|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Mar 29, 2007 15:11:17 GMT -5
Well it's do or die time now for the Cats. They will have to come out and give it everything they got. I think for them to have a chance, they're going to come out and get the lead early and get to their goalie. Sniderman in nets. I seriously think the Mooseheads will end it tomorrow night, but I hope the Cats don't go down without a fight. Sniderman should have started Game 5 ... all goals on Riopel were weak. That decision may have ended the season for the Cats. Yeah especially the ones where Swan was wide open at the side of the net on the 5 on 3...and the one where the Halifax player got 3 shots to put it in.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 29, 2007 15:16:32 GMT -5
Sniderman should have started Game 5 ... all goals on Riopel were weak. That decision may have ended the season for the Cats. Yeah especially the ones where Swan was wide open at the side of the net on the 5 on 3...and the one where the Halifax player got 3 shots to put it in. Do you mean the one where Riopel was out so far that Swan was actually closer to teh net than he was ... he made it too easy for them and was flat footed when the pass came to Swan ... too far out to recover ... weak goal. Do you mean the goal where Riopel had 3 chances to cover the rebound ... but played it so lazy that the puck kept getting away from him. After the 2nd goal on him he was only giving half an effort ... should have been yanked after the Monast goal as we didn't have the luxury of giving him time to get his confidence back. When your two goaltenders are playing poorly and you need a win ... which one do you pick ... the rookie ?
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Mar 29, 2007 16:50:33 GMT -5
Sniderman should have started Game 5 ... all goals on Riopel were weak. That decision may have ended the season for the Cats. Yeah especially the ones where Swan was wide open at the side of the net on the 5 on 3...and the one where the Halifax player got 3 shots to put it in. That goal was Swan-tastic!
|
|
MikeC
Full Member
Posts: 454
|
Post by MikeC on Mar 29, 2007 17:36:46 GMT -5
Yeah especially the ones where Swan was wide open at the side of the net on the 5 on 3...and the one where the Halifax player got 3 shots to put it in. Do you mean the one where Riopel was out so far that Swan was actually closer to teh net than he was ... he made it too easy for them and was flat footed when the pass came to Swan ... too far out to recover ... weak goal. Do you mean the goal where Riopel had 3 chances to cover the rebound ... but played it so lazy that the puck kept getting away from him. After the 2nd goal on him he was only giving half an effort ... should have been yanked after the Monast goal as we didn't have the luxury of giving him time to get his confidence back. When your two goaltenders are playing poorly and you need a win ... which one do you pick ... the rookie ? The only goal I thought was weak was the Monast goal. Swan's was on a 5 on 3 where halifax was flinging the puck around all over the place. Voracek's was a screened slapshot from the point on another PP.
|
|
|
Post by Doublesnipers on Mar 29, 2007 19:52:05 GMT -5
Voracek's shot from the point wasn't a slapshot it was a wrist shot. Not exactly a bullet either more of a off speed glove side. I was surprised to see that one go in, looked like slow motion. Very average shot. Maybe there was a screen but that shot was not hard.
|
|
MikeC
Full Member
Posts: 454
|
Post by MikeC on Mar 29, 2007 20:21:00 GMT -5
Voracek's shot from the point wasn't a slapshot it was a wrist shot. Not exactly a bullet either more of a off speed glove side. I was surprised to see that one go in, looked like slow motion. Very average shot. Maybe there was a screen but that shot was not hard. I thought it was a one-timer?
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDevola on Mar 29, 2007 20:45:37 GMT -5
Voracek's shot from the point wasn't a slapshot it was a wrist shot. Not exactly a bullet either more of a off speed glove side. I was surprised to see that one go in, looked like slow motion. Very average shot. Maybe there was a screen but that shot was not hard. I thought it was a one-timer? It was... a pretty solid slapper... on TV didnt look like the goalie was screened, but he probably was.
|
|
Bauer
Junior Member
Posts: 151
|
Post by Bauer on Mar 29, 2007 21:00:07 GMT -5
Does anybody remember JC Blanchard??? When he started getting regular starts last year he wasn't that great but look at him this year he is among the leagues best. I think Riopel playing a lot this year will only benefit us in the long term!!!
