Comments on: The Montreal Cana-divers http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/ People don't think it be like it is, but it do. Sun, 20 May 2012 08:59:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1249 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:46:56 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1249 "On paper"... and in reality. They did win *all* eight games against the Bruins during the regular season. And didn't they win the last three of last season... then add in the first two of this series - that's 13 in a row. On paper, on ice, in the parking lot, down in Australia on the beach... the Habs are the much better team, period. I think Julien and his team do deserve some kudos for forcing a Game Seven, especially after being down 3-1 and heading back to Montreal for Game 5. But grit and effort only carry you so far when there's such a large talent gap. If the Bruins were just a little less talented than the Habs, they likely would've taken the series... but they are *far* less talented than the Habs - that's the facts, Jack. “On paper”… and in reality. They did win *all* eight games against the Bruins during the regular season. And didn’t they win the last three of last season… then add in the first two of this series - that’s 13 in a row. On paper, on ice, in the parking lot, down in Australia on the beach… the Habs are the much better team, period.

I think Julien and his team do deserve some kudos for forcing a Game Seven, especially after being down 3-1 and heading back to Montreal for Game 5. But grit and effort only carry you so far when there’s such a large talent gap. If the Bruins were just a little less talented than the Habs, they likely would’ve taken the series… but they are *far* less talented than the Habs - that’s the facts, Jack.

]]> by: Jakes http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1246 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:09:00 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1246 Absolutely. There's a reason it was a 1 v. 8 matchup. The Habs are the much better team...on paper. Couldn't agree more on Kessel. Not sure how you leave him out for three games. One...fine. Two...maybe. Three, when you can't put the puck in the net. Big mistake. Absolutely. There’s a reason it was a 1 v. 8 matchup. The Habs are the much better team…on paper.

Couldn’t agree more on Kessel. Not sure how you leave him out for three games. One…fine. Two…maybe. Three, when you can’t put the puck in the net. Big mistake.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1242 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:50:09 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1242 Or perhaps if Julien had recognized that holding the Habs to 1 or 2 goals is great - but you still have to oustcore them to win i.e. bench Kessel for one game to make a point if he's not playing good two-way hockey, but the Bruins simply do not have the offensive weapons at their disposal to leave arguably their purest offensive weapon (currently available) off the ice. Now if they had a healthy Bergeron and Kessel the whole series? Who knows. But that said, can we agree the Canadiens were *clearly* the more talented team and this series should not have gone more than five games? I'm not asking for any moral victories here - just noting that I think its a bit disingenuous to play the woulda/coulda/shoulda game with this series. The Bruins were lucky to win three games in this series, never mind somehow getting the four wins necessary to advance. Or perhaps if Julien had recognized that holding the Habs to 1 or 2 goals is great - but you still have to oustcore them to win i.e. bench Kessel for one game to make a point if he’s not playing good two-way hockey, but the Bruins simply do not have the offensive weapons at their disposal to leave arguably their purest offensive weapon (currently available) off the ice. Now if they had a healthy Bergeron and Kessel the whole series? Who knows.

But that said, can we agree the Canadiens were *clearly* the more talented team and this series should not have gone more than five games? I’m not asking for any moral victories here - just noting that I think its a bit disingenuous to play the woulda/coulda/shoulda game with this series. The Bruins were lucky to win three games in this series, never mind somehow getting the four wins necessary to advance.

]]> by: Jakes http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1235 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:45:04 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1235 Funny, I had that exact reaction when I read the Spitz reference...forget it, he's ranting. I didn't see as much of the series as I would have liked, but I couldn't agree more on the diving interpretation. The unwritten rule of only calling diving to eliminate a PP for the infraction-committing party clearly is not working (i.e. losing a PP is obviously not stopping the diving). They need to change to rule to say that if you dive you eliminate the original infraction, and by rule you are the only one called (unless maybe on slashes/high sticks and the like). They have done a great job for the most part of instituting the new rules in such a way that keeps the game moving, and emphasises speed and skill. They need to carry it over to the diving rule. As for the rest of the series, I have completely lost respect for the Canadiens and their fans. I used to have the utmost respect for them as a franchise (as we've covered off in the past, totally different sense of "rival" for the Bruins than the Yankees for the Red Sox), but what a bunch of whining, diving pussies the team is, and don't even get me started on the fans. You could literally hear the crowd collectively crying about calls from start to finish in every game at the Forum (at least the parts that I saw). And the riots...um, yeah, that's smart. That said, I have to root against the Flyers in the second round, simply for the fact that had the Flyers not intentionally injured three Bruins this year, the Bruins would have beated the Habs. Funny, I had that exact reaction when I read the Spitz reference…forget it, he’s ranting.

I didn’t see as much of the series as I would have liked, but I couldn’t agree more on the diving interpretation. The unwritten rule of only calling diving to eliminate a PP for the infraction-committing party clearly is not working (i.e. losing a PP is obviously not stopping the diving). They need to change to rule to say that if you dive you eliminate the original infraction, and by rule you are the only one called (unless maybe on slashes/high sticks and the like). They have done a great job for the most part of instituting the new rules in such a way that keeps the game moving, and emphasises speed and skill. They need to carry it over to the diving rule.

As for the rest of the series, I have completely lost respect for the Canadiens and their fans. I used to have the utmost respect for them as a franchise (as we’ve covered off in the past, totally different sense of “rival” for the Bruins than the Yankees for the Red Sox), but what a bunch of whining, diving pussies the team is, and don’t even get me started on the fans. You could literally hear the crowd collectively crying about calls from start to finish in every game at the Forum (at least the parts that I saw).

And the riots…um, yeah, that’s smart.

That said, I have to root against the Flyers in the second round, simply for the fact that had the Flyers not intentionally injured three Bruins this year, the Bruins would have beated the Habs.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1227 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:24:08 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-montreal-cana-divers/#comment-1227 Oops... my bad... er, my Bluto. I see where I was loose and fast with some historical facts in my ranting fervor to ramble on in an effort to (eventually) make a point. We all recall Sgt-at-Arms Blutarsky imploring his brethren to not give up, but rather to fight back in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles: "Was it... was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! Hell, no!!" "Germans?" "Forget it... he's rollin'." Bluto correctly identified a WWII enemy (of the US), but picked the *wrong* one when discussing the attack on Pearl Harbor (as we all know from a recent episode of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?"... well, not really - but it seems like something that would be on that show, don't ya think?). Likewise, I correctly identified Mark Spitz as an Olympic water sportsman, but picked the *wrong* sport. I was searching for a well-known diver to compare to Markov... and went with a well-known swimmer instead. I'm confident you all noticed that, but responded much like Otter and Boone: "... for tripping on Mark Spitz [implied diver]... er, Markov)." "Mark Spitz?" "Forget it, he's rollin'." Oops… my bad… er, my Bluto. I see where I was loose and fast with some historical facts in my ranting fervor to ramble on in an effort to (eventually) make a point.

We all recall Sgt-at-Arms Blutarsky imploring his brethren to not give up, but rather to fight back in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles:

“Was it… was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! Hell, no!!”
“Germans?”
“Forget it… he’s rollin’.”

Bluto correctly identified a WWII enemy (of the US), but picked the *wrong* one when discussing the attack on Pearl Harbor (as we all know from a recent episode of “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?”… well, not really - but it seems like something that would be on that show, don’t ya think?).

Likewise, I correctly identified Mark Spitz as an Olympic water sportsman, but picked the *wrong* sport. I was searching for a well-known diver to compare to Markov… and went with a well-known swimmer instead.

I’m confident you all noticed that, but responded much like Otter and Boone:

“… for tripping on Mark Spitz [implied diver]… er, Markov).”
“Mark Spitz?”
“Forget it, he’s rollin’.”

]]>