|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 11, 2005 20:46:57 GMT -5
2-0 Dogs
Plekanec and Larivee for the Dogs
Archer gets 5 for fighting against Chicag tough guy Brennan (153 PIM in 26 games)
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jan 11, 2005 22:00:36 GMT -5
Game is now 3-2 for Chi-Town after two. Chicago scored on the PP in the first when Cote received 5 minutes for high sticking and then they really rubbed Hamilton's face in it with two goals in a 31 seconds span in the 2nd...as if that wasn't bad enough, both were shorthanded on the same PP. Special teams, eh? Ellis in nets...urgh. Kari Lehtonen in net for Chicago and he is a real good one, so he will be tough to beat in the third. Go Dogs Go!!
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 11, 2005 23:57:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 12, 2005 8:34:12 GMT -5
The wonders of the plus/minus system, eh? The winning team has 8 players in the minus, while the losing team only has 3...
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jan 12, 2005 10:34:42 GMT -5
The wonders of the plus/minus system, eh? The winning team has 8 players in the minus, while the losing team only has 3... Yeah, scoring all four of your goals on the special teams does that for you. That's where the biggest plus minus comes into effect. Wolves special teams...a HUGE plus last night. Dogs special teams...a HUGE minus. They don't keep those stats but it was the factor in the game when the turning point likely was those two SH goals in 31 seconds. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 12, 2005 11:26:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I was listening when that happened. Talk about having the wind knocked out of your sails. Especially when going up against a guy like Lehtonen...
Oh well...
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 12, 2005 13:35:34 GMT -5
Yeah, scoring all four of your goals on the special teams does that for you. That's where the biggest plus minus comes into effect. Wolves special teams...a HUGE plus last night. Dogs special teams...a HUGE minus. They don't keep those stats but it was the factor in the game when the turning point likely was those two SH goals in 31 seconds. Jarvis |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 12, 2005 13:46:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mic on Jan 12, 2005 16:38:55 GMT -5
I like what Jarvis did last year, he was able to manage to be competitive while giving the youth good ice time (Higgins and Perezoghin). I agree that the team he got this season is weaker, espacially the defense. But he has to share some blame on such unsuccessful special teams. Hamilton got 7 shorthanders scored against them (second worse in the league) and the powerplay, with 12.22% success, is also the second worst in the AHL. The PK is bit better (83.5%, 12th worst in the league) is not brilliant. Those figure aren't normal : the opposition can be strong, even much stronger as it is this season, but special teams must translate to more success. And that's part of Jarvis' job. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 12, 2005 16:54:30 GMT -5
I like what Jarvis did last year, he was able to manage to be competitive while giving the youth good ice time (Higgins and Perezoghin). I agree that the team he got this season is weaker, espacially the defense. But he has to share some blame on such unsuccessful special teams. Hamilton got 7 shorthanders scored against them (second worse in the league) and the powerplay, with 12.22% success, is also the second worst in the AHL. The PK is bit better (83.5%, 12th worst in the league) is not brilliant. Those figure aren't normal : the opposition can be strong, even much stronger as it is this season, but special teams must translate to more success. And that's part of Jarvis' job. Hard to believe when you remember how Jarvis and Gainey were two of the best penalty killers the league has ever seen. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 12, 2005 20:21:29 GMT -5
Being an efficient penalty killer is one thing, teaching it is another. Or perhaps the Gainey half of the tandem was more responsible for the success when they played together than the Jarvis. I can't recall what happened after the two were separated when Jarvis was traded to Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 12, 2005 20:53:17 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how big a buggy whip I have (well, it does, but I'd rather not go into that story, and Emmanuelle would never forgive me), if you don't have good horses. Even a whipped nag is still a nag, and without Hainsey and Komi on defense, we have a larger stable of nags on defense than we should.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jan 12, 2005 23:48:17 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how big a buggy whip I have (well, it does, but I'd rather not go into that story, and Emmanuelle would never forgive me), if you don't have good horses. Even a whipped nag is still a nag, and without Hainsey and Komi on defense, we have a larger stable of nags on defense than we should. I agree...buggy whip reference being the exception of course. Jarvis has a good group of PK forwards in Higgins, Pleky, Ott, and Morgan. This team's D depth is not great, and the bunch are fairly immobile, with the exception of "Bobby Orr" Daley and Hainsey, who is hurt right now. Your best penalty killer is your goalie...and the Dogs have one of those. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 13, 2005 10:11:19 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how big a buggy whip I have (well, it does, but I'd rather not go into that story, and Emmanuelle would never forgive me), if you don't have good horses. Even a whipped nag is still a nag, and without Hainsey and Komi on defense, we have a larger stable of nags on defense than we should. If that's the case, it raises another issue. Most of us could see at the start of the season that the Bulldogs have an inadequate defense (and no doubt Gainey and Savard must have seen it too). Gainey and Savard certainly were aware that the Habs are also thin on defense. The only logical explanation for their not taking meaningful steps was the likelihood of a lockout. Moreover, they must have thought that Daley would fill one hole for the Bulldogs at no cost to them and that Komisarek would be available. Still, I'm surprised that Dan Focht is not more effective. I saw him a couple of times when he was with the Penguins. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 13, 2005 10:15:36 GMT -5
If that's the case, it raises another issue. Most of us could see at the start of the season that the Bulldogs have an inadequate defense (and no doubt Gainey and Savard must have seen it too). Gainey and Savard certainly were aware that the Habs are also thin on defense. The only logical explanation for their not taking meaningful steps was the likelihood of a lockout. Moreover, they must have thought that Daley would fill one hole for the Bulldogs at no cost to them and that Komisarek would be available. Still, I'm surprised that Dan Focht is not more effective. I saw him a couple of times when he was with the Penguins. Beauchemin. |
|
|
|
Post by mic on Jan 13, 2005 16:39:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I still wonder what happened with him. Gainey is a wise man and knows the rules. What was the thaught behind letting him go ? That's quite a curious story. Beauchemin would have been very useful. And even if I'm not too sure about his NHL future, it's not like the Habs had too many young defensmen. We have to hope that one of the less hyped prospects is a trouvaille and can fill that hole. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 13, 2005 17:39:11 GMT -5
OK, more evidence of their not taking meaningful (or at least prudent) steps. Not very thoughtful of Gainey and Savard. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 13, 2005 18:28:18 GMT -5
Hainsey-(Beauchemin)
Daley-Coté<br>Jancevski-Archer
Plante
Sanford, Shasby
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 13, 2005 21:20:06 GMT -5
OK, more evidence of their not taking meaningful (or at least prudent) steps. Not very thoughtful of Gainey and Savard. I guess Gainey was thinking about the Hab's future and treating the Bulldogs future secondarily. I liked Beauchemin, a steady Don Awrey type dependable defenseman with a good +/-, but Gainey either thought otherwise or didn't consider him an NHL calibre prospect. Gainey must think he can find a better journeyman the way he found Begin and Langdon when he needed them. |
|
