HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bertrand Raymond Article: Realistic or Typical Habs Bashing?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2011, 02:23 PM
  #76
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlgib21 View Post
We had deeper,tougher teams that was built to go deep into the playoffs.We got lucky to avoid Edm. in 86,and Pitt in 93
Deeper? Maybe. Tougher? I don't think so.

We had a very easy ride in '86. We beat the Bruins but didn't have to face Quebec. Then after we squeaked by Hartford we had to play a weak Rangers club (avoiding Philly and Washington). And then we avoided the powerhouse Oilers.

In '93 we beat Quebec in the first round but then it was smooth sailing against the Sabres and Islanders. It doesn't get any easier than that and Mario didn't stand in our way. We also avoided all the top teams in the West as an added bonus.

As easy the schedule in the East was, the Bruins at least had to knock of the number one team in the league to win.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 02:49 PM
  #77
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin Udall View Post
L O L !


Are you forgetting that goaltending is (arguably) the single biggest defensive part of any team?

Of course Thomas' stats speak for themselves and the fact is: Thomas just he won the Conn Smythe and is the odds on favourite to win the Vezina.

Not to mention that the Bruins in GF vs GA Differential was 2nd best in the NHL at +51 - while the Habs
was +7 ( L O L)!

Are you forgetting that the HABS made it to round #3 in 2010 by being badly out shot ie every playoff game they played on their way to round #3 (but of course that was good defense - right)?




And what if this is...as good as it gets (for the HABS)?
Having a good goalie has nothing to do with how a team plays defensively.
Relying on your goalie to be superb, Vezina and Conn Smythe seasons/playoffs like, is not what people call being good defensively.

MathMan always said the Habs played extremely poorly last POs, so no, he doesn't think we played good defensively in last year's POs.


Good goaltending =/= good defense.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 02:51 PM
  #78
Richiebottles
Someone on the Moon
 
Richiebottles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,182
vCash: 500
This guy man. People on RDS are pretty bad. This guy is Worst than Eklund.

Bertrand Raymond is going to get fired (E5)

Richiebottles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 02:57 PM
  #79
jlgib21*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Deeper? Maybe. Tougher? I don't think so.

We had a very easy ride in '86. We beat the Bruins but didn't have to face Quebec. Then after we squeaked by Hartford we had to play a weak Rangers club (avoiding Philly and Washington). And then we avoided the powerhouse Oilers.

In '93 we beat Quebec in the first round but then it was smooth sailing against the Sabres and Islanders. It doesn't get any easier than that and Mario didn't stand in our way. We also avoided all the top teams in the West as an added bonus.

As easy the schedule in the East was, the Bruins at least had to knock of the number one team in the league to win.
86 we were a very tough team,I agree not so much in 93

jlgib21* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 03:04 PM
  #80
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlgib21 View Post
86 we were a very tough team,I agree not so much in 93
Yeah, we did have a ton of grit and size you're right.

Corson, Chelios, Skrudland, McPhee, Smith, Robinson, Carbo, Gainey... Even though some of those guys were older they were a big strong tough team.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 04:05 PM
  #81
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yeah, we did have a ton of grit and size you're right.

Corson, Chelios, Skrudland, McPhee, Smith, Robinson, Carbo, Gainey... Even though some of those guys were older they were a big strong tough team.
Despite all of them, Habs probably don't go past the first round without Roy.

Size was more important back then, but right now it's greatly overrated.
The Bruins lose to us if Thomas doesn't stand on his head.
Grit I agree, is very key, but size is one of the least important factor.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 05:12 PM
  #82
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Nilan View Post
Moderator, please direct this person to the appropriate FAQ regarding the myth of being able to hand pick players.
I've been down this road with a different poster before. Don't bother. It ranks up there with the McCreary never played another shift after hitting Gretzky myth.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 11:27 PM
  #83
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
a franchise committed to winning would've gone after Yzerman, would've kept Boucher (even if it meant waiving good bye to the incumbent who, despite a great regular season track record, has never won anything), and would have no qualms burying a wasted roster/cap space spot like Gomez or finding a way to move a cap dud like Spacek.
just to point out the hypocrisy of your post: you want to replace martin because he "never won anything" for boucher, who in case you forgot, also never won anything.

and why would we "go after yzerman"? because in hindsight he looks good? how many player went on to become successful GMs in their first year compared to how many just flamed out worst than the Hindenburg?

it was a ******** bet and im glad habs didn't go for it.

