|
Post by Reesor on Dec 13, 2010 10:03:53 GMT -4
Great post. Your finish thou is still a fan being a fan. The truth is these next 3 weeks will allow management to show fans that the still feel this team can win. By that I don't mean the play on the ice either. Every moose fan knows there are hole that need to be filled. For this team to be better next half the goaltending needs to be way better but I really don't see that being fixed till the draft. So we need help on offense. I don't know what Cam and Bobby's wish list might be but I think you have to start with a gifted 19 year old forward. A center or left winger could fit well on this team. Now after you get that 19 year old forward you gotta look for 20 year old to take they other spot LW or C. That way you can fill out 2 lines, LW for the Ashley, Andrews line and a center for Frk and Carl. Now some people might not agree with me on this but I think they should also look for a 19 year old D-man. Doesn't have to be an offensive guy just someone that will be back next year too. Especially if Konrad gets trade this year or at the draft, so we can use the high Euro pick were likely to get. Now everyone says how many assets we have people have to stop being fans on here and realize that it could be better for the team to trade a 2nd rounder for a player to help now. Or even trade a 17 year old for a good 19 year old. I really think trades like that are going to be made this year, and myself I feel its could help this team big time. I know the team needs to upgrade, but I chose not to talk about the trade period in this post. Just how the season has gone so far. I love the Moose, and I'll always go to the games even if they were 1-33. There are certain posts like this one that you need to be objective and state the facts. The tidbit at the end was my opinion, and it's definitely going to be biased. I think that if I want to gain credability on the forums with these types of reports, I have to be as unbiased as possible. That way when I do have a "homer" attitude about the future of the Moose, it's justified rather than just a shot in the dark by an over-excited Moose fan.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Dec 13, 2010 10:08:23 GMT -4
Great post. Your finish thou is still a fan being a fan. The truth is these next 3 weeks will allow management to show fans that the still feel this team can win. By that I don't mean the play on the ice either. Every moose fan knows there are hole that need to be filled. For this team to be better next half the goaltending needs to be way better but I really don't see that being fixed till the draft. So we need help on offense. I don't know what Cam and Bobby's wish list might be but I think you have to start with a gifted 19 year old forward. A center or left winger could fit well on this team. Now after you get that 19 year old forward you gotta look for 20 year old to take they other spot LW or C. That way you can fill out 2 lines, LW for the Ashley, Andrews line and a center for Frk and Carl. Now some people might not agree with me on this but I think they should also look for a 19 year old D-man. Doesn't have to be an offensive guy just someone that will be back next year too. Especially if Konrad gets trade this year or at the draft, so we can use the high Euro pick were likely to get. Well, the goaltending - going back to when Terenzio took over for a while and continuing into Corbeil`s recent play - has actually been pretty good.... at least its gives us a chance to win. This team is barely scoring 2 goals a game it seems. Thats asking too much of goaltending to hold teams to 0-2 goals to have a chance to win. You do realize you are suggesting, by obtaining a scoring 19 year old, that we will be paying "contender-like" prices for that guy? All contenders will be on the hunt for more scoring, experienced players as they are every year. We are 16th overall, it doesnt make sense to compete with the contenders for a high end 19 year old. If we spend a big asset on something, they should be 18 or younger IMO. Other than that, spend some lesser assets on guys that contenders arent targetting but that could help round out our offense and defense with some steady or complimentary play. I think you will probably see us sit on the big asset/big trade, and move a couple mid-round picks for some immediate veteran help. Not a bad plan... get better this year, help get rid of the losing culture these guys are so used to, and still have the youth and the 1st rounder moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by maddie on Dec 13, 2010 11:16:38 GMT -4
With the many rumours that the team is being shopped as " FOR SALE ". I would expect to see very little activity from the Moose with regards to trades. It would be my bet that he will spending all his time finding a buyer. I think Palov's comment about lots of rumours both on the trade front and off ice activities will prove to be true. I personally heard the for sale four different times during Saturdays game.
|
|
Qfan69
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 461
|
Post by Qfan69 on Dec 13, 2010 11:54:36 GMT -4
Ok first resor01 I didn't mean to be fully attacking you on the homer side that was kinda meant for all the posters that always say oh we can't get ride of that guy he's going to be good. Some people on here don't get that sometimes to get something you need to give up something. That's where I was going with most of that. But I still say the only way they do any better is get so offensive help. Second Crazyjoe your right I did make it seem like we should get top tier talent, but I did mean go for second tier guys. We pick up a second tier 19 year old forward and maybe even 20 year old forward should help a lot. But if we can get a top tier for the right price it should be thought about before shout down.
