Jump to content

Mar. 3, Habs vs Flames, 9 PM


dlbalr
 Share

Recommended Posts

Montreal.jpg

 

Caufield - Suzuki - Anderson

Hoffman - Dauphin - Gallagher

Pitlick - Evans - Lehkonen

Pezzetta - Poehling - Armia

 

Romanov - Chiarot

Kulak - Petry

Schueneman - Wideman

 

Hammond

 

Calgary.jpg

 

Gaudreau - Lindholm - Tkachuk

Mangiapane - Backlund - Coleman

Lucic - Monahan - Toffoli

Lewis - Richardson - Ritchie

 

Hanifin - Andersson

Kylington - Tanev

Zadorov - Gudbranson

 

Markstrom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well! That was pretty much identical to the first goal on Tuesday night. A different opponent, a different goalie, but the same D corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Well! That was pretty much identical to the first goal on Tuesday night. A different opponent, a different goalie, but the same D corps.

 

It was Petry's guy to cover, who he just left when he figured to cover another Flames player.

 

Hmm, is it just me or should Markstrom be getting a penalty for using an illegal stick?  i.e. he doesnt have white tape on the end of his tick.  

 

In another game this year I noticed a goalie doing that too.  Apparently Goalies can only use white tape on the end of their sticks because its way to easy to confuse dark colour tape for being the puck.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Hmm, is it just me or should Markstrom be getting a penalty for using an illegal stick?  i.e. he doesnt have white tape on the end of his tick.  

 

In another game this year I noticed a goalie doing that too.  Apparently Goalies can only use white tape on the end of their sticks because its way to easy to confuse dark colour tape for being the puck.  


From the NHL rulebook:

 

Quote

10.2 Goalkeeper’s Stick - In the case of a goalkeeper’s stick, there shall be a knob of white tape or other protective material approved by the League. This knob must not be less than one-half inch (1/2'') thick at the top of the shaft.


Failure to comply with this provision of the rule will result in the goalkeeper’s stick being deemed unfit for play. The goalkeeper’s stick must be changed without the assessment of a minor penalty.

 

It's not a penalty if the stick is ruled illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Petry's goal, I thought Calgary might challenge for goalie interference as it sure looked like Kulak made contact with Markstrom.  The last replay they showed on the Calgary feed really made it seem like it would have been a worthy challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dlbalr said:


From the NHL rulebook:

 

 

It's not a penalty if the stick is ruled illegal.

 

Interesting, thanks.  

 

I forget what game it was, but in 1 game earlier this season a Goalie had black on the end of his stick and near the end of the game I saw him slash Suzuki on the wrist.   I only noticed due to the movement of the black on the end of his stick that he had swung his stick at Suzuki.  In a different game I was watching on a US network they mentioned it was illegal and I swear they said it was a penalty.  It seems odd that it isnt allowed but its not a penalty.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammond doesn't look as sharp as he did in the first two games - that shortie by Mangiapane is one he'd love to have back.

 

The Habs are giving just about everyone power play time - only Romanov, Armia, and Pezzetta haven't played on the man advantage tonight.  Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that sucked, but good goal by Mangpane.  Hamburgalur gave him too much empty net but that was a sweet shot and likely would've went in anyway.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun game and quite a nice one for Benny.

Suzuki had some awesome shifts and great to see Hoffman produce. 

 

Any word on Edmundson getting closer to returning?

 

19:19, 5:49 on the PP for Pitlick

20+minutes for all 3 on Suzuki line.

Dauphin 17:58

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Would it be totally out of the question to trade him at deadline but then sign back Chiarot this summer?

It wouldn't seem to fit a rebuild/tool of the defence ... unless the plan was for him to play on the right-side ... the Habs prospect depth is in LHD ... also, unless the Hab's was by far the best offer, at 31 in May he might want a team closer to Cup contention ... or a city with neither state tax nor snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s well-documented that teams that are hopelessly out of the playoffs often end up playing quite well: the pressure’s off, opponents don’t take them seriously, guys just go out and have fun, and hey presto, you get a final third of a season which is basically an optical illusion. (Remember how Galy became a 30-goal scorer under those conditions? 🙄)

 

I get that. But given how things have gone since St Louis came aboard, I still can’t help but wonder whether, if the Habs had canned Ducharme in October, they might have actually been the bubble team most of us expected them to be this year - even with Price out. And whether Bergevin might still be GM (although his contract represented a big X-factor). 

 

Another team that threw away an entire season by waiting too long to fire a coach was Vancouver. It was even less excusable in that case, since Green was very obviously past his best-by date. Hard to blame MB for not rushing to fire a coach who had just gone to the Finals, but the Canucks may have cost themselves millions in playoff revenue by pointless dithering. But anyhow.

 

Nice to see a good vibe around the team, nice to see them playing pretty well despite a patch-up lineup. I just fret about the tank.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Would it be totally out of the question to trade him at deadline but then sign back Chiarot this summer?

 

after watching the game, I thought the same. Unfortunately, the Habs need to make room for the up and coming LDs and one of Edmundson or Chiarot have the highest trade value. Chiarot is the odd man out because of the expiring contract and being older.

Asset management... #@&!!!* I get it but watching Chiarot yesterday makes me want to keep him too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

but watching Chiarot yesterday makes me want to keep him too.

Really, why?

Because he had 1 good game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DON said:

Really, why?

Because he had 1 good game?

I just like the way he plays. Tough minutes, fairly mobile and physical, good first pass, doesn't panic or flop around the crease, may fight if needed, can generate offense although limited

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

It’s well-documented that teams that are hopelessly out of the playoffs often end up playing quite well: the pressure’s off, opponents don’t take them seriously, guys just go out and have fun, and hey presto, you get a final third of a season which is basically an optical illusion. (Remember how Galy became a 30-goal scorer under those conditions? 🙄)

 

I get that. But given how things have gone since St Louis came aboard, I still can’t help but wonder whether, if the Habs had canned Ducharme in October, they might have actually been the bubble team most of us expected them to be this year - even with Price out. And whether Bergevin might still be GM (although his contract represented a big X-factor). 

 

Another team that threw away an entire season by waiting too long to fire a coach was Vancouver. It was even less excusable in that case, since Green was very obviously past his best-by date. Hard to blame MB for not rushing to fire a coach who had just gone to the Finals, but the Canucks may have cost themselves millions in playoff revenue by pointless dithering. But anyhow.

 

Nice to see a good vibe around the team, nice to see them playing pretty well despite a patch-up lineup. I just fret about the tank.

 

 

I agree with almost all of this.

 

Gallgher did have 31 in a season we played garbage time

 

I do want to point out though that he also had 33 in a season we had 96 points and missed.the playoffs in the last week of the season though.

 

He was a legit 30 goal guy.  It wasnt just the garbage time season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

I agree with almost all of this.

 

Gallgher did have 31 in a season we played garbage time

 

I do want to point out though that he also had 33 in a season we had 96 points and missed.the playoffs in the last week of the season though.

 

He was a legit 30 goal guy.  It wasnt just the garbage time season.

 

I certainly agree that Gally was a legit 30-goal guy, in his day. 

 

I was referring to Galchenyuk in 2015-16, though!

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...