3 -0-2 good but?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruins8. Show bruins8's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    SORRY FOR NOT GOING 5-0   8 0F 10 ON THE ROAD IN JUST TERRIBLE!   
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerrynewyork. Show jerrynewyork's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    but nothing. some people are just never satisfied. yeesh
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    I am not saying i am upset with the bruins. They did get out the slump but I am  stating facts they are still not playing 3 periods of hockey. If Bruins put in 100% effort they will be serious cup contenders.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    this is a very good team...that could become a great team , IF they learn to win at home. great goaltending(#1 in the league), great defense(fewest goals against), great road team(top 2 or 3)...only piece missing is home dominance.
    i really like this team and its future---of the four keys--home dominance is the easiest to remedy--go b's
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fordprefect. Show fordprefect's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    We do need to improve for tougher teams.  Still, 8/10.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wboi92287. Show wboi92287's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    wow people actually think our overall D is good *smh*...We have good personel but our overall defensive play is awful, they give up 30+ shots most of the time to both crappy teams and good teams. They are always scrambling around in their own end and NEVER punish anyone who stands in front of our net. If we had mediocre goaltending or even above average goalies we would probably out of the playoff hunt right now. Rask & Thomas have bailed out our D all season long. The lowest goals against is a direct product of our goaltending not our D.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fordprefect. Show fordprefect's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    If we had mediocre goaltending, we could afford better D and F.  We don't.  We have the best 2 goalies of the last 3 years.  I'll take it. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wboi92287. Show wboi92287's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    ^^^^
    this is true, we would have more $$$

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jtassinarisoccer. Show jtassinarisoccer's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    In Response to Re: 3 -0-2 good but?:
    [QUOTE]this is a very good team...that could become a great team , IF they learn to win at home. great goaltending(#1 in the league), great defense(fewest goals against), great road team(top 2 or 3)...only piece missing is home dominance. i really like this team and its future---of the four keys--home dominance is the easiest to remedy--go b's
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    dude...they are good, middle of the pack.  Let's calm down a little
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    The Bs give up 30 shots per game but few are quality chances. The Bs give up the outside low percentage shots and focus on clearing rebounds and blocking screened shots. It's the system and you have to understand what the system is trying to do - minimize scoring chances not shots. Criticize the D for not moving it out of their own end but criticism based on the teams D in preventing goals is misplaced.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wallydouglas. Show wallydouglas's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    In Response to Re: 3 -0-2 good but?:
    [QUOTE]If we had mediocre goaltending, we could afford better D and F.  We don't.  We have the best 2 goalies of the last 3 years.  I'll take it. 
    Posted by fordprefect[/QUOTE]
    Do you think the goaltending is gonna carry them all year ? Everyone seen how TT was getting a bit burned out, thankgod Rask bounced up with a great performance last night. But seriously all this guy is saying that same old, not much is improving where it should be. Savards line finally stepped up but can anyone see krecji's game faltering a bit ?
    Over all the consistency is lacking, it needs to be there every game win or lose

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from matttt87. Show matttt87's posts

    Re: 3 -0-2 good but?

    In Response to Re: 3 -0-2 good but?:
    [QUOTE]I am not saying i am upset with the bruins. They did get out the slump but I am  stating facts they are still not playing 3 periods of hockey. If Bruins put in 100% effort they will be serious cup contenders.
    Posted by boborielly224[/QUOTE]

    I have a funny feeling that someone on every board, for every team, says that exact same thing.
     

Share