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

2011-12 most complete Habs team in 5 years?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-25-2011, 04:45 PM
  #101
habfan1968
Registered User
 
habfan1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 50
People here keep saying we should sign this guy or that guy but we already have 46 contracts signed so far. 25 are AHL guys and 21 NHL guys. We have 4 lines, 7 D and 2 goalies. We should keep at least 1 contract for a free agent signing in case we need to add someone because one of the younger guys falter. If we go get proven type players they will want ice time now, effectively blocking a younger guy from starting the season in the NHL. Who would be the odd guy out? We could sign some depth players to start in Hamilton though.

habfan1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 05:43 PM
  #102
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 16,000
vCash: 500
I haven't read the thread. I agree with the title of the thread. This is easily the best habs team on paper that we've assembled in 5 years.

E = CH² is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 05:44 PM
  #103
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,047
vCash: 500
I am feeling pretty good about the coming season. We have some very good talent on this team (like others, I wish we could add a seasoned DMan to the team to ease Yemelin in gradually since he is not NHL proven.............and it appears that we will not be getting any tough guys on the 4th line but that has been debated to death so this team will have to deal with it.).

My real hope and desire is that Martin is a little bit more flexible this year and changes his system to be more aggressive on defense. Send two guys on the forecheck instead of one who is simply on a skate around. The teams in the League have already figured out how to beat a passive Martin defense.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 06:08 PM
  #104
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) Maybe the Molson brothers are broke.
2) If it's so simple why hasn't Gauthier done it?
3) What would our D look like?

Markov-Emelin
Subban-Hannan
Gill-Gorges

You then have Spacek, Diaz, and Weber not playing. That's a bit much for the first few weeks before injury hits.
I don't want Hannan, and I rather expect a trade than a signing, and maybe not now but later on, but until then, it's Emelin who will start off low rung (7thD) and Weber can play on the wing in the meantime. Diaz... I don't think he makes the team out of camp.

I expect Weber to be in trade talks.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 06:11 PM
  #105
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
People here keep saying we should sign this guy or that guy but we already have 46 contracts signed so far. 25 are AHL guys and 21 NHL guys. We have 4 lines, 7 D and 2 goalies. We should keep at least 1 contract for a free agent signing in case we need to add someone because one of the younger guys falter. If we go get proven type players they will want ice time now, effectively blocking a younger guy from starting the season in the NHL. Who would be the odd guy out? We could sign some depth players to start in Hamilton though.
We hear that old myth every friggin year, and by the end of the year, we end-up using over 30 players on the roster and the young players end up having plenty of ice time vs their development curve because of guess what...? INJURIES.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 07:33 PM
  #106
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,561
vCash: 500
I'm not confident. I'd like to see a really solid bottom-6 forward and some additional depth on defense... a whole extra top-4 d-man like Hamrlik would have been even better, but since that's not available now, at least another experienced and quasi-reliable depth option of some sort would be nice. If there was an aggressive banging (non-goon) bottom-6 winger as well, that'd be great.

Does the lack of all that mean it's not the best team (on paper) since ____ ? I don't know. I just don't feel confident yet. I will have to see some guys step up first. Seeing is believing, and I haven't seen some of the players pencilled into some of the spots performing at the level I'd need to see them at in order to have confidence at the starting line. I'm hopeful that things could turn out well. I just don't feel like I have any tangible basis for being confident that they actually will.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 09:08 PM
  #107
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I am feeling pretty good about the coming season. We have some very good talent on this team (like others, I wish we could add a seasoned DMan to the team to ease Yemelin in gradually since he is not NHL proven.............and it appears that we will not be getting any tough guys on the 4th line but that has been debated to death so this team will have to deal with it.).

