HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Edmonton Oilers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Laraque Games (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=18604)

dawgbone 10-09-2003 07:02 PM

Laraque Games
 
Seeing as there is a huge problem of people remembering which games laraque plays well in and which ones he plays poorly in, I am staring this thread.

Oct. 10/03 - 5-2 win vs San Jose

Laraque was awesome.

gretzky2kurri 10-09-2003 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
Seeing as there is a huge problem of people remembering which games laraque plays well in and which ones he plays poorly in, I am staring this thread.

Oct. 10/03 - 5-2 win vs San Jose

Laraque was awesome.

Yeah.....he was awesome in game one last year too though.

Scored a goal. Everyone was touting him as taking over Griers role. His job to lose etc. Lost it by about game three I would say.

I hope he can bring this more often this season.

He WAS awesome tonight. :bow:

Mowzie 10-09-2003 08:57 PM

maybe Torrid Raffe Torres will light a fire under his bum.

dawgbone 10-14-2003 11:06 AM

I would say that is 2 for 2 so far this year.

Once again, the 4th line was the best line we had, and unfortunately because of all the penalties, they probably didn't see as much time as they probably could have.

momentai 10-14-2003 12:26 PM

I would hardly call the Vancouver game indicative of a solid game from Laraque. That's stretching it to say the least. The entire team played poorly and Laraque himself included.

cram 10-14-2003 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by momentai
I would hardly call the Vancouver game indicative of a solid game from Laraque. That's stretching it to say the least. The entire team played poorly and Laraque himself included.

Agreed, the Vancouver game was a pathetic team effort, one game in which Laraque did not bring it.

dawgbone 10-15-2003 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by momentai
I would hardly call the Vancouver game indicative of a solid game from Laraque. That's stretching it to say the least. The entire team played poorly and Laraque himself included.

He was still one of our best players that game, and he only saw 9.5 minutes of ice time.

Regardless, he had another good game against Calgary, and is at least 2 for 3, which is more than I can say for most of the rest of the team.

Game 8 10-16-2003 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
Seeing as there is a huge problem of people remembering which games laraque plays well in and which ones he plays poorly in, I am staring this thread.

Oct. 10/03 - 5-2 win vs San Jose

Laraque was awesome.

One more check for Laraque. Easily won the fight helps motivate the team!!

dawgbone 10-17-2003 05:19 AM

I think this game gets an N/A... he did a lot in his 4 minutes, but in the grand shceme of the game, he didn't have much of an impact.

So through 4 games, he has 2 solid games, 1 lackluster and one N/A.

Still 2 for 3.

LawnDemon 10-17-2003 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think this game gets an N/A... he did a lot in his 4 minutes, but in the grand shceme of the game, he didn't have much of an impact.

So through 4 games, he has 2 solid games, 1 lackluster and one N/A.

Still 2 for 3.

"N/A" is not valid. he played the game right? if you can't give him a positive rating it means he played poorly (even though he only played 4 minutes).

that makes it 2/4.

i expect him to make it 3/5 against the avs or the oilers are in big trouble.

dawgbone 10-17-2003 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnDemon
"N/A" is not valid. he played the game right? if you can't give him a positive rating it means he played poorly (even though he only played 4 minutes).

that makes it 2/4.

i expect him to make it 3/5 against the avs or the oilers are in big trouble.

Well in that case, he did everything he could in his limited playing time to spark the Oilers and help them win... I just don't see how you can give him a + or a - for last night.

thome_26 10-17-2003 06:46 AM

You can't. It would be like Hemsky playing three shifts that were excellent and then getting hurt and saying he played bad because in "the grand scheme of the game" he didn't do anything.

Marconius 10-17-2003 06:47 AM

Does anyone know why he hardly saw the ice? I heard some rumors that he hurt his hand during the fight. If thats the case, I can't see giving him a '-' for the game. Laraque comes out and wins a fight in the opening period, letting his teammates know its time to step up and letting Buffalo know that they're in for an intense night.
I say :yo:

thome_26 10-17-2003 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marconius
Does anyone know why he hardly saw the ice? I heard some rumors that he hurt his hand during the fight. If thats the case, I can't see giving him a '-' for the game. Laraque comes out and wins a fight in the opening period, letting his teammates know its time to step up and letting Buffalo know that they're in for an intense night.
I say :yo:

agreed! If a rating has to be made then a "+" is def. in order.

Game 8 10-17-2003 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thome_26
agreed! If a rating has to be made then a "+" is def. in order.

The reason I gave him a thumbs up so early was because he delivered a message early in the game. How many times have people complained he does not seem to play with any intensity? Anyway for George a good fight is equal to scoring a goal which I am sure everyone realizes, from my point of view if he helps to set the tone early, that is his most important job…………….

