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

Habs lose 6-0 to LA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2013, 11:37 AM
  #226
thaivuN
Cynical Narcissist.
 
thaivuN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,015
vCash: 500
Prust should play with DD and Pacioretty. He pretty much take the role of energy winger that Gallagher had with them. It's not like Gallagher was needed to score goals in that line.

thaivuN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:39 AM
  #227
BigDaddyLurch
#RememberCplCirillo
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Exiled from Reality
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
How did we beat the Leafs, the Bruins, the Ducks...?

...speed...guess what happens to a small fast team when their speed starts to fail them, say in a compacted schedule like the playoffs...


Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
As overlords said, it's confirmation bias, plain and simple. If your line of reasoning held any weight at all, we would lose consistently to bigger and stronger teams if it was a "major issue".

We lost because the other team was better. Not because they were bigger.
...we lost that game because LA was better (and bigger)...we are consistently losing to bigger teams in the playoffs over the last umpteen years cuz, once our speed is somewhat neutralized, we're screwed...no bias, just painful truth that even Bergevin finally realized when he drafted McCarron & Crisp...but it's still not enough right now...this team needs size in the top 6/9, plain and simple...if you can't see that, you are seriously trying not to see.

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:42 AM
  #228
Smoky Thompson
Registered User
 
Smoky Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: 514
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
Haven't we absolutely smacked around the winnipeg jets for the past 2 years? Pretty sure they were the biggest team last year. Neither was chicago the biggest or team with the most hits. Just the same convenient excuse for those who can't analyze what's going on on the ice.
We have smacked around the Jets, but then again our backup goaltender is probably better than Pavelec loll. And no the Hawks aren't the biggest team, but they have guys like Hossa and Toews are very hard to knock off the puck, and Kane, who's around Pleks size, but is supremely talented. They also had a guy like Bickell who's was a monster in the playoffs, and Handzus who's a whopping 6'5 center. And then they have a guy like Shaw who's under 6' but can fight, plays on the edge, goes in the corners, crashes the net.

Bottom line is they did not have 8-9 guys under 6', and their players who are under 6' make up for it with their dedication, character, grit and talent.

Smoky Thompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:45 AM
  #229
shamrun
Registered User
 
shamrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,329
vCash: 500
We can still be a fast team and at the same time be bigger.

shamrun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:45 AM
  #230
BigDaddyLurch
#RememberCplCirillo
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Exiled from Reality
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
When did I say we ONLY played like **** because we were tired? Trying to be funny is one thing, but misrepresenting what others say is another.

We've been playing badly for the larger part of this entire 9-0-1 streak. Many of those games shouldn't have been won. And many of those games that shouldn't have been won were against teams that had no size (or talent) advantage. If you can't spot the difference between someone blowing his defensive coverage and someone clearly struggling to pump his legs fast enough to catch up to his defensive objective, then yeah, you're out to lunch.


Haven't we absolutely smacked around the winnipeg jets for the past 2 years? Pretty sure they were the biggest team last year. Neither was chicago the biggest or team with the most hits. Just the same convenient excuse for those who can't analyze what's going on on the ice.
...you're seriously going to use Chicago as an example when two of their biggest playoff performers in their Cup runs were Byfuglien and Bickell??...do you seriously want to win a Cup or are you OK with being a small, fast regular season team that can't hack it when the big boys come out in the Playoffs??...Noone is saying trade everyone under 6'5 and have a team of slow-witted monsters out there; this team lacks that extra oomph in our top 6 that puts up over the cusp and into contender status...if we want to win when it counts the most, we need to get that extra oomph...or we can be happy being regular season superstars and playoff gatekeepers...plain and simple.

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:46 AM
  #231
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,501
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...speed...guess what happens to a small fast team when their speed starts to fail them, say in a compacted schedule like the playoffs...
Why would a team's speed fail them in a 7 game series if it worked for them in an 82 game season?

Quote:
...we lost that game because LA was better (and bigger)...we are consistently losing to bigger teams in the playoffs over the last umpteen years cuz, once our speed is somewhat neutralized, we're screwed...no bias, just painful truth that even Bergevin finally realized when he drafted McCarron & Crisp...but it's still not enough right now...this team needs size in the top 6/9, plain and simple...if you can't see that, you are seriously trying not to see.
Narrowing your scope to focus on the playoffs is convenient to your argument, even though it completely defies logic to disregard an 82-game sample size in favor of a 7-game sample size, but I'll play along.

Ottawa isn't a particularly big team, and size wasn't the reason we lost that series. The Bruins are a big team, but they're also one of the best teams, so maybe that's why we've lost to them? The Flyers I'll absolutely concede that we were physically outmatched in that series, but we were a Cinderella team anyway, no one should have expected more. I would say our struggles in the playoffs have to do largely with the fact that we've been going in as a bottom seed and facing top teams. That whole 'we were bad and other teams were better' thing, not 'we were small and they were big'.

You still, by the way, have yet to explain how big teams neutralize speedy teams. Just saying that they do over and over doesn't make it a fact.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:55 AM
  #232
Smoky Thompson
Registered User
 
Smoky Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: 514
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Why would a team's speed fail them in a 7 game series if it worked for them in an 82 game season?



Narrowing your scope to focus on the playoffs is convenient to your argument, even though it completely defies logic to disregard an 82-game sample size in favor of a 7-game sample size, but I'll play along.

Ottawa isn't a particularly big team, and size wasn't the reason we lost that series. The Bruins are a big team, but they're also one of the best teams, so maybe that's why we've lost to them? The Flyers I'll absolutely concede that we were physically outmatched in that series, but we were a Cinderella team anyway, no one should have expected more. I would say our struggles in the playoffs have to do largely with the fact that we've been going in as a bottom seed and facing top teams. That whole 'we were bad and other teams were better' thing, not 'we were small and they were big'.

You still, by the way, have yet to explain how big teams neutralize speedy teams. Just saying that they do over and over doesn't make it a fact.
The Sens were actually considerably bigger / stronger than us in the playoffs. Our forwards couldn't get to the front of the net to create a screen / put in rebounds because they couldn't out muscles their defence, and they were forced to play perimeter hockey against the hottest goaltender in the league. Desharnais' line was complete non factor due to this. When you have a full line, and a line that's counted on for OFFENCE, that is so easily shut down when faced with larger / tougher opponents, how are you going to get anywhere in the playoffs, when the physical game is brought to another level and ref's let almost anything go?

When we lost our only 6'2 center in the 2nd period of the series, our backs were already against the wall.

And that's only on offence... Maclean told his forwards to dump the puck in and just hit, hit, hit our smaller defencemen. And just like that, Diaz, Bouillon, and even Gorges to an extent, became ineffective.

Smoky Thompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 11:57 AM
  #233
BigDaddyLurch
#RememberCplCirillo
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Exiled from Reality
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Why would a team's speed fail them in a 7 game series if it worked for them in an 82 game season?



Narrowing your scope to focus on the playoffs is convenient to your argument, even though it completely defies logic to disregard an 82-game sample size in favor of a 7-game sample size, but I'll play along.

Ottawa isn't a particularly big team, and size wasn't the reason we lost that series. The Bruins are a big team, but they're also one of the best teams, so maybe that's why we've lost to them? The Flyers I'll absolutely concede that we were physically outmatched in that series, but we were a Cinderella team anyway, no one should have expected more. I would say our struggles in the playoffs have to do largely with the fact that we've been going in as a bottom seed and facing top teams. That whole 'we were bad and other teams were better' thing, not 'we were small and they were big'.

