Note 2012: Back by popular demand from the EOTP archives

There is a popular myth, longstanding in fact, and surely perpetrated by decades of Maple Leafs frustration that the Montreal Canadiens superiority from the early 1950's to the late 1970's was due to the simple notion that they had territorial rights to the province of Quebec's two greatest hockey talents annually.

The myth has gained ground on the factual truth in many minds based on the coincidental perceived removal of such rights and the Habs descent down to normalness since the heyday of the dynasty years.

But the myth, hockey fans, is complete bunk!

The small sliver of truth and fact behind the one time territorial Habs clause fails to back up the claims of those who have cried, "No Fair," like whining children for years.

I first remember reading about this when I was all of seven years old.

The myth was cemented into young impressionable minds in hockey rinks and schoolyards Canada wide by Maple Leafs fans needing a convenient excuse in explaining their own clubs' decline.

I grew up with kids who believed it then. I know some of them as adults who still believe it today.

The twisted yarn is so maligned, it even now includes the drafting of Guy Lafleur first overall in 1971, as well as others, as part of its Leaf derived legend.

If the myth were true, the Canadiens would have also snapped up Jean Ratelle, Rod Gilbert, and Gil Perreault among others. The possibilities are endless - they would have likely never lost a game, nevermind the Stanley Cup.

Looking back on it all now, on how the mistruth spread, it's become clearer as to why it would permeate logic, given the finger pointing nature of Leafs fans, who have consistantly failed to look in their backyard to explain their failings and past inferiorities.

It's almost as if they agreed in unison that the myth would be their battlecry, their common shield of armour in the face of defeat. One day, somewhere in time, a little light went off in someone's head. I can almost see it now.

"Well no wonder the cheaters won all them damn Cups, the Kweebeckers got the two best Frenchman every year..."

I've long known the truth is othewise, and have long sought out a source that would explain it best, with insightful completeness and perspective.

Continue reading this post »

In March EOTP held a contest where the person to come up with the best "narrative" surrounding Subban returning to form offensively. The winner would get a P.K. Subban Montreal Canadiens 'shirsey' (t-shirt).

The winner of that shirt is Adam Mills, EOTP commenter subdoxastic with this entry:

I think this counts as one entry,

Obviously, the idea of ‘respect’ (noted by others above) is going to play into any psychodrama explanation for PK’s resurgence next season.

My addition or refinement to the respect narrative is to add a dash of the ‘experience’ meme (also referenced above), but in particular in relation to the losing season.

I’m betting that we’ll be regaled with stories about how playing through tough times both personally (1)depressed offensive stats, 2) benchings, 3) altercations in practice) in conjunction with tough times experienced by the team as a whole (with the specific examples of 1)worst showing in years, 2)seeing a coach get fired, 3)seeing other players dealt, and finally and most importantly 4) disappointing the fans) means that P.K. was forced to reevaluate his approach to the way he played the game and his commitment to working as a member of a team.

It’s nearly perfect, it allows for a tacit acceptance of the blatantly dishonest ‘respect’ dogwhistle that’s been floating around for the past two seasons, by showing how P.K. learned his place and is now a better player (and the Habs a better team) for it.

I think I just puked a little in my mouth.

Congrats to Adam and as soon as I get his size, I'll be sending that off for him.

A couple weeks ago I was talking with Pension Plan Puppets contributor Stephen Burtch on twitter and he stated that he felt the Habs weren't in a good position moving forward because no one scored more than 65 points on the team this year. After pointing out that the Stanley Cup winning Bruins of 2010-11 didn't have a 65 point scorer, and only two 60 point scorers to the 28th place Habs three, he didn't relent. However I had a feeling that despite Burtch's criticism, Pacioretty's point totals this year were misleading. Basically after watching both players all year and diving into advanced stats, I felt Pacioretty at 65 points was actually better than Kessel at 82.

Before Habs fans scream "Kessel sucks!" or Leafs fans say "Kessel is WAY better!", Stop for a second and hold your biases at the door. Both players have strengths and weaknesses that will play into this comparison. It's a complicated question. Max Pacioretty has the advantage of being a year younger than Kessel, but Phil Kessel has four straight 30 goal seasons to Max's one. Both are great players and this isn't a Kessel hit piece.

Outside of statistics, there is a key difference between the two left wingers. Pacioretty is a bigger player than Kessel, and much more physical. Kessel is more creative and Pacioretty is more brute force. Which one is better long term is up for debate.

So who's going to be better moving forward? This was Pacioretty's breakout year if we're going to use full seasons, his last attempt at becoming an impact player was cut short by a guy who somehow still has a clean suspension record. What should work best as a comparison base will be to use this season for Pacioretty and compare it to Kessel's numbers at the same age (23). I'm going to include Kessel's numbers from this year as well just to add another layer of comparison.

If you have questions about the terms being used, please refer to the new glossary.

Continue reading this post »

With word getting out in the wee hours, and made official on Wednesday afternoon, the Montreal Canadiens have found their new General Manager.

Marc Bergevin, who has learned his NHL executive craft for seven years with the Chicago Blackhawks, will get his chance to jump into the driver's seat of hockey's most storied franchise.

Lots of reaction to start the month of May, so here's a wrap up of links to what people had to say

Continue reading this post »

After two seasons of totally deflating the morale of Montreal Canadiens fans, Mario Tremblay called it quits as bench boss on this day in 1997.

Most famously known for his part in the expulsion of Patrick Roy, and the lesser spoke of conflict with Donald Brashear among others, Tremblay did manage to get the Habs to the post season in the two seasons he was head coach.

Without Roy, the Canadiens managed to finish in sixth the Eastern Conference, before bowing out in six games to the New York Rangers.

Tremblay's last stab behind the bench was a 77-point squeak in to grab the eighth and final playoff spot. It was a season that saw conflicted captain Pierre Turgeon traded, Saku Koivu missing 32 games with a knee injury, and a media report where anonymous players questioned the coach's competency . The beleaguered Canadiens fell to the New Jersey Devils in the first round.

Tremblay cited his resignation on the criticism of the media. "A coach has to live with criticism," he said in his announcement. "But there's a point where it has to stop. When they do things to try and break you, that's not right."

"We had a tough season, no question about that," said Canadiens President Ronald Corey, who is often associated more directly with the teams post 1993 Stanley Cup deconstruction. "Mario had to work under extreme pressure all season long, and he showed a lot of courage and I have a lot of respect for him for that."

Current Vancouver Canucks coach Alain Vigneault would later be named as his successor.