HFBoards

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

1993 VS 2013 Habs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2013, 02:43 PM
  #1
Wheeljack
Registered User
 
Wheeljack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
1993 VS 2013 Habs

Like the title says which Montreal Canadiens team is better? I am not talking about the Cup they won, I am talking about roster wise, which team is better. I know some players from the actual roster might not be back next season, but let's look at the roster for both teams:

Montreal Canadiens 1992-1993:
Vincent Damphousse
Kirk Muller
Brian Bellows
Mike Keane
Eric Desjardins
Paul DiPietro
Gilbert Dionne
John LeClair
Benoit Brunet
Kevin Haller
Guy Carbonneau
Stephan Lebeau
Lyle Odelein
Ed Ronan
Denis Savard
J. J. Daigneault
Patrice Brisebois
Gary Leeman
Mathieu Schneider
Jesse Belanger
Patrick Roy
Donald Dufresne
Todd Ewen
Sean Hill
Oleg Petrov
Andre Racicot
Rob Ramage
Mario Roberge

Montreal Canadiens 2012-2013
Max Pacioretty
David Desharnais
Michaell Ryder
Rene Bourque
Tomas Plekanec
Brian Gionta
Colby Armstrong
Lars Eller
Travis Moen
Alex Galchenyuk
Brendan Gallagher
Brendon Prust
Ryan White
Gabriel Dumont
Jeff Halpern
P.K Subban
Josh Gorges
Raphael Diaz
Alexei Emelin
Yannick Weber
Francis Bouillon
Davis Drewiske
Andrei Markov
Jarred Tinordi
Tomas Kaberle
Carey Price
Peter Budaj

Wheeljack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 02:47 PM
  #2
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
I'll take a cup team any day. They obviously have the intangibles it takes to win the cup. This Habs team doesn't.

CrAzYNiNe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 02:53 PM
  #3
bras meurtris
rise in darkness
 
bras meurtris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 189
vCash: 740
92-93 hands down.

bras meurtris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 03:14 PM
  #4
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,051
vCash: 500
I'd do it like this...

First line (or logical first line) : Clear advantage 1993. Damphousse - Muller - Bellows has pretty much every thing you want from a first line. A wee bit more toughness could have helped, but it's still much better. All those players were still legit 1st liners at that moment of their careers (Muller didn't have for long though). None of 2013's players on the first line were effectively first liners, and only one players amongst the forwards (Pacioretty) is a legit first liner. Comparison not even close as far as im concerned.

Other sources of scoring on forward : Here it's a slight advantage to 2013. Those threats were Stephan Lebeau and Denis Savard in 1993. Mike Keane had a great year. Leclair wasn't bad, but wasn't Leclair. Carbo wasn't a regular producer tha season. Dionne wasn't consistent, Leeman only played a few games, Brunet was decent in one of his numerous shortened seasons. 2013 edition features Pacioretty (see point above), DD, Gallagher, Eller, Galchenyuk and Ryder... More threats in 2013 (at least, that were playing simultaneously), similar quantity between them.

Defensive play from forwards : Obvious advantage 1993 due to the sole presence of Carbo, Keane and Brunet, who were better defensive players than every single player on the 2013 roster... Well, Plekanec was possibly better than Brunet, but we're comparing best to 3rd best.

Non-lineup depth : Well, depending on your perspective, Gary Leeman fits in this category. They otherwise had Petrov. DiPietro wasn't always playing. 7th D-Man in the playoffs was Rob Ramage. Their 9th D-Men was good enough to play in the playoffs (and ended up having a good career as well -- Sean Hill)... 2013 wasn't as good in that regards, when you consider that Bournival was seriously considered to play in game 5. The defense depth is maybe similar for 2013 (namely because of Beaulieu and Tinordi... I think Drewiskie was really the 9th D, with Weber the 10th, Pateryn the 11th and Kaberle the 12th). But the offensive depth isn't close. But it's getting there. Just need a few more good picks in that regards.

Defense : 1993 Habs were a case of a really unspectacular but damn efficient D-Men squad. Subban was better than Desjardins, Schneider was slightly better than Markov, Daigneault and Gorges are a wash (at least, they were that season), Emelin is roughly equal to HAller, maybe a bit better, Brisebois and Diaz are a wash (well, Diaz had a better season than Brisebois, but the playoffs kinda ties them) and Odelein was better than Bouillon. Come to think of it, Odelein wasn't 6th D-Men of that team, but whatever. So, kinda close all in all, but 1993 played better as a sqaud.

