No Rask? No Problem!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    NAS, where did you go on vacation. It must have rained all the time. Rask has played quite well as we've mostly noted. IMO he has had some games better than Timmy. In addition, it appears [no finite word] that his injury could be caused by lack of regular work that would keep his body as flexible as possible. That is speculation, but, most athletes, survive muscle stress better, when they have been involved in their sport on a regular basis. hopefully, when we get the word, it's a strain that can be restored by exercise.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]I get your point NAS, but where last week our goalie depth chart was TT, Rask and Khudobin, now it's TT, Hutchinson, and St. Laurent. Even with your criticisms of Rask, you'd have to be a little nervous about that current depth chart.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    He's a great backup goalie.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    Ah NAS, now I will not doubt of your wisdom at posting.  On linear scale from left to right would put you on the far right like number 8 purely on the fact you are knowledgeable to be sarcastic and yes with the Rask statement presently correct.  Yet, two years ago Thomas was having physical issues and Rask did very well during the regular season.  If you add the other injuries incurred that year's playoffs to the infamous Philly exit debacle, Rask did well.  So now that he plays irregularly, and he is questionable on potential.  I will argue you are right with the remark "no problem" as the Bs will be fine with a healthy Thomas and a goalie that can win half of the games he plays in the last 20 of the schedule.  Rask may not be much in your eyes, and with the type of injury he may fall from the favor of Bs fans, but he is not a failure at what he does, backup the Vezina trophy winner.  
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    If Bernier goes down in LA, I don't think they'd have the same heart attack as people are here with Rask.

    Rask is the back up goalie and he doesn't even win half of the games he starts, so it's no big deal.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : I didn't want to talk about his losses, but we can if you'd like.  Along with Detroit and the Rangers, there are also losses to Colorado (10th), Carolina (14th), Montreal (15th), Winnepeg (8th), Carolina (14th), Buffalo (11th), Winnepeg (8th), Buffalo (11th) and that Islanders game from yesterday that I won't count. Average standings position for loses?  9.4
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

     
    All your stats shows is that Julien has used him against lesser teams. If he never plays the better teams the average always stays high ( and will never go lower ) no matter if he wins or loses .
     
    The average standings position is a meaningless stat to gauge how he has played.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! :   All your stats shows is that Julien has used him against lesser teams. If he never plays the better teams the average always stays high ( and will never go lower ) no matter if he wins or loses .   The average standings position is a meaningless stat to gauge how he has played.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    If he played better, he'd have more wins.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]If Bernier goes down in LA, I don't think they'd have the same heart attack as people are here with Rask. Rask is the back up goalie and he doesn't even win half of the games he starts, so it's no big deal.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    How does he manage to maintain a winning record if he isn't winning more than losing?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : If he played better, he'd have more wins.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    If they scored one more then the opposition they'd also win more.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    It's tough to argue against save percentage as a bad stat as every goalie gets its share of gimmees.  However, I'd like to see a quality shot save percentage....as well as a "bad" goal (goals given up on non quality chances) stat.  Rask is a very good back-up goalie, and I bet he does very well compared to all other backups in the above 3 categories. 

    With that said, I was a big fan of shopping Rask for some quality forward/defensive help at this deadline.   My big fear about Rask is that we will be putting too much cash into the goalie position for 2012-13.  I do not want the B's to be spending between 8-10 million on the goalie position.    This injury might be a blessing in disguise with regards to that.   Rask can be replaced with a cheaper alternative; I cannot say the same for Thomas.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    Whether Rask has a higher or lower GAA or SV% than TT is immaterial.  What counts is how he and the team performs when he's in.  You can't have a 37 year old playing 90% of your games.  Especially if you're planning on long playoff run. You don't expect your backup to win 90% of his games (if he does, then bonus).  You want him to hold his own, have at least a .500 win %age (which Rask does, and more), so that there's no big drop off when TT is resting. 

    In my opinion, Rask has done everything asked of him, and more.  Could he be a starter elsewhere? Probably yes -- he certainly showed he could in 09-10, but can he handle the grind, year after year?  Jury's still out on that one.

    Rask's injury wouldn't be such an issue, except for the fact that Khudobin is also hurt.  As I've posted on other threads, injuries prior to the deadline allow you to build experienced depth -- injuries afterwards put that depth to the test.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : How does he manage to maintain a winning record if he isn't winning more than losing?
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    He has 22 starts.

    He has 11 wins.

    One of the wins was a third period entrance.

    22 starts.  10 wins.  Mostly poor opponents.

