|
Post by CentreHice on Aug 9, 2020 10:30:21 GMT -5
We get the Flyers. A former, now current Habs' coach vs. a former Habs' coach, assisted by a twice-forner Habs' coach. ========================= Tampa may have lost Hedman....not sure. Twisted his ankle--looked as if he caught a rut as he was transitioning. Left the ice and slammed his stick several times on the tunnel wall. Not usually a good sign. Toronto or Columbus won't mind at all. I said to a friend it may be the only time in playoff history that a playoff series has three former coaches of the same team in the series If verified, that would be a great trivia question. Only one NHL playoff series has featured 3 former head coaches of one of the teams. Name the 2 teams and the 3 coaches.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 9, 2020 10:35:23 GMT -5
The same friend pointed out to me that the last time Vigneault and Julien coached in the same series a Canadian city was ransacked
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 9, 2020 14:42:45 GMT -5
The same friend pointed out to me that the last time Vigneault and Julien coached in the same series a Canadian city was ransacked ... Rex Murphy before he left CBC ...
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Aug 9, 2020 19:26:57 GMT -5
Vigneault has evolved into a very good coach. He may lack a Stanley Cup, but his teams always seem well prepared and bring a balanced style of hockey to the ice. It also seems his man management skills are strong despite the fact that he is obviously older than the new generation of coaches in the league that everyone has been talking about over the last couple seasons.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Aug 9, 2020 19:51:02 GMT -5
I liked Vigneault as a coach & felt he was let down by injuries & poor rosters in Montreal.
He hasn't won a Cup but he has taken two different teams to the Finals which is something to be proud of. However, I have no idea what he sees in Therrien.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 9, 2020 20:41:52 GMT -5
I liked Vigneault as a coach & felt he was let down by injuries & poor rosters in Montreal. He hasn't won a Cup but he has taken two different teams to the Finals which is something to be proud of. However, I have no idea what he sees in Therrien. At the time, Al Vigneault's teams set back-to-back records for man-games lost due to injuries ... when Rejean Houle let him go, I thought it was more about making a move, to make a move ... those runs of injuries were not his fault and Houle still canned him ... I've always liked Vigneault ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Aug 10, 2020 0:07:24 GMT -5
Can't share the "euphoria". I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. We've won nothing and we've likely lost a whole lot. This week may haunt us for 2 decades. Not only missing out on Alex but if TO (or Edm or Pitt) lands him I will be sick. So now we face the top seed and probably go out in 5 or 6. Fact is Pens have a very weak D. And Malkin isn't close to the payer he was. So we beat a marginal team. Am I impressed how we played? YES! But I've never felt so 'off' after a Habs win. The league has made a colossal error in this draft formula. They should have let the 7 non-play-in teams go for the top 7 picks in the first lottery and then the 8 play-in losers participate in a second lottery for 8-15 picks. In no normal universe should TO, Pitt, Edm and Preds be getting #1 overall. And if TO loses tonight or tomorrow, there will be a 50% chance of that happening. I am so pissed that we are in this situation. It may effect the league for decades. Only hope is Lafreniere is Alexandre Daigle revisited. So it is official: there is now a 50% chance TO, Edm, Pitt, or Nash will get Lafreniere. This is the biggest story of the 2019-20 season. Who cares who wins the Covid Cup with all the asterisks? If the play-in proved anything, it was a dumb idea, as teams with a 4 month lay off should not play a best of 5 series as it is completely random who wins. And with this dumb draft lottery x 2, the league has completely bastardized the process and purpose of the draft. I will be absolutely sick if TO gets Lafreniere. I watched the TO CBJ game with a Leaf fan and when Leafs lost i told him he should be overjoyed; they were not gong to win the Cup this year and if they get Lafreniere they will likely have 2 or 3 Cups in the next 10 years. Marner, Matthews, and LaFreniere with Tavares being the veteran leader.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Aug 10, 2020 0:16:46 GMT -5
The only way to approach the next ten years of crying is to do this: Everyone post the player they would select at #9 If he is off the board at #9, then you should feel good. You didn’t lose anything Of all the players that were available at #9, we track (with posters name next to him) and compare to who we select. Everyone assumes that we’d automatically get Lafreniere, but alas, that’s not how it works ... the odds were quite high we’d be drafting ninth I think it's absolutely fair (and fun) to submit names we would pick at 9 and then names we would pick at 16. Unfortunately you'd have to do it after the #8 picks and #15 picks have been made by their respective teams so you'd know who was available. The real fun will be comparing an aggregate of the guys picked at 9 and those picked at 16 (or wherever we end up) and seeing how they have turned out. That way we can have a more objective idea of how much this win vs Pittsburgh cost us. There will still be room for lots of debate, of course (I would have picked THAT guy, now that guy), but if there are 5 or 6 successful players around the #9 pick and one or two around the #16 pick, (or vice versa) that can tell us something. It's certainly possible. I recall a few of our guys posting who we should choose when our turn came up in the past. Let's go for it. Special Thread! It seems to me that the most accurate prediction of success of draft picks at #9 and #16 is to look at such picks in the past and who was available when the pick was made. With this in mind I think one can look at picks 9 thru 15 from 2010 to 2017 and compare them to picks 16 thru 22 in the same years. I've done 9 thru 15 as it allows for the team picking 9 not to be locked into the actual pick in a given year but to see how a team could have done with all the options before the team picking 16 got to make their pick. What surprised me is how many picks 9 thru 22 are legit NHLers. But back to the 'debate', it will not surprise anyone that the picks 9 thru 15 are more likely to get a legitimate player than 16 thru 22, but as for impact players, I don't see much of a difference. I should also point out that Habs have not had great success at 16 thru 22 and seem to like D (Beaulieu, Tinordi, altho did get Sergechev - don't get me going). Here are some of the bigger names (excuse spellings) for 9 thru 15 from 2010-17: Granlund, Fowler, Schwartz, Dougie Hamilton, JT Miller, Trouba, Forsberg, Horvat, Domi, Morrissey, Larkin, Sergechiev, MacAlvoy. Big names 16 thru 22: Tarasenko, Bjugstad, Tom Wilson, Hertl, Teravnen, Vaselevski, Maata, Manta, Kappannen, Barzal, Kyle Connor, Chabot, Svenikov. As I've often posted, if you want a good chance at an impact player you need to be in the top 5 picks. It drops after that between 5-20. And over 20 might as well be a 2nd rounder. So dropping from 9 to 16 is not a big deal. BUT losing out on #1 is a huge deal, particularly given this team's chances for a Cup this year. I'm not sure how the lottery works but is it fair to argue that if Pitt gets #1 that it would have been us? Cause then I'll be sick again.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 10, 2020 12:34:23 GMT -5
Vigneault has evolved into a very good coach. He may lack a Stanley Cup, but his teams always seem well prepared and bring a balanced style of hockey to the ice. It also seems his man management skills are strong despite the fact that he is obviously older than the new generation of coaches in the league that everyone has been talking about over the last couple seasons. Agree, but incredibly unlucky. In his first stint with the Habs, he had 2 (two!) years with 600 man games lost to injury and the team still played with heart. With the Canucks, he got them to the finals and his defence was decimated (again) by injuries and his second centre (kesler) who had 41 goals andn 73 points that year should have been in hospital and was dressing instead. You wonder if he's jinxed. I think he's the best coach the Habs have had since Pat Burns (almost 40 years).
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 10, 2020 17:38:45 GMT -5
Vigneault has evolved into a very good coach. He may lack a Stanley Cup, but his teams always seem well prepared and bring a balanced style of hockey to the ice. It also seems his man management skills are strong despite the fact that he is obviously older than the new generation of coaches in the league that everyone has been talking about over the last couple seasons. Agree, but incredibly unlucky. In his first stint with the Habs, he had 2 (two!) years with 600 man games lost to injury and the team still played with heart. With the Canucks, he got them to the finals and his defence was decimated (again) by injuries and his second centre (kesler) who had 41 goals andn 73 points that year should have been in hospital and was dressing instead. You wonder if he's jinxed. I think he's the best coach the Habs have had since Pat Burns (almost 40 years). Close . Only one team has ever lost 600+ man games to injury ... the 2003-2004 LA Kings I believe (629) The 1999-2000 Montreal Canadiens lost 536 man games to injury. (Was a récord until the Kings) The 2000-2001 Montreal Canadiens lost 531 man games to injury Montreal can’t even claim to have the worst two season stretch, as LA almost topped best the Habs “record” in 2002-2003
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 11, 2020 0:13:17 GMT -5
So, not 600. Can’t understand why Vigneault couldn’t get them into the playoffs then.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 11, 2020 5:53:57 GMT -5
So, not 600. Can’t understand why Vigneault couldn’t get them into the playoffs then. My post was neither pro nor anti Vigneault ... just stating the facts for reference
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 11, 2020 15:04:21 GMT -5
Thinking about this today. And from a totally probabilistic point of view, even if we lost to Pittsburgh we would NOT have won the #1 selection. We know that the NHL put those balls into the machine in a specific order, not a random order. So, if the balls are the same (size and weight) and the guy presses the button at the same time whether Montreal is in the machine or not, then the FIFTH team alphabetically comes out. If Montreal lost to Pittsburgh they would have been the 6th team alphabetically, so I guess we blame Vancouver. If we lost to Pittsburgh and they lost to Minnesota, we would have had the #1 selection (because we would have then been the 5th team alphabetically) As an aside, Pittsburgh was sixth alphabetically in the lottery. So yes, if Pittsburgh was pulled out, it would have been Montreal’s ball as well.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 11, 2020 15:23:23 GMT -5
So, not 600. Can’t understand why Vigneault couldn’t get them into the playoffs then. My post was neither pro nor anti Vigneault ... just stating the facts for reference That’s all I took from it. The main point is that Vigneault did not deserve to be fired but if the coach is doing a good job, the spotlight swivels to the GM. Owners seem to have realized this and the attitude is evolving, except in Montreal.
|
|