Toughness and things related : Whooo boy. 1993 had a legit heavy taking a regular shift (Ewen), an actual middleweight that was an absolute terrific technical fighter and could face anybody (Roberge), a lightheavy weight that could fight and end up with a +35 differential (Odelein) and some other really tough dudes, like, Mike Keane, Haller, Skrudland (for part of season) and Ramage (ditto), if we're bothering with depth. No soft player, with the lone possible exception of Lebeau, who wasn't that soft to begin with.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 03:23 PM
  #5
Slew Foots
Haters gonna hate
 
Slew Foots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I'd do it like this...

First line (or logical first line) : Clear advantage 1993. Damphousse - Muller - Bellows has pretty much every thing you want from a first line. A wee bit more toughness could have helped, but it's still much better. All those players were still legit 1st liners at that moment of their careers (Muller didn't have for long though). None of 2013's players on the first line were effectively first liners, and only one players amongst the forwards (Pacioretty) is a legit first liner. Comparison not even close as far as im concerned.

Other sources of scoring on forward : Here it's a slight advantage to 2013. Those threats were Stephan Lebeau and Denis Savard in 1993. Mike Keane had a great year. Leclair wasn't bad, but wasn't Leclair. Carbo wasn't a regular producer tha season. Dionne wasn't consistent, Leeman only played a few games, Brunet was decent in one of his numerous shortened seasons. 2013 edition features Pacioretty (see point above), DD, Gallagher, Eller, Galchenyuk and Ryder... More threats in 2013 (at least, that were playing simultaneously), similar quantity between them.

Defensive play from forwards : Obvious advantage 1993 due to the sole presence of Carbo, Keane and Brunet, who were better defensive players than every single player on the 2013 roster... Well, Plekanec was possibly better than Brunet, but we're comparing best to 3rd best.

Non-lineup depth : Well, depending on your perspective, Gary Leeman fits in this category. They otherwise had Petrov. DiPietro wasn't always playing. 7th D-Man in the playoffs was Rob Ramage. Their 9th D-Men was good enough to play in the playoffs (and ended up having a good career as well -- Sean Hill)... 2013 wasn't as good in that regards, when you consider that Bournival was seriously considered to play in game 5. The defense depth is maybe similar for 2013 (namely because of Beaulieu and Tinordi... I think Drewiskie was really the 9th D, with Weber the 10th, Pateryn the 11th and Kaberle the 12th). But the offensive depth isn't close. But it's getting there. Just need a few more good picks in that regards.

Defense : 1993 Habs were a case of a really unspectacular but damn efficient D-Men squad. Subban was better than Desjardins, Schneider was slightly better than Markov, Daigneault and Gorges are a wash (at least, they were that season), Emelin is roughly equal to HAller, maybe a bit better, Brisebois and Diaz are a wash (well, Diaz had a better season than Brisebois, but the playoffs kinda ties them) and Odelein was better than Bouillon. Come to think of it, Odelein wasn't 6th D-Men of that team, but whatever. So, kinda close all in all, but 1993 played better as a sqaud.

Toughness and things related : Whooo boy. 1993 had a legit heavy taking a regular shift (Ewen), an actual middleweight that was an absolute terrific technical fighter and could face anybody (Roberge), a lightheavy weight that could fight and end up with a +35 differential (Odelein) and some other really tough dudes, like, Mike Keane, Haller, Skrudland (for part of season) and Ramage (ditto), if we're bothering with depth. No soft player, with the lone possible exception of Lebeau, who wasn't that soft to begin with.
Oh, and I believe that 1993 team had one of the greatest goalies of all time too .

Slew Foots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 03:24 PM
  #6
Wheeljack
Registered User
 
Wheeljack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I'd do it like this...

First line (or logical first line) : Clear advantage 1993. Damphousse - Muller - Bellows has pretty much every thing you want from a first line. A wee bit more toughness could have helped, but it's still much better. All those players were still legit 1st liners at that moment of their careers (Muller didn't have for long though). None of 2013's players on the first line were effectively first liners, and only one players amongst the forwards (Pacioretty) is a legit first liner. Comparison not even close as far as im concerned.

Other sources of scoring on forward : Here it's a slight advantage to 2013. Those threats were Stephan Lebeau and Denis Savard in 1993. Mike Keane had a great year. Leclair wasn't bad, but wasn't Leclair. Carbo wasn't a regular producer tha season. Dionne wasn't consistent, Leeman only played a few games, Brunet was decent in one of his numerous shortened seasons. 2013 edition features Pacioretty (see point above), DD, Gallagher, Eller, Galchenyuk and Ryder... More threats in 2013 (at least, that were playing simultaneously), similar quantity between them.

Defensive play from forwards : Obvious advantage 1993 due to the sole presence of Carbo, Keane and Brunet, who were better defensive players than every single player on the 2013 roster... Well, Plekanec was possibly better than Brunet, but we're comparing best to 3rd best.

Non-lineup depth : Well, depending on your perspective, Gary Leeman fits in this category. They otherwise had Petrov. DiPietro wasn't always playing. 7th D-Man in the playoffs was Rob Ramage. Their 9th D-Men was good enough to play in the playoffs (and ended up having a good career as well -- Sean Hill)... 2013 wasn't as good in that regards, when you consider that Bournival was seriously considered to play in game 5. The defense depth is maybe similar for 2013 (namely because of Beaulieu and Tinordi... I think Drewiskie was really the 9th D, with Weber the 10th, Pateryn the 11th and Kaberle the 12th). But the offensive depth isn't close. But it's getting there. Just need a few more good picks in that regards.

Defense : 1993 Habs were a case of a really unspectacular but damn efficient D-Men squad. Subban was better than Desjardins, Schneider was slightly better than Markov, Daigneault and Gorges are a wash (at least, they were that season), Emelin is roughly equal to HAller, maybe a bit better, Brisebois and Diaz are a wash (well, Diaz had a better season than Brisebois, but the playoffs kinda ties them) and Odelein was better than Bouillon. Come to think of it, Odelein wasn't 6th D-Men of that team, but whatever. So, kinda close all in all, but 1993 played better as a sqaud.

Toughness and things related : Whooo boy. 1993 had a legit heavy taking a regular shift (Ewen), an actual middleweight that was an absolute terrific technical fighter and could face anybody (Roberge), a lightheavy weight that could fight and end up with a +35 differential (Odelein) and some other really tough dudes, like, Mike Keane, Haller, Skrudland (for part of season) and Ramage (ditto), if we're bothering with depth. No soft player, with the lone possible exception of Lebeau, who wasn't that soft to begin with.
Amasing observation. But you forgot one, Patrick Roy was superior than Carey Price.

Wheeljack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 03:30 PM
  #7
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
Amasing observation. But you forgot one, Patrick Roy was superior than Carey Price.
Aarrgh... I know I pressed "submit reply" a little too fast.

Roy wasn't THAT great in the regular season (better than Price was this year but the gap isn't that big) but... yeah, playoffs.

Budaj was better than Racicot, who's the worst goalie I ever saw don the pads for the Habs.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 03:30 PM
  #8
pl4tinum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
not to mention a "clutch" leclair scoring overtime goal after overtime goal.

we had nobody clutch this year.

pl4tinum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 05:17 PM
  #9
Dirty Danglez
Take it like a Man
 
Dirty Danglez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Toughness and things related : Whooo boy. 1993 had a legit heavy taking a regular shift (Ewen), an actual middleweight that was an absolute terrific technical fighter and could face anybody (Roberge), a lightheavy weight that could fight and end up with a +35 differential (Odelein) and some other really tough dudes, like, Mike Keane, Haller, Skrudland (for part of season) and Ramage (ditto), if we're bothering with depth. No soft player, with the lone possible exception of Lebeau, who wasn't that soft to begin with.
What's funny about Ewen and Roberge is they played 1 and 3 games in the playoffs respectively. I loved how this team had a lot of grit and character though.

Dirty Danglez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 05:31 PM
  #10
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Danglez View Post
What's funny about Ewen and Roberge is they played 1 and 3 games in the playoffs respectively. I loved how this team had a lot of grit and character though.
But they played quite a bit in the regular season. Both played way more than DiPietro.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 06:08 PM
  #11
McSorleyStick
El Pistolero!
 
McSorleyStick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Algeria
Posts: 12,262
vCash: 500
Patrick Roy :-)

McSorleyStick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 06:12 PM
  #12
WakeUpNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
2013 Habs #2 center is Desharnais... enough said.

WakeUpNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 06:29 PM
  #13
googlymoogly
Registered User
 
googlymoogly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
But they played quite a bit in the regular season. Both played way more than DiPietro.
DiPietro was hot in the playoffs. i believe he had 9 goals only Muller scored more.

googlymoogly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 06:30 PM
  #14
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,705
vCash: 500
13 french canadians playing in quebec league.The 93club had more french players than the the great clubs in previous decade.Since that time there'-s been a decline of kids playing hockey in quebec and it needs to change

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 08:18 PM
  #15
Harpo
Lyle forever
 
Harpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 820
vCash: 500
This team has been missing Odelein ever since he left.

Emelin is the closest thing we got right now, but what we need is one dirty, big, reliable and rough stay-at-home D that can fight against anyone. Odelein was this, and we need one to take this team one step further.

And I'm not on the "we need an enforcer" bandwagon. Souray and Komisarek in their prime were great, but Souray was too important on offence and Komisarek couldn't fight. That role is better filled with 5/6th D.

No, Odelein was not as good as Emelin, Souray or Komisarek. But as a role player, he'd fill our needs more than any of these. I like Bouillon but he's on the wrong team, especially if Emelin's out.

What's today's equivalent of Odelein in the league? Let's get him.

Harpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 08:37 AM
  #16
Alexdaman
Registered User
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
13 french canadians playing in quebec league.The 93club had more french players than the the great clubs in previous decade.Since that time there'-s been a decline of kids playing hockey in quebec and it needs to change
Not necessarily a huge decline but rather the fact that hockey in the the states is much stronger and that Europeans are a standard in the market, which was not the case in 93.

Quebec players in 1993 total 103 players.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/provi...-93-stats.html

Quebec active players right now total 61.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/provi...eer-stats.html

Sure kids now often opt to play soccer or football rather than hockey or baseball in the past. But I think most of it can be blamed on the fact that hockey is much more global than it use to be, we don't have the golden standard worldwide for trainers and hockey systems and since height and size are now placed above skill for 3rd and 4th liners a lot of our kids simply can't compete with the competition from all over the rest of the world.

But still we get to see rookies like Huberdeau, Drouin still make the cut above and give us a little pride. I'm not worried for our future since I blame some of the downfall on the Nordiques leaving and the canadiens enduring a 20 yrs drought, but since the Nordiques revival is only a matter of time and that the canadiens are well on their way to become a powerhouse in this league, I'm quite hopeful that hockey will have a much bigger impact on the future's youth.

I'm worried though about the fact that our public education system places little to no value on sports identity and the values it gives to our kids ( pride, sportsmanship, accepting defeat, being able to overcome challenges ) simply because of all the bad press sports and particularly hockey has received in the past decade. I remember going to a public school with facilities such as an indoor pool, an arena, a soccer field... Yet we didn't have school teams and if there were some at any moment, no one was aware of them. So if kids want to play sports they've got to find a way to do it outside of the public education system or go to into a private school.

The people that manage our public education system are usually women and/or intellectuals, so it's no wonder that sports end up being sidelined as a mere way for kids to just stay in shape and most of the activities related to sports education are now practiced accordingly such as playing dodgeball, doing sit-ups and push-ups, jogging and running with the awkward soccer, volleyball, badminton, freestyle basketball games oh and not to forget the once or twice a year ball hockey game where 80% of the kids can't even hold their stick right. Simply put, competition has been somewhat demonized to the extreme, since competing means there's a loser than it's better not to compete so no one is sad nor does anyone feels an unjustified sense of pride.

The problem with that is that the people managing our schools don't realize that in sports there's is a lot of value in losing and then working to get better, the same can be said for all the other school activities since school's function on short-term results rather than on potential, long-term engagements and psychology. But the fact remains that when it comes to sports our leaders think that since sports results are mainly driven with concepts such as genetics, intimidation and pride vs shame that kids should retain their competitive spirit in class rather than in the gym. What they don't realize is that the next generation will not be more just or rightful but that what will happen is that kids will now be judged and intimidated for their intellectual and social abilities rather than for their athletic capabilities.

It's not that I think that intellectual skills should be placed 2nd in the education's system list of priorities but I think that in the end our society will suffer as much if we don't find ways to keep sports in the mainframe of public education and to counter the negative side-effects of sports vs intellectual education, finding ways to retain the most positive effects of competing and overcoming defeat/accepting defeat, see what areas an individual needs to improve and simply understand that negativity isn't a by product of bad spirit but rather the awareness of someone's lack of practice in an area to work on. By understanding this one can get better at overcoming negativity simply by realizing this particular concept...

The same can be said for all intellectual school domains, but since that in class you don't outright compete against your classmates sports can really have the positive effect of knowing that what makes success in life is not because people have innate abilities but rather how much they work into getting better and with the right mindset anyone can overcome losing. It really helps to know that in life there are no losers and winners just people that know that when you lose you need to understand what went wrong instead of just feeling bad about it vs people who just didn't have the right education to put that concept in their game.


Last edited by Alexdaman: 05-18-2013 at 08:49 AM.
Alexdaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:22 AM
  #17
Le Tricolore
Franchise Players
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 25,491
vCash: 137
Send a message via Skype™ to Le Tricolore
Would you rather win the Stanley Cup or lose in round one?

Le Tricolore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:50 AM
  #18
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpo View Post
This team has been missing Odelein ever since he left.

Emelin is the closest thing we got right now, but what we need is one dirty, big, reliable and rough stay-at-home D that can fight against anyone. Odelein was this, and we need one to take this team one step further.

And I'm not on the "we need an enforcer" bandwagon. Souray and Komisarek in their prime were great, but Souray was too important on offence and Komisarek couldn't fight. That role is better filled with 5/6th D.

No, Odelein was not as good as Emelin, Souray or Komisarek. But as a role player, he'd fill our needs more than any of these. I like Bouillon but he's on the wrong team, especially if Emelin's out.

What's today's equivalent of Odelein in the league? Let's get him.
If Emelin ends up being as good as Odelin was from 92 to 94, the Habs would be really happy -- you probably underrate Odelein "general" play from that period.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 12:08 PM
  #19
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,934
vCash: 500
Look at the grit and character in that 93 team, and then ask yourself this question again.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 12:11 PM
  #20
Galchenyuk4habs
Registered User
 
Galchenyuk4habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexdaman View Post
Not necessarily a huge decline but rather the fact that hockey in the the states is much stronger and that Europeans are a standard in the market, which was not the case in 93.

Quebec players in 1993 total 103 players.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/provi...-93-stats.html

Quebec active players right now total 61.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/provi...eer-stats.html

Sure kids now often opt to play soccer or football rather than hockey or baseball in the past. But I think most of it can be blamed on the fact that hockey is much more global than it use to be, we don't have the golden standard worldwide for trainers and hockey systems and since height and size are now placed above skill for 3rd and 4th liners a lot of our kids simply can't compete with the competition from all over the rest of the world.

But still we get to see rookies like Huberdeau, Drouin still make the cut above and give us a little pride. I'm not worried for our future since I blame some of the downfall on the Nordiques leaving and the canadiens enduring a 20 yrs drought, but since the Nordiques revival is only a matter of time and that the canadiens are well on their way to become a powerhouse in this league, I'm quite hopeful that hockey will have a much bigger impact on the future's youth.

I'm worried though about the fact that our public education system places little to no value on sports identity and the values it gives to our kids ( pride, sportsmanship, accepting defeat, being able to overcome challenges ) simply because of all the bad press sports and particularly hockey has received in the past decade. I remember going to a public school with facilities such as an indoor pool, an arena, a soccer field... Yet we didn't have school teams and if there were some at any moment, no one was aware of them. So if kids want to play sports they've got to find a way to do it outside of the public education system or go to into a private school.

