|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Nov 15, 2014 16:46:01 GMT -4
I will play devils advocate here (as in, side with Billy lol). I am not saying you shouldn't go for it as the league really lacks a clear favourite and has an extra spot in the Memorial Cup available. Moncton are in that conversation of teams that with a couple strong moves could actually put themselves in the finals. I think where he is coming from is, he wants to focus on building a team (like SJ, like HFX) that grows into 2-3 strong, contending seasons without a long rebuild period to get back on top again. A team that can afford to add a star player or two without destroying all rebuilding assets. I think he (rightfully) was concerned with the decision to go for it a couple years ago when they could have sold instead of bought and maybe be legit favourites right now. This team of yours now is exciting and in contender talk, but an attempt at a title is still a big gamble and sets you back again. I think the concern here is that like in 2012, the Moncton strategy has been like the dog in "Up" that gets quickly distracted by "SQUIRREL!"  You set out to build the team back out, but suddenly you find yourself in a situation that is appealing, so you sort of abandon what everyone wanted a year ago for short term excitement. You scream at Billy for projecting fear etc, but isn't it EXACTLY what happened in 2012? Too many holes, not enough assets to trade to fill them, and a terrible playoff failure and back to a rebuild (although luckily it has worked out somewhat with the league this year). I am not taking sides either way - I get the sensible reason to make a run this year given the guys on the roster and who will likely be gone next year - but I don't know if aiming to get a spot in the finals and perhaps an embarrassing Memorial Cup appearance if you aren't that good should be the main goal of the organization. I think Billy just doesn't want to see another 2012 type season happen - which if I remember correctly, he was one of the few actually concerned with the make-up of the team that year. I am sure he is just seeing a strong possibility for the same result because of the needs and the lack of assets to fill them to make a serious run at a league title. Here's the difference I see this year. In the fall of 2012, it was obvious that the Moose were in a class of their own at that time. Everybody knew that buying would have to be excessive just to get to the level of the Moose. That is not counting what the Moose could do at Christmas. This year's Cats are on par with the other leaders of the league. Whoever makes the purchase that pays off the most will get the nod. I agree somewhat.... but you guys were one of the hottest teams at Xmas that year, with Jaskin leading the way. I don't remember a whole ton of "sell sell sell" people on the board. You guys had played well vs. Halifax and nobody was giving us the title in December. But I think Billy was one of the more skeptical guys here regarding buying as he felt they didn't have enough assets to fill all the holes. Everyone got mad at him then for not just getting behind the team and stop predicting doom and gloom. I see the same things here, that's all. Basically Steve is angry that he is "negative" and "scared" to make the big moves, but I would think all he has to do is answer with "2012" to justify his concerns. The fact Halifax ended up being so good means nothing considering you lost to Victo in round 1. I doubt you could find one person back then who said you stood no chance in a series against Halifax, even before Danault. There was a lot of hope at that time. Basically he (and some others) looked at the team in 2012 and saw a few holes to fill and not enough assets to do it - and they were 100% right. It's the same feeling this year it seems. Is it 99% in favour of making a run this year, with Billy being the only nervous guy? |
|
|
|
Post by Don Draper on Nov 15, 2014 16:52:14 GMT -4
Here's the difference I see this year. In the fall of 2012, it was obvious that the Moose were in a class of their own at that time. Everybody knew that buying would have to be excessive just to get to the level of the Moose. That is not counting what the Moose could do at Christmas. This year's Cats are on par with the other leaders of the league. Whoever makes the purchase that pays off the most will get the nod. Pretty safe to say Rimouski is a powerhouse, they have gone 16-6-1 without 2 of their top players for almost all of that(they have each played 5-7 games) PLUS they don't have any major weaknesses. That equates to a 96 point season. When the "powerhouse" team in the league is 16-6-1 in mid-November (btw, it's mid-November), that's a sign the league could see any number of teams come out of top. Just like last year... just like 2008... just like 2003... just like 2002. Six losses is close to what the 2011 Sea Dogs and 2013 Mooseheads accumulated in that department all season, playoffs and Memorial Cup included. The Cats are a potential contender based on the current state of the league. You can probably say the same for about five other teams. This is nothing at all like 2012, for several key reasons already stated. The 2012-13 team could very well have lost that game to Victoriaville last night 8-3 as opposed to winning it... because the Tigers scored first, had a solid first period and the fragile state of that year's Moncton team would've caused them to either boil over or become enigmatic and therefore allow the game to flow in that direction. This year's team has come from behind numerous times in games (the last three in a row, in fact) and won (not saying that's an ideal habit to get into either but I digress). The mentality both on the ice and in the room are totally different and it's that change that may prove to be the biggest difference if they were to wind up successful in the playoffs. It's the fact that you can't seem to grasp the variables outside of what's on a stats sheet that makes the logic flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Nov 15, 2014 16:54:58 GMT -4
Here's the difference I see this year. In the fall of 2012, it was obvious that the Moose were in a class of their own at that time. Everybody knew that buying would have to be excessive just to get to the level of the Moose. That is not counting what the Moose could do at Christmas. This year's Cats are on par with the other leaders of the league. Whoever makes the purchase that pays off the most will get the nod. I agree somewhat.... but you guys were one of the hottest teams at Xmas that year, with Jaskin leading the way. I don't remember a whole ton of "sell sell sell" people on the board. You guys had played well vs. Halifax and nobody was giving us the title in December. But I think Billy was one of the more skeptical guys here regarding buying as he felt they didn't have enough assets to fill all the holes. Everyone got mad at him then for not just getting behind the team and stop predicting doom and gloom. I see the same things here, that's all. Basically Steve is angry that he is "negative" and "scared" to make the big moves, but I would think all he has to do is answer with "2012" to justify his concerns. The fact Halifax ended up being so good means nothing considering you lost to Victo in round 1. I doubt you could find one person back then who said you stood no chance in a series against Halifax, even before Danault. There was a lot of hope at that time. Basically he (and some others) looked at the team in 2012 and saw a few holes to fill and not enough assets to do it - and they were 100% right. It's the same feeling this year it seems. Is it 99% in favour of making a run this year, with Billy being the only nervous guy? You say 2012, I say 2009 lol. I agree the 2012-13 run was a failure. They overspent on only one asset and that didn't pan out. Billy is suggesting trading a couple of big assets for some picks and futures as 19's and 20's. That would be the same as the Gormley trade. What if next year we're not good enough yet? Do we resell the assets acquired as it was suggested in 2012? When do we go for it then? You don't need to have the 2011 Sea Dogs or the 2013 Moose to contend and win. That's what Billy and Dugger want. You can do it like the 2014 Foreurs or the 2006 and 2010 Cats. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Nov 15, 2014 17:03:20 GMT -4
I agree somewhat.... but you guys were one of the hottest teams at Xmas that year, with Jaskin leading the way. I don't remember a whole ton of "sell sell sell" people on the board. You guys had played well vs. Halifax and nobody was giving us the title in December. But I think Billy was one of the more skeptical guys here regarding buying as he felt they didn't have enough assets to fill all the holes. Everyone got mad at him then for not just getting behind the team and stop predicting doom and gloom. I see the same things here, that's all. Basically Steve is angry that he is "negative" and "scared" to make the big moves, but I would think all he has to do is answer with "2012" to justify his concerns. The fact Halifax ended up being so good means nothing considering you lost to Victo in round 1. I doubt you could find one person back then who said you stood no chance in a series against Halifax, even before Danault. There was a lot of hope at that time. Basically he (and some others) looked at the team in 2012 and saw a few holes to fill and not enough assets to do it - and they were 100% right. It's the same feeling this year it seems. Is it 99% in favour of making a run this year, with Billy being the only nervous guy? You say 2012, I say 2009 lol. I agree the 2012-13 run was a failure. They overspent on only one asset and that didn't pan out. Billy is suggesting trading a couple of big assets for some picks and futures as 19's and 20's. That would be the same as the Gormley trade. What if next year we're not good enough yet? Do we resell the assets acquired as it was suggested in 2012? When do we go for it then? You don't need to have the 2011 Sea Dogs or the 2013 Moose to contend and win. That's what Billy and Dugger want. You can do it like the 2014 Foreurs or the 2006 and 2010 Cats. I know... the question is "when IS the right time"? And like I said, I don't disagree that you should be considering it this year. But I don't get the hate on for Billy bringing up the other side of the coin, when something similar happened only 2 years ago. |
