April 22th, 2009 | Canadiens vs. Bruins | Game 4 Thread

[Peter Puck]

Ummm, what are you guys talking about? So, if a goalie doesn't win the cup by 22, he will never be a good goalie? You mean like Luongo? Nabokov? Kiprusoff? Man, those guys sure do suck, don't they?

jackp, save percentage doesn't mean a whole lot. What about when a goalie faces 20 shots in a game, but most of those chances are real high-quality chances? Compare that to a goalie who has to face 35 shots, but they are all perimeter shots because he's more well defended. You see how that can easily skew the stats?

Also, so what if Habs got beat by Thomas who only made the playoffs when he was 33? Does that make him any less of a goalie? No, it doesn't. Despite what people say on these boards that are obviously anti-Boston, he is a great goalie and will probably be a Vezina finalist, possibly winner. And since we are so interested with stats suddenly, I should note that he finished 1st in SV% and GAA in the regular season.

Hi FG,

I guess I need to make my sarcasm more evident. I thought it was pretty clear when I said

" There really haven't been any good NHL level goalies who didn't win the cup in their first year (or at least their second)." Just to be sure I even added: "Actually, if you look through history you will only find a one or two goalies who hadn't won the cup by age 22 and still managed to change themselves into worthwhile goalies." I thought someone might be able to refute this last statement - although I see you cited 3 current guys. (Also Wamsley01 seems to have a few guys too)

P.P.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Peter Puck

[jackp]

wrong again pits scored 5 in a row to win, you're not having a good day.

Okay, that game turned around. Biron HAD been playing well up to that point and Fleury hadn't. But the goalies reversed roles in the 2nd half of the game. 2 of the first 3 goals against Biron were lucky (swats out of the air) but it was enough to kill his confidence. Fleury was, well Fleury. Poor in the beginning of the game and great in the 2nd half. I'd like Pittsburgh to win the Cup if it weren't for the up and down play of this guy.

(This has nothing to do with anything, but I was glad to see Philly eliminated. I don't like their brand of hockey.)

Did you, by any chance, see last night's Anaheim game? Anaheim's Hiller demonstrated what goaltending is all about. (And I think he's pretty young too). He gave Anaheim a chance to win when they shouldn't have even been in the game.

You do realize that there is one goaltender in post expansion history who won a Cup before 21 right?

And only 3 goaltenders in 40+ years won a Cup during their rookie year.

How did Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour, Parent, Smith, Fuhr, Moog, Richter etc do at the age of 21? how did they do

in their first year? How did their careers turn out?

Ken Dryden was 23 years old and gave up 26 goals in 7 games and WON! It doesn't hurt when your shitty team

scores 28 goals in the process.

I wonder how Price would have looked this series if the Habs had averaged 4 goals per game.

To limit a 21 year olds potential as a fait acompli is absurd.

I was not the one who said they need to win a Cup to prove they're good. I merely used the examples of this to show that good (or great) goaltenders show their stuff almost immediately.

[jackp]

jackp, save percentage doesn't mean a whole lot. What about when a goalie faces 20 shots in a game, but most of those chances are real high-quality chances? Compare that to a goalie who has to face 35 shots, but they are all perimeter shots because he's more well defended. You see how that can easily skew the stats?

This can be true for a short series, but Price's save percentage over the season was .905. Halak's was .915. How do you justify Price being the starter over Halak? My point was that PERFORMANCE doesn't seem to count anymore. And I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice a couple more seasons to "develop" Price. Are you?

[ForumGhost]

This can be true for a short series, but Price's save percentage over the season was .905. Halak's was .915. How do you justify Price being the starter over Halak? My point was that PERFORMANCE doesn't seem to count anymore. And I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice a couple more seasons to "develop" Price. Are you?

Because, like I pointed out in my previous post, SV% means diddly.

[jackp]

Because, like I pointed out in my previous post, SV% means diddly.

So your point is that *over an 80 game schedule*, Price would have faced tougher shots than Halak? Perimeter shots against Halak, and dangerous shots against Price?!! I don't think so. Same team. In fact, Halak took us out of a slump by winning games where we were allowing over 40 shots.

I'll repeat, your argument against save percentage holds some truth over a short series, but not over an entire season, and especially not when the goalies being compared played for the same team. This is just a case of simple logic.

[jackp]

Another case in point... I was watching the Caps/Rangers game today and Lundqvist has completely fallen apart. Previously the Rangers held a 3-1 series lead, *having scored only 7 goals*!!! Now that he's come apart, the series is about to be tied 3-3. And it would already have been over, had Theodore not played so terribly in game 1. Boudreau, unlike our coach, made a quick hook of bad goaltending, and it's paid dividends. And by the way, the Caps young goalie *is not yet 21.*

[ForumGhost]

You can't compare Price's situation with Varlamov's, they are completely different.

[Fanpuck33]

You can't compare Price's situation with Varlamov's, they are completely different.

Yeah, but if anything, Price was in the better situation. He had time to prepare for the fact that his team's playoff hopes were being put on his shoulders. Varlamov got pulled off a bus and flown into Washington to suddenly be the #1 guy. Price had over a month to prepare.

[jackp]

You can't compare Price's situation with Varlamov's, they are completely different.

Like I said earlier, this reminds me of the Buffalo Bills Flutie/Johnson debate. The Johnson fans would not accept any argument based on performance about their guy. It was only when he was undeservedly handed the job and failed miserably over the course of a couple of years, did they finally see the light.

Hence, on my side, there is little point in continuing this debate. The Price supporters will not accept any argument based on any facts against their guy. "Save percentage means nothing." "Varlamov's situation is different from Price's." "Price can't score goals." "Our defence sucks." etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum...

Time, coupled with continuing failure, will be the only thing that finally convinces them.

Edited April 27, 2009 by jackp

[jackp]

If you guys want to take a break and have a little laugh,

. Funny interview with Price and Laraque.

[ForumGhost]

If you guys want to take a break and have a little laugh,

. Funny interview with Price and Laraque.

See, I thought it was funny. But of course, Price took a lot of flak from the French media for that because it 'demonstrated how lightly he took his situation'. :puke:

Which leads me to my next point: Varlamov's situation is waaaaaaaaay better than Price's . Price had to come in with all the pressure of the world to literally steal the series from the Eastern Conference Champs in front of an injury-decimated, underperforming team. Varlamov was called in as an emergency option, so he had little or no expectations at all. He is also facing a much weaker team than the Bruins and is backed by a much healthier and better team all around.

Edited April 27, 2009 by ForumGhost

[tokyohabs]

Comparing Varlamov's situation to Price is as for-fetched as, oh, I don't know, comparing Johnson/Flutie to Price/Halak. No need to go into it, as you surely know what an impossible stretch the comparison is, if you have that good memory of the Bills' debate at the time. As pointed out, Varlamov is a nobody backup for Washington, and the team is just waking up in time. helping him become a somebody. If you think that situation is like Price, you also probably think Flutie would have led the Bills to the SB.

I watched two of the Wings-Jackets games, I cannot for the life of me think that Mason was the main reason for them going under. Fanpuck33, sure you went ot one of the games and probably watched them all, was he and his pedestrian save % the reason they lost to the Wings?

For sure the Rags should hook Lundquist, now that he's gone into the tank he obviously doesn't represent their best chance to win.

In that case, Brodeur should be replaced, he's obviously lost it against the Canes...no wait,that was Ward last game...no wait, the third period of game 4 Brodeur...ah, hook em all!

I feel Gainey was wrong to have Price out for game 4; but he has terrific potential, as does Halak. But thinking that a 21 year old has already hit his plateau, when so many people around think he has the goods to make him great, is a bit short-sighted, no? I saw Halak suck a few games this year, haven't given up on him.

[Habsfan]

I didn't watch that series but if Mason's save percentage was .870, then he WAS largely responsible for their loss. As to the Columbus fans... they were happy just to get into the playoffs and, let's face it, they know very little about hockey. To compare them with Montreal fans is ludicrous. Even the players say that Montreal fans are the most knowledgeable in the NHL. You're just not happy with their collective opinion of Price right now.

As far as "crucifying a young kid" is concerned... Patrick Roy won a Cup in his first year. So did Dryden. You're living in a dream world if you think Price is suddenly gonna get a lot better. People don't change too much. Price will continue to be a hot and cold goalie, who has a hard time facing pressure.

JMHO

Just goes to show you know jack sh.it about hockey! Columbus played against the best team in the league...the Red Wings. For you to blame the loss on Mason is ignorant!

OMG, do you even live in the same world as the rest of us? To say that a young kid can't change is ridiculous...bordering on the dumbest statement ever made on this forum. If anyone can change and improve, it's a 21 ytear old kid with loads of talent. Had you said that about a 33 year old veteran, then I'd agree, but we are talking about a 21 year who has his whole career in front of him.

You are the worst kind of "fan"! After only 18 months at the NHL level, you are already willing to give up on our highest draft choice in over 2 decades?? You are the reason Montreal has such a bad reason...yoiu and the other idiot fans who think they know everything, when in fact they know jack sh.it!

Edited April 27, 2009 by Habsfan

[jackp]

Just goes to show you know jack sh.it about hockey! Columbus played against the best team in the league...the Red Wings. For you to blame the loss on Mason is ignorant!

OMG, do you even live in the same world as the rest of us? To say that a young kid can't change is ridiculous...bordering on the dumbest statement ever made on this forum. If anyone can change and improve, it's a 21 ytear old kid with loads of talent. Had you said that about a 33 year old veteran, then I'd agree, but we are talking about a 21 year who has his whole career in front of him.

You are the worst kind of "fan"! After only 18 months at the NHL level, you are already willing to give up on our highest draft choice in over 2 decades?? You are the reason Montreal has such a bad reason...yoiu and the other idiot fans who think they know everything, when in fact they know jack sh.it!

So sorry... didn't realize I was conversing with a hockey genius as yourself. I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind.

BTW, Habsfan, unlike you, I had season tickets for the Habs for about 10 years when I lived in Montreal. Unlike you, I actually supported the team with my hard-earned dollars. And I was not one of the ones who booed Savard (for example) near the end of his career. He actually EARNED respect, despite the fact he no longer was playing very well. So what has Price done at the NHL level to earn respect? You call me an idiot for saying he shouldn't have started. Then I guess Red Fisher, Jack Todd, and Stu Cowan of the Gazette are also idiots for saying the same thing. But, of course, they aren't hockey geniuses like you...

Oh, and as for your last statement about us fans being responsible for the Habs having a bad season (and he calls me stupid!!!). Funny, it was my assumption that the players on the team are the actual ones responsible for the team's level of playing. And that includes the most important position on the team: goaltender. If I had known I was so important to the team's fortune, I would have demanded some compensation from Gainey!!!

Finally, Mr. Genius, I hope you remember this conversation 2 years from now. I've been proven right so many times in these pointless confrontations (Flutie, Theodore, most recently) and it's frustrating when yahoos like you either disappear, or claim extending circumstances when they are shown to have been completely wrong.

Please save this missive, and on April 27th, 2011, have the balls to come on here and admit you were wrong. I promise I'll do the same if it turns out the other way. (Ctrl-A, Right Click, Copy, then open Notepad, Ctrl-V, then Save As {any name you want})

[jackp]

Comparing Varlamov's situation to Price is as for-fetched as, oh, I don't know, comparing Johnson/Flutie to Price/Halak. No need to go into it, as you surely know what an impossible stretch the comparison is, if you have that good memory of the Bills' debate at the time.

Actually, I'd like you to get into the differences. One guy (Flutie) was performing better and the other guy (Johnson) was just supposed to be better - a young guy with lots of potential. Sound familiar? You're probably honing in on the fact that Halak is an unproven commodity and Flutie was a seasoned veteran, and that IS different. But the similarity I'm seeing is that the under-valued guy is outperforming the valued one, and not being allowed to get the job based on PERFORMANCE. (BTW, Johnson never got better - couldn't stick in the NFL even as a backup - and NFL qb IS a position that often requires some time to get better, unlike goaltending, where a Dryden stays a Dryden, and a Racicot stays a Racicot.)