And Maddie don't know how long you have been a fan but the team has been rumored to be for sale for years. Three summers ago it was going to be sold to the Steal group, then Steal group was bidding against someone else I forget who and now Sid the kid wants it. In these cases I think its more of someone blowing hot air up our asses instead of the whole smoke and fire thing.
|
|
|
Post by Reesor on Dec 13, 2010 12:53:04 GMT -4
Ok first resor01 I didn't mean to be fully attacking you on the homer side that was kinda meant for all the posters that always say oh we can't get ride of that guy he's going to be good. Some people on here don't get that sometimes to get something you need to give up something. That's where I was going with most of that. But I still say the only way they do any better is get so offensive help. Never worry about attacking my posts. That's why we have forums. If we all had the same opinion, this would be no fun at all. ;D
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Dec 14, 2010 0:01:14 GMT -4
So with the Saint John game bringing us to the mid season I thought it was a good time to take a look at another "stat" that I was curious about. The Moose seemed like they had a very good game vs. SNB and the end result was 3 goals against a top team... 3 goals scored by two 17 year olds and a 16 year old. We know we're a young team but the amazing thing this year is that it has generally been that youth that has been leading us offensively as well.
So I took a look at some numbers and CBs for comparison. What I wanted to look at was not average age... average age only means so much if your 16-17 year olds are in the stands or 3rd pairing/4th line players. So I wanted to see "effective age" which is basically the average age of per goal scored by the team.
The Mooseheads current average age is 17.65 and the average age per goal scored only goes up to 17.72 (+.07). CB by comparison has an average age of 17.96 and the average age of their goal scorer is 18.33 (.37).
So you can sort of look at this and see if a team is really as young as they look, who is performing for the team and how much production is coming from those young players vs. leaning on the vets to carry a young team.
Anyways, just something I found interesting and reinforces how the youth of this team is spread so well through the lineup and every bit as relied upon as the vets... for better or worse.
|
|
|
Post by howitzer on Dec 14, 2010 0:15:33 GMT -4
So with the Saint John game bringing us to the mid season I thought it was a good time to take a look at another "stat" that I was curious about. The Moose seemed like they had a very good game vs. SNB and the end result was 3 goals against a top team... 3 goals scored by two 17 year olds and a 16 year old. We know we're a young team but the amazing thing this year is that it has generally been that youth that has been leading us offensively as well. So I took a look at some numbers and CBs for comparison. What I wanted to look at was not average age... average age only means so much if your 16-17 year olds are in the stands or 3rd pairing/4th line players. So I wanted to see "effective age" which is basically the average age of per goal scored by the team. The Mooseheads current average age is 17.65 and the average age per goal scored only goes up to 17.72 (+.07). CB by comparison has an average age of 17.96 and the average age of their goal scorer is 18.33 (.37). So you can sort of look at this and see if a team is really as young as they look, who is performing for the team and how much production is coming from those young players vs. leaning on the vets to carry a young team. Anyways, just something I found interesting and reinforces how the youth of this team is spread so well through the lineup and every bit as relied upon as the vets... for better or worse. IMO that's the main reason (along with inconsistant goaltending) we've underachieved so far in the year. It's great we have youth in the line-up and they've played really well, but our success almost every game hinges on whether or not Frk (17), Gelinas (18), Ashley (17), Andrews (17) score. And when they don't you're left with a support cast of Boudreau (17) Ryan (16), Turbide (17), Souligny (17) Ciampini when he plays (16).....you get the picture. If you go look through our 10 wins on the year, I'm willing to bet the reason we won was because the young guys had good games. Bety has been our only veteran guy to give us anything offensively, and his numbers won't blow you away (10G 9A). It's great to see the youth play a lot, and every once in a while break out with a big game. But, as we're proving, when your success lies with rookies and 17 yr olds, you're not going to win many games unfortunately. I've said before, you put this exact team on the ice, but with Franklin MacDonald, Rane Carnegie and Brine as the vets, I bet we're .500 or a tick better.
