Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

2020-21 State Of The Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

(the way we got less value than we could have for Pacioretty

I wonder what we could have gotten in return back then that would be better than what Suzuki and Tatar have added to this club ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I wonder what we could have gotten in return back then that would be better than what Suzuki and Tatar have added to this club ?

Im not sure we would have gotten more value in how they actually panned out but remember that when we acquired them Tatar was a salary dump and Suzuki still had questions.  Both have worked out as well as we possibly could have hoped but I think BT's point was that at the time if Pacioretty hadnt been devalued by this team, we possibly could have gotten more tangible assets.  Now, maybe they wouldnt have worked out, but at the time it felt like we got a very good prospect, a pick and a throw in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Im not sure we would have gotten more value in how they actually panned out but remember that when we acquired them Tatar was a salary dump and Suzuki still had questions.  Both have worked out as well as we possibly could have hoped but I think BT's point was that at the time if Pacioretty hadnt been devalued by this team, we possibly could have gotten more tangible assets.  Now, maybe they wouldnt have worked out, but at the time it felt like we got a very good prospect, a pick and a throw in. 

....maybe the point is that Bergevin did get optimum value for Paccs at the time he was traded ...somebody to be given credit for this trade at a time when Montreal was lacking centre depth and crossed some needs off ....maybe other offers didn't make sense at the time .....Paccs wasn't doing very well as captain in Montreal...on the other hand Vegas has remained extremely relevant despite trading away assets and Max has played well for them so the trade worked well for both clubs ...Seattle will probably want to follow LV's blueprint  at the ED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering where all the "EDIT" went who don’t know a legit number two Dman looks like when they see one? 

you deserve crow and pie - so you getting called out. 
 

chairot - one of the most under valued and under appreciated Dmen in team history. 
 

go Habs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

....maybe the point is that Bergevin did get optimum value for Paccs at the time he was traded ...somebody to be given credit for this trade at a time when Montreal was lacking centre depth and crossed some needs off ....maybe other offers didn't make sense at the time .....Paccs wasn't doing very well as captain in Montreal...on the other hand Vegas has remained extremely relevant despite trading away assets and Max has played well for them so the trade worked well for both clubs ...Seattle will probably want to follow LV's blueprint  at the ED

If memory serves and the reports were accurate, Bergevin tried to get Cody Glass for Pacioretty but ended up having to "settle" for Suzuki, Tatar, and a 2nd rounder, which in retrospect was probably a blessing in disguise. I haven't followed Glass at all but it looks like we ended up with the better player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

If memory serves and the reports were accurate, Bergevin tried to get Cody Glass for Pacioretty but ended up having to "settle" for Suzuki, Tatar, and a 2nd rounder, which in retrospect was probably a blessing in disguise. I haven't followed Glass at all but it looks like we ended up with the better player.

Who was that second rounder? Fair value so far. And likely better going forward. Suzuki is nearly at Patches level in overall impact on a game. And only improving. And many years left. Tartar had a nice run on our top line that is so strong historically 5 on 5. But likely gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dreegking said:

Who was that second rounder? Fair value so far. And likely better going forward. Suzuki is nearly at Patches level in overall impact on a game. And only improving. And many years left. Tartar had a nice run on our top line that is so strong historically 5 on 5. But likely gone. 

Pretty sure we used the pick to draft Mattias Norlinder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

Seth Jones not resigning in Columbus, would he ever look sweet in a habs jersey.  Our D core would instantly be elevated. 

$$$$$$$$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Seth Jones makes sense for us. They're going to want some good young players in return and we shouldn't be mortgaging our future for the present. As a UFA we should definitely target him though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiLla said:

If memory serves and the reports were accurate, Bergevin tried to get Cody Glass for Pacioretty but ended up having to "settle" for Suzuki, Tatar, and a 2nd rounder, which in retrospect was probably a blessing in disguise. I haven't followed Glass at all but it looks like we ended up with the better player.


Thats correct. MB really wanted Glass. The deal was purportedly Glass + Tatar (Salary) for Patches.  They offered Nick + Pick & we took it.  Glass is still on track (but stumbled a bit). I think he's more in the JK mould (bigger, better defensively) but i suspect Nick will outscore him over their careers. 

1 hour ago, dreegking said:

Who was that second rounder? Fair value so far. And likely better going forward. Suzuki is nearly at Patches level in overall impact on a game. And only improving. And many years left. Tartar had a nice run on our top line that is so strong historically 5 on 5. But likely gone. 

 

1 hour ago, ChiLla said:

Pretty sure we used the pick to draft Mattias Norlinder

Correct - with an amendment.   We traded that 2nd rounder to LA for a 3rd and 7th (I think? could have been a 6th) - at any rate, we used those picks to get Norlinder and LeGeurrier.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2021 at 10:36 PM, ChiLla said:

I understand the disappointment and I'm as disappointed as the next guy, but it's not like this is a suprise. The difference in this series is talent, which we simply don't have enough of, at least not guys that are able to come through and tip the scales when we need it. Toronto is a beatable team and I don't see them winning the cup, it's just that we can't beat them in a 7-game series. I truly hope the boys prove me wrong and with better deployment and a healthy Drouin in the lineup things may look a little different, but the Leafs are also missing Tavares and either way I don't think we're able to win three straight games against them.

Glad to be proven wrong by the boys, wasn't expecting this comeback at all, especially after staying up late and watching games 2 and 4 (looks like I clearly picked the wrong ones :lol:).

Series MVP: Carey Price. But I also think our 4 big guys on D (and everybody else, especially Danault) did a tremendous job containing the Leafs' top line, keeping Matthews/Marner to 1 goal in 7 games is no small feat. Trying to run-and-gun with them would have likely been a recipe for disaster, that was playoff hockey and our boys were ready while the Laffs clearly were not. Credit where credit is due, the plan worked and maybe – just maybe – keeping Romanov out of the lineup wasn't such a bad call after all. I still don't agree with the decision but the outcome speaks for itself and I'm just sitting here following games at a TV screen from across the pond, so there's that.

Just spent an hour reading random comments on various Leaf forums on the interwebs, what a great way to start the day :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow that was spectacular!:5185:

I know we have all been frustrated with the team over the season and have at times been pretty vocal about Price, Dmen, Danault etc. I am not sure what took place after game #4 but there had to be some soul searching and deep looks into the mirror because this team really showed their colors in games 5-7. They looked good in game #1 but then they slipped into that mode we have seen over the season but what a resergence.

The top four dmen that we all had doubts about were studs in this series. They pounded the shit out of the Leaf's forwards, blocked a lot of scoring opportunities and in game #6 they were incredible as they carried the load despite a lot of criticism by the writers and broadcasters. The young players worked very well with the vets and the vets were the leaders for sure. A lot was said about Perry but he has been a leader on the ice and is playing like he did last year. I thought the captain was 10 steps better than he was all year and showed why he is wearing the "C". I have been critical of KK over the season but he played very well in this series as did all of the young guns.

What can we say about #31! As I posted a few days ago I do not beleive that there is a goalie in th NHL that has won more games for his team than Price. He can now add four more to his total and he has been nothing short of spectacular! When he is focused like he has been there is no one better. During the season he was very lathargic and looked like he was not in the game. Not sure if the major change is due to Burke or the fact that he may have been playing hurt. That rest before the playoffs sure made a difference and he is once again the Price we loved to watch. We are where we are due to his stellar play.

I know we have all been down on Danault but this guy is my hero! He just shut down Matthews and it was nice to see Matthews acknowledge his efforts in the hand shake line. He did not score any goals but what he did defensively was outstanding! Overall this was a major team effort and everyone contributed to the end result.

Well we are off to Winnipeg and the well rested Jets. The Habs will have their hands full again as this team is in my opinion a much better team than TO. No matter what happens eliminating the Leafs created a smile on my face that will cannot be removed. The Habs have proven us all wrong in this series and they can play the game when they are focused and determined to work together. Let's keep the faith, not be as critical and maybe just maybe we will represent the North division in the Semi's.

Nothing makes me happier than to see the Leaf's once again eliminated. Dubas will now have to find a couple more 50 million dollar players to see if next year will be the year they get past round one. 

