|
Post by Viper on Dec 4, 2002 19:56:43 GMT -5
Despite all the depth and health we are still the same old struggling somewhere around 500 hockey club that we have been for the last 7 years.
95/96 40 32 10 90pts 96/97 31 36 15 77pts 97/98 37 32 13 87pts 98/99 32 39 11 75pts 99/00 35 34 13 83pts 00/01 28 40 14 70pts 01/02 36 31 14 87pts 02/03 36 31 14 87pts* * projected finish based on the season's start this could be better and could be worse who knows ??
Say what you will about Reggie houle's destruction of the roster but in his final couple of years when the team amassed insurmountable injuries there has been alot of evidence that proves he was finally getting it. The deal for hackett and a couple of his last draft picks are just two examples. When you look at the point totals we have achieved under Savard with what is a much deeper and more talented squad that has had a greatly reduced run to the medical room the difference is not something i'm extremely happy about considering the payroll is top ten in the NHL.
Now don't take this the wrong way I am not trying to bash Savard but at the same time I find it interesting how this team is not performing much better than the one Houle And Vigneault had. It seems the roles are reversed now to a certain degree. We had a great coach in AV (with what he had to work with the guy was a miracle worker IMO)and a bad GM in Houle. Actually if we gave him another season or 2 and all the extra coin Savard has had we may feel alot differently about Reggie as he was showing signs of intelligence near the end of his reign, too little to late for RH I suppose. Now we have a Great GM (although his track record lately is looking pretty sad.) and a horrible Coach. The resulting ends are almost the same and it's frustrating the hell out of me and i'm sure many other's around here.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 4, 2002 20:18:12 GMT -5
Maybe because those teams had a system??
They knew their roles on the team??
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Dec 4, 2002 20:29:50 GMT -5
First of all, 7 years ago, we had a pretty damn good team.. but unfortunetly, the management at that time killed it slowly, but surely.
Let's say.. since 1999, when our team started to fall down.. we were constantly hammered at the beginning of the year and had something like 10 games below ,500.. In december, we were already out of the playoffs. Then, playing with no pressure, we were racking up points and looked better than we trully were. The year 2000 was one of the fluckiest ever seen.. we were very lucky to make that run.. since the year after, we were done after the first two months.
While last year, we started on the right foot by consistantly playing ,500 hockey.. which is great since the pressure was on game in and game out... while exploding at the end of the year with this 7 game winning streak. That's the difference here buddy.
You don't bash Savard, you say ? Please..
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 4, 2002 20:50:45 GMT -5
What's with this about flukes and luck if you have evidence to refute it besides a claim about flukes that's fine i could use the very same argument for last year considering theodore carried us on his back all season winning the Hart and Vezina which means last season was just as lucky. The evidence is there to see where is your's I called him a great GM up until his recent track record and i said He is Better than Houle what the hell do you freaking want from me for god sakes stop wasting my time with drivel. I try my best to show respect for your opinions and always provide reasoning for why my thoughts are as they are. Why is it so hard for you to show the same respect in return. If you don't agree fine explain and prove why and leave it at that it. not personal.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 4, 2002 21:04:15 GMT -5
Not a well thought comment, sir. Let's say.. since 1999, when our team started to fall down.. that's also when the team began its 2 or 3 year run of 500 plus man games lost to injury that's the equivelant of 6 regulars a night out due to injury which means constant line juggling and substitution's from the farm. There we're alot more circumstances involved in the 99, 2000, and 2001 teams than just poor management. All those injuries would kill even the best of teams let alone a mediocre hab team. You cannot Deny the fact that a healthy season would have made that final point total a heck of alot better. Now we are healthy and deeper but only a few points ahead of where we we're in 99 with an additional 15 million payroll. Numbers don't lie and the bottom line is the numbers just don't add up.
