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

Is this thing on?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-25-2004, 09:30 AM
  #1
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Is this thing on?

Bully pulpit for forgetting the names on the back..

So much discussion on Lundmark (why not one more?) and other kids that I realized how silly it is to be discussing one individual player or another, while what should be the focus is the kind of team built.

I'm personally dissapointed that Lundmark hasn't had a bigger effect on the last few games, but I also don't understand why people are calling for "more intensity" when that's never been his game. The good is, he's come back from a big injury, he's added a new dimension to his game by becoming a very good penalty killer, and based on how quickly he went to the net to get Pock's first, um, Puck and the big smile he had on his face suggests he's a guy who cares more about his teammates success than his own struggles. The bad is he hasn't shown the offense he projected and his speed seems to have lost a gear, while his strength has not improved.

So?

So to me he's a guy that should be part of the core that's being built, but not untouchable by any means. If all it takes to get the first overall (or even the 2nd) is Lundmark a swap of firsts and one of the seconds, then it should be done, but anything more would be getting away from what most would like to see done.

What exactly are we worried about more? Lundmark's (or any individual prospect/young player's) status, or the teams direction?

I prefer the latter, which means building a team where each has a role and is put in a position to floursih with that role. A team that backs eachother up, plays together in all zones and knows how to handle adversity, and has the speed, size and makeup to be versatile enough to play different types of game, depending on the need.

To me that means bringing each to camp with a good shot at earning a spot, and a coach who knows how to put them together to acheive the above goals..

Clean slate next year, and I'd like to see a bunch of hungry animals come in ready to demand to be noticed by what they do, not by where they were drafted, or what they projected to be when drafted. If they get the superstar (notice how I avoid his name since I can't seem to remember how to spell it!?) for a reasonable price, fine, but with the young assets at their disposal now, and the success we're seeing in HFD, I'd rather see a team be built around it's goals, not around one guy..

Davisian is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 09:39 AM
  #2
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,859
vCash: 500
Awards:
Right now, I see only 9 definites on this team next season:

Tyutin
Holik
Jagr
Kasparaitis
Ruchunek
Murray
Ortmeyer
Balej

I have not included Lundmark, Pock, Lampman, or Poti because I don't think they are locks to be back next season (Lundmark and Poti, even Pock could be trade bait).

How great would a Murray - Holik - Ortmeyer line look?

IMO, there might be one or two UFAs but not huge names. That leaves a fair number of spots for competition. Oh yeah, this team needs a goalie

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 09:39 AM
  #3
LondonFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Harlow, UK
Posts: 535
vCash: 500
Right on, let Jamie and the rest of the players come to come next season and show what they are ready to do. This season is done and dusted, bar the losing.

LondonFan is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 09:40 AM
  #4
Ranger Blue
Awaiting Moderation
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 306
vCash: 500
Excellent Post Davisian! I totally agree especially with the last part.

Quote:
Clean slate next year, and I'd like to see a bunch of hungry animals come in ready to demand to be noticed by what they do, not by where they were drafted, or what they projected to be when drafted. If they get the superstar (notice how I avoid his name since I can't seem to remember how to spell it!?) for a reasonable price, fine, but with the young assets at their disposal now, and the success we're seeing in HFD, I'd rather see a team be built around it's goals, not around one guy..
If Sather actually lets this happen next year I'd be a very happy person.

Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 09:42 AM
  #5
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
I'm personally dissapointed that Lundmark hasn't had a bigger effect on the last few games, but I also don't understand why people are calling for "more intensity" when that's never been his game.

That was his game when he was drafted!?!?! That was what made him a 1st round pick.... Did you see the kid play in Junuors????

The good is, he's come back from a big injury, he's added a new dimension to his game by becoming a very good penalty killer, and based on how quickly he went to the net to get Pock's first, um, Puck and the big smile he had on his face suggests he's a guy who cares more about his teammates success than his own struggles.

His injury really wasn't "big", and he hasn't played well at all since coming back. He hasn't become a "Good" penalty killer with the Rangers - their penalty killing is horrid. He just is used in that situation and hasn't shown much. He was used as a penalty killer in Junior Hockey - so he hasn't "added" a new dimension.

