BTH
-
Posts
13656 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTH
-
-
Do people really think Crawford is a better coach though? The Habs have so few choices to pick from and most of them have already coached here and done worse than Martin has.
Whether or not the Habs could use a coach is irrelevant unless they can find a better coach. I'd take Martin over Crawford any day. The reason to make that change would be if Gauthier wants to use a coaching change as a slump-ender, a short term payoff. Don't see it happening unless the Habs hit the bottom 5.
-
The news regarding Markov seems very unsettling. He can't pivot...yikes.
What should the Habs do, exactly, if he doesn't come back? So far everything seems to have been predicated on his return. But if that doesn't happen, we clearly are in no position to be anything better than a bubble team.
Maybe that becomes the moment to swing for the fences re: Ryan, Stastny or Staal? Then try to sign a high-end UFA D-man in the offseason and make a real run? Thoughts?
If Markov's done, the first thing that happens is the Habs trade another 2nd round pick for a replacement. They have enough centers, I can't see them trying to upgrade before finding a PP QB. It's seeming like they won't make the playoffs without one.
Long-term, they would have to change their strategy. Get rid of Gomez at all costs and throw money at a D. They're supposed to be a defensive team but they only have 2 top 4 d-men without Markov.
Other than that, they're fine. As soon as they get another d-man better than Subban (whether it's Markov or not), they'll be a contending team. If it's not Markov, it won't be happening this season and they'll be in trouble.
-
4 goals, 5 assists, +10 with 2 fighting majors
Probably.
But seriously, a healthy Markov makes a huge difference for this team. I still think their chances of making the playoffs are well above 50%.
-
Right. I guess what's controversial about it is that this is during recess, where we think of people being able to talk to their friends however they want. In theory, this looks like a dictatorial overreach on the part of the school but in practice, I bet nothing will change. I went to a Jewish school where you had to wear a kippah. If you didn't wear one, the teacher told you to put it on. The next chance you got, it would be back in your pocket though and nothing bad would ever happen to you if you weren't wearing one. The language thing will probably be the same way.
"Did you hear that new Drake song?"
*teacher comes*
"Arrêtes de parler anglais!"
"Je m'excuse."
*teachers walks away*
"So as I was saying..."
That being said, I don't think the law is necessary at all and I would prefer if it didn't exist.
-
Crosby's return = 2 goals + 2 assists
Markov > Crosby
Markov's return = ?????
-
What do you guys (frenchies and anglees alike) think of this?
-
I don't care if we're boring. That's what they said about Pat Burns's teams and I bet any one of us would give our eyeteeth to have those teams back.
Certainly it's harder to see these guys as 'contenders' after this rocky first quarter. Going in, I thought that with Markov back and Campoli adding high-quality depth to the D, with a strong 4th line C added in Blair Betts, with Gomez conceivably recovering his form, with the continued progression of the Holy Trinity (Price, Subban MaxPac), and with the key addition of Cole, we had a team that could go deep. That assessment was based, not so much through an examination of the team on paper, as an awareness of how strong the team had been in the previous two playoffs without MaxPac, Cole, and Markov. This group has always been more than the sum of its parts when the games really matter. Add three excellent players to that and in principle we should be major players come crunch time, whatever the experts say.
It may still be true. brobin's post above is interesting, though. Other than Markov, it's true that our currently injured guys aren't really core pieces. Yet the team is bobbing along at .500. What to make of this? One argument might be that the team is middling, period. Another is that team chemistry has been adversely affected by the endless round of injuries. Myself, I would say that the PP has been the secret of our struggles this season and that Markov's return will ramify hugely for the PP. You could look at that and say, therefore, that once he rounds into form we will start really doing damage. So the optimist can still take a glass-half-full approach.
Nonetheless, there is a certain point at which two players in particular - Cammalleri and Gomez - just do have to start producing (and if not Gomez, then either Eller or DD, not that it's fair to demand this of Eller at this stage of his career). MaxPac, Cole, Gionta, and Pleks have all pulled their weight. Cammy has been letting down the side and Gomer has been AWOL due more to injury than will, it seems.
A wishy-washy post, I suppose. But I'm still not quite ready to conclude that this group cannot contend if healthy.
EDIT: note also that we're 9-6 since the catastrophic early-season slump. That's a .666 winning per centage despite injuries and personal slumps. Let's keep that in mind.
This is the first time I can remember the TSN pundits being more optimistic about Montreal's chance than Habs fans are.
Before the season people say things like "I hope Desharnais gets at least a 20 game chance to try gelling in with the top 6" and then once the Habs are 1-3 in the second week of the season, it's "How can Martin be so stupid? Desharnais clearly isn't working!? He should use Eller! If we wait any longer, we'll be too late to make the playoffs." If people kept track of their thoughts over the course of the year, they wouldn't be swayed so easily by new developments.
One thing that keeps fans pessimistic is that they only get surface knowledge of how other fanbases are feeling. I encourage people to skim through other teams's boards on HFboards and read the panic and negativity on them. You'd never guess how many teams you envy have half their fans calling for the head coach to get fired. Surely, not two thirds of the NHL's teams can be in desperate situations at the same time. What's more likely is that hockey fans are just fickle and emotional. I've noticed the general tone on this board shift dramatically after each game, depending on if its a win or a loss.
I still think this team is in the top third in the league on paper. But it needs to get Markov back and it needs one of its three third line centers to play like a second liner. I've pretty much lost hope on Gomez ever hitting 50 points again and I'm skeptical that Eller or Desharnais are going to do well in that spot this season. I think the answer is just to wait until Eller gets better. Eventually he'll get to that level. Gomez can get out of here at the first opportunity.
What exactly are "eyeteeth" ???
-
1
-
-
I don't understand how Pittsburgh did so well without Crosby. Their line up looks really weak to me.
-
So Gomer gets injured and Eller still can't increase his ice time? Firing Pearn did turn things around, but I still think Martin's schtick is up. I mean, come on.
How can you justify firing the coach right now?
He's matched or exceeded expectations for two seasons and two post-seasons, plus the team has been on a bit of roll since Pearn was fired. The main criticism against him in his first two seasons was that he didn't know how to develop young players and yet the young players he's worked with have mostly developed as well as anybody could have hoped. Price is one of the top goalies in the league, Subban is becoming a legitimate top pairing d-man, Pacioretty is one of our best forwards, role players like White and Palushaj have done well, and Desharnais and Eller have improved a lot since they first joined the team. We don't have to go throw the same cycle of blaming the coach every time a young player struggles or doesn't get a promotion. Eller will get his chance with time, just like Subban and Pacioretty did.
-
1
-
-
It's such a trivial thing though that I don't even care about giving actual reasons. Why is this something worth debating over? I gave an offhand comment that I don't like Netflix's selection in Canada where if I knew what the response was going to be then I would've just kept it to myself.
I'm just patiently waiting for someone to get back on track now.
Trivial? That's a load of crap. Netflix is an important part of the lives of so many Canadians. They have documentaries, feature films, shorts (the above mentioned by Lynch) etc. It's one of the most popular online film-viewing companies in the world. Etc...
lol Nah, I'm just refining my technique at trolling the Lounge. But I do like Netflix. And Teeth sucks (bites).
-
Didn't the Habs just lose to the Islanders? 2 goals, 2 assists is impressive regardless of the opposition.
-
I'm going to pretend that no one is seriously trying to defend Netflix's attempts in Canada (because that's laughable and I'm just assuming I'm dreaming)
Why laughable?
Actual reasons > Sarcasm
Canadians that know cinema will be able to find some use for Netflix. Canadians that don't know cinema will have almost no use for Netflix. The majority don't know cinema but that doesn't mean the entire project is worthless and indefensible. I'm not even talking about them as a business, I don't know if they're making money or not, I'm talking about the service they provide and at the very low price they offer it. My first sentence is the only statement that I think is required in order to defend Netflix. I'd obviously prefer it if they got way more stuff but I'm grateful I got the chance to use it so they're cool in my books even if I wouldn't recommend them to the average person.
-
It's that I have heard of a lot of them and still have zero interest in seeing them. That if I wanted to see art movies, I'd patronize the local art house. I get that that ones you're talking about are great film-making. But did you ever notice how great film-making barely gets by? There's a reason. Sure, great movies, but in general, people want to get away from 'life.' Otherwise these movies would all have made millions and millions. In the end, I most certainly can rule out Netflix because they don't have movies that I want to watch - and since I'm betting good money I'm with the majority in this, there's a reason why Netflix is roundly shunned by the Canadian population.
I agree that most people want to watch Hollywood movies and that Netflix isn't very good for this. But you guys were saying that you hadn't heard of a Canadian that likes Netflix and that their selection is crap. So I'm defending their selection. They have a lot of good stuff. And not super obscure stuff that nobody's heard of, but they have lots of titles that would be well-known to a certain demographic that is looking for a certain type of movie.
It's like showing up to a Habs game and booing Price, Subban, and Pacioretty because you wanted to see the Winnipeg Jets. If you want to see the Jets, go to a Jets game. Your disappointment is understandable but that doesn't mean there's nothing to see at the Bell Centre.
Pretty movies, but they make me want to rip of my own arm and beat myself to death with it.
I don't understand that because the term "art film" is sooo incredibly broad. They can be happy, sad, fast, slow, gratuitous, subtle, plot-driven, character-driven, etc. For example, one of the movies I listed above, Sukiyaki Western Django is taken somewhat seriously by cinephiles and yet it's non-stop pure awesomeness and action from beginning to end, hardly stereotypical art house fare.
Some people even consider Tarantino an art filmmaker (I don't). To others, his films are the lowest of the low in terms of artistic value (I don't think this either but he is the face of mainstream cinema). Does he make you want to beat yourself to death?
-
I have a bandwidth cap. I'm not wasting it on streaming movies I haven't heard of and have no idea if I'll like. What a complete waste of money and bandwidth I can use on more important things.
I want good, current TV shows I can sit down and watch while I eat dinner. Let me know when our Netflix has the same TV selection the Americans get.
I didn't say every Canadian should pay for Netflix and click on all the videos they haven't heard of. Just that they aren't nearly as bad as you say they are. You make it sound like their selection is nothing but shit. Their mainstream stuff mostly is (so many Ryan Reynolds rom coms lol) but they have a hundreds of movies by big name directors, it's not their fault that you haven't heard of them. I've seen like a thousand movies and they had tons of stuff I wanted to see but hadn't found anywhere else and I know there are lots of others like me who have put it to good use.
Like I said, you just have to change your approach to use it. They probably won't have what you're looking for, so you just have to check for what they have (if you're looking for TV, nothing).
-
Wow... way to prove their point, BTH!
"Teeth" ... isn't that about the chick with 'vagina dentata'?
Yeah, lol. I thought it would be awesome in the way trashy horror movies sometimes are but it pretty much just sucked.
That is a lot of movies that I would not only not pay to see, but would walk out of if someone turned them on in front of me! ;-)
But you don't know anything about those movies. Actually, it's that you've never heard of them that makes you assume that they aren't worth watching. Netflix can't be held responsible for that attitude. If you're not interested in discovering new movies, then you can hardly blame Netflix for that. Some of those are movies that I'd never heard of but tried watching anyway. Others, like Mallrats, El Mariachi, Teeth, The Following, Private Resort, Waiting, and Pi (watched it in the other month) are mainstream movies even non-film buffs know about. Others are art films but they aren't highly conceptual or experimental or self-indulgent or whatever other stereotype you can think of for art films. They're just like mainstream films except more intelligent and yes, made for more intelligent and open-minded viewers. They aren't that much more "out there" than some Hollywood directors like PT Anderson, Tarantino, Scorsese, and Wes Anderson. Haneke, von Trier, Wong kar Wai, and Miike are pretty much as mainstream as 'art filmmakers' get. There's a ton of diversity in that list, many of which you wouldn't like, many of which you would. You can't just rule them all out because you haven't heard of them. If you do, then Netflix owes you nothing.
-
Haha, I don't think I've come across one Canadian that enjoys our Netflix. The selection is awful (can thank the lovely CRTC for that). I had it for a few months in the summer, ironically enough all I really used it for was watching Arrested Development.
Oh and comedy routines. Mostly Louis CK. And The IT Crowd, a British comedy.
Wait, theres another TV show I can recommend, The IT Crowd. Brilliant show.
"Hello, IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again? Uh... okay, well, the button on the side, is it glowing? ...yeah, you need to turn it on... uh, the button turns it on... yeah, you do know how a button works don't you? No, not on clothes. No, no there you go, no there you go. I just heard it come on... no, no, that's the music you heard when it comes on... no, that's the music you hear when... I'm sorry are you from the past?"
No, balls serve some purpose. Netflix is that corn kernel you just can't shake off on the toilet.
Aw man, never in a million years did I think Netflix would win that bidding war.
Canadian Netflix is balls, I don't want to go back.
I did the Canadian Netflix monthly trial twice and I must watched a few dozen movies on it in that time. There's a lot of good stuff on there, you just need to change your approach. Instead of searching up your favourite movie to see if they have it, you need to browse what they have. If you like art films, they have a lot of good stuff, I wrote a list somewhere of all the movies I saw on it in my second month, I'll try to find it. I know there was lots of Pasolini.
edit: here, this was my second month:
The Straight Story (1999) - USA - David Lynch
Oedipus Rex (1967) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini
Love Meetings (1964) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini
Mallrats (1995) - USA - Kevin Smith
The Short Films of David Lynch - USA - David Lynch
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini
The Hawks and the Sparrows (1964) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini
Accatone (1961) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini
Epidemic (1987) - Denmark - Lars Von Trier
As Tears Go By (1988) - Hong Kong - Wong Kar Wai
Days of Being Wild (1990) - Hong Kong - Wong Kar Wai
Under the Sand (2000) - France - François Ozon
Kiss of Death (1977) - UK - Mike Leigh
The Last Mistress (2007) - France - Catherine Breillat
Sex is Comedy (2002) - France - Catherine Breillat
Anatomy of Hell (2004) - France - Catherine Breillat
Iran: A Cinematographic Revolution (2007) - Iran - Nader T. Homayoun
Daniel Tosh: Completely Serious (2007) - USA - Daniel Tosh
Brother (2000) - Japan - Takeshi Kitano
Teeth (2006) - USA - Mitchell Liechtenstein
35 Shots of Rum (2007) - France - Claire Denis
Lie With Me (2005) - USA - Clément Virgo
Swimming Pool (2003) - France - François Ozon
Irma Vep (1996) - France - Olivier Assayas
El Mariachi (1992) - Mexico - Robert Rodriguez
Caché (2005) - France - Michael Haneke
Sukiyaki Western Django (2007) - Japan - Takashi Miike
I Don’t Hate Las Vegas Anymore (1994) - USA - Caveh Zahedi
Following (1998) - USA - Christopher Nolan
Hide and Seek (1996) - USA - Su Friedrich
Lots of awesome movies there and I don't remember what they were but I remember that there was lots more I was meaning to see before my month ran up.
-
This has been bothering me a lot over the last week after what happened in the TB vs. Philly game. If you didn't see it, TB stayed back in the neutral zone waiting for Philly to advance the puck, but instead Philly just held onto the puck and literally stood still for 30 seconds with the puck until the ref blew the whistle.
I have been SHOCKED by the response from many commentators who are blaming Tampa Bay for this happening. Seriously? Philadelphia has the puck on offense. It is their job to move the puck down the ice and try to score a goal. It is Tampa's job to stop them. How on earth can you blame the defense for the offense's unwillingness to do their job? It's akin to a football team taking a knee and punting because the other team has a good defense. Or a basketball team refusing to shoot because the other team has good rebounding.
I heard one person go as far to say that Tampa's players have no pride if they're not willing to force the other team to move the puck. How about the pride of the Flyers player who is just standing there WITH THE PUCK!? Philadelphia is absolutely to blame for this incident. It's not the defense's job to move the puck that they don't have.
I'm also seeing a lot of comments about how boring their system is and how they have such great offensive talent that is being wasted. Again, seriously? They were 7th in the league in scoring last season. It's hardly preventing them from producing a lot of exciting offense.
Agreed. You can't blame a team for their defense being too good for you. It is the team with the puck's responsibility to make something happen.
Fans blame the Lightning because they want to see high scoring games and because they don't find the 1-3-1 manly.
-
All great feedback.
Thanks a lot.
I will ensure to use ear buds for next time to help with that feedback, my apologies to all.
Also, you have the same voice as PK Subban.
-
I'm not sure it was ever working. It may have been the only solution as society evolved, but today it can't keep the number of poor from increasing or the rich from benefitting more and more.
And by working, I mean trending towards everyone being able to afford food, water and shelter and survive above the poverty line.
By that definition, is Canada not working right now? If Canada's not working, are there any societies on Earth that are working?
I think that every possible system works well if people don't take advantage of each other. And every system fails if people do take advantage of each other.
-
Your voices echo sometimes and it's noticeable that all of you guys have different mics. The sound quality keeps changing.
It would be cool if you could use skype for this so that we could see you guys. It would make the pauses feel less awkward. (You know how pauses that are totally acceptable in person are awkward over the phone because we can't see the other's body language?) The main speaker, the guy who seems to be hosting, speaks in a way that translates much better to an audiovisual format than just audio. If you're doing audio, the conversation can't really be so laid back or else people tune out. You need to Pierre MacGuire that shit.
I like Norm's voice! You sound like a pro.
-
I've been trying to figure out where that went as people were just starting to get the hang of it. When we went to the updated version of the boards, they disappeared.
I dunno but if you go to my profile, you can see the comment that I posted about Hagman, still there.
-
Niklas Hagman on waivers from the Flames. I know there was some enthusiasm about picking him up before although the present cap situation would make that a little challenging.
I wanted him last season! But everybody else said he sucked. And now it seems as if he sucks. I posted it on that HW Twitter feature that used to be on the main forum page and sakiqc or Joe wasn't sure if I was joking or not.
Lots of people seem to be blaming one or both of them teams but I don't think either team did anything wrong here. TB has the right to play any system they like and Philly should have the right to wait for TB to make their move.
-
I don't even know if it's legal for the Coyotes to beat the Habs.
-
Okay, new topic:
Capitalism cannot work. It must have a socialist base in order for society to function fairly and effectively.
Discuss.
First you need to answer: What does it mean for a society to be working?
In a sense, capitalism's working for us right now, or was for a few decades until recently.
Are you saying that it inevitably leads to an authoritarian, nearly fascist regime? If so, how long does it take for this happen and was capitalism "working" up until that point?
Markov
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
His opinion on when Markov will return is obviously based on what the Habs doctors tell him.
If the doctors misjudged, then it's their fault.
If this setback could not have been predicted by team doctors and physicians, then it's none of their faults. But there's no reason to hold Gauthier accountable for not predicting that Markov would suffer a setback.