Wamsley01
-
Posts
5530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wamsley01
-
-
I have watched these two go at it for over fifty years. We have been down this road before and have made good on it. It is close to call, but I give the Bruins the edge because of their size. This league has not been transformed into the petticoat league, and the Bruins will be physical and rightly so.
Toss a coin 100 times and you will get the same result as if you played this series 100 times.
-
You underestimate our boys. I say the odds are about 55-45 Bruins. Like Wamsley says, whichever team wins the series, the outcome should not represent a big surprise.
The first 20 minutes are no big whoop, unless we get snowed under. Expect near-total Prunes domination for the first 10, then the Habs to get a few chances late; analysts then say the Bruins are clearly the better team based on the first 20 minutes despite the close score; then the game evens out thereafter and who wins is anyone's guess.
You know what I'm worried about in this series, though? An injury to PK on a questionable play. Not only would that fulfill the pattern of the season, it's also something that the Prunes have practically been invited to do by the NHL's inaction on Chara.
If Subban gets injured by a Campbell/Thornton on a questionable hit you will see a Richard Riot II. Maybe not as extreme, but you can only push a fanbase so far before they really snap. It would be totally irrelevant if the player got suspended for the playoffs unless it was Chara/Lucic.
That is also my only fear and it would be amplified as the NHL "sends a message" against a meaningless clod who doesn't affect the outcome of the series and then pats itself on the back for doing so.
Funny how you guys mention the Bruins running around and taking penalties. the Habs lead the league in minor penalties. It's the other way around, the Habs need to stay out of the box.
I just hope they show up and play hard.
Different type of penalties though.
-
If all the Bruins had to do was hit the habs all season why weren't they 6-0 against them? This is what bugs me, it's lazy analysis. IF things are gonna be so simple for the Bruins, why didn't they do it?
Why was Montreal neck and neck with the Bruins for the divison lead til the last couple weeks when injuries really played a factor for the habs. The Bruins had a perfect storm this season, rarely injured, added pieces at the deadline, players playing better than ever (see Marchand and Thorton), Thorton had 10 goals for gods sake. They've had everything gone right for them this season. Seven points, 3 wins and a tie, thats all they had over the Habs. Over a team that lost their top 2 defenseman at the start of the season. I'm not worried, I don't think it will be a walk in the park, I think it will be a tough series, but I am not nearly as scared of the Bruins as I was against the caps and pens last season.
Most analysis is perception based. Smurfs. Big Bad Bruins. Bruins will win. End of analysis.
-
Every season since the lockout a 6 seed has won a series.
So it's either the Habs or Yotes
I like our chances better than the future Winnipeg Jets. -
I don't think the Bruins are viewed as winning because they are a 3rd seed. I think most pundits have written off Philly due to their recent play and no Pronger. They view Pitts and missing Malkin and Crosby and therefore not favored. Most are viewing Boston and Washington as the top two seeds from the east and for that I don't blame them. Its not just about points, its about how you are playing down the stretch, the injury situation, etc.
The knocks against Montreal are valid. We have been so-so for a while now. We are missing Darche and Pacs. They are suspicious that Gill, Spacek, and Hammer are not fully healthy. Our offense is challenged to score. Therefore, most said that Price has to steal a few games and Boston has to be stupid enough to keep heading to the penalty box. If its a speed game, we win. If it is a slow hitting game, advantage Bruins. I think that is bang on. It doesn't mean we can't win, but it is not the likely outcome, given what we know right now.
Remember, most are picking Buffalo to upset Philly, so it is not just about standings. We will know a lot more after we see a game or so. Does Montreal step up their game? Does Gomez suddenly look better? Do we have a unexpected playoff hero (Eller, Pouliot, Des). These things can change the "power rankings" quite quickly.
Ending a season on a run is not indicative of playoff success. The Flyers finished 2010 with a 4-8-2 record and the Devils were 7-3-4.
The Blackhawks finished up 8-6-2 and the Predators finished up at 11-2-1. Irrelevant to the final result.
Was last season a strange season? Sure it was, but feel free to go over the archives, it isn't indicative of post-season success how well you enter the playoffs. I am not just cherry picking one year and saying look at this, ignore everything else.
I can create knocks against the Bruins that can put doubt into their testicular fortitude and play up Montreal's. Apron Basu did exactly that today.
If Montreal wins I will not be surprised, if the Bruins win, I will not be surprised. I cannot wrap my head around the fan attitude that would doubt a team that defied all belief less than one year ago. That defied all belief when the fan base buried them in December and defied all belief when the fan base was worried they might not win 1 of their final 4 games to make the playoffs and they went 3-0-1.
Halak gone. Keep on winning. Markov out. Keep on winning. Gorges out. Keep on winning. Pacioretty decapitated. Keep on winning.
This attitude is going to change with every game. Scapegoating, complaints, excuses, coaching and goaltending blame, complaining about officials is going to make up this board over the next 2 weeks. Go back and look at the attitudes in the first round last spring.
Game 1. Exuberance and elation.
Game 2. Disappointment and blame.
Game 3 and 4. Acceptance of defeat.
Game 5. Hope returns.
Game 6. Belief returns and shock.
Game 7. Exuberance and elation.
I have watched too many unexpected things happen over 30 years to be swayed by some minor advantages by the Bruins (if that).
-
In the first place, while Halak was stellar, the Habs did a truly unbelievable job of collapsing down low, minimizing repeat opportunities, and counter-punching. It's NOT as though Halak was on his own out there. But anyway: the issue, Wamsley, is that the media has long ago decided that the Habs are mediocrities, despite significant evidence to the contrary. Add to that the bizarre phenomenon of ridiculously biased fans of rival teams being paid as professional 'analysts' and you get a general media tendency to dismiss the canadiens. I hear this stuff on the radio all the time. 'Price should win the Hart, because with that team in front of him...blah blah blah.' Sure.
Still, it's obvious that the Bruins should be rated favourites going into this series. They are widely regarded as Cup contenders, they have a huge physical advantage, they have a Norris-trophy defenceman (Chara) and the slick Kaberle, the statistically insane Thomas AND an impressive array of depth at FW. Having said that, there's favourites and then there's favourites. Everything we know suggests the Habs can play with these guys and beat them with some regularity, and anyone who simply dismisses the canadiens in this series is simply not paying attention. Like I said before, the Bs may win, but we will be full value. I'm looking forward to a long, exciting series.
The Bruins are favourites because the media views things through an old perspective, a 6 and a 3 seed seems like a wide divide, but last season the team with home ice advantage after round one was the 4th seeded Penguins. Seeds 4,6,7,8 survived round one and the 7th seed was within an OT goal of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. Add them to the 6 seeded Flames in 04 and the 8th seeded Oilers in 06 and it doesn't seem like an anomaly anymore for a lower seed to win a short series.
A 7 point difference in a league where 3 points are available every night is miniscule, reduce the sample size to 7 games and it is meaningless.
-
With regards to the Canadiens and their playoff ability, have the media / experts always treated the Habs like a second rate team?
For example, what was the media climate like back in '86 going into the playoffs? Then again in '93?
Is there a sort of 'ground zero' for when the Habs began to be written off?
Do people in the sports journalism profession actually take a look at the team year to year or is there a permanent shadow cast over the Habs based on bias?
Just curious about your opinions.
In 86 I am sure they were treated as massive underdogs, but they should have been. They were starting a roster full of rookies and finished 25 points behind the Flyers and 30 plus behind the two time champion OIlers. That was in the middle of the dynasty run where the Flyers, Habs, Islanders and Oilers were the only champions over a 12 year period. With the Oilers still in their early 20s it was actually understandable why nobody would pay attention to the Habs.
In 1993 the stories seemed the same, but they weren't. The Habs lead the NHL standings with 18 games to go and struggled down the stretch blowing a double digit lead in points in their division to fall to 3rd. As the media still does today (see Buffalo/Philly) they pumped up the teams who did well down the stretch and buried the teams who struggled to finish the season. So the Habs were underrated entering the playoffs. The Bruins who had won 17 of 20 were a favourite and went down in 4 straight.
The media underrated them, but they shouldn't have. From 1984-1993 the Habs were a perennial 95+ point team (no free point era) and had won a Cup, lost in the Finals and made two conference finals. They weren't the mediocre middle of the pack team they are today. So although they have historically attempted to minimize the 93 Cup, the Habs were still a respected franchise that always contended for the Cup, like the Wings are viewed today.
