xXx..CK..xXx
-
Posts
3052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by xXx..CK..xXx
-
-
I have to chime in here with perhaps, my more naive view, but why is it mentioned that the last "Canadian team" to win a cup were the 1993 Montreal Canadiens? Why do we hear things like "Bring the cup back to Canada"? Why do we have Canadians from all over the country supporting the idea of bringing in more Canadian teams to cities like Winnipeg? Why is this called Canada's game? Now I'm not saying any of us would like to see the Maple Leafs win the cup but I do think many of us would feel differently if a team like the Edmonton Oilers won the cup instead of a team like Nashville. I get that a lot of Canadians play for American teams but we aren't singing the national anthem for the players on the team. We are singing it for the fans who are more often than not local to the city they are cheering for which in turn is part of the country as a whole. If you want to suggest anything different than perhaps we can sing local city anthems if they even exist but that would be even more odd to viewers who weren't local.
-
Look, it's impossible to please everybody. I knew that the young d topic would get brought up in response to my post because it's pretty much the only thing I left out. I left it out on purpose because I don't think it's as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. That response is like looking at the moon through a microscope and trying to count how many craters there are. Sure, the acquisition of Gonchar "hurts" in this one area in that the kids get less ice time with the big team. But the only defense I've heard of wanting to play the kids more is that they should be allowed to play through their struggles and gain experience for the future. Not that they've been playing so great that they need to stay in. None of that helps our team right now. In addition, while this may indeed be a negative aspect to some, the trade also has positives. I'll admit that Beaulieu hasn't been given all the chances in the world but he also hasn't demonstrated any offensive upside in the chances he has been given. I also don't think them not playing a few games with the big club hurts their long term future. Regardless of whether or not Gonchar plays well, they will still get their shot this season for a variety of reasons.thats all well and good (and some wishful thinking) but only if you put zero value in letting your two kids play more...not less. Its not gonchar himself (although i am no fan of the elder, slow soft dman, on an already soft team) but its if he moves ahead and becomes a mainstay in the six starters and the kids sit or play in hamilton. thats the only knock i have heard on the deal. and i happen to agree with it.
heard one poster say he is excited about getting gonchar....ok........some of us were excited about the new young d getting more action. depends on what you like i guess.
but thats why MB gets the big bucks.
but we'll see...... gilbert, weaver, gonchar, the new d thats been added from that 28th place team.
-
You may be right but considering the timing of the trade, I'm not so sure it's true that getting rid of the contract was 90% of the reason for the trade. It's a trade for a very specific person who happens to specialize in an area that we've been extremely weak at this season. Bergevin also still had a lot of season left to get rid of Moen's contract and most likely could have done it at the deadline although some people seem to think there was also a "logjam" at forward which may have helped contribute to the timing of the move as well. The point I'm trying to make is that I think, needless to say, Bergevin thinks this is a good trade in the now. There's not that "if worst comes to worst, at least this trade won't hurt us" mentality. He believes it will help. He's trying to address a need and is hoping it will pay dividends. Our GM is only human and you can never know what the future will bring with certainty when it comes to a player but I actually tend to agree with him on this deal. Regardless of Gonchar's age and recent stats, he's only one piece of the puzzle. I think the piece fits and definitely will help. He won't necessarily solve anything on his own but he will definitely contribute in a positive way. Contrary to most, the more I think about the trade, the more I like it. Those who have been arguing the negatives and positives have mostly been mentioning how it either helps us or hurts us short term or long term. I think that Bergevin instead saw it helping us both short term and long term. As mentioned, he believed it solved a need for the power play right now and he also saw it as a chance to free up space for next year. I just don't think he saw saving space for next year as being 90%, or anywhere close to that, as being the main reason for this trade. Let's watch and see.90% of the reason Gonchar was brought in is because Moen's contract needed to be off the books. I'm sure Bergevin was pushing for Bourque in the trade, Nill isn't that dumb though.