|
Dugger
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 440
|
Post by Dugger on Nov 15, 2014 17:41:55 GMT -4
Take a realistic look at the team, defensively they are a mess, it’s a crap shoot for the forwards to stay healthy at their size, Tkachev looks disinterested most nights (incredible talent) but he isn’t going to buy into anyone’s system if it doesn’t involve him doing his own thing. Dubeau has yet to find his stride this year, maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t but your hedging your bets with a goalie that has s**t the bed 2 out of 3 seasons he’s played when it counts. Now add to all this an incredible anaemic cupboard of assets from which to draw upon to get the players needed to plug holes to make this team a true contender and you have the recipe for disaster as happened two years ago that will have an even greater negative affect on the team as they go forward after this year. I’m not saying this team sucks, all I’m saying is the team does not have the framework from which to build a solid contender with, the fact that the league is weaker (lack of a true powerhouse) than in past years shouldn’t be an incentive to “go” for it. They cannot and should not sell the farm to bolster a mid-pack team. That post sounded familiar... Here's one from around the same time in 2009 And they won that year without the only bright spot at forward in your opinion (KK) And here's one from 2012... almost predictable.  There was probably a few posts like that in the fall of 2005 too. What would it take for you to consider them contenders? Would they need to be 20 or 30 points ahead? Have you ever felt the Cats could win a championship? Anyway, I'm just having a little fun with the quote function. I'm not saying they will or are positioned to do it, but they have the players to make noise, how much noise... time will tell. It will be up to management to decide what's on the table. I'm enjoying the ride from afar. They are fun to watch even if it's just on the net. Hopefully I'Ll catch a few games when I come down at Christmas. You care! I'm just being pragmatic, I don't see enough assets we have to go and get the players needed to be a championship team, we need several holes plugged and I'm not sure we have enough draft picks/prospects to trade to get those players, if the team figures out some formula of picks/trades that get us what we need than fine go for it. Our only wild card in all this is our ability to attract relatively quality American players (that other teams can't or don't have the resources to go get) that help speed the rebuilding process. Another question to be asked is are we building to win the President's Trophy or win the Memorial Cup, Mr. Irving wants the Memorial Cup and that will take a lot more than what is required to win the President's Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Nov 15, 2014 18:20:38 GMT -4
That post sounded familiar... Here's one from around the same time in 2009 And they won that year without the only bright spot at forward in your opinion (KK) And here's one from 2012... almost predictable. There was probably a few posts like that in the fall of 2005 too. What would it take for you to consider them contenders? Would they need to be 20 or 30 points ahead? Have you ever felt the Cats could win a championship? Anyway, I'm just having a little fun with the quote function. I'm not saying they will or are positioned to do it, but they have the players to make noise, how much noise... time will tell. It will be up to management to decide what's on the table. I'm enjoying the ride from afar. They are fun to watch even if it's just on the net. Hopefully I'Ll catch a few games when I come down at Christmas. You care! I'm just being pragmatic, I don't see enough assets we have to go and get the players needed to be a championship team, we need several holes plugged and I'm not sure we have enough draft picks/prospects to trade to get those players, if the team figures out some formula of picks/trades that get us what we need than fine go for it. Our only wild card in all this is our ability to attract relatively quality American players (that other teams can't or don't have the resources to go get) that help speed the rebuilding process. Another question to be asked is are we building to win the President's Trophy or win the Memorial Cup, Mr. Irving wants the Memorial Cup and that will take a lot more than what is required to win the President's Cup. Its a whole different issue with the Memorial Cup. That takes much more special circumstances(Shawinagan host) /special players(Hfx,SJ) attained at the right time in combination(Strong draft, expansion base to build on.) Waiting for perfection can take 20 yrs or more. League is more about the right player trades at the right time. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Nov 16, 2014 0:22:19 GMT -4
Pretty safe to say Rimouski is a powerhouse, they have gone 16-6-1 without 2 of their top players for almost all of that(they have each played 5-7 games) PLUS they don't have any major weaknesses. That equates to a 96 point season. When the "powerhouse" team in the league is 16-6-1 in mid-November (btw, it's mid-November), that's a sign the league could see any number of teams come out of top. Just like last year... just like 2008... just like 2003... just like 2002. Six losses is close to what the 2011 Sea Dogs and 2013 Mooseheads accumulated in that department all season, playoffs and Memorial Cup included. The Cats are a potential contender based on the current state of the league. You can probably say the same for about five other teams. This is nothing at all like 2012, for several key reasons already stated. The 2012-13 team could very well have lost that game to Victoriaville last night 8-3 as opposed to winning it... because the Tigers scored first, had a solid first period and the fragile state of that year's Moncton team would've caused them to either boil over or become enigmatic and therefore allow the game to flow in that direction. This year's team has come from behind numerous times in games (the last three in a row, in fact) and won (not saying that's an ideal habit to get into either but I digress). The mentality both on the ice and in the room are totally different and it's that change that may prove to be the biggest difference if they were to wind up successful in the playoffs. It's the fact that you can't seem to grasp the variables outside of what's on a stats sheet that makes the logic flawed. Did you read my post? They would get to 96 with their two best players hurt for 75% of those games. Rimouski is built to win, they have impact players and pretty good depth at all positions. If you want to compete with them, you better add a lot on defense and at least 2 skill forwards. Quebec is already pretty good, they are likely to get Duclair back(scratched again tonight)and thety will add whatever it takes being host. This year's team has shown to be quite fragile at times, just look at the trip through Gatineau-Vd-RN. They have had a couple of rough patches where the scoring disappeared and they couldn't adjust and win by grinding. |
|
|
|
Post by forrest on Dec 19, 2014 15:16:02 GMT -4
The defense is always going to look bad when trying to get the puck out when the forwards don't move around to create open lanes. That is when they throw it out of the zone against the glass and give the puck away, or try a high risk individual play that often leads to a turnover. The forwards are often not moving enough to make the first pass an option for the D. That IMO comes from the system. The defense is always going to look bad when trying to get back the puck in their zone when forwards are allowed to take extra long shifts and not backcheck as fast as they can. We still see certain forwards doing that. That is a team concept and players should be held accountable to those values. The defense is also going to look bad offensively when the team is disorganized in the offensive zone or everytime they jump in the offense and have none of the forwards cover their position. Those who think Flynn was lucky to always have solid defensemen should maybe consider he was part responsible for developing them and giving them a team system where they could succeed. Also, Moncton is terrible defensively this year, yet they didn't keep Mark Simpson around... A guy with size who was good defensively with an offensive upside. Very questionable decision if you ask me. Personally, I think the product on the ice is entertaining and is fun to watch. I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. But I don't think this team is going to get anywhere near a championship with the decisions they make and the style they play. The issues I see with the defense is without the puck, they move the puck well enough. Guys like Malatesta Holwell and tassi can move the puck real well, but none of the 3 should be in your top 4 as a contender. Those 3 are pretty one dimensional, Holwell was ok defensively last year but seems to have regressed or at least not progressed... Guys like Garland and Tkachev are good with the puck on their stick, not so much without it or defensively. Individually, their are good with the puck... We have many players who move the puck well. But as a team, they still lose the puck too easily. Not creating open lanes for passes or trying too many low percentage passes. Thank God they have talent to produce offensively. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 19, 2014 15:18:42 GMT -4
The issues I see with the defense is without the puck, they move the puck well enough. Guys like Malatesta Holwell and tassi can move the puck real well, but none of the 3 should be in your top 4 as a contender. Those 3 are pretty one dimensional, Holwell was ok defensively last year but seems to have regressed or at least not progressed... Guys like Garland and Tkachev are good with the puck on their stick, not so much without it or defensively. Individually, their are good with the puck... We have many players who move the puck well. But as a team, they still lose the puck too easily. Not creating open lanes for passes or trying too many low percentage passes. Thank God they have talent to produce offensively. When you have a small team they are more likely to lose the puck |
|
|
|
Post by curtis on Dec 19, 2014 15:40:41 GMT -4
Individually, their are good with the puck... We have many players who move the puck well. But as a team, they still lose the puck too easily. Not creating open lanes for passes or trying too many low percentage passes. Thank God they have talent to produce offensively. When you have a small team they are more likely to lose the puck This is not a small team...thee smaller players in Garland, Jacob, and Talbot-Tassi. Most teams have a couple. We don't have any Ross Johnston-types, but overall this is an average size team. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 19, 2014 15:49:25 GMT -4
When you have a small team they are more likely to lose the puck This is not a small team...thee smaller players in Garland, Jacob, and Talbot-Tassi. Most teams have a couple. We don't have any Ross Johnston-types, but overall this is an average size team. The only "big" player that plays regularly is Sweeney, Duquette plays 5-10 shits on nights when he is dressed. Klebanskij has good size and he is #6 d-man. Askew was also above average, played 2nd or 3rd line. On the flip side they had a pile of small guys playing regular...Malatesta Tkachev Lalonde Johnson Tassi Holwell Garland...for most of the year they HAD to be the smallest taem in the Q, with Lalonde and Tkachev being gone it's not as bad with Burke coming in, but Jacob is tiny so if you add him for Olivier/Tkachev, you still ahve a really small team on average. |
|
|
|
Post by forrest on Dec 19, 2014 15:54:06 GMT -4
Individually, their are good with the puck... We have many players who move the puck well. But as a team, they still lose the puck too easily. Not creating open lanes for passes or trying too many low percentage passes. Thank God they have talent to produce offensively. When you have a small team they are more likely to lose the puck Size only has something to do with it when your along the boards fighting for the pucks. Not when your trying get the puck out of the zone. Limiting turnovers is done by moving the puck quickly and for that, you need speed which smaller players have. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 19, 2014 15:58:26 GMT -4
When you have a small team they are more likely to lose the puck Size only has something to do with it when your along the boards fighting for the pucks. Not when your trying get the puck out of the zone. Limiting turnovers is done by moving the puck quickly and for that, you need speed which smaller players have. Bigger/stronger players are usually stronger on the puck than a guy that's 3-4 inches shorter and 30lbs lighter. Speed is definitely an asset, but in hockey, sometimes space is tight, especially against big and skilled teams. They take away time and space and put small players at a disadvantage. You can have a few, but not 7-8. |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Dec 19, 2014 16:13:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by curtis on Dec 19, 2014 16:15:23 GMT -4
This is not a small team...thee smaller players in Garland, Jacob, and Talbot-Tassi. Most teams have a couple. We don't have any Ross Johnston-types, but overall this is an average size team. The only "big" player that plays regularly is Sweeney, Duquette plays 5-10 shits on nights when he is dressed. Klebanskij has good size and he is #6 d-man. Askew was also above average, played 2nd or 3rd line. On the flip side they had a pile of small guys playing regular...Malatesta Tkachev Lalonde Johnson Tassi Holwell Garland...for most of the year they HAD to be the smallest taem in the Q, with Lalonde and Tkachev being gone it's not as bad with Burke coming in, but Jacob is tiny so if you add him for Olivier/Tkachev, you still ahve a really small team on average. Malatesta is listed at 5'10" and 190...pretty solid...and he's a big hitter. Holwell is 6' 180 and probably gained few pounds...and those are your smallest D....try again. EDIT: T-T is small. I'll give you that. Up front...forwards under 6 feet: A-B - 7 B-C - 5 (including 3 players 5'8" or shorter) Blainville - 7 (including 3 players 5'8" or shorter) C-B - 6 (including 3 players 5'8" or shorter) CHA - 8 CHI - 6 DRU - 7 GAT - 4 HAL - 8 MON - 7 QUE - 9 RIM - 5 R-N - 4 SJ - 3 SHW - 4 SHE - 8 VD - 9 (including 3 players 5'7" or shorter!) VIC - 6 Sorry, but we're about average. |
|
You set out to build the team back out, but suddenly you find yourself in a situation that is appealing, so you sort of abandon what everyone wanted a year ago for short term excitement.
