|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 8, 2014 22:15:23 GMT -5
Nice to see 4 regulation goals. Sekac a breath of fresh air.
Price with another solid game, keeping us in it early.
But we owned pretty much the last half of the game.
10-4-1
Congrats to Pointu, once again, who saw a respectable effort on his big night.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 8, 2014 22:18:29 GMT -5
Oh come on. That's so predictable. Tame Wild. I had to go with something different. Lets let the boys decide.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 8, 2014 22:18:52 GMT -5
Good effort for most of the game ... didn't know Beaulieu could handle himself like that ... well done ... Sekac has the size, strength and skill to make any club in the NHL ... sitting him out is removing a big piece of the team ... Price was Price when he had to be ... Bob Cole called a good game ... congratulations to Guy Lapointe ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 8, 2014 22:19:39 GMT -5
No way to scratch Sekac for the foreseeable future. He and Eller have some nice chemistry too.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Nov 8, 2014 22:20:47 GMT -5
La premiere etoile! Sekac is a mixture of Chucky and Max. Really fun to watch. And a handful for the other team. Who knew? Thankfully MT recognizes talent when he sees it.
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Nov 8, 2014 22:21:09 GMT -5
Price held the fort til the guys got going. I'd really like it if that wasn't necessary.
Eller, Sekac, and Prust by far our best line. Give Eller some help and look what happens. Eller and Sekac can work the puck long enough for Prust to be a factor too.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 8, 2014 22:24:10 GMT -5
Slow first, decent second, commanding third.
Price...stellar
Sekac....superb
Prust....best game of the season
BGal.....quiet
LGal.....annoyingly good.
And....
Bork....bye bye...
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 8, 2014 22:25:37 GMT -5
Oh come on. That's so predictable. Tame Wild. I had to go with something different. Lets let the boys decide. Go ahead and edit my first post.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 8, 2014 22:27:15 GMT -5
Habs ride Wild till broken....
Wild wounded fatally....Habs 4-1
Wild not so Wild after castration....
Wild whipped into submission....
Wild lost and wounded. ...
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 8, 2014 22:37:38 GMT -5
While it probably deserves its own thread, this has been bugging me for a while. Unless MT was instructed by Berg to play Bourque because he was being showcased, there is no possible talent reason for playing Bourque ahead of Sekac. And now, after 2 games, the proof is there. Sekac has been generating offense while Bourque was killing it. So, having hard evidence to the foolishness of playing Bourque ahead of Sekac, one has to question why. And not only that, because if MTs judgment is such that he feels Bourque is a better option than Sekace, how many other decisions is he making that are wrong and hurting the team's chances of winnng games and developing better? It's a fair question. I just don't think one can dispute that Sekac is and will always be a better hockey player than Bourque. What was going on that isn't related to merit that brought about Sekac's benching? And if MT feels it was related to merit, really, what kind of hockey IQ are we talking about? That's my rant on Sekac,because his whole benching was so incredibly irrational, IMO. After Carey bailed us out in the first we started to play better. We still didn't generate a lot of difficult chances on Kuemper, but we finished on a few. Eller's line was by far the most dangerous with Prust and Sekac playing especially well. Eller still can be better IMO. PLeks was soft the whole game, which hurt his line. The DD line did not deserve first line status today and I wouldn't grade them any better than 4th of the 4 lines. Pretty bad for a talented line. Patches goal was simply taking advantage of a rebound. Good reaction, but they didn't generate a lot of pressure tonight. If I'm the coach, the first thing I do is take away their PP status and make them earn it back. Sekac would be my starting right winger on the PP until someone does it better than him. That's meritocracy. Yes, you give your vets a little more rope than the rookes, but no furlong after furlong of rope. Hooray for Carey, yet again. Weise was good, Gallagher refound his bunny, and the defense was ok. We can be SO much better yet. We did, however, beat a reasonable Minnesota team. Yes they were missing Parise, but we were missing Tinordi. I'll enjoy the 2 points and the 4 goals, but I keep seeing what could be and can't celebrate much.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 8, 2014 22:56:58 GMT -5
Right.
When it comes to contract time for the players, it's just business.
