18 years...

[HabsTrick450]

Hard to believe its been 18 years since that Bob Cole uttered those words:

And now, a 24th Stanley Cup banner will hang from the rafters of the famous Forum in Montreal! THE CANADIENS WIN THE STANLEY CUP!!!!!!

I have waited enough, I wanna a Cup win I can remember (was born a couple of months after the '93 win).

GO HABS GO!!!

Edited April 10, 2011 by HabsTrick450

[bbp]

Im 18 now, born in March, so I was a few months old when they last won! I want to see that 25th win!

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Having been in the Forum on the night of the last Cup, I can attest to what a sweet feeling that is. I will never forget the sight of the great Patrick Roy hoisting Lord Stanley's mug and roaring in triumph right in front of us, as I stood behind the reds in the old 'standing room' section, with the building thundering like the end of the world and fans running up and down the aisles going absolutely crazy. I was on a natural high for days after. High-fiving Mike Keane as his float went by during the Cup parade was fun too

Will we experience that again this year? It's highly unlikely, of course, but you never really know. I'd feel better about our chances if Washington had not shown signs of actually figuring out how to win and if Pittsburgh had not played so astoundingly well without Malkin and Crosby. Two months ago, it looked as though only Boston and Philly could be rated genuine 'contenders' in the east, which gave us a pretty good shot provided the draw worked out. With four formidable teams in the mix, the odds drop considerably. Still, I like and believe in this team. We will be full value, whatever happens.

This hunger for a Cup was what I was getting at in an earlier thread when I said that I want the Habs to be absolutely ruthless with cap management going forward. Too many fans and analysts take a line that says, 'you can't sign this guy because of the cap, you can't do this, you can't do that, etc..' Sure you can - if you're prepared to slit guys' throats. I want to see signs that this organization is prepared to simply dump (say) a Gomez IF doing so will facilitate moves that make the team better. It's time to take that next step and to do whatever is necessary short of burning up draft picks to accomplish it. No more Mr. Nice Organization, says I.

[Wamsley01]

Having been in the Forum on the night of the last Cup, I can attest to what a sweet feeling that is. I will never forget the sight of the great Patrick Roy hoisting Lord Stanley's mug and roaring in triumph right in front of us, as I stood behind the reds in the old 'standing room' section, with the building thundering like the end of the world and fans running up and down the aisles going absolutely crazy. I was on a natural high for days after. High-fiving Mike Keane as his float went by during the Cup parade was fun too

Will we experience that again this year? It's highly unlikely, of course, but you never really know. I'd feel better about our chances if Washington had not shown signs of actually figuring out how to win and if Pittsburgh had not played so astoundingly well without Malkin and Crosby. Two months ago, it looked as though only Boston and Philly could be rated genuine 'contenders' in the east, which gave us a pretty good shot provided the draw worked out. With four formidable teams in the mix, the odds drop considerably. Still, I like and believe in this team. We will be full value, whatever happens.

This hunger for a Cup was what I was getting at in an earlier thread when I said that I want the Habs to be absolutely ruthless with cap management going forward. Too many fans and analysts take a line that says, 'you can't sign this guy because of the cap, you can't do this, you can't do that, etc..' Sure you can - if you're prepared to slit guys' throats. I want to see signs that this organization is prepared to simply dump (say) a Gomez IF doing so will facilitate moves that make the team better. It's time to take that next step and to do whatever is necessary short of burning up draft picks to accomplish it. No more Mr. Nice Organization, says I.

THe thing about the Habs between 98-2008 is that they did not develop any homegrown superstars. Theo fooled us into believing it for a season or two, but that was it.

This team has TWO future superstars in Price and Subban and a handful of secondary veterans as well as potential in Eller, Pacioretty etc.

They may not go more than a round this year, but the future is brighter than it has been since probably 94-95.

[Kiwihab]

Having been in the Forum on the night of the last Cup, I can attest to what a sweet feeling that is. I will never forget the sight of the great Patrick Roy hoisting Lord Stanley's mug and roaring in triumph right in front of us, as I stood behind the reds in the old 'standing room' section, with the building thundering like the end of the world and fans running up and down the aisles going absolutely crazy. I was on a natural high for days after. High-fiving Mike Keane as his float went by during the Cup parade was fun too

Will we experience that again this year? It's highly unlikely, of course, but you never really know. I'd feel better about our chances if Washington had not shown signs of actually figuring out how to win and if Pittsburgh had not played so astoundingly well without Malkin and Crosby. Two months ago, it looked as though only Boston and Philly could be rated genuine 'contenders' in the east, which gave us a pretty good shot provided the draw worked out. With four formidable teams in the mix, the odds drop considerably. Still, I like and believe in this team. We will be full value, whatever happens.

This hunger for a Cup was what I was getting at in an earlier thread when I said that I want the Habs to be absolutely ruthless with cap management going forward. Too many fans and analysts take a line that says, 'you can't sign this guy because of the cap, you can't do this, you can't do that, etc..' Sure you can - if you're prepared to slit guys' throats. I want to see signs that this organization is prepared to simply dump (say) a Gomez IF doing so will facilitate moves that make the team better. It's time to take that next step and to do whatever is necessary short of burning up draft picks to accomplish it. No more Mr. Nice Organization, says I.

You are a lucky man. Can't imagine how great it would be to be at a Stanley Cup winning game. Just the atmosphere would be amazing. I guess you're one of only 20,000 or so HABs fans who can claim they were there. (which when you consider the number of HABs fans in the world is a small percentage)

Count me as jealous lol

PS: Sorry but I somehow stuffed up replying to your post correctly

Edited April 11, 2011 by Kiwihab

[BlueKross]

PS: Sorry but I somehow stuffed up replying to your post correctly

There are two things that happened in 93 that partnered and made the run successful. Patrick Roy stood on his head. Every body knows that. But the reason we were successful is that our nemesis at the time would fall the round before. We lucked out because our greatest challenge for the next round would always fall out. Back in 93, there was more distinct talent separations (teams) than there are now. Will all the stars aline this year? Who knows, that's why we play the game.

[Wamsley01]

There are two things that happened in 93 that partnered and made the run successful. Patrick Roy stood on his head. Every body knows that. But the reason we were successful is that our nemesis at the time would fall the round before. We lucked out because our greatest challenge for the next round would always fall out. Back in 93, there was more distinct talent separations (teams) than there are now. Will all the stars aline this year? Who knows, that's why we play the game.

That is the playoffs. It wasn't luck, the Habs were a perennial contender and finished 6th overall in 1993 (4 pts from 3rd overall).

The Toronto (in other words national) media spun the Hab fluke because their beloved Leafs were bounced. Ask a hockey fan about the 93 Leafs and you get the following. Gritty, underdog, determined, inspirationally lead by Doug Gilmour. Ask them about the Habs and you get lucky (Pens/Bruins knocked off, 10 OT wins), the team was crap and the goaltender won it by himself etc.

Two entirely different tales, but two identical routes to the Semis.

Habs finished with 102 points, Leafs with 99.

Habs faced the 104 pt Nords in the first round, the Leafs faced the 102 pt Red Wings.

The Habs faced the 86 point Sabres in the second round, the Leafs faced the 85 pt Blues.

In the Semis the Habs faced the 87 pt Islanders, the Leafs faced the 88 pt Kings.

The Habs made the Finals in 15 games, the Leafs lost to the Kings in 21 games.

Yet one is romanticized and the other is minimized. Why is that?

Why is it that nobody talks about the Rangers and their fortune in facing an 8 seed, a 7 seed, a 3 seed and a 7 seed to win the Cup in 1994? All we here is stories about Mark Messier and his great leadership and his guarantee. No mention of avoiding the powerful Penguins, no mention of facing the 85 point Canucks in the Finals. I don't have to listen to tales of their fortune and luck 15 years later.

The Canadiens were the best team in the 1993 playoffs. They never faced elimination, they didn't let a team like the Sabres sweep them, they bounced the Islanders WITH Turgeon in 5 games instead of losing in 7 and they knocked the Kings off in 5 games when the Leafs couldn't stop them with two cracks at the Finals in game 6 and 7.

It is tired and boring to hear the truth manipulated by a biased media and influenced fanbase.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Wamsley01

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Wamsley's post is bang-on. Although we DID get a good draw in avoiding the Penguins and getting the Islanders instead what everybody forgets is that all the 'experts' predicted the Nordiques were a powerhouse ready for a long run and Buffalo was also regarded as a dangerous team. Only retroactively - after we'd schooled them - did these commentators blame the other teams for being weak rather than the Habs for being strong.

The team was regarded as no-talent despite being 1st overall for much of the season, for three reasons. First, its key offensive player was Kirk Muller. Because Muller is best remembered as a Leaf, when he was just a grinder, people forget that he was a 90-point guy and easily one of the toughest centremen to play against in all of hockey when he was at his peak. Second, people at the time were still thinking in terms of 'superstars:' Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Messier. If you didn't have guys like that you automatically were ruled out as a contender - a basic mistake. Third, we had future stars like Desjardins and LeClair who played up to their potential. To Joe Sixpack outside of Montreal that seemed like sheer luck. Only later can we look back and see that those players really were 'all that.'

Kiwi, I am pleased to say that I was old and wise enough to know EXACTLY how fortunate I was at the time and savoured every single moment of that entire run (I saw three games live, Game 3 against the Nordiques and Game 2 against the Kings - the greatest single Habs game of the past 30 years - as well as Game 5). No one will ever see the Montreal Canadiens win the Stanley Cup in the Montreal Forum again. I knew it was (potentially) a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And believe me, it IS every bit as a awesome as you think it is!

[Wamsley01]

Wamsley's post is bang-on. Although we DID get a good draw in avoiding the Penguins and getting the Islanders instead what everybody forgets is that all the 'experts' predicted the Nordiques were a powerhouse ready for a long run and Buffalo was also regarded as a dangerous team. Only retroactively - after we'd schooled them - did these commentators blame the other teams for being weak rather than the Habs for being strong.

The team was regarded as no-talent despite being 1st overall for much of the season, for three reasons. First, its key offensive player was Kirk Muller. Because Muller is best remembered as a Leaf, when he was just a grinder, people forget that he was a 90-point guy and easily one of the toughest centremen to play against in all of hockey when he was at his peak. Second, people at the time were still thinking in terms of 'superstars:' Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Messier. If you didn't have guys like that you automatically were ruled out as a contender - a basic mistake. Third, we had future stars like Desjardins and LeClair who played up to their potential. To Joe Sixpack outside of Montreal that seemed like sheer luck. Only later can we look back and see that those players really were 'all that.'

Kiwi, I am pleased to say that I was old and wise enough to know EXACTLY how fortunate I was at the time and savoured every single moment of that entire run (I saw three games live, Game 3 against the Nordiques and Game 2 against the Kings - the greatest single Habs game of the past 30 years - as well as Game 5). No one will ever see the Montreal Canadiens win the Stanley Cup in the Montreal Forum again. I knew it was (potentially) a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And believe me, it IS every bit as a awesome as you think it is!

People also tend to forget that the 93 Sabres had Lafontaine, Mogilny AND Hawerchuk. That is 371 points combined + Fuhr and Hasek in goal. It is easy to say they were a pushover, but they weren't. The Habs were fortunate that Mogilny broke his ankle in the series, but lets not forget that they swept the Bruins and that Lafontaine was going to be the MVP of the league had Lemieux not returned from cancer.

[huzer]

I've posted somewhere before pictures of my playoff tickets from '93, as I was able to make all the home games that year (except one of the Isles games). Heck, I was even delayed at customs heading over to the Cup games because they thought I was lying about going to the game when entering Canada, so I'd have to pull over, go in, and show them the tickets. Never mind that there were 4 of us in my CRX...and CRXs don't have back seats.

I remember watching the game afterward (recorded with a VCR, of course), the video montage after the game being played to "Back in the High Life".

I need to get back to Montreal for a playoff game again sometime.

People also tend to forget that the 93 Sabres had Lafontaine, Mogilny AND Hawerchuk. That is 371 points combined + Fuhr and Hasek in goal. It is easy to say they were a pushover, but they weren't. The Habs were fortunate that Mogilny broke his ankle in the series, but lets not forget that they swept the Bruins and that Lafontaine was going to be the MVP of the league had Lemieux not returned from cancer.

And that each game was a 4-3 decision. Could have easily been a sweep in the other direction.

[Wamsley01]

I've posted somewhere before pictures of my playoff tickets from '93, as I was able to make all the home games that year (except one of the Isles games). Heck, I was even delayed at customs heading over to the Cup games because they thought I was lying about going to the game when entering Canada, so I'd have to pull over, go in, and show them the tickets. Never mind that there were 4 of us in my CRX...and CRXs don't have back seats.

I remember watching the game afterward (recorded with a VCR, of course), the video montage after the game being played to "Back in the High Life".

I need to get back to Montreal for a playoff game again sometime.

And that each game was a 4-3 decision. Could have easily been a sweep in the other direction.

I still have that montage on video.

I disagree on the Sabres series going either way. The Canadiens lead that whole series. Through 4 games the Sabres held the lead for 10 minutes. All 3 overtimes required the Sabres to tie the game in the 3rd period. Contrast that to the Habs who lead for close to 130 of 240 regulation minutes through 4 games and lead 3-2 in the 3rd period of all three OT games.

The shot clock favoured the Sabres, but plenty of studies have shown that trailing teams outshoot their opponent. My most vivid memories of that series are of being pissed off at the Habs not being able to hold onto leads in games they were outplaying the Sabres culminating in Khymlev tying Game 4 with 10 seconds left. Anytime you get swept you were not close to winning the series.

The same type of thing occurred in 1998 but with the Habs on the other end. Two OT losses and the Habs bombarding Hasek with shots and losing in 4 straight. Not for a minute do I think the Habs should have won in 98. When you play from behind you don't get to dictate the game and you play out of desperation.

I felt the same way about the Final with the Kings. Outside of Game 1 it was the Habs leading for large stretches and the Kings mounting furious comebacks. Even in Game 2 when Desjardins tied it, the Habs lead for the first half and when the game was tied continued to pour on the the pressure. In Games 3 and 4 they blew 2-0 and 3-0 leads in L.A.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Wamsley01

[huzer]

I disagree on the Sabres series going either way. The Canadiens lead that whole series. Through 4 games the Sabres held the lead for 10 minutes. All 3 overtimes required the Sabres to tie the game in the 3rd period. Contrast that to the Habs who lead for close to 130 of 240 regulation minutes through 4 games and lead 3-2 in the 3rd period of all three OT games.

I meant in terms of scoreboard, not actual play. Any bounce can happen, especially in OT. The Habs deserved to win that series, but with 3 games going to OT, the outcome was hardly etched in stone.

[Wamsley01]

I meant in terms of scoreboard, not actual play. Any bounce can happen, especially in OT. The Habs deserved to win that series, but with 3 games going to OT, the outcome was hardly etched in stone.

All depends on how you look at it I guess. By the time the 3rd OT rolled around the series was over. Even if the Sabres win that one in OT they still lose the series.

The 1976 Canadiens swept the Broad Street Bullies, but every game was a 1 goal game. We can change and alter history all we like with could have and would have and it has happened in regards to the 1993 Habs.