Since they collapsed in the late 90s they have not recaptured the contender respect. Add the bias to it and you get ridiculous analysis that takes shots at them at every attempt.
-
I am getting tired of hearing that Price has to pull a Halak to win the series.
I don't see any indication that the Habs will be outshot 3-1 every night. Last season they played a team that was 35 points ahead of them and a +91 goal differential.
This season it is 7 points and half the goal differential difference.
-
I never said I valued his opinion or thought anything of it (I'd have bet everything and then some on him picking the B's because of that bias), just found his logic funny.
I wasn't implying you were. Just saying that consistent logic shouldn't be expected from a slightly evolved monkey.
-
I don't know why people are so surprised that the media is predicting Boston will win. They have more depth, the top candidate for the Vezina, and are in far better shape then us at the moment. Yes they are missing Savard, but overall they are not limping in hurt. Our D is old and beat up. If this is a hard hitting series, our D will be suffering.
remember, they are not saying we CANT win this series, they are saying the odds are against us. I don't mind being the underdog, but I don't think is makes sense to pretend we are somehow the odds on favourite to win this series.
Keep in mind, many experts feel the Bruins are one of the top 2 to come out of the east, based on depth, goaltending, toughness, etc. Playoffs are tough slogs and you need to be tough. I see us as fast, but not tough.
Kyper picked the Habs in 7, so there ya go.. hang your hat on the old Kipper.
I just don't think that there is an underdog between two teams separated by 7 points in a points inflated league (SO/OT points). Since the lockout the 6th seed has beaten the 3 seed in 60% of the matchups. I just don't see an overwhelming talent disparity that favours anybody. I don't see a major advantage in goal for the favourite and both Markov and Savard have been non-factors all season. The Habs have had the Bruins record over the last two seasons with mainly the same rosters have 18 of a possible 24 points, the Bruins got 9 of 24.
All of these things are wiped clean because of 7 regular season points? The thuggery we saw or the 7-0 game?
There has not been a post lockout season where a 6 seed has not won one of the matchups. The series have gone the distance more often than they have been sweeps. Seven of the matchups have gone 6 or 7 games. The differences are so minimal that a convincing argument can be made both ways. The only thing making the Habs the underdog is the 6 beside their seeding number.
-
I wouldn't use those stats to show Boston was lucky. Those stats show they converted better them us, which could be because they have better shooters.
In any case, I think we are in tough with this series. I can't discount losing Pacs, as that really hurt our balance up front. Our record since is nothing to be excited about. I do believe we can beat the Bruins, but it will be an uphill battle. If gomez can get going we might have a chance, but otherwise Pleks will be staring down their best defensive line (and Chara) for the entire series.
If Boston gets the goaltending they are use to, they will extremely tough to beat. If they start falling apart and panic like they did last year against Philly, then I think the balance tilts in our favor. To be honest, I have felt all year that Boston has the better team, but Price and (God this hurts) JM were better then expected. I have been pretty impressed with how much JM has rung out of this team, Second only to Bylsma. I figured anyone would look like a genius coach with Crosby and Malkan, but he has done as well or better without them. That is pretty damn impressive and I think they will be tough to play, in the second round.
That is everybody's reaction to microstats, but over the past 3 seasons the Bruins shooting percentage has fluctuated wildly. I don't really think it shows that they have better shooters and that luck plays a bigger factor then people want to believe. But that is a discussion for another day, if one doesn't want to use the extra info, I am not going to go down the road of trying to talk people into diving into the extra information.
Gotta love PJ Stock on CBC. In their playoff preview, he picks Vancouver because, "you gotta go with the Canadian team." Following that logic, Boston apparently packed up and moved into Canada unbeknownst to the rest of us while the Habs are now an American team. I'm not surprised with his pick (it was a clean Boston sweep by the way) but after that comment about Vancouver at the top of the show, I have to admit I found that a little funny.
Stock is a biased fool. His opinion is useless.
-
Of course anything can happen, but I believe a Habs win would be an upset (not just because of our seed position). Going in they have all the advantages (home ice, healthy roster, more depth, etc). That said, Timmy can suck, they could get a few injuries in the early part of the series to key guys (imagine Chara hurting himself falling over Thomas, who in turn has his knee screwed by the weight... sorry, that is my private fantasy). At the same time, we could get off to a hot start and then have Chara gouge out Plek's eye...
So I am not predicting so much as assessing odds.
I don't think it is really an upset though. The Habs have been injured all season and have played fairly well with those injuries, to me they are a non-factor.
If you like micro stats, this is encouraging. I pilfered this from Mathman at EOTP.
Seems most analysts look at the Bruins’ goals for vs. the Habs, and immediately assume the Bruins are a world-beater, then look at their goals-against numbers and assume they are a defensive juggernaut. The Bruins’ enviable 5-on-5 goal differential make them look like the stronger team in that area, and this is why most media analysts will be predicting Bruins in 5 or 6. (Though many are saying Bruins in 7, apparently because of the season series.)A quick look at shot-based metrics paints a very different picture. The Bruins had fairly pedestrian puck possession numbers (Corsi/Fenwick), especially with the score tied, whereas the Habs’ numbers were very strong. This points to the Habs actually being the better 5-on-5 team. Certainly they are better at carrying the play.
The reason the Bruins looks like and points to an interesting fact: the Bruins had the highest PDO in the league by a huge margin; their ES save percentage was 937 (1st in the league), their ES shooting percentage was 8.7% (4th). That amounts to a total PDO of a staggering 1024. They were, in a word, lucky. More than that: they were the luckiest club in the NHL.
Montreal’s PDO was 995 — a very good save percentage number of 925 (8th in the NHL) but a very unfortunate shooting percentage of 7.0% (beating only New Jersey). For those keeping score, that amounts to saying the Habs’ goalies, fantastic though they were, were outplayed by the opposing goalies for the balance of the season. Or that the Habs were unusually unfortunate on shooting.
This is an extreme difference in the percentages that really tilts goal-based metrics. The Bruins, for example, allow a ton of shots against, second most in the league and most among playoff teams. Even factoring in score effects, the purported “defensive juggernaut” looks very dependent on otherwordly goaltending. Their offense relies primarily on “making their shots”. Meanwhile the Habs have ridden solid goaltending and a very strong possession game to make up for the inability to buy a goal.
The question then becomes — will these percentages hold through during the playoffs? They might, but given Boston’s percentages and how they resemble the Habs teams of the past, whose success was built on smoke and mirrors, I would be wary of predicting long playoffs for Boston. They very much look like the weakest of the top seeds and even if they get past Montreal, they would likely need to beat at least two of Philly, Tampa, Pittsburgh or Washington, all of which look to be far superior puck possession club.
That is, if they get out of the first round. The playoffs are a crapshoot, but I’m going to cross my fingers here and hope the percentages reassert themselves and the Habs’ superior puck possession game sees them through this.
Maybe the Bruins win on the depth of the 3rd/4th line, but I am not going to reduce the Habs chances based on Thornton and Campbell.
-
Non-Status might be because he's the child of a white dad and an aboriginal mom. I can't remember all the details, but there was an incredibly sexist clause built into the original Indian Act about who qualifies for status Indians, and basically it meant that it was okay for an aboriginal male to marry a non-aboriginal and have his kids carry on being status Indians, but not for an aboriginal female. This has been a very contentious issue and that could be the reason for Price's non-status.
My friends children are 25% native and have a status card and he has never lived on a reserve. If Price wanted a status card, he could likely get one.
-
My favourite of these is the idea that 10 straight OT victories is proof that your team is a 'fluke.'
That astonishing record proves exactly the opposite. We had a team that was simply unbeatable when all the chips were on the line, and proved it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (10 times!). For God's sake, how many more times do have to do something before it stops being a fluke?In response to Kiwi's earlier comment about what the 'atmosphere' must have been like for Game 5 of the 1993 Finals, it actually wasn't what you'd expect. The way that game went, the Kings had some chances in the first but were contained by Roy and the Habs defence; and after that Montreal took over in an unspectacular, businesslike, methodical fashion. My experience was that the game itself was really rather boring. The outcome wasn't really in doubt. It was just a long, patient grind to get to the third period. This was especially true as I'd been standing up since 4 PM that afternoon in order to get the best spot in standing room (which I did get). I also remember having to protect that spot against guys standing behind me, who would have taken it over in a second.
