Jump to content

Kovalchuk traded to Washington


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Winning the division multiple times in a stretch where they also went to.the final 4 twice is a blip.

 

But the blues sneaking into the playoffs after missing the playoffs the previous season is the kind of true contention to strive for?  Or the sharks making one cup final and constantly failing in the playoffs.  The preds making one cup final out of 8th spot.  One other final four and other years failing to win a round?

 

Guess thats what you get when you look at the habs with glasses that suggest everything they do is wrong... 

Did those teams miss the playoffs 4 out of 5 years?

 

blues were actually picked to win a few times, but underachieved in the playoffs.  Ditto with the sharks. When we win our division, it was totally unexpected- no one had as rated that high.  One came in the back of a Price Hart season.  When price went down the whole team collapsed - because there was no adequate backup.  Rangers were in the same situation losing Lundquist, but they didn’t fold like a cheap tent.  Why?? There GM was smart enough to have a capable backup.

 

Other team lost key players - blues lost tarasanko, pens lost Malkin and Crosby, but they are buil to withstand those losses. Pens lost their top goalie a couple of times during their cup wins, but someone else stepped in. With us. It’s price has to be the best goalie in the world or halak has to stand on his head for us to even make the playoffs, let alone win some rounds.

 

there is a big difference when a team makes moves and it takes time for them to gel, or their being a lack of chemistry, than a team that has had a big hole at centre for 20 years and has had holes at left and since they stupidly didn’t resign Markov.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Did those teams miss the playoffs 4 out of 5 years?

 

blues were actually picked to win a few times, but underachieved in the playoffs.  Ditto with the sharks. When we win our division, it was totally unexpected- no one had as rated that high.  One came in the back of a Price Hart season.  When price went down the whole team collapsed - because there was no adequate backup.  Rangers were in the same situation losing Lundquist, but they didn’t fold like a cheap tent.  Why?? There GM was smart enough to have a capable backup.

 

Other team lost key players - blues lost tarasanko, pens lost Malkin and Crosby, but they are buil to withstand those losses. Pens lost their top goalie a couple of times during their cup wins, but someone else stepped in. With us. It’s price has to be the best goalie in the world or halak has to stand on his head for us to even make the playoffs, let alone win some rounds.

 

there is a big difference when a team makes moves and it takes time for them to gel, or their being a lack of chemistry, than a team that has had a big hole at centre for 20 years and has had holes at left and since they stupidly didn’t resign Markov.  

 

 

Um... no one is saying the team that missed the playoffs 4 out of 5 years is good.

 

What im saying is that from 2008 when they had the most points in the eastern conference... to 2017 when they again had over 100 points and won the division... they were more than a bubble team.

 

2 runs to the final 4... multiple seasons over 100 points.  Multiple seasons finishing atop the division.  Thats a decade of not being a bubble team.

 

At the end of it... in 2018 they crashed and have to rebuild... just like the sharks have crashed now and are gonna need a rebuild too.  There are cycles... it happens to every one, even multi time cup champs (who yes were better than montreal and san jose) in chicago and LAK.  They are going into down periods now.  Eventually pittsburgh and washington will too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Link67 said:

 

 

While I agree with your assessment, I will say, the difference between an almost Elite team and and Elite team is very nominal. Once in the playoffs, all hell can break loose with who catches fire, who gets hurt, what goalie suddenly becomes superman, all factors that blur the line between almost elite and elite (Vegas 17-18 vs Western Elites as an example). The fact that we we're in either of those groups for a period of time meant that we did have a chance to breakthrough and reach a final under the right circumstances. Krieder taking out Price was the circumstance we couldn't afford that year, we were well on our way to a cup final that year and from there, who knows.

 

 

 

I maintain that we were clearly outclassed by the Rangers in the Kreider year and it's homer revisionist history to blame the loss on Price's injury. Tokarski stepped in and stood on his head so we didn't miss Carey that much - we were losing that series either way (and would have gotten steamrolled by LA in any case).  That was a clear illustration in my mind of the divide between almost elite and elite; we were perhaps only one player - a true #1C - away from elite, but it was obvious we weren't there.  

 

In the Halak year, most people forget that we barely squeaked into the playoffs with 88 points and a negative goal differential.  That was a mediocre squad that was eventually stopped by a forgettable 7th-place Philly team.  So yes, that year we caught lightning in a bottle and outperformed expectations after making the dance, but we were among the worst conference finalists of this era of the league.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

Um... no one is saying the team that missed the playoffs 4 out of 5 years is good.

 

What im saying is that from 2008 when they had the most points in the eastern conference... to 2017 when they again had over 100 points and won the division... they were more than a bubble team.

 

2 runs to the final 4... multiple seasons over 100 points.  Multiple seasons finishing atop the division.  Thats a decade of not being a bubble team.

 

At the end of it... in 2018 they crashed and have to rebuild... just like the sharks have crashed now and are gonna need a rebuild too.  There are cycles... it happens to every one, even multi time cup champs (who yes were better than montreal and san jose) in chicago and LAK.  They are going into down periods now.  Eventually pittsburgh and washington will too.

