HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Would the Habs would had been that good over a 82 games season ? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1402107)

Habtchum* 04-12-2013 10:21 AM

Would the Habs would had been that good over a 82 games season ?
 
Tomorrow, the Habs will play their 41st game which would be a half season during a normal NHL schedule.

Do you think the Habs would had been as successful over a true regular 82 games season ?

Let's go back in September and October 2012 and imagine the line up they would had put on ice for the season opener. Bourque was injured. Noke was, I think. No way Galchenyuk would had made the team after having played a handful of games at OHL level the year before. Gallagher would had possibly started in Hamilton like he did. Therrien and his coaching staff would possibly have had a bit more difficulties dictating their "NO Excuses" motto. Would Cole would had showed up in better mental and physical shape ? Who would had played LW with Plekky and Gionta ? Moen ????? Would PK had signed before the start or after 10-15 games of the season ?

Possible line up back in October

Paccioretty - Desharnais - Cole
Moen - Plekanec - Gionta
Prust - Eller - Leblanc (healthy)
Geoffrion (healthy) - White - Blunden - Dumont - Armstrong - Palushaj ?????

Defence and goaltending would had been the same.

So, would the Habs have the same record over their 41 first games ? And would the Habs had finished with a 52-19-11 records for 115 points ?

ZARTONK 04-12-2013 10:28 AM

There is no reason to believe anything would have been different at the 41 game mark in a full 82-game season.

Habtchum* 04-12-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZARTONK (Post 63813961)
There is no reason to believe anything would have been different at the 41 game mark in a full 82-game season.

Even without Bourque, and the two Gallys. and no urgency to make the playoffs yet ?

ZARTONK 04-12-2013 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maltese (Post 63814043)
Even without Bourque, and the two Gallys. and no urgency to make the playoffs yet ?

Why wouldn't the Gallys be there?
Why wouldn't there be the same urgency to make the playoffs?

Habtchum* 04-12-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZARTONK (Post 63814733)
Why wouldn't the Gallys be there?
Why wouldn't there be the same urgency to make the playoffs?

I explained it in my opening post.

Galchenyuk had played 2 regular games the season before in Sarnia. If he made the team this past January it is because he proved he was too strong for OHL in his first 30-35 games. Gallagher had NO pro hockey experience back in September.

Watsatheo 04-12-2013 10:53 AM

Honestly, I doubt it. Gallagher and Galchenyuk got pretty valuable AHL/OHL/WJC experience. Markov got to play games in the KHL to get back some of his form. Bourque injury. Lockout helped the Habs more than most teams.

Habtchum* 04-12-2013 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic (Post 63815207)
Gally almost made the team out of camp last year. I'm pretty sure the plans were for him to make the team this year. MT loved the guy on AC, he used to rave about Gally.

Would Gallagher would had make such a difference back then ?

shutehinside 04-12-2013 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZARTONK (Post 63813961)
There is no reason to believe anything would have been different at the 41 game mark in a full 82-game season.

I agree. I don't see what would be different. I don't think after 48 games, the wheels would have fallen off and we'd lose the next 30 games.

As for the line up, Gallagher almost made the team last year. Chuckie still could have joined the team after the World's like a lot of the juniors do.

I won't go into injuries because it's impossible to know who would or wouldn't have got hurt.

As for players playingin Europe etc, well that the case with most teams in the league who had players playing in Europe etc. Don't see how the Habs benefitting from that more than any other team.

We're a good team that's well coached and play their concept to near perfection on most nights.

AH 04-12-2013 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shutehinside (Post 63815527)
I agree. I don't see what would be different. I don't think after 48 games, the wheels would have fallen off and we'd lose the next 30 games.

I guess you missed what happened January onwards in 2008-2009.

I am not convinced this team has staying power over 82 games. Just preparing for 82 games is different than preparing for 48 games. Everything changes. I hope we win the Cup this year, but next year we might need to have completely different expectations.

Habtchum* 04-12-2013 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AH (Post 63815717)
I guess you missed what happened January onwards in 2008-2009.

I am not convinced this team has staying power over 82 games. Just preparing for 82 games is different than preparing for 48 games. Everything changes. I hope we win the Cup this year, but next year we might need to have completely different expectations.

Habs are creating now very high expectations for next season. I am pretty sure they will remain competitive, but I would not bet they gonna get so many points per half seasons. That is why Bergevin should think about beefing up his team a bit to face a longer, harder schedule.

MJG 04-12-2013 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AH (Post 63815717)
I guess you missed what happened January onwards in 2008-2009.

I am not convinced this team has staying power over 82 games. Just preparing for 82 games is different than preparing for 48 games. Everything changes. I hope we win the Cup this year, but next year we might need to have completely different expectations.

I'll agree with the original post and say that things definitely could of been different. Markov not necessarily in game shape, Bourqur injured, PK situation, AGally and BGally question marks. But to suggest we don't have staying power is pure poppycock. Every team knew it was a 48 game season. Every one was aware of the urgency. It's an even playing field. We have not fallen off after 40. Why would we after 60 or 70?

Now I'm not saying we will finish with 110 + points next season. But, this years team, given the way they have played, is exactly where they should be. No excuses.

