Season Preview: Coming Back to Earth?

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Two years ago...15th
Last season...2nd
This year...who knows?

Every team has questions, the Habs seem to have quite a few.

-Will Price take a step foward? I seriously wonder if he will ever reach his potential in Montreal; not all on him either with the dmen in front of him(in my opinion average as a group at best at defending)
-Can Budaj be as good as last year?He was very good last year, may be tough to repeat
-Can (fill in the blank) stay healthy? So many players you could ask that question about; several Habs players have had serious injuries the last few years.
-How will the Habs young dmen progess, including the ones in Hamilton? To me this is a big key because I can foresee alot of changes here the next few seasons.
-Will any of Briere, Parros or Murray add much? All three seem to be nearing the end of trail.

Could come up with others and of course what about the competition? I don't know if any one has gotten that much better but I'm interested how the conference and schedule changes work out. Detroit an Columbus are both better then Winnipeg in my opinion. Hard to say how the schedule change will effect anyone at this point.

To me they look like a middle of the pack team at this point.
 

Habs

We should have drafted Michkov
Feb 28, 2002
20,946
14,144
It has nothing to do with size, it's about skill.

We're just not good enough. The Blackhawks won with a small team, but they're just a much better team than us.

This argument again? You want to look at how big Chicago's key players are, then get back to me? Can we just be done with this stupid debate about Chicago's size now?
 

Adriatic

Registered User
Feb 27, 2004
6,509
4,060
This argument again? You want to look at how big Chicago's key players are, then get back to me? Can we just be done with this stupid debate about Chicago's size now?
Just to name a few: Toews 6'2, Sharp 6'1, Hossa 6'2, Saad 6'2, Bickell 6'4, Bolland 6'0 and Patrick Kane was their smallest top 9 forward at 5'11 and he's supremely talented with hands gifted by god.

And add to that when they won their first cup they even had Andrew Ladd 6'3 and Byfuglien 6'5 playing forward. This Hawks argument is beyond dumb!
 

Habs

We should have drafted Michkov
Feb 28, 2002
20,946
14,144
Just to name a few: Toews 6'2, Sharp 6'1, Hossa 6'2, Saad 6'2, Bickell 6'4, Bolland 6'0 and Patrick Kane was their smallest top 9 forward at 5'11 and he's supremely talented with hands gifted by god.

And add to that when they won their first cup they even had Andrew Ladd 6'3 and Byfuglien 6'5 playing forward. This Hawks argument is beyond dumb!

Exactly. You can have a couple small players if your core is big enough. Montreal teams used to to this all the time, then they abandoned this philosophy for some reason. You don't have to be the biggest team, but your key players have to be able to take the punishment.

It's unbelievable when you look how many small players are in our top 9, it's almost sad to look at our stats. This team will never go anywhere with Briere, DD, Gionta... and all while trying to develop Gallagher? Huh? How's that going to work? Throw in 2 top 6 dmen under 6'0 200 (even though I doubt Gorges is 200, but I'm not including him) and we aren't going to handle the physical play again this season.
 

Roulin

Registered User
Mar 21, 2007
4,242
1
Montreal
Just to name a few: Toews 6'2, Sharp 6'1, Hossa 6'2, Saad 6'2, Bickell 6'4, Bolland 6'0 and Patrick Kane was their smallest top 9 forward at 5'11 and he's supremely talented with hands gifted by god.

And add to that when they won their first cup they even had Andrew Ladd 6'3 and Byfuglien 6'5 playing forward. This Hawks argument is beyond dumb!

Nick Leddy, Andrew Shaw, Marcus Kruger... quality Hawks come in a variety of sizes.

BTW, when they had Ladd and Buff they didn't have Saad, and Bickell only played 4 games games in that playoff run (thought they did have Versteeg and Campbell), so it doesn't make sense to "add to that."

Exactly. You can have a couple small players if your core is big enough. Montreal teams used to to this all the time, then they abandoned this philosophy for some reason. You don't have to be the biggest team, but your key players have to be able to take the punishment.

It's unbelievable when you look how many small players are in our top 9, it's almost sad to look at our stats. This team will never go anywhere with Briere, DD, Gionta... and all while trying to develop Gallagher? Huh? How's that going to work? Throw in 2 top 6 dmen under 6'0 200 (even though I doubt Gorges is 200, but I'm not including him) and we aren't going to handle the physical play again this season.

Last season, DD played better with Gallagher than without him. Plekanec played better with Gionta than without him.

I don't like the Briere signing, but it has nothing to do with any "combined size of a line" theory, it has to do with his age and ongoing decline.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,930
42,997
Nick Leddy, Andrew Shaw, Marcus Kruger... quality Hawks come in a variety of sizes.

BTW, when they had Ladd and Buff they didn't have Saad, and Bickell only played 4 games games in that playoff run (thought they did have Versteeg and Campbell), so it doesn't make sense to "add to that."
You're grasping at straws man. You're trying to paint it like the Hawks were an undersized team... they weren't. And they had hulking guys in their lineup that we don't.

And with all due respect, when I think of the Hawks none of those guys come to mind. They aren't core players. The only real smurf they have in their core is Kane and he's an elite talent.
Last season, DD played better with Gallagher than without him. Plekanec played better with Gionta than without him.
And how did Gallagher do without DD? And how did the team fare in the playoffs?
I don't like the Briere signing, but it has nothing to do with any "combined size of a line" theory, it has to do with his age and ongoing decline.
It's not a theory dude... size matters. Why don't we see teams with five foot four players in their lineups? There are lots of five foot four people in the world, why don't they make the NHL?

Saying size doesn't matter is just flat out wrong. It does matter. You need a balance in your lineup or you wind up like us and you get the crap kicked out of you every postseason.
 

Adriatic

Registered User
Feb 27, 2004
6,509
4,060
Nick Leddy, Andrew Shaw, Marcus Kruger... quality Hawks come in a variety of sizes.

BTW, when they had Ladd and Buff they didn't have Saad, and Bickell only played 4 games games in that playoff run (thought they did have Versteeg and Campbell), so it doesn't make sense to "add to that."
Leddy, Shaw and Kruger are all at least 5'11, none of them are remotely close to being the size Desharnais, Gionta, Briere or even Gallagher and plus those players are not even the core of the Hawks.
Also I didn't mean to add Buff and Ladd to the roster I meant add to the fact that they also had even bigger forwards back when they won their first cup.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,930
42,997
Leddy, Shaw and Kruger are all at least 5'11, none of them are remotely close to being the size Desharnais, Gionta, Briere or even Gallagher and those are not even the Hawks' key top 6 players.
Also I didn't mean to add Buff and Ladd to the roster I meant add to the fact that they also had even bigger forwards back when they won their first cup.
Buff fought epic battles with Pronger for that cup. Toews fought epic battles with Chara for the 2nd one.

Who in our lineup would do this? Who even has the capability to do it? Gallagher's the only guy who even tries...
 

WhiskeySeven*

Expect the expected
Jun 17, 2007
25,154
770
I said it last year, I'm gonna stick by my prediction: We're going to play like the late 2000s Carolina Hurricanes and go back down after a surprisingly good season last year.

We were formerly built for Jacques Martin hockey and therefore, we were "better" than the 15th place finish. The brand of hockey Therrien wants to play, I'm not sure any team in the league can find lasting success with it, and we're likely not going to finish 2nd in the East but should make the playoffs on sheer talent alone.

It all depends on just how much "better" the young stars and Price play. I don't have much faith in Therrien, however.
 

Monctonscout

Monctonscout
Jan 26, 2008
34,935
1
Just to name a few: Toews 6'2, Sharp 6'1, Hossa 6'2, Saad 6'2, Bickell 6'4, Bolland 6'0 and Patrick Kane was their smallest top 9 forward at 5'11 and he's supremely talented with hands gifted by god.

And add to that when they won their first cup they even had Andrew Ladd 6'3 and Byfuglien 6'5 playing forward. This Hawks argument is beyond dumb!

First of all Bickell is not a "key" player he was a depth guy who had a strong playoffs.

Kane might be 5'11"...with skates on.

Bolland is hardly a physical specimen he is smaller than Plekanec.

You conveniently overlooked Keith who is pretty slight, Oduya who played big minutes(Diaz size) and Shaw. Plus Leddy.

No matter how you slice it the Hawks team that plays every night, not including Brookbank and Bollig who spent the playoffs in the press box, is one of the smaller NHL teams.

Contrary to what some here think, the Habs team is not a team of smurfs only...Pacioretty Bourque Eller are all well over 6' and 200lbs and top 9 regulars, same with Emelin on defense. This season Parros Murray add size and toughness plus Tinordi is on the way.
 

Monctonscout

Monctonscout
Jan 26, 2008
34,935
1
Buff fought epic battles with Pronger for that cup. Toews fought epic battles with Chara for the 2nd one.

Who in our lineup would do this? Who even has the capability to do it? Gallagher's the only guy who even tries...

Epic battles? You're putting wayyyyyy too much importance on those pushing and shoving sessions in front of the net.

Crawford matching Rask was the biggest factor IMHO. That's a big part of why Vancouver failed against Boston 2 years before. That and the 2nd and 3rd lines shooting blanks.
 

ECWHSWI

TOUGHEN UP.
Oct 27, 2006
28,604
5,423
No one is saying get a big body for the sake of that player having a big body. (OK yes some fans may say that, but ignore them) Having players like LG is referring to is to help in goal differential, but screening the goalie, the habs could score more goals. Also SV % and again goal differential would be helped by having players that are not tired by the end of the game and can clear the front of the net.

I don't believe having a roster of 6 foot 6, 240 players all over the roster, but have the right ones, in the right spots. You can't say the habs don't lack those type of players in the right situation, can you??
considering we were 5th in goals-for last season... you and LG really think that's what Habs should focus on ?

come on now...
 

Habs 4 Life

No Excuses
Mar 30, 2005
41,015
4,793
Montreal
I didn't like the new " Division " format when it was announced and I still don't like it now. I really don't think it helps a team like us. Boston, Detroit and Ottawa should get the 1-2-3. That means you take away Pittsburgh, Washington and Philly and we are fighting for 2 spots with Toronto, Rangers, Jackets, Devils, Islanders

It's not going to be easy and for us to make it it's now or never for Carey to step up his game to another level
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,930
42,997
First of all Bickell is not a "key" player he was a depth guy who had a strong playoffs.

Kane might be 5'11"...with skates on.

Bolland is hardly a physical specimen he is smaller than Plekanec.

You conveniently overlooked Keith who is pretty slight, Oduya who played big minutes(Diaz size) and Shaw. Plus Leddy.

No matter how you slice it the Hawks team that plays every night, not including Brookbank and Bollig who spent the playoffs in the press box, is one of the smaller NHL teams.

Contrary to what some here think, the Habs team is not a team of smurfs only...Pacioretty Bourque Eller are all well over 6' and 200lbs and top 9 regulars, same with Emelin on defense. This season Parros Murray add size and toughness plus Tinordi is on the way.
5 guys out of 9 are smurfs. You are in denial.

Epic battles? You're putting wayyyyyy too much importance on those pushing and shoving sessions in front of the net.
Yeah right...

We don't do this (at either end) and we don't win. Guess why?
Crawford matching Rask was the biggest factor IMHO. That's a big part of why Vancouver failed against Boston 2 years before. That and the 2nd and 3rd lines shooting blanks.
Why do you think he was able to match Rask? Did you watch the series?

Toews was called out by his own teammate. So he goes to the net and stays there for the rest of the series. All of a sudden the Hawks start taking over and Rask looks a lot more human. Strange how that worked.

Games are won and lost in front of the net man. No not entirely but almost every poastseason game you'll see some battle result in a goal. When a goalie gets hot (see Anderson) all you can do is put traffic in front of him... we don't do this.

You don't understand how the game works dude. Battles in front of the net are key to winning. Why do you think Pronger went to the finals three years in a row on three different teams? Why do you think Chara has been there twice in the last four years? Because apart from whatever else they bring, they are amazing in front of their own net. We don't have anyone like this on the backend or on the front... and we wasted our time with Briere.

How is it that you can't see this? How many playoffs have you watched?
I didn't like the new " Division " format when it was announced and I still don't like it now. I really don't think it helps a team like us. Boston, Detroit and Ottawa should get the 1-2-3. That means you take away Pittsburgh, Washington and Philly and we are fighting for 2 spots with Toronto, Rangers, Jackets, Devils, Islanders

It's not going to be easy and for us to make it it's now or never for Carey to step up his game to another level
All the more reason why we should've given him some help.
 

Habs

We should have drafted Michkov
Feb 28, 2002
20,946
14,144
First of all Bickell is not a "key" player he was a depth guy who had a strong playoffs.

Kane might be 5'11"...with skates on.

Bolland is hardly a physical specimen he is smaller than Plekanec.