My real hope and desire is that Martin is a little bit more flexible this year and changes his system to be more aggressive on defense. Send two guys on the forecheck instead of one who is simply on a skate around. The teams in the League have already figured out how to beat a passive Martin defense.
If the teams in the league have figured us out, then explain how we finished 6th and never once were in danger of missing the POs despite having three of our top 5 have career lows, miss Markov and Gorges for most of the year, not have a top 6 pretty much all year long, finished 8th in terms of GA/GP (an increase of .15/GP from the previous year), finished 7th on the PK, and improve our 5-5 scoring differential???

How exactly were we figured out?? And it certainly isn't our offense that's overshadowing the rest of the league's discovery of our defensive strategies because our offense was in the bottom tier of the NHL.

It's when you make unfounded comments such as this that people will think you've got some type of hate on for Martin.

I also need you to explain how having a 2men forecheck=being more aggressive on defense, or maybe I misunderstood that part.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 09:22 PM
  #108
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If the teams in the league have figured us out, then explain how we finished 6th and never once were in danger of missing the POs despite having three of our top 5 have career lows, miss Markov and Gorges for most of the year, not have a top 6 pretty much all year long, finished 8th in terms of GA/GP (an increase of .15/GP from the previous year), finished 7th on the PK, and improve our 5-5 scoring differential???

How exactly were we figured out?? And it certainly isn't our offense that's overshadowing the rest of the league's discovery of our defensive strategies because our offense was in the bottom tier of the NHL.

It's when you make unfounded comments such as this that people will think you've got some type of hate on for Martin.

I also need you to explain how having a 2men forecheck=being more aggressive on defense, or maybe I misunderstood that part.
Try as I might, I just cant get excited about a sixth place finish and a first round exit in the playoffs. Call me crazy, but I expect more from the Canadiens before I call it a success.

The Bruins scored 4 or more goals in 3 of the 7 playoff games. I call that figuring out how to exploit our defense.

With regard to the forecheck, when the other team is trying to move the puck out of their zone, we only send in one forechecker. The teams that sent in two forecheckers on us were effective in slowing down our attack or even creating turnovers.

Martin's 1-4 (or sometimes 1-2-2) is much too passive. It allows an easy entry into our zone and with our lack of size on forward and speed on D, all too often, it became a shooting gallery on Price.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 09:27 PM
  #109
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I'm not confident. I'd like to see a really solid bottom-6 forward and some additional depth on defense... a whole extra top-4 d-man like Hamrlik would have been even better, but since that's not available now, at least another experienced and quasi-reliable depth option of some sort would be nice. If there was an aggressive banging (non-goon) bottom-6 winger as well, that'd be great.

Does the lack of all that mean it's not the best team (on paper) since ____ ? I don't know. I just don't feel confident yet. I will have to see some guys step up first. Seeing is believing, and I haven't seen some of the players pencilled into some of the spots performing at the level I'd need to see them at in order to have confidence at the starting line. I'm hopeful that things could turn out well. I just don't feel like I have any tangible basis for being confident that they actually will.
You're not confident in what exactly? Nobody is talking about the best team in the NHL.
But let's look at what our team looks like on paper (we are in July after all, on paper is the only way to look at it for now).
We have a solid keeper, potential superstar.
We have 2 great PMDs, both elite, with superstar potential.
This is the first time in a very long time that we have two strong PMDs like them, on top of a solid keeper.
For the first time in what seems to be an eternity, we have two PFs that complete our top 6. Cole-MaxPac-Plek-Cammy-Gio-Gomez should not be questioned. You can arise some doubts about MaxPac, but we can easily replace him with AK who's always a guarantee for 40pts (that always puts him in the top 60 left wingers ). All in all, unless injuries happen, which are unpredictable, we have a set top6 that should produce well enough.
We also could have a very strong offensive third line, comparable to Philly's strong offensive depth of previous years. Having such talented players like DD, Eller and AK form a trio to match up versus weaker opponents resembles the depth we had with both Kost broz/Lang, which proved very good until Lang got sliced.
Yea, you can argue a Halpern type down the middle surely would provide more depth to the 4th line, but it is of no concern today.

