Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    By a pusher, I mean as a puck carrier, he excels at bursting through the neutral zone - every once in a while, he does a bit of a Kessel imitation and charges up ice with the puck.  Marchand's the same.  Bergeron can do it, but it isn't his game in quite the same way.  He's also not a slow down artist like Krejci (too much so when he's slumping). 

    Just to clarify: I am not suggesting Seguin deals drugs.

    True enough about "basic hockey" and keeping the centre deeper.  Watching the Bruins, and reading the comments re: Kelly and Bergeron, I think the CJ plan simply puts more pressure on the C to read the play and know when he can jump into the offense.

    I'll definitely agree that Seguin having a few strides of free ice to build up speed and join the rush is enticing.  All I'm saying is that I don't think it's a net loss having him on the wing where he can also use that speed to back the D off and create space for that line to work.  It may mean Seguin doesn't get as many points, but it's not about how many points Tyler can get.  I'm not sure the Bruins would win more games with him a C and another player on the wing.  I don't think they'd win more games with Hall playing where Seguin is now (or as LW on that line...).  Better to play Seguin on the wing and have the option to play him at C than to draft Hall who is more of a natural wing, even though he played C in Jr. for long stretches. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Complete hogwash the Bruins were decimated by injuries night after night that is what made 10' an unbearable regular season. The Bruins still found a way to beat the Sabres in the first round with all kinds of injuries. That is not selective that was the reality. With and without Kessel the Bruins didn't get past the 2nd round of the palyoffs.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]


    ????????????huh?  don't recall saying anything about "decimated by injuries"
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LoveRealHockey. Show LoveRealHockey's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]Depends on how you look at the Kessel trade, but I still call it a huge bruise for the Leafs.  They wanted a franchise centrepiece, and they got a guy who hadn't matched his Bruins totals until this year.  They got a guy who was a secondary player floundering around looking for a centre to "get him the puck".  (He's not a spot shooter; anyone can get the puck to him - a lack of competent passing defensemen was probably more of a drag on Phil).  What they wanted was a player who would kick-start their rebuild.  They went backwards with him.  Saying "they didn't expect to be that bad" is partly a shot a Kessel's impact - it's a big shot, really, because they gambled that with Kessel, they'd improve enough that a first round pick wouldn't be an immediate impact player.  Lose. The Bruins had a player who was talented but ultimately a poor, poor fit for a team that was building based on a close-knit, group commitment, team toughness model.  I can't go as far as saying ditching Phil was addition by subtraction, but having him and his mercurial talents playing a key role - and eating up any salary dollars that might have brought in Horton, then later Peverley and Kelly - would have made the Bruins a lesser team.  And even in 2010, when the picks were just numbers and not names, the Bruins, for all their regular-season woes, were a goal away from making the ECF.  I can't honestly say I think Phil would have out-performed Satan in that playoff (13 games 5-5-10 and +4; game winner in OT vs. Miller).  So the real "loss" of Kessel was...sorry, I'm coming up blank.  Instead, they got potential franchise players at two of the three position groups (premature to suggest this for Hamilton, but humour me).  Win. Would the Leafs be farther ahead this year with Seguin, Hamilton, Knight and $5.5M to sign someone else...maybe someone who plays net?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    I think this pretty much sums it up.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]Depends on how you look at the Kessel trade, but I still call it a huge bruise for the Leafs.  They wanted a franchise centrepiece, and they got a guy who hadn't matched his Bruins totals until this year.  They got a guy who was a secondary player floundering around looking for a centre to "get him the puck".  (He's not a spot shooter; anyone can get the puck to him - a lack of competent passing defensemen was probably more of a drag on Phil).  What they wanted was a player who would kick-start their rebuild.  They went backwards with him.  Saying "they didn't expect to be that bad" is partly a shot a Kessel's impact - it's a big shot, really, because they gambled that with Kessel, they'd improve enough that a first round pick wouldn't be an immediate impact player.  Lose. The Bruins had a player who was talented but ultimately a poor, poor fit for a team that was building based on a close-knit, group commitment, team toughness model.  I can't go as far as saying ditching Phil was addition by subtraction, but having him and his mercurial talents playing a key role - and eating up any salary dollars that might have brought in Horton, then later Peverley and Kelly - would have made the Bruins a lesser team.  And even in 2010, when the picks were just numbers and not names, the Bruins, for all their regular-season woes, were a goal away from making the ECF.  I can't honestly say I think Phil would have out-performed Satan in that playoff (13 games 5-5-10 and +4; game winner in OT vs. Miller).  So the real "loss" of Kessel was...sorry, I'm coming up blank.  Instead, they got potential franchise players at two of the three position groups (premature to suggest this for Hamilton, but humour me).  Win. Would the Leafs be farther ahead this year with Seguin, Hamilton, Knight and $5.5M to sign someone else...maybe someone who plays net?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]


    Good thoughts book.  Couple things.  Think the B's could have easily afforded Satan, if 81 was still on the team.  Think Seguins cap hit is around 3.5, so the leafs would have about 2, not 5.5.
    Before I go on...i'm not an 81 lover, and I'm really happy with the trade...I just don't agree with the "bounty to date", that seems prevalent here.
     I really don't think he was a poor, poor fit.  It's not like PC didn't really, really  want him back.  He just wanted to pay about 3.5, not 5.5(didn't blame him).  When we choose to remember that, it makes things a little different.  81 was just a kid, and most teams excercise a little patience with those they feel are more skilled in the scoring department.  As far as the close knit, group commitment thing, in PK's situation, that's more PR than reality.  Again, his age.  If anyone understands the culture of pro sport, the tight knit thing is about mutual respect for ones abilities, not pizza and sleepovers. Veterans take no guff from young guys.  They're usually neither liked or disliked that much, because of their inexperience coupled with their age. I can't picture big wheel Bruins saying, "I don't like PK.  Get him off the team".  Seems more like they'd say "Phil who?..does that little runt need straightened out"
    A lot of pro athletes hardly know some of their teamamtes. That "bond" is professional, and sometimes stays at the rink.   We've all played with people we don't warm up to, and sometimes we're thrilled to have them on our team.
    Then we have this "wanted out of town" hurt.  I think most would be surprised to learn there are many, many players who would prefer to be somewhere else.  When a team fails to sign someone, the natives are usually subdued if they hear "he didn't want to play for us". 
     Again, just opinion here, but if PK would have approved a deal for around 3 mil per....he probably would still be here.  If PC agreed to 5.5, he'd still be here.   By now, Chara, Thornton, Bergeron, and a few others would have made him understand the lay of the land.  Or else.
     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    If the Leafs would offer Kessel one on one for Seguin today ...I would be pissed if the Bruins would make this deal ...If the Maple Leafs are happy with Kessel ..good for them but Seguin has so much potential I really believe that next season I will get close to 100points ...

    Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013
    Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013
    Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013
    Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013
    Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013
    Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : ????????????huh?  don't recall saying anything about "decimated by injuries". Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Posted by Drewski5

    "absolutely right.  the deal absolutely screwed the B's in 10.  That was supposed to be the year of the Bruins.  Despite peoples selective memory, Kessel's contribution was significant, and wasn't replaced in 10, and it ruined things."

    This is what I responded too feel free to read your reply to Drewski again. Kessel was on two Bruins teams that did not get out of the 2nd round. Seguin was on a Stanley Cup winning Boston team.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3957105. Show user_3957105's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    Plus Kessel was benched for a few games in the 09 playoffs I do believe. Fact is that once PC signed Krejci to his contract extension that year he did not have the cap flexibility to sign Phil to the amount he obviously wanted. He got the most he could from TO, was able to get Horton and Campbell, and it eventually turned out in the B's favour.

    To be fair, it is easy in hindsight to conclude that the B's won that trade (the team did win the cup after all) but at the time it was a risk that paid off.

