NYIntensity wrote:
daz28 wrote:
NYIntensity wrote:
YYYYYYYYYEP. Their collective +10 rating spells disaster to me. (Lydman was a +10, to be fair, but still....I'm not sure where you think your point is AT ALL VALID).
Sorry bro, I watch the games, not just spit the stats. Your forgetting we had a good team. Put those 2 on a bad club, and that +10 becomes what???
Dude, your arguments are invalid. Monty was SOLID. Pick someone else to be mad at. Like people that are supposed to score.
Actually, Monty was shaky, imo(remember opinions, they are the reasons for message boards). You probably shouldn't assume that I blame his being shaky on him(here's where you start defending Lindy Ruff). If Monty plays defense with a guy with some quickness, and a cool head, he will be 'SOLID'. Lydman wasn't that guy(IMO once again, you're opinion may differ). This isn't a bash on Lydman either(before you take this route). I think both guys are too similar, which made them both tentative, and inefficient. Monty does need a little more help than Loods, and I hope Loods gets his in Anaheim(and I do honestly believe he will be coached correctly there), too. As far as us, I'd like to see Monty play with Sekera. If used correctly, I feel they could be a deadly pairing.
/just chill on the teen angst a bit man. j/k Sometimes this place makes the drunkie seem like a viable option. I'll just have to chalk it up to 'no hockey angst'.
NYIntensity wrote:
Don't ever accuse me of just spitting stats.
We can go on all day about +/-, but we all know it's not what Lindy Ruff calls it. He said, "your stats are your stats". If so, he needed to switch Vanek to Defensemen 2 years ago. You also know that a better team will have a better +/- average than a bad team. This stat was irrelevant, and certainly did not prove my point invalid. We both know this.
Oh ya, I do apologize for saying that, even though it was what you were doing. I certainly realize you are a dedicated fan, for sure. I guess I just said it casually.