|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 27, 2008 10:48:49 GMT -4
Go read my first post on this topic ... after you jumped into the thread. I'm not saying that Moncton is ready to win a championship. I'm saying that you have no clue what it takes to win. Your trade is a joke ... Voracek, Marchand, Hillier, Swan (a 21 YO lol) Corsi (not even Moose property) are not even in the Q ... I didnt know I had to point out we were talking about them based on last year I'll speak slower next time. You are misinterpreting what Im saying.. Ive never said you need a forward group like we had to win the league. Im saying we had better forwards than you do. If Flynn and his systems had this group you guys would be league favorites. Obviously there is more to winning than just having good forwards (we certainly didnt win). But you guys are arguing with me that my opinion that you guys will need a couple key additions to win the league is wrong. So go for it, dont change a thing, and prove me wrong. But if you guys lose out to Que, SJ, Shawinigan, then I expect you will come tell me I was right afterall. I'm not arguing with you at all that we can't win with our current forwards ... all I'm saying is that we won't win with those forwards ... at least not the way they played the game while in the Q. I know what you are saying but you aren't operating within any sort of reality ... you are asking me to say that I would or wouldn't make that trade ... 6 of my team's forwards ... vs 6 from your team when 4 don't even play in the Q. So yeah ... I wouldn't make that trade ... sorry if you find that shocking ... Would you make this trade ... Karsums, Dupuis, Goulet ... for Knotek, MacMillan, Jessyko Bernard ? You'd be foolish not to ...
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Oct 27, 2008 10:49:23 GMT -4
Go read my first post on this topic ... after you jumped into the thread. I'm not saying that Moncton is ready to win a championship. I'm saying that you have no clue what it takes to win. Your trade is a joke ... Voracek, Marchand, Hillier, Swan (a 21 YO lol) Corsi (not even Moose property) are not even in the Q ... I didnt know I had to point out we were talking about them based on last year I'll speak slower next time. You are misinterpreting what Im saying.. Ive never said you need a forward group like we had to win the league. Im saying we had better forwards than you do. If Flynn and his systems had this group you guys would be league favorites. Obviously there is more to winning than just having good forwards (we certainly didnt win). But you guys are arguing with me that my opinion that you guys will need a couple key additions to win the league is wrong. So go for it, dont change a thing, and prove me wrong. But if you guys lose out to Que, SJ, Shawinigan, then I expect you will come tell me I was right afterall. I'll give you that your offense last year had a greatter potential than ours but lacked chemistry. However, our D and goaltending eat yours for breakfast and Defence wins championships. Not saying this team is a top contender yet but it is getting closer each game.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Oct 27, 2008 11:00:21 GMT -4
I didnt know I had to point out we were talking about them based on last year I'll speak slower next time. You are misinterpreting what Im saying.. Ive never said you need a forward group like we had to win the league. Im saying we had better forwards than you do. If Flynn and his systems had this group you guys would be league favorites. Obviously there is more to winning than just having good forwards (we certainly didnt win). But you guys are arguing with me that my opinion that you guys will need a couple key additions to win the league is wrong. So go for it, dont change a thing, and prove me wrong. But if you guys lose out to Que, SJ, Shawinigan, then I expect you will come tell me I was right afterall. I'll give you that your offense last year had a greatter potential than ours but lacked chemistry. However, our D and goaltending eat yours for breakfast and Defence wins championships. Not saying this team is a top contender yet but it is getting closer each game. Lets just forget everything here because its obvious you guys arent accepting opinions other than the one that says Moncton have what it takes to win the league. We'll have to see how it plays out.
|
|
|
Post by gongshow on Oct 27, 2008 11:05:45 GMT -4
Considering how weak the league is this year I wouldn't be suprised if Moncton made some noise.However I think they need depth on defense(even though some will argue).Guys like Gormley will slow down if they keep playing 30 minutes a game in key situations.
