Jump to content

xXx..CK..xXx

Member
  • Posts

    3014
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Posts posted by xXx..CK..xXx

  1. I haven’t been the only one to comment on the timing of some of the goalie pulls this season. Some games have been alright, some games the timing has been off, whether it has been because of our positioning on the ice at the time of the pull, or another reason.

     

    From my standpoint, there’s a reason I am discussing this topic this season and never have before, even though Patrick Roy started a trend years ago. 

  2. 4 hours ago, Commandant said:

     

    Analytics will tell you that while you give upore empty netters by pulling with 3-4 minutes left, you also score more tying goals.  Thats why nearly every NHL team is doing it.

    Analytics also show that the Habs are top 5 worst in terms of success rate when it comes to playing with an empty net, and have allowed the second most goals against in the same situation. Perhaps the coach should make an adjustment based on the specific team he is working with, rather than follow a general trend.

    7A0B1A2A-8E89-45BB-A979-C7477EF1920F.jpeg

  3. On 12/23/2022 at 11:47 PM, Commandant said:

    Who cares if they score an empty netter.  Losing by 1 or by 2 is the same result.

     

    Even if your faceoffs have been bad, you have nothing to lose, you have to put faith in your players and at least try.

     

    Leaving the goalie in is giving up and you never want to instill that mentality into the team.


    Not talking about this instance specifically but St. Louis has been terrible at deciding when to pull the goalie. Not pulling your goalie with 3-4 minutes left is not giving up on the game, and there have been many instances where he has done something of the like. We go from having a chance, to not having a chance.

     

    On 12/24/2022 at 11:27 AM, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

     

    It’s not like we had a plethora of offensive stars up front, though. IF he keeps up his current 65-point pace - a big “if” - then perhaps it’s fair to condemn the lack of imagination on the part of our former coaches that led them to keep a guy with that upside relegated to a primarily defensive role. Water under the bridge, of course.

     

    This also doesn’t really change your point as Lehkonen was indeed generally used in a defensive role, but just as recently as our last playoff appearance, Lehkonen was used on the top line with Danault and Gallagher. He was also used earlier in his career to replace Tatar on the top line with Pacioretty and Drouin. Regardless, not his primary use, and not much of a comparison talent wise to what he’s playing with now In Colorado.

  4. 1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

     

    Great post. I tend to share this outlook, and I don’t remember ever cheering for the Habs to lose a game. Sometimes, when the team is terrible, I find myself not caring whether they win or lose. But *actively cheering against* the Montreal Canadiens? Not once. I just can’t do it. 

     

    As bad as this group has looked in recent games - surely a regression to the mean - I have a hard time believing we will finish last overall unless one of our two stars up front goes down with a serious injury, which God forbid. Even our G looks solid with Montembault taking a step forward this year. So the notion of “taking hard for Bédard” just seems like a shibboleth to me. We’re not getting Bedard.

     

    On the other hand, because this team is really not a very strong team, we’ll likely be in a position to get a top-10 pick regardless. That *should* bag us a very good player, provided our management group makes the right call. Seen this way, we can still cheer on the Habs to win on any given night, confident in the knowledge that they likely will lose enough to end up with a good draft position anyway.


    My perspective as well. I always go back to thinking about having a child and watching the game with them.  A fictional example, but seeing the child sad after a loss and telling them “it’s okay Jimmy, the Habs are trying to lose this year”.
     

    I don’t think I would have become a fan of the Habs or sport if I grew up wishing the Habs would lose at any point. I’ve always wanted them to win every game. One could argue that a child is naive and “adults know better”, but I also think that a losing mentality goes against the grain when it comes to sport that it is so unrealistic to actively cheer for it, because there is not a single player on the team that are actively trying to achieve that result.

     

    That type of mentality has to stem from someone who has not faced mental adversity in sport before, and the players we should want on the team need to be mentally strong and keep competing when faced with adversity. For the myriad of reasons mentioned already, I cannot be on the same page. But alas, you summed it up very well, and I agree. 

  5. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind but there are key differences.

     

    1) I don’t equate fighting for a playoff spot as the same as fighting for last place in the league

     

    1a) fighting for a playoff spot is good for the team.

     

    1b) fighting for the tank is good to get 1 player, who will likely only have a slight impact on any future championship, relative to the reality that there are 18 other players on the ice in any given game.

     

    This, in addition to the fact that a losing culture is bad for the current players, especially the youth, whereas winning develops our youth in a positive environment.

     

    2) For all we know, Arizona goes on a 10 game winning streak immediately after this game. 4 point game? Whoopdy do.

     

    Perhaps if the game were in April and we actually saw that it made a difference.

     

    3) The Habs are the team we cheer for. It’s much different to cheer for the team against a division rival so we can make a playoff spot, rather than root for our team to lose for the opposite reason.

     

    Personally, I don’t equate the two, but realize that some people do. 

  6. 22 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

    17th to 24th is not where you want to finish. 25th or worse in a rebuild year is ideal in my view. Provided key players are developing. With that, I've seen enough of Hoffman and Dadanov. Give a youngster a shot.

    It’s probably so rare that the game that people wish the Habs lose because of the reasons stated actually make a difference come the end of the year. 

