HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Just wondering, at what point is Carbo's job in danger?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2008, 02:19 PM
  #101
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,970
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Ozymandias;16591252]

Quote:
And they do play good on 5-on-5 because the system has been changed, and it takes time to adjust. If you haven't noticed this, there is no point in arguing. And it has to do with points. Did you see the losses by the Bruins?? Do you actually realize they went to overtime/shootout about as many times as the Habs??? There effort wasn't great in those games too. Anyway, you are always an eternal with negative bias, probably the opposite of me. Come and see me after the season and tell me who was right.
About as many? Sure. They lost against Rangers and Pittsburgh. We lost against the Isles and Jackets? Who cares how many times 'cause in the end where every point counts, it's winning against teams we should have been able to win that is important. It's winning against teams who we might have to pass to become a better team, not teams behind us. I should have stop responding to you at "ALWAYS NEGATIVE" while I always try to see every side of it, taking strong position on this but ALWAYS being there when I have to eat crow. So don't worry if I'm wrong, I'll be there like I've always been.

Quote:
And you don't think the Bruins aren't playing over their heads? Its an 82 games season, teams go into good and bad stretches. To base on it right now is hilarious and just silly. Teams use the season to perfect systems they want to use. Who has the best system? There is no ONE best system. Anaheim won two years ago with a totally different system than the Wings. This year, the WIngs have lost against both the Habs and Bruins. You've given your opinion, so now I'll give mine regarding yours : I'll trust professionals way before I'll trust your opinion and if you really look at what the coaches are doing, you'll notice that the Habs are playing differently than last year, defensively. Their 5-on-5 play is much stronger and its not only linked to the adding of Lang and Tanguay. This Bruins team is the same as the one that got eliminated by the Habs in the playoffs, so don't think that the 24 games we've seen so far from both teams is any indication of what will happen. This is the same simplistic logic that made people say "oh Anaheim is so good, they'll win the cup again in the next season" "Oh same-same with Detroit this year". Its A LOT more complicated than that.
To base what on what? I'm just saying I don't like how we're playing and used the "playoffs" example to say that I would be way more at ease with the Boston team then I would be with ours. Is it a problem to find that the Habs might not be the greatest team and that another team might be better? As far as the Bruins team being the same well if you disregard Chara's with a better shoulder, Krejci, Kessel, Lucic and other who are gaining a lot of confidence, if you take for granted that they're finally buying into's Julien's system and so on sure.....Still I'm the one who said almost at the beginning of the year that Julien is a match made in heaven for the Bruins while there was almost a poll to know when he'll be fired.....where are those people now? Players over their heads? Probably. But I also believed we're so not playing to what we're capable of, but then listening to you we are while the coach doesn't think so....And then as far as who to trust you and all that....Well fine, I hope you do. Don't trust my opinion. I really don't care. It is still a message board though where everybody can have an opinion. So I'll take your advice and trust Carbo's opinion who doesn't like what he's seeing contrary to you where everything is fine.


Quote:
You do realize that a game plan isn't just about the neutral zone right???? Instead of extrapolating this into ""Do you actually believe that we'll start playing the super trap, 5 guys on the blue line type of game against ALL teams?"" which is stupid and not what I said, go reread my comment, and better yet, go read the comments made by the players themselves. They stated they didn't follow THE gameplan against the CAPS, that there are things they did against the WINGS that they didn't do against the CAPS. IT HAD NOTHING to do with the trap. Against Detroit it was not just the trap, it was the way they pressed, the way they opened passing lanes because players were focusing on what their teamates were doing. Geeze, did you ever play hockey??? There are things from game-to-game that don't change in the gameplan even if the neutral zone is handled differently.
Sure. I do realize it. Do believe though that's the main reason why we won. Being able to stop their speed in the neutral zone.

