|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 4, 2014 11:04:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 4, 2014 11:13:59 GMT -5
Lafleur is our "Don Cerise"…
======================
That said, if we think WE'RE frustrated….what must THE MAN WHO BROUGHT IT, GAME AFTER GAME think when he's watching? He KNOWS what effort/fighting through adversity looks like from a supposed star player.
I think if we watched Game 7 again….we'd be able to look at it through Guy's eyes….and we'd have the exact opinion….and of more players than just Vanek and Pacioretty. That was NOT a fighting-for-your-playoff lives team effort. 18 shots is one thing if you score 3 along the way…..but when you're still looking at a goose-egg, you gotta go for it…..HARD!
The Kings didn't sit back when they were down 0-3 to the Sharks….or 2-3 to the Ducks.
I'm not saying we're built as well as Kings are…but at least we could consistently expend the effort.
We managed to find it vs. Boston.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 11:25:13 GMT -5
I wonder how Lafleur in his prime would perform in today's league. Vanek had a reasonably good game 5 and 6, so I don't think his criticism there is just. Same with Max; I thought Pacioretty had a fairly good playoff run. Can we get more out of both of them? For sure. But I think Guy might be out of line here.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 4, 2014 11:39:49 GMT -5
To me the issue is very simple. Did either gave it all they had? Then Lafleur is right.
Impossible to argue with a guy who did that, been there.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2014 12:09:33 GMT -5
Guy is conveniently forgetting that his first couple of stabs at the playoffs weren't very successful. Neither were his regular seasons. Prior to this year, Max had only played in 4 playoff games. There's a learning curve. Vanek hadn't played in the playoffs for 3 years and his last real run was in 2007.
Lafleur had a deeper team, and three straight learning years in the playoffs before he started to put it together. He had leaders to show him the way. Pacioretty is as much the leader as anyone else. So, he is learning and trying to lead by example at the same time. That's a much different scenario.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 4, 2014 12:47:36 GMT -5
Lafleur is our "Don Cerise"… ====================== That said, if we think WE'RE frustrated….what must THE MAN WHO BROUGHT IT, GAME AFTER GAME think when he's watching? He KNOWS what effort/fighting through adversity looks like from a supposed star player. I think if we watched Game 7 again….we'd be able to look at it through Guy's eyes….and we'd have the exact opinion….and of more players than just Vanek and Pacioretty. That was NOT a fighting-for-your-playoff lives team effort. 18 shots is one thing if you score 3 along the way…..but when you're still looking at a goose-egg, you gotta go for it…..HARD! The Kings didn't sit back when they were down 0-3 to the Sharks….or 2-3 to the Ducks. I'm not saying we're built as well as Kings are…but at least we could consistently expend the effort. We managed to find it vs. Boston. I think the criticism is justified although it could be expanded to include a lot of other players. Five shots in the 3rd period with the season on the line - just awful.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 4, 2014 12:50:58 GMT -5
I think the criticism is justified although it could be expanded to include a lot of other players. Five shots in the 3rd period with the season on the line - just awful. Those two and PK were our best chance to get back. PK has nothing to be ashamed of, he was exhausted from carrying the team on his back, the other two, far from it.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 4, 2014 12:57:26 GMT -5
Lafleur is our "Don Cerise"… ====================== That said, if we think WE'RE frustrated….what must THE MAN WHO BROUGHT IT, GAME AFTER GAME think when he's watching? He KNOWS what effort/fighting through adversity looks like from a supposed star player. I think if we watched Game 7 again….we'd be able to look at it through Guy's eyes….and we'd have the exact opinion….and of more players than just Vanek and Pacioretty. That was NOT a fighting-for-your-playoff lives team effort. 18 shots is one thing if you score 3 along the way…..but when you're still looking at a goose-egg, you gotta go for it…..HARD! The Kings didn't sit back when they were down 0-3 to the Sharks….or 2-3 to the Ducks. I'm not saying we're built as well as Kings are…but at least we could consistently expend the effort. We managed to find it vs. Boston. I think the criticism is justified although it could be expanded to include a lot of other players. Five shots in the 3rd period with the season on the line - just awful. I agree but I think Guy singled them out because we only needed 1 goal to tie the game and your goal scorers are the ones you have to count on. If Patches and Vanek are considered our go to guys and 1st line players, when, in any of the series, did they score a goal when we truly needed it (blowouts don't count). It was more like the Bourque's and Weise's who scored when we needed it, imo
