PDA

View Full Version : Raiders 1 @ Giants 4 - Jan 27th



Beaner
01-28-2007, 02:02 PM
Well, I missed the game both live and on the radio, so just the facts.

Nice to see the boys get back in the win column, a much needed morale boost.

Hopefully we can get some post game comments from those who watched.

did anyone here why Kraus and Bliznak were scratches? Healthy or Injured?

NOTES
Sexsmith and Deckert got the starts.
Kraus, Bliznak, and Regner were the Giants scratches.
Shots 39-21 Giants
PP's PA 0/8, Giants 0/5

GOALS
1. VAN Lucic, (21) (Repik), 4:36
1. VAN Watt, (25) (Toigo), 10:03
1. VAN Thelen, (6) (Wright, Lucic), 10:15
2. VAN Czibere, (5) , 17:37
3. P.A DePape, (17) (Hellyer), 11:30

FISTICUFFS
None

OFFICIATING
Pat Smith and Carl Poole

3 STARS
1. VAN - 16 Wacey Rabbit
2. VAN - 15 Spencer Machacek
3. VAN - 18 Mitch Czibere

rinkrat
01-28-2007, 02:18 PM
Kraus was a healthy scratch.Don said he is sending a message and that Tims play in Kamloops was unacceptable!
I wasn't at the game,too sick.I did watch the webcast,the boys looked really good except for the usual Mikkelson cough up.Sexsmith looked good too.Of course they usually look good against the "middle of the pack teams"
Hopefully with a favourable schedule and time to practise their effort level,systems play and confidence will all come together.

canadasgame
01-28-2007, 02:20 PM
wasn't the Pats--we played Prince Albert last night

Beaner
01-28-2007, 02:39 PM
wasn't the Pats--we played Prince Albert last night


LOL, I do that every time, why I dont know.

For some strange reason I want to call them the Prince Albert Pats.

Knuckles Muldoon
01-28-2007, 02:40 PM
At least for one game, the forecheck was back. The boys started fast and furious and rolled up a nice 3-0 lead halfway through the first period, just like the good old days. It was nice to see that (for the first time I can remember), Hayzer didn't load the 16 yo's on one line, instead putting one on each line. This really seemed to add a spark to all the lines, injecting some much-needed fire. Cunningham played with Rabbit and McArdle; Wright with Repik and Lucic; and Bouma looked great with Hunt and Wuchterl. The 16 yo's were an integral part of the game. Maybe Don should be sitting some 19 yo's more often. Toigo had a pretty good game as well, replacing Regner in the lineup. Sexy looked sharp as well. Although the Giants only scored 1 goal in the last 2 1/2 periods, they did well bottling up the Raiders (especially in the second period), and kept the heat off their own defense for the first time in a while. Franson had a better game as he finally stepped up in all 3 zones to make plays, something he hasn't done in a long while as he's played too passively for what seems like months. All in all, a good step in the right direction.

Beaner
01-28-2007, 02:41 PM
Kraus was a healthy scratch.Don said he is sending a message and that Tims play in Kamloops was unacceptable!


Well I guess thats good/bad news.

Wondering though what Mikkelson has to do to earn a trip to the press box, shot on his own net instead of just whiffing on passes in the slot?

Swando
01-28-2007, 06:36 PM
I'd like to take as many positives as possible from last nights game BUT in saying this I really think that we played a lower calibre team and should have blown them out of the rink on the scoreboard as well. I hoping this was just the players taking care of their own end first.
I 'll take Regner over Mikkelsen
I liked Wright's speed on his line.
I thot Toigo played the body more than any other D Man
I know most thot Franson played better but I don't. He took the easy lasy approach and got burned (beat to the puck) on PA lone goal. He needs to practise without his stick.
Glad we won - hope this is just a stepping stone for Wednesdays blow-out

old_time_hockey
01-28-2007, 06:51 PM
Deckert was sharp last night. It could have been 6-1 easy if not for robbing Hunt and Rabbit.

I think the Giants got many good chances .

The thing that stood out for me was during the slump, when the giants were on the attack, the D wouldn't come down the wall much to try and keep the puck deep. They would back off and then the other team transitions and then we end up running around in our own end. Last night they didn't do that.

rinkrat
01-28-2007, 07:30 PM
I know most thot Franson played better but I don't. He took the easy lasy approach and got burned (beat to the puck) on PA lone goal.