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23 on Mar 29, 2007 21:39:42 GMT -5
Does anybody remember JC Blanchard??? When he started getting regular starts last year he wasn't that great but look at him this year he is among the leagues best. I think Riopel playing a lot this year will only benefit us in the long term!!! Oh yes he's AMAZING. Why didn't we keep him last year? It's not like he got pulled in two playoffs games in a row or anything
|
|
|
Post by Peter Loubardias on Mar 29, 2007 21:48:07 GMT -5
Does anybody remember JC Blanchard??? When he started getting regular starts last year he wasn't that great but look at him this year he is among the leagues best. I think Riopel playing a lot this year will only benefit us in the long term!!! I was surprised to see Blanchard doing that good. Not saying he was a bad goalie. I just always thought he needed to put on some weight. Speaking of Blanchard's team .. in the west it looks like the 7th seed is going to upset the 2nd seed. Victoriaville is down 3-1 to Baie Comeau.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Mar 30, 2007 7:02:59 GMT -5
Does anybody remember JC Blanchard??? When he started getting regular starts last year he wasn't that great but look at him this year he is among the leagues best. I think Riopel playing a lot this year will only benefit us in the long term!!! Oh yes he's AMAZING. Why didn't we keep him last year? It's not like he got pulled in two playoffs games in a row or anything Get a clue, his coach pulled him because they were getting pummelled, not because he wasn't doing the job. He was the only reason they won a game and were in a couple others for a couple periods.
|
|
|
Post by Not2wonder on Mar 30, 2007 7:05:32 GMT -5
The way you make it sound, is that this game doesn't mean a thing so oh give Riopel the start. Sniderman is the veteran, this could be his last game .. if it was me, that alone would motivate me to come up with a big game. Don't mind him, he's spent more nights playing Bingo than watching hockey...he's a Titan fan remember. Playing Bingo.............about golfing? Maybe he can give us golfing lessons............
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 30, 2007 7:20:45 GMT -5
Do you mean the one where Riopel was out so far that Swan was actually closer to teh net than he was ... he made it too easy for them and was flat footed when the pass came to Swan ... too far out to recover ... weak goal. Do you mean the goal where Riopel had 3 chances to cover the rebound ... but played it so lazy that the puck kept getting away from him. After the 2nd goal on him he was only giving half an effort ... should have been yanked after the Monast goal as we didn't have the luxury of giving him time to get his confidence back. When your two goaltenders are playing poorly and you need a win ... which one do you pick ... the rookie ? The only goal I thought was weak was the Monast goal. Swan's was on a 5 on 3 where halifax was flinging the puck around all over the place. Voracek's was a screened slapshot from the point on another PP. Yes it was a 5 on 3 ... but Riopel was too far out of his net with a guy sitting on the edge of his crease ... he didn't protect against the pass ... didn't allow himself the option of getting in front of Swan's shot ... weak goal ... poor positioning. Voracek's was not screened ... was not a bullet ... Riopel just waved at it. I watched the game online and Eastlink showed this replay sveral times. Weak goal.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Mar 30, 2007 7:28:58 GMT -5
The only goal I thought was weak was the Monast goal. Swan's was on a 5 on 3 where halifax was flinging the puck around all over the place. Voracek's was a screened slapshot from the point on another PP. Yes it was a 5 on 3 ... but Riopel was too far out of his net with a guy sitting on the edge of his crease ... he didn't protect against the pass ... didn't allow himself the option of getting in front of Swan's shot ... weak goal ... poor positioning. Voracek's was not screened ... was not a bullet ... Riopel just waved at it. I watched the game online and Eastlink showed this replay sveral times. Weak goal. No use arguing with you, reality has no impact on your world. I guess Rio should have been square to Swan and not the guy on the point with the puck.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 30, 2007 7:39:13 GMT -5
Yes it was a 5 on 3 ... but Riopel was too far out of his net with a guy sitting on the edge of his crease ... he didn't protect against the pass ... didn't allow himself the option of getting in front of Swan's shot ... weak goal ... poor positioning. Voracek's was not screened ... was not a bullet ... Riopel just waved at it. I watched the game online and Eastlink showed this replay sveral times. Weak goal. No use arguing with you, reality has no impact on your world. I guess Rio should have been square to Swan and not the guy on the point with the puck. No ... just a little deeper in his net to protect against the pass ... the photo in the T&T shows him 2 ft out from the blue ice ... and flat footed such that he couldn't slide sideways. You can't play out that far on a 5 on 3 ... the pass is inevitable.
|
|