Go Habs Go!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt our D was going to be ok going into this but I still feel Romanov should have been in there instead of Merrill, Price was magic as good as he could have been. I always knew it would be tough even though I hate the Leafs you have to respect the scoring potential of this that team and once our team D started to come together our D men were able to get the job done. still not sure what the goal was not playing JK and CC was at the begining? but it worked. really happy for the team they worked for it and it payed off big! now they have to come up with a game plan for Peg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deeper we go the more concerned I get with our D ... our top 4 did step up for the last 3 games against the leafs, but given how Weber/Chiarot specifically played down the stretch I'm sitting here waiting for the regression back to being pylons.    Weber especially, we all know how he starts to look gassed after too much ice time and we just played the hell out of him in the last 4 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HabsAlways said:

The deeper we go the more concerned I get with our D ... our top 4 did step up for the last 3 games against the leafs, but given how Weber/Chiarot specifically played down the stretch I'm sitting here waiting for the regression back to being pylons.    Weber especially, we all know how he starts to look gassed after too much ice time and we just played the hell out of him in the last 4 games.

Chiarot is the one that impressed me the most out of the 4. He had some brutal games this year and i would have begged somebody to take him off our hands after some of those giveaways,,, but he stepped it up this series and dished out a ton of punishment to the Leafs. Let's not be fooled though,,,, Price made all 4 of these guys look like the second coming of Robinson and company. The biggest difference i saw in this series was the forwards coming back to help out, rather than counting on the D getting it up to them.

Can we beat the Jets??? I have faith, but we'll have to punish them just as much as we did the Leafs. That was probably Edmonton's downfall,,,, not being physical enough. Let's not make the same error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HabsAlways said:

The deeper we go the more concerned I get with our D ... our top 4 did step up for the last 3 games against the leafs, but given how Weber/Chiarot specifically played down the stretch I'm sitting here waiting for the regression back to being pylons.    Weber especially, we all know how he starts to look gassed after too much ice time and we just played the hell out of him in the last 4 games.

Watching guys like Weber, Price, Perry, Staal - i wonder how much of the regular season was them not wanting to push too hard.  Whether they had injuries already (like Weber) or didnt want to risk one, sometimes you see vets play at 80% because they known the games arent as crucial and you dont want an injury in a nothing game during the regular season. 

The amount they have all turned it up makes me think that they are pushing through the pain and/or taking risks they wouldnt normally.  Ive seen Weber make plays & expend effort I havent seen all season until now. Or price making a diving save he almost never attempts during the regular season.  

So while i think your concerns are valid, I think we might be surprised with how they can maintain it, while the games have greater meaning.  All of these old guys know this may be one of their last shots to get a whiff of the cup...

 

4 hours ago, H_T_L said:

Chiarot is the one that impressed me the most out of the 4. He had some brutal games this year and i would have begged somebody to take him off our hands after some of those giveaways,,, but he stepped it up this series and dished out a ton of punishment to the Leafs. Let's not be fooled though,,,, Price made all 4 of these guys look like the second coming of Robinson and company. The biggest difference i saw in this series was the forwards coming back to help out, rather than counting on the D getting it up to them.

Can we beat the Jets??? I have faith, but we'll have to punish them just as much as we did the Leafs. That was probably Edmonton's downfall,,,, not being physical enough. Let's not make the same error.

Definitely there was more of a team-effort all round on defense. The forwards coming back made a massive difference because our big issue on D has been getting it up the ice so with forwards skating the puck out from our hashmarks, that changes things.  Will it tire our forwards more? maybe but by and large they are pretty young in the top 9 at least.

I was also impressed with Chiarot. Im one of the few here that has thought he was decent (ive always said he should be in our lineup, just further down).  He's actually a pretty good skater and I dont think he is necessarily as slow and lumbering as Weber, i just think when you play them together you get that sense.  When he plays with Kulak for example, they both seem faster. Id like more of that. Ideally id like to see Edmundson-Petry,  Romanov - Weber, and Kulak-Chairot  although i think Gustafsson has the inside track over Romanov. I hope the kid gets a shot this round though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An entire team effort yesterday. I didn't get to see games 5 or 6, so i don't know who individually played great but I have to give love to Armia and Chiarot last night, they just seemed to be dialed in and played mistake free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, booboo_mtl said:

An entire team effort yesterday. I didn't get to see games 5 or 6, so i don't know who individually played great but I have to give love to Armia and Chiarot last night, they just seemed to be dialed in and played mistake free. 

