GAME DAY:Ottawa Senators @ Atlanta Thrashers - 7:00pm ET - Thur. Mar. 3, 2011

Yeah I know, I'm just coming up with BS why I was wrong about him getting the start tonight. Tomorrow based on what was said, he should be in nets.

I'm not real sure I understand why Anderson is starting - even if McEl doesn't have all his equipment.

I wonder if this was Anderson's decision. Perhaps, like most true number one goalies, they leave starting up to the number one to a point of course. It's looking more and more likely that Curtis was just brought in to fill a spot on the bench. I could be wrong though.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I wonder if this was Anderson's decision. Perhaps, like most true number one goalies, they leave starting up to the number one to a point of course. It's looking more and more likely that Curtis was just brought in to fill a spot on the bench. I could be wrong though.

Not that everything that comes out of his mouth is true, but Murray said that McElhinney was brought in to play.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I wonder if this was Anderson's decision. Perhaps, like most true number one goalies, they leave starting up to the number one to a point of course. It's looking more and more likely that Curtis was just brought in to fill a spot on the bench. I could be wrong though.

Not that everything that comes out of his mouth is true, but Murray said that McElhinney was brought in to play.

Also when they say a goalie will get one of the starts they're quite often back peddling after the fact I find.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I wonder if this was Anderson's decision. Perhaps, like most true number one goalies, they leave starting up to the number one to a point of course. It's looking more and more likely that Curtis was just brought in to fill a spot on the bench. I could be wrong though.

Still, hard to imagine Anderson playing the rest of the way though. Tonight would have been a decent opportunity to plunk McElnerdy in.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I wonder if this was Anderson's decision. Perhaps, like most true number one goalies, they leave starting up to the number one to a point of course. It's looking more and more likely that Curtis was just brought in to fill a spot on the bench. I could be wrong though.

Not that everything that comes out of his mouth is true, but Murray said that McElhinney was brought in to play.

Also when they say a goalie will get one of the starts they're quite often back peddling after the fact I find.

I'm sure drama queen, Booboo, will spin this into a "goaltending controversy."

The spin doctor that's never taken a spin class

Meh...they were likely to start McEhlinney for one of these games, and it makes sense giving him one more day to get used to the team, equipment, etc. If I were going to the game tomorrow, I'd be disappointed at not having Anderson in nets, but the stars don't always align, I suppose.

There's no need to start slamming Buffet when he hasn't done anything wrong (yet). We have plenty of other occasions to slam ManBoob Garrioch, we don't need to bother in this thread. There will obviously be no goalie controversy.

tim1_2 wrote:Meh...they were likely to start McEhlinney for one of these games, and it makes sense giving him one more day to get used to the team, equipment, etc. If I were going to the game tomorrow, I'd be disappointed at not having Anderson in nets, but the stars don't always align, I suppose.

There's no need to start slamming Buffet when he hasn't done anything wrong (yet). We have plenty of other occasions to slam ManBoob Garrioch, we don't need to bother in this thread. There will obviously be no goalie controversy.

You left out a reference to chicken wings.

Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Amnesia021 wrote:Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Yes but what about the "tanking." You know, the process of delighting fans by losing games constantly?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Yes but what about the "tanking." You know, the process of delighting fans by losing games constantly?

No worries there. We'll put him in against a tougher opponent at home and all will be well in that regard.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Yes but what about the "tanking." You know, the process of delighting fans by losing games constantly?

No worries there. We'll put him in against a tougher opponent at home and all will be well in that regard.

Sweet! Losing is awesome.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Yes but what about the "tanking." You know, the process of delighting fans by losing games constantly?

No worries there. We'll put him in against a tougher opponent at home and all will be well in that regard.

Sweet! Losing is awesome.

Especially at home. Love going to the games and losing and watching wins on the road on TV. Much better that way IMO.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Yes but what about the "tanking." You know, the process of delighting fans by losing games constantly?

Given that we're 6 points out of 28th, the dream is alive and well, Anderson or no Anderson.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:Mackelhainey's head is probably still spinning after giving up 19 goals, traded once, and then waived in a span of about 2 weeks. I don't know if i'd put him in until his head has calmed down. No use fracturing the ego any further by putting him in too soon.

Yes but what about the "tanking." You know, the process of delighting fans by losing games constantly?

No worries there. We'll put him in against a tougher opponent at home and all will be well in that regard.

Sweet! Losing is awesome.

He's been able to get on hot streaks though, so it's not a for-sure loss... his last 4 games were 19 goals on 86 shots (0.77 sv%); the 5 games before that he only let in 10 goals on 131 shots (0.92 sv %)

Take away his last 4 games and he'd have a about a 0.92 sv % for the season

Yeah, I was gonna say the same. McElnerdo was really hot for a while. Probably a poor man's Elliott (haha).