-
one thing Eller has going for him that dd does not.................Eller showed up and played great in atleast one play off year...................dd has yet to do that.
Yes, but that's an unfair comparison because DD would have had an excellent playoff as well if he were paired up with the likes of Bourque just like Eller was lucky enough to be for said playoffs. /end sarcasm
-
47-23-8-4 106 points
2nd in Atlantic
7th in league
232 GF
-
Very good post MOLG as always. I really can't find anything i disagree with in there.
I think we agree totally but who knows what will happen. A key injury (price) and we are screwed in my opinion but can't blame that on the coach.
If Price doesn't get injured last year, I think we take the Kings to 6 or 7 games in the final, if not win the whole thing.
I think those who stated that Therrien is neither great nor bad actually answered the question perfectly, habs rule. It means that our recent success has been a combination of things and together they have all played a role in our achievements. Even if most of our success has indeed been as a result of having a great goalie, a coach still needs to tailor the team to play around their strengths. It's probably true that there are about 10-15 other coaches who could do the job just as well, but that still puts him in the upper echelon of coaches in the best league in the world.
While I personally don't think Therrien necessarily deserves any extreme praise, I don't think there necessarily needs to be a microscope on him either way. Land of believers or not, he's doing a fine job and he's part of the reason, along with Price, along with other reasons, that the Habs have enjoyed some success in the recent past.
-
It will happen, but probably not this year. The fact he was not chosen to sport the C tells a lot about where he stands in the future of the team. This is a business and he has become expandable. Why? Because of his contract and the value he still has on the market. Other guys will play his role.
Well, I doubt that Plekanec has as much value, but if a GM is ready to be very generous I would certainly have no objection.
I had only intended to reply to the first post but then I came across your second one and you did kind of contradict yourself there. In the first post you say he has value and then in the second one you say that he doesn't have much.
Just to play devil's advocate though, I've heard a lot of talk about Plekanec not being name captain demonstrating that he has no future with the team and that he will be traded eventually. Personally though, if I'm a GM, I'd have no problem naming a player captain who might be traded in the future. I don't think anyone can say for a fact that Bergevin is going to definitely trade him because he has to find a solid trading partner and return before that happens. With that being said, I think just the fact that he would have a "C" on his jersey would definitely increase his perceived value on the market and so I see no reason why it would be a negative thing to name Plekanec captain for this reason even if he were to be traded in the future. Save me all the "you don't/it's not as easy to trade your captain" talk as well because it is what it is.
On the topic of trading Plekanec, I'd rather not get too into it because I don't even think it should be a topic for discussion although since it does come up every season, I guess the odds are getting more likely that it will actually happen the more that time passes by.
-
^^ I can't quote on my phone for some reason but when you're born a habs fan, red and blue automatically become your favorite colors so no... Leafs jersey is not better. It's missing "something".
Oh right, objective view.
When it comes to out of the box choices, I liked the old islanders jerseys, old coyotes jersey and maybe even the old Winnipeg jerseys. Anything I've ever read has the hawks jersey at top followed by the habs and maybe red wings though. Can't really go wrong with those jerseys, despite the politically correct stuff being pointed out because that doesnt really change how they look.
-
I'm not one to criticize but the thing that baffles me the most out of all the decisions which have been made is the treatment of the Vanek Patches DD line. Therrien has never really given that line a chance 5 on 5 in this series and then once a powerplay hits he uses them together. In this specific case, I'm a believer that having the same line 5 on 5 and on the powerplay would pay dividends. "So you're frustrating our line 5 on 5? Well we just got a power play to finally put one in and shut you up". Instead it's a "Let's use this powerplay time to try and re-find the solid chemistry we had together a few weeks ago. Looks like our 45 seconds are up, maybe next time."
I understand spreading the talent across the board, but I'm inclined to think I would seriously reunite the Vanek Patches DD line as well. I think we can still have 4 solid lines even with that line together.
