HFBoards

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

Too little too late (Habs lose 4-2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2010, 10:47 AM
  #251
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
Gionta and Cam are as physically imposing as Datsyuk and Zetterburg? Too funny.
Who cares about physically imposing, they beat you with speed and skill and not size.

That's like saying Orr has better hands than Boogaard.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:10 AM
  #252
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Who cares about physically imposing, they beat you with speed and skill and not size.

That's like saying Orr has better hands than Boogaard.
OK, size means nothing... I get it. As much as I think that's a crock, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

To replace Moen on the top 6...what kind of guy would you like...a Gionta type guy or a Penner type guy?

JayBee* is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:21 AM
  #253
shortcat1
Registered User
 
shortcat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Downtown Palau, ON
Country: Palau
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Danielson View Post
But... he's the next Lidstrom! [/2008-2009]
Hmmmm... I don't know...

How often, or what are the odds of finding another Lidstrom in the draft?

The Wings drafted three 'home runs' with him, Datsyuk & Zetterberg. Eriksson may be good but another Lidstrom?

I doubt it.

shortcat1 is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:28 AM
  #254
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Being of the camp that believes the Habs need a little more size and grit, I decided to do a little research. It's not scientific but it does give us an idea. Not about grit but size. I added the weight of all the Red Wings playing last night and all the Habs.

I was surprised.

Habs total size 3652 - average 202
Red Wings size 3615 - average 200.8.

Really they're almost the same with a slight edge to the Habs and that's mainly because of Gill. But one thing I noticed was that the Habs players are all over the map whereas the Red Wings tend to have players group close together.


Weight
---------....Habs - Wings
170-179....1.......-....1
180-189....3.......-....1
190-199....4.......-....9
200-209....4......-.....1
210-219....5......-.....3
220-229....0......-.....3
230+........1......-.....0



Height
----- Habs ----Wings
5-7 - 1 - 0
5-9 - 1 - 0
5-10 - 0 - 2
5-11 - 3 - 3
6-0 - 4 - 4
6-1 - 2 - 3
6-2 - 4 - 2
6-3 - 2 - 3
6-4 - 0 - 1
6-7 - 1 - 0


As for overall height the habs are 1308 inches; the Wings 1306. About the same height.

These stats show nothing about grit though. When it comes to size myself & my camp are wrong.


Last edited by onice: 12-11-2010 at 11:36 AM.
onice is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:43 AM
  #255
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Being of the camp that believes the Habs need a little more size and grit, I decided to do a little research. It's not scientific but it does give us an idea. Not about grit but size. I added the weight of all the Red Wings playing last night and all the Habs.

I was surprised.

Habs total size 3652 - average 202
Red Wings size 3615 - average 200.8.

Really they're almost the same with a slight edge to the Habs and that's mainly because of Gill. But one thing I noticed was that the Habs players are all over the map whereas the Red Wings tend to have players group close together.


Weight
---------....Habs - Wings
170-179....1.......-....1
180-189....3.......-....1
190-199....4.......-....9
200-209....4......-.....1
210-219....5......-.....3
220-229....0......-.....3
230+........1......-.....0



Height
----- Habs ----Wings
5-7 - 1 - 0
5-9 - 1 - 0
5-10 - 0 - 2
5-11 - 3 - 3
6-0 - 4 - 4
6-1 - 2 - 3
6-2 - 4 - 2
6-3 - 2 - 3
6-4 - 0 - 1
6-7 - 1 - 0


As for overall height the habs are 1308 inches; the Wings 1306. About the same height.

These stats show nothing about grit though. When it comes to size myself & my camp are wrong.
The great thing about stats are they can be manipulated any which way.

Our bottom 6 has good size, and that's why I think they're successful. Do the same stats with our top 6.

What would you rather have one guy who's 6'5, another who's 5'7 and one who's 5'8....or 3 guys who are between 5'10 and 5'11?

JayBee* is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:47 AM
  #256
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
The great thing about stats are they can be manipulated any which way.

Our bottom 6 has good size, and that's why I think they're successful. Do the same stats with our top 6.

What would you rather have one guy who's 6'5, another who's 5'7 and one who's 5'8....or 3 guys who are between 5'10 and 5'11?
The only guys below 5'11 in our top 6 are Cammalleri and Gionta. Moen admittely does not belong in our top 6, but the arguement could be made that's Pacioretty's eventual spot (and I'd like to think it should be tried in the near future) and he is 6'2.

It's overblown in my opinion. Would I be happy if landed a big guy for that 6th forward spot or Patches proved to be able to play there? Yes I would. I don't have a problem with Cammy or Gionta in our top 6 and I think we can win with them.

JGRB is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:56 AM
  #257
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
The great thing about stats are they can be manipulated any which way.

Our bottom 6 has good size, and that's why I think they're successful. Do the same stats with our top 6.

What would you rather have one guy who's 6'5, another who's 5'7 and one who's 5'8....or 3 guys who are between 5'10 and 5'11?
As i said I was of the of the "we lack size" camp. I still think we need a big power forward for our top 6 but as a team we don't lack size.

onice is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:59 AM
  #258
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,042
vCash: 500
You know, I remember the awesome 6f+ top 6 players we had during the last years - Ryder, Higgins, Latendresse, Kovalev....

...I'm happy with our smurfs right now. Really happy.

Newhabfan is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 11:59 AM
  #259
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
The only guys below 5'11 in our top 6 are Cammalleri and Gionta. Moen admittely does not belong in our top 6, but the arguement could be made that's Pacioretty's eventual spot (and I'd like to think it should be tried in the near future) and he is 6'2.

It's overblown in my opinion. Would I be happy if landed a big guy for that 6th forward spot or Patches proved to be able to play there? Yes I would. I don't have a problem with Cammy or Gionta in our top 6 and I think we can win with them.
I never said I had a problem with either Cammy or Gionta on our top 6. All I'm saying is in order for them to become more effective they need bigger guys to create space.

And he Habs also need a puck moving defenceman to replace Markov...I was told to shut up and that Hamrlik was more than enough.

I'm just the messenger.

JayBee* is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:00 PM
  #260
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
As i said I was of the of the "we lack size" camp. I still think we need a big power forward for our top 6 but as a team we don't lack size.
I don't think anyone has said we lacked size as a team.

JayBee* is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:00 PM
  #261
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
The great thing about stats are they can be manipulated any which way.

Our bottom 6 has good size, and that's why I think they're successful. Do the same stats with our top 6.

What would you rather have one guy who's 6'5, another who's 5'7 and one who's 5'8....or 3 guys who are between 5'10 and 5'11?
Our bottom six has success because they work hard, not because they have good size.

Size is only a complementary component to your game. You need abilities first and foremost, then you need intensity mixed in with being a hard worker, and finally you can add size.
But it isn't the determining factor, far from it. Small players can be amazing, and big ones can be horrible. If you don't have abilities, or intensity, or work hard, then you won't have a career in the NHL (unless your abilities are just that good, i.e Kovalev, but we're talking about bottom six here).

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:04 PM
  #262
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,208
vCash: 500
I decided to sleep on my comments because I was so pissed off about last night game and sadly it didn't change anything... I'm still ****ing mad about it.

I was looking forward for this matchup, we don't get to see the Wings to often and since they're the measure to success, it would have been a nice way to see where the boys were...

That until the ****ing duchebags referees decided to seal this game ASAP in the 1st... I mean come on, are you ****ing kidding me ?

A bunch of borderline, but acceptable, calls... on one ****ing side ! I mean these idiots almost gave Price a penality for holding the stick on the PP... is this a sick joke ? The penality should have been on the Wings player, you are responsible for your stick... if someone caught his stick in another player's skate, it's a penality... how the **** was that not called interference ?

Let's not talk about the 3rd either, it was shamefull... I came out of this game absolutely frustrated. Instead of seing a great game by two solid teams, we were left with a game decided by two clowns wearing stripes.

Just awfull... at the end of this game, we have absolutely no idea who's the better team, and that's brutal.

MTL-rules is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:04 PM
  #263
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Our bottom six has success because they work hard, not because they have good size.

Size is only a complementary component to your game. You need abilities first and foremost, then you need intensity mixed in with being a hard worker, and finally you can add size.
But it isn't the determining factor, far from it. Small players can be amazing, and big ones can be horrible. If you don't have abilities, or intensity, or work hard, then you won't have a career in the NHL (unless your abilities are just that good, i.e Kovalev, but we're talking about bottom six here).
Size is not the only reason they're successful. I'm not saying that. But there's a reason why bottom 6 guys tend to be on the bigger side. We've got guys like Pouillot, Lapierre, Darche...all bigger guys who can bang...they also have skill....and grit...a nice mix. Would like that on the top 6.

JayBee* is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:09 PM
  #264
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
I never said I had a problem with either Cammy or Gionta on our top 6. All I'm saying is in order for them to become more effective they need bigger guys to create space.

And he Habs also need a puck moving defenceman to replace Markov...I was told to shut up and that Hamrlik was more than enough.

I'm just the messenger.
Perhaps I was overly harsh in calling you Don Cherry, sorry about that. But you often come off as overly negative and brash on here and it can be exceedingly annoying especially after a loss when a lot of people are kind of sitting on edge (admittely I am sometimes this way, actually more often than not, but I stay optimistic).

My personal views is we need 1 top 6 forward who can contribute, if he is over 6 feet and over 200lbs? All the better.

As for Markov replacement, it's easy to say that after a loss but we we're doing ok with Weber in the line up as well.. I'd love to give the line up a more diversified look too it with both Subban and Weber in the line up to help this aspect. We may ultimately need to replace Markov, although I doubt a replacement is found or even truly available until well into the New Year and likely not until after the All-Star game.

JGRB is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:09 PM
  #265
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
I decided to sleep on my comments because I was so pissed off about last night game and sadly it didn't change anything... I'm still ****ing mad about it.

I was looking forward for this matchup, we don't get to see the Wings to often and since they're the measure to success, it would have been a nice way to see where the boys were...

That until the ****ing duchebags referees decided to seal this game ASAP in the 1st... I mean come on, are you ****ing kidding me ?

A bunch of borderline, but acceptable, calls... on one ****ing side ! I mean these idiots almost gave Price a penality for holding the stick on the PP... is this a sick joke ? The penality should have been on the Wings player, you are responsible for your stick... if someone caught his stick in another player's skate, it's a penality... how the **** was that not called interference ?

Let's not talk about the 3rd either, it was shamefull... I came out of this game absolutely frustrated. Instead of seing a great game by two solid teams, we were left with a game decided by two clowns wearing stripes.

Just awfull... at the end of this game, we have absolutely no idea who's the better team, and that's brutal.
Yeah well the Habs had their say in losing.

That call on Plecky was warranted for sure.

Gorges gambled he'd run the clock and got absolutely schooled at the end of the first there. Kostistyn had his head in another county when he missed that open net. That goes in (and it should have) it's 2-2, not 3-1.

Habs were all over the ice running into each other and only really started getting any sort of organized offense in the 3rd.

You can argue that a couple of the calls were doubtful but the only reason the Habs lost last night is because they tried really hard to lose.

And the guys who think more physical players is the answer against this team have absolutely no clue. Speed is what works against this team. The Habs were slow and sluggish until the 3rd. And as much as everyone loves to hate on Gomez around here he would have been very useful against a team like Detroit last night.

Jigger77 is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:11 PM
  #266
Maxpac
Registered User
 
Maxpac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 13,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Our bottom six has success because they work hard, not because they have good size.

Size is only a complementary component to your game. You need abilities first and foremost, then you need intensity mixed in with being a hard worker, and finally you can add size.

But it isn't the determining factor, far from it. Small players can be amazing, and big ones can be horrible. If you don't have abilities, or intensity, or work hard, then you won't have a career in the NHL (unless your abilities are just that good, i.e Kovalev, but we're talking about bottom six here).
I completely agree, but we are that point now where we need to go forward and find players who will bring that size and strengh. Like it or not, players like Franzen, Holmstrom, Bertuzzi are of great worth to the Wings and we need guys like that. But, mind you, i think the Wings lack of overall strengh will start showing more and more and the guys get older, taking on a team like the Ducks or Canucks would be a terrible match-up for Detroit in the play-offs.

Maxpac is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:15 PM
  #267
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigger77 View Post
Yeah well the Habs had their say in losing.

That call on Plecky was warranted for sure.

Gorges gambled he'd run the clock and got absolutely schooled at the end of the first there. Kostistyn had his head in another county when he missed that open net. That goes in (and it should have) it's 2-2, not 3-1.

Habs were all over the ice running into each other and only really started getting any sort of organized offense in the 3rd.

You can argue that a couple of the calls were doubtful but the only reason the Habs lost last night is because they tried really hard to lose.
Please, although the penality on Pleks was an acceptable call... there should have been a diving call on Rafalski... a much easier call to make and no one would have complain, no breakaway for Plekanec and still a PP for the Wings...

And what are you talking about ? They were disorganized only because of all the PK, they were playing very well before the 10min PP...

The Wings were opportunistic, that I can't disagree with that, but they had some major help from the referees down by a goal...

MTL-rules is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:16 PM
  #268
RBR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,521
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
I completely agree, but we are that point now where we need to go forward and find players who will bring that size and strengh. Like it or not, players like Franzen, Holmstrom, Bertuzzi are of great worth to the Wings and we need guys like that. But, mind you, i think the Wings lack of overall strengh will start showing more and more and the guys get older, taking on a team like the Ducks or Canucks would be a terrible match-up for Detroit in the play-offs.
I disagree, the Wings' experience is a product of their age. I'm sure the more fragile Ducks - who goon everyone when they start losing - and the always solid "at least I didn't let in seven" Luongo will get torched by the Wings. Even last year the Sharks were lucky to get matched up against a beaten up Red Wings team and the games were still close.

RBR is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:29 PM
  #269
Taupy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortcat1 View Post
Hmmmm... I don't know...

How often, or what are the odds of finding another Lidstrom in the draft?

The Wings drafted three 'home runs' with him, Datsyuk & Zetterberg. Eriksson may be good but another Lidstrom?

I doubt it.
You should have been around in the 2008-2009 playoffs, it was real funny to see them compare those two.

Taupy is online now  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:30 PM
  #270
FeelsLike93
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 748
vCash: 500
I was at the game the other night and just wanna share a couple things.

-First off the reffing was atrocious how do you call 5 penalties in the first 1st period/beginning of the 2nd?

-Pleky going down scared the **** out of me (how was that not a penalty?)

-Sloppiest 2nd period ever, but guess you can expect that from killing 5 penalties in the 1st period, all momentum was lost.

-The crowd there was atleast 50/50 habs/wings fans, but I'd give the edge to montreal from what it looked like.

-There were loud and obvious Go Habs Go chants, and "Carey" chants that I'm sure the players could hear.

- Lars Eller in person looks very good and poised with the puck, Kostitsyn floated, Lapierre had some nice hands but didnt do much that game, somethings wrong with Cammy...Pleks was the best out there.

-Having Gomez out hurts too much, idc how good halpern is playing you can't play him on the 2nd with moen and cammy it just wont work

Overall good game to watch for my 1st and enjoyed it..... GO HABS GO

FeelsLike93 is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:32 PM
  #271
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
I find it very amusing that the whole toughness debate only rears its ugly head when we lose a game. What makes this occasion so hilarious is that it is because of a loss to the Red Wings.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:37 PM
  #272
Maxpac
Registered User
 
Maxpac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 13,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I find it very amusing that the whole toughness debate only rears its ugly head when we lose a game. What makes this occasion so hilarious is that it is because of a loss to the Red Wings.
Hmm, the debate was re-booted because Koseegin had to make his smart-ass sarcastic remarks with his " Oh, we clearly lost to the Wings because of our lack of toughness" as if he was talking to a bunch of morons who don't don't adding toughness is not an issue against a finesse team like Detroit.

Get used to it though, because the better we get, the more the toughness issue will come, because some posters ( like me) think that's what's missing for the team to be solid cup contenders,

Maxpac is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:41 PM
  #273
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
Hmm, the debate was re-booted because Koseegin had to make his smart-ass sarcastic remarks with his " Oh, we clearly lost to the Wings because of our lack of toughness" as if he was talking to a bunch of morons who don't don't adding toughness is not an issue against a finesse team like Detroit.

Get used to it though, because the better we get, the more the toughness issue will come, because some posters ( like me) think that's what's missing for the team to be solid cup contenders,
Umm no learn to read the debate was restarted because jaybee felt the need to bump his own thread after a loss. Get serious.

Also, you still havent' provided me with any evidence that we have been losing because of toughness, moreover, you still havent provided me with any evidence that toughness is our number one priority. If you're going to get involved in the debate at least blame the right people who started it.

Andy is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:50 PM
  #274
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Perhaps I was overly harsh in calling you Don Cherry, sorry about that. But you often come off as overly negative and brash on here and it can be exceedingly annoying especially after a loss when a lot of people are kind of sitting on edge (admittely I am sometimes this way, actually more often than not, but I stay optimistic).

My personal views is we need 1 top 6 forward who can contribute, if he is over 6 feet and over 200lbs? All the better.

As for Markov replacement, it's easy to say that after a loss but we we're doing ok with Weber in the line up as well.. I'd love to give the line up a more diversified look too it with both Subban and Weber in the line up to help this aspect. We may ultimately need to replace Markov, although I doubt a replacement is found or even truly available until well into the New Year and likely not until after the All-Star game.
I don't get it. I don't think I'm as negative as many on this board. I guess the difference is I'm not negative about players that everyone else is negative.

Seems like it's OK to be negative towards Gill, Gomez, Obyrne, Moen, etc.

The second you're negative about a popular player, you're a "hater".

"Sitting on the edge"? It's just a game. If you're "on the edge" after a loss then I'm the least of your problems.

And it's not like I just start bringing things up after losses...I'm always bringing things up... I mean, when's a good time to bring things up....cuz I can't do it after wins or losses.

I've said we needed a Markov replacement ever since he went down. It's apparent whether we win or not. Having our old defencemen logging all those minutes will hurt them in the 2nd half of the season. It's about being proactive and not reactionary. Things look good now, but they're not sustainable. Gorges and Gill are not 2nd pairing guys and Spacek and Hamer are not 1st pairing guys.

Koseegin, next time I'll check with you before making a comment.

JayBee* is offline  
Old
12-11-2010, 12:51 PM
  #275
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
Umm no learn to read the debate was restarted because jaybee felt the need to bump his own thread after a loss. Get serious.

Also, you still havent' provided me with any evidence that we have been losing because of toughness, moreover, you still havent provided me with any evidence that toughness is our number one priority. If you're going to get involved in the debate at least blame the right people who started it.
My own thread, huh?


JayBee* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:55 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.