sucker for punishment

[wango tango]

i re-watched all four games of the kootenay saskatoon series.

originally when i went to the games in saskatoon, and on tv from cranbrook i was mad. how could this happen? this time around after the emotion is gone. i was shocked at what i saw.

almost all of the blades best players, or for that matter, any of the blades players, didn't put out the effort necessary to win a game, never mind a series. three guys who were putting in a full effort were stanford, zahn, and schenn. and when a team is playing as well as the ice is right now, that's not going to cut it.

was the regular season too easy? with little or no adversity in the regular season, when the team faced it in the playoffs, they were not prepared to deal with it. this isn't a coaching thing, this one is all on the players. i hope every single one of them takes a long look in the mirror.

i hope the experience makes the team stronger, right now it just stinks. the team will lose a lot going into next season. there is also still a lot that will return, and some promising new faces to add.

[patsdude114]

The Blades werent as strong as there record showed..... It was Stanford's team there was only a handful of teams in the league that could get quality chances on Stanford on a regular basis over the course of a game, when Morrison played it really showed what Saskatoon was all about, the Blades didnt forecheck as aggressive as they would when Stanford was in goal, same with there D the D didnt take as many chances holding the line to keep the puck in the offensive zone.

When u have a goalie like Stanford it allows u to play more aggressive then normal, & against the weaker teams (pretty much anyone after 4th place in our conference) the Blades were allowed to play that style to keep the weaker teams in the defensive zone, as they only had 1 or 2 players with top end skill that could make Stanford look bad & chances are they werent on the ice when the Blades D would play more aggressively.

Dont kid urself that a goalie like Stanford lets a coach play more aggressively then he would normally play during a season. As soon as the Blades faced Kootenay who had 3 solid lines & the Blades werent able to play that aggressive style shift in & shift out the Blades were lost on what to do.

Its not the players fault, it does fall back onto coaching. Everyone knows when u play a better team u must adjust ur style of play abit but the Blades were unable to adapt to it cuz they hadnt played that style all year long. It would be like a team who played a passive game all season long & then be asked to play very aggressive... it just doesnt happen.

When Morrison was in goal the Blades were just another avg team, the Blades will be in for a big shock next season when u have no Stanford between the pipes. The Blades will still have some good talent there dont get me wrong but the style of play will be changed drastically & u will see players who u thought had great seasons this past year become avg & wonder what happened to the player that was here last year.

This isnt to bash the Blades at all it is just the reality of it, Stanford was the team & Stanford let Mollenken play that aggressive style all year long.

[hotdog-pocket]

The Blades werent as strong as there record showed..... It was Stanford's team there was only a handful of teams in the league that could get quality chances on Stanford on a regular basis over the course of a game, when Morrison played it really showed what Saskatoon was all about, the Blades didnt forecheck as aggressive as they would when Stanford was in goal, same with there D the D didnt take as many chances holding the line to keep the puck in the offensive zone.

When u have a goalie like Stanford it allows u to play more aggressive then normal, & against the weaker teams (pretty much anyone after 4th place in our conference) the Blades were allowed to play that style to keep the weaker teams in the defensive zone, as they only had 1 or 2 players with top end skill that could make Stanford look bad & chances are they werent on the ice when the Blades D would play more aggressively.

Dont kid urself that a goalie like Stanford lets a coach play more aggressively then he would normally play during a season. As soon as the Blades faced Kootenay who had 3 solid lines & the Blades werent able to play that aggressive style shift in & shift out the Blades were lost on what to do.

Its not the players fault, it does fall back onto coaching. Everyone knows when u play a better team u must adjust ur style of play abit but the Blades were unable to adapt to it cuz they hadnt played that style all year long. It would be like a team who played a passive game all season long & then be asked to play very aggressive... it just doesnt happen.

When Morrison was in goal the Blades were just another avg team, the Blades will be in for a big shock next season when u have no Stanford between the pipes. The Blades will still have some good talent there dont get me wrong but the style of play will be changed drastically & u will see players who u thought had great seasons this past year become avg & wonder what happened to the player that was here last year.

This isnt to bash the Blades at all it is just the reality of it, Stanford was the team & Stanford let Mollenken play that aggressive style all year long.

You really are way off base with almost this entire post.