Then again I've watched several games online involving either Shaw,Drum or Quebec and I must say the pace seems to be a step faster than the games I've seen Moncton in.....maybe it's just because those games don't get bogged down by the trap as much.It'll be interesting to see where Moncton fits in once they get through a strech of the schedule that's a little bit tougher than it is right now.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 27, 2008 11:05:59 GMT -4
I think at the bare minimum we need to add a defenseman ... we really only have 6 guys ... we could add a decent 19 year old for a pick or prospect - small move a la David MacDonald in 2006. Or, we have the depth to add a bigger fish on defense by upgrading our OA. Not sure if we need to add someone up front or not, we probably have 8-10 guys who are capable of 50 plus points given the ice time, and most if not all play solid two way hockey and fit from a chemistry stand point ... bringing in a 70-80 point guy would provide only a marginal offensive upgrade, and could disrupt our systems and chemistry which have made us so successful.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 27, 2008 12:04:05 GMT -4
We were that same CB team 3 seasons ago (06-07) ... carried by a very good group of 20 YO and wound up with pretty much the same result. This year's Cats aren't the same ... they are carried by a group of 22 or so players ... scoring from many ... everybody plays including the 16 YOs. Would I want your Top 6 forward group from last year ... in a straight up trade for our Top 6 ... LOL ... no thanks. Voracek would be nice ... but you can keep the rest of them. When did Swan creep into your Top 6 anyway ? Wasn't he a 4th liner ? Knotek ... really ? Nice skills but he isn't a dominating player. Where is the grit in that group ? Swan ? MacMillan ... ho hum ... again a nice player ... no grit ... not a leader ... and one has to wonder how mentally tough he is. But thanks for proving my point ... those players were a big part of your undoing last year ... and you don't realize it. Too many egos. One of the only guys worth keeping from that group (returning) was White ... and where is he now ? You win with guys like White ... not guys like Swan and Hillier. The thing I like a lot about our group of forwards this year is that most of them will be back next year ... same as 5 of our 6 top Dmen. That is one of the biggest reasons that most aren't looking to make changes. Nobody looked to Gatineau as the team to beat because they had actually considered dumping Giroux ... they didn't even think they were a contender. But we all know that any Gatineau team with Benoit Groulx behind the bench will be ready to play come playoff time. I'm glad he has gone to the pros. That is as homeristic a post as you will ever see. If a GM offered in a trade Voracek, Marchand, Hillier, MacMillan, Corsi, Swan for Eagles, Stephens, Famin, Brannon, Lessard, Cameron You would say no thanks? You are greatly underestimating what your coaches are doing, if you think they couldnt be even better with those guys. As for your assessment of the moose players... MacMillan no grit/leadership? He hits and fights and his character was a big reason Anaheim liked him so much. White is a guy you win with? Im amazed at the credit you guys give him now, he didnt get this much credit ever from moose fans. Knotek has nice skill but isnt dominating? True enough - so you are saying many of your top 9 guys are dominating players? Swan played all over, he was a big physical guy with 30+ goal skill and dressing room leadership. He had a very good playoffs too. Hillier was great along the boards, Pridham was the ultimate two way forward, always working. All this reaction because I feel in order to make a serious run, you will need some upgrades. Is the only thing I can say here, without getting the Lewy comparisons, "Moncton have all the tools to win the title, no need for any changes"? Anaheim also drafted Bryce Swan in the 2nd round and we all know how that turned out, he's now playing 3rd line in St.Fx. Your team last year was not just coaching, it's pretty obvious that a lot of players did not buy into the team concept. You can have Scotty Bowman coaching but if your players don't buy in it will never work. Another problem was that you had a hot and cold average at best goalie in nets and your defense only had 1 good puck mover in Bodnarchuk, even he wasn't playing taht great because he had to carry way too much load.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Oct 27, 2008 12:20:13 GMT -4
