Da chief - I was looking at his overall play over a period of time, not cherry picked individual games. That argument is incredibly vapid, even for you.
Im not cherry picking stats. I'm comparing the situation to last year, it was win and keep the net, why the different standard this year? Back to back were always 2 goalies playing last year. This year not right now, but it is basically confirmed Hiller will play tomorrow. Is that fair?
Last, you are saying overall you were satisfied with Ramo's inconsistent performance in the run he got? You might be the only one bud.
Why the different standard this year, chief? Because sticking with what worked last year helped result in a 3-8-1 start to the season. I can't fault the coach for changing up at that point. As to my level of satisfaction, I pointed out a stretch of .920/2.25 play out of Ramo. If he remains the top starter and he plays to that level relatively consistently going forward, then yes, I would be satisfied.
I do not watch practices, but I saw how crappy Ramo has been during live games majority of the time.
Earned what?
See above post.
Generally speaking, I'm with you - I don't think Ortio got much of a chance. That being said, the one thing that we really have no idea about is in the room and at practice. Maybe he did look really bad in practice and/or had a bad attitude. We just don't know. If Ramo is looking coach in the eye and saying that he'll do whatever it takes to be the starter, and works his ass off in practice and in the gym, gets waived, works his ass off in Stockton and maintains a good attitude, that is worth something, even if he has struggled.
I have been and continue to be a critic of Ramo, but there is a lot that we fans don't see. Your assertion that Hartley just basically had it in for Ortio from the beginning is too much of a jump to conclusions, and actually makes very little sense.
The Following User Says Thank You to heep223 For This Useful Post:
When Hiller went down with injury it would've been the wrong time to throw Ortio in net. He hadn't had much game time up to that point, and the team in front of him were playing horrid hockey.
It became apparent though that Ortio was never going to be given the opportunity to steal the job.
Maybe there's something to what Jiri was saying about starts getting earned in practice and Ortio not showing much, but I find it hard to believe that on a near basement hockey club with a starting goalie with a sv% below 900, that Ortio couldn't get a sniff.
People will post the Jack Adams trophy but it doesn't give a coach ultimate deferral.
As little as two weeks ago the direction of this season was largely set, this isn't the case of being in the stretch drive and needing the wins, or having to keep a goalie hot etc.
The team was awful and realistically is on the outside looking in regarding playing meaningful games for the remainder of the season. When you're on that trajectory the priority towards winning games doesn't decrease, but the priority towards developing players at the expense of winning does.
In Monahan's first season, when it was clear the team didn't really have much to play for, it was important he got put into important situations playing important minutes for the team. The team may not have gotten as many wins if they had played say Stajan or Backlund in those minutes, but the franchise benefited hugely from Monahan getting that experience in a situation where the pressure was off to a large degree.
I don't have any issue with him declining the conditioning stint and I think if people in the organization hold it against him they are out of line.
I don't have any issue with him declining the conditioning stint and I think if people in the organization hold it against him they are out of line.
I do. With three goalies on the roster, and Hartley publicly declaring at the beginning of the regular season that Ortio was #3, Ortio should have been glad of a chance to get in some games. It wasn't going to cost him any money or even take him off the NHL roster. And he wouldn't have been stone cold when he finally did get a start.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Im not cherry picking stats. I'm comparing the situation to last year, it was win and keep the net, why the different standard this year? Back to back were always 2 goalies playing last year. This year not right now, but it is basically confirmed Hiller will play tomorrow. Is that fair?
Last, you are saying overall you were satisfied with Ramo's inconsistent performance in the run he got? You might be the only one bud.
Because Hartley tried "win and you're in" this year as well, but it didn't work because no one won. So he changed tactics, and it worked better. Coaches are sometimes willing to try new approaches if the old one doesn't work like it used to.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I do not watch practices, but I saw how crappy Ramo has been during live games majority of the time.
Earned what?
See above post.
You've missed how crappy Ortio has been. He was outplayed by Hiller and Ramo last season, the preseason, and this season.
He sat for 8 regular season games. 8 games, 6 losses, given to the two guys who had actually earned their spots. Then, they sent down Ramo, keeping Ortio. He went and played worse than the guy who got sent down. A guy who has proven he can play in the league was sent down after 3 games. Ortio played worse and was sent after 2.
In the end, if you want to blame the GM for keeping Ortio up so long, do it. But 8 games between guys who earned their spots is not a long time, and not playing the guy who has yet to prove he even MIGHT be better than either of the two over the past 2 years doesn't mean the coach is "out to get him".
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
And did you miss that part when Ortio was light out during his call up last season?
As far as the pre-season and this season, all three goalies have been crappy, period.
Hartley gave more chances to Ramo and Hiller, so I would argue Ramo and Hiller have "outplayed" Ortio as being crappier.
My point is, Ramo has been equally as brutal if not worse, yet gotten a free pass.
Ramo WAS given the net despite brutal outings, while Ortio was exiled and never given a chance ever.
Fine, maybe Hartley was not "out to get him", but he was out of the way unfair to Ortio.
And do not twist my words.
I blame the GM for loading up with three goalies, not necessary mean I blame him for keep up Ortio.
He should have never re-signed Ramo if he had decided to roll with Hiller and Ortio.
Or perhaps he should have traded one of them away before giving Ramo that contract.
Too many options rather than starting the season with 3 goalies.
And did you miss that part when Ortio was light out during his call up last season?
As far as the pre-season and this season, all three goalies have been crappy, period.
Hartley gave more chances to Ramo and Hiller, so I would argue Ramo and Hiller have "outplayed" Ortio as being crappier.
My point is, Ramo has been equally as brutal if not worse, yet gotten a free pass.
Ramo WAS given the net despite brutal outings, while Ortio was exiled and never given a chance ever.