You still, by the way, have yet to explain how big teams neutralize speedy teams. Just saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact.
...size & physicality were the reasons we lost the Ottawa series (that and Anderson), to fail to see that is seriously trying not to see...burying your collective heads in the sand doesn't make it go away...anyways, to the question at hand; Big teams neutralize small fast teams in the NHL by clubbing the shiznit out of them at every opportunity, thus wearing the small fast teams down until all that is left is a small, not fast team (kinda like what Ottawa did to us last year); then, the Bigger, stronger, more physical teams walk all over the small, used-to-be-fast team...get it?


BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:04 PM
  #234
sventington
Registered User
 
sventington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 967
vCash: 500
size had nothing to do with the Ottawa loss bar that one game where our players decided to try and goon it up.

sventington is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:04 PM
  #235
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky Thompson View Post
The Sens were actually considerably bigger / stronger than us in the playoffs. Our forwards couldn't get to the front of the net to create a screen / put in rebounds because they couldn't out muscles their defence, and they were forced to play perimeter hockey against the hottest goaltender in the league. Desharnais' line was complete non factor due to this. When you have a full line, and a line that's counted on for OFFENCE, that is so easily shut down when faced with larger / tougher opponents, how are you going to get anywhere in the playoffs, when the physical game is brought to another level and ref's let almost anything go?

When we lost our only 6'2 center in the 2nd period of the series, our backs were already against the wall.

And that's only on offence... Maclean told his forwards to dump the puck in and just hit, hit, hit our smaller defencemen. And just like that, Diaz, Bouillon, and even Gorges to an extent, became ineffective.

The first paragraph is all mostly wrong. I think it was mathman who brought up a chart showing that we actually got more dangerous shots from in close than ottawa did. Price couldn't stop a beachball in that series regardless of who was in his crease and anderson was a man possessed.

As for losing our only 6'2 center, who I might think is actually closer to 6'3 these days, don't you think it matters a bit more that we lost a top 6 center regardless of his size? That's a huge chunk to be missing in the playoffs. He was our best forward leading into the post-season. And it's not like he's someone who is constantly screening goalies either. DD's problem wasn't necessarily that he was small, it's that he sucked. Losing a tough minutes center exposes DD for what he really is: a soft minutes exploitation player. There are many players just like him that aren't 5'6.

Bouillon sucked for pretty much the entire second half of last season. As for diaz, he sucked for the entire season + playoffs since coming back from his concussion. These players were ineffective BEFORE the hits could even start.

overlords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:08 PM
  #236
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,465
vCash: 500
Small guys, big guys, you need a blend, and the proper blend...we don't have it...yet. We have character guys, next up, get us some size...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:18 PM
  #237
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,501
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky Thompson View Post
The Sens were actually considerably bigger / stronger than us in the playoffs. Our forwards couldn't get to the front of the net to create a screen / put in rebounds because they couldn't out muscles their defence, and they were forced to play perimeter hockey against the hottest goaltender in the league. Desharnais' line was complete non factor due to this. When you have a full line, and a line that's counted on for OFFENCE, that is so easily shut down when faced with larger / tougher opponents, how are you going to get anywhere in the playoffs, when the physical game is brought to another level and ref's let almost anything go?

When we lost our only 6'2 center in the 2nd period of the series, our backs were already against the wall.

And that's only on offence... Maclean told his forwards to dump the puck in and just hit, hit, hit our smaller defencemen. And just like that, Diaz, Bouillon, and even Gorges to an extent, became ineffective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...size & physicality were the reasons we lost the Ottawa series (that and Anderson), to fail to see that is seriously trying not to see...burying your collective heads in the sand doesn't make it go away...anyways, to the question at hand; Big teams neutralize small fast teams in the NHL by clubbing the shiznit out of them at every opportunity, thus wearing the small fast teams down until all that is left is a small, not fast team (kinda like what Ottawa did to us last year); then, the Bigger, stronger, more physical teams walk all over the small, used-to-be-fast team...get it?

I like how the series you both focused on to hammer your point home was one series against Ottawa. What you're saying is that six games is more representative than the 48 we played prior to it, or the 30-odd we've played this year. This is, again, what's called confirmation bias.

I won't even attempt to argue the "we lost because of size" argument because I think it's totally brainless when you had Anderson posting a completely unsustainable save percentage and Montreal missing a huge chunk of its core for various (or all) of the games in the series. If you want to argue that the Sens' size prevented us from getting to the net, I would counter with the fact that they don't have especially big top-4 (Methot is the only real physical one in their top 4) and we had no trouble matching them for scoring in the season series (they outscored us at even strength 5-4 in the season series, so we're not talking about a wide disparity).

What I also don't understand is why these simple, obvious strategies ("hit their smaller defensemen! Make sure their small forwards can't get to the front of the net!") that any coach with half a brain should be able to employ, aren't in use against the Habs full-time? Again, if our size is such a "huge problem", we should be falling to this strategy every game - at the very least, it should be used to a point where we're not able to be even a playoff contender, as opposed to being near the top of the East for much of the past 2 years.

Like overlords said earlier, the size narrative is a convenient crutch for people who don't want to put in more than a second of critical thinking into what the Habs weaknesses might actually comprise. I'm not saying the Habs size isn't a concern, but it's not the reason we're losing games 6-0 or getting beaten in the playoffs most years.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:23 PM
  #238
Runner77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky Thompson View Post
Maclean told his forwards to dump the puck in and just hit, hit, hit our smaller defencemen. And just like that, Diaz, Bouillon, and even Gorges to an extent, became ineffective.
Reading some of the responses here, that never happened.

Runner77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:34 PM
  #239
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky Thompson View Post
We don't need to overreact, but this game was simply a reality check. The Kings are a team built for one purpose: success in the playoffs. Bergevin should take notes.

Now they weren't built a couple of years. Lombardi was hired in 2006, and his final / finished product came about 5 years later. From that point on, they've become a machine that keeps rolling. With top end prospects joining the ranks, or forced to stay in the AHL because their team is so deep. They have 3 great young defensemen in Doughty, Voynov, Muzzin. They have a ton of big skilled forwards in their primes. They have a young stud in Tyler Toffoli (2010 2nd rounder).

Essentially once they passed that 5 year threshold, they became a perennial contender. This is what Bergevin must do. It'll take time, but man will it be worth it if he can turn this organization around like Lombardi did with the Kings.
And here is another glaring difference between the Kings and the Habs.

You call them a machine and a perennial contender. I agree.

Looking at their draft picks from 2008 through 2013 (I only included the picks from the first 4 rounds), that machine is continuing to roll forward. Everyone talks about how skilled and big the Kings are.

The average size of their DMen drafted during that period is 6' 2" and 211 pounds. The average size of their Forwards drafted during that period is 6' 1" 200 pounds.

Compare that with Montreal. Average DMan 6' 1" 198 pounds. Average Forward 6' 0" 187 pounds.

The small culture installed and continued by Timmins in Montreal needs to come to an abrupt halt if we are ever to be considered a machine that is in perennial Cup contention.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:36 PM
  #240
24Cups
Registered User
 
24Cups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...size & physicality were the reasons we lost the Ottawa series (that and Anderson), to fail to see that is seriously trying not to see...burying your collective heads in the sand doesn't make it go away...anyways, to the question at hand; Big teams neutralize small fast teams in the NHL by clubbing the shiznit out of them at every opportunity, thus wearing the small fast teams down until all that is left is a small, not fast team (kinda like what Ottawa did to us last year); then, the Bigger, stronger, more physical teams walk all over the small, used-to-be-fast team...get it?

We did not lose to Ottawa because they were bigger. Anderson outplayed Price and they got some opportunistic scoring from unlikely giants like Pageau. Cowan and Gryba threw a few big hits and Anderson saved their bacon when they were outplayed or out of position on defence. Bigger and skilled are a combination every GM in the league would like to get hold of, the same can be said of fast and skilled. Marty St. Louis or Claude Giroux are hardly walked over by bigger teams.