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2014 12:59:51 GMT -5
Lafleur is our "Don Cerise"… ====================== That said, if we think WE'RE frustrated….what must THE MAN WHO BROUGHT IT, GAME AFTER GAME think when he's watching? He KNOWS what effort/fighting through adversity looks like from a supposed star player. I think if we watched Game 7 again….we'd be able to look at it through Guy's eyes….and we'd have the exact opinion….and of more players than just Vanek and Pacioretty. That was NOT a fighting-for-your-playoff lives team effort. 18 shots is one thing if you score 3 along the way…..but when you're still looking at a goose-egg, you gotta go for it…..HARD! The Kings didn't sit back when they were down 0-3 to the Sharks….or 2-3 to the Ducks. I'm not saying we're built as well as Kings are…but at least we could consistently expend the effort. We managed to find it vs. Boston. I think the criticism is justified although it could be expanded to include a lot of other players. Five shots in the 3rd period with the season on the line - just awful. I think the best question is if Al McNeil, Scotty Bowman, Jean Perron, or Jacques Demers were coaching in game 6 would they have kept Vanek from playing with DMV when he was clearly our most dangerous forward? In a 1-0 game, do or die, would they have neglected to put together the line that was so good in the last 15 games of the season?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 4, 2014 13:31:24 GMT -5
To me the issue is very simple. Did either gave it all they had? Then Lafleur is right. Impossible to argue with a guy who did that, been there. I'm actually okay with Flower's opinion ... I mentioned it a few posts back, but I feel Pacioretty hasn't been the same since the Chara incident ... that night was the last dominant game I've seen Pacioretty play ... he's had a few good games scoring goals, sure, but until he went down Pacioretty was dominating Boston all by himself in that game ... scoring, hitting and out-hustling everyone on the ice ... I appreciate the offense Vanek brings to the table and with him we were able to secure second seed ... however, what puts me back on the fence were his comments ... he was really quick to defer his poor play elsewhere ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 4, 2014 13:41:54 GMT -5
I think the best question is if Al McNeil, Scotty Bowman, Jean Perron, or Jacques Demers were coaching in game 6 would they have kept Vanek from playing with DMV when he was clearly our most dangerous forward? In a 1-0 game, do or die, would they have neglected to put together the line that was so good in the last 15 games of the season? Exactly…a coach has to put players in place to succeed. As Scotty Bowman said, the key to coaching is having the right players on the ice at the right time….not just rolling the lines. That applies to home AND away. Therrien must also shoulder the blame.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 4, 2014 14:13:28 GMT -5
Guy is conveniently forgetting that his first couple of stabs at the playoffs weren't very successful. Neither were his regular seasons. Prior to this year, Max had only played in 4 playoff games. There's a learning curve. Vanek hadn't played in the playoffs for 3 years and his last real run was in 2007. Lafleur had a deeper team, and three straight learning years in the playoffs before he started to put it together. He had leaders to show him the way. Pacioretty is as much the leader as anyone else. So, he is learning and trying to lead by example at the same time. That's a much different scenario. I don't think he's forgetting anything. He always put forth the effort. In his first 3 years he was 20, 21, 22. And there was a Cup in Year 2…in which he contributed 8 pts. in 17 games. By the time he was 23, he was in full flight. Agreed, he was surrounded by phenomenal leadership depth….but, relatively speaking, he was rising cream...and effort was a big part of that. Plus he had Scotty Bowman…who likely didn't bench him a la Therrien with Subban. Meanwhile, Pacioretty is 25….Vanek is 30. Yes, re-uniting them could've produced something….but "Where's the effort?" is a legit criticism, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 4, 2014 14:41:53 GMT -5
Guy should have kept quiet. I don't know the context of the interview, and this may border on heresy, but Lafleur is a guy who had 6 phenomenal seasons in Montreal that were bookended by 3 mediocre seasons at the beginning of his career and 4 mediocre seasons at the end, starting at age 28! He had 14 points in his first 29 playoff games and 13 points in his last 26 playoff games. Pretty bad. Lafleur's stunning and rapid decline starting in the 1980-81 season remains a strange oddity of his career, a real blemish IMO, and part of that was simply poor conditioning, poor habits (smoking), and perhaps poor motivation as the Habs in the early 80s were no longer a powerhouse and Guy wasn't surrounded by the same calibre of teammates. So for him to call out Patches and Vanek for a lack of effort is pretty lame.
I loved #10. Still do. Forever part of my youth, but saying stuff like that after the team just went to the conference finals is out of line.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 4, 2014 15:35:37 GMT -5
Guy should have kept quiet. I don't know the context of the interview, and this may border on heresy, but Lafleur is a guy who had 6 phenomenal seasons in Montreal that were bookended by 3 mediocre seasons at the beginning of his career and 4 mediocre seasons at the end, starting at age 28! He had 14 points in his first 29 playoff games and 13 points in his last 26 playoff games. Pretty bad. Lafleur's stunning and rapid decline starting in the 1980-81 season remains a strange oddity of his career, a real blemish IMO, and part of that was simply poor conditioning, poor habits (smoking), and perhaps poor motivation as the Habs in the early 80s were no longer a powerhouse and Guy wasn't surrounded by the same calibre of teammates. So for him to call out Patches and Vanek for a lack of effort is pretty lame. I loved #10. Still do. Forever part of my youth, but saying stuff like that after the team just went to the conference finals is out of line. I agree. I'd take Pacioretty's performance in the 2014 playoffs over Lafleur's from 1980 onwards. It might have caused a revolution but it would have been a brilliant move to trade him after the 1979 playoffs. Think of what it might have brought in! AS a commentator, Lafleur offers no wonderful insights.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2014 15:35:47 GMT -5
Another thing that bothers me is that you NEVER, to my recollection, hear Guy laud praise when things are going well. Did we hear a verbal pat on the back after beating Boston? No. His verbal jabs are often unsolicited and he comes off sounded like the jilted lover. Hey Guy, instead of sparring with current players, why not offer to be a mentor? How's about imparting wisdom in a positive manner? It's a prima dona move by someone long since gone from the spot light, but trying to hang on to it. Dare I say, it's Cherry esque.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 4, 2014 15:39:11 GMT -5
Another thing that bothers me is that you NEVER, to my recollection, hear Guy laud praise when things are going well. Did we hear a verbal pat on the back after beating Boston? No. His verbal jabs are often unsolicited and he comes off sounded like the jilted lover. Hey Guy, instead of sparring with current players, why not offer to be a mentor? How's about imparting wisdom in a positive manner? It's a prima dona move by someone long since gone from the spot light, but trying to hang on to it. Dare I say, it's Cherry esque. I agree with you too. He's a sour pickle with a hair transplant who thinks it's still 1973 or 1976.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 4, 2014 17:18:59 GMT -5
Another thing that bothers me is that you NEVER, to my recollection, hear Guy laud praise when things are going well. Did we hear a verbal pat on the back after beating Boston? No. His verbal jabs are often unsolicited and he comes off sounded like the jilted lover. Hey Guy, instead of sparring with current players, why not offer to be a mentor? How's about imparting wisdom in a positive manner? It's a prima dona move by someone long since gone from the spot light, but trying to hang on to it. Dare I say, it's Cherry esque. Good points, guys… Maybe my first instinct was more to the point….he's our Don Cerise.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2014 17:34:44 GMT -5
LOL totally missed that CH.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 4, 2014 18:02:54 GMT -5
Listened to Martin Biron on TSN earlier and he said that Lafleur was talking as if it's the 70's ... players have changed since then and there's a different way to approach players like Vanek (read as you wish) when they're in a slump (paraphrase) ... I don't know what Biron was referring to but if he's implying Vanek needs coddling then I suspect there's substance to Lafleur's comments regardless what era he's from ... he understands what type of commitment is needed to go all the way and he felt Pacioretty and Vanek didn't rise to the occasion ... the question begs, is he right? #itsaboutperception
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 4, 2014 18:04:39 GMT -5
Listened to Martin Biron on TSN earlier and he said that Lafleur was talking as if it's the 70's ... players have changed since then and there's a different way to approach players like Vanek (read as you wish) when they're in a slump (paraphrase) ... I don't know what Biron was referring to but if he's implying Vanek needs coddling then I suspect there's substance to Lafleur's comments regardless what era he's from ... he understands what type of commitment is needed to go all the way and he felt Pacioretty and Vanek didn't rise to the occasion ... the question begs, is he right? #itsaboutperceptionCheers. Well, I do know that many reporters won't impressed with Pacioretty when he was asked about Bergevin's comments, concerning leadership being passed on from the veterans to his age group, and his response was essentially "I'm busy enough trying to score goals, don't ask me to be a leader as well"
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 4, 2014 19:08:11 GMT -5
Listened to Martin Biron on TSN earlier and he said that Lafleur was talking as if it's the 70's ... players have changed since then and there's a different way to approach players like Vanek (read as you wish) when they're in a slump (paraphrase) ... I don't know what Biron was referring to but if he's implying Vanek needs coddling then I suspect there's substance to Lafleur's comments regardless what era he's from ... he understands what type of commitment is needed to go all the way and he felt Pacioretty and Vanek didn't rise to the occasion ... the question begs, is he right? #itsaboutperceptionCheers. Well, I do know that many reporters won't impressed with Pacioretty when he was asked about Bergevin's comments, concerning leadership being passed on from the veterans to his age group, and his response was essentially "I'm busy enough trying to score goals, don't ask me to be a leader as well" Maybe he can lead by scoring big goals at the right time.Sound slike he doesn't want to take the responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 4, 2014 19:32:27 GMT -5
Guy should have kept quiet. I don't know the context of the interview, and this may border on heresy, but Lafleur is a guy who had 6 phenomenal seasons in Montreal that were bookended by 3 mediocre seasons at the beginning of his career and 4 mediocre seasons at the end, starting at age 28! He had 14 points in his first 29 playoff games and 13 points in his last 26 playoff games. Pretty bad. Lafleur's stunning and rapid decline starting in the 1980-81 season remains a strange oddity of his career, a real blemish IMO, and part of that was simply poor conditioning, poor habits (smoking), and perhaps poor motivation as the Habs in the early 80s were no longer a powerhouse and Guy wasn't surrounded by the same calibre of teammates. So for him to call out Patches and Vanek for a lack of effort is pretty lame. I loved #10. Still do. Forever part of my youth, but saying stuff like that after the team just went to the conference finals is out of line. Those 4 mediocre seasons at the end weren't so mediocre. I had a look at 80/81 - 1.37 PPG(he was 29 going into that season) ; 81/82 - 1.27 PPG; 82/83 - 1.11 PPG. The problem was that he wasn't playing a lot of games (don't know why) but prorated over an 80 game season it comes out as 109, 101 and 89 points respectively. Maybe lower than his standards but not what I would call mediocre. I'll give in on that 83/84 season when he was a minus player. And those PO stats for the end of his career are really skewed by 83/84 where he had 3 pts. in 12 games. I believe that's the season where the real decline set in. In any case I have little problem with this. It's not the 1st time he's been openly critical of the Habs & it won't be the last. Getting to the conference finals might mean something to us but it doesn't mean much to Habs of his generation.
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jun 4, 2014 20:14:41 GMT -5
I think the best question is if Al McNeil, Scotty Bowman, Jean Perron, or Jacques Demers were coaching in game 6 would they have kept Vanek from playing with DMV when he was clearly our most dangerous forward? In a 1-0 game, do or die, would they have neglected to put together the line that was so good in the last 15 games of the season? Exactly…a coach has to put players in place to succeed. As Scotty Bowman said, the key to coaching is having the right players on the ice at the right time….not just rolling the lines. That applies to home AND away. Therrien must also shoulder the blame. Only if you think that playing Vanek more would have gotten us further. Maybe MT deserves credit for getting us as far as he did? Maybe he did that by playing the right players? Nobody watching Vanek could say that he was "on". He looked brutal until game 6. Rewarding a guy that shows up when he feels like it doesn't seem like the right way to coach. Lafleur can say what he wants. Sometimes he'll be right, sometimes not. Just cause you played at a high level doesn't mean you're a hockey expert.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 4, 2014 21:11:52 GMT -5
Exactly…a coach has to put players in place to succeed. As Scotty Bowman said, the key to coaching is having the right players on the ice at the right time….not just rolling the lines. That applies to home AND away. Therrien must also shoulder the blame. Only if you think that playing Vanek more would have gotten us further. Maybe MT deserves credit for getting us as far as he did? Maybe he did that by playing the right players? Nobody watching Vanek could say that he was "on". He looked brutal until game 6. Rewarding a guy that shows up when he feels like it doesn't seem like the right way to coach. Lafleur can say what he wants. Sometimes he'll be right, sometimes not. Just cause you played at a high level doesn't mean you're a hockey expert. Well, it's a good point, Disp ... Therrien hasn't received a huge amount of credit and all he did was take us to the conference finals ... I really disagreed with a few of his decisions through the season, but who am I to argue with results ... he projected confidence and that reflected the confidence of the entire organization ... things moved forward this year in a big way ... signing Vanek would go a long way to keeping that going ... is he committed though ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2014 22:26:52 GMT -5
If there's a reason to keep them apart, when you need a goal, I'm baffled. I didn't like it when they were separated in the first place, but I understood the logic of trying to spread things around. When it clearly didn't work, he should have reverted. He didn't. He rode it out through the last two rounds. Hell, he could have tried Vanek and DD with Gallagher. It's not like Pacioretty was lights out better.
The lines Therrien used in game 6 weren't producing through 50 minutes. You've got a skill player who's as adept at scoring as he is creating chances for others, and you decide that this is the best time to go rigid and not adjust? Even for one shift? Sorry. There's no excuse for that. Short of Vanek attempting mutiny on the bench, there's no reason not to try it for at least one thirty second shift.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 4, 2014 23:28:59 GMT -5
Well, Vanek was being essentially putrid, and even in game 6, he wasn't good, he just sucked less than usual. I mean, throughout the playoffs, I found myself looking for a floating Vanek on any replay of a goal against us. I saw a lot of those.
I can't blame the coach for going with the guys who are doing better that game, and not just rewarding bad play.
----
I honestly can't get over how hated MT is around here. It seems that everything is his fault. Everyone has their favourite players that they thing would've done much better if only MT used them right. Maybe they didn't get the chance because they weren't working hard or weren't following the game plan.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2014 23:47:28 GMT -5
He had the teams best scoring chance in game 6. They were few and far between granted. He was skating better in game 5 and 6, close to where he was in round one. This isn't about favoritism for me. I don't support Vanek anymore than White. This is about using the tools that are at your disposal. Therrien failed in that regard. When you're struggling to find a spark, and the guy who gets your teams best scoring chance of the whole game is used for 10 minutes, that's an issue. When it's the third period of an elimination game, and you're looking for a spark, and you have available to you a line that has had considerable success and you don't try it, that's an issue. Instead, he leaves his lines the way they were for 5 games plus. It's poor asset management. It's not recognizing the need to shake things up, or being too stubborn to do it. If he tried the trio, and they were unsuccessful, Therrien doesn't leave himself open to second guessing. It sure would have been nice to see him try his most talented trio at least once in the third though.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 4, 2014 23:50:34 GMT -5
I always loved Guy. To this day, if ever asked if I could go to one game and see any player in their prime who would it be, the response is the same: GUY! Guy has also always had a way of speaking plainly without any veneer. Calls a spade a spade. i've always found it refreshing.
HOWEVER, even though i agree with him about Vanek's no show (got to be playing bad if everyone is speculating for weeks whether you're injured) and not so much about Max (played OK but could have been better), I'm not so sure Guy's done the team and MB any favours here. Vanek doesn't need be called out by a Habs legend and it will only emphasize the drawbacks of playing in the Montreal market and being under the microscope. I think he would prefer Minn. Hopefully he has left town and doesn't see Guy's comments or the fuss caused.
As for Max, he has his choice. He can either sulk or commit to being stronger. i'll give him some slack for his playoff inexperience but fact is he is a streaky player who often goes into hiding. He's an asset (especially at his salary) but he's not a saviour.
As for giving MT credit for this playoff run: he never won a series without Carey. We would have been a lot better prepared to win against the Rags if Tinordi, Beau and Bourni had played regularly during the season.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 4, 2014 23:53:58 GMT -5
I'm glad Guy never went into Management. Some guys (no pun intended) just can't convert from being a great player to being a great mentor or coach. It's usually the superstars who fall into that category because they did everything instinctively and can't explain why. How could Gretzky every coach someone where to go on the ice? By the time the player figured out the complex visual cues that Gretzky used, the play would be long over. Guy played with a ton of emotion so it's easy to see how he can criticize players who don't look like they're trying very hard. Frank Mahovlich used to get crucified for that, mostly because of that long effortless looking stride. He constantly looked lazy, but no one complained when he scored, and he did a lot of that, even for the Habs.
I think Guy was just venting. The Habs were so close, and I think could have had a decent chance at the cup. The Kings have to be awfully tired. Three 7 game series, some with serious OT. They're ripe for the plucking. If NY can win an early game or two, the momentum will swing. They had their chance tonight though and I thought this 1st one was the critical game. I now think the Rangers are done, but who knows? If they win the next one, all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 4, 2014 23:58:58 GMT -5
Guy is conveniently forgetting that his first couple of stabs at the playoffs weren't very successful. Neither were his regular seasons. Prior to this year, Max had only played in 4 playoff games. There's a learning curve. Vanek hadn't played in the playoffs for 3 years and his last real run was in 2007. So much hype for a young kid and many of us were seriously concerned, in his first 3 years, that we made a mistake and should have taken Dionne. He showed the occasional flash, but no consistency and often looked lost on the ice. Do you older guys remember how often he'd take off up the ice, looking straight ahead, and someone would headman the puck to him and he'd still be looking ahead and have no clue the pass was coming. God, that happened a lot. It made you wonder, what the hell is he doing? Fortunately, he figured it out and the rest is history. Patches you can give a pass on, but Vanek should have had more oomph. Not enough drive at important times. He did it in the regular season, but not the Playoffs. I'd still sign him if the price isn't too high. We simply need the goals.
|
|