Tighthead
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2016
- 3,612
- 3,832
Poile needed 19 years to reach the SCF once, we can wait that much
Fantastic use of “whatabout” to defend Bergevin. That’s the last card in the deck.
Poile needed 19 years to reach the SCF once, we can wait that much
It got to the point that I just assumed we would win when the games went to OT. I remember that my old tv died in the finals against the Kings and I frantically went upstairs knocking on my landlords door to see if he could help me out, he gave me what had to be no more than a 10 inch tv that was black and white lol. I remember placing it on the kitchen table and sitting with my face not more than a foot away from the screen, fun times.I hated the Nords with a passion. Seeing us down 2 and coming back to knock them out was a ride.
And no, that was.no fluke team. It was a good squad that had its best player rise to the occasion.
As the OT wins racked up I kept thinking this just can't keep going our way, it's impossible, but just this one tonight. Lol.
I mean think about it. Get Vegas or the Capitals to play the Sabres or Yotes in a sudden death goal wins basis and I doubt there is any chance they could do it 10 times in a row. Just insane.
The LA games about killed me sleep wise. Lol.
Was so much fun.
This team gets underrated. It's legacy is some sort of cinderella team with alot of overtime wins, but the fact is that they finished 6th overall in the league, 2 points away from 4th overall. The team had 102 points in an era of no loser points.
All this despite Patrick Roy not having a good year. If that team could muster a good season without Roy at his best, it shouldn't be a surprise that they can have a great playoff when Roy is at his best.
Not bad...turning back time.........that run had some luck, and some real magic in it...it seemed destiny took over.I forgot about this last night and didn't see it. How was it for anyone who watched it?
I forgot about this last night and didn't see it. How was it for anyone who watched it?
Back when we used to score goals...........ahhh, the good times!!
P Roy with an 894% save let that sink in...
Bellows, Damphousse, Muller, Savard, just to name a few...
I'd trade our roster for Vegas's in a heartbeat even if they would have lost in the first round. Our roster now is pure garbage it really is embarassing
Yeah, as if having an illegal curve in his stick would do anything to make a talentless hump like McSorley better able to score a goal. I don't even know why he played with a stick. He was only employed to beat people up when they got too close to Wayner. Other than that he provided nothing.I felt it could’ve been longer. Man, the LA players were really crying about the stick measurement. Even the ref at the time said “Marty, what were u thinking?”
The reason why 93 and to an even greater extent 86 are considered "flukes" is less about Roy and more about the match-up's. In both years, the big story wasn't about who the Habs beat but about the teams they didn't have to beat.Yeah... I hate the "Roy everything on his shoulders" narrative that the media created and that most of the fans ate up.
And Im a huge Roy fan.
He had the most balanced team in the league in front of him scoring at close to 3.5 per.
Who gives a ****!?
Celebrating the past like a bunch of losers.
I agree but I suspect that some Leafs-loving program director at Sportsnet's Toronto headquarters felt that this little documentary would be useful to troll Habs fans with as a painful reminder of just how long it's been since this team was relevant.Yes. Let's never celebrate the past. We must be forever miserable and never enjoy life, including great memories.
And with this, no one will ever celebrate another birthday, Christmas, remembrance day, etc.
Happy birthday? there's no such thing.
The reason why 93 and to an even greater extent 86 are considered "flukes" is less about Roy and more about the match-up's. In both years, the big story wasn't about who the Habs beat but about the teams they didn't have to beat.
Because of the divisional playoff format in place at the time, the Habs in both 86 and 93 were lucky enough to avoid having to play some teams that likely would have beaten them. In 86, the Habs (2nd place, Adams Division) took care of the Bruins (like always) in the best of 5 first round. The match-up Habs fans were dreading was expected in the second round against the first place Nordiques, who had eliminated the Habs the year before. But unexpectedly, the upstart Whalers beat the Nordiques. Even then, it took the Habs 7 games plus overtime to dispatch Hartford. Then in the conference finals, the Habs didn't have to play the Flyers or Capitals, who had 13 and 10 more wins respectively than the 40 win Habs. Instead, we got to play the Patrick Division 4th place team: the Rangers. Then in the finals, thanks to Steve Smith scoring into his own net and eliminating the Oilers, the Habs got to play the Flames, who had amassed 89 points to Montreal's 87. Consequently, the Habs had home ice in all but the final round and they went into the finals well rested, having eliminated the Rangers in 5 games while the Flames played a 7 game bruiser with the Blues and a 7 game series with Edmonton before that. The Habs played 7 against Hartford but had beaten Boston in 3 straight and New York in 5. Then they beat the Flames in 5 and won the Cup playing only 5 games more than the minimum.
