Colin

Member
  • Content count

    7561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Colin last won the day on June 24 2016

Colin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

161 Excellent

About Colin

  • Rank
    NHL Hall of Fame

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Habs
    Lafleur, Robinson, Naslund, Roy, Koivu, Markov, Subban. (Price? Patches? Galchenyuk? Time will tell)

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11794 profile views
  1. Draisaitl and the 4th would be where I'd start. There would have to be something else in line for defence, because ours would not be playoff caliber without PK. Also, if we trade him because of Therrien, that's about the most embarrassing thing imaginable. That could send me to being a fan of another team. That would be the ultimate as bush league. Edit: Shattenkirk would be reasonable enough to make this interesting. MB would have to know he could make the deal with Shattenkirk signed before pulling the trigger on dealing PK. My son just said McDavid. I'd be good with that. Lol Second edit: maybe ignore Shattenkirk as I hear Klefbom could come over if we toss in the 9th. Fascinating.
  2. Not a rumour, but Lucic is going UFA. Let's get Emelin to talk to him about joining..
  3. Are they increasing roster sizes to, say, 50 to accommodate all the injuries from the compressed schedule?
  4. Would Chucky have had that ppg had he played for, oh, any other coach in the NHL who would have identified his talent much sooner and played him far more than the Desharnais etc of the league?
  5. Danny Gallivan. I win. *drops mic* (And yes: dead. But I'd still rather listen to him and Irvin any day.)
  6. Lucic ain't coming here.
  7. Sergent Pepper taught the band to play?
  8. Shake the face of the team, Laraque? Enough to save MT? Trade Plexiglass and sign Backes and Okposo (and whatever wiggling needed to stay under the cap). With Captain Kirk, that's a Cup guarantee. Or as close as you can get barring injury.
  9. Guy Lafleur has indicated a French speaking coach is not required. Only a guy who gets the best out of his players. Why does current management not see this truism? Fire Therrien, hire Cucumber and let's win some games.
  10. I find it interesting that a lot of the discussion is about what Therrien is. And by that, it seems that he is what he is from beginning to end. What saddens me is that there's no talk about what seems to have changed. Not unlike, say, Galchenyuk adapting and improving his game, I see Therrien doing things somewhat differently, adapting and learning and modifying to stay current with the game. For instance, when was the last time he left lines together for 60 minutes - whether he was winning or losing - let alone 420 minutes and change. I think there has to be some credit given to the man for adapting his game to the new reality of his bench. The team are *not* relying on Price as much as they did. Sure, Price has probably stolen a game or two, but Montreal has been legitimately better than the opposition most of the time so far. That in itself is a large improvement on last year and a drastic one on two years back, particularly since the Olympics when Price became Super Price. Sure, you can argue all you want about Price, about the growing maturity of the players in front of him, about the decisions management has made and the players provided. But the players are showing a different game than they have at any point under Therrien. I would argue they're showing a different game than Pittsburgh did during their halcyon years under Therrien. The Habs are playing a more complete game. I would argue they're well-coached, and are not just a semi-talented team that's riding Price. The structure of their game is more defined at both ends of the rink. They take the game to the opposition in the third rather than praying that Price will win a point when they have a slim lead. For me, it seems Therrien has evolved to be a better coach. As much as Chucky has improved his game, so too has the bench boss. And I think the Habs are reflecting their coach's improvements.
  11. From TSN: Blues coach Ken Hitchcock had high praise for Montreal, especially Mitchell's checking line. "This is the best checking team we've played against," he said. "They use their fourth line to check our top players. "They did a hell of a job. This is a well coached, disciplined, play-the-game-the-right-way team. They're going to be a bear all year for everyone." ~~ Has Therrien morphed into one of the best coaches in hockey, have the Habs just matured to a point where they out-play their coaching, some mix of the two? Something else? Discuss.
  12. The best stats can give you is a guide. I'll grant that. But taken out of context - which they always are? Pointless.
  13. You know what really peeves me? People who think they can reduce hockey down to stats. Take, for instance, the article done by Frank Seravalli (TSN) "Undefeated Habs 'Playing the Right Way.' He quotes stat after stat and talks about how Montreal seems to be playing a different way based on stats. Then he questions that citing "historical stats" and indicates a potential slide back to historical norms. Mumbo jumbo. I'm so sick and tired of people spouting their mouths based on numbers. So sick of it. It's is obvious that he hasn't actually *watched* the Habs play. Either last year or this year. Anyone who knows anything about hockey and actually watches the games with a critical eye can *CLEARLY* see the difference in play. I don't need statistics to tell me the Habs are much better in terms of puck possession. I just open my eyes, look at the play, and see them penning in the opposition for long stretches. I see them winning puck battles. I see the defence not looking scared when there's a mistake. (Question to the masses: last time we had a fourth line that cycled for as long as our present line is managing? Correct answer is Gainey, Carbonneau, Nilan. Circa early 80's. Second question: last time you watched 6 Habs games where there were, shockingly, no passengers? Yeah stats guys, can you show me effort in your numbers? No? Shut up.) So when these blowhards start pressing their magical statistical analyses I really just want to tear out my eyeballs to make it stop. Baseball. Stats are pretty good for baseball. But you can't reduce a hockey player to a series of statistics. Doesn't work, never will. It's why the Maple Leafs will NEVER EVER win the Cup with a stats guy in their front office running things. Can't build a team based on stats. Can't do it. This trend towards advanced stats is beyond irritating. It's irrational. Trying to put numbers on and make sense out of events to make yourself look smarter than you obviously are. It's lazy. In order to get out of actually watching games and doing real scouting and evaluating, you reduce a player to a series of stats and build your team that way. Losers. And these "reporters" who spout these stats and use them as proofs and as arguments? Go home. Shut up. Stop being so damn lazy and report on what happens, not on what some stat guy pushes across your desk.
  14. Set play. They do that frequently.