|
|
|
Post by Reesor on Dec 14, 2010 8:21:31 GMT -4
So with the Saint John game bringing us to the mid season I thought it was a good time to take a look at another "stat" that I was curious about. The Moose seemed like they had a very good game vs. SNB and the end result was 3 goals against a top team... 3 goals scored by two 17 year olds and a 16 year old. We know we're a young team but the amazing thing this year is that it has generally been that youth that has been leading us offensively as well. So I took a look at some numbers and CBs for comparison. What I wanted to look at was not average age... average age only means so much if your 16-17 year olds are in the stands or 3rd pairing/4th line players. So I wanted to see "effective age" which is basically the average age of per goal scored by the team. The Mooseheads current average age is 17.65 and the average age per goal scored only goes up to 17.72 (+.07). CB by comparison has an average age of 17.96 and the average age of their goal scorer is 18.33 (.37). So you can sort of look at this and see if a team is really as young as they look, who is performing for the team and how much production is coming from those young players vs. leaning on the vets to carry a young team. Anyways, just something I found interesting and reinforces how the youth of this team is spread so well through the lineup and every bit as relied upon as the vets... for better or worse. IMO that's the main reason (along with inconsistant goaltending) we've underachieved so far in the year. It's great we have youth in the line-up and they've played really well, but our success almost every game hinges on whether or not Frk (17), Gelinas (18), Ashley (17), Andrews (17) score. And when they don't you're left with a support cast of Boudreau (17) Ryan (16), Turbide (17), Souligny (17) Ciampini when he plays (16).....you get the picture. If you go look through our 10 wins on the year, I'm willing to bet the reason we won was because the young guys had good games. Bety has been our only veteran guy to give us anything offensively, and his numbers won't blow you away (10G 9A). It's great to see the youth play a lot, and every once in a while break out with a big game. But, as we're proving, when your success lies with rookies and 17 yr olds, you're not going to win many games unfortunately. I've said before, you put this exact team on the ice, but with Franklin MacDonald, Rane Carnegie and Brine as the vets, I bet we're .500 or a tick better. That's why we'll be good in 2 years. Our abundance of young talent will be 18/19 years old, and we'll still have draft picks to fill in the 16/17yo slots. We'll be back to normal. We have to draft well though. We could say "we drafted this person when we could've had this person" until we are blue in the face. The position you draft in doesn't matter much if you pass up on players like Hubardeau. Here's the draft info: 38.108.70.85/lang_en/index.php?page=457745123&id_seance=10
|
|
Qfan69
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 461
|
Post by Qfan69 on Dec 14, 2010 9:34:50 GMT -4
IMO that's the main reason (along with inconsistant goaltending) we've underachieved so far in the year. It's great we have youth in the line-up and they've played really well, but our success almost every game hinges on whether or not Frk (17), Gelinas (18), Ashley (17), Andrews (17) score. And when they don't you're left with a support cast of Boudreau (17) Ryan (16), Turbide (17), Souligny (17) Ciampini when he plays (16).....you get the picture. If you go look through our 10 wins on the year, I'm willing to bet the reason we won was because the young guys had good games. Bety has been our only veteran guy to give us anything offensively, and his numbers won't blow you away (10G 9A). It's great to see the youth play a lot, and every once in a while break out with a big game. But, as we're proving, when your success lies with rookies and 17 yr olds, you're not going to win many games unfortunately. I've said before, you put this exact team on the ice, but with Franklin MacDonald, Rane Carnegie and Brine as the vets, I bet we're .500 or a tick better. That's why we'll be good in 2 years. Our abundance of young talent will be 18/19 years old, and we'll still have draft picks to fill in the 16/17yo slots. We'll be back to normal. We have to draft well though. We could say "we drafted this person when we could've had this person" until we are blue in the face. The position you draft in doesn't matter much if you pass up on players like Hubardeau. Here's the draft info: 38.108.70.85/lang_en/index.php?page=457745123&id_seance=10 You can't say that in this case they drafted the guy they wanted. Brent was the man Cam wanted so he took him at 15 I think Hubardeau went 18. If anything we missed him by one pick. That's the thing about drafting in most cases there is no telling how a player is going to turn out. What's going to happen next year when Luca isn't the best from that draft class? He was ranked 1st over all a lot of people wanted him and we got him. You know what they say about hind sight. Really it brings us back to trading for Brad. Should we have done that giving up those first rounders? How about picking Carl in the 4th he should have went in the 2nd the way he turned out.