Same for lineup decisions, assignments, and ice time. Just business, boys....the coach is paid to get the best out of the best lineup.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 8, 2014 23:37:44 GMT -5
Habs Gone Wild .... Boom chicka wow wow
|
|
|
Post by del on Nov 8, 2014 23:59:39 GMT -5
So, having hard evidence to the foolishness of playing Bourque ahead of Sekac, one has to question why. What was going on that isn't related to merit that brought about Sekac's benching? And if MT feels it was related to merit, really, what kind of hockey IQ are we talking about? Sekac would be my starting right winger on the PP until someone does it better than him. That's meritocracy. Yes, you give your vets a little more rope than the rookes, but no furlong after furlong of rope. I think you answered your own question and that is "meritocracy".....not in our way of understanding the word (as applied to productivity) but more of a historical hockey interpretation of the word, an interpretation that would be more meaningful to an old school coach, such as Therrien. As we all know, back in the good old days there was a great divide between vets and rookies and a blatant double standard. All vets paid their dues as rookies themselves by sitting on the bench to be seen and not heard, just sucking those ice chips and not giving the coach any guff about it. Therrien being the old school coach he is, is simply applying the same old school "rite of passage" for to day's rookies that was applied to yesteryears rookies ......therein lies the meritocracy So, the rookie Sekac sits, whether Sekac, or the fans for that matter, like it or not....and the vet (pet) Bourque plays....it's the hockey way that always has been, and Therrien sees no reason to change history. However, Sekac's play just may unshackle him from Therrien's medieval grip.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 9, 2014 0:02:01 GMT -5
So, having hard evidence to the foolishness of playing Bourque ahead of Sekac, one has to question why. What was going on that isn't related to merit that brought about Sekac's benching? And if MT feels it was related to merit, really, what kind of hockey IQ are we talking about? Sekac would be my starting right winger on the PP until someone does it better than him. That's meritocracy. Yes, you give your vets a little more rope than the rookes, but no furlong after furlong of rope. I think you answered your own question and that is "meritocracy".....not in our way of understanding the word (as applied to productivity) but more of a historical hockey interpretation of the word, an interpretation that would be more meaningful to an old school coach, such as Therrien. As we all know, back in the good old days there was a great divide between vets and rookies and a blatant double standard. All vets paid their dues as rookies themselves by sitting on the bench to be seen and not heard, just sucking those ice chips and not giving the coach any guff about it. Therrien being the old school coach he is, is simply applying the same old school "rite of passage" for to day's rookies that was applied to yesteryears rookies ......therein lies the meritocracy So, the rookie Sekac sits, whether Sekac, or the fans for that matter, like it or not....and the vet (pet) Bourque plays....it's the hockey way that always has been, and Therrien sees no reason to change history. However, Sekac's play just may unshackle him from Therrien's medieval grip. So we've gone through a scoring drought because Therrien likes his chastity belt?
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Nov 9, 2014 1:09:40 GMT -5
While it probably deserves its own thread, this has been bugging me for a while. Unless MT was instructed by Berg to play Bourque because he was being showcased, there is no possible talent reason for playing Bourque ahead of Sekac. And now, after 2 games, the proof is there. Sekac has been generating offense while Bourque was killing it. So, having hard evidence to the foolishness of playing Bourque ahead of Sekac, one has to question why. And not only that, because if MTs judgment is such that he feels Bourque is a better option than Sekace, how many other decisions is he making that are wrong and hurting the team's chances of winnng games and developing better? It's a fair question. I just don't think one can dispute that Sekac is and will always be a better hockey player than Bourque. What was going on that isn't related to merit that brought about Sekac's benching? And if MT feels it was related to merit, really, what kind of hockey IQ are we talking about? That's my rant on Sekac,because his whole benching was so incredibly irrational, IMO. After Carey bailed us out in the first we started to play better. We still didn't generate a lot of difficult chances on Kuemper, but we finished on a few. Eller's line was by far the most dangerous with Prust and Sekac playing especially well. Eller still can be better IMO. PLeks was soft the whole game, which hurt his line. The DD line did not deserve first line status today and I wouldn't grade them any better than 4th of the 4 lines. Pretty bad for a talented line. Patches goal was simply taking advantage of a rebound. Good reaction, but they didn't generate a lot of pressure tonight. If I'm the coach, the first thing I do is take away their PP status and make them earn it back. Sekac would be my starting right winger on the PP until someone does it better than him. That's meritocracy. Yes, you give your vets a little more rope than the rookes, but no furlong after furlong of rope. Hooray for Carey, yet again. Weise was good, Gallagher refound his bunny, and the defense was ok. We can be SO much better yet. We did, however, beat a reasonable Minnesota team. Yes they were missing Parise, but we were missing Tinordi. I'll enjoy the 2 points and the 4 goals, but I keep seeing what could be and can't celebrate much. Agree with everything you say except that i never understood Sekac's benching to start with. he played well at the outset, and far better than the players MT dressed. As for our 'first line', Max is playing terribly. I don't blame DD, nor Weise, nor PA, nor Bgal. I blame Max. He is suppose to be our elite power forward, big goal scorer, and leader with the 'A'. He has been everything but! Minimal effort, no desire to mix it up, and seems to be taking lessons from Bourque on hockey aptitude. Star players raise the level of other players. They don't rely on others to carry them. While our 4th line may not score they certainly were able to hem Minn in their own end. Max and his line - not so much. Sometimes I think Max is our Kessel (There, I said it!). When he's on and scoring he's pretty impressive, but when he's off he might as well not dress.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Nov 9, 2014 1:19:19 GMT -5
I've got a Chucky #27 shirt which i'm very proud of. During the game I said I need a #26 go for beside it. Then I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Beau delivered to KO punch (we need more of that), I figured I'd go for the trifecta and get #28 as well. What's the average age of these studs. Are they allowed to vote?
Speaking of the trifecta: that was such a brilliant move to have #5 raised between #18 and #19. Given that's the team I grew up with, it meant so much to me and the recognition of the Big Three. Wow! And the line of the night was Pointu saying to Serge and Larry that they were his Big Two. For those of us who treat the Habs like a worship exercise we witnessed a beatification tonight. A wonderful night! Glad Les Boys could raise to the occasion.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 9, 2014 8:16:44 GMT -5
While it probably deserves its own thread, this has been bugging me for a while. Unless MT was instructed by Berg to play Bourque because he was being showcased, there is no possible talent reason for playing Bourque ahead of Sekac. I think it was just a simple cost-benefit analysis. There was no "cost" to sitting Sekac. He's a rookie, he's under contract, there are no cap implications, he's not going anywhere, he's not going to complain, and most importantly the team was winning. If Sekac sits in the stands and the team wins, well who cares right? There is no cost, and while there may be no benefit to playing Bourque over Sekac, in a zero sum game if the sum is zero then you have won, right? On the other hand, there is a cost to sitting Bourque. You kill any remote trade value he might have had, you hurt your team's cap situation by sitting $3 million in the stands, and you run the risk that as a veteran Bourque starts to make waves. Doesn't matter if nobody thinks he has a reason to make waves, there is a difference between a 22 year old rookie moping and a 32 year old veteran moping. It could have a negative effect on the dressing room. It may not, but it could, and since the team was winning... well what's the point in risking it? Lastly, there was a potential benefit to Bourque playing. Aside from increasing his trade value, which I don't even think is a consideration to be honest with you, there is the "we need a Bourque-type player" thing to consider. Bourque, on paper, is everything we need. Big, skates well, can score goals, can fight, can be physical... The tools are there, but the toolbox... But after last year's playoffs there was, once again, the "hope". Forget #AlmostBourque, I'm going with #BourqueHope. We "hope" he's going to have one of those seasons. Either because he'll make himself tradeable, or because it will actually help the team. So while that hope may have been faint, or unrealistic, it was there and as long as the team was winning... well, no cost + plus very small chance of benefit... Of course once the team started going south, well then the "cost" started to show up. At that point Therrien had to start thinking less about hope, and more about reality. No benefits + severe costs... well, now it's no longer a zero sum game.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 9, 2014 9:22:31 GMT -5
Bourque has too many zero sum games.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 9, 2014 9:48:33 GMT -5
And if Sekac starts to think "why the hell did I sign here, I'm better than half the forwards and they still won't play me" and leaves to go back to the KHL?? There's an extreme cost there, and the boy would be right!
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Nov 9, 2014 11:13:45 GMT -5
Speaking of the trifecta: that was such a brilliant move to have #5 raised between #18 and #19. Given that's the team I grew up with, it meant so much to me and the recognition of the Big Three. Wow! And the line of the night was Pointu saying to Serge and Larry that they were his Big Two. For those of us who treat the Habs like a worship exercise we witnessed a beatification tonight. A wonderful night! Glad Les Boys could raise to the occasion. That was an awesome ceremony. I loved that they choose A Song of Fire and Ice (the theme song from Game of Thrones) when they were introducing Serge and Larry. Attention to details, it what the organization does best and why they do ceremonies like no other.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 9, 2014 11:40:30 GMT -5
While it probably deserves its own thread, this has been bugging me for a while. Unless MT was instructed by Berg to play Bourque because he was being showcased, there is no possible talent reason for playing Bourque ahead of Sekac. I think it was just a simple cost-benefit analysis. There was no "cost" to sitting Sekac. He's a rookie, he's under contract, there are no cap implications, he's not going anywhere, he's not going to complain, and most importantly the team was winning. If Sekac sits in the stands and the team wins, well who cares right? There is no cost, and while there may be no benefit to playing Bourque over Sekac, in a zero sum game if the sum is zero then you have won, right? On the other hand, there is a cost to sitting Bourque. You kill any remote trade value he might have had, you hurt your team's cap situation by sitting $3 million in the stands, and you run the risk that as a veteran Bourque starts to make waves. Doesn't matter if nobody thinks he has a reason to make waves, there is a difference between a 22 year old rookie moping and a 32 year old veteran moping. It could have a negative effect on the dressing room. It may not, but it could, and since the team was winning... well what's the point in risking it? Lastly, there was a potential benefit to Bourque playing. Aside from increasing his trade value, which I don't even think is a consideration to be honest with you, there is the "we need a Bourque-type player" thing to consider. Bourque, on paper, is everything we need. Big, skates well, can score goals, can fight, can be physical... The tools are there, but the toolbox... But after last year's playoffs there was, once again, the "hope". Forget #AlmostBourque, I'm going with #BourqueHope. We "hope" he's going to have one of those seasons. Either because he'll make himself tradeable, or because it will actually help the team. So while that hope may have been faint, or unrealistic, it was there and as long as the team was winning... well, no cost + plus very small chance of benefit... Of course once the team started going south, well then the "cost" started to show up. At that point Therrien had to start thinking less about hope, and more about reality. No benefits + severe costs... well, now it's no longer a zero sum game. I know your reasoning and in previous posts I have mentioned the vets vs rookies bellyaching, and the ice time allotment based on contract rather than play. It all makes sense and it's all wrong. Players can see all those things (the smart ones at least) but it doesn't mean they like it. It also brings into play their trust in the coach. Would you go through a wall if Jean Beliveau says you can do it? You bet. Would you go through the same wall if a forked tongue, double speaking, Richard Nixon type asked you to (assuming he's not paying you a bazillion dollars)? Nah, I don't think so. So when crunch time comes along in the playoffs, how hard will you work if the coach dresses a certain guy and sits another certain guy? The question marks will be hanging all over the dressing room. Like I said, I understand why Therrien did what he did (essentially because) and I still think it's hugely wrong. It goes beyond a team's record. The players know they've been playing like crap, despite their record. And they now know they're a lot better with Sekac in the line-up than Bourque. Sounds like a Gary Larson "trouble brewing" situation to me. PS. I think your #Bourquehope should be #Bourquenope.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 9, 2014 11:56:19 GMT -5
I watched a replay of Beaulieu's scrap with Veillieux and it's even more impressive the second time around. Beaulieu gave Haula a good cross check after Haula slapped at Price's glove while he was covering the puck. That's reasonable, sending a message to leave your goalie alone. Veillieux comes in to protect Haula and is the obvious aggressor. Nathan backs away and then immediately ended the fight. Veillieux was shaken by that punch. Hey, we can now add Beaulieu to our list of guys who can handle themselves. Excellent.
What was really funny was the buzz in the crowd after the fight. It wasn't a cheering kind of buzz, it was a 'Holy Cow, did you know he could do that?" kind of buzz.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 9, 2014 12:08:15 GMT -5
I watched a replay of Beaulieu's scrap with Veillieux and it's even more impressive the second time around. Beaulieu gave Haula a good cross check after Haula slapped at Price's glove while he was covering the puck. That's reasonable, sending a message to leave your goalie alone. Veillieux comes in to protect Haula and is the obvious aggressor. Nathan backs away and then immediately ended the fight. Veillieux was shaken by that punch. Hey, we can now add Beaulieu to our list of guys who can handle themselves. Excellent. What was really funny was the buzz in the crowd after the fight. It wasn't a cheering kind of buzz, it was a 'Holy Cow, did you know he could do that?" kind of buzz. Your last paragraph made me chuckle a bit . I agree too. That back away and straight right was MMA worthy. Veillieux was just as surprised. Walked right into it.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 9, 2014 13:22:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 9, 2014 14:39:16 GMT -5
Beau>>>>>>>Ali and Tyson combined!
I was reading the comments of the Hab game on other boards. Apparently, the Ole chant drives other fans crazy. It's like a funeral march to them. LOL!
I wonder how much effect it has on the opposing players?
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 9, 2014 14:40:25 GMT -5
While it probably deserves its own thread, this has been bugging me for a while. Unless MT was instructed by Berg to play Bourque because he was being showcased, there is no possible talent reason for playing Bourque ahead of Sekac. I think it was just a simple cost-benefit analysis. There was no "cost" to sitting Sekac. He's a rookie, he's under contract, there are no cap implications, he's not going anywhere, he's not going to complain, and most importantly the team was winning. If Sekac sits in the stands and the team wins, well who cares right? There is no cost, and while there may be no benefit to playing Bourque over Sekac, in a zero sum game if the sum is zero then you have won, right? On the other hand, there is a cost to sitting Bourque. You kill any remote trade value he might have had, you hurt your team's cap situation by sitting $3 million in the stands, and you run the risk that as a veteran Bourque starts to make waves. Doesn't matter if nobody thinks he has a reason to make waves, there is a difference between a 22 year old rookie moping and a 32 year old veteran moping. It could have a negative effect on the dressing room. It may not, but it could, and since the team was winning... well what's the point in risking it? Lastly, there was a potential benefit to Bourque playing. Aside from increasing his trade value, which I don't even think is a consideration to be honest with you, there is the "we need a Bourque-type player" thing to consider. Bourque, on paper, is everything we need. Big, skates well, can score goals, can fight, can be physical... The tools are there, but the toolbox... But after last year's playoffs there was, once again, the "hope". Forget #AlmostBourque, I'm going with #BourqueHope. We "hope" he's going to have one of those seasons. Either because he'll make himself tradeable, or because it will actually help the team. So while that hope may have been faint, or unrealistic, it was there and as long as the team was winning... well, no cost + plus very small chance of benefit... Of course once the team started going south, well then the "cost" started to show up. At that point Therrien had to start thinking less about hope, and more about reality. No benefits + severe costs... well, now it's no longer a zero sum game. That. Or an obstinate coach.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 9, 2014 16:01:44 GMT -5
I watched a replay of Beaulieu's scrap with Veillieux and it's even more impressive the second time around. Beaulieu gave Haula a good cross check after Haula slapped at Price's glove while he was covering the puck. That's reasonable, sending a message to leave your goalie alone. Veillieux comes in to protect Haula and is the obvious aggressor. Nathan backs away and then immediately ended the fight. Veillieux was shaken by that punch. Hey, we can now add Beaulieu to our list of guys who can handle themselves. Excellent. What was really funny was the buzz in the crowd after the fight. It wasn't a cheering kind of buzz, it was a 'Holy Cow, did you know he could do that?" kind of buzz. Definitely a highlight to the game ... that first punch made me sit up and look a bit closer at the screen ... good to see ... wasn't that long ago where I remember SK holding his face on the way down to the ice ... the team is moving in the right direction ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Nov 9, 2014 18:14:19 GMT -5
One guy with a French name battu another.
|
|