And, yes, I do think the Bills might have won the SB the year they started Johnson against the Titans. Johnson was horrible in that game, yet the Titans had to pull of that razzle-dazzle miracle play at the end to win it. There would have been no miracle had Flutie played because the Bills would have been too far ahead. The Titans ended up going to the SB that year. It should have been the Bills. Phillips admitted years later that owner Ralph Wilson made him start Johnson because he was overly impressed with Johnson's performance in the end of season nothing game against the Colts. I knew at the time that it was NOT a football coach's decision but more like a fan's decision. Of course, the RJ supporters denied very strongly that it wasn't Phillip's decision. And Phillips kept quiet about it FOR YEARS.

When politics, and not performance, determine who plays, your team is in for a world of hurt.

[jackp]

See, I thought it was funny. But of course, Price took a lot of flak from the French media for that because it 'demonstrated how lightly he took his situation'. :puke:

Actually, I thought it was funny too, and even though I don't like Price as our goalie, I found nothing to criticize in that interview. Price was actually being baited by the interviewer and I thought he handled it well (with humour, which is the best weapon against attempted barbs).

[tokyohabs]

Actually, I'd like you to get into the differences. One guy (Flutie) was performing better and the other guy (Johnson) was just supposed to be better - a young guy with lots of potential. Sound familiar? You're probably honing in on the fact that Halak is an unproven commodity and Flutie was a seasoned veteran, and that IS different. But the similarity I'm seeing is that the under-valued guy is outperforming the valued one, and not being allowed to get the job based on PERFORMANCE. (BTW, Johnson never got better - couldn't stick in the NFL even as a backup - and NFL qb IS a position that often requires some time to get better, unlike goaltending, where a Dryden stays a Dryden, and a Racicot stays a Racicot.)

And, yes, I do think the Bills might have won the SB the year they started Johnson against the Titans. Johnson was horrible in that game, yet the Titans had to pull of that razzle-dazzle miracle play at the end to win it. There would have been no miracle had Flutie played because the Bills would have been too far ahead. The Titans ended up going to the SB that year. It should have been the Bills. Phillips admitted years later that owner Ralph Wilson made him start Johnson because he was overly impressed with Johnson's performance in the end of season nothing game against the Colts. I knew at the time that it was NOT a football coach's decision but more like a fan's decision. Of course, the RJ supporters denied very strongly that it wasn't Phillip's decision. And Phillips kept quiet about it FOR YEARS.

When politics, and not performance, determine who plays, your team is in for a world of hurt.

Flutie didn't get much better after the Bills either - not entirely down to him, but there you go. Still don't think the Bills would have made the SB with him there, probably beat the Titans. Did have that drop-kick with the Pats though...

That was the major difference, Halak I'd think is as unknown as Price. I think he should have got a playoff game, as stated, but no way we simply give up on Price because Halak was better a few games. Rob Johnson never had any remotely comparable success to Price either, I think one or two 300+ yard games in his career? Anyway, you are right about the possible political analogy, though even here it is still a stretch: Gillett doesn't seem the type to have ordered Gainey to play Price, and the circumstances are also different: Flutie had a great record on the regular season and Johnson was poor, but gets the whole playoffs; Price had an excellent 1st half, poor second half (as did the entire team), but is the starter and seen as such by the team. Halak had a great run late in the year and had the backing, but faltered badly a couple of times. But I'll concede, political meddling severely affects psyche in everyone, not the least fragile and generally immature professional athletes (Jay Cutler, Jason Campbell, to continue the football vent). In that you have a point.

And for the record, while I didn't think your Mason / Wings comment was very good, it is not the stupidest post on this site ever. Hell, most of mine are!

[jackp]

And for the record, while I didn't think your Mason / Wings comment was very good, it is not the stupidest post on this site ever. Hell, most of mine are!

LOL... nice to read something from someone with a little *perspective.* As far as the Mason/Wings comment was concerned, I DID mention that I hadn't seen any of the games and was ASSUMING from his save percentage. Let's hope he does better in the Worlds...

