haroldsnepsts

Here's the post I made in the Franzen thread regarding Weiss. I can understand Weiss being rusty from his time off, but I don't think we should handicap his performance based on his linemates. He's a 12 year veteran of the league and a professional athlete. If you have Henrik Zetterberg coming off a long term injury, even if you put him on the 4th line on the wing, you're going to see flashes of Zetterberg. I realize not everyone is Hank, but look at Darren Helm. He came off a long injury but still looked like himself when he got back, just a slightly rustier version. I don't know what's going on with the guy but I've seen none of that from Weiss.

I can understand Weiss being rusty from his time off, but I don't think we should handicap his performance based on his linemates. He's a 12 year veteran of the league and a professional athlete. If you have Henrik Zetterberg coming off a long term injury, even if you put him on the 4th line on the wing, you're going to see flashes of Zetterberg. I realize not everyone is Hank, but look at Darren Helm. He came off a long injury but still looked like himself when he got back, just a slightly rustier version. I don't know what's going on with the guy but I've seen none of that from Weiss. EDIT: Just realized this isn't the Weiss thread If anyone feels compelled to reply about Weiss they can do it here. http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/topic/76800-weiss/page-7 On topic, what exactly is Franzen's injury?

Am I the only one who keeps getting "404 not found" half the time when searching for players stats??

He played 8 minutes tonight, only 6 of which were even strength. Talk about being deep in Babcock's doghouse. I have to say I didn't see the whole game but what I saw Weiss was either invisible, or noticeable because he was turning the puck over. I get that he could be rusty, but he looked generally out of sync with the team.

I know it's a split second decision but Abby, you gotta let Z have the puck there.

He's the new Lebda.

I doubt it. Based on the hits they haven't suspended guys for this season, I can't see them doing anything about that. Quintal seems reluctant to use his suspension powers.

Nice acting there by Kessel on the "slash."

I can see what Babs likes about Nestrasil though. For being a rookie he has a lot of poise with the puck around his own net.

If it's the shot I think you're talking about, on the replay you could see Bernier actually got a piece of it.

I've had to delete posts because somehow even after a win, the thread got derailed by calling out fans who complain. Generally with a GDT for a game that's from the previous night we let the discussion meander into broader topics, but let's keep them actually hockey related please.

Have you sat up by the organ? (Is it even still there?). This was in the late 80s but I went to a game and we had seats right by the organ player, which wouldn't have been bad, except the pitch of the stadium gets much less steep and you were tucked back in this weird sort of corner area. At least that's how I remember it. Anyone know what I'm talking about or did I invent this? Overall though I agree the Joe has great sight lines. I have tons of good memories there. That being said the place is ugly and a dump. And a poor utilization of that location. As fond as I am of it when I think of historic stadiums, I don't think of the Joe. It's sad, but being able to go to the bathroom, go get a beer, and still make it back to your seats in between periods will ease the pain.

Because the Bruins were so disciplined with Thornton on the team? Not to mention he's the idiot who squirted a player with water from the bench during game play. I agree about the general direction of the team overall. Trading Seguin seemed like a "win now" move for the B's but now it's looking like they're shifting back to rebuild mode a bit. Or just don't have a clear direction.

I absolutely think he makes important decisions based on gut feelings, but it sounds like we have different definitions of what that means. I think whether Babcock likes a player or not has little to do with how they're utilized. Based on his reputation and what we do know about his coaching style I bet he'd give a player he hated all the opportunities in the world if he liked how that guy played on the ice and thought it gave the team a better chance to win. He admitted his not putting nyquist out there last night was stupid. That must be some consolation.

The reason I first saw from you was that it was because he liked Nestrasil. As I've stated since, I can understand your other reasons. As for the hindsight, mostly what I mean is it's the nature of making a call like that. If Nestrasil scores there then Babcock looks like a genius, which is too much praise for that one event. I've tried to make clear that I'm not even really defending his choice. I'm just saying he didn't do it because of his fondness for Nestrasil, which to me is not a hugely controversial statement. I'm not sure what this has to do with Holland but in cases where people say he's drunk or has dementia, it's not even worth responding to. You may feel like this is bad news for you, but I respect your hockey opinion and the points you make so I'm more likely to engage you in discussion than someone who just rants "Holland is drunk."But your even being in up Holland makes me think there's some baggage coming to this argument that has nothing to do with Nestrasil. Either way I've more than beaten this dead horse. Especially considering I hate the shoot out, I'm not sure why I'm arguing some point about it for so long.Probably to avoid work. :pEdit: I'm posting from my phone. Do my posts really look like one long sentence with no line breaks??