The Puck for Pock story is pretty irrelevant. I'd much rather have the player that many of us saw play so well in junior hockey in exchange for someone else getting the puck. Anyone would have "smiled" and picked up the puck for the kid.

What exactly are we worried about more? Lundmark's (or any individual prospect/young player's) status, or the teams direction?

Well, the teams direction is very reliant on the development and success/lack thereof of its young players - especially one who was projected to be a franchise type player at best and a top line center at worse.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 09:43 AM
  #6
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Right now, I see only 9 definites on this team next season:

Tyutin
Holik
Jagr
Kasparaitis
Ruchunek
Murray
Ortmeyer
Balej

I have not included Lundmark, Pock, Lampman, or Poti because I don't think they are locks to be back next season (Lundmark and Poti, even Pock could be trade bait).

How great would a Murray - Holik - Ortmeyer line look?

IMO, there might be one or two UFAs but not huge names. That leaves a fair number of spots for competition.

Yeah? Well you misspelled RAchunek ya' dope..

Besides the money tied up with Holik, Kaspar and even Jagr, I'm not so sure we can say there's ANY definites..

Davisian is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 09:50 AM
  #7
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,859
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Yeah? Well you misspelled RAchunek ya' dope..

Besides the money tied up with Holik, Kaspar and even Jagr, I'm not so sure we can say there's ANY definites..

Damn! And I even looked up whether it was "nak" or "nek". :p

I think that Tyutin has locked up a spot on next years team. I would say that Murray has as well.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 10:01 AM
  #8
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Right now, I see only 9 definites on this team next season:

Tyutin
Holik
Jagr
Kasparaitis
Ruchunek
Murray
Ortmeyer
Balej

I have not included Lundmark, Pock, Lampman, or Poti because I don't think they are locks to be back next season (Lundmark and Poti, even Pock could be trade bait).

How great would a Murray - Holik - Ortmeyer line look?

IMO, there might be one or two UFAs but not huge names. That leaves a fair number of spots for competition. Oh yeah, this team needs a goalie
That all sounds right on track to me. I think those nine will all be back, but I might add Pock by seasons end.... I'm not sure how the Ranger management sees him.

As for Lundmark, he hasn't developed like we'd hoped. I'm not ready to stick him on the first bus, but if we had a significant offer on draft day, I would probably take it. It's just the lack of intensity and hard work that annoys me the most. If that was there I could wait for points, but at this point I think we need to check for a pulse.

Barnaby is online now  
Old
03-25-2004, 10:02 AM
  #9
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
That was his game when he was drafted!?!?! That was what made him a 1st round pick.... Did you see the kid play in Junuors????
Saw very little of him in Jr's, but what I did see then and in his first camps and first seasons was not a guy who plays with much intensity. I said two eyars ago and still think He is a Mike Ridley type player, who while being effective at both ends, does not command much attention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
His injury really wasn't "big", and he hasn't played well at all since coming back. He hasn't become a "Good" penalty killer with the Rangers - their penalty killing is horrid. He just is used in that situation and hasn't shown much. He was used as a penalty killer in Junior Hockey - so he hasn't "added" a new dimension.
I'd consider any injury to the knee that forces two months off as being "big".. The teams PK is obviously horrible, but if you don't think Lundmark has been 1/2 of the best PK combo (with Ortmeyer) this team has seen in years, then all I can say is I highly disagree. Sure he might have killed in Jr's, but so did Hlavac in Europe, I don't see his game adjusted to that level in the NHL, same with countless others, I'd still consider it an added dimension..



Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
The Puck for Pock story is pretty irrelevant. I'd much rather have the player that many of us saw play so well in junior hockey in exchange for someone else getting the puck. Anyone would have "smiled" and picked up the puck for the kid.
Irrelevant? In regards to his level of play in Jr's?? Which is more relevant, the way someone played in Jr's, or the kind of teammate they are in the NHL??? OF COURSE, we'd all rather see him play the way he projected, but I think you'd agree that many a first rounder has been unable to make any adjustments to his game, and has been a footnote in the NHL history. While others adapt their game to do what they can to stick around and develop with a team, THAT'S what I see Lundmark doing. And BTW- good pick up on the "smile" thing.. Soon as I posted it I thought "well that's cute"..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Well, the teams direction is very reliant on the development and success/lack thereof of its young players - especially one who was projected to be a franchise type player at best and a top line center at worse.
What is more important, the projection or the development? I'd say the latter. The former when deciding on the pick, but once he's Ranger property, it's all about development. Trying to force one or any of them to become something they're not, or to insist they can't offer anything if they don't provide what they "projected" is short sighted IMO.. I see a guy who's willing to adapt his game. If he adapts it somwhere else, fine, I'd have no problem trading him for another 23 year old that may fill another role, but I just don't see the point in hammering a guy because he doesn't score at the same clip he did in Jr's..

Bust as a high 1st?? Yup..

Bust as a solid, contributing member to an NHL team? I don't think so..

Davisian is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 10:21 AM
  #10
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Davisian]Saw very little of him in Jr's, but what I did see then and in his first camps and first seasons was not a guy who plays with much intensity. I said two eyars ago and still think He is a Mike Ridley type player, who while being effective at both ends, does not command much attention.

Well, you would be the only person I know who would have compared him to Mike Ridley in his first Ranger Camp. Many scouts saw him as a Roenick/Gilmour type player coming into the NHL. He was a sparkplug and played the game hard. It was noticeable even on nights where he didn't put anything on the scoresheet.

I'd consider any injury to the knee that forces two months off as being "big"..
It really wasn't a serious knee injury compared to SERIOUS knee injuries.


The teams PK is obviously horrible, but if you don't think Lundmark has been 1/2 of the best PK combo (with Ortmeyer) this team has seen in years, then all I can say is I highly disagree. Sure he might have killed in Jr's, but so did Hlavac in Europe, I don't see his game adjusted to that level in the NHL, same with countless others, I'd still consider it an added dimension..
[/I]

1/2 of the best combo "this team" as seen in years means very little. Their Penalty Killing has been horrible for years. I could say that Bobby Holik has arguably been the teams best force on the Power Play outside of Jagr. In relation to the rest of the league, it means little and Holik is a bad 1st Power PLay option.


Irrelevant? In regards to his level of play in Jr's?? Which is more relevant, the way someone played in Jr's, or the kind of teammate they are in the NHL???

Apples and Oranges argument. His level of play in juniors is directly correlated to his former "top prospect" status, his 1st round selection, and his reputation/evaluation around the league.

Picking up the puck is nice - but hardly a reason to justify a first round pick. ANy player in the NHL would have picked up the puck on a rookie's first goal. Suggesting that this directly correlates to being a good teammate is a rather strange and speculative argument. Jagr was a complete cancer in the Washington locker room and I've seen him pick up pucks when someone scores their first goal.


OF COURSE, we'd all rather see him play the way he projected, but I think you'd agree that many a first rounder has been unable to make any adjustments to his game, and has been a footnote in the NHL history. While others adapt their game to do what they can to stick around and develop with a team, THAT'S what I see Lundmark doing. And BTW- good pick up on the "smile" thing.. Soon as I posted it I thought "well that's cute"..

I see Lundmark doing very little to prove he's worthy of playing in the NHL at this point. You could take any player on Hartford and place him in the same role given to Lundmark all and he would have produced the same if not bettter results. That said, I am a Lundmark supporter. I raved about this kid throughout 97/98/99. I hope he continues to get 18 minutes a night playing with some talented offensive folks. I am very disappointed with his play however. I would put him with a winger OTHER then Jagr however.... Jagr likes to carry the puck and Jamie needs to regain his confidence in doing so.

What is more important, the projection or the development? I'd say the latter. The former when deciding on the pick, but once he's Ranger property, it's all about development. Trying to force one or any of them to become something they're not, or to insist they can't offer anything if they don't provide what they "projected" is short sighted IMO..

