Post-Game Talk: Sens win the cup, beat habs 5-2

[Lshap]

Sens fan coming in peace.

I was at the game last night and the Habs definitely dominated the Sens in possession. I think the main reason for this domination in puck possession is, once again, your speed exposed our slow Ds and their ineffiency in getting the puck out of the zone. Now, did that possession translated into scoring chances? Sure but probably not enough... it was more of a quantity vs a quality thing IMO. Adding the fact that Andy played well, Price had an off night and the Habs' play in their own end was not pretty, you end up with the result we saw on the scoreboard. Let's see what the final pre-season game brings us.

Fair assessment. Sens have some pretty good shooters, which is one thing Montreal lacks. Set plays and possession are nice to see, but ultimately it only counts if someone can finish. Anyway, nice to see us fans getting the rivalry into game-shape.

 

[Runner77]

Sens fan coming in peace.

I was at the game last night and the Habs definitely dominated the Sens in possession. I think the main reason for this domination in puck possession is, once again, your speed exposed our slow Ds and their ineffiency in getting the puck out of the zone. Now, did that possession translated into scoring chances? Sure but probably not enough... it was more of a quantity vs a quality thing IMO. Adding the fact that Andy played well, Price had an off night and the Habs' play in their own end was not pretty, you end up with the result we saw on the scoreboard. Let's see what the final pre-season game brings us.

Habs fans coming in pieces ... over a meaningless pre-season game.

Rather than focus on the score, I prefer to see it as the above Sens fans put it. Puck possession and speed were at a premium, which is the Habs' trademark. The Sens were more opportunistic and took advantage of defensive breakdowns and are masters at tipping in shots.

Good thing Erik Caleçon wasn't even in uniform. Plus we were missing DD.

 

[Carey The Habs]

Right... Keep going on about how the Habs "dominated" even though they had 6 straight goals scored against them.

Just like how they "dominated" against Tampa and lost 3 in a row and blew the series.

Just like how they "dominated" against Ottawa in the playoffs and almost blew a 3 game lead.

Just like how they "dominated" all last year even though they didn't win a game that wasn't because of Price.

It was just bad luck right? Bad luck that the PP can't score, bad luck that the team struggles to score more than 2 goals. Just 2 years of really bad luck.

"dominated" .... come on...

You seem to be in this state of mind that teams that lose can never control the play or dominate whatever you want to call it.

Tons of games in any sport have a team that dominates and ends up losing.

Whats your point exactly other than coming here and getting all bent out of shape and depressed about a pre season game?

Why are you so mortified to see fans somewhat excited about how they played?

They controlled the play and had a couple of bad bounces with Price not playing the greatest. Nothing more.

We all know the habs have issues burying chances but one other issue is that they hardly ever control the play and barely ever get 30 shots. This is a plus so why can't we focus on that?

Chill out wow. But I do see what you're saying it's one game and there is a trend. But something new out of this team like puck possession is normal for a fan base to talk and get excited about.

 

[Carey The Habs]

After 2010-2011 where we've been pounded by the Bruins, Habs fans started being against fighting.

Now, after a couple of bad performances in 3 on 3, Habs fans are against 3 on 3 OT.


Might it be that Habs fans are just sore losers? Seriously, play by the rules and stop complaining.

What rules actually apply to 3 on 3? It's a joke, and a gimmick. I would say the exact same thing if we were undefeated 3 on 3. Its like a baseball game played with 2 infielders and 2 outfielders. Complete slap in the face to the game

 

[digmor crusher]

You seem to be in this state of mind that teams that lose can never control the play or dominate whatever you want to call it.

Tons of games in any sport have a team that dominates and ends up losing.

Whats your point exactly other than coming here and getting all bent out of shape and depressed about a pre season game?

Why are you so mortified to see fans somewhat excited about how they played?

They controlled the play and had a couple of bad bounces with Price not playing the greatest. Nothing more.

We all know the habs have issues burying chances but one other issue is that they hardly ever control the play and barely ever get 30 shots. This is a plus so why can't we focus on that?

Chill out wow. But I do see what you're saying it's one game and there is a trend. But something new out of this team like puck possession is normal for a fan base to talk and get excited about.

Agree, people getting bent out of shape for a pre-season game is stupid. It seems like if we win its despite of Therrien and his system, if we loose its all his fault. Same old, same old, its getting very tiring and making reading this board very hard to do anymore because its the same old complaints, over and over and over and over. Can't anyone be happy that we're a top 8 team in the league and a cup contender, but no the corsi and fenwick and all that other crap say no. If we have a a bad game its no, if Therrien makes a bad line change its no , if we go 0 for 2 on the PP its a no, if we get outplayed its a no. Dam, its time to say yes.

 

[digmor crusher]

What rules actually apply to 3 on 3? It's a joke, and a gimmick. I would say the exact same thing if we were undefeated 3 on 3. Its like a baseball game played with 2 infielders and 2 outfielders. Complete slap in the face to the game

Not a joke, anything is better than a tie. I love 3 on 3, its exciting, of course all the old time hardheads may disagree but their going the way of the dinosaurs. You may call it a gimmick but its certainly less of a gimmick than the shootout.

