HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Florida Panthers
Notices

3/21/13 - Game 31 - Panthers @ Rangers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-22-2013, 03:54 PM
  #326
Panthersfan1989
Registered User
 
Panthersfan1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: S. Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBPantherfan View Post
When an "average" guy gets a suspension for a similar or weaker hit why the hell wouldn't they get a lawyer and sue to void the suspension? Couldn't they just claim hey Nash didn't get suspended I thought that was legal they didn't even hold a hearing. The "Player Safety" Group is a total joke. As a side note as far as I am concerened its open season on Nash next game I hope somebody pops him.
I would like to see open season on NASH but we aren't going to do anything just not how we roll, that needs to change. We need more grit and physical play.

Panthersfan1989 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 04:05 PM
  #327
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam graves View Post
Lol RR if u can't see the diff between Marky last few games in net and either of the other goalies all season long I don't know what to tell you. the defense didn't become amazing overnight. The guy between the pipes did.

No way clemmer doesn't give up 3 or 4 last night. He averages 41/2 goals per game for a reason.
The D is definitely better the last two games. Markstrom and the D being better isn't mutually exclusive. To be fair, Markstrom only got into his groove the last two games as well. It's a combination of both. Guds has been playing well, Kuba has been playing better, the forwards are working on the backcheck. As I said before, there were at least one or two goals against a game where our goalies had no chance because our D was so bad. I'm not taking anything away from Markstrom, he was great but the Rangers have been struggling to score. 6 goals in their last 6 games. They don't generate a lot of quality shots or scoring chances.


Last edited by RainingRats: 03-22-2013 at 04:21 PM.
RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 04:11 PM
  #328
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
RainingRats is one of the biggest know it alls on the Panther board. And he tries to take small jabs at people because he probably can't get away with it face to face with someone in person.
What? I don't agree with people and I back it with reasonable points. I have a different opinion than people and others agree with me all the time even if I'm in the minority.

And, LOL @ can't get away with it face to face. it's an internet message board, relax and get over yourself. If you think a disagreement results in having to fight you need to chill out.

If people agreed all the time this would be a boring a place. Feel free to ignore me, I barely read your posts as you add nothing to this board. See this post I'm responding to as a perfect example.

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 04:26 PM
  #329
Erick
Registered User
 
Erick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Broward, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 11,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
The D is definitely better the last two games. Markstrom and the D being better isn't mutually exclusive. To be fair, Markstrom only got into his groove the last two games as well. It's a combination of both. Guds has been playing well, Kuba has been playing better, the forwards are working on the backcheck. As I said before, there were at least one or two goals against a game where our goalies had no chance because our D was so bad. I'm not taking anything away from Markstrom, he was great but the Rangers have been struggling to score. 6 goals in their last 6 games. They don't generate a lot of quality shots or scoring chances.
Forgot to mention this in my post.
I thought Kuba played his best game of the season last night. Not that he's had many good ones to choose from, but yeah.

Erick is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 04:38 PM
  #330
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
The D is definitely better the last two games. Markstrom and the D being better isn't mutually exclusive. To be fair, Markstrom only got into his groove the last two games as well. It's a combination of both. Guds has been playing well, Kuba has been playing better, the forwards are working on the backcheck. As I said before, there were at least one or two goals against a game where our goalies had no chance because our D was so bad. I'm not taking anything away from Markstrom, he was great but the Rangers have been struggling to score. 6 goals in their last 6 games. They don't generate a lot of quality shots or scoring chances.
we gave up 45 shots last night, with several of them being high quality. that's not a good defensive performance.

we played well defensively vs. Carolina. we didn't play well defensively last night.

you seem to just spew rhetoric to be devils advocate because none of what you say is accurate.

btw - Guds was terrible last night, twice getting flat footed and giving up breakaways, one of which cost Markstrom his shutout. not really sure what you are watching.

this argument is as (in)accurate as your description of skille.

flapanthersfan is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 04:44 PM
  #331
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
we gave up 45 shots last night, with several of them being high quality. that's not a good defensive performance.

we played well defensively vs. Carolina. we didn't play well defensively last night.

you seem to just spew rhetoric to be devils advocate because none of what you say is accurate.

btw - Guds was terrible last night, twice getting flat footed and giving up breakaways, one of which cost Markstrom his shutout. not really sure what you are watching.

this argument is as (in)accurate as your description of skille.
Giving up a lot of shots doesn't mean you're bad defensively. And giving up "several" doesn't mean you're playing poor defensively either. Perhaps it has to do with the lack of skill up front which translates to poor puck possession? You're going to give up several scoring chances a game, that's hockey. The standard for playing good d isn't zero scoring chances against. The D was good last night, very few second chances, they made sure Markstrom could see the puck, and no glaring errors like they normally produce which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck.

