Capt.Crunch

For those who know french, there is a good report by YvesBigras on CH Fans here. For those who do not know french, I translated Bigras's report in english (tried to do my bit ) Great report by the eternal Blind Gardien on HFBoards here. For those who do not want to click... here is the reports (assembled):

I'm anxious to see reports about Grabovski and Kostitsyn Jr. Will we see a S.Kostitsyn-Grabovski-Latendresse line? Oooooo....

What I'd like to see is Kovalev in a center position... if only for one game... Samsonov-Kovalev-Perezhogin/Kostitsyn....

Would these templates help? Link Great pics by the way!

They already broadcast the same thing anyways. Adding more english would not mean much because its already radio emitted tofu. Trust me, there are a lot of french bands that doesn't get airtime because the major french radio broadcasters want to air bland, middle of the road music. Also, for Rock Détente (also known as Rock Matante, or the radio where you listen to song that were popular 5 years ago [they made an effort there, before, it was actually songs from 10 yrs before]) to see english as a way to get more customers is the height of irony.

I already posted about this in the lounge but I think the same answer applies here. Yes, its copy/paste, but its the best and most complete answer I have about the subject... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll take the other side of the argument. But, first and foremost, we can all agree that it was not the time, not the place and certainly not the right way to approach the subject. To add insult to injury, the question was asked by a complete outsider who wanted to create an interesting story. There. That's what I think about Friday's story. However, since this occasion is used by most to rehash old arguments, I'll use this opportunity to present another opinion. Most people you will meet in Montreal will know about the Montreal Canadiens. You should not be surprised to hear your 40 year old waitress start a conversation and have an opinion on whether Souray should be traded or not during the playoffs. Hockey in Montreal is much more than a madonna concert, a baseball game or F1. Les Canadiens de Montréal are MY team. Just as they were my father's team and my grandfather's team. Les Canadiens de Montréal used to be a tradition, a Saturday night event. You used to look at the games on tv with your father, hear about it in family reunions. I used to wonder, as a little boy, at that no 10 that was streaking without helmet in the offensive zone. I remember the stories told to me by my father, who doesn't watch hockey anymore BTW. Stories about my grandmother wanting to do something about Richard's suspension in 55. The only way she found of protesting is to stop buying Campbell soup for a few years. You see, they are MY team. They are not a generic concession who is looking at a big left handed center. They are part of my past. As a French Canadian. As a Quebecker. To my knowledge, the Habs had a lot of things going for them before 1969. They had the C formula, the famous "Formule C", used to acquire players at an incredibly young age in a quasi-permanent fashion. They had a series of farm clubs, in which they could stack boatloads of talent who were only waiting for a chance to play in the big leagues. They also had a tremendous network of French Canadien volunteers working for them throughout the province of Quebec. At a time when information was at a premium, they had a whole province ready to talk to them about promising young guys. I think Ken Dryden, in his book "The Game" describe the fall of the habs last Dynaty best: "Most of what has happened these past twenty-five seasons I couldn't have guessed. I knew that the dominance of the Canadiens would diminish. Nobody could sustain the pace of fifteen Stanley Cups in twenty-four years. Pollock and Bowman were gone. The farm system had been built during a sponsorship time when teams could sign up kids almost at birth, and when every Canadian kid wanted to play for the Canadiens or Leafs, and when every non-Canadian kid, every American or European, didn't matter. When sponsorship ended in 1969 and a universal draft of players forced kids to play with whichever team chose them, the Canadiens had enough players already in their system to trade their surplus for future draft picks to teams desperate to compete and survive. But by 1979 all that was coming to an end. The next generation of great players was getting spread around. Denis Potvin, Brian Trottier and Mike Bossy had all gone to the Islanders. Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier were in the WHA. The Canadiens had been reduced finally to equal ground, and while equal ground, with proper care, might produce good teams, it won't generate domination" So? Where are we now? A standard team in a standard league? A product like Coke or McDonald's? A brand name with its history resumed to a nice, shiny selling point? You think Montreal is that crazy about hockey because its simply "cultural"? Is it only a phenomenon? Like poutine? You guys really think it's to be taken for granted? That its not going to die off if properly cultivated? While I have a particular interest in hockey, in young up-and-coming players, in systems, in the strength of particular teams, I can assure you that my family, my friends, my boss, citizens not immersed in hockey like I am become hockey fans again in spring because of "Les Canadiens", and Lafleur, and Carbonneau, and Roy, and Richard, and Béliveau. Its one of the few times in the year when you can yell on a bus between 7 and 10 on a Saturday night with a walkman on and, instead of receiving glares, you will only get a single, repetitive question: "So? What's the score?" But what can we do about it? The entry draft, free agency seem to condemn us to uniformity, doesn't it? Well, you could start by having scouts who cover the province of Quebec like the times of old. You could start by knowing about every single goddamned player in your own backyard. You could start by listening to home grown free agents, guys like Ian Lapperière, who would have killed to have a shot to play for the "Bleu, blanc, rouge". You could, at least, make an effort to go and get a few guys who grew here. Who get it. Who remember what a spring in Montreal means when the habs are in the playoff. It has been reported that Dandenault, Bégin and Bouillon were close to tears after game 7 against the Hurricane. Did it matter as much to Kovalev, Zednik and Bulis? I am not saying that you cannot care about your team is you are a European. You can learn to care. Just as Mario Lemieux did with the Penguins, just as Denis Savard did with the Blackhawks and Luc Robitaille with the Kings. But if you want to really rise above the lot, to anchor yourself in the tradition and history, it is my belief that you must take Gainey's route: you must learn a bit of french. Is Koivu a leader on the ice? You bet. Do people respect him? Immensely. Is he the best center in the Canadien's lineup? Yes. But to go beyond that, to be part of the legend, to be as big a star in Montreal than in Finland, as the captain of "Les Canadiens", he must at least learn to say "Bonjour" and "Bonsoir". We don't ask for much. Most of us are perfectly proficient in the english language. We switch more often than not in english if we see that you have trouble speaking french. However, as garbled your french sentenced came to be, you will have our profound admiration because, at least, you tried. Is the Canadiens a simple logo owned by the Gillett group and the NHL? Maybe. But we have to be careful. The end of the Dynasty was less than 30 odd years ago. Evacuate the french content of "Les Canadiens de montreal" at your own risk. The danger is not that I stop going to games. The danger is that I might stop going to games with my son and that I forget to tell him the story of his great-grandmother who wanted to punish Clarence Campbell by refusing to buy Cambell soup. That I forget to tell the story of little people who cared so very much but could do so little. The danger is that I stop complaining about the french representation in the habs lineup and that I listen to hockey like I listen to other sports. As a product to be bought, consummed and thrown away. We b!tch and moan about this situation because we still care. Trust me, the worst thing that can happen to a franchise is indifference. Ask the Expos...

Here is a text I did on another discussion board following Koivu's incident. I did it late at night and it might prove a bit "passionate" but I think it provides another view of things. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll take the other side of the argument. But, first and foremost, we can all agree that it was not the time, not the place and certainly not the right way to approach the subject. To add insult to injury, the question was asked by a complete outsider who wanted to create an interesting story. There. That's what I think about Friday's story. However, since this occasion is used by most to rehash old arguments, I'll use this opportunity to present another opinion. Most people you will meet in Montreal will know about the Montreal Canadiens. You should not be surprised to hear your 40 year old waitress start a conversation and have an opinion on whether Souray should be traded or not during the playoffs. Hockey in Montreal is much more than a madonna concert, a baseball game or F1. Les Canadiens de Montréal are MY team. Just as they were my father's team and my grandfather's team. Les Canadiens de Montréal used to be a tradition, a Saturday night event. You used to look at the games on tv with your father, hear about it in family reunions. I used to wonder, as a little boy, at that no 10 that was streaking without helmet in the offensive zone. I remember the stories told to me by my father, who doesn't watch hockey anymore BTW. Stories about my grandmother wanting to do something about Richard's suspension in 55. The only way she found of protesting is to stop buying Campbell soup for a few years. You see, they are MY team. They are not a generic concession who is looking at a big left handed center. They are part of my past. As a French Canadian. As a Quebecker. To my knowledge, the Habs had a lot of things going for them before 1969. They had the C formula, the famous "Formule C", used to acquire players at an incredibly young age in a quasi-permanent fashion. They had a series of farm clubs, in which they could stack boatloads of talent who were only waiting for a chance to play in the big leagues. They also had a tremendous network of French Canadien volunteers working for them throughout the province of Quebec. At a time when information was at a premium, they had a whole province ready to talk to them about promising young guys. I think Ken Dryden, in his book "The Game" describe the fall of the habs last Dynaty best: "Most of what has happened these past twenty-five seasons I couldn't have guessed. I knew that the dominance of the Canadiens would diminish. Nobody could sustain the pace of fifteen Stanley Cups in twenty-four years. Pollock and Bowman were gone. The farm system had been built during a sponsorship time when teams could sign up kids almost at birth, and when every Canadian kid wanted to play for the Canadiens or Leafs, and when every non-Canadian kid, every American or European, didn't matter. When sponsorship ended in 1969 and a universal draft of players forced kids to play with whichever team chose them, the Canadiens had enough players already in their system to trade their surplus for future draft picks to teams desperate to compete and survive. But by 1979 all that was coming to an end. The next generation of great players was getting spread around. Denis Potvin, Brian Trottier and Mike Bossy had all gone to the Islanders. Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier were in the WHA. The Canadiens had been reduced finally to equal ground, and while equal ground, with proper care, might produce good teams, it won't generate domination" So? Where are we now? A standard team in a standard league? A product like Coke or McDonald's? A brand name with its history resumed to a nice, shiny selling point? You think Montreal is that crazy about hockey because its simply "cultural"? Is it only a phenomenon? Like poutine? You guys really think it's to be taken for granted? That its not going to die off if properly cultivated? While I have a particular interest in hockey, in young up-and-coming players, in systems, in the strength of particular teams, I can assure you that my family, my friends, my boss, citizens not immersed in hockey like I am become hockey fans again in spring because of "Les Canadiens", and Lafleur, and Carbonneau, and Roy, and Richard, and Béliveau. Its one of the few times in the year when you can yell on a bus between 7 and 10 on a Saturday night with a walkman on and, instead of receiving glares, you will only get a single, repetitive question: "So? What's the score?" But what can we do about it? The entry draft, free agency seem to condemn us to uniformity, doesn't it? Well, you could start by having scouts who cover the province of Quebec like the times of old. You could start by knowing about every single goddamned player in your own backyard. You could start by listening to home grown free agents, guys like Ian Lapperière, who would have killed to have a shot to play for the "Bleu, blanc, rouge". You could, at least, make an effort to go and get a few guys who grew here. Who get it. Who remember what a spring in Montreal means when the habs are in the playoff. It has been reported that Dandenault, Bégin and Bouillon were close to tears after game 7 against the Hurricane. Did it matter as much to Kovalev, Zednik and Bulis? I am not saying that you cannot care about your team is you are a European. You can learn to care. Just as Mario Lemieux did with the Penguins, just as Denis Savard did with the Blackhawks and Luc Robitaille with the Kings. But if you want to really rise above the lot, to anchor yourself in the tradition and history, it is my belief that you must take Gainey's route: you must learn a bit of french. Is Koivu a leader on the ice? You bet. Do people respect him? Immensely. Is he the best center in the Canadien's lineup? Yes. But to go beyond that, to be part of the legend, to be as big a star in Montreal than in Finland, as the captain of "Les Canadiens", he must at least learn to say "Bonjour" and "Bonsoir". We don't ask for much. Most of us are perfectly proficient in the english language. We switch more often than not in english if we see that you have trouble speaking french. However, as garbled your french sentenced came to be, you will have our profound admiration because, at least, you tried. Is the Canadiens a simple logo owned by the Gillett group and the NHL? Maybe. But we have to be careful. The end of the Dynasty was less than 30 odd years ago. Evacuate the french content of "Les Canadiens de montreal" at your own risk. The danger is not that I stop going to games. The danger is that I might stop going to games with my son and that I forget to tell him the story of his great-grandmother who wanted to punish Clarence Campbell by refusing to buy Cambell soup. That I forget to tell the story of little people who cared so very much but could do so little. The danger is that I stop complaining about the french representation in the habs lineup and that I listen to hockey like I listen to other sports. As a product to be bought, consummed and thrown away. We b!tch and moan about this situation because we still care. Trust me, the worst thing that can happen to a franchise is indifference. Ask the Expos...

Boy. that question is one of the most explosive you can ask... Its a valid one but don't stress too much if you get impulsive reactions! The whole thing starts over 300 years ago really... You have to understand that France used to dominate a large part of North America (the first map is around 1743 I believe... no garantee though!) The whole lot was given to england by France in 1763 in the Traité de Paris, following the conclusion of the 7 years war. A few years before, in 1759, a english general, Wolfe, beat the french Montcalm at quebec. This event, called "The Conquest" (La Conquête) by some and "The Defeat" (La défaite) by others, is usually used to symbolise english domination over french territories in north america. Of course, it is a bit simplistic because the english already deported and assasinated a large part of another north american french nation in 1755, Acadia (L'acadie), of which england gained possesion in 1713. According to some, Acadia was a lot more prosper than the quebec province at the time and better established. They are the ancestors of Louisiana's Cajuns (A deformation of Acadians... by way of Acadjuns, cadjuns, Cajuns...). Ok... back to the main topic... If I remember correctly, 1763 marks the start of the american "war of independance". I once heard that england was very worried that the old "nouvelle france" would be interested to join the emerging american nation. I think you guys tried to seduce and/or invade us but it didn't work. Pressured by the american revolt, England decided to try to convince us to stay with them by letting us practice our Catholic faith without interruption (they were protestan). This is very important because it is mainly by holding to our catholic "roots" that we would be keeping our language. In 1791, canada is divided in 2 parts, "lower canada" (mainly french) and "higher canada" (english). Our southern neighours are now a new nation (the united states of america). Canada's population is bolstered by a large number of english loyalists. End of the "history lesson". As a people, french canadians always made an effort to establish their unique identity. Under french domination, we were "habitant" (translated "inhabitants") to france's paysans (meaning we were owners of the lands... and not subserviant), with the english, we became "Canadiens" (pronounced Canayens! by old people)to their "English". When the inhabitants of canada became "Canadiens", we were "Canadiens francais". I guess Quebecer is a reaction to the possibility of being "canadiens francais" and federalist... It is said that the Catholic faith has a lot to do with us staying french all that time. French canadians stayed devout a long time. Going to church was a major activity and helped us stay in contact. In terms of social status, most french canadiens were into agriculture. Money and big business were mostly controlled by english and american interests. Montreal was still a big business center, and a strong clivage between rich english/poor french canadiens soon made itself felt. (please note that it is a generalization... there were surely rich french canadien families, but the "majority" were english controled interest.) My father was under the obligation to speak english in the workplace. The reason was that many of the bosses did not speak french. To speak french could make you loose your job. Things were this harsh. To be reach higher education, you either had to have money or wanted to be part of the church. There were a lot of repressions during this period and a lot of us "french canadiens" are still sensible about the subject. We did not live it but it is close enough for our father's generation to tell us how it was. This status ended around 1960. This period is called "the quiet revolution". The school system was taken over by the state (it was a responsability of the catholic church before), education became obligatory, laws were introduced to quell english dominion, people stopped looking at the church for guidance, business became more open to french canadiens... Right now montreal is the biggest urban community in quebec. It is divided in two: west and east. In the west island, it is perfectly possible to live in perfect english. Outside montreal's boundary, english is a bit rarer (except at places close to the US border) and you might have some difficulty to find someone who speak english without accent. To us, language is more than a "code". Its an identity. It is something that makes us different and unique from our neighbours. It has been a way to mark us as "different", if not "lesser", for about 200 years. It is now, since 40 years or so, a matter of pride. We have a healthy and lively french canadian culture, french canadian radio and tv, french canadian movies, french canadian theatre, french canadian publishing industry... we have our own star system. We are not that religious anymore. Hardships brought on us by the catholic church has made us skeptic at best where religion is concerned. I guess (and that is a wild wild extrapolation!!) that language has taken a bit of the space that was filled with catholism in terms of identity. In many ways, we carry the burden of close to 300 years of devout catholic pathos. We value humility, a large part of us are wary of wealth, we can be provincial at times. But we are peacefull and, if our latin blood makes us sometimes mercurial and loud, we are not prone to fight or revolt that easilly. Remember, we were 49.6% to vote yes to 1995's referendum. 1.4% more votes and we would have a clear mandate for separation. Well, 1.4% wasn't enough and we did not revolt, we did not cause violence. We accepted it like civilized men. I'll bring up another post about the montreal canadiens. I wrote it some time ago to speak my mind about the koivu incident. But I think this post is a good primer to understand our concern for french in quebec.

Man o man, its been some time since I've posted here! Question: Is there a difference between the version you are using and EHM manager 2005? I toyed a lot with EHM manager 2005's demo, and while I put a lot of effort into planning my team, I didn't always understand the results (I tend to lose a lot). I try to look at each games, see the mistakes my players make, try to adjust my lineup and my practices according to what I think should be successfull, let players settle down on their lines, but nothing revealing seems to come up. I tend to feel disconnected to the results. Have you encountered the same problems with your version? P.S.: It is really a shame because I tend to like very much these simulations...

I agree completely with Jack. The best way to make sure you don't get scored now is by placing emphasis on "puck possesion". Unfortunately, keeping the puck also means "taking chances", holding the blue line in the offensive zone (and "not" having your defense in the neutral zone), flushing the "one man wonder" forecheck, winning faceoffs and promoting players who can make themselves open to passes (you can see that as "offensive positioning"). It means taking chances and slacking a bit on the reactive play. I'm not seeing that from the team right now.

Yeah. I'm sure he's going to play all of 2 shift! After all, we have to be carefull so he doesn't make mistakes... Actually, he should play more respectable minutes if: 1- We are not behind in goals (we need veterans to take the pressure of scoring goals) 2-We lead by more than 2 goals (we need veterans to keep the lead) 3-We get less than 5 penalities (everybody know we don't put offensive minded players on the PK) 4-We get less than 5 power plays (a player must prove himself before coming to the power play... the rest of the opportunities are given to veterans who don't produce and need a boost) So, We might see Kosty a bit more when we lead teh coyotes 3-1 after 1 period and 1/2, IF the referees are sleeping

I'm just tired of the good Ol' defensive minset... Julien recently commented on Gretzky in the "Journal de Montreal" that he was impressed on the emphasis such a player put on backchecking, even on the last legs of his carreer... Yeah. I'm sure we will all remember Gretz as an exceptional defensive player... *ahem*

And, BTW, I was against the hossa move and prefered taking a chance on him than dressing Sundstrom. I still think this team's mindset is too defensive and that not enough space is given to youth developpement. Maybe I was wrong with hossa. Big deal. The fun here is not being right or wrong, its discussing our perceptions with other fans in a relaxed and respectfull atmosphere. In hindsight, I am glad Hossa don't seem to pan out like he was supposed to be. Proves we might have taken a good decision after all.

Napier. Pls stop being childish. This is absurd. Your original comment made you appear cocky, your follow up aggresive, your later ones paranoid and your last one childish. All reactions were probably based as much on your perceived tone than your content. Don't take it that personal. Sheesh...

Yeah, me too. The one I heard was that Savard was prepared to do: Owen Nolan, Stephane Fiset, Adam Deadmarsh and a 1st round pick for Roy + spare parts Or something like it. Nolan and Fiset were definitely mentionned. [Edited on 2005/12/9 by Capt.Crunch]

yes, why not! Receiving a letter of appreciation is always welcome. I would sure bet it is a lot less common than complaints!

I don't think anyone talked about trading bulis. I think his detractors are for putting him where he seems to belong... On a third line. After all, what's the problem with having a good third line? Bulis-Begin and a guy with a bit better finishing skills would make a great defensive minded line who can control the puck and have some great scoring chances. As I explained to my girlfriend yesterday, line 1 and 2 mindset can be resumed as "You win a game by having one goal more than your opponent". Line 3 and 4 are more oriented towards "You win a game by having your opponent score one goal less than you" I just think Bulis fits better at the top of the "one less goal" line: the 3rd.

The problem for me is not Bulis's many qualities but the fact that he seems to lack the "killer instinct". He may be a terrific 2 way player but he seems to have little offensive awareness. That and he thinks too much. Either he is not well positioned to receive the rebound or he doesn't have the reflex to shoot the puck at the net when receiving a quick pass that creates a scoring chance. Is it the result of a too long stint of the defensive lines? Is it inherent? I don't know. The only think I see is I would rather have a young guy with proven finishing skills (Perez) than a defensive minded forward on the first line. After all, in this "new" NHL, we are seeing that it is as important to know how to play with the puck than know how to angle the puck carrier or cutting line passes. Puck possesion and finishing is not only good for the offense... It helps the defense too...