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:50 AM
  #84
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
just to point out the hypocrisy of your post: you want to replace martin because he "never won anything" for boucher, who in case you forgot, also never won anything.

and why would we "go after yzerman"? because in hindsight he looks good? how many player went on to become successful GMs in their first year compared to how many just flamed out worst than the Hindenburg?

it was a ******** bet and im glad habs didn't go for it.
I agree.
Also, if you start burying people left and right, Martin with his millions, Gomez and Spacek with theirs, you will lose a lot of money. I fail to see this as being a good business move, especially when nothing assures that your new investments will lead you any further or bring you more success/money.

I'm a little fed up of the Yzerman/Boucher love fest as well. They were great in their first year, good for them. It's not like they already had a good team with three established superstars. We will see what Yzerman does this year. He has good amount of space, but he needs to re-sign Stamkos, and I'm sure he'll want to get Bergenheim and Purcell inked as well. Will he try to keep Brewer? Otherwise he'll have traded Beukeboom + 2picks for pretty much nothing. Will he keep the same goalies? Doubt it. Who will he aim for? Bryzgalov is probably the best UFA (if he doesn't re-sign), other than him there's Vokoun. Outside these two names, there isn't anybody that interesting.
I guess we'll see.

But I don't see how Yzerman/Boucher would have necessarily done a better job in Mtl. People haven't even given Gauthier a chance yet, this is the first summer where he actually has liberty with his roster, and Martin certainly deserves merit for the way our team has played.

I guess I'm tired of the grass always being greener elsewhere.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:57 AM
  #85
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
eyo... c'mon now... no need to think of us Ghosts that way I wouldnt say I'm anything like Gauthier Wish I had his paycheque though lol

I mean, in the Forum, WE had a tonne of that (Us ghosts I mean.. Howie, Douggie, Joe et al) lol

On a more serious note...

IMO Habs brass gets away with MURDER because of their low key approach to talking to the media... Seriously it extended the life of our brass by at least 3 years so far (and counting)...

The ONLY time brass was accountable, was in '08 when Gainey said he would (and failed to) get a bigger center. What he did was make a retarded trade, and signed multiples of the same style players that we already have/had.
Sorry dude!



But you had it coming!







Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Mara was as physical as a D man could be...
It was pure luck, though. Mara had been with us before and he was a kitten.

I can't believe the luck this organization has gotten by being so damn lazy and uninspired.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 01:08 AM
  #86
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,131
vCash: 500
Lafleur guy had an excellent analysis about what happened to Boston. In my opinion they had it easy. I can't prove it and yes they won, kudos but after watching the playoffs from the East and West, it was like a different category of expertise. East was Pro C, West was pro AA. The West was so competitive that they destroyed one another and the last team standing, the Canucks had no more juice. And the Bruins by playing in their means got away with the trophy.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:36 AM
  #87
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Lafleur guy had an excellent analysis about what happened to Boston. In my opinion they had it easy. I can't prove it and yes they won, kudos but after watching the playoffs from the East and West, it was like a different category of expertise. East was Pro C, West was pro AA. The West was so competitive that they destroyed one another and the last team standing, the Canucks had no more juice. And the Bruins by playing in their means got away with the trophy.
difference is quite easy to spot actually...

while the B faced Habs sans Markov and Gorges, Flyers with an injured Pronger and a AHL goalie and saw Vancouver losing their #1 D for most of the SCF (Hamuis)... Vancouver had to face Seabrook/Keith in the first round, Suter/Weber in the second, and Chara in the SCF...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 07:18 AM
  #88
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Dear Bertrand, please do us all a favor and retire.

As you are getting older, you are becoming a grumpy old man who's completely delusional. You are demolishing what was a great career. Please, stop there.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 10:35 AM
  #89
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
They're not good. They're a low-end third pairing masquerading as the second pairing on a Cup winner. Boychuk would be the 7th defenseman on the Habs, and Ference the fifth, even with Markov and Gorges out.
I know. I keep reading how tons of players aren't good enough for our team as if we are top 3 of this whole league. At one point you hear that Grabovski would not do as good with us since he's succeeding because he play for a bad team....but then you have a guy Lapierre who's also not good enough for us even though he played a fine role for the Cup finalist. So I find that there's way too many players that are just not good enough for us even though we are always in a battle for 8th spot. So they're not good. They are Stanley Cup Champions but are not worthy of a spot for the Habs. Again, we need to make the distinction between their own talent and how they played and adapt as a team. Nobody says they are all-stars. When you have a guy like Chara on your team who can log 30 minutes and is never hurt, it's possible you can deal with having guys like Boychuk and Ference on your 2nd pairing. But there's some decisions you need to take based on the Cap. With no markov and Gorges, I'd have Subban on top but then....we are not going to resign Hamrlik aren't we? No Wiz either. Is Spacek really going to upgrade his play next year? 'Cause what we have right now on D are Subban, Gill, Spacek, Diaz, Emelin. No room for Ference and Boychuk? Or with what we had last year....people were not entirely dissatisfied with Hamrlik? And Spacek mostly at the beginning of the season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Grinders are there to fill out the roster and not get destroyed when they are on the ice. They do not have some ultimate purpose that more skilled players do not have. They are there solely because teams are not capable of loading up on good players. They are, in a sense, filler.
Yes they are. But again, it's a false debate since nobody talks about having grinders just for the sake of having them. I'm pretty sure Michael Rupp would not be destroyed by anything. I'd take Paul Gaustad over most of our bottom 6 players. Kenopka would be neat on our 4th line, we've seen what the faceoffs qualities does in a game with Boston, he's not that bad in that category either. Your point would be perfect if we'd have 16 teams and that you'd be able to fill up a 4th line with Cammy and Gionta. Chances are some teams wouldn't believe in fillers since those talented guys would play with them as big as they are. Not the case in today's NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
This is not to mean they aren't important. I like to call them "masonry". Having depth is helpful both because the low end of you lineup can beat the other guys and because they can fill in in case of injury. Not because grinders have some special quality, but because teams match lines and it is an advantadge at any point in the game to have stronger players on the ice than your opponent.

Which is why I'd rather fill my fourth-line with guys like Desharnais than guys like Shawn Thornton.
Not sure I understand. Yes, it's great to have depth all-around in case of injuries. But to each their role. I remember during the Nucks game that strangely it started to turn around after a great shift by the Paille-Campbell combination. It doesn't mean that you can't mix them with a talented player on top of it who, in need, would play on the first 2 lines if needed, but I will still believe that in a day-to-day basis, you need that 4th line full of energy who could change the rhythm of the game. Yet, nobody says that you can't have quality and energy within the same guy. Yes, it is also possible that if you structure your 4th line in a way that whenever you matchup this line with the opposing slow and grinder line, that you can outsmart them....But there will be a time in the game that your smarts will be your ass and that you'll be dominated by the pure strength of a grinding line. Which again comes the obvious and find a perfect mix so that you can play whatever game is being thrown at you. Which I think the Bruins were able to do without that great pure talent of theirs. Though I'd take Bergeron ahead of Plekanec any day of the week. I'd take Marchand, Horton, Krejci and Lucic in the talent department ahead of some of the guys we have.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
And most importantly, their amazing skill at running into cold goalies.
I know. Incredible how lucky they are. They weren't even shooting at the net and the puck went in. They didn't provoke anything, all the goalies decided together to stop remembering to play the game. They faced the goalies that permitted their team to be where they were. They did have their struggles and the goalies is part of the other teams, well then it does seem quite obvious that the best team won since, from your saying, all these other goalies were sieves. They had a team which didn't have a sieve. They won. They provoked some of their chances by taking quality shots or driving the net. Or even with those sieves in front of them, to have had the character to win 3 #7 game. 2 of which they didn't won 8-0 because of a sieve. Other teams has faced those sieves during those playoffs, but Boston every single time happened to face the worst of those goalies for no particular reason. Just faith. Which I guess, even if I don't agree with you, answers one of my reason why I thought Bruins would win.....it's in the cards. When it's the cards, strange things happened. Seems it did.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 03:32 PM
  #90
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Despite all of them, Habs probably don't go past the first round without Roy.