The people that manage our public education system are usually women and/or intellectuals, so it's no wonder that sports end up being sidelined as a mere way for kids to just stay in shape and most of the activities related to sports education are now practiced accordingly such as playing dodgeball, doing sit-ups and push-ups, jogging and running with the awkward soccer, volleyball, badminton, freestyle basketball games oh and not to forget the once or twice a year ball hockey game where 80% of the kids can't even hold their stick right. Simply put, competition has been somewhat demonized to the extreme, since competing means there's a loser than it's better not to compete so no one is sad nor does anyone feels an unjustified sense of pride.

The problem with that is that the people managing our schools don't realize that in sports there's is a lot of value in losing and then working to get better, the same can be said for all the other school activities since school's function on short-term results rather than on potential, long-term engagements and psychology. But the fact remains that when it comes to sports our leaders think that since sports results are mainly driven with concepts such as genetics, intimidation and pride vs shame that kids should retain their competitive spirit in class rather than in the gym. What they don't realize is that the next generation will not be more just or rightful but that what will happen is that kids will now be judged and intimidated for their intellectual and social abilities rather than for their athletic capabilities.

It's not that I think that intellectual skills should be placed 2nd in the education's system list of priorities but I think that in the end our society will suffer as much if we don't find ways to keep sports in the mainframe of public education and to counter the negative side-effects of sports vs intellectual education, finding ways to retain the most positive effects of competing and overcoming defeat/accepting defeat, see what areas an individual needs to improve and simply understand that negativity isn't a by product of bad spirit but rather the awareness of someone's lack of practice in an area to work on. By understanding this one can get better at overcoming negativity simply by realizing this particular concept...

The same can be said for all intellectual school domains, but since that in class you don't outright compete against your classmates sports can really have the positive effect of knowing that what makes success in life is not because people have innate abilities but rather how much they work into getting better and with the right mindset anyone can overcome losing. It really helps to know that in life there are no losers and winners just people that know that when you lose you need to understand what went wrong instead of just feeling bad about it vs people who just didn't have the right education to put that concept in their game.
You are so right, very nice post

Playing hockey since age 8, I've been hooked to this sport like most of you. It has taught me a whole lot, accepting defeat. Leadership, learning to win, class, maturity, 1 thing that I've really benefited from is being able to HANDLE STRESS unlike my parents who drive me nuts

It has also taught me to control my anger.

Galchenyuk4habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 03:46 PM
  #21
Wheeljack
Registered User
 
Wheeljack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
Paul Dipetro was consistent and he was red hot in the finals against the Kings, especially in game 4 were he scored like what 3 goals? And Patrick Roy was red hot all year long after those back to back loses to Quebec in round 1, he bounced back and his game to another level, losing only two games in the process 1 against New York Islanders after sweeping the series against Buffalo in round 2 and 1 lost in game 1 against Los Angeles Kings in the Stanley Cup finals. And people kept saying (coming from Leafs fans) that if Montreal faced Toronto in the finals, Toronto would of eliminated us in 4 games.

Wheeljack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 08:25 PM
  #22
Zathronas
Registered User
 
Zathronas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 195
vCash: 500
I remember in 1993 against the Nordiques. Habs trailing 2 games to 0 when Pierre Pagé came out publicly and said that they found that Roy was weak between his legs with an intentional double meaning.

That's when Roy started the most incredible overtime run I have ever seen. Of course the Habs won the next 4 games against Quebec

Zathronas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 08:30 PM
  #23
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,742
vCash: 500
You can't really compare them but I'd like to point out that despite the weaknesses of the 2013 team, several of the 1993 players probably wouldn't be good enough to play on it.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:44 PM
  #24
Harpo
Lyle forever
 
Harpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
If Emelin ends up being as good as Odelin was from 92 to 94, the Habs would be really happy -- you probably underrate Odelein "general" play from that period.
I don't want to compare them. Emelin is a better skater and open-ice hitter, and has more offensive potential (even though Odelein had a 40pt season). But Odelein was a very good enforcer (especially given the fact that we always had a true enforcer in the line up when he was here) and a pretty effective D. We have no player in that mold.

Having a Shawn Thornton on the 4th line + an Odelein on the 3rd pairing, and I don't think people would be complaining about our small forwards. Look a the forwards on the 93 squad: Bellows, Damphousse, Dipietro, Dionne, Lebeau, Carbonneau, Brunet, Petrov, Ronan... most of them were as small and soft as those of 2013. Of course they had Keane, Muller and LeClair, but we also have Pacioretty, Bourque, Moen etc.

