DrunkenSabre Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 their laden with talent, yet none of it seems to equat to results. remember a team called the rangers who used to be like that? they learnt in the end. I like Pitts, but their gonna go winless all season unless they learn D-E-F-E-N-S-E and not relying on the octupus occupying the net.
Knightrider Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 their laden with talent, yet none of it seems to equat to results. remember a team called the rangers who used to be like that? they learnt in the end. I like Pitts, but their gonna go winless all season unless they learn D-E-F-E-N-S-E and not relying on the octupus occupying the net. But, but, but... They have names I recognize (at least on two lines...) ;)
Saber61 Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 yes ive seen very little from pittsburgh in terms of 'greatness' all i hear is the 'greatness' of mario and sidney... and veterans like recchi and i think leclair... and i see nothing... not a single official win... haha... they still suck just as before.
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 I couldn't believe the ease with which Mario, Leclaire, and Palffy could be taken off the puck. Recchi and Crosby seem to be the only viable scorers on their team. Everyone else just floats and seems disinterested. Buffalo looked fast and hungry. Hopefully they will finish on more of their opportunities. :)
jerryg Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Yeah, watching the game last night I kept hearing Lyle Odelein's name, what is he like, 110?? He wasn't that great in his prime, and I kept hearing his name, like he was everyehere on the ice. And the announcere on OLN kept referring Mario Lemieux like he's a superstar. He WAS a great player 10 years ago. He's 40 years old and hasn't played a full season in ages due to back problems. He's probably better than your average 40 year old. I thnk I'd take Dave Andrychuck over him at this stage of their careers. But this team definitely has some old timers-would have been great if they were all in their prime.......
DrunkenSabre Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Posted October 11, 2005 Gonchar was the funniest, reading some of the articles in pitts about the game. sounds like his really not pulling his weight. another coaching change soon. not realising that its their defense that has to improve with better players. sorry but i dont rate the GM that highly.
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 When I saw Gonchar on the PK I almost crapped myself. 3 Steve Poapst 5 Robert Scuderi 6 Ryan Whitney 22 Ric Jackman 24 Lyle Odelein 32 Dick Tarnstrom 44 Brooks Orpik 55 Sergei Gonchar 59 Alain Nasreddine Not exactly a stallwart defense. I think Orpik and Odelein are their best D-man. Forget Gonchar he's a forward playing on the blueline.
DrunkenSabre Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Posted October 11, 2005 When I saw Gonchar on the PK I almost crapped myself. 3 Steve Poapst 5 Robert Scuderi 6 Ryan Whitney 22 Ric Jackman 24 Lyle Odelein 32 Dick Tarnstrom 44 Brooks Orpik 55 Sergei Gonchar 59 Alain Nasreddine Not exactly a stallwart defense. I think Orpik and Odelein are their best D-man. Forget Gonchar he's a forward playing on the blueline. trading for gonchar to shore up your defense is like trading for Boulton to improve your offense.
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Gonchar was the funniest, reading some of the articles in pitts about the game. sounds like his really not pulling his weight. another coaching change soon. not realising that its their defense that has to improve with better players. sorry but i dont rate the GM that highly. Isn't Lemeiux the GM? (I really have no idea and I'm too lazy to look it up)
DrunkenSabre Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Posted October 11, 2005 Isn't Lemeiux the GM? (I really have no idea and I'm too lazy to look it up) lemiuex owns them. i think craig patrick is the GM. has been since the dawn of time over in pitts
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 lemiuex owns them. i think craig patrick is the GM. has been since the dawn of time over in pitts I do vaguely remember that. They haven't been good for a while. Not that Buffaro has been any better but we did get to the finals more recently. :P
DrunkenSabre Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Posted October 11, 2005 I do vaguely remember that. They haven't been good for a while. Not that Buffaro has been any better but we did get to the finals more recently. :P just before i really became a fan i do remember reading that they ended up beating us out of our last playoff attempt. anyway, money used to be the issue, i think now its just bad defense and a dodgy GM.
