GDT Dec. 29, Habs vs Canes, 7 PM

[Toronthab]

If habs play like they did last night..............Carey will have to be near perfect again to win. Fortunately he is very capable of it.

Got a feeling habs are due for a loss though. If price does not play tonight, (which is very likely as he has played 11 straight). Habs lose

I'm pretty sure MB and MT even are not too concerned about this game at all. MB is making the moves for the playoffs team he needs to ice. Motivation will be there when it's needed. They are developing players and combinations while keeping an eye on the standings and trying to float above the bubble. Would we show up to play Boston tomorrow? Yup.

[JoeLassister]

Interesting discussion. Personally, I wouldn't read a whole lot into one nothing road game against a nothing team after a long layoff in the middle of the season. That's almost the prototype of a game in which the point is to just get the darned win and get out.

The wider question of whether the Habs are chronically outplayed is more significant. I tend to think that people are collapsing together two distinct issues here: our poor first periods, and overall play over 60 minutes. If I had to generalize, I'd suggest that we tend to outplay opponents over the final 2/3rds of games, after Carey keeps us in the mix during the first period, and that's why we keep getting wins. People seem to be fixating on the weak opening period and inferring too much from that, as a rule; after all, the other 40 minutes do count.

Of course, it would be nice to own a team for 60 unbroken minutes. That's a lot to ask in today's NHL, though.

[Toronthab]

If habs play like they did last night..............Carey will have to be near perfect again to win. Fortunately he is very capable of it.

Got a feeling habs are due for a loss though. If price does not play tonight, (which is very likely as he has played 11 straight). Habs lose

Could well be, but not so big a deal. We know when the season begins and when it all starts to matter. Look at what's happening with Yukyuk and Sekac alone to see how much better we are and even improving on the excellent great guy Budaj.

How ridiculously wonderful to have Markov AND Subban on the SAME team! Riddiklous!

[illWill]

Interesting discussion. Personally, I wouldn't read a whole lot into one nothing road game against a nothing team after a long layoff in the middle of the season. That's almost the prototype of a game in which the point is to just get the darned win and get out.

The wider question of whether the Habs are chronically outplayed is more significant. I tend to think that people are collapsing together two distinct issues here: our poor first periods, and overall play over 60 minutes. If I had to generalize, I'd suggest that we tend to outplay opponents over the final 2/3rds of games, after Carey keeps us in the mix during the first period, and that's why we keep getting wins. People seem to be fixating on the weak opening period and inferring too much from that, as a rule; after all, the other 40 minutes do count.

Of course, it would be nice to own a team for 60 unbroken minutes. That's a lot to ask in today's NHL, though.

Yes, lost in the discussion is that we have basically destroyed the opposition in the second and third periods. 12-0 I think if we score the first goal as well. Perhaps that could be a sign of a team that makes proper adjustments throughout the game?

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Yes, lost in the discussion is that we have basically destroyed the opposition in the second and third periods. 12-0 I think if we score the first goal as well. Perhaps that could be a sign of a team that makes proper adjustments throughout the game?

What? Are you serious? Adjustments? Those would have to be made by...forget it.

[Habs30/31]

Yes, lost in the discussion is that we have basically destroyed the opposition in the second and third periods. 12-0 I think if we score the first goal as well. Perhaps that could be a sign of a team that makes proper adjustments throughout the game?

It would if they just plain did not suck in the first. Getting out shot like 14-3 12-5 16-6 .......... if they were so good at making adjustments between periods i think we would see that skill applied between games. But i did wonder the same thing at one point. But after about the first 20 games i figured nah, just ill prepared to start.

s

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Yes, lost in the discussion is that we have basically destroyed the opposition in the second and third periods. 12-0 I think if we score the first goal as well. Perhaps that could be a sign of a team that makes proper adjustments throughout the game?

Goals For: Montreal

1st Period: 12 (30th)

2nd Period: 35 (11th)

3rd Period: 46 (1st)

Goals Against: Montreal

1st Period: 29 (10th)

2nd Period: 24 (29th)

3rd Period: 30 (20th)

In other words:

- For all of our fair complaints about lack of first period scoring, we didn't notice all of the 0-0 periods meant we're top 10 in not allowing goals in the first period. Not enough credit given to that.

- We're the best team in the league at scoring third period goals and near Top 10 for goals in the second which distracts us from being 29th and 20th in goals allowed in the second and third.

- Goal differential in periods: -17 in first, +11 in second, +16 in third

- Montreal has only led four games after the first but won all four

- Montreal has won 7 games after trailing in the first, better than any other team (we lost 11 games though after trailing in the first)

[BCHabnut]

When Tampa wins because Stamkos was awesome, nobody sneers and says they only won because Stamkos played well. Same with Crosby or Towes or most teams in the league with an offensive superstar. This team has one superstar. It's Carey Price. So when he dominates the game and the team wins, usually it's because of him. I sort of think we need o be happy about that. The power play is horrible. I don't like that, but I also remember several years of fans and media squawking about how Habs can only score on the pp, and how good teams score 5 on 5. No chance in the playoffs for a team that relies on the power play that much. Now that the Habs do not need the power play to win, it is viewed as a major weakness. When Boston won in 2011 they went into the playoffs with a horrible power play. When LA won last year, there was a pile of talk about the strength and character of their team for being able to come from behind and put together a good third period and win. These were all seen as signs of a good playoff team, and were qualities respected by fans and media. When it's Montreal, it's a major issue and glaring weakness. Don't get me wrong. I am concerned about being outplayed in the first to the alarming rate that the Habs are. I am also concerned about the inept power play. But I am also happy that theses problems are the exact opposite of the Habs I have watched for the last 15 years. The old habs HAD to score first to win and they HAD to have a top 5 PP in order to get into the playoffs.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Yeah I definitely agree with that BCHabnut and I was going to say something similar. It's one thing to be upset about being outplayed by a weaker team but it's definitely another to complain over and over and over again about the fact that our goalie is our best player. I mean, seriously? I can't fathom why anyone would prefer having a team that wouldn't be able to rely on their goalie to bail them out. Once again, I can somewhat understand where people are coming from but in all honesty the way it comes off, is seems though people are literally complaining that Price is so good. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[KoRP]

^^ Yep! Good perspective!

[Machine of Loving Grace]

When Tampa wins because Stamkos was awesome, nobody sneers and says they only won because Stamkos played well.

To re-affirm this point, when Tampa got swept by the Habs the excuses went in order:

- Tampa didn't have Bishop

- Stamkos wasn't 100%

- No captain to lead

Everyone forgets how ineffective Callahan was and how Cooper lost close to every lineup battle he attempted in the four games and just says the best player wasn't 100% and the goalie was down. In Montreal, the best player is the goalie.

[habs rule]

When Tampa wins because Stamkos was awesome, nobody sneers and says they only won because Stamkos played well. Same with Crosby or Towes or most teams in the league with an offensive superstar. This team has one superstar. It's Carey Price. So when he dominates the game and the team wins, usually it's because of him. I sort of think we need o be happy about that. The power play is horrible. I don't like that, but I also remember several years of fans and media squawking about how Habs can only score on the pp, and how good teams score 5 on 5. No chance in the playoffs for a team that relies on the power play that much. Now that the Habs do not need the power play to win, it is viewed as a major weakness. When Boston won in 2011 they went into the playoffs with a horrible power play. When LA won last year, there was a pile of talk about the strength and character of their team for being able to come from behind and put together a good third period and win. These were all seen as signs of a good playoff team, and were qualities respected by fans and media. When it's Montreal, it's a major issue and glaring weakness. Don't get me wrong. I am concerned about being outplayed in the first to the alarming rate that the Habs are. I am also concerned about the inept power play. But I am also happy that theses problems are the exact opposite of the Habs I have watched for the last 15 years. The old habs HAD to score first to win and they HAD to have a top 5 PP in order to get into the playoffs.

Yeah I definitely agree with that BCHabnut and I was going to say something similar. It's one thing to be upset about being outplayed by a weaker team but it's definitely another to complain over and over and over again about the fact that our goalie is our best player. I mean, seriously? I can't fathom why anyone would prefer having a team that wouldn't be able to rely on their goalie to bail them out. Once again, I can somewhat understand where people are coming from but in all honesty the way it comes off, is seems though people are literally complaining that Price is so good. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Complaining about Price being so good? No way man I have been a fan of Mr Price back when you guys( i don't mean you in paticular) were calling me a "price fanboy". I am saying thank the great pumpkin we got him cause without him, we are close to the bottom of the league. And just to clarify the only position on the team that can dominate the game so much is a goal tender. Every one else be it Stamkos Crosby or Gretzky can't do it on their own. They can have great games but they need help to make it happen. Carey can stand on his head and keep it close pretty much by himself. It is an incredible thing to watch. What I would like to see is the rest of the team come to play right off the bat just like he does. Mind you the other part to that is his stats wouldn't be as good if they did cause then they wouldn't get outshot 16 to 2 or 3 or 4, or what ever. It is always a mistake in a team game to rely on 1 guy to do it all. It can work for some times but will fail in the long run. I hope the guys come out hard and give Toker some help tonight.