[Wamsley01]

Yeah, but if anything, Price was in the better situation. He had time to prepare for the fact that his team's playoff hopes were being put on his shoulders. Varlamov got pulled off a bus and flown into Washington to suddenly be the #1 guy. Price had over a month to prepare.

So Price playing the 2nd best team in the league with the 2nd best offense and 4th best PP, playing without 5 regulars and his top defenseman is a better situation then playing the 12th place team with the 25th best offense and 29th best PP because he had a month to prepare?

Does anybody really believe that if Varlamov was in net for the Habs that the series would have gone more than 4 games?

THE RANGERS CAN'T SCORE! A Le Goalie would have a .900+ SV% with a couple of shutouts against the Rangers.

Habsfan, why bother fighting with JackP? The guy is on here to get under your skin. When he provides some semblence of

assesment on WHY Price will not be good outside of conjecture, and yes

this sentence

As far as "crucifying a young kid" is concerned... Patrick Roy won a Cup in his first year. So did Dryden. You're living in a dream world if you think Price is suddenly gonna get a lot better. People don't change too much. Price will continue to be a hot and cold goalie, who has a hard time facing pressure.

uses Roy and Dryden as your reference point. Two of only three goaltenders to ever win a Stanley Cup as a rookie. So deny all you want

that you never used Stanley Cups as your reference, it is what you implied. You have been doing it in threads all over the place.

Flutie and Johnson? You own season tickets? Serge Savard in the 70s? WTF does that have to do with anything?

I am supposed to listen to Red Fisher and Jack Todd? Red FIsher is 80+ years old! How does this prove anything?

You are clouding the issue with nonsensical analogies of things YOU CANNOT PROVE. I can tell you that I told all the Mavs

fans that Steve Nash was going to win back to back MVPs with the Suns, and I WAS RIGHT. WTF does that prove and

why the hell should anybody believe me? You know how many stupid season ticket holders exist? How does that prove

your knowledge or loyalty? I have had Raptors season seats for 8 years, and there are more knowledgeable basketball

fans than I, there are also more loyal Raptor fans than I.

Do you know how old Habsfan is? Do you know where he lives? Do you know what his career pays? If he is married? Kids?

My assumption is no. I don't own Habs season seats because I live in Toronto, does that make me less knowledgeable?

Less loyal? Not as big a fan? So once again, WTF have you proven? Nonsensical ramblings!

It is an exercise in futility to attempt to get anywhere with this type of individual. He knows, you don't. On to the next thread.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Wamsley01

[sbhatt]

I have had Raptors season seats for 8 years,

Wow...I can't help but wonder if you show up just to cheer for the other teams that are actually good?

The only Raptors games I've ever gone to post-Vinsanity (and up til last year I could go to any game I wanted for free thanks to a buddy with access to corporate seats) were when the Cavs came to town so I could watch LeBron James.

[jackp]

I live in Toronto, does that make me less knowledgeable?

Ummmm, .... yes.

Seriously though, you're getting all worked up over nothing. It's a difference of opinion, is all. I am NOT just trying to get guys worked up. And I am not the one making personal attacks INITIALLY (I have, when defending myself from a personal attack). Some people just hate other people when they don't hold the same opinion. I saw the same thing with university profs for god's sake. You have your opinion (shared by many) and I have mine (also shared by many). Time will tell who was right but in the greater scheme of things, it's not all that important. Nobody died.

For me, the most important thing this board does, is allow me to vent, when I'm terribly disappointed and frustrated on how our boys are performing. I also learn from some of the people here. (Whoever brought up the very good point that save percentage isn't all that indicative OVER A SHORT PERIOD, as an example.) I think you need to learn to respect opinions that are not the same as yours, and not get all worked up over them. (This IS a bit condescending, I know, and I apologize for that, but I've been rather shocked at the degree of personal venom directed towards people who are just stating their opinion and trying to back them up with facts.)

[Wamsley01]

Ummmm, .... yes.

Seriously though, you're getting all worked up over nothing. It's a difference of opinion, is all. I am NOT just trying to get guys worked up. And I am not the one making personal attacks INITIALLY (I have, when defending myself from a personal attack). Some people just hate other people when they don't hold the same opinion. I saw the same thing with university profs for god's sake. You have your opinion (shared by many) and I have mine (also shared by many). Time will tell who was right but in the greater scheme of things, it's not all that important. Nobody died.

For me, the most important thing this board does, is allow me to vent, when I'm terribly disappointed and frustrated on how our boys are performing. I also learn from some of the people here. (Whoever brought up the very good point that save percentage isn't all that indicative OVER A SHORT PERIOD, as an example.) I think you need to learn to respect opinions that are not the same as yours, and not get all worked up over them. (This IS a bit condescending, I know, and I apologize for that, but I've been rather shocked at the degree of personal venom directed towards people who are just stating their opinion and trying to back them up with facts.)

I have no problem with differing opinion, but you have given me no reason outside of conjecture to appreciate your position.

Price fares well when placed against his contemporaries for his age, his history suggests an elite goaltender who struggled and

had a poor season, not a goaltender with a history of mediocre performances who had one good season and has regressed to form.

History has proven that young goaltenders are prone to inconsistency.

If you broke down WHY he is struggling and provided a synopsis of why his technical flaws are not repairable which will lead to

him being overrated, then I will listen. If you provide me with inside info that can be backed up to provide a reason why he

has struggled mentally or physically, I will listen. If you provided a consistent comparable that shows why his numbers do not

translate, I will grant you your points.

But you have presented me with none of these things. Yes, Halak had a better save percentage, but he is 2 years older and

when you compare their SV% over a broader number of games they are within .02% of each other. So all it does is prove

that Halak had a much better second half. You cannot judge a 21 year old's career on 25 games.

Did they make a mistake in going with Price over the last month? If your end game was losing in 5 games as opposed to 4,

then YES, they did. This team was NOT going to win a Cup. But if your end game is developing Price, then that story remains to be seen.

What I see is a goaltender whose technical form resembled nothing of his form from 2006-2008. THe reason I fell in love with

his game was his ability to dominate down low, his speedy effortless post to post movement, his ability to be square to the puck

on almost every occasion and his ability to raise his level when confronted with pressure. He always looked BIG in the net, he

doesn't anymore.

What I saw from Feb-Apr was a goalie who was struggling to stay square, was not following the puck well, was overpursuing

pucks and scrambling to regain position, because he was scrambling his dominance down low disappeared because he was

constantly out of position. His anticipation was awful and his confidence was low because the fanbase/media demoralized him

and his team allowed tap ins on a nightly basis.

Why would I ignore three years of work because of 10 weeks? It makes no sense. If I am wrong, c'est la vie. But 36 months

trumps 3 months for me every time.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Wamsley01

[Wamsley01]

Wow...I can't help but wonder if you show up just to cheer for the other teams that are actually good?

The only Raptors games I've ever gone to post-Vinsanity (and up til last year I could go to any game I wanted for free thanks to a buddy with access to corporate seats) were when the Cavs came to town so I could watch LeBron James.

That is being a fan. Supporting a team even when they suck.

2000-2002 were amazing, 2003-2006 were sad and 2007-2008 provided their moments.

This season was abysmal, but I am still a fan and will remain one through thick and thin.

[jackp]

I have no problem with differing opinion, but you have given me no reason outside of conjecture to appreciate your position.

Price fares well when placed against his contemporaries for his age, his history suggests an elite goaltender who struggled and

had a poor season, not a goaltender with a history of mediocre performances who had one good season and has regressed to form.

History has proven that young goaltenders are prone to inconsistency.

If you broke down WHY he is struggling and provided a synopsis of why his technical flaws are not repairable which will lead to

him being overrated, then I will listen. If you provide me with inside info that can be backed up to provide a reason why he

has struggled mentally or physically, I will listen. If you provided a consistent comparable that shows why his numbers do not

translate, I will grant you your points.

But you have presented me with none of these things. Yes, Halak had a better save percentage, but he is 2 years older and

when you compare their SV% over a broader number of games they are within .02% of each other. So all it does is prove

that Halak had a much better second half. You cannot judge a 21 year old's career on 25 games.

Did they make a mistake in going with Price over the last month? If your end game was losing in 5 games as opposed to 4,

then YES, they did. This team was NOT going to win a Cup. But if your end game is developing Price, then that story remains to be seen.

What I see is a goaltender whose technical form resembled nothing of his form from 2006-2008. THe reason I fell in love with

his game was his ability to dominate down low, his speedy effortless post to post movement, his ability to be square to the puck

on almost every occasion and his ability to raise his level when confronted with pressure. He always looked BIG in the net, he

doesn't anymore.

What I saw from Feb-Apr was a goalie who was struggling to stay square, was not following the puck well, was overpursuing

pucks and scrambling to regain position, because he was scrambling his dominance down low disappeared because he was

constantly out of position. His anticipation was awful and his confidence was low because the fanbase/media demoralized him

and his team allowed tap ins on a nightly basis.

Why would I ignore three years of work because of 10 weeks? It makes no sense. If I am wrong, c'est la vie. But 36 months

trumps 3 months for me every time.

You obviously have a better technical knowledge of what makes a goalie good than I do. However, I am not basing my OPINION on the last 25 games. I am basing it on the imploding last year against Philly, as well as the 2nd half this year, and the playoff against Boston. I think the difference in opinion between you and I, is that you think he will overcome this "inconsistency," as you call it, and I don't.

This is not to say that there aren't good reasons for his decline. Playing goalie in Montreal is never easy. Last year, I was furious with the reporters when, early in the playoffs, they tried to compare Price with Roy in his rookie year. I could see the stress on Price's face when he kept trying to tell them that he was no Roy. You could almost predict his implosion from the amount of pressure they were putting on him. And I think that playing in the all-star game might have added the same kind of pressure on him. However, having said this, the NHL is a performance based league. The league is dotted with the corpses of players who had tremendous talent (Fogarty, for example) who could not perform for whatever reason. I'm personally not willing to sacrifice 2 or 3 more years to develop Price. Gainey's 5 year plan has just passed its fifth year. It's been 16 years since the last Cup. In that time, both NJ and Detroit have almost completely turned over their teams and still managed to win Cups. I, and a lot of other Montreal fans, are fed up with the failed promises, the excuses, and the whining. In our minds, it's put up or get out time.

[Wamsley01]

You obviously have a better technical knowledge of what makes a goalie good than I do. However, I am not basing my OPINION on the last 25 games. I am basing it on the imploding last year against Philly, as well as the 2nd half this year, and the playoff against Boston. I think the difference in opinion between you and I, is that you think he will overcome this "inconsistency," as you call it, and I don't.

This is not to say that there aren't good reasons for his decline. Playing goalie in Montreal is never easy. Last year, I was furious with the reporters when, early in the playoffs, they tried to compare Price with Roy in his rookie year. I could see the stress on Price's face when he kept trying to tell them that he was no Roy. You could almost predict his implosion from the amount of pressure they were putting on him. And I think that playing in the all-star game might have added the same kind of pressure on him. However, having said this, the NHL is a performance based league. The league is dotted with the corpses of players who had tremendous talent (Fogarty, for example) who could not perform for whatever reason. I'm personally not willing to sacrifice 2 or 3 more years to develop Price. Gainey's 5 year plan has just passed its fifth year. It's been 16 years since the last Cup. In that time, both NJ and Detroit have almost completely turned over their teams and still managed to win Cups. I, and a lot of other Montreal fans, are fed up with the failed promises, the excuses, and the whining. In our minds, it's put up or get out time.

But once again you are basing a 20 year olds failures against what? There are 2-3 other 20 year olds who have ever won

a playoff series. So how can you hold that accomplishment against him?

You also added what, 10 games? to compare against 3 years?

Roy was brutal in the 87 and 88 playoffs, Hasek didn't win a playoff series until he was 33 years old.

Fuhr got lit up in his first playoff, including giving up 6 straight in the miracle on Manchester.

I have waited 16 years, what is another 2? Like it or not, Price is the only elite prospect the Habs own.