POLL... Will We Make Playoffs????
Tom & Linda
How about a poll here?
Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
Very simple... just vote...
Yes
or...
No
Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
--Tom
GretzkyGrl
Tom & Linda
Against my better judgment, I'll vote...
YES.
I don't think we have nearly enough D. Scoring disappears for months at
a time. The puck always rolls. We have way too may delicate, soft and
old players (Eric, MEss, Nedved, etc.) But I just have a feeling we
might. I hope Blackburn comes up big for us. I would have like
Amonte's scoring. But I'll vote YES.
--Tom
Tom & Linda
Still YES?
--Tom
CRawlin163
seasons. I hope I'm wrong, but I see another year just like the past five.
-Chuck in 404
FDR
"Tom & Linda" <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D4353F4...@worldnet.att.net...
Bender
Seventh in the East.
6 games or less and we'll be eliminated.
Roger Sherman
Yes, you will. The off season additions will greatly benefit you on the
ice, and the change in chemistry will help before it will hurt. No idea
what Trottier will do as a coach, but he's got a very solid staff of
assistants to lean on.
Of course, this will be the third or fourth straight year I've said
virtually the same thing....
David Carcagente
the playoffs, with Holik scoring the gamewinner with 30 seconds left in the
third period. We then get drilled by the Sens in 4 games in the second round.
-David
Thanks for the memories #8 CRJ
Daytona is all about DEI DALE JR - 2001 PEPSI 400 CHAMPION!!!!!!!!!!
MIKE WALTRIP 2001 DAYTONA 500, 2002
PEPSI 400 CHAMPION!!!!
zubov
Trottier will be gone before the All Star game with you know who as his
replacement. Rangers sign Kantplaysky to play on the Lindros line and he scores
50 goals, then abruptly leaves after beating Fleury's ass in a locker room
argument. Fleo is hospitalized with multiple scratches to his face and leaves
the team citing terminal halitosis.
Rangers will become the worst team in the league and Dolan will sell to Messier
and Leetch who move the franchise to Branson, MO.
Messier and Leetch both come out to Michael Musto of the Village Voice during a
celebrity curling match.
--
-z-
Tom Aimone
Florida and players have to earn their money by winning and players
handle other players when they act like jerks and they don't bring back
guys who helped a few years ago if they can't help now and they say
players are the future fooling other teams into taking them because they
are really dead wood and they make sure players they get act like
winners not whiners and their fans know the ownership cares about
winning.
Craig
C
"Tom & Linda" <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D4353F4...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> How about a poll here?
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
> --Tom
GretzkyGrl
>But... What if you had to bet $10,000 of your own money and be right?
>
>Still YES?
>
>--Tom
>
Yes.
Joe Dutcher
Because we still have MEssier on the team, and we will be eliminated from
the regular season in 6 games or less.
"Bender" <ben...@home.com> wrote in message
news:oGK09.8725$ka6.5...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
Chris
<TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>How about a poll here?
>
>Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
>Very simple... just vote...
>
>Yes
>
>or...
>
>No
Yes.
>Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
Because they have enough good/star players that they should be carried
into the playoffs *if* they commit to a defensive system. And I think
Trottier will mandate that. The last few years, they just had too
many guys floating and not having enough heart, or grit, or whatever.
If that single thing goes away, they're in the playoffs.
Now, given they have Lindros, Malakhov(sp?), Bure, etc. on the team
(guys who either float at times, or play below their ability at
times), this is easier said than done. But I think it'll be the main
purpose of Trottier's existence leading this team.
-C
Chris
>I don't think we have nearly enough D.
Probably not, but it's not a terrible defense either. If they can get
Malakhov to play to his potential (good luck), they should be OK.
Leetch is fairly dreadful in his own end, so he should be paired with
someone who isn't (Kasparaitis, probably), then stick Malakhov out
there with Poti. That's a pretty decent top 4. They could use a
veteran out there to anchor the 3rd pairing, and IMO, they *must* play
Kloucek game after game. I think he's a player.
>Scoring disappears for months at a time.
Months at a time? Scoring won't be the problem. The other team
scoring is the problem.
>The puck always rolls.
On that great Garden ice, it's no wonder...
>We have way too may delicate, soft and old players (Eric, MEss, Nedved, etc.)
I think the problem is there were too many players not committed to
playing any type of defensive game. Lindros, Bure, Fleury, Nedved,
Leetch, Berard, go down the list. Heck, the only guy that did night
after night, they traded for Poti. That is what needs to be fixed.
If you look at the teams that have recently won Cups (I'm thinking
about Detroit, Colorado and Dallas here), they all were led by
high-scoring, defensively weak centers (Yzerman, Sakic, Modano) for
years. In each case, those 3 players committed themselves to
defensive play midway through their careers - at the detriment of
their offensive numbers - so the team could be better. The Rangers'
stars need to do exactly the same thing.
Good luck, Trots.
-C
SNUMBER6
>How about a poll here?
>
Freestyle ...
In the Village ....
I am not a number ... I am a free man !!!!
Tom & Linda
--Tom
Kovy
Yes, we'll be the greatest team of all time.
John Bradley
> How about a poll here?
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
>
I vote yes. As my sig says, I'm quite an optimist.
--
John Bradley "I'm a realist. I always see the possibilities for
jjbr...@erols.com the worst event. At the same time, I'm maybe
so much of a realist that I'm quite optimistic.
What a paradox." --- Egil Olsen
Michael Proscia
>if we'll make the playoffs?
Rangers in seven (7) ! ! ! ! !
Michael
"About three minutes before I scored, on the bench I said 'I think I'm due. I
think I've got one here'. You dream of this as a kid, and I guess dreams do
come true." Marty Wilford said about scoring his first overtime playoff series
winner.
avenue
"Tom & Linda" <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3D4353F4...@worldnet.att.net...
Danny Clark
<TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Yes.
Lindros remains healthy, Bure score 112 and Messier begins hormone
replacement therapy to retard the aging process, but a mistake by the
doctor ends up with him taking the wrong hormones... and retires 2 months
into the season as Mary MEssier, a bald bitch with nice natural tits that
spends way too much time talking about her cats.
--
Danny Clark
"Kato, my little yellow friend, I am home"
bPstyles
"Tom & Linda" <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D4353F4...@worldnet.att.net...
No.
Beyond Bure, this is the worst set of wingers in the league. Line
combinations will become an issue all year, leading to defensive breakdowns
and offensive slumps.
s
Mike
and spec. teams, and trottier can build some cohesiveness
teamwise.(blackburn coming into his own is key). put me down for YES.
Cynicor
So when the Isles win the division and get the second seed, you think the
Rangers will lose to them in 6 games or less? Or do you think they're losing
to Philly in six or less?
Mike
your just a dreamer..., (supertramp) islandgirls get no pearls!
Michael Proscia
>So when the Isles win the division and get the second seed,
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not get tooo far ahead of ourselves . . . . first the
Islanders have to qualify for the playoffs.
Rhythmizer
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
>
> Yes
>
> or...
>
> No
>
> Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
>
> --Tom
GREAT poll question !
Now, not only will my oilers make the playoffs with
92-95 points, but your rangers will make the playoffs
as well with 84-100 points.
This here ranger team is gonna play a dynamic, hi-scoring
and very intense brand of hockey.Sather is keeping
the effective players, and dropping the one's who
fracture team unity or diminish the winning percentage
with inconsistent play.
Add Holik, Bure and Kasparitis to the Richter,Leetch and Lindros
factors, and you have a whole spectrum of smart, intense,
effective winners.
Can you say depth ? This here ranger team is aquiring
some major roster-options.The only questions are...
Chemistry: Can they gel early enough to be consistently
effective at defensive coverage, and offensive anticipation/delay.
Geriatrics: If certain players play old, bench them quicker
than they can say "ouch".
Reasonable Assignments: Ron Low sucked at describing
to each player what they have to do and change
(precisely) regarding their game.Maybe the new
group can accurately define each players role and
limitations so that they can focus, specialize and
succeed.
Style: Will they go with...
A} The aggressive 2-man forecheck
B} The more passive 2-man forecheck
C) The aggressive 1-man forecheck
D) The shallow 1-man forecheck
E) No forecheck
F) An adaptive hybrid involving
all or some of the above.
Most importantly :
-DEFENSIVE INTENSITY AND AWARENESS: Will all
of the players backcheck and pick up
their checks (not cheques) on a consistent basis
and stay with them in the defensive zone so that
mike or dan can avoid 40-50 shots a friggen
game.
Tom & Linda
Holik... Nedved... Dvorak.
--Tom
NEGross
>We defeat the Devils (as usual) in 7 games in the first round of
>the playoffs, with Holik scoring the gamewinner with 30 seconds left in the
>third period.
ALMOST correct! Right after scoring the apparent game-winner, Holik
cross-checks Gomez in the jaw .... Sergei Brylin then ties the game with 4.4
seconds left in regulation. In the second OT, Holik takes a charging penalty,
but then Messier scores on a wrap-around while short-handed for the win.
You then get drilled in 4 games by the Sens in the second round, and Messier
signs a 3-year, $15 million contract extension, with Sather announces by saying
"I told you guys that he still has it. Rather than spending more money
bringing in free agents for next year, our plan is to pay off Bettman so that
we can play the Devils in every round."
Jim Kaznosky
Tom & Linda wrote:
> How about a poll here?
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
>
> Yes
>
> or...
>
> No
>
> Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
>
> --Tom
As the team stands right now, nope.
They may have a decent run at some point in the season, but what the
hell are you going to do with a team completely devoid of talent on the
left wing? Not much.
Does the addition of Kaspiritus sure up a previously terrible defense?
No way.
Clifford Seifer
-- Cliff
"The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
close to them. "
Clifford Seifer
> I think we go with the 3 man foreCzech.
>
> Holik... Nedved... Dvorak.
Doesn't make any sense. Nedved and Dvorak play a totally different style
from Holik. It would be a waste of his talent. I don't mind on or the
other of Nedved or Holik on his line but the other winger needs to be
someone with a similar style to Holik. (I still say Barnaby.)
-- Cliff
"The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
close to them. "
Clifford Seifer
everyone else's thoughts.
Specifically, someone mentioned that Low was awful at X. Indeed, Low was
not only awful at X, he was pretty much awful at everything. Everything.
I've never seen a coach who was so bad at so much. Line matching,
inspiration, defensive system, strategy of any sort, special teams -- can
anyone name something that Low actually did? We may as well of had no
coach whatsoever.
Good coaching makes your team better. Bad coaching not only doesn't make
your team better, it makes it worse. Despite this major handicap, the
Rangers almost made it to the playoffs last year. Looking at our major
assets, who are we missing that we had at the beginning of last season?
Fleury and York are the only major ones that come to mind and, as everyone
knows, Fleury did as much harm as he did good last season. Meanwhile,
we've added several major assets. I would pretty much consider Poti and
Bure off season upgrades as neither of them had a chance to affect the
outcome of last season. So, talent wise, we've lost York and Fleury
(probably) but added Holik, Kasper, Bure and Poti.
So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
all come down to the coaching.
-- Cliff
"The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
close to them. "
Danny Clark
Clifford Seifer <clif...@sover.net> wrote:
> Okay -- I'm expanding a little bit on my response after having read
> everyone else's thoughts.
>
> Specifically, someone mentioned that Low was awful at X. Indeed, Low was
> not only awful at X, he was pretty much awful at everything. Everything.
> I've never seen a coach who was so bad at so much. Line matching,
> inspiration, defensive system, strategy of any sort, special teams -- can
> anyone name something that Low actually did? We may as well of had no
> coach whatsoever.
And just think, Sather hired him. Twice.
>
> Good coaching makes your team better. Bad coaching not only doesn't make
> your team better, it makes it worse. Despite this major handicap, the
> Rangers almost made it to the playoffs last year. Looking at our major
> assets, who are we missing that we had at the beginning of last season?
> Fleury and York are the only major ones that come to mind and, as everyone
> knows, Fleury did as much harm as he did good last season. Meanwhile,
> we've added several major assets. I would pretty much consider Poti and
> Bure off season upgrades as neither of them had a chance to affect the
> outcome of last season. So, talent wise, we've lost York and Fleury
> (probably) but added Holik, Kasper, Bure and Poti.
>
> So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
> all come down to the coaching.
And faith in Sather, the same GM that hired Low...and the same GM that now
hired a rookie coach... and also did _not_ allow that rookie to hire his
own assistants and the same GM who kept Green on, no matter what the coach
wanted. Yes, that advanced mind named Green who was in charge of our
splendid defense last year.
The first strings have been pulled by Sather already, and the show hasn't
even started.
If Lindros remains healthy with Bure, we get in. If not, this will be the
last strings that Sather pulls.
>
> -- Cliff
>
> "The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
> visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
> approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
> close to them. "
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Clifford Seifer wrote:
>
> > Yes. They will make the playoffs this year.
> >
> > -- Cliff
> >
> > "The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
> > visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
> > approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
> > close to them. "
> >
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Tom & Linda wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How about a poll here?
> > >
> > > Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
> > >
> > > Very simple... just vote...
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > or...
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > > Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
> > >
> > > --Tom
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--
Clifford Seifer
> > So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
> > all come down to the coaching.
>
> And faith in Sather, the same GM that hired Low...and the same GM that now
> hired a rookie coach...
Even a broken watch is correct twice a day. If Trottier turns out to be a
good coach, Sather gets none of the credit in my book. Trottier will
either be good or bad. He can't possibly be as bad as Low, however.
