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

Ranger Prospects

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2003, 12:27 AM
  #26
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Skipping the whole lundmark debate {i aint in the mood, it's beating a dead horse kinda like discussing politics and religion} my answer to my thoughts on roche and dawes.

Roche reminds me somewhat of Mike Ridley to be honest. I don't think he is as much of a pure playmaker like Weight and he's certainly not built the same or nasty the same. What he is, is a shifty skater who see's the ice fairly well. He's under the smallish side but he's pretty aware defensivly. He is a hard worker.

Dawes i love. I've said a few times that if he were even 5'11 he is a first round pick. He reminds me a lot of Marc Savard in the sense that he is an offensive wizard and smallish. I don't think he's necessarily as fast as he is slippery, he's just squirmy. He also has an edge to his game and isn't afraid of contact, in fact it seems to motivate him more. The difference between him and say, Savard? Attitude. Savard was also a little jerk, even in juniors, Dawes is a dynamite kid. Great team player and all heart. I honestly would not be surprised to see him be a diamond in the rough, though he does need to learn some better defense.

His biggest draw is strength right now. He's is tiny, period end of sentence. But he's certainly one to keep an eye on.

In a less deep draft he goes higher, but the deep draft and his size dropped him a little.

Edge is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 02:19 AM
  #27
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
Yea it was one of the Phx officials, that really got me excited about Roche.

I think Dawes is averaging a goal per game so that in itself is impressive, I'd like to hear something on him as well, Edge? someone?

The Phoenix official was Dave Draper.He ran the Avs drafts in the 1990's before he decided to retire.Wayne Gretzky lured him out of retirement by giving him a scouting position with Phoenix.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 09:00 AM
  #28
Pedrostallion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cranbrook, BC
Posts: 79
vCash: 500
Dawes Info

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Skipping the whole lundmark debate {i aint in the mood, it's beating a dead horse kinda like discussing politics and religion} my answer to my thoughts on roche and dawes.

Roche reminds me somewhat of Mike Ridley to be honest. I don't think he is as much of a pure playmaker like Weight and he's certainly not built the same or nasty the same. What he is, is a shifty skater who see's the ice fairly well. He's under the smallish side but he's pretty aware defensivly. He is a hard worker.

Dawes i love. I've said a few times that if he were even 5'11 he is a first round pick. He reminds me a lot of Marc Savard in the sense that he is an offensive wizard and smallish. I don't think he's necessarily as fast as he is slippery, he's just squirmy. He also has an edge to his game and isn't afraid of contact, in fact it seems to motivate him more. The difference between him and say, Savard? Attitude. Savard was also a little jerk, even in juniors, Dawes is a dynamite kid. Great team player and all heart. I honestly would not be surprised to see him be a diamond in the rough, though he does need to learn some better defense.

His biggest draw is strength right now. He's is tiny, period end of sentence. But he's certainly one to keep an eye on.

In a less deep draft he goes higher, but the deep draft and his size dropped him a little.
Totally agree with your description on Dawes - he is a treat to watch and a fan favourite for more reasons than just his hockey.

For those that are interested there is a fantastic Kootenay ICE website designed by a gentleman known as IICE. I have not seen a better team site. Check it out for info & pic's of Dawes as well as the rest of the ICE and hockey in the Kootenays. It's amazing, the NY Rangers - Kootenay connection.

www.iceinsider.ca

Pedrostallion is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 11:52 AM
  #29
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
If Lindros would have looked lost out there half the time like Jamie does then he wouldn't have gotten all that ice time. I really want Lundmark to do well but to this point he just looks out of place.

