brobin Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I don't think we can underestimate the loss of MaxPac. He really brought a net presence to the top two lines, with skill. We have such a lack of depth on the wings we can't afford to lose anyone. From a season point of view, the injuries to the defense really hurt us. If they hadn't happened, the Habs could have gone out and gotten some top line wingers, but instead, they burned all their room and trade capital trying to keep enough defensemen in the lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Well, while you're right that noone can really know what's up except the players and coaches, I think fans are within their rights to make reasonable speculations based on what we're seeing. I'd say there's a few possibilities for what's going on. 1. The team is simply slumping, like all teams do. The timing of the slump - at the tail end of an injury-ravaged season in which Hammer and Price have arguably been way overworked - is just sheer coincidence. 2. The team is exhausted. 3. The team is tired AND knows that the odds are very much in favour of them making the playoffs. So intentionally or otherwise, they're not bringing their lunch-buckets. (IMHO this is most likely what happened last season). 4. The team is not tired. They're just intentionally or unintentionally surfing because they know they're likely to make the playoffs. 5. Losing MaxPac and three of the top-6, without having any young players step up to fill the breach, leaves the team fundamentally exposed. Unless Pouliot or someone else really steps up to plug the whole left by Patches, and unless Weber or someone else really steps up on the blueline, we just don't have the horses to compete. 3 & 4 are the most attractive answers because they suggest that guys are husbanding their energies for a playoff push. Every other scenario is unsettling. One thing I'll say: while all teams go through injuries, this is the third season running where the Habs have massive, season-ending injuries to important players. I'm really sick and tired of it. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if, next year say, the Habs remain healthy and suddenly 'surprise' everyone with a stellar season. Three years in a row is sick. EDIT: is it just me, or is Hamrlik calling out his teammates here? http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/didn+compete+Hamrlik+says/4532328/story.html 'I'm not happy just to make the playoffs. I want to go deep and win the Cup.' I dunno, he seems to be implying that not all his colleagues feel the same way. Just curious. The Pacioretty thing still pisses me off and reminds me of the rationale of Gunter Parche. The madman wanted Steffi Graf to win more tennis majors so he stabbed Monica Seles in the back. He got exactly what he wanted out of the situation as Graf dominated without her top rival. He got probation. He destroys a life, gets what he wants and pays a minimal penalty. Boston was getting smoked and embarrassed by the Habs and Chara decimates Pacioretty and removes a major piece of the Canadiens attack and got nothing for the offense. Chara got exactly what he wanted and the Habs are left to pick up the pieces. If there is such a thing as karma, then the Bruins will have something stunning happen to them at some point in the playoffs. Edited March 31, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) The Pacioretty thing still pisses me off and reminds me of the rationale of Gunter Parche. The madman wanted Steffi Graf to win more tennis majors so he stabbed Monica Seles in the back. He got exactly what he wanted out of the situation as Graf dominated without her top rival. He got probation. He destroys a life, gets what he wants and pays a minimal penalty. Boston was getting smoked and embarrassed by the Habs and Chara decimates Pacioretty and removes a major piece of the Canadiens attack and got nothing for the offense. Chara got exactly what he wanted and the Habs are left to pick up the pieces. If there is such a thing as karma, then the Bruins will have something stunning happen to them at some point in the playoffs. I'm hoping the Bruins lose as usual in the playoffs. After all, who are the last Burins legends who actually have one anything as a bruin??? Orr, Esposito. Bourque had to go to Colorado, Neely who i used to like, despite him being kryptonite for the habs, I can't stand now with his fist pumping in the owners box, won nothing. However, that's not enough for me after what they did to MaxPac and Zednik before that without any repurcussions. Zed was breaking out and looked like he was finally going to be the dominant power forward the habs lacked since giving away Leclair (and Desjardins), for that cockroach Recchi, but after Mcclarren almost depacitated him, he was never the same. Now Chara may have ruined MaxPac, again no consequence. I just don't want the bruins to lose, I want somebody to take out a big part of their future. It's been what a month now, and I'm still pissed about the MaxPac hit like it happened yesterday. I've never hoped ill on a player before, but I really hope the Bruins lose a big star like Chara, Sequin or a Bergeron to a career ending injury - Savard doesn't count - he was already hurt. I probably wouldn't be so pissed if it wasn't for the types of comments the Bruins commentators, writers and pond trailer trash like Marchand made, only to be topped off by Recchi's "gamesmanship" comments. How is that not worse and not in iteself suspsenionable, given that Avery was suspended for comments about a guys girlfriend???? Edited March 31, 2011 by hab29RETIRED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) I'm hoping the Bruins lose as usual in the playoffs. After all, who are the last Burins legends who actually have one anything as a bruin??? Orr, Esposito. Bourque had to go to Colorado, Neely who i used to like, despite him being kryptonite for the habs, I can't stand now with his fist pumping in the owners box, won nothing. However, that's not enough for me after what they did to MaxPac and Zednik before that without any repurcussions. Zed was breaking out and looked like he was finally going to be the dominant power forward the habs lacked since giving away Leclair (and Desjardins), for that cockroach Recchi, but after Mcclarren almost depacitated him, he was never the same. Now Chara may have ruined MaxPac, again no consequence. I just don't want the bruins to lose, I want somebody to take out a big part of their future. It's been what a month now, and I'm still pissed about the MaxPac hit like it happened yesterday. I've never hoped ill on a player before, but I really hope the Bruins lose a big star like Chara, Sequin or a Bergeron to a career ending injury - Savard doesn't count - he was already hurt. I probably wouldn't be so pissed if it wasn't for the types of comments the Bruins commentators, writers and pond trailer trash like Marchand made, only to be topped off by Recchi's "gamesmanship" comments. How is that not worse and not in iteself suspsenionable, given that Avery was suspended for comments about a guys girlfriend???? habs29, when will you learn. NHL 'justice' has nothing to do with words or actions, it has to do with whether or not you are popular and/or respected (Chara) or loathed (Avery, Cooke). If you are the former, then you are, axiomatically, innocent. And it's probably the injured guy's fault to boot. Wamsley makes a great point about the Chara hit, of course. And your rememberance of Zedniks past is well-taken too. I recall making a list of catastrophic injuries to key players that have afflicted the Habs over the past decade and a half. It's really quite depressing. -Koivu, destined to be a superstar but destroyed by a brutal knee injury; and let's not forget his eye being gouged out against Carolina on an unpenalized high-stick, a turning point in a series we might have won; -Donald Audette, a PPG player on a team desperate for offence, destroyed in his prime when his arm was sliced off in a career-ending injury; -Zednik, dramatically blossoming as the league's leading playoff scorer, demolished by a vicious clotheslining from McLaren and never the same again; -Robert Lang, an absolutely key piece of the puzzle in 2009, and an irreplaceable cog at our weakest position, suffers a season-ending injury that begins the downward spiral of Year 100; -Markov, shattered for three straight seasons by injury and probably permanently damaged goods -I sure hope I don't have to add Pacioretty to this list as permanently compromised by Chara's act of unpunished brutality. I could be perverse and include Brian Savage, who also had his neck broken; but there's the suspicion that Savage was never going to amount to much anyway. I dunno. Is it normal for teams to endure a situation where almost every edition suffers such big injuries to such key players, year after year after year? Maybe I'm just whining. Or maybe we have a legitimate grievance with the hockey gods. Edited March 31, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) habs29, when will you learn. NHL 'justice' has nothing to do with words or actions, it has to do with whether or not you are popular and/or respected (Chara) or loathed (Avery, Cooke). If you are the former, then you are, axiomatically, innocent. And it's probably the injured guy's fault to boot. Wamsley makes a great point about the Chara hit, of course. And your rememberance of Zedniks past is well-taken too. I recall making a list of catastrophic injuries to key players that have afflicted the Habs over the past decade and a half. It's really quite depressing. -Koivu, destined to be a superstar but destroyed by a brutal knee injury; and let's not forget his eye being gouged out against Carolina on an unpenalized high-stick, a turning point in a series we might have won; -Donald Audette, a PPG player on a team desperate for offence, destroyed in his prime when his arm was sliced off in a career-ending injury; -Zednik, dramatically blossoming as the league's leading playoff scorer, demolished by a vicious clotheslining from McLaren and never the same again; -Robert Lang, an absolutely key piece of the puzzle in 2009, and an irreplaceable cog at our weakest position, suffers a season-ending injury that begins the downward spiral of Year 100; -Markov, shattered for three straight seasons by injury