Would they have won it had they been forced to play Quebec, Philly, Washington or Edmonton? Probably not. Would they have won in a format like today which re-seeds after each round? Again it's unlikely. They beat the teams in front of them which is all you can do. But the quality of the teams in front of them weren't as good as they might have been.
In 93, they beat Quebec and then avoided a second round match-up with Boston, who were upset by the Sabres. They eliminated Buffalo in four straight and then again avoided playing Lemieux and the Penguins in the conference finals because the Islanders upset Pittsburgh. They took care of the Isles in 5 games and then beat a mediocre Kings team in the finals.
Leafs fans maintain that they would have beaten the Habs but I'm not buying it. If they couldn't beat a team backstopped by a nobody like Kelly Hrudey they sure as hell weren't going to beat a team with Patrick Roy.
I agree but I suspect that some Leafs-loving program director at Sportsnet's Toronto headquarters felt that this little documentary would be useful to troll Habs fans with as a painful reminder of just how long it's been since this team was relevant.
I forgot about this last night and didn't see it. How was it for anyone who watched it?
The reason why 93 and to an even greater extent 86 are considered "flukes" is less about Roy and more about the match-up's. In both years, the big story wasn't about who the Habs beat but about the teams they didn't have to beat.
Because of the divisional playoff format in place at the time, the Habs in both 86 and 93 were lucky enough to avoid having to play some teams that likely would have beaten them. In 86, the Habs (2nd place, Adams Division) took care of the Bruins (like always) in the best of 5 first round. The match-up Habs fans were dreading was expected in the second round against the first place Nordiques, who had eliminated the Habs the year before. But unexpectedly, the upstart Whalers beat the Nordiques. Even then, it took the Habs 7 games plus overtime to dispatch Hartford. Then in the conference finals, the Habs didn't have to play the Flyers or Capitals, who had 13 and 10 more wins respectively than the 40 win Habs. Instead, we got to play the Patrick Division 4th place team: the Rangers. Then in the finals, thanks to Steve Smith scoring into his own net and eliminating the Oilers, the Habs got to play the Flames, who had amassed 89 points to Montreal's 87. Consequently, the Habs had home ice in all but the final round and they went into the finals well rested, having eliminated the Rangers in 5 games while the Flames played a 7 game bruiser with the Blues and a 7 game series with Edmonton before that. The Habs played 7 against Hartford but had beaten Boston in 3 straight and New York in 5. Then they beat the Flames in 5 and won the Cup playing only 5 games more than the minimum.
Would they have won it had they been forced to play Quebec, Philly, Washington or Edmonton? Probably not. Would they have won in a format like today which re-seeds after each round? Again it's unlikely. They beat the teams in front of them which is all you can do. But the quality of the teams in front of them weren't as good as they might have been.
In 93, they beat Quebec and then avoided a second round match-up with Boston, who were upset by the Sabres. They eliminated Buffalo in four straight and then again avoided playing Lemieux and the Penguins in the conference finals because the Islanders upset Pittsburgh. They took care of the Isles in 5 games and then beat a mediocre Kings team in the finals.
Leafs fans maintain that they would have beaten the Habs but I'm not buying it. If they couldn't beat a team backstopped by a nobody like Kelly Hrudey they sure as hell weren't going to beat a team with Patrick Roy.
IMO, that roster loses a lot of its capacity without Gallant. He made them what they are.
And im still suspicious that they are all on prescription ritalin, concerta or adderall
I agree but I suspect that some Leafs-loving program director at Sportsnet's Toronto headquarters felt that this little documentary would be useful to troll Habs fans with as a painful reminder of just how long it's been since this team was relevant.