|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 10, 2024 14:30:14 GMT
Question about the "Michigan." We know players can't carry the puck in their gloves and skate. They have to drop the puck once it's in their glove because the implication is the puck should be on the ice when controlled by a player, other than on shots, passes, for goalies...the obvious exceptions. In other words, without being explicitly stated (as far as I know), you can not and should not take control of the puck off the ice and proceed with a play, right? I get the entertainment value of the move. It's as flashy as it is unorthodox. Isn't it taking possession of the puck off the ice and proceeding "forward" in a play but instead of using a glove, players use their sticks? If I were a goalie, I'd be like "How the fuck do I defend this now?" If I'm in goal, I have to maintain my positioning and not give the guy behind me any openings. Maybe the defensive positioning of my team could help me but on a powerplay, the strategy for the other club could be to get the puck to the guy behind the net. nite? kel? You're both goalies. How would you stop this move? Anybody else, please weigh in.
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Apr 10, 2024 14:30:22 GMT
The void left by Bergy and DK's retirement is vast. Coyle Zacha 114 points this year. Bergy Krejci 114 points last year. K book brought these stupid numbers up a while ago. Failed to mention that they had 102 points last year , their plus minus was 55 last year and just 13 this year. B and K was +58 last year. So these 2 shitless C have not replaced those of last year just more points than last year and obviously more goals against than last year. We still need 2 fucking c a RW and a lw
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 10, 2024 14:31:40 GMT
Question about the "Michigan." We know players can't carry the puck in their gloves and skate. They have to drop the puck once it's in their glove because the implication is the puck should be on the ice when controlled by a player, other than on shots, passes, for goalies...the obvious exceptions. In other words, without being explicitly stated (as far as I know), you can not and should not take control of the puck off the ice and proceed with a play, right? I get the entertainment value of the move. It's as flashy as it is unorthodox. Isn't it taking possession of the puck off the ice and proceeding "forward" in a play but instead of using a glove, players use their sticks? If I were a goalie, I'd be like "How the fuck do I defend this now?" Nite and kel Great point, I think maybe it's worth outlawing..it isn't far different from gloving a puck and carrying it.
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Apr 10, 2024 14:51:10 GMT
If the puck is ever on the stick above the crossbar it should be whistled for high sticking
|
|
|
Post by zamboni24 on Apr 10, 2024 14:54:12 GMT
Question about the "Michigan." We know players can't carry the puck in their gloves and skate. They have to drop the puck once it's in their glove because the implication is the puck should be on the ice when controlled by a player, other than on shots, passes, for goalies...the obvious exceptions. In other words, without being explicitly stated (as far as I know), you can not and should not take control of the puck off the ice and proceed with a play, right? I get the entertainment value of the move. It's as flashy as it is unorthodox. Isn't it taking possession of the puck off the ice and proceeding "forward" in a play but instead of using a glove, players use their sticks? If I were a goalie, I'd be like "How the fuck do I defend this now?" Nite and kel Great point, I think maybe it's worth outlawing..it isn't far different from gloving a puck and carrying it. Yea — I remember NAS strongly making that point a long time ago. I was on the fence until he made a few really good points. Could this puck carrying evolve into someone picking the puck up at the red or blue line on a breakaway and lacrossing it all the way to the net
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 10, 2024 14:56:23 GMT
Question about the "Michigan." We know players can't carry the puck in their gloves and skate. They have to drop the puck once it's in their glove because the implication is the puck should be on the ice when controlled by a player, other than on shots, passes, for goalies...the obvious exceptions. In other words, without being explicitly stated (as far as I know), you can not and should not take control of the puck off the ice and proceed with a play, right? I get the entertainment value of the move. It's as flashy as it is unorthodox. Isn't it taking possession of the puck off the ice and proceeding "forward" in a play but instead of using a glove, players use their sticks? If I were a goalie, I'd be like "How the fuck do I defend this now?" Nite and kel Great point, I think maybe it's worth outlawing..it isn't far different from gloving a puck and carrying it. I was thinking about the gloving comparison when I saw last night's game recap, dan. We've seen players glove down the puck and guide it out of harm's way and on to their sticks. I wondered how long it will be before some creative guy in some league somewhere extends that move to potentially include scooping it up just past their own blue line and passing across the ice to a teammate who's flying down a wing like how quarterbacks hit wide receivers. Okay. That's far fetched but you never know what these guys try in practice that could be translated to game action.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 10, 2024 14:59:00 GMT
If the puck is ever on the stick above the crossbar it should be whistled for high sticking Right but players are scooping it from ice level on their blades, lifting it then flinging it in under the crossbar. Their stick might be above the bar when they first have it on their blades.
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Apr 10, 2024 15:32:45 GMT
Question about the "Michigan." We know players can't carry the puck in their gloves and skate. They have to drop the puck once it's in their glove because the implication is the puck should be on the ice when controlled by a player, other than on shots, passes, for goalies...the obvious exceptions. In other words, without being explicitly stated (as far as I know), you can not and should not take control of the puck off the ice and proceed with a play, right? I get the entertainment value of the move. It's as flashy as it is unorthodox. Isn't it taking possession of the puck off the ice and proceeding "forward" in a play but instead of using a glove, players use their sticks? If I were a goalie, I'd be like "How the fuck do I defend this now?" If I'm in goal, I have to maintain my positioning and not give the guy behind me any openings. Maybe the defensive positioning of my team could help me but on a powerplay, the strategy for the other club could be to get the puck to the guy behind the net. nite? kel? You're both goalies. How would you stop this move? Anybody else, please weigh in. 1st my thought on the move itself. I watch hockey to be entertained & see skill! That's a sick skill to have & I have no issue with it! Providing the player isn't doing it in a 7-0 route. NOW! As a goalie I HATE IT! I had it done to me, but I got smacked pretty hard in the skull with the stick being swung around. IMO IF you're supposed to have control of your stick & you smack a player swinging it shouldn't that be a penalty? Regardless of whether you have control of the puck or not! I think the rule for this needs to be tweaked. "If you smack the goalie or any other player with your stick be4 the puck enters to net in the head area it's no goal & a slashing penalty is warranted." Last night's goal was done PERFECTLY! As far as defending it as a goalie? This is where being low when the player is behind the net is a disadvantage. I think this move tried on a hybrid like Brodeur, or a standup goalie like Kirk McLean was this move wouldn't work as well, because your whole body is up against the post in a standup position. The player would have to try reaching the puck all the way around you to possibly catch the far side. That would be very hard to do as the further away you move your stick from your body the less control you have. Some goalies like MAF have trained themselves to be up snug against the post while still playing low while the player is behind the net. But, it's difficult to know when exactly the player is going to try it. The goalie is at such a disadvantage because he's not able to turn enough to see what exactly is going behind him. Is he gonna pass it, go for a wraparound, try a Michigan, or pull a 93' Gilmore move against Joseph, or a 2011 Marchand on Lulu where they do a 180.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Apr 10, 2024 15:50:33 GMT
Hope I’m wrong but looks like there going to be 1 and done This bunch is 1000% schizo. I could see 1 and done. I could see a cup. The only sure thing as all hell is that putting money on them would be insane in the membrane.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 10, 2024 15:57:21 GMT
With a few games left, I think I'd play Ullmark at least 2 straight...it's looking more and more like Roadhouse is playing his way to Huggy Bear from Bench.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Apr 10, 2024 16:09:13 GMT
Game over. Move on. No team wins them all and looks unstoppable every time.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 10, 2024 16:21:01 GMT
Game over. Move on. No team wins them all and looks unstoppable every time. Agreed, but you have to start looking at what works, what doesn't work. I can't stress enough how god awful the PP looks with 73 manning the point and 63 along the wall. It isn't working, nor is 21 down low anymore. What has worked is when 12 is in the lineup and what also is maddening is when 12 is in the lineup--they stick him on PP #2 and he doesn't play with 88. 27 even on any part of the PP is disgusting as is having him on any 6 on 5 to try to tie a game. He is awful OFFENSIVELY...FUCKING HORRIBLE. Sorry, I'm sick of his constant quick pass it or falls off his stick or he just refuses to show any confidence. ..what isn't working is Swayman from game to game...he's played well once in his last 8 games by my count. what is working is Ullmark who at least deserves to play 2 straight if indeed the B's so show choose to use him regularly. He has to get used to playing a few in a row, and that's not going to happen unless they let him actually do that with a few left to play. ..what isn't working are certain D pairings. So 27/73 has been a really good overall pairing and long overdue. But we have seen some strange ones that aren't working, the experimenting now needs to end. It's Monty job to figure out pairings #2 and 3. ...maybe it's time to realize JVR is just not getting it done, and I wouldn't have said this even a month ago. I am not 94's biggest fan, but this past game he wanted it more than any other forward it seemed in that game. Brazzeau's injury has hurt the team and then when is it time for Maroon to see action. So yes, move on, yes probably will do fine no matter what next game, but let's also prepare for the postseason. Sure rest 88, rest 63, rest 18, rest 13, rest 73 especially...but let's fix the other things. Coaching staff needs to earn their pay now. Maybe 6 isn't an option on d, but he sure starts becoming one when 5/6th of the d can't make an offensive play to save themselves.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 10, 2024 18:46:22 GMT
All I care about is the Bruins health, hoping Maroon, plus Brazeau, can be ready for the playoffs and the regular season ending. One thing is for sure, no drama about the starting goaltender for the playoffs. So would you be willing to try a Maroon, Braz & Beecher San? 3 big boys! One who has size & speed, 2 big boys who can be around that net & tough to move without taking a penalty against them. Love that line.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 10, 2024 19:08:32 GMT
With the armour goalies use nowadays they should be able to defend against the Michigan….