and probably permanently damaged goods -I sure hope I don't have to add Pacioretty to this list as permanently compromised by Chara's act of unpunished brutality. I could be perverse and include Brian Savage, who also had his neck broken; but there's the suspicion that Savage was never going to amount to much anyway. I dunno. Is it normal for teams to endure a situation where almost every edition suffers such big injuries to such key players, year after year after year? Maybe I'm just whining. Or maybe we have a legitimate grievance with the hockey gods. • Koivu was leading the league in scoring in late November 96 and actually suffered multiple knee injuries/cancer between 97-2002 that robbed him of explosiveness and killed his developmental years. He was certainly going to be better than he became. • Audette was not really a PPG player when he came to Montreal. He was also extremely injury prone. Over 10 seasons before the Habs acquired him he missed about 20 games per season and he was closer to a 60 point player then an 80+ pt guy. He was also 32, so not in his prime. So you probably have to axe him from this list like you did Savage. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=134 • I don't know if we could say Zednik was blossoming or if he just got hot for 4-5 games. He had 8 points and was dominant, but so was Raffi Torres in 06 or Paul DiPietro in 1993. Hardly an indication of future success. Zednik actually improved his production in 03 and 04 before he settled into a 3rd line player at 30. • Lang was a key piece, but he was close to 40 and is an injury that teams get all the time. • Markov has had some poor luck over the last 3-4 years, but we had him for 8 years with very limited injuries and was our lone All-Star for years. The only one of these that you listed that was franchise altering was Koivu. He was the building block for the next generation and was probably crippled and moved from an elite first line center to a serviceable first line center who was miscast during the second half of his career. Koivu's absence definitely changed his development curve and altered the trajectory of the 1999-2001 struggles. I don't think it is a stretch to think that Koivu would have helped the 2000 Habs make the playoffs. The other players didn't really alter the destiny of any given team. Maybe with Markov last season the Habs could have made the Finals and this year they certainly would have been an upper 4-5 team in the Conference, but I don't see any of those as being really earth shattering events. Edited March 31, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Hmmm. Could be that my frustration over what happened to Koivu has coloured my reaction to subsequent grave injuries. What's so frustrating about Markov is that we're now in a position when he could really help to elevate us into elite or near-elite status. All those years of having him toiling on useless teams seem wasted, when now that he could actually be in a position to have a chance to win something, he's hurt all the time. Anyway...three straight injury-decimated seasons blows chunks. Thank God for last year's playoff run, or I'd really be fuming about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Hmmm. Could be that my frustration over what happened to Koivu has coloured my reaction to subsequent grave injuries. What's so frustrating about Markov is that we're now in a position when he could really help to elevate us into elite or near-elite status. All those years of having him toiling on useless teams seem wasted, when now that he could actually be in a position to have a chance to win something, he's hurt all the time. Anyway...three straight injury-decimated seasons blows chunks. Thank God for last year's playoff run, or I'd really be fuming about it I was in Montreal for the 7-2 Carolina destruction, the night Markov got hurt and I was beginning to believe that this team was showing me another gear. I started to feel the same way just before the Pacioretty injury. They had won 6 of 7 and had just laid the wood to the Bruins who had tried to goon them up weeks earlier. And BOOM, it's gone and they have struggled to maintain the consistency they had for the previous 60 games. Remove the 8-1 game and they have scored more than 2 goals only once since the Pacioretty injury. Like I said before, the thing that pisses me off is that the Bruins could not beat the Habs on the ice so they tried thuggery. They won 8-6, but that didn't intimidate the Habs and they get blitzed once again and they go straight to the bullshit and maim an opponent. The Habs tailspin and they go on to win the division easily. Now it is one thing for it to be a one off, but we went through this exact thing less than a decade ago when McLaren clotheslines Zednik out of nowhere with NO consequences. The whole thing is absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) I was in Montreal for the 7-2 Carolina destruction, the night Markov got hurt and I was beginning to believe that this team was showing me another gear. I started to feel the same way just before the Pacioretty injury. They had won 6 of 7 and had just laid the wood to the Bruins who had tried to goon them up weeks earlier. And BOOM, it's gone and they have struggled to maintain the consistency they had for the previous 60 games. Remove the 8-1 game and they have scored more than 2 goals only once since the Pacioretty injury. Like I said before, the thing that pisses me off is that the Bruins could not beat the Habs on the ice so they tried thuggery. They won 8-6, but that didn't intimidate the Habs and they get blitzed once again and they go straight to the bullshit and maim an opponent. The Habs tailspin and they go on to win the division easily. Now it is one thing for it to be a one off, but we went through this exact thing less than a decade ago when McLaren clotheslines Zednik out of nowhere with NO consequences. The whole thing is absurd. Yeah. As you know, I get very aggravated at the way the Habs are routinely viewed as mediocre, when in fact they've shown strong signs of being a team that could indeed have hit 'another gear' except for brutal injuries (one of which was the result of Chara's reckless endangerment of a young man's life). And that image of 'bubble team' probably compounds my frustration at all the injuries. Still, there may be a lesson here, which is that WE need to be the team meting out the injuries rather than absorbing them. In both the McLaren and Chara cases, the Bruins had a hulking beast with a mean streak on the blueline who decided to destroy a Hab in the heat of a rivalry game. I know we're not built to be that kind of team. But given the repeated evidence that the NHL regards deliberate attempts to injure and/or recklesss endangerment as just 'boys being boys,' maybe we need to face facts...until we get some Craig Ludwigs/Milan Lucics on the team, this sort of thing may keep happening. Remember the Chelios/Ludwig/Corson teams of the 80s? Between vicious cheap shots and crushing hits, nobody f*cked with them, that's for sure. Edited March 31, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Yeah. As you know, I get very aggravated at the way the Habs are routinely viewed as mediocre, when in fact they've shown strong signs of being a team that could indeed have hit 'another gear' except for brutal injuries (one of which was the result of Chara's reckless endangerment of a young man's life). And that image of 'bubble team' probably compounds my frustration at all the injuries. Still, there may be a lesson here, which is that WE need to be the team meting out the injuries rather than absorbing them. In both the McLaren and Chara cases, the Bruins had a hulking beast with a mean streak on the blueline who decided to destroy a Hab in the heat of a rivalry game. I know we're not built to be that kind of team. But given the repeated evidence that the NHL regards deliberate attempts to injure and/or recklesss endangerment as just 'boys being boys,' maybe we need to face facts...until we get some Craig Ludwigs/Milan Lucics on the team, this sort of thing may keep happening. Remember the Chelios/Ludwig/Corson teams of the 80s? Between vicious cheap shots and crushing hits, nobody f*cked with them, that's for sure. Yeah, the Habs haven't toed that line in a long time and haven't had a player that can strike fear in the opposition since the 80s. Komisarek pretended to be that guy, but he was an imposter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 One of the reasons Chara gets away with so many borderline hits is that there is no one in the league to scare him. Who could actually punish him? The only way to really hurt him would be completely dirty (ie.. take out his knees or shove him from behind when he was vulnerable... oh wait... that is legal now). One of the consequences of a small, fast team, is you are vulnerable to thugs. If wouldn't be an issue if the league actually policed things, but they don't. Look at most cup winners. They get close, but lose. Then they add "toughness", and go on to success. Pitts has a stable of goons because it helped them win the cup. Detroit is a bit of an outlier, but they are not a soft as the habs. As much as I despise Cooke.. does anyone believe the Bruins would be roughing up our stars if Cooke was cruising around looking to put people in the hospital.. never knowing when he will snap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) One of the reasons Chara gets away with so many borderline hits is that there is no one in the league to scare him. Who could actually punish him? The only way to really hurt him would be completely dirty (ie.. take out his knees or shove him from behind when he was vulnerable... oh wait... that is legal now). One of the consequences of a small, fast team, is you are vulnerable to thugs. If wouldn't be an issue if the league actually policed things, but they don't. Look at most cup winners. They get close, but lose. Then they add "toughness", and go on to success. Pitts has a stable of goons because it helped them win the cup. Detroit is a bit of an outlier, but they are not a soft as the habs. As much as I despise Cooke.. does anyone believe the Bruins would be roughing up our stars if Cooke was cruising around looking to put people in the hospital.. never knowing when he will snap? If we had a Matt Cooke type player would the Bruins still try to rough up the Habs? Yes. If we had 3 bigger forwards would they? Yes I think it's the Bruins style of play. It just happens that our players are smaller and the damage inflicted can be greater. Bigger / skilled players are something I hope the GM takes a hard look at moving forward. Not that I think a bunch of goons is the answer, just more MaxPax type guys. The small / speedy team is great against some teams but I don't think it works well against everyone. Ultimately, being competitive against every team in the league is what gets you to a top spot by the end of the regular season. We worry about playing the physical game Boston and Philly, that alone points to part of the problem in Montreal. Losing Patches was a huge hit to the team. Not only was he a good size forward, he created lots of chances and really added to the offense. Paciroetty brought a lot of momentum to the Habs, early goals, driving to the net etc etc and the Habs thrive off having the upper hand early on. I can't remember how many times I watched them get and early / second period lead only to have them sit back and hang on for dear life. They did it because they were given the chance to protect the lead and focus on defense. It's those early leads that we are missing most these days and probably one of the biggest factors in the slump as of late. Edited April 1, 2011 by BrenDittero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) If we had a Matt Cooke type player would the Bruins still try to rough up the Habs? Yes. If we had 3 bigger forwards would they? Yes I think it's the Bruins style of play. It just happens that our players are smaller and the damage inflicted can be greater. Bigger / skilled players are something I hope the GM takes a hard look at moving forward. Not that I think a bunch of goons is the answer, just more MaxPax type guys. The small / speedy team is great against some teams but I don't think it works well against everyone. Ultimately, being competitive against every team in the league is what gets you to a top spot by the end of the regular season. We worry about playing the physical game Boston and Philly, that alone points to part of the problem in Montreal. Losing Patches was a huge hit to the team. Not only was he a good size forward, he created lots of chances and really added to the offense. Paciroetty brought a lot of momentum to the Habs, early goals, driving to the net etc etc and the Habs thrive off having the upper hand early on. I can't remember how many times I watched them get and early / second period lead only to have them sit back and hang on for dear life. They did it because they were given the chance to protect the lead and focus on defense. It's those early leads that we are missing most these days and probably one of the biggest factors in the slump as of late. I don't know if we can emphatically state that the Bruins play that way against everybody. I have seen the Leafs play them 4 times and I haven't seen any of the nonsense I have seen against the Habs. Is it because of Phaneuf and Aulie? Who knows, but I do know that I watched Hartnell run around against the Leafs and Aulie beat the snot out of him and the nonsense stopped immediately. The Bruins don't feel the need to be accountable against the Canadiens. What fear could they possibly have? The Habs don't have a Cooke running people and they don't have anybody who can intimidate them in the least. It is the same thing with the Flyers. When the Habs beat them 3-0 the Flyers were running around like idiots trying to set the tone for the next game. Powe ran Halpern, Richards was hacking away at Subban and Hartnell ran Gionta in the neutral zone with the puck 15 feet away. Pacioretty won't change that, he DIDN'T change that. What happened is he got decapitated a game after 5-6 Canadiens were assaulted. The 1980s Canadiens didn't get abused like this because they had Robinson, Ludwig, Nilan, Corson and Kordic. So you got tough hockey games, but you didn't get wild cheap shots that went undefended. Even in the 90s a guy like Odelein and Ewen went a long way to stopping the nonsense. We all understand that guys like Lucic and Chara who can take a regular shift and ass kick don't grow on trees, but this shit won't stop until the Habs get somebody to stand up and return the favour. Edited April 1, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 One interesting question is whether the 1993 team was 'deficient' in terms of physical intimidation. Off the top of my head I remember a lot of players who were willing and able to do what it took to win - also true of the current team IMHO - but I don't remember any intimidators on that squad. Maybe (quietly) Muller, who would occasionally put guys out with clean, crushing bodychecks. That aside, I totally agree that it's not a goon we need. It's mean-assed guys who can take a regular shift and inflict punishment. The goings-on this season, and not just in Montreal, prove that you need a certain critical mass of those type of guys, and it doesn't matter if they're just old-time tough like Robinson, dirty tough like Ludwig, or vicious cheap-shot bastards like