HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > OHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

*OFFICIAL* Windsor Spitfires 2011-12 Season Thread (Pt.3)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-19-2011, 08:11 AM
  #1
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,605
vCash: 500
*OFFICIAL* Windsor Spitfires 2011-12 Season Thread (Pt.3)

Continued from... http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=938929

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 08:23 AM
  #2
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
Part 3 and the regular season hasn't even started yet. Good job boys

Libbs is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 10:01 AM
  #3
cfaub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Belle River
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Getting heated.

I think some of where Rayzor and myself were going with this is if you have a rebuilding team then you have the chance to develop the kids in house. Why move kids out, and obviously a certain amount of control over their development in favour of marginal vets?

DeKort if he is getting at least 2 out of 3 starts in Lasalle and you can't move one of your veteran goalies will benifit from some time in JR B. If however you can move 1 of those vets then keep him here and get him 1 out of 3 games with the team. Starting him against teams like Guelph, Erie and others who are not likely to place very high in the standing would be better for him then playing against JR B teams.

As for the draft position/success rate debate on the goaltenders my only thoughts on that are that the mental make up of the individual will have as much to do with how they fare as anything else. A later round kid with no expectations on him has no where to go but up, not a lot of pressure. A first rounder that has someone to mentor him, ex. Carrozzi/Anderson will also have little pressure. Someone like Zador in London had high expectations and until he arrived in OS didn't do a whole lot to support drafting goaltenders in the first round. It is hit and miss.

As for Smith and other high round picks. I would think that kids normally taken in the first 2 or 3 rounds would be kids that should be OHL ready on most teams. When you start getting to the middle rounds I would think kids that need to grow in one way or another whether physically, mentally or maybe some short comings in their game. When you get to the later rounds everyone becomes a flyer of some sort. Just my thoughts on it.

As for Smith in particular. If he can dominate in JR B that's great but he is dominating at a lower level and really is beyond that level of hockey if he can do it as a 16 year old. He may come into camp next season with more confidence but he also will still be a rookie having to transition that dominating JR B style to a Major JR style which will take time. He is still not likely to come in and dominate at the next level simply because he dominated at a lower level. As for 5 minutes a game of whatever as a fourth liner. It is a rebuilding team. You should never be looking to run with your typical 3 lines playing and a fourth used sparingly. You should always be looking to develop 4 lines when you are rebuilding. Certainly some players will see more icetime than others but when you are young, rebuilding and looking to develop certain players for certain roles you should be able to accomplish that. You can then start the following season with kids who have gained experience, have adjusted to the league and better prepared to step things up a notch at this level the following season instead of still having to adjust to the level.

Cetainly you want to win every time you step on the ice but when you are rebuilding you need to temper that competitive side with the realistic side of things. Playing the kids or playing middle of the road vets may mean a difference of a few points in the win column but reality is it is not likely going to make a whole lot of difference when you face the top teams. Who will be better served by that extra experience going forward? Middle of the road vets who will not be here when it matters or kids who will be who can also learn the tough mental lessons and face the adversity that everyone needs to face to be able to win in tough situations?

No one is saying throw out a line up of 16 and 17 year olds only and no one is saying get rid of all the vets but the more kids who can gain the experience early with a few solid leaders to guide them through it the better off the team is this year and going forward.

OHLTG

I have always asked the same question, why is there a limit on underagers? I was hoping legend could get us an answer or some insight. I don't understand the need for it or the reasoning for it. If I am running a team I would want to ice a roster that is best for the direction I am taking that team. It is like saying a team has to ice so many underagers. No limit to how few should mean no limit to how many.

