The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Ya know, I seldom complain about reffing, but I thought they did an absolutely bungus job in the third. The 5 minutes for the hit was unquestionably appropriate (and did the Habs really have to muck that up so abysmally?), but the zebras (monkeys?) nonetheless felt obliged to "make up for it" with that marginal Eller call; and while the Bouillon penalty was correct, they then somehow managed to give the Habs an extra two coming out of a scrum...it just reeked of "scoreboard" refereeing where they're out to engineer a "close game" regardless of what the hell is actually transpiring. Amateur-hour garbage. Of course that hit should be a suspension, it was a blindside head shot. But the NHL's disciplinary system is totally random, so who knows. Much depends on whether Moore is known to be a "good guy," because this is priority #1, not actually applying the rule of law. Also Weise came back into the game (despite probably having a concussion - but who cares, right?). So by the NHL's Bizarro-world logic they'll probably award Moore a special citation for bravery and a free car. I had to listen to the second period by radio so it was hard to judge, but from what I saw the Habs were MUCH the better team tonight. It's just frustrating that our D keeps making those "little" mistakes (like Markov's bungled clearing attempt during the 5-on-3, was it?) that end up costing ya. And of course we're leaning on a rookie who showed it tonight. Nevertheless, NYR face their own little must-win in Game Six. I guarantee you they want no part of the Bell Centre for Game 7. It's good to be here!!

Maybe you're right. I'm just a bit leery of the "trade Pleks" argument based mainly on a weak Semi-Final series. But that may be too conservative of me.

Ha ha, it's yours for free. Use it wisely, fellow Jedi. I originally rejected the "fatigue" argument, but on further reflection I may have under-estimated exactly what it took to beat Boston. Like I say, I've been thinking more about the level of sheer physical punishment that series entailed...while I can't quantify it, it was extreme even by NHL playoff standards. I don't know that I've ever seen such a large number of checks, and such impactful checks, game after game after game. Boston's theory was that Montreal would wear down as a result. It didn't happen soon enough for their purposes, but maybe, ultimately, it did happen. That said, I still don't believe in "moral Stanley Cups." Thinking that way is a trap - a recipe for losers. We need to be able to defeat Boston without wilting thereafter if we ever wish to win anything that actually counts.

You make a good point, DON. The Habs have not played anywhere near their "A" game in this series. The question is why. Is New York just doing a great job of neutralizing our strengths and capitalizing on our weaknesses? Are we too beat up after Boston? Does the D really miss Price's puck-handling that much? Is it just a freak of timing, i.e., a concatenation of slumps, as sometimes happens in the regular season but becomes catastrophic in the playoffs? One more game to find an answer...

I'm wondering whether the Boston series just left too many of our guys too beat up. It's worth remembering the unbelievable level of physicality in that series - and that we were up against one of the most physically intimidating teams in the game. Could be that it's actually the Boston Bruins beating us more than the New York Rangers. Pleks, meanwhile, may be showing the effects of the Olympic year in addition to that. I'm surprised no one is pointing that out in his defence.

The team got better as the game went on. Overlooked in all this is that we really took it to the Rags in OT. One defensive zone breakdown and all of that was out the window. The old saw is "your best players have to be your best players." With Vanek, Patches, and Markov all MIA - and Price of course having been deliberately removed from the series - we're left with Galchenyuk to be the offensive driver. The kid is great, but come on.

Spot on. The book on the Habs has long been that the D is vulnerable to an aggressive forecheck; the Bruins and Rags both demonstrated that pretty compellingly. It doesn't help when even your superstar (Subban) is prone to occasionally overthinking the play in his own end, although PK is the furthest thing from a problem. Like I've been saying all year (not that anyone disagrees!) this team needs another top-4 defenceman. We're putting Emelin on the PP, for crying out loud. I think we have to assume Beaulieu can be that added guy - but he must get a regular shift next season, obviously. If, by next playoff, he is slotting in as the #4 guy, we will have addressed this weakness from within. Everyone is dumping on Markov for his clumsy OT bungle, but I've been unhappy about him for most of this series, less for his defensive game than for his inability to be a threat on the power play. THE reason we are down 1-3 is because of our impotent power-play, and THE reason for our impotent power-play is that there is nobody other than #76 that the Rags worry about. I'm tired of seeing Markov's point shot miss the damned net. I'm sure MB will re-sign him, but I hope it's not to an inflated contract. Notwithstanding last night's disappearing act from Patches and Vanek, the team impressed me with gutsy games in New York. They almost made a series of it. But I keep coming back to Game One. You throw a game away in the playoffs, man, you've lost all margin of manoeuvre - and they've paid for that.

Bouillon also delivered some great play for us earlier in the playoffs. I wouldn't rip my hair out if he slots in.

While I kind like the "roll four lines" idea, I also wouldn't cry if they do sign Vanek, especially if he's been playing hurt. He IS a major talent. But if it does happen, get ready for about seven years of non-stop fan bitching about the "crippling Vanek contract." Anyone advocating that we sign him had better be realistic about shilling out, oh, $7 mil per season for about 7 years. Don't kid yourself either about him taking a pay cut to be here, or about his market worth being anything you considerable reasonable.

Let's face the facts, Subban - as much as I love him and consider him a genuine superstar - has had erratic tendencies all season. Look at how confused he was in the first game against TB, and then how dominant he was in the second game (!). I don't think fatigue can be an explanation for a 24-year-old stud used to playing monster minutes. I think the issue is between his ears. He has seemed uncertain since Game Six against the Bruins (when he was one of the only guys who didn't play particularly well by his own standards), hesitating over whether to pass or shoot, to rush or pass it off, etc.. It may be that other teams are keying on him with more relentlessness and focus than he is accustomed to, and he is struggling to adjust. Or it may be that he is once again hearing a chorus of competing voices in his head from coaches telling him not to follow his own instincts, which is something he's had to deal with since arriving in the NHL and is a big part of the reason for his inconsistencies. Again, if fatigue is the genuine issue, then we only defeated Boston through a superhuman effort and have nothing left to give. This means we are not as good a team as we think we are. Cherry was, in fact, insulting the Habs with that remark - framing them as a "little team that could" and has understandably hit the wall after dispatching a massively superior squad. He may be right, but it's a depressing argument.

Meh. It's too bad to lose Prust after he delivered his most momentum-changing game of the playoffs, but as others have noted, Rags lose two players for the price of our one, which is really just fine by me. Throw Moen (likely) or White (unlikely) in there and move on. I think two games is broadly consistent with the NHL's generally irresponsible approach to player discipline. Such disgusting plays will only be purged from the game when the suspensions are of crippling length, but this is a league where it's OK to plough into a star players with your skate blades and to come within a hair's breadth of killing young men by smashing their heads into metal stanchions, so there's little point in giving any of it much soulful thought. You may as well try to make sense of a whirling dervish.

Vanek being hurt would alter the equation a bit, but I'm really inclining more toward lower-profile moves and players anyway. We're a team built to roll four lines, not to be top-heavy with big name, overpriced talent - and that does seem to be what's got us here. Maybe what we really should be looking for is a couple of Chris Higgins-types, who can move up and down the lineup and contribute decent, not spectacular, offence. In that vein, I'd suggested Jussi Jokinen as a possibility. That type of guy anyway.

There is no reason to be out of gas. One hard series against Boston is hardly an excuse for crapping out in the next round. If we want to contend, we have to find the reserves to do more than win one tough series. Anyone saying they're spent is effectively saying they don't deserve to be here.

Very dangerous hit, he deserves a suspension. Now, according to the NHL's twisted logic, one game in the playoffs counts for something like 3 in the regular season. So Prust should - by that "logic" - get about 1-2 games, max. As for whether he will get suspended, well, ya got me. The NHL is roughly as random as a Vegas roulette wheel, and the fact that this poll is evenly divided between 0-3 games demonstrates that. However, he's not wearing a Bruins jersey, so a suspension seems likely.

A dangerous hit warrants suspension. That's why Mr. "Skates As Weapons" Kreider should have his ass stapled to the stands as we speak. This is a league that suspends Aaron Rome four games for a Scott Stevens-like hit but does practically nothing when a Bruin can-openers Mason Raymond, breaking his back, or when Chara smashes someone's head into a metal post. NHL discipline is a totally random event.

Sure. Another team that got burned was Boston, losing their #1C (Marc Savard) to a disgusting head-shot. Then again, Boston has been pretty healthy throughout their run as serious contenders. There are plenty of teams that have NOT had their absolutely key players seriously compromised by catastrophic injuries year after year. We're not one of those, alas. And it's worth noting that in 1986, the Finals run in '89, and 1993, all our core guys were healthy. I'm sick of this problem myself.

Would Jussi Jokinen be of any interest as a UFA? He seems to fit the bill of a useful, 20-goal-ish winger who can move up-and-down the lineup. If he could be signed to a reasonable term, maybe he'd be a possibility? Although I guess he's more of a LW, and it's RW where we really need help...anyway, just throwing it out there.

