exactly
he meant he had more freedom to play out there and throuw a few more hits cause he has a big guy on HIS team that would protect him.
We dont need a heavyweight enforcer but we need someone that can atleast play 7-8 a game and not hurt you and pummel and crunch people hard
the problem is yes we got tougher than previous versions of this team, but everyone around us got tougher to so we're still not "tough enough"
Also, he has a hitting machine in Leo Komarov ON HIS LINE. Guys like Scott can't play on any line other than the 4th, so how i the hell can they protect guys like DD and Gionta?
Listen, we're top-10 in hits in the league, we aren't a bunch of smurfs anymore. We should work on getting bigger, but we absolutely don't need an enforcer.
Also, he has a hitting machine in Leo Komarov ON HIS LINE. Guys like Scott can't play on any line other than the 4th, so how i the hell can they protect guys like DD and Gionta?
Listen, we're top-10 in hits in the league, we aren't a bunch of smurfs anymore. We should work on getting bigger, but we absolutely don't need an enforcer.
thats it
i think its more important to have a big guy on the team taht can hurt (i dont mean injure here) people with a good clean hit and still manage to play well than a guy like scott who is useless other than fighting
a fight is a fight, alot of them are more like tussles anyway, but getting rocked hard by a hit makes you think twice about doing some things.
the only thing that sucks right now are that the biggest hits are coming of two of our top 4 defencemen.
We need someone on the 4th line that can hit that hard well and clean and not hurt the team.
This argument/discussion should be ended right now.
Look at the Habs this season. We are doing very well against the teams that are not loaded with tough guys. Yet we struggle against the Leafs, Bruins, Sabres and the Sens to a certain extent.
Why? Those above mentioned teams can play the goonish game against us because they know they can.
We need an average skilled heavy to dress specifically against those teams. The rest of the te he can entertain Kaberle in the press box.
I hope Bergevin is noticing who we are losing to and understand why so he can fix the problem.
This argument/discussion should be ended right now.
Look at the Habs this season. We are doing very well against the teams that are not loaded with tough guys. Yet we struggle against the Leafs, Bruins, Sabres and the Sens to a certain extent.
Why? Those above mentioned teams can play the goonish game against us because they know they can.
We need an average skilled heavy to dress specifically against those teams. The rest of the te he can entertain Kaberle in the press box.
I hope Bergevin is noticing who we are losing to and understand why so he can fix the problem.
+1
We don't need a goon who plays every game just the ones against our big divisional rivals.
Well I don't think it was Kadri's "imagination" that had a goal and assist last night...
Orr has better stats on the year then Armstrong. I'd rather have Orr on the team.
Can't disagree there. Armstrong hasn't been doing much. He hasn't hurt us, but that's not really an accomplishment. We need him to contribute a little more on the offense and he absolutely has to dish out those nasty hits he got known to deliver.
Armstrong's been MIA.
But even if he was on fire, I prefer having a guy like Orr on the sidelines instead of Kaberle.
Habs got annihilated by the Leafs in the 6-0 game, the Sens game was kinda goaltending and shoddiness, the Bruins game was clean, the Sabres game was sloppy all over the place but no goonery... I just don't see in the division where the Habs are actually getting losses because the other teams are tougher. Yeah, the other teams are tougher. But if we had Kassian code-fighting Orr and Scott in those games, I just don't get how it changes the outcome. It maybe gives an added entertainment dimension, and/or takes some of the sting off the insult of the Leafs humiliation, but that would be a pretty hollow victory in the midst of a shellacking.
I don't see proof of *need* for an enforcer in those divisional losses. It might just have given us some kind of minor vengeful satisfaction in the midst of some of them? Which is ok too. I wouldn't mind being entertained more in that fashion, especially in the midst of otherwise miserable games. I just don't think I'd want to sell it as anything but that.
More like, a 10-4 record suggests that an enforcer is far from a *need*. It's a subjective want, for some.
This argument/discussion should be ended right now.
Look at the Habs this season. We are doing very well against the teams that are not loaded with tough guys. Yet we struggle against the Leafs, Bruins, Sabres and the Sens to a certain extent.
Why? Those above mentioned teams can play the goonish game against us because they know they can.
We need an average skilled heavy to dress specifically against those teams. The rest of the te he can entertain Kaberle in the press box.
I hope Bergevin is noticing who we are losing to and understand why so he can fix the problem.
Boston : The Habs dominated the game but couldn't finish (But yeah, Thornton was missing)
Buffalo : 10 goals for and 5 goals against isn't exactly struggling.
Sens : They have only one tough SOB in their lineup and Prust can take care of him if needed.
Then you have Toronto. But toughness isn't what beat us. Habs played a passive and uninspired game, and it was already 0-4 when Leafs started to goon it up. With a close score, Orr and McLaren wouldn't have played at all in the 3rd.
Basically, they key to victory against the NE is to work harder, not to get tougher.
This argument/discussion should be ended right now.
Look at the Habs this season. We are doing very well against the teams that are not loaded with tough guys. Yet we struggle against the Leafs, Bruins, Sabres and the Sens to a certain extent.
Why? Those above mentioned teams can play the goonish game against us because they know they can.
We need an average skilled heavy to dress specifically against those teams. The rest of the te he can entertain Kaberle in the press box.
I hope Bergevin is noticing who we are losing to and understand why so he can fix the problem.
We lost to the Sens (pre-Karlsson injury) and Bruins once each because they're good teams, not because we were out-gooned by them. We then beat the Sens. We beat the Sabres easily with John Scott, then blew the second game because of stupidity. None of these games were influenced by an enforcer, fights or intimidation.
Let's call a spade a spade -- this all comes down to a single game against Toronto. No other game we played needed an enforcer. We needed goals, not fights. Our surprisingly few losses happened because the whole team was rusty (Toronto #1), we didn't bury our many chances (Boston), Budaj was rusty (Sens #1), dumb penalty and last-second screwup (Buffalo #2), and finally, a lousy game by Price and the entire team (Toronto #2), which culminated in that ridiculous brawl once the game was already long-gone.
Not a necessity but wouldn't be bad to have one on the 23 man roster once the Habs trade Weber (only a matter of time...I mean at this point I'd think he'd ask for a trade). Preferably a tough #6-7 D in the Carkner/Engelland mold who can provide injury filler D minutes + be an enforcer.
Habs got annihilated by the Leafs in the 6-0 game, the Sens game was kinda goaltending and shoddiness, the Bruins game was clean, the Sabres game was sloppy all over the place but no goonery... I just don't see in the division where the Habs are actually getting losses because the other teams are tougher. Yeah, the other teams are tougher. But if we had Kassian code-fighting Orr and Scott in those games, I just don't get how it changes the outcome. It maybe gives an added entertainment dimension, and/or takes some of the sting off the insult of the Leafs humiliation, but that would be a pretty hollow victory in the midst of a shellacking.
I don't see proof of *need* for an enforcer in those divisional losses. It might just have given us some kind of minor vengeful satisfaction in the midst of some of them? Which is ok too. I wouldn't mind being entertained more in that fashion, especially in the midst of otherwise miserable games. I just don't think I'd want to sell it as anything but that.
More like, a 10-4 record suggests that an enforcer is far from a *need*. It's a subjective want, for some.
Two of our defeat against the Leafs and Sens(first game) was grit-related. We won more than a few at the start cause of our PP and we faced teams since then that were a free-fall whether it's the Flyers or the Sabres and we won because we have good momentum. I just worry that when it's going to really count against a team that takes it to the body, we're gonna have a difficult time. When games are a little soft, Habs are flying. But that's always been the case. Remember when we finished first when Carbo was coach. It was a great season and the Andrei-Plek-Kovy line was incredible. We rellayed on our speed and on our PP. Then we faced the Flyers in the playoffs we neutered our PP by being intense and took it to our D and there was Mike Richards going after Subban and so forth. Habs seemed shaken all series, Price was nervous as Hell. Habs had no mental toughness, Flyers had all the intimidation.
