|
|
#61
11-02-2005, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hockey
The Leafs never have been the dominant team for a few years, as Ottawa has been probably the best team in the NHL. Yet they can't help but lose to the grit of the Leafs in the playoffs.
"I guarantee a victory" Alfreddson before losing game 7 again in last years playoffs [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] 
|
|
#62
11-02-2005, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
The reason Belak was put on defence this season was because he is the fastest backwards skater on the Leafs, and this should have been useful in the new NHL. However, the experiment failed, so he will go back to forward.
The problem is, the Leafs have three enforcers in Domi, Belak and Parrot. I think of these, it is time for Domi to go as he is old. What the leafs need now is another quality defenceman. And if they were serious about winning the Stanley cup, they would have to concentrate on getting more good young players and prospects. The Leafs are a good to very good team, but not at the level of Stanley Cup champions. And they will not be until they complement their good young players like Stajan and Steen with more good young players for a future run.
|
|
#64
11-02-2005, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
[ QUOTE ]
The Leafs never have been the dominant team for a few years, as Ottawa has been probably the best team in the NHL. Yet they can't help but lose to the grit of the Leafs in the playoffs. "I guarantee a victory" Alfreddson before losing game 7 again in last years playoffs [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It wasn't so much the grit of the Leafs that beat the Sens in the 2004 playoffs. In previous years, I'd agree with you, but the Sens lost in 2004 for three reasons: 1) Lalime is not a "big game" goaltender. He totally choked under the pressure. Every Sens fan knew that this was going to happen, and were calling on management to make a trade before the deadline to bring in someone with more experience. Lalime had let it way too many soft goals that season, and wasn't making the "big saves" with games on the line. The strong defensive play of the Sens during the season made Lalime look a lot better than he was. The Sens now have Hasek in nets, and he's been phenomenal so far this year. The team can take more chances on the ice without worrying about giving up odd-man rushes that will inevitably result in goals. They know that Hasek will bail them out more often than not. The question is whether he can stay healthy. 2) Jacques Martin's coaching style. He had the best offence in the league, yet he'd routinely make statements like "If we're going to beat the Leafs, the score will be 1-0". The team focused totally on the trap and waited for their opponents to make mistakes, rather than trying to forecheck and create opportunities on their own. All season long, the Sens would pull ahead by a goal and then go into trap-mode for the rest of the game. The problem with this gameplan is that when the team would fall behind, it wasn't able to open up and take chances to generate offence. This is what happened to the Sens in game 7 after Lalime let in a few soft goals at the start of the game -- the Sens weren't used to digging themselves out of holes like that. This year Brian Murray has revitalized the team. When the Sens pull ahead by a couple of goals, they're still pressing to pad the score. There's no more sitting back and protecting the lead. Games like the 8-0 drubbing of the Leafs would have never occurred when Martin was coach. 3) I hate to sound like Don Cherry...but there were too many Europeans on the team. The Sens' Europeans players don't turn it up a notch in the playoffs. They're competitive by nature so they want to win...but they don't *want* it as much as the North American players do. Hossa, Bonk, and Rachunek were all very guilty of this behaviour, and all three are no longer with the team. Dany Heatley is replacing Hossa in the lineup, and I'm sure he won't suddenly disappear when the playoffs roll around this season. Getting rid of Bonk will help the team immeasurably -- he was one of Martin's pets and would always get lots of ice time, even when he was dogging it. Nobody in Ottawa was sorry to see him leave. All that being said, I really hope the Sens don't have to face the Leafs in the playoffs this year. As much as I believe that this would be the year that the Sens would beat them, I really don't want to go through the heartbreak again if they ended up losing. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#65
11-04-2005, 10:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
Bruins finally appeared to play three periods last night, although I had to go out and missed most of the 2nd period. Florida really didn't play very well, and we still took a few too many penalties. With a decent effort against Pittsburg tomorrow night hopefully we can make it two straight.
