mineral Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Yeah maybe a bargain at 2 million this year, who knows what he'll be asking next year. It's too bad we give him more money every year while he becomes less and less productive. This year isn't over, and he'll probably match his point total from last year, but we're still looking for those 65 points he put up on his rookie season. Further more, he may have a 'wicked wrist shot', but it's by no means deadly...his shooting % isn't stellar by any means. In fact, he's comparable to Radek Bonk, but just shoots twice as often as him. He's 2nd on the team for shots on net, only behind Sheldon Souray, whom i believe we can also attribute a LOT of our PP success to, along with the folks who feed Ryder and Souray the pucks to get off these shots. You think if Chris Higgins had played 82 games this year he wouldn't be the team scoring leader? Is his only asset his shot? And how much is he making this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Yeah maybe a bargain at 2 million this year, who knows what he'll be asking next year. It's too bad we give him more money every year while he becomes less and less productive. This year isn't over, and he'll probably match his point total from last year, but we're still looking for those 65 points he put up on his rookie season. Further more, he may have a 'wicked wrist shot', but it's by no means deadly...his shooting % isn't stellar by any means. In fact, he's comparable to Radek Bonk, but just shoots twice as often as him. He's 2nd on the team for shots on net, only behind Sheldon Souray, whom i believe we can also attribute a LOT of our PP success to, along with the folks who feed Ryder and Souray the pucks to get off these shots. You think if Chris Higgins had played 82 games this year he wouldn't be the team scoring leader? Is his only asset his shot? And how much is he making this year? Your negative fixation on Ryder is laughable and the kaleidoscopic bits and pieces of your post have no coherence and value.........the polar opposite in fact of the clear cut bottom line value that Ryder has brought to the team thus far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Petrov Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Even if Ryder's a one-trick pony, that's one useful trick he's got. How many players have the Habs had in the past fifteen years that have given them three consecutive 25-goal seasons? Other than Ryder, only Mark Recchi. Goals are good for you. And I think he's been a lot less of a one-trick pony this season than the last two seasons. He hasn't learned how to pass yet, but he seems to have learned how to skate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mineral Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Even if Ryder's a one-trick pony, that's one useful trick he's got. How many players have the Habs had in the past fifteen years that have given them three consecutive 25-goal seasons? Other than Ryder, only Mark Recchi. Goals are good for you. And I think he's been a lot less of a one-trick pony this season than the last two seasons. He hasn't learned how to pass yet, but he seems to have learned how to skate. I agree, he's actually using his body this year too. But he still hasn't learned to pass, learned to stick handle, and gets undressed on every 1 on 1 encounter he runs into. Most of his success can be attributed to the fact he's on the #1 PP, and only given the space and time to make the shots, does he actually appear to shine. Take away that and you'll find a mediocre player just a few notches above Pierre Dagenais (who could barely stand up on the ice, let alone skate). Prime example is the game last night. He was -3 in the first period, and fumbled every puck he got his hands on. I lost count of the number of give aways that he had. I'm sure he knows where his talent lies, and the result of that is he takes a lot of selfish shots that could very well lead to better scoring opportunities for others if he had an extra ounce of playmaking skill -- i'm thinking specifically of that shot of the post he had while Higgins was alone with his stick down on the open side of the net. A lot of other players could have made that pass. 26 goals are great. I'm not complaining about that. I'm thinking about the other 180 shots he's made where 50 of them could have led to better scoring chances for others around him. He may be leading the teams in goals scored, but he also leads the team with a -27 differential. Where 5 on 5 is our weakness, he is not the player that will help us in this dept. because without the PP, he can't put up anywhere near the same numbers. He can't win battles for us in the corners, he can't use finesse around the net with substantial agility, he can't enter an opponents zone without getting robbed of the puck. Call me negative, but i'd rather be called a realist. I WANT to see Ryder become better in the years to come. But i just see a downward trend here or at least one stuck in neutral. Where others on our team are rising to their potential, i think they'll leave Ryder behind and excel with the proper skill sets that this high-speed NHL demands. Do we want a 25 goal scorer to be the scoring leader of our team, or do we want better? Do we want to rely on our PP as the main goal scoring tool, or do we want to dominate the 5-on-5 game? Ideally we want both and that's what will take this team to the next level, but i don't think Ryder has what it takes to dominate during even strength. I think settling for a 25 goal scoring forward and 25 goal scoring defenseman as our sole offensive threats highlights a certain complacency mostly attributed to the lack of success this team has had in the last 10 years. This team has character and that's what we've been riding on for the last 5 years to get us to the playoffs, but we need better tools to make it to the next level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) Most of us know quite well the limits of what Ryder can accomplish on the ice and most people are realist insofar has where lies his contribution to the team in his first three season with the us. Had I fell that the organisation gone inept and complacent about thinking of him as being the possible all offensive solution for the club I would have raised a vandetta myself..........but there was never any need for it because Gainey has been active from the beginning in his search througt the UFA market looking for the best offensive forwards to add to the team..........you can argue about the results of the signings he was able to get us but you cant accuse him of complacency. We will be over our ongoing limitations the day our team will have a few 25+ goal scorers and a few 20+ goal scorers present within the roster .........until then, even so-called pertinent substraction the like of Ribeiro at the season's beginning will have more damagable consequences than it should. Edited April 1, 2007 by PB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chips Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 (edited) would have could have should have but did not! so as much as it would have been nice to have shanny we don't and I don't think we ever will. mostly because our kids are ready to make the jump up into the pro's. I'm not ready to give up ice time for the kids! Go Habs GO! I do like the suggestion that he or someone like him would be a good trade deadline pickup. but not as an UFA. Edited April 1, 2007 by Chips Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.