[BCHabnut]

The fact that the team seldom bails out the goalie is definitely an issue, and one which I hope is remedied. It looks like the coaches have identified part of the problem and are trying to fix it. The second "D" pairing is weak by my standards. None of Goncgar, Gilbert, Emelin, or Beaulieu are consistent #3 defensemen. The pairings have revolved a lot to try to repair this whole. the pp is another story. And it points to coaching. I once heard an analyst say that 5 on 5 scoring in general terms is a product of a good team, and special teams is a product of good coaching. Both of the big weaknesses that we see in the team this year point toward coaching. so I definitely see why people are concerned. I just don't see a solution coaching wise. Especially with Hartley signed for ages now. I do think a suitable replacement for Muller has not been found, and should be adressed.

[habs rule]

The fact that the team seldom bails out the goalie is definitely an issue, and one which I hope is remedied. It looks like the coaches have identified part of the problem and are trying to fix it. The second "D" pairing is weak by my standards. None of Goncgar, Gilbert, Emelin, or Beaulieu are consistent #3 defensemen. The pairings have revolved a lot to try to repair this whole. the pp is another story. And it points to coaching. I once heard an analyst say that 5 on 5 scoring in general terms is a product of a good team, and special teams is a product of good coaching. Both of the big weaknesses that we see in the team this year point toward coaching. so I definitely see why people are concerned. I just don't see a solution coaching wise. Especially with Hartley signed for ages now. I do think a suitable replacement for Muller has not been found, and should be adressed.

very true.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

You know, I agree with everything you said. The thing is that it really seems like people are talking about our team's greatest strength and finding a way to use it to describe the habs in a detrimental way. Those who do that have already made up their mind and are going out of their way to look for their answer. I don't think it's a topic that's necessarily being looked at in a logical way. It can be argued that Price is the best goalie in the league. With goalie being the most important position, like you pointed out, I don't think there are many teams out there that would be able to say that Price wouldn't be their best player. Point being, he would make pretty much any team out there look like they rely on him. If Price makes an amazing save on a 2 on 1, should that very play be used to say that our team isn't very good since we gave up the 2 on 1? Or should we like you say, thank the heavens that we have him. I understand that you aren't saying the former yourself, but a lot of people are saying that Price made that save because of a lack of team structure instead of just being glad he's part of the team and made that save. Other teams give up 2 on 1s as well, I promise. The Habs are where they are in the standings because of Price and I'm fine with that. Honestly, any team would be.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

You know, I agree with everything you said. The thing is that it really seems like people are talking about our team's greatest strength and finding a way to use it to describe the habs in a detrimental way. I don't think it's a topic that's necessarily being looked at in a logical way. It can be argued that Price is the best goalie in the league. With goalie being the most important position, like you pointed out, I don't think there are many teams out there that would be able to say that Price wouldn't be their best player. Point being, he would make pretty much any team out there look like they rely on him. If Price makes an amazing save on a 2 on 1, should that very play be used to say that our team isn't very good since we gave up the 2 on 1? Or should we like you say, thank the heavens that we have him. I understand that you aren't saying the former yourself, but a lot of people are saying that Price made that save because of a lack of team structure instead of just being glad he's part of the team. The Habs are where they are in the standings because of Price and I'm fine with that.

It IS funny that when a team 'depends' on a superstar position player, that's universally accepted, but when a team relies on superior goaltending, that's widely pooh-poohed. So you're on to something for sure.

I don't know how many times I heard during the Roy years that if the Habs didn't have Roy, they'd be nowhere. My response at the time was: well, guess what? We do have Roy. And two Cups to boot. No Habs fans looks back now and say, 'gee, that team was weak;' they think, 'those were the days.'

Beyond this, the Habs are widely regarded as a team with an excellent transition game and a good defensive structure. Price is only part of that picture.

