Canadiens Hang On To Beat Kings
When suggesting that an equal mindset continued on to L.A., it should be noted that the Canadiens were in command of the Sharks contest two nights earlier, for large chunks of the game, carrying the lead until the dying minutes.
What began in San Jose continued in Los Angeles to a certain extent. The Canadiens were up against a physical club ready to make them pay for every inch of ice. Win or lose, hard hitting, fast skating teams bring out the best in the Habs. With a playoff spot on the line, they should be welcoming such challenges, as it will season them perfectly for what is to come in the final 16 games, and hopefully beyond.
Against the Kings, a similar scenario looked to be playing out.
Early in the game, the Canadiens were so hungry in their puck pursuit, it looked as though they were gunning with a two man forecheck. That is hardly their usual approach. It's smart use of team speed if you ask me, and my preferred way of taking on a heady foe. On the road, a team must acclimate itself to a rival, as it is difficult to enforce one's system against a team that owns the last line change.
In other words, it's no time to be a fox in the den of lions.
On that note, the Habs would have been red meat in both games had they not scored the first goal, which they accomplished both times. Considering that the Canadiens are not only on the road, but in a western California swing, out of their time zone, after an Olympic layoff, and facing two of the top six teams in the NHL without their leading goal scorer, it should be underlined that this club's desire to win is unquestionable.
Scoring in the first minute of the game in L.A. is testament to that notion.
Now the similarities in both games played on until late in the Kings contest, and I wouldn't dare suggest that it was the Habs who made the difference. Just like the game before, they hung on for dear life as the game wound down. The Kings, after a certain time, were all over Montreal, just as the Sharks were two nights earlier. The Habs gave it all they had, but the difference maker might have been that the Kings just don't have the offensive thrust, potency and accuracy that the Sharks own.
After the Canadiens had made it a 3-1 game, seconds into the third, they laid back, and although it was said on RDS that the Kings went ten minutes without a shot, the Canadiens allowed their adversaries to tilt the rink their way.
It was inevitable then, given the Kings assets, that they would reduce the margin, which they did six minutes later. Michael Handzus duplicated Anze Kopitar's earlier goal, by muscling straight into the Canadiens crease practically unchallenged, before feeding off to Fredrik Modin, to make it 3-2.
Scary, that on both Kings goals, players were allowed to walk right in.
At this point in the game, don't you wish that Jacques Martin would call a timeout at the appropriate time one of these days?
Maybe you're like me, cause all I'm thinking here is "settle the troops, calm the nerves", but "no", good ol' placid Jacques lets it go, and I'm shittin' thinkin' that "lose this game, and the playoffs are toast."
When it was all said and done, maybe Martin understood that he was coaching against the equally easily unnerved Terry Murray, who yanked goalie Jonathan Quick without the benefit of Kings puck possession in the Habs' end. Quick sat on pine for all of 19 seconds before the Canadiens were lured like a magnet to the Kings' open net.
When it comes to playing with the lead against strongs clubs, how is it that the Habs can practice this? It just don't happen often enough.
Some thinkings thought by me during this game
I do not see a tiring Tomas Plekanec at all, as many do. What I see are teams league wide being more aware of what Plekanec can do, and hence paying more attention to him.
Plekanec is not a 30 goal scorer. Never will be. He's a puck mover and a playmaker, with an eye on his responsabilities at both ends. One way the league is learning to neutralize him is to take away his wingers. What we are seeing and realizing perhaps, is that the Kostitsyn brothers aren't as good at hitting open spaces with stride and speed, as Mike Cammalleri does.
One last thing on Plekanec. On his empty netter that sealed the win, he had every right to celebrate the goal jubilantly. He didn't. He simply pointed over to Sergei Kostitsyn, with who he worked a perfect give and go. No fist pump. No stick raised. Not a trace of ego. Just a player's player, a teammated and leader, showing respect.