That said, I hope Sather puts Lundmark next to Nedved or Lindros next game. If he's ever gonna be motivated to step up then that time is now after he's been a scratch the last few games. I agree Jamie needs more time, but at the same time comparing him to the likes of Hedjuk and Lindros is a bit much. I see Lundmark as a second line player and your comparing him to guys that were budding All-Stars. The Rangers are a team on the bubble right now and to be honest I have more confidence sending Ortmeyer out there then Lundmark so I can see why Sather would play him instead. The Rangers aren't ten games over .500, they are a borderline team that needs wins at this point.
You must have me confused with someone else--I've never mentioned Hedjuk in my posts on this thread or for that matter elsewhere.

And I don't buy the argument that the Rangers can't integrate young players into the lineup and still win. I've watched this organization pick up veteran after veteran and all-star after all-star and still lose. I happen to believe that the very way that Sather is trying to build a team is wrong. Name me one Stanley Cup winner who didn't have a core of home grown players in significant roles. Signing a bunch of thirtysomething veterans who've played in a number of different systems does not create a team. It creates a group that has real problems doing the dirty work that needs to be done over the 82 game grind of the season. I don't think it is coincidence that the biggest problem the Ranger organization has had over the last 6 years is that they seem to be completely unable to play a solid 60 minutes game in and game out. Players come and go, coaches are hired and fired, GMs get replaced and yet the consistant effort that is needed to win games is still not here.

If it wasn't Lundmark it would be some other prospect.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now  
Old
11-28-2003, 12:33 PM
  #30
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
You must have me confused with someone else--I've never mentioned Hedjuk in my posts on this thread or for that matter elsewhere.

And I don't buy the argument that the Rangers can't integrate young players into the lineup and still win. I've watched this organization pick up veteran after veteran and all-star after all-star and still lose. I happen to believe that the very way that Sather is trying to build a team is wrong. Name me one Stanley Cup winner who didn't have a core of home grown players in significant roles. Signing a bunch of thirtysomething veterans who've played in a number of different systems does not create a team. It creates a group that has real problems doing the dirty work that needs to be done over the 82 game grind of the season. I don't think it is coincidence that the biggest problem the Ranger organization has had over the last 6 years is that they seem to be completely unable to play a solid 60 minutes game in and game out. Players come and go, coaches are hired and fired, GMs get replaced and yet the consistant effort that is needed to win games is still not here.

If it wasn't Lundmark it would be some other prospect.
I agree that you can integrate young players in and win. Believe me.. I'd be more then happy to see the Rangers break it down and rebuild like Atlanta has done a terrific job doing. I def agree that you need a strong core of home-grown talent.

I'm just pointing out that the Rangers need to win games and right now Lundmark isn't helping them do that. Like I said, I still want to see him get minutes with Nedved or Lindros, but I also find it hard to criticize Sather in giving Lundmark less time, being that he definately hasnt earned it in my opinion. Lundmark has been very inconsistent and just hasnt made many plays IMO. I want him to get all the opportunity in the world but at some point the player has to just step up. Let's see him take over a few shifts and make some things happen for a change. I dont agree with some people on this board who say that he must get 1st line icetime to be a factor. Ya know what? If you get 10-12 minutes a night then make sure your working hard and turning some heads for that 10-12 mins. Earn it.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 01:29 PM
  #31
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedrostallion
Totally agree with your description on Dawes - he is a treat to watch and a fan favourite for more reasons than just his hockey.

For those that are interested there is a fantastic Kootenay ICE website designed by a gentleman known as IICE. I have not seen a better team site. Check it out for info & pic's of Dawes as well as the rest of the ICE and hockey in the Kootenays. It's amazing, the NY Rangers - Kootenay connection.

www.iceinsider.ca

Yeah i was on there the other day, saw the head shaving competition. It was for a good cause and of course Dawes was involved.

Like i said, i really like this kid.

Edge is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 01:41 PM
  #32
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Yeah i was on there the other day, saw the head shaving competition. It was for a good cause and of course Dawes was involved.

