Skip Bayless
The Skip Bayless Show
- Aug 28, 2014
- 20,186
- 21,474
They've been sending video evidence since last year of Gallagher's sustained unpenalized abuse, but nothing has been done.
Post-Game Talk: Habs win 4-1
- Thread starter David Suzuki
- Start date
They've been sending video evidence since last year of Gallagher's sustained unpenalized abuse, but nothing has been done.
I demand a public inquiry!
All joking aside, refs have made comments about culture, language and all sorts of things worse than this and nothing happened to them. I hardly expect anything to happen here but it's still kind of messed up.
This also reminds me a time I heard a story about a ref being on a flight with someone saying that he hates reffing Montreal games because Guy Carbonneau whines all game and it drives him crazy. Honestly can't remember who said this so grain of salt here, but it's just a perspective kind of thing that whining and complaining about things gets you nowhere as the NHL is still an old boys club where you get merit by "being a man".
All joking aside, refs have made comments about culture, language and all sorts of things worse than this and nothing happened to them. I hardly expect anything to happen here but it's still kind of messed up.
This also reminds me a time I heard a story about a ref being on a flight with someone saying that he hates reffing Montreal games because Guy Carbonneau whines all game and it drives him crazy. Honestly can't remember who said this so grain of salt here, but it's just a perspective kind of thing that whining and complaining about things gets you nowhere as the NHL is still an old boys club where you get merit by "being a man".
Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 37,763
- 17,682
It's open season on Gallagher and Desharnais. It's even worse in the playoffs. So much hooking and grabbing on those 2 and it's never called.
MasterDecoy
Who took my beer?
- Jun 24, 2012
- 83,921
- 151,188
Seems like they're using the diving call against players like Gallagher as a means of allowing themselves latitude to exercise discretion. That's not what the penalty was set up for, so clearly, the way the penalty is being assessed against certain players, needs to be more closely monitored by supervisors and league officials, revised and where warranted, sanctioned.
That said, it's easy for any fan base to point at the "unfair" treatment any one of their team's players is receiving. However, nothing says this kind of partiality is not occurring with several other players who are non-Habs. Of course, doesn't make it fair, right or compliant with the spirit and intent of the rule enabling the penalty call.
Hockey reffing is not an exact science, even when exercised with good will and the best of intentions. At times, the subjective element is overwhelming. The NHL has a long history of this, especially where refs have decided the outcome of games. Now, if the wrong reffing calls or non-calls are intentionally taking place, I don't care who the player is or what team he's on, this can't be tolerated.
0 penalty in the game ! Bravo ! It seems that we have corrected this problem in the last few games.
Two problems left to be corrected: PP and good first period (or scoring first).
Two problems left to be corrected: PP and good first period (or scoring first).
Cole Caulifield
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2004
- 27,967
- 2,465
Oh, half a dozen good HF board folks uh? The collective HF boards wisdom. I should probably bow down to that... I can't believe you think that's an endorsement worth mentioning. Sad.
On your side : half a dozen HF boards posters
On my side : Bergevin, Yeo, Crosby.
Yeah I don't know why I can't see it... I really don't. I will discard results, comments, and praise because you know.. half a dozen hf boards posters can see it... CLEARLY... they are right, and actual hockey people are wrong. You've forced me to re-evaluate my position here.
You got your sequence of events wrong. Bork produced 8 goals in the playoffs. Then MT gave him about 10 games in the season to show that he still wanted it and could contribute on this team. Then he sat him and said in the medias that the team was more or less done with him. Then we sent him to Hamilton, then MB traded him. There was all the time in the world left to play Sekac.
Ridiculous. No we wouldn't. And even if we would.. would we be winning at a 1st overall rate ? And even if so.. then all this would mean is that a coach importance is vastly overstated.
MB won't trade DD this season. You can take it to the bank. There are very little reasons to because DD is a productive member of the team. I know this is not part of the collective HF boards wisdom but I'm ok going against the grain here. HF boards doesn't really have a good track record with these things.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,230
- 45,128
You asked the question and half a dozen people answered you. I'm sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted.
End of the day though, this team's record has been very good and people still see the coach for what he is.
If Crosby were on your side MT would still be in Pittsburgh. At the very least he wouldn't have been fired while having a winning record.
I think there are a lot of actual hockey people who don't think much of him as a coach either. And I'm pretty sure Crosby would be one of them regardless of whatever he's said publicly.
I don't hate him. I just know he's a bad coach.
Cole Caulifield
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2004
- 27,967
- 2,465
On one hand I admire how persistent and consistent you are, but there is a point where a failure to question one's own perspective become stubbornness or delusion.
You can bet both DD and Gallagher were targeted by the inner sanctum.
They can get boarded now and no call. It seems to me in the games I attended at the Bell Center this year, the more vocal the crowd became on a missed call the less likely we were to get any call.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,230
- 45,128
I hope you include yourself in this. Because you continue to only look at the record and ignore:
Shots for
Shots against
Goals for
PP
You know the actual things a coach is responsible for getting his team to do.
You continue to ignore the fact that we were lucky to make the playoffs last year and wouldn't have done so without Price. You continue to ignore the fact that we've actually been mostly outplayed this season as well despite our record. You don't want to talk about the fact that our coach benched a young player in Sekac until our GM came in to remove Bork from his arsenal. You don't want to talk about DD, Bouillion, Murray... We had terrible numbers last year despite having a really good roster. It was the o'l let Carey save us strategy and that's not something we should credit the coach for.
Dude, we're a good team. It will have a good record no matter who the coach is. I told you this earlier in the season and I'm telling it to you now. No way this roster isn't going to win with the players it has.
But that does not make MT a good coach. And until you can talk about something other than the record then what you're saying doesn't hold water.
Cole Caulifield
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2004
- 27,967
- 2,465
First of all... a coach isn't being held accountable to that. The coach is being held accountable to results. In the real world it's not intentions that count, it's results. Money, points, input versus output, etc.
You can stomp your feet on the ground and claim otherwise but it won't make it true. No awards are given to the team with the best PP, or best goal differential ratio. Those are indicators. Indicators that.. when taken out of context and in small samples can lead one astray.
Price is an important player on the team and played an important part in the team's success. GO FIGURE.
We just outplayed a whole bunch of teams here... good ones too. You know when that happened ? When the team had some time to practice and change things up. As opposed to when you were going crazy over our bad play when we were playing 4 games in 6 nights on the road expecting the coach to come up with time out of his ass to change things.
But is it a first overall team ?
NO ONE... said it was. Not you, no experts, no one said this was a 1st overall team.
I can talk about plenty of things but you can only talk about stats out of context and misinterpreted to paint the picture you want to paint. You have an agenda as big as the sun here. There's clearly no stopping you, and outside of the crew of HF boards MT haters... you are not fooling anyone.
Kimota
ROY DU NORD!!!
Is it just me or these two wins against Detroit and St Louis have seemed easy? I don't know if the Habs are that good or what but I didn't even see any pushbacks from the Wings and Blues. They didn't seem that intense or physical or hard to play against and the Habs didn't have to take it to them, really. It has been a case of use your opportunities and score.
LesHabsRock
Registered User
He's not worth responding to. He takes offense when you prove him wrong then calls you out for not having the ability to have conversation with him. Unless you side with his opinion he becomes overly sensitive. I'm done with him. BTW I found half a dozen posters who disagree with him. Irony
Last edited:
Hackett
BAKAMAN
Its just a reminder that we can all use that the habs aren't the only ones who lay eggs once in a while. All the very good, or even the elite teams are capable of doing so too.
More impressions than concrete facts, but in general:
- This season seems to be about higher-risk passing/hail-mary breaks. The Habs look like they're running football plays. When it works (like last night) it's very tough to defend against the Habs fast, sneaky offence. But when it misses by an inch it results in interceptions, turnovers, 2-on-1s, open slots. We've had plenty of both extremes: Habs have the most turnovers in the league. On the other hand, our 5-on-5 scoring is really good.
- We're #1 in faceoffs. It's easier to keep possession when you start with it.
- Our D is getting rid of the puck faster. There's not as much time for bigger, tougher opposition to nail them or pin them down. The puck is gone too quickly. Again, that higher-risk strategy creates more turnovers, but it's given the team better zone position and removed opportunities to be outmuscled. The threat of extra movement by our D forces the opposition to guard a wider territory, and reduces their ability to commit to big checks.
- We don't have superstars who can singlehandedly win games. We have scoring by precision and by committee. If the opposition shuts down Pacioretty, our other lines can step up. Real depth is tough to plug. Of course, when the precision breaks down, our team looks like a bunch of spare parts.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,230
- 45,128
So we shouldn't judge a coach by how his team plays? We should judge the coach by how well his goalie plays?
Okay...
The only one stomping his feet here is you. If anyone says anything bad about the guy they're called FOOOLS by you. You spend so much time worrying about POSTERS rather than what they've actually posted about.
We're all resigned to the fact that he's our coach. That's the way it is and probably will be for a while. That doesn't make him a good coach though. I don't know why you get so upset at folks who are aware of this though.
If Price had played poorly and the team had otherwise played well, then I'd be sympathetic towards him. If he played superior players over inferior ones and didn't have unwaranted favouritism I'd support him.
He doesn't do this. He has a good roster that doesn't play well and holds on for dear life because of its goalie. It's gotten better since MB put a bullet into Bork but again, our coach had Sekac on the bench...
We're playing better lately. I'd say that has to do with MB firing Bork moreso than our coach suddenly learning how to do his job though.
Do you think we've played like a first overall team this year? I don't.
I think we've played a lot better lately but to start the year I think we played pretty poorly actually.
Again, when we win you attribute it to the coach. I don't know why the **** you do this. We had a team that won a Stanley cup with a bad coach in '86. The Ducks won a cup with Carlyle a few years back. Bad coaches can win with good teams man. We sure as hell aren't in first place because of our coach.
How are shots for and against, PP and goals for "out of context?"
WTF are you talking about here? They are there in black and white. They were terrible last year and terrible for most of this year. We are finally in the lower half of goals scored rather than bottom third as of one game ago. So I'm not sure how this is somehow "out of context."
I've ALWAYS had an agenda.
My agenda is to see cups in Montreal. That's why I argued for a rebuild back when folks were happy with 8th place finishes. That's why I don't give a **** about trading players who've been here for a long time and I couldn't care less about catering to favouritism. I support players who I believe are helping us or will help us. I support executives and coaches who I believe will help us. I support players who I believe are worth supporting even when they might not be playing well if I believe they'll come out of slumps. That's it. That's the way I've always posted. Disagree with me or not but I've always been straight up and I've always been consistent.
I took issue with Bergevin's early moves. I was totally against them and still am. But he's improved and gone on to make great decisions for us. He has my support. Timmins has done a fantastic job, he has my support. Our goalie coach has done a great job, he has my support as well.
Our head coach on the other hand has consistently made wrong headed decisions and our team has overly relied on its star goalie to win games for us. There are LEGITIMATE criticisms against him that support him being a bad coach. So NO I don't give a **** what our record is. I look at the evidence and make my decisions from there.
Unlike yourself I don't just look at the final standings and then say "Yay coach! Thanks for winning us those games we couldn't have done it without you!"
Last edited:
Kojo
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2013
- 5,932
- 2,349
From reading STL's game thread, the consensus is they only have one good scoring line. We got like 4 good lines and 3 scoring lines. Not to mention we have Price who can bail us out once in a while. I'd still rate STL higher than the Habs but we can compete against that kind of team.
They have no one to blame but themselves.
Gallagher, Subban, Emelin, Prust embellish way too much.
Subban does it less than he used to, but he still does it and it's embarrassing as a fan, and it's costing the team potential power plays.
Habs_Apostle
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2004
- 7,610
- 185
No you don't. Come on, just be honest with yourself; it's the opposite: You've already made decisions (MT sucks) and you constantly look for evidence to support those decisions (Subban made a mistake thus it must be MT's fault). You made up your mind a long time ago that MT is **** and EVERY time the slightest thing goes wrong you blame on it on him and then add it to your list of so-called reasons why he's a bad coach. You remind me of this guy I know where every time something goes wrong he blames it on a certain minority group. Needless to say, he's accumulated quite a mass of evidence as to why this group of people are no good. In psychology it's called confirmation bias, and we're all prone to it, but you exhibit it on a level I haven't seen too often.
There are two things any reasonable poster might conclude from reading your nonsense. First, this guy really hates MT. I mean, even if you slightly loathed him, you'd find the odd thing here or there, especially the way they've been playing lately, to give him credit for. But natta. Second, he's as biased as ****. And there is far more evidence for these two points than has ever been presented to support your position on MT.
Look, I don't even mind if you spew your nonsense. Some here clearly admit they hate MT and DD and then spew the hate, that's fine. But let's not pretend you're exhibiting any semblance of objectivity here or that you're indifferent towards the guy.
Last edited:
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,230
- 45,128
I'd agree with Subban and Plekanec. Prust I haven't seen it but I'll take everyone's word for it. Emelin I haven't noticed it either.
Gallagher though? No. He's not a diver. He goes to the net hard and that pisses some people off but he's not a diver. I don't understand what Fraser was talking about in pointing him out. And the video example he used wasn't a dive in my opinion. I don't know why the refs have it out for him.
Subban? Pleks? Sure, they made their own bed.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,230
- 45,128
Again, you keep trying to bring it back to the poster. I've asked you these questions before and you've dodged them. So I'll ask you again.
Why is the coach to be credited for a 100 point season when his team's possession numbers are poor. The team is bottom third in shots for, shots against, goals for and 19th in PP?
Why do you credit the coach? Don't try to change the discussion to me, just answer the question as honestly as you can.
groovejuice
Without deviation progress is not possible
Kerry Fraser, who's the insider's insider with officials, admitted the other day that refs have blacklists and share them with other officials.
This is intolerable. This is unacceptable. This is unprofessional and a smear on hockey. Part of Bettman's legacy.