legend

While I too have faith in management, their record speaks for itself it certainly does not mean their methods should not be questioned in forums like this. It should be. Yes they have an amazing record in a short time but with all those wins comes the desire for more. I like that there is a group in place that wants to win but look down the road and you will see a similar ownership group that while it has been successful some question if it has been as succesful as it could have been. For all those spending sprees and top name talent the Hunter's have brought in how many championships have they won? They have been competitive almost every year but many years while they were competitive they were not a real threat to do much more than place well in the standings, get into the second round of the playoffs then be done for the year. Last year they proved that you can rebuild somewhat, still ice a competitive team while developing kids and still recoup assets to do what they need to to become a championship calibre team. They went young, sold off the vets that had any value, recovered tons of assets while letting the kids play. An ideal rebuild. My only questions when it comes to Windsor's ownership group is do they have the stomach to let the kids play while moving vets and taking their chances on the outcome of the season? They said they were going to rebuild last season and for the most part they worried about winning from the start of the season forward. I don't think they are willing to take the chances on the kids until they can build up some wins. Then if they have a playoff spot within reach they will sell the vets, bring on the kids and hope they can hold on which sets the kids up for failure if they can't maintain what they were given.

cfaub is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 10:24 AM
  #4
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Cfaub

Last yr was different then most because 2 teams from the O could go the Mem cup
and the spits like several teams were so close in standings as evidenced by Windsor
knocking off saginaw and erie two teams expected to give teams trouble
Warren told me in Jan he would have preferred to go young but things were so tight
talent compared to others not too wide,with the team overchieving and 2 spots
avaiable he went for it semi all in
Also a chance a legitimate chance at a three peat why not
I would have done it too,based on all those facts
Plus the offers for kassian and Ellis were underwhelming,he had to pay in the past
so should others
I agree
I have no problems with that thinking as it relates to last years final 4

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 10:40 AM
  #5
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
Cfaub

Last yr was different then most because 2 teams from the O could go the Mem cup
and the spits like several teams were so close in standings as evidenced by Windsor
knocking off saginaw and erie two teams expected to give teams trouble
Warren told me in Jan he would have preferred to go young but things were so tight
talent compared to others not too wide,with the team overchieving and 2 spots
avaiable he went for it semi all in
Also a chance a legitimate chance at a three peat why not
I would have done it too,based on all those facts
Plus the offers for kassian and Ellis were underwhelming,he had to pay in the past
so should others
I agree
I have no problems with that thinking as it relates to last years final 4
I agreed with keeping Kassian and Ellis because you weren't going to get full value but isn't full value in the eye of the beholder? I think teams are gun shy of wanting to deal with Rychel after the prior few years. There aren't any teams that want to help out Windsor and help them build a contender which is what happened in the past. We will see this season the value some of these guys have, probably not as high as we think eg. Campbell.

RayzorIsDull is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 10:57 AM
  #6
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
cfaub

in response to your inquiry re number of 16 year olds as i mentioned before a team
can sign as many 16 years as they drafted,no 16 year old free agents allowed
they must register 4 with the league prior to exhibition season,the others can be signed
but only used as affiliates thru out the season
I think the reasoning behind this is school related and I can see that especially for those
who are from out of town,for instance you only have 48 hrs to determine if a player might
be good enough,so what happens if u sign 7 and find outonly 4/5 can play now
Jrb teams are allowed only 2 16 year olds and they have to decide their roster
So now where do they play
you send thrm back home disrupt schooling,cost of billetting 400 per month per player
I think u u see where Im going
Most 16 year olds are not ready,why rush them,sometimes further dev is neccessary
takiing Windsor position,Clarke,Bilcke, and Cortelessa are far better now then last year
bigger,stronger and better because of Jr B experience
Another reason is the Usa born players cant play jr b in canada at 16
so if they are not ready what does a team do
plus the fact it cost teams 5000 per semester for Us players plus billetting
again disruption in education is critical,particularly as it relates to Mich schools
they are on trimester sysytem really screwey,when whaley got traded to plymouth
he had to take courses on line
I think a good idea would be to allow local 16 years old drafted not fall under the 4
player rule
that way education and billetting concerms are not there
hope this helps despite the long winded notes

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 11:09 AM
  #7
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
@ cfaub.... if you had posted these concerns last year then I would agree. But we have yet to play a meaningful game and you're already accusing the coaching staff of "not playing the kids". C'mon man! Not a single shift has been taken and you've already declared that the team will be "playing marginal vets" to "try to win".

How exactly do you get this idea? Because they sent Hunter Smith down to Jr. B????? Really??? I just don't understand your logic. This line-up is riddled with young talent and the all important core of the 2014 team is here RIGHT NOW. They will be getting as much ice time and situational experience as they can handle.

Sometimes I just need to scratch my head at some people's logic... in this case it just makes little sense at this point in the game.

Libbs is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 11:18 AM
  #8
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libbs View Post
@ cfaub.... if you had posted these concerns last year then I would agree. But we have yet to play a meaningful game and you're already accusing the coaching staff of "not playing the kids". C'mon man! Not a single shift has been taken and you've already declared that the team will be "playing marginal vets" to "try to win".

How exactly do you get this idea? Because they sent Hunter Smith down to Jr. B????? Really??? I just don't understand your logic. This line-up is riddled with young talent and the all important core of the 2014 team is here RIGHT NOW. They will be getting as much ice time and situational experience as they can handle.

Sometimes I just need to scratch my head at some people's logic... in this case it just makes little sense at this point in the game.
Yeah I would agree some folks are jumping the gun as it relates to

player dev

this current team is riddled with alot of players 18 and younger

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 11:27 AM
  #9
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
I do think if the league allowed 16 year olds who are local but not amongst the

4 submitted to the league might give some teams a look at some these players

during exhibition season

A perfect example is Sam Studnicka,because spits signed the the 4 allowed 16 year olds

he was unable to play in exhibition

To me thats wrong,Windsor wanted to sign him,he wanted to sign and he lives

inthe area

there would have been zero effect on schooling and billetting,plus they would have

gotten a look

Maybe if the league allowed 2 or 3 that fall under the local category particularly if

a team is going to sign him

Now that he signed Windsor can call him up,in fact right now onces the season

starts

Still think would have been better to get a look during pre season

just sayin

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 12:00 PM
  #10
cfaub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Belle River
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Marginal vets comes from some of the players on this roster at this point when compared to some of the kids. We all know which vets will be helpful to this team, now or in the future.

Clarke, Bilcke etc who played JR B last season, not arguing that they are better this season than last. My arguement or position is how much more prepared could they have been if that development time were with Windsor instead of their various JR B teams. Some may have been better prepared, some may have been overwhelmed. Different individuals will respond differently. For those that went through the JR B route last season we will not know since that has already been done. My point is when you have a rebuilding team you have the luxury of taking that chance when compared to a team already moving towards a long playoff run. You also have the luxury of sending them down if they are overwhelmed as we saw with Whaley a few seasons ago. Each kid is different and I do not pretend to know the particulars of any of them but the arguement from this side is no different just the opposite of those who say a year of JR B will do these players some good. Some it will some it will be a year less productive at a lower level.

Libbs

The difference between this year and last year is basically a year on the calendar. Last year we all heard the talk of a rebuild. I think we all expected the kids to play and we all saw the vets play. This year they do not have as high a quality of veteran presence on this team. A few good ones no doubt but a few not so much. The only difference in my mind is that they have a more remote chance of doing anything significant in the standings when compared to last season so what is the difference to you compared to last season? You seem to feel that last season was a time to get the youth in if I am understanding you correctly. If I am misunderstanding then my apoligies of course. This season they have some developed kids along with a couple of decent vets to guide a bigger crop of kids through the grind. Why not take advantage of it.

legend

Thanks for the info. I do know and understand how the 16 year old rule works but the insight into some of the possible reasoning for why they only allow a certain number is appreciated.