Like i said, i really like this kid.
Glad to see we have another good prospect coming up. It's always nice to hear. With guys like Roche, Dawes, Jonasen, and others I feel alot more confident. Even if we can just get two NHL caliber players out of our middle round picks it will be really posotive. Seems like it's been a long time since we had more then two or three prospects to keep our eyes on.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 02:08 PM
  #33
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
I agree that you can integrate young players in and win. Believe me.. I'd be more then happy to see the Rangers break it down and rebuild like Atlanta has done a terrific job doing. I def agree that you need a strong core of home-grown talent.

I'm just pointing out that the Rangers need to win games and right now Lundmark isn't helping them do that. Like I said, I still want to see him get minutes with Nedved or Lindros, but I also find it hard to criticize Sather in giving Lundmark less time, being that he definately hasnt earned it in my opinion. Lundmark has been very inconsistent and just hasnt made many plays IMO. I want him to get all the opportunity in the world but at some point the player has to just step up. Let's see him take over a few shifts and make some things happen for a change. I dont agree with some people on this board who say that he must get 1st line icetime to be a factor. Ya know what? If you get 10-12 minutes a night then make sure your working hard and turning some heads for that 10-12 mins. Earn it.
I still think that Lundmark has been shafted by Sather--he's a skilled player who is not getting enough ice time to show his skill. If he got 10-12 minutes a game, regularly, I don't think we would be having this argument. I also wonder why so many people here seem to think that Lundmark shouldn't be in the lineup because he's not dominating and that somehow his play is going to be the make or break reason for the Rangers making the playoffs. That's the thing about integrating young players into the lineup--you can't expect them to dominate play or a game. Most young players are just not ready to do that yet and need time to learn all the aspects of the game. If they have good numbers in their first couple of years, that gravy. That's why they need to be surrounded by good players who can show them how it's done.

The Rangers don't need Lundmark to dominate to win--they need their go-to players to step up and do it. Kovalev, Lindros, Nedved, Leetch, Malakhov, Poti, Kasparisitis, Rucinsky, Hlavac (because Sather signed him to be a top 6 player) and Carter are the ones who need to start dominating play--if they do their jobs, then adding a couple of youngers like Lundmark, Moore and Tjutin would be a snap.

If the veterans ever get their act together, then the prospects can go back to developing into solid NHL hockey without the need to be the savior of the franchise.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now  
Old
11-28-2003, 02:40 PM
  #34
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
I still think that Lundmark has been shafted by Sather--he's a skilled player who is not getting enough ice time to show his skill. If he got 10-12 minutes a game, regularly, I don't think we would be having this argument. I also wonder why so many people here seem to think that Lundmark shouldn't be in the lineup because he's not dominating and that somehow his play is going to be the make or break reason for the Rangers making the playoffs. That's the thing about integrating young players into the lineup--you can't expect them to dominate play or a game. Most young players are just not ready to do that yet and need time to learn all the aspects of the game. If they have good numbers in their first couple of years, that gravy. That's why they need to be surrounded by good players who can show them how it's done.

The Rangers don't need Lundmark to dominate to win--they need their go-to players to step up and do it. Kovalev, Lindros, Nedved, Leetch, Malakhov, Poti, Kasparisitis, Rucinsky, Hlavac (because Sather signed him to be a top 6 player) and Carter are the ones who need to start dominating play--if they do their jobs, then adding a couple of youngers like Lundmark, Moore and Tjutin would be a snap.