Lshap 04-12-2013 11:44 AM

It's reasonable to think the statistical spikes would've levelled off over a full 82 games. But it would be the same story for the whole league. Pens and Hawks wouldn't end up with 120-point seasons and we wouldn't end up at around 115. Part of the reason is we'd have played Western Conference teams, against which the Habs haven't done as well. Still, relative to the rest of the league I think we would be close to where we are now in the standings. Our system and our roster are no flukes.

Hackett 04-12-2013 11:57 AM

My question mark would be on D. Would bouillon' still be effective over the full season? Would markov, gorges, subban be taxed too much by the end of the year due to the emelin/diaz injuries (but this also assumes diaz is out for a while longer).

The habs have enough depth on forwards to last through a season, but the D is what I wonder about. Surely, they cannot afford anymore injuries there especially to the current top 3.

Of course, alot of teams suffer through similar adversity over the course of the season, so maybe it all balances out.

Cupmonger 04-12-2013 11:59 AM

I don't see why not. The shortened season is somewhat more condensed than a regular season. I think we would have done as well. Probably had a slump or two, but nothing major.

Teufelsdreck 04-12-2013 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackett (Post 63817865)
My question mark would be on D. Would bouillon' still be effective over the full season? Would markov, gorges, subban be taxed too much by the end of the year due to the emelin/diaz injuries (but this also assumes diaz is out for a while longer).

The habs have enough depth on forwards to last through a season, but the D is what I wonder about. Surely, they cannot afford anymore injuries there especially to the current top 3.

Of course, alot of teams suffer through similar adversity over the course of the season, so maybe it all balances out.

I understand your concern but the Habs will be deeper on D as the rookies mature and replace Kaberle and Weber.

BaseballCoach 04-12-2013 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AH (Post 63815717)
I guess you missed what happened January onwards in 2008-2009.

I am not convinced this team has staying power over 82 games. Just preparing for 82 games is different than preparing for 48 games. Everything changes. I hope we win the Cup this year, but next year we might need to have completely different expectations.

Out of the 23 guys on the roster, the following were on the team in 2008-2009

Price (injured in second half, never fully recovered)
Markov (missed the playoffs)
Bouillon (hurt toward end of season)
Plekanec
Gorges
Pacioretty (partial season, rookie)

This is just not the same team.

DekeLikeYouMeanIt 04-12-2013 10:54 PM

The grammar in that title hurt my brain...

overlords 04-12-2013 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DekeLikeYouMeanIt (Post 63850237)
The grammar in that title hurt my brain...

Not everyone's first language is english.

LeHab 04-12-2013 11:03 PM

No, they would be better!

IceHockeyfan 04-12-2013 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maltese (Post 63813675)

So, would the Habs have the same record over their 41 first games ? And would the Habs had finished with a 52-19-11 records for 115 points ?

We'll never know. There are plenty of examples of teams doing well for half a season then do badly the rest of the season or vice-versa. The Canadiens started well during the first half of their 100th season but tanked badly the rest of the season and got swept in the first round. They were supposed to be a Cup Contender that season but something happened after January that caused such a reversal in fortunes; as abrupt as a light switch turning on-off.

That said, the fact that the Canadiens and the rest of the league started the 2013 season with fully-healed rosters and the Canadiens still did well relative to the rest of the league would lead me to believe that this Canadiens team is for real and is a Cup contender. The only question mark is Price. Can he really carry the Canadiens all the way to the Finals or only after one round?

StellerEller 04-12-2013 11:57 PM

Would our winning % go down? Yes.

Would we be 1st in the NE or at least challenging for it? Yes.

sammy d 04-13-2013 12:28 AM

Uh, yah, only thing that may have made a difference is injuries.

That is all.

Habtchum* 04-13-2013 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DekeLikeYouMeanIt (Post 63850237)
The grammar in that title hurt my brain...

My most sincere apologies, sir.

Just for you...

Would the Habs been that good over a 82 games schedule ?

Et le But 04-13-2013 10:26 AM

It's hard to say but this underlying factors make this team look legitimate, for once. Usually "fluke" teams have one of three things going for them, or both -
-Ridiculously good power plays
-Hot goaltending
-Ridiculously high shooting %

Last years Leafs and Wild at the start of the season were good examples of fluke teams, they were both outplayed badly regularly and as soon as their unsustainable offense dried up, they crashed.

The 2008 Habs managed to keep the illusion going all season but as soon as the power play dried up, the team fell back to earth.

This team is different. Our power play has been very good lately (it's 4th in the league right now), but it has fluctuated all season without much impact on our standing. Unlike the 2008 team, we are getting as much scoring from even strength, the only teams with better even strength goals for/against than us are the Pens and Hawks.

Also Price isn't particularly good this year. He's not the liability some one claim he is but he's not the reason we are winning. This is probably his weakest season in the past 3 years and his stats are middle of the road.

And as far as shooting % goes, we aren't particularly lucky. We are getting luck from a few key players (Ryder especially), but most of our top 6 is shooting around their career averages and Pacioretty, Galchenyuk and Eller have all been very unlucky. This team is very balanced scoring-wise which means we can afford to have one player go cold.


Over a 82 game season anything could happen, we've had some bad injuries but less than usual if anything. But there's no reason to think this team is a bubble, despite what the general board says.

Bask 04-13-2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by overlords (Post 63850335)
Not everyone's first language is english.

en franšais svp :sarcasm:

also my answer is : we'll never know but the best we can do is presume they would've based on the statistics. just like the Expos in 1994


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.