Fine, maybe Hartley was not "out to get him", but he was out of the way unfair to Ortio.
And do not twist my words.
I blame the GM for loading up with three goalies, not necessary mean I blame him for keep up Ortio.
He should have never re-signed Ramo if he had decided to roll with Hiller and Ortio.
Or perhaps he should have traded one of them away before giving Ramo that contract.
Too many options rather than starting the season with 3 goalies.
Let's not forget the eerily similar (to this season) call up to end last season where he let in 9 goals in two games.
You can't just choose 4 games during one call up and call him proven. Including those games WITH the rest of his games, he hasn't been that good.
Ramo hasn't gotten a "free pass," the guy got sent down to the AHL.
You get chances by earning your spot. Ortio has yet to do so. Ramo has what is called a "body of work." Worthwhile prospects force the issue. They aren't handed the reigns when they've let in 19 goals in their last 4 starts. Doesn't mean he's garbage but it certainly shows he hasn't earned anything.
I am not disagreeing Ortio earned nothing.
I said all three goalies have been crappy, but the truth remained Ortio was never given the chances anywhere comparable to Ramo and Hiller.
I should not be using a 4 games sample size, it was just to point out PepsiFree's (not completely true) statement.
And according to the same theory, please stop using a 11 games sample size where Ramo had been widely inconsistent too.
Ramo has been equally as crappy as the other two throughout 2015-2016.
Ramo did not earn nothing neither, he WAS given the net because of "stability".
And it was probably BT's decision to send Ramo down, I would guess Hartley probably wanted Ortio down all along.
Please listen to your own advice and stop picking and choosing the 4 games where Ortio gave up 19 goals.
"Body of work?"
Now we are being totally subjective.
The games I have been watching, Ramo has been crappy the majority of the time.
Inconsistent rebound controls, too much movement, too easily getting out of positions and a tendency to give up untimely softies that completely killed momentums.
Hartley is playing favourites, regardless of the actual performances.
Stop justifying for him.
You don't seem to be counting Ramo's last year, but insist on counting Ortio's.
A 4 game sample size is fine, until I use a bad one, then it's not. 11 games isn't enough to prove Ramo is better, but 8 games between two goalies is enough to prove Ortio deserves a shot.
Nobody is saying Ramo is good, if that's what you're arguing. But Ortio hasn't even earned the same shot Ramo has. You "aren't saying" Ortio has earned it, but you are saying he should be given an equal shot. That implies he earned one.
My question is: when.
Lots of double standards here. Just looking for clarification.
No, FF PHD, I am not ignoring the fact that both Ramo and Ortio were playing poorly. I am very much aware of that fact. The question is why you two are ignoring the fact that, once given the reins, Ramo's play improved dramatically. Seriously, what is the point of your argument? Are you angry that Hartley chose to change up something that was not working at all? Would you rather he kept doing the exact same things that were part of why we were playing .300 hockey out of some misguided sense of unfairness that a goalie who played poorly in training camp, poorly in the regular season and apparently poorly in practice wasn't getting more ice time?
I'm reacting to your specific comment that Ramo "earned" his starts while Ortio was not "given" them. I don't think that's accurate since Hartley explicitly said that he was tired of swapping goaltenders and that he was just going to run with Ramo. After that declaration, Ramo stunk it up a few times to merit losing the crease but Hartley wasn't interested. In effect, it was no longer a competition and Ramo was no longer "earning" his consecutive starts; he was given the crease. Hartley ran with him regardless of outcome.
Again, I'm not under the illusion that Ortio was lights out or outplayed anyone. But neither did Ramo. Hartley simply decided to run with Ramo through good and bad. It's his prerogative, and I'm ok with it and I hope the team wins games. But I don't see an objective performance based argument for why Ramo played 11 or 12 straight, regardless of who the backup was.
I wasn't the one that started the picking and choosing of these sample sizes.
In fact, this is exactly what I am trying to accomplished.
So many picking and choosing when it came to justifying for Hartley.
ALL THREE GOALIES HAVE BEEN DISGUSTING.
Ramo did not deserve to be the undisputed starter as according to Hartley.
In fact, if you ask my honest opinion, Ramo was terrible last season too.
Same problems, just better defencemen to cover up his blunders.
Point is, Hartley was unfair.
He went out of his way to change his own rules to be unfair.
In fact, if you ask my honest opinion, Ramo was terrible last season too.
Same problems, just better defencemen to cover up his blunders.
Point is, Hartley was unfair.
He was still better than Ortio.
Fair is subjective. I think giving Ortio two games and nothing else after he bombed them is completely fair. He was only here when the season started because of his contract.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how Ramo did. Ortio did nothing to deserve a game in November. From game time to practice... nothing.
That's all I got. Feel like we're going in circles, so I'm ending it for me.
The organization gave Ortio that one way in this 2 years contract.
Could have easily been a one year two way for last year only.
He probably "earned" that, or someone somewhere in our organization thought Ortio deserved such contract.
Hartley proceeded to declare him 3rd string before the season even began, when clearly all three goalies were crappy during pre-season.
Ramo kept bombing and kept getting the net was completely unfair.
Changing his own rule book for loser loses the net was unfair.
There was no way to decide Ramo was better, since Ortio never played.
I took it you have been watching practices since you constantly reminded me of how crappy Ortio has been during practices.
It does matter how Ramo is doing!
We could have getten better results from Ortio.
We are probably better off with Ortio heading into the future rather than two aging UFAs.
Either we are winning, or building for the futures.
Either case, Ortio should have gotten more chances, especially when Ramo clearly did not earn any.
Felt like you are running in circle, to the point that "it doesn't matter how Ramo did".
I am ending it for me.
