The Official 2011 Tank Nation thread

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think a prime example of Spezza's impact will be when we beat the Isles on Saturday (unfortunately). Right now, he'll eat crap teams for breakfast, it's not until he has any kind of supporting cast that we'll be beating anyone else.

We can't win many games here, so let's tank with dignity. I need one of Landeskog or RHN (preferably), no time for little winning streaks now.

Exactly. I'm expecting a few more 7-5 losses now.

Me too. Send Lehner back down for the love of God and play Elliott. Change the gameplan to attack to entertain fans a bit and coast to a top 3 pick.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think a prime example of Spezza's impact will be when we beat the Isles on Saturday (unfortunately). Right now, he'll eat crap teams for breakfast, it's not until he has any kind of supporting cast that we'll be beating anyone else.

We can't win many games here, so let's tank with dignity. I need one of Landeskog or RHN (preferably), no time for little winning streaks now.

Exactly. I'm expecting a few more 7-5 losses now.

Me too. Send Lehner back down for the love of God and play Elliott. Change the gameplan to attack to entertain fans a bit and coast to a top 3 pick.

Sounds like a plan.

hemlock wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think a prime example of Spezza's impact will be when we beat the Isles on Saturday (unfortunately). Right now, he'll eat crap teams for breakfast, it's not until he has any kind of supporting cast that we'll be beating anyone else.

We can't win many games here, so let's tank with dignity. I need one of Landeskog or RHN (preferably), no time for little winning streaks now.

Exactly. I'm expecting a few more 7-5 losses now.

Me too. Send Lehner back down for the love of God and play Elliott. Change the gameplan to attack to entertain fans a bit and coast to a top 3 pick.

Sounds like a plan.

Exactly. Run and gun would at least make for an entertaining loss. To steal the Fonze's phrase go with a "Safe is death" motto.

Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

He probably won't anyway. He seems like too much of a professional to do stuff like that but it sure would be entertaining. The media gave him an opening to rip on management but he didn't. They asked if everyone was on the same page and he was very politically correct in his response.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

He probably won't anyway. He seems like too much of a professional to do stuff like that but it sure would be entertaining. The media gave him an opening to rip on management but he didn't. They asked if everyone was on the same page and he was very politically correct in his response.

Yeah, if he sells out the players/management, his professional coaching career could be in jeopardy. I think he's a good coach and will probably be in the NHL again as a coach, but I think it'll be as an associate somewhere before perhaps getting another shot at HC.

I think the best we can hope for is to finish 3rd last with New Jersey passing us as they "heat up" so to speak.

shabbs wrote:I think the best we can hope for is to finish 3rd last with New Jersey passing us as they "heat up" so to speak.

I think NJ will blow by us now that they have a real coach and I also think Edmonton's a better unit right now, so I could see them coming close. The Isles are a lost cause though. Maybe I'm being too optimistic.

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

He probably won't anyway. He seems like too much of a professional to do stuff like that but it sure would be entertaining. The media gave him an opening to rip on management but he didn't. They asked if everyone was on the same page and he was very politically correct in his response.

Yeah, if he sells out the players/management, his professional coaching career could be in jeopardy. I think he's a good coach and will probably be in the NHL again as a coach, but I think it'll be as an associate somewhere before perhaps getting another shot at HC.

Was it Paddock that, when asked what the problem was with the Sens (about a year after he got canned) said something like, "They aren't that good."? That struck me as unbelievably unprofessional.

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

He probably won't anyway. He seems like too much of a professional to do stuff like that but it sure would be entertaining. The media gave him an opening to rip on management but he didn't. They asked if everyone was on the same page and he was very politically correct in his response.

Yeah, if he sells out the players/management, his professional coaching career could be in jeopardy. I think he's a good coach and will probably be in the NHL again as a coach, but I think it'll be as an associate somewhere before perhaps getting another shot at HC.

Was it Paddock that, when asked what the problem was with the Sens (about a year after he got canned) said something like, "They aren't that good."? That struck me as unbelievably unprofessional.

Yeah, I agree.

I don't think Paddock will ever see a HC job in the NHL again. He's had two cracks at it and had no success in Ottawa and limited success (never won a playoff round in 4 seasons) in Winnipeg. Clouston on the other hand, came in under difficult circumstances and actually had this team winning for awhile. I think Clouston has some work to do, but may get back to a HC position, but Paddock is likely done, and knows it.

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

He probably won't anyway. He seems like too much of a professional to do stuff like that but it sure would be entertaining. The media gave him an opening to rip on management but he didn't. They asked if everyone was on the same page and he was very politically correct in his response.

Yeah, if he sells out the players/management, his professional coaching career could be in jeopardy. I think he's a good coach and will probably be in the NHL again as a coach, but I think it'll be as an associate somewhere before perhaps getting another shot at HC.

Was it Paddock that, when asked what the problem was with the Sens (about a year after he got canned) said something like, "They aren't that good."? That struck me as unbelievably unprofessional.

Yeah, I agree.

I don't think Paddock will ever see a HC job in the NHL again. He's had two cracks at it and had no success in Ottawa and limited success (never won a playoff round in 4 seasons) in Winnipeg. Clouston on the other hand, came in under difficult circumstances and actually had this team winning for awhile. I think Clouston has some work to do, but may get back to a HC position, but Paddock is likely done, and knows it.