You conveniently overlooked Keith who is pretty slight, Oduya who played big minutes(Diaz size) and Shaw. Plus Leddy.

No matter how you slice it the Hawks team that plays every night, not including Brookbank and Bollig who spent the playoffs in the press box, is one of the smaller NHL teams.

Contrary to what some here think, the Habs team is not a team of smurfs only...Pacioretty Bourque Eller are all well over 6' and 200lbs and top 9 regulars, same with Emelin on defense. This season Parros Murray add size and toughness plus Tinordi is on the way.

Why are you in such denial?
 

Adriatic

Registered User
Feb 27, 2004
6,509
4,060
First of all Bickell is not a "key" player he was a depth guy who had a strong playoffs.

Kane might be 5'11"...with skates on.

Bolland is hardly a physical specimen he is smaller than Plekanec.

You conveniently overlooked Keith who is pretty slight, Oduya who played big minutes(Diaz size) and Shaw. Plus Leddy.

No matter how you slice it the Hawks team that plays every night, not including Brookbank and Bollig who spent the playoffs in the press box, is one of the smaller NHL teams.

Contrary to what some here think, the Habs team is not a team of smurfs only...Pacioretty Bourque Eller are all well over 6' and 200lbs and top 9 regulars, same with Emelin on defense. This season Parros Murray add size and toughness plus Tinordi is on the way.
Holy cow man, you are in deep denial. Not even funny!
 

Devourers

Registered User
Sep 20, 2013
3,038
12
Montreal
We can be a contender in a few years. We have the core talent to do it. We just need a little more size up front and to have some support on the back end. We're not that far away.

But I don't see how you can say that it's silly to say that our team isn't built for the playoffs. If things go right we could advance sure... but we could've done a hell of a lot more to help ourselves than we did.

Just curious, what would you have done that would've been better, considering our cap situation and the available UFA's?

Do a trade? Have to give to get, and most HF trade proposals are pipe dreams, but hey if you have a solid one I'm definitely interested to hear it.

Sign a different UFA? You can't know which UFA would or wouldn't come here, but I'd like to hear who you would've signed instead, for how much, for how long, and why they would even come here.

You make it sound like over this off season, we could've stepped directly into contender mode or at least become significantly better. So what would it be? Vinny Lecavalier? Ron Hainsey?

Do we really need to repeat Gainey era mistakes or trade away picks and prospects as if JFJ is the GM? Bergevin stated when he came on board that it would be a process, that we weren't going to just sign a bunch of UFA's and trade away picks over night to contend. So far he's stayed true to that and we competed last year, even despite many thinking we'd be another lottery team.

I'm just curious how much better you could've done it and what you would've done. There's pretty much no legitimate scenario where I could see MB making us a cup contender (or close) this offseason, and even if he did, at what cost?

Aren't you one of the people who is sick and tired of perpetual mediocrity? Well, this is how you contend. You build from within and unfortunately patience is a big part of that.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,930
42,997
Just curious, what would you have done that would've been better, considering our cap situation and the available UFA's?

Do a trade? Have to give to get, and most HF trade proposals are pipe dreams, but hey if you have a solid one I'm definitely interested to hear it.

Sign a different UFA? You can't know which UFA would or wouldn't come here, but I'd like to hear who you would've signed instead, for how much, for how long, and why they would even come here.

You make it sound like over this off season, we could've stepped directly into contender mode or at least become significantly better. So what would it be? Vinny Lecavalier? Ron Hainsey?

Do we really need to repeat Gainey era mistakes or trade away picks and prospects as if JFJ is the GM? Bergevin stated when he came on board that it would be a process, that we weren't going to just sign a bunch of UFA's and trade away picks over night to contend. So far he's stayed true to that and we competed last year, even despite many thinking we'd be another lottery team.

I'm just curious how much better you could've done it and what you would've done. There's pretty much no legitimate scenario where I could see MB making us a cup contender (or close) this offseason, and even if he did, at what cost?

Aren't you one of the people who is sick and tired of perpetual mediocrity? Well, this is how you contend. You build from within and unfortunately patience is a big part of that.
I think that we're not doing our younger players any favours going about things the way we have. Signing Briere hurts their development (he steals easy minutes they should be getting like DD does) and doesn't provide any kind of protection up front. On the backend, we're leaving Price almost totally exposed in front of the net. That's not good for our other backend guys or Price himself.

