SOOPAVILLIN Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 My personal 3 stars tonight would be: 1. Carey price obviously he was huge tonight 2.Hal Gill he was a beast tonight and the desperation icing was pretty much a game breaker 3.AK46 He seemed very motivated tonight and got the gwg, it seems like him and eller had some good chemistry going. Overall though this was an excellent team game/statement game. if not for the officiating it would have been 3-0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 i just wish for once we don't need the cardiac unit on call, as we fight to get into the playoffs. I'd also like to see us win more games that we SHOULD win. I thought that this was an automatic loss and really was looking for an excuse not to watch, but couldn't stay away as usual. Well, the majority of us expect it, so even if they make it be 8 points there will be stretches where they make us sweat. A stretch where they are 4 points up with 3 games to go would still not make us happy. Free and clear would be clinching the playoffs with 8 or 9 games left but with these injuries, that isn't going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 My personal 3 stars tonight would be: 1. Carey price obviously he was huge tonight 2.Hal Gill he was a beast tonight and the desperation icing was pretty much a game breaker 3.AK46 He seemed very motivated tonight and got the gwg, it seems like him and eller had some good chemistry going. Overall though this was an excellent team game/statement game. if not for the officiating it would have been 3-0. Yeah solid game by Gill. He played almost 26 min! Must be near an all-time high for a regular season game that doesn't go to OT. Hamrlik is pretty solid too. He has been playing on 1st PP unit and 2nd SH unit all night. Plus his regular shift. The benching of the 4th line probably had more to do with the fact our top3 lines were playing great than with the performance of the 4th line. 4th line played well in the 5 min they got in the first period and a half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOOPAVILLIN Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Yeah solid game by Gill. He played almost 26 min! Must be near an all-time high for a regular season game that doesn't go to OT. Hamrlik is pretty solid too. He has been playing on 1st PP unit and 2nd SH unit all night. Plus his regular shift. The benching of the 4th line probably had more to do with the fact our top3 lines were playing great than with the performance of the 4th line. 4th line played well in the 5 min they got in the first period and a half. Good point on Hammer he has been very good to the point where I'm not noticing him too much. He is keeping it simple but very effective. I would like to resign him to a fair contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Happy to see the habs get a much-needed win, against one of the league's best, no less. Hopefully they can build on this, and win their "should-win" against the Leafs. I didn't catch the game, how was Cammalleri looking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What I would like is for the habs to do well enough to avoid the top three teams in the first round. As exciting as last year was, Washington and Pitts took everything the habs had in the tank. I would like to avoid Philly if at all possible this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Ok bar, i don't know how you knew that one but good call. If you have any "locks' for next week let me know, i'll be in Vegas. So what was it i owe you? I didn't even get to see the game. It sounded like they came out flying, took a 2-0 lead and tried to sit on it the rest of the game. Hopefully it means a little bit aof a winning streak. They can't get the 8 seed for sure, they will get squashed, i'm not too worried abot the B's and Pens. The habs could beat them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I don't think they sat back as much as they were killing penalties constantly which gave the momentum to Vancouver and made it hard for the habs to get the offense rolling. Ok bar, i don't know how you knew that one but good call. If you have any "locks' for next week let me know, i'll be in Vegas. So what was it i owe you? I didn't even get to see the game. It sounded like they came out flying, took a 2-0 lead and tried to sit on it the rest of the game. Hopefully it means a little bit aof a winning streak. They can't get the 8 seed for sure, they will get squashed, i'm not too worried abot the B's and Pens. The habs could beat them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) We won for two reasons: Carey Price Hal Gill Anyone not wanting us to re-sign Gill should consider what he can bring in a big game. And an honourable mention to Kosty for playing one of his 10 great games per season. Just don't anyone get excited that he's finally 'figuring it out' It was rather like last season's playoffs. Habs get the goals they need, then hold on. I was pleased to see my prediction - that the Canucks would be flatfooted due to the return of two major regulars after injury - come to pass, at least in the first period Good game to get out of a slump. The machine is not fully firing, but it's one that can rally the team and renew their self-belief. Edited February 23, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Ok bar, i don't know how you knew that one but good call. If you have any "locks' for next week let me know, i'll be in Vegas. So what was it i owe you? I didn't even get to see the game. It sounded like they came out flying, took a 2-0 lead and tried to sit on it the rest of the game. Hopefully it means a little bit aof a winning streak. They can't get the 8 seed for sure, they will get