GDT Oct. 13, Canadiens vs Maple Leafs, 7 PM

[hab29RETIRED]

1 minute ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You and I have been banging this drum for a while. Although to be fair, the run to the Finals with those redwoods does suggest the Habs are onto a model that can be surprisingly effective, at least in the playoffs. Nevertheless, the model looked decidedly suspect in the later rounds, and with Weber replaced by Savard, it will be even less effective overall.

 

We’re built like a 1950s team. Forwards score, defencemen defend. But without puck-moving D, the forwards arguably are handicapped relative to their peers on other teams, who have the benefit of offensive push from the back end.

In fairness to OUR 50’s team, we had the best dmen of that era and I’d take him anyone we've got now.

[Sir_Boagalott]

20 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

the run to the Finals with those redwoods does suggest the Habs are onto a model that can be surprisingly effective, at least in the playoffs. Nevertheless, the model looked decidedly suspect in the later rounds, and with Weber replaced by Savard, it will be even less effective overall.

 

 

 

I sorta think thats debatable.  It is unarguable that the Habs made it to the Cup, but what was the reason?  Part of me feels that the Habs were the lucky beneficiaries of Covid.  i.e with the North div a Canadian team was guaranteed to make the 3rd round.  That team happened to be the Habs. 

 

In that sense it could be viewed that the Habs really only had to win 1 round to get to the Cup.  i.e. the refs werent their opponents in the 1st 2 rounds.  Due to Covid, the Habs only had to beat the refs once to get to the Cup.  In every other year that feat requires be able to over come bad reffing 3 times. 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

27 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

In fairness to OUR 50’s team, we had the best dmen of that era and I’d take him anyone we've got now.

 

Sure, and Doug Harvey was as good as they come.

 

I said we are built like A 1950s team, not that we are built like the HABS’ 1950s team. If only!!

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 minute ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

I sorta think thats debatable.  It is unarguable that the Habs made it to the Cup, but what was the reason?  Part of me feels that the Habs were the lucky beneficiaries of Covid.  i.e with the North div a Canadian team was guaranteed to make the 3rd round.  That team happened to be the Habs. 

 

In that sense it could be viewed that the Habs really only had to win 1 round to get to the Cup.  i.e. the refs werent their opponents in the 1st 2 rounds.  Due to Covid, the Habs only had to beat the refs once to get to the Cup.  In every other year that feat requires be able to over come bad reffing 3 times. 

 

 

Not buying it, we had an epic comeback against the Leafs, totally demolished the Jets, and solidly handled a team that was universally agreed to be a serious contender in Vegas. The reason the Habs made the Cup is because they kicked the sh*t out of all comers for three rounds. Their run was as legitimate as any other team’s Cup run.

[Sir_Boagalott]

8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Not buying it, we had an epic comeback against the Leafs, totally demolished the Jets, and solidly handled a team that was universally agreed to be a serious contender in Vegas. The reason the Habs made the Cup is because they kicked the sh*t out of all comers for three rounds. Their run was as legitimate as any other team’s Cup run.

 

They certainly did, I'm trying to take away from their accomplishment.  I'm pointing out that the reffing in the 1st 2 rounds was equal, but it was grossly in Vegas favour in the 3rd round, and in TB in the Cup.  In a normal year there are 2 more rounds of reffing not in their favour. 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Sure, and Doug Harvey was as good as they come.

 

I said we are built like A 1950s team, not that we are built like the HABS’ 1950s team. If only!!

I agree our D resembles a 50’s team, and is way behind the times.

But I wasn’t clear in the point that I was trying to make - that our D is actually not even as good as the D we had on those  50’s teams.
 

Harvey  was way ahead of his time as a puck moving dman that could skate. The best description for our D is from how I remember Howie Meeker once describing Luke Richardson. The play by play guy said that Richardson has legs that look like tree trunks.  Meeker’s zinger reply back was something like “yeah and he moves like a tree too”.

 

hell, players have gotten so much better in the last 30-49 years, the Savard we have today isn’t even 10% the player that Serge Savard was, and he is probably making 100x what the Senator was earning.

everyone is complaining about how we have no elite forwards, but hardly any has questioned the useless D we have. As for last years playoffs, if Price wasn’t in MVP form, or if we had Allen in net, no way we would have gotten out of the first round.  I think everyone is over-raring our D, and under-rating our forwards. As a GROUP, I think our forwards are much better than our D. I think our issues on the PP, and in offence in general, is that we don’t have the stud like Markov on D.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

They certainly did, I'm trying to take away from their accomplishment.  I'm pointing out that the reffing in the 1st 2 rounds was equal, but it was grossly in Vegas favour in the 3rd round, and in TB in the Cup.  In a normal year there are 2 more rounds of reffing not in their favour. 

Was it really in their favour, or that we just took more penalties because we had less talent?

[GHT120]

11 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Was it really in their favour, or that we just took more penalties because we had less talent?

It's always the refs

[titanfan]

22 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I agree with you, but I can't help making a pedantic point: going by team scoring leader totals doesn't prove the team is low scoring, necessarily. If you have 10 guys getting 65 points, you're a pretty effective offensive team. A more convincing metric would be the team's overall goals-scored totals annually, compared to the rest of the league.

Good point.  And having no scoring leaders doesn't mean you are necessarily a bad team either.  No question, balanced scoring is what helped the Habs in the playoffs.  The point was just how long it has been since the Habs had a legitimate offensive star on the team.  You'd think over that long a stretch SOMEBODY would have had a good season......

 

Thankfully we've had two goalies win Hart Trophies.

[GHT120]

3 hours ago, titanfan said:

...  You'd think over that long a stretch SOMEBODY would have had a good season......

 

You'd think that over the last 20 years THE TEAM might have had more than two good seasons offensively (my measure bing top 10 in scoring) ... and when the average for that period is 18th, the team can reasonably be considered at best "average" offensively, and close to poor.

[Sir_Boagalott]

17 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Was it really in their favour, or that we just took more penalties because we had less talent?

 

Is that a real question?  I'm just wondering because every analyst that commented on that series, and that includes all American analysts too  - they all unanimously said that the reffing in the Vegas series was the worst they had ever seen in a playoff series.  

 

In any playoff series the reffs can either call it really tight or let some things go.  In rnd 3 & 4 some of the things that went uncalled in rnd 1 & 2 started getting called.  

 

In a normal season a Canadian team is not guaranteed to make the 3rd round, but last year that was guaranteed.  In that sense its unarguable that it was easier for a Canadian team to make the 3rd round.  The Habs just happened to be that team.  

 

6 hours ago, GHT120 said:

It's always the refs

 

 

I cant tell by your comment if you mean that or if you're being sarcastic.  

 

Honestely, in the last 20 years, if not last 30 the 1st 2 rnds was the most evenly called playoffs series that I've ever seen the Habs play in.  

[hab29RETIRED]

2 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Is that a real question?  I'm just wondering because every analyst that commented on that series, and that includes all American analysts too  - they all unanimously said that the reffing in the Vegas series was the worst they had ever seen in a playoff series.  

 

In any playoff series the reffs can either call it really tight or let some things go.  In rnd 3 & 4 some of the things that went uncalled in rnd 1 & 2 started getting called.  

 

In a normal season a Canadian team is not guaranteed to make the 3rd round, but last year that was guaranteed.  In that sense its unarguable that it was easier for a Canadian team to make the 3rd round.  The Habs just happened to be that team.  

 

 

 

I cant tell by your comment if you mean that or if you're being sarcastic.  

 

Honestely, in the last 20 years, if not last 30 the 1st 2 rnds was the most evenly called playoffs series that I've ever seen the Habs play in.  

From what I recall that applied to a lot of calls that were not called against us. Hell, Weber probably could easily have gotten an additional 10-15 penalties on his own.

 

I’ve been saying for DECADES that refereeing in the NHL is garbage. Having said that we benefited from a lot of those garbage calls and non-calls last year.