dlbalr Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 A good post-game read from the Boston side if you want to get a sense of the panic/frustration in the media: http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/articles/2011/04/17/no_results_and_there_is_no_excuse/?page=full Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 A good post-game read from the Boston side if you want to get a sense of the panic/frustration in the media: http://www.boston.co...cuse/?page=full I read this article earlier today. This was my favourite part: The Bruins are losing because Montreal goalkeeper Carey Price is bringing at least an A-minus game and because the Canadiens have been classically opportunistic when the Bruins have made mistakes. The Bruins are also losing because their big moment has come and they are in retreat. What's galling to fans who know their stuff is that the Bruins are not even losing to a good team. They are losing to a team that was a sixth seed on merit, an almost unrecognizable Canadiens team that doesn't even have a 30-goal scorer, and has only three 20-goal scorers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I read this article earlier today. This was my favourite part: The Bruins are losing because Montreal goalkeeper Carey Price is bringing at least an A-minus game and because the Canadiens have been classically opportunistic when the Bruins have made mistakes. The Bruins are also losing because their big moment has come and they are in retreat. What's galling to fans who know their stuff is that the Bruins are not even losing to a good team. They are losing to a team that was a sixth seed on merit, an almost unrecognizable Canadiens team that doesn't even have a 30-goal scorer, and has only three 20-goal scorers. Good playoff team though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Good playoff team though. Exactly...add to that, 7-2 against them this season, while missing Markov, one of the NHL's best defenseman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 (edited) What amazes me is how delusional sports writers and Bruins fans are when they can't even admit that the Habs are a good team. Whether the Habs make it to round 2 or not, they were a good team this year, I don't think you can deny that. Edited April 17, 2011 by BrenDittero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Habs haven't trailed yet. If Boston gets an early lead, it will be interesting to see how the Habs respond. If Montreal gets a come from behind victory in Game 3, Boston probably won't even show up for Game 4. As for who sits when Kostitsyn and Halpern are healthy, may I suggest Weber and Desharnais, respectively? David hasn't really been noticeable to me, which I suppose, in a way, is a good thing, but if he isn't going to provide anything in the offensive zone, I'd prefer the guy who is better in the defensive zone (and faceoff circle). Plus, the rookie/vet swap is never terrible in the playoffs. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I read this article earlier today. This was my favourite part: The Bruins are losing because Montreal goalkeeper Carey Price is bringing at least an A-minus game and because the Canadiens have been classically opportunistic when the Bruins have made mistakes. The Bruins are also losing because their big moment has come and they are in retreat. What's galling to fans who know their stuff is that the Bruins are not even losing to a good team. They are losing to a team that was a sixth seed on merit, an almost unrecognizable Canadiens team that doesn't even have a 30-goal scorer, and has only three 20-goal scorers. That's a funny comment to say for a Bruins journalist. The Bruins only have 1 more 20-goal scorer. Lucic, their top goal scorer, does have 30 goals, 1 more than Gionta. Big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 If the Habs aren't a good team, then neither is Boston. It really is that simple, these two teams are very evenly matched. Boston had one 30 goal scorer, with just that: 30 goals. They had three others above 20. All of those players played at least 79 games. Montreal had Gionta at 29 goals, one behind the magical '30 goal scorer' that seperates men like Lucic from the rest, apparently. They had two others above 20, who played in at least 77 games each. Cammalleri got stuck at 19 in only 67 games. So one more meaningless goal from Gionta and Cammalleri and we're talking the exact same amount of 20 and 30 goal scorers. Boston does not have greater offensive talent than Montreal. Any fan who knows something about the game could figure this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 (edited) The wider media will never accept that the Habs are a good team, so why expect Boston 'journalists' to accept it even when the evidence has stared them in the face all season? Perceptive point by Trizzak. If Boston gets the first goal, the dynamics could change considerably. I agree with BTH that the odds now favour us by a significant margin, but this thing could conceivably still turn. As for Chara, that gorilla is an impact player, no question - but all the commentators seem to have forgotten that we beat them in game one WITH Chara in the lineup EDIT: I just wanted to throw some props to Eller, who played what might be one of the best playoff games by a raw rookie that I've seen from a Hab in some time. THAT was impressive. Edited April 17, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 (edited) The wider media will never accept that the Habs are a good team, so why expect Boston 'journalists' to accept it even when the evidence has stared them in the face all season? Perceptive point by Trizzak. If Boston gets the first goal, the dynamics could change considerably. I agree with BTH that the odds now favour us by a significant margin, but this thing could conceivably still turn. As for Chara, that gorilla is an impact player, no question - but all the commentators seem to have forgotten that we beat them in game one WITH Chara in the lineup EDIT: I just wanted to throw some props to Eller, who played what might be one of the best playoff games by a raw rookie that I've seen from a Hab in some time. THAT was impressive. I totally agree. I mentioned it several times. He was fantastic last night. Edited April 17, 2011 by BCHabnut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 EDIT: I just wanted to throw some props to Eller, who played what might be one of the best playoff games by a raw rookie that I've seen from a Hab in some time. THAT was impressive. Actually, Eller reminds me of another fairly recent rookie... Plekanec in '06. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Actually, Eller reminds me of another fairly recent rookie... Plekanec in '06. Agreed. Eller reminds me alot of Plekanec, and Plekanec turned out pretty good. Both smart and fast with excellent puck control and good passing. I like the way JM has used Eller, allowing him to learn at his own pace and to grow into his role on the team. He'll move up the scoring depth soon enough and will challenge Gomez as the second line center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) The wider media will never accept that the Habs are a good team, so why expect Boston 'journalists' to accept it even when the evidence has stared them in the face all season? Perceptive point by Trizzak. If Boston gets the first goal, the dynamics could change considerably. I agree with BTH that the odds now favour us by a significant margin, but this thing could conceivably still turn. As for Chara, that gorilla is an impact player, no question - but all the commentators seem to have forgotten that we beat them in game one WITH Chara in the lineup EDIT: I just wanted to throw some props to Eller, who played what might be one of the best playoff games by a raw rookie that I've seen from a Hab in some time. THAT was impressive. First off, it was Bob Ryan, he should stick to basketball, his hockey opinion is of zero importance. Remember, the mainstream media called the Devils an average/crappy team in 1994-95. Just because one doesn't want to believe a team is good, doesn't mean it isn't. 87% of teams taking a 2-0 lead on the road win the series. We have now witnessed the Habs blow the last two series that they took the first 2 on the road. The Rangers in 1996 and the Hurricanes in 2006. Will it happen a 3rd time? I don't think it will. After witnessing the 96 and 06 series if you analyze the result, then it could lead to worry, but if you analyze what happened, then a different story emerges. Even though they lead the Rangers series, I never felt comforable, especially considering that the Habs blew a 3-0 lead and barely recovered to win Game 2 late. With an OT win in Game 1, that series was one that both games were not settled until the late stages/OT. The same type of thing emerged in Carolina. They blew out Martin Gerber and then hacked up a 3-0 lead, trailed 4-3, jumped back out in front and then blew the game in the final 10 seconds. Those series offered significant push back from their opponents regardless of whether the Habs scored first or not. They did not maintain the tempo in 3 of the 4 games and were under constant duress. In both of those series the other team had the better goaltender (Richter>Thibault and Ward>Huet). They lead the series 2-0 in both cases, but as a fan I felt fortunate for the to be up that much. This series has featured little resistance from the Bruins and while the shocked media would like you to believe it is because of the effort/compete level of the Bruins, at some point they are going to have to recognize what the Canadiens are doing to nullify their strengths. With both games on the line in the 3rd period the Habs have outshot the Bruins 17-8. Could breaks get the Bruins back in the series? Sure they could, the Canes needed Ward to stand on his head and Koivu to almost lose an eye to bounce back, but the Canes were a better team than this Bruins squad. What I have seen over the last two games is classic 1980's Canadiens shut down hockey. Ignore the shot clock/misses/blocks, through two games the Bruins have 31 scoring chances, the Habs have 28. Considering the Habs have had the lead for all but 3 minutes of the series that number is significant. Contrast that to the first two games last season where the Caps outchanced the Habs 58-35 through two games. (http://enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.com/). In order to maintain success against the Caps last season the Habs needed to be extremely opportunistic. 8 goals in 35 chances? That was close to scoring on 25% of their chances. The Caps scored on 14% through the first 2 games. In 2011 that number has dropped to 16% for the Habs. One is possible to maintain, the other defies statistical odds and is why sites like behind the net kept calling for the death of the Habs during last seasons playoff run. Anybody who believes in karma has to have taken notice of Chara getting sick in the playoffs. If I am the Habs I treat Game 3 like Game 7. You cannot allow the Bruins any life and have to place their foot on their throat tonight. I will be surprised if the Habs do not win this series. Edited April 18, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Sharp analysis by Wamsley. The Rangers series was the real aberration - Messier was hurt and owned by Damphousse for the first two games. Once he came around, we were doomed. That noxious Canes series, 'nuff said. The difference between this series and past ones is that we were GENUINE underdogs in those cases - up against clearly better teams. This series is indeed more akin the series from the 80s, where, whatever the "experts" say, I KNEW the Habs could play with their opponent. That's what I've found so weird about this series. From the get-go I believed that we had a fully legitimate chance to win. Not a feeling I'm accustomed to, after 15 years of abysmal teams. Still, we're a long way from victors yet. As Wamsley says, the