squashed, i'm not too worried abot the B's and Pens. The habs could beat them. It's simple Chris, the habs do whatever they aren't expected to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Then let me know who they are supposed to lose to next week and i'll throw a 100 on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 our coaching staff should take the tape of this game and show our guys how to screen a goalie. The canuckleheads give a textbook lesson. The goals they got Price had no idea where the puck was cause Burroghs was right in his doorstep. We need to get pouiliot and patches doing that on a regular basis. Gionta does sometimes but his size is a disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I haven't seen the game yet (taped it though) but it sounds as if it'll be an interesting one to watch. One note from looking at the stats, the 4th line played just over 5 minutes yesterday, despite scoring one of the first period goals. That's the first time in a while I can remember seeing an entire line that low - 1 or 2 players, sure, but a full line is rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I haven't seen the game yet (taped it though) but it sounds as if it'll be an interesting one to watch. One note from looking at the stats, the 4th line played just over 5 minutes yesterday, despite scoring one of the first period goals. That's the first time in a while I can remember seeing an entire line that low - 1 or 2 players, sure, but a full line is rare. On the face of it, that was a bit unfair to Desharnais, who scored the first goal on an outstanding move, and to my recollection did not make any egregious blunders. Pouliot, though, did cost the team with an irresponsible penalty and deserved benching - maybe his linemates were collateral damage. Ultimately, it's hard to argue with a victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 On the face of it, that was a bit unfair to Desharnais, who scored the first goal on an outstanding move, and to my recollection did not make any egregious blunders. Pouliot, though, did cost the team with an irresponsible penalty and deserved benching - maybe his linemates were collateral damage. Ultimately, it's hard to argue with a victory. was that the iffy hooking call? .. i watched the game with Canucks fans and even they said.. what call was that?!?!? I dont understand JM ... even if they did f-up.. your taxing the other lines! Ridiculous coaching IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 was that the iffy hooking call? .. i watched the game with Canucks fans and even they said.. what call was that?!?!? I dont understand JM ... even if they did f-up.. your taxing the other lines! Ridiculous coaching IMO No, the dodgy hooking call - which stuck us with a 5-on-3 disadvantage - was on Halpern. What a bad call. But Pouliot cross-checked a guy away from the puck. Totally dumb penalty in a tight game we needed to win and he deserved to be stapled to the bench. But why staple Desharnais with him? Something to do with not wanting to muck up the balance on the other lines, maybe? Anyhow - in a game like that I don't blame the coach for going with what he thinks will win, and I can't criticize him for delivering the goods! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 No, the dodgy hooking call - which stuck us with a 5-on-3 disadvantage - was on Halpern. What a bad call. But Pouliot cross-checked a guy away from the puck. Totally dumb penalty in a tight game we needed to win and he deserved to be stapled to the bench. But why staple Desharnais with him? Something to do with not wanting to muck up the balance on the other lines, maybe? Anyhow - in a game like that I don't blame the coach for going with what he thinks will win, and I can't criticize him for delivering the goods! There was also a terribly weak call on Pacioretty right after the Canucks made it 2-1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) There was also a terribly weak call on Pacioretty right after the Canucks made it 2-1. Yeah. I just can't understand the Halpern call, though. I mean, if you're going to call a penalty that will make it a 5 on 3 - basically coming as close to guaranteeing a goal as you can get as an official - at least be sure the infraction is signficant. A marginal call leading to a 5 on 3 is just bush league, period. EDIT: I just noted Fathead Hickey making the case for Desharnais in this context here: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Desharnais+getting+credit+deserves/4333925/story.html The guy's bang on. Edited February 24, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just watched the game, I was expecting an awful 3rd period judging from the shots and what I read but all in all, it was a pretty good period in terms of preventing Vancouver from getting too many chances. Heck, most of the final 90 seconds were spent in the 'Nucks' end. Some iffy moments overall (2nd period) for sure but Vancouver is a good team, they weren't going to roll over for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah. I just can't understand the Halpern call, though. I mean, if you're going to call a penalty that will make it a 5 on 3 - basically coming as close to guaranteeing a goal as you can get as an official - at least be sure the infraction is signficant. A marginal call leading to a 5 on 3 is just bush league, period. EDIT: I just noted Fathead Hickey making the case for Desharnais in this context here: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Desharnais+getting+credit+deserves/4333925/story.html The guy's bang on. I totally disagree with you in regards to Hickey's take. It is a fan based poorly researched narrative. He pushes you to a place without actually looking