24Cups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:41 PM
  #241
BigDaddyLurch
#RememberCplCirillo
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Exiled from Reality
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
...tired of the Ottawa example (just using the latest one), fine...how'd Boston beat us in '11??...we couldn't sustain against their physicality and let them back in the series...how'd Philly do it in '10??...same...Boston in '09??...same...Philly, '08??...same...see a pattern??...bury your heads in the sand all you want, this problem isn't going away until it's addressed.

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:46 PM
  #242
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Why would a team's speed fail them in a 7 game series if it worked for them in an 82 game season?



Narrowing your scope to focus on the playoffs is convenient to your argument, even though it completely defies logic to disregard an 82-game sample size in favor of a 7-game sample size, but I'll play along.

Ottawa isn't a particularly big team, and size wasn't the reason we lost that series. The Bruins are a big team, but they're also one of the best teams, so maybe that's why we've lost to them? The Flyers I'll absolutely concede that we were physically outmatched in that series, but we were a Cinderella team anyway, no one should have expected more. I would say our struggles in the playoffs have to do largely with the fact that we've been going in as a bottom seed and facing top teams. That whole 'we were bad and other teams were better' thing, not 'we were small and they were big'.

You still, by the way, have yet to explain how big teams neutralize speedy teams. Just saying that they do over and over doesn't make it a fact.
I think the most important factor in the playoffs is the attrition of healthy bodies. There are Cup-winning rosters of every variation -- big, fast, experienced, skilled and physical -- except one: Heavily injured. A team with too many injured bodies won't go far in the playoffs.

A team that can win in the regular season can win in the playoffs, provided their roster is mostly intact. The cliche of "Built for the playoffs" really means "Staying healthy for the playoffs".

Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:47 PM
  #243
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
I like how the series you both focused on to hammer your point home was one series against Ottawa. What you're saying is that six games is more representative than the 48 we played prior to it, or the 30-odd we've played this year. This is, again, what's called confirmation bias.

I won't even attempt to argue the "we lost because of size" argument because I think it's totally brainless when you had Anderson posting a completely unsustainable save percentage and Montreal missing a huge chunk of its core for various (or all) of the games in the series. If you want to argue that the Sens' size prevented us from getting to the net, I would counter with the fact that they don't have especially big top-4 (Methot is the only real physical one in their top 4) and we had no trouble matching them for scoring in the season series (they outscored us at even strength 5-4 in the season series, so we're not talking about a wide disparity).

What I also don't understand is why these simple, obvious strategies ("hit their smaller defensemen! Make sure their small forwards can't get to the front of the net!") that any coach with half a brain should be able to employ, aren't in use against the Habs full-time? Again, if our size is such a "huge problem", we should be falling to this strategy every game - at the very least, it should be used to a point where we're not able to be even a playoff contender, as opposed to being near the top of the East for much of the past 2 years.

Like overlords said earlier, the size narrative is a convenient crutch for people who don't want to put in more than a second of critical thinking into what the Habs weaknesses might actually comprise. I'm not saying the Habs size isn't a concern, but it's not the reason we're losing games 6-0 or getting beaten in the playoffs most years.
Your entire argument that you made in this post can be thrown out very easily. Of course, you will not understand it and thus quickly dismiss it.

For those who play in competitive sports, they will understand it.

The difference between regular season games and playoff games is intensity. There is not a statistic that can measure it. However, as said before, if you have been there, you understand it and you realize it is real.

Also, add to the fact that in the regular season you are playing random teams on random nights. In the playoffs, it is all compressed with two teams playing each other for the duration of the series. Ever notice how the intensity of games increases during a home and home game against a team during the regular season?

Yes, we had injuries against Ottawa. And yes, Ottawa pounded our hottest scorer (Gallagher) into submission. And yes, Ottawa's game plan was to dump the puck and pound our small DMen into submission.