Actually. That’s not correct. The good year have been blips, otherwise we were and have been a bubble team

2007 - missed playoffs
2008 - very  good year lost in round  2

2009 - bubble team - carbo out, lost in round 1

2010 - very definition of a bubble team - 88 pts and Halak was the stop sign for against caps and pens and lost to a another bubble team in philly in round 3

2011 - bubble team lost in round 1

2012 - the cunneyworth saga - didn’t make playoffs

2013 - condensed season did well and outclassed in playoffs lost in round 1

2014 - good year lost in round 3

2015 - good year lost in round 2

2016 - missed playoffs because MB wouldn’t get a backup

2017 -turned things around after firing Therrien - lost in round 1 badly 

2018- missed playoffs

2019 - missed playoffs

2020 - will miss playoffs

 

take out the condensed lockout year where we got off to a fast start and than were ordinary, and really only had 2 good back to back seasons in the back of Price

 

since 2008, we had 4 good seasons one phenomenal miracle run as a bubble team and missed the playoffs 6 times (including this year)

 

sharks during the same period had 5 consecutive 100 pt+ seasons and a total of 8 100 pt seasons - missed the playoffs once and will miss this year. Despite them falling short in the playoffs they’ve still had more deep runs than us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first game was a blowout

 

Game 2 they won 3-1

 

We won game 3

 

We lost game 4 in OT

 

We won game 5 in a blowout.

 

We lost game 6 by one goal.

 

1 blowout loss... 1 by 2 goals... and 2 by a single goal (one of which was in OT)

 

Vs

 

A blowout win and an OT win

 

 

Who exactly is doing the revisionist history in saying outclassed?

 

 

And youve also ignored having the most points in the conference in 2008, multiple 100 point seasons, and multiple division crowns... revisionist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2017 Turned things around= still over 100 points... still won the division.

 

2011- second in division 96 points.. took.the eventual champs to game 7 overtime.

 

2013- won the division, on pace for over 100 points.

 

Funny how these dont get called good teams.  

 

I look back and San Jose had similar seasons with first round losses... but they werent a bubble team in those years in your analysis.. they were a perennial contender.  But these habs teams are bubble teams cause they lost in round one?  How does that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

The first game was a blowout

 

Game 2 they won 3-1

 

We won game 3

 

We lost game 4 in OT

 

We won game 5 in a blowout.

 

We lost game 6 by one goal.

 

1 blowout loss... 1 by 2 goals... and 2 by a single goal (one of which was in OT)

 

Vs

 

A blowout win and an OT win

 

 

Who exactly is doing the revisionist history in saying outclassed?

 

 

And youve also ignored having the most points in the conference in 2008, multiple 100 point seasons, and multiple division crowns... revisionist.

 

Game 6 was a dominant 1-0 game where we were completely stifled and outclassed physically.  Overall, there were 3 games where the Rangers were clearly better, two OT games that were split, and one game where we were better with our backs against the wall down 3-1 at home.  We got to game 6 which was as far as we deserved. The revisionist history is saying that we lost because Price was hurt when Tokarski stood on his head and we couldn't score in the final game.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neech said:

 

Game 6 was a dominant 1-0 game where we were completely stifled and outclassed physically.  Overall, there were 3 games where the Rangers were clearly better, two OT games that were split, and one game where we were better with our backs against the wall down 3-1 at home.  We got to game 6 which was as far as we deserved. The revisionist history is saying that we lost because Price was hurt when Tokarski stood on his head and we couldn't score in the final game.

 

 

 

It’s not difficult to understand (or remember) that the team played much differently when Price was in net. The outcome could have remained 0-1. It could have been 0-0 because Price makes that save, or it could have been a completely, more offensive game from the Habs standpoint due to the Habs having Price back there behind them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Commandant said:

2017 Turned things around= still over 100 points... still won the division.

 

2011- second in division 96 points.. took.the eventual champs to game 7 overtime.

 

2013- won the division, on pace for over 100 points.

 

Funny how these dont get called good teams.  

 

I look back and San Jose had similar seasons with first round losses... but they werent a bubble team in those years in your analysis.. they were a perennial contender.  But these habs teams are bubble teams cause they lost in round one?  How does that work?

They were bubble teams because they barely made the playoffs.

so by your definition, TBL was a bubble team last year since they got swept in the first round???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1 goal win is completely outclassed and the Habs had no chance?  

 

Price (who was absolutely the best goalie in the world at that point) couldnt have made one more save in the OT loss?  One more save in losing 1-0? The habs were so outclassed they couldnt have got one bounce to put a puck past lundqvist at some point.

 

I think you also underestimate how valuable price was to that team in changing possession numbers.  Acting as a third defenceman and passing the puck out of the zone and beating the forecheck.  Making a save and controlling the rebound to cut out the rangers possession.  Whether that is directing the puck to a corner or catching/covering up to get a faceoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...