Series Discussion Thread: Habs vs Senators

[KoRP]

Glad that series is over so I can post among the negativity in here the last few days.

30/31 on a lot of points is right, but not on all things, but everything isn't wrong dude, and a couple of weaknesses are owned by all teams in a cap era.

We also need some puck luck that we didn't have for 2 games, with 40+ shots in each loss, I'd say we got that puck luck last nite.

The non believers and constant complainers will be quieted down now, and with Patch getting healthy(his best effort last nite), and Price just woke up for game 6 and brough back the reason why we are going to beat next opponent as well.

Jesus guys, sometimes ya just don't get the breaks, but the best team won, and we are moving on... I still believe we will be there for that match up with Rangers for redemption....

Also, I will never post in a GDT again, I am the biggest jinx here when doing that, sorry for the 2 losses brothers

Habs were the best team, and truly never got one break in those two losses, and the Sens got every break in those two losses and almost every break from the referees in the series, since the interference on our forwards was 1980's drag and hold style.

Still we worked through it, our adjustments and strategy paid off and here we are in series 2.

Happy to be moving on...

[Machine of Loving Grace]

My negativity was solely on how we played Anderson. Last night I saw Patches and Plekanec finally going to the net and driving forward instead of trying to set up pretty passing plays with the D. I'm guessing that was through coaching so points to Therrien. Gallagher getting the winning goal is fair. He's the one guy who tried to make life miserable for Anderson. He deserved it the most.

Well him or Petry, whom I saw driving the net hard as a Blueline.

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

Last night didn't expose Anderson any more than the previous 3 games. Last night was all on Carey Price.

What's heartening to me, is we didn't win this series due to superior goaltending alone. Carey was a non-factor in the first 5 games. He didn't steal us any wins until last night. But when you have the best goaltender in the league, he's supposed to steal you a game every once in a while.

The first four games we dominated Ottawa in carrying the play. We outshot them. We outchanced them. Other than first periods, we grabbed hold of Ottawa and wrestled this series in the direction we wanted them to go. And despite close scores, we came out of those first four winning 3-1. Game 5... it's hard to justify saying we dominated when we're outscored 5-1, but we still outshot and outchanced them. Carey had a horrible game, and Anderson was a standout. Still, a bunch of our players pulled some boneheaded stuff that helped out - losing game 5 was a team effort. But it was only in Game 6 where Ottawa clearly outplayed us. The scoring chances were actually close, but you can't score on the shots you don't take, and as Weise proved earlier in the series - take every shot you can, you never know what will get through. I can't help but wonder if Game 6 would have been a little less nail-biting if the habs had been shooting rather than getting fancy. Nevertheless, Ottawa outshot us 42-20. You simply can't do that and win without crediting your goalie.

Overall, Montreal won this series on efforts from goaltending, defense, and forwards all. It was not the Carey Price Show. Our big guns produced, as did our fourth line. We had a few no-shows, but despite the total goals in the series being tied 12-12, this was actually a solid victory for Montreal. The play on the ice did not reflect the scores. If it had, Montreal would have won the game in 4, and outscored Ottawa by 50%.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I was unable to see the first two periods of Game 6. But I watched the third period with nail-biting intensity. Despite the shot totals, I thought we were the better team until the very end, when - as inevitably happens in almost every elimination game - the losing team threw everything it had at the eventual winner. The Sens took a lot of perimeter shots that Price had no trouble with. Meanwhile, we missed, like, three open nets and had stellar chances to go up 2-0. The pessimist notes that - as has been happening all season - our guys flub big chances. The optimist notes that we were able to take the game to the desperate Senators for 15:00 of that third period.

To my mind, it's more proof that SOG totals don't come close to telling the whole story. And it's funny, because when the Habs massively outshot Ottawa in Game 5, everybody agreed that shot totals are irrelevant. But when the Habs are the ones giving up a lot of shots, suddenly that becomes a telling indicator of our suckage, at least in some circles.

Further to this theme of double standards: going into the playoffs, the experts were unanimous that the one team nobody wanted to play in Round One was the 'hottest team in hockey,' the Cinderella Ottawa Senators. Moreover, many observers noted that Ottawa has been a sort of Kryptonite to the Habs all season, going back at least to 2103, really. The universal theme was: these Sens are really dangerous.

Having defeated the Sens in 6, we now hear a lot about how 'the Habs had to struggle to put away a mediocre team.'

We can't have it both ways. Either the Senators were a formidable opponent with massive intangibles who we nevertheless decisively defeated, or they weren't. We can't retroactively downgrade them to ciphers on the grounds that we decisively defeated them.

I remember very well the same dynamic in 1993. Going into the Nordiques series, all the authorities declared that the Habs were in tough against a real powerhouse. Six games later, the narrative was NOT that the Habs were good; it was that the Nords really weren't that great after all.

Now, mediocrity at FW probably is indeed the Achilles's Heel that will eventually do this team in. We are built in such a way that - unless Price works miracles - we have to get scoring from at least three lines on a tolerably reliable basis. We got adequate offence early in the series, but this weakness came more to the fore as it progressed. If we can get a 'different hero every night' for Round Two, we have a good chance of winning that as well; if we don't, the odds drops considerably.

All of this is to say that the Habs remain what they've been all season: second-tier contenders with gusts up to first-tier contenders if we can get everyone firing. A fine team, not a great one. But it doesn't follow that we suck, or that we are frauds, or that we do not have a chance of going very far indeed.

There is too much negativity surrounding a team that just won Round One handily against a team that everybody feared going in.

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

All of this is to say that the Habs remain what they've been all season: second-tier contenders with gusts up to first-tier contenders if we can get everyone firing. A fine team, not a great one. But it doesn't follow that we suck, or that we are frauds, or that we do not have a chance of going very far indeed.

The thing is, with the parity that comes from the salary cap, this describes almost every team in the NHL. Oh, the specifics differ - maybe they have top tier forwards, and the line reads, "Second-tier contenders with gusts up to first-tier contenders if their goaltender and defense corps are on their game," or the like. But the fact is, every team in the NHL has to choose which areas they're going to focus on buying, and which areas they're going to let slide and hope they can make up for it with solid entry level players or streaky also-rans who might get hot at the right time.

Salary Cap management is now the most important skill a GM can have.

[habs rule]

I was unable to see the first two periods of Game 6. But I watched the third period with nail-biting intensity. Despite the shot totals, I thought we were the better team until the very end, when - as inevitably happens in almost every elimination game - the losing team threw everything it had at the eventual winner. The Sens took a lot of perimeter shots that Price had no trouble with. Meanwhile, we missed, like, three open nets and had stellar chances to go up 2-0. The pessimist notes that - as has been happening all season - our guys flub big chances. The optimist notes that we were able to take the game to the desperate Senators for 15:00 of that third period.

To my mind, it's more proof that SOG totals don't come close to telling the whole story. And it's funny, because when the Habs massively outshot Ottawa in Game 5, everybody agreed that shot totals are irrelevant. But when the Habs are the ones giving up a lot of shots, suddenly that becomes a telling indicator of our suckage, at least in some circles.

Further to this theme of double standards: going into the playoffs, the experts were unanimous that the one team nobody wanted to play in Round One was the 'hottest team in hockey,' the Cinderella Ottawa Senators. Moreover, many observers noted that Ottawa has been a sort of Kryptonite to the Habs all season, going back at least to 2103, really. The universal theme was: these Sens are really dangerous.

Having defeated the Sens in 6, we now hear a lot about how 'the Habs had to struggle to put away a mediocre team.'

We can't have it both ways. Either the Senators were a formidable opponent with massive intangibles who we nevertheless decisively defeated, or they weren't. We can't retroactively downgrade them to ciphers on the grounds that we decisively defeated them.

I remember very well the same dynamic in 1993. Going into the Nordiques series, all the authorities declared that the Habs were in tough against a real powerhouse. Six games later, the narrative was NOT that the Habs were good; it was that the Nords really weren't that great after all.

Now, mediocrity at FW probably is indeed the Achilles's Heel that will eventually do this team in. We are built in such a way that - unless Price works miracles - we have to get scoring from at least three lines on a tolerably reliable basis. We got adequate offence early in the series, but this weakness came more to the fore as it progressed. If we can get a 'different hero every night' for Round Two, we have a good chance of winning that as well; if we don't, the odds drops considerably.

All of this is to say that the Habs remain what they've been all season: second-tier contenders with gusts up to first-tier contenders if we can get everyone firing. A fine team, not a great one. But it doesn't follow that we suck, or that we are frauds, or that we do not have a chance of going very far indeed.

There is too much negativity surrounding a team that just won Round One handily against a team that everybody feared going in.

CC another excelent post. This is not a great team it is a fair to middling team with the best goalie in the world. It has to scrap and fight for every point. If they do that yeah they have a good shot at winning. We are not that far from being a great team, we need a goalscorer and some of our defensive prospects to become NHL'ers and we will be awesome. We also need a coach who can at least spell powerplay.

[hab29RETIRED]

I don't think the Sens are a very good team, they Are just a team we haven't played well against for a number of years now (just like we have successfully against the Oilers for a number of years - which is even more mind boggling!!)

The Sens still got a lot better shots on price last night than we got against the Sens on Friday.

Price made at least 10 brilliant saves last night. I thought Anderson made around 3 in Friday.

We have a fundamental weakness in shooting from the outside AND not having traffic in front of the goalie. The Sens were in Price's kitchen for most of the series.

The team most "experts" did not want to face were the Jets, because how big and tough they were playing. They went out in 4.

I was unable to see the first two periods of Game 6. But I watched the third period with nail-biting intensity. Despite the shot totals, I thought we were the better team until the very end, when - as inevitably happens in almost every elimination game - the losing team threw everything it had at the eventual winner. The Sens took a lot of perimeter shots that Price had no trouble with. Meanwhile, we missed, like, three open nets and had stellar chances to go up 2-0. The pessimist notes that - as has been happening all season - our guys flub big chances. The optimist notes that we were able to take the game to the desperate Senators for 15:00 of that third period.

To my mind, it's more proof that SOG totals don't come close to telling the whole story. And it's funny, because when the Habs massively outshot Ottawa in Game 5, everybody agreed that shot totals are irrelevant. But when the Habs are the ones giving up a lot of shots, suddenly that becomes a telling indicator of our suckage, at least in some circles.

Further to this theme of double standards: going into the playoffs, the experts were unanimous that the one team nobody wanted to play in Round One was the 'hottest team in hockey,' the Cinderella Ottawa Senators. Moreover, many observers noted that Ottawa has been a sort of Kryptonite to the Habs all season, going back at least to 2103, really. The universal theme was: these Sens are really dangerous.

Having defeated the Sens in 6, we now hear a lot about how 'the Habs had to struggle to put away a mediocre team.'

We can't have it both ways. Either the Senators were a formidable opponent with massive intangibles who we nevertheless decisively defeated, or they weren't. We can't retroactively downgrade them to ciphers on the grounds that we decisively defeated them.

I remember very well the same dynamic in 1993. Going into the Nordiques series, all the authorities declared that the Habs were in tough against a real powerhouse. Six games later, the narrative was NOT that the Habs were good; it was that the Nords really weren't that great after all.

Now, mediocrity at FW probably is indeed the Achilles's Heel that will eventually do this team in. We are built in such a way that - unless Price works miracles - we have to get scoring from at least three lines on a tolerably reliable basis. We got adequate offence early in the series, but this weakness came more to the fore as it progressed. If we can get a 'different hero every night' for Round Two, we have a good chance of winning that as well; if we don't, the odds drops considerably.

All of this is to say that the Habs remain what they've been all season: second-tier contenders with gusts up to first-tier contenders if we can get everyone firing. A fine team, not a great one. But it doesn't follow that we suck, or that we are frauds, or that we do not have a chance of going very far indeed.

There is too much negativity surrounding a team that just won Round One handily against a team that everybody feared going in.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I think we're too used to how it was during the deadpuck era, which is also known to be the powerhouse era. Powerhouse era had Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and New Jersey trading the Cup while the Penguins, Flyers, Maple Leafs and Blues were strong regular season teams that couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

Between 2004-2009 you didn't have a single team repeat. All new Cup winners. The only teams to make the finals twice were the Penguins and Red Wings back to back.

2010-2014 has been the Kings, Blackhawks and Bruins ruling the roost. Kings and Blackhawks have two cups while Boston has a Cup and a finals appearance. Behind them has been the Penguins, Capitals, Sharks, Blues and Canucks at different times being regular season powerhouses that were never able to do more than that.

Today, with the Kings, Sharks and Bruins missing the playoffs and the Penguins, Blues and Canucks being dumped early, it feels like we're moving into a new era of balance. Nobody is a solid favourite, save for maybe the Blackhawks who are a holdover from the previous era. Second-tier Habs? That's probably because nobody feels first-tier. Montreal and New York improved on their regular season records from last year when they both made the ECF. Ducks were the only team to sweep but are still winning most of their games by a single goal. The Wild, Predators, Capitals, Islanders, Lightning, Blues, Penguins, Red Wings... all of these teams are second tier at best. All of them can win their series or get dumped first round. Canucks and Flames felt like creations of a weak division instead of actual "second-tier" teams. Senators were the Cinderella story.

So either the Habs, Blackhawks and Rangers, the Conference Finalists from last post-season are the Top-Tier teams or nobody is top tier because we're in a brand new era. Call it the Wildcard Era, and the best teams in the Wildcard Era so far are

Chicago: 2014 WCF appearance

New York: 2014 Cup Final appearance, 2015 President's Trophy winner

Montreal: 2014 ECF appearance, 2015 Division winner

Anaheim: 2014 and 2015 WC Season Champion

Unless someone outside of those four wins the Cup or makes the ECF/WCF, that's the top tier.

[hab29RETIRED]

I don't think MT knows the diff between a PK and a PP. Hell we tend to get more chances on the PK than the PP!

CC another excelent post. This is not a great team it is a fair to middling team with the best goalie in the world. It has to scrap and fight for every point. If they do that yeah they have a good shot at winning. We are not that far from being a great team, we need a goalscorer and some of our defensive prospects to become NHL'ers and we will be awesome. We also need a coach who can at least spell powerplay.

[sbhatt]

We were bad at times, good most of the time, but never great in this series. The main thing going forward is for Pacioretty to get back to 100%, and for Markov to shake whatever is CLEARLY wrong with him. Those two being at their best would be a big difference maker for this team. If that happens, and our PP can get functioning at even a mediocre level, we will win in much more convincing fashion going forward.

I don't think MT knows the diff between a PK and a PP. Hell we tend to get more chances on the PK than the PP!

We do get some beauty chances when down a man on a fairly regular basis.

[DON]

I was unable to see the first two periods of Game 6. But I watched the third period with nail-biting intensity. Despite the shot totals, I thought we were the better team until the very end, when - as inevitably happens in almost every elimination game - the losing team threw everything it had at the eventual winner. The Sens took a lot of perimeter shots that Price had no trouble with. Meanwhile, we missed, like, three open nets and had stellar chances to go up 2-0. The pessimist notes that - as has been happening all season - our guys flub big chances. The optimist notes that we were able to take the game to the desperate Senators for 15:00 of that third period.

To my mind, it's more proof that SOG totals don't come close to telling the whole story. And it's funny, because when the Habs massively outshot Ottawa in Game 5, everybody agreed that shot totals are irrelevant. But when the Habs are the ones giving up a lot of shots, suddenly that becomes a telling indicator of our suckage, at least in some circles.

not true

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I'd say we were great in game one. No Pacioretty, no Subban for half the game, facing the hottest goalie in the league and with what felt like the team was on the penalty kill the entire time and we beat the Senators 4-3. Without Pacioretty or Subban with Price not playing his best, that should have been a game we lost. Instead we won and we won with a confidence break in Hammond in the Senators, who felt unbeatable at that point. That was a great playoff game and a great team effort.

[DON]

Pacioretty maybe is holding them back, Habs were undefeated and scoring more when he was out!

[Habsfan]

We were bad at times, good most of the time, but never great in this series. The main thing going forward is for Pacioretty to get back to 100%, and for Markov to shake whatever is CLEARLY wrong with him. Those two being at their best would be a big difference maker for this team. If that happens, and our PP can get functioning at even a mediocre level, we will win in much more convincing fashion going forward.

I think Max got better as the series went on. He was clearly still a little rattled from the concussion. I expect him to be back to 100% by the time the 2nd round starts.

Markov I believe was feeling the fatigue of this long season. Let's not forget he's 36 yrs old and has been playing an average of 24 minutes per game. If the Habs can get 4-5 days rest before the 2nd round starts, then I think Markov will feel better as well.

Lastly, the PP. I have to admit that this is our biggest problem. True that PP numbers always go down during the playoffs, but going 1 for 19 is definitely not a good thing. had we scored one or two more PP goals, I think the series with the Hens would have been over in 5 or maybe even 4 games.we will need to find some more offence if we want to make it past the second round!

[habs rule]

I don't think MT knows the diff between a PK and a PP. Hell we tend to get more chances on the PK than the PP!

Yeah that extra man seems to really screw us up. Maybe we could leave him on the bench till we really need him, or lets put the back up goalie in, 2 goalies no short handed goals. Ahh I am sure that Le Genius has thought of all that.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I really like this team. I know, to some who haven't been on the board for awhile, I must sound like a homer. I have a good feeling about the team over the last two years, and I'm just trying to enjoy this morsel of "contenderdom" in a bitter soup of failure. I don't care about shots, I don't care about the media and with the exception of the 5-1 loss, I never had a shred of doubt the Habs wouldn't smoke the Sens.

This is the second year of May hockey in a row, and I'm happy to just be watching this late.

