Game 14 - Bruins @ Leafs - Saturday November 5th, 2011 - 19:00 EST - 7-0 L

[L K]

This team has no concept of how to play defensive hockey.  Gardiner leads that rush so all three forwards go to the net..........cover for the pinching defenseman.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This team has no concept of how to play defensive hockey.  Gardiner leads that rush so all three forwards go to the net..........cover for the pinching defenseman.

Lombardi was back, Franson went to the net.

 

[drummond]

No way the Leafs climb back

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Not getting the bounces on the good chances, either.

 

[L K]

This team has no concept of how to play defensive hockey.  Gardiner leads that rush so all three forwards go to the net..........cover for the pinching defenseman.

Lombardi was back, Franson went to the net.

Fair enough, I only saw the three guys going to the net.  That's just dumb on Franson's part then.

 

[azzurri63]

Team has no clue on how to play defence. We have won games reently when we shouldn't have and you think the coaching staff would see this but nothing phases me. No different than any other part of their game. Understand we have been winning but we haven't deserved it on many nights so you would think we would address the weaknesses. Not.

 

[TML fan]

Boy when the Leafs are losing it's really easy to see how many things are wrong with this team.

On that note, the Leafs are a really soft team.

 

[Kin]

Well, clearly the problem was Schenn all along.

 

[Fanatic]

Why is it that the Leafs don't even try against the bruins?  They give no effort.

You would think that Kessel would step up and give his best every time they play Boston. But he is invisible. He makes over $65,000 per game - just once could he look like he is trying against his old team.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Why is it that the Leafs don't even try against the bruins?  They give no effort.

You would think that Kessel would step up and give his best every time they play Boston. But he is invisible. He makes over $65,000 per game - just once could he look like he is trying against his old team.

What the hell is your problem?  Change the record, it's been skipping for days.

 

[Kin]

Any thought on the backlash of Royal Military College wanting to give Cherry an Honorary Degree.  He is defininately controversial but not many support and applaud the military more than Cherry.

I think that, like every other branch of government, the military has a responsibility to be apolitical and not act as advocates.

edit: although I confess I'm not sure whether or not RMC is technically part of the military.

 

[Rebel_1812]

your picking and choosing the stats your looking at Nik.  You focus on the worst games Reimer has had, while focusing on the best games the Monster had while at the same time ignoring Reimers good games and ignoring the Monsters bad games.  To be "fair" you should treat all games equally and take the stat totals.

I know that's what you want to do because it's easiest but there exists things like nuance and shades of grey. I'd agree with you that I should do that if I've said things like "Gus has better stats than Reimer recently". But I haven't. I've said reasonable things like "Gus has been good of late" and "people aren't consistent in the weigh they measure Reimer vs. Gus. " which are things the numbers support.

Again, the fact that you can't acknowledge either the thing about Reimer or Gus does not speak well of your fairness or impartiality. I, on the other hand, absolutely can say that Gus was not very good in his first few and that Reimer's been better than Gus.

But, then again, I don't have an axe to grind or a need to Monster-bait.

no you said the majority or Reimer's games were statistically bad, and the majority of Gus's games were statistically good.  That means your ignoring certain games.  I only used the totals which clearly show Reimer ahead of Gus for this year.  How you can pick and choose certain stats that support your postion while accusing your opponent of being "impartial", is beyond hypocrital. 

But I digress.  If the monster has a game with good stats, I will say he had a good game.  If his totals for the year are good I will say he had a good year.  Currently, he is having a bad year.

 

[Stebro]

Philly-CBS 6-0...poor Columbus

 

[TheMightyOdin]

Just Healys voice makes me want kick him in the teeth now.

 

[Zee]

Nice play by MacArhur letting Seguin take the puck and then letting him go to the net. Man what a game??  Fatigue?

 

[avatarx51]

where is reimer we need him back

 

[Rebel_1812]

Why is it that the Leafs don't even try against the bruins?  They give no effort.

You would think that Kessel would step up and give his best every time they play Boston. But he is invisible. He makes over $65,000 per game - just once could he look like he is trying against his old team.

He is matched up against Chara every game against Boston.  That is why he can't do much.

 

[Derk]

Kind of makes me glad I have been in the other room with my wife instead of watching this.

 

[freer]

what an awful 2 mins on the second period. we need easy goal

 

[Kin]

no you said the majority or Reimer's games were statistically bad

I absolutely didn't and you are flat out incorrect. I asked if you would say that Reimer's games were statistically bad because they fit your standard of bad games. I have stated repeatedly that you can't tell good from bad games just on those two stats.

and the majority of Gus's games were statistically good.

Another complete falsehood. I said, again, that by your standard, Gus has been good of late.

Now you're just lying to try and make your point.

How you can pick and choose certain stats that support your postion while accusing your opponent of being "impartial", is beyond hypocrital. 

I know this is hard to understand but because I'm not making sweeping, absolute statements like "Reimer is good" or "Gus is bad" I absolutely can say things like "Gus has played well in his last four games, which the numbers bear out" and "By your standards, Reimer's been bad in the majority of his games."

Again nuance. Shades of grey. Small sample sizes.