|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 14, 2015 21:44:30 GMT -5
Good time for some life to come back into the Habs' PP.
Aided by a stupid penalty by Dubinsky....the Jackets finally took enough penalties.
I thought we were by far the better team all night....we just couldn't finish...PP had gone 0-4...it looked like "one of those nights".
I say good on the boys for sticking with the effort for 60 minutes.
Now to watch the Ducks beat the Leafs....
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jan 14, 2015 21:53:51 GMT -5
cant blame anyone for having doubts we have seen too many good efforts go by the way side because of the lack of finish and poor pp...guess they were way over due scored as many ppg as they had in their previous 9 games.
Lack of finish is still a concern still don't like the make up of one of those units...glad for the win they were the better team.
HFTO
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jan 14, 2015 21:59:10 GMT -5
I decided to watch modern family. ... wish i had watched the third. They needed to win this
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jan 14, 2015 22:01:00 GMT -5
The jackets weren't even close. Don't always win those kind of games, but they pulled it out. Full marks for the win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 22:22:13 GMT -5
Checked some of the in-game comments when it was still 1-0. Thought it was going to be "one of those nights," so I thought it better to skip it. Must have been one heck of a third period. Three consecutive powerplay goals? Wow.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Jan 14, 2015 22:26:04 GMT -5
It was great to see that they weren't always trying to feed the point on the PP in the 3rd. Lo and behold, the Habs scored 3 very different types of PP goals. I don't know if that's a result of the new PP system, or maybe the players just neglected to play any system at all... Whatever it was, it worked and they deserved the win.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 14, 2015 22:38:28 GMT -5
reporters were talking yesterday about how they were working on new power play formations (diamond included). Shocking. Only took half a season to try something new. If the pk is going to cheat on our D, it's up to us to get pucks to the slot and have someone there to shoot it. They accomplished that twice tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 14, 2015 22:42:12 GMT -5
Felt very good for our team tonight ... of all the penalties the Blue Jackets took, there might have been one I'd have called questionable ... but for the most part Columbus deserved every one of them ... was it just me or was Garry Galley in a different game tonight ... it was like he wasn't paying attention ... anyway, our club did something special tonight ... they won it from behind on three PP goals ... hope the guys aren't too gassed going into Ottawa ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 14, 2015 22:46:39 GMT -5
It was great to see that they weren't always trying to feed the point on the PP in the 3rd. Lo and behold, the Habs scored 3 very different types of PP goals. I don't know if that's a result of the new PP system, or maybe the players just neglected to play any system at all... Whatever it was, it worked and they deserved the win. saw the 2nd half of the game. the PP looked awful until the 3rd . . . then they fought for the puck, won battles, and shot rather than the standard PK-Markov-? and back again until the puck was turned over at the blue line. I had all sorts of things to say and a suggestion or two for MB (as in, it's either the personnel or the coach; whatever it is, change it up). MT lives to coach another day in Montreal.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 14, 2015 22:56:57 GMT -5
Good win. I liked how they were able to get the puck to Pacioretty between the circles on the PP. He's so dangerous there with his quick hands. 3 PP goals is a nice confidence boost.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jan 15, 2015 2:15:47 GMT -5
We dominated this game and if not for Bobro (and the TO replay folks) we would have won going away.
Pleks as the #1 centre looked real good. That line was buzzing all night. Is it just me or does whoever play with Gally look good?
PP looked good but not sure it was MT's doing. The PP at the beginning was awful. Presumably that was what the coaches had been working on. PAP on the point and PAP carrying the puck up the ice. Are you kidding me? It is dumb on paper and it was dumb on the ice. Fortunately they abandoned that strategy. They abandoned the tired and ineffective look of Max on the halfboards. Max is not a playmaker he should be the shooter as we saw tonight. AND FINALLY PK is allowed to unload the slapper. This isn't rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 15, 2015 7:35:03 GMT -5
... was it just me or was Garry Galley in a different game tonight ... it was like he wasn't paying attention ... I thought the exact same thing. At one point in the second there was a stretch of about five minutes without a whistle, and Galley goes "long time between whistles, but not a lot of action, most of the play in the neutral zone" and I'm like "huh?" Sure, there weren't a lot of shots that hit the net but the play was mostly in the offensive zone (mostly Columbus, but Montreal got pinned for a stretch too) and there were a lot of shot attempts. Hardly any neutral zone play, unless I was watching something completely different that is. Nice to see the power-play goals, but they really looked disjointed out there, even when they were scoring. Like they were trying a new system and weren't quite sure where they were supposed to be. A lot of times I saw two, and sometimes three Hab players standing next to each other. But maybe that was part of the plan! Mass chaos! No matter, sometimes all it takes is a little luck to break the ice, and then the confidence flows and the goals can't be stopped. Here's hoping. We were the better team out there, by far, and were it not for Bobrovsky the score would have been much different. Of course they shouldn't apologize for having Bobrovsky ( )...
