Roo-AH! Roo-AH!

Well, all the indications are that Julien is a very fine coach, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt re: his game plans. But...am I the only one with this weird feeling that now that Theo seems to have found his game, we can expect the rest of the team to start sagging? It's probably just paranoi induced by the wretchedness of the last decade, but I dunno, I've seen that sort of thing happen before. Hope I'm just nuts. :guru:

These people who are despairing over Hossa's good showing are exactly the sort that got me starting this thread---i.e., those who jump to conclusions based on a few games. Remember, Hossa played several good games when he first came up with us. That doesn't make him a star. If I were you, kaos, I'd stick those Hossa rookie cards in my bike spokes and move on [Edited on 2005/10/25 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

One recurring theme in here---and among sports fans in general---is the tendency to jump to snap conclusions. Examples: -people who wanted us to dump Theo and go with Garon because Garon looked good in a limited backup role. Come ON. One good season as backup does not a superstar starting goalie make, as LA seems to be discovering. -people who are attacking Theodore because of his problematic start. Come on, guys, six games is NOTHING in terms of a player's overall development. -people who are big Yann Danis fans because the guy had ONE great NHL start. SHEEEESH. Even Red Light Racicot played some good games, guys. I guess if Danis stinks out the joint in his next game, everyone will be panicking about our backup goaltending. -people who want us to trade Ribeiro because of his slow start and Plekanec's good one. While this is a more plausible line than the 'trade Theo' one, the fact is that Ribs has gotten better every year and consistently shown that he can raise his game when required. Meanwhile, Plekanec hasn't proven a thing. Thank God Gainey is in charge, if we had a Houle or some other dumbell who listens to the fans, this terrific team would have been dismantled after our first loss

This is all grossly unfair to Ribiero. Everyone hates this guy because he's physically petite and a pretty boy. Let's remember that Ribeiro has (despite his reputation for being soft) stuck it to the doubters ever since her first came up. First, he was told he had to improve on his skating or he'd never make the team. So he improved on his skating. Then he was told he'd have to improve his defensive play or he'd never make the team. Well, he was +15 last year. Then they told him he'd have to get better on faceoffs or he'd never make the team. Lo and behold---he had a great faceoff % in 03-04. AND he merely led our team in points, as a deft playmaker and prototypical 2nd-line centre. So Ribs has paid his dues and shown he can meet challenges. He deserves a good, sustained shot at proving he can play in the 'new NHL.' As for Dagenais, that's another story, but his value is so negligible it may not be worth getting rid of him. Finally: it would be crazy to rely on rookies to make our second line on the basis of five games. If I had a dime for every rookie who's looked great for a few weeks before tanking, I'd have more unearned dough than Keith Tkatchuk. [Edited on 2005/10/18 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

Ooo, Dags to Phoenix sounds like a good fit. The Coyotes are a team of reclamation projects, he'd fit right in. I still say Zed should be on the second line when he gets back, but what can you do? As for Bulis on the second line, it's an interesting idea but overlooks one thing---Bulis has never shown an ability to score goals at the NHL level. He's a specialist in blown chances, and that's not what we want playing with setup man Ribiero, at least not until Ryder rediscovers his game. (Not that I'm knocking Bulis, he's a very useful player, just not a goal scorer).

No WAY should Guy Lapointe's number be retired. If the Habs were to retire the number of every mere 'star' that's played for them, there'd be no numbers left under #35. Lapointe was by general consensus the weakest of the Big 3. Forget it. Even Moore and Cournoyer---individually I question whether they should have been retired. But put 'em together and, yes, the #12 has been carried two great players and so its retirement can be defended.

Should I drop Visnovsky and pick up Dion Phaneuf? When was the last time a rookie D-man put together a great season?

Easy on Souray, he's that type of D-man---a force of nature who will help you sometimes and hurt you other times, but definitely a Presence that other teams respect. And very few defencemen have the hands for the kind of in-tight goal he had the chance to score tonight (remember Bourque at Nagano? Oy vey). What we need is some good analysis of PRECISELY how the Leafs managed to neutralize the Habs' speed advantage, which was so much in evidence for the first and last ten minutes of the game. Julien had better watch the tapes carefully, as will future Habs opponents. I doubt it all boils down to simple 'clutching and grabbing,' although according to HNIC's late game telecast, that stuff is creeping back into the corners and the slot and if it is, the Habs had better be ready to meet it. The second line sucks ass. At least Ribs showed some of his old dipsy-doodling tonight, but basically, there's no saving it until Zednik returns. And, oh yeah---why was Julien so tough on Dagenais last season, and so forgiving of him this time around?? That seems weird. [Edited on 2005/10/16 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

It's too soon to give up on Ribeiro, although footspeed could be the fatal weakness that ruins his career. But his linemates this season have sucked rocks (Ryder's game-winning heroics have not reflected his poor overall play). That's why I advocate putting Zednik with Ribiero---only by giving him a top winger can we determine whether he's the problem. I wouldn't want to try Perezhogin there, in case Ribs IS the problem and the resulting debacle hurts Perezhogin's confidence.

Theodore's profile is actually quite similar to Patrick Roy's, when you think about it. Roy came up as a hot rookie and won the Cup. Theodore came up as a hot rookie and, once he hit his stride, carried a dubious team on his back into the second round of the playoffs in an MVP performance. After 1986, Roy's consistency became an issue with fans. After 2002, Theo's consistency became an issue with fans. For the next few years after 1986, Roy was regarded as 'among the NHL's elite goalies' but not necessarily Great with a capital G. Similarly, Theodore. Only in 1993 did Roy truly cement his status as a massive superstar. Time will tell if a similar defining moment awaits Theodore. But as with Roy, we know one thing: this guy has an incredibly high ceiling. A Theodore who is In The Zone is almost as good as it gets. And I wish all those 'trade-Theo-and-keep-Garon' bozos would now come out of the woodwork and confess their ignorance.

Cool idea. That third line could be a difference-maker. But I'm not sure how Zednik would feel about it...we don't want to trigger one of his 'down' periods. Also, our second line has tended to suck of late...maybe throwing Zed on there could help to right that wobbly ship.

I've posted on this topic before, but I feel impelled to reiterate: only all-time NHL greats should have their numbers retired by the Habs. This isn't Vancouver, where Stan Smyl is their *all time greatest player*, for God's sake. Who are clearly among the all time greats not yet retired by the Habs? I see only two: 1 -Larry Robinson. Spent a decade as one of the three best defencemen in the league. 2-Roy. Indisputable, he should have his # retired. A dominant goalie of his generation and influenced a whole further generation. Two Conn Smythes too. So these would be my only choices. Still, there's some that linger on the cusp of Greatness with a capital 'G,' such as: 3- Ken Dryden. Terrific goalie, but also flubbed his share of big moments (the 1976 game vs the Soviets, the entire 1979 playoff) and his career was awfully short. Still, of all the names below, his could stand most easily with the two supserstars above. 4. Yvan Cournoyer. Four 40-goal seasons and years of point-a-game production, along with a Conn Smythe. But The Roadrunner's status as a great is helped along by the drama of the 1971 Cup and his status as French hero against Big Bad English coach. Ask yourself: was he really THAT much better than, say, Mats Naslund? Or Jacques Lemaire? Je le doute, moai. 4. -Elmer Lach. Hart Trophy, scoring titles, the works: a terrific player overshadowed only because of The Rocket. However, his career numbers really only show three point-per-game seasons after the war (this in an era where a point a game would win you a scoring title). And the war years are aberrant. After that he drops off considerably. And then there's some dodgier choices still: 5. Serge Savard. Career numbers suggest great consistency but lots of injuries. Definitely a major defenceman; also became a pretty good GM. Won a Conn Smythe, too, along with the 72 Series against Russia. But if not for his service as GM, I don't think he should be on this list. 6. Boom-Boom Geoffrion. Won a scoring title, the Hart, he was a 50-goal guy, a pioneer of the slapshot, etc.. But really, looking at his numbers you see he had one great year amidst a series of good ones. 7. Dickie Moore. Another legend. Two scoring titles, but never really put together a string of dominant full seasons. I'd say his overall career numbers suggest a superior player to Geoffrion in that he assembled two, rather than one, great season. 8. Bob Gainey. An all time great in the sense that he pretty much invented the concept of the Defensive Forward and remains its archetype. Also served as the greatest leader in hockey for the latter part of his career. But really---should a guy who never scored more than 23 goals and 47 points have his number up there with the Rocket and Beliveau?? You could throw in Guy Lapointe and Shutt and others, but really, once they're in, you have to let in Lemaire and Naslund and Bobby Smith, etc., etc., etc..

