Do you approve of Rene Bourque?

OneSharpMarble

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
10,579
262
Calgary
Yup, that's right. Way to reach for the stars and be all you can be.

Not good, not bad... just filler. That's what he is.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. The guy plays well on our top line with a decent centre and is versatile enough to basically slot in anywhere and contribute. Not every player can be Crosby.

Most of the team is "filler" as you would like to say, hell most of the NHL is "filler" :laugh:
 

TRG

Registered User
Oct 23, 2008
26,062
2,129
Montréal
If only our entire team had some of that. What Bourque has over most of our team is size.

I guess our team should take a trip to Finland to get some finish....

Yes, to some extent but I mean, he often hits posts.

Also, we don't need to exaggerate. This team was one of the best offensive teams last year and was top 10 last I checked (yesterday).
 

Frank Drebin

He's just a child
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2004
33,478
19,467
Edmonton
I like what Bourque brings 1 out of every 6 games so much that I'm willing to put up with him being basically invisible for the other 5.

Seriously, last year he was an absolute beast in the playoffs. A legitimate top line power forward when he wants to be.
 

Jamie Thomas

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
1,618
1
He's big, fast and physical and the least of our worries.

Big and fast but certainly not physical. This is my biggest problem with him. Otherwise, I guess you could do worse for a 3rd liner. Very average if on the top 6. Also a bit overrated by some on this board.
 

Analyzer*

Guest
Yes, to some extent but I mean, he often hits posts.

Also, we don't need to exaggerate. This team was one of the best offensive teams last year and was top 10 last I checked (yesterday).

Of our 5 losses, 4 are 1 goal losses. The 5th, happened tonight.

Of our 6 wins, 5 are by 3, or more goals. 1 is by 2 goals.

We score in bunches, just not when we really need to score. So, yes we can score. When we're already winning. (for the most part), however, when we need a goal, we can't get it.
 

OneSharpMarble

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
10,579
262
Calgary
If DD and Briere worked as hard and went to the net as much as Bourque we would have 3 solid lines. Instead we have a bunch of perimeter players looking for everyone else to do the ****** work.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,942
43,020
I don't know what point you are trying to make. The guy plays well on our top line with a decent centre and is versatile enough to basically slot in anywhere and contribute. Not every player can be Crosby.

Most of the team is "filler" as you would like to say, hell most of the NHL is "filler" :laugh:
He's invisible most games. I don't think it's something to be happy about. He's not bad but he's not good... he's just kind of there. And if we weren't a team of smurfs he'd be completely disposable.
 

Feintastic

Registered User
Jun 22, 2013
244
0
Bourque is just that kind of player who is inconsistent and it gets annoying

Like somebody else said ''3rd line passenger''

That guy will play like a top6 during 1 game and then...poooof !!.... invisible for the next 5+ games ! He's big, he's fast, yup... but he's another disapointing player with the Habs boring hockey club.
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,782
20,934
A lot of people are saying that "Bourque is passable on the 3rd line, meh", to which I respond:

- Bourque is only on the third line because Bergevin and Therrien like to structure the team around DD's needs. Pacioretty is injured, Cole is gone, and Prust is injured so it is inevitable that Moen and Bourque be placed on the third line, to help little DD, better than having Gallagher and Gionta. It's worth pointing out that Bourque was passable when playing with Plekanec and Gionta before and that if a top-sixer were injured we would be fine with Bourque being bumped up to 2nd line. Second, that Bourque and Moen are given babysit duty reveal a strength of theirs, by being 6'2" they can compensate for the limitations of other players.

- The land of Habsistan has dealt with a decade's worth of underperforming bottom-six players such as Andreas Engvist, Yannick Weber, Tom Kostopoulos, Matt D'Agostini, George Laraque, Aaron Palushaj, David Desharnais, etc. When we have players like Bourque who can not only play on the third line, but also provide intangibles like size and the ability to jump to second line if there's an injury, we should be happy. That's not a trivial thing.
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,782
20,934
Anyway, the approval rate is 64% compared to 16% disapproval, that's quite good actually, better than I expected.
 

OneSharpMarble

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
10,579
262
Calgary
He's invisible most games. I don't think it's something to be happy about. He's not bad but he's not good... he's just kind of there. And if we weren't a team of smurfs he'd be completely disposable.

Like when he was on the 1st line with Pleks and was one of our strongest forwards who actually went into the corners?

"If we weren't a team of smurfs he'd be disposable" another brilliant quote. Ya you are right, if we had more players like Bourque we wouldn't need Bourque.
 

donghabs98

Moderator
Oct 14, 2010
32,820
17,024
Halifax
DD's popularity should be polled! I am very interested to see what the results will be ;)

Bourque reminds me of a more physical but less skilled version of what AK used to be. Bourque can be pretty effective when he wants to be. He was one of our best forwards during the playoffs. If only he played that way every game
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,942
43,020
Like when he was on the 1st line with Pleks and was one of our strongest forwards who actually went into the corners?

"If we weren't a team of smurfs he'd be disposable" another brilliant quote. Ya you are right, if we had more players like Bourque we wouldn't need Bourque.
Dude, you have an agenda to defend the hell out of anything remotely having to do with Gauthier.

Bourque is what he is... filler. Nothing to be excited about. Like I said, not good, not bad he's just... there. He sometimes able to finish what Plecs creates. More often than not he misses the net. I don't think he's all that great for us but I don't think he hurts us.

He's a passenger. I'm not sure what the hell you want us to say here. He's meh... in every sense of the word. Only thing that I really like about him is that he's not three apples high like most of our players. That's about it. Most of the time I forget he even plays for us.
 

rockjngo

Registered User
Oct 31, 2011
2,438
0
Poor Rene Bourque. Being put on Desharnais' line means death sentence. In all fairness Bourque was producing with playing with Gionta and Plekanec, even with Eller but MT now has him with Desharnais because Desharnais cannot win battles in the corner so Bourque being 6'2" 210lbs has to do all the work. You will notice this during games when Desharnais just watches Bourque to give him the puck.
 

Spearmint Rhino

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
8,852
8,488
What's with all the poor Bourque sucking cause he has to play with DD excuses?

That's only a new thing, Rene's line as a Hab coming on parts of 3 years

81 GP 17 G 11 A 28 pts -18

He's been Top 6 majority of that time

Bourque is a poor mans Kovalev - strike that - he's a faster harder working version of Penner

Actually career stats wise him and Pancake Boy are brothers from a different mother

If Rene was 5' 9" people would be offering to drive him to the airport in a trade, with Bournival playing like he is I'd put him on the block in a heartbeat
 

OneSharpMarble

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
10,579
262
Calgary
Dude, you have an agenda to defend the hell out of anything remotely having to do with Gauthier.

Bourque is what he is... filler. Nothing to be excited about. Like I said, not good, not bad he's just... there. He sometimes able to finish what Plecs creates. More often than not he misses the net. I don't think he's all that great for us but I don't think he hurts us.

He's a passenger. I'm not sure what the hell you want us to say here. He's meh... in every sense of the word. Only thing that I really like about him is that he's not three apples high like most of our players. That's about it. Most of the time I forget he even plays for us.

I am defending the few players who are actually worthwhile on the team. You take a look at stats and **** on everyone who isn't a superstar. Educate yourself and watch more hockey.

If you can't accept that a player who drives the net, works the boards and lays the body is important than there isn't much to say. He is being stuck with a useless tit like DD because of him being one of the few who actually grinds out plays.

Shame Cole is gone but that is what you get when your GM replaces hard working players with a bunch of ninnies that watch the play develop instead of making it happen.
 

HankyZetts

Twi2ted
Mar 16, 2004
3,341
371
He's big, fast and physical and the least of our worries.

The only thing that bugs me about Bourque, and it reaaally bugs me, is his lack of physicality most of the time. i.e. not finishing his checks when they are tee'd up for him in crucial moments where a spark is needed. He had some glorious opportunities today to use his stopping power and create some momentum for us and yet he chose to do the fly by instead...

Playoff Bourque >>> present Bourque
 

Spearmint Rhino

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
8,852
8,488
Where does this Bourque is physical myth come from?

He's 14th on the team in hits, in 11 games he's laid 7 hits

I'd rather have AK46 (and yes I just threw up a little in my mouth saying that) but he was more productive and physical and we ran him out of town for being inconsistent

I still don't know why everyone brags about the trade, Cammy has outscored Bourque 2:1 and will probably fetch a 1st when they deal him at the deadline, yeah we got Fucale & Holland that MIGHT turn into something but so far Flames win that deal hands down IMO
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->