Cooke. You just need guys whose very existence is a red light to the opposition: hurt us, and we will hurt you back and kiss your health goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) I don't know if we can emphatically state that the Bruins play that way against everybody. I have seen the Leafs play them 4 times and I haven't seen any of the nonsense I have seen against the Habs. Is it because of Phaneuf and Aulie? Who knows, but I do know that I watched Hartnell run around against the Leafs and Aulie beat the snot out of him and the nonsense stopped immediately. The Bruins don't feel the need to be accountable against the Canadiens. What fear could they possibly have? The Habs don't have a Cooke running people and they don't have anybody who can intimidate them in the least. It is the same thing with the Flyers. When the Habs beat them 3-0 the Flyers were running around like idiots trying to set the tone for the next game. Powe ran Halpern, Richards was hacking away at Subban and Hartnell ran Gionta in the neutral zone with the puck 15 feet away. Pacioretty won't change that, he DIDN'T change that. What happened is he got decapitated a game after 5-6 Canadiens were assaulted. The 1980s Canadiens didn't get abused like this because they had Robinson, Ludwig, Nilan, Corson and Kordic. So you got tough hockey games, but you didn't get wild cheap shots that went undefended. Even in the 90s a guy like Odelein and Ewen went a long way to stopping the nonsense. We all understand that guys like Lucic and Chara who can take a regular shift and ass kick don't grow on trees, but this shit won't stop until the Habs get somebody to stand up and return the favour. I think it's fair to say that the Bruins play "tough" against everyone. Maybe it doesn't reach the level of dirty that it does with Montreal but that physical take-no-shit attitude is there every time I've seen them play. I am in complete agreement with you re: having tough players on the team. It would certainly cut down on the amount of goonish plays by other teams and maybe more importantly we would have the people in place to break a few teeth when it does happen. In all honesty I wish the Habs were a team that was set up like the Bruins ( not the same players of course ) It would be amazing to get the team to a point where they were thought of as " the big bad Habs " Not 4 lines of goons, just tough, talented players that can make a drive to the net, fight along the boards and be intimidating without being meatheads. And no, Patches was not that guy but he is a step in the right direction. Edited April 2, 2011 by BrenDittero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) One interesting question is whether the 1993 team was 'deficient' in terms of physical intimidation. Off the top of my head I remember a lot of players who were willing and able to do what it took to win - also true of the current team IMHO - but I don't remember any intimidators on that squad. Maybe (quietly) Muller, who would occasionally put guys out with clean, crushing bodychecks. That aside, I totally agree that it's not a goon we need. It's mean-assed guys who can take a regular shift and inflict punishment. The goings-on this season, and not just in Montreal, prove that you need a certain critical mass of those type of guys, and it doesn't matter if they're just old-time tough like Robinson, dirty tough like Ludwig, or vicious cheap-shot bastards like Cooke. You just need guys whose very existence is a red light to the opposition: hurt us, and we will hurt you back and kiss your health goodbye. Lyle Odelein, Todd Ewen and Mario Roberge were plenty tough. Only one of those guys took a regular shift in Odelein, but Ewen was one of the most feared fighters in the league. You can count on one finger how many guys did this to Bob Probert in his prime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fQKFb6SLSQ you think that Cherry had any criticism for Neely after he didn't want to go with Ewen? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjbM084110&feature=related Nobody screwed around with the early to mid 90s habs with Ewen and Odelein. They may not have been the elite heavyweights in the NHL, but they made you pay a physical price if you did something stupid. They also had no problem smacking Neely around to send a message. When was the last time a Canadiens player assaulted a Bruin in any shape or form that wasn't instigated by the Bruins? I don't want a team like the Bruins, there is really no answer for a guy like Chara, but I want some foot soldiers that can stop idiots like Marchand from shooting off their mouths and keep lightweights like Campbell honest and put some doubt in the mind of Lucic. Edited April 2, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Check out this clip from 1993. I don't see any Habs getting filled in. What I see is Roberge and Ewen offering some beat downs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) What were the circumstances that lead the Habs away from this type of team? Was it the GM making a random decisions or were there reasons for it? Edited April 2, 2011 by BrenDittero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 