That is as homeristic a post as you will ever see. If a GM offered in a trade Voracek, Marchand, Hillier, MacMillan, Corsi, Swan for Eagles, Stephens, Famin, Brannon, Lessard, Cameron You would say no thanks? You are greatly underestimating what your coaches are doing, if you think they couldnt be even better with those guys. As for your assessment of the moose players... MacMillan no grit/leadership? He hits and fights and his character was a big reason Anaheim liked him so much. White is a guy you win with? Im amazed at the credit you guys give him now, he didnt get this much credit ever from moose fans. Knotek has nice skill but isnt dominating? True enough - so you are saying many of your top 9 guys are dominating players? Swan played all over, he was a big physical guy with 30+ goal skill and dressing room leadership. He had a very good playoffs too. Hillier was great along the boards, Pridham was the ultimate two way forward, always working. All this reaction because I feel in order to make a serious run, you will need some upgrades. Is the only thing I can say here, without getting the Lewy comparisons, "Moncton have all the tools to win the title, no need for any changes"? Anaheim also drafted Bryce Swan in the 2nd round and we all know how that turned out, he's now playing 3rd line in St.Fx. Your team last year was not just coaching, it's pretty obvious that a lot of players did not buy into the team concept. You can have Scotty Bowman coaching but if your players don't buy in it will never work. Another problem was that you had a hot and cold average at best goalie in nets and your defense only had 1 good puck mover in Bodnarchuk, even he wasn't playing taht great because he had to carry way too much load. But so much of that comes back to coaching... playing an effective system (whether its puck control, or defensive etc) relieves the strain on the #1 guys, the goalies etc... what system is it that the players didnt buy into? We are playing a similar system this year, which is basically skate hard but play very scrambly. I watched the games last year, there was alot of frustrated faces as we endlessly tried breakouts that went nowhere. Alot of guys winning battles on the boards, then looking around to see who to pass too, rather than knowing basically where the guys would be. Alot of guys leaving the ice exhausted from puck chasing/battling that resulted in no scoring chances... Ive watched alot of junior hockey over the past 15 years of the Q being in Halifax, and there is alot of similarities between Danny Grant's year and the past few with Russell. Pre-Russell, the only games I left the rink frustrated with the sloppy, no cohesion type play was during 1998. All other years we always had a strategy or direction that was apparent. We havent been an offensive team and have been far from being a defensive team. We have no team identity with the style we play. Scrambly and indecisive is the best way to describe it, the amount of success we have depends heavily on the amount of talent we have.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 27, 2008 12:32:08 GMT -4
Anaheim also drafted Bryce Swan in the 2nd round and we all know how that turned out, he's now playing 3rd line in St.Fx. Your team last year was not just coaching, it's pretty obvious that a lot of players did not buy into the team concept. You can have Scotty Bowman coaching but if your players don't buy in it will never work. Another problem was that you had a hot and cold average at best goalie in nets and your defense only had 1 good puck mover in Bodnarchuk, even he wasn't playing taht great because he had to carry way too much load. But so much of that comes back to coaching... playing an effective system (whether its puck control, or defensive etc) relieves the strain on the #1 guys, the goalies etc... what system is it that the players didnt buy into? We are playing a similar system this year, which is basically skate hard but play very scrambly. I watched the games last year, there was alot of frustrated faces as we endlessly tried breakouts that went nowhere. Alot of guys winning battles on the boards, then looking around to see who to pass too, rather than knowing basically where the guys would be. Alot of guys leaving the ice exhausted from puck chasing/battling that resulted in no scoring chances... Ive watched alot of junior hockey over the past 15 years of the Q being in Halifax, and there is alot of similarities between Danny Grant's year and the past few with Russell. Pre-Russell, the only games I left the rink frustrated with the sloppy, no cohesion type play was during 1998. All other years we always had a strategy or direction that was apparent. We havent been an offensive team and have been far from being a defensive team. We have no team identity with the style we play. Scrambly and indecisive is the best way to describe it, the amount of success we have depends heavily on the amount of talent we have. And yet ... just the year before ... Russell took your team from being a bottom feeder in the 1st half to being a strong team in the 2nd half ... best PK also if I recall. And then he somehow changed into a lousy Coach over the summer. That sounds more of case to me of a team not buying into what the Coach is asking rather than him being a lousy Coach. Too many egos just made Russell look bad. The Moose were hard working last year ? Hehe ... good one ... nice of you to bring some humour to the board ... thanks ...