I'd say what's important, especially in the case of a top 10 pick, is development into the projection. He hasn't developed at all - and no one has tried to force Lundmark to become something he's not. They've tried to force him to become something he was.

I see a guy who's willing to adapt his game. If he adapts it somwhere else, fine, I'd have no problem trading him for another 23 year old that may fill another role, but I just don't see the point in hammering a guy because he doesn't score at the same clip he did in Jr's..

It's not only offensive production. Lundmark has not done anything to distinguish himself. He is playing poorly. He's not "snakebitten" - he's getting few if any offensive chances.

Bust as a high 1st?? Yup.. Bust as a solid, contributing member to an NHL team? I don't think so...

We will see. I think he's contributed very little all season, and it's become more evident now that he is playing over 15 minutes per night. Hopefully, he can turn it around.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 10:55 AM
  #11
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Well, you would be the only person I know who would have compared him to Mike Ridley in his first Ranger Camp. Many scouts saw him as a Roenick/Gilmour type player coming into the NHL. He was a sparkplug and played the game hard. It was noticeable even on nights where he didn't put anything on the scoresheet.
I saw what I saw.. I did get some "whaaat?" replies around here when I said it, but that's what I thought..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
It really wasn't a serious knee injury compared to SERIOUS knee injuries.
Big/serious, regardless, he missed two months. That to me is significant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
1/2 of the best combo "this team" as seen in years means very little. Their Penalty Killing has been horrible for years. I could say that Bobby Holik has arguably been the teams best force on the Power Play outside of Jagr. In relation to the rest of the league, it means little and Holik is a bad 1st Power PLay option.
It may mean little in regards to how the team fared, but I think it means a lot more considering this was a part of his game that he had to develop (at the PRO level) and did just that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Apples and Oranges argument. His level of play in juniors is directly correlated to his former "top prospect" status, his 1st round selection, and his reputation/evaluation around the league.
Apples and Oranges argument introduced by yourself. And you're assuming I attached "major" significance to it. As my original post went, it was simply on the list of "good signs" NOT a justification of his draft position. And again, I simply don't care where a guy was drafted after the fact, I care what he's doing to become a contributing member to the Rangers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
I see Lundmark doing very little to prove he's worthy of playing in the NHL at this point. You could take any player on Hartford and place him in the same role given to Lundmark all and he would have produced the same if not bettter results. That said, I am a Lundmark supporter. I raved about this kid throughout 97/98/99. I hope he continues to get 18 minutes a night playing with some talented offensive folks. I am very disappointed with his play however. I would put him with a winger OTHER then Jagr however.... Jagr likes to carry the puck and Jamie needs to regain his confidence in doing so.
I'd be just fine with putting any 'Pack member there to see how they fare as well, and I'm of the group who think Lundmark should be on the wing. I'm dissapointed in his play this season as well, as I've said, I'm now thinking about what he'll (and the others) do in subsequent seasons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
I'd say what's important, especially in the case of a top 10 pick, is development into the projection. He hasn't developed at all - and no one has tried to force Lundmark to become something he's not. They've tried to force him to become something he was.
Something he was in Juniors.. As you know better than many, that doesn't mean much when it's time to play with the big boys.. Development into projection is important when evaluating the scouting staff, and the process for picking a player. For the player, I care little about his porjection and more about his development. While Lundmark has a LOT of work to do, I'd say he's developed somewhat, and we'll see what he does with a full offseason and a new start next season. I'd like to see it as a Ranger..

Davisian is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 11:07 AM
  #12
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Davisian]I saw what I saw.. I did get some "whaaat?" replies around here when I said it, but that's what I thought..

Well, you saw what you saw is hardly a discussion. How are they similar? What specific similarities did you notice in their games?

Big/serious, regardless, he missed two months. That to me is significant.

Your argument was that he overcame a big injury. If I break my hand, it will take a month or two to recover. That doesn't make it a serious injury. Lundmark didn't overcome a knee surgery and come back. He had a non-serious injury and returned as any human would have recovered.