I like BCHabsnut's post above in particular. Yes, the team has problems in the first and a puzzlingly weak PP. But there is no particular reason to think that Price holding the fort early and the team gradually getting stronger as the game progresses will necessarily stop working in the playoffs. He's Price, after all. The Pat Burns teams often followed the same formula (or was he also a blithering idiot of a coach?). And refs tend to put away the whistle in the playoffs, so I'd rather our team can reliably score 5 on 5 than that it depend on power-play goals to win. These are legit causes for concern, but not for the hairshirt.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The Souray/Kovalev days made us think a good team is based on their PP.

There are only five teams in the league right now with 50 or more points and none of them have a Top 10 PP. Chicago has the best PP out of those teams and it's 14th.

2014 Final Four

Los Angeles: 27th PP, 11th PK, 3rd 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

New York: 15th PP, 3rd PK, 10th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

Montreal: 19th PP, 4th PK, 16th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

Chicago: 10th PP, 19th PK, 4th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

2013 Final Four

Chicago: 19th PP, 3rd PK, 1st 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

Boston: 26th PP, 4th PK, 4th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

Pittsburgh: 2nd PP, 25th PK, 2nd 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

Los Angeles: 10th PP, 10th PK, 8th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

2012 Final Four

Los Angeles: 17th PP, 4th PK, 17th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

New Jersey: 14th PP, 1st PK, 19th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

New York: 23rd PP, 5th PK, 6th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

Phoenix: 29th PP, 8th PK, 8th 5 on 5 GF/GA Ratio

In the past three years, only one team had a Top 5 PP in the season and made the final four. Chicago and LA have had the 10th best, otherwise every other PP was 14th or worse. On the other hand, Chicago and Pittsburgh's weak PKs was a rarity for a final four team and 2012 was odd to have two teams who did so poorly on five on five goals for/against ratio to make it to the finals. It's far more common for the team with a strong 5 on 5 game and a strong penalty kill to go far in the playoffs than a team with a strong powerplay. But because we had a top 10 PP from 05-06 to 10-11 save for 08-09, we got used to scoring on the man advantage and thinking that was the difference between a good Habs team and a bad Habs team.

Our PP last season was only around three percent better than our current PP and we still made it to the eastern conference finals. We're running the 5th best goals for/against ratio currently. It ain't a strong PP we need to be sporting. It's shooting the puck more and allowing less shots. We have the worst record for both based on how many points we have.

[illWill]

You know, I agree with everything you said. The thing is that it really seems like people are talking about our team's greatest strength and finding a way to use it to describe the habs in a detrimental way. Those who do that have already made up their mind and are going out of their way to look for their answer. I don't think it's a topic that's necessarily being looked at in a logical way. It can be argued that Price is the best goalie in the league. With goalie being the most important position, like you pointed out, I don't think there are many teams out there that would be able to say that Price wouldn't be their best player. Point being, he would make pretty much any team out there look like they rely on him. If Price makes an amazing save on a 2 on 1, should that very play be used to say that our team isn't very good since we gave up the 2 on 1? Or should we like you say, thank the heavens that we have him. I understand that you aren't saying the former yourself, but a lot of people are saying that Price made that save because of a lack of team structure instead of just being glad he's part of the team and made that save. Other teams give up 2 on 1s as well, I promise. The Habs are where they are in the standings because of Price and I'm fine with that. Honestly, any team would be.

I was going to write all of this but you beat me to it

[habs rule]

To re-affirm this point, when Tampa got swept by the Habs the excuses went in order:

- Tampa didn't have Bishop

- Stamkos wasn't 100%

- No captain to lead

Everyone forgets how ineffective Callahan was and how Cooper lost close to every lineup battle he attempted in the four games and just says the best player wasn't 100% and the goalie was down. In Montreal, the best player is the goalie.

and when he went down to injury we lost.

[Habs30/31]

When jersey had the best goalie in the world and everybody knew it............media and fans were not of the opinion that without MB the Devils would have no chance. Why? Because the while Broduer was indeed the best goalie in the league, the team ALSO had an awesome D, a great system, great leadership, great coaching and rarely ever beat themselves, or got blown out of the building. They showed no cracks beyond the crease.

Now like the Devils, the habs have the best goalie. But the habs rely on him way too much. Certainly much more than jersey relied on Marty. Some seem to be puzzled why media and fans alike keep doubting this team is a serious threat to win four grueling play off rounds with Price as their main game plan. Well the blow outs for one, the nights where they look terrible (you know the ones where MT is staring up to the rafters), they go almost entire periods without a shot on net, (happens too often too dismiss) mediocre many nights, cant play well in the first period. If that team rears its ugly head in a play off series even CP wont be able to save them. I dont think it's difficult to understand why some of us are not quite as confident in the stats. Although you make a good case. Whats that's saying again? "stats are for ........ "

Worth noting...........when it was announced that Price was done for the series last spring.....everybody knew the Rangers were going to the finals.