LawnDemon 10-17-2003 08:15 AM

so it seems to me that the general concensus is he earned a + in his limited play time last night. that's fine too. hence, according to popular vote, i guess he's 3/4 in good games.

personally, i don't think he earned a + but i do appreciate democracy... so majority rules. :)

dawgbone 10-17-2003 08:18 AM

Lol... hey, I was happy to give him a N/A...

But I guess the thing is, we want Laraque to make positive contributions, and he did get the crowd jumping...

IceDragoon 10-17-2003 09:52 AM

:yo: a definite +

dawgbone 10-19-2003 03:33 AM

I didn't see the 3rd period, but I am thinking this game was a -.

I mean, they did some decent cycles, but didn't create many chances, and he didn't throw any "punishing checks"...

3 for 5 this year, but he has yet to be completely invisible yet, which is pretty good.

kraigus 10-19-2003 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
I didn't see the 3rd period, but I am thinking this game was a -.

I mean, they did some decent cycles, but didn't create many chances, and he didn't throw any "punishing checks"...

3 for 5 this year, but he has yet to be completely invisible yet, which is pretty good.

If you're referring to the game against Colorado, he didn't get a lot of time again - all the special teams. However, if he gets a + for a game he didn't play many mins in but still contributed, he gets a - for last night. He didn't do anything to deserve a -, but he didn't do much to not deserve one either, except for not being on the ice when the 'lanche scored.

dawgbone 10-22-2003 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraigus
If you're referring to the game against Colorado, he didn't get a lot of time again - all the special teams. However, if he gets a + for a game he didn't play many mins in but still contributed, he gets a - for last night. He didn't do anything to deserve a -, but he didn't do much to not deserve one either, except for not being on the ice when the 'lanche scored.

I didn't see all of the Blues game, but he generated a few scoring chances in the first period... the 2nd period was the worst period I have seen the Oilers ever play (from goaltending out), and didn't bother watching the 3rd...

Going to have to go to the judges on this one:

gretzky2kurri 10-22-2003 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
3 for 5 this year, but he has yet to be completely invisible yet, which is pretty good.

Good point......he's still visible, even though i go with a (-) last night against the Blues.

I like how his lines always cycle well.....but hate how they throw it in front blindly after all that work, and lose the puck. They alluded to that last night on Sportsnet and I strongly agree. All that work.....the clock ticks away.......and a blind weak passes flutters out to an opponent in front. They harped about it last night when it happened with 5 minutes left saying there's lots of time. Very true, no need for a blind pass like that unless the last few ticks are left on the clock.

I really got riled last season when BG would have one guy hanging off his back, he would be pushing someone else away one arm and controlling the puck with the other arm. Then when he finally gets near the net.........he flutters a shot on goal with his free hand while off balance and the snow on the ice practically stops the puck before it gently comes to rest on the goalies paddle.

Then I would jump out of my chair and yell "Do you actually think that would go in?" Perhaps if the goalie had a stroke in that span.

I would rather he just run over the goalie instead of letting the goalie freeze it for a face off. Bertuzzi makes a living doing it. If he doesn't score....at least he pisses off the other goalie/team.

Had to get that off my chest.

dawgbone 10-23-2003 05:22 AM

I think they need Torres back on that line.

Raffie has always had a nose for the net. He never scored all the flashy goals in junior that always get you noticed, he scored the goals from right in front of the net.

He always seemed to be in the right spot, and that does translate to goals in the NHL. I mean look at the first few games... those blind passes were always going to Torres.

Laraque puts those passes in a perfect place... providing an Oiler is there. They are always out of the defenders reach to an open area of the ice.

IceDragoon 10-23-2003 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think they need Torres back on that line.

Raffie has always had a nose for the net. He never scored all the flashy goals in junior that always get you noticed, he scored the goals from right in front of the net.

He always seemed to be in the right spot, and that does translate to goals in the NHL. I mean look at the first few games... those blind passes were always going to Torres.

Laraque puts those passes in a perfect place... providing an Oiler is there. They are always out of the defenders reach to an open area of the ice.

:lol: :yo: We are 3 for 3. In the HORCOFF thread, then the TORRES thread and now the LARAQUE thread. Bring back TORQUE. It benefits each of them, the other lines, and the team as a whole.

kraigus 10-25-2003 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think they need Torres back on that line.

Raffie has always had a nose for the net. He never scored all the flashy goals in junior that always get you noticed, he scored the goals from right in front of the net.

He always seemed to be in the right spot, and that does translate to goals in the NHL. I mean look at the first few games... those blind passes were always going to Torres.

Laraque puts those passes in a perfect place... providing an Oiler is there. They are always out of the defenders reach to an open area of the ice.

I agree, although I think Izzy's been doing some pretty fine work playing with BG too. It's too bad he isn't a centre, then it could be Torres/Izzy/BG.

They need somebody with hands on BG's line, I think, is what it boils down to - but BG will never replace Dvorak or Hemsky on the top 2. What about putting York between Laraque and Torres?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.