-
LOL.
So I guess we're admitting only the Bruins can come back in games?
It's pretty close to over, I'll admit but there's still a lot of time left if they get their heads straight.
-
1
-
-
Ugh. Habs are out of it.
Geez, that Krug is a good player.
Forget tonight. Go back home, rethink, refresh. This game may be over, but I do not accept that the series is.
This game isn't over either to be honest.
-
The coach "le Genius" says Murray played a hell of a game. He was really happy with his play. Once again I have to question what game was he watching?
But he is probably just sticking up for his players.
Answered your own question there. I might just have my own unique perspective on things but I think that's the perfect thing to do in this situation. The Habs can definitely play better and there certainly will always be adjustments to be made but they've been doing too well these playoffs to start the blame game just because we're tied in a series. It's not the time to panic just yet. We win as a team and lose as a team and if you ask me, Bartkowski has been the worst player this series on either side so I don't think it's at all fair to single out any one player on our squad, even if it's our supposed weakest link. Therrien called out the right players without saying any names though; our stars need to be our stars.
-
Look, I guess my main point is along the lines of what has been said already; we're discussing a 3rd pairing (6th overall) defenseman. If Murray were to come out of the lineup, I wouldn't complain, but I don't think you're fully thinking things through. In game 2, Bouillon had a couple of shots go in off him into the net as our 6th defenseman. Then a couple of games later, Murray had a terrible Corsi, as I'm sure he always does. Between these two, I don't think there's necessarily a difference maker. So obviously, since there have been negative instances or statistics when it comes to both these players, it's natural to want to look somewhere else and for someone who hasn't had the chance to make a "mistake" yet to replace them.
Beaulieu is the guy in this case but from what I have seen this season from him, he honestly wouldn't help that much if at all. I just don't see it. The playoffs are a different animal where defense comes first, especially when you're a defenseman. I guess I just don't think playing Beaulieu is the right call because he hasn't been tested in the playoffs yet and I could just see that even if we did play him, he would get those sheltered minutes you are talking about and wouldn't even be given the opportunity to shine anyway. Right now the only one who matters is the coach because he has to have people in the lineup that he can trust... I think it's obvious that he trusts Bouillon more than Beaulieu and I can't say I'd be any different.
Finally, when it comes to Murray, you're taking a look at shots for and shots against and then following it up by "I don't care how many hits he throws". Well okay then, I guess we should just simply overlook any single positive of having him in the lineup. If we want someone who can't clear the crease or throw the body and who's somewhat good at breaking out of our zone (when not trying to have our players commit suicide) we may as well have kept Diaz. I'm sure he'd be our solution.
-
Meh, too much talk about Murray. I missed the overtime goal as well since it happened so quickly, but the only thing that concerns me about him was that he was on the ice for the game winning goal. All of those other stats mean very little to me and I won't go into why because it would just sound like regurgitation. With that being said, whenever Murray is on the ice, there are also four other people on the ice who could create things on their own. Lastly, the 10 shots to 1 thing is like comparing Georges to Subban in terms of shot attempts in a full season. One is an offensive defenseman and the other is not. Before you explain how this is a different comparison, I don't think it is because obviously when Murray is on the ice, he's playing in a defensive role and not an offensive one. As long as those 10 shots are kept to the outside then I don't see the harm.
Honestly, it was a 1-0 game and while I get the point to a certain extent (we supposedly couldn't score while Murray is on the ice), it's a bit absurd to pick on our defense (as a whole or individually) as being the reason we lost. It was a coin flip game and the Habs shouldn't be too disappointed in how they played. If anything, I would have liked to see a little more killer instinct by the forwards as that really was an important game.
-
I hope Therrien realizes that Boston is going to come out with their best period. It wouldn't surprise me if their focus this game was on weathering the storm throughout the first two periods and limiting their mistakes. They're supposed to be a third period team and I expect them to come out with a different approach in the 3rd.