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Dec 4, 2002 21:20:43 GMT -5
that's also when the team began its 2 or 3 year run of 500 plus man games lost to injury that's the equivelant of 6 regulars a night out due to injury which means constant line juggling and substitution's from the farm. There we're alot more circumstances involved in the 99, 2000, and 2001 teams than just poor management. All those injuries would kill even the best of teams let alone a mediocre hab team. You cannot Deny the fact that a healthy season would have made that final point total a heck of alot better. Now we are healthy and deeper but only a few points ahead of where we we're in 99 with an additional 15 million payroll. Numbers don't lie and the bottom line is the numbers just don't add up. 2 + 2 still equals 4 the last time I checked. Disagree, these are just excuses. Our team started to fall down because we traded or lost talent and experience with the likes of Recchi, Damphousse, Malakhov, Quintal, Bureau, Corson etc.. without getting anything big in return. That's where it started to bug us big time. Add to the fact that no young player was able to make the team.. we were in a big hole. That's why we struggled. The men's game lost was an excuse which gave Houle and Vigneault a chance to start the 2001 season. Last year, we missed our captain, Audette, Hackett and we had something like 250 men games lost (which was still one of the worst).. but we still managed to have 5 games over ,500.. and more important than that, we were fighting for that spot ALL SEASON LONG.. not when we were 10 or 15 games UNDER ,500. Why ? Because of Theodore, but also because of the players that we added thanks to Savard who played a significant role to help our team being that successful. These players were veteran NHL'ERS.. not crappy AHL'ERS. But no, you'll never give it to Savard, never. Hard head.. 2 + 2 = 4 indeed.. tell it to yourself now.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 4, 2002 21:21:18 GMT -5
Not a well thought comment, sir. First of all, 7 years ago, we had a pretty damn good team.. but unfortunetly, the management at that time killed it slowly, but surely. Let's say.. since 1999, when our team started to fall down.. we were constantly hammered at the beginning of the year and had something like 10 games below ,500.. In december, we were already out of the playoffs. Then, playing with no pressure, we were racking up points and looked better than we trully were. The year 2000 was one of the fluckiest ever seen.. we were very lucky to make that run.. since the year after, we were done after the first two months. Hmm...you don't remember that year do you? That Habs team had 500+ man games lost to injury. I don't care if it was a fluke. The team was decimated with injuries. I think Koivu played 20+ games that year. Savage almost broke his neck. Linden was injured half the time. The Habs played the trap. It was boring, the games were always 1-0 or 2-1 or 3-2 but the team found a way to win. Theodore provided great goaltending in December/January to get them going and Hackett took them the rest of the way If it wasn't for a 5-4 loss to TB on home ice and a 5-3 loss(with an empty netter) to Boston a few days earlier, they would have probably made it. In 2000-01, Theodore held out, Hackett went down(team was around .500 as I recall...2-3 games under I believe) a rusty Theodore was forced to save our season and he failed because of no training camp. That's why AV and Reggie were fired in November. The team didn't collapse because the other year was a fluke. It collapsed because they were getting horrible goaltending and once again had loads of injuries.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 4, 2002 21:43:35 GMT -5
Habsolutely and Viper, here are some more facts. 1. This is HabsRus. 2. We do not "boil over" when we read someone's opinion. 3. After a few respectfull rounds of debate, we ignore the other person's opinion when we do not agree.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 4, 2002 21:51:46 GMT -5
But no, you'll never give it to Savard, never. Hard head.. 2 + 2 = 4 indeed.. tell it to yourself now. well done i like that post alot except the ending your not paying attention to what i'm saying that's the problem in the first post what did i say read it over and understand it. stop reading things that are simply not there and putting words in my mouth. this is the first thing this whole thread started with. Where is it that i discredited Savard with the exception of a recent track record. I have never taken away what savard has done to improve our depth and our farm you can spend an eternity looking you will not find it. I have always always always agreed with you about that. I don't believe yet that AS will get us to the end results of a cup that both you and I obviously want. Your prepared to sell the farm that he will i'm not. Recently i question a few moves he's made that have created such a wierd balance of softies and right wingers in our lineup but i've never said he won't get us out just that i'll believe it when i see it and give the guy a chance to do so. I can't understand why you have such a hard time with my wait and see approach. It's simply that i choose to proceed with caution considering he's made some mistakes in certain areas while excelling in other's. I agree with 60 percent of what you say but just don't want to fall into a position where i herald him as a saviour until he IS. My heart wants to believe everything you do about Savard And the Habs. I want him to get us a cup in my Heart But my head tells me it may not happen.
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Dec 4, 2002 21:54:05 GMT -5
Hmm...you don't remember that year do you? That Habs team had 500+ man games lost to injury. I don't care if it was a fluke. The team was decimated with injuries. I think Koivu played 20+ games that year. Savage almost broke his neck. Linden was injured half the time. The Habs played the trap. It was boring, the games were always 1-0 or 2-1 or 3-2 but the team found a way to win. Theodore provided great goaltending in December/January to get them going and Hackett took them the rest of the way If it wasn't for a 5-4 loss to TB on home ice and a 5-3 loss(with an empty netter) to Boston a few days earlier, they would have probably made it. In 2000-01, Theodore held out, Hackett went down(team was around .500 as I recall...2-3 games under I believe) a rusty Theodore was forced to save our season and he failed because of no training camp. That's why AV and Reggie were fired in November. The team didn't collapse because the other year was a fluke. It collapsed because they were getting horrible goaltending and once again had loads of injuries. I remember very well this year.. and I still disagree.. our team was lacking so much talent, that's why we shocked against Buffalo and Ottawa as well as against Tampa Bay and Boston. We simply weren't able to win the big games when it was needed. Using the injuries as an excuse on that case doesn't work. Even with Koivu, Linden (3rd line center), Savage (flooooop), Theodore wasn't at his best (with or without training camp).. we weren't going to be successful anyway. And the beginning of the 2001 was the truth.. we were still pretty healthy at the beginning and we were horrible. If I had to choose between the situation at that time and the situation now.. overall.. there's a world of difference... management-wise, players-wise, draft-pick-wise.. the choice is too easy.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 4, 2002 22:06:43 GMT -5
Using the injuries as an excuse on that case doesn't work. Even with Koivu, Linden (3rd line center), Savage (flooooop), Theodore wasn't at his best (with or without training camp).. we weren't going to be successful anyway. You are mixing up the seasons. I am talking about 1999-2000. Theodore had a 2.10 GAA that year. Hackett was rock solid In the first month we were decent then we were horrible. Same here but it's not THAT much better.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Dec 4, 2002 23:08:30 GMT -5
GET A COACH! HFTO
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Dec 5, 2002 7:37:14 GMT -5
Just the thought of us implying that Mario Tremblay is better than Michel Therien shows how bad this guy is behind our bench!!!
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 5, 2002 10:16:38 GMT -5
Well, I was talking about Vigneault but I wouldn't be surprised if the other MT is better than our current MT
If he wasn't, why would Lemaire bring him over to Minnesota? do you think someone will hire Therrien to be an assistant a few years after he is canned?
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Dec 5, 2002 10:29:24 GMT -5
If Therien gets canned he's going back to Rock Voisine for his old bodyguard job!
|
|
|
Post by DougalMaCleod on Dec 5, 2002 13:03:47 GMT -5
This is funny.
If Houle was the current GM of this team, and AV was the coach, we would be demanding that Houle be lynched for not providing AV any tools to work with. Is this not true? can anybody honestly say i'm lying?
I'm all for giving AS a chance, and with this, there are going to be mistakes and questionable decisions. We as fans don't have all the information.
Some points that i retain. 1) Juneau, Dackel: Considered to be above average deals and or signings. Truth be told, AS had direct relationships with these players from his experience with Ottawa, you might say, he had the inside track on these players which Houle wouldn't have had. An upgrade to some degree on Poulin and Darby, even that can be argued, but not very successfully, so an upgrade it is.
2)Gilmour, Perrault: If Houle would have signed Gilmour, we would have called FOULE an....idiot! however, it turned out good last season and we were pleased. Perrault might have signed with Houle anyway, but signing him was another point in the Saint AS derby.
Laflamme/Traverse certainly look alike to me...well maybe not in appearance, gosh that Laflamme kid was ugly. (that's bad, i know). anyway, not much difference here, Oh wait, we gave Weinrich up for Traverse....hmmmmmmm, i guess he was the best we could get for a UFA....
I guess i'm with Viper on the fact that AS hasn't acquire Saint hood in my books yet. We didn't get into the Savage/Berezin/nothing/contracts things but some food for thought.
Oh and draft picks....
Who wouldn't have picked Ward, a power forward to be? Chouinard? Big strong talented....
Who can really say that Komi will be the next Stevens? or better? We had hopes for the others i just mentioned, unfortunately they didn't pan out. Savard has been known as an excellent scout for talent....hope he has time with all his other duties...
|
|