I am surprised he hasn't gotten a shot yet. Was he really that crappy at camp? It seems like it's in the best interest of the team long term to give him a chance to shake the rust off and earn his keep.

I never said you couldn't criticize Babcock. The issue I had with your criticism is you asserted that Babcock made the decision simply because if he liked nestrasil. That's absurd. As to your points about Nestrasil's inexperience or there being better guys to put out there, I think it's easier in hindsight but I can understand that point of view. Agree with the decision or not, Babcock is not an idiot. I have no problem with criticizing him. It's just when people attribute his decisions to mostly emotional reasons they could only know if they were Mike Babcock. It's probably best we drop it. I don't know if it's your dislike of Babcock or of me but for whatever reason when we discuss him you seem to get more and more pissed off. I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point.

Your dripping sarcasm doesn't refute any of the points I'm making.1. They regularly practice shootouts so the coaching staff probably has a very good idea who's good at it, at least in that setting. The only way to find out who's good in a game is to try them. 2. Scoring ability during a game doesn't necessarily correlate to shootout failure or success. There's plenty of examples of this. What's funny is you sarcastically imply that it's blind love of Babcock influencing my decision, when it's actually your dislike for him that pins a disproportionate amount of blame on him, sometimes even for things that are not his call. My points are at least reasonably drawn from what we do know about practices, players and games. Since Nestrasil didn't score, in retrospect should Babcock maybe have gone with someone else? Sure Did Babcock put an untested player out there primarily because he likes him? That's just silly.

So your argument is that with the game on the line, Babcock chose Nestrasil because he likes him, not that it was based on something he saw in the shoot out drills they do in practice?Being a dazzling offensive threat has little to do with scoring in the shootout. Jason Williams anyone? Or on the flipside, I think OV has mediocre shootout stats given he's one of e best goal scores in the league. Unfortunately though those realities make it difficult to blame Babcock for everything, like signing Cleary, which he has zero authority to do plus Cleary has been a healthy scratch, which is within Babcock's authority.

I guess since Matt Cooke wasn't available they had to go with their second choice? http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/599359

Sometimes I have left the offending posts, usually because it's been such a battle to stay on top of the thread I don't have the time to go back through and clean it all up. The problem I've had with that is then for people who have had posts deleted or been warned/suspended or simply didn't get the last word, they often feel it's unfair that someone's else post got to remain while theirs got zapped. I've had countless people tell me that in PM conversations about their deleted posts or suspensions. It seems to give the impression that we are playing favorites or persecuting certain members. When it gets really crazy in a thread, I guess we could consider posting a warning and locking it for a few minutes to get everyone's attention, then reopen it so everyone will play nice. I don't know if that would be effective or not, but it's a thought. Again, the splitting is something to consider, but looking through the threads I think it's fairly rare that the posts we'd delete are within forum rules and substantial enough for a separate topic. I will definitely have it in mind though now when going in threads to see if it's at all viable.

I'd have to think back on the posts I've deleted to see if something like that would work. For editing, as I said it's for profanity or personal attacks or something that does not belong in any thread. I never edit a post because part of it is off topic but otherwise within forum rules. Looking through the recent deleted posts, they're all things that we wouldn't be split into a new thread, like insults, but in the right instance I guess it could work. It's definitely something we've done in the past, it just doesn't seem that often that a thread splits into clear enough, substantial enough topics to split. But it's something we could keep in mind. fellow mods?

I think several of us have tried addressing your concerns. #1 is just a non-specific statement so it's hard to discuss or refute. The only answer I have is we do not edit or delete posts that don't break forum rules, but obviously there's a difference of opinion there. With some examples I could explain why I deleted or edited a post. And after the discussions we've had in this thread, I will try to leave better explanations when it happens. Some people have touched on it here but one thing that is important to note is often a thread goes into the gutter, we clean up a lot of it and then may end up locking it anyway. Or we delete the offending posts and leave a warning, so it may look like we're reacting to nothing. When really it's just that the mess has been cleaned up already. #2 You would rather I move an entire thread so no one can participate in it, rather than delete or edit a few posts? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Honestly you're probably one of the few people who know he was actually a player. Snepsts didn't need to fight. The play would head up ice with him behind the play, then you'd see a guy laying on the ice and Snepsts skating away.

This is another great point that bears repeating. We are not some secret society. Feel free to ask questions and make suggestions. The goal is always to make LGW a great place to hang out and discuss things. As I've said many times before, I'm ultimately here to talk hockey and would prefer to spend my time doing that rather than moderating. I don't seek out opportunities to wield mod powers.