Still anyone's game though and I really hope we take it!
-
Honestly, Gionta's still a great player to have on your team.
-
Not me. I want to win 4-2 again, with an empty netter if possible.
Don't want the Bruins to believe that they have no chance and start injuring Pax, Emelin, Gallagher and/or Subban...
Yes, we need to be careful. Lucic has been practicing hitting his target.
-
This was a must-win IMHO, and the Habs played a terrific game. Everybody was (not unfairly) saying that the Habs were overmatched and that the Bruins were likely to march to victory. Well, this game changed that narrative. Yes, there were sustained periods of Boston pressure - we looked especially bad about midway through the first - but we did a MUCH better job of both boxing the Prunes to the outside, and at playing the transition game. The latter is the absolute key to our success and I was very relieved to see us executing so much better. This was the first game where we really did seem to have a "speed" advantage, and the first game where the teams seemed roughly evenly matched.
I felt that one of our frail reeds of hope was that the home-ice last change might make a difference, blunting the obvious advantage the Bruins enjoyed over the first two games. This hope seems to have been borne out. Thank heavens we have home ice advantage.
Vanek is coming on. Did you see that shift he had in the third, where he wound up hitting the post? Awesome. And Patches just needs to bag one - the floodgates will open.
Murray was Murray. Huge hits, significant amount of flailing in his own end. Ya take the bad with the good. It was interesting that we seemed to take the hitting TO the Bruins in this game. Moen, Emelin, and Murray really set the tone in that regard.
What can you say about Price and Subban? The former has continued to deliver goaltending that is about as good as it can be, while the latter is a bona-fide SUPERSTAR. Best position player since Lafleur, no question about it.
Now, next game. I expect that the Bruins will put a HUGE emphasis on scoring first. They have basically been playing catch-up all series, and if they were to jump out to an early lead, it would represent a pattern-breaking moment in the series. Will it happen, and if it does, how will the Habs respond? Time will tell!!
I'm way late on this but I had been wanting to say that point for days now. I've only had time to browse the forum and not post and so I wasn't able to.
People on here were talking about how the Habs couldn't match the Bruins' top level and how the Habs were being outplayed for the most part. I know you were one of them and while I can't say I disagree, the Bruins were playing at home and that is to be expected. There's a reason people classify being tied after the first period on the road as a solid "road period". The Bruins are a very good team as well but the Habs have given us very little reason to doubt them so far in the playoffs despite those who don't enjoy the way we try to hang on to leads and get outplayed when we have the lead.
The other day I went to Game 2 of LA vs Anaheim. Gaborik scored about 34 seconds into the game and I can assure you that for 59 minutes and 26 seconds, LA simply tried "hanging on to the lead" but they won the game. For what it's worth, we are without a doubt playing better than either Anaheim or LA right now. I felt pretty confident about the 3rd game since it was at home. Matchups are key and the Bruins had full control in the first two games. Game four will be tougher than the third though.
Anyway, the point is that those who complain about the manner in which we win on the road should find other things to complain about. First of all, the road is a place where we're supposed to be outplayed so any win is a "victory". Second of all, the way a team plays on the road is not necessarily indicative of said team's possible peak. Judge them after they get a lick in on home ice at least.
-
I don't know why people are making a big deal about a Saturday noon hockey game. I guess we need something to complain about.
I can actually think of a lot of reasons off the top of my head some of which have been mentioned here.
- Some people like the tradition of watching games at night
- Part B of the first reason is especially in Canada on a Saturday night
- Some people like to drink and then not have to function for another 9-12 hours + for the rest of the day (Some people might prefer getting started early though)
- Having the game later in the day allows for a growing anticipation and more excitement throughout the day leading up to the game vs having to "wake up" mentally for the first half of the game (more for us west coasters)
- Once the damn game is over, you have to basically wait an extra day until the next one
- I personally like doing things during the daytime rather than watching television. I'm sure other people do as well.
