Not Quite For Canadiens

Been into Roz’s wine tonight that she gave me during her visit to Montreal recently, which throws a wrench into any attempt at a decent game report.

I’m not feeling guilty. Hic.

Daniel Briere scored twice and added an assist, while Brian Gionta also bulged the twine. How often have you read something like that?

It wasn’t enough though, even though the boys made a game of it after falling behind 3-1 in the first. Unfortunately, P.K. Subban took a hooking penalty with 19 seconds left in the third and the Sens ended it in overtime while still on the power play.

And that was it.

Tonight’s game report has been brought to you by Roz’s Sainte-Famille Vineyard, Annapolis Valley.

Random Notes:

Panthers sniff out the Bell on Monday.

 

 

15 thoughts on “Not Quite For Canadiens”

  1. Dennis was it any good? I’ve honestly never tried that vintage so I’m more curious about a wine report than the Canadien report, and how sad is that? I’m happy for Danny B and Gio tho. So I guess that’s something.

  2. Is the Lots of years of mediocrity re an NHL team that has more useless players on it’s roster than the Habs?? Just think, Briere, Desharnais, Gionta, Bourque, White, Parros, Moen, Boullion and Diaz..
    What about Timmins record for drafting first round busts, Louis Leblanc, this kid McCarron looks dreadful as well..

  3. Excuse my language but fuck Price. He’s over-rated and will be detrimental to the demise of our Canadian Olympic team. So frustrating.

  4. One or two bad games and you want to throw Price under the bus, Marjo? How many more games would the Canadiens have lost this year if not for his brilliance? If not for him, a lot of those one goal wins would have been one-goal losses. And from a couple of poor games by Price, you can determine that Canada will not win the gold medal in Sochi?

    HERE is the alarming statistic for the Habs: They have a terrible record against their own division. They haven’t won yet against either Florida or Ottawa, neither one of which is a very good team, and it’s clear to me that the Senators are in the Canadiens’ heads. They’ve split with Tampa, but both games have been against a Tampa team that didn’t have Steven Stamkos. They beat the Bruins in their only matchup so far. They’ve won twice against Buffalo, which is almost certainly the worst team in the NHL. They’ve split with the Maple Leafs, though both games were in Montreal, and they haven’t played Detroit yet. That totals 5-5-2, if my math is correct, which is completely unimpressive given the level of competition. The only “good win” in the division was the win against Boston.

    Honestly, the Canadiens are just not that good a team. They are too small and still lack grit (or “truculence”, as Brian Burke would put it). They also, by and large, play a boring style of hockey (has Jacques Martin resumed coaching the team and no one told me?) which does not suit the players they do have. They also have too many players who vanish for large stretches of games, if not large numbers of games.

    Do I want the team to win? Yes, a lot, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Even if the Habs do make the playoffs, I can’t see them doing anything better than what they did last year, a likely hasty first round playoff exit. And this is where Marjo might have a point, and it is something that I said during the playoffs last season: At some point, Carey Price can’t keep being the second best goalie in every playoff series. If you look at almost all the Stanley Cup winners (and even many of the teams who got to the Finals before losing) over the past 25 years or so, they have had their goalie carry them for a series or two, or at least for a few games within a series, allowing them to win. Carey Price has yet to do that. Sorry to be “Ian Downer”, but that’s the way I see it.

  5. Commandant, I have more of a problem with what Bob Gainey did, bringing in Gionta, Gomez, and Cammalleri in 2009, all within a week or so, and in one fell swoop made us a small smurf-like team that changed the complete complexion of the team which we’re still recovering from. When I look at the names you list, I’m in full agreement, although it’s still too early to judge McCarron. The kid’s probable still growing, for one thing. Awkward and all that. But the others, yes. Although Moen at least adds some muscle when most of it went out the window when the smurfs came in. I’ve hated the stature of our team since then. And although I’ve rarely said this, it drives me crazy that our captain is the second shortest player in the league, and in the clips in 24 CH, you see that it’s Gorges trying to pump the guys up, not Gionta. When Gionta goes, finally the smurfs label can be put to rest. Maybe Timmins is on your hit list but for me, Gainey didn’t help. It’s very sad. Gainey was one of my favourite players in the 70s.

  6. I think the idea that we have too many small players is nonsense at times. Sure we can do away with one, but we do have some that perform compared to non-shorties who don’t perform. Briere, one of the shorties, scored last night. His inability to score as of late is not due to his size — as his previous records over the years prove– it’s his age and maybe his fear of getting another concussion with retirement looming over him. Desharnais, contrary to what most believe, I think is a good player. He had a bad streak, but who doesn’t from time to time? He rebirth is proving this. And, it looks like he’s getting out of his play-maker role and taking chances at shooting which is nice to see. His case is about confidence because the little pecker has a good shot, can find key players on the ice and is a good shootout guy. Gionta, is not doing much lately and he’s nearing retirement. So maybe he’s one we can do without and Briere as well. Bourque, Moen, White, Parros, Prust, the tall ones, are not our top scores. So I’m really perplexed about the size argument. How about Eller? He scores, but not always, he’s good but will not be a superstar in my opinion.

    As for Price, yes, he has played some good games but my confidence in him is low. I just don’t feel comfortable with him.

  7. I think that the longer the season goes, the smaller guys get worn down more than big guys. I think it’s a given. And then into the marathon playoffs, there’s a ton of punishment in front of the net, more than now. So small guys have a tougher time in a long season. Bigger guys win most of the battles along the boards, bigger guys can push smaller guys off the puck easier. Small guys have a very difficult time trying to outmuscle people. Big guys clear small guys out. A small guy has to be a special player, like Martin St. Louis, and there’s not a lot like him. I firmly believe size is really important, unless a small team is blessed with lots of serious talent and plays a real skating game. A small team that plays a conservative, defensive game isn’t usually going to reach the finish line. Usually when you see a champion team, they have nice size. They’re not a small team.

  8. Yes, but Chicago has a major amount of superstars that can make up for not being huge. And there’s no real wee fellows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *