No doubt you're all waiting on tenderhooks to see which six players Tobalev will choose for his Hamilton Bulldogs dome, whether Carey price will get any slack and other topics we can all argue about while forgetting the loss.
Due to real-life commitments, like hockey of his own, Tobalev will only finish the game report later today. Real life? What's that?
In the meantime, why not distract yourselves with a good dose of "today could be so much worse if this happened" by checking out Robert Lefebvre's memories of the Lafleur retirment.
Go Habs Go.
Showing posts with label Guy Lafleur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guy Lafleur. Show all posts
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Reluctant Checkers
"I'm just trying to do exactly what they want. I'm becoming a checker," he said with obvious displeasure after Monday's practice. "We're just doing what we have to do to win games. I'm not complaining. It's important to win the games. I just don't feel as important as I did before when they were riding me. I don't feel they use me as much as they did before. If they don't give me the confidence or trust me, I will never be playing the way I was before, the way they want.
Who said it?
Could have been anyone.
Could have been Andrei Kostitsyn after Bob Gainey decided that 7 games without a goal (for a guy whose career best pace gives him a average of 3 games drought between goals) means he must transform from poacher to digger.
Could have been Sidney Crosby as he tried to play the trap Michel Therrien so cleverly decided upon the trap as his strategy (probably since he didn't have any supremely talented scorers on his squad).
Could have Alexei Kovalev as he turned in some of the best defensive efforts for a forward under Guy Carbonneau.
Could have been anyone to play for Jacques Lemaire (even Guy Guy Guy Lafleur). Marian Gaborik?
It is an insight into how some players' views on hockey (particularly those that feel what they can offer does not originate from a dump and chase) can differ drastically from coaches' views.
Hockey is a team game, yes. But not all components of a team have been selected and brought in to get the job of winning done in the same way. When a GM signs a scoring winger for $6 million a year, it is understandable that said GM would be upset if coach X uses the winger like he would use, say, Trent Klatt. It is understandable that said winger might be a bit perplexed too. When a team is evaluated on the eve of the playoffs and the overriding concern is lack of scoring, does it then seem to make sense to turn the only players who might score into third line troopers?
The key phrase from the quote for me comes at the end (when he clearly starts complaining, a mere two sentences after saying he wasn't complaining):
Good coaches understand this. Good coaches understand the value of playing a player the way they like to play and the way they were expected to play in October. Good coaches try to maximise their assets. Ultimately, you can win a Stanley Cup when you convert your Steve Yzerman into a shadow, but not if you don't have a Sergei Fedorov.
As it happens, the quote comes from Ales Hemsky, not one of ours. Ales, who some guy in the video below once said some nice things about:
What does he know?
And will the Oilers make the playoffs? Not sure. But take Hemsky out of the scoring equation, and I don't think San Jose will be upset about it.
Just a reflection. Let's see how this Kostitsyn thing goes...
Who said it?
Could have been anyone.
Could have been Andrei Kostitsyn after Bob Gainey decided that 7 games without a goal (for a guy whose career best pace gives him a average of 3 games drought between goals) means he must transform from poacher to digger.
Could have been Sidney Crosby as he tried to play the trap Michel Therrien so cleverly decided upon the trap as his strategy (probably since he didn't have any supremely talented scorers on his squad).
Could have Alexei Kovalev as he turned in some of the best defensive efforts for a forward under Guy Carbonneau.
Could have been anyone to play for Jacques Lemaire (even Guy Guy Guy Lafleur). Marian Gaborik?
It is an insight into how some players' views on hockey (particularly those that feel what they can offer does not originate from a dump and chase) can differ drastically from coaches' views.
Hockey is a team game, yes. But not all components of a team have been selected and brought in to get the job of winning done in the same way. When a GM signs a scoring winger for $6 million a year, it is understandable that said GM would be upset if coach X uses the winger like he would use, say, Trent Klatt. It is understandable that said winger might be a bit perplexed too. When a team is evaluated on the eve of the playoffs and the overriding concern is lack of scoring, does it then seem to make sense to turn the only players who might score into third line troopers?
The key phrase from the quote for me comes at the end (when he clearly starts complaining, a mere two sentences after saying he wasn't complaining):
"I will never be playing the way I was before, the way they want"
Good coaches understand this. Good coaches understand the value of playing a player the way they like to play and the way they were expected to play in October. Good coaches try to maximise their assets. Ultimately, you can win a Stanley Cup when you convert your Steve Yzerman into a shadow, but not if you don't have a Sergei Fedorov.
As it happens, the quote comes from Ales Hemsky, not one of ours. Ales, who some guy in the video below once said some nice things about:
What does he know?
And will the Oilers make the playoffs? Not sure. But take Hemsky out of the scoring equation, and I don't think San Jose will be upset about it.
Just a reflection. Let's see how this Kostitsyn thing goes...
Friday, January 23, 2009
Koivu Can't Buy A Winger
Even TSN All-Time Habs Effort Begrudges Him A Scorer
It must be a great honour to make TSN's all-time Habs team. Kind of like making this year's all-star starting lineup.
You start to feel really proud of yourself and your career and then you look over and see Mike Komisarek beside you. It doesn't bear reason.
If you want to look at the piece (which is sure to generate more traffic for their website than had they done a serious attempt) click here. The pathetic reasoning for their choices is here. Their choices here are akin to responding Farhan Lalji when asked who the best hockey media person of all time would be – short on work, long on ignorance.
They threw all their effort into being able to write this (to hook people in):
TSN staff watch too much Toronto hockey
Two top right wingers – impossible. 6 defencemen that can play with the puck – never been seen. A second goalie who can step in and win some games when the other gets injured – why bother?
Even their attempts to choose reliable, unspectacular players are silly. Top of that list is Mike Komisarek who can't hold a candle to Eric Desjardins, let alone Tom Johnson or Emile Bouchard. And adding the late John Ferguson would have been fine on the fourth line, but line 2. We know you liked his son, but come on – where's Aurel Joliat.
Koivu gets honoured then stiffed
It's a stretch to put Saku Koivu in as the number two centre of all time for the Habs, especially with Morenz and Lach not even scoring a place at all. But then to give him Ferguson on the left and Rousseau on the right is nothing more than a reminder of his last 8 years on the team – toiling with what he's given.
Had a Hab fan made the team (and kept Koivu), we would have at the very least endowed him with Toe Blake and Bernie Geoffrion, if not Lafleur and Joliat.
Third and fourth lines to shut down their better-thought out all time Leafs
Since when does an all-time team need 2 lines to kill time and penalties. Most decent GMs in the league now know that this strategy is for incompetents who haven't bothered to stock their minor league system for the past 9 drafts (hence, Toronto's initial instinct). I'm scrapping the "energy" line and putting in forwards that played with energy and skill (believe it or not, it's possible). Put Lemaire in there with Riseborough and Lambert for all I care, at least we'd be using some of the assets TSN left on the bench.
All purpose D for me
No disrespect to Mike Komisarek, but he isn't even one of the top three D on the team now. In fact, in domes at LIW he's still in 5th (even without injury, he's been far worse than the top three). I understand that the staff have to watch their own channel and thus only see what passes for hockey in Toronto. But one must cast an eye beyond blocked shots and hits – especially when those actions haven't been helping the team with defending the net by and large.
The Canadiens haven't been as well endowed with defencemen as forwards but I'd still put together this group and pick the pairings later:
Harvey, Robinson, Savard, Bouchard, Chelios and Johnson
If you want a better idea of the top team, have a look at this from a while back.
I rarely read TSN. It takes something really extraordinary for me to bother commenting on something those guys say. So I guess their mission is accomplished. I'll be watching this story with intent, but after that? Maybe a hiatus from their general shoddiness?
Even so, their tactics are interesting – I think I'll talk to Tobalev at getting Racine, Dirk, Traverse and Laflamme back in the figuring for our top 100...
You start to feel really proud of yourself and your career and then you look over and see Mike Komisarek beside you. It doesn't bear reason.
If you want to look at the piece (which is sure to generate more traffic for their website than had they done a serious attempt) click here. The pathetic reasoning for their choices is here. Their choices here are akin to responding Farhan Lalji when asked who the best hockey media person of all time would be – short on work, long on ignorance.
They threw all their effort into being able to write this (to hook people in):
"What, no Guy Lafleur?"
"Where's Patrick Roy?"
TSN staff watch too much Toronto hockey
Two top right wingers – impossible. 6 defencemen that can play with the puck – never been seen. A second goalie who can step in and win some games when the other gets injured – why bother?