The third period is where things got interesting. It's as if a current of electricity started to shoot through the whole building and the reality of what was happening began to sink in. The noise built and built, into what my brother to this day maintains is the loudest sound he has ever heard: the sustained, overwhelming thunder of 20 000 Montrealers realizing that their boys were about to win the Stanley Cup. I still remember seeing a glimpse of the Cup itself, gleaming, as it was wheeled into the aisle, getting set up to be presented and feeling a jolt of excitement. Finally the horn sounded and Bettman, to much jeering, came out and said exactly the right thing - that it was only fitting that on the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup, it go to the Montreal Canadiens - and everything was fulfilled. I remember the huge guy next to me helping me up onto the concrete barrier so I could enjoy an unobstructed view. Patrick Roy hoisted the Prize and roared out his triumph for the ages. It was bedlam.
Let me get metaphysical on your asses for a second here too. Something weird goes on in that moment. When players hoist the Cup on home ice, it's an instant in which there is a genuine (not manufactured or virtual) unity between fan and fan and fans and players: an entire community celebrating that it has reached the pinnacle, that this is it. Every other season leaves a sense of incompeteness: 'wait til next year,' or 'we're building something,' or 'we need to rebuild,' whatever. ONLY when you win the Stanley Cup is there that feeling that everything has been achieved, that we have attained everything we set out to attain. And it's amazing to have 20 000 people and the players themselves all realize that at the same time. In that moment, Patrick Roy is a fan, and the fan is Patrick Roy - you're all sharing that exact feeling.
Game 2 of that series was the single most exciting game I've ever seen live. But Game 5, while a dud of a game, brought that climactic moment we all live for as fans. I'm glad I got to experience both. And I want to experience that again, even if I have to do it from Vancouver; and I wish that younger generations of Habs fans could taste it too. 18 years is long enough.
I remember that game never being in doubt as well. The Habs opened the scoring and controlled the game, then McSorley scored a flukey goal that went post, post, in and a minute later Muller buries the Cup winner and the Kings were done. After Lebeau scored it was essentially a defensive clinic. The Kings couldn't gain the zone. The Habs system multiplied with the adrenalin that if they laid it all on the line for 20 minutes that their childhood dreams would be realized dominated the Kings. How often do you see a team up 2 with the Cup on the line not get outshot? When DiPietro made it 4-1 it was just a matter of counting the seconds on the clock.
It was a much different feeling than in 1986 when they had a 4-1 lead with 3 minutes to go and the Flames poured it on and cut the lead to 4-3.
Game 2 was the greatest Habs game I have ever seen, I can't believe that it isn't on the box set or referenced regularly.
-
I meant in terms of scoreboard, not actual play. Any bounce can happen, especially in OT. The Habs deserved to win that series, but with 3 games going to OT, the outcome was hardly etched in stone.
All depends on how you look at it I guess. By the time the 3rd OT rolled around the series was over. Even if the Sabres win that one in OT they still lose the series.
The 1976 Canadiens swept the Broad Street Bullies, but every game was a 1 goal game. We can change and alter history all we like with could have and would have and it has happened in regards to the 1993 Habs.
When we discuss any other Stanley Cup champion of the past 30 years we don't need to endure would have/could have, but the 1993 Habs are always discredited with a "if Gretzky had been called for a high stick the Leafs would have..." or if the "Pens hadn't been upset against the Isles the Pens would have..." or if the "Sabres hadn't swept the Bruins, the Bruins would have..." or "10 OT games in a row is a fluke, if they had a normal OT record they wouldn't have..."
We all know why this occurs in regards to the 1993 Canadiens and it is all media driven. The 86 Cup has also been minimized as lucky that Steve Smith banked a goal off Fuhr.
Pretty much every team that wins the Cup has an OT game or a fortunate break go their way that could have altered history.
The 2006 Canes had the Staal OT goal after Koivu's eye injury.
The 2007 Ducks tied the Wings with a minute to go on a flukey deflection that stopped them from going to Anaheim down 3-2.
The 2009 Penguins were an OT loss from trailing the Caps 3-0 in the second round.
If you go year to year you can find these things for almost every Cup winning team.
-
One big difference is that Boston has a great goalie and solid D. Last year we turtled and scored against some awful goaltending. I don''t think we will find goals too easy to come by.
My worry is that the Boston 3/4 lines can eat ours for lunch. I think they have much more depth then us. We have two rookies centering our bottom two lines. We are not even sure who our number 6 forward is. Our D is bruised and old.
IMO, we only win this if the Bruins lose it for us. Either they collapse like last year, or are so stupid they spend the night in the box. I don't think they will get into too much penalty trouble. I suspect our guys will.
You can't really use logic to predict playoff matchups. The teams are so evenly matched now that any team can lose.
What would logic have told us last season against the Caps and the defending Stanley Cup champion Pens? Lose your best player playing against two of the three best players in the world and their Stanley Cup/Olympic goalie and you are screwed right?
How about the 2002 Bruins and their depth? The Habs had no chance with Koivu, Zednik, Perreault, Audette, Gilmour etc.
These things happen every season where logic dictates one result and the playoffs offer up a different one. The 2008 Habs had won 11 straight against the Bruins and were up 3-1. They had lost 1 of their previous 15 games and all of a sudden were life and death having to play a game seven.
In their last 7 playoff appearances the Habs have knocked off a 1 or 2 seed four times. The only times they didn't were 2006 and 2009 and the only one that really played out to script was 2009 when they were injury ravaged. I have given up logic and essentially guessing who will win.
All I know is the Habs are just as good and I hope for the best.
-
Playoff hockey is about match ups. No one does this better than Muller; IMO he and the coaching staff were a big part of why we were ready and why we went deep last season. Yes, individual play will make a huge difference. Price needs to be better than Halak and the others need to step up and into the playoff hockey mindset.
If our coaching staff do their job and assign our players to play their roles and create the right match ups we have a shot at this series.
No one is allowed to play this battle on their own; and as much as I am a Subban fan and as much as I'd like to see end to end rushes if its not in the game plan it stays off the ice!
Defend, Create and Dominate, Play together and Win together.
GO HABS GO!
Does Price need to be better than Halak to win? I think this team is better than last seasons team. Better 5 on 5 and better special teams.
The Habs/Bruins are a lot closer in talent then the Caps/Habs were. Lost in the media's love fest with the Bruins is that they don't really have any elite offensive talent. Savard is gone and Kessel is in Toronto. They rely on hard work to score, just like the Habs. Solid players, but no offensive superstars.
This series is a coin flip and will likely come down to discipline and bounces.
-
I am 50-50 in terms of confidence for this serie. I am also 50-50 in terms of how I like the matchup.
Sure we can outplay them, but they can outplay us as well.
The only thing that I'm sure is that it is gonna be the most exciting serie of round 1.
The only fear I have is a continuation of the nonsense that has already occurred. The Bruins have still suffered ZERO ramifications from their mauling in the 8-6 game or the Chara incident. There isn't exactly any precedent to fear any league enforced penalties.
Would the B's really suffer if Campbell/Thornton run Subban and take him out of the series? Could we really expect this to be below them?
If the nonsense goes away the Habs can win.
-
I've posted somewhere before pictures of my playoff tickets from '93, as I was able to make all the home games that year (except one of the Isles games). Heck, I was even delayed at customs heading over to the Cup games because they thought I was lying about going to the game when entering Canada, so I'd have to pull over, go in, and show them the tickets. Never mind that there were 4 of us in my CRX...and CRXs don't have back seats.
I remember watching the game afterward (recorded with a VCR, of course), the video montage after the game being played to "Back in the High Life".
I need to get back to Montreal for a playoff game again sometime.
And that each game was a 4-3 decision. Could have easily been a sweep in the other direction.
I still have that montage on video.
I disagree on the Sabres series going either way. The Canadiens lead that whole series. Through 4 games the Sabres held the lead for 10 minutes. All 3 overtimes required the Sabres to tie the game in the 3rd period. Contrast that to the Habs who lead for close to 130 of 240 regulation minutes through 4 games and lead 3-2 in the 3rd period of all three OT games.