Quote:
Well if the Ruins are so great, why did they need about as many shootouts?? Why did they lose 4 in shootouts like the Habs??? Your negative bias and doublestandard is so obvious. And it isn't surprising, you've always been like that. And its not a theory. Instead, go look at the stats for shootouts. You'll see the Habs are far from the only ones. And the point was also, that the Habs never loss in overtime, so it is 6 regulation time TOTAL on 23 games. So yeah, they were good 5-on-5, especially considering how bad the PP has been, you can't deny that, no matter how subjective you are. That's one loss every 4 games in regulation and overtime, at a time when the team is still adjusting to a new way of playing, when a lot of top offensive players are snakebitten. To a lot of people, this is a good sign. What will it be like when players get used to this system, when they will get the lucky bounces and the top players will hit the net instead of the other way? And this is another thing you are forgetting, there is luck factor in either win or defeat, and the Habs haven't been lucky so far. I missed one or two games since the start of the season, and its been many factors that tallied those 6 losses. You think Boston didn't look bad on many of their games? I beg to differ. You might wanna go check their games.
Can't believe that your the one asking me to go and check stats, do some research and stop being so negative, while you're accusing of something I'm not and don't verify the facts before doing so. I've always been so negative that I'm not asking for the coach's head.....can't imagine what you think about the others, well I don't imagine it....I already know....As far as a struggling team who has a lot of talent and is snakebitten, well I'll give you that one. That has to do with the way we are playing right now. But I just happen to think, like the coach, that it's more than luck, gods or anything out of their control. Again, in a thread where the firing of a coach is being discussed and while I keep saying that the coach is making good and valid points AND that I don't agree with his firing, you're on my back 'cause I happen to not entirely agree with your points?

Quote:
Well, when your team is 13-6-4 and some are asking for the coach's head, you should realize that a lot of fans are exagerating, and it is mostly the negative ones.
Well what is your point there, 'cause that's exactly what I'm saying.



Quote:
Hmm, we did have those, you are not seeing it that way, because you are being extra critical of your own team, while not doing the same of opposing teams. You think all the teams haven't played bad in their losses?? Double-standard, again and again.
How the heck do you know that I'm not critical of other teams? Is that a topic about other teams here? Clearly, I meant that all the teams haven't played bad in their losses....where did you take this, 'cause it's just not true. I'm being critical of my own team 'cause I actually mind about it. Not being critical is either being a cheerleader or not caring at all. I choose to care by giving my comments about what I think works and doesn't....'cause yes, I'm not always negative as you would love to think but prefer not to acknowledge it.....

Quote:
Voilà. Told you so.
Told me what? That I should not expect my team, in their plan, to improve from previous years? Well it might happen if you're in reconstruction mode, which we are not. And again, it's not the points that I'M referring to but the effort and the desire to pay the price, to win their battles along the boards and I'M not talking about the Kostopoulos and the Bégin of this world. You see a lot of effort and grit. I don't. Case closed. It's called opinions. You don't agree with mine, you find me ALWAYS negative, why do you waste your time responding to me in such length if you totally disrespect the kinda of poster I am. Don't waste your time. There's a nice feature for that. But if you want to talk hockey and have some decent conversation, well you do bring valid points and I wouldn't mind doing it.


Quote:
No chite. Everybody always wants them to be better. There is no escaping that. But there is a difference between seeing everything as black as you are doing, totally exagerating the team's performance and making it seem like other teams don't have bad games and that other teams always play good 60 minutes, and being patient, seeing the team for what it is doing, instead of imposing your view on how they should play towards meeting your expectations, when it is not even time to have expectations. Oh do you know what? Those teams that play high octane right now will slow down after mid season, and won't have much left in the tank come playoff time. Teams like Boston have no choice of going full gear every game to win. You should find solace in the fact that we have the luxury of saving our energy for when it will be most important.
Well if you would have time to visit this board a little more, in the Bruins are so great thread in the main board, well that's exactly what I'm saying. Bruins problem might be that they could be peaking too soon. And as far as seeing as black as I'M seeing, again, I don't see any armageddon predictions in what I wrote. Not imposing my view, just giving an opinion. As far as expectations, well you're right as far as our opinions are solely based on our expectations. Don't agree that it's NOT the time 'cause it might take time to build a solid work ethic and how about starting at the beginning of the season. It's that critical what's happening now? Of course not! I keep saying it. It doesn't mean that AS OF NOW, I like what I'm seeing. That's all.

Quote:
To you. Last November, it was the same non-sense been given over and over. And you know what? I was right then, and I'll be right again. Pretentious, no. Patient and objective, yes.
Well you come away pretentious when you keep insulting people 'cause as far as the points you're making, some are quite valid. As far as being the same non-sense, well again try to prove that I was making the same points last year. Don't remember hearing Carbo not knowing what to do at that time of the year.

In the end, I'm not a fan of what I'm seeing. But I'm not saying that Carbo should be fire and that we wil aim for Tavares. But when the coach, still today, is saying that he's worried about some of his guys production, that he keeps trying to have his players have a great work ethic but it goes from one ear to another and he has no idea what to do at this point, I choose to believe ('cause he's the professional) him and be a little worried myself. But everything is not ALL BLACK!

