|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 7, 2015 9:28:01 GMT -4
According to the article today...6/10 are almost locks to play NCAA
1-Krys 2-O'Leary 3-MacLeod 4-Cyr 5-McInnis 6-Dawe 7-Lavoie 8-McKenna 9-Waite 10-Grant
Strange they never brought up Petruzzelli who was higher rated than Grant or Waite for the draft?
I assume Grant Lavoie Cyr and McKenna are the ones reporting for sure?
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Oct 7, 2015 9:47:07 GMT -4
At least this year they pretty much admit in the paper that the chances are slim that a lot of these guys will report. Last year they made it seem like there was a great chance that the likes of Krys, McInnis and MacLeod were going to show up.
You would have thought Petruzelli would be highly ranked and maybe DeStefani too. Probably didn't want the list to be completely full of players not reporting.
|
|
|
Post by joehockey on Oct 7, 2015 10:40:22 GMT -4
According to the article today...6/10 are almost locks to play NCAA 1-Krys 2-O'Leary 3-MacLeod 4-Cyr 5-McInnis 6-Dawe 7-Lavoie 8-McKenna 9-Waite 10-Grant Strange they never brought up Petruzzelli who was higher rated than Grant or Waite for the draft? I assume Grant Lavoie Cyr and McKenna are the ones reporting for sure? Those would be my guess. It's surprising that they don't mention Petruzzelli as a top prospect ahead of Grant and Waite but it's likely what Arnold said about not wanting all the top prospects to be NCAA guys. Shannon also said one or two of the top prospects may join the team later in the year. The obvious guess is Cyr and Lavoie but I think that it is somewhat of a good sign in that Moncton is likely trading away some of their older players and not loading up for what is likely Garland's last year. I wouldn't mind leaving Lavoie and Cyr in Dieppe if they are getting playing time because it will likely still be hard to find time for the younger players on the roster even if they do move out a few guys.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 7, 2015 12:17:04 GMT -4
According to the article today...6/10 are almost locks to play NCAA 1-Krys 2-O'Leary 3-MacLeod 4-Cyr 5-McInnis 6-Dawe 7-Lavoie 8-McKenna 9-Waite 10-Grant Strange they never brought up Petruzzelli who was higher rated than Grant or Waite for the draft? I assume Grant Lavoie Cyr and McKenna are the ones reporting for sure? Those would be my guess. It's surprising that they don't mention Petruzzelli as a top prospect ahead of Grant and Waite but it's likely what Arnold said about not wanting all the top prospects to be NCAA guys. Shannon also said one or two of the top prospects may join the team later in the year. The obvious guess is Cyr and Lavoie but I think that it is somewhat of a good sign in that Moncton is likely trading away some of their older players and not loading up for what is likely Garland's last year. I wouldn't mind leaving Lavoie and Cyr in Dieppe if they are getting playing time because it will likely still be hard to find time for the younger players on the roster even if they do move out a few guys. The next 4-6 weeks will be a big test. So far they have gone 1-2 vs CB and Sha with NHL picks back. I think that is the number to keep an eye on, how they do vs VD She RN CB SJ and PEI as those are to be the top teams. I'm sure getting Sweeney back won't hurt, but are there enough pieces to build a top contender? ...or are they just happy to win a playoff round a year?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 7, 2015 12:20:12 GMT -4
The Sunday loss to Shawinigan won't be considered ... we were missing 5 regulars plus a Coach. You wouldn't consider our early win over SJ as being relevant so neither should this loss be.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 7, 2015 12:21:55 GMT -4
The Sunday loss to Shawinigan won't be considered ... we were missing 5 regulars plus a Coach. You wouldn't consider our early win over SJ as being relevant so neither should this loss be. Shawinigan was playing their 3rd game in 48 hours having played Friday and Saturday. WC had Saturday night off.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 7, 2015 12:39:52 GMT -4
The Sunday loss to Shawinigan won't be considered ... we were missing 5 regulars plus a Coach. You wouldn't consider our early win over SJ as being relevant so neither should this loss be. Shawinigan was playing their 3rd game in 48 hours having played Friday and Saturday. WC had Saturday night off. OK then ... we won't consider any 3rd game losses when we have that type of road trip either ... . The schedule is not an excuse ... all teams have tough stretches in their schedule that they have to manage. Some teams even have tougher schedules ... with more travel ... while others will get the benefit of being the only strong team within their division. Unless you are going to start adding a weighting system to games, the schedule can't be considered in anything. If at some point in the season we play and beat Shawinigan while 5 of their players are out of the lineup ... you'll be telling us that we wouldn't beat the real Cataractes. While that tired team we watched on Sunday was a very good team ... I don't think they beat us if we have those 5 players in the lineup. Both teams rested and playing full lineups ... they are very likely the better team, but not far and away better than Moncton.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 7, 2015 12:47:07 GMT -4
Shawinigan was playing their 3rd game in 48 hours having played Friday and Saturday. WC had Saturday night off. OK then ... we won't consider any 3rd game losses when we have that type of road trip either ... . The schedule is not an excuse ... all teams have tough stretches in their schedule that they have to manage. Some teams even have tougher schedules ... with more travel ... while others will get the benefit of being the only strong team within their division. Unless you are going to start adding a weighting system to games, the schedule can't be considered in anything. If at some point in the season we play and beat Shawinigan while 5 of their players are out of the lineup ... you'll be telling us that we wouldn't beat the real Cataractes. While that tired team we watched on Sunday was a very good team ... I don't think they beat us if we have those 5 players in the lineup. Both teams rested and playing full lineups ... they are very likely the better team, but not far and away better than Moncton. all I'm saying is both teams were at a disadvantage so it was a fair fight. Had the Cats been at full strength, they should have won vs a tired team...IF the two teams are equal.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 7, 2015 14:23:54 GMT -4
OK then ... we won't consider any 3rd game losses when we have that type of road trip either ... . The schedule is not an excuse ... all teams have tough stretches in their schedule that they have to manage. Some teams even have tougher schedules ... with more travel ... while others will get the benefit of being the only strong team within their division. Unless you are going to start adding a weighting system to games, the schedule can't be considered in anything. If at some point in the season we play and beat Shawinigan while 5 of their players are out of the lineup ... you'll be telling us that we wouldn't beat the real Cataractes. While that tired team we watched on Sunday was a very good team ... I don't think they beat us if we have those 5 players in the lineup. Both teams rested and playing full lineups ... they are very likely the better team, but not far and away better than Moncton. all I'm saying is both teams were at a disadvantage so it was a fair fight. Had the Cats been at full strength, they should have won vs a tired team...IF the two teams are equal. What makes that a fair fight ? I'll take a tired Bowers, Weiderer, MacEwan, Garland, Johnston/Sweeney over not having them at all. The disadvantages were nowhere near equal.
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Oct 7, 2015 14:24:33 GMT -4
OK then ... we won't consider any 3rd game losses when we have that type of road trip either ... . The schedule is not an excuse ... all teams have tough stretches in their schedule that they have to manage. Some teams even have tougher schedules ... with more travel ... while others will get the benefit of being the only strong team within their division. Unless you are going to start adding a weighting system to games, the schedule can't be considered in anything. If at some point in the season we play and beat Shawinigan while 5 of their players are out of the lineup ... you'll be telling us that we wouldn't beat the real Cataractes. While that tired team we watched on Sunday was a very good team ... I don't think they beat us if we have those 5 players in the lineup. Both teams rested and playing full lineups ... they are very likely the better team, but not far and away better than Moncton. all I'm saying is both teams were at a disadvantage so it was a fair fight. Had the Cats been at full strength, they should have won vs a tired team...IF the two teams are equal. You're saying you want to use it as a barometer for the Wildcats chances in the playoffs but what's the point? Do you anticipate the Wildcats playing in the playoffs without 5 of our top players including the reigning league MVP?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 7, 2015 14:35:44 GMT -4
all I'm saying is both teams were at a disadvantage so it was a fair fight. Had the Cats been at full strength, they should have won vs a tired team...IF the two teams are equal. You're saying you want to use it as a barometer for the Wildcats chances in the playoffs but what's the point? Do you anticipate the Wildcats playing in the playoffs without 5 of our top players including the reigning league MVP? Do you anticipate a playoff series where a team is playing 3 games in 48 hours while another has the night before off?
