Windsor Spitfires 2016-17 Season Thread (Part 5)

[Sec108]

Ok, I am rattled with this team. The Spits will likely have to go 9-1 to have any shot of winning the division and thats assuming the SOO go 7-3. If the Soo go 8-2 then its 100% over bc Windsor isn't going 10-0.

After watching this team closely I have determined that if they played a different style they would score more goals. The systems this team has in place stifles offensive creativity. Nattinen's production is down and he even said that there is not as much freedom with the systems here, and even Bracco's production has slowed since coming to Windsor compared to Kitchener.

There is clearly a motivation issue, there is ten games left and the team does not have a captain in a Memorial Cup year? That's an embarrassing look for management.

The first line has not recored a single point in the last 2 games that's pathetic I'm sorry. Brown is invisible half the time, he's a joke.

If this team does not get home ice in the first round which there is 90% chance they won't, then they will be out in the first round. I feel bad for us season ticket holders, bc its gonna be another 3 years of rebuilding after this year, and the stretch of not winning a playoff series will likely continue. This could possibly the longest stretch in OHL history of not winning a single round. The attendance is actually good considering they have not won a playoff round in years. Show me any OHL city's attendance after 5 year's of not winning a playoff round, it will be poor. Remember the Barn only held 4000 and we get over 4000 every night.

Rant Over

What does anyone expect when we couldnt draft quality players bc of the sanction's.

Hosting bid made thinking Fish/Keller here Brown takes it to next level.

Next yr has to be sell at deadline, all bodies we can for decent picks/players.Then the rebuild.

Im willing to give Letowski a go of it.

Light is around the corner lets hold our nose and get through this hosting first.

Anyone BUT London in Cup final.

If your at the final game in the mem cup, plz give wee davey a round of applause for scewing over for the 5 yrs and bottoming out the franchise worse than the days of Mantha as coach imo.

 

[youngblood10]

There was always something wrong with the Spit's team and I could never put my finger on it because they have very good players, they are well coached, even if I don't care for the approach. But then watching last nights game which they played just well enough to lose and did, it hit me. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of players have an intellectually deficient hockey IQ. This might be the stupidest team per man in terms of hockey IQ team that I've ever seen. I don't believe that can be correct, the only hope they have is when it's a critical time in a game that has little margin for error, the kid who has to make that play is one of the 3 or 4 who does have a clue out there.

 

[FireBall959]

I don't understand all this talk about not having a captain. If a player is a leader among his peers he certainly won't be bothered by not having a "C" on his sweater. A leader won't sit back and not say anything just because he doesn't have a letter. There could be lots of reasons why they haven't named one which may have nothing to do with the character in the room. Maybe they wanted Stanley before he got hurt, maybe they like the committee approach as they have several players in that role already. I doubt it's as big a deal to the players as it is to some of the fans.

 

[aresknights]

I don't understand all this talk about not having a captain. If a player is a leader among his peers he certainly won't be bothered by not having a "C" on his sweater. A leader won't sit back and not say anything just because he doesn't have a letter. There could be lots of reasons why they haven't named one which may have nothing to do with the character in the room. Maybe they wanted Stanley before he got hurt, maybe they like the committee approach as they have several players in that role already. I doubt it's as big a deal to the players as it is to some of the fans.

I agree with this. Sure its a nice feather in a kids cap looking back after they've moved on. But kids in the room know who the leaders are.

 

[hockeylegend11]

Spits

I don't understand all this talk about not having a captain. If a player is a leader among his peers he certainly won't be bothered by not having a "C" on his sweater. A leader won't sit back and not say anything just because he doesn't have a letter. There could be lots of reasons why they haven't named one which may have nothing to do with the character in the room. Maybe they wanted Stanley before he got hurt, maybe they like the committee approach as they have several players in that role already. I doubt it's as big a deal to the players as it is to some of the fans.

Agreed, solid post,my guess is if the Spits were in 1st place in conference or the division comfortably non issue,gives critics something to complain about.

 

[ohloutsider]

I don't understand all this talk about not having a captain. If a player is a leader among his peers he certainly won't be bothered by not having a "C" on his sweater. A leader won't sit back and not say anything just because he doesn't have a letter. There could be lots of reasons why they haven't named one which may have nothing to do with the character in the room. Maybe they wanted Stanley before he got hurt, maybe they like the committee approach as they have several players in that role already. I doubt it's as big a deal to the players as it is to some of the fans.

I think Chatfield is that guy now - just does not have the "C".

 

[aresknights]

Agreed, solid post,my guess is if the Spits were in 1st place in conference or the division comfortably non issue,gives critics something to complain about.

I don't think that's the case reading the last few days. Several topics of discussion, and from the outside they seem like legitimate concerns.

 

[FireBall959]

Agreed, solid post,my guess is if the Spits were in 1st place in conference or the division comfortably non issue,gives critics something to complain about.

Idk its tough to say, we are a really critical bunch, I like to think we're all just passionate about our team . There's times I step away as some of the negativity wears on you. I still think we're talented enough that if all players played to their potential we can compete with anyone. Problem I have is the boys are running out of time to show they can do it consistently, which they haven't at this point. We lack the offensive depth that if even 1 player has an off night we don't have the same level of comfort of some of the other teams (mainly Ldn,erie). Despite having an excellent season points wise, this team, whether its the systems or what not, still has you leaving the arena thinking they haven't reached/ played to their full potential.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

I don't understand all this talk about not having a captain. If a player is a leader among his peers he certainly won't be bothered by not having a "C" on his sweater. A leader won't sit back and not say anything just because he doesn't have a letter. There could be lots of reasons why they haven't named one which may have nothing to do with the character in the room. Maybe they wanted Stanley before he got hurt, maybe they like the committee approach as they have several players in that role already. I doubt it's as big a deal to the players as it is to some of the fans.

It isn't a big deal until it is. For instance since the team is on the verge of not having home ice people look around to see who the captain is and there isn't one. Not saying it's right but that's comes in part with the situation.

 

[FireBall959]

It isn't a big deal until it is. For instance since the team is on the verge of not having home ice people look around to see who the captain is and there isn't one. Not saying it's right but that's comes in part with the situation.

So it automatically makes you better if you have somebody with a C on the sweater or it would be that guys fault? Like I said I guess I just don't get it. There are reasons they sit out of home ice and none of them have to do with somebody running around with a sweater letter. I understand some may think it shows a lack of leadership but it doesn't mean there is right?

 

[RayzorIsDull]

So it automatically makes you better if you have somebody with a C on the sweater or it would be that guys fault? Like I said I guess I just don't get it. There are reasons they sit out of home ice and none of them have to do with somebody running around with a sweater letter. I understand some may think it shows a lack of leadership but it doesn't mean there is right?

You don't get what I'm saying. Not having a captain doesn't preclude you from having a very good team but if you have a team that hasn't had good results this year doesn't preclude you from having questions raised about leadership.

For example I coach a basketball team we didn't have captains last year and the team was good, didn't capture the prize. This year we had captains and ran the table with 2 captains. We won a championship this year not because we had 2 captains but if you saw their value in the team you would understand why they were captains and why we won.

It goes back to the saying if you're a championship contender nobody is going to question the leadership. If you're team is not performing to a certain level and you don't have a captain people will bring it up.

What I don't understand is why people are so afraid to bring up certain aspects if players aren't performing, why there isn't a captain, why there are certain sacred cows. The team is underperforming fans know it, bloggers know it but others won't recognize it.

 

[FireBall959]

You don't get what I'm saying. Not having a captain doesn't preclude you from having a very good team but if you have a team that hasn't had good results this year doesn't preclude you from having questions raised about leadership.

For example I coach a basketball team we didn't have captains last year and the team was good, didn't capture the prize. This year we had captains and ran the table with 2 captains. We won a championship this year not because we had 2 captains but if you saw their value in the team you would understand why they were captains and why we won.

It goes back to the saying if you're a championship contender nobody is going to question the leadership. If you're team is not performing to a certain level and you don't have a captain people will bring it up.

What I don't understand is why people are so afraid to bring up certain aspects if players aren't performing, why there isn't a captain, why there are certain sacred cows. The team is underperforming fans know it, bloggers know it but others won't recognize it.

Oh I get what your saying but let me ask you this. you say you had a team with 2 capatains but yet i'd say you were a team without a captain. You had 2 co-captain's. How is that different from the spits using 3 asst. captains rather than naming 1 guy.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Oh I get what your saying but let me ask you this. you say you had a team with 2 capatains but yet i'd say you were a team without a captain. You had 2 co-captain's. How is that different from the spits using 3 asst. captains rather than naming 1 guy.

Team voted allowed 2 choices and they had the most votes it was just going to be captain/co-captain but since they had the same amount they were both captains.

 

[randomhero4life]

Team voted allowed 2 choices and they had the most votes it was just going to be captain/co-captain but since they had the same amount they were both captains.

Maybe the Spits are similar to that situation. I have seen teams have 3 alternates in the past,....not the end of the world

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Maybe the Spits are similar to that situation. I have seen teams have 3 alternates in the past,....not the end of the world

Maybe but Rocky said he was going to name the captain and wasn't leaving it up to the players.

 

[OHLTG]

Idk its tough to say, we are a really critical bunch, I like to think we're all just passionate about our team . There's times I step away as some of the negativity wears on you. I still think we're talented enough that if all players played to their potential we can compete with anyone. Problem I have is the boys are running out of time to show they can do it consistently, which they haven't at this point. We lack the offensive depth that if even 1 player has an off night we don't have the same level of comfort of some of the other teams (mainly Ldn,erie). Despite having an excellent season points wise, this team, whether its the systems or what not, still has you leaving the arena thinking they haven't reached/ played to their full potential.

I don't think we lack the offensive depth as much as we lack the confidence. I've seen far too many players have the puck in a decent spot and elect to pass it off. Get the puck and put it on net. If you get a rebound, go for the rebound. That's one thing the teams with Boughner did; get 40 shots a night.

The final stretch of the season is very winnable so it's going to show us a lot about our character. There is no reason the team can't go 9-1. None.

As for naming a captain - we have three "A"s. What if they are choosing to lead as a group and not have just one guy with the C? What's the issue? People on here have complained for a while about leadership. Now we have multiple veterans who are doing the job. We just don't have a "C" on a guy. I'll trust the players know what they're doing.

but if you have a team that hasn't had good results this year doesn't preclude you from having questions raised about leadership.

Who determines when the results aren't good? Us?

Maybe but Rocky said he was going to name the captain and wasn't leaving it up to the players.

Perhaps he decided against it. Not having an official "C" right now isn't the end of the world.

 

[punch1943]

So punch1943 what are you saying about this, what about Home game

Other than putting the schedule of both teams side by side for comparison nothing.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

I don't think we lack the offensive depth as much as we lack the confidence. I've seen far too many players have the puck in a decent spot and elect to pass it off. Get the puck and put it on net. If you get a rebound, go for the rebound. That's one thing the teams with Boughner did; get 40 shots a night.

The final stretch of the season is very winnable so it's going to show us a lot about our character. There is no reason the team can't go 9-1. None.

As for naming a captain - we have three "A"s. What if they are choosing to lead as a group and not have just one guy with the C? What's the issue? People on here have complained for a while about leadership. Now we have multiple veterans who are doing the job. We just don't have a "C" on a guy. I'll trust the players know what they're doing.



Who determines when the results aren't good? Us?



Perhaps he decided against it. Not having an official "C" right now isn't the end of the world.

Who determines whether the results are good? The team by their wins and losses and the fact a 5 seed has not done damage in the west in ages. Furthermore it's a horrible look to have the Memorial Cup host not even having home ice.

Sure it's not the end of the world but it will be talked about when the team is underachieving. Furthermore what is your opinion on the west conference at one point you said we were looking at 4-5 teams getting 100 points it's extremely doubtful there are more than 2 and if the Spits want to win the division it's probably important that only 1 team gets 100 points.