 

[Brainiac]

Honestly, I find 3 on 3 as gimmicky as shootouts. Maybe it will get better with time, but right now, it looks like nobody has any idea of what should be done at 3 on 3. It's too far away from normal 5 on 5 play.

If the goal is to get rid of ties, just go for 10 min. 4 on 4. And after that, really, who cares if it's a tie?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Better than the shootout.

It's really not.

Sorry but I'd much rather have 5 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey - actual hockey and then the shootout to settle things rather than a 3 on 3 crapshoot.

Not a joke, anything is better than a tie. I love 3 on 3, its exciting, of course all the old time hardheads may disagree but their going the way of the dinosaurs. You may call it a gimmick but its certainly less of a gimmick than the shootout.

I don't see the shootout as a gimmick at all. It's simply a way to wrap things up if OT doesn't solve anything. The union wouldn't allow for unlimited OT so a shootout is the best route if you don't want to see ties.

3 on 3 on the other hand is gimmicky and the league should have nothing to do with it.

Honestly, I find 3 on 3 as gimmicky as shootouts. Maybe it will get better with time, but right now, it looks like nobody has any idea of what should be done at 3 on 3. It's too far away from normal 5 on 5 play.

If the goal is to get rid of ties, just go for 10 min. 4 on 4. And after that, really, who cares if it's a tie?

The union isn't going to go for 10 mins OT. They already play 82 games and then a marathon playoff session. It'll be 5 minutes. So play 5 on 5 and either have a tie at the end or settle it via shootout.

 

[Hackett]

Not a joke, anything is better than a tie. I love 3 on 3, its exciting, of course all the old time hardheads may disagree but their going the way of the dinosaurs. You may call it a gimmick but its certainly less of a gimmick than the shootout.

Canadians in general never really complained about ties. I never felt like a game has to have a winner in the regular season, much like soccer fans around the world have no problem with ties in non knockout games.

All these gimmicks are to appease the American viewers, because ties really aren't a part of their sporting culture. I think the only thing that we are missing is the circus music while they are playing 3 on 3.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Canadians in general never really complained about ties. I never felt like a game has to have a winner in the regular season, much like soccer fans around the world have no problem with ties in non knockout games.

All these gimmicks are to appease the American viewers, because ties really aren't a part of their sporting culture. I think the only thing that we are missing is the circus music while they are playing 3 on 3.

I'd rather ties than the 3 on 3.

 

[Nynja*]

Tons of games in any sport have a team that dominates and ends up losing.

Usually that applies to one game out of ten, not three games out of a six game series. When its 3 games in 6 where you "deserved a better fate", you didnt deserve a better fate.

 

[Hackett]

I'd rather ties than the 3 on 3.

It might take a few years, but one day, coaches will figure out how to neutralize 3 on 3 a little too well.

Lets see what they do when that day comes. Play 2 on 2? No goalies allowed? Stick a ring of fire in the middle of the net, and award a 2nd bonus point for scoring through it?

 

[Nynja*]

Hopefully by then Bettman isnt commissioner and whoevers in charge says "no more bonus point for going past regulation, full 3 point system"

 

[Carey The Habs]

Usually that applies to one game out of ten, not three games out of a six game series. When its 3 games in 6 where you "deserved a better fate", you didnt deserve a better fate.

In hockey I think it's more common than most sports. Hot goalie, hit posts ect... Thats the beauty of hockey as there's so many factors that could make "the better team" come up short.

 

[FrontierPsyCHiatrist*]

Honestly, I find 3 on 3 as gimmicky as shootouts. Maybe it will get better with time, but right now, it looks like nobody has any idea of what should be done at 3 on 3. It's too far away from normal 5 on 5 play.

If the goal is to get rid of ties, just go for 10 min. 4 on 4. And after that, really, who cares if it's a tie?

This.

 

[Lshap]

Honestly, I find 3 on 3 as gimmicky as shootouts. Maybe it will get better with time, but right now, it looks like nobody has any idea of what should be done at 3 on 3. It's too far away from normal 5 on 5 play.

If the goal is to get rid of ties, just go for 10 min. 4 on 4. And after that, really, who cares if it's a tie?

Exactly. 3-on-3 is a hybrid system that doesn't carry over into regular hockey. So now after 60 minutes we'll see a gimmick followed by another gimmick. And neither gimmick has any relevance in the playoffs.

I get it -- they want to make it tougher to defend and easier to score, in an entertaining way. If so, why not keep it 5-on-5 but make the defensemen and goalie play without sticks. Players lose their sticks in hockey, so let's make it a fun, regular thing.

 

[Rapala]

It might take a few years, but one day, coaches will figure out how to neutralize 3 on 3 a little too well.

Lets see what they do when that day comes. Play 2 on 2? No goalies allowed? Stick a ring of fire in the middle of the net, and award a 2nd bonus point for scoring through it?

So far I think I've seen nothing but 2F and 1D used by all teams.
We will eventually start seeing 2D and one 1F IMO.
Particularly by those teams who can't seem to get through the first shift change.