Eleven Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 With a bit more than a minute left in a regular-season game (Sabs down 3-2), I count five forwards on the ice: Ramsay, Luce, Gare up front, and Perreault and Robert at the points. It worked. Of course, we all know that even on a power play, Ottawa got burned by having just one forward (Alfredsson) at the point in the '06 playoffs, but it's cool to see the old school stuff. It's at about 2:18 in:
Punch Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 The Sabres did it in Game 1 against Boston last year, albeit on a PP. I think Lindy may have done it in the regular season before the lockout when they were fighting for the final seed--- but that's far enough back that I certainly can't say for sure.
PromoTheRobot Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 I don't know what difference having 5 forwards made in that video. The first goal was a seeing-eye fluke and the second was a defensive blunder and sieve goalie. PTR
Eleven Posted October 19, 2010 Author Report Posted October 19, 2010 I don't know what difference having 5 forwards made in that video. The first goal was a seeing-eye fluke and the second was a defensive blunder and sieve goalie. PTR One of the men on the point (Robert) took a puck from behind his net all the way to the goal (and in). As much as I loved them, I don't see Hajt or Schoenfeld doing that. That's the difference of having 5 forwards on--and I'll bet that the Pens had to look out for the other point man (Perreault) while Robert was working the magic, too.
darksabre Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 They did this a lot during 05-06 and 06-07. Especially on power-plays. Pominville was a staple at the point.
Eleven Posted October 19, 2010 Author Report Posted October 19, 2010 They did this a lot during 05-06 and 06-07. Especially on power-plays. Pominville was a staple at the point. Five forwards? I must have had too many or something. I don't remember five. I certainly remember Pommer at the point in a four forward setup. Ah, even if I'm wrong and it's been done recently, well, hey, everyone enjoy some vid of Robert.
Sterling Archer Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNy7pVCDLA
Eleven Posted October 19, 2010 Author Report Posted October 19, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNy7pVCDLA Yep, with six skaters on the ice. (Note, they aren't all forwards; there's a certain no. 27 in there.) Watched that earlier tonight, actually, as I was going through the News's 40 best moments thingy. That was a great goal.
PromoTheRobot Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNy7pVCDLA This only makes me sadder knowing we had a great team...a GREAT team...and we let them all walk out the door. PTR
Stoner Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 This only makes me sadder knowing we had a great team...a GREAT team...and we let them all walk out the door. PTR Not quite great, but yeah... It's pretty stunning to think back where this franchise was in 2006 on and off the ice and where it is now. I have to wonder how the ensuing dismantling could have been anything but intentional. Then I realize the, uh, mantling of the team before the lockout was probably unintentional. In other words, the blind hogs found an acorn, that's all.
nfreeman Posted October 19, 2010 Report Posted October 19, 2010 Not quite great, but yeah... It's pretty stunning to think back where this franchise was in 2006 on and off the ice and where it is now. I have to wonder how the ensuing dismantling could have been anything but intentional. Then I realize the, uh, mantling of the team before the lockout was probably unintentional. In other words, the blind hogs found an acorn, that's all. What does this mean, exactly? Management didn't like having a great (or, if you prefer, near-great) team, so they decided to dismantle it? Why would they do that? Why in the world would you ever think this?
PromoTheRobot Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 What does this mean, exactly? Management didn't like having a great (or, if you prefer, near-great) team, so they decided to dismantle it? Why would they do that? Why in the world would you ever think this? I don't know. Arrogance? Stupidity? Frugality? All of the above? PTR
Stoner Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 What does this mean, exactly? Management didn't like having a great (or, if you prefer, near-great) team, so they decided to dismantle it? Why would they do that? Why in the world would you ever think this? That was a humdinger of a sentence. Can I take it out back and shoot it?
SwampD Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 That was a humdinger of a sentence. Can I take it out back and shoot it? It sure was a whole lotta "ing", not too mention the two 3/4 syllable pairings. Nice work.
nfreeman Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 I don't know. Arrogance? Stupidity? Frugality? All of the above? PTR None of those factors would lead anyone to INTENTIONALLY dismantle a great team. The intent was what I was disputing.
Stoner Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 None of those factors would lead anyone to INTENTIONALLY dismantle a great team. The intent was what I was disputing. All I meant was the dismantling has been so stunning, almost systematic, you have to wonder if it was done somewhat un non-intentionally. No, that doesn't sound right. Forget it.
nfreeman Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 All I meant was the dismantling has been so stunning, almost systematic, you have to wonder if it was done somewhat un non-intentionally. No, that doesn't sound right. Forget it. You don't have to wonder about it any more than you have to wonder about whether someone would rather take $25MM and live in Buffalo or $50MM and live in Philly, or for that matter about whether the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.