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 ARGH! KASPERITIS!!!! NOOOOO! :angry: :lol:
Taro T Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 In a way they are the Rangers Part II, but you have to remember where this team was coming from. They had been forced to sell off / trade ALL their top name players (you can't trade the owner) and were the worst team in the league. They had a dwindling fan base (only team with less than 12,000 per game attendance) and were on the verge of bankruptcy again. Getting Crosby sparked interest back in the team. They were hoping the old vets would do two things, put fans back in the seats, which it appears to have done for their home games, and win games until young guys like Crosby, Malone, Beech, and Fata are ready to start taking their game to the next level, which it appears not to have done. Considering that they have increased their ticket sales and the game was fast and entertaining, their bringing in veterans probably saved the team in Pittsburgh; it at least bought them more time to try to get a new rink. People will pay to see a losing team IF it is entertaining and there is hope for the future (see the Sabres last season in the Aud for an example). The Pens play an entertaining game and with Crosby and the other young guys there is hope for the future. The Rangers on the other hand were, are, and likely always will be idiots. They insisted on getting the "biggest name" free agents because NYR "fans" would never support a "rebuilding" program. When your entire team consists of over the hill 1st liners, you cannot possibly develop team chemistry nor an effective 3rd or 4th line. The Rangers of the past few years were old and slow. They still are. Dale Purinton could arguably be the worst defenseman in NHL history, I'd take Mike Wilson over him in a heart beat; and Wilson was nothing to write home about. Most of the Ranger fans I know have desperately wanted them to get off the "big name" program. The team has a waiting list for season tickets, or at least they did before the lockout. There is no reason for them not to rebuild; Sather and upper management looked at it the other way. They saw no reason TO rebuild. Yes they won in '94, but that team had SOME guys that expected to be 3rd liners and were willing to accept that role and they had the sheer force of will that was Messier. He would not allow that team to lose to the Devils. They caught magic in a bottle, but didn't understand that the key to that run was that they had magic in Messier; without his youth he could not force the rest of the team to play as a team; and the Rangers haven't even been able to get to the playoffs, much less be legitimate contenders for about the last 8 years.
Taro T Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 ARGH! KASPERITIS!!!! NOOOOO! :angry: :lol: I agree, but probably not for the reason you think. The goal's not the worst part of that game. The worst part was Darius grabbing the puck and THROWING it out of play with about 2 minutes to go in the 3rd. He should have been given 4 minutes; 2 for putting his hand around the puck and 2 for delay of game. The ref skated over to him and instead of giving him even one penalty gave him a warning. WTF!?!?!? Sabres should have won that game on the power play. They'd have beat the Devils as the Sabres owned them that year. I think Buffalo would have lost to Colorado, but don't know for sure; as they had won in OT in Colorado that year with Marty in the net. If the Sabres had gotten Peca back or at least something of value that season, there is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that the Sabres would have won Lord Stanley's Chalice that year.
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 No one will accuse you of being a pessimist. I'll start calling you Dave "glass half full" b. Shawn ( ;) )
inkman Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 In a way they are the Rangers Part II, but you have to remember where this team was coming from. They had been forced to sell off / trade ALL their top name players (you can't trade the owner) and were the worst team in the league. They had a dwindling fan base (only team with less than 12,000 per game attendance) and were on the verge of bankruptcy again. Getting Crosby sparked interest back in the team. They were hoping the old vets would do two things, put fans back in the seats, which it appears to have done for their home games, and win games until young guys like Crosby, Malone, Beech, and Fata are ready to start taking their game to the next level, which it appears not to have done. Considering that they have increased their ticket sales and the game was fast and entertaining, their bringing in veterans probably saved the team in Pittsburgh; it at least bought them more time to try to get a new rink. People will pay to see a losing team IF it is entertaining and there is hope for the future (see the Sabres last season in the Aud for an example). The Pens play an entertaining game and with Crosby and the other young guys there is hope for the future. The Rangers on the other hand were, are, and likely always will be idiots. They insisted on getting the "biggest name" free agents because NYR "fans" would never support a "rebuilding" program. When your entire team consists of over the hill 1st liners, you cannot possibly develop team chemistry nor an effective 3rd or 4th line. The Rangers of the past few years were old and slow. They still are. Dale Purinton could arguably be the worst defenseman in NHL history, I'd take Mike Wilson over him in a heart beat; and Wilson was nothing to write home about. Most of the Ranger fans I know have desperately wanted them to get off the "big name" program. The team has a waiting list for season tickets, or at least they did before the lockout. There is no reason for them not to rebuild; Sather and upper management looked at it the other way. They saw no reason TO rebuild. Yes they won in '94, but that team had SOME guys that expected to be 3rd liners and were willing to accept that role and they had the sheer force of will that was Messier. He would not allow that team to lose to the Devils. They caught magic in a bottle, but didn't understand that the key to that run was that they had magic in Messier; without his youth he could not force the rest of the team to play as a team; and the Rangers haven't even been able to get to the playoffs, much less be legitimate contenders for about the last 8 years. You and my wife would get along. Lots of words. :lol:
Taro T Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 No one will accuse you of being a pessimist. I'll start calling you Dave "glass half full" b. Shawn ( ;) ) I'll have to save this post and show it to my wife, 'cause she'd never believe it. LOL.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.