I agree about the Defensive side. Adding a guy like Hannan would provide interesting depth on that front. Although, I feel people are scratching Spacek right off without thinking much about him. Some are asking for Hammer's replacement, well, I think we already have him with Spacek. Place him on his natural wing, give him #4-6 minutes, and he'll be perfect imo. Health is the only issue I have with him.
Surely, having more depth would only increase our quality, but I don't think we're in a place for concern. Emelin is the only real question mark in terms of quality of play. I know what we should expect from PK-Markov-Gill-Gorges-Spacek if they remain healthy. I am fully confident in Weber's abilities as well, I don't think people realize how good he is. So really, Emelin is the only one left.

All in all, there's no reason not to be confident in our team. Not talking about bringing in a cup, but we certainly are putting forth one of the better teams we've had in recent years.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 09:54 PM
  #110
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Try as I might, I just cant get excited about a sixth place finish and a first round exit in the playoffs. Call me crazy, but I expect more from the Canadiens before I call it a success.
Hmmm, not quite sure what this is about. You said ''Teams around the league have figured out Martin's defensive game''.
Why you're going on about not considering 6th place/1st round exit a success and expecting more is a mystery to me.
It's not because you're expecting more, or at least, want more, that you can't evaluate the past season appropriately.
Given our situation, we fought fairly well, and a big reason why is Martin's system. I don't get why that's so hard to admit for some of you. I'm not pleased with 6th any more than you are, but that doesn't mean I have to jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Blues had a disappointing year. It's not because their coach sucks, or GM, or that they need to revamp the whole club. It's mainly because they went through a huge number of key injuries.
We had a disappointing year. Losing Markov, Gorges, not having a top6, having key players go through career lows are all disappointing things. Taking that into consideration, what we accomplished is good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
The Bruins scored 4 or more goals in 3 of the 7 playoff games. I call that figuring out how to exploit our defense.
Funny you should mention this. What's funnier is that you obviously don't mention the fact that one of those 3 games, they got their 4th goal in an Empty Net, and the other two were Overtime, which means they only got one more than us.
You also ''forgot'' (or maybe didn't even notice because you're too busy trying to make your point..) to mention how we actually tied the Bruins in goals for. Yup, that's right, we tied the team that apparently has figured us out, and it took them 7games (3 OT) to do so..
So, did we figure out the Bruins too? After all, we scored as many goals as they did, and we beat them 3 times out of 7, and 3 of our losses came in OT. Seems like we surely could beat them, especially with a tiny more injury luck going our side, wouldn't you say???

You're also talking about one team that, again, took 7 games, three of them in OT, to beat us while we were already down. But what you originally said was that ''Teams around the league'' figured us, not one team in the POs (where all you have to do is focus on one team).

As I said before, it is an unfounded comment, but it's also completely flawed and wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
With regard to the forecheck, when the other team is trying to move the puck out of their zone, we only send in one forechecker. The teams that sent in two forecheckers on us were effective in slowing down our attack or even creating turnovers.

Martin's 1-4 (or sometimes 1-2-2) is much too passive. It allows an easy entry into our zone and with our lack of size on forward and speed on D, all too often, it became a shooting gallery on Price.
I think you're getting confused in your own ideas and mixing apples and oranges.

Let me get this straight. You're saying Martin's 1-4 or 1-2-2 is too passive and allows zone entry too easily. So, you're suggesting that we forecheck with two men which would somehow make our defensive game stronger?
But when you're talking about zone entry, that means we're playing defense and that the puck is well out of the offensive zone. So, our two men that were forechecking are left behind. Instead of having 4 guys to defend at our blue line (which we give up too easily according to you), we'd now have three. Not quite sure how we'd have an easier time at our blue line with 3 guys if we, according to you, already had a tough time with 4.

I understand your mindset. The best defense is a strong offense. That's what you're going for. I don't necessarily agree in terms of strategy, but I'm certainly someone that enjoys a more proactive offense. So I would love to employ the 2men forecheck, but in no way would this improve our defensive game. Maybe we'd spend more time up front, maybe we'd score more goals, maybe we'd win more, maybe we'd be a lot more entertained (probably), but we certainly wouldn't give up less goals.


Last edited by Kriss E: 07-25-2011 at 10:06 PM.
Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 11:10 PM
  #111
Redux91
I do Three bullets.
 
Redux91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,384
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Redux91 Send a message via MSN to Redux91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yup, that's right, we tied the team that apparently has figured us out, and it took them 7games (3 OT) to do so.. Theyre also turned out to be the cup champions)
So, did we figure out the Bruins too? After all, we scored as many goals as they did, and we beat them 3 times out of 7, and 3 of our losses came in OT. Seems like we surely could beat them, especially with a tiny more injury luck going our side, wouldn't you say???

You're also talking about one team that, again, took 7 games, three of them in OT, to beat us while we were already down. But what you originally said was that ''Teams around the league'' figured us, not one team in the POs (where all you have to do is focus on one team).

I think you're getting confused in your own ideas and mixing apples and oranges.

Let me get this straight. You're saying Martin's 1-4 or 1-2-2 is too passive and allows zone entry too easily. So, you're suggesting that we forecheck with two men which would somehow make our defensive game stronger?But when you're talking about zone entry, that means we're playing defense and that the puck is well out of the offensive zone. So, our two men that were forechecking are left behind. Instead of having 4 guys to defend at our blue line (which we give up too easily according to you), we'd now have three. Not quite sure how we'd have an easier time at our blue line with 3 guys if we, according to you, already had a tough time with 4.

I understand your mindset. The best defense is a strong offense. That's what you're going for. I don't necessarily agree in terms of strategy, but I'm certainly someone that enjoys a more proactive offense. So I would love to employ the 2men forecheck, but in no way would this improve our defensive game. Maybe we'd spend more time up front, maybe we'd score more goals, maybe we'd win more, maybe we'd be a lot more entertained (probably), but we certainly wouldn't give up less goals.
the bolded part, made me laugh, i was reading his post and wondering if i was the only one who was having trouble with it... he says our defensive system has been terrible yet we were a top 6 team in the east with 26th/30 scoring in the entire NHL

and he suggestes that 2 people should be forchecking and how our 1-2-2 gets too easily penetrated... lol... (it doesnt), our PROBLEM IS, whenever we DO get "penetrated" , our defensive zone coverage has to be better, gomez hurt us alot last year EARLy on in the season with this especialy, its not that teams just FLY into our zone, we simply have to do a better job of getting it out

and i also would like to see a 2 man forecheck, but we'd simply get shredded defensivly on odd man rushes

Redux91 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 11:57 PM
  #112
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Hmmm, not quite sure what this is about. You said ''Teams around the league have figured out Martin's defensive game''.
Why you're going on about not considering 6th place/1st round exit a success and expecting more is a mystery to me.
It's not because you're expecting more, or at least, want more, that you can't evaluate the past season appropriately.
Given our situation, we fought fairly well, and a big reason why is Martin's system. I don't get why that's so hard to admit for some of you. I'm not pleased with 6th any more than you are, but that doesn't mean I have to jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Blues had a disappointing year. It's not because their coach sucks, or GM, or that they need to revamp the whole club. It's mainly because they went through a huge number of key injuries.
We had a disappointing year. Losing Markov, Gorges, not having a top6, having key players go through career lows are all disappointing things. Taking that into consideration, what we accomplished is good.


Funny you should mention this. What's funnier is that you obviously don't mention the fact that one of those 3 games, they got their 4th goal in an Empty Net, and the other two were Overtime, which means they only got one more than us.
You also ''forgot'' (or maybe didn't even notice because you're too busy trying to make your point..) to mention how we actually tied the Bruins in goals for. Yup, that's right, we tied the team that apparently has figured us out, and it took them 7games (3 OT) to do so..
So, did we figure out the Bruins too? After all, we scored as many goals as they did, and we beat them 3 times out of 7, and 3 of our losses came in OT. Seems like we surely could beat them, especially with a tiny more injury luck going our side, wouldn't you say???

