Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rafikz

"Glorious Habs now ordinary"

Recommended Posts

revvvrob    34

at first, i'm wondering why a writer from phoenix would write this article, then i noticed it was written for the Ottawa Citizen ... :rolleyes:

i can't wait until the 'once glorious' Habs take care of the 'never glorious' Sens.

:ghg:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saskhab    8
at first, i'm wondering why a writer from phoenix would write this article, then i noticed it was written for the Ottawa Citizen ... :rolleyes:

i can't wait until the 'once glorious' Habs take care of the 'never glorious' Sens.

:ghg:

Hey, the Star Phoenix is my local!

I read this on Friday or Saturday or whenever it came out and thought it was pretty blah. Just another hockey beat writer looking for a way to get printed nationally during the summer.

Since 1998, Montreal has missed the playoffs five out of 10 seasons, no easy feat.

Well, you said it yourself, Wayne Scanlan. They're one of 30 franchises. 16 teams out of 30 make the playoffs, or just 53% of the league. 5 times out of 10 is 50%... pretty much par for the course. No easy feat? Actually, making it more or making it less in that time frame is no easy feat. And 1998 is a dubious cutoff to begin with... from 1999 to 2003, they made the playoffs 1 out of 5 times. Since 2004, they've made it 4 out of 5 times. So in reality, the Habs are actually doing better than the norm in recent years. It was 1999-2003 that the Habs were really struggling... and only one player who played in that time frame is still on the team (Markov).

So what's Scanlan's point exactly? Whatever it is, it's a pretty weak one.

Today's Canadiens make massive personnel changes without any clear vision for the future. Are Mike Cammalleri, Scott Gomez and Brian Gionta an improvement on Koivu, Alex Kovalev, Chris Higgins and Alex Tanguay? Hard to see how.

It's not whether they are an improvement over what those players were, it's that they are likely to be better than those players going forward for the next 5 years. Montreal still has to develop a stronger supporting cast for those players than what the previous group had.

In place of defenceman Mike Komisarek, a rock of a man who gave the league's forwards a rough time, are a couple of aging veterans in Hal Gill and Jaro Spacek.

I guess we'll see. Komisarek obviously wasn't the solution to our defensive woes, since Scanlan just trashed on the team's performance in the 100th season. It's funny that he goes on to talk about our lack of leadership going forward, but thinks bringing in veterans on D is somehow a negative.

He calls the team ordinary yet berates them for making wholesale changes. He's trying to pile on, but he makes absolutely no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tokyohabs    0

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz........

What a tosser. I met a Sens 'fan' the other day who, when talking smack about us, referred to his team's '11 Stanley Cups'. Kid you not.

Montreal still sends its sewage water down the valley it seems.

Edited by tokyohabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its funny how lots of people think Bob should have resigned Tangs to a big long term deal.

Tangs quick recap of last year: was good almost pt/game, massive shoulder injury, returns, shoulder injury

Does signing somebody who had 2 shoulder injuries on the same shoulder to a high amount long term deal make any sense? Signing Tangs is not without risk but so many suggest signing him like its a smart thing to do and that Bobs dumb for not taking on the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its funny how lots of people think Bob should have resigned Tangs to a big long term deal.

Tangs quick recap of last year: was good almost pt/game, massive shoulder injury, returns, shoulder injury

Does signing somebody who had 2 shoulder injuries on the same shoulder to a high amount long term deal make any sense? Signing Tangs is not without risk but so many suggest signing him like its a smart thing to do and that Bobs dumb for not taking on the risk.

I couldn't agree more.

If he is so coveted why are we now almost 2 weeks into UFA land and Tanguay still unsigned?

I'd bet the shoulders have some say in that one. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes the Habs glorious is their rich tradition and devotion of the fans. That is why when they go on road trips most places they play are sold out.

And why is a Sens writer writing this when A) We're the last Canadian team to bring Stanley home and B) His Sens are smack in the middle or mediocrity and C) Out of all the Candadian teams we're bette off than most of them.

And Gomez, Camms, Gionta, Spacek, and Moan are HUGE upgrades over Koivu, Tangs, Kovalev, Komi, and Kostopolous because the 2nd group had no heart, no chemistry, and didn't take the team anywhere close to the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ignore these 'consensus' media opinions. The expert consensus on the Habs going into 2007-08 was that we sucked, that the Hamrlik signing was a joke, that we were dead without Souray, that we missed our big chance because we failed to bag Briere, and that we were guaranteed to finish, like, 13th in the Conference. Lo and behold, we finished first in the Conference. Then the expert consensus going into 2008-09 was that we were the class of the Conference, that Gainey had made all the right moves, and that we were primed for a deep run. We finished 8th in the Conference. Now the expert consensus is that Gainey is a boob and that we're unlkely to make the playoffs. Excuse me if I fail to fly into a panic.

The one constant in all this is that the 'experts' are exactly like the fans - they form opinions based on what happened the previous season and extrapolate from there. So because Gomez got 58 points last year, he will never ever do better than 58 points again. Because the Habs were a disaster last year, it is axiomatic that they will be a disaster next year. There's no *analysis* there, just smug self-reproducing narratives. It's all idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lazy26    61
I just ignore these 'consensus' media opinions. The expert consensus on the Habs going into 2007-08 was that we sucked, that the Hamrlik signing was a joke, that we were dead without Souray, that we missed our big chance because we failed to bag Briere, and that we were guaranteed to finish, like, 13th in the Conference. Lo and behold, we finished first in the Conference. Then the expert consensus going into 2008-09 was that we were the class of the Conference, that Gainey had made all the right moves, and that we were primed for a deep run. We finished 8th in the Conference. Now the expert consensus is that Gainey is a boob and that we're unlkely to make the playoffs. Excuse me if I fail to fly into a panic.