There's not a conspiracy or anything but watching a game at night is a lot better. Also from what I've seen, in this thread at least, the times of two of the games are still TBD so it's not necessarily only the one game.
I wouldn't have complained about the schedule or anything for the record but there are reasons to be upset about earlier starts. Even though it happens every year during the playoffs and isn't anything new.
-
I'm as big of a fan as any of you guys, albeit younger than some and so I grew up in the wrong era when it comes to witnessing "important" playoff series' since I haven't witnessed many championships. But to me, this is the most important playoff series in relatively recent memory because if and when we get by it, we have a real chance.
I want to be completely honest and say that I am not feeling great going into this series. I don't predict a loss by any means but I feel rather uneasy knowing that we have such a great team and we are facing probably the only team that worries me in the east. Philly and Pittsburgh might be tough as well for different reasons but they simply lack the physical element that Boston can impose as well.
I know it's probably a bit cliche and overstated but the combination of Boston's style, certain bonehead players (sounds biased but it's just the way it is), as well as the intense rivarly between the teams always leads to something completely unexpected happening in terms of a player getting injured or something of the like.
I am a believer that it's pointless to dwell on hypotheticals but the Tampa series was almost too easy especially in the physicality department. This is great of course, but our team hasn't had to face any lulls due to a breakdown in chemistry. It only takes one person to go down for the whole dynamics of our lineup and more importantly our playoff run to change. With that being said, I'll admit that it's a bit of a specific worry I have and as has been mentioned here, I can't imagine many teams having the depth we do right now. It's really amazing actually.
Off the top of my head, here are a few keys to success that I think will be important in order to come out on top.
- Keep playing our game, the way we have been
- Stay as healthy as we can
- My two hopes: 1) Price plays a very consistent and solid series 2) Vanek really is the Bruin killer he has been made out to be
- The obvious one: We need our secondary and tertiary production/contributions to continue
- The two important dmen: I don't want to make too many negative predictions but Emelin will be very important this series. He always goes hard against Lucic and he has to play smart and not wear himself down too much early on in the series. He plays well vs the Bruins though and scored 2 goals against them this season. Subban will be our most important player along with Price against the Bruins. He has to play smart, with composure and hopefully he can find a way to do a little more damage on the power play. You'll be the best defenseman on the ice PK, make the difference.
-Goalie Battle: Price has to be better than Rask. Seriously, no soft ones. Not in this series.
- Finally, stay as disciplined as we can as a unit and get better on the PP (re: Subban) Boston will take penalties
In the end, I think this is a pretty evenly matched up series and hard one to predict but I don't want to say it will go the distance. 6 games at the most, unless the Habs are down 3-2
-
Feels good to be 4-4 lifetime vs Tampa in the playoffs now... In the most glass half full type of way.
-
When I was coming to the thread, the thought that popped into my head was "Vanek" so I'm going to go ahead and predict that he has a great game tonight and will be a difference maker. I see that two other people mentioned him as well though.
Finish them off tonight please.
By the way, Tampa is totally 0-3. None of that 0-2-1 stuff in the playoffs!
-
And another BS call... If they called Stamkos like they call PK he would have three penalties by now.
The boys need a big kill...Tampa has all the momentum and energy right now.
We'll get it back even if they score here.
-
I want to thank hab29retired for convincing Calgary to give us Bourque.
Nov. 23, Habs vs Rangers, 7 PM
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
I know it's not your entire point but both games were on the road.
Really bad game and I'm one of the most positive people there are. It is pretty annoying and odd that we can't seem to keep it close when we lose. I don't exactly know what it means but it doesn't seem like it's a good sign. We need a little more compete when we're down. Although on the flip side of things, without looking at the numbers, I guess we have had some compete in the team to have won so many games with such a bad record in the first periods of games.