What's up with Armstrong?

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:35:42 -0400, slackr <slackr.DeleteThis@bulgaria.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:45:49 GMT, Llama <nobody.DeleteThis@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:12:15 -0400, slackr <slackr.DeleteThis@bulgaria.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:44:30 GMT, nobody.DeleteThis@nothere.com (Llama) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:02:06 -0400, slackr <slackr.DeleteThis@bulgaria.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:35:18 GMT, Llama <nobody.DeleteThis@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>After Langenbrunner had a breakout year early, expections were high
>>>>>>for him. The expections returned when he had a stellar playoff run in
>>>>>>99 (which incidentally was coupled with being reunited with his best
>>>>>>friend and linemate, Joe Nieuwendyk, who ended up winning the Conn
>>>>>>Smythe. They had chemistry which is something that Hitchcock never
>>>>>>seemed to grasp or want to keep together on a consistent basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is ridiculous. Hitchcock was well known for thinking of his lines
>>>>>as "pairs" with a third player to round out a pair that usually played
>>>>>together. It wasn't until after they had already won the Cup and were
>>>>>having problems as a team that Hitchcock got away from that.
>>>>>
>>>>Hitchcock was well known for thinking of his team as having
>>>>interchangeable parts. He constantly moved players between lines.
>>>>The only consistent line his entire time here was Hull, Modano and
>>>>Lehtinen. Everyone else played where Hitchcock put them. At times, I
>>>>swear that he played spin the bottle to determine how to line up the
>>>>rest of the guys.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Modano and Lehtinen. Nieuwendyk and Langenbrunner. Carbonneau and
>>>>>Keane.
>>>>>
>>>>Carbonneau, Keane, Muller, Skrudland, MacMullen, etc. They were
>>>>interchangeable.
>>>>>You know, it's nice to see a discussion in the group, but it would be
>>>>>even nicer if the people having the discussion actually knew something
>>>>>about what they were talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>That's true. Too bad you don't know what you are talking about...
>>>>
>>>> Langenbrunner and Nieuwendyk loved being together, but Hitchcock
>>>>frequently broke them up. All you have to do is go do a google
>>>>search and you will find lots of quotes like this: "Hitchcock reunited
>>>>Mike Modano and Brett Hull on a line with left wing Brenden
>>>>Morrow, and put Joe Nieuwendyk and Jamie Langenbrunner
>>>>back together on a line with Scott Thornton."
>>>>Game 5 of the series against St. Louis in 99 had these line
>>>>combinations:
>>>>Lehtinen-Modano-Marshall
>>>>Sim-Nieuwendyk-Verbeek
>>>>Hogue-Keane-Hull
>>>>Langenbrunner-Carbonneau-Reid
>>>>The next game was followed with:
>>>>Lehtninen-Modano-Marshall
>>>>Hogue-Nieuwendyk-Verbeek (reunion of a previous second line)
>>>>Langenbrunner-Carbonneau-Reid
>>>>Marhsall-Plante-Keane
>>>
>>>I can't help but think people that whine about line changes so much
>>>haven't actually watched much hockey. Line changes are pretty much
>>>standard fare. Did Tippett have more stable lines than Hitchcock did?
>>>(That's a rhetorical question, please don't bore me with more of you
>>>opinions masquerading as fact)
>>>
>>Tip at times played with the lines, true. But he kept some lines
>>together for a while and got some nice chemistry. Unfortunately,
>>injuries jublied this.
>>
>>>Hitchcock was fairly stable with his lines *until* after the team won
>>>the Cup. After that he seemed to change lines merely to prop up a team
>>>that lacked desire.
>>>
>>That is not what I recall. I recall Hitchcock tinking with the line
>>combinations constantly. My point is that Langenbrunner had a scoring
>>slump that coincided with being paired with players other than
>>Nieuwendyk. Nieuwendyk make the comment during the Colorado series in
>>99 that it felt really good to be reunited with his roommate and best
>>friend, Jamie.
>>
>>>You might also note (or you may not judging by some of the nonsense
>>>you post around here) that your one example is from a time period that
>>>I have already indicated that Hitchcock was getting away from his
>>>normal lines (or more accurately pairings).
>>>
>>Well, you need to go back and re-read my "nonsense" sir because the
>>time period *I* was talking about was BEFORE the Cup was won.
>
>Ah, I was thinking of that as another St. Louis series. You caught me
>by surprise and posted something that was factually correct. (Meaning
>the *dates* of the games... although with your track record I would
>still need proof about the actual lines from those games).
>
Funny how you can't admit that you are wrong and still insist that I
have some sort of a track record that requires me to prove something.
You contribute nothing to this group other than dreck and you want me
to prove something to you? How amusing.

>Still, two games do not really prove anything, except my point that
>people that know little about hockey will get their panties twisted
>over a few line changes. Did Hitchcock change the lines back a few
>shifts into those games (like he often did)? Do most coaches go
>through short periods of intense line juggling? Can you prove that
>Hitchcock's juggling at the time in question was unusually active?
>(Again, rhetorical questions. Don't bother.)
>
You still seem to have lost the original point. I stated a quote from
Joe Nieuwendyk during the 1999 playoffs when he was asked to explain
his excellent play to which he responded that he was reuinted with his
best friend and room mate, Jaime Langenbrunner.

>Remember, what I actually said (see below to clear up your attempt at
>obfuscation) was that Hitchcock didn't juggle lines any more than most
>coaches. You seem to think that any line juggling at all is unusual.
>This is clearly, to anybody that knows much about the game, not true.
>
No, I don't seem to think it is unusual. I've viewed the line jugling
as just what it is, changing things around to have better matchups
against the opponent or to get some new chemistry. The only time I
question it is when there is a line that has become very effective and
productive, but it gets juggled.
>>You are
>>advocating the position that Hitchcock did not juggle lines until
>>'after the team won the cup.....merely to prop up a team that lacked
>>desire."
>
>This is actually what I said:
>
>"That is ridiculous. Hitchcock was well known for thinking of his
>lines as "pairs" with a third player to round out a pair that usually
>played together. It wasn't until after they had already won the Cup
>and were having problems as a team that Hitchcock got away from that."
>
>and
>
>"Hitchcock was fairly stable with his lines *until* after the team won
>the Cup. After that he seemed to change lines merely to prop up a team
>that lacked desire."
>
>Now, compare this with what you *said* I said:
>
>>You are
>>advocating the position that Hitchcock did not juggle lines until
>>'after the team won the cup.....merely to prop up a team that lacked
>>desire."
>
>So, not only did you blatantly misrepresent what I said... "did not
>juggle lines..." but you combined two of my quotes in a misleading
>way.
>
>Now, you appear to be obfuscating here. Or, perhaps more accurately,
>being intellectually dishonest, although I hesitate using the word
>"intellectually" with respect to you.
>
I'm so hurt that you don't think I'm smart. I guess I better quit
posting.

Slackr is that guy from Colorado, right?
I hopin' hes tha juan thet hatez spellen mustakez.

"Llama" <nobody RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message...
<snip>
> I'm so hurt that you don't think I'm smart. I guess I better quit
> posting.
>
>