Healthy roster? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Healthy roster?

Habsoil

Registered User
Mar 24, 2012
404
0
Fort mac
With a completely healthy Roster, do anyone think Ottawa would have beaten us?
An average price, a healthy team and i easily see a 4-1 series win for us.

In reality it should be at worse, 3-2 for Ottawa now!

What im getting at is, that we should be proud of our team!
The future is friendly, if we can add to the team without costing us much, i think were in good shape.

Toss Desharnais out for trade bait, maybe a new coach, and were off to the races!
 
Ottawa was without Spezza...

We had a good season, bad playoff. It is what it is. Still happy with the year we had because we took a step forward.
 
I can't remember a time when the habs have been healthy, it's crazy need a bigger stronger team, always gonna be one or two guys hurt but the number hurt this year was unacceptable
 
The last year we played with a 100% healthy lineup for more than 2 games a season was during the 2007-2008 season when we finished 1st in the east.
 
Anderson beat us - not sure if a healthy roster would have cracked him. He was really good.

I refuse to say Ottawa beat us. I've never seen a team dominate so bad and lose every game.
 
Hawkguy said:
Anderson beat us - not sure if a healthy roster would have cracked him. He was really good.

I refuse to say Ottawa beat us. I've never seen a team dominate so bad and lose every game.
Click to expand...

We outplayed them for most of the series but with Anderson and with some old fashion luck they beat us. It is tough to look at the series(4-1) since it felt a lot closer
 
Habsoil said:
With a completely healthy Roster, do anyone think Ottawa would have beaten us?
An average price, a healthy team and i easily see a 4-1 series win for us.

In reality it should be at worse, 3-2 for Ottawa now!

What im getting at is, that we should be proud of our team!
The future is friendly, if we can add to the team without costing us much, i think were in good shape.

Toss Desharnais out for trade bait, maybe a new coach, and were off to the races!
Click to expand...

we werent beating them regardless of health

we are built for the playoffs and have a bad combination

weak D with no size , small top 6 and our bottom 6 minus teh kids are the worst in the league

we dont have those secondary role players like Ottawa , Kassian , Condra , etc killed our bottom 6 and we dont have Methot, Cowan , Gryba , 3 massive horses who beay u up

bad combination
 
Hawkguy said:
Anderson beat us - not sure if a healthy roster would have cracked him. He was really good.

I refuse to say Ottawa beat us. I've never seen a team dominate so bad and lose every game.
Click to expand...

The Sens scored 20 goals to our 9. Anderson wasn't dominant, there were simply no Habs crashing the net to get the juicy rebounds. Scoring from the perimeter is difficult and that's why Anderson looked so good.

On the other end of the ice, the Habs were completely lost. Getting in front of the net was a cakewalk for the Sens and they made us pay big time.

No, we didn't dominate the series.
 
TennisMenace said:
No way we win. Anderson too good.
Click to expand...

We made him look much better than he was the same way that the Caps and Pens did for Halak in 2010. Then the Flyers dismantled our defense and Halak didn't look so good anymore.

Anderson was good, but he wasn't dominant out there (except maybe in the first game). We simply didn't have anyone going for those rebounds. The front of the net hurts too much I guess.
 
Hawkguy said:
Anderson beat us - not sure if a healthy roster would have cracked him. He was really good.

I refuse to say Ottawa beat us. I've never seen a team dominate so bad and lose every game.
Click to expand...

It also happened a number of years ago against Buffalo, Hasek stood on his head and killed us.
 
Probably. If it wasn't for the 3rd period chokes/bad luck in games 1 and 4 it would be 3-2 for us right now.
 
Ottawa was a very good team and we will see this in the next round.

With a full healthy rooster, we win this in 6 games or we go to a 7th game.
But Ottawa is pretty well suited for going further in PO than we are.

The problem that we had this season was the push to get in the PO did have a lot of wear and tear.

Just adding a healthy Eller would have made a significant difference.
We have three big forwards: MaxPac (injured), Eller (out) and Bourque (injured).
If all these players are in top shape, we are a different team.