You're also talking about one team that, again, took 7 games, three of them in OT, to beat us while we were already down. But what you originally said was that ''Teams around the league'' figured us, not one team in the POs (where all you have to do is focus on one team).

As I said before, it is an unfounded comment, but it's also completely flawed and wrong.



I think you're getting confused in your own ideas and mixing apples and oranges.

Let me get this straight. You're saying Martin's 1-4 or 1-2-2 is too passive and allows zone entry too easily. So, you're suggesting that we forecheck with two men which would somehow make our defensive game stronger?
But when you're talking about zone entry, that means we're playing defense and that the puck is well out of the offensive zone. So, our two men that were forechecking are left behind. Instead of having 4 guys to defend at our blue line (which we give up too easily according to you), we'd now have three. Not quite sure how we'd have an easier time at our blue line with 3 guys if we, according to you, already had a tough time with 4.

I understand your mindset. The best defense is a strong offense. That's what you're going for. I don't necessarily agree in terms of strategy, but I'm certainly someone that enjoys a more proactive offense. So I would love to employ the 2men forecheck, but in no way would this improve our defensive game. Maybe we'd spend more time up front, maybe we'd score more goals, maybe we'd win more, maybe we'd be a lot more entertained (probably), but we certainly wouldn't give up less goals.
You can spin it how you like but at the end of the day, we were eliminated in the first round.......by a team that had its share of "injuries".

Excuses are for losers.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 12:07 AM
  #113
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux91 View Post
the bolded part, made me laugh, i was reading his post and wondering if i was the only one who was having trouble with it... he says our defensive system has been terrible yet we were a top 6 team in the east with 26th/30 scoring in the entire NHL

and he suggestes that 2 people should be forchecking and how our 1-2-2 gets too easily penetrated... lol... (it doesnt), our PROBLEM IS, whenever we DO get "penetrated" , our defensive zone coverage has to be better, gomez hurt us alot last year EARLy on in the season with this especialy, its not that teams just FLY into our zone, we simply have to do a better job of getting it out

and i also would like to see a 2 man forecheck, but we'd simply get shredded defensivly on odd man rushes
Its all about philosophy. Do you want your team to be passive or do you want your team to be aggressive.

Boston won with aggressive play. Detroit won two in the last 10 years with stifling aggressive play. So did Pittsburgh.

We gave up odd man rushes last year with our passive play. Dont we have Carey Price back there for a reason?

We can continue to sag to the net again this year and have a repeat of last year. Or, Martin can open his eyes and use his biggest asset that he has....speed.

I guess we will see at the end of the season if Martin can deliver with his old school passive approach. We have no choice, eh?

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 07:45 AM
  #114
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You can spin it how you like but at the end of the day, we were eliminated in the first round.......by a team that had its share of "injuries".

Excuses are for losers.
What injuries aside from Savard(who was out pretty much the whole season and who's cap room allowed Boston to improve their overall depth, which in the end made them a much better team than just keeping Savard) did Boston have in the first round?

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 08:59 AM
  #115
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You can spin it how you like but at the end of the day, we were eliminated in the first round.......by a team that had its share of "injuries".

Excuses are for losers.
Wow, that's what you had to answer??? Jesus, just admit you have no clue what you're talking about.
Don't try to save face.

I can spin it? I'm not spinning anything, I'm giving you cold hard facts. You don't want understand and acknowledge those facts. You also still did not answer to how Boston (and the rest of the league) have figured us out when we scored as many goals as they did.
If you want to be as stubborn as a 10yo child, that's your prerogative.