As silly to want to outlaw the slick move as it would be to disallow the slap shot….
Too bad the B’S don’t have a guy capable of pulling it off….
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 10, 2024 19:41:16 GMT
With the armour goalies use nowadays they should be able to defend against the Michigan…. As silly to want to outlaw the slick move as it would be to disallow the slap shot…. Too bad the B’S don’t have a guy capable of pulling it off…. Pastrnak could do that move in his sleep. And I bet Marchand, Zacha even DeBrusk could pull that move off.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 10, 2024 21:03:15 GMT
With the armour goalies use nowadays they should be able to defend against the Michigan…. As silly to want to outlaw the slick move as it would be to disallow the slap shot…. Too bad the B’S don’t have a guy capable of pulling it off…. Pastrnak could do that move in his sleep. And I bet Marchand, Zacha even DeBrusk could pull that move off. I’ve pulled it off in my sleep also….
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 10, 2024 21:22:46 GMT
Coyle Zacha 114 points this year. Bergy Krejci 114 points last year. K book brought these stupid numbers up a while ago. Failed to mention that they had 102 points last year , their plus minus was 55 last year and just 13 this year. B and K was +58 last year. So these 2 shitless C have not replaced those of last year just more points than last year and obviously more goals against than last year. We still need 2 fucking c a RW and a lw They had 12 fewer points because they played behind the two retirees, and their +/- was almost identical on last year's team. We all remember that saying Zacha and Coyle in the prime of their careers are performing almost as well and Bergeron and DK did when they were so close to retirement their bodies were held together by spit and string does not mean saying these guys are Bergeron and Krejci, right? I gotta say, this place is getting ludicrous. There is no player on this team who is immune to the idea that the Bruins can upgrade on them tomorrow by going down to the ol' Well can hauling up a bucket of vintage Orr. I mean Fuck. This is a 107 point team that's first in the division AFTER losing 37, 46, meth face Bert, Orlov, Hall, Foligno and replacing them with guys who make under $2.25M. Oh, but book, they aren't a contender because I FEEEL LIKE they aren't a contender. They don't pass the eye test. I'm so sick of that eye test bullshit. DeBrusk once went through a long bought of COVID related depression and asked for a trade, and despite him being a fairly consistent scorer for 6 of 7 years in his career, people can't get rid of him fast enough because he wouldn't have fit in with the late 70s Bruins. Grz, for all his faults (and there are many) manages to give this team good minutes evaluated more goals for when he's on the ice than goals against. Pastrnak is "goofy" and "doesn't care enough" and gives the puck away a lot. Zacha is too Euro or something and doesn't score like a classic #1C so he should be replaced even though his FO% is highest on the team. Coyle is a 3rd line C no matter what he does, and he's overpaid, so fuck him in the ear. Geekie's never been a scorer in this league so he's a waste of a jersey. Heinen was a walk on, and he's an ex-Bruin, so he's a waste of space. Lindholm isn't going to be a Norris contender this year, so fuck him anyway all the way back to Sweden. McAvoy doesn't shoot enough and doesn't score like Makar or hit like Stevens so why are they paying him so much? Both goalies can't hold leads and give up soft goals from bad angles. Trade them both. Meanwhile Marchand has one goal in the last 50 games or something and no one bats an eye; rookie call ups have done SFA but because they haven't been around long enough for people to hate them, you're calling for undrafted NCAA signees to be on the top line, etc. etc. etc. And I'm also tired of the "they aren't going to win the Cup..." talk. That is the most cowardly statement in all of sports. Way to go out on a limb! You could find an alien landing a saucer in a field and flying around the galaxy and probing things anally, explain only that there are 16 teams in the playoffs and only one can win the Cup, and if you give it a choice to bet on any one team winning the cup or any one team to NOT win the cup, the alien would make the same prediction having never seen a second of hockey...or humans. Does this team have weaknesses? Yes. Can it win games despite those weaknesses? Well, as I showed the other day, they're now something like 27-9-7 against teams in the playoffs. So yeah. They can. Do other teams also have weaknesses? Hell, yeah. Not every player on this team is perfect, but the Bruins have been about being more than the sum of their parts for the last 20 years, and to quote the coach after last night's loss - it's an 82 game season and we're in first place. I think we'll be fine.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 10, 2024 21:46:39 GMT
Question about the "Michigan." We know players can't carry the puck in their gloves and skate. They have to drop the puck once it's in their glove because the implication is the puck should be on the ice when controlled by a player, other than on shots, passes, for goalies...the obvious exceptions. In other words, without being explicitly stated (as far as I know), you can not and should not take control of the puck off the ice and proceed with a play, right? I get the entertainment value of the move. It's as flashy as it is unorthodox. Isn't it taking possession of the puck off the ice and proceeding "forward" in a play but instead of using a glove, players use their sticks? If I were a goalie, I'd be like "How the fuck do I defend this now?" If I'm in goal, I have to maintain my positioning and not give the guy behind me any openings. Maybe the defensive positioning of my team could help me but on a powerplay, the strategy for the other club could be to get the puck to the guy behind the net. nite? kel? You're both goalies. How would you stop this move? Anybody else, please weigh in. 1st my thought on the move itself. I watch hockey to be entertained & see skill! That's a sick skill to have & I have no issue with it! Providing the player isn't doing it in a 7-0 route. NOW! As a goalie I HATE IT! I had it done to me, but I got smacked pretty hard in the skull with the stick being swung around. IMO IF you're supposed to have control of your stick & you smack a player swinging it shouldn't that be a penalty? Regardless of whether you have control of the puck or not! I think the rule for this needs to be tweaked. "If you smack the goalie or any other player with your stick be4 the puck enters to net in the head area it's no goal & a slashing penalty is warranted." Last night's goal was done PERFECTLY! As far as defending it as a goalie? This is where being low when the player is behind the net is a disadvantage. I think this move tried on a hybrid like Brodeur, or a standup goalie like Kirk McLean was this move wouldn't work as well, because your whole body is up against the post in a standup position. The player would have to try reaching the puck all the way around you to possibly catch the far side. That would be very hard to do as the further away you move your stick from your body the less control you have. Some goalies like MAF have trained themselves to be up snug against the post while still playing low while the player is behind the net. But, it's difficult to know when exactly the player is going to try it. The goalie is at such a disadvantage because he's not able to turn enough to see what exactly is going behind him. Is he gonna pass it, go for a wraparound, try a Michigan, or pull a 93' Gilmore move against Joseph, or a 2011 Marchand on Lulu where they do a 180. I like that take, nite. I don't know that I would outlaw the move, but if that kind of play is going to be commonplace - and I would argue it is now - then the rules need to be clarified. Right now, it's not high sticking if you catch someone on the follow through of a "hockey play" - mostly a shot. If I remember correctly, there was no penalty on the play that almost cost Berard his career rather than just most of it. But that assumes the arc of a typical shot where contact with the puck happens low, and the stick is decelerating as it moves up. On the Michigan, the stick is still accelerating as the player whips around to the top corner, so the potential for damage is higher. I think they also need to think about how a defender plays the Michigan. Because every team probably has 5 guys who can do it, soon teams will have to alter defensive coverage to account for it. So now you maybe have a net front guy whose job is not just to tie up guys in front but to jump the Michigan as soon as a player starts that move. How do you do that? You can't play the body; guy's shielded by the net. So you can swing your stick at his stick and try to knock the puck off or you can try to get to the spot and "block" the shot. Either way, you've dramatically increased the risk of guys getting high-sticked. And you can bet that if the Michigan is just a skill play now, just as Rich says, there will be similar plays coming. What's to stop guys from doing other "lacrosse" type moves? What if I can take a pass, scoop the puck to chest level and then shoot downward? Pick it up and lob it for an "alley-oop" at the far post where a teammate is waiting to drive the puck home with a baseball swing? I think you'd want to allow these as skill plays, right? So the rules need to set the limits for responsibility for your stick to avoid a new wave of ugly injuries from more and more sticks swinging at pucks in the air. We've always had guys playing airborne pucks with their sticks, or following through to his the goalie, but we could tolerate the risk because it was pretty rare. If it becomes a strategy? Too much risk, in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Apr 10, 2024 22:36:59 GMT
With the armour goalies use nowadays they should be able to defend against the Michigan…. As silly to want to outlaw the slick move as it would be to disallow the slap shot…. Too bad the B’S don’t have a guy capable of pulling it off…. It's not as easy as it looks & I explained why in my post.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 10, 2024 22:43:51 GMT
With the armour goalies use nowadays they should be able to defend against the Michigan…. As silly to want to outlaw the slick move as it would be to disallow the slap shot…. Too bad the B’S don’t have a guy capable of pulling it off…. It's not as easy as it looks & I explained why in my post. Hey nite, what do you think about the goalie situation now for B's? What do you do if you were the coach.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 10, 2024 22:44:48 GMT
Pastrnak could do that move in his sleep. And I bet Marchand, Zacha even DeBrusk could pull that move off. I’ve pulled it off in my sleep also…. Danny pulls stuff before, during and after sleep as well.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Apr 10, 2024 23:53:35 GMT
K book brought these stupid numbers up a while ago. Failed to mention that they had 102 points last year , their plus minus was 55 last year and just 13 this year. B and K was +58 last year. So these 2 shitless C have not replaced those of last year just more points than last year and obviously more goals against than last year. We still need 2 fucking c a RW and a lw They had 12 fewer points because they played behind the two retirees, and their +/- was almost identical on last year's team. We all remember that saying Zacha and Coyle in the prime of their careers are performing almost as well and Bergeron and DK did when they were so close to retirement their bodies were held together by spit and string does not mean saying these guys are Bergeron and Krejci, right? I gotta say, this place is getting ludicrous. There is no player on this team who is immune to the idea that the Bruins can upgrade on them tomorrow by going down to the ol' Well can hauling up a bucket of vintage Orr. I mean Fuck. This is a 107 point team that's first in the division AFTER losing 37, 46, meth face Bert, Orlov, Hall, Foligno and replacing them with guys who make under $2.25M. Oh, but book, they aren't a contender because I FEEEL LIKE they aren't a contender. They don't pass the eye test. I'm so sick of that eye test bullshit. DeBrusk once went through a long bought of COVID related depression and asked for a trade, and despite him being a fairly consistent scorer for 6 of 7 years in his career, people can't get rid of him fast enough because he wouldn't have fit in with the late 70s Bruins. Grz, for all his faults (and there are many) manages to give this team good minutes evaluated more goals for when he's on the ice than goals against. Pastrnak is "goofy" and "doesn't care enough" and gives the puck away a lot. Zacha is too Euro or something and doesn't score like a classic #1C so he should be replaced even though his FO% is highest on the team. Coyle is a 3rd line C no matter what he does, and he's overpaid, so fuck him in the ear. Geekie's never been a scorer in this league so he's a waste of a jersey. Heinen was a walk on, and he's an ex-Bruin, so he's a waste of space. Lindholm isn't going to be a Norris contender this year, so fuck him anyway all the way back to Sweden. McAvoy doesn't shoot enough and doesn't score like Makar or hit like Stevens so why are they paying him so much? Both goalies can't hold leads and give up soft goals from bad angles. Trade them both. Meanwhile Marchand has one goal in the last 50 games or something and no one bats an eye; rookie call ups have done SFA but because they haven't been around long enough for people to hate them, you're calling for undrafted NCAA signees to be on the top line, etc. etc. etc. And I'm also tired of the "they aren't going to win the Cup..." talk. That is the most cowardly statement in all of sports. Way to go out on a limb! You could find an alien landing a saucer in a field and flying around the galaxy and probing things anally, explain only that there are 16 teams in the playoffs and only one can win the Cup, and if you give it a choice to bet on any one team winning the cup or any one team to NOT win the cup, the alien would make the same prediction having never seen a second of hockey...or humans. Does this team have weaknesses? Yes. Can it win games despite those weaknesses? Well, as I showed the other day, they're now something like 27-9-7 against teams in the playoffs. So yeah. They can. Do other teams also have weaknesses? Hell, yeah. Not every player on this team is perfect, but the Bruins have been about being more than the sum of their parts for the last 20 years, and to quote the coach after last night's loss - it's an 82 game season and we're in first place. I think we'll be fine. The Bs can still address the needs “Goat” established in his last line. The Bs are competitive. This fan is positive as any fan of those eastern division teams.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 11, 2024 1:40:40 GMT