There are two "wes:" the Habs before 1995, and the Habs after. The Habs after 1995 have had their key players reliably compromised by catastrophic injuries. Of course, those teams have also been much weaker and therefore less able to survive the loss of those players. Nevertheless, it's been a most frustrating two decades from the "health" standpoint.

I enjoyed this one a lot - nicely done. The line, "Gallagher dug in and never quit even though that may have been the most rational, sane thing to do," pretty much sums up the career of this incredibly willful player And I like that you praised Desharnais. Even though his numbers aren't great, IMHO he has been full value over the course of these playoffs, against all odds.

Well, the series is where it should be...the Habs have been outplayed twice (Games One and Three) and outplayed the opposition once (Game Two). It's just that the win came in a game we didn't really deserve to win. That's the playoffs for ya. The no-show in Game One is still hurting us. We do need to play better, even keeping in mind that it's a road game. I cannot accept Cherry's argument that the Habs are out of gas. If they are, then we are not close to being contenders; contenders have the reserves necessary to win four series, not just two. And we had an easy first round. I think that the Habs are just having trouble finding that "extra level" of energy and intensity, partly due to the post-Bruins letdown, partly due to the deflation of seeing their key player deliberately put out, and partly due to not yet having adjusted to the radically different styles of Rangers vs Bruins. Full credit to Tokarski, who hopefully can ride this wave of confidence and excitement all the way to three more wins. It has to be said, though, that the excellently-coached Rangers are going to be studying the tape carefully and will adjust to his strengths. What usually happens in these cases is that the rookie looks hot for a while, then the other team adjusts, and then, finally, the floodgates open. I'm not saying that'll happen here, just that that's the most typical conclusion to this kind of story. Finally: it's ridiculous to criticize Therrien too loudly given how the team has done under his tutelage. However, the critics are correct that it usually takes him about two games to make the right adjustments. (Remember people on this board were advocating pulling Murray and putting in Beaulieu one game before Therrien got around to implementing this successful move?). What I'm less confident about is whether other coaches would be any swifter on the draw. People made the same complaints about Martin. Like I say, most coaches are basically interchangeable. We've given ourselves a chance, and a win in Game Four really, radically transforms the narrative of this series and puts the Rags on their heels for the first time. It's a long-shot, but hey, it's a shot. The good news is that we still haven't seen the Habs firing on all cylinders in this series. There is room to get better, and grounds to think that if we do, we can take it to these jerks.

It's a legitimate worry. I am, of course, a chronic pessimist, but it would not surprise me to learn that this is going to be an ongoing issue in Price's career, sort of like DePietro's problems. We are, after all, the Montreal Canadiens; unlike the Chicagos of the world, we don't get to have star players enjoy careers uncompromised by catastrophic injury problems (c.f. Koivu, Markov).

Oh, I argued as much in the "Injury" thread. You're not alone. I just don't see why we should have to passively absorb a massive disadvantage in a series because our goalie has been deliberately injured. Pace Don, I am not arguing for "revenge;" I am arguing for correcting an arbitrary and massive disadvantage that was unjustifiably imposed on us, in order to give ourselves a fair chance to win the series. And to that I would add the deterrence factor; if teams know that, if they take out our stars, we will take out theirs, then we will stop seeing them taking out our stars. Of course, none of this would be necessary if the NHL were to enforce adequate suspensions for recklessly dangerous play. But in an anarchic, lawless environment, you have to take matters into your own hands, and are a fool not to IMHO.

I think it's pretty clear Budaj won't be back and that the organization likes Tokarski in that role. Which is as it should be - bring the youth along, move the vets who have no room to grow. Are the Habs really the "better team" that everybody projected heading into this series? If we are, then a win tonight gives us a genuine chance to make a series out of it. What I don't like is the Lundqvist factor. Against a goalie like that you can dominate and still lose. Meanwhile, we're relying on a totally unproven commodity at the other end. But I guess there's little point in worrying about that now. Go out, play your game, avoid the loss of faith and consequent stupid penalties that characterized Game Two, and hope the results bear you out. This could be the last game that matters this year. Give 'er.

Not if "Gandhi Don" was in charge!

Well, it may help to avoid thinking in terms of top-line talent. If we see the Habs as built to roll 3-4 lines, all we really need is one or two RW who can reliably approach 20 goals and 45 points and who aren't shrimps...Chris Higgins types. If, further, we imagine guys like Bournival or even White possibly being used on the W - the feasibility of which I don't know - we may find the situation more easily fixed than we think. Just a notion.