Beezer34 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) I didnt think he was so bad. Rachunek is pretty young still (28) and he did some good things. He had a few really nice goals this year when he actually did play. I'm with you bro. Can't say I understand all the "Good Riddance" posts being said either. At 28 years old, he knew how to move the puck well for a d'man. He was tied for 3rd in goals for defensmen on the team this season, and he only played half the year! I'm gonna miss KR, but wish him well in Euro. Edited April 25, 2008 by Beezer34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils26 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I'm with you bro. Can't say I understand all the "Good Riddance" posts being said either. At 28 years old, he knew how to move the puck well for a d'man. He was tied for 3rd in goals for defensmen on the team this season, and he only played half the year! I'm gonna miss KR, but wish him well in Euro. Agree 100%. I don't know what he did to get everyone on this board to hate him, since he was one of our better D-men when he was in the lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 People are happy to see him go because he decided to negotiate this contract with Dynamo during the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggie B Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 This thread made me chuckle. I was at a game this season and some guy had a Rafalski jersey but he had tape over the "falski" part and on the tap it was written "chunek". He basically had a home made Rachunek jersey. I don't know what he is going to do now....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 This thread made me chuckle. I was at a game this season and some guy had a Rafalski jersey but he had tape over the "falski" part and on the tap it was written "chunek". He basically had a home made Rachunek jersey. I don't know what he is going to do now....lol Maybe the Devils can get Paul Ranger and give him 28. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils26 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 People are happy to see him go because he decided to negotiate this contract with Dynamo during the season. I realize that, but some of the posters are making comments that make it seem like all Rachunek did was hurt our team. Even if he did negotiate his contract during the season, he still played well when given a chance, and that is all that matters. Thus, I would have expected people to be a little more disappointed by his departure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Rachunek didn't really play well. I mean yeah, he was okay, and scored a few big goals, but he was basically a run-of-the-mill third pairing defenseman. He scored a decent amount and took lazy penalties. Considering he was signed to help the power play and wasn't even on the PP half the games he played in, it didn't really go all that well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils26 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Rachunek didn't really play well. I mean yeah, he was okay, and scored a few big goals, but he was basically a run-of-the-mill third pairing defenseman. He scored a decent amount and took lazy penalties. Considering he was signed to help the power play and wasn't even on the PP half the games he played in, it didn't really go all that well. But he would have been one of our top offensive d-men (behind Martin and maybe Oduya), and I know you agree that one of the team's biggest set-backs this years was the defense not being able to help out enough offensively. If Rachunek was given more of a chance, and not a healthy scratch every other game, I think he could have found the stride offensively and on the PP. He showed at times during the season that he definitely had the skill to. On a team like Detroit he is a third pairing D-man, but on this team he could have been a partial solution to a major problems that the Devils had, and must address this off-season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 Rachunek who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 (edited) But he would have been one of our top offensive d-men (behind Martin and maybe Oduya), and I know you agree that one of the team's biggest set-backs this years was the defense not being able to help out enough offensively. If Rachunek was given more of a chance, and not a healthy scratch every other game, I think he could have found the stride offensively and on the PP. He showed at times during the season that he definitely had the skill to.On a team like Detroit he is a third pairing D-man, but on this team he could have been a partial solution to a major problems that the Devils had, and must address this off-season. I think some of us are forgetting that Rachunek was pretty terrible at defensive positioning, would often lose his man, and took lazy penalties. 40 PIM in 47 games for a guy who rarely takes a roughing minor and isn't even getting 20 minutes of ice time a game is absolutely inexcusable. That's 20 minor penalties, assuming the opponent scores on 15% of them, that's 3 goals against. Then the odds of the Devils scoring during that time go way down - it's probably more like 4 goals that cost New Jersey. I wanted him in over Andy Greene. That was about it. Rachunek wasn't a top 4 defenseman - he never played like one. Yes, he could score, and that would've been nice, but it was always my suspicion that he was trying desperately to put up offensive numbers for his next contract, wherever that might be. This led to a fair amount of 2 on 1s. Edited April 26, 2008 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 I wanted him in over Andy Greene. That was about it. Rachunek wasn't a top 4 defenseman - he never played like one. Yes, he could score, and that would've been nice, but it was always my suspicion that he was trying desperately to put up offensive numbers for his next contract, wherever that might be. This led to a fair amount of 2 on 1s. I still think Rachunek added an extra dimension to the team which helped open up space for all the lines. Teams had to be aware a defenseman might move low into the offensive zone when the offense was cycling, which they didn't have to do when Rachunek was not in the lineup. I support the decision not to play Rachunek because of what I believe he did but I also believe he would have helped the team more than Greene or VV did, especially paired with Salvador. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Fan Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 addition by subtraction. 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.