|
|
|
Post by Reesor on Dec 14, 2010 9:54:34 GMT -4
That's why we'll be good in 2 years. Our abundance of young talent will be 18/19 years old, and we'll still have draft picks to fill in the 16/17yo slots. We'll be back to normal. We have to draft well though. We could say "we drafted this person when we could've had this person" until we are blue in the face. The position you draft in doesn't matter much if you pass up on players like Hubardeau. Here's the draft info: 38.108.70.85/lang_en/index.php?page=457745123&id_seance=10 You can't say that in this case they drafted the guy they wanted. Brent was the man Cam wanted so he took him at 15 I think Hubardeau went 18. If anything we missed him by one pick. That's the thing about drafting in most cases there is no telling how a player is going to turn out. What's going to happen next year when Luca isn't the best from that draft class? He was ranked 1st over all a lot of people wanted him and we got him. You know what they say about hind sight. Really it brings us back to trading for Brad. Should we have done that giving up those first rounders? How about picking Carl in the 4th he should have went in the 2nd the way he turned out. You're right. Drafting is touch and go. Steve Gillard is another good example. I think he was drafted in the 11th round. I just think that we should have enough connections to be one of the better drafters in the league. Patrick Roy got Ryan Bourque in the 7th round because he had connections. We do OK though. We had the assets (money) necessary to bring Frk over.
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Dec 14, 2010 10:50:44 GMT -4
So with the Saint John game bringing us to the mid season I thought it was a good time to take a look at another "stat" that I was curious about. The Moose seemed like they had a very good game vs. SNB and the end result was 3 goals against a top team... 3 goals scored by two 17 year olds and a 16 year old. We know we're a young team but the amazing thing this year is that it has generally been that youth that has been leading us offensively as well. So I took a look at some numbers and CBs for comparison. What I wanted to look at was not average age... average age only means so much if your 16-17 year olds are in the stands or 3rd pairing/4th line players. So I wanted to see "effective age" which is basically the average age of per goal scored by the team. The Mooseheads current average age is 17.65 and the average age per goal scored only goes up to 17.72 (+.07). CB by comparison has an average age of 17.96 and the average age of their goal scorer is 18.33 (.37). So you can sort of look at this and see if a team is really as young as they look, who is performing for the team and how much production is coming from those young players vs. leaning on the vets to carry a young team. Anyways, just something I found interesting and reinforces how the youth of this team is spread so well through the lineup and every bit as relied upon as the vets... for better or worse. IMO that's the main reason (along with inconsistant goaltending) we've underachieved so far in the year. It's great we have youth in the line-up and they've played really well, but our success almost every game hinges on whether or not Frk (17), Gelinas (18), Ashley (17), Andrews (17) score. And when they don't you're left with a support cast of Boudreau (17) Ryan (16), Turbide (17), Souligny (17) Ciampini when he plays (16).....you get the picture. If you go look through our 10 wins on the year, I'm willing to bet the reason we won was because the young guys had good games. Bety has been our only veteran guy to give us anything offensively, and his numbers won't blow you away (10G 9A). It's great to see the youth play a lot, and every once in a while break out with a big game. But, as we're proving, when your success lies with rookies and 17 yr olds, you're not going to win many games unfortunately. I've said before, you put this exact team on the ice, but with Franklin MacDonald, Rane Carnegie and Brine as the vets, I bet we're .500 or a tick better. I think you are right on with the Brine and Co. comment. For me, sure the D hasn't been quite what we expected this year but vet scoring and Corbeil are the reason we're not 10+ points better at this point. Grant, Randell and Desjardins have a combined 10 goals so far this year. Those three were 2nd, 3rd, and 6th on the team in goals last year and many people figured Grant would lead the scoring this year. These 3 combined are not on pace to match Grants goals from last year. And Corbeil, I'm not expecting a .920 save percentage but even if he was .895-.900 it would be huge for this team. Corbeil has been getting better which is good to see. Desjardins I think will have a second half breakout and while he hasn't scored since his return he has been very involved. Grant I thought vs. Quebec last home game had one of his best game in a long time. Grant-Randell-Lemieux I can see finding some traction moving forward and if Corbeil can continue to play a bit more consistent the team should start improving. But at the same time if Grant and Lemieux are not here in a couple weeks it wouldn't shock me either lol.
