Kostopoulos is a great third liner and can effectively be part of a very good shut down line but no, the genius that is Carbo HAS to roll four lines. He is going to re-invent the wheel and play four lines he picks out of a hat and win with hard work.
There is no game plan clearly explained to players, no assignments clearly laid out for role players and no extra time for your most talented forwards. Nope, they all get equal time and they go out in order as line 1, 2, 3, 4 regardless of whether you have the last change to match lines up or not. Yeah that's why we're doing so great lately, all our players forgot how to play and the coach is brilliant.
One unbelievably great move was Kosto and Stewart in the last couple minutes of OT. No sense in trying to win it in OT because the other team doesn't have any good shooters so we'll just go to the shootout. Then we'll send out the shooters based on a hunch and not on whi is the best shooter.
But I digress, Kovy is the reason for ALL our problems.
Sorry but, they both played very good games and deserved to be out there, let's not forget we still have to defend and check the other teams players as well as rest our players, Koivu et al could not play the whole overtime themselves.
Markov's points on the PP >>>>>> Kovalv points on the PP this year BTW
he was far from our best winger effort-wise this year
you miss read what he said. "OUTSIDE of Markov."
I am not upset with what has transpired in the last 3 days. It was time to deal with this whole situation. Kovalev had been playing quite poorly this year and has not deserved the minutes he was getting. The problem is that no one else has deserved those minutes either during this last losing streak. Hopefully this can be much like the walk he took with Gainey 2 summers ago.
Asterix let me ask you this. What is the ultimate goal of this season. It's to go as far as possible in the playoff. If you are in Gainey's position. What is the best thing to do? Trade Kovalev for a second round pick and wish this teamto make the playoff. Or give Kovy the time to rest and look himself in the mirror so he can give the best of himself when he comes back.
A good kovalev in the the team is a better than a team without Kovalev. But then again, that's if you believe that Kovalev will be a better player when he comes back. This team has more chance to go far in the playoff with a good Kovalev. Kovalev has always been good in the playoff for us anyways.
To answer your question, the goal is to make the playoffs and to do well in the playoffs. But that doesn't change that it should be done without Kovalev.
No doubt that a good Kovalev makes this team better. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that. But the same people in their right mind should be able to acknowledge that a bad Kovalev is detrimental to the team just as much. The question marks have followed him his entire career so this should come as no surprise.
He's a UFA at the end of the season and I would be shocked if we offered him a new contract. My original idea was to trade Kovalev without getting any NHL player in return, simply reload on picks/prospect and pull the trigger on a much bigger trade. Whether it's Lecavalier or someone else. Clean up this mess.
But listening to what they had to say on L'Antichambre, hockey may now become secondary starting tomorrow...
Originally Posted by VAN-HAB
they are not hockey fans!
Will you stop thinking you're better than others? It's getting anoying to read that you're attacking everyone who disagrees with you. Allow me to leave you with this great quote:
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach
Give me a freakin break!!
Someone please go back into the 1960s stats and see how even Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard had some very good years and some really disappointing years.
A couple of differences here. Both Beliveau and Richard are known for their effort, their leadership and dedication to their team game in, game out. So maybe the points didn't always reflect that, but never was their effort questioned. Also, if you look at their career, they were overall CONSISTENT. I think that you used a very poor example to try proving your point, in all due respect.