Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

IceFrog999

Full Member
  • Content Count

    5,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About IceFrog999

  • Rank
    Retired Jersey

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,464 profile views
  1. I just had to comment that the over-the-top, completely unnecessary hostility in some of the responses is hilarious. To put it simply, the OP had a dislike of Gleason because of his play in the past (and Gleason has had some questionable ones). His play in the recent Caps game brought a new light on Gleason in the OP's eyes. He still dislikes Gleason, but he respects him. Sort of how, despite the seething rage that some seem to have for OV, you have to respect the talent level it takes to put up the numbers he does.
  2. [quote name='ericncsu wrote: ivyleager wrote: IceFrog999']Figured I'd post this here, since it may have something to do with the future of the ACC (as this thread appears to have become). ECU won their second consecutive CUSA championship, the first time a CUSA team has done it since the split. They'll likely play Arkansas in the Liberty Bowl. In both last year and this year, they managed to outscore the #1 offense in college football (Tulsa last year and Houston this year). If ECU has a good showing in the bowl, especially if they win it, there's serious talk about ECU moving into the ACC. It'd make sense as the majority of Carolina teams are in the ACC, and ECU would be a mid-level talent in that conference at the level they've been playing at lately. I seriously doubt this will happen. They could be competitive in football and give a fair number of the teams a run for their money. But, least we forget about the basketball component of the ACC. ECU BB stinks. Not every ACC team is good in Basketball... FSU stunk for a long time, I don't know if Miami is any good.. Not sure about Virginia Tech... UNC, Duke Wake Forest (and sometimes NC State) get most of the press and you don't hear much about the other teams. They added BC, VTech and Miami purely for Football reasons and to have the ACC Football Championship game.. I think it makes sense, since ECU is a natural rival for NC State and UNC.. but at the same time, I'm not sure it makes sense for ECU. Part of the allure is being a non-confernce rival game, which means it's an all out slugfest with nothing but pride on the line, and plus they can continue to dominate the C-USA year in and year out and be a powerhouse in that conference (if they aren't already). ECU doesn't really follow the basketball scene, mostly because we suck. A more prestigious conference might help get recruits to make it so we don't suck, but I doubt that'll change much. ECU's about football and baseball. As for the second part, does being in the same conference as UNC change the rivalry between them and State? If it doesn't, why would it change between UNC/ECU or State/ECU? And while getting the wins in CUSA helps, the better conference is what the school's looking for. We need the recruits and that's not happening unless we get out of CUSA.
  3. Figured I'd post this here, since it may have something to do with the future of the ACC (as this thread appears to have become). ECU won their second consecutive CUSA championship, the first time a CUSA team has done it since the split. They'll likely play Arkansas in the Liberty Bowl. In both last year and this year, they managed to outscore the #1 offense in college football (Tulsa last year and Houston this year). If ECU has a good showing in the bowl, especially if they win it, there's serious talk about ECU moving into the ACC. It'd make sense as the majority of Carolina teams are in the ACC, and ECU would be a mid-level talent in that conference at the level they've been playing at lately.
  4. Real simple. Stay the course for the time being. Throw the feelers out there, find out which teams are interested in players on the team, and try and work out a deal (or at least establish contact with the team's GM before the trade deadline). If we're going the full rebuild route, there are three people we keep on the team: Staal, Ward, and Pitkanen. 4 if you consider Sutter to be a permanent stay on the team now. Everyone else is acquirable at the right price. Our three best trade bait players at the moment are Whitney, Ruutu, and Corvo. Both Whitney and Corvo could earn a low 1st/high 2nd at the trade deadline. Ruutu, with the contract he's got, will earn a 1st rounder, a mid rounder and a prospect. Or we could decide to keep him. Out of respect to Brindamour and the many years of service to the team, he won't be traded unless he specifically asks for it as another chance to win the Cup with another team (sort of what the team did with Francis). Should he stay, he will be relegated to 4th line duties and he'll serve the more mentorish role to Sutter. The one aspect of the game that he still has that no one else on the team does is his domination in the faceoff circle. If he can teach Staal or Sutter even half of what he knows, he'll have done his job. Other than that, it's as I said. Stay the course until closer to the deadline, then have a complete firesale for picks and prospects. Replace those traded with callups. Dwyer needs another chance, as does Ryan. And the many defensive prospects that have been stuck down there also need a chance. If all goes to plan, by the end of the year, we'll have earned a Top 5 spot in the draft, and have a better idea of what prospects are NHL-ready and which ones still need more time. Using those answers will also give us a better idea of who to grab in FA to fix the holes.