> and also did _not_ allow that rookie to hire his
> own assistants and the same GM who kept Green on, no matter what the coach
> wanted. Yes, that advanced mind named Green who was in charge of our
> splendid defense last year.
That's the bit that worries me. Why in the name of all the is holy would
you bring back the man responsible for the worst, most disorganized,
rudderless defence in the world. What the fuck did Green do all last
season? One would hope that Trottier has a plan which he gets Green to
implement. No decent coach could possibly stand back and watch one of his
assitants do absolutely nothing at all.
Chris
<clif...@sover.net> wrote:
>Okay -- I'm expanding a little bit on my response after having read
>everyone else's thoughts.
>
>Specifically, someone mentioned that Low was awful at X. Indeed, Low was
>not only awful at X, he was pretty much awful at everything. Everything.
>I've never seen a coach who was so bad at so much. Line matching,
>inspiration, defensive system, strategy of any sort, special teams -- can
>anyone name something that Low actually did? We may as well of had no
>coach whatsoever.
I agree that this is the main point of playoff discussion this season.
That and playing a young guy or two in some meaningful minutes. The
Rangers need 18 skaters a night to commit to defensive play, within a
system. It's going to be a tough job, because there were more than a
few guys on the team last year that didn't go all out defensively.
And as an aside, I think the bigger problem is the forwards' defensive
play, not the defensemen. I'm not saying they couldn't use some
improvement back there, but 5 skaters at a time make up a defensive
effort, and the Rangers could've skated Pronger and Lidstrom back
there and let up lots of goals the way those forwards backchecked and
played position.
>Good coaching makes your team better. Bad coaching not only doesn't make
>your team better, it makes it worse. Despite this major handicap, the
>Rangers almost made it to the playoffs last year. Looking at our major
>assets, who are we missing that we had at the beginning of last season?
>Fleury and York are the only major ones that come to mind and, as everyone
>knows, Fleury did as much harm as he did good last season. Meanwhile,
>we've added several major assets. I would pretty much consider Poti and
>Bure off season upgrades as neither of them had a chance to affect the
>outcome of last season. So, talent wise, we've lost York and Fleury
>(probably) but added Holik, Kasper, Bure and Poti.
York being a significant loss. I'm not sure who got the better of
that deal.
In any case, they are better off now than they were at the beginning
of last season. Though they do seem quite light on the wing. They've
got Bure and Dvorak, two guys who are legitimate 1st/2nd line wings.
Ruchinsky would look good on the team, but IIRC, he's asking too much
money. So, what they should do is bring Lundmark up and play him at
wing. They'll still need one more after that, but that's two solid
lines, even if they rid themselves of Nedved. If Petr does stay, I'd
move him to wing also, just to limit his defensive liabilities, if for
no other reason.
Defensively, Leetch, Malakhov and Karpa will be the same.
Kasparaitis, Poti and (I hope) Kloucek replace Berard, Lefebvre and
Ulanov. That's just *got* to be better. I really think Kloucek can
be a very good NHL defensive defenseman. He needs to be coached, and
he needs to play.
>So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
>all come down to the coaching.
I agree. If they had it last year, they probably would have made it
in.
-C
Roger Sherman
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Tom & Linda wrote:
>
>> I think we go with the 3 man foreCzech.
>>
>> Holik... Nedved... Dvorak.
>
> Doesn't make any sense. Nedved and Dvorak play a totally different
> style from Holik. It would be a waste of his talent. I don't mind on
> or the other of Nedved or Holik on his line but the other winger needs
> to be someone with a similar style to Holik. (I still say Barnaby.)
>
Just remember, the Devils used to have a line that thrived with two
finesse type Czechs on the wing, with a power center in the middle.
Of course, it flopped when Holik was the center, but that seemed to be a
chemistry issue more than anything else. Holik would yell at the other
two in czech, and they didn't respond well to it.
David Carcagente
>>the playoffs, with Holik scoring the gamewinner with 30 seconds left in the
>>third period.
>
>ALMOST correct! Right after scoring the apparent game-winner, Holik
>cross-checks Gomez in the jaw .... Sergei Brylin then ties the game with 4.4
>seconds left in regulation. In the second OT, Holik takes a charging
>penalty,
>but then Messier scores on a wrap-around while short-handed for the win.
LOL!! I didn't want to say that I had Holik penciled in for a wrap-around for
fear of all the Matteau (94) and Graves (97) flashbacks it might have caused
the Devs fans that lurk and post here.
>You then get drilled in 4 games by the Sens in the second round
ok
>and Messier
>signs a 3-year, $15 million contract extension
oh god forbid....
>our plan is to pay off Bettman so that
>we can play the Devils in every round."
hey...we'd be a shoe-in for the Cup then.
-David
Thanks for the memories #8 CRJ
Daytona is all about DEI DALE JR - 2001 PEPSI 400 CHAMPION!!!!!!!!!!
MIKE WALTRIP 2001 DAYTONA 500, 2002
PEPSI 400 CHAMPION!!!!
Kovy
> No way.
It's not the addition of Kaspar that's meant to remedy the worst defense in
the league (yes, I say it's worse than Atlanta). If any new addition is
going to resolve our defensive woes, it's Trotier and the new coaching
staff.
Rhythmizer
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Tom & Linda wrote:
>
> > I think we go with the 3 man foreCzech.
> >
> > Holik... Nedved... Dvorak.
>
> Doesn't make any sense.
But hockey is a game of creative chaos.Sometimes what
is initially unimpressive, works quite well.
Nedved and Dvorak play a totally different style
> from Holik.
Often this contrast is what benefits the chemistry on a line.
> It would be a waste of his talent.
That's a careless assumption.
> I don't mind on or the
> other of Nedved or Holik on his line but the other winger needs to be
> someone with a similar style to Holik. (I still say Barnaby.)
I disagree.That line idea has a very good chance of
becoming an effective, sometimes dominant line.You drop
the 1-way style of hlavac, and add defensive specialist
holik (who can play the wing or center) as a very
good grounding for nedved.With dvorak and holik
always covering for nedved, he could really
break out offensively, and so could holik.
I say, start Holik, Nedved and Dvorak as your 2nd line.
Rhythmizer
> everyone else's thoughts.
>
> Specifically, someone mentioned that Low was awful at X. Indeed, Low was
> not only awful at X, he was pretty much awful at everything. Everything.
> I've never seen a coach who was so bad at so much. Line matching,
I rate his line-matching skill B-
> inspiration,
If you also mean motivation, including some miraculous
comebacks he assited the oilers with awhile back, I rate
his inspiration a B+.His compliments, pep-talks and intensity,
are his strong points.
> his defensive system,
F
> strategy of any sort,
D+
> special teams
C+
-- can
> anyone name something that Low actually did? We may as well of had no
> coach whatsoever.
I think there have been worse coaches, and having no coach
would have netted you 50 points tops.The rangers simpy
had too many smaller players who were not defensively
focused.Murray, Kaspar and Holik are defensive masters
who will change this.
Murray is an amazing penalty killer/ left-wing locker.
Kaspar is a mauler... a vicious mini-tank.
Holik gets top credit for being the devs best
2-way playoff performer.When you say "big game",
he simply dominates.He and kaspar will aggravate
opponents like super-pests.
>
> Good coaching makes your team better. Bad coaching not only doesn't make
> your team better, it makes it worse. Despite this major handicap, the
> Rangers almost made it to the playoffs last year. Looking at our major
> assets, who are we missing that we had at the beginning of last season?
> Fleury and York are the only major ones that come to mind and, as everyone
> knows, Fleury did as much harm as he did good last season. Meanwhile,
> we've added several major assets. I would pretty much consider Poti and
> Bure off season upgrades as neither of them had a chance to affect the
> outcome of last season. So, talent wise, we've lost York and Fleury
> (probably) but added Holik, Kasper, Bure and Poti.
And Murray.
As for york: i know his defensive effort was consistent
and commendable, but his lack of size and aggession
renders him less effective at defensive domination.
As for fleury, even when he tried, he usually failed
at effectively checking opposing players in his own
zone.
>
> So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
> all come down to the coaching.
I think coaching is a major factor, but natural defensive prowess
among the players is an even greater factor.
Tom & Linda
foreCheck and foreCzech.
You're right... they play a whole different style of play.
But then... what style of play do we really play?????
--Tom
Clark Baubles
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
>
> Yes
>
> or...
>
> No
>
> Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
>
Right now? No.
Lindros and Bure are superstars but after them, there isn't much else.
Sather has a lot more work to do.
-C
Danny Clark
<cbau...@inetmail.att.net> wrote:
We still have Nedved....
Arjan Passenier
--
It's better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness - Terry
Pratchett
--
"Tom & Linda" <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> schreef in bericht
news:3D4353F4...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> How about a poll here?
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
>
> Yes
>
> or...
>
> No
>
> Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
>
> --Tom
Clifford Seifer
> Clifford Seifer <clif...@sover.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.BSI.4.05L.10207...@milk.sover.net>...
> > Okay -- I'm expanding a little bit on my response after having read
> > everyone else's thoughts.
> >
> > Specifically, someone mentioned that Low was awful at X. Indeed, Low was
> > not only awful at X, he was pretty much awful at everything. Everything.
> > I've never seen a coach who was so bad at so much. Line matching,
>
> I rate his line-matching skill B-
In what parallel universe? Did he match lines once all season? Maybe,
but he sure as hell didn't make a habit out of it. Rodent over at
Hockeybird had an interesting article where he speculated that Low's
refusal to match lines may have been partly responsible for Nedved's
slump. (Only partly responsible -- most of the burden was on Nedved but
it's hard to break out of a slump and put up numbers when you are
consistantly up against the other team's best line.)
>
> > inspiration,
>
> If you also mean motivation, including some miraculous
> comebacks he assited the oilers with awhile back, I rate
> his inspiration a B+.His compliments, pep-talks and intensity,
> are his strong points.
What's he done for me lately?
It's hard to say without being in the locker room but, with the exception
of the last couple of weeks, the Rangers sure as hell did not looked
inspired or motivated last season. They lost easy games left and right
and during the slumps kept issuing themselves challanges ("we have to win
this next one") which they would fail to meet. In interviews Low seemed
to be on sedatives. "Yeah, well, we have to win. We did not play well.
Next time. We'll get them next time."
>
> > his defensive system,
>
> F
Ah -- we agree :) As mentioned yesterday, I'm very worried that Green is
back but am hoping that Trottier has a vision which he gets Green to
adhere to.
> > strategy of any sort,
>
>
> D+
Generous but we can agree to disagree ;)
> > special teams
>
> C+
I wish I had had you for a teacher back when I was in school. 20th
overall on the powerplay and dead last on the penalty kill. Not exactly
average in my book.
> -- can
> > anyone name something that Low actually did? We may as well of had no
> > coach whatsoever.
>
> I think there have been worse coaches, and having no coach
> would have netted you 50 points tops.
At times last season it almost seemed like they were playing a pickup
game. With no coach, maybe the players would have sorted out some sort of
a system/strategy and some effective lines themselves. I'm being
facetious, obviously, but it does make you wonder.
> The rangers simpy
> had too many smaller players who were not defensively
> focused.Murray, Kaspar and Holik are defensive masters
> who will change this.
I haven't seen enough of Murray to judge yet. We're definately better
positioned in terms of personel this season though.
> And Murray.
>
> As for york: i know his defensive effort was consistent
> and commendable, but his lack of size and aggession
> renders him less effective at defensive domination.
York was more important than his decent numbers might suggest. He was one
of few players who actually played two way hockey and he had a heart of
gold -- good examples for the rest of the team to follow if only there had
been a coach or Captain smart enough to point this out. He certainly
wasn't a defensive force in the way a player like Holik is but his hustle
often made up for his lack of size. Getting back is always better than
letting them march right into your zone and take free shots.
> As for fleury, even when he tried, he usually failed
> at effectively checking opposing players in his own
> zone.
He did hustle though -- often to comical effect ;) Aside from his heart
(which was offset by his inability to control his emotions) Fleury's
biggest contribution was offensively. He slumped towards the end of the
season and his lack of self control cost us a number of PPG against but he
was third on the team in goals scored. (Behind Bure and Lindros.)
> > So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
> > all come down to the coaching.
>
> I think coaching is a major factor, but natural defensive prowess
> among the players is an even greater factor.
I contend that we have more than people think. Last season they ran
around like chickens with their heads cut off and depended too much on
Richter to make the big save so they could "fast break" out of the zone.
With absolutely no coherent system in place, your defense is going to look
a hell of a lot worse than the sum of its parts. Ulanov sucked big dick
and Retard was out of shape and half blind but, given some discipline and
coaching, given a plan of some sort, the rest of them have enough raw
talent to play solid defence.
Clifford Seifer
> Lindros and Bure are superstars but after them, there isn't much else.
> Sather has a lot more work to do.
Right -- kind of like Carolina did with all of that work securing
superstars. Oh wait -- they got to the finals with coaching, discipline
and a conherent, consistant system. Nevermind. That's not how we do
things in these parts.
* Disclaimer 1 -- I know, the trap is boring as shit. I'm not advocating
it, just pointing out that having some sort of a plan and adhering to it
will make you a better team.
** Disclaimer 2 -- Now everyone is going to come and tell me how they hve
much more talent and depth than us even if they're not big names.
Non-sense. Take that same team and put them under Low and Sather, see how
well they do. Of course they all have raw talent but they were far better
than the sum of their parts. Because they had discipline and good
coaching.
