Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by top-shelf-1

  1. Don't forget, not only do we get a healthy power forward who knows our system.

    Yeah, he knows how to lose, alright. WALOC. We HAVE no system, that's the problem, and again I'll say: This is move designed STRICTLY to lure fans back for the last month of the season. If JR were really trying to rebuild he'd have stood Pat with O'Sullivan (pun intended).

  2. Whether the checks say "Gale Force Media" or "Fox Sports Net" or "WonkaVision" doesn't matter. If the Canes' TV deal is the same as pretty much all of them (and I promise you it is, or the cameras would never get into the RBC and John and Tripp wouldn't be on the team plane), the announcers work at the pleasure of the team -- legally and literally.

  3. See, that's your REAL beef isn't it? You're just still PO'd about Mo being hired back. Well with the way these guys were (and are) playing, Lavi couldn't have done anyyyy better. So why don't you just give Maurice a break, huh??

    No, it's ONE of my beefs, as the letter states. The contract to Staal and Brindy, the job for Barbie Babchuk (Waaaa! I don't wanna go to Albany!!! Waaaa, I'm tall as a tree, but HITTING somebody might HURT!!). Maurice, regardless of his ability (although I'll point out he was attending night school when we brought him back -- talk about being IN DEMAND, huh??) is just an example of what NO good manager does: hire back his fired subordinate. And I'd be happy to give Maurice a break -- which limb would you like broken? :lol:

  4. Ok, if you've been paying attention the past few seasons you ought to have an opinion on this.

    A lot of questions keep getting asked about why we can't score goals (outscored 15-2 the last 3 home games). "Where's the offense" I hear on the postgame.

    I put forth the following theory on this for your consideration.

    In 2006, the Canes hit the "Perfect Storm".

    1) A manic obsession of opening the game up by the league and officials

    2) A perfect blend of mostly non-physical players with good speed and some finishing skills

    3) A coach who had an environment where his system could flourish

    All of this allowed a small market club with lower cost talent (read as smaller and less physical) to succeed.

    Fast forward 3 years. Now, still they call hooking and other stick penalties, but most of the interference penalties are once again allowed to happen. Fans wanted hitting to return to the game, and frankly, those teams who spend to the cap so they can sign fast AND BIG guys wanted some value for their dollar.

    Now Lav's system doesn't work. Our guys get an elbow here, a grab there, all of which slows down our team. Now we aren't scoring as much, and our glaring defensive liabilities are showing. Lav gets the boot and we install the only system that can hold down the glaring goals against with our weak payroll and disproportionate spending on forwards, Mo's system.

    "Where's the offense" everyone asks? Break down any game you like, and really pay attention. For the vast majority of the game, we are putting 1 or 2 fore checkers in deep and the high forward is not allowed to go in any deeper than the top of the circles. Its a low risk offense, but low payoff. Most of the time we are backing up rather than moving forward. The new strategy (not really new) is to force turnovers in the neutral zone and maybe get an odd man rush if lucky. Our fore checking game has little chance of success with only 2 people going in.

    Think about it for a minute and ask yourself if you have either yelled or at least thought in your head at least 3 times a game, "why are you skating backward? Skate forward and keep the puck in the zone!" to either a point defenseman, or the high forward you see backing up to set the trap.

    All of this points to the fact that with this system in place, we have little chance of scoring unless we convert a lot more of the few scoring chances we have. Look at what Boston did. Their 3rd forward planted himself in front of the net and wreaked havoc on us. Their defensemen were talented enough to handle our counterattack, and basically, they pinned us in our end most of the game. Its a microcosm of most games, unless we face a team with the same issues we have, and then its an even battle, we maybe win one 7-2 (Phoenix) and we start to think we're getting it together until we face another team with the talent to be able to play the right way.

    It seems simple. Move forward, don't move backward. All great teams do it. We just don't have the team (or the coach anymore) to do it.

    You make many good points, hag, but the fact remains that we can beat tough teams WHEN WE WANT TO. I hear you on Boston, but San Jose? Buffalo? No slouches they. The slouches are on OUR bench, and your "moving backward" theory only proves my point: The drive and "Whatever It Takes" attitude that brought us a Stanley Cup three years ago has been absent ever since. It's got a lot less to do with the rules than with our players' willingness (or lack of it) to leave it all out there every night. We play one good period, take the next two off, and wonder "where's the offense?" Staal plays a great game and takes the next who knows how many off, and we wonder "where's the offense?" On any given night one player can spark the team to victory, but since the Cup run, those nights have been the exception rather than the rule, and that's because we have about half the team playing like they just don't give a damn.