When we discuss any other Stanley Cup champion of the past 30 years we don't need to endure would have/could have, but the 1993 Habs are always discredited with a "if Gretzky had been called for a high stick the Leafs would have..." or if the "Pens hadn't been upset against the Isles the Pens would have..." or if the "Sabres hadn't swept the Bruins, the Bruins would have..." or "10 OT games in a row is a fluke, if they had a normal OT record they wouldn't have..."

We all know why this occurs in regards to the 1993 Canadiens and it is all media driven. The 86 Cup has also been minimized as lucky that Steve Smith banked a goal off Fuhr.

Pretty much every team that wins the Cup has an OT game or a fortunate break go their way that could have altered history.

The 2006 Canes had the Staal OT goal after Koivu's eye injury.

The 2007 Ducks tied the Wings with a minute to go on a flukey deflection that stopped them from going to Anaheim down 3-2.

The 2009 Penguins were an OT loss from trailing the Caps 3-0 in the second round.

If you go year to year you can find these things for almost every Cup winning team.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Wamsley01

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

All depends on how you look at it I guess. By the time the 3rd OT rolled around the series was over. Even if the Sabres win that one in OT they still lose the series.

The 1976 Canadiens swept the Broad Street Bullies, but every game was a 1 goal game. We can change and alter history all we like with could have and would have and it has happened in regards to the 1993 Habs.

When we discuss any other Stanley Cup champion of the past 30 years we don't need to endure would have/could have, but the 1993 Habs are always discredited with a "if Gretzky had been called for a high stick the Leafs would have..." or if the "Pens hadn't been upset against the Isles the Pens would have..." or if the "Sabres hadn't swept the Bruins, the Bruins would have..." or "10 OT games in a row is a fluke, if they had a normal OT record they wouldn't have..."

We all know why this occurs in regards to the 1993 Canadiens and it is all media driven. The 86 Cup has also been minimized as lucky that Steve Smith banked a goal off Fuhr.

Pretty much every team that wins the Cup has an OT game or a fortunate break go their way that could have altered history.

The 2006 Canes had the Staal OT goal after Koivu's eye injury.

The 2007 Ducks tied the Wings with a minute to go on a flukey deflection that stopped them from going to Anaheim down 3-2.

The 2009 Penguins were an OT loss from trailing the Caps 3-0 in the second round.

If you go year to year you can find these things for almost every Cup winning team.

My favourite of these is the idea that 10 straight OT victories is proof that your team is a 'fluke.' That astonishing record proves exactly the opposite. We had a team that was simply unbeatable when all the chips were on the line, and proved it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (10 times!). For God's sake, how many more times do have to do something before it stops being a fluke?

In response to Kiwi's earlier comment about what the 'atmosphere' must have been like for Game 5 of the 1993 Finals, it actually wasn't what you'd expect. The way that game went, the Kings had some chances in the first but were contained by Roy and the Habs defence; and after that Montreal took over in an unspectacular, businesslike, methodical fashion. My experience was that the game itself was really rather boring. The outcome wasn't really in doubt. It was just a long, patient grind to get to the third period. This was especially true as I'd been standing up since 4 PM that afternoon in order to get the best spot in standing room (which I did get). I also remember having to protect that spot against guys standing behind me, who would have taken it over in a second.

The third period is where things got interesting. It's as if a current of electricity started to shoot through the whole building and the reality of what was happening began to sink in. The noise built and built, into what my brother to this day maintains is the loudest sound he has ever heard: the sustained, overwhelming thunder of 20 000 Montrealers realizing that their boys were about to win the Stanley Cup. I still remember seeing a glimpse of the Cup itself, gleaming, as it was wheeled into the aisle, getting set up to be presented and feeling a jolt of excitement. Finally the horn sounded and Bettman, to much jeering, came out and said exactly the right thing - that it was only fitting that on the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup, it go to the Montreal Canadiens - and everything was fulfilled. I remember the huge guy next to me helping me up onto the concrete barrier so I could enjoy an unobstructed view. Patrick Roy hoisted the Prize and roared out his triumph for the ages. It was bedlam.