It may mean little in regards to how the team fared, but I think it means a lot more considering this was a part of his game that he had to develop (at the PRO level) and did just that.

But the argument is that HE DIDN'T DEVELOP IT. He is a poor penalty killer. His success ratio is horrible - and is amongst the worst in the league on the penalty kill. Granted, he is on a poor team - but he is still a relatively weak penalty killer. He's caught out of position very often, and let's a high center or weak side defenseman slip to the backdoor far too much.

Apples and Oranges argument introduced by yourself. And you're assuming I attached "major" significance to it. As my original post went, it was simply on the list of "good signs" NOT a justification of his draft position. And again, I simply don't care where a guy was drafted after the fact, I care what he's doing to become a contributing member to the Rangers.

He's doing very little to become a contributing member of the Rangers. You have yet to come up with one factual way of contributing. Smiling and picking up the puck aside.

Something he was in Juniors.. As you know better than many, that doesn't mean much when it's time to play with the big boys.. Development into projection is important when evaluating the scouting staff, and the process for picking a player. For the player, I care little about his porjection and more about his development. While Lundmark has a LOT of work to do, I'd say he's developed somewhat, and we'll see what he does with a full offseason and a new start next season. I'd like to see it as a Ranger..

Potential (Projection - same thing) and development into that are a relationship.
He hasn't developed at all - again - please give examples of this. If you are telling me that you are happy with a guy who was drafted in the hopes of turning into Roenick/Gilmour and you are content with him turning into Peter Ferraro - then ok.

We'll see how he turns out - but the point is that at this point he has done nothing.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 11:21 AM
  #13
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
I'm personally dissapointed that Lundmark hasn't had a bigger effect on the last few games, but I also don't understand why people are calling for "more intensity" when that's never been his game.
he did pretty good last year lacking that great intensity.. i think that is being overstated... lundmark is just having an all around crappy second year...

in the hall is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 12:57 PM
  #14
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Well, you saw what you saw is hardly a discussion. How are they similar? What specific similarities did you notice in their games?
Specific? His game period reminded me of Ridley's.. Contributing at both ends, with solid if unspectacular play, and a good head for what to do with the puck (which I admit I have not seen since he came back from the injury..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Your argument was that he overcame a big injury. If I break my hand, it will take a month or two to recover. That doesn't make it a serious injury. Lundmark didn't overcome a knee surgery and come back. He had a non-serious injury and returned as any human would have recovered.
You don't skate with your hands. Trauma to the knee is "big". Considering he's still wearing the knee brace, I'd say he's still recovering. Yes, just about "any" human would also come back from it, that wasn't my argument. Saying "he's come back from a big injury" does not suggest superhuman healing powers, it was a statement on his work to overcome some adversity...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
But the argument is that HE DIDN'T DEVELOP IT. He is a poor penalty killer. His success ratio is horrible - and is amongst the worst in the league on the penalty kill. Granted, he is on a poor team - but he is still a relatively weak penalty killer. He's caught out of position very often, and let's a high center or weak side defenseman slip to the backdoor far too much.
And my argument is he DID develop it on the pro level. This was not a part of his game that anyone thought he could provide as a pro. And I simply disagree that he's a "poor" penalty killer. There's obvious room for improvment, but I see him making more smart plays than mistakes. I think you discount the "poor" team far too much. For the most part, when I've seen him out of position on the kill, it seems due to the fact that he's had to cover for Poti, or another defenseman who' in explicably nowhere near where he's supposed to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
He's doing very little to become a contributing member of the Rangers. You have yet to come up with one factual way of contributing. Smiling and picking up the puck aside.
Funny, I thought developing his PK was contributing to the team. I thought playing whatever role was given to him was contributing. Can he contribute more? I certainly hope so, but who can't you say that about on this team, except for maybe Ortmeyer (and Barnaby when he was here).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
If you are telling me that you are happy with a guy who was drafted in the hopes of turning into Roenick/Gilmour and you are content with him turning into Peter Ferraro - then ok.