What were the circumstances that lead the Habs away from this type of team? Was it the GM making a random decisions or were there reasons for it? The 80s and 93 Championship team were put together by Serge Savard. I don't know where or why the philosophy changed. Houle and Gainey played on the same 70s team that required toughness to defeat the Flyers and Bruins, I am not sure why they did not value the team toughness that Savard always stocked his teams with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) Wamsley, thanks for that reminder. Ewen was absolutely one tough mofo. I remember one fight, he literally picked the guy up and dumped him on the bench... As for how we got away from our past tradition of 'requisite (but not excessive) toughness:' the team from around 1997-2003 was constructed without any sort of competent plan at all, although we did have the glory of Ulanov for a while When Andre Savard took over and was asked what his priority was, his answer was: 'to get some players...' So the real question is why Bob Gainey declined to build a team with the requisite means streak. I would guess that it had more to do with timing and the vagaries of drafting than any overall intent. For instance, rumour had it that Bob withdrew from the Arnott sweepstakes due to caution about the salary cap (if true, this was a mistake he clearly decided not to repeat, as he subsequently joined the ranks of the NHL's overspenders). That's a matter of timing. His team brought along Komisarek (only later exposed as a fraud) who was presumably slated for that role until Lucic schooled him. And of course he (disastrously) signed Laraque, not to mention Ivvannis or whatever his name was. As for drafting and development, the first Gainey rebuild was mostly a disappointment, whether the players were big or small. In short, I doubt that some big edict came down from Bob's office that he wanted a team of small gentlemen. He made some efforts that didn't really work out. Relatedly, I'd speculate that The Great UFA Rebuild of 2010 was not a result of a deliberate plan to build a team of smurfs. It was, again, timing. This was the year Bob had set aside where he could make a massive UFA splash. And he ran the table on premium UFAs that season. The trouble was, by this point teams had gotten in the habit of locking up 'core' young guys long-term. All Bob had to choose from were skilled, small players. So, again: mostly timing and luck. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if Bob saw the direction the NHL was taking after the lockout - speed and skill - and came to the conclusion that the old truths about needing to be big and strong would not apply to the same extent. This could perhaps explain the seeming lack of urgency about addressing the issue, especially at the draft. Whether Bob could be expected to have known that the NHL would allow players to commit attempted murder on an ongoing basis is another question. Edited April 2, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Wamsley, thanks for that reminder. Ewen was absolutely one tough mofo. I remember one fight, he literally picked the guy up and dumped him on the bench... This one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This one? That might be my all-time favourite fight by a Hab Talk about schooling a guy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Thanks for these clips guys. So nice to be reminded that there was a time when the Habs could throw fists with the best of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynelockyer23@yahoo.ca Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I'm hoping the Bruins lose as usual in the playoffs. After all, who are the last Burins legends who actually have one anything as a bruin??? Orr, Esposito. Bourque had to go to Colorado, Neely who i used to like, despite him being kryptonite for the habs, I can't stand now with his fist pumping in the owners box, won nothing. However, that's not enough for me after what they did to MaxPac and Zednik before that without any repurcussions. Zed was breaking out and looked like he was finally going to be the dominant power forward the habs lacked since giving away Leclair (and Desjardins), for that cockroach Recchi, but after Mcclarren almost depacitated him, he was never the same. Now Chara may have ruined MaxPac, again no consequence. I just don't want the bruins to lose, I want somebody to take out a big part of their future. It's been what a month now, and I'm still pissed about the MaxPac hit like it happened yesterday. I've never hoped ill on a player before, but I really hope the Bruins lose a big star like Chara, Sequin or a Bergeron to a career ending injury - Savard doesn't count - he was already hurt. I probably wouldn't be so pissed if it wasn't for the types of comments the Bruins commentators, writers and pond trailer trash like Marchand made, only to be topped off by Recchi's "gamesmanship" comments. How is that not worse and not in iteself suspsenionable, given that Avery was suspended for comments about a guys girlfriend???? Hey There Hal Of Shame....guess you never heard of Marc Savard? 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.