It wasn't Stanford that carried this team all year, it was the players that played in front of him. Don't act as if Stanford is some totally can't miss goalie who stood on his head game in and game out. That wasn't the case. I watched the Blades upwards of 65 games this year, including all postseason games. It wasn't Stanford that carried them.

They were a consistent, hard working team that got solid goaltending and timely offense from their depth.

That hard work is what went missing in round 2.

Did they have it too easy during the regular season? Possibly. Because as soon as they faced some "real" adversity in round 2, the push just wasn't there from the VAST majority of their skaters.

The only guys that played anywhere near "well" in round 2 was Schenn, Zahn, Stanford and a few guys like Olsen thrown in their. The rest of the team was MIA, including Hamilton, Trask and Elliott.

The coaches prepared the players as well as possible for every single game. It was the players that didn't play the way they needed to.

It wasn't coaching. (although I do agree that EVERYONE deserves some blame, coaches included)

[Hockey Spy]

I for one was telling people all year long on this chat board that the Blades were about a .500 team who were overachieving.

Makes sense how hey!

[Wildeyes]

But it was Stanford that carried them in the playoff look at the game against PA. Staford was average at best and the blades looked really bad. When Stanford played great the Blades where a great team. The difference in the ICE series is that Stanford played Great but the blades forgot to get on the bus.

[BigCat20]

Hey patsdude, if you would have had Mo, ur pats wouldnt have missed the playoffs. He is much better then his record & played behind 2 really great goalies! Really had no chance to get in a rhythm and play abunch of games in a row. Plus the mono!

I dont buy the overachieving line.....theres no way a .500 team leads the league in wins & captures scotty munro trophy. Maybe win 8-10 games more than they lose but not what they did. They ran into a hot team, that did everything right. Then proceed to do the same to the Hat.

I blame the same guys everyone else has....Trask, Hammy, Elliott but I think the 2nd line did very little. Usually Marek and Nicky are much more aggresive & a threat to score on the PK. D wasnt hitting anyone or grinding the corners.

[patsdude114]

You really are way off base with almost this entire post.

It wasn't Stanford that carried this team all year, it was the players that played in front of him. Don't act as if Stanford is some totally can't miss goalie who stood on his head game in and game out. That wasn't the case. I watched the Blades upwards of 65 games this year, including all postseason games. It wasn't Stanford that carried them.


I know Stanford is NOT a cant miss goalie but he was easily top 3 goalie in the league (depends who u talk too where he sits some would say #1 others #2 or #3) when u have a goalie like that it allows the coach to base his team concept around that 1 player & 1 player only.

Compare games when Stanford was in goal to when Morrison was in goal, the way the Blades attacked the puck was completely different. With Morrison in net Mollenken knew that the high risk high reward wouldnt work so the Blades played more passive. When Stanford was in goal Mollenken was able to unleash the horses all game long & pin teams cuz if they did have a odd man rush coming in on Stanford, Stanford was elite enough to make the quality save.

Dont kid urself that Mollenken didnt change the way he played when Morrison was in net compared to Stanford. When Morrison played goal the Blades were just an avg team, Stanford was the difference maker. If Stanford had got a season ending injury after the trade deadline ur amazing season would of crumbled infront of ur eyes, cuz u guys would of looked like the WKs of the past season just less offense on the Blades team then on that WKs team.

[patsdude114]

Hey patsdude, if you would have had Mo, ur pats wouldnt have missed the playoffs. He is much better then his record & played behind 2 really great goalies! Really had no chance to get in a rhythm and play abunch of games in a row. Plus the mono!

I dont buy the overachieving line.....theres no way a .500 team leads the league in wins & captures scotty munro trophy. Maybe win 8-10 games more than they lose but not what they did. They ran into a hot team, that did everything right. Then proceed to do the same to the Hat.


Morrison would NOT of helped get the Pats into the playoffs, our goaltending was fine after Hewitt showed he could play & both goalies pushed each other. Our defense was brutal making the same mistakes game in & game out, even Stanford would of looked bad on the Pats team. We had 1 threat on offense & 1 threat only & that was Weal. U cant win with 1 player.

For ur other comment the Blades ran into a BETTER team in the Ice, who played in a tougher division. Im not taking away any accomplishments they had this season just saying they werent as good as the record stated.