into why it happened. A better representation is Apron Basu's look. http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110224/mtl_habshub_habit_110223/20110224/?hub=MontrealSports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I totally disagree with you in regards to Hickey's take. It is a fan based poorly researched narrative. He pushes you to a place without actually looking into why it happened. A better representation is Apron Basu's look. http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110224/mtl_habshub_habit_110223/20110224/?hub=MontrealSports Basu is certainly more insightful in offering an explanation for the neglect of Desharnais against Vancouver (i.e., line matchups, rather than just irrationality by Martin). But I'd note that both agree that Desharnais appears to be under-utilized based on his performance, in favour of the over-use of Gomez (based, again, on performance). In short, DD appears to be getting a bit of the short end of the stick. The Vancouver game was a particularly striking example of this emerging trend. I sympathize with what is presumably JM's position, namely that he (as Basu puts it) 'trusts' proven veteran and Cup champion Gomez over the tiny and unproven Desharnais, and wants to give Gomez every chance to get into his groove, because if he does, we know that he can make a big difference. I'm certainly not in a frothing rage over this. Still, I *would* like to see Desharnais given a bit more opportunity in light of Gomez's collossal FAIL this season. As Basu points out, we need to know whether Desharnais can indeed be counted on in clutch situations such as the third period of the Vancouver game, because it is no longer clear that Gomez ever will emerge from his torpor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Basu is certainly more insightful in offering an explanation for the neglect of Desharnais against Vancouver (i.e., line matchups, rather than just irrationality by Martin). But I'd note that both agree that Desharnais appears to be under-utilized based on his performance, in favour of the over-use of Gomez (based, again, on performance). In short, DD appears to be getting a bit of the short end of the stick. The Vancouver game was a particularly striking example of this emerging trend. I sympathize with what is presumably JM's position, namely that he (as Basu puts it) 'trusts' proven veteran and Cup champion Gomez over the tiny and unproven Desharnais, and wants to give Gomez every chance to get into his groove, because if he does, we know that he can make a big difference. I'm certainly not in a frothing rage over this. Still, I *would* like to see Desharnais given a bit more opportunity in light of Gomez's collossal FAIL this season. As Basu points out, we need to know whether Desharnais can indeed be counted on in clutch situations such as the third period of the Vancouver game, because it is no longer clear that Gomez ever will emerge from his torpor. I don't have a problem giving Desharnais a larger role to see if he can handle it, but Hickey's column was filled with nonsense. Stuff that you read on a message board and is based on a reactionary response with little insight. He brings up the goal and then says that goal earned him ice-time. Notes the Pouliot penalty, but goes no further in trying to figure out the action. Immediately turns it into a negative by questioning whether it was an appropriate reaction by Martin. He mentions the "roll" Desharnais was on "before" the West Coast trip allowing him to remove 2 games from the narrative. He was scoreless in two games and was a -2 in Edmonton and Calgary. He then starts listing off scoring rates and +/- differential without listing quality of competition or his soft minutes, minutes that Basu points out have been the 2nd easiest on the team. It goes back to the thread on new media vs old. Sometimes you get to the same conclusion by accident, but the thought process that puts you there is where you earn MY respect. Two articles saying the same thing, but one looks thrown together to get it done and the other well constructed and researched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I don't have a problem giving Desharnais a larger role to see if he can handle it, but Hickey's column was filled with nonsense. Stuff that you read on a message board and is based on a reactionary response with little insight. He brings up the goal and then says that goal earned him ice-time. Notes the Pouliot penalty, but goes no further in trying to figure out the action. Immediately turns it into a negative by questioning whether it was an appropriate reaction by Martin. He mentions the "roll" Desharnais was on "before" the West Coast trip allowing him to remove 2 games from the narrative. He was scoreless in two games and was a -2 in Edmonton and Calgary. He then starts listing off scoring rates and +/- differential without listing quality of competition or his soft minutes, minutes that Basu points out have been the 2nd easiest on the team. It goes back to the thread on new media vs old. Sometimes you get to the same conclusion by accident, but the thought process that puts you there is where you earn MY respect. Two articles saying the same thing, but one looks thrown together to get it done and the other well constructed and researched. OK, I'm sold. I picked the wrong link to make the point...but the point stands. Hickey is an ass, and does indeed exemplify the kind of shoddy thinking that passes for 'analysis' in too much of the 'old media.' My error was to jump on an article that agreed with the point I wanted to make, without worrying too much about the thought process underpinning the agreement. 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.