|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 5, 2014 0:11:08 GMT -5
As much as I love Guy, we probably would have done much better over the long haul had we drafted Dionne. However as a friend once said to me "Ya, but it wouldn't have been as much fun!". With Guy the fun continues.
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jun 5, 2014 3:44:12 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. Or maybe, by not playing Vanek much, it kept the score close. Maybe we'd have been down 2 or 3 if he plays more. Like you said, it's all about asset management. ------- If Guy's comments fire up Max, all the better. If they make Vanek not want to sign here, good. I don't want 2/3 of our 4th line paid 10 million.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 5, 2014 6:27:52 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. Maybe I'm nitpicking but that scoring chance was a fluke. Rather than shoot he was trying to get it to Bournival. It hit Girardi's stick & bounced up in the air. The best of a bad lot I guess.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 5, 2014 10:01:17 GMT -5
Vanek was -4 in 17 games. Not bad enough to warrant being hidden away. That chance may have taken a strange bounce but he was at least in the vicinity of the net. Conversely, Plekanec was -7 in 17 games. When you need a goal, you put out the guys who are most likely to score as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by habsask on Jun 6, 2014 4:26:14 GMT -5
A few random observations:
1) When all was said & done Guy is one of THE foremost authorities on the subject;
2) He's right on the need for star players to deliver especially when it counts the most;
3) Later in the interview he softened his comments on Patches noting that he had little playoff experience so there was a reason for his underwhelming performance;
4) Vanek- no excuses;
5) What....these guys made of glass or something? Can't take a little criticism? Sheesh, the 1970s Habs absorbed lots of shots when they lost, including from Bowman & during when they won 4 Cups in a row. Pacioretty should use that comment as motivation for next season. As for Vanek, he'll be gone anyway- whining to the press about lack of chemistry when moved from the top line- cry baby. Guys who blame somebody or something else for not delivering when the chips are down are losers.
Historical Note- Steve Shutt's comment was that Habs fans love the team.....win or tie.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 6, 2014 8:20:30 GMT -5
Guy has every right to say whatever he wants about the team, its players and coaches.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 6, 2014 10:11:35 GMT -5
Guy has every right to say whatever he wants about the team, its players and coaches. Yep... 5 stanley cups and a dagger through the heart of the Bruins in Game 7 1979 gives him the right to criticize players on the current team.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2014 13:55:09 GMT -5
Guy has every right to say whatever he wants about the team, its players and coaches. Yep... 5 stanley cups and a dagger through the heart of the Bruins in Game 7 1979 gives him the right to criticize players on the current team. And the Stanley Cup winner in 1976 vs. the Flyers in Philly, to end that reign of garbage...under death threats, no less. (He and Dryden had police security because of the threats.)
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 6, 2014 15:04:43 GMT -5
Lafleur can say anything he wants to anyone who doesn't run away when he begins to speak but Bergevin doesn't have to heed his advice because He's the one who's paid to make personnel decisions. Naturally I admired Lafleur when he played but I have far less regard for him today. I like Pacioretty, so sue me, Guy.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 7, 2014 0:18:21 GMT -5
Good summation by Leigh Anne Power: "The H does not stand for Habs" blogger. habsloyalist.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-11:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-11:00&max-results=2 Wilted Flower Guy Lafleur is at it again. Unsatisfied with his status as hockey legend and Quebec hero, the former Canadiens star periodically enjoys expressing his opinion of the current incarnation of his old team. Quite often, the opinion is negative and hurtful. In 2008, he talked about the team being composed of "four fourth lines." In 2009, he said long-time captain Saku Koivu should have been traded years ago and should just go away to Minnesota to play with his brother. In 2012, he slammed the idea of the Habs hiring Patrick Roy as coach because he's too volatile. Now he's ridiculing Max Pacioretty and Tomas Vanek, claiming they're not ready to 'pay the price' to win in the playoffs and the team should let them go. All this, of course, is coming from an official Canadiens ambassador.
Nobody is denying Lafleur's right to speak his mind, and, as a team legend, his opinion carries weight and attracts comment. He's often lauded for his fearlessness in sharing his thoughts so freely. Where he's wrong, however, is in failing to recognizing the responsibility that comes with influence. When Lafleur says Vanek and Pacioretty failed to rise to the occasion in the post-season, it's not just the public hearing that. Inevitably, those players will hear it too. And, unless Lafleur actually talked to them and understands where they were coming from, he's being reckless with their reputations.
Pacioretty is 25 years old and is just emerging from his first real playoff experience with 11 points in 17 games including two series-winning goals. He's a streaky player, as are most goal scorers. He's also a career Canadien coming into his own as a go-to winger, on a very cap-friendly long-term deal. He took 55 shots in the playoffs, with an unfortunate 9.1% shooting percentage. He was involved, even if the goals weren't going in. This is a guy who is dedicated to training his body and giving back to the city in which he plays. While he may have some issues with confidence, it's all part of his development.
Vanek is 30, and has had the misfortune of playing for some terrible teams through his career. Still, in his previous 36 playoff games, he scored 20 points. His post-season this year was statistically better, with 10 points in 17 games. Even so, there's no comparison with his regular-season stats, which put him at 0.83 points per game, versus his 0.59 PPG in the post-season. In terms of his involvement for the Canadiens, he had 28 shots, with a strong 18% shooting percentage. One can't help but think if he'd taken more shots, he could have made more of a difference. He admitted as much himself after the team had been eliminated. He's also said all along he plans to hit the open market for the best contract he can get this summer.
These are two different players, at two different points in their careers, with two very different motivations. For Lafleur to lump the two of them together shows his lack of subtlety and understanding. A more thoughtful critic might remember that in his own first real playoff run of 17 games, he contributed only 8 points. He might think about how he felt when people complained about his lack of expected production in the early years, and how they said he might be a first-overall bust. Then, maybe, he'd consider what it would have been like for him if team icons like Jean Beliveau had chosen to dump on him in the press, and perhaps feel a bit of gratitude that he didn't have to deal with that.
Thomas Vanek likely won't be in Montreal very long after July 1, and Lafleur's comments probably won't affect the big pay day he's looking for. Max Pacioretty will be at Habs training camp in September, and he'll be asked about Lafleur's opinion of him. He'll think about how he recovered from a devastating injury as a Canadien, and how he always pushed himself to get better and get back in the lineup to help his team. He'll remember having a breakout year and almost cracking the forty-goal barrier, he'll consider the money he left on the table when he signed his contract, and he'll think about the work he's done every year to improve mentally and physically. While he's staring blankly over the field of microphones in his face and telling the media he can't help what other people think, and that he was doing the best he could in the playoffs, he'll probably be wondering too. He'll wonder why a guy who had such a great, honourable career would throw a fellow player under the bus like that.
Guy Lafleur had nothing to gain by making those comments, save a bit of a media furour and his name topping the sports news again. In his callous disregard for the fact that Pacioretty and Vanek are now in the position in which he once found himself...real people playing a tough game in the public eye...he did himself no favours. Nor is he helping the all-too-brief careers of players who could only be hurt by the things he said. It was thoughtless and those players deserve better from one of their own.
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jun 7, 2014 5:12:49 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. Or maybe, by not playing Vanek much, it kept the score close. Maybe we'd have been down 2 or 3 if he plays more. Like you said, it's all about asset management. ------- If Guy's comments fire up Max, all the better. If they make Vanek not want to sign here, good. I don't want 2/3 of our 4th line paid 10 million. I don>t want the entire fourth line making $10M
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jun 7, 2014 5:31:06 GMT -5
Good summation by Leigh Anne Power: "The H does not stand for Habs" blogger. habsloyalist.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-11:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-11:00&max-results=2 Wilted Flower Guy Lafleur is at it again. Unsatisfied with his status as hockey legend and Quebec hero, the former Canadiens star periodically enjoys expressing his opinion of the current incarnation of his old team. Quite often, the opinion is negative and hurtful. In 2008, he talked about the team being composed of "four fourth lines." In 2009, he said long-time captain Saku Koivu should have been traded years ago and should just go away to Minnesota to play with his brother. In 2012, he slammed the idea of the Habs hiring Patrick Roy as coach because he's too volatile. Now he's ridiculing Max Pacioretty and Tomas Vanek, claiming they're not ready to 'pay the price' to win in the playoffs and the team should let them go. All this, of course, is coming from an official Canadiens ambassador.
Nobody is denying Lafleur's right to speak his mind, and, as a team legend, his opinion carries weight and attracts comment. He's often lauded for his fearlessness in sharing his thoughts so freely. Where he's wrong, however, is in failing to recognizing the responsibility that comes with influence. When Lafleur says Vanek and Pacioretty failed to rise to the occasion in the post-season, it's not just the public hearing that. Inevitably, those players will hear it too. And, unless Lafleur actually talked to them and understands where they were coming from, he's being reckless with their reputations.
Pacioretty is 25 years old and is just emerging from his first real playoff experience with 11 points in 17 games including two series-winning goals. He's a streaky player, as are most goal scorers. He's also a career Canadien coming into his own as a go-to winger, on a very cap-friendly long-term deal. He took 55 shots in the playoffs, with an unfortunate 9.1% shooting percentage. He was involved, even if the goals weren't going in. This is a guy who is dedicated to training his body and giving back to the city in which he plays. While he may have some issues with confidence, it's all part of his development.
Vanek is 30, and has had the misfortune of playing for some terrible teams through his career. Still, in his previous 36 playoff games, he scored 20 points. His post-season this year was statistically better, with 10 points in 17 games. Even so, there's no comparison with his regular-season stats, which put him at 0.83 points per game, versus his 0.59 PPG in the post-season. In terms of his involvement for the Canadiens, he had 28 shots, with a strong 18% shooting percentage. One can't help but think if he'd taken more shots, he could have made more of a difference. He admitted as much himself after the team had been eliminated. He's also said all along he plans to hit the open market for the best contract he can get this summer.
These are two different players, at two different points in their careers, with two very different motivations. For Lafleur to lump the two of them together shows his lack of subtlety and understanding. A more thoughtful critic might remember that in his own first real playoff run of 17 games, he contributed only 8 points. He might think about how he felt when people complained about his lack of expected production in the early years, and how they said he might be a first-overall bust. Then, maybe, he'd consider what it would have been like for him if team icons like Jean Beliveau had chosen to dump on him in the press, and perhaps feel a bit of gratitude that he didn't have to deal with that.
Thomas Vanek likely won't be in Montreal very long after July 1, and Lafleur's comments probably won't affect the big pay day he's looking for. Max Pacioretty will be at Habs training camp in September, and he'll be asked about Lafleur's opinion of him. He'll think about how he recovered from a devastating injury as a Canadien, and how he always pushed himself to get better and get back in the lineup to help his team. He'll remember having a breakout year and almost cracking the forty-goal barrier, he'll consider the money he left on the table when he signed his contract, and he'll think about the work he's done every year to improve mentally and physically. While he's staring blankly over the field of microphones in his face and telling the media he can't help what other people think, and that he was doing the best he could in the playoffs, he'll probably be wondering too. He'll wonder why a guy who had such a great, honourable career would throw a fellow player under the bus like that.
Guy Lafleur had nothing to gain by making those comments, save a bit of a media furour and his name topping the sports news again. In his callous disregard for the fact that Pacioretty and Vanek are now in the position in which he once found himself...real people playing a tough game in the public eye...he did himself no favours. Nor is he helping the all-too-brief careers of players who could only be hurt by the things he said. It was thoughtless and those players deserve better from one of their own. But he was right on all counts. In 2008, the tam WAS comprised of a bunch of plumbers: Goaltenders 31 – Carey Price 41 – Jaroslav Halak Defensemen 3 – Ryan O'Byrne 8 – Mike Komisarek 25 – Mathieu Dandenault 26 – Josh Gorges 44 – Roman Hamrlik 51 – Francis Bouillon 71 – Patrice Brisebois 79 – Andrei Markov Wingers 6 – Tom Kostopoulos 21 – Christopher Higgins – A 27 – Alexei Kovalev – A 32 – Mark Streit 36 – Matt D'Agostini 46 – Andrei Kostitsyn 54 – Mikhail Grabovski 70 – Gregory Stewart 73 – Michael Ryder 74 – Sergei Kostitsyn 84 – Guillaume Latendresse Centres 11 – Saku Koivu – C 14 – Tomas Plekanec 20 – Bryan Smolinski 22 – Steve Begin 28 – Kyle Chipchura 40 – Maxim Lapierre Except for Kovalev and, arguably, A.Kostytsin. Koivu SHOULD have been traded a long time ago. We lost him for absolutely nothing. Patrick Roy IS to volatile for the Montreal market. He,IMHO, would be a horrible coach for the Habs Now Patches and Vanek, while their presence on the team is,arguably, a necessity, they are not the one player that brings us over the top.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 7, 2014 11:07:01 GMT -5
Changes have been made since then, though and this teams weaknesses are not the same. There is a core of good young talent who belong on lines 1 and 2 and on top D pairings. It's easy enough to complain about A, B and C (I do enough of it), but how do you correct those weaknesses? Guy hasn't been much help in that area and should be more considerate of the damage his words can do. No one cares if Seventeen complains about Rene Bourque, but if Guy Lafleur says he's a dork, then people listen and believe.
Koivu is a special guy, so not trading him was not the worst case of passivity. Not trading Souray, however, was a super size error. I'm not convinced Roy is too volatile for the Montreal market. He might fit right in. My concern with him was his request for infringement on the GM's power. The 2 positions are separate for a reason and you really need a special person to do both of them. I don't think it's possible to be equally good at both, it's just a power thing. Patches and Vanek may not be what brings us over the top, but Price, PK and possibly Galchy are. You have to surround them with good players. Patches has proven he can come back from setbacks, so I wouldn't go to heavy on his lack of production in the playoffs. He'll have to learn to fight back, like Beliveau did.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 7, 2014 21:18:57 GMT -5
I won't (can't) deny Lafleur the right to speak out. However, I assert my privilege to say that he usually gives me dyspepsia when he does. Have another pack and another round, Guy, but not near me. I'm not interested.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Jun 8, 2014 4:14:42 GMT -5
Lafleur would know what it takes to win. Can see his comments bang on with Vanek but not so much Patches. Although, he never had his A game this post season.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 9, 2014 15:56:10 GMT -5
Lafleur would know what it takes to win. Can see his comments bang on with Vanek but not so much Patches. Although, he never had his A game this post season. And what's the excuse for not bringing one's A-game? That's what Lafleur is talking about…the effort. When it looks as if you're floating in a do-or-die game….there's a problem. No debilitating injuries were reported. Entering the final frame down 1-0…and mustering only 5 shots brought about Guy's comment, no question. I'll bet he was happy to that point. I think Lafleur has been more-or-less correct every time he's said the Emperor isn't wearing clothes. I don't think he seeks out the media, either. They seem to go to him ONLY in defeat, knowing he'll point out the weaknesses/stir it up. EDIT: Just went through the play-by-play of the third period on the ESPN site, to analyze our 5 whole shots. In reverse order: Markov: 18:52. 50-foot wrist shot. Gallagher: 18:45. 39-foot slap shot. Subban: 12:43. 53-foot backhand. Subban: 10:34. 55-foot slap shot. Bouillon: 9:03. 97-foot wrist shot. Almost half a period before we got our first shot....and none of them speak of net drive, in-close, intense hockey. Pacioretty's name shows up once....with a 49-foot snap shot that missed the net at 18:56. Vanek, DD, Pleks, Gio, Eller...nothing. In the third period of a do-or-die game, that is a pathetic effort....no matter how you slice it. I definitely see why Lafleur made his comment.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Jun 10, 2014 7:32:35 GMT -5
Lafleur would know what it takes to win. Can see his comments bang on with Vanek but not so much Patches. Although, he never had his A game this post season. And what's the excuse for not bringing one's A-game? That's what Lafleur is talking about…the effort. When it looks as if you're floating in a do-or-die game….there's a problem. No debilitating injuries were reported. Entering the final frame down 1-0…and mustering only 5 shots brought about Guy's comment, no question. I'll bet he was happy to that point. I think Lafleur has been more-or-less correct every time he's said the Emperor isn't wearing clothes. I don't think he seeks out the media, either. They seem to go to him ONLY in defeat, knowing he'll point out the weaknesses/stir it up. EDIT: Just went through the play-by-play of the third period on the ESPN site, to analyze our 5 whole shots. In reverse order: Markov: 18:52. 50-foot wrist shot. Gallagher: 18:45. 39-foot slap shot. Subban: 12:43. 53-foot backhand. Subban: 10:34. 55-foot slap shot. Bouillon: 9:03. 97-foot wrist shot. Almost half a period before we got our first shot....and none of them speak of net drive, in-close, intense hockey. Pacioretty's name shows up once....with a 49-foot snap shot that missed the net at 18:56. Vanek, DD, Pleks, Gio, Eller...nothing. In the third period of a do-or-die game, that is a pathetic effort....no matter how you slice it. I definitely see why Lafleur made his comment. I don't know...maybe does have a point. Patches is streaky, suspect concentration is not always there.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 10, 2014 12:05:34 GMT -5
Unless NY is that much better than we are…perhaps they had Pacioretty figured out. They certainly nullified Subban.
But I don't think they ARE better. They were simply hungrier….more aggressive, serious, driven.
With the extra team-confidence a healthy Price would've brought, coupled with some of the guts they showed against the Bruins, we just might've been in the Finals.
Still got that size issue, though. Which, Gallagher excepted, may play the largest part in just how non-Finals-aggressive we are.
But hey….we dealt the Bruins a HUGE blow…..and, taking into consideration the above, that really was enough for me.
Gotta stop re-signing guys 5'9" and under…..unless you find yourself another Cournoyer/St. Louis.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 10, 2014 12:15:29 GMT -5
The loss of weise hurt in game 6. Weise was a motivator in the Boston series, he gave as good as he got and I believe the team stood taller because of him. A 4th liner who plays with heart and has size and speed made a difference to this team... we need more like him on the lower lines.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 10, 2014 13:26:42 GMT -5
The loss of weise hurt in game 6. Weise was a motivator in the Boston series, he gave as good as he got and I believe the team stood taller because of him. A 4th liner who plays with heart and has size and speed made a difference to this team... we need more like him on the lower lines. We need guys to play like that on the top 2 lines!!!
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 10, 2014 15:52:19 GMT -5
A few random observations: 1) When all was said & done Guy is one of THE foremost authorities on the subject; 2) He's right on the need for star players to deliver especially when it counts the most; 3) Later in the interview he softened his comments on Patches noting that he had little playoff experience so there was a reason for his underwhelming performance; 4) Vanek- no excuses; 5) What....these guys made of glass or something? Can't take a little criticism? Sheesh, the 1970s Habs absorbed lots of shots when they lost, including from Bowman & during when they won 4 Cups in a row. Pacioretty should use that comment as motivation for next season. As for Vanek, he'll be gone anyway- whining to the press about lack of chemistry when moved from the top line- cry baby. Guys who blame somebody or something else for not delivering when the chips are down are losers. Historical Note- Steve Shutt's comment was that Habs fans love the team.....win or tie. Other than his having been blessed with talent that made him an idol, why is he one of the foremost authorities? He hasn't drawn lots of offers to become an NHL coach or GM. He disappointed his last Hab coach, Jacques Lemaire, who was initially well predisposed toward him. He couldn't take criticism and he hasn't learned to rein in his impulse to snipe at others. He couldn't even teach his son to behave properly. Alas, he seems to have learned nothing from his long association with Jean Béliveau.
|
|