|
Post by stoat on Mar 27, 2016 0:16:20 GMT -5
I hope the point count remains exactly as it is tonight.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 27, 2016 0:27:21 GMT -5
I think the best we can realistically hope for is 7th overall pick, if Arizona can stay ahead of us and Buffalo can move ahead of us. The Jets are 6 points behind and I doubt very much they'll catch anyone. Everyone else is worse off. Nope, 7th is about the best we can do. That might not be enough to move us into the Dubois category.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Mar 27, 2016 11:02:01 GMT -5
Almost nobody expected worse than a 95-100 pt season and right now despite a horrible season the team has 74 points, maybe 80 by the end of the season. When you consider all the 1 extra pony games that were blown and just outright bad losses to way worse teams it truly is amazing they are missing the playoffs. They almost couldn't repeat this again next year if they tried.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 27, 2016 12:01:53 GMT -5
Almost nobody expected worse than a 95-100 pt season and right now despite a horrible season the team has 74 points, maybe 80 by the end of the season. When you consider all the 1 extra pony games that were blown and just outright bad losses to way worse teams it truly is amazing they are missing the playoffs. They almost couldn't repeat this again next year if they tried. Without any significant upgrades on the top two lines , I can see this repeating for the next 2 years, then longer when Price wants out because the team has missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. That's how fine a line our GM is now walking ...
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Mar 27, 2016 12:48:13 GMT -5
Almost nobody expected worse than a 95-100 pt season and right now despite a horrible season the team has 74 points, maybe 80 by the end of the season. When you consider all the 1 extra pony games that were blown and just outright bad losses to way worse teams it truly is amazing they are missing the playoffs. They almost couldn't repeat this again next year if they tried. Without any significant upgrades on the top two lines , I can see this repeating for the next 2 years, then longer when Price wants out because the team has missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. That's how fine a line our GM is now walking ... They definitely need help up front but if next season Price is healthy, PK doesn't keep turning over the puck as much and Galchenyuk is playing center all year on the 1st or 2nd line that should give them another 15-20 points alone. Not worried about the GM, the coach on the other hand could go.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 27, 2016 13:35:18 GMT -5
Not worried about the GM, the coach on the other hand could go. which might be a reason to worry about the GM.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 27, 2016 14:32:10 GMT -5
Without any significant upgrades on the top two lines , I can see this repeating for the next 2 years, then longer when Price wants out because the team has missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. That's how fine a line our GM is now walking ... They definitely need help up front but if next season Price is healthy, PK doesn't keep turning over the puck as much and Galchenyuk is playing center all year on the 1st or 2nd line that should give them another 15-20 points alone. Not worried about the GM, the coach on the other hand could go. The problem is, even 15 points doesn't get us in the playoffs, and 20 points might have us squeaking in ..... Might. Now, next year we put Galchenyuk on the top line, at Center. Who plays with him? The obvious choices are Pacioretty and Gallagher. So I ask, without any upgrades, and every thing you suggest occurring, who plays on the second line?? We need more than PK, Galchenyuk, and Price. Last year we had a putrid offense, the PP was terrible, we only did well because we had a season for the ages from Price. That's not happening again, and everyone seems to be banking on it. Our offense this year, scored less than last year. We definitely need upgrades on offense, and we need them this summer!
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 27, 2016 14:43:33 GMT -5
We definitely need upgrades on offense, and we need them this summer! 20122013201420152016?
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Mar 27, 2016 15:44:52 GMT -5
We would've missed the playoffs last year, too, if not for Price's heroics. This year should serve as a Niagara of ice water over Berg's head.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Mar 27, 2016 20:41:42 GMT -5
Berg won't do anything... he's risk averse just like his foxhole buddy.... and as time goes by... the owner.... no risk in doing nothing... the media are sheep... the fans are sheep... why bother
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 27, 2016 22:34:44 GMT -5
Berg won't do anything... he's risk averse just like his foxhole buddy.... and as time goes by... the owner.... no risk in doing nothing... the media are sheep... the fans are sheep... why bother Pessimist.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Apr 11, 2016 8:13:45 GMT -5
Some final stats:
Corsi: 51.5% (4th in the conference, 10th overall) Goals: 216 (9th in the conference, 16th overall) 5v5 goals: 145 (10th in the conference, 13th overall) PP goals: 42 (11th in the conference, 23rd overall) Sh%: 7.33% (10th in the conference, 17th overall) Sv%: 91.94% (13th in the conference, 24th overall) PDO: 99.27 (13th in the conference, 24th overall)
Hard to find too many silver linings besides better than average possession stats. 216 goals is about 25 short of the annual bogey of 240. A better PP would have maybe added about 8 goals to that total, so we still came up well short in even strength production.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 11, 2016 8:28:10 GMT -5
Some final stats: Corsi: 51.5% (4th in the conference, 10th overall) Goals: 216 (9th in the conference, 16th overall) 5v5 goals: 145 (10th in the conference, 13th overall) PP goals: 42 (11th in the conference, 23rd overall) Sh%: 7.33% (10th in the conference, 17th overall) Sv%: 91.94% (13th in the conference, 24th overall) PDO: 99.27 (13th in the conference, 24th overall) Hard to find too many silver linings besides better than average possession stats. 216 goals is about 25 short of the annual bogey of 240. A better PP would have maybe added about 8 goals to that total, so we still came up well short in even strength production. I know it's way off topic but what's happening in Bruin land? They fired Chiarelli last year. Is Julien done?