The one constant in all this is that the 'experts' are exactly like the fans - they form opinions based on what happened the previous season and extrapolate from there. So because Gomez got 58 points last year, he will never ever do better than 58 points again. Because the Habs were a disaster last year, it is axiomatic that they will be a disaster next year. There's no *analysis* there, just smug self-reproducing narratives. It's all idiotic.

That's probably the best idea, but it isn't always easy. Most of the people that talk hockey with me are largely ignorant and derive their "opinions" from what TSN, Sportsnet or Don Cherry tells them. It's astonishingly difficult to tell a person that knows nothing about hockey that they... know nothing about hockey.

But like you say, the media has been pretty far off in recent memory, so I take comfort in the fact that the media is panning Bob's moves. Although I'm not 100% sold on what he's done, I must say that I think we've got a contending team at minimum, and that we may surprise a lot of my friends. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin    163

Wayne Scanlan? Glad I didn't click the link now. I live in Ottawa and had to read his crap for years on end. Ottawa hockey reporting: Scanlan, Garrioch... 'nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wamsley01    2
I just ignore these 'consensus' media opinions. The expert consensus on the Habs going into 2007-08 was that we sucked, that the Hamrlik signing was a joke, that we were dead without Souray, that we missed our big chance because we failed to bag Briere, and that we were guaranteed to finish, like, 13th in the Conference. Lo and behold, we finished first in the Conference. Then the expert consensus going into 2008-09 was that we were the class of the Conference, that Gainey had made all the right moves, and that we were primed for a deep run. We finished 8th in the Conference. Now the expert consensus is that Gainey is a boob and that we're unlkely to make the playoffs. Excuse me if I fail to fly into a panic.

The one constant in all this is that the 'experts' are exactly like the fans - they form opinions based on what happened the previous season and extrapolate from there. So because Gomez got 58 points last year, he will never ever do better than 58 points again. Because the Habs were a disaster last year, it is axiomatic that they will be a disaster next year. There's no *analysis* there, just smug self-reproducing narratives. It's all idiotic.

It is quite embarrassing. If the media thinks something is bad, go the other way and you will do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saskhab    8
It is quite embarrassing. If the media thinks something is bad, go the other way and you will do well.

I've often thought of picking the reverse standings of a media soucrce and seeing who does better. Of course, you'll get whacky things like having to pick Detroit to finish last, but it'd still be interesting to see how close one stacked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JacksonJ    0

I live in Saskatoon so this is my local. It usually has pro calgary or edmonton articles, while bashing the eastern teams (with the possible exception of toronto).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seb    13

I'd personally love to know all hockey writers' credentials (ie. former player/former coach/avid fan/writer the company has no other use for).

I hate reading articles written by guys who try to give off the impression that they know what they're talking about only because they can write well, giving off an air of competence or even knowledge. The only difference between a lot of journalists and anyone else's opinion on this board is that they have a far better medium of getting people to read/listen.

I saw the post, debated reading the article, decided to read the rest of the posts first, and ended up not reading it. Thank god.

I have my own opinion, and I like to read the opinions of others for arguments' sake, but not mindless drivel that was written and published jus' cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ForumGhost    24

Habs no longer hockey dynasty. In other news, peace talks between the Soviet Union and USA heat up. More at 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wamsley01    2
Habs no longer hockey dynasty. In other news, peace talks between the Soviet Union and USA heat up. More at 11.

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wamsley01    2
I'd personally love to know all hockey writers' credentials (ie. former player/former coach/avid fan/writer the company has no other use for).

I hate reading articles written by guys who try to give off the impression that they know what they're talking about only because they can write well, giving off an air of competence or even knowledge. The only difference between a lot of journalists and anyone else's opinion on this board is that they have a far better medium of getting people to read/listen.

I saw the post, debated reading the article, decided to read the rest of the posts first, and ended up not reading it. Thank god.

I have my own opinion, and I like to read the opinions of others for arguments' sake, but not mindless drivel that was written and published jus' cause.

That is why bloggers are destroying traditional media in terms of content lately.

Just because you can write, does not mean you are an expert on a subject. Opinion based writing is only interesting if

the individual backs up his argument with solid reasoning and facts. I don't even have to agree with what is written if it is presented

with a reasonable thought process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShortHanded    0
Wayne Scanlan? Glad I didn't click the link now. I live in Ottawa and had to read his crap for years on end. Ottawa hockey reporting: Scanlan, Garrioch... 'nuff said.

Me too! Painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's probably the best idea, but it isn't always easy. Most of the people that talk hockey with me are largely ignorant and derive their "opinions" from what TSN, Sportsnet or Don Cherry tells them. It's astonishingly difficult to tell a person that knows nothing about hockey that they... know nothing about hockey.

But like you say, the media has been pretty far off in recent memory, so I take comfort in the fact that the media is panning Bob's moves. Although I'm not 100% sold on what he's done, I must say that I think we've got a contending team at minimum, and that we may surprise a lot of my friends. ^_^

tell me about it, saddly my brother listens to ckac all day at his work, and sometimes i find he gets brainwashed by all the junk he could hear there, ohh well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×