    If we don't count yesterday's game, which is fair, he's at 21 starts, 10 wins from those starts.

    To count all games, he's has 23 games, 11 wins.

    How else do you want to slice it?

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

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : He has 22 starts. He has 11 wins. One of the wins was a third period entrance. 22 starts.  10 wins.  Mostly poor opponents. If we don't count yesterday's game, which is fair, he's at 21 starts, 10 wins from those starts. To count all games, he's has 23 games, 11 wins. How else do you want to slice it?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Oh, I was just looking at his career won-loss record but thanks for the top-notch research. You're a godsend.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    "Rask's injury wouldn't be such an issue, except for the fact that Khudobin is also hurt.  As I've posted on other threads, injuries prior to the deadline allow you to build experienced depth -- injuries afterwards put that depth to the test."

    But the B's still have a 3 pt lead with 2 games in hand over Ottawa.   Worst case scenario is that Ottawa catches them and they fall to 7th or 8th seed (most likely 7th seed and play Ottawa)  The depth would be tested if TT had to play every game down the stretch and they were fighting for their playoff lives.  But they have built up a sizeable playoff cushion and can give Thomas a rest when needed down the stretch.  If TT got hurt, they would be screwed anyway.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : He has 22 starts. He has 11 wins. One of the wins was a third period entrance. 22 starts.  10 wins.  Mostly poor opponents. If we don't count yesterday's game, which is fair, he's at 21 starts, 10 wins from those starts. To count all games, he's has 23 games, 11 wins. How else do you want to slice it?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Looks like TT only has 3 winning seasons on his record by this logic.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : He has 22 starts. He has 11 wins. One of the wins was a third period entrance. 22 starts.  10 wins.  Mostly poor opponents. If we don't count yesterday's game, which is fair, he's at 21 starts, 10 wins from those starts. To count all games, he's has 23 games, 11 wins. How else do you want to slice it?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Can I take a stab at slicing it why ? The Bruins scored 14 goals and were shutout 4 times in the losses. ( I did this quick so the numbers might not be totally accurate. But close .)

    How many goalies win games when the team in front of him averages a little over a goal a game ?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : Oh, I was just looking at his career won-loss record but thanks for the top-notch research. You're a godsend.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Wow, Dez.  I've really bent your nose today. 

    Feel free to put me on ignore until it goes back into joint.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : Wow, Dez.  I've really bent your nose today.  Feel free to put me on ignore until it goes back into joint.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Wow, and there I thought I was being polite.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : Wow, and there I thought I was being polite.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    If you keep pickin' on me, I'm going to tell Shupe.  When he gets back from climbing Mt. Everest, he'll show you!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : If you keep pickin' on me, I'm going to tell Shupe.  When he gets back from climbing Mt. Everest, he'll show you!
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    You know how it is. No opponent so we'll fight amongst ourselves.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    I'm still freaked that we're one injury away from having to rely on two goaltenders who spent much of the season playing for either the Reading Royals (Hutchinson, St. Laurent) or the Alaska Aces (Courchaine). These guys are barely legitimate AHLers yet, let alone NHLers. Seriously, Hutchinson started the season with a 3.50 GAA in the ECHL, and now he's our backup?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]I'm still freaked that we're one injury away from having to rely on two goaltenders who spent much of the season playing for either the Reading Royals (Hutchinson, St. Laurent) or the Alaska Aces (Courchaine). These guys are barely legitimate AHLers yet, let alone NHLers.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    SHHHHHH Red ! That's a scary thought.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : SHHHHHH Red ! That's a scary thought.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    Hence my freaking.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    Khudobin will be back on the ice in a week, per Chiarelli,Boston Herald.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]I'm still freaked that we're one injury away from having to rely on two goaltenders who spent much of the season playing for either the Reading Royals (Hutchinson, St. Laurent) or the Alaska Aces (Courchaine). These guys are barely legitimate AHLers yet, let alone NHLers. Seriously, Hutchinson started the season with a 3.50 GAA in the ECHL, and now he's our backup?
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    I don't spend any time worrying about things that have not happened.  Should Thomas get hurt, I'll think more about it.  Until then, the B's have an All-Star goaltender.  Life is good.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: No Rask? No Problem!

    In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: No Rask? No Problem! : I don't spend any time worrying about things that have not happened.  Should Thomas get hurt, I'll think more about it.  Until then, the B's have an All-Star goaltender.  Life is good.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Yeah, its like worrying if your going to wake up in the morning, you just go to bed and take your chances.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share