''Excuses are for losers'', who gave excuses and for what??? Jesus, try being a little rational instead of a bitter old fan.

You can admit to being wrong you know. People will actually respect you more as a poster if you do that instead of spewing out crap that has nothing to do with the post you're quoting.

BTW, Boston had one injured player, Savard. As opposed to Markov, Gorges, MaxPac, and later in the POs, DD and Halpern. But yea, you're right, definitely even. The loss of Savard equates our losses...
And those are not excuses, they are facts. You have to be a complete idiot to think our losses did not affect us more than Savard with the Bruins. You're not an idiot so you agree with this right?

Pittsburgh got eliminated in the first round, but they were without Crosby and Malkin. Who cares about those two anyways, excuses are for losers right??? :
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Its all about philosophy. Do you want your team to be passive or do you want your team to be aggressive.

Boston won with aggressive play. Detroit won two in the last 10 years with stifling aggressive play. So did Pittsburgh.

We gave up odd man rushes last year with our passive play. Dont we have Carey Price back there for a reason?

We can continue to sag to the net again this year and have a repeat of last year. Or, Martin can open his eyes and use his biggest asset that he has....speed.

I guess we will see at the end of the season if Martin can deliver with his old school passive approach. We have no choice, eh?
Jersey won how many cups with their passive style??

And why exactly would we have a repeat of last year??? Don't you agree that we are better off than last season??? So why would our max potential be 6th/1st round exit if we got better??

Speed is an asset, that's about the only right thing you wrote in your last few post.
Martin uses it for the transition game, with guys like Markov and possibly Weber/Emelin and even Gorges, we improve by plenty on that front.

You simply want a 2men forecheck because you prefer it. Don't try to argue into saying it's a better way of winning, that's not even true and I'd be very happy to see you try to debate that. Please keep in mind that I actually prefer that style as well, it's a lot more entertaining, but one strategy isn't better than another. What is important is how your players adapt to it and how well the coach translates it to them. Clearly, our players have bought into it, and come PO time, no matter how short, our performance have exceeded expectations. Don't turn this into another ''Excuses are for losers'' childish comment.

You are not a better coach than Martin. That doesn't mean he's free of mistakes or criticism but to subtlety suggest that your way, Mr. Southern Hab, internet poster from the States that probably has no pro coaching experience (or maybe even none at all), is better than Martin's passive style, is extremely pretentious.

FYI, we were 9th in shots for per game in the NHL. For such a passive style, you have to wonder how we ended up there. Must be because we're shooting on the opposing goalie from our defensive zone. Ya, that's it.

I think it's been pretty well established now that you don't know much about what you're talking about. You should give it a rest.


Last edited by Kriss E: 07-26-2011 at 09:10 AM.
Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 09:15 AM
  #116
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I expect Weber to be in trade talks.
Why?

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 09:40 AM
  #117
TheBuriedHab
Registered User
 
TheBuriedHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,181
vCash: 500
It seems like we have more depth than ever before. Having AK and Eller on the third should give an extra gear to the offense. Cole and Pacioretty will hopefully end the revolving door of top 6 wingers. I'm most concerned about our defense. The adaption of Emelin and recoveries of Markov and Gorges will be big parts of this years success. If those questions are answered I think this is the best habs team in a while.

TheBuriedHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:07 AM
  #118
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
I think we can survive until January to deadline without one.

PG knows plenty will be available come January or deadline.
Yeah, for yet more picks.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:11 AM
  #119
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
What injuries aside from Savard(who was out pretty much the whole season and who's cap room allowed Boston to improve their overall depth, which in the end made them a much better team than just keeping Savard) did Boston have in the first round?

I like this post. It shows that you want to have it both ways. You praise the brilliance of Chiarelli in making moves to strengthen the team.

I thought PG did that with Wiz. And who did PG get at the trading deadline to replace Pacioretty? Gorges? Mara, Sopel.