I say it is time. We must let our secret weapon out. We must dress the BIG ORANGE MACHINE I say our 3rd defensive pairing is Streit-Youppi

I still trust Bob Gainey. However, I understand the points given and I agree with some of them. 1) The case for Bonk I completely agree that Laperrière would fit better on the 3rd line than Bonk. Just having Bégin and Laperriere on the same line would be a dream come true. I think we miss a bit of grit and character on our team and Lappy would be part of the solution. Bonk does not bring the grit a good 3rd/4th line player should have in my books. However, we have to understand that Bonk was seen as a capable 2nd line backup in case Ribs became injured or did not perform up to par with his last season. Of course, playing on ottawa's 1st line will have the effect of boosting your numbers but it was surely greatly part of the equation. Bonk was, at the time, a 2nd/3rd candidate. Laperriere was 3rd/4th. 2nd/3rd won. 2) The D I don't believe Brisebois would have stayed in montreal. He made it quite clear that he was fed up with his negative experience and wanted to get some fresher air somewhere else. That being said, our D is still weak. I agree that we should have traded Garon for a D instead of a 3rd line center. -Markov was a nice surprise -Keeping Rivet was a great decision (I would have traded him after 2002-2003's season) -Kovy will turn out good enough -Bouillon is solid and steady -I like Dandy's speed -Souray got Rivet's last season braincramp bug -Streit might not cut it -The jury is still out on Hollywood Ron (past habs) Yes... we miss,at least some dept there. Our Hamilton cupboard looks quite empty. 3)Turgeon I don't agree with bringing back Turgeon. I don't believe in bringing back relics. All in all, I think we have a better team than last year. The most problematic part of the team IMO is not the players in the organisation but the lack of faith in youth. All around the league you see great young addition to other teams. Prospects who are getting quality ice time as a reward for hard work and the liberty of making mistakes, as long as they show they learned from them. We seem to be taking a more Darwinian approach in MTL. At that rate, we will end up with a lot of panicky 2 way forward type who don't take the body much (for fear of being out of posiiton), who don't take chances (because they never took such thing) and who are not used to finishing... A bleak prospect to say the least

In other news: Houston, Houston, we seemed to have found our 2nd line.

Our guys got thrown around in the first... I don't like than, nobody to reply for the knee on knee on Kovalev. Sens are a LOT more gritty his season. Volchenkov, Chara, Neil, McGrattan... The things that bugs me when we get checked right now is that I don't see anyone who can strike back. I get all worked up and tell myself: "kill them all! Kill them all!" Then I think about our size and it becomes: "Ok... damn... lets skate. Get away!"

Speaking for myself, I AM thankfull for RDS's diffusion. As a matter of fact, I am a more than happy to pay for RDS's broadcast. If it weren't for hockey, I would probably not subscribe to cable in the first place. However, I am not simply content of receiving the signal. The audio portion of the game is, for me, an important part of my hockey experience. I have some friend who would be just as happy to watch the game on mute. Not me. Play by play comments brings me into the match. While I may not need a guy telling me that there is a big check, an increadible goal or a spectacular save going on, it just brings that much more intensity to the game I'm watching. The best play by play guys will change the tempo of their voice as the game goes on, basically screaming like maniacs when the game gets frantic. While it may be a fuss for others, great play by play helps me zone in on the match. As for the analysts, it may be important to note that I haven't played a lot of hockey and that I have definitely never coached. Furthermore, I have started to follow the habs pretty recently (in 1998-1999). Having someone who knows the game better than me give timely comments and pointers during a match just brings another level of enjoyment. It helps me to look for other things than the obvious plays, like how the players position themselves without the puck, the work habits of opposing teams, the kind of judgement the coaches make, backchecks, different ways to work along the boards, how different players learns to roll with the checks (I remember Dany Dube noting that Ribeiro had a better time rolling with checks because he kept his skates parrallel to the boards more... I never even tried to notice something like that). Good analyst will also know when to shut up, letting the play by play guys go on with describing the play. In any case, I am happy if some of my doodling with digital cable and AM radio helps fellow fans listen to a better game (as opposed to a bitter game... yuck yuck yuck)...

Not yet

Its been said time and time again, but Steve Begin's leadership just comes up too often to count. Did you see him react on Plek's goal saturday night? He was truly happy for the guy, even if it wasn't on his trio. Another thing happenned today: Dags got demoted to the fourth. Begin's reaction? In short: Dagenais is a scorer. These player look bad when they are on a slump but its just the matter to get the first goal. Me and Higgins are going to put our energy and speed on the line to help him scoring chances. I'm sure he will take advantage of it. It may look mundane but I cannot fail to underline the behavior of a player who truly puts the team first and foremost. Its sure nice to see! :/)