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Oct 27, 2008 12:49:58 GMT -4
But so much of that comes back to coaching... playing an effective system (whether its puck control, or defensive etc) relieves the strain on the #1 guys, the goalies etc... what system is it that the players didnt buy into? We are playing a similar system this year, which is basically skate hard but play very scrambly. I watched the games last year, there was alot of frustrated faces as we endlessly tried breakouts that went nowhere. Alot of guys winning battles on the boards, then looking around to see who to pass too, rather than knowing basically where the guys would be. Alot of guys leaving the ice exhausted from puck chasing/battling that resulted in no scoring chances... Ive watched alot of junior hockey over the past 15 years of the Q being in Halifax, and there is alot of similarities between Danny Grant's year and the past few with Russell. Pre-Russell, the only games I left the rink frustrated with the sloppy, no cohesion type play was during 1998. All other years we always had a strategy or direction that was apparent. We havent been an offensive team and have been far from being a defensive team. We have no team identity with the style we play. Scrambly and indecisive is the best way to describe it, the amount of success we have depends heavily on the amount of talent we have. That sounds more of case to me of a team not buying into what the Coach is asking rather than him being a lousy Coach. Too many egos just made Russell look bad. The Moose were hard working last year ? Hehe ... good one ... nice of you to bring some humour to the board ... thanks ... So you think Russell is a good coach?... a far cry from what youve said the past few years. In fact, you argued before last season that Russell (despite his late season surge the year before) had not proven he could coach yet. Do you win the league in 2006 with Larue behind the bench? A good coach and system goes a LONG way towards harnessing the ego's and strengths of a team. As for hardworking... MacMillan, Pridham, Swan, Corsi were hardworking... Hillier (in the offensive end at least), Voracek and Marchand were all average - in no way were they soft or lazy (of course everyone can be at times). They were typical "scoring line forward" hardworkers. Knotek worked hard but was weak. White was an average worker.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 27, 2008 13:32:48 GMT -4
That sounds more of case to me of a team not buying into what the Coach is asking rather than him being a lousy Coach. Too many egos just made Russell look bad. The Moose were hard working last year ? Hehe ... good one ... nice of you to bring some humour to the board ... thanks ... So you think Russell is a good coach?... a far cry from what youve said the past few years. In fact, you argued before last season that Russell (despite his late season surge the year before) had not proven he could coach yet. Do you win the league in 2006 with Larue behind the bench? A good coach and system goes a LONG way towards harnessing the ego's and strengths of a team. As for hardworking... MacMillan, Pridham, Swan, Corsi were hardworking... Hillier (in the offensive end at least), Voracek and Marchand were all average - in no way were they soft or lazy (of course everyone can be at times). They were typical "scoring line forward" hardworkers. Knotek worked hard but was weak. White was an average worker. You seem to think that if they aren't considered a "good coach" then they must be lousy. Last year I was saying that Russell should be fired ... not because he was a bad coach but because he had lost the room and the change might spark the team to actually "achieve" (as opposed to under-achieveing and over-achieving). Durocher had "lost the room" in Bathurst too a few years back ... he isn't a bad Coach. Listen to those descriptions ... "in the offensive zone at least" (Hillier) ... "Voracek and Marchand were average" ... those aren't how you describe hard working players. The Moose simply have not had a hard working team for the last 7 or 8 years. They've had some talented teams that could work hard when they needed to in the final 10 mins of a 1 goal game ... but never have they been a hard working team that comes at you for 3 periods. I laugh at Voracek ... your own board says he always went to the bench when they lost the puck in the offensive zone. MacMillan ... is about as hard working as Cameron ... and he is not our hardest working player ... not even close. Swan ... sort of like a Lessard with less grit but again not our hardest working guy ... Pridham ... yup I'll give you that one ... I really appreciated what he brought to the ice ... Corsi also. But thats about 3 or 4 players out of 20 that you can call hard working ... that is not a hard working team. I guess the problem here is ... you are using the Moose standard of hard work ... and I am using the Moncton standard ... and they aren't even close to being the same. I hope your team keeps using your standard of hard work and keeps getting those players that can play that way.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Oct 27, 2008 14:12:17 GMT -4