Guds wasn't "terrible" that's hyperbole. He had an issue with gap control, made a mistake against someone with great speed. It happens, it's hockey. He was physical around the net, got the puck out out of the corners, and played well. Making one mistake that costs you a goal doesn't get you the terrible label.

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 04:57 PM
  #332
Inquisition13
Registered User
 
Inquisition13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
Giving up a lot of shots doesn't mean you're bad defensively. And giving up "several" doesn't mean you're playing poor defensively either. Perhaps it has to do with the lack of skill up front which translates to poor puck possession? You're going to give up several scoring chances a game, that's hockey. The standard for playing good d isn't zero scoring chances against. The D was good last night, very few second chances, they made sure Markstrom could see the puck, and no glaring errors like they normally produce which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck.

Guds wasn't "terrible" that's hyperbole. He had an issue with gap control, made a mistake against someone with great speed. It happens, it's hockey. He was physical around the net, got the puck out out of the corners, and played well. Making one mistake that costs you a goal doesn't get you the terrible label.
Agreed.

Inquisition13 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:22 PM
  #333
gizmo12688
Registered User
 
gizmo12688's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 5,362
vCash: 50
Lupul on twitter:

"If someone can explain the decisions on what warrants a suspension and what doesn't, please let me and the rest of guys know.."

https://twitter.com/JLupul/status/315218826532888577

gizmo12688 is online now  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:30 PM
  #334
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo12688 View Post
Lupul on twitter:

"If someone can explain the decisions on what warrants a suspension and what doesn't, please let me and the rest of guys know.."

https://twitter.com/JLupul/status/315218826532888577
haha. I wonder if they'll fine him for a legitimate question

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:34 PM
  #335
adam graves
Panthers 17yr sth
 
adam graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: south florida
Country: United States
Posts: 7,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
Giving up a lot of shots doesn't mean you're bad defensively. And giving up "several" doesn't mean you're playing poor defensively either. Perhaps it has to do with the lack of skill up front which translates to poor puck possession? You're going to give up several scoring chances a game, that's hockey. The standard for playing good d isn't zero scoring chances against. The D was good last night, very few second chances, they made sure Markstrom could see the puck, and no glaring errors like they normally produce which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck.

Guds wasn't "terrible" that's hyperbole. He had an issue with gap control, made a mistake against someone with great speed. It happens, it's hockey. He was physical around the net, got the puck out out of the corners, and played well. Making one mistake that costs you a goal doesn't get you the terrible label.
So ur opinion is the score would have been the same had clemmer been in net?

adam graves is online now  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:36 PM
  #336
Laus723
Future Now
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,028
vCash: 500
Gus's wasn't terrible, that's ridiculous.

__________________
So you're saying there's a chance!
Laus723 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:41 PM
  #337
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam graves View Post
So ur opinion is the score would have been the same had clemmer been in net?
No, not at all. I'm saying it was a team effort. That's how you win games. Good team defense and very good goaltending. I don't think Markstrom stole the game as the defense and forwards pulled their weight. The guys played well as a team. Very nice road win. I give Markstrom an A rating.

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:43 PM
  #338
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
Giving up a lot of shots doesn't mean you're bad defensively. And giving up "several" doesn't mean you're playing poor defensively either. Perhaps it has to do with the lack of skill up front which translates to poor puck possession? You're going to give up several scoring chances a game, that's hockey. The standard for playing good d isn't zero scoring chances against. The D was good last night, very few second chances, they made sure Markstrom could see the puck, and no glaring errors like they normally produce which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck.
no glaring errors which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck? okay....

funny how when our goalie actually makes several great stops, you discredit him by saying the defense was great. but when they don't make the save, they had "no chance".

goalies always have a chance. the difference last night is markstrom actually made the saves. alot of them. alot of them from prime scoring areas.

if you watched last night and thought it was a good defensive performance you're clueless.

it wasn't the worst of the season. but if that's your definition of "good" - you don't know much about hockey.