In the next two years, we will have Galchenyuk, Eller, MaxPac and Bourque as part of our top-6.
 
It wasn't our time. We're a few years away from being a Cup contender. MacLean said that they saw the same in their own team last year in the playoffs....that size was an issue for them. So they brought some big kids up and acquired some other big bodies and became a tougher team to play against this year. Bergevin knows he's got some youngsters that need to develop and wasn't going to sell his picks at the deadline knowing he's still a few years away from the Cup. Imagine him picking up a few big, skilled players in this year's draft....maybe someone in free agancy. We'll be a solid team in a few years.
 
With both teams fully healthy, we're a better team than Ottawa. But not by much. Ultimately, this is a fair question but totally unanswerable, because you can't plan for these things. Some people are saying you CAN plan, by pumping up the roster with bigger guys who would add a layer of protection. But Emelin and Eller are big guys who were hurt on flukey plays. Pacioretty also has size and was playing hurt. The small guys? Gallagher, Desharnais, Bouillon - healthy, healthy, healthy.

And yet other teams are injury-free in the playoffs. Is it something about their roster? Boston's healthy now, but they were missing Kelly, Marchand and Bergeron a few weeks ago. There were endless threads about Ottawa's injuries (Habs can't seem to have one thread without some yokel jumping up and down and pointing) but they're mostly healthy now, minus Spezza. Do these teams just time their injuries better than us?

And we can't even say it's the same injury-prone players. Markov - of all people - remained healthy from day-one. Only Gionta may be suffering from a chronic issue.

There really is no pattern, no weak guys on our team, no invincible guys on other teams. We just got hit with a ridiculous number of injuries and couldn't play a full roster when we needed it most.
 
Railman said:
The Sens scored 20 goals to our 9. Anderson wasn't dominant, there were simply no Habs crashing the net to get the juicy rebounds. Scoring from the perimeter is difficult and that's why Anderson looked so good.

On the other end of the ice, the Habs were completely lost. Getting in front of the net was a cakewalk for the Sens and they made us pay big time.

No, we didn't dominate the series.
Click to expand...
9 goals against ... in 5 games.

.950 SV%, 1.80 GAA = standing on his head. 180 shots, by the way, which is 36 a game. If we picked up any rebounds, we would have been shooting 40+ shots per game.

You can have your opinion, but we dominated that series. Anderson as a lot better than our goaltenders/defense, sure but he was very, very, very good.

We'd dominate for 5 minutes, Ottawa would come down and score. That's just how it went.
 
Hawkguy said:
9 goals against ... in 5 games.

.950 SV%, 1.80 GAA = standing on his head. 180 shots, by the way, which is 36 a game. If we picked up any rebounds, we would have been shooting 40+ shots per game.

You can have your opinion, but we dominated that series. Anderson as a lot better than our goaltenders/defense, sure but he was very, very, very good.

We'd dominate for 5 minutes, Ottawa would come down and score. That's just how it went.
Click to expand...

Again, Anderson faced a lot of low quality shots. During those "dominant" periods, the Habs remained on the perimeter and rarely got quality shots on goal. You don't win by staying on the perimeter.

It's exactly like 2010 for us. Halak was good, but he faced a ton of low quality shots. As soon as we faced a team that actually crashed the net and stopped respecting our defense, the entire team, Halak included, was destroyed. Statistics aren't everything. Like Halak in 2010, Anderson has amazing statistics, but that's because he faced a lot of low quality shots (and, as expected of a good goaltender, he didn't allow bad goals).

We didn't lose because of Anderson. He was good, but he didn't steal the series. We lost because our forwards didn't go into the high scoring areas and because our play in the defensive zone was horrible.

You say that if we picked up the rebounds, we'd have gotten more shots on goal. That's exactly what I'm saying, we didn't pick up the rebounds. Unfortunately, the rebounds in the high scoring areas are precisely the pucks that we needed to get on goal. Yes, we got a lot of pucks on the net, but that won't beat a goaltender who, unlike our own, doesn't routinely allow bad goals. Anderson faced a lot of shots, but they were low quality perimeter shots. We never had a chance playing that way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom