View Single Post
03-20-2004, 11:40 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
When Huet Starts Tonight....part 2. (corrected.&more)

So, it seems like Huet may get his next shot at winning back his starter job tonight.

I have to question, as much as I hate to, if this is the right decision. Typically, I only question Andy (bloody armchair hoon I am) when I have a clearly different opinion on things. If in fact he does start Huet tonight, I have to question rather or not if this is the propper choice?

Roman couldn't have had a worse game against the Slags. That said, he knows it and said so in the media. So did Andy. So, do we give Roman a shot at this and in doing so, his last chance at being our number one as a King I believe or, do we start Huet and do the dueling goalie thing until one of them clicks?

I truly don't know which I would start what with everything being so bloody important. I would likely start Roman but, keep the hook handy and if he lets in two goals yank his chain. Not the smartest thing I know but, I am not an NHL coach nor do I play one on the tele.

Who do you start and why?

Also, I have to say that with as many of our lads healthy and at the ready, that what happens from here out, sits mostly on Andy's own shoulders. He has made some very questionable coaching choices since our team has been coming back together and, I have to say, that it is the same old things that allot of Kings fans were frustrated at him for last season and the season before that as well.

He is either truly rubbish at deciding who should be on the team and recieving the gob of ice time whith each other or, the players we see as healthy simply aren't and we are only seeing what he can do with what he has.

I don't tend to believe that though and feel that the more likely answer is the same one we had last year. Andy gives ice time to his favourites at the detriment of the team.

There is no way that Modry, who has gone minus 3 (adjusted) over our last ten games (including a -4 and a -2 effort) while recieving the majourity by a giant leap, of ice time, wouldn't be better suited to playing around 16 mins a game and allowing our better defencive defencemen the chance to A) play solid defence giving us a better chance to win and B) the chance to "become veterans" at their positions. Gaining experience.

Modry is a good two way defenceman. He truly is. He ISN'T a good defencive defenceman. He truly isn't. Andy has used him as our #1 defenceman (ATOI more than even Matty over this period and a bit more) and he simply isn't the man for that type of a job. I reckon Modry to be a very good #5-6 defenceman who can help on the PP and would think that IF Andy used him propperly that we would all love the guy. It isn't his fault that he simply cannot play solid in his own end for more time than our D typically does during a game when he is forced to play for more than 16 or 17 mins per.

Playing him longer only exposes his soft play in front of the net and the fact that he can be taken advantage of. It happend twice against the Slags and Mont made him their female dog at it.

Andy is doing the same with EBell. When Eric isn't in the line up or is limited to getting less ice time while playing up with the scoing lads, he is an asset. When he has played as a key face off guy he is alright as well. In fact, when Avery went to Andy and told him that if he would put HIM at center that he would produce. Andy did and Avery not only produced but, Ebell did as well. During the same stretch as Modry's mistake filled stretch where he has lead or team in minutes, Ebell has gone an astonishing -6 while receiving in the area of 17+mins per game.

He has been averaging more than Frolov during this stretch. He has averaged more than Avery during that stretch. He has averaged more than the following players as well. Lappy/Klatt/Pirnes and a few others as well. IF Andy stayed true to his "I don't like to change the line up when we win" idea, then Ebell, who missed our 5-1 beating of the Fowlies (the team that with him in the line up not only beat us 6-3 but did that in a game that Ebell had another one of his minus efforts) would have been benched and Not, Straka.

So, for that and a few other similar reasons, I reckon that if we can't pull this one out that more then half of the blame goes to Andy his self. He is a brilliant coach at having his team ready to play and making the most out of lesser talented players. He is also a brilliant strategist and his "semi trap/LW lock" is a thing of beauty when it works, but, I have little if any confidence in his skills when it comes to selecting who should play when, how often and with whom. I reckon that through his insistance at making these poor decisions regarding the management of players that he is and has been costing us wins so, he is at least as responsible for our success and failures as the players that he "calls out" in the papers.

A grand coach, I just would like to see him make his rules apply to everyone on the team and have a coach who is brilliant at line combos (tippet? Bowman? etc) come in and set up our lines for him and then force him to stick to it.

Daft maybe but, what do you lot think?

Last edited by punchy1: 03-20-2004 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Info changed to reflect what is going on.
punchy1 is offline