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jan 15, 2015 8:11:35 GMT -5
Checked some of the in-game comments when it was still 1-0. Thought it was going to be "one of those nights," so I thought it better to skip it. Must have been one heck of a third period. Three consecutive powerplay goals? Wow. Didn't see those PP goals coming especially when they had a total of 3 PP goals in the last 10 games.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2015 8:36:04 GMT -5
... was it just me or was Garry Galley in a different game tonight ... it was like he wasn't paying attention ... I thought the exact same thing. At one point in the second there was a stretch of about five minutes without a whistle, and Galley goes "long time between whistles, but not a lot of action, most of the play in the neutral zone" and I'm like "huh?" Sure, there weren't a lot of shots that hit the net but the play was mostly in the offensive zone (mostly Columbus, but Montreal got pinned for a stretch too) and there were a lot of shot attempts. Hardly any neutral zone play, unless I was watching something completely different that is. The other instance was on one of Pacioretty's goals ... Galley: "... and you'll see that the puck ever so slightly touches (#58) David Savard's pants and it goes in like that ..." (paraphrase) ... and I thought Bob Cole had lost a step ... great comeback last night though ... would like to overtake Tampa tonight but Ottawa traditionally plays us very well ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 15, 2015 10:24:40 GMT -5
Galley is a Cam Neely-era Bruin. On the Boston rosters that finally broke through and beat the Habs in the 89-90 and 90-91 playoffs. Sports bias dies hard.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2015 10:30:09 GMT -5
I thought the exact same thing. At one point in the second there was a stretch of about five minutes without a whistle, and Galley goes "long time between whistles, but not a lot of action, most of the play in the neutral zone" and I'm like "huh?" Sure, there weren't a lot of shots that hit the net but the play was mostly in the offensive zone (mostly Columbus, but Montreal got pinned for a stretch too) and there were a lot of shot attempts. Hardly any neutral zone play, unless I was watching something completely different that is. The other instance was on one of Pacioretty's goals ... Galley: "... and you'll see that the puck ever so slightly touches (#58) David Savard's pants and it goes in like that ..." (paraphrase) ... and I thought Bob Cole had lost a step ... great comeback last night though ... would like to overtake Tampa tonight but Ottawa traditionally plays us very well ... Cheers. Another instance was on the review of the goal ... Sportsnet has a blown up freeze frame of the puck on the line, and Bobrovsky's pad is no where to be seen. Galley: (paraphrased) "That picture there is pretty cut and dry, it isn't over the line and we have that blown up as much as you could ever blow it up" Yeah, sure, blow up the picture about 10 frames prior to the pad making its sweep and conclusively say it is a non-goal. I'm still of the opinion that it was a goal. The ref didn't want to make a call on the ice, but I'm pretty sure they HAVE to make a call before going to the war-room. Then the evidence has to be CONCLUSIVE. Sportsnet, well Kypreos, stated that they were told that the referee called it a goal before going to the war-room. How they ever got conclusive evidence is beyond me. One frame prior to the pad sweeping past 1/1000000 of the puck was touching the faded goal line, ... it is more than likely the puck travel that minute distance prior to the pad screening the cameras, and the NHL would want us to believe that the instant the puck puck the goalie pads it bounced in the other direction. Ahhh no, it still could still go forward until friction of the pad (about 1/3 of the width of the pad) with the sweeping motion caused it to reverse direction. Remember it had to be conclusive.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jan 15, 2015 10:34:49 GMT -5
Good win....we dominated the game from start to finish....Jackets took so many penalty's because they were chasing us all game.
I wasn't sold on the changes on the PP until they modified it again in the 3rd and the boom 3 for 3!
I think its time for Sportsnet to hire Steve Kouleas, his dream is to work Hab games.....get it done Sportsnet!!
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 15, 2015 10:45:00 GMT -5
We wonder why Subban doesn't get any respect? It sure would help if Therrien was on his side.
Marinaro on TSN690 was just talking about Therrien's post-game comments.
When asked about the 3rd Period PP….
(paraphrased)
Between the second and third period we made some adjustments, and changed the defensive pairing. Markov and Gonchar did a great job of managing the puck and Pacioretty got two goals.
When asked about Subban's night.
(paraphrased)
A tough night for him, again. He had a great shot (for the 2-2 goal) BUT…David Desharnais was there screening the goalie…(goes on to praise DD's contribution to that goal.)
So MT gives credit to the coaching staff, Markov, Gonchar, Pacioretty, and DD…but Subban had another tough night, and without DD, he wouldn't have scored to tie the game.
He's still on PK's case…
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 15, 2015 10:59:12 GMT -5
At least he recognized that someone screened the goalie. Gallagher did as well on one of Patch's goals. We seemed to avoid hitting players and the puck got through. Was that us, or Columbus lack of shot blocking? Not sure.
I thought Beaulieu, once again, had a pretty solid game. I did notice on one play where he carried it in, he slipped it past the defender, but then peeled off to get back rather than chasing the puck. It was a 50/50 decision. I've seen other teams where the D are given more leeway, allow the dman to go in and forecheck. Not that critical, but I wouldn't mind our D joining the offense more than they do. Perhaps they don't because of the lack of speed (in general) to get back.
I sure hope those 3 goals help our guys relax on the PP. And yes, Therrien did seem to make an effort to praise Desharnais for blocking Bobrovsky's view. That might not work against Bishop, though. DD would have to add stilts to his skates.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jan 15, 2015 11:34:34 GMT -5
We wonder why Subban doesn't get any respect? It sure would help if Therrien was on his side. Marinaro on TSN690 was just talking about Therrien's post-game comments. When asked about the 3rd Period PP…. (paraphrased) Between the second and third period we made some adjustments, and changed the defensive pairing. Markov and Gonchar did a great job of managing the puck and Pacioretty got two goals.When asked about Subban's night. (paraphrased) A tough night for him, again. He had a great shot (for the 2-2 goal) BUT…David Desharnais was there screening the goalie…(goes on to praise DD's contribution to that goal.) So MT gives credit to the coaching staff, Markov, Gonchar, Pacioretty, and DD…but Subban had another tough night, and without DD, he wouldn't have scored to tie the game. He's still on PK's case… Subban did have a crappy night....he was turning over the puck every time he touched it.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 15, 2015 11:54:22 GMT -5
Subban did have a crappy night....he was turning over the puck every time he touched it. I especially liked it when he lost it in the Columbus goal
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 15, 2015 11:57:40 GMT -5
Another instance was on the review of the goal ... at that time I was listening to 690 . . . "that's a goal, that's a goal, that's a goal, can't see how they can call it back" . . . when it was ruled no goal, talked about 1/3 of the puck touching the line. must say, I liked the fact that after the Habs went up, there was no make-up/let's make the game exciting call.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2015 12:16:35 GMT -5
The other instance was on one of Pacioretty's goals ... Galley: "... and you'll see that the puck ever so slightly touches (#58) David Savard's pants and it goes in like that ..." (paraphrase) ... and I thought Bob Cole had lost a step ... great comeback last night though ... would like to overtake Tampa tonight but Ottawa traditionally plays us very well ... Cheers. Another instance was on the review of the goal ... Sportsnet has a blown up freeze frame of the puck on the line, and Bobrovsky's pad is no where to be seen. Galley: (paraphrased) "That picture there is pretty cut and dry, it isn't over the line and we have that blown up as much as you could ever blow it up" Yeah, sure, blow up the picture about 10 frames prior to the pad making its sweep and conclusively say it is a non-goal. I'm still of the opinion that it was a goal. The ref didn't want to make a call on the ice, but I'm pretty sure they HAVE to make a call before going to the war-room. Then the evidence has to be CONCLUSIVE. Sportsnet, well Kypreos, stated that they were told that the referee called it a goal before going to the war-room. How they ever got conclusive evidence is beyond me. One frame prior to the pad sweeping past 1/1000000 of the puck was touching the faded goal line, ... it is more than likely the puck travel that minute distance prior to the pad screening the cameras, and the NHL would want us to believe that the instant the puck puck the goalie pads it bounced in the other direction. Ahhh no, it still could still go forward until friction of the pad (about 1/3 of the width of the pad) with the sweeping motion caused it to reverse direction. Remember it had to be conclusive. Yeah, forgot about that one ... I was watching the game with a buddy and we thought it would be disallowed just by the way it was going down ... normally I don't mind Galley's commentary but every so often he says things that cause me to shake my head ... he really sounded like he was watching another game (on a monitor in the booth maybe?) ... the only instances where I had no time for him was when he was doing Ottawa Senator commentary ... like most regional broadcasters, he was extremely biased ... we're not without our warts either ... some of the Habs broadcasts this year have been very Montreal-centric ... it's a nice change, sure, but it can be a tad embarrassing ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2015 12:23:54 GMT -5
Another instance was on the review of the goal ... at that time I was listening to 690 . . . "that's a goal, that's a goal, that's a goal, can't see how they can call it back" . . . when it was ruled no goal, talked about 1/3 of the puck touching the line. must say, I liked the fact that after the Habs went up, there was no make-up/let's make the game exciting call. I was watching he game at a buddy's place in Napanee and I told him before the game started that if it wasn't going well I'd probably drive home before the game was over ... however, the Habs never gave up the whole game and that's why I decided to stay put ... the Blue Jackets couldn't stay out of the box and at one point I was wondering when the make-up calls were coming back on our club ... never happened and even if Bobrovsky had stoned us the entire game, there wouldn't have been a lot to complain about ... the effort was definitely there and we're going to need the same tonight in Ottawa ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 15, 2015 15:10:27 GMT -5
The other instance was on one of Pacioretty's goals ... Galley: "... and you'll see that the puck ever so slightly touches (#58) David Savard's pants and it goes in like that ..." (paraphrase) ... and I thought Bob Cole had lost a step ... great comeback last night though ... would like to overtake Tampa tonight but Ottawa traditionally plays us very well ... Cheers. Another instance was on the review of the goal ... Sportsnet has a blown up freeze frame of the puck on the line, and Bobrovsky's pad is no where to be seen. Galley: (paraphrased) "That picture there is pretty cut and dry, it isn't over the line and we have that blown up as much as you could ever blow it up" Yeah, sure, blow up the picture about 10 frames prior to the pad making its sweep and conclusively say it is a non-goal. I'm still of the opinion that it was a goal. The ref didn't want to make a call on the ice, but I'm pretty sure they HAVE to make a call before going to the war-room. Then the evidence has to be CONCLUSIVE. Sportsnet, well Kypreos, stated that they were told that the referee called it a goal before going to the war-room. How they ever got conclusive evidence is beyond me. One frame prior to the pad sweeping past 1/1000000 of the puck was touching the faded goal line, ... it is more than likely the puck travel that minute distance prior to the pad screening the cameras, and the NHL would want us to believe that the instant the puck puck the goalie pads it bounced in the other direction. Ahhh no, it still could still go forward until friction of the pad (about 1/3 of the width of the pad) with the sweeping motion caused it to reverse direction. Remember it had to be conclusive. I was disappointed they didn't scroll further. As you say, the pad wasn't there yet and while the pad would move faster than the puck at that point, it was so close that even a small movement of the puck would have shown clear ice between it and the goal line. That was either the last frame they had, or they didn't want to move it further. That was as fine a line as you can get, I think and in the end we won anyway so the only thing hurt was Gallagher's stats. I'd hate for it to have been a deciding factor in the game. Maybe we get as many calls for us as against us, but those against us sure seem to hurt a lot. I'm still livid over that Zibanejad goal in the playoffs, over that kicked in goal (under the old rules). That was a clear kick and they just didn't give a damn. Oh well, we probably wouldn't have gone far anyway, I just hate losing because of cheating.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2015 17:14:17 GMT -5
|
|