Game 68: Habs/Lightning

If ever there was a time when our team needed to step up – it is now. We’ve seen the Lightning cruise into Montreal too many times before and take 2 points. There is no denying the effect that the city has on Lecavalier, St Louis, and Tanguay. It is as simple as this: Tampa trails us by 5 points in the standings with 3 games in hand. If Montreal is to have a chance at the post season, they not only have to win hockey games, but they have to beat the teams behind them when given the opportunity.

You HAVE to believe that we’ll see a steady dose of Jaro Halak to close out the season. Whether or not Price deserves the bum rap given how terribly the team plays in front of him is irrelevant. Halak gets it done right now – and unless he slips – he has to be the guy.

They’re all big games this season. Go Habs Go!!!

Related Bookmarks Tags

There are currently no tags for this post.

Leave a Comment

4 Comments

#1 Mats Naslund says:
March 9, 2010 at 10:58 am

There was one other thing that I wanted to comment on. Its the time of year to complain about the NHL’s moronic points structure.

The Habs have 32 wins for 70 points. The Bruins have 29 for 69. Where do the extra points come from? The Bruins have 5 more points than the Canadiens this year – earned by losing in overtime. It’ll never happen – but I pine for a day when the NHL awards 3 points for a victory in regulation, 2 for a win in extra time, 1 for a loss in overtime, and 0 for a loss in regulation. Gone would be the days when a team could lose itself into a playoff position. It would force teams to try to win in 60 minutes, and stop rewarding passive play with tied scores in the third period. Do it Bettman you little scumbag.

#2 Senet1 says:
March 9, 2010 at 8:15 pm

I always hate to see rule change in our game but we have messed up the game so bad in order to selling it to the americans that we might as well change the way we award points too. I understand what you are attempting to do and it does make sence, but someone did the math the other day and there were some changes but we ended up out of the playoff because we won some may OT games. Anyway one thing about this type of change you can always compare teams who have 150 points with the teams who had 105 and still decide who was the best team. It will encourage less OT games, but then again does the NHL really want that?

#3 Mats Naslund says:
March 10, 2010 at 10:37 am

I’m not advocating for the rule change because it would specifically benefit us – I want it because I feel that teams who get into playoff spots by virtue of losing in overtime is ridiculous. The Habs won again last night, giving them 72 points. Boston looses in OT (AGAIN) and has 70 points with 4 less wins than us. Thats unbelievable. They have 12 points this year (to our 6) for loosing in overtime. Last year we made the playoffs by virtue of OT points over Florida, even though they had more wins in regulation.

For me, the clincher is when you watch two teams in a playoff hunt stop attempting offense with 10 (or more) minutes in an overtime game. It reminds me of playing “Blades of Steel” with my brothers when we were kids. We’d let the time run out every game without scoring just so we could get to the shootout which was the best part of the game (other than fights). There is no denying that teams are more interested in gaining a guaranteed point by tying than pushing for a last minute goal. In a 3 point system, a win in regulation would be so valuable that getting to overtime would be a punishment.

Anyways, thats my rant. It wont happen so I’m not really looking to push it further. A great game by the Habs against a team they desperately needed to beat. I cant leave without commenting on Gomez, Gionta and Pouliot who are on absolute fire right now. Watch out league if we ever get two lines rolling at one time!

#4 Senet1 says:
March 11, 2010 at 12:06 am

Mats there is nothing wrong with your suggestion but the same thing use to happen before we broke ties with teams winning because they had more points due to more ties and fewer wins and loses. The only difference is now they get a point for a loss. Now they achieved a tie and have a chance for a win. Now sure but I think we have quite a few wins in OT. Your suggestion would make those wins worth 2 points and a regulation win worth 3 points. Lower place teams and defensive teams would play for the tie and chance to win 2 pts. Whereas high scoring teams would go for the win. It might open up the game, who knows unless it is tried. One thing for sure the better teams would have a wider spread in points from the lower teams that still make the playoffs. I do not think the NHL brass would go for it because they like the close races that this system creates, it is good for revenues, so I doubt if they would implement it.