 

[windsor7]

I don't think we lack the offensive depth as much as we lack the confidence. I've seen far too many players have the puck in a decent spot and elect to pass it off. Get the puck and put it on net. If you get a rebound, go for the rebound. That's one thing the teams with Boughner did; get 40 shots a night.

The final stretch of the season is very winnable so it's going to show us a lot about our character. There is no reason the team can't go 9-1. None.

As for naming a captain - we have three "A"s. What if they are choosing to lead as a group and not have just one guy with the C? What's the issue? People on here have complained for a while about leadership. Now we have multiple veterans who are doing the job. We just don't have a "C" on a guy. I'll trust the players know what they're doing.



Who determines when the results aren't good? Us?



Perhaps he decided against it. Not having an official "C" right now isn't the end of the world.

9 n 1? They have London Owen sound Soo Erie all tough games.
I am leaning towards 5th spot.

 

[hockeylegend11]

Spits

9 n 1? They have London Owen sound Soo Erie all tough games.
I am leaning towards 5th spot.

All tough teams agreed except only Hounds have beaten Windsor in Windsor in regulation,and that was game 3 of the season, Spits had 10 players who are on the roster that night that were not in the lineup,the Hounds 5,the next time they met in Windsor,Spits won 5-2,Hounds had all hands on deck that night,Spits had Sergachev out.
With 10 games to go for most teams I took a look at games missed for the top 5 teams in the West, their top 6 forwards and top 4 D,other then benching,all absences counted, injury, suspension,World Juniors, NHL or NHL camps, prospect game,World junior tryouts and these are the findings

For the forwards
Windsor- 89 games, Brown has the most 29, however 4 of them are in
Double digits, no other team has more then 1
SSM-61- Speers has 38 of them,the other 5 have 23 combined, Windsor in comparison Brown 29,the other 5 60,huge difference
London- 59-Jones has 29, the other 5-30
Erie-52-Dylan Strome has missed 33, the other 5-19
Owen Sound- 29-Maxime Sushko
has 14, the other 5- 15

Re the top 4 D of the top 5 teams in the West here are the missed game results

Windsor-46-Stanley has missed 23, the 3 -23, including 18 by Sergachev
London-35- Mete has missed 18,the other 3- 17
Erie-31- Cernak has missed 14, the other 3 -17
Owen Sound-28- Jacob Friend has missed 18, the other 3-10
Sault Sainte Marie-12-4th best dman
Hollowell has missed 5, the other 3 7

My take away from this is that player absences do matter and have influenced the hockey race, especially in Windsor's case as it relates to SSM and Owen Sound
Is it the only reason that Windsor trails SSM and Owen Sound by 3 points,no,the major reason more then likely.
Most would agree that the Hounds D and goaltending not as good as others,very good upfront,makes me wonder if their D and their top D were out as much as Windsor,think it does,toss in 4 forwards in digits to just 1 makes a difference especially if u play each other 6 times,the same can be said for Owen Sound, more so the forwards then the D,to date Owen Sound has been the most fortunate of any of the 5 teams,2 players in the top 10 have missed double digits in games,1F,1D, with Windsor in comparison it's 4F and 2D,would be interesting if it were reversed, knowing full well Owen Sound and Windsor both have great goaltending that keeps them in mostly all games if needed.

 

[h10*]

You aren't even accurate with Erie.

Fellows has missed 19 games.
Cirelli has missed 4 games (so far).
Strome has missed 33 games.
Debrincat has missed 5 games.
T. Raddysh has missed 10 games.
Lodnia has missed 2 games.
Pettit has missed 2 games.

That would mean Erie has 3 players in double digits missed games.

Simple math brings you to:
75 games missed.

Cernak has missed 18 games.
Sambrook has missed 7 games.
D. Raddysh has missed 6 games.
Byrne has missed 5 games.

Becomes 37 games missed.

Let me also add Timpano (much like London who could add Parsons) who missed the first 2 weeks of the season and missed an entire month recently. In total about 13-14 games in which he didn't even sit on the bench. Would have probably played at least half of those games.

 

[hockeylegend11]

Spits

You aren't even accurate with Erie.

