LGR4GM Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 awww cute pick chz, So Ennis is smaller for an NHL player but I wonder if adding some weight like 20pds would help him be more effective because although 5'9" isn't tall hes young still and could grow and inch maybe... lol anyways, Ennis has definitely started to find his rhythm and his shot. He may be smaller than max, but have you seen his last few goals... Goal Scorer goals pure and simple, and I hope he signs a 6-7yr deal this summer cuz hes the type of player who helps you win a cup.
Tyrannustyrannus Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 does anyone have a still shot of him shattering the water bottle last night? that was awesome
henysgol Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 does anyone have a still shot of him shattering the water bottle last night? that was awesome I swear he was aiming for it.
spndnchz Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 does anyone have a still shot of him shattering the water bottle last night? that was awesome
Doohicksie Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 If anything those who said Ennis is like Max would be much more appropriate for that type of comparison, but honestly everyone's style is unique and different in their own way. I think of it like this... Max was fun to watch but lost the puck too much. The guy that Ennis reminds of more is Pavel Datsyuk. Once Datsyuk focuses on personally possessing the puck, he's very hard to separate from it. Even after an opponent swats it away from him, he continues to chase it down and often recovers it. With Max, once the defender got it away from him, the rush was over. But with Datsyuk, he plays on to recover the puck. Ennis is more like Datsyuk in that way. Watch him along the boards especially.
LGR4GM Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Ennis, for some reason, went from being exactly like maxim to being able to skate like max but pass and shoot like(insert player here) He has great potential and IMO he needs to be kept away from a line with derek roy because roy is a puck carrier. Ennis needs a guy who can give him the puck and be there for a pass or a rebound. Ennis has the potential to hit 40goals easy before his career is over. Hes got that goal scoring touch and it seems to have come to the forefront in the last couple of weeks. Lets get some more player development coaches in here to help him cuz hes going to be "scarrrryy good"
Stoner Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 The cap almost hit Ennis when he went behind the net. Awesome.
thesportsbuff Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 The one thing I noticed about Ennis, and I mentioned it earlier in the year and took some flak for it, but his shot doesn't look that quick. The one where he blew up the water bottle was sick, but other than that his wrist shots almost look like floaters in comparison to some other players' wrist shots. I know, it's probably just because he's so young and needs to put on a few pounds of muscle, but just pointing it out. A lot of his goals are from bad angles or are just weird ones where the puck bounces in off a defender. I just haven't seen him step up and absolutely lazer a wrister a yet. If he can add that part to his game he'll be incredibly dangerous.
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted March 16, 2011 Author Report Posted March 16, 2011 Last night was just another glaring example of why i think we need both of these guys for years to come. i don't know if it's Ruff himself, his system, or just plain old lazy play, but after the first period, the only players i noticed were ennis gerbe and vanek. They were the only ones i really felt tried make an effort to make something happen. Everyone else looked like they were going just through the motions. We just simply dont have enough guys who can hustle for a full 60 like we used to. Maybe Lindy should implement some good ol Herb Brooks conditioning? Again.
LGR4GM Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Last night was just another glaring example of why i think we need both of these guys for years to come. i don't know if it's Ruff himself, his system, or just plain old lazy play, but after the first period, the only players i noticed were ennis gerbe and vanek. They were the only ones i really felt tried make an effort to make something happen. Everyone else looked like they were going just through the motions. We just simply dont have enough guys who can hustle for a full 60 like we used to. Maybe Lindy should implement some good ol Herb Brooks conditioning? Again. "again" "whistle" "again" "whistle" "again" "whistle" "again" "whistle" "again" "whistle" "again" "whistle" "Red line, back. Blue line, back. Far blue line, back. Far red line, back. And you have 45 seconds to do it. Get used to this drill. You'll be doing it *a lot*. Why? Because the legs feed the wolf, gentlemen. I can't promise you we'll be the best team at Lake Placid next February. But we will be the best conditioned. That I can promise you." wished the sabres had heard about Miracles...