-- Cliff
"The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
close to them. "
>
> -C
>
>
>
>
Clark Baubles
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Clark Baubles wrote:
>
> > Lindros and Bure are superstars but after them, there isn't much else.
> > Sather has a lot more work to do.
>
> Right -- kind of like Carolina did with all of that work securing
> superstars. Oh wait -- they got to the finals with coaching, discipline
> and a conherent, consistant system. Nevermind. That's not how we do
> things in these parts.
>
Ron Low may not have been the best coach in the NHL, but he was hardly the
cause of the Rangers missing the playoffs. And Carolina was an aberration,
they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the early
rounds.
> * Disclaimer 1 -- I know, the trap is boring as shit. I'm not advocating
> it, just pointing out that having some sort of a plan and adhering to it
> will make you a better team.
>
I don't know why everyone says the Rangers had no plan or system. It's
simply not true. And if it looked that way, blame the players for not being
able to carry out a simple game plan.
> ** Disclaimer 2 -- Now everyone is going to come and tell me how they hve
> much more talent and depth than us even if they're not big names.
> Non-sense. Take that same team and put them under Low and Sather, see how
> well they do. Of course they all have raw talent but they were far better
> than the sum of their parts. Because they had discipline and good
> coaching.
>
So is discipline a result of a tough coach or coachable players? I blame
Messier. ;)
-C
FDR
"Clark Baubles" <cbau...@inetmail.att.net> wrote in message
news:3d46b...@news1.prserv.net...
>
> "Clifford Seifer" <clif...@sover.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.102073...@milk.sover.net...
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Clark Baubles wrote:
> >
> > > Lindros and Bure are superstars but after them, there isn't much else.
> > > Sather has a lot more work to do.
> >
> > Right -- kind of like Carolina did with all of that work securing
> > superstars. Oh wait -- they got to the finals with coaching, discipline
> > and a conherent, consistant system. Nevermind. That's not how we do
> > things in these parts.
> >
>
> Ron Low may not have been the best coach in the NHL, but he was hardly the
> cause of the Rangers missing the playoffs. And Carolina was an
aberration,
> they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the
early
> rounds.
>
>
> > * Disclaimer 1 -- I know, the trap is boring as shit. I'm not
advocating
> > it, just pointing out that having some sort of a plan and adhering to it
> > will make you a better team.
> >
>
> I don't know why everyone says the Rangers had no plan or system. It's
> simply not true. And if it looked that way, blame the players for not
being
> able to carry out a simple game plan.
What was the system then?
Keith Keller
Hash: SHA1
In article <3d46b...@news1.prserv.net>, Clark Baubles wrote:
> And Carolina was an aberration,
> they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the early
> rounds.
More skilled, or *better*? There's a big difference. Carolina
themselves pulled the biggest upset, over Jersey--none of the other
series were huge surprises. But Carolina was arguably a better
all-around team than, say, Philly, who looked a lot like the
Rangers in their series against Ottawa.
- --keith
- --
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
public key: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/kkeller/kkeller.asc
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/perl/fom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj1GuNYACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID+QmwCgixPvHthX8rCp0TyJ/ASoKZTb
+iwAmwQYF+WE+J9Vnuu/XBPmb1Ps+Tnx
=ys77
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kovy
The team was subjected to a reverse Ludovico Treatment. They were forced to
watch hours of chickens running around with there heads cut off while
simultaneously being treated to Messier hand release.
Kovy
> simply not true. And if it looked that way, blame the players for not
being
> able to carry out a simple game plan.
LOL. "game plan". Hee hee. Good one.
Chris
<cbau...@inetmail.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Clifford Seifer" <clif...@sover.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.102073...@milk.sover.net...
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Clark Baubles wrote:
>>
>> > Lindros and Bure are superstars but after them, there isn't much else.
>> > Sather has a lot more work to do.
>>
>> Right -- kind of like Carolina did with all of that work securing
>> superstars. Oh wait -- they got to the finals with coaching, discipline
>> and a conherent, consistant system. Nevermind. That's not how we do
>> things in these parts.
>>
>
>Ron Low may not have been the best coach in the NHL, but he was hardly the
>cause of the Rangers missing the playoffs. And Carolina was an aberration,
>they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the early
>rounds.
I agree with the Carolina part, but if Low was actually coaching the
team, it's pretty apparent the team as a group tuned him out.
>> * Disclaimer 1 -- I know, the trap is boring as shit. I'm not advocating
>> it, just pointing out that having some sort of a plan and adhering to it
>> will make you a better team.
>>
>
>I don't know why everyone says the Rangers had no plan or system. It's
>simply not true. And if it looked that way, blame the players for not being
>able to carry out a simple game plan.
I don't recall ever seeing any system that had anything to do with
defensive responsibility. If the system was 'everyone skate as fast
as you can to the offensive zone, then come what may', then yes, I
agree there was a system.
The Rangers were a terrible, awful positional team last year. Utterly
dreadful.
-C
Danny Clark
<s...@sad.com> wrote:
lol...remember that announcer who said they look like the keystone cops?
SNUMBER6
>> I don't know why everyone says the Rangers had no plan or system. It's
>> simply not true. And if it looked that way, blame the players for not
>being
>> able to carry out a simple game plan.
>
>What was the system then?
They played several ...
Left Wing Open
Neutral Zone Crap
Suck Pursuit
and Theo's favorite ...
Third Man High !!!
In the Village ....
I am not a number ... I am a free man !!!!
Clark Baubles
"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mKy19.44217$8M1.7...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Dump and cycle on offense and man-to-man on D. If they had a lead (rarely)
they played a 1-2-2 forecheck.
Now don't get me wrong, their execution of the system was poor. But that
doesn't mean that the coaches didn't have one, and one of the simpliest at
that.
-C
MarkNYR
Jerry, not Tom and Linda)
--
MarkNYR
"Arjan Passenier" <a_pas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ai5lhr$102$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
MarkNYR
failure. --Mark MEssier
--
MarkNYR
I just hope he doesnt do any more "garanteeing".
MarkNYR
"Tom & Linda" <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D44834B...@worldnet.att.net...
> I think we go with the 3 man foreCzech.
>
> Holik... Nedved... Dvorak.
>
Clifford Seifer
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Keith Keller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3d46b...@news1.prserv.net>, Clark Baubles wrote:
> > And Carolina was an aberration,
> > they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the early
> > rounds.
>
> More skilled, or *better*? There's a big difference. Carolina
> themselves pulled the biggest upset, over Jersey--none of the other
> series were huge surprises. But Carolina was arguably a better
> all-around team than, say, Philly, who looked a lot like the
> Rangers in their series against Ottawa.
Yes -- my point exactly. Thanks for phrasing it that way Keith.
-- Cliff
"The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
close to them. "
SNUMBER6
>MarkNYR
>I just hope he doesnt do any more "guaranteeing".
>
As opposed to golfplayteeing which we all look forward to ...
Rhythmizer
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:38:55 -0400, "Clark Baubles"
> <cbau...@inetmail.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Clifford Seifer" <clif...@sover.net> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.102073...@milk.sover.net...
> >> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Clark Baubles wrote:
> >>
> >> > Lindros and Bure are superstars but after them, there isn't much else.
> >> > Sather has a lot more work to do.
> >>
> >> Right -- kind of like Carolina did with all of that work securing
> >> superstars. Oh wait -- they got to the finals with coaching, discipline
> >> and a conherent, consistant system. Nevermind. That's not how we do
> >> things in these parts.
> >>
> >
> >Ron Low may not have been the best coach in the NHL, but he was hardly the
> >cause of the Rangers missing the playoffs. And Carolina was an aberration,
> >they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the early
> >rounds.
>
> I agree with the Carolina part,
I don't.That carolina team scared the hell out of that new jersey
in the 2001 playoffs.They were down and out, then won 2 back to backgames
in the series.Jersey righted the ship and avoided sinking, but
the cause of it was *goaltending*.Arturs Irbe is probably
th most under-rated goalie in the last 10 years of hockey.He
simply saved his team, and when he went south, Weekes saved
him.
Look down the depth chart of carolina, their 3rd and 4th lines,
then their 3rd-6th d-men.They have an inferior roster compared
to jersey, philly, or even the islanders.But their goaltending
was incredible at times, and their team chemistry transcended
their mediocre roster in a truly inspiring way.Their goaltending
and chemistry was not an aberration.On top of that, put some
great coaching work by paul maurice and you have a stanley
cup contender...
> but if Low was actually coaching the
> team, it's pretty apparent the team as a group tuned him out.
Probably true.
>
> >> * Disclaimer 1 -- I know, the trap is boring as shit. I'm not advocating
> >> it, just pointing out that having some sort of a plan and adhering to it
> >> will make you a better team.
> >>
> >
> >I don't know why everyone says the Rangers had no plan or system. It's
> >simply not true. And if it looked that way, blame the players for not being
> >able to carry out a simple game plan.
>
> I don't recall ever seeing any system that had anything to do with
> defensive responsibility.
True.No one knew their assignments, because no one *had* any assignments.
> If the system was 'everyone skate as fast
> as you can to the offensive zone, then come what may', then yes, I
> agree there was a system.
>
> The Rangers were a terrible, awful positional team last year. Utterly
> dreadful.
Very accurate.
Maybe this year, the staff will embrace Bowman's left-wing
lock to a consistent degree.Murray could stay back on
the 1st line, Holik could play left-wing on the 2nd line.
Kinda like 3 defensemen out there.
Kasparaitis should be tossed out there with kloucek in
case of an emergency.Y'know, when the opposition forwards start
creating that whirlwind, you just send smasher
and basher over the boards and yell "sic 'em"...
>
> -C
Clark Baubles
"Keith Keller" <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote in message
news:pcd6ia...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3d46b...@news1.prserv.net>, Clark Baubles wrote:
> > And Carolina was an aberration,
> > they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the
early
> > rounds.
>
> More skilled, or *better*? There's a big difference. Carolina
> themselves pulled the biggest upset, over Jersey--none of the other
> series were huge surprises. But Carolina was arguably a better
> all-around team than, say, Philly, who looked a lot like the
> Rangers in their series against Ottawa.
>
Do you expect Carolina to repeat the feat this season? I don't.
-C
Keith Keller
Hash: SHA1
In article <3d472...@news1.prserv.net>, Clark Baubles wrote:
> Do you expect Carolina to repeat the feat this season? I don't.
Well, if they meet Philly in the first round, they'll be moving
on to the second! :)
I'm not sure exactly what you want here--Carolina got slightly
lucky, but nobody else in the East is strong, anyway. Do you
want us to say that Maurice couldn't have coached the Rangers
of last season to the playoffs, or that Low would have coached
the 'Canes into the greens last season?
- --keith
- --
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
public key: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/kkeller/kkeller.asc
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/perl/fom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj1HK0oACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID+4wACbB/dPK/DrWKOZX/KyCZQD2HIM
o/UAn3RGkdp2Q5fXxz+xzae78xyni6Ru
=V8Vj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris
>> >Ron Low may not have been the best coach in the NHL, but he was hardly the
>> >cause of the Rangers missing the playoffs. And Carolina was an aberration,
>> >they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the early
>> >rounds.
>>
>> I agree with the Carolina part,
>
>I don't.That carolina team scared the hell out of that new jersey
>in the 2001 playoffs.They were down and out, then won 2 back to backgames
>in the series.Jersey righted the ship and avoided sinking, but
>the cause of it was *goaltending*.Arturs Irbe is probably
>th most under-rated goalie in the last 10 years of hockey.He
>simply saved his team, and when he went south, Weekes saved
>him.
>
>Look down the depth chart of carolina, their 3rd and 4th lines,
>then their 3rd-6th d-men.They have an inferior roster compared
>to jersey, philly, or even the islanders.But their goaltending
>was incredible at times, and their team chemistry transcended
>their mediocre roster in a truly inspiring way.Their goaltending
>and chemistry was not an aberration.On top of that, put some
>great coaching work by paul maurice and you have a stanley
>cup contender...
Any hot goaltender can win a series. That's what happened in the
first round. Then, they run into a Montreal team (the weakest playoff
team to make it, IMO), who made the playoffs on the back of their
goaltender, only to find that goaltender playing fairly mediocre
hockey in the playoffs. I will admit the Toronto series was
impressive from a Carolina standpoint.
But, if that team had just 'very good' goaltending, they'd have gone
nowhere. Team play is nice, but talent, team defensive play,
goaltending, and lack of injuries is what results in Cups. Or
appearances therein.
Question: How much of Carolina's success was 'chemistry' (remember,
given that team has done nothing - ever- of this sort), and how much
was momentum borne of good goaltending and a softer playoff schedule?
>> If the system was 'everyone skate as fast
>> as you can to the offensive zone, then come what may', then yes, I
>> agree there was a system.
>>
>> The Rangers were a terrible, awful positional team last year. Utterly
>> dreadful.
>
>Very accurate.
>
>Maybe this year, the staff will embrace Bowman's left-wing
>lock to a consistent degree.Murray could stay back on
>the 1st line, Holik could play left-wing on the 2nd line.
>Kinda like 3 defensemen out there.
There are a number of defensive systems available to them. They
simply need to play one and stick to it. Every night.
>Kasparaitis should be tossed out there with kloucek in
>case of an emergency.Y'know, when the opposition forwards start
>creating that whirlwind, you just send smasher
>and basher over the boards and yell "sic 'em"...