Fellows has missed 19 games.
Cirelli has missed 4 games (so far).
Strome has missed 33 games.
Debrincat has missed 5 games.
T. Raddysh has missed 10 games.
Lodnia has missed 2 games.
Pettit has missed 2 games.

That would mean Erie has 3 players in double digits missed games.

Simple math brings you to:
75 games missed.

Cernak has missed 18 games.
Sambrook has missed 7 games.
D. Raddysh has missed 6 games.
Byrne has missed 5 games.

Becomes 37 games missed.

Let me also add Timpano (much like London who could add Parsons) who missed the first 2 weeks of the season and missed an entire month recently. In total about 13-14 games in which he didn't even sit on the bench. Would have probably played at least half of those games.

I purposely did not include goalies or new players,In Erie' case Fellows not a top 6 forward, and

Fergus is Erie's 4th best D not Byrne.And he has missed no games,missed by 4 games for Cernak my bad, Cirelli not included
For Erie ,Strome, Debrincat,both Raddysh, Sandbrook,Cernak, Lodnia,Petit,Masinvovich, and Fergus were the 10 players.
Now if I did injury only Erie would be quite low.

 

[h10*]

I purposely did not include goalies or new players,In Erie' case Fellows not a top 6 forward, and

Fergus is Erie's 4th best D not Byrne.And he has missed no games,missed by 4 games for Cernak my bad, Cirelli not included
For Erie ,Strome, Debrincat,both Raddysh, Sandbrook,Cernak, Lodnia,Petit,Masinvovich, and Fergus were the 10 players.
Now if I did injury only Erie would be quite low.

The only games I included for Cirelli are the ones he missed while with Erie.. which is 4. He's been out. So if you don't include him then I don't see the point in all this

Also goalies should certainly count. But since it doesn't really help your argument it won't count. Timpano being out for a month straight is as significant as it gets. Top 9 forwards and top 6 defense should all be included in my view for better results of impact to a team.

 

[aresknights]

You aren't even accurate with Erie.

Fellows has missed 19 games.
Cirelli has missed 4 games (so far).
Strome has missed 33 games.
Debrincat has missed 5 games.
T. Raddysh has missed 10 games.
Lodnia has missed 2 games.
Pettit has missed 2 games.

That would mean Erie has 3 players in double digits missed games.

Simple math brings you to:
75 games missed.

Cernak has missed 18 games.
Sambrook has missed 7 games.
D. Raddysh has missed 6 games.
Byrne has missed 5 games.

Becomes 37 games missed.

Let me also add Timpano (much like London who could add Parsons) who missed the first 2 weeks of the season and missed an entire month recently. In total about 13-14 games in which he didn't even sit on the bench. Would have probably played at least half of those games.

Adding goalies doesnt help tbe "poor us" narrative thou so they are conveniently left out.
The tender is the player on the ice who can most influence a games outcome by his play. ( both ways Ws/Ls)
Windsor has had their stud all year. And hes carried them.London has been without the leagues most decorated and clutch tender 1/2 the year but you havent heard any "factors" being posted.

Windsor has had some misfortune, no doubts. And more than most but ya play with who ya got.
But their problems ( according to many on here) arent just that.
Its a whole lot of other stuff.

And yes top 9 and top 6 should be included, esp on deep teams but again........
Londons 3rd line last year played a huge role in their success. 7-9 Fs on deep teams are important.

#s are easy

 

[h10*]

Adding goalies doesnt help tbe "poor us" narrative thou so they are conveniently left out.
The tender is the player on the ice who can most influence a games outcome by his play. ( both ways Ws/Ls)
Windsor has had their stud all year. And hes carried them.London has been without the leagues most decorated and clutch tender 1/2 the year but you havent heard any "factors" being posted.

Windsor has had some misfortune, no doubts. And more than most but ya play with who ya got.
But their problems ( according to many on here) arent just that.
Its a whole lot of other stuff.

In Londons case the tender is maybe their best player, top goalie in chl.

But for any team it's significant to lose a starter for a long period of time. Windsor could have a full healthy lineup in all other areas but if they lost DiPietro for 11 straight games they would be much more vulnerable. After all, he's stood on his a lot this year to compensate for other injuries.