Size was more important back then, but right now it's greatly overrated.
The Bruins lose to us if Thomas doesn't stand on his head.
Grit I agree, is very key, but size is one of the least important factor.
Why do you believe this?

I agree that size isn't the be all and end all but I think you have to have some if you want to win. It would be interesting to see how cup winners correspond to league averages in terms of size. I suspect that most would be on the 'bigger' side of the middle.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:13 PM
  #91
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I agree that size isn't the be all and end all but I think you have to have some if you want to win. It would be interesting to see how cup winners correspond to league averages in terms of size. I suspect that most would be on the 'bigger' side of the middle.
Last year, when they faced Philly in the playoffs, Montreal's average weight was a couple pounds higher and their average height was equal.

I think most people really mean that they are more concerned about effective size and strength, which is fair enough, but makes this whole fascination with giant fourth-liners that's been going around out of place. In any case, you'd want players who use size and strength to control the puck and/or set up in dangerous areas, not players who hit a lot (because that means they're chasing the puck and you don't want that really).

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:25 PM
  #92
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Last year, when they faced Philly in the playoffs, Montreal's average weight was a couple pounds higher and their average height was equal.
That may be true. But I guess I should have asked a different question here.

If you're 4th line is huge but barely plays, that doesn't really factor in. When you look at our top 6 vs. other teams' we've got to be among the smallest in the league. Our top defensive pairing isn't that huge either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I think most people really mean that they are more concerned about effective size and strength, which is fair enough, but makes this whole fascination with giant fourth-liners that's been going around out of place. In any case, you'd want players who use size and strength to control the puck and/or set up in dangerous areas, not players who hit a lot (because that means they're chasing the puck and you don't want that really).
Size, strength, toughness... no matter how you slice it, we're missing those ingredients in our top players. Gionta has heart but that only goes so far when you're 5 foot 7.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:47 PM
  #93
MooseOllini
BobBarker
 
MooseOllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,965
vCash: 500
Apparently Bertrand owes a bunker in Colorado mountains for 2012

MooseOllini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 06:14 PM
  #94
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
just to point out the hypocrisy of your post: you want to replace martin because he "never won anything" for boucher, who in case you forgot, also never won anything.

and why would we "go after yzerman"? because in hindsight he looks good? how many player went on to become successful GMs in their first year compared to how many just flamed out worst than the Hindenburg?

it was a ******** bet and im glad habs didn't go for it.
you might want to go look up hypocrisy...

i'm sorry you can't understand the difference between an NHL coach with 1200+ NHL games under his belt, including several seasons with one of the top teams in the league, who never managed to get his team to the cup, or even the cup finals for that matter (even more damning is that his team finally made it AFTER he was replaced), and a coach who hasn't yet coached a game in the NHL.

In Boucher's short career, he won the Q (named coach of the year in the process), then spent only 1 year in the AHL (coach of the year again) before immediately getting multiple head coaching offers... why? b/c some people "get" winners, and know one when they spot it.
people like Yzerman...

being an ex-player certainly doesn't guarantee a successful career as a GM...

but Yzerman wasn't just an ex-player, wasn't just the long-time captain of the best team in the league from the mid-90's to his retirement, he was an ex-player known as a "smart hockey" guy who turned down other opportunities to spend several seasons in the background learning everything he could from his former boss, the GM of said "best run team in the league for over a decade".