The RDS page is lit up with people ranting about Theo's struggles thus far...I think that many goalies are struggling a bit with the double-whammy of new rules and new equipment and I don't actually think Theo has been that bad, but I do worry that he'll let the criticism bother him. For a guy with such an ego, he does seem capable of letting setbacks lead him into erratic play. What does the mighty Forum think? Should we start fretting about the man between the pipes? [Edited on 2005/10/12 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

I too dearly hope the Leafs tank, but let's remember...(a) they've got a track record of gutting out wins despite key injuries (B) Belfour still seems to have it and © as long as Allison and Lindros stay healthy, they WILL be tough to beat (although I think the Habs speed stands to make mincemeat out of their questionable D). So don't look for the Leafs to roll over and die this month. In fact, despite everyone's confidence that they suck, the Leafs are the conference wild card. If they can contain injuries---and mercifully, things don't look good on that front---they could actually finish among the Conference leaders. Or they could hit the skids. Just a note of caution before we get TOO cocky. [Edited on 2005/10/7 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

I've never heard anyone say anything good about Hainsey's work ethic or his intelligence. The fact that he's still bragging about being a 1st-round pick, five years after the fact, shows me that he doesn't understand the difference between having talent/potential, and actually DELIVERING on those. And he should pause to think: the Habs DON'T have one of the league's better defence corps; if he can't even crack the 6th spot here, where does he expect to do better? Ottawa? This guy will never make the NHL.

The Habs must have higher standards than other teams. Think on the numbers they've already retired...Lafleur, Beliveau, Richard, Harvey...these are *all time greats* in the history of the game. Neither Roadrunner nor Shutt are such transcendent hockey greats as to warrant their numbers' retirement by this franchise. The same could be said of Gainey, Mahovlich, and perhaps even Savard (although anywhere else, of course, these guys'd be no-brainers). #19 is a shoo-in, though. Elmer Lach should be there, too. A Hart Trophy, scoring titles, Cups...this guy was a major, major force in Habs history. (Except that I can't remember his number!! That leaves one more opening. It should be #33---not only was Roy perhaps the greatest goalie of his era, and and a true giant in Habs history, but bringing him back would represent final forgiveness and closure on the terrible Houle era, the greatest sin of which was Roy's unceremonious expulsion. But something tells me it'll be #29. And that'd be OK too. [Edited on 2005/10/3 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

Sorry, I trried to post this before but it seems to have vanished, so excuse any duplication: Here's what i don't get. If Hossa was a dodgy prospect (and based on his erratic career so far, I think that's true), then why was he offered a one-way contract in the first place? Explanations---?!? As for Latendresse, everybody cool it, one good camp proves absolutely nothing.

Building on the previous topic about top-10 Habs of all time... What happens if we start with Habs acquired AFTER 1980? Gimme at least your top-5. I say: 1. Patrick Roy. Hands down, of course. 2. Kirk Muller. His stint with us was short, but exceedingly sweet: he almost did as much as Roy to win us that Cup in 1993. 3. Guy Carbonneau. More on-ice smarts in one elbow than most players have in their whole bodies. 4. Mats Naslund. Too bad he did nothing in the '89 Finals, though. 5. I'll give Koivu a sentimental edge over Chelios and Bobby Smith. Others might disagree.