Chiarot got absolutely rocked early in the game & i was worried it woudl affect his play (he was visibly in pain) but i dont think he even missed a shift. Totally dialed in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Chiarot got absolutely rocked early in the game & i was worried it woudl affect his play (he was visibly in pain) but i dont think he even missed a shift. Totally dialed in. 

 

8 hours ago, HabsAlways said:

The deeper we go the more concerned I get with our D ... our top 4 did step up for the last 3 games against the leafs, but given how Weber/Chiarot specifically played down the stretch I'm sitting here waiting for the regression back to being pylons.    Weber especially, we all know how he starts to look gassed after too much ice time and we just played the hell out of him in the last 4 games.

 

8 hours ago, tony5775 said:

Expected to read a lot more apologies to our much disrespected defenders. Weber and Chariot mostly. Not to mention Eric Stall who had two assists in game seven. 

Count me as one of those that disrespected Chiarot, Weber and Edmundson - Chiarot really stepped up his game including blocked shots, and the entire big 4 were physical, and wore down the Laffs. They are still IMO overall too slow, and we lack a LHD puck mover to jump start the offensive transition beyond Petry. One series does not make a defense, and IMO the leafs carried the offensive play to Price who bailed our D out substantially. OK sure it's a team game and the D did help, but not to the degree that I think they are MVP Norris candidates. As to Staal - those assists were pretty garbage - Gallagher's shot was on his effort as was Toffoli's empty netter - they were not exactly playmaking primary assists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grades for Round 1, and I'll preface this by saying that we won the series, but we could have easily gone out in 5 or 6 (especially getting dominated in OT in Game 6) and the headlines would have been mightily different. Carey Price stood on his head and played extremely consistently good hockey, and that was the major difference from how the regular season went. As for the D men, let's just say that the played badly most of the series. It's revisionist to say they played well just because we won the series. This team got dominated more games than they played well and the D couldn't move the puck to springboard the offence and didn't generate many points themselves until late in the series. That said, I will say that Gustafsson and Kulak coming in for Merrill really helped, and the entire D played a monster game in Game 7.  You could also see a better team when Caufield and Kotkaniemi got in, which is what Sheldon Keefe said was a big lift for how the Habs played. So without further ado...

Goalie:

- Price: A+. Hard to ask for anything more than what he gave us.

Defence:

- Gustafsson: A. We all have our doubts about him but the numbers are there. The PP was better when he was inserted there over Weber and Petry, and he had the best possession numbers on the team and it wasn't even close.

- Chiarot: B+. He struggled off and on but he played well in Game 6 and even better in Game 7 when it counted.

- Edmundson: B. Like Chiarot, his play was uneven and he had a couple of big gaffes late in the series, but he was our most consistent D man for the first 4 games.

- Petry: B-. He was solid in his own end but he was also unspectacular offensively and didn't create very much. Habs will need more from Petry going forward.

- Weber: C-. I'll give credit to Chiarot and Edmundson for stepping up their games, but Weber was largely meh for me the entire series. Yes, he played big minutes, but that doesn't mean he played them well. He was a negative Corsi player and he had a poor expected goals for % of just 41%. The Habs were largely pinned into their own zone a lot when he was on the ice, and his decision-making in his own zone was way too slow. To boot, he didn't add anything offensively. Toronto isn't a fast team, so I worry about how he'll do matched up against faster forwards as the playoffs go on. This was a weak first round for Weber on the back of a weak season.

- Kulak: D. I was disappointed by Kulak's Round 1. A largely strong possession player, he was dominated in this series, albeit much of that had to do with being paired with Jon Merrill and then having no consistent partner or side of the ice the rest of the way. I thought coaching deployment here was poor, but the player too needs to step up.

- Merrill: F... continues to be the worst player on the team and we could see the team was better without him in the line-up.

Forwards:

- Evans: A+... the team was 3-0 with him in the line-up and he was one of the best players on the team in each of those games. Great engine.

- Kotkaniemi: A... no clue why he sat Game 1. He scored big goals and he gave us a strong physical presence.

- Suzuki: A-... not there every night, but he stepped up big when we needed him and he played well defensively on most nights too.

- Danault: A-... the guy did very little offensively, but he was extremely strong checking the Matthews line and holding them off the scoreboard. So it was almost like he gave us goals by keeping Matthews and Marner off the scoresheet.

- Caufield: A-... pretty decent first series for Caufield. He showed he's not just a one-trick pony and made some nice defensive plays in addition to looking like he just knew where to be on the ice at all times.

- Perry: A-... he does some things poorly but he does some key things well and he stepped up his game when it counted.

- Gallagher: B... he played poorly to start the series, but you had to love his Game 7. He might have been our best player in that one.

- Armia: B... played reasonably well throughout the series and did his job.

- Tatar: B-... might get some disagreement on this, but he wasn't the problem. He didn't score, but his possession numbers were #1 on the team among forwards and he was part of the group shutting down Matthews too. Maybe the benching will help, but the Habs need him back in there and contributing and he was far from being the worst player on the team.

- Staal: C+... played better than I thought he would but I'm still questioning his role on the team.

- Toffoli: C... he scored some goals near the end but he just wasn't as involved as he needed to be. Could make an argument he was no better than Tatar for the first 5 games.

- Anderson: C-... looks lost out there a lot of the time. He'll make a big rush and then not know what to do when he gets to the net or he'll just start gliding around the ice. We need him to be more of the power forward he was earlier in the year and crash the net.

- Byron: C-... a great goal in Game 1 but otherwise not the most visible player and certainly a guy who could lose his spot in the line-up.

- Lehkonen: C-... like Byron, he wasn't awful but he also wasn't a standout in any way and he had the worst expected goals ratio on the team.

Coach:

- Ducharme: D... I know we won the series, but we won because Carey stood on his head and largely in spite of Ducharme. He sat Kotkaniemi and Caufield when they ended up being two of our better players. He sat Romanov the entire series. He rode Merrill too much and only took him out because he got hurt. He overplayed his favorite 4 D men when they were clearly exhausted and unable to skate, and it almost cost us Game 6. And our PP was abysmal in the first half of the series and again, only seemed to improve when the Merrill injury forced Ducharme's hand and put Gus in instead. Again, I get it that we won a series and the coach is typically given credit for that, but this team got out-played in most games and won because the goalie won the series for us, not because the coach did. I do not feel the coach made decisions that put us in our best position to win and we frankly got lucky to have not been knocked out in 5 or 6. He'll have to be much better if we have any hope against Winnipeg, another team we struggled against in the regular season, largely because their top line exploited our weak defence corps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

My grades for Round 1, and I'll preface this by saying that we won the series, but we could have easily gone out in 5 or 6 (especially getting dominated in OT in Game 6) and the headlines would have been mightily different. Carey Price stood on his head and played extremely consistently good hockey, and that was the major difference from how the regular season went. As for the D men, let's just say that the played badly most of the series. It's revisionist to say they played well just because we won the series. This team got dominated more games than they played well and the D couldn't move the puck to springboard the offence and didn't generate many points themselves until late in the series. That said, I will say that Gustafsson and Kulak coming in for Merrill really helped, and the entire D played a monster game in Game 7.  You could also see a better team when Caufield and Kotkaniemi got in, which is what Sheldon Keefe said was a big lift for how the Habs played. So without further ado...

Goalie:

- Price: A+. Hard to ask for anything more than what he gave us.

Defence:

- Gustafsson: A. We all have our doubts about him but the numbers are there. The PP was better when he was inserted there over Weber and Petry, and he had the best possession numbers on the team and it wasn't even close.

- Chiarot: B+. He struggled off and on but he played well in Game 6 and even better in Game 7 when it counted.

- Edmundson: B. Like Chiarot, his play was uneven and he had a couple of big gaffes late in the series, but he was our most consistent D man for the first 4 games.

- Petry: B-. He was solid in his own end but he was also unspectacular offensively and didn't create very much. Habs will need more from Petry going forward.

- Weber: C-. I'll give credit to Chiarot and Edmundson for stepping up their games, but Weber was largely meh for me the entire series. Yes, he played big minutes, but that doesn't mean he played them well. He was a negative Corsi player and he had a poor expected goals for % of just 41%. The Habs were largely pinned into their own zone a lot when he was on the ice, and his decision-making in his own zone was way too slow. To boot, he didn't add anything offensively. Toronto isn't a fast team, so I worry about how he'll do matched up against faster forwards as the playoffs go on. This was a weak first round for Weber on the back of a weak season.