Quote:
Guds wasn't "terrible" that's hyperbole. He had an issue with gap control, made a mistake against someone with great speed. It happens, it's hockey. He was physical around the net, got the puck out out of the corners, and played well. Making one mistake that costs you a goal doesn't get you the terrible label.
he gave up two breakaways first of all, markstrom stopped the other. that's not where it ends, just the most glaring mistakes.

Gudbranson was not "good" last night. being the direct cause of two breakaways in one game is not good defense.

he's always physical around the net. that doesn't mean he played well. some of the longest, extended shifts the Rangers had in our zone was when Gudbranson was on the ice.

flapanthersfan is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 05:49 PM
  #339
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
no glaring errors which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck? okay....

funny how when our goalie actually makes several great stops, you discredit him by saying the defense was great. but when they don't make the save, they had "no chance".

goalies always have a chance. the difference last night is markstrom actually made the saves. alot of them. alot of them from prime scoring areas.

if you watched last night and thought it was a good defensive performance you're clueless.

it wasn't the worst of the season. but if that's your definition of "good" - you don't know much about hockey.





he gave up two breakaways first of all, markstrom stopped the other. that's not where it ends, just the most glaring mistakes.

Gudbranson was not "good" last night. being the direct cause of two breakaways in one game is not good defense.

he's always physical around the net. that doesn't mean he played well. some of the longest, extended shifts the Rangers had in our zone was when Gudbranson was on the ice.
I gave Markstrom a rating of an A before you posted this. He was great. I'm glad you concede the shot total as being a result of puck possession and not poor defense. There weren't a lot of prime scoring chances. Most of the shots were from the outside, very few from the slot, and even fewer second scoring opportunities. And no, our goalies this season have been hung out to try countless times where they had no chance on a play.

It was definitely good considering how many AHL regulars we have in the lineup and how many key offensive players we are missing. You have a vendetta against Guds for whatever reason. You've posted about it before so I'm not going to discuss this any further. Multiple posters have also agreed that he played well last night and your terrible label is completely off point.

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:04 PM
  #340
Laus723
Future Now
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
no glaring errors which causes our goalies to have no chance to stop the puck? okay....

funny how when our goalie actually makes several great stops, you discredit him by saying the defense was great. but when they don't make the save, they had "no chance".

goalies always have a chance. the difference last night is markstrom actually made the saves. alot of them. alot of them from prime scoring areas.

if you watched last night and thought it was a good defensive performance you're clueless.

it wasn't the worst of the season. but if that's your definition of "good" - you don't know much about hockey.





he gave up two breakaways first of all, markstrom stopped the other. that's not where it ends, just the most glaring mistakes.

Gudbranson was not "good" last night. being the direct cause of two breakaways in one game is not good defense.

he's always physical around the net. that doesn't mean he played well. some of the longest, extended shifts the Rangers had in our zone was when Gudbranson was on the ice.
He was just fine. Guy sneezes and he's awful I your eyes. We get it, you hate him.

Laus723 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:04 PM
  #341
Erick
Registered User
 
Erick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Broward, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 11,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
And no, our goalies this season have been hung out to try countless times where they had no chance on a play.
Our goalies have also let shots from the outside squeak through their 5-holes countless times this season, to be fair.

Erick is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:10 PM
  #342
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick View Post
Our goalies have also let shots from the outside squeak through their 5-holes countless times this season, to be fair.
oh i agree 100%.

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:11 PM
  #343
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
I gave Markstrom a rating of an A before you posted this. He was great. I'm glad you concede the shot total as being a result of puck possession and not poor defense. There weren't a lot of prime scoring chances. Most of the shots were from the outside, very few from the slot, and even fewer second scoring opportunities. And no, our goalies this season have been hung out to try countless times where they had no chance on a play.
i didn't concede anything first of all. secondly, i guess all analysts, fans, basically everyone with an iota of hockey knowledge who watched this game, agreed markstrom stood on his head to get the panthers two points is wrong and you're right.

go watch the highlights on nhl.com. tell me there wasn't several chances from the slot again and you'll see me laugh in your face.

again, if your definition of "good defense" is a 45 shot performance with too many high quality scoring chances, you're expectations are dismally low and don't really have an idea of what "good defense" actually is.

get a clue dude.