We'll see how he turns out - but the point is that at this point he has done nothing.
I'd be ECSTATIC if he turned into Peter Ferraro. I distinctly remember many saying that Roenick/Gilmour comparisons were off the mark and/or unfair. And it's YOUR point that he's done nothing. It's my point that this season is quite obviously a wash for him and most others on this team, but I think he's still got enough to be part of the solution here.



And we've very much gotten away from the spirit of my original post. That we get bogged down in discussing this guy or that guy individually, and have stopped talking about how they all fit together.

Lundmark may or may not fit, he may be outplayed by Umberger and others, therefore he should be traded for areas of need. I'm not extending him any more rope than any other youngster, but I'm certainly not giving him less rope because he had a high draft position, and has not lived up to it..

Davisian is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 01:16 PM
  #15
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Davisian]

You don't skate with your hands. Trauma to the knee is "big". Considering he's still wearing the knee brace, I'd say he's still recovering. Yes, just about "any" human would also come back from it, that wasn't my argument. Saying "he's come back from a big injury" does not suggest superhuman healing powers, it was a statement on his work to overcome some adversity...

A big knee injury is not equivalent to what he had. Just a fact. Bure recovered from adversity 7 times before caving in... Lundmark was just a typical ping.

And my argument is he DID develop it on the pro level. This was not a part of his game that anyone thought he could provide as a pro. And I simply disagree that he's a "poor" penalty killer. There's obvious room for improvment, but I see him making more smart plays than mistakes. I think you discount the "poor" team far too much. For the most part, when I've seen him out of position on the kill, it seems due to the fact that he's had to cover for Poti, or another defenseman who' in explicably nowhere near where he's supposed to be.

I gave you examples of things he does poorly. He's constantly out of position on the Diamond and let's people sneak behind him when in the box.

Funny, I thought developing his PK was contributing to the team. I thought playing whatever role was given to him was contributing. Can he contribute more? I certainly hope so, but who can't you say that about on this team, except for maybe Ortmeyer (and Barnaby when he was here).

How is his penalty killing contributing to the team? They have the worst PK in the NHL. What is he contributing? I would hope he can contribute more then at the current time - or else he no longer belongs in the NHL. To say "who can't you say that about..." well that is strange logic. Does their poor play excuse his? Holik, Kasparitis, Barnaby, Simon, DeVries, Markkanen all played to the capability that they were expected to when signed (Traded for in Barnaby and Markks case).

I'd be ECSTATIC if he turned into Peter Ferraro. I distinctly remember many saying that Roenick/Gilmour comparisons were off the mark and/or unfair. And it's YOUR point that he's done nothing. It's my point that this season is quite obviously a wash for him and most others on this team, but I think he's still got enough to be part of the solution here.

It wasn't off the mark, or unfair - let's leave it at that. He may be part of the solution. All I am saying is that at this point, he's shown little to back that up. Maybe he will. You'd be ecstatic if he turned into Peter Ferraro? A career AHL player? That's bizarre.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 01:29 PM
  #16
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Singin'...

how great woul Murray-Holik-Ortmeyer look? I don't know. If Ortmeyer and Murray don't turn into scorers, then it won't look so great. You ain't shuttin' down every top line to the tune of no goals night-in and night-out. If you're going to be on the ice for 15-17 minutes per game, you'll have to produce. As I've said many many many times, Holik was successful going against top line in Jersey with linemates McKay and Brylin, for the most part. McKay and Brylin each can score 15-20 goals; one's a banger with decent hands, the other's a finess guy with decent defensive awareness. I personally thought that to replicate that line, it could've been Rucinsky-Holik-Barnaby. I don't know if Murray and Ortmeyer replicate that. Can Ortmeyer score? I have this strange feeling that Murray will be able to (despite not tearing it up in the AHL). Just seeing his effort and his ability to get to the net and get good shots off leads me to believe that over the long-haul (and withsome seasoning - in particular his positioning in front of the net) he can work out.

Of course, your checking line does no good without a decent defensive pairing and goaltender.

Fletch 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 02:22 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.