[Toronthab]

I was unable to see the first two periods of Game 6. But I watched the third period with nail-biting intensity. Despite the shot totals, I thought we were the better team until the very end, when - as inevitably happens in almost every elimination game - the losing team threw everything it had at the eventual winner. The Sens took a lot of perimeter shots that Price had no trouble with. Meanwhile, we missed, like, three open nets and had stellar chances to go up 2-0. The pessimist notes that - as has been happening all season - our guys flub big chances. The optimist notes that we were able to take the game to the desperate Senators for 15:00 of that third period.

To my mind, it's more proof that SOG totals don't come close to telling the whole story. And it's funny, because when the Habs massively outshot Ottawa in Game 5, everybody agreed that shot totals are irrelevant. But when the Habs are the ones giving up a lot of shots, suddenly that becomes a telling indicator of our suckage, at least in some circles.

Further to this theme of double standards: going into the playoffs, the experts were unanimous that the one team nobody wanted to play in Round One was the 'hottest team in hockey,' the Cinderella Ottawa Senators. Moreover, many observers noted that Ottawa has been a sort of Kryptonite to the Habs all season, going back at least to 2103, really. The universal theme was: these Sens are really dangerous.

Having defeated the Sens in 6, we now hear a lot about how 'the Habs had to struggle to put away a mediocre team.'

We can't have it both ways. Either the Senators were a formidable opponent with massive intangibles who we nevertheless decisively defeated, or they weren't. We can't retroactively downgrade them to ciphers on the grounds that we decisively defeated them.

I remember very well the same dynamic in 1993. Going into the Nordiques series, all the authorities declared that the Habs were in tough against a real powerhouse. Six games later, the narrative was NOT that the Habs were good; it was that the Nords really weren't that great after all.

Now, mediocrity at FW probably is indeed the Achilles's Heel that will eventually do this team in. We are built in such a way that - unless Price works miracles - we have to get scoring from at least three lines on a tolerably reliable basis. We got adequate offence early in the series, but this weakness came more to the fore as it progressed. If we can get a 'different hero every night' for Round Two, we have a good chance of winning that as well; if we don't, the odds drops considerably.

All of this is to say that the Habs remain what they've been all season: second-tier contenders with gusts up to first-tier contenders if we can get everyone firing. A fine team, not a great one. But it doesn't follow that we suck, or that we are frauds, or that we do not have a chance of going very far indeed.

There is too much negativity surrounding a team that just won Round One handily against a team that everybody feared going in.

Bravo. Well said. If I had any clue what I was talking about , I'd have said something similar. Unfortunately...

[Toronthab]

I really like this team. I know, to some who haven't been on the board for awhile, I must sound like a homer. I have a good feeling about the team over the last two years, and I'm just trying to enjoy this morsel of "contenderdom" in a bitter soup of failure. I don't care about shots, I don't care about the media and with the exception of the 5-1 loss, I never had a shred of doubt the Habs wouldn't smoke the Sens.

This is the second year of May hockey in a row, and I'm happy to just be watching this late.

I like the team too Lovett's .. First .. I don't know enough to make good asessments of the other teams generally, and don't have any quiet confidence to bring, but with our notable weaknesses notwithstanding, there's just a lot to like in this team and when its good, its good. I thought we were excellent and full value for the win in 6 and coulda had 3 more goals so easily while playing intense defensive hockey as the priority and letting the offence look after itself as circumstances permitted. I was very impressed with the whole team effort and performance. We are a defensive team of necessity with a couple of excellent offensive assets and a lot of character. Game 5 was a nearly predictable psychological letdown as nobody thought Ottawa could beat Price four times in a row. We celebrated a little early as they got desperate and quite lucky. We really are all human.. well.. somewhat human.. I'm enjoying my team and hope to be a good fan as we enjoy their postseason adventures. And we have more to come in future years.

[Habs30/31]

Like the positive thinking.

But Its all Carey !

[BCHabnut]

Like the positive thinking.

But Its all Carey !

Are you saying that this series was all Carey? Game 6 was all Carey. Times 1000. But the other 3 wins were team efforts brought about by timely goals from the bottom 6, some great defending, and a few lucky bounces for the Habs. This series win was not all Carey. One win was.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Are you saying that this series was all Carey? Game 6 was all Carey. Times 1000. But the other 3 wins were team efforts brought about by timely goals from the bottom 6, some great defending, and a few lucky bounces for the Habs. This series win was not all Carey. One win was.

The Carey Price Truthers

I fear Carey Price heading into "Patrice Bergeron territory" where he becomes this heraled player who can do no wrong and is mentioned in boiler plate articles without regards to how the team plays in front of him.

[Guest Stogey24]

It's actually a good thing Price wasn't the reason we won every game. Spread the wealth.

1.94a and .939sv% along with a shutout is nothing to sneeze at though.