Yzerman would have been a bigger "risk" than Boucher, given the complete lack of experience as "the man", but for all the reasons above, there was every reason to believe that he'd turn into, at worst, an average "Pierre Gauthier-esque" GM.


"fortune favors the bold" as they say, hiring both would have required balls and boldness, neither of which are characters of the current habs organization...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 06:19 PM
  #95
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If you're 4th line is huge but barely plays, that doesn't really factor in. When you look at our top 6 vs. other teams' we've got to be among the smallest in the league. Our top defensive pairing isn't that huge either.
Our top defensive pairing was Subban-Gill by the end of the season. Whatever problems it may have had, size wasn't one of them.

Swap Gill for Yemelin, and while it becomes smaller I don't think size is an issue there either. And if you view the top pairing as Markov-Subban, well, they're frankly too skilled for size to become a problem. Rather like Lidstrom-Rafalski, no one would dream of worrying about their size. Markov-Gorges (a likely first pairing actually) is on the small side but, again, they're good enough for it not to become a factor, and they'll be backed by Subban and Gill/Yemelin.

Size in the top-6 is the only real issue, and frankly I think it's completely overblown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Size, strength, toughness... no matter how you slice it, we're missing those ingredients in our top players. Gionta has heart but that only goes so far when you're 5 foot 7.
I think they're useful tools. I just don't view them as an end of themselves and I don't view them as strictly necessary.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 06:19 PM
  #96
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
That may be true. But I guess I should have asked a different question here.

If you're 4th line is huge but barely plays, that doesn't really factor in. When you look at our top 6 vs. other teams' we've got to be among the smallest in the league. Our top defensive pairing isn't that huge either.

Size, strength, toughness... no matter how you slice it, we're missing those ingredients in our top players. Gionta has heart but that only goes so far when you're 5 foot 7.
it amazes me that people can't see the connection...

I've been adamant at times about the preference of skill over size, on an individual basis, but how can anyone watch the playoffs, especially the finals, and not see how much of an advantage it is to be physically bigger/more aggressive...

and it's the same every year.

refs put away the whistles, and unless you have enough size/toughness sprinkled throughout your roster to at least stand-up for yourself (let alone impose on the other team), you get pushed around, and the small skilled guys have less room to work with and less "motivation" to get into the "dirty" areas.

Chara owned that series, b/c after every single whistle he was putting the hurt on anyone within his massive reach... by game 6 and 7 you could feel the hesitancy on the part of the nucks forwards.

for all those quick to bach the Sedin's, I'd love to see how resiliant they'd be after 7 games of Chara pounding on them. enough to make anyone play "small".

until the habs "beef" up in their top nine, and add some players that can at least stand in there and take the beatings, we will have a very hard time surviving 4 rounds of playoff hockey.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 06:33 PM
  #97
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Our top defensive pairing was Subban-Gill by the end of the season. Whatever problems it may have had, size wasn't one of them.

Swap Gill for Yemelin, and while it becomes smaller I don't think size is an issue there either. And if you view the top pairing as Markov-Subban, well, they're frankly too skilled for size to become a problem. Rather like Lidstrom-Rafalski, no one would dream of worrying about their size. Markov-Gorges (a likely first pairing actually) is on the small side but, again, they're good enough for it not to become a factor, and they'll be backed by Subban and Gill/Yemelin..
it's not so much actual size, as it is what they do with it.

Gill was the 2nd biggest player on the ice in our series, and while he did step up the aggression in the playoffs, his lack of mobility and passive nature don't exactly equate to a physically imposing precense that intimidates opposition.

