Prospect Info: The Song of Brett Ritchie

[dechire]

I meant he should had sit the full shift..

HE looks pretty slow overall now that he's on a line where two guys don't go to the corners every shift..

Well when his shift started Lehner was still in net so there's really nothing to complain about. Shift starts at 18:09. Lehner leaves at 18:20. Ritchie is stuck out there until 20:00. If Seguin hadn't iced the puck on a shot then he would have been off after 18:43 which is a normal shift length and leaves over a minute for whoever you think is more worthy than him to finish out the game. There were 4 icings during that shift. So again I don't get what you're complaining about unless you think Ruff planned for him to be trapped on the ice for 1:51. If you're removing people based on lack of defensive ability then Seguin shouldn't have been out there either and then those icings never would have happened. Also you say it should have been Eakin but his shift ended less than a minute before Ritchie got on the ice. But I'm sure a tired Eakin would have done a much better job defending the lead than Ritchie who didn't even let in a ****ing goal. Seriously this is a pointless complaint to make.

 

[MetalGodAOD*]

Not to mention Eakin is crap defensively. I'd rather see what Ritchie can do than put a guy like Eakin or Garbutt out there.

 

[Mr Misty]

I'd much rather have a vet out there than a player with under 10 games of experience. If he isn't in the top 6 forwards you trust defensively he shouldn't be on the ice that late in the game.

 

[dechire]

I'd much rather have a vet out there than a player with under 10 games of experience. If he isn't in the top 6 forwards you trust defensively he shouldn't be on the ice that late in the game.

Well in a perfect world Fiddler wouldn't be injured and the 3rd line wouldn't have just gotten off the ice. But this isn't a perfect world so with 2 minutes left and the goalie still in Ruff had to choose between the first and the fourth lines. Would you have preferred Horcoff Sceviour and Moen closing out the game ? Or you could put the top line minus Ritchie and replace him with one of Horcoff Sceviour and Moen. Those are your only choices aside from double shifting the 3rd line which would be idiotic. I seriously don't get the complaints when there weren't any alternatives. Save it for when the final shift isn't nearly 2 minutes long because of excessive icings. No one would be talking about this if Ritchie had gotten off the ice before the final minute.

 

[Satan]

It worked, we won, who cares.

 

[redbeardtx]

It worked, we won, who cares.

Everyone, apparently.

 

[Mr Misty]

Well in a perfect world Fiddler wouldn't be injured and the 3rd line wouldn't have just gotten off the ice. But this isn't a perfect world so with 2 minutes left and the goalie still in Ruff had to choose between the first and the fourth lines. Would you have preferred Horcoff Sceviour and Moen closing out the game ? Or you could put the top line minus Ritchie and replace him with one of Horcoff Sceviour and Moen. Those are your only choices aside from double shifting the 3rd line which would be idiotic. I seriously don't get the complaints when there weren't any alternatives. Save it for when the final shift isn't nearly 2 minutes long because of excessive icings. No one would be talking about this if Ritchie had gotten off the ice before the final minute.

Any of the 4th liners are more experienced and better defensively. And if you aren't going to use the 2nd line, Spezza or Cole are decent options as well.

 

[dechire]

Any of the 4th liners are more experienced and better defensively. And if you aren't going to use the 2nd line, Spezza or Cole are decent options as well.

Spezza is not good defensively and even if he was he and Cole had literally just stepped off the ice so they were not options. As I said before it was the first or fourth lines only and hey look playing Ritchie worked out just fine despite the unfavorable circumstances. It's like y'all are complaining simply for the sake of complaining.

 

[Mr Misty]

Spezza is not good defensively and even if he was he and Cole had literally just stepped off the ice so they were not options. As I said before it was the first or fourth lines only and hey look playing Ritchie worked out just fine despite the unfavorable circumstances. It's like y'all are complaining simply for the sake of complaining.

Have you ever heard of hindsight? Just because it turned out ok doesn't mean that is the right game management decision. Remember last year when it was common for Peverly to play on the top line the entire 3rd period because Ruff wanted to shore up Benn and Seguin? The change in strategy is certainly discussion worthy, and when the bench gets shortened, as you should late in close games, that means no more Ritchie.

 

[dechire]

Have you ever heard of hindsight? Just because it turned out ok doesn't mean that is the right game management decision. Remember last year when it was common for Peverly to play on the top line the entire 3rd period because Ruff wanted to shore up Benn and Seguin? The change in strategy is certainly discussion worthy, and when the bench gets shortened, as you should late in close games, that means no more Ritchie.

In hindsight Seguin should have crossed the ****ing red line before shooting at the empty net so we wouldn't even be talking about this. Then the 3rd line would have come on and people wouldn't be *****ing over nothing. Who would you have replaced Ritchie with ? We don't exactly have Peverley anymore. Fidder was out so he couldn't move up to replace Eakin on the 3rd line. Moving Cole would just create an even worse hole on the 2nd line. Unless you wanted to see Moen on the first line there weren't many options.

 

[Mr Misty]

In hindsight Seguin should have crossed the ****ing red line before shooting at the empty net so we wouldn't even be talking about this. Then the 3rd line would have come on and people wouldn't be *****ing over nothing. Who would you have replaced Ritchie with ? We don't exactly have Peverley anymore. Fidder was out so he couldn't move up to replace Eakin on the 3rd line. Moving Cole would just create an even worse hole on the 2nd line. Unless you wanted to see Moen on the first line there weren't many options.

That's not what hindsight means. In this case, just because it turned out okay doesn't make it the best decision. Think about if Ottawa had tied it with him on the ice, people would be upset he was out there in a critical situation.

What does Ritchie do in a late game situation that Moen doesn't do better? In his own zone Ritchie doesn't offer much beyond size, he's very inexperienced and very raw. With the exception of Hemsky, any other forward would be a better option, and when you shorten your bench to protect a lead it should mean the 3 guys you trust least in their own end sit.

 

[M88K]

I can't believe people are saying Eakin should have been out there because Ritchie is defensively inept. That's one of those pot calling the kettle black things.

 

[glovesave_35]

Have you ever heard of hindsight? Just because it turned out ok doesn't mean that is the right game management decision. Remember last year when it was common for Peverly to play on the top line the entire 3rd period because Ruff wanted to shore up Benn and Seguin? The change in strategy is certainly discussion worthy, and when the bench gets shortened, as you should late in close games, that means no more Ritchie.

Ruff also played Nichushkin plenty last year in late game situations, not always but sometimes. I don't have a problem with trying it again.