Psycing Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 - Another Original Six team back in the playoffs Chicago's definitely the team I'm routing for out West Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) LOL, this is why he gets torched on this board. Price will not win this series on his own. He needs to play great, but he can be outstanding and still go 0-4. Even when Theo stood on his head in 2002 the Habs got huge production from their first line. Audette, Koivu and Zednik were all over the place, secondary scoring from Gilmour, Perreault and Petrov and a timely goal by Bill Lindsay. You remove any of those factors and the Habs wouldn't have pulled the upset. These type of expectations are what crushed him last May and this February. true, but if Price is just average, the Habs have NO chance of beating the Bruins. Price will have to be pretty damn good for the Habs to beat the Pooh Bears...especially if Markov is not around. I'm at a 7 right now, mostly because i think it'll take a miracle for the Habs to beat the Bruins. I'm well aware that we beat a heavily favored Bruins team back in 02' and again in 04', but we can't win them all can we? Edited April 14, 2009 by Habsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch_Habs_Fan Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Chicago's definitely the team I'm routing for out West Yeah me 2, they have a real exciting team! Great kids...great goaltending! I wish they would go with Huet, but it makes sence that "The Wall"plays! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 true, but if Price is just average, the Habs have NO chance of beating the Bruins. Price will have to be pretty damn good for the Habs to beat the Pooh Bears...especially if Markov is not around. I'm at a 7 right now, mostly because i thikn it'll take a miracle for the Habs to beat the Bruins. I'm well aware that we beat heaily favored Bruins teams back in 02' and 04', but we can't win them all can we? Outside of Detroit, how many teams can win with average goaltending in the playoffs? I can already see how this plays out if the Habs don't win. Blaming Price for not being a 21 year old All-Star performer. He is just a kid and already people are putting the series on him, when in reality they are an 8 against a 1 and are supposed to lose. But, the glory if you win ignores all reality. Roy is a god and credited with winning Cups on his own, when that was far from the truth. It is why it takes a special athlete to excel in Montreal. The pressure is immense, but the glory will last for the rest of their lives should the succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Ni kidding. I'd like to see Thomas play in front of the habs D for a year. I'm guessing his umbers would be similar to Price and Halak. Which aren't too bad considering they face more shots then most of the league. If i am not mistaken they have given up 40 shots more then any other team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tokyohabs Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Ni kidding. I'd like to see Thomas play in front of the habs D for a year. I'm guessing his umbers would be similar to Price and Halak. Which aren't too bad considering they face more shots then most of the league. If i am not mistaken they have given up 40 shots more then any other team. Per game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Yea, total number of games giving up 40 shots or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 10. It's not because they will win or they deserve it but I always get playoff fever and I get very edgy too. Last year at this time when we had the advantage I was equally nauseous. GO HABS! :hlogo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) I'll bet most of those games occured after the All Star Break. And that's not a trivial detail. It is fundamental to deciphering the puzzle of the 2008-09 Canadiens. This is what bugs me. The team may not have been a powerhouse, but our collective play was *much* better in the first half. I don't understand the logic that simply ignores that and concludes that the 'real' team is the one that was bombed out all of Feburuary. The more sensible explanation is that injuries plus the rebellion against the coach finally grew to a point where every facet of team performance was compromised; and this, coupled with Price's erratic play, snowballed into crises of confidence from which the team still has not fully recovered. People haven't fully processed the impact that a failed coach can have on a team. I remember the 1993 Rangers. As I recall, they missed the playoffs due to a rebellion against Roger Neilsen/Ron Smith. They won the Cup the next season with basically the same roster, with the team playing with renewed commitment under Mike Keenan. It wasn't that Keenan's brilliance raises a crap club to glory; it was that they were a good team in disarray in 1993. I am NOT saying the Habs are gonna win next season. All I'm saying is that the team that was in crisis in the second half of this year cannot be taken as representative of what this team is capable of, any more than the 1993 Rangers were representative of the potential of that group. And I understand the argument that the veteran nucleus - specifically, Koivu and Kovalev - isn't what it needs to be. Although I like both players, I agree completely. But I get tired of this running argument that the team just plain sucks, is horrible defensively, etc, etc.. The first half and most of last season also need to be factored into the analysis. By that measure, we may not be world-beaters...but we have a team that is capable of far more than mediocrity. Edited April 14, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'll bet most of those games occured after the All Star Break. And that's not a trivial detail. It is fundamental to deciphering the puzzle of the 2008-09 Canadiens. This is what bugs me. The team may not have been a powerhouse, but our collective play was *much* better in the first half. I don't understand the logic that simply ignores that and concludes that the 'real' team is the one that was bombed out all of Feburuary. The more sensible explanation is that injuries plus the rebellion against the coach finally grew to a point where every facet of team performance was compromised; and this, coupled with Price's erratic play, snowballed into crises of confidence from which the team still has not fully recovered. People haven't fully processed the impact that a failed coach can have on a team. I remember the 1993 Rangers. As I recall, they missed the playoffs due to a rebellion against Roger Neilsen/Ron Smith. They won the Cup the next season with basically the same roster, with the team playing with renewed commitment under Mike Keenan. It wasn't that Keenan's brilliance raises a crap club to glory; it was that they were a good team in disarray in 1993. I am NOT saying the Habs are gonna win next season. All I'm saying is that the team that was in crisis in the second half of this year cannot be taken as representative of what this team is capable of, any more than the 1993 Rangers were representative of the potential of that group. And I understand the argument that the veteran nucleus - specifically, Koivu and Kovalev - isn't what it needs to be. Although I like both players, I agree completely. But I get tired of this running argument that the team just plain sucks, is horrible defensively, etc, etc.. The first half and most of last season also need to be factored into the analysis. By that measure, we may not be world-beaters...but we have a team that is capable of far more than mediocrity. was it "better" or "relatively better". everything is relative... I think ALL TEAMS elevated their play after the all star break, while WE DIDN'T add to that our multiple injuries about at the same period (Lang, Lats, Tanguay) add to that the fact that Pleks and Kost NEVER played well this season beside a span of 10 games DURING the "slump". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'll bet most of those games occured after the All Star Break. And that's not a trivial detail. It is fundamental to deciphering the puzzle of the 2008-09 Canadiens. This is what bugs me. The team may not have been a powerhouse, but our collective play was *much* better in the first half. I don't understand the logic that simply ignores that and concludes that the 'real' team is the one that was bombed out all of Feburuary. The more sensible explanation is that injuries plus the rebellion against the coach finally grew to a point where every facet of team performance was compromised; and this, coupled with Price's erratic play, snowballed into crises of confidence from which the team still has not fully recovered. People haven't fully processed the impact that a failed coach can have on a team. I remember the 1993 Rangers. As I recall, they missed the playoffs due to a rebellion against Roger Neilsen/Ron Smith. They won the Cup the next season with basically the same roster, with the team playing with renewed commitment under Mike Keenan. It wasn't that Keenan's brilliance raises a crap club to glory; it was that they were a good team in disarray in 1993. I am NOT saying the Habs are gonna win next season. All I'm saying is that the team that was in crisis in the second half of this year cannot be taken as representative of what this team is capable of, any more than the 1993 Rangers were representative of the potential of that group. And I understand the argument that the veteran nucleus - specifically, Koivu and Kovalev - isn't what it needs to be. Although I like both players, I agree completely. But I get tired of this running argument that the team just plain sucks, is horrible defensively, etc, etc.. The first half and most of last season also need to be factored into the analysis. By that measure, we may not be world-beaters...but we have a team that is capable of far more than mediocrity. You can say the same thing about the 93 Habs. Burns seemingly lost the room in 1992 and they got destroyed in 4 by the Bruins, he was fired and Demers was brought in. Then the Habs were first in the league with 15 to go and struggled down the stretch finishing in 3rd in the Adams. Everybody ignored the first 65 games and assumed the Habs were average, thus leading to the Roy legend of him stopping everything and scoring 10 OT goals to win the Cup by himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 You can say the same thing about the 93 Habs. Burns seemingly lost the room in 1992 and they got destroyed in 4 by the Bruins, he was fired and Demers was brought in. Then the Habs were first in the league with 15 to go and struggled down the stretch finishing in 3rd in the Adams. Everybody ignored the first 65 games and assumed the Habs were average, thus leading to the Roy legend of him stopping everything and scoring 10 OT goals to win the Cup by himself. Do I ever hear that! I am SOOOO %^&$^& tired of the conventional wisdom that the 1993 team was 'average' and only won because of Roy. If we were so average how come we were in first overall until that late-season slump? (At the time, it was also believed that it was scientifically impossible to win without superstar offensive talent). Good call, Wamsley!! And you're right, the Burns parallel is just as valid as the Keenan one. Either way, the point stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 The 4 key factors, IMO, to the Habs possibly upsetting the Bruins (in no particular order): -Markov needs to play -Price -Price -Price Pretty simple if you ask me. This is an opportunity for Price to show his magic. And I'm about a 7 right now, only because I'm preoccupied by exams. But Thursday morning I will wake up a 10, and the day will not go by fast enough for me. I'd say : -Markov returns early -A.Kost and Plek sudently wake up -Lapierre gets Lucic out of his game and keep him away from Komisarek -Price steals one in Boston -Laraque keeps Thornton away from Price -Don't know why, but I think that Latendresse WILL be a factor in this serie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'd say I'm at 5-6. I'm so drained from waiting for the Habs to clinch a playoff spot that I don't have much left at this point. But.. I expect to jump up to 10 by Thursday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 This is what bugs me. The team may not have been a powerhouse, but our collective play was *much* better in the first half. I don't understand the logic that simply ignores that and concludes that the 'real' team is the one that was bombed out all of Feburuary. The more sensible explanation is that injuries plus the rebellion against the coach finally grew to a point where every facet of team performance was compromised; and this, coupled with Price's erratic play, snowballed into crises of confidence from which the team still has not fully recovered. Alot of guys who follow the NHl closely(ie: Pierre McGuire and bob Mackenzie) both said the same thing. Alot of teams are looking for themselves early on in the season. but by the time they hit the 40-45 game mark, they are running on all cylinders. This might be one of the reasons why the Habs started off so well...maybe it was just a smikescreen. Maybe what we've been seeing since january is the real Habs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) Alot of guys who follow the NHl closely(ie: Pierre McGuire and bob Mackenzie) both said the same thing. Alot of teams are looking for themselves early on in the season. but by the time they hit the 40-45 game mark, they are running on all cylinders. This might be one of the reasons why the Habs started off so well...maybe it was just a smikescreen. Maybe what we've been seeing since january is the real Habs? I am torn on what I believe this team is. While everybody had a love in for last years team, they beat the Bruins 8 times. Against the rest of the league they have essentially the same record. But that domination lead to 104 points. Now contrast that to this season where the Habs picked up 3 of a possible 12 points. If they swept the Bruins this season they would have 102 points. Now is this team A. a 98-100 pt team if you figure on them splitting with the Bruins the majority of the time B. a great team last season C. A poor team that disguised itself as a contender based on their ownership of the Bs, and a poor team this year that more closely resembles the teams that we have seen for the last 8 years? I think we are about to find out. Edited April 14, 2009 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I am torn on what I believe this team is. While everybody had a love in for last years team, they beat the Bruins 8 times. Against the rest of the league they have essentially the same record. But that domination lead to 104 points. Now contrast that to this season where the Habs picked up 3 of a possible 12 points. If they swept the Bruins this season they would have 102 points. Now is this team A. a 98-100 pt team if you figure on them splitting with the Bruins the majority of the time B. a great team last season C. A poor team that disguised itself as a contender based on their ownership of the Bs, and a poor team this year that more closely resembles the teams that we have seen for the last 8 years? I think we are about to find out. Yeah, but bear in mind that we're missing Markov. Hard to definitively assess a team that's missing their absolute key cog - unless, of course, they play splendidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Yeah, but bear in mind that we're missing Markov. Hard to definitively assess a team that's missing their absolute key cog - unless, of course, they play splendidly. True, but if they are a good team, they will not get demolished, with or without Markov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 True, but if they are a good team, they will not get demolished, with or without Markov Look at Pittsburgh. You can talk about the coaching change all you want, but people forget that Gonchar came back at pretty much the same time as the change went down. Another tale of two teams with and without their top D-man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Look at Pittsburgh. You can talk about the coaching change all you want, but people forget that Gonchar came back at pretty much the same time as the change went down. Another tale of two teams with and without their top D-man. They were missing Whitney and Gonchar and got by for almost half a season before they began to fall apart. You can hide flaws for 4-5 games, 40 is not as easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KEEP26 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 10 iam so pump....this is win win, if we lose everyone like well not so bad we lost to the best team..IF AND WHEN WE WIN...WE ARE THE GIANT KILLERS... AND if we dont win i hope that we kiCK the sh*t out of the poor bear so that they got nothing in the tank for the next round.. SO LETS WIN OR DESTROY THEM TRYING... GO HABS GO.... :hlogo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafikz Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Even if Bruins eliminate us, this should be fun to watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 If we were playing anyone other than Boston in the first round, I'd probably say around a seven or so. That said, I'm hovering around a nine right now and that's liable to go higher should Markov be expected to come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 If we only speak about the Habs, 6-7 at most. I know a win is unlikely, but if Théodore could pull it off maybe this edition can too... As long as they dont get humiliated like the Sens did last year I think i'l find something to be positive about. The Bruins are plain better at every position so it's gonna be a really uphill battle. If we speak about the playoff in general tough i'm a 10. All matchups are great and I have a favourite in almost every serie (exceptions being NJD/CAR, which I both want to loose, and DET/CBJ, I dont mind who wins that one) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 I'm up to 7.5, due to adding TSN and Sportnet HD to my actual Videotron package. 3$. I'll have playoffs hockey everynight in HD... I mean that or watching an aligator eat babies on Discovery HD, the choice will be a hard one to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.