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Oct 7, 2015 14:40:07 GMT -4
You're saying you want to use it as a barometer for the Wildcats chances in the playoffs but what's the point? Do you anticipate the Wildcats playing in the playoffs without 5 of our top players including the reigning league MVP? Do you anticipate a playoff series where a team is playing 3 games in 48 hours while another has the night before off? Nope so like Steve said, don't consider this game a barometer for playoff success. Arguing with you is easy, you always end up proving yourself wrong. So if the Cats play Saint John and each teams top 9 players and starting goalies are out should we use that game as a barometer for how well the teams will do in the playoffs since both teams are handicapped equally?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 7, 2015 15:10:26 GMT -4
Do you anticipate a playoff series where a team is playing 3 games in 48 hours while another has the night before off? Nope so like Steve said, don't consider this game a barometer for playoff success. Arguing with you is easy, you always end up proving yourself wrong. So if the Cats play Saint John and each teams top 9 players and starting goalies are out should we use that game as a barometer for how well the teams will do in the playoffs since both teams are handicapped equally? Not sure why you are turning this into a big deal. No need to split hairs, it's ONE game where one team was missing key guys and the other was on a 3 in 3. Both are factors that greatly impact a team's performance.
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Oct 7, 2015 17:16:17 GMT -4
According to the article today...6/10 are almost locks to play NCAA 1-Krys 2-O'Leary 3-MacLeod 4-Cyr 5-McInnis 6-Dawe 7-Lavoie 8-McKenna 9-Waite 10-Grant Strange they never brought up Petruzzelli who was higher rated than Grant or Waite for the draft? I assume Grant Lavoie Cyr and McKenna are the ones reporting for sure? Those would be my guess. It's surprising that they don't mention Petruzzelli as a top prospect ahead of Grant and Waite but it's likely what Arnold said about not wanting all the top prospects to be NCAA guys. Shannon also said one or two of the top prospects may join the team later in the year. The obvious guess is Cyr and Lavoie but I think that it is somewhat of a good sign in that Moncton is likely trading away some of their older players and not loading up for what is likely Garland's last year. I wouldn't mind leaving Lavoie and Cyr in Dieppe if they are getting playing time because it will likely still be hard to find time for the younger players on the roster even if they do move out a few guys. The way I read it, and I could very well be wrong, is that he was hinting at the remote possibility of someone like O'Leary or McInnis joining the team at mid-season. He was talking about players that would instantly change the look of the team if they arrived so I assume that's who he was talking about. Sure would be nice if a defenceman ended up here because the lack of depth on the blueline is pretty glaring. Sweeney coming back gives the team a true top pairing guy, but they could still desperately use another top four dman. If a McInnis or Krys showed up that would really change things on the back end. Sadly we all know that's a pipe dream at best.
|
|
|
Post by joehockey on Oct 7, 2015 19:35:39 GMT -4
Those would be my guess. It's surprising that they don't mention Petruzzelli as a top prospect ahead of Grant and Waite but it's likely what Arnold said about not wanting all the top prospects to be NCAA guys. Shannon also said one or two of the top prospects may join the team later in the year. The obvious guess is Cyr and Lavoie but I think that it is somewhat of a good sign in that Moncton is likely trading away some of their older players and not loading up for what is likely Garland's last year. I wouldn't mind leaving Lavoie and Cyr in Dieppe if they are getting playing time because it will likely still be hard to find time for the younger players on the roster even if they do move out a few guys. The way I read it, and I could very well be wrong, is that he was hinting at the remote possibility of someone like O'Leary or McInnis joining the team at mid-season. He was talking about players that would instantly change the look of the team if they arrived so I assume that's who he was talking about. Sure would be nice if a defenceman ended up here because the lack of depth on the blueline is pretty glaring. Sweeney coming back gives the team a true top pairing guy, but they could still desperately use another top four dman. If a McInnis or Krys showed up that would really change things on the back end. Sadly we all know that's a pipe dream at best. Yeah, makes sense to read it that way. I read it that way to start but I thought there is no way he thought that they could get one of those team changing guys midseason, even if he said it was just an outside chance.
|
|