HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lundqvist?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2006, 01:39 PM
  #26
cmdevisser
Registered User
 
cmdevisser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chesapeake, Va
Country: United States
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to cmdevisser
Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGASRANGERFAN View Post
I'm not saying that Lundqvist won't return to form because I believe he will, but with his less than stellar play so far, is anyone kind of relieved that Montoya was not traded this summer?
My thoughts exactly

cmdevisser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2006, 02:40 PM
  #27
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I think the defense is far worse this year. Malik is much worse. Roszival is slightly worse. Kaspairitis is worse. Tyutin is a bit better. Combined with the forwards paying little mind to their defensive assignments the difference is overwhelming.

Lundqvist is not as sharp so far as last year but he is not costing them points in the standings. He could have made a few losses a goal closer.

Lundqvist figures to get better. The forwards may become more defensively responsible. I don't think this group of defensemen is going to get much better. You would be hard pressed to find a current top 6 that is noticeably worse than the Rangers current group.
Man, he is on the bottom of the chart. This team is no good, but it far from being worst in the league. So it is his poor play that got him there more than anything. He is among worst goalies on average team. That means he sucks.
FIRST Let me remind you that this team is nothing without him and Jagr. This is a re-building team that stopped rebuild arbitrarily because Jagr and Lundqvist made management think they can get away with it. That is why we do not have a dominant defensemen. We've built from within and signed second tier players. We traded for Ozolinch and signed Shanahan, both beyond their prime. That what re-building team does. It would be wrong to sign an elite players to the non-existent team. You've got to build first. The sooner they stick back to re-building mode, now when both Henke and Jagr are non-factors, the better we will be in the long run. As of now the d-men are not dominant, but adequate to the task on hand: to grow Tyutin up and bring in Staal into decent environment. Once those two are set, then you think about future.
SECOND We are not going to Cup Finals like this. Making the playoffs would be difficult.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2006, 04:05 PM
  #28
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Man, he is on the bottom of the chart. This team is no good, but it far from being worst in the league. So it is his poor play that got him there more than anything. He is among worst goalies on average team. That means he sucks.
FIRST Let me remind you that this team is nothing without him and Jagr. This is a re-building team that stopped rebuild arbitrarily because Jagr and Lundqvist made management think they can get away with it. That is why we do not have a dominant defensemen. We've built from within and signed second tier players. We traded for Ozolinch and signed Shanahan, both beyond their prime. That what re-building team does. It would be wrong to sign an elite players to the non-existent team. You've got to build first. The sooner they stick back to re-building mode, now when both Henke and Jagr are non-factors, the better we will be in the long run. As of now the d-men are not dominant, but adequate to the task on hand: to grow Tyutin up and bring in Staal into decent environment. Once those two are set, then you think about future.
SECOND We are not going to Cup Finals like this. Making the playoffs would be difficult.
The chart you are referring to is 3 weeks old. 3 weeks old.

From this you have drawn the conclusion that we would be better off without Jagr and Lundqvist. Jagr because of his age makes a little bit of sense for your argument. But a 24 year old goalie coming off a near Vezina season?

Jagr and Lundqvist have nothing to do with the quality of our defensemen. That would be the responsibility of management. If you are saying that a team cannot have quality at more than one position you might as well make a permanent reservation in the Mediocrity Hotel chain.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2006, 09:46 PM
  #29
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
Alright 94now, what exactly is your definition of "sucks"? At least to me, a goalie who sucks is a goalie who is directly responsible for giving up points for his team which they should have had.

Lundqvist has been far from giving away points for Rangers. It has been more of the opposite. He just hasn't been giving as many points to the Rangers as they shouldn't have had as last season (yet). And that is not to suck.

Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2006, 11:17 PM
  #30
HVPOLARBEARS19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Country: Israel
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HVPOLARBEARS19 Send a message via MSN to HVPOLARBEARS19
I'd still take Lundqvist in a shootout over any goalie in the league.
He'll get better, the defense will either get better or have a big shakeup (hopefully), and the team will be OK. It's early, we're 4-4, and I think we've got a decent shot at the division. Right now, Philly is looking like garbage, and we all know about the Isles...Pens I don't think will be a contender, although they are scary, which leaves us and NJ, and right now, I think we're the better team, even though NJ is definately not a pushover and they've still got the likes of Elias, Gionta, Gomez and Marty...so, it is probably going to be a 2 MAYBE 3 horse race, if Philly can get it together, or if Pitt can show they're for real...I doubt both happen.

HVPOLARBEARS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 08:18 AM
  #31
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Jagr and Lundqvist have nothing to do with the quality of our defensemen. That would be the responsibility of management. If you are saying that a team cannot have quality at more than one position you might as well make a permanent reservation in the Mediocrity Hotel chain.
Rebuilding team that started from scratch two seasons ago should be happy to make a playoffs. Management doesn't have the responsibility to please the fans by providing the team with dominant players. Their responsibility is to provide the best product with the material on hand. The salary cap idea is precisely works toward even distribution of talent among the NHL. What make you think that Rangers are entitle to get the best players in the world? We got Jagr and Lundqvist who are elite talents. We got Shanahan incidentally. That is quite a bit. But the fact that we got premium performers at those two position makes it an ok to have average defence group. YOU CANNOT HAVE ELITE LEVEL PLAYERS AT EVERY POSITION. It doesn't work that way. No other team has it. Neither will we. And besides, this is fare. It happened that your best players are not playing as they should. So instead of being patient and wait for them to come back the calls are made to get elite players to compensate for it,as if it was a fantasy team. Hotel Mediocrity is what every rebuilding team is going through. Thank God we didn't have to go through what Pittsburg and Washington went to get an elite players. That is the only way to get true talent. UFA and trades are not. Yet, everyone wants us to go deep in playoffs. You just can't have it both ways.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 08:30 AM
  #32
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Alright 94now, what exactly is your definition of "sucks"? At least to me, a goalie who sucks is a goalie who is directly responsible for giving up points for his team which they should have had.

Lundqvist has been far from giving away points for Rangers. It has been more of the opposite. He just hasn't been giving as many points to the Rangers as they shouldn't have had as last season (yet). And that is not to suck.
Lundqvist is responsible for all his losses, IMO. All goals in Nashville game were his fault. Yes, he is a good shootout goalie. How many Dmen are playing in shootout? None. So stop blaming Ds, please.
When I say Lundqvist sucks I don't mean he is a bad goaltender. He is no good at the moment. He simply cannot stay focused longer than one period or shootout run. He doesn't last the entire 60 minutes. That is where his bad statistic is coming from.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 08:39 AM
  #33
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
It's funny...

how everyone interprets each goal differently. I think Renney interprets it a bit different from you too, 94, since he's trying to juggle his defensive corps and he's not too happy about the effort from his forwards in sustaining pressure in the offensive zone, and coming back in the defensive zone.

But it's all Lundqvist's fault - like letting forwards stand behind Rangers defensemen waiting for an easy tap-in. Or being able to move the puck freely in the Rangers zone and get off quality chance after quality chance. Or the breakaways, of which there have been too many this season. how 'bout them turnovers in the offensive zone, or the neutral zone that lead to odd-man situations against the Rangers?

Sure Lundqvist needs to be better, but at the same time, he's bailed out this defense more than his fair share of times.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 08:59 AM
  #34
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
how everyone interprets each goal differently. I think Renney interprets it a bit different from you too, 94, since he's trying to juggle his defensive corps and he's not too happy about the effort from his forwards in sustaining pressure in the offensive zone, and coming back in the defensive zone.

But it's all Lundqvist's fault - like letting forwards stand behind Rangers defensemen waiting for an easy tap-in. Or being able to move the puck freely in the Rangers zone and get off quality chance after quality chance. Or the breakaways, of which there have been too many this season. how 'bout them turnovers in the offensive zone, or the neutral zone that lead to odd-man situations against the Rangers?

Sure Lundqvist needs to be better, but at the same time, he's bailed out this defense more than his fair share of times.
I didn't praise forwards for being out of defensive play. Just an opposite. I just do not think it is laziness. If effort was a problem we would have seen an appropriate reaction from management. Coach is never at fault, it always the players. Yes, as I stressed out before forwards didn't do enough defense, but it is rather because Renney's playbook was not adjusted to new realities.
Fan will always blame anyone, but their beloved favotites. Up until they are uot of favor. Henke is far from it, so Malik is much easy target.
Yes, there were breakaways, but goals were not scored on breakaways. Goals were not scored in shootout which is pure breakaway by design. Goals were scored when Henke lost his focus as well as the net behind him on cheap shots.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 09:00 AM
  #35
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Rebuilding team that started from scratch two seasons ago should be happy to make a playoffs. Management doesn't have the responsibility to please the fans by providing the team with dominant players. Their responsibility is to provide the best product with the material on hand. The salary cap idea is precisely works toward even distribution of talent among the NHL. What make you think that Rangers are entitle to get the best players in the world? We got Jagr and Lundqvist who are elite talents. We got Shanahan incidentally. That is quite a bit. But the fact that we got premium performers at those two position makes it an ok to have average defence group. YOU CANNOT HAVE ELITE LEVEL PLAYERS AT EVERY POSITION. It doesn't work that way. No other team has it. Neither will we. And besides, this is fare. It happened that your best players are not playing as they should. So instead of being patient and wait for them to come back the calls are made to get elite players to compensate for it,as if it was a fantasy team. Hotel Mediocrity is what every rebuilding team is going through. Thank God we didn't have to go through what Pittsburg and Washington went to get an elite players. That is the only way to get true talent. UFA and trades are not. Yet, everyone wants us to go deep in playoffs. You just can't have it both ways.
I don't remember calling for elite level players at every position so I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your whole post does not address anything I wrote so I'm not sure why you replied to me.

I said that the quality of our top 6 defensemen is one of the worst in the NHL at the moment, with no reason to believe there is great improvement on the horizon. Everyone else can see this except you.

While everyone admits that Lundqvist has let in a few soft ones we also understand that he is not costing the team points in the standings. He is just not getting points on his own as he did many times last year.

Your contention that Lundqvist was responsible for all 3 goals against Nashville is just plain wrong. It flies in the face of the fact that Nashville was dancing around the Rangers D untouched. Not virtually untouched. Untouched. They then planted themselves in front of him and for the most part remained untouched. If the Rangers D refuses to even go through the motions they should just bring up 6 kids who will at least make an attempt.

Rebuilding or free agency or salary caps have nothing to do with our current group of defensemen. It is a searing indictment of what a horrendous job management has performed.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 09:13 AM
  #36
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Goaltending's funny...

few remember those saves early in games when the goalie has to stand on his head to keep his team from getting blown out, and what sticks out is the soft saves. They would've been better off in the eyes of the fans giving up some of those impossible saves instead of the easy ones. Lundqvist does need to remain focused, no doubt, and he could be better, but I first blame the guys in front of him, and blame him second. But that's just me.

As for effort...perhaps you haven't seen the last couple games, but I think there was a reaction. I thought Renney has stated such after a couple games. I thought Renney mixed his lines up in order to get some guys going. I thought making Hall a fourth liner and Ward a third liner was because of effort. I thought the Malik 'benching' was a result of effort. I thought that changes in his forwards was because of effort. I thought Hollweg was promoted in one game due to effort. I thought Hossa went back to the fourth line due to effort. Perhaps we're watching different games and listening to different coaches because I think effort has a heck of a lot to do with the Rangers' problem though the first several games this season.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 09:50 AM
  #37
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
few remember those saves early in games when the goalie has to stand on his head to keep his team from getting blown out, and what sticks out is the soft saves. They would've been better off in the eyes of the fans giving up some of those impossible saves instead of the easy ones. Lundqvist does need to remain focused, no doubt, and he could be better, but I first blame the guys in front of him, and blame him second. But that's just me.

As for effort...perhaps you haven't seen the last couple games, but I think there was a reaction. I thought Renney has stated such after a couple games. I thought Renney mixed his lines up in order to get some guys going. I thought making Hall a fourth liner and Ward a third liner was because of effort. I thought the Malik 'benching' was a result of effort. I thought that changes in his forwards was because of effort. I thought Hollweg was promoted in one game due to effort. I thought Hossa went back to the fourth line due to effort. Perhaps we're watching different games and listening to different coaches because I think effort has a heck of a lot to do with the Rangers' problem though the first several games this season.
You're right I didn't see Toronto game, just the end and shootout. Yet, I disagree that benching of Malik was due to Malik's play. There was no one else to let Ozolinch in. The rest of changes is due to new reality and Renney's adjustments. We do not have dominant 1st and stellar goalie. Cullen doesn't make an impact expected. So we have to play not to loose. That is why Ward is up. Straka is good at our end too. Hossa is just being kept around. He is a "good weather" guy. We need grinders out there most of the time. The hope is Shanahan will keep us afloat.

Back to Henke... Goaltender is different compare to other positions. The dramatic saves do not even up soft goals. That's the difference. People realise that, but still keep those saves on the back of thier mind. Plus, the saves that look good, such as close distance shots, etc. might actually be easier to make than screened slow pace deflections.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 09:54 AM
  #38
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
There were five other defensemen...

who could've sat instead of Malik. Renney chose Malik, for some odd reason, over those five others. One would guess that he chose the defenseman who was doing the worst of all the defensemen. One would further be a bit shocked that Renney would choose to break up a pairing that many believe was this team's best last season...just to make room for Ozolinsh!

But let's assume that for some reason there was no one else for Renney to sit to let Ozo play...does this mean that Malik doesn't get into the lineup until someone gets hurt? Is that's what has become of the person many thought was the best defenseman for the Rangers last season?

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 10:20 AM
  #39
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I don't remember calling for elite level players at every position so I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your whole post does not address anything I wrote so I'm not sure why you replied to me.

I said that the quality of our top 6 defensemen is one of the worst in the NHL at the moment, with no reason to believe there is great improvement on the horizon. Everyone else can see this except you.
I disagree. Roszival may not be Pronger, but there is not too many names in between the two. Look at the stats. That is why I beleave that the eliet level players is the only way to upgrade our current defensemen. Therefore my responce was direct reply to your complain about our d-men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
While everyone admits that Lundqvist has let in a few soft ones we also understand that he is not costing the team points in the standings. He is just not getting points on his own as he did many times last year.
The few he let are the difference between loosing and winning. I agree the team is not ready for the season and Henke is not the only problem, but he is #1 problem as of now. That will force that team to adopt a different playing style with more emphasis on defense. Renney is working on it , I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Your contention that Lundqvist was responsible for all 3 goals against Nashville is just plain wrong. It flies in the face of the fact that Nashville was dancing around the Rangers D untouched. Not virtually untouched. Untouched. They then planted themselves in front of him and for the most part remained untouched. If the Rangers D refuses to even go through the motions they should just bring up 6 kids who will at least make an attempt.
Our forwards were also untouched with 38 frequing SOGs! Yet Vokoun got the shutout.
You touch them, you go in the box. That is new NHL or what those refs thought it is. But even in old NHL the second goal was not D fault. Goalie should have played the shooter while D should have prevented the centering pass. Lundqvist let the goal in far corner. First goal for soft and everyone admitted that. And third Lundqvist didn't cut the angle on the shot he clearly saw, so that another one.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 10:33 AM
  #40
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
... The few he let are the difference between loosing and winning. I agree the team is not ready for the season and Henke is not the only problem, but he is #1 problem as of now.
Give me a break. And please, point out those games where Lundqvist single handedly has given away points that Rangers should have had.

Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 10:35 AM
  #41
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
who could've sat instead of Malik. Renney chose Malik, for some odd reason, over those five others. One would guess that he chose the defenseman who was doing the worst of all the defensemen. One would further be a bit shocked that Renney would choose to break up a pairing that many believe was this team's best last season...just to make room for Ozolinsh!

But let's assume that for some reason there was no one else for Renney to sit to let Ozo play...does this mean that Malik doesn't get into the lineup until someone gets hurt? Is that's what has become of the person many thought was the best defenseman for the Rangers last season?
Malik is not what he was, but so are many others and it is not due to lack of effort. People try to save themselves for next spring. Last year lesson says it doesn't pay to play well now if you loose in playoffs. It is more training thing than effort which is mentally driven. They are not reday for the season start. I think that is intentional. I might be wrong, but it is not laziness. Slumps are normal in pro sport. The team slump is not acceptable, though, and Sather with Renney will make a corrections.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 11:51 AM
  #42
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
who could've sat instead of Malik. Renney chose Malik, for some odd reason, over those five others.
I think that Malik's oral surgery had more to do with him being out of the lineup than anything else.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 01:23 PM
  #43
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Roszival may not be Pronger, but there is not too many names in between the two.
Of everything I have ever seen you post this has to be the the worst. Alphabetically there may not be too many between them but otherwise you are comparing a true #1 impact, all around, physical, offensively gifted player with a #3 or #4 D who possesses none of the above qualities.

Now that I realize that you don't see much difference between Pronger and Roszival I understand your position a bit better.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 01:36 PM
  #44
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
I disagree. Roszival may not be Pronger, but there is not too many names in between the two. Look at the stats.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. How did I ever miss this? Not too many names between the two? So now Rozsival is an elite defenseman?

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 01:37 PM
  #45
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,829
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
I disagree. Roszival may not be Pronger, but there is not too many names in between the two.
I'm sorry, but are you just making things up? Not too many names between the two? There are many, many, many, many names between the two.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 02:07 PM
  #46
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I'm sorry, but are you just making things up? Not too many names between the two? There are many, many, many, many names between the two.
You judge by impression. Just look at the stats. If Roszival is a second pair guy and Pronger is arguably #1 Puck Moving D in the league you must be able to name 29 or so puck moving Ds that are better than Rozsival. Be my guest...
I can think of 5 or 6. It is not 29, i.e. it is not too many.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 02:14 PM
  #47
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,829
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
You judge by impression. Just look at the stats. If Roszival is a second pair guy and Pronger is arguably #1 Puck Moving D in the league you must be able to name 29 or so puck moving Ds that are better than Rozsival. Be my guest...
I can think of 5 or 6. It is not 29, i.e. it is not too many.
You can create all the parameters you want (and I rarely understand how you rationalize any of your opinions). And you can manipulate the stats however you want. But to mention Rozsival in the same breath as Pronger is nothing short of insane.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 10-24-2006 at 02:23 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 02:21 PM
  #48
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Give me a break. And please, point out those games where Lundqvist single handedly has given away points that Rangers should have had.
Phily and Nas come to mind. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Lundqvist for poor Rangers start, but if you think of what could have improved thier game the most should just ONE thing be different, I would go with Henke getting his last year performance. Based on that I consider it #1 problem.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 02:24 PM
  #49
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Phily and Nas come to mind. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Lundqvist for poor Rangers start, but if you think of what could have improved thier game the most should just ONE thing be different, I would go with Henke getting his last year performance. Based on that I consider it #1 problem.
Let me get this straight. Lundqvist is not performing like an all star, so thats our #1 problem?

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 02:37 PM
  #50
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Let me get this straight. Lundqvist is not performing like an all star, so thats our #1 problem?
Just don't drop dead... YES. What do you think made us what we were last year? Sather? and #2 Jagr not being All-star and #3 Problem is absence of Ortmeyer and More. Above all was lack of reaction to problems listed from coaching staff, but now it is going to right direction by improving defense (not to be mistaken with defenseman performance, which is ok).

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:49 AM.

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.