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 11, 2016 8:28:41 GMT -5
28 fewer pts. than last year.
Anybody think Price's hardware haul was worth 14 Ws?
No question in my mind.
Thanks to his injury, we now know two things....
1. We can't win the Cup with Price at the top of his game. 2. We can't even make the playoffs without him.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 11, 2016 8:44:17 GMT -5
I know it's way off topic but what's happening in Bruin land? They fired Chiarelli last year. Is Julien done? not if management is honest. poor defense, bad goaltending . . . it's on management. though if they want to get rid of him they have a good excuse -- look at the standings. ouch. that reflects back to Montreal big time. sigh.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 11, 2016 8:56:22 GMT -5
Some final stats: Corsi: 51.5% (4th in the conference, 10th overall) Goals: 216 (9th in the conference, 16th overall) 5v5 goals: 145 (10th in the conference, 13th overall) PP goals: 42 (11th in the conference, 23rd overall) Sh%: 7.33% (10th in the conference, 17th overall) Sv%: 91.94% (13th in the conference, 24th overall) PDO: 99.27 (13th in the conference, 24th overall) Hard to find too many silver linings besides better than average possession stats. 216 goals is about 25 short of the annual bogey of 240. A better PP would have maybe added about 8 goals to that total, so we still came up well short in even strength production. I would take a few positives from those, actually. Especially the goals for. Despite this common belief that our scoring is terrible, and that we need to stock up on top six forwards, perhaps even trading Subban to do so (seriously??), we were still a middle-of-the-pack team when it came to goals for. Ahead of four playoff teams, including one potential contender (Anaheim, Minnesota, Detroit, Philadelphia). We finished a mere three goals behind St. Louis, four behind LA, and just six behind the "offensive powerhouse with their free-wheeling coach" Tampa. Despite all the injuries and questionable player decisions. And of course a bad power-play. I also don't think 240 is needed anymore either, as 240 would have put us 3rd in the league, only one behind second place Pittsburgh. I would aim for top 10 given the construction of our team (goalie and defense heavy) and be quite satisfied with that. Top 10 this year would have been 230 goals, so we were about one goal more for every 8 games played away from that. Not as big a leap as some would have you believe, in my opinion. So while the offense could and should be improved, that's not where the biggest problem lay this year, in my opinion. The 24th overall save percentage is probably a bigger problem, and that should improve with the return of Price, and one more year of experience for Condon. We forget that he was a rookie this year, who wasn't even supposed to make the team. Give our goaltending coach some more time to work with him, and of course less games, and that should be better as well. I don't think we need to blow this thing up.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 11, 2016 9:25:57 GMT -5
But it's WHEN the goals are scored....how they're distributed.
The season was lost because of a stretch of 20 regulation losses in 26 games...in which we scored 30 goals.
THE FIRST 26 GAMES
90 GF. 19-4-3.
90/221 = 40.7% of our total offensive output.
THE NEXT 26 GAMES
52 GF. 5-20-1.
52/221 = 23.5%.
THE FINAL 30 GAMES
79 GF. 14-14-2.
79/221 = 35.7%.
Our final 56 games resulted in the fewest points in the league.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 11, 2016 10:10:33 GMT -5
But it's WHEN the goals are scored....how they're distributed. Well of course, that kind of goes without saying right? If you want to win a game you have to score more goals during that game than the other team... I'm just saying this team is more capable of scoring goals than people give it credit for. We don't need to blow things up in this elusive search for more goals. The season clearly went into the tank, as you say, during that stretch right after Price got hurt, and then Gallagher got hurt, and the team collapsed. Whether it was through mental weakness, a tough schedule during that stretch, bad coaching, bad puck luck, or something else is kind of where the question lies. But I don't think the problem can be completely laid at the feet of "they can't score". They CAN score. The numbers don't lie. Less than 10 goals away from being a top 10 team in the league, in terms of scoring. It was that close. So I think we have to be real careful this offseason, dealing with this "problem". I mean, if you REALLY want to add more goals then put Price on the block, right? He doesn't score any goals. I'm sure we could get quite an offensive haul if we were to put him on the block. Not sure we would be a better team, but we would score more goals, right? Surely enough to get us into the top 10 in scoring? I think we need at least one more 20 goal scorer. A guy like Patrick Hornqvist for example, could be that guy, at a reasonable cost. Or it could be Daniel Carr, who I happen to think has 20 goal potential in him. I think there are solutions available that don't involve trading a core piece to get, and whether that means people think Bergevin is being risk-adversive again is irrelevant to me. I don't see the problem as being so drastic that drastic measures need to be taken. But then that's just me, and on occasion I have been wrong. Once or twice anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 11, 2016 10:21:54 GMT -5
Some final stats: Corsi: 51.5% (4th in the conference, 10th overall) Goals: 216 (9th in the conference, 16th overall) 5v5 goals: 145 (10th in the conference, 13th overall) PP goals: 42 (11th in the conference, 23rd overall) Sh%: 7.33% (10th in the conference, 17th overall) Sv%: 91.94% (13th in the conference, 24th overall) PDO: 99.27 (13th in the conference, 24th overall) Hard to find too many silver linings besides better than average possession stats. 216 goals is about 25 short of the annual bogey of 240. A better PP would have maybe added about 8 goals to that total, so we still came up well short in even strength production. I would take a few positives from those, actually. Especially the goals for. Despite this common belief that our scoring is terrible, and that we need to stock up on top six forwards, perhaps even trading Subban to do so (seriously??), we were still a middle-of-the-pack team when it came to goals for. Ahead of four playoff teams, including one potential contender (Anaheim, Minnesota, Detroit, Philadelphia). We finished a mere three goals behind St. Louis, four behind LA, and just six behind the "offensive powerhouse with their free-wheeling coach" Tampa. Despite all the injuries and questionable player decisions. And of course a bad power-play. I also don't think 240 is needed anymore either, as 240 would have put us 3rd in the league, only one behind second place Pittsburgh. I would aim for top 10 given the construction of our team (goalie and defense heavy) and be quite satisfied with that. Top 10 this year would have been 230 goals, so we were about one goal more for every 8 games played away from that. Not as big a leap as some would have you believe, in my opinion. So while the offense could and should be improved, that's not where the biggest problem lay this year, in my opinion. The 24th overall save percentage is probably a bigger problem, and that should improve with the return of Price, and one more year of experience for Condon. We forget that he was a rookie this year, who wasn't even supposed to make the team. Give our goaltending coach some more time to work with him, and of course less games, and that should be better as well. I don't think we need to blow this thing up. Once again ... your supposition is based solely on Price have continual seasons like he did last year. Last year we scored less, but we had a goalie performance for the ages. If Price's save percentage is 0.925, which is THIRD best in the league this year, then that means there will be approximately 20 more goals scored against us. That's double your 1 goal for in 8 games. So we are not even back to par yet with last year. Sure if Price has another 0.935 save percentage, we only need 220 goals, but if he slips, even a little as .010 we need to compensate by scoring more. I really think, going into next year with the plan being we need to score middle of the pack (or just 10th) in goals because we have Price is a recipe for disaster. (I believe I said the same thing last year too ... and I really do not want to see a year like this again)
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 11, 2016 10:25:28 GMT -5
But it's WHEN the goals are scored....how they're distributed. Well of course, that kind of goes without saying right? If you want to win a game you have to score more goals during that game than the other team... I'm just saying this team is more capable of scoring goals than people give it credit for. We don't need to blow things up in this elusive search for more goals. The season clearly went into the tank, as you say, during that stretch right after Price got hurt, and then Gallagher got hurt, and the team collapsed. Whether it was through mental weakness, a tough schedule during that stretch, bad coaching, bad puck luck, or something else is kind of where the question lies. But I don't think the problem can be completely laid at the feet of "they can't score". They CAN score. The numbers don't lie. Less than 10 goals away from being a top 10 team in the league, in terms of scoring. It was that close. So I think we have to be real careful this offseason, dealing with this "problem". I mean, if you REALLY want to add more goals then put Price on the block, right? He doesn't score any goals. I'm sure we could get quite an offensive haul if we were to put him on the block. Not sure we would be a better team, but we would score more goals, right? Surely enough to get us into the top 10 in scoring? I think we need at least one more 20 goal scorer. A guy like Patrick Hornqvist for example, could be that guy, at a reasonable cost. Or it could be Daniel Carr, who I happen to think has 20 goal potential in him. I think there are solutions available that don't involve trading a core piece to get, and whether that means people think Bergevin is being risk-adversive again is irrelevant to me. I don't see the problem as being so drastic that drastic measures need to be taken. But then that's just me, and on occasion I have been wrong. Once or twice anyways. And that shows how much the point is being missed ... No one is saying trade Price. What we are saying is that you can not count on Price having 0.935 save percentages year after year after year. So if we do not even have an average goalie behind him, what is the plan if he is hurt? That's why we need goals. Without Price holding the fort down, this team can not score goals.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Apr 11, 2016 10:52:11 GMT -5
The Bruins getting pasted 6-1 on Saturday in a win-and-in game was the only thing that made me smile in the dreadful season.
Julien seems 50-50 to survive, but most people think he got about as much as he could out of a team that has gone downhill in terms of talent. The Bruins probably have one of the worst back ends in the NHL, with Chara at 39 the only player keeping them respectable.
The hidden gem with the Bruins is they put the puck in the net. They were 3rd in the conference in scoring behind WSH and PIT and 5th overall in the NHL. Ultimately they were done in by defensive breakdowns and only so-so goaltending.
Top 6 Bruins scorers: Marchand (37), Bergeron (32), Eriksson (30), Krejci (17), Beleskey (15), Pastrnak (15) Top 6 Habs scorers: Pacioretty (30), Galchenyuk (30), Gallagher (19), Plekanec (14), Eller (13), Desharnais (11)
The B's still benefit from the 1-2 punch of Bergeron and Krejci, but their top 6 outscored our top 6 by more than 25 goals. Now if Pacioretty scored 35-40 and Gallagher had scored 25-30, it would have been closer. Goes to BC's argument that we just need to be average in scoring with a better than average goalie and blue line, but I'd still like to see a more established scorer up front.
IMO, this team was at it's most dangerous after the Vanek acquisition 2 years ago. He gave us an added threat on the top line while maintaining scoring versatility on the 2nd and 3rd lines. I'd love to find a way to add a 20-25 goal guy to what we already have. Otherwise I fear we will be too top heavy.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 11, 2016 11:00:57 GMT -5
I would take a few positives from those, actually. Especially the goals for. Despite this common belief that our scoring is terrible, and that we need to stock up on top six forwards, perhaps even trading Subban to do so (seriously??), we were still a middle-of-the-pack team when it came to goals for. Ahead of four playoff teams, including one potential contender (Anaheim, Minnesota, Detroit, Philadelphia). We finished a mere three goals behind St. Louis, four behind LA, and just six behind the "offensive powerhouse with their free-wheeling coach" Tampa. Despite all the injuries and questionable player decisions. And of course a bad power-play. I also don't think 240 is needed anymore either, as 240 would have put us 3rd in the league, only one behind second place Pittsburgh. I would aim for top 10 given the construction of our team (goalie and defense heavy) and be quite satisfied with that. Top 10 this year would have been 230 goals, so we were about one goal more for every 8 games played away from that. Not as big a leap as some would have you believe, in my opinion. So while the offense could and should be improved, that's not where the biggest problem lay this year, in my opinion. The 24th overall save percentage is probably a bigger problem, and that should improve with the return of Price, and one more year of experience for Condon. We forget that he was a rookie this year, who wasn't even supposed to make the team. Give our goaltending coach some more time to work with him, and of course less games, and that should be better as well. I don't think we need to blow this thing up. Once again ... your supposition is based solely on Price have continual seasons like he did last year. Last year we scored less, but we had a goalie performance for the ages. If Price's save percentage is 0.925, which is THIRD best in the league this year, then that means there will be approximately 20 more goals scored against us. That's double your 1 goal for in 8 games. So we are not even back to par yet with last year. Sure if Price has another 0.935 save percentage, we only need 220 goals, but if he slips, even a little as .010 we need to compensate by scoring more. I really think, going into next year with the plan being we need to score middle of the pack (or just 10th) in goals because we have Price is a recipe for disaster. (I believe I said the same thing last year too ... and I really do not want to see a year like this again) I don't understand your math Skilly… Let's assume 30 shots a game (we gave up 29.4 this past season). Let's also assume Price's save percentage goes down to your .925 (and I'm not sure why it would, but let's say it does). Let's also assume that our backups continue to be atrocious, with a .900 save percentage (Condon's was .903). Price:30 shots a game * 65 games = 1950 shots against .925% = 1804 saves Goals against for Price = 146 Condon:30 shots a game * 17 games = 510 shots against .900% = 459 saves Goals against for Backups = 51 Total Goals: 146+51 = 197 That would be fourth best in the league. And way less than the 221 we scored this season. Now of course this is all dependent on Price being healthy, and not missing 70 games again, but I think that goes without saying. Take Lundqvist away for 70 games and the Rangers aren't going to be as good. Same for Holtby and the Caps (we've actually seen how bad they are without a goalie), Nashville with Rinne, Edmonton in general, and so on. Obviously if Price is out for the season again then we will need better performances from whoever is his backup, but losing your #1 goalie is generally bad for any team that it happens to. Some can weather it in the short to medium term, and some don't rely on their goaltending as much as others, so the effect is not as great (though it's still there). That's not us. We are built from the nets out, with our goalie making the second highest salary on the team, and generally considered to be woefully underpaid at that. If we don't want a team that needs a healthy #1 goalie, then again, trade Price. But if you're going to have Price be your best player, then he needs to be healthy. And if healthy we should be right up their in goals against again. Price missed 70 games this year. That was a death knell. If he gets hurt again, well, it will all depend on how long he is out for. You can take the stats above and make a chart based on how many games he plays; if he plays 65 it results in one thing, if he plays 55 another, only 45, still another. Becomes a sliding scale kind of thing. At a certain point it becomes the tipping point, where our middle-of-the-pack goals for cannot compensate for the goals against. What that point is I don't know. But my point again was that our offense was not nearly as bad as it was made out to be and was not, in my opinion, our undoing this year. It can and should be better, but unless we're planning on turning into Dallas next season the most important determinant of our success next season will be goaltending. Not goals for.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 11, 2016 11:07:08 GMT -5
IMO, this team was at it's most dangerous after the Vanek acquisition 2 years ago. He gave us an added threat on the top line while maintaining scoring versatility on the 2nd and 3rd lines. I'd love to find a way to add a 20-25 goal guy to what we already have. Otherwise I fear we will be too top heavy. Agreed. And you know what he said about his time in Montreal. Maybe he wanted to sign in Minny all along...but perhaps he saw nothing but line-juggling in his future with Therrien....
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 11, 2016 13:16:18 GMT -5
I don't understand your math Skilly… I based my math on 2000 shots against. A 0.010 dip results in 20 goals against. Your 1950 shots yielded 146 goals, Price gave up 130 last year, 50 extra shots gives up 5 more goals ... that's where I got 20 more goals, from Price alone. Last season, while Price gave up 130 goals and Tokarski gave up 46 goals, the team gave up 189 goals. You have accounted for ZERO losses in the shootout, by only counting goals credited against the goalies. Add in on average 10-12 more goals for shootout losses and empty net goals. And now we are close to 210 goals against in your scenario. That would put us dangerously close to scraping in the playoffs, or missing them entirely, with only 220 goals for. A 0.925 save percentage would be third in the entire league this year; unless you think he will maintain that 0.935 pace, I think it is a reasonable save percentage to give to Price in an "off" season. My issue is that Price has injured his knee(s) now 6 times in his career: 1) playoffs against Ottawa 2013 2) at the Olympic training camp, and played through it 3) upon returning, he sat out a few games after re-aggravating it 4) Kreider crashing into him playoffs 2014 5) This year he injured a knee against Edmonton on Oct 29th, sat out a few games 6) Then NOv 25th, injured a knee again, but not the same injury that he hurt this year or in the past (according to the trainer) If we are going to rely on our best player, the goalie, and know he has a history of knee problems, shouldn't there be a "plan B". We can't get another Price, but we can get someone who can post a 0.910-0.915 range save percentage - a decent back-up. But then we also need goals to compensate for the inferior goalie. Our middle of the pack goals, in my opinion, is at the tipping point now ... 220 that's our break even point. When Price plays at a Hart trophy pace, we are going to give up 190 team goals , without that torrid pace, we will give up in the 210 range.
|
|