Physicality played a huge role in Ottawa easily beating a more talented Habs team. To deny that is to embrace more DD's, Briere's and Boullion's on this team.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:48 PM
  #244
BigDaddyLurch
#RememberCplCirillo
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Exiled from Reality
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
We did not lose to Ottawa because they were bigger. Anderson outplayed Price and they got some opportunistic scoring from unlikely giants like Pageau. Cowan and Gryba threw a few big hits and Anderson saved their bacon when they were outplayed or out of position on defence. Bigger and skilled are a combination every GM in the league would like to get hold of, the same can be said of fast and skilled. Marty St. Louis or Claude Giroux are hardly walked over by bigger teams.
...we lost because we were physically outmatched as much as we lost cuz Anderson beat us...but don't believe me, believe the plethora of former NHLers that said the same on hockey shows all over the country...or the scouts...or Habs management...or...well, you get the point...at least I hope.

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:49 PM
  #245
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,560
vCash: 500
http://deadspin.com/this-wonderful-g...-pos-470045959

You can see from the graph that there are paths that go deep into the playoffs for teams that don't emphasize possession, but it's rare. It's largely the possession teams that go deep and win (except for the Sharks...lol).

If you want to win the Cup and not be a possession team, you need to score (obviously). The Penguins are the only team to do it with average possession numbers. Seems like the teams that have had any success going that route, either by choice or necessity, are us, the Nucks and the Pens.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:50 PM
  #246
Smoky Thompson
Registered User
 
Smoky Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: 514
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
The first paragraph is all mostly wrong. I think it was mathman who brought up a chart showing that we actually got more dangerous shots from in close than ottawa did. Price couldn't stop a beachball in that series regardless of who was in his crease and anderson was a man possessed.

As for losing our only 6'2 center, who I might think is actually closer to 6'3 these days, don't you think it matters a bit more that we lost a top 6 center regardless of his size? That's a huge chunk to be missing in the playoffs. He was our best forward leading into the post-season. And it's not like he's someone who is constantly screening goalies either. DD's problem wasn't necessarily that he was small, it's that he sucked. Losing a tough minutes center exposes DD for what he really is: a soft minutes exploitation player. There are many players just like him that aren't 5'6.

Bouillon sucked for pretty much the entire second half of last season. As for diaz, he sucked for the entire season + playoffs since coming back from his concussion. These players were ineffective BEFORE the hits could even start.
He was a huge loss, but he was not playing top 6 minutes at the time. He was still our 3rd line center for some reason, despite being our best forward down the stretch. The Kings faced a similar loss when Stoll went down early against the Sharks. They still ended up winning the series because they had big bodies who stepped up to fill the void.

We can use the excuse that Desharnais is an exploitation forward, Diaz was bad following his concussion, Bouillon was bad, but these three players share common features: they're all small and soft. Sure, Gallagher is small, but he's definitely not soft. Saint-Louis is small, but he's not soft. These guys play with grit and character. The former 3 do not (for Bouillon, it's more a question of being old ...).

We can have 2, 3, 4 guys under 6', assuming they're character players like Gallagher or Andrew Shaw, or that they make up for their size with skill and versatility like Plekanec or Markov. But to have 7, 8, and even 9 is overkill.

Smoky Thompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 12:52 PM
  #247
Runner77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Looking at their draft picks from 2008 through 2013 (I only included the picks from the first 4 rounds), that machine is continuing to roll forward. Everyone talks about how skilled and big the Kings are.

The average size of their DMen drafted during that period is 6' 2" and 211 pounds. The average size of their Forwards drafted during that period is 6' 1" 200 pounds.

Compare that with Montreal. Average DMan 6' 1" 198 pounds. Average Forward 6' 0" 187 pounds.

The small culture installed and continued by Timmins in Montreal needs to come to an abrupt halt if we are ever to be considered a machine that is in perennial Cup contention.
Not sure it will end under MB. On the one hand, we're continuing to draft undersized players, even in the later rounds where a lot of them are gambles. And on the other, MB continuing to add small players in DD, Bouillon, Brière and now considering extending Diaz.

Runner77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 01:00 PM
  #248
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,501
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Your entire argument that you made in this post can be thrown out very easily. Of course, you will not understand it and thus quickly dismiss it.

For those who play in competitive sports, they will understand it.
You're right. Checked out here, I knew it wouldn't take long for you to start up with this silliness.

When in doubt, attribute it to something completely unverifiable, unquantifiable, and unproveable. Intensity.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 01:03 PM
  #249
KoZed
Registered User
 
KoZed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Q
Country: Canada
Posts: 98
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...you're seriously going to use Chicago as an example when two of their biggest playoff performers in their Cup runs were Byfuglien and Bickell??...do you seriously want to win a Cup or are you OK with being a small, fast regular season team that can't hack it when the big boys come out in the Playoffs??...Noone is saying trade everyone under 6'5 and have a team of slow-witted monsters out there; this team lacks that extra oomph in our top 6 that puts up over the cusp and into contender status...if we want to win when it counts the most, we need to get that extra oomph...or we can be happy being regular season superstars and playoff gatekeepers...plain and simple.
To be fair, having 1 or 2 big guys play well is like having 1 or 2 small guys play well. It's not the exceptions that make or break the mold. It's the average overall make up of team.

As it is, the Habs can't have two consecutive shifts of skaters without having 3-4 smaller guys on the ice. And that's way too easy to exploit for teams who can ice nothing but bigger skaters for 2-3 straight shifts.

So against teams who have size all the way down the lineup and are built for trenches wars along the boards, behind the goal lines and in front of the net; the Habs physical weaknesses will be exposed. They counted on the PP to offset that in the past; but that doesn't work anymore since the reffing is more lax now. And that means it'll be 100 times more lax in the playoffs.

Of course size is not the end-all, be-all. But to compete with that top-tier of elite teams, it's necessary. We don't have the game-breakers up front to make a difference all on their own with one shift, and in that top-tier almost all lines play well defensively and they all have big defensemen.

Heck, just thinking about intra-division And just looking at the defense corps of the rest of the division, it's pretty obvious the Habs need to beef up the forwards. Tons of huge young defensemen, a few on almost every team... except us. Not having a big defenseman being able to log a lot of tough minutes is a real handicap.

All of this isn't a philosophical choice between apples and oranges. It's just a basic, pragmatic fact of life.

KoZed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2013, 01:03 PM
  #250
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runner77 View Post
Not sure it will end under MB. On the one hand, we're continuing to draft undersized players, even in the later rounds where a lot of them are gambles. And on the other, MB continuing to add small players in DD, Bouillon, Brière and now considering extending Diaz.
The fault for this lies with Detroit drafting Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom in the late rounds. Montreal has been trying to hit those home runs for 20 years. We did land Markov, but we haven't scored any superstar first line forwards.

I think they've reasoned that we cannot rebuild, so we have to try for those home runs.

If you look at the Kings, what turned them around was that they had a full rebuild and were able to draft Kopitar (who we could have had and probably should have drafted since our stated need was a big centerman) and Doughty. Add to that an emphasis on size/skill and a two steals (Carter and Richards) and voila.

We went low twice and snagged Galchenyuk and Price. That's not exactly Kopitar and Doughty. You could go on and on about our draft mistakes at the top of the draft (Getzlaf especially, after Gainey said out loud that he wanted a big, righthanded centerman... I mean, duh.) You need an elite goalie to win the Cup pretty much, but goalies are cheap these days, big centers are impossible to get. Not sure Galchenyuk will become a Kopitar, that's asking a lot.


Last edited by tinyzombies: 12-11-2013 at 01:09 PM.
tinyzombies 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 06:54 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.