  5. Retire? Probably not. He could probably (actually, definitely) find another job if we let him go. Now, whether or not we should let him go is another story. His moves this offseason certainly didn't help his case, and while some of his previous signings seemed intelligent at the time, now they're just turning sour on him. And then there's his draft history, which would probably be the strongest case against him should it be argued. Sutter is the first pick in...forever...that's shown any signs of being NHL ready. Seriously, there's a laundry list of players that we've drafted since 2000 that have amounted to jacksquat. 2000: Tomáš Kůrka - early 2nd round. We traded our 1st rounder to Colorado 2001: Igor Knyazev - 1st round. Never played a single NHL game. 2001: Michael Zigomanis - 2nd round. Fringe NHL player. 2002: Ward drafted in the 1st round, followed by 8 rounds of nothing 2003: Staal in the 1st round, followed by 8 rounds of nothing. Danny Richmond was the 1st pick of the 2nd round, before Patrice Bergeron and Shea Weber. 2004: Ladd in the 1st round, followed by 3 rounds of fringe NHLers and then 4 rounds of nothing. 2005: Jack Johnson in the 1st round, followed by 8 rounds of nothing. 6 drafts, 54 rounds, coming up with a grand total of 2 NHL-caliber players playing for Carolina.
  6. It isn't a matter of "Leighton hasn't played enough, so of course he isn't playing well". He's not playing well because he's not an NHL caliber goaltender. Throughout his career (and it's been a long one), he's "tore it up" in the AHL and gotten destroyed in the NHL. The Blackhawks played him for 34 games one season, and he put up about the same stats as he did last year, playing 19. There hasn't been a single year in his NHL career that he's put up good numbers. Yet you look at his minor league stats and he's dominated. He's a career AHLer, just one of those players that can't seem to translate their game to the NHL. Look no further than former Cane, Keith Aucoin, for the perfect example of that.
  7. [quote name='TSA wrote: IceFrog999'] It's quite possible that the refs are more likely to call penalties against us this year because of the overwhelming advantage we had last year. You can call it conspiracy if you like, but I'd just call it fixing a mistake. If thats the case, you just validated the conspiracy theorists around here As I said, you can call it conspiracy if you like. I won't, because doing such would validate the claims of a conspiracy FOR us last year. It's not a one or the other situation. I didn't hear many complaints about the officiating when they were constantly in our favor, but as soon as the tides start to turn: That's not to say there haven't been things let go that should have been called, or things that were called against us that were missed when the opposing team does the same thing. But that's just crappy officiating. The same crappy officiating that's been around for years now. I've said it once and I'll say it again: It really says a lot about the state of the officiating when you're starting to miss Magoo.
  8. Sorry, not drinking the Kool-Aid. Simply put, the officiating was just as bad last year as it is this year. In fact, I'd say it was worse last year. Take the game against Montreal last season. No team, period, should have an 11-1 streak of PPs in their favor. It means the refs were blatantly missing calls on one team while calling those same (or similar) infractions on the other. It's quite possible that the Canadiens took 11 penalties through 2 periods. It's also possible that we only took 1 penalty through 2 periods. I don't believe it's possible that they took 11 and we only took 1 through 2 periods. There are a couple factors I believe are contributing to the increased penalty calls against us. The first, obviously, is that we're not playing well, and when a team is getting outplayed, they're more likely to take penalties. The second is this team is playing a different style than last years. Last year, our MO was to be a fast forechecking team. We'd cause turnovers by putting the pressure on the opposing team, which in turn would cause them to take penalties. This year, the team's changed to a physical forechecking team. Theoretically, we'd dump the puck in, and then force the turnovers by wearing the opposing team down physically. Unfortunately, we simply don't have the players to play that kind of game. There's a reason why players that should be producing (Samsonov, LaRose, Staal) simply aren't. They're more adapt to the fast forecheck and are having trouble adjusting to the new style of play. Players like Whitney and Jokinen, who have played this style before, are putting up points because of it. Finally, the fact that we were the least penalized team in the league last year certainly has a factor on whether or not we get calls this year. Last year, we had a PP/PK ratio of +73. That's unheard of. No matter how good a team is (and we certainly weren't good for a good portion of the year), to have that much of an advantage means someone's not doing their job correctly. It's quite possible that the refs are more likely to call penalties against us this year because of the overwhelming advantage we had last year. You can call it conspiracy if you like, but I'd just call it fixing a mistake.
  9. Completely different situation. Sutter had his head down, trying to corral the puck at center ice. I guess you could argue that Weight aimed at his head, but considered his head was about waist level in the first place, there's not much there. Sutter put himself in that position, and Weight hit him with a legal hit (by the rules of the game at least). In this suspension, Ruutu was hitting illegally, hence why he got that nice little major for it. There's no reason to suspend Weight for the hit, unless you believe that every hit that causes injury should be suspendable.
  10. [quote name='TSA wrote: IceFrog999'] And Ruutu's admitted his past isn't squeaky clean. I believe it was either early this year, Tripp had one of his bench interviews with Ruutu, and his past came up. Ruutu looked really uncomfortable discussing it, but pretty much said he was a little more reckless when he came into the league than he is now. Tripp, in a rare moment for him, actually picked up on the player's uncomfortableness and moved on. Yeah, now that I think about it, it was earlier this year, since Tripp was talking about signing a long contract with Carolina, talking about the physical play he brought to the team, and then brought up Ruutu's past. Come on Frog theres no credible history there, just speculation and opinion. Perhaps Ruutu was uncomfortable in the broadcast because he speaks broken English? And its possible that his reference to playing a little reckless earlier in his career was more about that style of play leading to the injuries that took him out of Chicago's line up and eventually lead to his trade here to Raleigh? I guess things can be interpreted several different ways but to use them as fact is quite a stretch. Ruutu has no documented NHL history of dirty play. Does he play careless occasionally, sure but thats a lot different than playing dirty, I believe its the intent that draws a solid line between the two. The only intent I've ever seen him have was the intent to take an opposing player out of the play, which is his job as a power forward. Well, as you said, it could be interpreted in many ways, though that article right there has him admitting "It was fair to say at the time" when the article stated he had a nasty temper and "a tendency to play dirty". And it also mentions a suspension early in the career. I could have sworn Tripp interviewed Ruutu at the beginning of the year, maybe the Boston or the Tampa Bay game. Or my memory might just be off and I'm thinking of the Brackney article.
  11. [quote name='TSA wrote: IceFrog999'] His brother is a worse offender, but Ruutu does have a history of dirty plays. Has he ever been punished for one with a fine or suspension since entering the NHL? Is that based on your opinion or are there documented incidences? Not trying to call you on this but I really can't recall any, I might have missed something. In the NHL? Not to my knowledge. I believe he may have been suspended a game or two while playing for Finland internationally, but again, that's just off memory. That one, in particular, I believe he may have caught some heat for. Though, just because the NHL doesn't choose to fine or suspend a player doesn't mean he isn't on their radar. With some of the hits Ruutu's laid out, you don't think a coach or GM of the opposing team isn't going to send the tapes to the league to get them evaluated? For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if that one was evaluated. And Ruutu's admitted his past isn't squeaky clean. I believe it was either early this year, Tripp had one of his bench interviews with Ruutu, and his past came up. Ruutu looked really uncomfortable discussing it, but pretty much said he was a little more reckless when he came into the league than he is now. Tripp, in a rare moment for him, actually picked up on the player's uncomfortableness and moved on. Yeah, now that I think about it, it was earlier this year, since Tripp was talking about signing a long contract with Carolina, talking about the physical play he brought to the team, and then brought up Ruutu's past.
  12. His brother is a worse offender, but Ruutu does have a history of dirty plays. A lot came from when he first entered the league, but then there are situations like this one where he shows he's not the cleanest player out there. Heck, I remember last year, Ruutu blatantly left his feet to launch himself at a Rangers player. 3 games is about right. It wasn't an intent to injure, but players are taught from the squirts not to hit a player when their number is facing you. And as much as I dislike Tucker, his back was to Ruutu the entire time. Ruutu should have let up. No excuses. Given Ruutu's history and the injury to Tucker, 3 games is fair.
  13. I don't know how much others here watch other teams around the league, but this year's PP reminds me A LOT of last year's Rangers PP (and it's clicking in at about the same rate). Last year, they'd have trouble gaining the zone, but most importantly, anytime they gained (and sustained) the zone, they spent the majority of their time passing. Now, passing is important. Good passing on the PP will open up shooting lanes. Unfortunately, our problem (as the Rangers last year) is that no one's willing to take that shot. The team has so much trouble gaining the zone, that most feel if the shot isn't perfect, all that time gaining the zone will be wasted. Our PP succeeded for the most part last year, because we had a guy willing to take those shots. Like him or not, Babchuk was never afraid to take a shot when he was given the opportunity to do so. And really, that's all we need to correct the failing PP this year. The Rangers did it this past offseason. They grabbed Gaborik, Kotalik, and their rookies (especially MDZ). All are willing to shoot when given the chance, and it's no surprise their PP has jumped considerably. But I digress, before I start going full on rant mode. Gotta wait another week or so for that.
  14. A couple things. This could simply be a "better safe than sorry" approach. We're not even 10 games in, these games really don't mean a lot in the long run (every team in the league hits a hot/cold streak of about 5 games during the year), and it's better to have him healthy later in the year when the race becomes closer. However, Joni's reputation from Edmonton precedes him. One of the negatives that was constantly brought up about him is his (seemingly) unwillingness to tough it out. If he was injured, he'll stay out two or three more games than needed. In a double-edged sword kind of thing, his skills on the ice make the wait worth it, but those same skills are sorely missed in those extra 2-3 games.
×
×
  • Create New...