The shot clock favoured the Sabres, but plenty of studies have shown that trailing teams outshoot their opponent. My most vivid memories of that series are of being pissed off at the Habs not being able to hold onto leads in games they were outplaying the Sabres culminating in Khymlev tying Game 4 with 10 seconds left. Anytime you get swept you were not close to winning the series.
The same type of thing occurred in 1998 but with the Habs on the other end. Two OT losses and the Habs bombarding Hasek with shots and losing in 4 straight. Not for a minute do I think the Habs should have won in 98. When you play from behind you don't get to dictate the game and you play out of desperation.
I felt the same way about the Final with the Kings. Outside of Game 1 it was the Habs leading for large stretches and the Kings mounting furious comebacks. Even in Game 2 when Desjardins tied it, the Habs lead for the first half and when the game was tied continued to pour on the the pressure. In Games 3 and 4 they blew 2-0 and 3-0 leads in L.A.
-
Wamsley's post is bang-on. Although we DID get a good draw in avoiding the Penguins and getting the Islanders instead
what everybody forgets is that all the 'experts' predicted the Nordiques were a powerhouse ready for a long run and Buffalo was also regarded as a dangerous team. Only retroactively - after we'd schooled them - did these commentators blame the other teams for being weak rather than the Habs for being strong.The team was regarded as no-talent despite being 1st overall for much of the season, for three reasons. First, its key offensive player was Kirk Muller. Because Muller is best remembered as a Leaf, when he was just a grinder, people forget that he was a 90-point guy and easily one of the toughest centremen to play against in all of hockey when he was at his peak. Second, people at the time were still thinking in terms of 'superstars:' Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Messier. If you didn't have guys like that you automatically were ruled out as a contender - a basic mistake. Third, we had future stars like Desjardins and LeClair who played up to their potential. To Joe Sixpack outside of Montreal that seemed like sheer luck. Only later can we look back and see that those players really were 'all that.'
Kiwi, I am pleased to say that I was old and wise enough to know EXACTLY how fortunate I was at the time and savoured every single moment of that entire run (I saw three games live, Game 3 against the Nordiques and Game 2 against the Kings - the greatest single Habs game of the past 30 years - as well as Game 5). No one will ever see the Montreal Canadiens win the Stanley Cup in the Montreal Forum again. I knew it was (potentially) a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And believe me, it IS every bit as a awesome as you think it is!
People also tend to forget that the 93 Sabres had Lafontaine, Mogilny AND Hawerchuk. That is 371 points combined + Fuhr and Hasek in goal. It is easy to say they were a pushover, but they weren't. The Habs were fortunate that Mogilny broke his ankle in the series, but lets not forget that they swept the Bruins and that Lafontaine was going to be the MVP of the league had Lemieux not returned from cancer.
-
There are two things that happened in 93 that partnered and made the run successful. Patrick Roy stood on his head. Every body knows that. But the reason we were successful is that our nemesis at the time would fall the round before. We lucked out because our greatest challenge for the next round would always fall out. Back in 93, there was more distinct talent separations (teams) than there are now. Will all the stars aline this year? Who knows, that's why we play the game.
That is the playoffs. It wasn't luck, the Habs were a perennial contender and finished 6th overall in 1993 (4 pts from 3rd overall).
The Toronto (in other words national) media spun the Hab fluke because their beloved Leafs were bounced. Ask a hockey fan about the 93 Leafs and you get the following. Gritty, underdog, determined, inspirationally lead by Doug Gilmour. Ask them about the Habs and you get lucky (Pens/Bruins knocked off, 10 OT wins), the team was crap and the goaltender won it by himself etc.
Two entirely different tales, but two identical routes to the Semis.
Habs finished with 102 points, Leafs with 99.
Habs faced the 104 pt Nords in the first round, the Leafs faced the 102 pt Red Wings.
The Habs faced the 86 point Sabres in the second round, the Leafs faced the 85 pt Blues.
In the Semis the Habs faced the 87 pt Islanders, the Leafs faced the 88 pt Kings.
The Habs made the Finals in 15 games, the Leafs lost to the Kings in 21 games.