Quote:
It was definitely good considering how many AHL regulars we have in the lineup and how many key offensive players we are missing. You have a vendetta against Guds for whatever reason. You've posted about it before so I'm not going to discuss this any further. Multiple posters have also agreed that he played well last night and your terrible label is completely off point.
if "multiple posters" think he played well, this forum must have awfully low expectations for our defensmen. unless giving up two breakaways in one game is considered acceptable?


flapanthersfan is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:15 PM
  #344
Laus723
Future Now
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,028
vCash: 500
Gaborik was more on his partner IMO, anyway. He came over from the other side, Gabs already slipped behind him.

Laus723 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:18 PM
  #345
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
i didn't concede anything first of all. secondly, i guess all analysts, fans, basically everyone with an iota of hockey knowledge who watched this game, agreed markstrom stood on his head to get the panthers two points is wrong and you're right.

go watch the highlights on nhl.com. tell me there wasn't several chances from the slot again and you'll see me laugh in your face.

again, if your definition of "good defense" is a 45 shot performance with too many high quality scoring chances, you're expectations are dismally low and don't really have an idea of what "good defense" actually is.

get a clue dude.



if "multiple posters" think he played well, this forum must have awfully low expectations for our defensmen. unless giving up two breakaways in one game is considered acceptable?

There weren't that many high quality scoring chances. That's because we were positionally sound and the Rangers aren't good at generating offense. They have 6 goals in their last 6 games. When they did have a good chance Markstrom stopped them cold. There are high quality scoring chances every single game. Of course we will have some against. The shot total is high because we lack skilled players to maintain the puck and we weren't strong in the faceoff circle last night.

I was at the game and it was pretty boring because we played a very good road game. The crowd was quiet because the Rangers were having trouble generating quality chances and when they did Markstrom stopped them.

Guds played 22 minutes. He had two bad shifts. Get over it. You have a vendetta against him for some reason. Also, maybe I'm having trouble remembering the other Gaborik "breakaway" but he barely got a shot off. That was as low of a breakaway scoring chance as it gets. He flipped the puck into the middle of of our zone but ran out of room to track it down and threw a weak backhand shot that Markstrom easily saved. Hardly a bad play by Guds.


Last edited by RainingRats: 03-22-2013 at 06:23 PM.
RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:20 PM
  #346
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
What? I don't agree with people and I back it with reasonable points. I have a different opinion than people and others agree with me all the time even if I'm in the minority.

And, LOL @ can't get away with it face to face. it's an internet message board, relax and get over yourself. If you think a disagreement results in having to fight you need to chill out.

If people agreed all the time this would be a boring a place. Feel free to ignore me, I barely read your posts as you add nothing to this board. See this post I'm responding to as a perfect example.
You come across as one of the most smug posters on the board.

nhlfan9191 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:21 PM
  #347
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laus723 View Post
He was just fine. Guy sneezes and he's awful I your eyes. We get it, you hate him.
i gave Gudbranson credit for improvement last year in the second half several times.

i don't hate him.

i call it like i see it. he's been TERRIBLE this year.

if anyone is biased, it's you. you love him and blindly praise him for no good reason. he's been bad, i have no problem saying it. i have no "favorite players". i'm not a 13 year old kid. i want good players on this team, i dont give a damn who they are.

gudbranson hasn't been good and that's the only reason i give him flack.

flapanthersfan is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:26 PM
  #348
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
You come across as one of the most smug posters on the board.
feel free to block me

RainingRats is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:28 PM
  #349
Laus723
Future Now
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
i gave Gudbranson credit for improvement last year in the second half several times.

i don't hate him.

i call it like i see it. he's been TERRIBLE this year.

if anyone is biased, it's you. you love him and blindly praise him for no good reason. he's been bad, i have no problem saying it. i have no "favorite players". i'm not a 13 year old kid. i want good players on this team, i dont give a damn who they are.

gudbranson hasn't been good and that's the only reason i give him flack.
Nope. All the way around, you hate the pick, you nitpick the kid. Terrible? Lmao, nope!

Laus723 is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 06:28 PM
  #350
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 9,973
vCash: 500
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...,2,445&lang=en

here are the highlights. obviously not the best representation of the game but you can see how many outside shots the Rangers took and how Markstrom gave up no rebounds. In the rare case he did, there was a defenseman to move the puck out ofo the way.

RainingRats is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.