More for Moore
Dominic Moore, still think that Gauthier paid too high a price for him with a second rounder? Ask again, after he resigns with Montreal and plays another season. This guy is good.
The umpteenth re-evaluation of the Gomez trade
I've long sat on the fence as far as the Gomez trade goes, and my butt don't take kindly to barbed wire. There are games when I like this Gainey deal more than others.
With Plekanec, Gomez gives the Habs two potential centers who can notch 40 assists. Add in that Christopher Higgins has been dispatched to Calgary, and that Tom Pyatt acquired in the same deal is making an NHL contribution, and the trade is all win/win for the Habs so far.
Now that Gomez salary is a whole other gumbo.
Benny worth every penny
Benoit Pouliot scored his 13th goal in 23 games with the Canadiens since being traded for Minnesota for Guillaume Latendresse. Pouliot has missed some games due to injury, but in my mathematics, his scoring ratio is on par with a 46 goal season.
Yes, grab that calculator!
Everytime Pouliot scores a goal, his future bankers drool, because he ought to hit a handsome payday, if not this summer, then the one following. He'll be worth it.
This summer, if I am Pierre Gauthier, I offer him a five year, fifteen million dollar deal. Am I nuts, or is Benny crazy not to jump at it. Again, if I'm Pierre, I roll that dice.
Halak worth as many pennies as Rinne?
Nashville Predators goaltender Pekka Rinne has fashioned a 52-28-8 record since 2005-06, on what could be fairly termed, as defensive team. In a parallel time span, Jaroslav Halak has posted comparative numbers (47-31-4 since 2006-07) with the Canadiens.
Why I bring this up, is because Halak can take his contract offer to arbitration this summer. Rinne has recently signed a deal paying him $3.4M over the next two seasons.
Halak will argue, and likely win, that he is worth as much.
Carey Price's entry level contract also expires this summer, but he is one contract away from qualifying for arbitration.
If you believe that the Canadiens can continue on with two "goalies of the future" into next season, I sincerely hope the one you like, won't be the one you miss.
With both Plekanec and Pouliot due well deserved raises, and with a salary cap destined to shrink, one goalie is a definite goner.
A shame, really!
The Lapierre 4 game suspension and the continued pussification of hockey
Before you jump all over me on this, consider what is and isn't a hockey play.
A winger (Maxim Lapierre) is in pursuit of another winger (Scott Nichol), who is on a breakaway. The pursuant is by reknown, more fleet of foot and stride than the player being chased. The goaltender makes the save on the play, but the rebound redirects straight up into the air. The attacker (Nichol), unnacustomed as he is to breakaways, slows, and attempts to bat the descending puck at the right edge of the crease. The pursuant Lapierre, a step or more behind Nichol, makes an instinctive hockey play, by crosschecking Nichol from the area. Replays show that Nichol was already off balance by the time Lapierre gave him the stick shove. It is also apparent that Lapierre was in the final extensions of a crosschecking motion, when he made contact with an already off balance Nichol.
With an official in view of the entire play at the goal line, a penalty was not called on Lapierre.
Furthermore, a scrum ensued, without a San Jose soul going after Lapierre.
Meanwhile, Sharks players directed themselves towards Abdrei Markov
I say pussification because the NHL is so intent to cover their tails, they penalize and suspend based on the result, moreso than the actual play itself. Scott Nichol did his best Mike Ribeiro immitation after playing up the injury. Like Nichol entering the scrum, after looking like at stretcher case for a few seconds, then rising to be a scrum participant, didn't give the lark away from the get go.
It was a hockey play, nothing more, nothing less, in the heat of action and reaction, that deserved at best a two minute minor. Four games, is nothing more than the NHL disciplinarians trying to convince bleeding hearts that they are on their side.
0 recs |
14 comments
|
Comments
You're right about Lapierre
I agree with you about Lapierre. He didn’t do anything in an aggressive manner. The guy was on Price’s corner looking for a rebound. I would have probably done the same thing. At best since it could have developed into a significant injury was two for cross checking and two for unsportsmanlike. The extra two is for those other times in the NHL when you do have goons and assholes two show them they’ll get more…
Being reckless and pushing someone into the boards from behind is as bad as intentionally hitting from behind into the boards. Both are serious no-nos that could lead to severe injury.
We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence.
DION F*****G PHANEUF
by Belligerent Burkie on Mar 8, 2010 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
And I say you’re wrong about Lapierre. I saw that and instantly thought it was a cheap shot, five and a game. It was a late hit, well after the play (over two seconds, just using the TSN clock as HNIC did last night), a shove from behind directly into the boards from a good ten feet away (actually, eleven, since he was right on the goal line). It wasn’t necessary, it wasn’t part of the play, and I have no problem with him getting four games for it. You just can’t hit guys after the play when they’re in a vulnerable position. It’s dangerous and unnecessary and stupid. And the fact that the Sharks went after Markov, and not him, shows that they indeed didn’t like the hit, and felt it should be answered for; they just got the wrong guy.
As for Nichol’s subsequent participation, did you notice how he was holding his arm the whole time, and not really doing much other than yelling? That looks exactly like a dislocated shoulder. So he went down, was in obvious pain for a few seconds, then got up slowly, yelled at the guy for a few seconds, then went off. And that makes it a dive? That to me betrays a lack of understanding of the actual injury incurred. Even if he came back later (and I don’t know; I didn’t see the game, since I needed to get up early the next day), some ATs are content to pop that shoulder right back in and deal with the rest after the game, particularly if the player has a history of shoulder dislocation and this is nothing new.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Is it a full two seconds after Nichol attempted to bat the puck mid air? No, it was immediate. That it might have been two seconds after Nichols initial shot on goal is hardly the call. The play was still going on when Lapierre hit him. The reason Nichol is hurt is because he was off balance, stick raised, trying to whack the puck. That he was attempting to make contact with the puck requires Lapierre to clear him, crosscheck, body check, or shove. Lapierre’s cross check shove came with his arms almost fully extended, showing that the push couldn’t have been that hard. It was a hockey play, not an attempt to injure.
If by “almost fully extended,” you mean “almost 90 degrees of flexion,” okay. More to the point, when is a hit from behind ten feet into the boards, irrespective of circumstance, not a boarding penalty? When is that not a dangerous play?
Here’s a link to the HD version of the video, by the way.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
From the clip link you provided, at the 2:19 mark, you can see Lapierre begin his cross check shove of Nichol, whose stick is in the air. The puck has bounced past Nichol (on screen, it’s about an 1 1/4 inches left of Lapierre’s head). The angle of this shot is deceiving, as Lapierre’s stick has yet to begin the push, but you can see the intent as the puck bat attempt happens. He doesn’t begin to move Nichol until the goal line, by which time Nichol’s feet aren’t making a stopping motion.
I’m in a very small minority, but in my eyes it’s a reactionary hockey play on a scoring chance and not an attempt to injure. It’s unfortunate that it resulted the way it did.
I can’t see any way to justify that hit, but to each their own, I guess.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
there isn’t any way to justify it — and it really annoys me that people are trying to…
That it might have been two seconds after Nichols initial shot on goal is hardly the call. The play was still going on when Lapierre hit him.
this I agree with… that’s the problem with the NHL’s/Colin Campbell’s explanation… the time really isn’t relevant…
The reason Nichol is hurt is because he was off balance, stick raised, trying to whack the puck. That he was attempting to make contact with the puck requires Lapierre to clear him, crosscheck, body check, or shove. Lapierre’s cross check shove came with his arms almost fully extended, showing that the push couldn’t have been that hard. It was a hockey play, not an attempt to injure.