By all means, don't trade away the future. If we think Beaulieu's the real deal... hang onto him. But DON'T make the size issue worse and at the very least get a REAL number 4 shutdown guy.

How could we have done this? We had cap space to spare while others were struggling with it. We're pretty stacked prospect wise. Some of those prospects we're probably not going to move up but have some talent. We have the 2014 draft picks that we can trade with, we have an abundance of smaller forwards with some skill that we could move... there's things we can do here.

So what would I have done? I would've signed Morrow as a stopgap for Maccaron. I would've gone out and gone after a guy like Coburn who was apparently available and would've suited us perfectly (leveraging our cap space to our advantage) and I would've at least looked into Bobby Ryan (which we may have done anyway.)

So yeah, one FA (Morrow) and a trade for a good shutdown guy. That's what we needed (and still need.)

Thing is though.... EVERYONE knows we need this. There's nothing special here about what I'm saying. The whole league knows this and our own GM knows it. That's why what we did was such a mystery. Now we have to pray that Murray is good enough and Tinordi's ready. We cheaped out where we needed help and paid a premium for an area where we already had an overabundance. That's not the way to build winners. And yes, I think we could've actually done something this postseason with a Coburn and a Morrow in our lineup. Cup favourites? No. But I'd be valuing our chances a whole lot higher.
 

Saundies

Fly On The Wall
Jun 8, 2012
2,806
3,695
NB, Canada
Some of you guys think that size is the key to winning in the playoffs is having size, when it's actually a combination of things. You don't need size to win. It helps obviously, but what you need mostly elite talent, key contributions by depth guys, and decent goaltending. That's the difference right now between teams that win in the playoffs and teams that don't. Look at the elite level talent on the past 4 cup winners (I'd go back even further, but you should get the point)

Hawks (10,13) - Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith, Hossa, Sharp.
Kings (12) - Kopitar, Carter, Richards, Doughty, Quick
Bruins (11) - Bergeron, Chara, Thomas, Lucic (more dominating than elite)
Pens - Crosby, Malkin, Letang... pretty obvious.

Who would you say on this team is "elite" talent, on par with the rest of the league? I'd say PK Subban is probably the only guy on our roster at this moment you could say that about 100%. Patches is close, but he's not completely there yet. Galchy will be one day but that's a year or two down the road. I'd say Price is, but not everyone will agree on that around the league, or even our own fanbase for that matter. Markov was in his prime but now with his injuries he's lost a step...

The point is, simply being "big" isn't the answer. The Habs get pushed around some games and everybody on here cries for size, but until everything comes together for us like those other teams it's not gonna matter if we ice a roster of 20 6'6 guys. It's not about how big you are, it's how you play. That's why we love Gallagher because he plays the way all hockey players, no matter what size, should play.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,930
42,997
Some of you guys think that size is the key to winning in the playoffs is having size, when it's actually a combination of things. You don't need size to win. It helps obviously, but what you need mostly elite talent, key contributions by depth guys, and decent goaltending. That's the difference right now between teams that win in the playoffs and teams that don't. Look at the elite level talent on the past 4 cup winners (I'd go back even further, but you should get the point)

Hawks (10,13) - Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith, Hossa, Sharp.
Kings (12) - Kopitar, Carter, Richards, Doughty, Quick
Bruins (11) - Bergeron, Chara, Thomas, Lucic (more dominating than elite)
Pens - Crosby, Malkin, Letang... pretty obvious.

Who would you say on this team is "elite" talent, on par with the rest of the league? I'd say PK Subban is probably the only guy on our roster at this moment you could say that about 100%. Patches is close, but he's not completely there yet. Galchy will be one day but that's a year or two down the road. I'd say Price is, but not everyone will agree on that around the league, or even our own fanbase for that matter. Markov was in his prime but now with his injuries he's lost a step...

The point is, simply being "big" isn't the answer. The Habs get pushed around some games and everybody on here cries for size, but until everything comes together for us like those other teams it's not gonna matter if we ice a roster of 20 6'6 guys. It's not about how big you are, it's how you play. That's why we love Gallagher because he plays the way all hockey players, no matter what size, should play.
Nobody said it was. You are missing the point. It's about balance.

You don't need to be the biggest but we're just too small. Why make it hard for yourself? And why try to make this an 'either or' debate. It's not either or... it's both. You need talent and some size to win. If you don't have enough of either you probably won't win. That's all that's being said man.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->