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2008, 03:50 PM
  #102
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
About as many? Sure. They lost against Rangers and Pittsburgh. We lost against the Isles and Jackets? Who cares how many times 'cause in the end where every point counts, it's winning against teams we should have been able to win that is important. It's winning against teams who we might have to pass to become a better team, not teams behind us. I should have stop responding to you at "ALWAYS NEGATIVE" while I always try to see every side of it, taking strong position on this but ALWAYS being there when I have to eat crow. So don't worry if I'm wrong, I'll be there like I've always been.
Fisrt off, this is where we lose each other. I give arguments and you counter argue with some cherry picking or bad arguments (like the one about going into SOs, to say the 5-on-5 wasn't as good as I made it out, because if it was, they wouldn't have gone to those SOs, while Boston has almost the same number of SOs (1 OT and 6 SOs) And again to try and disprove that, you cherrypick two games out of 8 for each. And the two games you picked for the Habs each had ONE player responsible for it going to SO. OByrne against the Isles and Halak against the BJs. Those two games, the Habs played well, and should've won in regulation if it weren't for those two players, one for each game respectively. Why not mention all of them. Like the Habs losing in SO against a red-hot Miller and Sabres team? And many other examples.


Quote:
To base what on what?
Don't be purposefully obtuse, you are intelligent and you know exactly what I meant, I made it pretty clear. You are basing this on what you've seen so far this season. I explained why it doesn't amount to much and I gave many arguments to prove that, so stick to the arguments instead of repeating.

Quote:
I'm just saying I don't like how we're playing and used the "playoffs" example to say that I would be way more at ease with the Boston team then I would be with ours.
And who got manhandled in the 7th game? You mention Chara and the likes being injured, yet you forget that Komi, Koivu and Bouillon weren't 100% and yet the Habs, when it mattered the most, prevailed. So no matter how you wanna put it, what is happening right now, is way too far from the playoffs, and doesn't even have precedence to show it as better. Even worst, the team that DID beat the Habs, have the same system as they had, have one major player back in their lineup and are doing far worst the Habs. So grit, system and whatnot right now is no indication of what will be come April.

Quote:
Is it a problem to find that the Habs might not be the greatest team and that another team might be better?
I've never said that and I never implied that the Habs are the greatest team. You are yet again extrapolating things I've said into things I haven't said. Why don't you stick to the arguments at hand instead? Trying to show you that they aren't as bad as you say, is not trying to prove that they are the greatest.

Quote:
As far as the Bruins team being the same well if you disregard Chara's with a better shoulder, Krejci, Kessel, Lucic and other who are gaining a lot of confidence, if you take for granted that they're finally buying into's Julien's system and so on sure.....
Hum, and maybe you are disregarding the fact that the Habs added Tangs and Lang and that it might take some time to adjust for certain players. You are extremely impressed by 24 games. I hope you realize that they probably won't play like that for the entire season. That any system has its flaws and that teams and players tend to hit slumps every now and then. What I simply said is that you are taking 24 games and making them the rule for the rest of the season, and that is simplistic logic, like the one about the Ducks winning again, like the one about the Wings. I'm not as easily impressed as you are. I am when a team shows it through a full season, and that is why I am patient with the Habs. I never said there wasn't anything wrong. But is still waaaaay too early to push any kind of panic button.

Quote:
Still I'm the one who said almost at the beginning of the year that Julien is a match made in heaven for the Bruins while there was almost a poll to know when he'll be fired.....where are those people now?
Wrong crowd. I placed Boston 2nd in our division and still believe that is where they will finish. But that is besides the point.

Quote:
Players over their heads? Probably. But I also believed we're so not playing to what we're capable of, but then listening to you we are while the coach doesn't think so....
Do you actually read what I say, or just browse quickly throught it? I did say that they weren't playing at their full potential. But that is a good thing. If they can manage 13-6-4 when in a rutt, imagine what they'll do at full steam, even the Ruins won't be a match for them.

Quote:
And then as far as who to trust you and all that....Well fine, I hope you do. Don't trust my opinion. I really don't care. It is still a message board though where everybody can have an opinion. So I'll take your advice and trust Carbo's opinion who doesn't like what he's seeing contrary to you where everything is fine.
Again, words put into my mouth. I didn't say it was fine. Where did I say that? I said they played well at 5-on-5. I said there were a lot of games where the effort was there. I said the PP was bad. I said in another thread that the PK could be better. Oh and don't you think Carbo keeps a bit to himself. Do you really think he actually says everything he is thinking? For sure he wasn't pleased with the Friday game, because they didn't follow the game plan. You think he wasn't pleased with Wednesday and Saturday's game? That's the difference. And again, even with Carbo, you extrapolate what he says and make it the norm.