    Which brings me back to my larger theory, which is that our problems are not player problems but management problems. No matter how much people want to blame Karmanos for being tight, the irrefutable fact is that this team, talent wise, is not a whole lot different than the team that won the Cup. Look up and down the roster -- and at the scoresheet from any of our decent wins -- and you'll see that we have guys in every position who are just as capable as those on the '06 roster. But when only half are playing hard night in and night out, that's the difference. Until one of two two things happens, (1) a major shake-up in the front office, or (2) a wholesale dumping of our dead weight, the players on the ice will have no incentive to improve their performance. Sometimes there is no incentive quite like knowing nobody's job is safe, and as much as some of the folks on this board may prefer to ignore it, I'm afraid this one of those times.

  5. I disagree with the letter. JR is great, most of his questionable moves work out in the end(babchuck). I like Maurice and Francis behind the bench.

    Babchuk has "worked out"?? Puhleeze. And if you like Maurice behind the bench, explain his boneheaded move Saturday in pulling Ward while we were down 3. He tried to mimic the brilliant move Sutter made against us a while back, with one notable exception: They were down 2 goals at the time and there was still enough game left for their goal to matter! Maurice shows his cluelessness a little more each night, and if he's "grooming" Ronny for the job, well, that'd be kind of like Johnny Grahame "teaching" Cam Ward goaltending!!

    I won't argue with the others here who have pointed out that JRs hands are tied by PK's "thrift," but I will add that if he had the kind of money he did to spend on Staal and Brindy, a lot of it could have been better spent by shortening their deals and tying their pay more strongly to their performance. You've got a guy near the end of his career and one at the beginning. If you don't give them an incentive to perform they will (as they have shown) gladly collect their checks and avoid dishing out any of their own.

  6. Then we would really get our moneys worth out of him....sit him...that'll work.

    So if I'm understanding you Cardiac, it's more important to stay healthy and underperform than to play like you should and risk injury?? If that were true, hockey would be badminton and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    I look at it this way: Everything else has been tried. We've gone out and gotten for Staal perfectly capable help in the person of Samsonov. No good. We've fired the coach. Nothing doing. So the question has to become, AT WHAT POINT do you say, "Eric, I'm sitting your sorry butt down in hopes it'll prove that nobody on this team is above disciplinary action when they merely lace 'em up and go through the motions -- no matter how much money they're making."

  7. Why should there be a apology for Staals play? I know he hasn't achieved the point total this year we all like but he still will be a 30 goal scorer that plays against the top line every night. He is now on the penalty kill, it's funny now how that's improved.

    All people are saying is that every player that's putting up great numbers has a great player playing with them.

    He leads our team in pp goals, shots, goals, plus/minus, game winning goals. Even though he isn't having his best offensive year he has made great strides on the defensive end. There is nothing to apologies about.

    You might want to pick another player to point the finger at because your same old same old "he is no leader" or "he isn't the player like Allen Iverson " is getting old.

    Once again Kernersville, your ability to miss the big picture whilst holding on to stuff you need to just get over continues to amaze. You ask why anybody should apologize for Staal and immediately begin doing just that: "I know he hasn't achieved the point total this year we all like BUT..."

    Justify all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Our 8-million-dollar man has 36 points on the year, good for 70th in the league. He needs to either buck up or spend some time in the press box.

  8. We aren't probably going to get Cole, so who is going to be "that guy", Staal's bud. Every great player has a sidekick. Without his sidekick, he's shut down. If you doubt it, look around the league, there's a heckuva lot of pairs out there. Staal needs his sidekick.

    I think the whole sidekick thing, or at least the notion that we have to go out and find one for Staal, is a crummy excuse for his play at best, a lot of malarkey at worst. It doesn't jibe with the fact that Staal was dominant in the second half of last season, and it ignores an even bigger point: We have more than enough talent and diverse styles of play already on this team that somebody can be found who would sufficiently compliment Staal. Williams, Whitney, Walker, LaRose, Sammy, etc. You're not just going to go out and find somebody whose style or abilities is (1) all that different from any of these guys or (2) readily available, even if you wanted one of them.

    It's time for E. Staal's apologists to stop looking outside of Eric and start putting the responsibility for his play on his own shoulders.

  9. Lets pretend he is healthy. His performance while healthy was inconsistent. Rod simply doesn't bring enough value to the table as a healthy player to justify the cost of his salary. Healthy or not. Time has past...move on.

    I disagree on one point, what you call his inconsistency while healthy. I realize you mean his performance since winning the Cup, but I think that's an important distinction. Winning the Cup extinguised the fire Roddy had for this franchise. He's a mission-oriented player, and he accomplished his mission here. If he is healthy, I think he could still have value, and could rekindle that flame with a team that is in the same position we were when he got here -- on the verge. I'm thinking Columbus or Phoenix or (much as I'd hate to see him in their sweater) even the Slugs. What team can't ALWAYS use a guy who's pretty much a lock to win faceoffs when you really need to get one?

    But that's the main point for me. This team needs to rebuild, and they won't be able to fully get on with that while Roddy's here. I'd rather they miss the playoffs and get a higher draft pick than limp in just for the sake of limping in -- which, frankly, they aren't likely to do at this point anyway.

    Get on the phone, JR.

  10. I disagree. I think teams do plan a defense around Staal, and it's pretty easy since we don't have any complimentary threats to play with him. A healthy Staal, Stillman, Cole line was very difficult to defense, 2 speed guys and a playmaker.

    My basic premise is that you can't pay a guy 7 or 8 million and not give him the right tools to work with for him to be successful. It's stupid. And for those who are pointing out the obvious, yes, it might have been the right time to get rid of Stillman and Cole to help out the rest of the team with defense. Well, you have to replace them now, which is my point, and those are the types of players you need to make Staal successful. He's just not a guy who can dominate the game all by himself.

    But he's also not a guy who is doing what he needs to do, based on his abilities, or based even on the dictates of his position. He has maybe the softest hands in the league, yet I can count on one hand the number of games this season where he has planted himself in the slot rather than at the side of the net. In front, you get two for one: you create a screen and you're available for garbage collection (i.e., rebounds). By hanging down at the goal line you immediately cut the percentages. First, you can't get to rebounds out in front. Second, you're not there for your linemates or as a distraction to defenders. And third, on those rare chances you get, you have lower percentage shots due to the hard angle orientation of the net.

    The bottom line for me is not that Staal lacks the ability to be successful -- but he may lack the physical presence and/or will. Whatever the case, he had not yet earned the deal he got, and IMO, its the COMBINATION of that deal and Roddy's that is crippling this team in terms of on-ice leadership.

  11. Or do we have one of those athletes that signs a big, long-term deal...and then takes it easy for the remainder of his contract? Seems to happen way too often in all the major sports.....

    Well, we don't know that yet. What I do know is that the more fans hold players' feet to the fire the better -- they either shape up or ship out.

  12. Is it me, or is Staal losing even more face offs than before?

    His numbers had actually come up for a couple of games but against the Sabres (at least, did not check Toronto stats) they were down again. He won 44%. Even Sutter was better at 50%.

    Let me just say, b/c I know some have complained about my "Staal bashing," that nobody wants him to play well consistently more than I do. But as a father, I also know that sometimes the best way to get through to an adolescent (and in purely clinical terms, adolescence in men often continues through age 25) is to give them an ultimatum. Right now Staal has no incentive to go out there and bust his *edit* every night. But sit that same *edit* on the bench for a few games, and maybe he gets the message. Maybe not. But at this point, there is - quite literally - nothing to lose.

  13. Tripp is no better or worse than the other color commentators out there. They are all fiercely partisan, and they all make lame excuses for poor performance by the teams they work for. Tripp pulled out the old standby at the end of last night's game (Slugs): "We just ran into a hot goalie." Which, translated into something more objective, would sound like this: "Our cold-as-ice offense is beginning to thaw, but until it shows more than one dimension and an interest in playing more than 20 minutes a night, it's no match for a good goalie."

  14. I just don't know how a team can go from showing us the speed, talent and grit we saw during the win streak and then suddenly turn into the eastern conference wimps. I have tickets to Thursday night's game and I honestly am considering tossing them in the trash and not going. If the head office wants to maintain fan base, they had better revise the status quo, and I am referring to our beloved GM.

    Rutherford take notice: your job is to generate tickets sales, not to run the team. We don't want to see your face on the Canes web site giving us updates. Leave that to the head coach. You focus on spending the cash necessary to bring in some additional talent. Let Mo run the team as he sees fit. Serve notice to the players - including Staal - that Mo has the final word whether they stay or go. Let Mo lead. The Canes will not be a contender under your current style of leadership.

    Nicely said, to which I'll take the liberty of adding:

    ...Or get behind the bench YOURSELF, JR, and let's see how long YOU last!!!

  15. I hope I did not jinx us with this thread :(

    Changing coaches is analogous to a presidential candidate getting his party's nomination. There's a bounce, and then it's back to the campaign.

    The only difference with the Canes is that JR doesn't give a #$@% what the people are saying. Mo was a desperation move that didn't have to happen and shouldn't have. Players respond to discipline (witness the play of one Frank Kaberle since being put on waivers).

    We have eight skaters who can be counted on to give 110% every night: LaRose, Cullen, Williams, Seidenberg, Pitkanen, Gleason, Sutter, and Scotty. Samsonov, Ruutu, and Corvo are also keepers. That's eleven. Not a bad nucleus with which to rebuild. As far as I'm concerned, everyone else needs to be put on notice, that being: You're all on the trading block. See if you can skate your butts off of it.

    <Edit: Overlooked Timmy!!>

  • Create New...