|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Apr 21, 2015 9:14:05 GMT -4
Can anybody remember a series where the heavy underdog won the first 2 games on the road, then lost the middle 3, only to win out the last 2 games to take a series in 7? Seems like a very rare possible scenario, especially in a 2 vs 12 series. The Halifax team was decimated badly by injuries in games 4 and 5 - the surprise is the first two games not the rest of the series. Halifax caught them sleeping and it gave them enough energy to think they could compete the whole series. As for the future. The young D on Halifax will all be a year older with this experience in the bag. They may not be as terrible a team as people say. They will have new players - new goalie perhaps - Meier will be back too but they will not be 10 points worse than this team. It all depends on what Cam does at the draft with his picks and trades of course. If Donaghey comes, we should have a pretty good defense, as Ford, C. Fitzgerald and to a lesser extent Nauss could form a pretty good top 4. Resop showed lots of potential this year, and could be ok in goal. Up front is looking dire. Meier/Fortier/D. Moynihan will be the only real threats as it appears right now. The draft, and trades, will be key. A euro to replace Ehlers (lets assume he is done) could soften the loss, and maybe draft/trade our way to young forward talent. I think the forward position is the area we need to focus on the most right now.
|
|
|
Post by Conky on Apr 21, 2015 9:21:01 GMT -4
The Halifax team was decimated badly by injuries in games 4 and 5 - the surprise is the first two games not the rest of the series. Halifax caught them sleeping and it gave them enough energy to think they could compete the whole series. As for the future. The young D on Halifax will all be a year older with this experience in the bag. They may not be as terrible a team as people say. They will have new players - new goalie perhaps - Meier will be back too but they will not be 10 points worse than this team. It all depends on what Cam does at the draft with his picks and trades of course. If Donaghey comes, we should have a pretty good defense, as Ford, C. Fitzgerald and to a lesser extent Nauss could form a pretty good top 4. dont forget they might be able to get marino to report or land a good american
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Apr 21, 2015 9:26:53 GMT -4
It all depends on what Cam does at the draft with his picks and trades of course. If Donaghey comes, we should have a pretty good defense, as Ford, C. Fitzgerald and to a lesser extent Nauss could form a pretty good top 4. dont forget they might be able to get marino to report or land a good american Why would they want to play for the loseheads?
|
|
|
Post by defresh101 on Apr 21, 2015 9:45:16 GMT -4
Since the last dark period the Moose may finally have created a competitive product every year. I have heard guys like Ressor refer to the Moose as next year as our year we will be bad or the year after be worst. With this team and the assets meaning (coaches,picks, current players fan base, desire for players to want to come here) we are very lucky and have a reason to believe we have a good future.
Nobody can predict this teams future for the next 2-4 years there are way to many unknowns with hugeeeeee spin-off possibilities. Such as will Ehlers be back, what can we get for Brassard, will Ducharme go to the next level in coaching. Also where will our 1st round pick be in 2016, where will ourQuebec pick be, what will our Euros be like.
I find it hard to believe that either us or Quebec will be the worst team in the league but where we could be could be anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by 1994 on Apr 21, 2015 9:56:35 GMT -4
dont forget they might be able to get marino to report or land a good american Why would they want to play for the loseheads? Good organization in a great city, how do you figure the Mooseheads got Euro players like Voracek, Ehlers, Meir, and Nagy as examples.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Apr 21, 2015 10:10:40 GMT -4
Why would they want to play for the loseheads? Good organization in a great city, how do you figure the Mooseheads got Euro players like Voracek, Ehlers, Meir, and Nagy as examples. I was being sarcastic. Conky always calls the Mooseheads the loseheads which is getting so old. Just wanted to know if he calls them the loseheads, why he would think anyone would play for them.
|
|
|
Post by hfxfan09 on Apr 21, 2015 10:24:23 GMT -4
Any word on if Bent is suspended for this one? Just looked at the Q website doesn't appear Betnt was suspended nothing on the website. That could be huge for us as he's been chipping in offensively the last few games.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Apr 21, 2015 10:28:58 GMT -4
Any word on if Bent is suspended for this one? Just looked at the Q website doesn't appear Betnt was suspended nothing on the website. That could be huge for us as he's been chipping in offensively the last few games. Speaking of Bent - I saw a clip of the little skirmish he got that penalty. I didn't even see him in the clip at all? When it happened, and they announced the Bent penalty, I figured I missed something as I didn't even see him out there. Was it ever cleared up what that penalty was for?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 21, 2015 10:31:17 GMT -4
Any word on if Bent is suspended for this one? Just looked at the Q website doesn't appear Betnt was suspended nothing on the website. That could be huge for us as he's been chipping in offensively the last few games. If he left the bench and jumped into the fray then he should be suspended ... if he did not, but was on the ice when he shouldn't have been ... then he should not be suspended ... IMO. I don't know what he did ... didn't see him.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Apr 21, 2015 10:47:56 GMT -4
Any word on if Bent is suspended for this one? Just looked at the Q website doesn't appear Betnt was suspended nothing on the website. That could be huge for us as he's been chipping in offensively the last few games. If he left the bench and jumped into the fray then he should be suspended ... if he did not, but was on the ice when he shouldn't have been ... then he should not be suspended ... IMO. I don't know what he did ... didn't see him. Definately didn't jump into the mix, didn't even appear to be on the ice or in the area. There was a moment that Ehlers and ~someone~ were by the Moncton bench chirping with players on the Moncton bench... I don't remember if it was after that event though, or if it was even Bent with him. MAYBE Bent stepped off the bench to chirp (assuming it was that time, and it was Bent)? Not sure...