Quote:
Sure. I do realize it. Do believe though that's the main reason why we won. Being able to stop their speed in the neutral zone.
Uhm no, that's way too simplistic. It was way more than that. In the third period they did that extensively, yet they managed to get to 3-0 in the first two periods, while doing things in the offensive zone that they weren't doing against the Caps and that they did do against the Sabres. The problems against the Caps was the players not opening the passing lanes by working together, while they did that against the Wings and Sabres. Hockey is a lot more than just how you play the neutral zone.


Quote:
Can't believe that your the one asking me to go and check stats, do some research and stop being so negative, while you're accusing of something I'm not and don't verify the facts before doing so. I've always been so negative that I'm not asking for the coach's head.....
Not asking the coach's head doesn't mean you aren't negative. Stop giving BSitty arguments. You are negative as you strongly implied that we were mostly winning games they we shouldn't have won, that we always play jsut 10 minutes per game and other exagerated stuff like that. And again, you don't stick to the arguments.

So simply this started with me saying :

"the habs played good 5-on-5 since the beginning of the season"

and you responding :

"well if they did play good 5-on-5, they wouldn't have needed to go into SO"

which is a lame argument (no wonder you purposefully try to divert the convo), so I reply that the Ruins had as many SO, so your argument doesn't mean zilch (especially considering that the Ruins went to overtime and shootout jsut one time less than the Habs, and loss once in overtime, which in the old rules would have them with just one less loss than the Habs)

Quote:
can't imagine what you think about the others, well I don't imagine it....I already know....As far as a struggling team who has a lot of talent and is snakebitten, well I'll give you that one. That has to do with the way we are playing right now. But I just happen to think, like the coach, that it's more than luck, gods or anything out of their control. Again, in a thread where the firing of a coach is being discussed and while I keep saying that the coach is making good and valid points AND that I don't agree with his firing, you're on my back 'cause I happen to not entirely agree with your points?
No, you are obfuscating the whole point, by yet again not sticking to my arguments, but rather distorting and diverting the conversation. Nice try though.


Quote:
Well what is your point there, 'cause that's exactly what I'm saying.
Hm, no, that IS what I was saying from the start, and yet you didn't agree in your first reply, thinking that I was aiming the comment at you.

Quote:
How the heck do you know that I'm not critical of other teams? Is that a topic about other teams here? Clearly, I meant that all the teams haven't played bad in their losses....where did you take this, 'cause it's just not true.
Go reread your first reply : ""I belive that fans can live with losses. But a loss that you have competed in. A loss that you have been beated solely by a red hot goalie. A loss that feels like a win, you know like moral victories? So far, most of our wins, almost fell like losses 'cause we've rarely been able to be consistant for 60 minutes.""

Because if you did look at other teams, even the good ones, they all have that. There is a point in being critical, and then there's being overcritical. Because you included a comparison with the Bruins, yet you don't look at their losses, yet you don't compare it to other teams. The point is, and it was obvious, is that all teams have those.

Quote:
I'm being critical of my own team 'cause I actually mind about it. Not being critical is either being a cheerleader or not caring at all. I choose to care by giving my comments about what I think works and doesn't....'cause yes, I'm not always negative as you would love to think but prefer not to acknowledge it.....
Well, the part before shows just how negative your bias is, as we did earn many of those victories with effort, and we did have games where the team played fully. The negative stance is shown with the exageration and extrapolation of the bad moments as being the norm, which it is not, or else the Habs wouldn't have the record they have. I care about the team, yet I am able to see the good parts as much as the bad parts.


Quote:
Told me what? That I should not expect my team, in their plan, to improve from previous years?
That the expectation was to dominate from the getgo (right off the bat) You say no I don't, yet right then you contradict yourself by saying that it was your expectation.

Quote:
Well it might happen if you're in reconstruction mode, which we are not. And again, it's not the points that I'M referring to but the effort and the desire to pay the price, to win their battles along the boards and I'M not talking about the Kostopoulos and the Bégin of this world. You see a lot of effort and grit. I don't. Case closed.
You really are unable to make nuances? You say "I don't", but what I see is that they do it, but not all the time. Not a lot. But they are doing it. You say it as though they NEVER do it, or rarely, which is not the case. I see all the 9 top forwards doing that, and I could find you myriads of examples, and right now, it is not what is making this team having bad games IMO. They don't position themselves well on offense (they've been better recently, except against the Caps) they don't create chances by opening up the passing lines, by playing as a team, placing themselves at the right place for the puckhandler. It is a good effort most of the time when I see it, but wasted effort. And its not about sacrificing, which is something I see them do, its about cohesion and communication and timing when they have puck possession.

Quote:
It's called opinions. You don't agree with mine, you find me ALWAYS negative, why do you waste your time responding to me in such length if you totally disrespect the kinda of poster I am.
And why did you respond to mine in the first place??? You don't make any sense. I responded in lenght because I was defending the points I raised first, and then you countered them. So lemme get this straight, you can respond to mine, give your arguments, but I can't reply? Is that it? And you are saying I'm the one who doesn't respect the opinion of others? At least I try to keep my focus on the debate and counter argue when I think I see a bad argument, or something worth countering. I put that part in bold and underlined so you'll notice it and so you might understand that I do respect other people's opinion, enought to make me want to debate them, which is the point in the first place of this message board, not to just give your opinion, but being ready to have them argued and debated.

Quote:
Don't waste your time. There's a nice feature for that. But if you want to talk hockey and have some decent conversation, well you do bring valid points and I wouldn't mind doing it.
I rarely if ever use the IL. And try to get this straight, you were the one who responded. If you didn't like my reply to your reply, you should give that advice to yourself.


Quote:
Well if you would have time to visit this board a little more, in the Bruins are so great thread in the main board, well that's exactly what I'm saying. Bruins problem might be that they could be peaking too soon. And as far as seeing as black as I'M seeing, again, I don't see any armageddon predictions in what I wrote.
That was a reference to how you see them play. Your bias seems overly negative as you don't seem to see what they are actually doing good, and they are doing good things (that's the counter balance, I do see what they are doing bad), and just the fact you were unable to acknowledge the fact that they have a good record for 5-on-5 play, hinted me on this.

Quote:
Not imposing my view, just giving an opinion. As far as expectations, well you're right as far as our opinions are solely based on our expectations. Don't agree that it's NOT the time 'cause it might take time to build a solid work ethic and how about starting at the beginning of the season. It's that critical what's happening now? Of course not! I keep saying it. It doesn't mean that AS OF NOW, I like what I'm seeing. That's all.
Well, ok. Yet that's not what it sounded like in your first reply to my own post that I made that had nothing to do with you, yet you seemed to take personal an awful lot.

Quote:
Well you come away pretentious when you keep insulting people 'cause as far as the points you're making, some are quite valid.
Did I insult you in any manner? I also find it insult to build a good argument and have it wasted on a feeble counter argument (like the one about 5-on-5 vs not having to go into SO)

Quote:
As far as being the same non-sense, well again try to prove that I was making the same points last year. Don't remember hearing Carbo not knowing what to do at that time of the year.
Oh, I do remember him saying so. Right about a year ago.

Quote:
In the end, I'm not a fan of what I'm seeing. But I'm not saying that Carbo should be fire and that we wil aim for Tavares. But when the coach, still today, is saying that he's worried about some of his guys production, that he keeps trying to have his players have a great work ethic but it goes from one ear to another and he has no idea what to do at this point, I choose to believe ('cause he's the professional) him and be a little worried myself. But everything is not ALL BLACK!
Well that's the point, he's the professional. He knows how it works. If he was truly at a lost, he would quit. If he's still there, its because he does see some good things, he knows that they can turn it around. He's been there, he's done that. That's why I made the first post. Because I'm not concerned one bit about what is happening. I'll start worrying in Januray, if the team still played for ,500 like they did in November.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2008, 04:01 PM
  #103
Habs10Habs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Habs10Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,241
vCash: 500
Oh man, I have to leave now. But I'll come back and continue reading the Whitesnake/Ozy debate. It's the best I've seen so far today.

Habs10Habs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2008, 05:20 PM
  #104
dutchy29
Registered User
 
dutchy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SIRISAACBROCKVILLE
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by x eric x View Post
when Gainey isnt the GM anymore.
I agree with this comment, these two work together on alot of decisions that happen on the ice guaranteed. If you don't like the product on the ice Gainey is as much
to blame.

dutchy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2008, 07:47 PM
  #105
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,970
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Ozymandias;16593756]