JJFIVEOH Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 Last night was just another glaring example of why i think we need both of these guys for years to come. i don't know if it's Ruff himself, his system, or just plain old lazy play, but after the first period, the only players i noticed were ennis gerbe and vanek. They were the only ones i really felt tried make an effort to make something happen. Everyone else looked like they were going just through the motions. We just simply dont have enough guys who can hustle for a full 60 like we used to. Maybe Lindy should implement some good ol Herb Brooks conditioning? Again. Would tonight be another one of those examples?:D
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Posted March 23, 2011 Would tonight be another one of those examples?:D ABSO F R E A K I N LUTELY :thumbsup: Proving that the little guy still has a place in the new NHL
kishoph Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 Gerb Gerb Gerb, Gerb is the word, G-G-G-Gerb Gerb Gerb, Gerb is the word Well don't you know about the Gerb Well everybody knows that the Gerb is the word G-G-G-Gerb Gerb Gerb, Gerb is the word......... :w00t:
Assquatch Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 Mike Robitaille once described Richard Zednick as being built like a fire hydrant; it seems to describe Gerbe better. He's small, but solid as can be.
nfreeman Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 All of a sudden, Gerbe is having a pretty nice rookie year. I'm at the point where Ennis is absolutely in my top 6 next year and Gerbe is absolutely in my top 9.
LabattBlue Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 All of a sudden, Gerbe is having a pretty nice rookie year. I'm at the point where Ennis is absolutely in my top 6 next year and Gerbe is absolutely in my top 9. It won't apply this year because Roy is out, but I can't see a team with 3 midgets(Roy, Ennis & Gerbe) in the top 9 going far in the playoffs in 11/12 or beyond.
shrader Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 It won't apply this year because Roy is out, but I can't see a team with 3 midgets(Roy, Ennis & Gerbe) in the top 9 going far in the playoffs in 11/12 or beyond. You mix in the right people and anyone can make a run. Last year's Canadiens had their fair share of runts.
Weave Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 It won't apply this year because Roy is out, but I can't see a team with 3 midgets(Roy, Ennis & Gerbe) in the top 9 going far in the playoffs in 11/12 or beyond. I am skeptical as well. If the two runts get neutralized this April we will know that some up-sizing will need to occur. If they do well I suppose I can change my opinion about the type of individual needed for the playoffs.
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 It won't apply this year because Roy is out, but I can't see a team with 3 midgets(Roy, Ennis & Gerbe) in the top 9 going far in the playoffs in 11/12 or beyond. But two midgets is OK? What if the rest of the team is big guys? What if all three midgets are scoring goals? Just saying, I don't know about these random rules for how a team must be constructed to be successful.
nfreeman Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 It won't apply this year because Roy is out, but I can't see a team with 3 midgets(Roy, Ennis & Gerbe) in the top 9 going far in the playoffs in 11/12 or beyond. This is a fair point, but... You mix in the right people and anyone can make a run. Last year's Canadiens had their fair share of runts. There we go. If you have one runt per line, is it that big of a deal? If it's, say: Roy-Vanek-Stafford [new good center with respectable size]-Ennis-Boyes Gaustad-Gerbe-Mancari/Kaleta I don't look at those lines and worry about size.
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 FYI: Gerbe will be on WGR at 4pm for an interview with Schoop and the Bulldog.
X. Benedict Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 FYI: Gerbe will be on WGR at 4pm for an interview with Schoop and the Bulldog. Yub Yub!
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 Yub Yub! :lol: C-3PO will be there to translate.
LabattBlue Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 But two midgets is OK? What if the rest of the team is big guys? What if all three midgets are scoring goals? Just saying, I don't know about these random rules for how a team must be constructed to be successful. My point is that the going gets tougher and the checking becomes tighter come playoff time and the smaller players who enjoy more open ice in the regular season may have tougher sledding come playoff time. Having 3 of these players potentially neutralized is a lot worse than one or two. Now feel free to carry on with your smartass remarks about random rules. <_< <_<
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 My point is that the going gets tougher and the checking becomes tighter come playoff time and the smaller players who enjoy more open ice in the regular season may have tougher sledding come playoff time. Having 3 of these players potentially neutralized is a lot worse than one or two. You're the one who said you can't see a team with *three* small players going far in the playoffs. I really want to know if three is a key number here while two small players really doesn't matter. Would we be better off if we traded ALL our small players now rather than risk that they might be "potentially neutralized" in the playoffs. It seemed like we were set to win the Stanley Cup in spring 2006 with most of our key forwards either being small or average in size. But that plan was derailed by injuries.....to defensemen with size (Tallinder, McKee). Now feel free to carry on with your smartass remarks about random rules. <_< <_< Oh God, did I hurt your feelings? I seriously just want to know why anyone thinks having two small forwards on the top three lines leaves you with a legit chance of winning the Cup, but having three small forwards on the top three lines dramatically lowers those chances. This isn't the first time someone has openly worried about allowing Roy, Ennis, and Gerbe on the team all at once.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.