The main difference between the two rosters is that the 93 team had a better first line, and better, tougher role players.

Oh and the goalie of course, even though I like Price.

Harpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:07 PM
  #25
compile
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,658
vCash: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexdaman View Post
Not necessarily a huge decline but rather the fact that hockey in the the states is much stronger and that Europeans are a standard in the market, which was not the case in 93.

Quebec players in 1993 total 103 players.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/provi...-93-stats.html

Quebec active players right now total 61.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/provi...eer-stats.html

Sure kids now often opt to play soccer or football rather than hockey or baseball in the past. But I think most of it can be blamed on the fact that hockey is much more global than it use to be, we don't have the golden standard worldwide for trainers and hockey systems and since height and size are now placed above skill for 3rd and 4th liners a lot of our kids simply can't compete with the competition from all over the rest of the world.

But still we get to see rookies like Huberdeau, Drouin still make the cut above and give us a little pride. I'm not worried for our future since I blame some of the downfall on the Nordiques leaving and the canadiens enduring a 20 yrs drought, but since the Nordiques revival is only a matter of time and that the canadiens are well on their way to become a powerhouse in this league, I'm quite hopeful that hockey will have a much bigger impact on the future's youth.

I'm worried though about the fact that our public education system places little to no value on sports identity and the values it gives to our kids ( pride, sportsmanship, accepting defeat, being able to overcome challenges ) simply because of all the bad press sports and particularly hockey has received in the past decade. I remember going to a public school with facilities such as an indoor pool, an arena, a soccer field... Yet we didn't have school teams and if there were some at any moment, no one was aware of them. So if kids want to play sports they've got to find a way to do it outside of the public education system or go to into a private school.

The people that manage our public education system are usually women and/or intellectuals, so it's no wonder that sports end up being sidelined as a mere way for kids to just stay in shape and most of the activities related to sports education are now practiced accordingly such as playing dodgeball, doing sit-ups and push-ups, jogging and running with the awkward soccer, volleyball, badminton, freestyle basketball games oh and not to forget the once or twice a year ball hockey game where 80% of the kids can't even hold their stick right. Simply put, competition has been somewhat demonized to the extreme, since competing means there's a loser than it's better not to compete so no one is sad nor does anyone feels an unjustified sense of pride.

The problem with that is that the people managing our schools don't realize that in sports there's is a lot of value in losing and then working to get better, the same can be said for all the other school activities since school's function on short-term results rather than on potential, long-term engagements and psychology. But the fact remains that when it comes to sports our leaders think that since sports results are mainly driven with concepts such as genetics, intimidation and pride vs shame that kids should retain their competitive spirit in class rather than in the gym. What they don't realize is that the next generation will not be more just or rightful but that what will happen is that kids will now be judged and intimidated for their intellectual and social abilities rather than for their athletic capabilities.

It's not that I think that intellectual skills should be placed 2nd in the education's system list of priorities but I think that in the end our society will suffer as much if we don't find ways to keep sports in the mainframe of public education and to counter the negative side-effects of sports vs intellectual education, finding ways to retain the most positive effects of competing and overcoming defeat/accepting defeat, see what areas an individual needs to improve and simply understand that negativity isn't a by product of bad spirit but rather the awareness of someone's lack of practice in an area to work on. By understanding this one can get better at overcoming negativity simply by realizing this particular concept...

The same can be said for all intellectual school domains, but since that in class you don't outright compete against your classmates sports can really have the positive effect of knowing that what makes success in life is not because people have innate abilities but rather how much they work into getting better and with the right mindset anyone can overcome losing. It really helps to know that in life there are no losers and winners just people that know that when you lose you need to understand what went wrong instead of just feeling bad about it vs people who just didn't have the right education to put that concept in their game.
The sole reason for the decline in youth hockey in North America is attributed to the extremely high costs to play the sport.

Where soccer equipment can range from $100-$300 (any parents spending $300+ on a pair of cleats are just flat out stupid), compared to $500+ for hockey.

That doesn't include registration fees, tournament entry fees or field/ice rental time.

Hockey is actually either equal to or more expensive then golfing.

compile 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 10:22 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.