[dlbalr]

Worth noting...........when it was announced that Price was done for the series last spring.....everybody knew the Rangers were going to the finals.

Most teams don't win playoff series when they lose their top goalie. Flip the teams and say Lundqvist goes down in the first game. I'm pretty sure the Habs would have been victorious if the goalie battle was Price/Talbot and everyone would have been thinking/saying that rather quickly. That has nothing to do with relying on a goalie more or less than another team (and I agree with you that Montreal relies on Price more than they should have to). If you're in the playoffs and forced to use a backup/3rd string goalie, odds being odds you're not going to do well.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Yeah, the critique that the Habs are done if Price suffers a serious injury is just not serious. Even the 1970s Habs might have a Cup or two less without Ken Dryden. To deny this is to deny Dryden's greatness. Star goalies are irreplaceable by definition.

I suppose our attitude all depends on expectations. Habs30/31's unending complaints all seem to be informed by criteria he carries around for what constitutes a 'true' contender, and his disappointment that the Habs don't meet all those criteria. For my part, I accept that we're a second-tier 'contender,' but not in the front rank with LA, Chicago, and, I guess, Anaheim and maybe one or two others. My reactions to the team reflect expectations that stem from that assessment of its potential. If I expected them to be as strong as Chicago, then who knows, maybe I too would spend more of my time fuming discontentedly about a top-10 team with several star players and a massively winning record.

Here's the thing, though - the league is full of teams that have significant weaknesses. In the East, only Tampa seems to have a significant edge on us in terms of team construction. Detroit and Pittsburgh would be big challenges, but I'd bet on us to beat them. I'd have listed Boston ahead of us at the start of the year, but they're so decimated with injuries, and perhaps with poor decisions (letting Boychuk and Seguin go) and an aging Chara, that maybe, just maybe, we can downgrade them, at least for this season.

The West is obviously a lot tougher. But we're talking about a team that, basically, has as good a chance as any to come out of the East. That's not a delusional opinion - it's a reasonable extrapolation from last year's results as well as what we've seen so far this season, where this team just keeps on winning even as posters on this site raise lamentations to the heavens and beat their breasts with woe. So, y'know, a degree of positivity is perfectly sensible.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

To re-affirm this point, when Tampa got swept by the Habs the excuses went in order:

- Tampa didn't have Bishop

- Stamkos wasn't 100%

- No captain to lead

Everyone forgets how ineffective Callahan was and how Cooper lost close to every lineup battle he attempted in the four games and just says the best player wasn't 100% and the goalie was down. In Montreal, the best player is the goalie.

The Habs would have won that series in five if Tampa met all those qualifiers.

They were a soft, very inexperienced team that aside from a few rushes by Stamkos, didn't belong in the same arena as MTL. They still don't. Tampa Bay are phonies.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Everyone knew the Rangers were going to the finals... And we still took them to six.

It's odd how people act like the Rangers series was unwinnable but the swept Lightning were just a goalie away from taking the series from us.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Let's not forget the power of axiomatic reasoning among hockey fans. If it's axiomatic that the Habs are mediocre, then all winning gets explained away, no matter how many Ws we rack up; while all losing is identified as proof of "what the team really is." Anyone who wants to discount last year's run by saying that we didn't beat the "real" Tampa also has to reckon with the fact that we DID beat the real Bruins.

On the other hand, the reverse also holds. We can say that the Rags didn't beat the "real" Habs because we lacked Price, but (as I've noted before) the fact is that Toker provided us with very good goaltending in Price's absence. We did NOT lose because of a problem with stopping the puck. The issue, whatever it is, lay elsewhere. My personal theory was the team was gassed by that brutally physical Bruins series, because guys like Pleks and PK really did not deliver the goods in that series. Others have suggested that we missed Price psychologically - that he is the key to the team's self-belief - and that we missed his puck-handling skills. Or maybe Vigneault schooled MT. Anyway, the point is just that we should try to avoid axiomatic reasoning on either side of the equation: "Habs are mediocre, so wins don't count;" "Habs are awesome, so losses don't count."