Quote:
Fisrt off, this is where we lose each other. I give arguments and you counter argue with some cherry picking or bad arguments (like the one about going into SOs, to say the 5-on-5 wasn't as good as I made it out, because if it was, they wouldn't have gone to those SOs, while Boston has almost the same number of SOs (1 OT and 6 SOs) And again to try and disprove that, you cherrypick two games out of 8 for each. And the two games you picked for the Habs each had ONE player responsible for it going to SO. OByrne against the Isles and Halak against the BJs. Those two games, the Habs played well, and should've won in regulation if it weren't for those two players, one for each game respectively. Why not mention all of them. Like the Habs losing in SO against a red-hot Miller and Sabres team? And many other examples.
Well you're right. This is totally where we lose each other. You find they're playing great while I don't. You appreciate the effort and I don't. You're intelligent too and since you now think I am, you have to know that giving the SO's examples were just 1 piece of the puzzle of where I think they're not as great as we hope they'd be on 5 on 5. The whole effort thing 5 on 5, the same one that Carbo still says he's not happy with is amongst that as well. Again, in a thread about firing the coach, and saying how I agree with him as far as not being satisfied with his team, I'm just agreeing with him. You don't want me to cherrypick, okay I'll stop doing it. Still every argument that is given here could ALWAYS be taken as cherrypicking. Still I don't like how we lose our battles along the boards, I don't like how we hate playing against hard forechecking teams, don't particularly like to see our "stars" not producing like they should be, don't like how I perceive our ratio takeaways vs giveways, don't like how we're not protecting the puck as good, don't like how tons of our players don't move their feet as well making them glide, don't like how we seemed to miss some imagination when in control of the puck (though that I will agree, as talented as we are, that should and will come back) and so on....Those could be taken as valid points, at least they are to me 'cause that how I see it. Possible that for people who don't agree with them, it could be taken as cherrypicking.

Quote:
Don't be purposefully obtuse, you are intelligent and you know exactly what I meant, I made it pretty clear. You are basing this on what you've seen so far this season. I explained why it doesn't amount to much and I gave many arguments to prove that, so stick to the arguments instead of repeating.
Well I guess here it's just a question of misunderstanding 'cause I used that whole playoffs analogy but my point was to say that it was my appreciation to the year AS OF NOW. So when you say "To base it on right now is silly" well you have to respond to "We will play in the playoffs the same way we're playing right now" which is not entirely true. I'm talking about what I see right now. My biggest concern as far as the playoffs are concerned are our ability to bring our "grit" to another level. The possibility to see a guy who did by himself called himself a little girl, play like a man come playoff time. Pleks is a true important man in this lineup and what I'm seeing now is that he looks like the playoffs guy that was so much on the perimeter and didn't want to commit too much. And other questions marks I have on certain players. But my point was NOT to say that we will play in the playoffs the same way we're playing now. If that what it sounds like, well in reality it wasn't. You don't win the Cup at the 25th game, I know.

Quote:
And who got manhandled in the 7th game? You mention Chara and the likes being injured, yet you forget that Komi, Koivu and Bouillon weren't 100% and yet the Habs, when it mattered the most, prevailed. So no matter how you wanna put it, what is happening right now, is way too far from the playoffs, and doesn't even have precedence to show it as better. Even worst, the team that DID beat the Habs, have the same system as they had, have one major player back in their lineup and are doing far worst the Habs. So grit, system and whatnot right now is no indication of what will be come April.
Again, was responding solely to the fact that the Bruins team is the same one as it was before. Just saying that they're not 'cause like you just proove with the Flyers, teams can stick the same group of guys and do either far much worst or a lot better. That topic was not made to disregard our own injuries but to acknowledge that ****ing Bruins team I hate so much....

Quote:
I've never said that and I never implied that the Habs are the greatest team. You are yet again extrapolating things I've said into things I haven't said. Why don't you stick to the arguments at hand instead? Trying to show you that they aren't as bad as you say, is not trying to prove that they are the greatest.
Well I guess it was my own way to exagerate as well. You didn't say that. True. But then I feel you do exagerate as well 'cause when you say that you're trying to show me that they aren,t as bad as you say, I keep wondering where did I imply that they are as "bad". I don't like what I'm seeing, but then doesn't mean that they won't be better, doesn't mean that they won't be great in the playoffs, doesn't mean that we're not going to have a 5-game winning streak. I just don't see "how bad" I'm implying they are....

Quote:
Hum, and maybe you are disregarding the fact that the Habs added Tangs and Lang and that it might take some time to adjust for certain players. You are extremely impressed by 24 games. I hope you realize that they probably won't play like that for the entire season. That any system has its flaws and that teams and players tend to hit slumps every now and then. What I simply said is that you are taking 24 games and making them the rule for the rest of the season, and that is simplistic logic, like the one about the Ducks winning again, like the one about the Wings. I'm not as easily impressed as you are. I am when a team shows it through a full season, and that is why I am patient with the Habs. I never said there wasn't anything wrong. But is still waaaaay too early to push any kind of panic button.
Totally acknowledge that they will have a slump as well like I've said in the previous post. I just think though that when a team buys into a game plan and stick with it while not having the greatest talent in the world, it's much easier for the coach to demonstrate day in and day out that they have to stick with that plan to go far, contrary to a team build on talent who still, by the coach's own admission (don't take my word), still believes that talent alone is enough. But we're not there yet, I agree. Not pushing the panic button? Again, I've never said that as well and can't see where I would have demonstrated that.

Quote:
Wrong crowd. I placed Boston 2nd in our division and still believe that is where they will finish. But that is besides the point.
Fine. We agree. See, there's hope after all.

Quote:
Do you actually read what I say, or just browse quickly throught it? I did say that they weren't playing at their full potential. But that is a good thing. If they can manage 13-6-4 when in a rutt, imagine what they'll do at full steam, even the Ruins won't be a match for them.
Well that's not the sentiment I got reading how eager you were to crush every single phrase I wrote so yes, I must have missed that full potential argument...Thing is while I might have been more vocal about it, that's about what my intention was as well....to say that I was not satisfied and we could do so much better.....I really didn't think it went out as "We're doomed, let's do a firesale" type of post.


Quote:
Again, words put into my mouth. I didn't say it was fine. Where did I say that? I said they played well at 5-on-5. I said there were a lot of games where the effort was there. I said the PP was bad. I said in another thread that the PK could be better. Oh and don't you think Carbo keeps a bit to himself. Do you really think he actually says everything he is thinking? For sure he wasn't pleased with the Friday game, because they didn't follow the game plan. You think he wasn't pleased with Wednesday and Saturday's game? That's the difference. And again, even with Carbo, you extrapolate what he says and make it the norm.
Well my thinking is that if Carbo had to keep some things to himself, it would be the negative aspects of the game not the positive one. To me, going out to journalists, is about close to the last thing you say to get your message through. So I would not see why he would keep the positives to himself. But that's just my way to see this.

Quote:
Uhm no, that's way too simplistic. It was way more than that. In the third period they did that extensively, yet they managed to get to 3-0 in the first two periods, while doing things in the offensive zone that they weren't doing against the Caps and that they did do against the Sabres. The problems against the Caps was the players not opening the passing lanes by working together, while they did that against the Wings and Sabres. Hockey is a lot more than just how you play the neutral zone.
Again, and I did mention it in the post you're responding to, it's not the only thing. Hockey is much more than that, I agree ( I did say it before so I'll repeat). But I guess I just believed it's much more important than what you think it is.

Quote:
Not asking the coach's head doesn't mean you aren't negative. Stop giving BSitty arguments. You are negative as you strongly implied that we were mostly winning games they we shouldn't have won, that we always play jsut 10 minutes per game and other exagerated stuff like that. And again, you don't stick to the arguments.
Well in a thread about the firing of a coach, I would say that it has to mean that. I am negative 'cause in the end I'm saying we're not playing good enough, while you're saying we could play better. So be it, in the end, it almost means the same thing. Strange that in the same phrase you're saying exagerated stuff like that and 10 minutes per game, something I've never said. I do stick to my arguments, that are above. Those numerous things we don't seem to be doing makes me question how good we're playing. You don't like them, you don't find them as the truth, again, fine. That's your arguments. But how somebody's arguments are BS 'cause you don't like them, that's BS to me as well.

Quote:
So simply this started with me saying :

"the habs played good 5-on-5 since the beginning of the season"

and you responding :

"well if they did play good 5-on-5, they wouldn't have needed to go into SO"

which is a lame argument (no wonder you purposefully try to divert the convo), so I reply that the Ruins had as many SO, so your argument doesn't mean zilch (especially considering that the Ruins went to overtime and shootout jsut one time less than the Habs, and loss once in overtime, which in the old rules would have them with just one less loss than the Habs)
See my other point where CLEARLY the SO was just a glimpse of the total point I was trying to make. Then YOU are the one you brought that "If we would've won those SO" point so in what in direct response to it as far as why would you count on winning the SO if in the end we should not have gone this in the first place. You're giving the blame to O'Byrne, so be it. He deserves it. I could say that 1 goal should not have been as decisive against a team like the Isles. So in the end, I really don't see why we should bring a "what if we would've won" 'cause "what if we would've lose" exist as well. Makes me think to a certain extent ('cause I would not to insult you) to the famous Bruins "If we would've won 4 out of 8 games against the Habs, we would be first....The best way to win SO, is use 60 minutes of a game to not go there. So there's no point, for me, to ever "What if..."

Quote:
Hm, no, that IS what I was saying from the start, and yet you didn't agree in your first reply, thinking that I was aiming the comment at you.
It is about firing the coach 'cause we're not playing good enough. I agree that firing the coach makes no sense. That doesn't mean that we're playing good enough. So I do realize that people are exagerating for asking the coach's head 'cause of a mini-slump. But I don't think people are exagerating 'cause some are finding that we're not playing that well.


Quote:
Well, the part before shows just how negative your bias is, as we did earn many of those victories with effort, and we did have games where the team played fully. The negative stance is shown with the exageration and extrapolation of the bad moments as being the norm, which it is not, or else the Habs wouldn't have the record they have. I care about the team, yet I am able to see the good parts as much as the bad parts.
Ok we did. We did have some victories that we had a great effort in it. I did say always, and should've said "more than I would have liked".

Quote:
That the expectation was to dominate from the getgo (right off the bat) You say no I don't, yet right then you contradict yourself by saying that it was your expectation.
Well 25 games is 1/3 of the season. I do believe that at this point, you should start seeing what this team is capable of. Didn't expect anything from the first 10-15 games but now, to me is a different thing.

Quote:
You really are unable to make nuances? You say "I don't", but what I see is that they do it, but not all the time. Not a lot. But they are doing it. You say it as though they NEVER do it, or rarely, which is not the case. I see all the 9 top forwards doing that, and I could find you myriads of examples, and right now, it is not what is making this team having bad games IMO. They don't position themselves well on offense (they've been better recently, except against the Caps) they don't create chances by opening up the passing lines, by playing as a team, placing themselves at the right place for the puckhandler. It is a good effort most of the time when I see it, but wasted effort. And its not about sacrificing, which is something I see them do, its about cohesion and communication and timing when they have puck possession.
See my point...replace all the ALWAYS by "too often for my liking". Then it becomes how I see, how my expectations are and I don't see how you can agree or disagree with those.

Quote:
And why did you respond to mine in the first place??? You don't make any sense. I responded in lenght because I was defending the points I raised first, and then you countered them. So lemme get this straight, you can respond to mine, give your arguments, but I can't reply? Is that it? And you are saying I'm the one who doesn't respect the opinion of others? At least I try to keep my focus on the debate and counter argue when I think I see a bad argument, or something worth countering. I put that part in bold and underlined so you'll notice it and so you might understand that I do respect other people's opinion, enought to make me want to debate them, which is the point in the first place of this message board, not to just give your opinion, but being ready to have them argued and debated.
Well I've always respected your opinions so I didn't mind responding to your post. But then what's the point in writing "Anyway your opinion is not important and I'll take the opinion of a professionnal anyway" if you respect my opinion? How many times did I say that no matter that you agree or not, I respect your opinion. You answer, I don't care what you say, you didn't play hockey, I'll think that the professionnal know a lot more than you do types of comments if you respect the opinion of others. As far as being ready to debate, absolutely. If it's doing in a respectable way, I'm totally for it. Which you seem to be doing in that post more than the other one.

Quote:
I rarely if ever use the IL. And try to get this straight, you were the one who responded. If you didn't like my reply to your reply, you should give that advice to yourself.
Again, I do think that my reply was respectful while yours sounded like I wasted your time. So in that regard, I will always wonder why people kinda of write like we're wasting their time instead of just ignoring them. I guess I misread that part as well.

Quote:
Well that's the point, he's the professional. He knows how it works. If he was truly at a lost, he would quit. If he's still there, its because he does see some good things, he knows that they can turn it around. He's been there, he's done that. That's why I made the first post. Because I'm not concerned one bit about what is happening. I'll start worrying in Januray, if the team still played for ,500 like they did in November.
I agree.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2008, 08:30 PM
  #106
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Carbo's job is NOT in danger.
  1. He's Gainey's man and as long as Gainey's there, Carbo's safe
  2. He was a finalist to the Jack Adams trophy less than a year ago, coaching this team to the top of the Eastern conference
  3. This team should be tired of being a development to successful coaches around the league, Therrien, Vigneault, Julien...
  4. He knows what he's doing in spite of the criticism he's under by some fans. I love how he toys with the media and fans, hilarious!

You'll see player personnel movement before you see a change in coaching.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.