PDA

View Full Version : Giants 6 Ams 2 10-26-05



Big Daddy
10-26-2005, 10:57 PM
Total domination the first half of the game by the Giants. The Am's pressured well the second half as the Giants got a little sloppy. The scoring was spread around again and Tommy T got the win. Nice goal by Flatters for the GW. Nice goals by Blum to help seal the deal.

rinkrat
10-26-2005, 11:11 PM
Flatters scores his first goal ever in the WHL(75 games).He must be happy with the trade.It was a beauty,too.Blum looked good too.Added bonus...Rockets lose! :groovy:
What a tough division to gain ground in.

Beaner
10-27-2005, 12:51 AM
Well, a total lacklustre performance by Tri-Cities tonight. Got completed outplayed by the Giants. It seemed as though the Tri-city didn't even want to be in Vancouver at all tonight. Only bright spot was the rookie goaltender, Pickard, from Tri-cities. Even though he was beat 6 times, he had absolutely no support period tonight. The shots after period 1 were 22-1 in favour of the Giants, to give you an idea of how much they dominated the first.

NOTES
Tommy Tartaglione got his second consecutive Start tonight.
Flatters played tonight after the trade - wearing #23
Scharff was moved back to defence tonight, to make up for both Albers and Fistric who were out with Injuries.
Rutherford played his first game back from Suspension/Injury suffered in practice.
Shots 41-11
Giants 2/7 on the PP, Tri-Cities 1/6

GOALS
1. VAN Lamb, (5) (Reese, Rutherford), 6:32 Reese lets the shot go from the top of the circle, Rebound at the top of the crease, and Lamb tucks it in.
1. VAN Kraus, (4) (Bartley, Repik), 14:51 (PP) Repik gets the puck to Bartley who passes cross-crease to Kraus who pos the open net goal. Beautiful passing play.
1. VAN Flatters, (1) (Festerling, Kraus), 18:05 Festerling passes across the Blue line to Flatters who one times it right into the net.
1. VAN Blum, (1) (Reese), 19:04 Off a Face-off, Blum fires a wrister at the net that deflects of someone past Pickard.
2. VAN Blum, (2) (Rutherford, Reese), 9:29 Rutherford and blum come racing into the zone, Rutherford across the ice to Blum who taps it into the open side.
2. TRI Boogaard, (4) (McDonald, Gracik), 13:11 Flatters, makes a defensive zone error with puck, and in the ensuing chaos, the puck Ends up on Boogaards Stick and he puts it past Tartalgione.
2. VAN Lucic, (3) (Franson, Mikkelson), 19:31 (PP) Franson gets the Puck to Lucic who is left alone in the slot and he wrists right past Pickard.
3. TRI Beeman, (7) (McDonald, Vey), 5:25 (PP) Big Shot from the point that just goes right by Tartaglione.

FISTICUFFS
None. Which was a asurprise considering the blow out, but I just don't think Tri-Cities cared.

OFFICIATING
Got Kirk tonight his perfromance was average at best. I think he may of been leaning a bit towards the Americans side in the 2nd/3rd, trying to avoid an absolute pasting by the Giants. That Boarding call on Franson was the weakest call I have seen in a long time. GRADE C

OVERALL
Glad we won but it was a pretty boring game to watch. Too bad Tri-cities couldnt be bothered tonight. Giants did get sloppy in the 2nd and 3rd, they are going to have refocus against Everett this weekend. Blum is looking great as a 16yr old D-man. He just seems to be getting better every night. Not much else to talk about, in this game.

3-Stars
1. VAN - 10 David Rutherford
2. VAN - 7 Jonathan Blum
3. VAN - 9 Jason Reese

IMO - Blum deserved the 1st star tonight. He was excellent tonight.

N.W. Bruin
10-27-2005, 01:11 AM
Didn't notice him on the ice in the third and he wasn't at the bench. And I didn't have the radio with me to listen to the postgame.

Stay-Puft
10-27-2005, 10:26 AM
Well, a total lacklustre performance by Tri-Cities tonight. Got completed outplayed by the Giants. It seemed as though the Tri-city didn't even want to be in Vancouver at all tonight.

Sounds like the same effort they put in every night so far this year. No fire, no effort. Maybe 1 period a night. This is beginning to look like its going to be a long year, which is sad. Glad to hear Pickard had a good game. Definite bright spot for the future.

langdak
10-27-2005, 11:25 AM
Sounds like the same effort they put in every night so far this year. No fire, no effort. Maybe 1 period a night. This is beginning to look like its going to be a long year, which is sad. Glad to hear Pickard had a good game. Definite bright spot for the future.


Pickard played very well, he stuck it out for the whole game even though he was more then hung out to dry on a few occasions.

I dont think i have ever seen such a lack of desire that the Ams showed last night, they just didnt want to be there....they got their 1 shot in the first period in the first 15 seconds and then the wheels fell completely off.

Stay-Puft, i agree, might be a long season, that has gotta be tough to sit through, no effort night in, night out..........a shake up on that team should be in the works, if it isnt already

GF71
10-27-2005, 05:49 PM
Picard was the best Ams player hands down. He was left swigning in the wind the whole game. Flatters should've gotten an assist on the first Ams goal! Yikes... let's hope he stops that stuff soon! haha. Boring game really. Mitch got hit hard in the second. he has an ... get ready for it...upper body injury! There was no point in pushing it, when the game was already out of hand. He'll be back against Everett.

Beaner
10-28-2005, 12:43 AM
Sounds like the same effort they put in every night so far this year. No fire, no effort. Maybe 1 period a night. This is beginning to look like its going to be a long year, which is sad. Glad to hear Pickard had a good game. Definite bright spot for the future.

Yeah, only seen them once, but it was pretty bad. Seen a few games where teams are just bad, but at least they tried, unlike the Americans.

Looks like a shakeup is needed in Tri-Cities and soon, to shake the boys out of this funk. I would not be surprised to see the coach get fired soon, just to try and turn things around as he may no longer be able to get the troops to work.

Could be long few years for Tri-Cities, considering they can lose up to 3 players in the upcoming expansion draft.

Stay-Puft
10-28-2005, 09:02 AM
I don't know that there are 3 guys the expansion team would want if they continue to play like this. I am beginning to think that they will protect their young players, like Pickard and Broda, and leave next years 18s and 19s unprotected, with the possible exception of Price. How many are we allowed to protect? I can't remember. A coaching change would be a good shakeup, but I don't see it happening, yet. Maybe after Christmas break if they continue to struggle.

langdak
10-28-2005, 10:07 AM
I don't know that there are 3 guys the expansion team would want if they continue to play like this. I am beginning to think that they will protect their young players, like Pickard and Broda, and leave next years 18s and 19s unprotected, with the possible exception of Price. How many are we allowed to protect? I can't remember. A coaching change would be a good shakeup, but I don't see it happening, yet. Maybe after Christmas break if they continue to struggle.

From what i can understand, this is how it works.

15 and 16yr olds are automatically protected

Your allowed 15 other players besides that, anything above and beyond stays unprotected.

Chilliwack gets to pick 1 from each team with the exception of Tri-City, they get to pick 3 from the Ams.

Beaner
10-28-2005, 12:55 PM
Langdak is correct but it may be either 15 or 16 players protected, except for Tri which will only get to protect 12 or 13.

Stay-Puft
10-28-2005, 05:38 PM
Thanks for the info. Do we have to protect 12 or 13? :)

Beaner
10-28-2005, 05:56 PM
Thanks for the info. Do we have to protect 12 or 13? :)

:clap: :laugh:

Nice to see you have a sense of humor about this.

:thumb: