Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ruxpin

  1. Needs not Hockey front if Mr. Bryz in him Better?
  2. Carter with the Cup winner on a feed from Richards. BOOK.IT. (other way around would require a pass from Carter, and we all know THAT isn't gonna happen)
  3. @aziz I really can't disagree with anything in that post.
  4. Is this a joke? I missed it live because I briefly turned the game off after the Devils scored their third. But I just watched this over and over, and for the life of me I can't even figure out why it is a penalty. It looks a bit rough from the live-side camera, but the replay from the opposite side has Zubrus barely being grazed. I have no idea what Shanny will do (he won't either until the wheel stops spinning), but a suspension here would be nuts.
  5. No way. I didn't like Richards and Carter when they were here, so no way I'm going to cheer for them now. I like Quick. I like Brown. Williams is gone long enough that I really don't care either way as far as the ex-Flyer thing goes. Plus, he's already won one. If Gagne were still playing, I still wouldn't cheer for LA, but I think I'd at least feel slightly bad about it. But he's not... When it comes down to it, though, if there's one city I like cheering for LESS than New York, it's Los Angeles. So, LA + Richie + Jeffrey = No way in hell.
  6. I can agree with that to an extent. The number of shots the Flyers had doesn't directly correlate (sp?). But it does give an indication what direction the ice was tilted, especially when there is such a great difference in number of shots. You've played goal. So you know that watching the game the puck was incessantly in the Flyer end and not in the Debs end. Even if he's not facing a tremendous amount of difficult shots, it's more up and down, long stretches of immense tension and concentration, etc. I'm just saying all of this increases greatly the chances of something eventually sq
  7. I can agree with this. But to you and, more to aziz, it's not just the number of shots faced. It's the number vs. the number the flyers have had. As I'm watching game 4, the flyers are being outshot 35-14. They were heavily outshot in game 3, as well. If the game ends right now, 35 doesn't go down as much on the score sheet, but the 35 vs. 14 pretty clearly shows which way the ice is tilted. Game 3 was similar. I can agree with you, Canoli, that the two are not mutually exclusive (because you're right that they're not). It's just that for me when the team is clearly outplayed for se
  8. I think you mention something key here. I don't think the Flyers have adapted very well to the puck-handling goalie. It's back out before our forecheck can get set up, and often it's due to Brodeur.
  9. Agreed. Nice job on taking the obvious, no-kidding vague plan thing and putting a reason to it. I disagree about the less than stellar thing with Bryz, though. He kept them in that game. You keep letting the other team come at you like the flyers did and they're going to get some in. The Devils didn't get over a hundred points this year by accident. (By the way, I spent quite a bit of time on the Pens' boards on the HFBoards during our series with them. If you took out "Penguins" and made it "Flyers" and took out Fleury and put in "Bryz," it read pretty much like this board during this se
  10. I had to smile when I saw this thread because objectively, if not for Bryz playing largely out of his mind, game three is 7-2 Devils. The third goal cited was a very quick play behind the net. It was NOT due to Bryz being too slow. I'm not trying to go out of my way to defend Bryz, but to come on here with such a thread after a game where Bryz singlehandedly kept the team in it is just beyond absurd. As for the "we haven't had a goalie since Pelle" thing: I have absolutely no doubt that had the guy not died, the people who still praise him would absolutely have hated him...the thread or
  11. Agreed. And Ovechkin looks like Kovalchuk when he first went to Jersey. Like he's out of place and not sure how to adapt. --- I don't really relish the idea of having to play the Rags in the playoffs, but if Washington beats them, it's not like I really want to play them either at that point. On the other hand, it could make them this year's Canadiens (i.e., do all the Flyers heavy lifting because of a hot goalie who then falters against the Flyers). Wouldn't that be nice?
  12. I really think Overchicken blows that team up if he keeps getting such little ice time.
  13. Lol. Wouldn't it suck if we're all here cheering the Caps and it's them that end up beating us
  14. Yay no Rags next. Go Sens. Give us home ice!
  15. It's just comparing the current great to past greats. But I agree it's a really stupid article.
  16. I didn't expect him to win it, but he should definitely be a finalist.
  17. It certainly matters. But McKenzie was hammering away at it over like 10 tweets. While there were people asking him questions that I thought were really pertinent, he is correcting his time by hundredths of a second. ("it was actually .087 seconds, not .086") Just felt it was a little obsessive.
  18. Well, it was written before the series began. So, can't blame the hometown writer for being a hometown writer. National writers were equally wrong.
  19. If they don't do it EVERY game, they suck!
  20. Carter and Richie both <-2> in G2. In a Kings 4-2 win. If Carter and Richards don't play, maybe the Kings get a shutout.
  21. @aziz I don't remember. Did I think then, too, that Downie didn't even touch him?
  22. I don't think so. I don't recall, anyway. What about Price was it about?
  23. Completely agree. As for the "defense of the goalie" thing, you made me laugh because I was specifically thinking of you ("aziz is going to have an aneurysm reading this") when I wrote it.
  24. Yeah, I haven't seen the play since the game. I saw it live and the one, maybe two replays. I didn't get the sense it was a knee and also thought "kind of like a slew foot." I thought it was more of a flop than what the hit was, but that's not a Pitt thing. That's a goalie thing (to try to draw the ref's attention for a call). I think that's an ingrained goalie move they teach in peewee. For Simmonds' part, it was definitely sneaky and probably fairly called dirty. But smart, too. It's something Kennedy (or Talbot) would do. And yeah, some on here would be yelling about it. (For the
  • Create New...