That is what makes me chuckle about the Montreal mangement can do no wrong crowd. Some cry about injuries yet we lose to a team that addressed its needs before the playoff run. Some then point out that the team that we lost to made improvements and when our GM did not, he is given a pass.

I love the circular logic that ensures all reasons and excuses are covered when it comes to Gauthier and Martin.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:12 AM
  #120
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Why?
1- Because he will have the most value in the young players who are expendable

2- He is expendable because we are thin on the right side of our D as Gorges is 6'1, Subban 6'0, Diaz 5'11 and Weber himself is 5'11, and we will need to address that


I didn't say he'll get traded, but I do expect him to be in a lot of trade talks.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:13 AM
  #121
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
People here keep saying we should sign this guy or that guy but we already have 46 contracts signed so far. 25 are AHL guys and 21 NHL guys. We have 4 lines, 7 D and 2 goalies. We should keep at least 1 contract for a free agent signing in case we need to add someone because one of the younger guys falter. If we go get proven type players they will want ice time now, effectively blocking a younger guy from starting the season in the NHL. Who would be the odd guy out? We could sign some depth players to start in Hamilton though.
Cut and paste: My stock answer to posts such as above:

A roster is 23 NHL ready players. Some teams carry 22 to save on Cap space. We don't have to.

We have 21 NHL ready players signed.

You don't start the year with only 12 NHL ready forwards on your roster. One forward is always hurt.

Enquist is not ready to be a full time 4th line C. He played what, 4 NHL games last year. He needs another half year in the A with injury callups for 10 -15 games.

Therefore we need an NHL ready 4th line C or winger, no question.

You don't start the year with only 7 NHL ready D. 2 D are almost always hurt. In fact, one of our D will be hurt in the exhibition season. Book it. You need 8 NHL ready D on your roster.

Diaz is very unlikely to be NHL ready. Nor is Nash, and possibly even Emelin.

Therefore we need an 8th NHL ready D man. No question.

One depth forward and one depth D = 23 man roster. End of story. It's elementary Watson.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:13 AM
  #122
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I like this post. It shows that you want to have it both ways. You praise the brilliance of Chiarelli in making moves to strengthen the team.

I thought PG did that with Wiz. And who did PG get at the trading deadline to replace Pacioretty? Gorges? Mara, Sopel.

That is what makes me chuckle about the Montreal mangement can do no wrong crowd. Some cry about injuries yet we lose to a team that addressed its needs before the playoff run. Some then point out that the team that we lost to made improvements and when our GM did not, he is given a pass.

I love the circular logic that ensures all reasons and excuses are covered when it comes to Gauthier and Martin.
I didn't make an argument in the post that you quoted. I pointed out an error in the post you made. How you read-in an argument and put words in my mouth is beyond me.

Also your deflecting the discussion and not answering what people are pressing you on. I was answering back to something you said, youy still haven't resolved your previous claims.

My post had zero to do with Habs management or the moves they made, so there was no circular arguing, nor was there any ass kissing of the organization.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:17 AM
  #123
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I like this post. It shows that you want to have it both ways. You praise the brilliance of Chiarelli in making moves to strengthen the team.

I thought PG did that with Wiz. And who did PG get at the trading deadline to replace Pacioretty? Gorges? Mara, Sopel.

That is what makes me chuckle about the Montreal mangement can do no wrong crowd. Some cry about injuries yet we lose to a team that addressed its needs before the playoff run. Some then point out that the team that we lost to made improvements and when our GM did not, he is given a pass.

I love the circular logic that ensures all reasons and excuses are covered when it comes to Gauthier and Martin.

It would help you greatly to realize that most of the criticism is also based on circular logic and other types of sophistry.

Most of the argumentation around here is sophistic in nature.

And you're no different.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:20 AM
  #124
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Wow, that's what you had to answer??? Jesus, just admit you have no clue what you're talking about.
Don't try to save face.