As for last season I am not questioning the reasons for going for it, I fully supported it. My only concerns about last season were that whatever direction they went that they go all in. I can understand trying to get Rychel's version of full value and with what some gave up for much lesser players I can have no issue with keeping who we kept. My point of it though was while we heard rebuild for the first month plus of the season we did not see any signs on the ice that what was said was what was being implemented. The on ice product was quite different from the stated direction. Yes you had to play those vets that were here but to play the kids alongside of them a lot more than what they did would have gone a long way towards development of those kids.

As I said earlier a rebuild usually coincides with getting as much youth into the line up as possible and getting them ice time. Dressing a couple and giving them 5 minutes a game does nothing for their on ice development. Webermin and his size issues? Okay look to Niagara where you had a couple of smaller 16 year old D doing decent last season. Injury issues? Legitimate but they weren't season ending. Last season looked nothing like a rebuild at any time other than the fan specuation. A young line up? Yes, but not a rebuilding one.

My feeling is this group is addicted to winning so to speak. I love that philosphy of trying to win whenever possible but this is a cyclical league where you have to pick your spots. It is expensive building winners from an asset standpoint and sometimes you have to step back and recover. I think that is the hardest thing for this group to do and while the competitiveness is great it can slow down the ability to put yourself in a true position to win. London of course being the prime example.

They have the chance to step back this season and from my perspective it looks like they will go as hard as they can to stay out of the bottom, which is fine but at a potential cost to the future chances at more titles down the road.

Everyone seems pretty fixed on their position. How kids are developed is obviously being looked at from two different perspectives and each kid individually, through their play should show where they are going to be served best. From side and the side of others with a similar point of view the thoughts are get a few more in sooner especially if the difference between a kid and a vet is really only the amount of experience they have.

My comparisson, using Smith as an example would be Smith vs MacQueen. Which one should be here this year?

cfaub is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 12:36 PM
  #11
SpItFiReZ
Registered User
 
SpItFiReZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,547
vCash: 500
What I think everyone is missing is that Smith and DeKort will be in Windsor off and on all season and both will likely be finishing the season with us.

DeKort will be the starter in Lasalle and Hunter will be top 6 in LaSalle. Why not let them go down there for 3 months play a ton of minutes? The roster will begin to filter out with trades and waiving, WJC will come and I bet DeKort will likely play 2 games during this time. Koko, Kuhnhackl, Campbell will all be gone plus possibilities of Ebert as well.

Right now we have our 1st rounders and players drafted last year that will be learning and gaining more experience and as the year goes on you add in Smith, DeKort and they start the second process of learning and more experience and the cycle continues next year at which time our core (Bateman, Webermin, Maletta, Rychel, Clarke etc) are now veterans, Dekort and Smith will have some experience and then the rookies will have mentors etc.

There are the three levels in OHL hockey IMO...Veteran's(Mentors), Sophomores and Rookies and these cycles make a team become a good hockey team.

SpItFiReZ is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 01:36 PM
  #12
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
I do think except for campbell,everybody u mentioned wont be moved,

particularily Koko and Ebert

u dont trade 17 and 18 year olds with high end talent unless u receive similiar

talent in return not picks

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 02:14 PM
  #13
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,839
vCash: 500
^I think Spitz was listing players who would be gone to the WJC's - Campbell to Team USA, Ebert possibly to Team USA (not likely IMO), Kuhnhackl to Team Germany and Koko to Team Russia (again, not likely).

Ottomatic is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 02:33 PM
  #14
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
^I think Spitz was listing players who would be gone to the WJC's - Campbell to Team USA, Ebert possibly to Team USA (not likely IMO), Kuhnhackl to Team Germany and Koko to Team Russia (again, not likely).
Looks like u are correct Otto,my bad

I should know better

Sorry Spitfirez

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 02:35 PM
  #15
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
^I think Spitz was listing players who would be gone to the WJC's - Campbell to Team USA, Ebert possibly to Team USA (not likely IMO), Kuhnhackl to Team Germany and Koko to Team Russia (again, not likely).
Looks like u are right Otto,my bad

I should know better

Sorry Spitfirez

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 02:40 PM
  #16
OHLTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 3,567
vCash: 500
Part 3 already? Geez...this is great

Quote:
DeKort if he is getting at least 2 out of 3 starts in Lasalle and you can't move one of your veteran goalies will benifit from some time in JR B. If however you can move 1 of those vets then keep him here and get him 1 out of 3 games with the team. Starting him against teams like Guelph, Erie and others who are not likely to place very high in the standing would be better for him then playing against JR B teams.
It's a moot point until one of the vets is dealt. DeKort is third string until that point.

Re draft positions: If you look back 5-10 years, you'll see many players in the first round turn out to be busts. It's not just goaltenders.

Quote:
I think a good idea would be to allow local 16 years old drafted not fall under the 4
player rule
Completely agreed. If you have the four or five local kids drafted, and all could make the club, plus another kid or two is ready, you should be able to sign them all.

Quote:
My arguement or position is how much more prepared could they have been if that development time were with Windsor instead of their various JR B teams.
Clarke wouldn't have done well as he was over-whelmed during pre-season. Bilcke would had issues making the fourth line, too.

Quote:
so what is the difference to you compared to last season?
Zero chance of Ellis and Kassian returning. They were two massive pieces to the puzzle. Throw in a 50/50 shot of Ryan returning, compared to 75-100% last year, and you've got three major, key veterans who were here last year, but not this year (necessarily).

Quote:
My comparisson, using Smith as an example would be Smith vs MacQueen. Which one should be here this year?
Which one should? Smith. However, MacQueen brings leadership and 40-50 potential points. I'm not saying he's what we need, but I can understand the reasoning given Smith's skating is questionable right now. MacQueen would get second or third line minutes while Smith would be third line at best. Smith is better off in Jr B if his minutes are that low here.

OHLTG is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 02:53 PM
  #17
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLTG View Post
Part 3 already? Geez...this is great



It's a moot point until one of the vets is dealt. DeKort is third string until that point.

Re draft positions: If you look back 5-10 years, you'll see many players in the first round turn out to be busts. It's not just goaltenders.



Completely agreed. If you have the four or five local kids drafted, and all could make the club, plus another kid or two is ready, you should be able to sign them all.



Clarke wouldn't have done well as he was over-whelmed during pre-season. Bilcke would had issues making the fourth line, too.



Zero chance of Ellis and Kassian returning. They were two massive pieces to the puzzle. Throw in a 50/50 shot of Ryan returning, compared to 75-100% last year, and you've got three major, key veterans who were here last year, but not this year (necessarily).



Which one should? Smith. However, MacQueen brings leadership and 40-50 potential points. I'm not saying he's what we need, but I can understand the reasoning given Smith's skating is questionable right now. MacQueen would get second or third line minutes while Smith would be third line at best. Smith is better off in Jr B if his minutes are that low here.

OHLTG

agree with all your pts,though it should be noted u can sign 10 drafted 16 year olds

u can only keep 4

thats why i think if player is local and signed he should be able to play in preseason

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:04 PM
  #18
OHLTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 3,567
vCash: 500
That's what I meant. If you sign a bunch of local kids, they should all be able to play.

OHLTG is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:21 PM
  #19
fanofdo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
I don't necessarily agree that a player 'should be able to play'. You are drafting a player in May (soon to be earlier), based on how he has played, but just as importantly, the player he projected to be at some point.

I have seen numerous cases where players looked terrible early in their career only to continually develop and be a star late in their junior career. I have also seen kids that were great rookies but didn't grow much and really were not much better physically then when they were a rookie. I have witnessed younger players lose confidence when forced into the line up too soon.

I think it is a great situation if a young player isn't quite ready for the line up to play more minutes in Jr. B and still practice sometimes with the Spits. For whatever reason the coaches either didn't think he was quite ready or would benefit more under this path. I applaud them for making the right decision, not necessarily the most popular one.

fanofdo is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:21 PM
  #20
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfaub View Post
Libbs

The difference between this year and last year is basically a year on the calendar. Last year we all heard the talk of a rebuild. I think we all expected the kids to play and we all saw the vets play. This year they do not have as high a quality of veteran presence on this team. A few good ones no doubt but a few not so much. The only difference in my mind is that they have a more remote chance of doing anything significant in the standings when compared to last season so what is the difference to you compared to last season? You seem to feel that last season was a time to get the youth in if I am understanding you correctly. If I am misunderstanding then my apoligies of course. This season they have some developed kids along with a couple of decent vets to guide a bigger crop of kids through the grind. Why not take advantage of it.
Yes I would have preferred that the young guys played more last season. Some did while others (namely Webermin) didn't get as much.

The rest of your post if contradicting your stance. What you just said in this passage is that we have a few vets and lots of young players. What you've been saying previous is to get rid of the vets and play the young guys. That guys like MAcQueen are robbing the time from a guy like Smith. If Smith wasn't 6"7' then you might be able to make this case. Smith will need time to grow into that huge frame of his. Jr. B will give him the chance to work on his skating and whatnot because of the fighting rules. How is Smith going to work on his stuff in the OHL when every tough guy is going to want to fight him.

My only point is you're way too eager to condemn the coaches and we haven't even seen a game yet. If the time comes where MacQueen is on the 1st line and getting all the PP time, then you can groan about him taking the kids spots (and in fact I would join you). McCann and Alonge are potential OA candidates so why not keep them around and see if they can fill a role. Remember that Boughner is back and calling the shots. He won't feel the pressure of Rychel like Jones did.

Libbs is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:31 PM
  #21
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fanofdo View Post
I don't necessarily agree that a player 'should be able to play'. You are drafting a player in May (soon to be earlier), based on how he has played, but just as importantly, the player he projected to be at some point.

I have seen numerous cases where players looked terrible early in their career only to continually develop and be a star late in their junior career. I have also seen kids that were great rookies but didn't grow much and really were not much better physically then when they were a rookie. I have witnessed younger players lose confidence when forced into the line up too soon.

I think it is a great situation if a young player isn't quite ready for the line up to play more minutes in Jr. B and still practice sometimes with the Spits. For whatever reason the coaches either didn't think he was quite ready or would benefit more under this path. I applaud them for making the right decision, not necessarily the most popular one.
fanofdo

I think he meant should be able to play if warranted not because he was signed

and u correct in saying the best moves are not the most popular always

hockeylegend11 is online now  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:41 PM
  #22
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfaub View Post

They have the chance to step back this season and from my perspective it looks like they will go as hard as they can to stay out of the bottom, which is fine but at a potential cost to the future chances at more titles down the road.

Everyone seems pretty fixed on their position. How kids are developed is obviously being looked at from two different perspectives and each kid individually, through their play should show where they are going to be served best. From side and the side of others with a similar point of view the thoughts are get a few more in sooner especially if the difference between a kid and a vet is really only the amount of experience they have.
Sorry if I sound like a *****...but did I miss the season? I must of slept longer last night than I though.

Give it some time before writing off management for "not building properly". Boughner knows what he's doing behind the bench. The Back to Back CHL Coach of the Year knows a bit more than us armchair GM's. Give it time to work itself out.

Libbs is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:49 PM
  #23
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
Spits trade Nishi to the Sault for a 13th round pick in 2012.

Also Kenny Ryan draws into tonights Leafs/Senators exhibition game
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=376174

Libbs is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:51 PM
  #24
OHLTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 3,567
vCash: 500
Not surprised. He wasn't going to get any time here. Wonder what the situation looks like up north?

OHLTG is offline  
Old
09-19-2011, 03:58 PM
  #25
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLTG View Post
Not surprised. He wasn't going to get any time here. Wonder what the situation looks like up north?
Well I'm pretty sure they have Perrigini and a young guy in Murray.

Libbs 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 11:22 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.