- Kulak: D. I was disappointed by Kulak's Round 1. A largely strong possession player, he was dominated in this series, albeit much of that had to do with being paired with Jon Merrill and then having no consistent partner or side of the ice the rest of the way. I thought coaching deployment here was poor, but the player too needs to step up.

- Merrill: F... continues to be the worst player on the team and we could see the team was better without him in the line-up.

Forwards:

- Evans: A+... the team was 3-0 with him in the line-up and he was one of the best players on the team in each of those games. Great engine.

- Kotkaniemi: A... no clue why he sat Game 1. He scored big goals and he gave us a strong physical presence.

- Suzuki: A-... not there every night, but he stepped up big when we needed him and he played well defensively on most nights too.

- Danault: A-... the guy did very little offensively, but he was extremely strong checking the Matthews line and holding them off the scoreboard. So it was almost like he gave us goals by keeping Matthews and Marner off the scoresheet.

- Caufield: A-... pretty decent first series for Caufield. He showed he's not just a one-trick pony and made some nice defensive plays in addition to looking like he just knew where to be on the ice at all times.

- Perry: A-... he does some things poorly but he does some key things well and he stepped up his game when it counted.

- Gallagher: B... he played poorly to start the series, but you had to love his Game 7. He might have been our best player in that one.

- Armia: B... played reasonably well throughout the series and did his job.

- Tatar: B-... might get some disagreement on this, but he wasn't the problem. He didn't score, but his possession numbers were #1 on the team among forwards and he was part of the group shutting down Matthews too. Maybe the benching will help, but the Habs need him back in there and contributing and he was far from being the worst player on the team.

- Staal: C+... played better than I thought he would but I'm still questioning his role on the team.

- Toffoli: C... he scored some goals near the end but he just wasn't as involved as he needed to be. Could make an argument he was no better than Tatar for the first 5 games.

- Anderson: C-... looks lost out there a lot of the time. He'll make a big rush and then not know what to do when he gets to the net or he'll just start gliding around the ice. We need him to be more of the power forward he was earlier in the year and crash the net.

- Byron: C-... a great goal in Game 1 but otherwise not the most visible player and certainly a guy who could lose his spot in the line-up.

- Lehkonen: C-... like Byron, he wasn't awful but he also wasn't a standout in any way and he had the worst expected goals ratio on the team.

Coach:

- Ducharme: D... I know we won the series, but we won because Carey stood on his head and largely in spite of Ducharme. He sat Kotkaniemi and Caufield when they ended up being two of our better players. He sat Romanov the entire series. He rode Merrill too much and only took him out because he got hurt. He overplayed his favorite 4 D men when they were clearly exhausted and unable to skate, and it almost cost us Game 6. And our PP was abysmal in the first half of the series and again, only seemed to improve when the Merrill injury forced Ducharme's hand and put Gus in instead. Again, I get it that we won a series and the coach is typically given credit for that, but this team got out-played in most games and won because the goalie won the series for us, not because the coach did. I do not feel the coach made decisions that put us in our best position to win and we frankly got lucky to have not been knocked out in 5 or 6. He'll have to be much better if we have any hope against Winnipeg, another team we struggled against in the regular season, largely because their top line exploited our weak defence corps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gustafasson our top D during this series????? I love Petry but you gave him a B . He was on for most of the goals against and didn't look great offensively. I wonder if he's nursing something.

Weber a D???? He played great he broke up numerous plats around the net and played great defensively (which is what a defenseman is supposed to do) 

Throw "Corsi" out the window watch the games! Players that are playing in shutdown roles usually don't look as good in possession areas but are doing a very important part of the job. Gusta looked okay in one partial game , he looked nervous as did Kulak in the other game he was in. 

I would like to see Romanov get so time against the Jets because they are a physical team and he can play physical. 

To each their own opinion but I think sometimes it's to easy to get caught up in advanced stats.  Remember Toronto is a team very heavy on advanced stats usage. We just beat them. I also think the biggest factor happened in game 1. Toronto isn't the same without Tavares  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...