >better than Johnson has ever done here!
>
> same number of goals last year, Darcy had more assists, but Johnson was
> way ahead in +/-. Mike also scored more goals after the trade on a
> crappy team than Darcy did on a good one.
>
> That's a total of 56 goals, average 11.2 per year.
>
> In 4 years in the NHL, Mike's goal totals were 2, 15, 20, 21. That's a
> total of 58 (2 more in 3 less years) for an average of 14.5 per year.
>
> over Tucker.
>
> on the ice. But he scores goals, is faster, a better skater and is more
> skilled. I think he'll get better, especially as the players around him
> improve. Darcy, as much as I loved him while he was here, in my
> personal opinion is as good as he's ever going to be.
>
This counts as my response to this thread in all its various forms -- Mike
Johnson is something Darcy Tucker *never* was - Lazy. The man takes shifts,
even nights, off. Disappaears for long stretches of time. Plays
apathetically. Seldom plays physically at all, despite his size.
I can't stand players who don't show up every night. Mike Johnson is one of
them. Tucker was a lot of things, but lazy and apathetic are two traits you
could never pin on him.
I don't care how talented or how much potential Mike Johnson has. If he's
too lazy to use it on a consistent basis, he is useless.
Sharon
>I can't stand players who don't show up every night. Mike Johnson is one
>of them.
Well, you must have started disliking Tucker last year, I guess, since
by his own admission he wasn't giving it his all here for a while before
the trade.
:~)
Be that as it may, we'll agree to disagree -- I see Johnson throwing the
body around, playing hard, the first to Vinny's defense the other night,
right into the fray tonight, sticking up for his teammates. I think
last year he was in shock (and probably rightfully horrified) over the
trade. He looks different to me this year. I'm certainly willing to
give him a chance, as I think in the long run he will contribute more
than Darcy would have. Sheldon Keefe is supposed to pick up where Darcy
left off (and perhaps be willing to accept the leadership role Darcy
told the press in Toronto he didn't want), so we may really have both
things now, a Darcy-type and a true offensive threat. I can live with
that.
Jbadams jr
> 5-0-2 right now.
That is something to think about. Maybe you should fax that to Duds.
A calmer, more peaceful J
Raven
talked about. Ted Nolan and Barry Melrose
were both OFFERED jobs as coach.... THEY
turned the Bolts down. Ted Nolan was thought
to be 1st choice in Chicago, and he liked his chances there better...
and Melrose decided
after speaking to other GMs that hid gig on
NHL2night was better than taking a job with
a no-talent team with a volitile ownwership
( wiliams owned ) at that time.
Sidd Finch
to have your cable disconnected in an effort to let this team win.
If you DID see the game yesterday, we are going to have to move to strap you
to your chair at home and watch TV 24/7 so you do not miss a single game
this season.
"A. C. Scott" <asc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uIIH5.4004$ze4.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I watched the game last night and, yup, we lose.
> Please excuse my actions, Sharon. <g>
> Sad, indeed. Am beginning to agree with those who feel the coaching is
> substandard for the NHL.
> What good is speed when you can't/won't shoot the damn puck?
> What good is speed when you refuse to check?
> We need some muscle, and not just what is on suspension, I mean REAL
muscle.
> This team seems to be a bunch of fast chumps.
> Scottie
>
>
>
A. C. Scott
wrestling and be damned, THEY WON. I am so very confused, can't figure out
what is going on with this club. Guess I'll have to be like all the rest and
watch 'em win/lose and grouse when things are bad. So get out the straps and
tie me into "The Chair" (bondage freak that I am) and here we go on the
Lightning trip again!!!
Scottie
PS: Isn't DirecTV the greatest?|
Bobby R
> That is something to think about. Maybe you should fax that to Duds.
I would, but who knows what might happen if the fax machine is still blurry
around there...
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Sorry, that was a sick joke.
"Bobby R" <com.rr.tampabay@bobbyr> wrote in message
news:NF8J5.15677$ze4.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
MarlboroCB12
| Sorry, that was a sick joke.
DON'T SAY THAT!!!!!!! Jeez, then all we'll end up with is Langkow for him
and maybe a 7th round pick.
Why don't they just use e-mail, BTW? More reliable than faxes.
J