and this is where you’re completely wrong… Nichol was hurt because Lapierre sent him into the boards for no good reason… you claim Lapierre had to ‘clear him’, except 1) the puck was high in the air — it looked at least head level, if not over Nichol’s head, to me and 2) the puck was already past Nichol, and maybe even Lapierre, when Lapierre hit Nichol… so why did Lapierre need to clear him???… either Nichol would miss the puck — which he already did — or he would have hit it with a high stick and then no Shark could have played it, so there was no reason to touch Nichol…
and I’m not disputing that Lapierre’s cross-check wasn’t the hardest I’ve ever seen but that’s also irrelevant… but using that argument to justify it means if I were to push someone with just my arm strength (and not put any body weight behind it) it can’t be considered a serious act because it’s a light push — well, what if that person is standing at the top of a flight of stairs or on the edge of a subway/metro platform? it becomes pretty serious then doesn’t it?… you totally ignore the context of that ‘minor’ cross-check — Nichol was skating towards the end boards, Lapierre was following him and was also heading towards the end boards, so Lapierre clearly had (or should have had) ‘situational awareness’, Lapierre knew Nichol was in a vulnerable position and he still cross-checked Nichol directly in the back… IMO, the situation/context PLUS the act itself equals Lapierre intended to send Nichol into the boards…
I don’t know, Robert. To me, it’s pretty telling that we haven’t heard much from the Habs management/coaching staff in terms of support for Max. Maybe it’s strategic (pick your battles) but Max got ripped a new one pretty good by commentators and the team didn’t feel the need to stick up for him. In fact, they went out and won two games in two nights. I don’t think his action or reaction went over with his teammates and coaches very well.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
It was a hockey play, nothing more, nothing less, in the heat of action and reaction, that deserved at best a two minute minor. Four games, is nothing more than the NHL disciplinarians trying to convince bleeding hearts that they are on their side.
Amazing how completely wrong you can be.
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
by ang6666 on Mar 7, 2010 8:13 PM EST reply actions
Ok, looks like we have some straightening out to do
With an official in view of the entire play at the goal line, a penalty was not called on Lapierre.
Yes, because we all know refs never make the wrong call, right?
Furthermore, a scrum ensued, without a San Jose soul going after Lapierre.
Meanwhile, Sharks players directed themselves towards Abdrei Markov
I have no idea who this “Abdrei Markov” person is, but I recall people going after Andrei Markov because nobody knew who to actually go after. Not really sure how the San Jose players being unaware absolves Lapierre of his action.
I say pussification because the NHL is so intent to cover their tails, they penalize and suspend based on the result, moreso than the actual play itself. Scott Nichol did his best Mike Ribeiro immitation after playing up the injury. Like Nichol entering the scrum, after looking like at stretcher case for a few seconds, then rising to be a scrum participant, didn’t give the lark away from the get go.
Now, I’m no NHL player, but from my personal experience, when my shoulder hurts, it doesn’t make me incapable of walking or skating. I’d also like to point out that Nichol’s arm was in an invisible sling and only had one good arm. I would also like to point out that Nichol left the game and did not return, nor did he suit up for the game against Columbus on Saturday night.
It was a hockey play, nothing more, nothing less, in the heat of action and reaction, that deserved at best a two minute minor. Four games, is nothing more than the NHL disciplinarians trying to convince bleeding hearts that they are on their side.
This may sound a bit dramatic, but 4 games for nearly paralyzing someone isn’t what I would call a mis-carriage of justice. If Nichol is unable to turn his head and get his shoulder to take the brunt of the boards, then he is most certainly going to be taken off on a stretcher. That being said, I agree that Lapierre didn’t really intend to hurt Nichol, but what he did was reckless; and last time I checked, reckless endangerment was frowned upon.
We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence.
DION F*****G PHANEUF
by Belligerent Burkie on Mar 8, 2010 11:27 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I would also like to add that in the Riebiro incident you refer to, Mike came back and finished the game, unlike Nichol.
We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence.
DION F*****G PHANEUF
by Belligerent Burkie on Mar 8, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions

by 