1. The Rocket. Nuff said. 2. Howie Morenz. A legend from the mists of time, as awe-inspiring to his generation as the Rocket was later. Established the archetype for the Habs---swift, skilled, and 'exotic' even though he was from Ontario! 3. Jacques Plante. The man revolutionized goaltending. Greatest goalie ever, therefore, and Sawchuck fans can roll over and croak. 4. Jean Beliveau. The personification of the classiness that people associated with the Canadiens organization from the 1950s to, say, 1990s. That many people say mario Lemieux reminds them of Beliveau is a testament to the latter's talent on the ice. 5. Doug Harvey. Hey, if he's #5 and #6 on those lists of all-time greatest players, that's good enough pour moi. 6. Guy Lafleur. I still see that game 7 goal against Boston in 1979 in my dreams :/) (The amazing thing is that you can reasonably put a player like Guy as far down as #6---now that's tradition). 7. Larry Robinson. Arguably the best D-man of his generation, with Salming and Potvin. Indisputably the 2nd-best defenceman in team history. 8. Patrick Roy. The man carried us to two Cups. Again, 'nuff said. And remember The Wink in 1993? : Things get tougher at this point, but I'd offer: 9. Henri Richard. A long and distinguished career as offensive sparkplug. And how the heck many Cups did he win, something in the range of 13? Yikes. 10. George Hainsworth. Any goalie with a GAA of under 1 HAD to be doing something right. But maybe Serge Savard could stand here, too.

Small? OK, Koivu and Ribiero are small. But what about Zednik, Kovalev, and Bonk? Ryder? Souray? Rivet? Komisarek? I find that media commentators are always a year behind in their analysis. They're analyzing LAST season's team here. Junk. Also, did anyone notice that Koivu beat the living daylights out of *big forward* Joe Thornton in the playoffs? So much for SIZE SIZE SIZE. A pox on these boneheads! [Edited on 2005/9/26 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

Trust me, Brett, these guys were a significant minority right up to the 1993 playoffs. After that, they did shut up. The line of thinking that criticized Patrick Roy was similar to that that criticizes Theodore. It went like this: 'Roy's playoff run was a fluke, he just got hot, he's really not that great, he's inconsistent, Hayward is more reliable.' Nowadays, the same mindset is saying, 'Theodore's not that great, his MVP season was just a fluke, he just got hot, he's inconsistent, Garon would be better.' Both attitudes are equally full of crap. :mad:

This Garon-mania drives me crazy... The guy might or might not end up becoming a fine NHL starting goalie. But anyone who thinks he's better than Theodore is falling prey to the old 'grass is always greener' fallacy. What he is, is UNPROVEN. Because of that, people can read all kinds of wonderful things into him. He's a blank slate on which they can write their goaltending fantasies. I'm old enough to remember the old Patrick Roy/Brian Hayward tandem of the mid- to late 1980s. Hayward got 30+ starts, mostly against weaker teams. He looked good. A lot of people at the time preferred him to Roy on the grounds that he was more 'consistent.' Guess what---Brian Hayward NEVER MADE IT as a #1 goalie. Meanwhile, the 'inconsistent' Roy went on to do pretty well. I'd also like to remind Theodore-bashers that a lot of Montreal fans (mostly Anglophones) never thought much of Patrick Roy, either, although they won't admit to that now, of course. 'Overrated' was a word I heard a lot back in the day. People just love to look gift goalies in the mouth. All they remember are the mistakes---they quickly forget about all the games Roy (or, to a less degree, Theodore) steal, all the game-breaking saves, etc.. The fact is, it's hard to be an elite NHL goalie. Lots of guys look great for short periods (e.g., Brian Boucher)and as backups (Hayward, Laroque), but only a few can deliver the goods for full seasons, season after season. 'Delivering the goods' doesn't mean perfection; it means giving your team the knowledge that their goalie is as good or better than the guy at the other end, on a nightly basis. Theodore has proven that he can do this. He has also proven that he can steal playoff rounds, a sign that, if the Habs ever build a strong enough team, they'll be able to win the Cup with him. Garon hasn't even proven that he can put together a decent season, let alone carry a team on his back or win anything in the playoffs. And until Garon does prove these things, he is inferior to Theodore. End of story.