Leave a Comment

ShoutBox

Last Message 5 hours, 52 minutes ago

goalie : I can't type.... what a faux pas on my behalf...
goalie : I just realized what I said adn didn't say yesterday. What a fayx as on my behalf. Regarding coaching Randy Cunnyworth MUSDT stay as an assistant- he deserves at least that after the tremendous job he did in the latter part of this past season. I'd still mlike to have Robinson, Carbo adn Allard on the staff also.
Avatar37 : I agree Senet, my choice if we can't have Cunneyworth would be Crawford, Robinson on defense, Cunneyworth for offense, and Carbo as offense/faceoffs .
Senet1 : I think if I had my choice it would be Crawford and see if he could get Carbo and Robinson as assistants. That would be my idea coaching team.
goalie : I witnesed Marc Crawford MANY times when the Avs, etc. played against Oilers and let me tell you - he is constantly on the referees asses virtually game after game. He is the complete OPPOSITE of J. Martin. Crawford is calm on TSN but he is one excited coach behind the bench. A friend of mine who was an NHL linesman for 26 years said they dreaded Crawford he was so tough on the officials!
goalie : You know, I've bee thinking about the coaching situation. I'd be really excited if the Habs had Hartley as head coach and Carbo adn Robinson as his assistants. I also read it somewhere about a month ago that Toronto's goalie coach Allard (?) wants to relocate back to Montreal where he has his goaltending school/business. Add him to the mix and I'd say the Habs would be in great shape coaching wise.
Avatar37 : Well, from what I recall, Hartley didn't do all that well with the Thrashers. But, I don't know enough about him to judge one way or the other. Crawford I do know, and he always seemed to be a good, level headed coach to me.
Senet1 : even Pacioretty two years ago did not impress any of us. Younger players have to play and make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. If they sit in the press box they are learning nothing.
Senet1 : Of course if he have some good assistants like a Larry Robinson to teach the young defence and someone like Carbo to teach faceoffs etc. then your coach does not have to be as good at teaching. If Hartley fits the bill you get no argument from me. My only previous point is that if he is impatient with your younger players to the point that he does not play them, then we are right back where we were with Martin. Martin was a good coach too, but how he handled Emelin, PK and even Pacioretty two
goalie : I would like to see the Habs sign a coach who realizes that our team isn't tough enough (we need to get bigger and somewhat more nastier),the coach needs t be a great TEACHER and be a coach who can get the players to understand and buy into his system. Other than that I couldn't care what lingo he speaks. I wnat to see our team become a ligitimate contender fast!
HabsLoseAgain : Well we dont know if he is or is not a teaching coach. I woukd just hate to paint Hartley something that he is not. There will always be questions but if Hartley was hired as the habs new bench boss i for one would not be overly upset.
Senet1 : My thoughts are not that he is or is not a good coach but rather that when he won the cup he had an experience team of superstars on that team. Where as we have a group of young inexperienced players, is he a teaching coach or a tactical coach or both? I am not question whether he is a good coach, but my question therefore is he the coach for us at this point in the deveopment of our team?? Not sure we are all purely speculating at the moment?
Senet1 : Something happened to my first post. I will try again.
Senet1 : That is why I said I am not sure he is the coach for us at this time? Right now we are all speculating including yourself, because non of us know for sure?
HabsLoseAgain : Crawford also won a cup with Patrick Roy so would you say he is a good coach or did he just have great players and one of the best goaltenders of alltime?
HabsLoseAgain : Senrt so please give me some reasons why you think Hartley is not the coach the habs need right now. What is it that you do not like about him or his coaching style?
HabsLoseAgain : Well all great coaches had great players playing for them so i guess you you add a a pile of other coaches to that list including Bowan......
Senet1 : Hartley, was he a good coach or did he just have great players and one of the best altime goaltenders of all time. I am not sure that he is the type of coach that this organization needs right now. Unless of course we sign a ton of free agents.
Avatar37 : However, my feelings may completely be wrong, Hartley may turn out to be a good fit.
Avatar37 : I didn't say Hartley was unknown, I said we demoted a good coach in Cunneyworth and now have an unknown quantity because we don't have a coach. I don't have that great a feeling about Hartley, I'd be much more comfortable with Crawford.
HabsLoseAgain : In my opinion i think he might be a good fit in montreal. Oh and he also likes to have a tough team.
HabsLoseAgain : Also this year he coached the ZSC Lions to the swiss championship title.
HabsLoseAgain : lol the so called "unknown" won a cup in 2000-2001 with the colarado avalanch.
HabsLoseAgain : lol Bob Hartley is not an unknown lol.....sheesh.
Senet1 : I think he has until the trading deadline to show us that he deserves to be on this team. If he does not get back on track then he could be simply a 2nd round draft pick to whoever we can trade him to.
Avatar37 : Bourque reminds me of Pouliot, size, skill, and invisible. He needs to get back to playing a physical game and bang people around and maybe he'll start getting some of those garbage goals again. Need to get to the front of the net. I hope he can find his game again.
Avatar37 : We had a good coach in Randy Cunneyworth. Now we have an unknown, with Bob Hartley rumoured to be the front runner. I'd rather have Cunneyworth.
goalie : A player like Rene Bourwue has al the physical attributes of what would be a beter than average player. Hwever, he certainly didn't play that well especially after being in Montreal about three weeks. We NEED players like Rene to play hard AND produce points on a REGULAR BASIS in order for us to be competitive.
Senet1 : MONTREAL – Rene Bourque had a rocky start to his career as a Hab, but he’s planning on using the next four years to make up for it. After arriving in Montreal under less-than-ideal circumstances in January, Bourque spent the following 38 games hoping to find the spark he needed to rekindle his offensive production. Despite flanking Tomas Plekanec on the team’s second line to close out the season, the 30-year-old sniper suddenly found himself firing blanks in his new NHL home.
Senet1 : I think we have to be patient and not expect too much too soon. Let's get a strong management team in place, make a good choices in the draft get a good coach and then see what we need at the free agent market. I will not be too disapointed if we miss the playoffs again next year if it means a long term team success. We have the opportunity to make some major strides over the next two years at the draft table. Then we fill in the holes.
goalie : I certainly agree that we need to get some impact forwards who will sign for 5 years, not for a season then walk away. That's not going to help us.
goalie : I wouldn't trade PK for Ovetchkin no matter what. He is a coach's NIGHTMARE and a poor team player.
Senet1 : I believe he will as we graducally put better players around him and build this team.
Senet1 : Goalie I agree with Avatar. PK is the present and future of this teams defence. I would not even take Staal from Pittsburg unless I had him tied up in a long term contract of a Minimum of 5 years. Also once has to consider the salary difference. Pk is on the move up probably 3M plus for his next contract and then eventually 4-5M if he keeps on improving. He has moved his game up two gears since he came into the league 2 years ago. He now has to move to the next level and I believe he will as w
Avatar37 : pressure playing in Montreal, since he has problems with the expectations in Washington and Montreal isn't any easier. Then again, the media were very easy on Kovalev, so maybe it's a Russian thing? No idea. Anyway, yeah, it would have to be an established star that gives us an immediate drastic upgrade at forward, that's the only way I'd trade PK, because we'd be giving up a potential QB on our blueline for the next decade.