Jump to content

2017-18 NHL Thread


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

There is only one contender each year???? Really??? So Pittsburgh, TBL, Nashville, Boston, even friggin Winnipeg (who have never one a playoff series) and the first year vegas golden knights are all legitimate contenders - albeit the top 4 listed above are the most serious contenders.

Boston,  winipeg, and vegas are very much like recent versions of the canadiens.  Everything goes well for a season and suddenly they are contenders.  The next year they are a lottery team. It's vegas first season. A bit early to label them perennial contenders. Tampa has missed the playoffs regularly recently. There are only a few perennial contenders any more. Recent trends show teams going to the semi finals or finals and missing playoffs the following year. Or the reverse.  I agree that MB had not done his job. The team is not as good now as it was early in his tenure, so to that end he has failed and should be fired. But expecting a contender year over year is a tall order in the cap era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

:huh:

I don’t believe in Nashville or Tampa, simple

as that. No one mentions Washington and I don’t believe in them for similar reasons. Boston, I’ll never be unbiased and Vegas doesn’t have a shot unless Fleury plays the opposite of his usual playoff self. 

 

Finally, like he said Winnipeg has never won a playoff series and all of a sudden we’re supposed to consider that they are a contender for the cup. Is that how quickly fortunes change in the modern NHL? Oh, looks like we might have a chance next year then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I don’t believe in Nashville or Tampa, simple

as that. No one mentions Washington and I don’t believe in them for similar reasons. Boston, I’ll never be unbiased and Vegas doesn’t have a shot unless Fleury plays the opposite of his usual playoff self. 

 

Finally, like he said Winnipeg has never won a playoff series and all of a sudden we’re supposed to consider that they are a contender for the cup. Is that how quickly fortunes change in the modern NHL? Oh, looks like we might have a chance next year then. 

I think either of Nashville or Tampa have a very legitimate chance to win the cup this year. They are both extremely deep teams loaded with talent and speed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

I think either of Nashville or Tampa have a very legitimate chance to win the cup this year. They are both extremely deep teams loaded with talent and speed. 

I think the same thing about Washington almost every year. I think goaltending will turn out to be an issue for Tampa and believe the West is too tough to predict the favorites to actually win. They certainly are contenders though, you’re right. I’ll just sincerely be surprised if either Nashville or Tampa lift the cup this year and am saying it because it’s truly how I feel all the while understanding that they are contenders by definition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never understand the narrative that the Habs have never had a shot at the Cup since Bergevin has been here. They have 3 division titles and went on a couple runs in the playoffs. They've had seasons where they have scored a bunch, and seasons where they have allowed very few. Seasons with a Hart, Vezina and Norris trophy performance. What does it take to be a "serious contender" here in Habsworld? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, illWill said:

I'll never understand the narrative that the Habs have never had a shot at the Cup since Bergevin has been here. They have 3 division titles and went on a couple runs in the playoffs. They've had seasons where they have scored a bunch, and seasons where they have allowed very few. Seasons with a Hart, Vezina and Norris trophy performance. What does it take to be a "serious contender" here in Habsworld? 

 

 

 

 

The longer MB has been in charge, the further away they've gotten from contention.

 

In 2014, they got to the semi-finals and might well have made the finals if Price hadn't suffered that knee job. Contender.

In 2015, they are eliminated in the second round. Perhaps contenders, but their lack of scoring had become an obvious issue at this point. Most of us were of the view that they were in the second tier of contenders and needed moves to put them in the front ranks.

In 2016, they miss the playoffs. Not contenders.

In 2017, ridiculously healthy, they are one and done against a Rags team that itself is at best a second-tier contender. Not contenders.

In 2018, they are one of the worst teams in hockey. Not contenders.

 

See a pattern here? MB inherited a team on the cusp and turned it into a steaming pile of horsesh*t.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

The longer MB has been in charge, the further away they've gotten from contention.

 

In 2014, they got to the semi-finals and might well have made the finals if Price hadn't suffered that knee job. Contender.

In 2015, they are eliminated in the second round. Perhaps contenders, but their lack of scoring had become an obvious issue at this point. Most of us were of the view that they were in the second tier of contenders and needed moves to put them in the front ranks.

In 2016, they miss the playoffs. Not contenders.

In 2017, ridiculously healthy, they are one and done against a Rags team that itself is at best a second-tier contender. Not contenders.

In 2018, they are one of the worst teams in hockey. Not contenders.

 

See a pattern here? MB inherited a team on the cusp and turned it into a steaming pile of horsesh*t.

 

So in order to be a "contender", you need to have positive playoff results viewed after the fact? 

 

Why has Washington and San Jose been considered a contender for the last decade but haven't done jack in the playoffs? Why is Vegas a contender this year if they never existed before? Winnipeg hasn't won a single playoff game in 6 years. Tampa missed the playoffs 3 of the last 6 seasons going into this one, while missing last year. Boston has one playoff appearance in the last 3 seasons. 

 

Something isn't right about the logic around here and I am just trying to clarify

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

So in order to be a "contender", you need to have positive playoff results viewed after the fact? 

 

Why has Washington and San Jose been considered a contender for the last decade but haven't done jack in the playoffs? Why is Vegas a contender this year if they never existed before? Winnipeg hasn't won a single playoff game in 6 years. Tampa missed the playoffs 3 of the last 6 seasons going into this one, while missing last year. Boston has one playoff appearance in the last 3 seasons. 

 

Something isn't right about the logic around here and I am just trying to clarify

 

Teams that are considered contenders generally have very strong rosters. San Jose made the finals, so you have no case there, while WASH has had rosters with very impressive strengths. The Habs, meanwhile, have not generally been rated contenders by observers because their roster has had too many obvious weaknesses.

 

As for the playoffs, they can sometimes expose a team as a pretender rather than a contender. E.g., in 2010 the Habs exposed the Capitals as a team with erratic goaltending and which was simply not ready, psychologically, for the rigours of playoff hockey. Similarly, 2015 exposed the Habs' fundamental deficiency on offence. Amusingly, after two years of moves, the one-and-done 2016 playoff exposed the very same weakness in the very same way - just against a team that was somewhat feebler than the 2015 Lightning who went to the Finals.

 

You seem to be confusing good teams with contenders. They're not the same thing. The 2017 were a good team - no more than that. Barring further changes, the 2019 Habs should be significantly worse than the 2017 team, since Markov and Radulov will still be missing.

 

Another thing is that teams often have to be serious contenders over a number of years in order to win a Cup. I think many Habs' fans still cling to the 1986 myth of the "miracle run." And sure, that can happen, but the point is to tilt the odds in your favour over several seasons by icing a heavy-duty contender year after year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, illWill said:

I'll never understand the narrative that the Habs have never had a shot at the Cup since Bergevin has been here. They have 3 division titles and went on a couple runs in the playoffs. They've had seasons where they have scored a bunch, and seasons where they have allowed very few. Seasons with a Hart, Vezina and Norris trophy performance. What does it take to be a "serious contender" here in Habsworld? 

 

I think 2014/2015/2016 they had a legitimate shot, but it depended on Bergevin putting the team over the top and getting a new coach.

 

2014 they had Therrien but got to the ECF. Vanek was a great trade by Bergevin. Price got hurt but the Habs were sucking that game before it happened. The fact they stayed competitive and lost in six and not a sweep shows with Price they could have gone to the final.

2015 they needed more offence and the most Bergevin did was flip Briere for Parenteau. They did great in the season but showed real offensive issues that Bergevin did not address. Getting Petry was good but the team needed scorers. The playoffs exposed that.

2016 they started out great. Price got hurt. Bergevin should have acquired Reimer who was available for cheap but instead flipped Kassian for Scrivens. Much like 2018, he let the season die. His decisions that summer were so awful it's what killed my confidence in him, as prior to the 15-16 season I was supportive. The team got exposed as having offensive issues and his big idea was to get Semin and Fleischmann. It was embarrassing.

 

After 2016 I think their window of having a legitimate shot began to close. Flipping Subban for Weber meant less mobility on the back-end and losing their best playoff driver. Radulov was a good signing but for one year, making him a rental in a long list of RW rentals. Nothing else was really done to address the offence. Everyone was now older. The coaching situation wasn't fixed until mid-season and even that was barely a fix. Something could have been done but it needed a lot of work Bergevin wasn't willing to do. By this point the centre situation was now a joke and the defence was getting worse.

 

Which brings us to this season, where the window is pretty much slammed shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Teams that are considered contenders generally have very strong rosters. San Jose made the finals, so you have no case there, while WASH has had rosters with very impressive strengths. The Habs, meanwhile, have not generally been rated contenders by observers because their roster has had too many obvious weaknesses.

 

As for the playoffs, they can sometimes expose a team as a pretender rather than a contender. 2015 exposed the Habs' fundamental deficiency on offence. Amusingly, after two years of moves, the one-and-done 2016 playoff exposed the very same weakness in the very same way - just against a team that was somewhat feebler than the 2015 Lightning who went to the Finals.

 

You seem to be confusing good teams with contenders. They're not the same thing. The 2017 were a good team - no more than that.

 

Teams that are considered contenders generally do well in the regular season, thus earning the status of contender, which Montreal should have done. But it sure seems that because it is Montreal, they don't get the same credit that other similar teams receive. San Jose made the finals once, so that made them contenders all of the previous years? Washington destroyed the league the regular season but haven't done anything in the playoffs, but they are contenders? You say that a team can be exposed in the playoffs. I don't buy that at all. To me it's all about match ups, health and hot streaks. I'm not confusing good teams with contenders whatsoever. A wild card team is a good team, not a "contender", but they still do have a shot at winning. And I am firm in believing that when Montreal was winning divisions they were a legit contender. Saying otherwise is just showing bias 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Teams that are considered contenders generally do well in the regular season, thus earning the status of contender, which Montreal should have done. But it sure seems that because it is Montreal, they don't get the same credit that other similar teams receive. San Jose made the finals once, so that made them contenders all of the previous years? Washington destroyed the league the regular season but haven't done anything in the playoffs, but they are contenders? You say that a team can be exposed in the playoffs. I don't buy that at all. To me it's all about match ups, health and hot streaks. I'm not confusing good teams with contenders whatsoever. A wild card team is a good team, not a "contender", but they still do have a shot at winning. And I am firm in believing that when Montreal was winning divisions they were a legit contender. Saying otherwise is just showing bias 

 

Yes, any team that makes the playoffs has some sort of shot at winning. The "contender" question concerns (in effect) the odds.

 

If you want to think a team with Danault and an old Plekanec as its 1-2 punch at C was a heavy duty contender, be my guest, but most hockey analysts have chosen to look at actual lineups, not just the team's regular season results, when assessing teams' playoff prospects, and I think those analysts are probably right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Yes, any team that makes the playoffs has some sort of shot at winning. The "contender" question concerns (in effect) the odds.

 

This season has a major shift in the season standings. Here's what it is currently in points compared to last season.

 

2017 East: Washington, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Montreal, New York, Ottawa, Boston, Toronto

2017 West: Chicago, Minnesota, Anaheim, Edmonton, St. Louis, San Jose, Calgary, Nashville

 

2018 East: Tampa, Boston, Toronto, Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Columbus, New Jersey

2018 West: Nashville, Vegas, Winnipeg, Minnesota, San Jose, Colorado, Los Angeles, Anaheim

 

You got seven of 16 teams that are new. Tampa went from missing the playoffs to leading the east. Nashville went from 8th seed to 1st seed. Vegas is brand new. The top team in the west last year isn't in a playoff spot. 

 

It's hard to say out of that who just had a strong season and who is an actual contender. For me the only contenders (and this is lame and not risky) are Pittsburgh and Nashville. There's a lot of teams like Tampa, Boston, Winnipeg, and Washington who are strong but it's difficult to say if I think they can go all the way. Contenders for me are usually teams that went deep last year and look strong this year. That's what makes them a contender. Anyone can have a good season. It's whether you look like you can beat the 15 other teams in a seven game series.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

This season has a major shift in the season standings. Here's what it is currently in points compared to last season.

 

2017 East: Washington, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Montreal, New York, Ottawa, Boston, Toronto

2017 West: Chicago, Minnesota, Anaheim, Edmonton, St. Louis, San Jose, Calgary, Nashville

 

2018 East: Tampa, Boston, Toronto, Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Columbus, New Jersey

2018 West: Nashville, Vegas, Winnipeg, Minnesota, San Jose, Colorado, Los Angeles, Anaheim

 

You got seven of 16 teams that are new. Tampa went from missing the playoffs to leading the east. Nashville went from 8th seed to 1st seed. Vegas is brand new. The top team in the west last year isn't in a playoff spot. 

 

It's hard to say out of that who just had a strong season and who is an actual contender. For me the only contenders (and this is lame and not risky) are Pittsburgh and Nashville. There's a lot of teams like Tampa, Boston, Winnipeg, and Washington who are strong but it's difficult to say if I think they can go all the way. Contenders for me are usually teams that went deep last year and look strong this year. That's what makes them a contender. Anyone can have a good season. It's whether you look like you can beat the 15 other teams in a seven game series.

 

 

You're being too hard on Tampa. They missed the playoffs last season due to injuries, but prior to that the same basic nucleus went to the Finals and the conference finals. This season is not a "come from nowhere" year for them, it's more like a reversion to the norm. They are contenders.

 

You're certainly right that a team that goes deep and then has a strong season has a great case for "contender" status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You're being too hard on Tampa. They missed the playoffs last season due to injuries, but prior to that the same basic nucleus went to the Finals and the conference finals. This season is not a "come from nowhere" year for them, it's more like a reversion to the norm. They are contenders.

 

You're certainly right that a team that goes deep and then has a strong season has a great case for "contender" status.

 

I'm only being hard on them because their goalie has 12 playoff games of experience and he's looking mighty tired these days. He even admitted as such. I think Tampa made a mistake in sticking with Domingue as backup. Should have traded for a veteran goalie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I'm only being hard on them because their goalie has 12 playoff games of experience and he's looking mighty tired these days. He even admitted as such. I think Tampa made a mistake in sticking with Domingue as backup. Should have traded for a veteran goalie.

That's a good point on dimingue. Vasy has been phenomenal this year bit had slowed down recently.  I have benched talbot all season in favour of him but the last few weeks he us not getting me the fan points. I may lose this week because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You're being too hard on Tampa. They missed the playoffs last season due to injuries, but prior to that the same basic nucleus went to the Finals and the conference finals. This season is not a "come from nowhere" year for them, it's more like a reversion to the norm. They are contenders.

 

You're certainly right that a team that goes deep and then has a strong season has a great case for "contender" status.

100% agree.  And the ransom we started so well and subsequently ended up finishing high in the standings last year is because of the anomaly of a lot of good teams not doing well because of injuries (ie TBL), or ones that needed change in direction (ie BOS).  I said last year that we weren’t as good as the standings show and I would have flipped our roaster for the lightening in a heartbeat last year - regardless of how much higher we finished.  This year, we are as bad as the standings show. At the start of this year i said we would not finish anywhere near as high in the standings as last year.  How bad we are is a a product of Price sucking/being injured and Weber being injured. But it’s also because even with Weber, we have probably one of the worst 5 defencemen in the league and one of the worst offences in the league and by far the worst centres in the league.  If you can’t score, have lousy defence and depend on your goalie to be the MVP of the league, at best you are a bubble team and more often than not going to be as bad as we’ve been. We are pre-yzerman red Wong’s bad and the leafs after Ballard dumped sitter, McDonald, salmon hand palmateer bad.  And that’s all that m the GM.  Poor coaching decisions and more of a job of tearing down a roster, than building one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I'm only being hard on them because their goalie has 12 playoff games of experience and he's looking mighty tired these days. He even admitted as such. I think Tampa made a mistake in sticking with Domingue as backup. Should have traded for a veteran goalie.

