Jump to content

Feb. 13, Canadiens vs Maple Leafs, 7 PM


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

I have to say, I'm very surprised that we won this game...in regulation on top of that! Nice to see the boys push back against the Leafies.   Maybe our boys can stand toe to toe with the Leafs?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carey finally did his job...did not give up a soft goal, therefore giving the team a chance to win on a night when they didn't score many goals.  Toffoli is a beaut, and Gallagher's hard work got rewarded when we needed it most.  HUGE win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Drouin's game. Suzuki's line was good.

 

I liked seeing Gallagher score and Danault's line playing better in the 3rd

 

I also like Mete's game.

 

Price was Price and the team won

 

Go Habs Go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thanks God Bergevin acquired Anderson and Toffoli, since they, along with Price, were the only Habs to show up for the first 40 minutes. 

 

It’s the old story: your best players have to be your best players. Price and Gallagher really brought it - the latter being THE difference-maker in the third. Danault also looked like he shook off his daze in the second half.

 

Mete certainly had one that one great shift and looked competent otherwise. I thought Romanov looked good too. Weber was a painful sight for the first 40...I don’t know how many times I saw him with his back to the play. He’ll certainly benefit from the week off. Might be time to manage his minutes more carefully going forward.

 

That third period was definitely the one to build on when we return from the break. TO was on the cusp of owning us. But we beat them with a monster, playoff-like effort in the third.

 

That being said, TO really bothers me. They just look so strong, including defensively. I have this sick feeling this could be their year...but for tonight, the forces of human decency prevailed. Phew!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t get the constant size comments.  We’re out hit the leafs almost 3 to 1. Came back tonight - thanks in large to Price keeping us in it in the first. 
 

Issue isn’t size it’s skill.   Forward group has been struggling of late and while we don’t have the Matthews/Marner/Tavares level  skill, we have skill and depth. We aren’t going to score over 4 goals a game the rest of the season, but have guys who can score.  
 

Issue is the slow D (but they are bigger now!).  This is where I would rather move expensive depth like Byron, Tatar, or both to open up cap room and than try and get some more mobility and skill on the D.
Weber, Chariot, Edmondson are big and physical, but they are slow and we need to pair Weber with a faster puck mover.

 

Agree. Toronto’s depth forwards are really good...fast and constantly dangerous. That is just a very strong hockey team over there, unfortunately. I also agree with your take on our D. It’s time to end the Weber-Chiarot thing, we need more speed and quickness on that pairing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmundson can’t clear the puck worth a 💩 

 

Mete seems to excel under pressure. He simply made his plays without fumbling and got the puck up ice. 
 

Our young centres are struggling a bit and even Evans didn’t look the same although that might be because he didn’t have Lehkonen. 
 

I think CJ should consider some changes to lines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmundson has the best +\- on the team, so I‘m not sure his defensive woes are worth complaining about. Yes, I’m aware he’s paired with Petry, who has brought some 5 on 5 offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Edmundson has the best +\- on the team, so I‘m not sure his defensive woes are worth complaining about. Yes, I’m aware he’s paired with Petry, who has brought some 5 on 5 offence.

 

It’s fashionable to denigrate +/- as a useless stat. My own, non-statistician’s view is that it still has some value in identifying outliers. E.g., if you have by far the worst, or by far the best, plus-minus on your team, that should be telling us something.

 

That he’s paired with Petry probably is a major consideration, though. It’s possible that Petry has become like a mini-Markov, a D-man so good that whoever you pair him with ends up looking better than they are. Or, maybe Edmundson is just one of these guys who *looks* clumsy but somehow gets the job done, a la Hal Gill; we usually talk about the ‘eye-test’ when defending someone against poor advanced stats, but it can go the other way, too - when a guy looks like a dolt but turns out to be surprisingly effective.

 

All that said, would I like to see the Habs restructure the alignment on D in a way which gives more space to nimble puck-movers? YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Edmundson has the best +\- on the team, so I‘m not sure his defensive woes are worth complaining about. Yes, I’m aware he’s paired with Petry, who has brought some 5 on 5 offence.

 

This is example 193857 of why +/- is a flawed stat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Edmundson has the best +\- on the team, so I‘m not sure his defensive woes are worth complaining about. Yes, I’m aware he’s paired with Petry, who has brought some 5 on 5 offence.

 

18 minutes ago, Commandant said:

This is example 193857 of why +/- is a flawed stat. 

 

Perhaps ... but given Petry's performance this year Edmundson hasn't been a drag on the pairing ... or Petry is actually Bobby Orr ... THAT said ... I wouldn't mind seeing Kulak back with Petry and Edmundson with Romanov (no ... I don't have confidence in Mete)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Commandant said:

Im gonna need more Kulak and less edmundson.

I think that the team envisions Romanov on the second pair dropping Edmunston to the 3rd pair where he belongs. If this happens by the end of the season everyone, with the possible exception of Edmunston, will be happy. If not, I would be fine with Kulak moving up with Petry. He’s already shown that he can thrive in that role. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

This is example 193857 of why +/- is a flawed stat. 

 

The same applies to the "on ice" advanced stats, too, though -- your numbers will be much better if you have a strong D partner or productive linemates. +/- is just a simpler version of those.

 

In the end, I think all the stats have their flaws, even the advanced ones. The key is to understand what those flaws are, and what value each of the stats has, and to use them accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PMAC said:

 I would be fine with Kulak moving up with Petry. He’s already shown that he can thrive in that role. 

Agree and Edmundston as #6/7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't decrease Edmundson's role (yet, anyway) but I think the 3rd pairing should be an even rotation of Kulak, Romanov, and Mete until an injury occurs. 

 

Man, with only 1 defenseman out of Chiarot, Edmundson, Kulak, Mete, and Fleury to be protected for the Expansion draft, but with a prospect pipeline of Romanov, Guhle, Harris, Norlinder, Struble, Brook, and Fairbrother, it's gonna be really disappointing if Seattle takes Jake Allen or Paul Byron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trizzak said:

They won't decrease Edmundson's role (yet, anyway) but I think the 3rd pairing should be an even rotation of Kulak, Romanov, and Mete until an injury occurs. 

 

Man, with only 1 defenseman out of Chiarot, Edmundson, Kulak, Mete, and Fleury to be protected for the Expansion draft, but with a prospect pipeline of Romanov, Guhle, Harris, Norlinder, Struble, Brook, and Fairbrother, it's gonna be really disappointing if Seattle takes Jake Allen or Paul Byron.

I don’t think we are lucky enough for Seattle to take Byron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t think we are lucky enough for Seattle to take Byron.

It's tough to say now who will be available for Seattle in that draft, but if it's anything like the Vegas one it will be defense heavy and forward light. Byron might be one of the better forwards available considering his top 6 experience, leadership, and unique skillset.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trizzak said:

It's tough to say now who will be available for Seattle in that draft, but if it's anything like the Vegas one it will be defense heavy and forward light. Byron might be one of the better forwards available considering his top 6 experience, leadership, and unique skillset.

Byron is not a top 6 forward. He was used in that role when we sucked. I’m hoping they take him, because it’s always easier to move a dman if you need to. Not easy to move a $3.5m 4th liner.  If we have to expose Mete or Allen (which we do), than those would be the logical choices and Allen will almost certainly be the pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Byron is not a top 6 forward. He was used in that role when we sucked. I’m hoping they take him, because it’s always easier to move a dman if you need to. Not easy to move a $3.5m 4th liner.  If we have to expose Mete or Allen (which we do), than those would be the logical choices and Allen will almost certainly be the pick.

In that role  he averaged close to .5 ppg for 3 seasons. Its pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Byron is not a top 6 forward. He was used in that role when we sucked. I’m hoping they take him, because it’s always easier to move a dman if you need to. Not easy to move a $3.5m 4th liner.  If we have to expose Mete or Allen (which we do), than those would be the logical choices and Allen will almost certainly be the pick.

Khudobin, Quick and Vanecek will likely also be exposed so it's not certain that Seattle would choose Allen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

If he keeps playing this well Allen would be a great choice 

That assumes that Seattle has someone else as a 1A.

 

Or they may select an experienced #1 and a younger #2.

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...