It's too early to pull the trigger unless the trade offer is sure-fire (e.g., a proven D-man for a third-round pick or something). Based purely on the preseason results the Habs are looking like a dangerous blend of speed, depth, and experience + youth. This is true even on D---and if Souray or Markhov or even Dandenault step up, our problem is basically solved. So I say, let the new mix play together for a while and see what shakes out. And given that Cool Hand Bob is in charge, that's exactly what I expect will happen. :/) [Edited on 2005/9/25 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

What with all the recent discsussion of Houle and our trading history, I thought it might be time for a thread on assessing Serge Savard's performance as GM. I say he was a very good GM. Not one of the 'greats' like Selke or Pollock, obviously, but definitely good enough to keep the Habs in the very upper echelon of the NHL for almost every year of his reign (1983-95). The Habs in his era resembled the New Jersey Devils of the last decade, both stylistically and in terms of their consistency and success. THE RECORD: -Three Finals appearances (1986, 1989, 1993); two Cups in 12 years (1986 and 1993) -three 100+ -point seasons, several others in the 90s; no season worse than 87 points, except the strike-shortened 1995. From 1984-85 to 1993-94 the Habs were always considered contenders by the rest of the league. This wasn't appreciated by Habs fans at the time, of course, because they'd been trained to expect dynasties. MANAGERIAL MOVES: A. COACHING He made good coaching choices, bringing up Pat Burns and then hiring Jacques Demers (although he must also take responsibility for Jean Perron). B. TRADES He gets beat up a lot for bad trades, and at least three were genuine boners: Chelios for Savard (Corey pressured him into that one but still); Recchi for LeClair and Desjardins (at least we got a fine player back, but ouch); and Claude Lemieux for Sylvain Turgeon (dat hoits). But let's not forget the flip-side: -trading John Kordic for Russ Courtnall -then dealing a whining Courtnall for Brian Bellows, a power forward of huge value in the 93 Cup run -trading a melting-down Shane Corson for Vinny Damphousse, who was also crucial in the 93 Cup run and later -my personal favourite, fleecing the Devils by moving that idiot Stephane Richer for the mighty Kirk Muller (!!), who immediately became our best player after Roy -and then, after Muller had played a huge role in winning the Cup and lost a step to become a third-liner, trading Muller for Pierre Turgeon (!!!). Now THAT's asset management. Of course, Schneider and Malakhov were also implicated, but the Habs are still hands-down winners in that one. C. DRAFTING He's often abused for drafting errors, which is fair, but let's not forget that he drafted such players as Patrick Roy, Petr Svoboda, Sylvain Levevbre, Andrew Cassels, Corson, Richer, LeClair, Desjardins, Schneider, Craig Conroy, Saku Koivu, Jose Theodore, Valeri Bure, Darcy Tucker, etc.. D. PASSING THE TORCH The team he bequeathed to Reggie Houle featured: classy veterans such as Patrick Roy, Mark Recchi, Vinnie Damphousse, Pierre Turgeon, Mike Keane, and Benoit Brunet, good depth players like Stevenson, Odelein and Brisebois, and nice up and comers like Saku Koivu, Craig Conroy, Donald Brashear, Darcy Tucker, and Valeri Bure. It was weak on D, however. Desjardins and Schneider had both been dealt to try to compensate for a 1st line (Bellows-Muller-Damphousse) that basically got old overnight. Within two years, Houle had strip-mined this team down to a 77-point regular season and several seasons of 1st round exits, missed playoffs, and general bottom feeding. BOTTOM LINE: Several prominent mistakes, but on the whole, a consistent record of success. Serge Savard was a good GM and frankly, if Gainey brings similar results in the next decade (two Cups, year after year of contending) I doubt that Habs fans will be complaining. :ghg: [Edited on 2005/9/16 by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

Is he gonna be signing, or playing in Russia, or what? What's your sense of this?