xXx..CK..xXx

Not a single person is saying the bad call is the reason for the loss, however that call PREVENTED us from even having a chance at completing a comeback. I understand the frustration but I don’t know why everyone is trying so hard to argue that we 100% would have lost anyway had there not been a terrible call at the end. I really think we had a chance to tie things up at the end. Should we have been in that position in the first place? No, because we didn’t play a full 60 minutes. With that being said, there have been teams in the past, habs or otherwise, who would have mailed it in at 1-3. The boys worked hard at the end of the game, and there is a positive to be taken out of that. I think it may pay dividends in the future if they continue to demonstrate this never give up attitude. Yes any call throughout the game is just as important as the next one. With that being said, there is a different level of anxiety, and intensity when a team has 30 seconds left to tie things up. Tatar was simply demonstrating this intensity as he flew into the corner in an attempt to retrieve the puck. I feel this is the point I am making that is being missed. One should be rewarded for giving a great effort, and instead Tatar was needlessly punished. This is the part that is frustrating, and whoever the ref was, while I am not suggesting that they should put their whistles away, they should understand the moment, and avoid making a WRONG call with less than a minute that in turn decides the outcome of the game. The refs did not lose the game for the Habs. In fact never in my life have I suggested that has actually happened in any single game I have ever watched. But the penalty call solidified the outcome. If people don’t see that, then they are arguing a point I am not making.

I admit that I was distracted during the first two periods but I saw the Habs competing hard in the 3rd period. We also outshot them badly. I personally saw a team who battled hard (in the 3rd) and deserved the opportunity to tie it up. The reffing did not beat the Habs, but the Tatar penalty was indeed a terrible call against a player who was simply battling hard and was more eager than their opponent to compete for the puck. Someone should not be penalized for having heart. I am not saying that the first 40 minutes don’t matter, but the last few minutes showed a team that was competing hard to rally back. They did not simply mail it in, and I do personally take a positive from that.

The Habs gave a good effort at the end there but we couldn’t capitalize on a few of our power play opportunities earlier and then shot ourselves in the foot with our late penalties. Chiarot’s high sticking penalty near the end was one of the dumbest penalties I’ve ever seen, and Tatar’s was one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen. Tatar basically got a penalty for competing hard and fighting a battle... Should not have been a penalty in my opinion.

I usually only put my Webet jersey on once he scores, so I’m pretty sure he’s putting the puck in the net tonight, and hopefully in the 1st or 3rd period, or the reverse retro won’t see much action today.

Darn, tough decision. Should I wear my red Shea Weber jersey, or my reverse retro tonight? I’m going to alternate every period. Weber Blue Weber

I’m of the opinion that this team isn’t comparable to those past teams that underperformed against weak opposition as well. I’ve recently noticed posts on here that have a subtle hint of predicting gloom over the horizon and I chalk it up to nothing more than something akin to PTSD; We’re all used to it happening. Of course we will lose some games. We will likely actually even have losing streaks! It is also entirely possible that we lose a game or two against the Sens this year. With that being said, it will likely be more as a consequence of some bounces here and there, as well as the other team just having an excellent performance. It’s funny to see, really. People predicting: “I have a feeling this game will go poorly for us... because things have been going so well.” Or in this case “because that’s what always seems to happen to us”. I think this season we are closer to recent Tampa Bay teams who simply steam rolled opponents they should (with of course the occasional unexpected loss). This will become even more apparent considering we have to only play our own division. With all that in place, it’s still true that we have yet to face two teams in our division, and Toronto only once. The ladder is the team that I think will give us the most trouble this year.... until the playoffs 😎

I view it as applicable to Mete. I don’t even like Danault, though I support all of our players, but he has more of a basis to think that way than Mete.