Let me get metaphysical on your asses for a second here too. Something weird goes on in that moment. When players hoist the Cup on home ice, it's an instant in which there is a genuine (not manufactured or virtual) unity between fan and fan and fans and players: an entire community celebrating that it has reached the pinnacle, that this is it. Every other season leaves a sense of incompeteness: 'wait til next year,' or 'we're building something,' or 'we need to rebuild,' whatever. ONLY when you win the Stanley Cup is there that feeling that everything has been achieved, that we have attained everything we set out to attain. And it's amazing to have 20 000 people and the players themselves all realize that at the same time. In that moment, Patrick Roy is a fan, and the fan is Patrick Roy - you're all sharing that exact feeling.

Game 2 of that series was the single most exciting game I've ever seen live. But Game 5, while a dud of a game, brought that climactic moment we all live for as fans. I'm glad I got to experience both. And I want to experience that again, even if I have to do it from Vancouver; and I wish that younger generations of Habs fans could taste it too. 18 years is long enough.

[SOOPAVILLIN]

My favourite of these is the idea that 10 straight OT victories is proof that your team is a 'fluke.' That astonishing record proves exactly the opposite. We had a team that was simply unbeatable when all the chips were on the line, and proved it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (10 times!). For God's sake, how many more times do have to do something before it stops being a fluke?

In response to Kiwi's earlier comment about what the 'atmosphere' must have been like for Game 5 of the 1993 Finals, it actually wasn't what you'd expect. The way that game went, the Kings had some chances in the first but were contained by Roy and the Habs defence; and after that Montreal took over in an unspectacular, businesslike, methodical fashion. My experience was that the game itself was really rather boring. The outcome wasn't really in doubt. It was just a long, patient grind to get to the third period. This was especially true as I'd been standing up since 4 PM that afternoon in order to get the best spot in standing room (which I did get). I also remember having to protect that spot against guys standing behind me, who would have taken it over in a second.

The third period is where things got interesting. It's as if a current of electricity started to shoot through the whole building and the reality of what was happening began to sink in. The noise built and built, into what my brother to this day maintains is the loudest sound he has ever heard: the sustained, overwhelming thunder of 20 000 Montrealers realizing that their boys were about to win the Stanley Cup. I still remember seeing a glimpse of the Cup itself, gleaming, as it was wheeled into the aisle, getting set up to be presented and feeling a jolt of excitement. Finally the horn sounded and Bettman, to much jeering, came out and said exactly the right thing - that it was only fitting that on the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup, it go to the Montreal Canadiens - and everything was fulfilled. I remember the huge guy next to me helping me up onto the concrete barrier so I could enjoy an unobstructed view. Patrick Roy hoisted the Prize and roared out his triumph for the ages. It was bedlam.

Let me get metaphysical on your asses for a second here too. Something weird goes on in that moment. When players hoist the Cup on home ice, it's an instant in which there is a genuine (not manufactured or virtual) unity between fan and fan and fans and players: an entire community celebrating that it has reached the pinnacle, that this is it. Every other season leaves a sense of incompeteness: 'wait til next year,' or 'we're building something,' or 'we need to rebuild,' whatever. ONLY when you win the Stanley Cup is there that feeling that everything has been achieved, that we have attained everything we set out to attain. And it's amazing to have 20 000 people and the players themselves all realize that at the same time. In that moment, Patrick Roy is a fan, and the fan is Patrick Roy - you're all sharing that exact feeling.

Game 2 of that series was the single most exciting game I've ever seen live. But Game 5, while a dud of a game, brought that climactic moment we all live for as fans. I'm glad I got to experience both. And I want to experience that again, even if I have to do it from Vancouver; and I wish that younger generations of Habs fans could taste it too. 18 years is long enough.