Brian Leetch will be missing about a month with a knee injury sustained from contact w/ Shawn Bates in the Islander game. That's not good for our already-porous defense. Ian Moran is also missing time, and Kevin Dallman sat out a good chunk of the 3rd last night. On the plus side, Raycroft and Zhamnov are both making strides to return soon.
|
|
#67
11-04-2005, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
Interesting story on Yahoo right now:
Link A player for the Norfolk Admirals injured himself in a fight he claims the coach told him to start. The Admirals tried to deny him worker's comp on the basis that he committed willful misconduct. Virginia court ruled that fighting is an integral part of hockey, and that the player should be allowed to receive workers comp. Interesting quote at the end of the story, where a Blackhawks executive states that no Blackhawk coach would ever intentionally send a player out on the ice to start a fight. I call BS on that statement. I think the court was right to award workers comp, and that if the Admirals coach did send the player out to fight then it is in incredibly bad taste to attempt to deny him workers comp. I suppose a bigger issue is whether fighting really does have anyplace in hockey, I would argue that it does, but that the rules of engagement have become a bit muddled.
|
|
#68
11-04-2005, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose a bigger issue is whether fighting really does have anyplace in hockey, I would argue that it does, but that the rules of engagement have become a bit muddled. [/ QUOTE ] No comment on the story, except Lawyers suck, and they lost this one. Anyhow... I think fighting definitely has a place in hockey. The first & foremost role is that of protection - not just for stars, but guys who, for whatever reason, cannot protect themselves. Stars because they're needed on the ice, little guys because they can get hurt. Second, is to fire up the team & the home crowd. This is when your two enforcers drop 'em at centre ice right at the face-off. Silly, but fun. The third reason is to "show 'em you won't be embarrassed". This is stupid. Reference Atlanta losing to Leafs, and Tampa Bay. They got slaughtered, and then started running guys & starting fights. There's no place for this in hockey, because it serves no purpose. I think, as far as the Rules of engagement go, they're pretty clear with the players. If you lay a big hit on a star player, expect to fight. If you're the enforcer, you're going to talk about it before it happens anyway. And everyone knows about the third reason, and anyone can see it coming. The problem is with the observers of the game - refs, officials, media, etc. who make fighting out to be something it's not. The instigator rule is the worst thing in hockey. Wayne Gretzky could not have performed the way he did in Edmonton if Dave Semenko wasn't skating around to beat the crap out of anyone who touched Gretzky.
|
|
#69
11-04-2005, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
Ottawa has this sort of dynamic with McGrattan. Spezza, Heatley, Alfredsson and Havlat are all "untouchable" if you don't want to have to deal with McGrattan. As soon as you see one of those guys take a cheap shot, the next shift McGrattan is one the ice looking to fight. You mess with Ottawa's stars, you have to deal with McGrattan. He has next to no hockey skill, but I don't think he has lost a fight yet this year. He's broken a few noses and bloodied quite a few faces already this year. He's the player that Ottawa has been looking for.
|
|
#70
11-04-2005, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hockey
[ QUOTE ]
The third reason is to "show 'em you won't be embarrassed". This is stupid. Reference Atlanta losing to Leafs, and Tampa Bay. They got slaughtered, and then started running guys & starting fights. There's no place for this in hockey, because it serves no purpose. I think, as far as the Rules of engagement go, they're pretty clear with the players. [/ QUOTE ] This third point speaks to what I meant, I guess. I was thinking of things like the Atlanta incident, and naturally of the Vancouver incident, where it was intimated that Crawford was egging his guys onto Moore even after Moore had dropped gloves with a member of the Canucks. I know Hartley was also roundly criticized for what happened in Atlanta. I feel the same way that you do, pretty much to a T, agree with your post completely. I think the enforcer is necessary in a sport where people carry big sticks and skate at high speed, and that the "get the crowd going" show is pretty harmless and a lot of fun for fans. But when coaches start sending guys out with what seems like clear intent to injure, that's a problem. Maybe I'm just trying to keep this thread on the front page... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