I'm going to be saying this all year: Kloucek is a player. They need
to play him.
-C
Clark Baubles
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3d472...@news1.prserv.net>, Clark Baubles wrote:
> > Do you expect Carolina to repeat the feat this season? I don't.
>
> Well, if they meet Philly in the first round, they'll be moving
> on to the second! :)
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you want here--Carolina got slightly
> lucky, but nobody else in the East is strong, anyway. Do you
> want us to say that Maurice couldn't have coached the Rangers
> of last season to the playoffs, or that Low would have coached
> the 'Canes into the greens last season?
>
While Low was nothing special, I think some here put undue blame for last
year on him (the year before that too). It's not his fault that Sather
waited until the trade deadline to get Bure. Different coaching alone would
not have gotten the Rangers into the playoffs last season. That's just how
I see it.
-C
Clark Baubles
"Rhythmizer" <rhy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2cca4ba.02073...@posting.google.com...
>
>
You really believe that? Geez, the guy is a former player and a 2 time NHL
coach. The results were not acceptable but these criticisms are
over-the-top, IMO.
-C
Kovy
Did you expect them to do it the first time? I didn't.
Chris
It's interesting how no one is talking about Sather's 'back seat
coaching' that apparently went on last year. If the players knew Low
was a lame duck coach, it probably wouldn't have mattered what he said
all year long.
-C
Clark Baubles
"Kovy" <s...@sad.com> wrote in message
news:lPG19.126380$Wi.32...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > Do you expect Carolina to repeat the feat this season? I don't.
>
> Did you expect them to do it the first time? I didn't.
>
>
Yeah, so what does that prove?
-C
Kovy
> >
> > Did you expect them to do it the first time? I didn't.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, so what does that prove?
Exactly.
Roger Sherman
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3d46b...@news1.prserv.net>, Clark Baubles wrote:
>> And Carolina was an aberration,
>> they benefitted greatly from the more skilled teams being upset in the
>> early rounds.
>
> More skilled, or *better*? There's a big difference. Carolina
> themselves pulled the biggest upset, over Jersey--none of the other
> series were huge surprises. But Carolina was arguably a better
> all-around team than, say, Philly, who looked a lot like the Rangers in
> their series against Ottawa.
You weren't suprised Montreal took out Boston?
MarkNYR
For heavens sake man!!! Its MEssier!!! Just stutter alittle bit when you Hit
the M key...its EAsy.
Rhythmizer
>
> > Clifford Seifer <clif...@sover.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.BSI.4.05L.10207...@milk.sover.net>...
> > > Okay -- I'm expanding a little bit on my response after having read
> > > everyone else's thoughts.
> > >
> > > Specifically, someone mentioned that Low was awful at X. Indeed, Low was
> > > not only awful at X, he was pretty much awful at everything. Everything.
> > > I've never seen a coach who was so bad at so much. Line matching,
> >
> > I rate his line-matching skill B-
>
> In what parallel universe?
In Universe #456, which is infinitely perfunctory.
> Did he match lines once all season? Maybe,
You are greatly exaggerating 'ol Ronnie's weakpoints.
> but he sure as hell didn't make a habit out of it. Rodent over at
> Hockeybird had an interesting article where he speculated that Low's
> refusal to match lines may have been partly responsible for Nedved's
> slump. (Only partly responsible -- most of the burden was on Nedved but
> it's hard to break out of a slump and put up numbers when you are
> consistantly up against the other team's best line.)
Blame Petr's slump on 'ol Ronnie, eh ? Convenient Scape-goatism 101.
>
> >
> > > inspiration,
> >
> > If you also mean motivation, including some miraculous
> > comebacks he assited the oilers with awhile back, I rate
> > his inspiration a B+.His compliments, pep-talks and intensity,
> > are his strong points.
>
> What's he done for me lately?
I'm looking at some good efforts by the rangers late in the season,
which almost got them in.The team didn't quit on him like the
panthers did on sutter before they got keenanized.
Also, if you consider his whole coaching career, not solely his New
York tenure, then he's not an 'F' rating at motivation/inspiration.
>
> It's hard to say without being in the locker room but, with the exception
> of the last couple of weeks, the Rangers sure as hell did not looked
> inspired or motivated last season. They lost easy games left and right
> and during the slumps kept issuing themselves challanges ("we have to win
> this next one") which they would fail to meet. In interviews Low seemed
> to be on sedatives. "Yeah, well, we have to win. We did not play well.
> Next time. We'll get them next time."
I've seen a young oiler squad quit on george burnett, and
a panthers team quit on sutter.
You have a Gramlichian opinion of Ronnie, and that's your
right, so we respectfully disagree.
>
> >
> > > his defensive system,
> >
> > F
>
> Ah -- we agree :)
Hey, Ronnie played goal for the early 80's oilers.The only
defensive instruction he knows is, "Stop Them !".
> As mentioned yesterday, I'm very worried that Green is
> back but am hoping that Trottier has a vision which he gets Green to
> adhere to.
Greenie has a metal plate in his head.
Do you think when he gets hangovers or headaches, the
metal causes reverberation and renders aspirin or
tylenol ineffective ?
>
> > > strategy of any sort,
> >
> >
> > D+
>
> Generous but we can agree to disagree ;)
You are staunchly Gramlichian.
>
> > > special teams
> >
> > C+
>
> I wish I had had you for a teacher back when I was in school. 20th
> overall on the powerplay and dead last on the penalty kill. Not exactly
> average in my book.
O.K. D-
>
> > -- can
> > > anyone name something that Low actually did? We may as well of had no
> > > coach whatsoever.
> >
> > I think there have been worse coaches, and having no coach
> > would have netted you 50 points tops.
>
> At times last season it almost seemed like they were playing a pickup
> game. With no coach, maybe the players would have sorted out some sort of
> a system/strategy and some effective lines themselves. I'm being
> facetious, obviously, but it does make you wonder.
...not to that extent.
>
> > The rangers simpy
> > had too many smaller players who were not defensively
> > focused.Murray, Kaspar and Holik are defensive masters
> > who will change this.
>
> I haven't seen enough of Murray to judge yet. We're definately better
> positioned in terms of personel this season though.
>
> > And Murray.
> >
> > As for york: i know his defensive effort was consistent
> > and commendable, but his lack of size and aggession
> > renders him less effective at defensive domination.
>
> York was more important than his decent numbers might suggest. He was one
> of few players who actually played two way hockey and he had a heart of
> gold -- good examples for the rest of the team to follow if only there had
> been a coach or Captain smart enough to point this out. He certainly
> wasn't a defensive force in the way a player like Holik is but his hustle
> often made up for his lack of size. Getting back is always better than
> letting them march right into your zone and take free shots.
Again, consistent, commendable, but his size limits his
back-checking effectiveness.Don't get me wrong though,
I'm a York fan.
>
> > As for fleury, even when he tried, he usually failed
> > at effectively checking opposing players in his own
> > zone.
>
> He did hustle though -- often to comical effect ;) Aside from his heart
> (which was offset by his inability to control his emotions) Fleury's
> biggest contribution was offensively. He slumped towards the end of the
> season and his lack of self control cost us a number of PPG against but he
> was third on the team in goals scored.
Maybe he'll go back to Calgary.They are the only city
which truly understands him.
>(Behind Bure and Lindros.)
>
> > > So long as Trottier doesn't suck, we should make the playoffs. It will
> > > all come down to the coaching.
> >
> > I think coaching is a major factor, but natural defensive prowess
> > among the players is an even greater factor.
>
> I contend that we have more than people think.
With holik and kaspar on board, and ulanov/fleury gone, you
are right.
> Last season they ran
> around like chickens with their heads cut off and depended too much on
> Richter to make the big save so they could "fast break" out of the zone.
> With absolutely no coherent system in place, your defense is going to look
> a hell of a lot worse than the sum of its parts. Ulanov sucked big dick
> and Retard was out of shape and half blind but, given some discipline and
> coaching, given a plan of some sort, the rest of them have enough raw
> talent to play solid defence.
Ulanov is gonna help shore out that panther defense.. just
you wait !!!
>
> -- Cliff
>
> "The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
> visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
> approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
> close to them. "
>
> > >
> > > -- Cliff
> > >
> > > "The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
> > > visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
> > > approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
> > > close to them. "
> > >
> > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Clifford Seifer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes. They will make the playoffs this year.
> > > >
> > > > -- Cliff
> > > >
> > > > "The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
> > > > visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
> > > > approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
> > > > close to them. "
> > > >
Jay
good stretches this coming season, but also enough horrible stretches
to make us barely miss out on the second season.
"MarkNYR" <markny9...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<nzD19.62316$qn5.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
Clifford Seifer
Watching both teams in the weeks leading up to the playoffs, I wasn't
surprised at all by this. Montreal got hot. Theodore got extremely hot.
The team was playing with spark and desire. It wasn't just
goaltending--they were playing very good hockey. Montreal started playing
playoff level hockey two weeks before the end of the regular season. By
contrast, Boston looked flat as hell. Bad time to start slumping but they
looked uninspired and disorganized.
Keith Keller
Hash: SHA1
In article <pan.2002.07.30.22...@slammingrooves.com>, Roger Sherman wrote:
> You weren't suprised Montreal took out Boston?
Not at all. In fact, I predicted it (in message
ukp19a...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us), even before the
complete seedings were determined:
> Hmm. In the first round, at least, I predict the lower seed
> winning every series in the East where the Fishsticks are not
> one of the teams involved. If Boston gets Montreal, they're
> screwed. Philly's screwed unless they get the Fishsticks
> (now there's a goaltending battle!), and predicting a potential
> Toronto-Ottawa series is like predicting whether a Ranger
> goaltender will stop a shot outside the blue line. And
> Carolina's screwed unless they draw the Fishsticks.
As Cliff said, Montreal was hot, Boston was not, and neither team
had a playoff experience advantage.
It's too bad we didn't see Philly-Fish; as it turns out, there'd have
been like 7 goals scored by both teams combined in their whole series.
- --keith
- --
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
public key: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/kkeller/kkeller.asc
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/perl/fom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj1IBF0ACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID/P+ACeLl80Ejr01GK2OaTXeHKqLz4U
EBwAniqn16K+bXWgmowaliMgu+GKELeq
=NeDw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Carcagente
I don't think Zedeno would be the answer.
-David
Thanks for the memories #8 CRJ
Daytona is all about DEI DALE JR - 2001 PEPSI 400 CHAMPION!!!!!!!!!!
MIKE WALTRIP 2001 DAYTONA 500, 2002
PEPSI 400 CHAMPION!!!!
"Moose" Humper
>
> How about a poll here?
>
> Wanna predict if we'll make the playoffs?
>
> Very simple... just vote...
>
> Yes
>
> or...
>
> No
>
> Feel free to throw in reasons if you wish.
>
> --Tom
It's definitely a very simple answer. I'm not even going to bother.
Clifford Seifer
think we'll be better this season.
-- Cliff
"The wild monkeys are waiting on the road for the handout foods from
visitors. Monkeys get used to human, they don't run away when visitors
approach them. But they are wild monkey and dangerous, please do not get
close to them. "
SNUMBER6
>Last season, miserable as it was at times, was close but no cigar. I
>think we'll be better this season.
closer but no cigar ... ???
Rhythmizer
> Any hot goaltender can win a series. That's what happened in the
> first round. Then, they run into a Montreal team (the weakest playoff
> team to make it, IMO), who made the playoffs on the back of their
> goaltender, only to find that goaltender playing fairly mediocre
> hockey in the playoffs.
Goaltending was an essential cog in the carolina wheel,
an essential part of their team, an element which was consistent
enough to get them to the final.What you're doing is failing
to give that carolina *team* their due credit for being
the 2nd best *team* (roster skill, system, chemistry and goaltending)
in the league.
It's whimsically dismissive to say anything like "oh, they just
got to play a weak team in that round", (which is false)... or "they
had hot goaltending in that series" (which is an oversimplification)..
> I will admit the Toronto series was
> impressive from a Carolina standpoint.
Ok, start givin that carolina *team*, credit.
>
> But, if that team had just 'very good' goaltending, they'd have gone
> nowhere.
Arbitrary and innaccurate statement.They would have got
absolutely "nowhere" ???
> Team play is nice, but talent, team defensive play,
> goaltending, and lack of injuries is what results in Cups. Or
> appearances therein.
They are all major contributing factors, which is what you fail to
acknowledge.
Goaltending : Probably the biggest factor in winning the cup.
Team play/chemistry, defense, system, offensive skill, and
other factors which can't be dismissed.But it is
team play (chemistry-offense+defense) and goaltending
which are usually the 2 most prominent factors in winning
the cup.I'd say total raw offensive skill is probably
#3...
>
> Question: How much of Carolina's success was 'chemistry' (remember,
> given that team has done nothing - ever- of this sort), and how much
> was momentum borne of good goaltending and a softer playoff schedule?
I'd say the main reason why the canes upset the devs
and leafs was goaltending and...team-chemistry.Their lines had established
major familiarity.The forwards knew where their linemates were going
to be at all times, same with the d-pairings..
Danny Clark
(SNUMBER6) wrote:
Well, we were close the first third of the season. :)
--
Danny Clark
"Kato, my little yellow friend, I am home"
Dubnium
actually read one of your posts as if it actually meant something.
""Moose" Humper" <range...@hockey.always> wrote in message
news:5qV19.2927$672.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...