I've seen the Habs using their speed before and it has not worked. I want them to go into a place and tear it up, just not cause of a good system and a few lucky goals, I want to them to go in there like warriors, knowing you can put the fear into the opponant physically. That will only be accomplished if we're less small and have a intimidating fourth line, not with Moen and Armstrong. Same thing with our D, if we could gain in size.
This argument/discussion should be ended right now.
Look at the Habs this season. We are doing very well against the teams that are not loaded with tough guys. Yet we struggle against the Leafs, Bruins, Sabres and the Sens to a certain extent.
Why? Those above mentioned teams can play the goonish game against us because they know they can.
We need an average skilled heavy to dress specifically against those teams. The rest of the te he can entertain Kaberle in the press box.
I hope Bergevin is noticing who we are losing to and understand why so he can fix the problem.
Do we really struggle? I remember not that long ago when we had a much softer team we went 8-0 against the Bruins and 6-0 against the Flyers in the regular season.
Toughness doesn't win hockey games. The only reason to get a tough guy is if there are players playing scared. Then it might help them get back on their game. But I don't see anyone playing scared on the habs.
Two of our defeat against the Leafs and Sens(first game) was grit-related. We won more than a few at the start cause of our PP and we faced teams since then that were a free-fall whether it's the Flyers or the Sabres and we won because we have good momentum. I just worry that when it's going to really count against a team that takes it to the body, we're gonna have a difficult time. When games are a little soft, Habs are flying. But that's always been the case. Remember when we finished first when Carbo was coach. It was a great season and the Andrei-Plek-Kovy line was incredible. We rellayed on our speed and on our PP. Then we faced the Flyers in the playoffs we neutered our PP by being intense and took it to our D and there was Mike Richards going after Subban and so forth. Habs seemed shaken all series, Price was nervous as Hell. Habs had no mental toughness, Flyers had all the intimidation.
I've seen the Habs using their speed before and it has not worked. I want them to go into a place and tear it up, just not cause of a good system and a few lucky goals, I want to them to go in there like warriors, knowing you can put the fear into the opponant physically. That will only be accomplished if we're less small and have a intimidating fourth line, not with Moen and Armstrong. Same thing with our D, if we could gain in size.
Check our regular season record against the Bruins and Flyers that year. We were 14-0.
Ok, at 10-4 it's a luxury you can now consider. Is a Jarred Boll more of a liability than Colby Armstrong? I don't think so.
Even Noke when he returns will be of lesser value than a guy that can patrol for a few minutes in certain games and be on the ice when energy is needed.
the key is not to get an enforcer, but a GOOD ENFORCER, one that can not just answer the bell but win the round and be ready for the next one.
Ok, at 10-4 it's a luxury you can now consider. Is a Jarred Boll more of a liability than Colby Armstrong? I don't think so.
Even Noke when he returns will be of lesser value than a guy that can patrol for a few minutes in certain games and be on the ice when energy is needed.
the key is not to get an enforcer, but a GOOD ENFORCER, one that can not just answer the bell but win the round and be ready for the next one.
Ok, at 10-4 it's a luxury you can now consider. Is a Jarred Boll more of a liability than Colby Armstrong? I don't think so.
Even Noke when he returns will be of lesser value than a guy that can patrol for a few minutes in certain games and be on the ice when energy is needed.
the key is not to get an enforcer, but a GOOD ENFORCER, one that can not just answer the bell but win the round and be ready for the next one.
Jared Boll is exactly the kind of player our bottom 6 needs. Perfect!
Well Prust is just awesome but the diff between Moen/White and Boll is that Boll can beat the best of em' and his play is decent.... Moen/white will fight, are not feared and play decent. Why not have someone that can fight against the "better" enforcers in the league and his play won't hurt the team?