Even their attempts to choose reliable, unspectacular players are silly. Top of that list is Mike Komisarek who can't hold a candle to Eric Desjardins, let alone Tom Johnson or Emile Bouchard. And adding the late John Ferguson would have been fine on the fourth line, but line 2. We know you liked his son, but come on – where's Aurel Joliat.
Koivu gets honoured then stiffed
It's a stretch to put Saku Koivu in as the number two centre of all time for the Habs, especially with Morenz and Lach not even scoring a place at all. But then to give him Ferguson on the left and Rousseau on the right is nothing more than a reminder of his last 8 years on the team – toiling with what he's given.
Had a Hab fan made the team (and kept Koivu), we would have at the very least endowed him with Toe Blake and Bernie Geoffrion, if not Lafleur and Joliat.
Third and fourth lines to shut down their better-thought out all time Leafs
Since when does an all-time team need 2 lines to kill time and penalties. Most decent GMs in the league now know that this strategy is for incompetents who haven't bothered to stock their minor league system for the past 9 drafts (hence, Toronto's initial instinct). I'm scrapping the "energy" line and putting in forwards that played with energy and skill (believe it or not, it's possible). Put Lemaire in there with Riseborough and Lambert for all I care, at least we'd be using some of the assets TSN left on the bench.
All purpose D for me
No disrespect to Mike Komisarek, but he isn't even one of the top three D on the team now. In fact, in domes at LIW he's still in 5th (even without injury, he's been far worse than the top three). I understand that the staff have to watch their own channel and thus only see what passes for hockey in Toronto. But one must cast an eye beyond blocked shots and hits – especially when those actions haven't been helping the team with defending the net by and large.
The Canadiens haven't been as well endowed with defencemen as forwards but I'd still put together this group and pick the pairings later:
Harvey, Robinson, Savard, Bouchard, Chelios and Johnson
If you want a better idea of the top team, have a look at this from a while back.
I rarely read TSN. It takes something really extraordinary for me to bother commenting on something those guys say. So I guess their mission is accomplished. I'll be watching this story with intent, but after that? Maybe a hiatus from their general shoddiness?
Even so, their tactics are interesting – I think I'll talk to Tobalev at getting Racine, Dirk, Traverse and Laflamme back in the figuring for our top 100...
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Sweaters on the Wall
I have been listening to Sam Roberts' great new album, Love at the End of the World, a lot recently after finally fixing my ipod. I like it a lot. And, as a fellow Habs fan, I was very pleased to see Sam's use of Canadiens memorabilia in his lead video for the album:
Apart from the timing with the "100th" season, which I think is a nice shout to his home team and home town, the video also made me think about favourite players and idols over the years as a Habs fan.
I have often wondered if I would be a Maurice Richard type of guy or a Guy Lafleur type. Even in the 50s, would it have been a number 9 for me? In the 70s, could I have done any number other than 10? Or even now, am I the big-star loving fan, donning 27 to games, or do I stick with the old 11, or maybe even 79?
Lists
At the same time as listening to Sam's album, I have been reading and enjoying many of the lists of Top 100 players going around at the moment. As someone who loves lists and debates, I say what could be better.
The lists are great, but really by the time you get to Chris Nilan in your top 100, it kind of starts to lose steam as a debate. I mean there have been many great players for the Habs over the years, but it seems one of the great things about our team has been the way the same stars (at least in the past) stayed with us for so long. Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau for example had 20 and 19 year careers with the Canadiens, 11 and 10 Cups.
Players like the Richards, Beliveau, Gainey, Harvey, Joliat occupying the star spotlight for huge chunks of the team's history make it necessary to find the Nilans to make up the 100. There's nothing wrong with that, just that the Beliveau vs. Richard debates are a heck of a lot more interesting than the Dahlin vs. Nilan ones.
That's why I thought we could have a think about who our favourite Habs player of all time would be and it could be a lot more interesting.
So, think about it. You have one Habs sweater to hang on your bedroom wall. Which number do you get on the back?
Why?
[I've added a poll to the sidebar to show where peoples' allegiances lie]
I'll start you off. After years of dithering and floating between players (I even used to like goalies once), I've come to the conclusion that 4 is the only Habs sweater that would hang from my bedroom wall.
For me, Jean Beliveau is the best Canadiens star there has ever been. 500 goals, 1200 points. Art Ross, Hart and Conn Smythe trophies. Captain for years. A goal every 2 playoff games, more than a point in each. 10 Stanley Cups. And I haven't even mentioned how much I admire the man.
Apart from the timing with the "100th" season, which I think is a nice shout to his home team and home town, the video also made me think about favourite players and idols over the years as a Habs fan.
I have often wondered if I would be a Maurice Richard type of guy or a Guy Lafleur type. Even in the 50s, would it have been a number 9 for me? In the 70s, could I have done any number other than 10? Or even now, am I the big-star loving fan, donning 27 to games, or do I stick with the old 11, or maybe even 79?
Lists
At the same time as listening to Sam's album, I have been reading and enjoying many of the lists of Top 100 players going around at the moment. As someone who loves lists and debates, I say what could be better.
The lists are great, but really by the time you get to Chris Nilan in your top 100, it kind of starts to lose steam as a debate. I mean there have been many great players for the Habs over the years, but it seems one of the great things about our team has been the way the same stars (at least in the past) stayed with us for so long. Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau for example had 20 and 19 year careers with the Canadiens, 11 and 10 Cups.
Players like the Richards, Beliveau, Gainey, Harvey, Joliat occupying the star spotlight for huge chunks of the team's history make it necessary to find the Nilans to make up the 100. There's nothing wrong with that, just that the Beliveau vs. Richard debates are a heck of a lot more interesting than the Dahlin vs. Nilan ones.
That's why I thought we could have a think about who our favourite Habs player of all time would be and it could be a lot more interesting.
So, think about it. You have one Habs sweater to hang on your bedroom wall. Which number do you get on the back?
Why?
[I've added a poll to the sidebar to show where peoples' allegiances lie]
I'll start you off. After years of dithering and floating between players (I even used to like goalies once), I've come to the conclusion that 4 is the only Habs sweater that would hang from my bedroom wall.
For me, Jean Beliveau is the best Canadiens star there has ever been. 500 goals, 1200 points. Art Ross, Hart and Conn Smythe trophies. Captain for years. A goal every 2 playoff games, more than a point in each. 10 Stanley Cups. And I haven't even mentioned how much I admire the man.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Their Own Lafleur: Harsh Words From Leafs Alumnus
Was reading about Mats Sundin and came across this by Howard Berger.
Check out this quote from Jim Pappin – he who led the Maple Leafs in scoring with seven goals and 15 points in the 1967 Stanley Cup playoffs (before colour TV and all that):
Don't hold anything back, Jim.
My favourite part is: "I've watched the Marlies and the farm system, and I don't see anybody there that can make them better."
Even Guy sometimes minces his words sometimes.
One thing's for certain. Lose Sundin and they'll have very large skates to replace. They'll never go quietly through free agency though, right?
Check out this quote from Jim Pappin – he who led the Maple Leafs in scoring with seven goals and 15 points in the 1967 Stanley Cup playoffs (before colour TV and all that):
"I think Mats can obviously see that Toronto is re-building and probably will not have a very good team for the next three or four years. If none of the guys like Bryan McCabe or Darcy Tucker come back, the Leafs are going to be pretty bad. I've watched the Marlies and the farm system, and I don't see anybody there that can make them better. A player or two might make the team, but won't improve the situation. I think Sundin can see that. In fact, everybody can. The Leafs are trying to become a more competitive club by getting younger. As far as loyalty, I remember when Dave Keon was used up, the Leafs let him go, and he's probably the greatest centre to ever play for the team. But, Sundin is in a different situation. Montreal is a contender, and the Canadiens picked up Alex Tanguay, another top player, at the draft. They have as good a chance as anybody to win the Stanley Cup next season. If I was Sundin, I think that's where I would want to go. And, to be honest, I don't really think the Leafs want him that badly anymore. They might offer him a lot of money, but he can get the same amount, or more, and play on a better team."
Don't hold anything back, Jim.
My favourite part is: "I've watched the Marlies and the farm system, and I don't see anybody there that can make them better."
Even Guy sometimes minces his words sometimes.
One thing's for certain. Lose Sundin and they'll have very large skates to replace. They'll never go quietly through free agency though, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)