Subba, while much smaller than Gill, certainly does have an element of that in his game, but while he is strong, he's still doesn't have the kind of "full-grown-man" bulk to really strike fear in opponents.

while our D could stand to use an influx of grit, i don't think it's as big of an issue. With Subban, Gorges, Emelin, and hopefully a UFA addition that plays with an edge, we should be just fine.

on top of that, our defensive system is such that we don't really need physical intimidation to defend well. Enough size/strength/toughness to not get intimidated by aggressive forecheckers, but that's about it.

and really, up front is no different in terms of need, the problem is that Moen was our only physical precense in the top-9... not nearly good enough to handle the rigours of 4 rounds of playoff hockey.

MaxPac coming up, Eller physically maturin, and Leblanc a little later on, will all help in this regard, and all 3 are players who will contribute more with their skill than with their physical play, but at least they will be big enough/have the temperment, to play "dirty hockey" as needed.

much like the habs of the 70's who overcame the broadstreet bullies, skill should be the priority, but it needs a little bit of sandpaper to give it the room to flower

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Size in the top-6 is the only real issue, and frankly I think it's completely overblown.



I think they're useful tools. I just don't view them as an end of themselves and I don't view them as strictly necessary.
i pointed out a few years ago in a thread about Size vs Skill that the Red Wings had won back to back cups with all 3 of their centres being smallish/slight players (at the time everyone was moaning about the lack of a big centre).

but the smaller your fwds are, the more important it is that they be "gritty" and/or that they are complemented with at least 1 big body to clear up space and step-in when opposition big guys try to take liberties.

in our case, only our smallest fwd, who is the smallest guy in the league, plays with grit. Pleks has slowly figured out that he's more effective when he plays a "tougher" game, but Cammy and Gomez have no interest in it whatsoever.

when your 4 offensive catalyst are all small, slight, and more inclined to shy away then they are to get their noses dirty, you have a problem.

balance is the key, and unfortunately Gainey's 09 summer moves made it very difficult for us to achieve that.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 06:49 PM
  #98
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
"fortune favors the bold" as they say, hiring both would have required balls and boldness, neither of which are characters of the current habs organization...
Say what you want about the 09 off-season but it certainly was both bold and ballsy. Not all of it was good but the net result was a rebuild that kept the team in the playoffs and a squad that was better then the one before it.

Same last summer, trading Halak when his value was highest after a cup run was both ballsy and bold. It also seems to be working out, with Eller the Habs second best young forward after Pacioretty and a key part of the teams future.

Or for that matter, taking a goaltender 5th overall in 2005 with the highest pick the team's had in a generation.

The organization usually plays it fairly safe but they don't seem to be unwilling to go for it when they judge the time is right.

Its also not like Yzerman has done something particularly bold during his time in Tampa. Boucher was universally seen as a top candidate for an NHL head coaching job last season. His biggest moves have been largely conventional aquistions of depth players, making a no-brainer trade to use his cap-space to get Gagne for Mezaros and trading to shore-up some team weaknesses mid season (Brewer, Roloson). These were smart moves but they were largely conventional and don't demonstrate the kind of ballsy risk-taking your advocating.

The one really risky move they've done is draft Connolly despite his health problems. But we don't know if that was a good or bad decision yet.


Last edited by Talks to Goalposts: 06-17-2011 at 06:54 PM.
Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 06:57 PM
  #99
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
Gill was the 2nd biggest player on the ice in our series, and while he did step up the aggression in the playoffs, his lack of mobility and passive nature don't exactly equate to a physically imposing precense that intimidates opposition.
Intimidation and hitting are the two least important benefits of size. The biggest benefits of size are strength (so you can muscle people off the puck and move them out of the slot), mass (so you yourself are hard to move around), and reach (so you cover more ground with your stick).

If the Habs are going to get bigger, let it at least be for the right reasons.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 07:35 PM
  #100
24stanleycups*
24-6=18,goodluck lol
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 564
vCash: 500
I say we do whatever we have to to get Jamie Oleksiak, because one it will prevent the boston bruins from getting him, and 2, he is a BEAST. 6'7, 240 pounds.

24stanleycups* 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 12:08 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.