Prime Minister Koivu Posted May 13 Posted May 13 Game 4 was a bit unusual with the long reviews, the called and uncalled penalties but Montreal was far from outplayed. Only change I would like is to swap Veleno with Texier. Veleno has rounded out a good defensive game so let him excel with Danault. I get that Veleno is with Dach for faceoffs and defensive presence. Texier isn’t a defensive grinder and should play with more skilled guys IMO GO HABS GO 1 Quote
Commandant Posted May 14 Posted May 14 In Marty I trust. Whatever he does Ill be good with as hes proven his moves usually work and he has his finger on the pulse of the team. That said I wouldnt change anything right now. Quote
sbhatt Posted May 14 Posted May 14 No big changes needed IMO. Just don't take any completely idiotic penalties, and be a little better on the powerplay. That was the difference in the last game, along with the crazy bounce that simply cannot be accounted for. The rest is just reinforcing little details to certain players. For example: if I'm Marty, I'd get in Slaf's ear and tell him to park his big ass in front of the Buffalo net on the PP or he'll be taken off of it, and that if I see another blind back pass from him he'll be stapled to the bench. Not much can/will be done about Carrier's terrible showing unfortunately. I just hope games like the last one from him is lighting a fire under Hughes to get an upgrade trade done this summer. Quote
Commandant Posted May 14 Posted May 14 What upgrade are you going to get who wants to play 3rd pairing minutes and makes close to what Carrier is making? Is he a perfect player? No. What team has a perfect #5 defenceman. Team needs to spend the money available on adding a second line forward, preferably a centre though there are no Cs in free agency and so a trade would be needed. Quote
sbhatt Posted May 14 Posted May 14 1 hour ago, Commandant said: What upgrade are you going to get who wants to play 3rd pairing minutes and makes close to what Carrier is making? Is he a perfect player? No. What team has a perfect #5 defenceman. Team needs to spend the money available on adding a second line forward, preferably a centre though there are no Cs in free agency and so a trade would be needed. I don't need a perfect player as a bottom pair D-man...I just want one who isn't so damn weak. We have a few non-physical skilled D-men in our top 4; we cannot afford to have a Carrier type on our bottom pair imo. A solid but boring stay at home guy who wins physical battles, doesn't make many mistakes, and blocks shots is what from a bottom pair D-man. I agree that if there's only enough trade capital/money for one or the other, a line 2 upgrade moves the needle more towards being an elite team. Quote
tomh009 Posted May 14 Posted May 14 Carrier is about 51%xGF in the series--not to mention 5-2 on actual goals--and has spent almost half his 5v5 TOI against the Sabres' top line. I don't think he is a huge problem at this point. With the right D-man next to him, he is still a solid 6D (or a 4D while Reinbacher is getting up to speed). Quote
GHT120 Posted May 14 Posted May 14 1 hour ago, sbhatt said: I don't need a perfect player as a bottom pair D-man...I just want one who isn't so damn weak. We have a few non-physical skilled D-men in our top 4; we cannot afford to have a Carrier type on our bottom pair imo. A solid but boring stay at home guy who wins physical battles, doesn't make many mistakes, and blocks shots is what from a bottom pair D-man. I agree that if there's only enough trade capital/money for one or the other, a line 2 upgrade moves the needle more towards being an elite team. If Reinbacher is ready next season, maybe not Top 4 initially, Guhle drops to the third pairing and once Reinbacher (I'm an optimist) is in the Top 4 I think Carrier will be fine not having to do his job and also worry about Struble/Xhekaj ... if they can ALSO upgrade on Carrier without spending a lot (salary and assets) that would obviously be great ... but not IMO a necessity ... something they could address if needed at the deadline. Quote
GHT120 Posted May 14 Posted May 14 No news as "The Canadiens are not scheduled for a morning skate on Thursday" ... but some innuendo (no D) on the above Game Day link they did share this "insightful" analysis (😉😞 PLAYERS TO WATCH FOR Forward Alex Newhook has been on an absolute tear since Game 7 against the Tampa Bay Lightning. In his last five playoff outings, the native of St-John's, NL, has registered six goals and as many points. For the Sabres, forward Zach Benson continues to be a pain for the Canadiens after scoring the go-ahead goal on his birthday Tuesday. The product of Chilliwack, BC, has recorded points (2G, 2A) in three of four games against Montreal this series. Quote
GHT120 Posted May 14 Posted May 14 If he can't/doesn't play, based on playoff TOI it bumps Stanley up the 5D role and brings in Schenn (7:04 in 1 playoff game) or Kesselring (4:25 in 1 playoff game) EDIT: Quote
Commandant Posted May 14 Posted May 14 6 hours ago, tomh009 said: Carrier is about 51%xGF in the series--not to mention 5-2 on actual goals--and has spent almost half his 5v5 TOI against the Sabres' top line. I don't think he is a huge problem at this point. With the right D-man next to him, he is still a solid 6D (or a 4D while Reinbacher is getting up to speed). Exactly. I dont see this as the spot we should be upgrading. Quote
Commandant Posted May 14 Posted May 14 3 goals on 4 shots. You might need to think about Fowler. Quote
tomh009 Posted May 14 Posted May 14 13 minutes ago, Commandant said: 3 goals on 4 shots. You might need to think about Fowler. Moneypuck says -2.51 GSAx so far ... 😮 Quote
Prime Minister Koivu Posted May 14 Author Posted May 14 Bad period by Montreal Bad period by Dobes Gotta do much better Quote
dlbalr Posted May 14 Posted May 14 19 minutes ago, Commandant said: 3 goals on 4 shots. You might need to think about Fowler. Hard to put him in cold but if Dobes coughs up an early one in the second, they might have to. This is now two rickety starts out of three in Buffalo in this series. On a different note, someone needs to remind the Habs that getting the puck out of the zone generally helps the transition game. They're getting burned on failed clearouts practically every game now. That needs to be shored up. Meanwhile, Xhekaj is handling the puck like a grenade tonight. Yes, he's already played more than last game but I think his playing time is going to be really limited the rest of the night. Quote
Commandant Posted May 14 Posted May 14 Dobes has always seemed to falter with too many starts in a row. Hes gone longer than normal but i do think giving him some time off and then back to him on Saturday would be good. Quote
GHT120 Posted May 15 Posted May 15 3 minutes ago, dlbalr said: Meanwhile, Xhekaj is handling the puck like a grenade tonight He almost scored a skillful own-goal to make it 4-2 Quote
brobin Posted May 15 Posted May 15 Sounds like I am missing a crazy game as I huddle in my little tent checking the score. Quote
xXx..CK..xXx Posted May 15 Posted May 15 A few of our players are handling the puck like a grenade tonight. Matheson comes to mind as well. Quote
dlbalr Posted May 15 Posted May 15 Before the series, I wrote about how there were going to be a lot more momentum swings. That period certainly had that. Montreal survived the onslaught, then Buffalo faltered under pressure. And now I wonder if we'll see Lyon in the third. Quote
tomh009 Posted May 15 Posted May 15 Moneypuck has the xG at 3.4-1.2 for the Habs. Basically both goalies have allowed two extra goals. Quote
Commandant Posted May 15 Posted May 15 12 minutes ago, tomh009 said: Moneypuck has the xG at 3.4-1.2 for the Habs. Basically both goalies have allowed two extra goals. Yeah i dont understand the people who think that we arent the better team and creating more chances than the Sabres in this. They had a good 5-6 minute stretch to start the 2nd but we dominated the rest of the period. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.