  7. Some points people will agree with, some points people won’t like.

     

    1) Anaheim’s 2nd regulation win of the season after 31 games. 👏 

     

    2) Drouin has had some decent spells since being back. I thought he had a good game the other day until he had a huge gaffe at the offensive blue line which led to an empty netter. With that being said, he also had an assist and caused a penalty which was a borderline penalty shot due to his hustle. It is what it is in terms of fan perception, but I actually expect him to go on a decent run. Unfortunately for Drouin and the fanbase, a decent run for him could mean 10 points in 15 games along with a -11 total. 
     

    3) Only a small annoyance, but I am getting tired, and have already been tired of padding the other team’s stats with poor goaltender pulling tactics. Sometimes it has potentially cost us the game as well. 


     

     

     

    255A6806-1DB2-49C4-A272-37BD3AB80333.jpeg

  8. 59 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

     

    It doesn't really matter if he tried to avoid it though.  Did he hit Kadri after Xhekaj steered Kadri into him?  He did.  Was the puck there?  Nope.  Was it also a blindside hit, the type that gets a lot of scrutiny?  Yep.  It was absolutely incidental contact but intent doesn't matter.  I don't think Suzuki could have done anything different either, it was just one of those wrong place/wrong time situations but even with that, it still fits the definition of what constitutes an interference penalty.

    After watching it a few times (as I only caught the 3rd period) I agree that it’s a penalty. 

  9. Not victim blaming but he has to keep his head up a little more and anticipate that other people are out there trying to hit him. It’s been a few times now where similar hits have happened to Slaf. Anderson was skating the same path just before and I was thinking to myself what if someone were to hit him as he streaked behind the net, but he had his head up the whole time and maintained his speed. A few seconds later, bam, the hit on Slaf. 

  10. I agree with Brian on there needing to be an adjustment when it comes to the manner in which the goaltender is being pulled. Patrick Roy did it years ago and it worked so everyone began copying it.

     

    For me, it’s like a drop shot in tennis. Do it once, and it surprises your opponent. Perform it multiple times, and your opponent will make adjustments and turn on the offensive because you are bringing them to the net. 
     

    Analogy aside, there are two factors in play here.

     

    1) It is no longer a surprising tactic to pull your goalie with a few minutes left. Teams have made adjustments when it comes to defending this threat for a longer period of time.

     

    2) The team itself has to be good, or have quality training with what to do with the extra man once they have it. 6 on 5 isn’t the exact same as 5 on 4 but the Habs power play is 28th in the league out of 32 teams. It does not surprise me that we are having this conversation in regards to this specific team. The analytics may show that a team has an advantage when they have the “man advantage” but the statistics also show that the Habs themselves are poor in this respect, for whatever reason.

     

    I tend to agree that in the case of the Habs, St. Louis’ decision making has been borderline reckless when it comes to pulling the goalie because it has indeed happened many times where the opposing team scores their empty net goal with over 90 seconds left. With that much time left in a one goal game, the Habs are still in it. We go from a situation where the Habs are throwing their guts at the wall and pressing giving it their all, to a joyous celebration and sense of relief for the other team; all of this with plenty of time left still on the clock.

    • Like 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

    In fairness, he said four FRANCHISE centres. including one GENERATIONAL talent.


    I definitely misread that part so my mistake.

     

    The point stands in a different way though, in that if they are organizational centers, they would be good enough to replace Suzuki on the first line within a few years. I’d be ecstatic if that were the case but I personally think there is generally a little too much naive enthusiasm when it comes to the potential of the unknown and future prospects jumping in to save the day. At some point, we need to utilize what we have, or know for sure. Otherwise we will always be a franchise looking to the future rather than competing in the now. 
     

    With that being said, I don’t think the actual organization operates to such an extreme and so that is where the dichotomy that I was pointing out lays. 

  12. 1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


    I believe the Habs are looking at two options for centre. 
     

    The first option is a top 5 pick in this years draft. I believe there are 4 franchise centres available in the top 5 including of course a generational talent in Bedard. 
     

    The other option is Dubois in 1.75 seasons from now. 


    Not to get personal, but I believe that is what you are looking for the Habs to do, rather than what their actual “plan” is. 
     

    I mean, I did not come here with an actual suggestion as to what their plan will be, but it is in my eyes much more likely that Dach gets placed in that role, rather than anything you suggested. 
     

    I’d calm it down with 4 generational centers as well. Slafkovsky was a 1st overall pick and it’s not like he is coming in and destroying things in his first season. I understand that next year’s draft will be incrementally better, but I also realize that it is unlikely that any player drafted next year (outside of Bedard/Mitchkov) will have any type of major impact for a few years. 
     

     

  13. Another thing to consider (if one agrees with my Kessel and Matthews comparison) is that they only played roughly 70 games each those seasons I quoted.
     

    Somewhat of a coincidence based on my “heart” prediction but over an 82 game season, they were on pace for about 42 goals had they played. 
     

    To answer Don’s question, 40 goals is certainly in the realm of possibility.

  14. Last year I got criticized heavily for stating that Caufield is someone I could always use in the same breath as Kessel and Matthews when it comes to goal scoring ability.

     

    I still believe there’s a comparison to be made when it comes to scoring.

     

    Kessel scored 36 goals in his third year and Matthews scored 37 (though he scored 40 in his rookie year). I think your answer is likely there.

     

    Just so I can look back at the end of the year how many goals Caufield ends with I will predict:

     

    Head: 36 Goals

    Heart: 42 Goals

×
×
  • Create New...