|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2014 12:45:15 GMT -5
I was told by some Sens fans telling me that the Bell Centre was booing when Stamkos was being taken off the ice. The press is all over the disallowed goal last night, despite the ruling. Honestly, our club is getting the breaks and have been for about a month now ... and I could give a rat's butt about it. It kind of reminds me of Boston's 2011 Cup run, actually.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 21, 2014 12:52:29 GMT -5
I heard a few boos when Stamkos was helped off. Perhaps they thought he was faking. As for the disallowed goal, well, they waived off the one the Habs potted later on. On a delayed penalty, they blew the whistle claiming that the Lightning had played the puck. It touched a defender's stick, but in no way did it look like he had possession. The puck went in front and was banged home. IMO, that one should have counted too.
It's all water under the bridge now.
We had so many things go our way in 1993 that I sometimes wonder if all the stuff that's happened in the playoffs since wasn't 'balancing of the force'. So many things have pulled our playoff hopes apart - Koivu's eye at the hands of Williams, Gilmour getting the misconduct for slamming the penalty box door which inadvertently breaks the glass because it's misaligned, goalies who never amounted to much standing on their heads just at the wrong time for us, goals that should only count on a soccer pitch, etc etc.
I think the Canadiens have more than paid their penance. They've more than made up for the good fortune of 1993. It's time for some more good fortune to accompany the hard work.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2014 12:54:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2014 13:01:24 GMT -5
When it comes to hating Montreal there's a big pack mentality out there. They're brave when they're in numbers.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Apr 21, 2014 13:13:36 GMT -5
If you think it's bad now...wait until we win the cup!!
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2014 13:14:16 GMT -5
I kid not when I say I WANT to be hated as a Hab fan. Period.
In the days when we set up permanent residence in the Promised Land, there was no end of hate when I visited the Center Of The Universe. Every whine was met with a "I understand little one" smile and a head nod. Drove people insane.
I want to be hated again.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 21, 2014 13:15:51 GMT -5
If you think it's bad now...wait until we win the cup!!
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2014 13:17:34 GMT -5
If you think it's bad now...wait until we win the cup!! You want to see the Zombie Apocalypse first hand? Semi trailer with the sides showing Hab players raising the cup......going up and down Yonge Street.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
We're not even out of round one. Don't celebrate just yet.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 21, 2014 14:37:45 GMT -5
No celebrating. Hope, with a dash of belief maybe lol.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2014 14:43:01 GMT -5
funny . . . just read that "as usual the French Canadian fix is in". as if (a) the NHL cares and (2) as usual?
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 21, 2014 15:14:37 GMT -5
The ONLY thing I'd consider as acceptable reasoning as to why we're up 3-0 would be that we're not facing their #1 goaltender. "Big deal....way it goes." Price was hurt during last year's playoffs.....even though we outplayed the Sens early in that series. The Bolts are NOT outplaying us to this point. They had glorious chances in Game 1's OT. Price shut the door. Is it our fault 3 Bolts collapsed behind their goal line, leaving Weise wide open? We have been the better team. Our secondary players have stepped it up. Theirs haven't. Besides, that waved-off goal would've made it 2-1 for Tampa in the second period. The Habs would've had plenty of time to counter that. Everybody's acting as if it was in OT. What we're seeing is the outpouring of Hab Hatred. Cup Envy....pure and simple. I can't wait for the "tainted 24 Cups because we had our choice of the top 2 French-Canadian players for 50 years" argument to resurface. Here's the Coles Notes version to set people straight. The rule came into place in 1936. It lasted 7 years (til 1943). Other clubs were still allowed to sign Quebec players to "C" forms, which meant the Habs couldn't choose them. So, Montreal was choosing from a diluted pool. In that 7-year run, the Habs selected 14 players....and NONE of them saw NHL time. Sam Pollock got the rule back in from 1963-69. This time, only 3 players made the grade. Career back-up Michel Plasse in 1968, and Rejean Houle/Marc Tardif in 1969. And THAT, Hab Haters, is the extent of the "French Canadian Rule". 13 years, broken into a 7-year and a 6-year chunk with 20 years between them....not 50 years. 3 players who saw NHL duty....two of which were true contributors. Neither of them superstars. Heck, I've argued with Leafs' fans who've said that's how we got Lafleur, the Richards, Beliveau.....it's a complete joke. After I explain it to them, they're still dismissive. My response is, "Ah...it's okay. You don't even know your own team's history...."
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 21, 2014 15:52:53 GMT -5
The ONLY thing I'd consider as acceptable reasoning as to why we're up 3-0 would be that we're not facing their #1 goaltender. "Big deal....way it goes." Price was hurt during last year's playoffs.....even though we outplayed the Sens early in that series. The Bolts are NOT outplaying us to this point. They had glorious chances in Game 1's OT. Price shut the door. Is it our fault 3 Bolts collapsed behind their goal line, leaving Weise wide open? We have been the better team. Our secondary players have stepped it up. Theirs haven't. Besides, that waved-off goal would've made it 2-1 for Tampa in the second period. The Habs would've had plenty of time to counter that. Everybody's acting as if it was in OT. What we're seeing is the outpouring of Hab Hatred. Cup Envy....pure and simple. I can't wait for the "tainted 24 Cups because we had our choice of the top 2 French-Canadian players for 50 years" argument to resurface. Here's the Coles Notes version to set people straight. The rule came into place in 1936. It lasted 7 years (til 1943). Other clubs were still allowed to sign Quebec players to "C" forms, which meant the Habs couldn't choose them. So, Montreal was choosing from a diluted pool. In that 7-year run, the Habs selected 14 players....and NONE of them saw NHL time. Sam Pollock got the rule back in from 1963-69. This time, only 3 players made the grade. Career back-up Michel Plasse in 1968, and Rejean Houle/Marc Tardif in 1969. And THAT, Hab Haters, is the extent of the "French Canadian Rule". 13 years, broken into a 7-year and a 6-year chunk with 20 years between them....not 50 years. 3 players who saw NHL duty....two of which were true contributors. Neither of them superstars. Heck, I've argued with Leafs' fans who've said that's how we got Lafleur, the Richards, Beliveau.....it's a complete joke. After I explain it to them, they're still dismissive. My response is, "Ah...it's okay. You don't even know your own team's history...." The bottom line is that Montreal has more Cups than anyone else & will not be caught, especially when you consider that the team chasing them is the Leafs. I heard that crap too- they are winning because Bishop isn't playing. What about the Bruins. They only have a split & they are paling the # 8 seed. Not too impressive.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 21, 2014 15:55:10 GMT -5
Even McLean defended the ruling & that says a lot coming from the CBC.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Apr 21, 2014 16:00:18 GMT -5
I agree bring on the hate ...the more we win the greater the disdain lets hope there is a lot more winning.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 21, 2014 17:50:55 GMT -5
Just tuned into SportsCentre at random. What was the topic?
The disallowed goal.
Ward, O'Neill, and McKenzie ALL saying it should've been a goal.
McKenzie adamant that video review on such a play be put in place.
Now...I ask you all.
Had the Habs scored a similar disallowed goal....and had Tampa gone on to win that game by one goal....do you think there'd be a fraction of the uproar?
Not on your life.
The ROC will take any chance to taint Montreal success.
These are the same types who either sat on the fence or agreed with the Chara-Pacioretty decision.
'Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 21, 2014 19:35:42 GMT -5
I was told by some Sens fans telling me that the Bell Centre was booing when Stamkos was being taken off the ice. The press is all over the disallowed goal last night, despite the ruling. Honestly, our club is getting the breaks and have been for about a month now ... and I could give a rat's butt about it. It kind of reminds me of Boston's 2011 Cup run, actually. Cheers. Watching the Avs/Wild game. The Wild had the Avs penned for almost 4 minutes. Towards the end of that period, Andre Benoit takes a hard hit and is slow getting up. As he's skating off the ice I hear booing. Wonder if anybody will compalain about that. Somehow I doubt it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 20:30:35 GMT -5
Just tuned into SportsCentre at random. What was the topic? The disallowed goal. Ward, O'Neill, and McKenzie ALL saying it should've been a goal. McKenzie adamant that video review on such a play be put in place. Now...I ask you all. Had the Habs scored a similar disallowed goal....and had Tampa gone on to win that game by one goal....do you think there'd be a fraction of the uproar? Not on your life. The ROC will take any chance to taint Montreal success. These are the same types who either sat on the fence or agreed with the Chara-Pacioretty decision. 'Nuff said. Just watched it on TSN.ca. What a joke. O'Neill and Ward are ranting saying that Tampa "got screwed" and that the official should have "invoked Rule Common Sense." McKenzie pretty much saying how there was enough evidence in the play not to allow the goal, and Fraser believes the same. Essentially, it all comes down to this: if there's a problem with the rule, then change the rule. Complain about the rule itself. I've never seen a hockey panel get so furious about a non-call before.
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 21, 2014 20:33:38 GMT -5
Yeah and Mckenzie starts it off by saying how he believed it should be a goal but then provides the evidence against. He's usually pretty balanced but that took the cake.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 20:37:24 GMT -5
Nobody also came to the defense when Zibanejad's goal was just as controversial, the kick-not-a-kick play, and almost the same group of people on the TSN panel (minus O'Neill) agreed with the call on the ice. So, how can the "evidence" be okay for one play, but be ridiculous for another? Address the problem with the rule itself, and don't whine that the rule was being followed.
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 21, 2014 21:13:37 GMT -5
I've never really been one for anti-Habs conspiracy theories but they're really getting a raw deal in the media this playoff run. CBC and TSN are up their usual nonsense but it feels (to me) decidedly more vehement than normal. Case in point, watch the Ferraro piece on TSN.ca; first beats the same dead horse the rest of the panel did, then rips into Bourque.
We get it guys, you don't like the Habs. Move on, already. I'm sure the Leafs are free for some interviews on how they're prepping for the 14-15 season.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Apr 21, 2014 21:57:45 GMT -5
It may in some way be possible to feel like Tampa is unlucky thus far until one actually watches the series and sees a team that to be perfectly honest looks distant second best in all less than two of ten periods.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 22, 2014 9:36:02 GMT -5
IMO the controversy should be about Stamkos' return.
Did he have a concussion test? All Elliotte Friedman would say is "I'm sure he was checked by doctors before he returned." Not good enough. The question needs to be asked - has TB risked the long term health of their best player?
How come no one is talking about that? It's a much bigger issue.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 22, 2014 9:38:30 GMT -5
I've never really been one for anti-Habs conspiracy theories but they're really getting a raw deal in the media this playoff run. CBC and TSN are up their usual nonsense but it feels (to me) decidedly more vehement than normal. Case in point, watch the Ferraro piece on TSN.ca; first beats the same dead horse the rest of the panel did, then rips into Bourque. We get it guys, you don't like the Habs. Move on, already. I'm sure the Leafs are free for some interviews on how they're prepping for the 14-15 season. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I saw that stupid rant from Ferraro too. Bourque is playing lights out in the playoffs & all he can talk about is the stuff Bourque didn't do in the regular season.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 22, 2014 9:48:56 GMT -5
IMO the controversy should be about Stamkos' return. Did he have a concussion test? All Elliotte Friedman would say is "I'm sure he was checked by doctors before he returned." Not good enough. The question needs to be asked - has TB risked the long term health of their best player? How come no one is talking about that? It's a much bigger issue. Agreed. All they did yesterday was joke about it. Cooper pretended to be a reporter.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 22, 2014 10:26:34 GMT -5
It may in some way be possible to feel like Tampa is unlucky thus far until one actually watches the series and sees a team that to be perfectly honest looks distant second best in all less than two of ten periods. They remind me of our club when we were losing year after year. No luck, no bounces, no calls .... every year, man. We're not out of the woods by any stretch, but things are a bit different this year. It's the whole mood surrounding the team. For me, anyway, I'd always support our team in past playoffs, but I didn't really expect anything. It was one thing after another, always something that prevented me from taking them seriously. Even that 2010 conference run was a pipe dream built on stellar goaltending. This year, however, it's different. I don't know how far we're going to go, but I have a lot more interest this time around. I honestly feel we can get to the conference final regardless who we play and not solely on the back of an overachieving, hot goaltender. I'm not trying to diss Tampa, Boston or Detroit, but it's possible that the conference is wide open ... First things first ... Tampa Bay has to go down tonight. That would be a start. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 22, 2014 13:48:12 GMT -5
I'm with you Dis. My conservative side brings up all the glass half empty arguments, but my glass half full side says:
a) the team has (or can have) excellent goaltending. b) They have a legitimate #1 line that can score in bunches on occasion c) They have a #2 and #3 lines that are ok in the defensive zone and can cause trouble in the offensive zone. d) While other teams can spout all they like about their 4th lines, we have a legitimate 4th line that has some very good offensive potential. If (when) Galchenyuk returns, we can ice a 4th line of Prust, Moen and Weise or Prust, Weise and Bournival that is the equal of any 4th line in the league. And we have some spares to fit in without hurting the effectiveness of that line much at all.
On Defense, PK has simplified his 90% game and knows when to let the remaining 10% kick in. The rest Gorges got late in the season has reinvigorated him. He's at the top of his game. Markov and Emelin have been excellent Weaver has been solid after some first game jitters. He made a great block in Game 3, right in the chest and bounced right back up. He doesn't show much emotion, but he has a ton of courage.
It's only our 6th dman who leaves me uncertain. Cube can be very good when rested. If there are 3 days between games, I'm not so worried with him in the line-up. If it's less, I end up not needing a manicure. Tinordi is inexperienced, but gives us a bigger body with some deterrent value. That's the one area I think we're weak in when we ice our current line-up. Prust is the only guy with some real talent at throwing punches, and he's not 100% healthy. Murray is just too weak in other areas, but Tinordi can do it all, providing he has confidence. I sure wish Therrien would rotate Tinner and Cube. It makes so much sense. I'd also like to see our 3rd pairing get a little more ice time, if they are effective. That would save the wear and tear on the first 2 pairings, which is so important as the playoffs go on. One has to look at the next game, but also set the table for the game after that. MT needs some snooker lessons.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 22, 2014 20:52:36 GMT -5
Tuning into the post game on TBC. I can well imagine the comments about the late penalty - after a half a game of stuff that wasn't called and could/should have been.
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Apr 22, 2014 21:21:39 GMT -5
I've never really been one for anti-Habs conspiracy theories but they're really getting a raw deal in the media this playoff run. CBC and TSN are up their usual nonsense but it feels (to me) decidedly more vehement than normal. Case in point, watch the Ferraro piece on TSN.ca; first beats the same dead horse the rest of the panel did, then rips into Bourque. We get it guys, you don't like the Habs. Move on, already. I'm sure the Leafs are free for some interviews on how they're prepping for the 14-15 season. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I saw that stupid rant from Ferraro too. Bourque is playing lights out in the playoffs & all he can talk about is the stuff Bourque didn't do in the regular season. Now THAT I agreed with. Bourque is terrible because he's lazy. He'll show up and dazzle you once in awhile to try to make you forget that.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 22, 2014 22:04:17 GMT -5
As mentioned in the GDT....the controversy was heightened with Ron MacLean's statement that the NHL shouldn't have assigned a French-Canadian (Quebec-born) ref to Game 4. Nothing but pure HNIC poison against the Habs.
Hypocrites.....
Last year, Leafs-Bruins series.
Game 2. Mike Leggo--North Bay, Ontario.
Game 5. Dan O'Halloran--Essex, Ontario. Paul Devorski--Guelph, Ontario.
Game 7. Dan O'Halloran--Essex, Ontario.
Did MacLean mention that any of those Ontario-born refs shouldn't have been assigned to an Ontario team's playoff game? (I probably did...ha! But I'm a fan admittedly with a subjective perspective.)
MacLean's credibility has really fallen since he became Cherry's lackey.
|
|