If the veterans ever get their act together, then the prospects can go back to developing into solid NHL hockey without the need to be the savior of the franchise.
I'm not asking him to dominate anything. I'm just asking for a contribution. I believe he can contribute in some capacity given the time. My point is that he needs to work a little harder and accomplish a little more so that he forces Sathers hand. If Lundmark starts making some nice passes and plays well in his own zone then he will get more time. Carter is injured. Now is his chance to get a shot on the PP and show what he can do. I'm just saying that you can't expect him to get 20 min a night when he doesnt do anything with 10-12 min. If I remember correctly someone mentioned he was averaging 11 plus min a game. Time to make those 11 min count. It's time to show he can play as well as Carter so that maybe Sather decides that he can trust Jamie and make some moves to put him into an even better position to succeed, but Jamie must show something first. I dont think you should hand anyone anything. I'm not saying not to play young players. Play Tyutin, Moore, Ortmeyer and Lundmark... I would be thrilled. But you cant expect these guys to just be given time, they have to go out and earn it.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 04:27 PM
  #35
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
I'm not asking him to dominate anything. I'm just asking for a contribution. I believe he can contribute in some capacity given the time. My point is that he needs to work a little harder and accomplish a little more so that he forces Sathers hand. If Lundmark starts making some nice passes and plays well in his own zone then he will get more time. Carter is injured. Now is his chance to get a shot on the PP and show what he can do. I'm just saying that you can't expect him to get 20 min a night when he doesnt do anything with 10-12 min. If I remember correctly someone mentioned he was averaging 11 plus min a game. Time to make those 11 min count. It's time to show he can play as well as Carter so that maybe Sather decides that he can trust Jamie and make some moves to put him into an even better position to succeed, but Jamie must show something first. I dont think you should hand anyone anything. I'm not saying not to play young players. Play Tyutin, Moore, Ortmeyer and Lundmark... I would be thrilled. But you cant expect these guys to just be given time, they have to go out and earn it.
Ah, the good old Catch-22: a young player has to prove his worth on the ice, but there are so many veterans ahead of him who need ice time to produce. Veterans who are rarely held to the same standard. They get to work out their problems on the ice, even when they make the same mistakes over and over.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now  
Old
11-28-2003, 08:40 PM
  #36
Oilers Chick
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Oilers Chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Philly in April 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 5,963
vCash: 500
Hello Rangers fans

As per #37-#93-#27's request here's the lastest scoop on some more of Rangers NCAA prospects. I caught the Minnesota/Michigan State game earlier this evening, so here's my (brief) observations:

Jake Taylor (MINN): While he didn't do much tonight, he's made progress. But before you all start getting excited, he's still got a ways to go. While I like Taylor's toughness and punishing checks, I'd like to see better all-around defensive play from him, particularly when it comes to puck-handling. It's not one of Taylor's strong suits. He's a good defensive -defenceman, but give him the puck and he could likely to turn it over.

Corey Potter (MSU): Another player who didn't do much tonight, except that he threw his weight around. The only thing Potter did of note was that he rammed Gophers forward (and Pens prospect) Andy Sertich's face into the glass that resulted in a 5 and a game for him (Potter).

Lee Farladeau (MSU): He played very well tonight. Farladeau is a big kid (6'4/217). He uses his size and strength quite well and is a very good forechecker. He possesses a wicked wristshot. One play he made tonight was a (in the 2nd period I believe it was) when he did a nice job of splitting the Gophers D and moved on Gophers netminder Kellen Briggs to get off a good scoring chance. He didn't score, but he powered through two Minnesota defenders and somehow kept puck possession long enough to get a shot off. Like Corey Potter, he also threw his weight around pretty good tonight, but Farladeau didn't make any really blatant mistakes (at least none to my recollection).

If you want to read all about tonight's game and what happened, please check out my Game Notes (11/28): Minnesota vs. Michigan State thread over in the NCAA area.