So you think Russell is a good coach?... a far cry from what youve said the past few years. In fact, you argued before last season that Russell (despite his late season surge the year before) had not proven he could coach yet. Do you win the league in 2006 with Larue behind the bench? A good coach and system goes a LONG way towards harnessing the ego's and strengths of a team. As for hardworking... MacMillan, Pridham, Swan, Corsi were hardworking... Hillier (in the offensive end at least), Voracek and Marchand were all average - in no way were they soft or lazy (of course everyone can be at times). They were typical "scoring line forward" hardworkers. Knotek worked hard but was weak. White was an average worker. You seem to think that if they aren't considered a "good coach" then they must be lousy. Last year I was saying that Russell should be fired ... not because he was a bad coach but because he had lost the room and the change might spark the team to actually "achieve" (as opposed to under-achieveing and over-achieving). Durocher had "lost the room" in Bathurst too a few years back ... he isn't a bad Coach. Listen to those descriptions ... "in the offensive zone at least" (Hillier) ... "Voracek and Marchand were average" ... those aren't how you describe hard working players. The Moose simply have not had a hard working team for the last 7 or 8 years. They've had some talented teams that could work hard when they needed to in the final 10 mins of a 1 goal game ... but never have they been a hard working team that comes at you for 3 periods. I laugh at Voracek ... your own board says he always went to the bench when they lost the puck in the offensive zone. MacMillan ... is about as hard working as Cameron ... and he is not our hardest working player ... not even close. Swan ... sort of like a Lessard with less grit but again not our hardest working guy ... Pridham ... yup I'll give you that one ... I really appreciated what he brought to the ice ... Corsi also. But thats about 3 or 4 players out of 20 that you can call hard working ... that is not a hard working team. I guess the problem here is ... you are using the Moose standard of hard work ... and I am using the Moncton standard ... and they aren't even close to being the same. I hope your team keeps using your standard of hard work and keeps getting those players that can play that way. OK... Cam had it all figured out, moose players just wanted to do their own thing for an entire season. If only they listened to Cam. Would PEI be upgrading on Chouinard with Nolan or Groulx? Good coaches can be replaced with better ones and get better results. Coaches can "lose" their team because the players lose faith in what they are being told to do. You go out with a huge effort, follow the gameplan, and find yourself down 4-0 and the coach starts benching guys and saying in the media things like "guys have to look themselves in the mirror" and I know I would be pissed off. Players need to believe in what is being taught also. How hard someone is working is subjective too. Ill watch Moncton closer to see how amazingly hard working your top players are. Im sure it has nothing to do with effective systems. I singled out guys from the top 9 or so that brought above average efforts usually, and a bunch of others that worked as hard as most guys will on those top lines. Of the top 9 guys, only Knotek wasnt overly effective at competing with hardwork because he wasnt really strong. We had plenty of grit and strong efforts from our top guys. But anyway, Im tired of talking about last years debacle. I entered this thread to state my opinion that Moncton will need to upgrade on some positions to win the title. Lets leave it at that and see how it plays out.
|
|
|
Post by qfan on Oct 27, 2008 14:59:28 GMT -4
I guess the problem is MOST Moncton fans don't wan't to see their young players leave for other teams. I know myself, I would prefer we keep the underdog status this year (and actually have a decent shot at it) and still be strong for the next few years than trade for big players and be bottom of the league again pretty soon.
The way Moncton stands they could be Top 5 for the next 3 to 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 27, 2008 15:21:09 GMT -4
I guess the problem is MOST Moncton fans don't wan't to see their young players leave for other teams. I know myself, I would prefer we keep the underdog status this year (and actually have a decent shot at it) and still be strong for the next few years than trade for big players and be bottom of the league again pretty soon. The way Moncton stands they could be Top 5 for the next 3 to 5 years. I agree ... we were an 80 plus point team for five years straight from 2002-03 to 2006-07 ... one down year ... and now we seem to be setting up well for the next few years again ... As a fan, I will take that kind of consistent success anyday ... throw in a long playoff run every few years (2004, 2006, ??) and it is very rewarding ... note that while we traded big to win the Q in 2006, we basically stood pat in 2004 and lost in the final to Gatineau.
|
|
|
Post by Blackcat on Oct 27, 2008 15:22:36 GMT -4
Exactly qfan we are just at the beginning of some real good hockey for a few years and by what we are seeing well ahead of schedule, most of us will be happy with some smaller deals or maybe no deals at all depending on prices. We also know that we probably won't be going to the Mem. cup this year and are fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 27, 2008 15:23:40 GMT -4
I guess the problem is MOST Moncton fans don't wan't to see their young players leave for other teams. I know myself, I would prefer we keep the underdog status this year (and actually have a decent shot at it) and still be strong for the next few years than trade for big players and be bottom of the league again pretty soon. The way Moncton stands they could be Top 5 for the next 3 to 5 years. I agree ... we were an 80 plus point team for five years straight from 2002-03 to 2006-07 ... one down year ... and now we seem to be setting up well for the next few years again ... As a fan, I will take that kind of consistent success anyday ... throw in a long playoff run every few years (2004, 2006, ??) and it is very rewarding ... note that while we traded big to win the Q in 2006, we basically stood pat in 2004 and lost in the final to Gatineau. Plus most of that 02-06 run was with Larue behind the bench. Nobody in their right mind would put him up with Flynn, it was mostly a result of having a lot of good players, depth within the organisation like is the case now.
|
|