[hotdog-pocket]

I know Stanford is NOT a cant miss goalie but he was easily top 3 goalie in the league (depends who u talk too where he sits some would say #1 others #2 or #3) when u have a goalie like that it allows the coach to base his team concept around that 1 player & 1 player only.

Compare games when Stanford was in goal to when Morrison was in goal, the way the Blades attacked the puck was completely different. With Morrison in net Mollenken knew that the high risk high reward wouldnt work so the Blades played more passive. When Stanford was in goal Mollenken was able to unleash the horses all game long & pin teams cuz if they did have a odd man rush coming in on Stanford, Stanford was elite enough to make the quality save.

Dont kid urself that Mollenken didnt change the way he played when Morrison was in net compared to Stanford. When Morrison played goal the Blades were just an avg team, Stanford was the difference maker. If Stanford had got a season ending injury after the trade deadline ur amazing season would of crumbled infront of ur eyes, cuz u guys would of looked like the WKs of the past season just less offense on the Blades team then on that WKs team.

I'm not saying the that Stanford wasn't a difference maker. Obviously he was.

I'm saying coaches don't just totally change their systems and aggressiveness because one player is in net compared to the other.

It's flawed logic and is totally unrealistic.

[Trav]

In my opinion the players played better when Stanford was in net then when Morrison was in net. Team had more confidence in Stanford. I've never been a fan of Morrison and I never will be a fan. Sure he can make some good saves and the odd time he can have a good game but most of the time he scares the **** out of me cuz of his inconsistency. You can't be a starter if your constantly battling inconsistency which is why I believe the Blades kept Stanford as a 20 yr old when they could have easily kept Acolatse. When a goaltender doesn't become a starter at 19 and they have to keep a 20 yr old goaltender, thats pretty bad.

I can't see Morrison being here next year as a 20 yr old and in my opinion he shouldn't be since he couldn't win the starting job a year ago. I hope the Blades can acquire a 92 or 93 born goaltender that can start or even pick a import goaltender.

[patsdude114]

I'm not saying the that Stanford wasn't a difference maker. Obviously he was.

I'm saying coaches don't just totally change their systems and aggressiveness because one player is in net compared to the other.It's flawed logic and is totally unrealistic.


Systems no aggressiveness u bet ur arse they do, i guess u havent played any competive hockey during ur day....

[BigCat20]

Morrison would NOT of helped get the Pats into the playoffs, our goaltending was fine after Hewitt showed he could play & both goalies pushed each other. Our defense was brutal making the same mistakes game in & game out, even Stanford would of looked bad on the Pats team. We had 1 threat on offense & 1 threat only & that was Weal. U cant win with 1 player.

For ur other comment the Blades ran into a BETTER team in the Ice, who played in a tougher division. Im not taking away any accomplishments they had this season just saying they werent as good as the record stated.

Hahahahahahahahaha, thats the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Ur goalies are brutal plugs & you traded the best of the 3 away!

Thats what I said, the Ice were much better in the playoffs. We sure didnt have much problem with the central since we only lost twice to them during reg. season! Maybe if there played the Rebels, Ice & Tigers more, they would have been pushed more, rather than locking up, at worst, the 2nd seed by January!

[patsdude114]

Hahahahahahahahaha, thats the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Ur goalies are brutal plugs & you traded the best of the 3 away!


Shows what u know about goaltending, Guhle was only better then Ketlo... Hewitt was by far the best of the 3 but it doesnt matter who would of been in net for us when the D was as bad as ours no goalie would of looked good, we gave up 30+ shots a nightly basis & those were very good quality chances for the most part.

I felt sorry for our goalies on most nites. But hey a brutal plug stops 61 shots (with the shootout included) & gets the W against the Blades right? & his outting before that stoped 40+ shots against the Rebels with yet another W right?

[BigCat20]

Shows what u know about goaltending, Guhle was only better then Ketlo... Hewitt was by far the best of the 3 but it doesnt matter who would of been in net for us when the D was as bad as ours no goalie would of looked good, we gave up 30+ shots a nightly basis & those were very good quality chances for the most part.

I felt sorry for our goalies on most nites. But hey a brutal plug stops 61 shots (with the shootout included) & gets the W against the Blades right? & his outting before that stoped 40+ shots against the Rebels with yet another W right?