trap to avoid now is letting the Prunes back in this thing, and winning Game Three in Montreal really could put some wind in their sails. You've got the snake under your heel. Cut off its stinking viper's head tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I think this team has the playoff experience in players like Sopel, Gill, Gomez, Gionta, Moen, to not let the young guys get complacent. I am continually surprised but the poise of the young players on the team. Eller had his best game in a long time playing very well on the puck, Subbans walking away, I even liked when Wiz stood up for himself in the fight. I love the message the players are saying "we haven't won anything". I don't put too much stock into the media, but I was watching sportsnet and they kept bringing up the fact Montreal has lost the last two series where they were up 2-0 in the first two games on the road, yet overlooked the glaring stat that Boston has NEVER come back from a 2-0, maybe I am just hypersensitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I don't put too much stock into the media, but I was watching sportsnet and they kept bringing up the fact Montreal has lost the last two series where they were up 2-0 in the first two games on the road, yet overlooked the glaring stat that Boston has NEVER come back from a 2-0, maybe I am just hypersensitive. Those stats are meaningless. What Montreal did in 1986 has absolutely no relation to this series. Why should I care about Boston's history? Their history is irrelevant. Half the players who played in those series are dead by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) I think this team has the playoff experience in players like Sopel, Gill, Gomez, Gionta, Moen, to not let the young guys get complacent. I am continually surprised but the poise of the young players on the team. Eller had his best game in a long time playing very well on the puck, Subbans walking away, I even liked when Wiz stood up for himself in the fight. I love the message the players are saying "we haven't won anything". I don't put too much stock into the media, but I was watching sportsnet and they kept bringing up the fact Montreal has lost the last two series where they were up 2-0 in the first two games on the road, yet overlooked the glaring stat that Boston has NEVER come back from a 2-0, maybe I am just hypersensitive. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the media is cherry picking stats they WANT to be true. This reminds me a little of the 1995 Stanley Cup Finals where the Devils choked out Detroit and nobody could understand how this 120 pt juggernaut was getting schooled by the barely .500 Devils. How could this talented Red Wings team not be destroying these no-name guys? It was the same type of noise from the media. They need to get traffic in front, make life difficult, he can't see what he can't stop. Bowman even suggested the Wings can trap too. At that point I knew they were toast. When the coach of the overwhelming favourite decides to alter the game plan to match the underdog then you are looking at a team who is lost for a solution. I am not suggesting this Habs team is cup bound, but that team commitment is the most important factor in hockey. The thing that everybody is constantly forgetting is that the Bruins have not manned up on ice yet. Every time the Canadiens beat the Bruins, their reaction is to not beat them, it is to beat them up. The Habs aren't playing that game and the Bruins look confused. I don't want to be overly confident, but the Bruins have shown me no reason to expect them to bounce back. I am not stupid enough to get to over confident after watching teams come back from 3-0 and 3-1. If Julien is able to buck the trend and recognize a tactical weakness and expose it, then everything changes, but if they continue to use the same game plan, they are done. Edited April 18, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l.moustakas Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) What's galling to fans who know their stuff is that the Bruins are not even losing to a good team. Sometimes I wonder if all of these so-called experts (from this article and others) are even paying attention. Montreal has an edge in the season series, in the past decade and lifetime versus Boston. Last year, the Habs went to the conference finals and vanquished two of the top contenders in the East. The Bruins blew a 3-0 seires lead in the second round. Yet, in spite of all of that, Boston, who only has two more regular season wins than Montreal, enters as the overwhelming favourite according to most analysts. Really? Am I missing something here? I am not saying my predictions are gold, but I am able to recognize freakin' facts when they hit me in the face. Edited April 18, 2011 by l.moustakas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Sometimes I wonder if all of these so-called experts (from this article and others) are even paying attention. Montreal has an edge in the season series, in the past decade and lifetime versus Boston. Last year, the Habs went to the conference finals and vanquished two of the top contenders in the East. The Bruins blew a 3-0 seires lead in the second round. Yet, in spite of all of that, Boston, who only has two more regular season wins than Montreal, enters as the overwhelming favourite according to most analysts. Really? Am I missing something here? I am not saying my predictions are gold, but I am able to recognize freakin' facts when they hit me in the face. That is Bob Ryan. He is old school and the Pat Hickey of Boston. He is biased and reacting on emotion and disgust. What he thinks is totally irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrenDittero Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Rabid Bruins fans say the darnedest things. It's a pretty comical 'news' article full of all the fear and desperation I've come to enjoy from the biased Boston media. 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.