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Dec 14, 2010 10:59:49 GMT -4
You can't say that in this case they drafted the guy they wanted. Brent was the man Cam wanted so he took him at 15 I think Hubardeau went 18. If anything we missed him by one pick. That's the thing about drafting in most cases there is no telling how a player is going to turn out. What's going to happen next year when Luca isn't the best from that draft class? He was ranked 1st over all a lot of people wanted him and we got him. You know what they say about hind sight. Really it brings us back to trading for Brad. Should we have done that giving up those first rounders? How about picking Carl in the 4th he should have went in the 2nd the way he turned out. You're right. Drafting is touch and go. Steve Gillard is another good example. I think he was drafted in the 11th round. I just think that we should have enough connections to be one of the better drafters in the league. Patrick Roy got Ryan Bourque in the 7th round because he had connections. We do OK though. We had the assets (money) necessary to bring Frk over. I think Gillard was in the 12th round. We got Ashley in the second round which was a big steal. Ryan, Ashley and Demarais this year in the 2nd round... you can't be perfect with every pick but our 2nd round was pretty much a homerun this past draft.
|
|
|
Post by Fryar on Dec 18, 2010 17:54:11 GMT -4
... But at the same time if Grant and Lemieux are not here in a couple weeks it wouldn't shock me either lol. You're probably right with that statement.
|
|
|
Post by Reesor on Feb 3, 2011 10:21:55 GMT -4
For another bad year this year is going by quick. Here we are at the 51 game mark, which is 3/4 of the way home. How did we do this time? Overall Record: 17-31-1-2 (5th in Maritime Division and 15th overall) Record over last 17 games: 7-8-1-1 (Predicted: 6-10-0-1) All Q stats can be found HEREWell considering we had a 7 game losing streak where we were outscored 45-16, we had a pretty good 3rd quarter. We faced some tough opposition and put together some good games. Wins against Moncton, Bathurst and Drummondville fanned some of the flames that have been going around Moose Country. We saw a pretty boring trade period that ended up with us making 4 trades in 45 minutes. Alex Lemieux, Jamie Bishop, and Mathieu Corbeil left Moose Country (also a 4th rounder next year). In return, we received Frederic Piche, Anthony Goulet, and 3 2012 3rd round picks. Not too shabby at all for a rebuilding team. I think the most surprising trade by far was Corbeil for Piche AND a 2012 3rd. Most on these boards were jumping for joy over that one. I think this trade period helped cement Cam Russell as a competent GM in the minds of the fans. We are getting better folks, at least in the standings. We were 5-11-0-1 in the first 17 games, and 5-12-0-0 in the next 17. Going 7-8-1-1 in our last 17, especially given our schedule, shows signs of improvement. Mixed feelings going into the last 17 games of the season. Having any of the bottom 3 playoff spots will result in a very early 1st round exit (currently SJ, Montreal and Quebec have the top 3 spots). If we magically catch Chicoutimi for 13th, we have a possibility of dramatically improving our first round matchup.(Might get an extra home game out of it.. ) At the same time, a lower ranking would result in a better 1st round pick, and missing the playoffs all together would result in being in the draft lottery for MacKinnon. So let the chips fall where they may. Outlook on next 17 games: Because we have the Canada Games taking over the Metro Center, we have only 2 more home games in February, and 5 in March. We have 10 road games left, including a grueling 4 game in 5 day stretch in Quebec, against 4 tough teams. Home Games: Saint John, Val D'or, Lewiston, PEI, Moncton, Bathurst, Cape Breton Away Games: Montreal, Gatineau, Victoriaville, Drummondville, Cape Breton, Saint John, Cape Breton, Moncton, PEI, Bathurst Predicted record over final 17 games: 7-9-0-1 Overall Attendance Average: 5019 We went up a whopping 2 fans/game over the last 17 games. BUT, they are counting 0 fans for yesterdays game against Drummondville, when we had 500 show up due to the snow storm. So assuming the paid attendance was around 3500, our average would go up about 130 people/game. Attendance should be better over the last 7 home games. The last game of the season when you'll see 3000 more kids in the stands will boost us up. EDIT: Q site now lists game last night as 4095, which brings overall attendance up to 5170. Stupid stat of the quarter: Moose are 7-4-1-1 when I make the GDT. We're playing better. We're showing we can compete against some top teams, but like all year, we're inconsistent. Hopefully these kids find their way and build up some confidence for next season. A shout out to Charles Bety, who is my last 17 game-MVP. He's showing a lot of heart for an overager on a bottom team. Hopefully we break the Cape Breton jinx this quarter, and hopefully we can get on a little roll going into the playoffs. A first round massive playoff upset would get some fire back in Moose Country. GO MOOSE! Well here we are. 1/2 way through the season. How did we fare over the last 17 games? Overall Record: 10-23-0-1 (6th in Maritime Division and 16th overall (Last playoff spot: 16th out of 18 teams). Record over last 17 games: 5-12-0-0. Predicted record: 7-9-0-1. Top Point Producer: Marty Frk (33GP 11G 20A 31Pts) Stats: cluster.leaguestat.com/download.php?client_code=lhjmq&file_path=daily-report/daily-report.htmlA look back at the 2nd quarter: Was a pretty boring 2nd quarter of the season. All we saw was our Coach get demoted to assistant and our owner become our Coach. We saw arguably our best d-man in Clarke get traded to Shawinigan, and we saw our starting goalie lose his job and gain it back again. What did all that accomplish? We were 5-11-0-1 in the first 17 games, and 5-12-0-0 in the next 17 games. What I did see that half was a lot more games that we could've won, but let slip away. The 2 games we had against Shawinigan, and the game this past Saturday night against Quebec are good examples. A young team is going to make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes cost you games, and that happened a couple of times. I believe Corbeil has gotten better, and is starting to show signs that he could gain back our trust in him. I hated going to the rink and holding my breath on every shot against him. But good for him for fighting through it. I'm not going to harp on the coaching. Enough has already been said. I just hope that the coaching staff finds the lines that they are looking for, and sticks with them. For Carl Gelinas' sake, I hope he returns to Frk's line. I would also like to see the 16yo's get fair ice time. If they are being sat because Bobby wants to keep them fresh (68 game season is a long one) that's fine. But I'd like to see them as much as possible. Upcoming Schedule next 17 games: Home Games: Bathurst, Cape Breton, Moncton, Saint John, Victoriaville, PEI, Baie Comeau, Drummondville Away Games: Bathurst, Moncton, Cape Breton, PEI, Lewiston, Gatineau, Montreal, Moncton, PEI. 8 Home games and 9 Road games in the next 17, with a pretty even schedule for upper teams vs lower teams. But when you're 16th in the league, almost every team is an upper one. . I think the Moose will show improvement in this half, but just barely. Prediction of record over next 17 games: 6-10-0-1 Attendance: Overall average: 5017 (2nd in the league and 11th in the country). With Pink in the Rink and the season opener in the first 17 games, we went down 171 fans/game over the last 17 games. Attendance usually starts going up in the 2nd half, however with the mood of the common fan lately, I wouldn't be surprised if our average hovers around the same. This team will have to win consistently for the public to gain their faith in the coaching staff/management again. Even with all that has happened, I still have a positive outlook on this team. I see a set of skilled, young forward, and some up and coming defencemen. I see hope in Corbeil and Terenzio as well. I think we should separate how we feel about the players, with how we may feel about the coaching staff. We will get better, it's just a matter of when. Patience is wearing thin to say the least, but we have to go to the rink and not care about the past 34 games, and just look to the future. I still think the future's bright in Moose Country. But someone mentioned that they would like to fall asleep and get woken up when the Moose are better, and I'm starting to feel the same way. I just want to see wins, and I think there will be more in the 2nd half . Go Moose!
|
|