Despite a number of initial injuries and not seeing our complete lineup until this upcoming game (hopefully) the habs still lead the NHL in Goals per Game with 3.71.
We should take this into context too...all guns are not even firing yet, our top line from last year is off to a slow start but I believe they will soon pick up! GO HABS GO!!! I fully expect the habs to have the most Goals for this year like last year....and hopefully for many years to come!
Naw, the stat that impresses me is the +/- and Montreal is leading there. Although both our PK and PP are in the middle of the pack, we have vastly improved our even strength and overall play.
Or it could be too early in the season to make any assumptions. I heard a couple of "experts" (Stock & Marinaro) say that the Habs haven't really played the top teams yet and neither one would bet on the Habs making it to the finals. That was before the Ducks game. And with that result it seems they may have a point.
That was before the Ducks game. And with that result it seems they may have a point.
Meh. The backup goalie started and had an off game. Despite this they laid four goals on their opponents and they forced the other goalie to be outstanding. I don't think that that one game should color perceptions too much.
They did beat Philly, too, which was a popular choice to win the East (not that I really agree) and took Buffalo, which is currently leading the East, to a shootout in a game they could have won.
Meh. The backup goalie started and had an off game. Despite this they laid four goals on their opponents and they forced the other goalie to be outstanding. I don't think that that one game should color perceptions too much.
They did beat Philly, too, which was a popular choice to win the East (not that I really agree) and took Buffalo, which is currently leading the East, to a shootout in a game they could have won.
MM,
What struck me about that Ducks game was it reminded me way too much of the Philly series last Stanley Cup run. The Habs were getting perimeter chances and being slapped around in their own zone like slap happy crack whores.
The Habs won 5 of 7 games so far but 3 of these games were against non contending teams: Boston, Phoenix and Florida. They face two pretty good teams, Carlina and Minnesota in their next 2 games. If they win both games, they'll finish the month with a winning percentage of .833 which would be fantastic. If they lose both games they would finish with a winning percentage of .611 which wouldn't be shabby either.
My main concern is the way the defense has been playing rather then how many goals we are scoring. We've got to be making smart plays at both ends of the rink or else we'll lose alot more 6-4 games just like last Saturday.
The Habs won 5 of 7 games so far but 3 of these games were against non contending teams: Boston, Phoenix and Florida. They face two pretty good teams, Carlina and Minnesota in their next 2 games. If they win both games, they'll finish the month with a winning percentage of .833 which would be fantastic. If they lose both games they would finish with a winning percentage of .611 which wouldn't be shabby either.
that it will be the case most of the year, 90% of the teams the Habs will face are not contenders...
there's 3 or 4 teams in each conference, at most, that are "guaranteed playoff teams" (and I'm not talking about the division rule, but talent), the other 22/24 will be either battling for a playoff spot or fighting for 1st overall...
The Habs won 5 of 7 games so far but 3 of these games were against non contending teams: Boston, Phoenix and Florida. They face two pretty good teams, Carlina and Minnesota in their next 2 games. If they win both games, they'll finish the month with a winning percentage of .833 which would be fantastic. If they lose both games they would finish with a winning percentage of .611 which wouldn't be shabby either.
Boston is a very good team this year, what are you talking about? Florida has a great defence from top to bottom and a great goalie. They had not beaten the Panthers at the Bell Centre in years. Phoenix is not a playoff team but they are still young and energetic, the Habs were able to pace the game themselves. Stop trying to dismiss the victories as some sort of given.
What struck me about that Ducks game was it reminded me way too much of the Philly series last Stanley Cup run. The Habs were getting perimeter chances and being slapped around in their own zone like slap happy crack whores.
That's great, because in all honesty, I feel that if they dominate the other team like they had Philly and they get a reasonable of puck luck, their odds of losing that series are very low.
The problem against Philly wasn't about getting "slapped around", it was about RJ Umberger and the Flyers getting an improbable run of puck luck on deflections and bounces whereas the Habs could not buy a goal. With the amount of puck possession and scoring chances the Habs had, even reasonable puck luck would've seen them win the series regardless of any woes Carey Price might have suffered.