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 21, 2015 11:02:33 GMT -4
If he left the bench and jumped into the fray then he should be suspended ... if he did not, but was on the ice when he shouldn't have been ... then he should not be suspended ... IMO. I don't know what he did ... didn't see him. Definately didn't jump into the mix, didn't even appear to be on the ice or in the area. There was a moment that Ehlers and ~someone~ were by the Moncton bench chirping with players on the Moncton bench... I don't remember if it was after that event though, or if it was even Bent with him. MAYBE Bent stepped off the bench to chirp (assuming it was that time, and it was Bent)? Not sure... Were you at the game or watching a broadcast ? Pretty sure you don't see any sort of view of the bench on the broadcast while the altercation is still going on. But I do know what you are talking about when Ehlers was tugging on his jersey toward the Wildcat bench and chirping was going on. Here is the wording of the penalties assigned to him ... keeping in mind that the wording can be very generic and not very specific ... 3rd - Hal Kelly Bent, 14:01 - First or second player to leave a bench (penalty) during an altercation, or for the purpose of participating in an altercation, (1.8) (PP) 3rd - Hal Kelly Bent, 14:01 - First or second player to leave a bench (players) during an altercation, or for the purpose of participating in an altercation - Game Misconduct, (4.8) In each penalty there is a word in brackets that is different ... first one says "(penalty)" and the second one says "(players)". Not sure what that means. It does not say that he participated in the altercation ... just that he left the bench "during an altercation". This penalty would seem to not apply if he left the bench after the players were back at their benches and the dust-up was all settled. There was a point when the puck was about to be dropped after the penalties were assessed for this incident ... the Ref went back to the scorer's bench and spoke to the scorer ... made a gesture with his thumb as if to say "somebody was ejected".
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Apr 21, 2015 11:09:04 GMT -4
Definately didn't jump into the mix, didn't even appear to be on the ice or in the area. There was a moment that Ehlers and ~someone~ were by the Moncton bench chirping with players on the Moncton bench... I don't remember if it was after that event though, or if it was even Bent with him. MAYBE Bent stepped off the bench to chirp (assuming it was that time, and it was Bent)? Not sure... Were you at the game or watching a broadcast ? Pretty sure you don't see any sort of view of the bench on the broadcast while the altercation is still going on. But I do know what you are talking about when Ehlers was tugging on his jersey toward the Wildcat bench and chirping was going on. Here is the wording of the penalties assigned to him ... keeping in mind that the wording can be very generic and not very specific ... 3rd - Hal Kelly Bent, 14:01 - First or second player to leave a bench (penalty) during an altercation, or for the purpose of participating in an altercation, (1.8) (PP) 3rd - Hal Kelly Bent, 14:01 - First or second player to leave a bench (players) during an altercation, or for the purpose of participating in an altercation - Game Misconduct, (4.8) In each penalty there is a word in brackets that is different ... first one says "(penalty)" and the second one says "(players)". Not sure what that means. It does not say that he participated in the altercation ... just that he left the bench "during an altercation". This penalty would seem to not apply if he left the bench after the players were back at their benches and the dust-up was all settled. There was a point when the puck was about to be dropped after the penalties were assessed for this incident ... the Ref went back to the scorer's bench and spoke to the scorer ... made a gesture with his thumb as if to say "somebody was ejected". In the French summary "Extrême inconduite" (Extreme misconduct) usually carries an automatic suspension.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Rogan on Apr 21, 2015 11:12:30 GMT -4
The scrum was at the entrances to the benches and players were coming on and off the bench for a change. He didn't even get involved in anything other than jawing and pushing. If he gets suspended for that, it's ridiculous. This wasn't a case of 'leaving the bench to join an altercation'. He was coming on the ice for a change and there was some jawing going on between benches and nothing really happened.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 21, 2015 11:22:16 GMT -4
The scrum was at the entrances to the benches and players were coming on and off the bench for a change. He didn't even get involved in anything other than jawing and pushing. If he gets suspended for that, it's ridiculous. This wasn't a case of 'leaving the bench to join an altercation'. He was coming on the ice for a change and there was some jawing going on between benches and nothing really happened. From the broadcast ... I would swear that the scrum was on the opposite side of the ice from the benches ... but maybe not ... camera angles can get confusing. Then when it was all separated the players went back to their respective benches where some chirping happened ... wasn't any sort of scrum over there that I recall. It all depends I guess on what they consider "during the altercation". There was a fight between Cormier and LeBlanc after Ehlers got hit twice ... that to me was the "altercation". Once everybody is separated and sent back to the benches, I think the altercation is over. But maybe they consider it to be still an "altercation" until the Ref points at both benches to send out players for the next faceoff. I dunno. If Bent came on prematurely while the players were at their benches ... then I don't think a suspension is justified. There shouldn't have even been a GM if that was the case.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Apr 21, 2015 11:22:37 GMT -4
The scrum was at the entrances to the benches and players were coming on and off the bench for a change. He didn't even get involved in anything other than jawing and pushing. If he gets suspended for that, it's ridiculous. This wasn't a case of 'leaving the bench to join an altercation'. He was coming on the ice for a change and there was some jawing going on between benches and nothing really happened. If he left the bench to take part in the jawing and pushing, a suspension is fully deserved. Altercation doesn't need to be a fight. That is what the refs called obviously.
|
|