The Chicoutimi Cucumber

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.

Kreider made an irresponsibly reckless play. All he had to do was try to twist his body so as to make an honest effort to avoid smashing into Price with his skate blades pointed outwards. How often do you see any player crashing into another player in that position? Never, because skates are effectively knives and therefore hockey has a massive taboo against using them as weapons. He can't be blamed for making contact with Price on the play - it's the way he allowed it to happen that is so condemnable. As for Don's ethical stance, I can only quote Hesiod: "it is bad to be an honest man where felons rule." Why should we lose playoff series because of such contemptible play? Even it up and then play on. And like I say, if every team did that, pretty soon we'd see an end to such plays altogether, because deliberately inflicting injury would make you the most hated guy on your own team.

That's a fair analysis. Two consecutive 100+ point seasons, and now a deep playoff run - this team has a strong young core that is now showing itself to have a deepening understanding of how to win. Guys like Price, Patches and Subban, as well as other pieces like DD and Gallagher, have gone through the right growing pains. Not that the growth is finished for PK. We've also got quality veterans like Gorges and Plekanec who should also be able to help out for the medium term. I think that, for many years now, Habs fans have thought in terms of a Single Great Run that would bring home the Cup (remember the nearly-religious certainty that 2009 was The Year?). But as anyone who remembers the 80s and early 90s knows, having a really strong team doesn't guarantee anything. If you win the Cup or two, that will occur in the midst of a number of years of highly competitive seasons and playoffs. Look at the Bruins: one Cup, one Finals loss, and two or three other deeply disappointing seasons. The season and playoff we are presently experiencing - including our current third-round disappointment - is what is "normal" for strong teams. All that said, there are still holes in the system. We need wingers. People talk about letting Gio go, and I agree in principle, but who replaces him? (Maybe Bournival?). Vanek's gone, but then what? If MB goes into next year with a declining Gionta and no Vanek replacement, I dunno. That's pretty sketchy. So there are no sure things here, but the bottom line is that this is the most fundamentally strong Habs team since about 1996. With judicious management, we should indeed be looking at future runs.

Ha ha, whoops! I must be more tired than I thought. Oh, well, the comments will continue to apply right up to puck drop on Thursday The extra day off will benefit us more than the Rags, so that's a tiny sliver of good luck.

Well, today is a new day...win tonight and suddenly we have series. "One shift at a time" and all of that. It's our last chance to keep hope alive, so hopefully the boys leave it all out there on the ice. If you're gonna go down, go down playing your game, at its best. No stupid penalties.

Oh, I totally agree that deliberate injuries should have no place in the game. I find the whole business contemptible. What I'm saying is that, thanks to the NHL's negligence, they DO (factually) have a place in the game, and we are about the lose the semi-finals because of this. Deliberately crashing Lundqvist would serve two purposes in this context: 1. It would return the teams to a level playing field after the NYR artificially tilted it by removing our best player from competition. 2. It would serve as a powerful deterrent to any future attempt to injure our players; and, if the practice became universally adopted, would likely put an end to deliberate attempts to injure altogether. In the absence of either retaliation OR adequate NHL disciplinary policy, we are completely dependent upon the good will of other teams - but those teams have shown themselves too irresponsible, or else downright vicious, to be relied on to play the game like minimally responsible and decent human beings. I respect the idea that we should take the high road. But it looks to me like we will never, ever win the Stanley Cup doing that so long as the league chooses to reward players who recklessly injure league stars.

But what you guys are saying is that the other team can deliberately destroy our key guys at will, and our response will just be to "play fair." I can't recall the last time I saw a player plough into a guy skates-first. It simply isn't done. My advocacy of deliberately injuring Lundqvist is NOT about petty revenge, it's about leveling a playing-field that has been unfairly tilted against us by the NHL's idiotic refusal to protect star players. And I guarantee you that the Kreiders of the world would stop doing what they're doing if they knew that it ensured that their own teammates would be wiped out. I said the same thing about head-hunters. If the NHL refuses to put a stop to head-shots, then you are a fool if you don't carry one or two Matt Cookes on your roster, because you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage, in effect allowing the other team to decapitate your best players without any fear of the same thing happening to their own. It gives me no pleasure to say these things. But what other solution is there when the entity that is supposed to protect players - the league - completely neglects its duty?