    By the way, I am wondering if Phil is actually going to get 40 goals this year.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Posted by Drewski5 "absolutely right.  the deal absolutely screwed the B's in 10 .  That was supposed to be the year of the Bruins.  Despite peoples selective memory , Kessel's contribution was significant, and wasn't replaced in 10, and it ruined things." This is what I responded too feel free to read your reply to Drewski again. Kessel was on two Bruins teams that did not get out of the 2nd round. Seguin was on a Stanley Cup winning Boston team.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Maybe I can help.  Insert a period after "hogwash" and it makes sense.  And yes, it is hogwash.  Kessels scoring could have helped, but screwing the B's? Hardly.  The previous version of the B's had plenty of scoring, sort of like the B's of today.  Very realistic to assume Kessel's goals could be replaced.  It didn't work out that way but that's hindsight. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Maybe I can help.  Insert a period after "hogwash" and it makes sense.  And yes, it is hogwash.  Kessels scoring could have helped, but screwing the B's? Hardly.  The previous version of the B's had plenty of scoring, sort of like the B's of today.  Very realistic to assume Kessel's goals could be replaced.  It didn't work out that way but that's hindsight. 
    Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE]


    I guess I need to be more judicious in my use of superlatives.  I said "screwed".  Let me re-phrase for those that hang on every word, yet still come up with their own interpretation to the most basic, straight-forward comment.

    In 09, the B's were about the highest scoring team in the league.  Before the start of 10, they lost their leading goal scorer, and never replaced him.  They went on to finish the regular season(2010)as the lowest scoring team in the eastern conference. There was not a huge change in the nucleous of the team year to year, but they averaged nearly a goal a game less from one year to the other.   Many, many independant hockey analysts have stated, a substantial cause, to be the fact that the leading scorer was not replaced.  It's not totally irresponsible to suggest that fact "screwed" their ability to stay near the top of the league in goals scored, and not a huge leap of faith to suggest around 70 more goals would have resulted in a few more wins(like it did the year before).
    To the little ones here....that doesn't say it's the only reason, but it is a major one.   Even wikipedia cites this, which gathers it's information from various sources, and pretty much sticks to conventional wisdom.
     This ain't some pie in the sky abstract theory being floated here scooter.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor :   Even wikipedia cites this, which gathers it's information from various sources, and pretty much sticks to conventional wisdom.  Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    But "little ones" can upload to wikipedia with links as resources. I was hoping you as a Bruins fan might know the difference while watching the 10' injury depleted team. Not refer to a sports writers opinion or conventional wisdom.

    I think it is fair to say that Boston never really put a fully healthy team on the ice consistently through out the season.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]Kessel may have reached his potential, alright. On the other hand, "character and team commitment issues" are a lot easier to fix than a basic lack of ability - and even the most ardent Kessel haters have to admit that "Dollar Phil" has tons of talent. With the right attitude plus an adequate centreman to feed him the puck, Kessel might still get to 50plus goals per season. Nobody knows, of course, if this is ever going to happen - certainly not while there are still GMs/coaches/teammates around who tell him his game/attitude is good enough the way it is.
    Posted by MrHulot[/QUOTE]
    They might be easier to fix in some but not so easy to fix in others. I think the Bruins thought the latter. As stated earlier, money issues played a part as well, with "Dollar" Phil and his agent over inflating his worth. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : I guess I need to be more judicious in my use of superlatives.  I said "screwed".  Let me re-phrase for those that hang on every word, yet still come up with their own interpretation to the most basic, straight-forward comment. In 09, the B's were about the highest scoring team in the league.  Before the start of 10, they lost their leading goal scorer, and never replaced him.  They went on to finish the regular season(2010)as the lowest scoring team in the eastern conference. There was not a huge change in the nucleous of the team year to year, but they averaged nearly a goal a game less from one year to the other.   Many, many independant hockey analysts have stated, a substantial cause, to be the fact that the leading scorer was not replaced.  It's not totally irresponsible to suggest that fact "screwed" their ability to stay near the top of the league in goals scored, and not a huge leap of faith to suggest around 70 more goals would have resulted in a few more wins(like it did the year before). To the little ones here....that doesn't say it's the only reason, but it is a major one.   Even wikipedia cites this, which gathers it's information from various sources, and pretty much sticks to conventional wisdom.  This ain't some pie in the sky abstract theory being floated here scooter.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    The 2009-10 season appears to be an anomaly in the lack of goals scored during the regular season, but the playoffs of 2010 goal scoring was ok, until Krejci went down, then it was an issue.  The post Phil era has produced back to back seasons in which the Bruins are near the top of the league in scoring, and a Stanley Cup.  So how is it you attribute 2010 to  lack of Phil when they have done nicely without him?  Also, the last two years the Bruins were relatively healthy, while in 2010 they weren't.  Which is logical?  The Bruins team fell apart because of the trade or the injuries? 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Complete hogwash the Bruins were decimated by injuries night after night that is what made 10' an unbearable regular season. The Bruins still found a way to beat the Sabres in the first round with all kinds of injuries. That is not selective that was the reality. With and without Kessel the Bruins didn't get past the 2nd round of the palyoffs.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    ......  and the translation is?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Posted by Drewski5 "absolutely right.  the deal absolutely screwed the B's in 10 .  That was supposed to be the year of the Bruins.  Despite peoples selective memory , Kessel's contribution was significant, and wasn't replaced in 10, and it ruined things." This is what I responded too feel free to read your reply to Drewski again. Kessel was on two Bruins teams that did not get out of the 2nd round. Seguin was on a Stanley Cup winning Boston team.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    I guess that means that Terry O'Reilly, Brad Park, Rick Middleton, Jean Ratelle, and Ray Bourque...none of those guys contributed as much as Swoop Carleton.  He won a cup with the Bruins. The others didn't. 
    Insightful post.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : But "little ones" can upload to wikipedia with links as resources. I was hoping you as a Bruins fan might know the difference while watching the 10' injury depleted team. Not refer to a sports writers opinion or conventional wisdom. I think it is fair to say that Boston never really put a fully healthy team on the ice consistently through out the season.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    You can say that virtually every year, for every team.  Despite railing on and on about injury, facts, nor anything resembling logic, supports your claim.  Defensively, the B's were strong both years, so we don't need to examine that area too much.  There were injuries, in the defensive area, but not from players known for helping out much offensively.  The big difference between 08/09, and 09/10, was simply goal scoring.  It's also important to realize that the team did not have significant roster changes year to year, except that the top scorer was gone....and not replaced.  Lets look at injuries in the goal scoring department.  Savard and Lucic, were the only main cogs to miss an unusually high number of games in 09/10.  Combined, their production was off 23 goals, year to year.  That isn't catastrophic.  It should also be pointed out that the Bruins top goal scorer in 07/08, was injured for most of 08/09, and returned to the lineup with a very respectable 22 goals in 09/10(Sturm).  That fact alone almost nullifies the shortfall of Savard/Lucic.  There were many reasons why the B's scored less in 09/10.  No one is suggesting otherwise.  But when a team doesn't replace their leading scorer, and their goal output flounders, it doesn't take the mind of Einstein to figure out that could be a major component why.....more so than injury.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    Just to throw some fuel on this 2010 discussion, from what I recall a very large percentage in the drop of goals scored that year was actually from the defensemen, rather than the forwards.

    Let me see if I can dig up some numbers.

    Edit:
    I must have been thinking of some results from about halfway through the season.  At the end, about 75% of the goal loss came from forwards.  
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]Just to throw some fuel on this 2010 discussion, from what I recall a very large percentage in the drop of goals scored that year was actually from the defensemen, rather than the forwards. Let me see if I can dig up some numbers. Edit: I must have been thinking of some results from about halfway through the season.  At the end, about 75% of the goal loss came from forwards.  
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]


    You're right though, production was down from defenseman.  Chara didn't have a great year.  As stated earlier, there were many contributing factors.  I guess the debate is about the most significant. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : You're right though, production was down from defenseman.  Chara didn't have a great year.  As stated earlier, there were many contributing factors.  I guess the debate is about the most significant. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    To refresh....
    "the deal absolutely screwed the B's in 10.  That was supposed to be the year of the Bruins.  Despite peoples selective memory, Kessel's contribution was significant, and wasn't replaced in 10, and it ruined things. "


    Actually Steve the debate started because you stated the trading of Kessel "screwed" the '10 Bruins.  I think most agree it was several factors but your statement certainly implies that the trade was the only factor, and if not, then the only factor that should be considered. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : You can say that virtually every year, for every team.  Despite railing on and on about injury, facts, nor anything resembling logic, supports your claim. There were injuries, in the defensive area, but not from players known for helping out much offensively.  T Savard and Lucic, were the only main cogs to miss an unusually high number of games in 09/10.  Combined, their production was off 23 goals, year to year.  That isn't catastrophic.  It should also be pointed out that the Bruins top goal scorer in 07/08, was injured for most of 08/09, and returned to the lineup with a very respectable 22 goals in 09/10(Sturm).  That fact alone almost nullifies the shortfall of Savard/Lucic.  There were many reasons why the B's scored less in 09/10. more so than injury.Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Correct not every year but regarding the year we are speaking about which is 10'. Siedenberg didn't slice his forearm till very late in the year then missed the playoffs but until Julien put him on the PP in 11' he did not contribute offensively and barely did that. Stuart missed some time in 10' but he never really contributed offensively either so I don't think saying defensman injuries contributed to the offensive breakdown. So your point on some of the defense being injured means nothing.

    Savard and Lucic were injured quite a bit in 10' so that hurt no matter if Phil were in the lineup or not. I can't explain why Ryder, Wheeler and Sturm played so poorly in 10' after 2 of those forwards players so well in 09' Krejci. That's not selective memory.

    Again I didn't have to got wikipedia or any website for any confirmation from a writer/blogger for that and the Bruins didn't build of the great 09' season because of being decimated by injuries to the forwards that is logic with facts.

    Tyler Seguin helped the Bruins get out of the 2nd round. Phill Kessel did not in Boston TWICE FACT!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : The 2009-10 season appears to be an anomaly in the lack of goals scored during the regular season, but the playoffs of 2010 goal scoring was ok, until Krejci went down, then it was an issue.  The post Phil era has produced back to back seasons in which the Bruins are near the top of the league in scoring, and a Stanley Cup.  So how is it you attribute 2010 to  lack of Phil when they have done nicely without him?  Also, the last two years the Bruins were relatively healthy, while in 2010 they weren't.  Which is logical?  The Bruins team fell apart because of the trade or the injuries? 
    Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE]

    thanks for keeping this a discussion, as opposed to a pi$$ing contest scooter.  I agree with you...it was an anomoly.  I think if any team loses their leading scorer though, without replacing him, then proceeds to have problems scoring, it's pretty obvious.  Especially when the injury claim is exaggerated(please see explanation in an earlier post)
    The post Phil era is 3 seasons, not 2.  When he wasn't replaced in year one, his production was missed.  In years 2 and 3, it was replaced, and therefore he wasn't missed.  That's really key to my whole point.  If, for example, someone like Horton stepped in to replace Kessel, the day 81 went to Toronto, the Bruins would have had more success the year in question than doing nothing.  I'm not blasting PC for doing nothing either.  Maybe nothing good was available. That's not the point.  The point is...losing your top goal scorer, with nothing in return for at least 12 months, really hurts for those 12 months.  The luxury of an additional scorer in 09/10, would have almost certainly netted the Bruins significantly more wins that year, despite injuries.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : thanks for keeping this a discussion, as opposed to a pi$$ing contest scooter.  I agree with you...it was an anomoly.  I think if any team loses their leading scorer though, without replacing him, then proceeds to have problems scoring, it's pretty obvious.  Especially when the injury claim is exaggerated(please see explanation in an earlier post) The post Phil era is 3 seasons, not 2.  When he wasn't replaced in year one, his production was missed.  In years 2 and 3, it was replaced, and therefore he wasn't missed.  That's really key to my whole point.  If, for example, someone like Horton stepped in to replace Kessel, the day 81 went to Toronto, the Bruins would have had more success the year in question than doing nothing.  I'm not blasting PC for doing nothing either.  Maybe nothing good was available. That's not the point.  The point is...losing your top goal scorer, with nothing in return for at least 12 months, really hurts for those 12 months.  The luxury of an additional scorer in 09/10, would have almost certainly netted the Bruins significantly more wins that year, despite injuries.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]Maybe the B's thought Ryder was an adequate replacement. Who knows what they were thinking but i think its safe to say they THOUGHT they had enough goal scoring already in the line up to replace Kessel.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : To refresh.... "the deal absolutely screwed the B's in 10.  That was supposed to be the year of the Bruins.  Despite peoples selective memory, Kessel's contribution was significant, and wasn't replaced in 10, and it ruined things. " Actually Steve the debate started because you stated the trading of Kessel "screwed" the '10 Bruins.  I think most agree it was several factors but your statement certainly implies that the trade was the only factor, and if not, then the only factor that should be considered. 
    Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE]


    To be clear, and this is pointed out in several posts on this subjuect, I believe not replacing their biggest scorer, was the biggest factor(what screwed them) in a poor 09/10.  I never said there weren't several factors, of course there were...there's never been any disagreement on that !
    Some people though, argue "injury" was the bigger cause.  That's when they entered the debate.
    You tended to agree with the injury scenario.   Now that it appears to have some serious holes, you try and misinterpret what I've written on the subject, and debate the translation of "screwed".
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    Lots of exciting discussion going on here. My thoughts:

    Tyler is better than Taylor. They are both excellent, but Tyler is better. If Edmonton could do it over, they should take Tyler. It doesn't matter what team is picking, Tyler simply has more talent and is emerging as an elite player. The sky is the limit.

    The Kessel trade was and is absolutely awful for the Leafs. Even if Kessel scored 60 and was +60 it would have been awful. It was awful because the Leafs didn't have the supporting cast to win, and didn't have the prospects, draft picks or cap space to get it. This year Phil was leading the league is scoring for the first quarter of the season. That is the best-case scenario, but even then the Leafs were hardly unbeatable because the rest of the team isn't that good. He is now 2 years from UFA, the team is bad and they have not had any 1st rounders to build a supporting cast. Even if Phil was twice the player Seguin is, the trade was bad for the Leafs because Tyler is much younger and cheaper. You could build around him. You can't build around a pending UFA, so now there is talk in TO of trading Phil before he walks. In the end, Toronto will have effectively given away two high 1st rounders, setting them back at least 5 years, getting back only table scraps in return.

    From Boston's perspective, trading Kessel did make them worse for one year. They tried for a year to get Horton but couldn't land him until just before his no-trade kicked in. Luckily, it was a good year to lose a top scorer because injuries to Thomas, Lucic, Krejci, Savard and Seidenberg would have effectively ruined any cup chances anyway. The trade wouldn't have been quite as good for Boston if Toronto had finished higher, but it was reasonable to think they were going to have a bad year. They had finished 7th the year before and had gutted a bunch of NHL players from the roster, replacing them with questionable new ones. Kessel was going to be out for a month with shoulder surgery. Pretty reasonable to think the Leafs would be around or worse than the year before. I have no idea why Burke thought they would be better. And even if Boston didn't get Seguin, they could have landed a guy like Skinner or Fowler with a later pick, or traded it for an impact forward.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : To be clear, and this is pointed out in several posts on this subjuect, I believe not replacing their biggest scorer, was the biggest factor(what screwed them) in a poor 09/10.  I never said there weren't several factors, of course there were...there's never been any disagreement on that ! Some people though, argue "injury" was the bigger cause.  That's when they entered the debate. You tended to agree with the injury scenario.   Now that it appears to have some serious holes, you try and misinterpret what I've written on the subject, and debate the translation of "screwed".
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]
    Having Savard injured by Cooke halfway through the year had a negative trickle down effect on the whole offense. More than losing Phil I think.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Correct not every year but regarding the year we are speaking about which is 10'. Siedenberg didn't slice his forearm till very late in the year then missed the playoffs but until Julien put him on the PP in 11' he did not contribute offensively and barely did that. Stuart missed some time in 10' but he never really contributed offensively either so I don't think saying defensman injuries contributed to the offensive breakdown. So your point on some of the defense being injured means nothing. Savard and Lucic were injured quite a bit in 10' so that hurt no matter if Phil were in the lineup or not. I can't explain why Ryder, Wheeler and Sturm played so poorly in 10' after 2 of those forwards players so well in 09' Krejci. That's not selective memory. Again I didn't have to got wikipedia or any website for any confirmation from a writer/blogger for that and the Bruins didn't build of the great 09' season because of being decimated by injuries to the forwards that is logic with facts. Tyler Seguin helped the Bruins get out of the 2nd round. Phill Kessel did not in Boston TWICE FACT!
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    What da ??
    How can anyone discuss such incoherent, irrelevant, mindless drivel.   I'm not making the point that defense injuries caused the offensive breakdown.  I'm arguing it.  
    And please translate "didn't build of the great 09 season because of being decimated by injuries to the forwards".........

    You should really read more, and post much less
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share