Oilers Chick is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 10:46 PM
  #37
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
Ah, the good old Catch-22: a young player has to prove his worth on the ice, but there are so many veterans ahead of him who need ice time to produce. Veterans who are rarely held to the same standard. They get to work out their problems on the ice, even when they make the same mistakes over and over.
Lemme explain a little better what I mean. Lundmark played very well. the Nedved line seemingly did nothing all game. The Rangers should have moved Lundmark up to the 2nd line with Lindros and Nedved. They should have gone 3 lines late in the game like they did when it was 1-1 but Jamie should have gotten more time because he deserved it. And ya know what? If he proved he belonged he should be back in that spot next game. If he can mantain his level of play then BANG we have a 2nd line player who's earned his icetime.... unfortunately Sather didnt play along. Lundmark deserved more time and he didnt get it. He EARNED it tonight and Sather should def think about giving him some more time. Thats all I'm saying... just let him earn the time.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 04:21 AM
  #38
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
lundmark has averaged 11:45 a game this season.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 05:09 AM
  #39
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilers Chick
As per #37-#93-#27's request here's the lastest scoop on some more of Rangers NCAA prospects. I caught the Minnesota/Michigan State game earlier this evening, so here's my (brief) observations:

Jake Taylor (MINN): While he didn't do much tonight, he's made progress. But before you all start getting excited, he's still got a ways to go. While I like Taylor's toughness and punishing checks, I'd like to see better all-around defensive play from him, particularly when it comes to puck-handling. It's not one of Taylor's strong suits. He's a good defensive -defenceman, but give him the puck and he could likely to turn it over.

Corey Potter (MSU): Another player who didn't do much tonight, except that he threw his weight around. The only thing Potter did of note was that he rammed Gophers forward (and Pens prospect) Andy Sertich's face into the glass that resulted in a 5 and a game for him (Potter).

Lee Farladeau (MSU): He played very well tonight. Farladeau is a big kid (6'4/217). He uses his size and strength quite well and is a very good forechecker. He possesses a wicked wristshot. One play he made tonight was a (in the 2nd period I believe it was) when he did a nice job of splitting the Gophers D and moved on Gophers netminder Kellen Briggs to get off a good scoring chance. He didn't score, but he powered through two Minnesota defenders and somehow kept puck possession long enough to get a shot off. Like Corey Potter, he also threw his weight around pretty good tonight, but Farladeau didn't make any really blatant mistakes (at least none to my recollection).

If you want to read all about tonight's game and what happened, please check out my Game Notes (11/28): Minnesota vs. Michigan State thread over in the NCAA area.

Kenny Roche scored a goal in BU's 2-2 with Dartmouth last night.Hugh Jessiman went scoreless

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 08:24 AM
  #40
#37-#93-#27*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to #37-#93-#27*
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
lundmark has averaged 11:45 a game this season.
That's misleading, he's played about 4-5 games with 15-16 minutes of icetime the rest were 8 and under.

#37-#93-#27* is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 09:32 AM
  #41
E-Train
Registered User
 
E-Train's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilers Chick
As per #37-#93-#27's request here's the lastest scoop on some more of Rangers NCAA prospects. I caught the Minnesota/Michigan State game earlier this evening, so here's my (brief) observations:

Jake Taylor (MINN): While he didn't do much tonight, he's made progress. But before you all start getting excited, he's still got a ways to go. While I like Taylor's toughness and punishing checks, I'd like to see better all-around defensive play from him, particularly when it comes to puck-handling. It's not one of Taylor's strong suits. He's a good defensive -defenceman, but give him the puck and he could likely to turn it over.

Lee Farladeau (MSU): He played very well tonight. Farladeau is a big kid (6'4/217). He uses his size and strength quite well and is a very good forechecker. He possesses a wicked wristshot. One play he made tonight was a (in the 2nd period I believe it was) when he did a nice job of splitting the Gophers D and moved on Gophers netminder Kellen Briggs to get off a good scoring chance. He didn't score, but he powered through two Minnesota defenders and somehow kept puck possession long enough to get a shot off. Like Corey Potter, he also threw his weight around pretty good tonight, but Farladeau didn't make any really blatant mistakes (at least none to my recollection).

On Taylor:

His upside is as a defensive defenseman. I'm not concerned about inconsistent puckhandling for a 20 year old. It's good to hear about the hitting. The most important thing for Taylor is to develop NHL calibur skating. I don't think Beukeboom was a quality puck handler at 20 years old.