I see another narrative being created in the most recent post about Mete. It’s one thing to be an RFA, and it’s another thing to be on a contending team who has the possibility of winning a Stanley Cup. Mete is not going to get paid well this off season even if he does play, because he simply is what he is anyway, a 3rd pairing d-man, who has potential to fill in for the top 4. I’m not heavily against Mete in any way, but if I’m in Mete’s position at the age of 22, there are certainly two contrasting thoughts that are entering my mind: 1) “I broke into the league as a first pairing defenseman, and now I am on the taxi squad. I deserve to be higher on the depth chart.” Of course you can be “professional” in the way you handle it, but the thought will cross your mind. 2) “Although I am not in the starting lineup, look how good our team is. If I stay the course, I have the chance to be part of a cup winning team here in Montreal.” It seems as though if Mete himself actually wants out, that this second thought is not a predominant one in his mind. I personally feel as though it’s hard to believe that with injuries, coronavirus, and level of play, Mete would not have had his chance to enter the lineup at a normal rate even had he (or his agent) kept his mouth shut. In this capacity, RFA or not, he has a little bit more of a “me” mindset versus a “team first” one. I have nothing against him, but that’s the way it is.

It took me this long to find out that I watched the entire game against Calgary patiently hoping for the Habs to score, innocently unknowing that the GDT tradition had been broken. It all makes sense now.

At that point it was over, but sometimes coaches pull their goalie to wake up their team and try to change the momentum of the game. Pull Holtby after 3 or 4, and who knows how the Vancouver team reacts. It’s not so much this specific game. But with the general consensus being that the starting goalie will play the full 60 minutes of a game, if there is a game the following day, well a monkey can coach a game if these types of things are so automatic. I can agree with it much of the time, but I don’t agree with it 100% of the time, and it seems to be a 100% of the time thing.

What’s the point in having a backup goaltender if you’re never going to use them on nights where there is a b2b?

I’m not sensitive to this at all unless it would diminish Mete’s value. If this “request” does, well then there’s no pressure from the organization’s standpoint to deal him anyway. It’s really no big deal to me.

I’ll go ahead and mention that this may be the first game Suzuki doesn’t get a point. In hopes of perhaps changing that reality.

Danault 😡

As a side note, I still have Subban in one of my pools. 😁 He’s still getting some shots, hits, blocked shots, as well as the minutes. I think there are some potentially more offensively gifted defensemen on their team now though. Ty Smith has been doing well.

In short, I was for the Weber trade and wanted to keep Pacioretty. I remember the brave few who were with me on the Weber deal but can’t quite remember almost anyone else wanting to keep Pacioretty. That being said, I once again was happy with the deal. Not because of Suzuki, but because of Tatar, in addition to Suzuki, because we were at least getting a proven NHLer as well in return for our captain. As for Tatar, people like to throw him in to this deal here and that deal there. “He’s likely gone anyway”, etc. However he’s been a very serviceable player for us these past few years. As for Suzuki? Well, his name is going on my newest jersey. I never had a Pacioretty jersey.

It will likely turn out to be one of Bergevin’s best trades.

Okay that’s what I thought. Thanks.

I’ve seen one website show that Perry played on the left wing, and another that he played on the right wing. I don’t specifically remember seeing where Perry lined up during a faceoff, but remember plenty of action of his in the offensive zone on the right wing. I have also come across an article stating that he was going to line up to the right of Kotkaniemi and Toffoli in Armia’s spot. Even though I watched the match, is there any confirmation as to where he was playing? Because I would have assumed he was playing right wing.

Where did you see that Perry played left wing? Any instance that I can remember seeing him in the offensive zone, it was on the right side of the ice, and anything I read stated that he was “replacing Armia to the right of Toffoli and Kotkaniemi”. Toffoli has also been doing great coming in on the rush on his off wing, so no need to give that a change. I don’t think that it was a mistake playing Perry on the 3rd line rather than Lehkonen. He has more offensive upside, and we kept everything else intact.

Double entendre. Canucks fans state: “Tyler’s nickname could also be used to describe where his skill set belongs.” Source: - CK’s mind

Nice finish Drew.... that’s how you can score. Pass the puck into the net.

But first, Gallagher. 🚨

It should be Toffoli time momentarily.

People are going to hate on Perry all year long here apparently, but I much prefer having a playoff bound team who has the luxury of calling up a Corey Perry and his veteran presence once an injury occurs, rather than a Charles Hudon, or Michal Bournival with an emphasis on “the future” always in mind.