View Single Post
Old
04-10-2006, 04:42 AM
  #14
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodrev
honestly half the nights they look like they want it, the other half they look like they flat out dont, its not a matter of incosistency its a matter of some nights they put forth a good effort and most nights they dont, they show us what they CAN do and then go back and do what they always do.

As for the poster above who was talking about team chemistry? letting Leclair, Amonte, Roenick go was the best thing clarke has done for this team besides the fact that it was an absolute necessity under the new cap, they are all underachievers who are overpaid (amonte 35 pts playing on jerome iginla's line, leclair has 46 with only 20 goals, and Roenick when he hasnt been sucking on the ice has been on vacation off the ice, he was so bad that when he had a simple injury earlier in the season the kings put him in injured reserve just so they didnt have to pay him, getting future considerations for him was a steal. Clarke improved this team greatly and the only signing i think they didnt need was Rathje, and the biggest waste of space savage who came later. markov i would have like to see stay but he has been injured all season and would have been a nice addition to our man games lost number, zhamnov has been awful and boston is allready talking about buying him out in the offseason, and malakhov was so mediocre that when new jersey heard he was taking some personal time to go home they told the media he retired even though he didnt, so they forced him into retirement. so honestly i dont regret one second of this offseason besides the signing of rathje and savage... recchi would have been nice too
I won't ever question that the team has better players than what they let go. However, anyway you look at it, that's a big turnover. That's the point that I was trying to make. You just can't have a turnover of like 8 to 9 players and then think that having 8 to 9 new players step in and learn a new system in a short period of time will be great for the team. That's the point I was trying to make. These players who Clarke sent packing all knew what their roles were in the Hitch scheme of things. That's why everything fit like a glove. However, you replace all those guys who knew what their roles were with people who don't know what their roles are supposed to be and Hitch trying to determine what role would be effective for each one, then yeah, there's gonna be some inconsistency.

Like I said, I'm willing to give everyone another year. Now that everyone who is going to be here for the long haul has had one year in the system, then expectations will be high for next year. If things don't get better and the team is as inconsistent as they are this year, then I think it's time to start looking at replacing the coaching staff.

Hey, you ask Jester or Mikedffr and they will tell you I'm as Anti-Hitch as you can get. However, I'm going to give Hitch and the coaching staff the benefit of the doubt on this year. However, I think all of us can agree that next year, our special teams have to improve dramatically if we really expect to have any chance of winning the Stanley Cup. Our special teams are a down right disaster and that needs to be corrected next year.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote