Post-Game Talk: 2016-2017 Postmortem - "It's on me" Edition

[PaulD]

You predicted what exactly -- that Bergevin "Doesn't have what it takes"?? Congratulations on the same cliche that could apply to about 28 GMs. Or was it the incisive prediction that we need scoring? Alert the press.

All you've done is wait for failure, and when failure inevitable happens in any form you claim to be 'right'.

Link me to any specific prediction you've made that's 'right'. Not another dull cliche. Not another mind-numbing insult of Bergevin, Therrien, Desharnais, Molson, etc. An actual on-point prediction that the rest of us didn't see coming. If not, you're blowing smoke.

I would only add that Lamarello has "what it takes" as does Ken Holland, Stan Bowman, Ray Shero, Jim Rutherford, and Cherelli. Their record proves they have "what it takes" Many others having put their into the finals as well.

I believe the gentlemen is claiming that he said at one time or more, MB does not have what it takes to do the same. That under MB the grand total of winning 3 rounds in 5 years ??? Looks like he may be right....so far. Cant really argue with that.

 

[OldCraig71]

MB needs to the tough ?'s put to him tomorrow, asap

How he has failed to address team needs is more telling than some fluffy answers he will give in a press conference. He bullies some media and I am sure has planted questions from some others but at the end of the day the year end press conference means nothing, we don't learn anything there.

He is in over his head and does not know what he is doing, his roster moves and questionable signings over the last 5 years prove it, time to move on from this guy, he is done.

 

[uiCk]

How he has failed to address team needs is more telling than some fluffy answers he will give in a press conference. He bullies some media and I am sure has planted questions from some others but at the end of the day the year end press conference means nothing, we don't learn anything there.

He is in over his head and does not know what he is doing, his roster moves and questionable signings over the last 5 years prove it, time to move on from this guy, he is done.

His PC will gives us months of material to have a good ol laugh.

 

[LaP]

I'm not gonna blame Galchenyuk until he gets 82 games in the top six as a centre.

Was drafted in 2012. Still hasn't happened.

Amen to that.

But he'll be traded before you can do that. And people will be disappointed by the return. This trade wont look good. But luckily for MB the only thing he has to do is get a guy who work hard in return for AG and the media wont blame him no matter how unskilled the return might be.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

You predicted what exactly -- that Bergevin "Doesn't have what it takes"?? Congratulations on the same cliche that could apply to about 28 GMs. Or was it the incisive prediction that we need scoring? Alert the press.

All you've done is wait for failure, and when failure inevitable happens in any form you claim to be 'right'.

Link me to any specific prediction you've made that's 'right'. Not another dull cliche. Not another mind-numbing insult of Bergevin, Therrien, Desharnais, Molson, etc. An actual on-point prediction that the rest of us didn't see coming. If not, you're blowing smoke.

Pessimistic predictions are easier to make than optimistic ones.

It's easier for me to say Price will never win a cup than saying he will, despite his talent.

When the higher percentage option occurs I expect to be applauded?

The optimistic predictions are very difficult.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of pessimistic predictions people pass off as knowledge. It's not to say you can't be negative or can't be right. I just wish the "I told you so" comments came from actual difficult positions. Things worthy of note.

 

[Lshap]

Specific predictions? I predicted specifically that the Shaw for Eller trade would be utterly pointless and would result in a net asset loss for the team.

And you were wrong. Shaw outscored Eller in less games. Sorry man -- this is the example you chose and you swung and missed.

Your turn. You tell us what you were right about. Were you right when you told us that ''Bergevin's big move will be at the deadline'' 3 years in a row? Or is it just because you're wide eyed and hopeful that you don't have to answer for any of your claims and predictions?

I predicted Therrien would be gone at the break*. He was. I predicted Bergevin would get a top-six forward last summer. He did.

* In fairness, I originally thought he'd be gone last summer.


You're missing the point. I'm not the one saying "I told you so". I'm not tying my credibility to how brilliant my predictions are and that I'm-right-you're-wrong. That's you. And if you're going to be 'that guy', you'd better have some damn compelling, spot-on predictions to back it up. You don't.

 

[Adam Michaels]

I've been a Bergevin fan. Even his moves last year encouraged me because I liked the moves he made and the fact he finally had the balls to make big moves.

However, if he is gone, I won't shed a tear. I don't expect him to, though.

But thinking of someone like Julien Brisebois as the Habs GM does sound good to me. He was a GM in Hamilton when the Bulldogs won the Calder Cup. He was GM of Syracuse when the Crunch won the Calder Cup. He's helped Yzerman put together one of the most successful teams in the NHL the last few seasons. And another of his qualities is he keeps an eye on the Q in the Habs' backyard. A lot of talent in that league goes elsewhere.

 

[LaP]

Pessimistic predictions are easier to make than optimistic ones.

It's easier for me to say Price will never win a cup than saying he will, despite his talent.

When the higher percentage option occurs I expect to be applauded.

The optimistic predictions are very difficult.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of pessimistic predictions people pass off as knowledge. It's not to say you can't be negative or can't be right. I just wish the "I told you so" comments came from actual difficult positions. Things worthy of note.

Pessimistic or optimistic is often a matter of opinion.

I said last summer Nashville in the long run will do better in playoffs with Subban than we will do with Weber.

Is it pessimistic or optimistic? I believe in pk. I love this team but i also love the players too and i wont betray them because they are traded away. I think it's an optimistic prediction. I did the same when Roy was traded. I followed him and the Avs and i was happy when they won the cup.

 

[Lshap]

Pessimistic predictions are easier to make than optimistic ones.

It's easier for me to say Price will never win a cup than saying he will, despite his talent.

When the higher percentage option occurs I expect to be applauded?

The optimistic predictions are very difficult.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of pessimistic predictions people pass off as knowledge. It's not to say you can't be negative or can't be right. I just wish the "I told you so" comments came from actual difficult positions. Things worthy of note.

Very well said.

 

[LaP]

And you were wrong. Shaw outscored Eller in less games. Sorry man -- this is the example you chose and you swung and missed.

But is the difference big enough to justify two high 2nd round picks and 3.9 millions in cap hit for many many years to come?

 

[WeThreeKings]

But is the difference big enough to justify two high 2nd round picks and 3.9 millions in cap hit for many many years to come?

Both Eller and Shaw will be playing deep into the playoffs while Weber and Shaw will collect their pay cheques for their "character"

 

[Hoople]

The longer the series, the more obvious it became that the Rangers was the better team. After all, the matchup was not favorable. We stumbled vs a team that was ready. They never took the habs for granted and applied quite impecable defense. I'll watch the Rangers run with lots of interest. If they play a similar game vs every team they'll go far.

That being said, it sucks to know that despite all efforts your team won't win. Something is lacking and the organization will need to give their fans hope, because I'm quite deflated and desillusionised right now. I wouldn't tolerate this story on repeat next year.

I feel like the team as it is right now hit a deadend. Never felt like this as a fan the last 10 years. I guess it's because their are really no excuses to explain the elimination and keep the hope alive.

Somehow habs are always better when they're the underdogs. The underdogs storyline fits the habs very well with the usual emergence of a unsung hero, a stellar goalie performance, a lack of a system that makes them unpredictable or a rigid system that takes the favorite by surprise, the rivalry factor, the craze amplifying after every improbable win. The satisfaction or the impression that with a little tweaking that might be it next year. None of this this year. Worst playoffs in a long time, probably since the elimination that brought us the Gomez era in the summer.

I feel for the caps fans who enter the playoffs with same core for the last 10 years, always the favortites, and just can't seem to build from heart curshing experiences.

They're is no answer to why we lost, other than we don't have a good enough team to counter a trap game. Wish we could protect our leads better.

First off, LShap gets it in his responses. Nice dose of reality.

To your point.

The Rangers aren't a better team than the Habs. For whatever reason, the NHL refs have taken it upon themselves to take sides in the playoffs. The Bruins are getting screwed. So are the Caps. The Wild and the Blue Jackets. And the Habs.

All series long, it was ok for the Rangers to try to literally kill Gallagher. Head first into the boards? No problem. High stick that caused blood? No 4, you get a two. Slashing, interference, hooking? No problem. And I'm ok with "letting them play" if that's what happens. But then you see Benn barely grab a Rangers player and they get the pp that the midget shot the puck through Price.

But that's really an excuse.

What really needs to happen, and will happen, is a cleaning of the house of our associate coaches. Muller has to go. Cycling along the boards without a player in the slot is pointless. No offensive structure. No structure on the PP. No net presence. That's why the Habs lost.

It can and will be fixed. Net presence has always been a hallmark of Julien teams.

As far as personnel on the roster, I'll leave that to the armchair GMs who are always right on the Internet. Surely someone will be able to convince Molson to read their posts here.

Go Habs Go!! On to next season.

 

[Nedved]

The longer the series, the more obvious it became that the Rangers was the better team. After all, the matchup was not favorable. We stumbled vs a team that was ready. They never took the habs for granted and applied quite impecable defense. I'll watch the Rangers run with lots of interest. If they play a similar game vs every team they'll go far.

That being said, it sucks to know that despite all efforts your team won't win. Something is lacking and the organization will need to give their fans hope, because I'm quite deflated and desillusionised right now. I wouldn't tolerate this story on repeat next year.

I feel like the team as it is right now hit a deadend. Never felt like this as a fan the last 10 years. I guess it's because their are really no excuses to explain the elimination and keep the hope alive.

Somehow habs are always better when they're the underdogs. The underdogs storyline fits the habs very well with the usual emergence of a unsung hero, a stellar goalie performance, a lack of a system that makes them unpredictable or a rigid system that takes the favorite by surprise, the rivalry factor, the craze amplifying after every improbable win. The satisfaction or the impression that with a little tweaking that might be it next year. None of this this year. Worst playoffs in a long time, probably since the elimination that brought us the Gomez era in the summer.

I feel for the caps fans who enter the playoffs with same core for the last 10 years, always the favortites, and just can't seem to build from heart curshing experiences.

They're is no answer to why we lost, other than we don't have a good enough team to counter a trap game. Wish we could protect our leads better.

A lot of posters were ******** on them, even as the series went along, but they looked 2nd best in the east after the pens, and only worse than the preds in the west.

they look like contenders to me. they're actually a grinding team.

 

[WG]

And you were wrong. Shaw outscored Eller in less games. Sorry man -- this is the example you chose and you swung and missed.

If we are being fair, NotP's statement was that the flip flop of Eller to Shaw was pointless and a net asset loss. Nothing about Shaw >> Eller or Shaw << Eller.

Shaw may have outpointed Eller, but it's not like he was so head and shoulders above Eller that you can say the trade really helped. And it is undeniable that the cost for this marginal (if that) upgrade was to lose two good picks, 39 and 45 last year. Those are two potentially good prospects we'd have in our system now instead of waiting to see what #62 OV this year and #50-something in '18 might do.

Add in 6 X 4M for character attributes that didn't really pan out and I think the assertion it was a swap that accomplished little but cost us overall is fair.

 

[Tankster*]

Both Eller and Shaw will be playing deep into the playoffs while Weber and Shaw will collect their pay cheques for their "character"

Huh ?

 

[uiCk]

Huh ?

Obviously meant eller and PK

 

[sandviper]

First off, LShap gets it in his responses. Nice dose of reality.

To your point.

The Rangers aren't a better team than the Habs. For whatever reason, the NHL refs have taken it upon themselves to take sides in the playoffs. <...snip...> And I'm ok with "letting them play" if that's what happens. But then you see Benn barely grab a Rangers player and they get the pp that the midget shot the puck through Price.

But that's really an excuse.

What really needs to happen, and will happen, is a cleaning of the house of our associate coaches. <...snip...>

Yeah, I didn't feel we got dominated the whole series (we did in stretches though). We had all kinds of chances and FULL credit to Hank. He stepped up when he had to but at the same time, we got stuff past him and we had unlucky bounces or hit posts.

That Benn call yesterday was @#$@#$@# BS and weak, but whatever. Nevermind the baseball bat to Lehkonen's face also.

I said in another thread, making trades is useless unless we clean house with the bench staff. Obviously, we keep CJ since I don't think he had enough time to make this his team. Everyone else can go. I love Kirk, but our PP was trash. I know we don't have McDavid dominating PP's or Karlsson quarterbacking, but we have some talent. Just so frustrating.

 

[Draft]

I don't think Subban would have made a difference in this series. His tendency for bad turnovers against such a good counter-attacking team would have offset any offensive contribution over and above Weber's. Weber was rock solid and was an inch or two away from several goals. He moved the puck well and opened up a lot of space for other players on the powerplay and otherwise.

Ultimately, we can replace the defence or Price with any other team's goaltender or defence and the team still would still have lost and would still be unable to score.

 

[NotProkofievian]

And you were wrong. Shaw outscored Eller in less games. Sorry man -- this is the example you chose and you swung and missed.

Shaw was not significantly better than Eller. Least of all in the playoffs where he was meant to shine. The picks we gave up are significantly better than the ones we got in return. I predicted this exactly, in the face of a lot of criticism.

I predicted Therrien would be gone at the break*. He was. I predicted Bergevin would get a top-six forward last summer. He did.

* In fairness, I originally thought he'd be gone last summer.

Did you predict that he'd go into the playoffs with more scoring when it was obvious that we still needed some in addition to Radulov?

You're missing the point. I'm not the one saying "I told you so". I'm not tying my credibility to how brilliant my predictions are and that I'm-right-you're-wrong. That's you. And if you're going to be 'that guy', you'd better have some damn compelling, spot-on predictions to back it up. You don't.

No, you're attempting a bizarre intellectual maneuver to discredit accurate predictions you didn't make. You're saying ''yeah you're right, but those predictions were easy to make.'' Well, why didn't you make them?

You don't get points for being wrong just because it was difficult to hold your position in the first place.

 

[the]

I believed in the character and out grinding our way to the finals. No need for skilled players when all we needed was players with great leadership who would have risen to the occasion and stepped up when it counted.

Not only did the Rangers had more skill than us but they out grinded us

 

[vfactor]

Actually the defeat of this season is again the continuing of a wrong path. We don't have a comprehensive system as an hockey organisation. It's like Donald Trump administration with no policy and focus on doing things to appeal to the mass or to make it look like a strategy. Donald Trump can't even talk to make a simple point. If you believe that he understands how to create a path to success for a complex society, it's utter most non sense. The defeat is always looking at the same problem and find different explanation.

Habs organisation has been in years a corporate with no real advancement or future but still make lot of money. It's all in development and create a plan to draft, develop, graduate players base on how you want to play hockey . The game is not a single player who can do individual hockey skills, it's actually far more than that. It's very noticeable that other successful organisation can put new players to the team and will have far more success than our bland, same, nothing to excited prospects.

It's super easy to find that the new hot player with a clear ability to make noise in NHL is not developed in our farm system We don't develop nothing and in some case, it looks like the opposite. We don't even have a winning hockey mentality. It's been so many years that the star in this team is the goalie. In recent memory, only Price is a true elite goaltender and even there, he will not win a cup with this team. The path is just not there. If regular goalies somehow was the star in Montreal, it says something in the line that they had to have those moments. The rest was nothing.

When the goalie is the star, it's actually a solution to half of the problem. The other half is not even talked about how it's bad. A big centre, a scoring winger, a 'reliable' D to protect Price blah blah blah is the perpetual we're almost there but because of this we didn't make it.

Maybe those reasons are always a not real explanation of the total lack of hockey strategy development in our non existent hockey game. A game which you still have to be able to take your destiny in your own hands.

Soccer players are developed in such a way since young age that they belong to a type of soccer identity. Barca or Madrid, Italia, France or Germany have clear identity and success. You can always create players even in low cycle form a dangerous team (Germany before). Brazil recently had a crisis where players are all stars but cannot play soccer together because they are developed to sale as an individual soccer player. Their weakness will be hidden in a league or a team but they look loss as a team because of this actual lack of soccer basic instinct: how to play the game with your own system.

England is another perpetual problem where players are stars in great Premier League but put them together they are not a force since forever. Suddenly, it'll always lack 'something' to glue all those stars together: that something is what they don't want to look at.

We added Radulov and Lehkonen to our roster and it suppose to at least give a boost to our offence. No big improvement. Those players are skill and will no matter what get points with their ice time. But they are not as effective as a team improvement. Put them on Pitts or Chicago and you may have a much more real impact.

Webber for Subban is a bad bad management decision and lack of courage for a lot of reason. The metric that stat guys said is still valid: Webber is not statistically a more efficient defensive player than Subban. Well we have the result, don't we ? Did our D improve ? Will we look at individual stat line to say that Webber was a monster. Of course, he's a great player but whatever reason we made that exchange was purely ******** and not observable. When you use terms like confident, less mistake prone or constant and ******** without any real observable proofs but only your own 'expertise' non statistically support than you will have a great casino bet. When it works you look great, when not, well there must be something else.

What's next the super star big C ?

Any expert in any domain talk with the predominant: because I know, I was born and lived in this field is a statistically stupid person. Every other person in that field is not different than you, there's always one winner, far more losers. If they don't say I know because I know, it's probably a better thinker where they do something base on facts and results oriented.

Locker room problem is another perpetual ******** which may have some rare merits but when use in Montreal, it's freaking ********. How many times players, journalists whoever with connection inside the shower told the story of band of brothers than after that magic moment, the band was disbanded because of a sister ? Maybe, maybe the brother in arms are always there when winning ? Maybe a great working environment is when things get done and nobody care about the other personal 'characters' ? Loud and crazy are freaking cool when winning, when losing it's the elephant in the room. Trying thing to do something when everything was drowning is not cool because the team spirit. Well that team spirit must be crazy good to get results then why being in that situation ?

When nobody take any kind of responsibility to do something to even try to change the unsuccessful status quo. The usual behaviour from the speaker (not leader) is always the 'team' concept. Stay cool and lose together. Be the very serious, concerned, try hard and hope for magical individual. It will show that being professional in a dysfunctional environment is being losers with class, being very unproductive and bland. It means, continue to look at the other way but the results for years are the same.

 

[void]

Is it really being pessimistic when you're simply stating facts?

 

[M.C.G. 31]

It's not being pessimistic if there are facts to back it up. Bergevin has done **** all to find a long-term solution to our scoring woes for FIVE YEARS.

Bergevin's job is to build a team to win a Cup. He's failed miserably.

I'm not gonna blame Galchenyuk until he gets 82 games in the top six as a centre.

Was drafted in 2012. Still hasn't happened.

Played as a bottom-six winger most of the series and then who does the coach put out there in the final minute for the two most important draws? Galchenyuk. Jerking him around the way they have and continue to do so is sickening.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Anyone can see that Bergevin is a directionless GM who has not addressed scoring in 5 years. That's why I'm going to hold the opposite position. Because observing and stating the simple, plain truth is easy and therefore doesn't really count.

 

[Compile]

You guys need to understand that Bergevin has built this team like it's 1990. Couple of guys that can score, a sleuth of grinders, a bunch of immobile defense men and a goalie that needs to play lights out.

Welcome to the Montreal Devils of 1995.