Thats right....u played competitive hockey, you know everything! Wow 2 wins, too bad he isn't that good every night. Worst 2 goalies in gaa, bottom in s.p., but yah there pretty good.

You just contradicted yourself.......you say the Blades play more open & take more chances with Stanford. But when the pats do that, it the d's fault. So you think a top end goalie couldn't have stole a few more games & got you in. Mo #'s weren't too different from Stanford's! Think he still could have led the team to winning the division! He would have won 2x as many as Ketlo had!

Pickard seen a ton of shots, & kept seattle in till the end. You think if you had him you wouldn't be better. There's a handful of goalies that would have had the Pats in the playoffs.

[hotdog-pocket]

Thats right....u played competitive hockey, you know everything! Wow 2 wins, too bad he isn't that good every night. Worst 2 goalies in gaa, bottom in s.p., but yah there pretty good.

You just contradicted yourself.......you say the Blades play more open & take more chances with Stanford. But when the pats do that, it the d's fault. So you think a top end goalie couldn't have stole a few more games & got you in. Mo #'s weren't too different from Stanford's! Think he still could have led the team to winning the division! He would have won 2x as many as Ketlo had!

Pickard seen a ton of shots, & kept seattle in till the end. You think if you had him you wouldn't be better. There's a handful of goalies that would have had the Pats in the playoffs.

Don't bother arguing with him, he knows everything because "he played competitive hockey".

So did I buddy, as did many people on here.

[Rye]

Haha! That .500 joke is hilarious!

We all know what happened, I don't understand why any Blades fan would have a conversation about the Blades with patsdude after all the trashing ...

[lordstanley]

Congrats to Stefan Elliott on winning the WHL Defenceman of the Year, Bill Hunter Memorial Trophy

i would say this was a slam dunk with the numbers he put up still suprised he never made the world juniors

2010-11 Regular Season Saskatoon Blades 71 31 50 81 62 14

And also the altime leader in points by a Blades dman what a treat this guy was to watch good luck in your future with Colorado

[lordstanley]

Blades may be busy tomorrow with trades Lorne said he is gonna try and pull the trigger on a few deals tomorrow if he can heck we may see guys like nicholls collins etc go to get back a 2nd or a 1st round pick back that we lost to brandon

[patsdude114]

Thats right....u played competitive hockey, you know everything! Wow 2 wins, too bad he isn't that good every night. Worst 2 goalies in gaa, bottom in s.p., but yah there pretty good.

You just contradicted yourself.......you say the Blades play more open & take more chances with Stanford. But when the pats do that, it the d's fault. So you think a top end goalie couldn't have stole a few more games & got you in. Mo #'s weren't too different from Stanford's! Think he still could have led the team to winning the division! He would have won 2x as many as Ketlo had!

Pickard seen a ton of shots, & kept seattle in till the end. You think if you had him you wouldn't be better. There's a handful of goalies that would have had the Pats in the playoffs.



HAHAHAAHA i dont contradict myself at all.... Ketlo is terrible Hewitt isnt as bad as u may think.... our D was horrid... so its the goalies fault the team gives up 30+ shots on a nightly basis?

U can look at the numbers all u want it comes down to how the players play infront of the goalie as well. When ur team is playing in the D zone more then in the O zone the goalies numbers are going to be terrible. Does it really have to be that hard for u to figure out?

The Pats couldnt play D at all & the goalies numbers reflect on that big time. Ketlo is a junk goalie always has been always will be. But believe me Hewitt is not as bad as u think he is, the guy has ALOT of upside to him. If u think the Pats crap season is all on the goalies performances then u have zero knowledge of hockey. Stanford could of been our goalie & he would of looked avg at best when the D infront of him are totally *****.

Morrison is a crap goalie, his numbers are inflated especially the win column. He rarely played against top teams cuz he was the #2 goalie he played mainly against the crap teams in the league (the Pats are definately part of the crap teams)

Theres only a few Blades fans on this board who have any clue about hockey at all. U guys look through ur rose colored glasses way to much.

[wango tango]

one final thought on the season that was.

from kuklaskorner, "being so angry that you can’t see good in anything is a good way to get old faster and miss out on the things in life that are good."

before the season started no one predicted the blades would have the kind of season that they did. banners and franchise records. don't lose sight of the positive.

it is time to look forward to next season.