The whole go-to-the-net thing was completely overblown by people looking for a comforting, familiar explanation because they were unwilling to admit the truth: that puck luck was the major factor. But "luck" is a dirty word even in a game played on a slippery and degrading surface with a bouncy rubber object.
Philly was a typical Cinderella team (albeit a better one than usual) that lost horribly as soon as their luck ran out -- to the Penguins, whose scorers are not really tougher than Montreal's.
That explanation is a classic case of going from the result (Montreal lost) and going back to find causes that sound plausible (lack of toughness) even if they're not borne out on the ice, which tends to happen a lot. In reality, Philly didn't actually go to the net more than Montreal, they didn't have the puck enough that they could, that wasn't really the factor. The puck would just go in more for them.
That's great, because in all honesty, I feel that if they dominate the other team like they had Philly and they get a reasonable of puck luck, their odds of losing that series are very low.
The problem against Philly wasn't about getting "slapped around", it was about RJ Umberger and the Flyers getting an improbable run of puck luck on deflections and bounces whereas the Habs could not buy a goal. With the amount of puck possession and scoring chances the Habs had, even reasonable puck luck would've seen them win the series regardless of any woes Carey Price might have suffered.
The whole go-to-the-net thing was completely overblown by people looking for a comforting, familiar explanation because they were unwilling to admit the truth: that puck luck was the major factor. But "luck" is a dirty word even in a game played on a slippery and degrading surface with a bouncy rubber object.
Philly was a typical Cinderella team (albeit a better one than usual) that lost horribly as soon as their luck ran out -- to the Penguins, whose scorers are not really tougher than Montreal's.
That explanation is a classic case of going from the result (Montreal lost) and going back to find causes that sound plausible (lack of toughness) even if they're not borne out on the ice, which tends to happen a lot. In reality, Philly didn't actually go to the net more than Montreal, they didn't have the puck enough that they could, that wasn't really the factor. The puck would just go in more for them.
Terrific post IMHO. Someone who understands about after-the-fact rationalization and false correlation.
That's great, because in all honesty, I feel that if they dominate the other team like they had Philly and they get a reasonable of puck luck, their odds of losing that series are very low.
The problem against Philly wasn't about getting "slapped around", it was about RJ Umberger and the Flyers getting an improbable run of puck luck on deflections and bounces whereas the Habs could not buy a goal. With the amount of puck possession and scoring chances the Habs had, even reasonable puck luck would've seen them win the series regardless of any woes Carey Price might have suffered.
The whole go-to-the-net thing was completely overblown by people looking for a comforting, familiar explanation because they were unwilling to admit the truth: that puck luck was the major factor. But "luck" is a dirty word even in a game played on a slippery and degrading surface with a bouncy rubber object.
Philly was a typical Cinderella team (albeit a better one than usual) that lost horribly as soon as their luck ran out -- to the Penguins, whose scorers are not really tougher than Montreal's.
That explanation is a classic case of going from the result (Montreal lost) and going back to find causes that sound plausible (lack of toughness) even if they're not borne out on the ice, which tends to happen a lot. In reality, Philly didn't actually go to the net more than Montreal, they didn't have the puck enough that they could, that wasn't really the factor. The puck would just go in more for them.
Gotta agree here...anytime the Habs lose to known physical teams, the reason is always that they got pushed around. Anyone watching last years series vs. the Flyers could of realized that being pushed around was not why the Habs lost and it surely wasnt why they lost vs. Anaheim
and I agree with the poster above me, you nailed it right on the head and put it eloquently!
Gotta agree here...anytime the Habs lose to known physical teams, the reason is always that they got pushed around. Anyone watching last years series vs. the Flyers could of realized that being pushed around was not why the Habs lost and it surely wasnt why they lost vs. Anaheim
and I agree with the poster above me, you nailed it right on the head and put it eloquently!
Well i agree with the post mostly, you do have to admit in the anaheim game that our defense was struggling containing the Getzlaf line down low thus, leading to scoring chances, thus, big physical players down low still remains a weakness to a certain extent.
Well i agree with the post mostly, you do have to admit in the anaheim game that our defense was struggling containing the Getzlaf line down low thus, leading to scoring chances, thus, big physical players down low still remains a weakness to a certain extent.
Getzlaf's line has to play like that to have any success, they do that to any defense if they record any pts. It's not any different with Montreal.
Physicality and the Habs being able to deal with it might of been an issue 2, 3 and 4 years ago, but it wasn't the case last year and surely isn't this year. In fact, I think the Habs lose their effectiveness when they start to go away from their skill/skill speed game and try to play fisticuffs with their opponents
Whenver the Habs lose to teams like the Flyers, Anaheim, Boston, people will always say it's because they got outplayed physically, nevermind them actually paying attention to the game. It's a built in excuse and it requires no thinking, so it's easy
it's funny...Boston might be the most physical team in the NHL, yet when the Habs beat them, it's because they can't keep up with our speed, yet in the playoffs when they lost a few games, it was beacuse the Habs struggled with their physical play...it's a weak argument
Getzlaf's line has to play like that to have any success, they do that to any defense if they record any pts. It's not any different with Montreal.
Physicality and the Habs being able to deal with it might of been an issue 2, 3 and 4 years ago, but it wasn't the case last year and surely isn't this year. In fact, I think the Habs lose their effectiveness when they start to go away from their skill/skill speed game and try to play fisticuffs with their opponents
Whenver the Habs lose to teams like the Flyers, Anaheim, Boston, people will always say it's because they got outplayed physically, nevermind them actually paying attention to the game. It's a built in excuse and it requires no thinking, so it's easy
it's funny...Boston might be the most physical team in the NHL, yet when the Habs beat them, it's because they can't keep up with our speed, yet in the playoffs when they lost a few games, it was beacuse the Habs struggled with their physical play...it's a weak argument
I wasn't arguing the physicality part because I agree that's not really their problem. I was more arguing the fact that we have a hard time defending against big forwards down low. Now, it is true that the Getzlaf probably makes alot of teams look silly down low as well but nonetheless, if we want to beat them or teams with similar attributes we will need to have a means to defend effectively against that. I would think that it is mostly Komisarek who should be most effective against such players but it seems he did not have a great game against Anaheim.
I wasn't arguing the physicality part because I agree that's not really their problem. I was more arguing the fact that we have a hard time defending against big forwards down low. Now, it is true that the Getzlaf probably makes alot of teams look silly down low as well but nonetheless, if we want to beat them or teams with similar attributes we will need to have a means to defend effectively against that. I would think that it is mostly Komisarek who should be most effective against such players but it seems he did not have a great game against Anaheim.
yeah, I get what you're saying...but that's Anaheim's identity. If they're sucessful, that's how they play. Just like if Montreal is successful, no defense can keep up with their combination of speed/skill, just like Anaheim's couldn't keep up Saturday night either, (however, Gigučre bailed them out).
I've been very impressed with our ES play so far this year. It's steadily improved since the lockout, and we're at the point now where we occasionally look dominant on ES. We have the ability to create chances every time we retrieve the puck, in all three zones.
Once the PP and PK start clicking at a more comfortable rate, this team will be even more dangerous. Because right now, when we are on our game, there aren't many teams that can outplay us at ES. I'm usually a pretty even keel poster, but I really believe that there are few teams that can outplay us for an entire game at ES this year. We have the speed, the skill, the creativity and the system that allows us to compete with and sometimes dominate the opposition at ES.
The danger for this team is complacency. If we start to think we're too skillful and we don't need to work hard and go in the danger areas, that our skill will take over all the time, then we'll lose games. But if we play our system and put in the effort, there are going to be a lot of goals scored five on five.
Also agree with 417 about physical play. Haven't seen this team intimidated or pushed around, that is a weak argument that seems to pop up every once in a while but it simply isn't true anymore. If anything, our team can intimidate the opposition, not due to our physicality, but rather because overall team speed and our ability to get up ice and create chances every time we have the puck. Teams have to be afraid that the slightest turnover can lead to a dangerous rush going the other way.
yeah, I get what you're saying...but that's Anaheim's identity. If they're sucessful, that's how they play. Just like if Montreal is successful, no defense can keep up with their combination of speed/skill, just like Anaheim's couldn't keep up Saturday night either, (however, Gigučre bailed them out).
I say Scott Niedermayer is one of the few in the NHL that has managed to keep up so far.
