Mont Royale
-
Posts
1437 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mont Royale
-
-
For all the in-game line mix-and-matching that Carbonneau likes to do, he picked an odd game to keep the original lines intact. Guys who didn't come to play like SK, Kovalev, and Tanguay were rewarded with more icetime in the 3rd, while the 4th line languished on the bench. I realize we needed offence, but I think putting Lats (who seemed to be using his body and creating things last night) onto one of the top 3 lines would have been worth trying, considering the others were generating virtually nothing.
Anyway, Colin pretty much nailed everything wrong with this team. The lack of focus and urgency better be fixed soon, or this Cup-contending team playing its 100th anniversary season will struggle to make the playoffs. :puke:
-
Price needs to choose when to play with the puck and when to let go.
he does play well with it but his decision making is sometime questionnable.
Absolutely. He plays the puck well, but sometimes he's just so damn casual (slow) about it, it turns into an adventure. That will improve with experience, one would hope.
-
Remeber when you guys by large didn't even want a goon? What would we be saying about the coming game then? "We don't need a goon, our skill will win out"? Y'all should apologise for your lack of hockey knowledge. I forgive your ignorance! At least this site at large is waking to the fact that goons have a place and role in the NHL.
There's always been those who wanted a goon, but what I'm reading here is a lot of frustration that our goon can't do his job because nobody wants to fight him and he'd get an instigator penalty if he forces the issue. If anything, that only casts more doubt on whether a goon is relevant for this team, in this league.
In an ideal world, I'd like to see a return to the days when teams had a few players who were tough as nails, but could also play the game. John Ferguson would take on anybody, but could also score 20 goals.
-
This is mildly amusing.
-
Does arguing that Canada's healthcare system is wasteful makes you anti-Canadian?
I never argued that, so I'll assume it's a hypothetical question. Of course the answer is no. I definitely got the impression that you had an anti-American bias because of this and various other posts. Maybe I'm confusing it with an anti-Bush bias (which I have myself).
If you want to talk about all the possible scenarios of possible attacks, you can't simply say that the US would defend us henceforth the US deter anyone from attacking. The deterence arguement simply doesnt stands. The US have more odds to be attacked than us, so how can their big military be a deterent from someone to attack us!Deterrence is something that can't be proven, that's for sure. To me, it's just something that seems to be self-evident. I mean, if the U.S. can deter an enemy from even placing warheads in a nearby enemy country (Cuba), surely there's a deterrence effect to attacking a friendly neighbouring country.
-
Ugh...
That so-called "US deterrent side effect" is a myth more than anything else.
The Ruskies were frequent visitors of the Northern-most shores of Canada. They'd get off, walk around and go back home because they realized that basically most of the country is an inhabited tundra wasteland, not because of some US "deterrent". But you could also look at it the other way and say that the US didnt deter the USSR to "violate" Canadian soil.
The Canadian military is still mostly unable to enforce its sovereignty in the Artic circle. So much for the US' deterrent capabilities helping us, uh? But still, we're unharmed because what nation would be crazy enough to invade Canada? Russia? Russia met its Waterloo in Afghanistan, they're in enough trouble with their ex-provinces. China? Dont you think they'd try places closer to home, say Japan or Korea? Canada isnt exactly the easiest land to invade. It's vast, goes coast to coast and has a tough, harsh climate. In that regard, it's pretty much similar to Russia and both Napoleon and Hitler failed to grab Russia.
If anything, the biggest invasion threat to Canada is the USA. The US military even had a plan for that back in 1935.
Poor defenses... We already have poor defenses yet we're not threatened by anyone. We dont have enemies because we didnt make any. That's the first and foremost reason we're at peace. Of course it helps to have the USA on our side, like it helps to have the UK and France and Portugal and Italy you know, the NATO nations. Also helps to be part of the G8.
Do I believe in the necessity of military spending? Yes, of course. I never argued against a reasonable minimum defense. I dont believe in an utopia, anyone with half a brain can make that distinction. I believe Canada should have a primary role in anything that has to do with the UN Peacekeepers. We invented the damn thing and we cant even be good at it because we lack the resources. I also believe Canada should be able to assert its sovereignty in the Artic. A couple of boats wouldnt hurt there. At worst, they could also be used to sink all those damn japanese whalers in the Pacific.
Myth? Really? I think you are letting an anti-American bias affect your reasoning. I'm not the biggest US fan either, but I try to be a realist.
To be clear, when I speak of a deterrent effect, I'm not talking about deterring someone from doing some unauthorized snowshoeing in the Arctic. And although you can cross various countries off the list as having potential to attack Canada at this time, it hasn't always been the case. Would we have been attacked by the Soviets in, say, the 60s if there was an similarly impotent country to our south? Would Japanese aggression found its way to Canada after they were done island-hopping in the 1940s? There were fears of both occurring during those times, and that was with the U.S. there. These possibilities can't be ruled out, although obviously it's purely hypothetical and the absence of the U.S. as a great power would have had unknown impact on the whole geopolitical system.
Fact is, attacking Canada is attacking the U.S., and it's suicide. If a country attacked, would the UK, France, or NATO (if the U.S. wasn't in it) save us? Of course not.
-
Canada uses the US for protection? Really? When has anyone ever tried to attack Canada?
I suppose you could say that our proximity affords Canada SOME "protection"...but the geography is what it is...
I think if you believe that Canada is only allies with the US for "protection" then you really need to figure some shit out. JMHO.
It's pretty clear that Canada and the US are allies for a great many other reasons.
I don't believe Chris said we're allies "just" for protection - but that's certainly a benefit to us. It's allowed us to keep our military spending at maintenance levels (if that) - and allowed some of us a holier-than-thou attitude on use of military power (not directed at you).
When has anyone ever tried to attack Canada? They haven't - that's the point. The U.S. deterrent is enough. If the U.S. wasn't around, I wonder if anyone would be interested in a industrially-advanced, resource-rich land with poor defences. Hmmm.
-
I was there.
Someone threw a can of beer
(true story)Makes sense - beer at the Bell Centre is about the same price as a good hat...
Also, the people on the 2nd and 3rd balconies, can't throw a hat onto the ice, it's much too far away.People should put something in their hats to weigh them down, so they go further. Like a can of beer.
-
Since Trizz hasn't raised the PTG factor, I'll go ahead and poke my head back in. After WWI and then the depression, the US was big into isolationism. That is why it took a direct attack to get us involved in the war.
Considering the environment of isolationism at the time, FDR provided support to Britain beyond all reasonable expectations (and at considerable political risk). Now there was GREAT president.
-
Very good - considering I wasn't expecting any suspension because there was no injury. It was a cowardly act, and an obvious intent to injure.
-
Wasn't "The Star Spangled Banner" written by a European or is that wrong?
Not sure - but after seeing all those lyrics, I'm glad they do the short version before hockey games!
-
By the way, why is it even called "Defense"... when was the last serious threat to the United States that could actually take over the country? Most of those investments have been for offense, to invade, take over, and control other countries (or threaten countries like Syria)...
I know they weren't about to take over the country (not sure that criteria is relevant), but the terrorist attacks were a 'serious threat', wouldn't you agree?
I, for one, would like the U.S. to continue to be the predominant military and economic power in the world. As much as the last 8 years has reminded us that this power can be abused, the fact is that the era of U.S. (or U.S.-Soviet) hegemony has been relatively free of the large scale conflicts that were (more or less) the norm through to WWII. The possibility of U.S. intervention has undoubtedly been a decisive factor in this. (As an aside, I don't think the suggestion that Obama would do something to undermine his own country's power is very credible.)
Bush is justifiably criticized for his predisposition for war, but it shouldn't be ignored that there are safeguards on the power of the presidency, namely Congress. The fact that Congress went along with the Iraq scheme proves the system isn't perfect (and speaks to the hysteria that followed the 9-11 attacks), but it's a system that often works as intended. In the case of military decisions, I think it's preferable to the Canadian system, where a party often has the majority and there is much more expectation of voting with party lines, which puts more power in the hands of a single individual.
-
I don't think it will ever come up, but I wonder if Sergei Kostsitsyn’s attack on Grabovski could not be interpreted as intentionally trying to injure him. On that play, Grabovski did not have the puck, and Kostsitsyn clearly went out of his way to assault him while he was vulnerable (normally Sergei should have started backwards towards the defensive zone since the puck was heading that way)… this was not a “welcome to the NHL” hit while carrying the puck with his head was down… it was malicious hit on a vulnerable player.
It was definitely a malicious hit. I agree that the NHL isn't likely to do anthing on that one, but if they did, they should also look at the butt-end. One begat the other.
-
I don't know if Carbo told BGL not to go out and introduce himself, but this was the perfect type of game for him to showcase his 'skills'. After the first goalie interferance call you think a message would have to have been sent. If hes not here for his toughness, I see no reason for him at all.
I don't know if the situation called for BGL or not. In that case, the Habs are damned either way. There was no corresponding heavyweight on the Leafs to make a statement with. 2 of the goalie interference penalties were on the mild side, and were penalized appropriately. The main guy who deserved a shit-kicking (Grabovski) is so far out of BGL's weightclass that it would be laughable, and the Habs would be criticized if BGL went after him (although I personally wouldn't have minded, after seeing the buttend on Price).
I liked the acquisition of BGL, but should he play at all in these kinds of games? The Leafs' lineup generally and this game in particular were better suited for a middleweight, but unfortunately Kostopolous' night didn't last long.
-
I'd be willing to forgive last night's indifferent performance if they embarrass the Leafs tonight. I'm very reasonable that way.
-
-
I really hope Gillette doesn't sell - and going by the denials, we have nothing to worry about.
However, if he does, we could do worse than Balsillie, who has a bottomless pit of money and is probably only looking to add 'Stanley Cup winner' to his already-impressive list of achievements. My only worry would be that he would treat the Habs as his plaything. As a habs fan and hockey player himself, he may be tempted to insert himself into the operations of the team, and make hockey decisions to the detriment of the team and the alienation of Gainey. That's something that Gillette seems to understand is best left to the pros.
But all this is highly unlikely anyway.
-
You would be surprised how easy it is to be inspired when surrounded by a big cheering crowd, extra fake crowd noise on top of good lighting, make-up and clothes on the speaker...then throw in a well versed speaker who has mastered their body language, rise and fall of the tone in their voice, etc...the message is important but it's FAR from the biggest part of the package usually.
As a quick and dirty example look at how some schools get people all worked up at a pep rally...
Typically, what you say is the smallest part of what people recognize when they communicate a message. As I recall, only about 7% of what people remember from the inspiring "message" is actually the words used...mostly it's body langauge and tone of voice...and in a large crowd I'm sure the ebb and flow of the mob reaction.
If it were that easy to be inspiring, more people would be. I'm not necessarily referring to the people physically present at the rallies; a lot of people were inspired just watching it on TV.
Yes, I agree it's not solely about the message, but how it's conveyed... as I said, his conviction in delivering the message. It's why Obama ended up being rated so high in integrity without a long track record to back it up - people just believe him by how he speaks. Or, along those same lines:
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." Jean Giraudoux, French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist
Powerful oratory can move mountains. It's a gift - JFK had it, Lincoln had it, Churchill had it, and Hitler* had it. Obama has it too.
(*Disclaimer: comparisons of Hitler to the others do not extend beyond public speaking skills!)
-
I believe this has a lot to do with the level of celebrity worship in the US. I believe the optics and perception around big rallies and speeches means a lot more in their pop culture environment then it does to Canadians...having said that I also think that Canadian youth is very taken by this same pop culture media and celebrity worship. Since the 18-26 year old crowd grew up in this environment more then any other they are bigger slaves to marketing, consumerism and celebrity...no offense to the younger posters on the board intended. Since Canadian politics is not geared with a big marketing machine, celebrity creation and use (through celebrity backing...only in the US does it really matter where the actors/singers vote LOL) it could be something of an explanation as to WHY the US is getting a better voter turn-out. If you break down the youth vote in Canada it's where the really signifcant loses are in the turn-out.
Those big rallies in the US also cost hundreds of thousands to stage...the Canadian parties (whose funding is split across 4-5 parties instead of 2) just don't see the value in holding them. The only people who really attend are their core voters anyhow...but in the US that means "building" on the candidates celebrity status, marketing their speeches...hell, we're lucky if the media covers the entirety of candidates victory(or losing) speeches. For all we know they were great...lol.
I think it more has to do with Barack Obama himself. Even in US politics, it's not often that someone comes along and captures the imagination of people like he did. There are many who were popular and respected, but perhaps the kind of connection that people have felt toward a charismatic candidate may have last occurred with JFK, at the federal level at least - though some may argue Clinton came close. It's happened in Canada as well: Trudeau-mania swept the nation in '68!
It's one thing to listen to a candidate state his policies and talk about change, but it's quite another to really believe and be inspired by his conviction as he does it. That's a rare occurrence. Obama's gift of oratory has been his greatest asset so far.
-
Price, then Halak. Backups face the Leafs, per league rules.
-
Well, he was the one who chose Palin, so he screwed himself on that one.
Just curious of your opinion of Palin now, with the benefit of hindsight of the campaign.
-
Congratulations, Obama and his supporters!
Congratulations, America!
-
By your own logic you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The socialists are feeling confident - they're starting to get lippy.
-
E-Day has arrived. Predictions?
Second favourite team?
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
Can't say I have a second favourite team... just teams that I dislike less than others.