Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Damphousse was a left winger when Montreal acquired him. He played a little center in Toronto because they sucked (I have his rookie card. Listed as C/LW), left wing in NHL All-Star game as MVP, left wing on Edmonton, and played LW on Montreal. In 95-96 he was still considered a left winger but played more center with Rucinsky at his left. That was when he started making the transition to center. The goal in the summer of 92 was not to acquire a center. They already had Muller and Savard there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Habs30/31 is probably oversimplifying, but he has a legitimate point in the following, common-sense way: the Habs are indeed weaker at C than most other teams classified as "contenders." While I wouldn't go so far as to say that we can NEVER win the Cup with this situation in place - it's too much like the argument in the early 1990s that you could NEVER win the Cup without a Lemieux/Jagr-style offensive superstar, a myth the Habs and Devils completely punctured - it is a legitimate competitive disadvantage. We might be able to compensate for that disadvantage by exceptional strengths in other areas (Subban, Price, a more balanced attack than other teams), but it remains a disadvantage. One key thing that happened in last year's playoffs was that Lars Eller suddenly stepped up and played up to his potential instead of playing like a dummy. While that did not give us an elite C, it WAS like adding a second Plekanec to the roster, and definitely helped to compensate for that competitive disadvantage through depth. The problem is, it's far from clear that you can pencil in Eller for that kind of performance going forward. So, structurally, the issue remains. The error occurs when people (in effect) attack Pleks for not being Getzlaf, just as they attack DD for the same thing. Getting rid of these guys will not fix the problem, because they are not the problem, as such. They are very fine, very valuable hockey players. But if some other team has a Crosby or Stamkos at C and we don't, by definition we have a disadvantage at C. No getting around it. Well said. btw....its the habs i have slighted for the shallow state down the middle. Stated many times that its peks od dds fault they are asked to play higher in the pecking order that they are built for. On any serious contender outside of Montreal they are second and third line players. And good ones. First liners? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 We arnt paying 2 centres $8m each as Pitt is and thus are deeper than Pitt, even with no All-Star centres. How did Crosby-Getzlaf led teams do in past few playoffs? Old adage, defense is required to win championships in team sports. (but having only 1 All-Star forward is a weakness for a contender, I agree) how did crosby or getzlaf do? Only one team can win a year. Points is both those no centers have cup rings. Both play on legitimate contenders repeatedly. And in Pitts case ....dont seriously contend? Coach and gm get fired......not rewarded with a four year extension. Pitt lost Rangers in seven and got fired. Habs lost to rangers in six and coach got a 4 year extension. Difference ? Pitt was a serious contender and failed. Habs not a contender but went farther than anyone dreamed they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Crosby and Getzlaf teams didn't make final 4. Why not, they are serious contending teams with All Star centres & wingers? Why the underachieving occurred for them and overachieving by a tiny soft team with a hobbit-smurf and little girl as top 2 centres? Not supposed to be possible I keep hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 We're 6-1 right now boys... Our superstar is a show stopping right handed d-man(Damn hard to come by). Who can throw the team on his back any given night. We have an elite level LW(Pac) who was 4th in goal scoring in the entire league last year and another LW,C who is showing every sign of being our best offensive player in years(Chucky). Oh ya, we also have the best goalie in the league when all else fails.... We have the pieces to win the cup. If Price didn't get hurt last year we were heading to the finals, without an apparent #1 C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEWATER77 Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 we don't have the prototypical #1 center, but the centers that we do have, also have pretty darned good wingers riding shotgun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Price (no relation) Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Boston doesn't have an elite centre. No, Krejci and Bergeron don't count...they're comparable to what we've already got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 We're 6-1 right now boys... Our superstar is a show stopping right handed d-man(Damn hard to come by). Who can throw the team on his back any given night. We have an elite level LW(Pac) who was 4th in goal scoring in the entire league last year and another LW,C who is showing every sign of being our best offensive player in years(Chucky). Oh ya, we also have the best goalie in the league when all else fails.... We have the pieces to win the cup. If Price didn't get hurt last year we were heading to the finals, without an apparent #1 C. Exactly.... I don't see the team as needing that elite center to be a contender, at least not in the East, make the finals and anything can happen with a deep and balanced team.... Galchenyuk is going to be a force every shift, and is as close to elite as we Habs fans have seen in decades, I'll take him and the balance and depth we have over paying 10 mil for one player.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Ranger blogger noted "scarier" issue (than defending DDs line) of the "Galchenyuk line" and who can best defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The biggest factor in our success last year bar none, was that we stayed relatively healthy compared to our rivals. Once Price went down, our all was not enough and we succumbed like Boston and Tampa. It is a tad early to be planning the parade route 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEWATER77 Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 too bad "our all" was left in the boston series. the rangers only got "our some" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The biggest factor in our success last year bar none, was that we stayed relatively healthy compared to our rivals. Once Price went down, our all was not enough and we succumbed like Boston and Tampa. It is a tad early to be planning the parade route The funny thing is that everyone and his dog have concluded that the Price injury defined the series, yet Tokarski played very, very well. The Habs did not lose because their goaltending was poor. Maybe the loss of Price hurt us psychologically - he is, after all, THE team leader, the foundation upon which all else rests. But goaltending as such was not the reason we lost. I'm not sure what the actual, on-ice reason was, other than that we had no response to the Rags' bottling-up of our star defencemen. Fatigue after the Boston series is my preferred explanation. Maybe that fatigue, coupled with the psychological blow of losing Price, did them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Rangers were supercanadian and didn't suffer fatigue? Habs swept in 1st round, Rangers had to go 7 vs Philly and then 7 vs Pitt, cant be less tiring was it? Was Plekanec sucking or not being 'good enough playoff guy' that killed the Habs wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Rangers were supercanadian and didn't suffer fatigue? Habs swept in 1st round, Rangers had to go 7 vs Philly and then 7 vs Pitt, cant be less tiring was it? Was Plekanec sucking or not being 'good enough playoff guy' that killed the Habs wasn't it? Pleks' poor series didn't help, but much more damaging, in my opinion, was that neither Subban nor Markov wove any magic all series. The "fatigue" argument would only work if we accept that the Boston series was a ridiculously punishing, super-intense series. I've said before that that was one of those most physically punishing series I've ever seen the Habs play. In that sense, it might be analogous to the old Habs-Nordiques days, when it was often thought that whoever won the series would have little left in the tank for whatever came after, and often didn't. I think this makes some sense - the Habs had scaled the mountain against Boston and didn't have the extra reserves they needed against a rather faceless Rags team; but others, especially those with some sort of irrational all-consuming hate-on for Plekanec, may disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The team wasn't ready for game one. We all remember how ugly it was before Price got hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So poor coaching was issue? How bout if you remove Lundqvist and add back in Price to series, any difference to result you think....even with Frodo as #1a and Smurfette as 1b centre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So poor coaching was issue? How bout if you remove Lundqvist and add back in Price to series, any difference to result you think....even with Frodo as #1a and Smurfette as 1b centre? But that's what I'm saying. Tokarski played very, very well. So we need an explanation for the defeat other than Price's absence, even though Price's absence has become the standard narrative for explaining the Habs' defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Tokarski played well, but . Tokarski isn't seen by teammates as a leader, nor called the best goalie in the NHL by teammates, likely didn't intimidate Rangers as a hot Price would of and dosent have a Olympic gold medal hanging in his locker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Jeez...we need a new game to discuss. "Player x" sucked because that's what teams and players look like before they get eliminated from the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 If some'one' wasn't so insistent on bantering on about Kladno player perceived shortcomings, thread might rest in peace. (but that also would be boring, so why not beat that very quiet horse some more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEWATER77 Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 how the hell do you know how tokarski is seen or viewed by his teammates?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Teams lose series when their number 1 player goes down, it's part psychological, fatigue from Boston series, and just the way it went for us... can't blame just one or two things, but a myriad of reasons could be how the stars aligned against us. No biggie now, that was last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Tokarski played well, but . Tokarski isn't seen by teammates as a leader, nor called the best goalie in the NHL by teammates, likely didn't intimidate Rangers as a hot Price would of and dosent have a Olympic gold medal hanging in his locker. Tokarski wasn't a liability, he just showed up and did his job. He didn't help, but he didn't hurt. No way the overtime winner from MSL goes in on Price. The team most likely played a tighter game on defense to compensate for having a rookie in net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The funny thing is that everyone and his dog have concluded that the Price injury defined the series, yet Tokarski played very, very well. The Habs did not lose because their goaltending was poor. Maybe the loss of Price hurt us psychologically - he is, after all, THE team leader, the foundation upon which all else rests. But goaltending as such was not the reason we lost. I'm not sure what the actual, on-ice reason was, other than that we had no response to the Rags' bottling-up of our star defencemen. Fatigue after the Boston series is my preferred explanation. Maybe that fatigue, coupled with the psychological blow of losing Price, did them in. You make a valid point. But my point was about staying healthy relative to the opponent. What if Bishop stayed healthy and price had gone down in first series? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Galchenyuk is good at hockey. His the playmaker onnthe Plek line until he gets better on the dot and defensively. Contenders baby! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts