Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
Tim Thomas blows. He got lucky last year and the league has figured him out. Your a f***ing moron if you want Thomas starting over Rask at this point

 

 

Tim Thomas doesn't blow unless Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, and Thomas Vokoun also "blow."

 

See this is what I'm talking about. Some people here and over at HF boards seem to be pathologically incapable of giving Timmy the credit he's due. For some reason any praise of Thomas is percieved, incorrectly needless to say, as a backhanded dis of Rask, or even as if someone who demonstrates faith in Thomas, or caution in jumping on the Rask bandwagon, is some kind of heretic. I guess it's the haters finally using Rask as something they can rally round as an excuse for the bile they spew. Doesn't reflect well on the fanbase regardless.

 

And I don't want Thomas starting over Rask. I want Thomas to get a few playoff starts, and Rask to get most of them.

  • Replies 815
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
I don't think another intelligent hockey conversation can be had ever again with you. Based on Save % and GAA, Tuukka Rask was the best goalie in the league and this is the playoffs, you put your best goalie out there for all the games. There are enough off days were the goalie isn't fatigued, and unless a goalie is horrible, there is no reason to pull him for a game in the playoffs. Without Rask this team would be down 0-3 right now, so the Bruins need all the help they can get with all the injuries. You don't throw away a game and put Thomas in net.
Posted
I don't think another intelligent hockey conversation can be had ever again with you.

 

You should try it at some point. Might be an interesting first for you.

 

Without Rask this team would be down 0-3 right now

 

An unsubstantiated assertion. What are you basing this on?

 

With Thomas in net the series runs very differently, but it's entirely possible that Thomas gets us to 2-1 or even 3-0. When Timmy's on he can shut out a good team, we've all seen that before.

 

So can Rask of course, and Rask has a better shot at it, so if you're trying to win he clearly gets the most and most critical starts. All granted. But using that to presume that Thomas would cost us both of the other two games? It's utterly illogical to just assume it'll happen that way, especially with far worse goaltenders than Thomas (think Brian Boucher here) capable of hot streaks in the playoffs.

 

Look, I understand why you like Tuukka. I like Tuukka. Nothing is ever guaranteed in sports, but Rask is a great young goaltender who has every chance to be effective for many years to come. It's the logical leap from that to "Thomas sucks and doesn't deserve to be on Tuukka's team" that is completely insane, and that's what I'm railing against.

 

Bring an accurate and rational view of what Thomas is and the skill level he has and this conversation might start going a bit smoother -- even if you then conclude, as Kilo has done, that Rask still makes Thomas expendable and that we should trade him and replace him with a cheaper backup goaltender so that we can load up on wing -- all reasonable conclusions based on an accurate view of the team situation and far easier to sit there and read than just saying Thomas sucks when he clearly does not.

Posted

Dojji - can you give me an example of a team splitting time between two goaltenders in the playoffs,especially considering how well Rask has played over the course of the year and in the series to this point?

 

If it's such a good idea, there's gotta be historical precedent to it, right?

Posted

Frankly, you were the one who brought up the possibility of Thomas starting in this playoff series.

 

I can only guess you were trying to rub it in a bit after the year Rask had. You seem to have spent the year under the delusion that I didn't think Rask would perform well in his first season (I said all along he'd quite probably be fine, I wanted him brought along gently, and Thomas made an effective go-to guy to make sure our season wouldn't be completely destroyed if he wasn't)

 

I don't really think Thomas will start, and I'm not really sure he should. What I've been fighting is the idea that if he did start, he couldn't handle it, or would perform so badly it would cost us games. All indications point to Tim Thomas still being more or less what he has been throughout his career -- his baseline this year is around his 2007-2008 level. That's not as good as Rask, but it is as good as most of the other playoff teams' starting goaltenders, with the sole exception of Miller.

 

This is the only playoff matchup we could have wound up with where Rask would be essential to make sure we weren't at a goaltending disadvantage. And that's because Miller rocks, not because Thomas sucks. Every other opponent, if you put Thomas in and not Rask, we'd still be even or ahead on the goaltending front.

Posted

so you didn't start a thread on HF advocatin Thomas start game 3?

 

And any conversation about Thomas's play begins and ends with that contract. Goalies who make the coin he does do not get pulled as often as he did since Jan 1. Goalies who make that kind of coin should ot have to worry about playing time.

 

You know what's hilarious? If Rask started all of the games Thomas was pulled from, you could make the case for him being a Vezina finalist.

 

A Craig Anderson/Rask platoon would be pretty good and cost significantly less....and that could have been had in the offseason.

Posted
I don't think another intelligent hockey conversation can be had ever again with you

 

I have to go back and hit this again.

 

Mino, your entry into this conversation is, and I quote,

 

"Tim Thomas blows."

 

Followed by you calling a participant in the conversation

 

"a f***ing moron"

 

From this we can conclude that you clearly have a different definition of an

 

"intelligent hockey conversation"

 

than I do.

 

One of these things is not like the others...

Posted

Really enjoying this playoff series.

 

I think the Bruins really proved something with this game, but you have to give a ton of credit to the Sabers too.

Posted
Still not as great as Game 6 a couple years ago' date=' but a strong runner up.[/quote']

 

08 first round vs. Montreal game 6? Totally agree, now thats intelligent:harhar:. But this game was epic. I wish the Bruins could have this kind of determination all season, b/c if they got down two goals in the regular season, the game was over. They have come back from 2 goals down twice in the this series, in fact in 4 games the Bruins have lead for a total of only 20 minutes. But what a game, insane goal tending, great chances, just an amazing game. Tuuka out dueled "the best" goalie in the league in Miller and the Bruins got it done. Buffalo has to be totaly demoralized after that loss, espically the way they blew it in the 3rd and for the too many men on the ice penalty. Miller has bailed them out so many times but no is playing in front of him right now. Goalies can only do so much. Get it done in 5 B's!

Posted
Too many men on the ice? This team is f***ing rattled.

 

Bruins win Game 5.

 

Didn't look like it. They came out to play, while Boston did not. Game 6 on Monday night.

Posted
B's came out flat tonight against the team that was in desperation mode. Before they realized they needed to step it up, the game was over. If the B's come out in game 6 and play like they did in the third period,which is how they have played for most of the series, they will be fine. Throw in the home ice advantage and B's won't be flat. I would like to see the Bruins actually take a first period lead for once and do something on the Power Play. Rask, for this first time in the series looked bad. Bruins as a whole took the night off for 2+ periods. I'm saying the Bruins win 6, but of course if they don't then I'll be the one worried and will remember the other times when they have blown big series leads before....
Posted

s*** happens in a series of 7 games. I honestly didn't expect to win in 5, so I'm not too upset.

 

We gotta come out urgent in Game 6, I don't wanna be put in the situation of playing a 7th game in Barfalo.

Posted

Re: Chara at end of game. According to a radio station out of Buffalo, Colin Campbell is reviewing it now. Apparently it depends on whether it was a reaction to a situation on the ice or was he trying to set a tone for game 6?

 

Here is the official rule:

 

Rule: 47.22 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) – A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more instigator penalties.

 

He probably should be suspended, but same thing happened to Malkin last year and he wasn't suspended. NHL is just so inconsistent.

Posted
We get Philly get we got home ice, and despite the Bruins struggling this year at the Garden, we were 3-0 this series at home. But I can't root for Montreal, I just can't, but we have a real shot at making the ECF if we draw Philly in the 2nd round.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...