He's the AGM for Philly right now. I think he (more or less) got lucky and found a soft landing spot. But, as you said, I'd be shocked if he coached again.

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

hemlock wrote:Also, I'd really enjoy seeing Clouston have a few post-game meltdowns down the stretch. That would really spice things up.

I would especially love him to steal some of Fonzie's thunder and re-produce the "Give me a save" routine.

Why not eh? It's not like he's gonna stay on as coach or have a shot at another NHL coaching job. Just tell it like it is. Throw guys under the bus etc...

"I'm getting tired of the 25% save rule!"

He'd probably never see another NHL job, but at least this one would be memorable.

He probably won't anyway. He seems like too much of a professional to do stuff like that but it sure would be entertaining. The media gave him an opening to rip on management but he didn't. They asked if everyone was on the same page and he was very politically correct in his response.

Yeah, if he sells out the players/management, his professional coaching career could be in jeopardy. I think he's a good coach and will probably be in the NHL again as a coach, but I think it'll be as an associate somewhere before perhaps getting another shot at HC.

Was it Paddock that, when asked what the problem was with the Sens (about a year after he got canned) said something like, "They aren't that good."? That struck me as unbelievably unprofessional.

Yeah, I agree.

I don't think Paddock will ever see a HC job in the NHL again. He's had two cracks at it and had no success in Ottawa and limited success (never won a playoff round in 4 seasons) in Winnipeg. Clouston on the other hand, came in under difficult circumstances and actually had this team winning for awhile. I think Clouston has some work to do, but may get back to a HC position, but Paddock is likely done, and knows it.

He's the AGM for Philly right now. I think he (more or less) got lucky and found a soft landing spot. But, as you said, I'd be shocked if he coached again.

Yeah, he was in the Philly organization before that as well, so he probably slid right into that role. Good for him I suppose.

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

wprager wrote:By the way, we've got at least five female members now -- two of them post quite regularly; a third one is a bit streaky.

Woohoo. My wife can stop calling this a sausage fest. Seriously though what does that have to do with tank nation?

Re-read the first post. Carefully.

Now you're finding inventive ways to point out spelling mistakes. Subtle.

There was absolutely *nothing* in my posts about spelling. The OP said "lady and gents" -- very clearly (in my mind, at least) implying that SensGirl11 is the only female poster (or the only *regular* one). Not a typo (plural of "lady" would require the 'y' to be changed to 'ie') or a spelling mistake.

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

wprager wrote:By the way, we've got at least five female members now -- two of them post quite regularly; a third one is a bit streaky.

Woohoo. My wife can stop calling this a sausage fest. Seriously though what does that have to do with tank nation?

Re-read the first post. Carefully.

Now you're finding inventive ways to point out spelling mistakes. Subtle.

There was absolutely *nothing* in my posts about spelling. The OP said "lady and gents" -- very clearly (in my mind, at least) implying that SensGirl11 is the only female poster (or the only *regular* one). Not a typo (plural of "lady" would require the 'y' to be changed to 'ie') or a spelling mistake.

Thanks for the spelling lesson. By the way, plural of lady would require the "y" to be changed to ies not ie. Don't quit your day job in favour of tutoring.

How exactly is the OP implying that? That's ridiculous. It's quite evident that it's a typo, particularly considering the source, who clearly knows that there is more than one lady on this site. Therefore, it seems very clear in my mind, at least, that this is nothing more than another jab at someone's spelling.

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

wprager wrote:By the way, we've got at least five female members now -- two of them post quite regularly; a third one is a bit streaky.

Woohoo. My wife can stop calling this a sausage fest. Seriously though what does that have to do with tank nation?

Re-read the first post. Carefully.

Now you're finding inventive ways to point out spelling mistakes. Subtle.

There was absolutely *nothing* in my posts about spelling. The OP said "lady and gents" -- very clearly (in my mind, at least) implying that SensGirl11 is the only female poster (or the only *regular* one). Not a typo (plural of "lady" would require the 'y' to be changed to 'ie') or a spelling mistake.

Thanks for the spelling lesson. By the way, plural of lady would require the "y" to be changed to ies not ie. Don't quit your day job in favour of tutoring.

How exactly is the OP implying that? That's ridiculous. It's quite evident that it's a typo, particularly considering the source, who clearly knows that there is more than one lady on this site. Therefore, it seems very clear in my mind, at least, that this is nothing more than another jab at someone's spelling.

I swear on a stack of Hockey magazines that I was not correcting spelling or typos. In *my* opinion the OP was clearly addressing *one* lady and many gents. The point I made about 'ie' and not 'y' was that *if* he had made a typo by missing the 's', it would have been "Ladie and gents" Since it was "Lady and gents" I was pretty sure he was addressing one female member and multiple male ones.

since we're all about changing topics, I'll weigh in on this. instead of the bickering back and forth, why don't you just wait for marakh to respond...

but if I have to pick sides, I think its more likely that he intended to write lady rather than it being a typo.....then again, maybe he tried to write 'ladys' and it automatically changed it