Yet one is romanticized and the other is minimized. Why is that?
Why is it that nobody talks about the Rangers and their fortune in facing an 8 seed, a 7 seed, a 3 seed and a 7 seed to win the Cup in 1994? All we here is stories about Mark Messier and his great leadership and his guarantee. No mention of avoiding the powerful Penguins, no mention of facing the 85 point Canucks in the Finals. I don't have to listen to tales of their fortune and luck 15 years later.
The Canadiens were the best team in the 1993 playoffs. They never faced elimination, they didn't let a team like the Sabres sweep them, they bounced the Islanders WITH Turgeon in 5 games instead of losing in 7 and they knocked the Kings off in 5 games when the Leafs couldn't stop them with two cracks at the Finals in game 6 and 7.
It is tired and boring to hear the truth manipulated by a biased media and influenced fanbase.
-
Having been in the Forum on the night of the last Cup, I can attest to what a sweet feeling that is. I will never forget the sight of the great Patrick Roy hoisting Lord Stanley's mug and roaring in triumph right in front of us, as I stood behind the reds in the old 'standing room' section, with the building thundering like the end of the world and fans running up and down the aisles going absolutely crazy. I was on a natural high for days after. High-fiving Mike Keane as his float went by during the Cup parade was fun too
Will we experience that again this year? It's highly unlikely, of course, but you never really know. I'd feel better about our chances if Washington had not shown signs of actually figuring out how to win and if Pittsburgh had not played so astoundingly well without Malkin and Crosby. Two months ago, it looked as though only Boston and Philly could be rated genuine 'contenders' in the east, which gave us a pretty good shot provided the draw worked out. With four formidable teams in the mix, the odds drop considerably. Still, I like and believe in this team. We will be full value, whatever happens.
This hunger for a Cup was what I was getting at in an earlier thread when I said that I want the Habs to be absolutely ruthless with cap management going forward. Too many fans and analysts take a line that says, 'you can't sign this guy because of the cap, you can't do this, you can't do that, etc..' Sure you can - if you're prepared to slit guys' throats. I want to see signs that this organization is prepared to simply dump (say) a Gomez IF doing so will facilitate moves that make the team better. It's time to take that next step and to do whatever is necessary short of burning up draft picks to accomplish it. No more Mr. Nice Organization, says I.
THe thing about the Habs between 98-2008 is that they did not develop any homegrown superstars. Theo fooled us into believing it for a season or two, but that was it.
This team has TWO future superstars in Price and Subban and a handful of secondary veterans as well as potential in Eller, Pacioretty etc.
They may not go more than a round this year, but the future is brighter than it has been since probably 94-95.
-
Well, Chara did record 1 goal and 4 assists against the Habs in 6 games, going +1, so I wouldn't go quite as far as you. But I suspect you're otherwise right and the media will deify Chara until given reason not to.
3 of those points came in the last game which was a 7-0 romp.
So in the first 5 games he had 1 goal and 1 assist and was -2.
-
Sigh... we are going to get Boston. I really wanted to avoid them in the first round. The habs are not firing on all cylinders and Boston is no longer scared of playing us.
Sadly, I predict Boston in 6.
I really think we could take Philly right now.
Momentum into the playoffs is meaningless.
Last season the Habs backed in with an OT point and knocked off the Caps in 7 games. In 1993 they collapsed and blew a huge division lead to the Bruins and won the Cup.
Just because Philly did nothing down the stretch doesn't mean that they can't demolish the Sabres. This is exactly the type of mindset that lead to the fanbase thinking keeping Carey Price was ridiculous. It would have also lead us to media taking the Leafs to beat the Flyers had they made it because they played .700 hockey for 2 months. The Habs were 8-0 against the Bruins and were life and death to beat them in 7 games.
New season. What was done yesterday, two weeks ago or 3 months ago is meaningless.
The 7-0 game is as meaningful as the 4-0 whipping the Habs put on the Bruins before Chara decided to try and kill somebody.
GDT: Game 1, Habs vs Bruins
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted · Edited by Wamsley01
I've seen this movie before. Containment to the outside and allowing perimeter shots.
If only Pleks could have buried that Thomas gift. Big save by Price.