On Falardeau:

Your comments are the first positive words about him I have heard since he was drafted. I'm a bit concerned that he hasn't put up a point this season. I would like to see him show at least AHL hands this season

E-Train is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 11:07 AM
  #42
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
Lemme explain a little better what I mean. Lundmark played very well. the Nedved line seemingly did nothing all game. The Rangers should have moved Lundmark up to the 2nd line with Lindros and Nedved. They should have gone 3 lines late in the game like they did when it was 1-1 but Jamie should have gotten more time because he deserved it. And ya know what? If he proved he belonged he should be back in that spot next game. If he can mantain his level of play then BANG we have a 2nd line player who's earned his icetime.... unfortunately Sather didnt play along. Lundmark deserved more time and he didnt get it. He EARNED it tonight and Sather should def think about giving him some more time. Thats all I'm saying... just let him earn the time.
I really doubt that Lundmark will be playing anywhere but 4th line center (if Carter is still too hurt to play) on Sunday. One thing Sather has proved in his time here is that regardless of how well a young player plays, the veteran will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being in the lineup. And that's why this franchise has been as horrible as it has been for the last 6 years.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now  
Old
11-29-2003, 12:48 PM
  #43
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
I really doubt that Lundmark will be playing anywhere but 4th line center (if Carter is still too hurt to play) on Sunday. One thing Sather has proved in his time here is that regardless of how well a young player plays, the veteran will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being in the lineup. And that's why this franchise has been as horrible as it has been for the last 6 years.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 02:30 PM
  #44
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
I really doubt that Lundmark will be playing anywhere but 4th line center (if Carter is still too hurt to play) on Sunday. One thing Sather has proved in his time here is that regardless of how well a young player plays, the veteran will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being in the lineup. And that's why this franchise has been as horrible as it has been for the last 6 years.
sather hasnt been the coach for the last 3 years so why do you blame him? and dont give me this walkie-talkie BS unless you have hard proof.

the truth is, what rookie since york has really ever challenged for a job to begin with? lundmark is the first foward in awhile so unless i am missing something the veterans got the benefit of the doubt cause there were no rookies thanks to smith.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
11-29-2003, 08:40 PM
  #45
Oilers Chick
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Oilers Chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Philly in April 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 5,963
vCash: 500
Greetings Rangers fans!

Just wanted to let you all know, Jake Taylor played really well earlier tonight vs. Michigan. You can read all about his performance and what happened in the game in myGame Notes (11/29): Minnesota vs. Michigan over on the NCAA board.

Oilers Chick is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 05:06 AM
  #46
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
If you expect Lundmark to be Hedjuk then your in for a rude awakening. The Rangers aren't the Avs. They cant throw in rookies when they arent producing. The Rangers problem isn't whether they are in 1st or 2nd place like the Avs, they have to worry about making the playoffs. Drury and Hedjuk both produced.... Lundmark just looks out of place out there. When Lundmark starts throwing some hits or making some plays then come back and say he deserves the icetime.
I do not expect Lundmark to be Hedjuk. However, a correlation can be made between the 2. One was handled correctly and developed and one was mishandled and the results are obvious. You say that Drury and Hedjuk produced and Lundmark hasn't. That's true. But whom did Drury and Hedjuk find success with early on? JOE FRIGGIN' SAKIC. They did not skate on a line with Scott Parker getting 4 minutes of ice time. I find it hard to believe that both Drury and Heduk would have found success if they were placed on a line with Rhueme, Lacouture, or Purinton. And not just one of the 3, but with 2 of the 3.
You're telling me that Colarado, a team that is one of the top in the league, year-in, year-out, has no problem with placing rookies on the top 2 lines, but the Rangers, a team that has been more or less the one of the league doormats for 6 years, cannot try to find success for one of their more talented prospects? That does not make sense.
And since when is Lundmark's game "throwing some hits"? Not every player's game is a strictly physical one. And again, you want him to "make some plays"? Fine. Seems to me that he does the best that he can, given his linemates. Even skating with Scott and Ortmeyer is not like skating with offensive players. Jaime creates some offense on his own, as much as he can given his linemates.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 05:08 AM
  #47
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
sather hasnt been the coach for the last 3 years so why do you blame him? and dont give me this walkie-talkie BS unless you have hard proof.
What are you talking about? The proof is in the pudding. The walkie-talkie thing is pretty well documented and was talked about by almost all new prespective coaches coming in or not taking interviews. Hitch commeted on it while he was being interviewed.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 08:12 AM
  #48
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
And since when is Lundmark's game "throwing some hits"? Not every player's game is a strictly physical one.
but yet its alright to bash poti for not hitting all the time when it is simply not his game? round and round we go.