You're right,he got burned big time.

Knuckles Muldoon
01-28-2007, 07:44 PM
Also forgot to mention that Watt had a real good game. For once he didn't waste his energy with all the unnecessary extra crap and just focused on playing the game and helping his team. It's just a reminder that when he does that, he's a helluva player. THAT'S the player we need if we're going anywhere.

sircountalot
01-28-2007, 08:37 PM
he didn't waste his energy with all the unnecessary extra crap...

If you call challenging the goalie after the whistle and taking a couple of his "dives" not wasting his energy. He did play better though...you can really see the difference in his play when he skates and moves his feet.

Mikkelson is driving me crazy lately. The delays in his passing, his not passing when he should be moving the puck and the toe drag before getting his point shots blocked...is getting to be old. Sure is a smooth skater though.

I thought Lucic played well yesterday...also thought that McArdle skated very well...could have had a couple with any luck.

Nice to see a W again. Hopefully these next few will get us going again.

Knuckles Muldoon
01-28-2007, 09:53 PM
he didn't waste his energy with all the unnecessary extra crap...

If you call challenging the goalie after the whistle and taking a couple of his "dives" not wasting his energy. He did play better though...you can really see the difference in his play when he skates and moves his feet.


Sure, Watt did a little yapping, but not as much as usual. And certainly didn't get into the even-the-score game he's been too wrapped up with lately. He focused on skating and playing the body. And almost avoided the penalty box entirely.

sircountalot
01-29-2007, 01:16 AM
He didn't deserve a penalty for that at least. Deckart giving him a hard time for bailing beside the net...Watt giving it back for scoring on the weak backhand.

Kassian
01-29-2007, 02:50 AM
Watt is only effective when he is yapping. To the other players of course, not the ref which he has been doing much more this season. Personally I didn't think Watt had a very good game last night. But I've liked the way he's been playing as of late. The past four or five games I've been very happy with his overall play.

Swando
01-29-2007, 06:15 AM
Watt is famous among the refs for being a yapper and a bit of a diver. When we got Watchurl I contacted the Lethbridge fans and they basically told me me the same thing ( always getting the penalty in a scrum and being a marked player). If you noticed late in the game Watt was high sticked in the face (true penelty) but the ref who saw this did not react. I think it was because of Watt's beaking thurout the game and he will not get a break when needed. If I was a ref I probably do the same

old_time_hockey
01-29-2007, 11:51 AM
Watt is famous among the refs for being a yapper and a bit of a diver. When we got Watchurl I contacted the Lethbridge fans and they basically told me me the same thing ( always getting the penalty in a scrum and being a marked player). If you noticed late in the game Watt was high sticked in the face (true penelty) but the ref who saw this did not react. I think it was because of Watt's beaking thurout the game and he will not get a break when needed. If I was a ref I probably do the same

The bolded part, if true, is disgraceful. It doesn't matter how much you hate a player, you call that highstick. It is a very dangerous penalty. If it was just a slash, yeah you might let it go.

And how come the the player that came back to challenge JD didn't get more time in the box? He hit him with a glove in the face then dropped the mits when it was clear JD wasn't going to be part of a fight. Last time I checked it wasn't against the rules to have a word or 2 with a player.

Kassian
01-29-2007, 04:05 PM
And how come the the player that came back to challenge JD didn't get more time in the box? He hit him with a glove in the face then dropped the mits when it was clear JD wasn't going to be part of a fight. Last time I checked it wasn't against the rules to have a word or 2 with a player.

Watt clearly instigated that whole incident. So I have no problem with the officials evening that up. In fact I'd be a little mad if Palazzo got an extra penalty because that was what Watt was hoping for all along. He should have either dropped his gloves or not even bothered going back to chat with Deckert.

old_time_hockey
01-29-2007, 04:10 PM
Watt clearly instigated that whole incident. So I have no problem with the officials evening that up. In fact I'd be a little mad if Palazzo got an extra penalty because that was what Watt was hoping for all along. He should have either dropped his gloves or not even bothered going back to chat with Deckert.

Yeah if he got right up in Deckerts face, then come tool him. Watt was actually pretty restrained when he went to have words with him. Now if this had of been JD just before Christmas, I wonder what would have happened.