|
|
Post by thedoubled on Nov 11, 2007 21:49:50 GMT -4
Rio is starting on tuesday
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Nov 11, 2007 23:52:30 GMT -4
I find the "going with the hot hand" crap. It's not like Rio has struggled since the start of the year, goaltending has been a strength from day one, play both guys and keep them fresh, wether it's a 70-30 or 60-40 type split.
...just look at the GAA and SV% stats, those are amazing for guys playing behind a pretty porous defense that never knocks anybody around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sébastien on Nov 12, 2007 0:04:45 GMT -4
I agree with Billy. It's not as if Riopel was costing the team some games and that Lavigne came as a saviour and started winning games by himself. The team as a whole started scoring goals and playing well. We could see the improvement coming. Then this "improved" team played against a crappy Victoriaville team and we find ourselves where we are now.
Having your #1 goalie sit on the bench for 5 straight games when he had to play behind a team doing nothing to help itself and being the sole reason why the team was competitive late in games is ridiculous.
Lets just hope his confidence isn't shot yet. Way to go Flynn.
|
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Nov 12, 2007 12:05:13 GMT -4
Maybe you guys should deal Riopel to Quebec...some remps fans on radoter are prepared to give up Tessier LOL....
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Nov 12, 2007 13:47:59 GMT -4
Maybe you guys should deal Riopel to Quebec...some remps fans on radoter are prepared to give up Tessier LOL.... I would make that move in a second ... there have been rumours stemming back to last year about Riopel not being the most well-liked guy in the room ... so maybe Flynn has decided that it is time to put him in his place and make it clear that some of the bullshit will not be tolerated. |
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Nov 12, 2007 13:54:22 GMT -4
Maybe you guys should deal Riopel to Quebec...some remps fans on radoter are prepared to give up Tessier LOL.... I would make that move in a second ... there have been rumours stemming back to last year about Riopel not being the most well-liked guy in the room ... so maybe Flynn has decided that it is time to put him in his place and make it clear that some of the bullshit will not be tolerated. Roy wouldnt make that move though lol I think at best youre looking at a Mikael Audette plus 1 of their 17 yo dmen...(Lacroix, Lecomte). |
|
|
|
Post by P-O on Nov 12, 2007 13:58:45 GMT -4
That's my offer Lala on radoter
Audette (16 yo keeper of the AAA, one of the best) and a young d-man.. choose between Lecompte, Lacroix or Roy-Cöté (midAAA)
Tessier is a lock in Quebec. He is our best player and he is still only 17 years old.
Stop dreaming about Tessier... we have youth to give or first rounder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2007 19:52:41 GMT -4
Maybe you guys should deal Riopel to Quebec...some remps fans on radoter are prepared to give up Tessier LOL.... I would make that move in a second ... there have been rumours stemming back to last year about Riopel not being the most well-liked guy in the room ... so maybe Flynn has decided that it is time to put him in his place and make it clear that some of the bullshit will not be tolerated. Riopel is dressing room cancer and now he want's out... typical  I'm sure the Wc's org. won't hesitate to trade him and build for the next few years. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Nov 12, 2007 22:22:25 GMT -4
I would make that move in a second ... there have been rumours stemming back to last year about Riopel not being the most well-liked guy in the room ... so maybe Flynn has decided that it is time to put him in his place and make it clear that some of the bullshit will not be tolerated. Riopel is dressing room cancer and now he want's out... typical I'm sure the Wc's org. won't hesitate to trade him and build for the next few years. I'm sure you've spent countless hours in the WC room  |
|
|
|
Post by thedoubled on Nov 13, 2007 0:19:50 GMT -4
Bobo just wondering where you did your coaching? every time a topic comes up you blame it on flynn.
where i am sitting lavigne played well in his first few starts didn't get the wins but played well. then they play him and he gets a big win, and then three more when the team won 2 games in october. im not saying the losses were rio's fault because he had a ton of shots but let in a couple softies, then lavigne comes in and doubles octobers wins. why not stick with him when the team is on a roll its a normal thing to do.
maybe flynn thought it was time to shake up the room a little bit. if he took marquart or bezak out of the lineup and inserted labelle and labelle got hot and scored you would be the first one to say stick with labelle.
i think its more about you not liking flynn then actually understanding the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Nov 13, 2007 1:31:12 GMT -4
I honestly have no problem at all with Lavigne having started the last 5 games. I'm not even quite sure why everyone is getting so worked up about it. He played well in every game picking up 3 wins and was completely abandoned by his teamates in the two losses. While in Riopel's last two starts at Lewiston and at Bathurst he allowed bad goals for the game winners, the one in Bathurst being especially costly coming near the end of the 3rd. Now I'm not blaming Riopel by any means as we didn't score enough goals in either of those games to win but I can certainly see the reasoning behind going with Lavigne.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Nov 13, 2007 7:57:39 GMT -4
I honestly have no problem at all with Lavigne having started the last 5 games. I'm not even quite sure why everyone is getting so worked up about it. He played well in every game picking up 3 wins and was completely abandoned by his teamates in the two losses. While in Riopel's last two starts at Lewiston and at Bathurst he allowed bad goals for the game winners, the one in Bathurst being especially costly coming near the end of the 3rd. Now I'm not blaming Riopel by any means as we didn't score enough goals in either of those games to win but I can certainly see the reasoning behind going with Lavigne. The one in Bathurst was a well placed, very nice shot......  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2007 8:35:02 GMT -4
I would make that move in a second ... there have been rumours stemming back to last year about Riopel not being the most well-liked guy in the room ... so maybe Flynn has decided that it is time to put him in his place and make it clear that some of the bullshit will not be tolerated. Riopel is dressing room cancer and now he want's out... typical I'm sure the Wc's org. won't hesitate to trade him and build for the next few years. Nope, just going by Jimmys' rumors...his words, not mine  |
|
|
|
Post by Sébastien on Nov 13, 2007 11:58:52 GMT -4
Bobo just wondering where you did your coaching? every time a topic comes up you blame it on flynn. If you read my comments, I do criticize the coaching staff just like I criticize the players. It's a team, and every part of it should be available to criticism. The only game I truly blame Flynn's coaching is the Gatineau game. I have never criticized coaching before (well, except Mario Tremblay in Montreal and Yannick Jean in PEI, the obvious ones). I never had any problem with starting Lavigne. Go re-read my messages, never did I blame Lavigne for a loss or comment that he played badly. The problem is not having Lavigne playing, the problem is with Riopel having to ride the bench because of it. Both goaltenders were playing well, but the thing is it is not because of Lavigne's presence that the team started winning. They started playing better and played teams who were weaker or in a funk. The only win that I was very impressed with was the Cape-Breton win. It sends to Riopel the message that the team loses because he is in the net. If he was struggling any, then I would agree. But he was not. He basically carried this team in the early season, brought them to a winning record in september, even if the team wasn't playing very well at that point. I don't disagree here. Shake things up. But there's difference between shaking things up and having your starter on the bench for 5 straight games. In your example, I would be the first one to say stick with Labelle. However, I would hate to be at the expense of Bezak or Mardquart who both have started to elevate their games in the past 5-7 games. If it was at Lessard's expense (who did play well against Chicoutimi) or at Cameron's expense (who hasn't played a good game since his return), then I'd be 100% fully behind it. Also, if Labelle was inserted in the lineup during two games against Rimouski and scored against Tommy Perreault two games in a row, I would be a lot less in favour of him remaining on the top lines then if it was against the Drakkar or Cape-Breton. If Lavigne had played games against hot teams/dominating teams, then I have no problem. But that was not the case. When Flynn was hired, I was very happy to hear about it. Who else better to fill Torchetti's shoes I thought! So far, I have simply not been impressed with much in terms of structure on the ice, system and roster changes/decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Nov 13, 2007 12:05:29 GMT -4
I was thinking the same way when Flynn was hired, but so far I have found that he makes some baffling moves that make little sense when you look at the big picture. Sure you can start Lavigne again after he wins, but 5 games is having no respect for your goalie of the present and future. Labelle, bench him for a couple games, but if you're a team that struggles to score goals, you give him a shot on the top 2 lines at some point.
Another baffling one is that he has never played Marquardt(nest finisher) and Mangan(best playmaker) together des[ite both having slow starts. Why not try Marquardt-Mangan-Eagles for a few games, the "power line" thing seems to work in Ottawa.
|
|