I can spin it? I'm not spinning anything, I'm giving you cold hard facts. You don't want understand and acknowledge those facts. You also still did not answer to how Boston (and the rest of the league) have figured us out when we scored as many goals as they did.
If you want to be as stubborn as a 10yo child, that's your prerogative.

''Excuses are for losers'', who gave excuses and for what??? Jesus, try being a little rational instead of a bitter old fan.

You can admit to being wrong you know. People will actually respect you more as a poster if you do that instead of spewing out crap that has nothing to do with the post you're quoting.

BTW, Boston had one injured player, Savard. As opposed to Markov, Gorges, MaxPac, and later in the POs, DD and Halpern. But yea, you're right, definitely even. The loss of Savard equates our losses...
And those are not excuses, they are facts. You have to be a complete idiot to think our losses did not affect us more than Savard with the Bruins. You're not an idiot so you agree with this right?

Pittsburgh got eliminated in the first round, but they were without Crosby and Malkin. Who cares about those two anyways, excuses are for losers right??? :


Jersey won how many cups with their passive style??

And why exactly would we have a repeat of last year??? Don't you agree that we are better off than last season??? So why would our max potential be 6th/1st round exit if we got better??

Speed is an asset, that's about the only right thing you wrote in your last few post.
Martin uses it for the transition game, with guys like Markov and possibly Weber/Emelin and even Gorges, we improve by plenty on that front.

You simply want a 2men forecheck because you prefer it. Don't try to argue into saying it's a better way of winning, that's not even true and I'd be very happy to see you try to debate that. Please keep in mind that I actually prefer that style as well, it's a lot more entertaining, but one strategy isn't better than another. What is important is how your players adapt to it and how well the coach translates it to them. Clearly, our players have bought into it, and come PO time, no matter how short, our performance have exceeded expectations. Don't turn this into another ''Excuses are for losers'' childish comment.

You are not a better coach than Martin. That doesn't mean he's free of mistakes or criticism but to subtlety suggest that your way, Mr. Southern Hab, internet poster from the States that probably has no pro coaching experience (or maybe even none at all), is better than Martin's passive style, is extremely pretentious.

FYI, we were 9th in shots for per game in the NHL. For such a passive style, you have to wonder how we ended up there. Must be because we're shooting on the opposing goalie from our defensive zone. Ya, that's it.

I think it's been pretty well established now that you don't know much about what you're talking about. You should give it a rest.


This is what happens when a "bitter old fan" does not agree with Martin's coaching philosophy and style that has been proven throughout his career to be an assurance of not winning the Stanley Cup.

An attack from a Martin fanboy.

Excuses are for losers. We were one goal, as you so eloquently like to phrase it, away from beating the Bruins. And we had Moen skating on the 2nd line with Gomez and Gionta. And you are correct, I am not a pro coach. But I can guarantee you that not one coach in the entire NHL would have put Moen in that position during the playoffs.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:22 AM
  #125
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Yeah, for yet more picks.
Our farm system (players not in the starting 20) has Weber, Diaz, Emelin, Tinordi, Leblanc, Kristo, Beaulieu so in spite of the recent pick hemohrage we're doing on the farm.

I don't think we'll need to acquire Mara, Wisniewski and Sopel this year. If we're lucky we might not need to acquire any (there's Emelin and Diaz), or we'll pick up a solid Jay Leech type player off the waiver wire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
1- Because he will have the most value in the young players who are expendable

2- He is expendable because we are thin on the right side of our D as Gorges is 6'1, Subban 6'0, Diaz 5'11 and Weber himself is 5'11, and we will need to address that


I didn't say he'll get traded, but I do expect him to be in a lot of trade talks.
Expendable is often correlated with little trade value.

I like what I've seen of Weber. I think he has the potential to become an excellent offensive dmen, and it's always good to have four of them. He's expendable if both Diaz and Emelin excel imo.

If they trae him I'd like them to play him a little first. It worked out with Halak.

DAChampion 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 02:34 PM.

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.