*shakes head*

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 08:15 AM
  #49
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
What are you talking about? The proof is in the pudding. The walkie-talkie thing is pretty well documented and was talked about by almost all new prespective coaches coming in or not taking interviews. Hitch commeted on it while he was being interviewed.
i am talking about this ludicris statement that sather as GM had some kind of influence on playing a veteran instead of a rookie. it maybe true, but can you prove it with hard evidence? dont think so. so its pretty stupid to make blanket statements like that.

as for the walkie-talkie, dont you think players wouldve complained or fans/tv cameras wouldve spotted it on the bench? gimme a break.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 08:54 AM
  #50
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
ias for the walkie-talkie, dont you think players wouldve complained or fans/tv cameras wouldve spotted it on the bench? gimme a break.
Dude, where have you been? It was written about. It was spotted a few years ago when Blow was behind the bench. It first made news when it was written about in a newspaper. Then we saw Green have an earpiece and a walkie-talkie in hand. Then the earpiece was spotted during Trott's tenure. When Hitch interviewed, he made specific references to it. What kind of proof are you looking for? Are you the same guy that insists that OJ was innocent becuase there was no proof?
There's no proof that you can't talk a pig into flying if you try hard enough, but I do not think that many people are insisting on "hard proof" as evidence.

"but yet its alright to bash poti for not hitting all the time when it is simply not his game?"

But Poti is a defenseman, right? Isn't it a part of a DEFENSEman's job to clear the crease? A forward is supposed to backcheck. A defenseman is supposed to clear the crease of both people and rebounds. Last I checked, Jaime was not a defenseman. Jaime is not a physical forward. So what? Not everyone is. And while not every defenseman is a physical mauler, a la Derian Hatcher, a DEFENSEman is supposed to do some things that require physical play. Last I checked, a crease did not clear itself of a rebound nor would a player leave the crease if all a defenseman did was stare at him.
There is no doubt that Poti is not a physical player. However, one does not have to be a physical player to be responsible defensively(something Poti is not). The fact of the matter is unless Poti is producing offensively, he is utterly useless. And right now, he is utterly useless. Can you point to just one reason why Poti should be in the lineup ahead of Bouchard?

" am talking about this ludicris statement that sather as GM had some kind of influence on playing a veteran instead of a rookie. it maybe true, but can you prove it with hard evidence? dont think so. so its pretty stupid to make blanket statements like that."

Are you kidding me? Surely you can't be serious here. If I am reading this correctly, you are saying that Jackass does not hold vets to a different standard than a youth and has no preference between a veteran and a young player. Have you been watching? Players like Carter and Hlavac commit errors all the time and nothing happens. Messier can have giveaway after giveaway and nothing happens. Yet, it just takes very little for Lundmark to get benched for 3 games. How come there has been such dearth of young players in the lineup under Sather's watch? What kind of "hard evidence" are you looking for? I doubt that Sather is going to stand up and say "Yes, I have a double standard. Yes, the leash on vets stretches around the world, while young players's leash is about 1 inch long."


Last edited by True Blue: 12-01-2003 at 09:09 AM.
True Blue 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 01:21 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.