GAME DAY: San Jose Sharks @ Ottawa Senators - 7:30pm ET - THUR. Dec. 2, 2010

Bet ya the place doesn't even sell out tonight.

Sad.

shabbs wrote:Bet ya the place doesn't even sell out tonight.

Sad.

and embarassing. That just proves that its gotta be a playoff game or a leafs/habs game for sellouts to occur. Shocking that there are still, despite all the hype and hatred, STILL 1000+ tickets left? I've never heard of that many tickets being sold in one day unless its the playoffs so my guess is we'll be a good 750 people short of a sellout.

There has been at least one sell out that I know of this season that wasn't Leafs or Habs but it was on a Saturday.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:There has been at least one sell out that I know of this season that wasn't Leafs or Habs but it was on a Saturday.

Close...it was a friday night game against buffalo....opening night

EDIT: now that I think about it, you must be talking about the boston game where we got smacked 4-0

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Leclaire deserves another start IMO. This is a rough one though...

again, Chucky has set him up to fail....

I tend to agree here since Leclaire should have been given the Leaf game.

Goddamit.

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Leclaire deserves another start IMO. This is a rough one though...

again, Chucky has set him up to fail....

I tend to agree here since Leclaire should have been given the Leaf game.

Goddamit.

I'm not going to get into whether it's on purpose or not the fact is it's a set up to fail kind of scenario. Leclaire stands on his head in Pittsburgh and he doesn't get the next game which was likely a very winnable game and turned out to be. People wonder why he isn't getting the W's?

He isn't getting Ws because he gets no goal support. If the team is going to win in front of Elliott more often than not, put Elliott in.
There's no conspiracy. There's no expectation of failure. What's CC's motivation here? Unless he's gambling on the game, there's ABSOLUTELY no point in trying to lose games.

spader wrote:He isn't getting Ws because he gets no goal support. If the team is going to win in front of Elliott more often than not, put Elliott in.
There's no conspiracy. There's no expectation of failure. What's CC's motivation here? Unless he's gambling on the game, there's ABSOLUTELY no point in trying to lose games.

It's a false assumption which is setting up Leclaire for failure. A 4-1 loss to the Oilers showed that quite clearly. The Sens just can't score consistently and you and CC were under the impression it had something to do with the goalies. Here's hoping the inconsistency continues but this time the Sens score a bunch of goals this game and Leclaire gets another game or two and a real chance to play based on his play and not the guys in front of him who can't figure out how to score more consistently.

Michallica wrote:just to take a step back from the heatley stuff.....

Leclaire is the confirmed starter for tonights matchup. Hope he can play like he did against Pittsburgh. God knows we'll need it.

also....there are over a 1,000 tickets still left for this game! what the hell????? COME ON OTTAWA WHAT"S WRONG WITH YOU????!!!

I think there was a shortage of rotten tomatoes at the local Farm Boy. Situation's been resolved. It will be packed.

According to TSN Ice Chips - Huskins and Wallin left last game with injuries.

Every little bit helps I guess.

I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

Here are some videos, including Heatleys press scrum. Courtesy scoreottawa (http://scoreottawa.wordpress.com/)

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

Michallica wrote:Here are some videos, including Heatleys press scrum. Courtesy scoreottawa (http://scoreottawa.wordpress.com/)

They let him off easy. I wish someone had pushed the point that he left for selfish reasons. I get that the media generally won't ask tough questions in that sort of circumstance, but it would have been great if someone had really let him have it and put him in a position that would force a real answer.

Or punched him in the mouth. Either's good.

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

Elliott is Clouston's guy. Leclaire gets playing time by Clouston only when Elliott needs a rest/injured, or Clouston is told to play Leclaire (the Vancouver game).

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

spader wrote:I don't deny that CC is less than the god we thought he was when he came onto the scene a year and a half ago. It's the notion that he's intentionally losing games (intentionally setting Leclaire or Lee up to fail is intentionally losing games).
I don't believe that Elliott equals more goals as a hard and fast rule. The simple fact, however, is that the team seems more confident with Elliott in net. For the most part, at least.

My point is he is being set up to fail and you don't need to be doing it intentionally and knowingly.

If it is your contention that Leclaire's being set up to fail, do you believe that CC is aware that that's what he's doing?

I sure hope not. I think it's entirely possible that he is playing them based on gut instinct rather than their actually play and their statistics. I mean Ottawa came out like gang busters against the Penguins, who by the way were and still are on a ridiculous hot streak, in the first period. They struggled to keep pace with Pittsburgh the rest of the game but Leclaire stood tall and gave them a chance to win. Leclaire's reward for that? Sit out the Leaf game because I think the team will score more goals if you're on the bench. It's a crappy way to coach IMO. The Leafs were ripe for the picking having struggled to score goals and on a road losing streak. The team as a whole were probably pissed off about the non call on Fisher and likely felt they deserved a better fate. You could have put Barry Brust in net and the Sens likely would have still won. I'm exaggerating when I say Brust so don't bust my nuts on that okay. I'm certainly not saying put Leclaire in no matter what but if the guy is standing on his head and has some good numbers then keep him in the net.

3.22 GAA .898 S% 1-5-1 record

His numbers are awful. Elliott's aren't much better, but he's (generally) the stable option.

I do agree though, CC has lost his sheen. I thought he did a great job when he got here, but some of his choices seem so boneheaded lately. Holding onto his timeout as though he can cash it in for a prize after the game, Kuba playing the right point on the PP (with SG on the left and EK on the second unit), playing injured guys for games and games on end, etc. He's made some bad calls, but I draw the line at conspiracy against his own players.