K book brought these stupid numbers up a while ago. Failed to mention that they had 102 points last year , their plus minus was 55 last year and just 13 this year. B and K was +58 last year. So these 2 shitless C have not replaced those of last year just more points than last year and obviously more goals against than last year. We still need 2 fucking c a RW and a lw They had 12 fewer points because they played behind the two retirees, and their +/- was almost identical on last year's team. We all remember that saying Zacha and Coyle in the prime of their careers are performing almost as well and Bergeron and DK did when they were so close to retirement their bodies were held together by spit and string does not mean saying these guys are Bergeron and Krejci, right? I gotta say, this place is getting ludicrous. There is no player on this team who is immune to the idea that the Bruins can upgrade on them tomorrow by going down to the ol' Well can hauling up a bucket of vintage Orr. I mean Fuck. This is a 107 point team that's first in the division AFTER losing 37, 46, meth face Bert, Orlov, Hall, Foligno and replacing them with guys who make under $2.25M. Oh, but book, they aren't a contender because I FEEEL LIKE they aren't a contender. They don't pass the eye test. I'm so sick of that eye test bullshit. DeBrusk once went through a long bought of COVID related depression and asked for a trade, and despite him being a fairly consistent scorer for 6 of 7 years in his career, people can't get rid of him fast enough because he wouldn't have fit in with the late 70s Bruins. Grz, for all his faults (and there are many) manages to give this team good minutes evaluated more goals for when he's on the ice than goals against. Pastrnak is "goofy" and "doesn't care enough" and gives the puck away a lot. Zacha is too Euro or something and doesn't score like a classic #1C so he should be replaced even though his FO% is highest on the team. Coyle is a 3rd line C no matter what he does, and he's overpaid, so fuck him in the ear. Geekie's never been a scorer in this league so he's a waste of a jersey. Heinen was a walk on, and he's an ex-Bruin, so he's a waste of space. Lindholm isn't going to be a Norris contender this year, so fuck him anyway all the way back to Sweden. McAvoy doesn't shoot enough and doesn't score like Makar or hit like Stevens so why are they paying him so much? Both goalies can't hold leads and give up soft goals from bad angles. Trade them both. Meanwhile Marchand has one goal in the last 50 games or something and no one bats an eye; rookie call ups have done SFA but because they haven't been around long enough for people to hate them, you're calling for undrafted NCAA signees to be on the top line, etc. etc. etc. And I'm also tired of the "they aren't going to win the Cup..." talk. That is the most cowardly statement in all of sports. Way to go out on a limb! You could find an alien landing a saucer in a field and flying around the galaxy and probing things anally, explain only that there are 16 teams in the playoffs and only one can win the Cup, and if you give it a choice to bet on any one team winning the cup or any one team to NOT win the cup, the alien would make the same prediction having never seen a second of hockey...or humans. Does this team have weaknesses? Yes. Can it win games despite those weaknesses? Well, as I showed the other day, they're now something like 27-9-7 against teams in the playoffs. So yeah. They can. Do other teams also have weaknesses? Hell, yeah. Not every player on this team is perfect, but the Bruins have been about being more than the sum of their parts for the last 20 years, and to quote the coach after last night's loss - it's an 82 game season and we're in first place. I think we'll be fine. Hey, that’s Danny’s schtick!
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Apr 11, 2024 11:15:42 GMT
It's not as easy as it looks & I explained why in my post. Hey nite, what do you think about the goalie situation now for B's? What do you do if you were the coach. I'm doing a rotation no matter what with this tandem at least to start. If the playoffs started today? Ully gets game 1.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Apr 11, 2024 12:19:36 GMT
Hey nite, what do you think about the goalie situation now for B's? What do you do if you were the coach. I'm doing a rotation no matter what with this tandem at least to start. If the playoffs started today? Ully gets game 1. Yep, if i was picking Linus would be my guy for Game #1 for sure, see how it goes from there.
|
|