But they solidified the defence which is going to go along way in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I don’t believe in Nashville or Tampa, simple

as that. No one mentions Washington and I don’t believe in them for similar reasons. Boston, I’ll never be unbiased and Vegas doesn’t have a shot unless Fleury plays the opposite of his usual playoff self. 

 

Finally, like he said Winnipeg has never won a playoff series and all of a sudden we’re supposed to consider that they are a contender for the cup. Is that how quickly fortunes change in the modern NHL? Oh, looks like we might have a chance next year then. 

Winnipeg has the best roster they’ve ever had - going as far back as the Hawerchuck days.  They have never won a playoff series, but after the predators, the west is wide open, which is why I’d consider Winnipeg and vegas solid contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

But they solidified the defence which is going to go along way in the playoffs.

 

They've scored and allowed 29 goals so far in March. That's some great goal scoring in 8 games... but bad in allowing goals too.

 

If they play the Devils I think they will make quick work of them. If they play the Panthers though? That would be a challenge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hypocrisy is outstanding in this thread. Tampa didn't make the playoffs because of injuries, but when Montreal is decimated with them it doesn't matter because they suck anyway. Boston is a good team that didnt make the playoffs because they needed a change? Well certainly Montreal needs a change, but yet they still suck anyway. 

 

I'll just leave this here because clearly people look at the same thing differently

 

"Is the glass half empty or half full?" is a common expression, a proverbial phrase, generally used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for optimism (half full) or pessimism (half empty), or as a general litmus test to simply determine an individual's worldview."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, illWill said:

The hypocrisy is outstanding in this thread. Tampa didn't make the playoffs because of injuries, but when Montreal is decimated with them it doesn't matter because they suck anyway. Boston is a good team that didnt make the playoffs because they needed a change? Well certainly Montreal needs a change, but yet they still suck anyway. 

 

I'll just leave this here because clearly people look at the same thing differently

 

"Is the glass half empty or half full?" is a common expression, a proverbial phrase, generally used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for optimism (half full) or pessimism (half empty), or as a general litmus test to simply determine an individual's worldview."

 

Tampa missed the playoffs by one point. Montreal is looking to miss by 18 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The habs were terrible from pre season until now, they had no injuries to start the year. 

 

You can't ice a team without a #1 or 2 center and only 1 legit top 4 D man and expect the team to be good

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This season Montreal is terrible, there's no denying it. Injuries are only a part of the reason. I think that not spending to the cap and team composition are the other factors. If our mvp is healthy, and our best defenseman isn't out all season that makes a huge difference. But having enough money for either 1 superstar player or 2 good players sitting in the bank hurts just as much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said consistently that with a healthy Weber and Price, this team probably makes the playoffs.

 

It doesn't follow that I'm a hypocrite for not believing for one moment that that team can win the Cup without some sort of miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I've said consistently that with a healthy Weber and Price, this team probably makes the playoffs.

 

It doesn't follow that I'm a hypocrite for not believing for one moment that that team can win the Cup without some sort of miracle.

 

This team? Oh gawd no. Is it that far off? I don't think so. Obviously the miracle is being able to sign a Tavares or drafting a Dahlin and signing a Stastny perhaps. Regardless this isn't the team that's going to be iced in October and there are some great pieces here already. It's about time Montreal got some luck though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • dlbalr unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...