Damn CC you should right a book about this(the lions of winter) lol.

Seriously though while I was reading this It felt like I was also their, I completely remember everything on Tv but I have only been to the bell centre and we lost. You are a lucky man.

[Wamsley01]

My favourite of these is the idea that 10 straight OT victories is proof that your team is a 'fluke.' That astonishing record proves exactly the opposite. We had a team that was simply unbeatable when all the chips were on the line, and proved it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (10 times!). For God's sake, how many more times do have to do something before it stops being a fluke?

In response to Kiwi's earlier comment about what the 'atmosphere' must have been like for Game 5 of the 1993 Finals, it actually wasn't what you'd expect. The way that game went, the Kings had some chances in the first but were contained by Roy and the Habs defence; and after that Montreal took over in an unspectacular, businesslike, methodical fashion. My experience was that the game itself was really rather boring. The outcome wasn't really in doubt. It was just a long, patient grind to get to the third period. This was especially true as I'd been standing up since 4 PM that afternoon in order to get the best spot in standing room (which I did get). I also remember having to protect that spot against guys standing behind me, who would have taken it over in a second.

The third period is where things got interesting. It's as if a current of electricity started to shoot through the whole building and the reality of what was happening began to sink in. The noise built and built, into what my brother to this day maintains is the loudest sound he has ever heard: the sustained, overwhelming thunder of 20 000 Montrealers realizing that their boys were about to win the Stanley Cup. I still remember seeing a glimpse of the Cup itself, gleaming, as it was wheeled into the aisle, getting set up to be presented and feeling a jolt of excitement. Finally the horn sounded and Bettman, to much jeering, came out and said exactly the right thing - that it was only fitting that on the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup, it go to the Montreal Canadiens - and everything was fulfilled. I remember the huge guy next to me helping me up onto the concrete barrier so I could enjoy an unobstructed view. Patrick Roy hoisted the Prize and roared out his triumph for the ages. It was bedlam.

Let me get metaphysical on your asses for a second here too. Something weird goes on in that moment. When players hoist the Cup on home ice, it's an instant in which there is a genuine (not manufactured or virtual) unity between fan and fan and fans and players: an entire community celebrating that it has reached the pinnacle, that this is it. Every other season leaves a sense of incompeteness: 'wait til next year,' or 'we're building something,' or 'we need to rebuild,' whatever. ONLY when you win the Stanley Cup is there that feeling that everything has been achieved, that we have attained everything we set out to attain. And it's amazing to have 20 000 people and the players themselves all realize that at the same time. In that moment, Patrick Roy is a fan, and the fan is Patrick Roy - you're all sharing that exact feeling.

Game 2 of that series was the single most exciting game I've ever seen live. But Game 5, while a dud of a game, brought that climactic moment we all live for as fans. I'm glad I got to experience both. And I want to experience that again, even if I have to do it from Vancouver; and I wish that younger generations of Habs fans could taste it too. 18 years is long enough.

I remember that game never being in doubt as well. The Habs opened the scoring and controlled the game, then McSorley scored a flukey goal that went post, post, in and a minute later Muller buries the Cup winner and the Kings were done. After Lebeau scored it was essentially a defensive clinic. The Kings couldn't gain the zone. The Habs system multiplied with the adrenalin that if they laid it all on the line for 20 minutes that their childhood dreams would be realized dominated the Kings. How often do you see a team up 2 with the Cup on the line not get outshot? When DiPietro made it 4-1 it was just a matter of counting the seconds on the clock.

It was a much different feeling than in 1986 when they had a 4-1 lead with 3 minutes to go and the Flames poured it on and cut the lead to 4-3.

Game 2 was the greatest Habs game I have ever seen, I can't believe that it isn't on the box set or referenced regularly.