fbpx

Tag: Max Pacioretty

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers • Rangers Playoffs

May 16, 2014

The Key to the Canadiens

No one knows the Canadiens like Bruins fans, so I decided an email exchange with Mike Miccoli would be the best way to finding out how the Rangers can beat beat the Habs.

Montreal Canadiens v New York Rangers

Every Rangers fan should have celebrated the Canadiens’ Game 7 win over the Bruins on Wednesday night because it meant the Rangers would face the Canadiens in the Eastern Conference finals and not the Bruins.

No one knows the Canadiens more than Bruins fans, who might be more concerned with the Habs than their own B’s. Because of this, and because the Rangers are playing the Bruins’ rival, I decided to email Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, and ask him how the Rangers can beat the Canadiens.

Keefe: Usually when I email you, it’s about the Bruins because the Rangers are either playing them, about to play them or have just played them. Unfortunately (but really fortunately), the Rangers and Bruins won’t play again until at least October.

I’m emailing you today because the Rangers are playing the Canadiens and I don’t know anyone who knows the Canadiens better than you. I feel like you might even know them more than you know your Bruins. But before we get into how the Rangers can win the Eastern Conference for the first time in 20 years and since we were in third grade, how are you holding up after Game 7? (If you don’t respond to this email I’m going to assume you aren’t holding up well and call 9-1-1.)

Miccoli: Ahh, the NHL playoffs. Is that still going on? I wasn’t aware since the best team in the NHL decided to stop playing so early. I figured they just called the whole thing off. Guess not.

If we’re being honest, the Montreal Canadiens rewrote the script here. I really thought everyone was destined to see a Blackhawks/Bruins Cup Final rematch. In a really twisted way, part of me thinks that can still happen but I won’t get into the logistics of how right now. I’m glad it’s over–really, I am. The hockey was smeared by postgame comments and instead of hearing about the actual game, we had to put up with “respect,” “class,” and “squirting.” It got old fast, but don’t tell the Canadiens that! Friday morning, the day before Game 1 of the Rangers-Canadiens Eastern Conference finals and Montreal is still talking about the Bruins. Here’s where I think your Rangers can really capitalize. The Canadiens are a team so obsessed with certain aspects of the game that make zero difference in the actual end-result of a series. Oh, the opposing team doesn’t like you? That’s terrible! Whatever emotion the Canadiens had for the Bruins won’t be replicated against the Rangers.

How are you feeling about the series? Have you been ignoring the Rangers dreadful record playing in the Bell Centre?

Keefe: I don’t get the Boston-Montreal media battle, which has taken on a life of its own and has become to the media more important than the actual Boston-Montreal games. It seems as though media members in both of the cities want to be the center of attention rather than the players and results of the games and it’s unlike anything I have ever seen.

I also don’t get why the Montreal media is still talking about Boston and the Bruins series. Not only did it end two days ago, but the Canadiens are playing for a chance to play for the Cup starting tomorrow and I’m still seeing new stories on reactions to the “respect” and “class” you talked about and the life and times of Milan Lucic. When will it stop? Will it ever stop? Will there still be Bruins-related stories coming from the Montreal media after the Rangers series has started?

I’m actually feeling confident in this series. Sure, the Rangers and more importantly Henrik Lundqvist have been awful for a long, long time on the road in Montreal, but there’s just something about what transpired over the last three games against the Penguins and the Rangers not having to face the Canadiens that has me overly optimistic about this series. There’s a very real chance all that confidence could be erased by Monday night and the Rangers could be starting at a 2-0 series deficit heading to MSG, but for now … Wooooooo! Let’s go Rangers!

As I eluded to in my opening email, I wanted to ask you about how to beat the Canadiens even if the Bruins couldn’t do it. I thought if the Rangers faced the Bruins, they would be facing an enhanced version of themselves and would eventually lose, but with the Canadiens’ fast-paced tempo, I think the Rangers will be successful.

Now with realignment, the Bruins and Canadiens will likely face each other in the playoffs nearly every year, which should be good for your health and well-being. But because of this I’m sure you know the weaknesses and flaws of the team that will be preventing the Bruins from winning the Cup again for the foreseeable future.

You have seen a lot of both the Rangers and Canadiens. What do the Rangers need to do that the Bruins didn’t?

Miccoli: The Bruins and Canadiens are going to play each other every year and my favorite hockey rivalry is going to become terrible for my health. You’re absolutely right. That said, Bruins should be back next year. Hopefully. Maybe. God, I don’t even know.

Here’s what they couldn’t do against Montreal: figure out Carey Price. Beat Price, and you’ll win. It’s simple enough, right? Get the puck past the goaltender, score goals, win games. Price has been playing out of his mind this postseason and that’s a big problem for a team like the Rangers who can struggle on offense. The Canadiens coaxed the Bruins into playing dumb hockey, too. Maybe they dove a bit (they did), got away with one or two calls (also did this), but it worked because the Bruins played into all of their tricks. The Rangers have to play smart hockey and not get into anything extracurricular with the Canadiens because on top of everything else, their power play has been tremendous.

To me, it’s less about matchups for the Rangers and more about finding ways to generate offense. Yes, Pacioretty and Vanek are threats, but they were sort of invisible up until Games 6 and 7 against the Bruins when Zdeno Chara and some other Boston defenseman decided to fall asleep. Lundqvist is going to bail out the Rangers a lot this series and I wouldn’t expect anything less. As long as the Rangers are able to get shots off and find bodies to put in front of Price, they’ll score goals. Well aware, of course, of how difficult that’s been for New York.

It’s odd that you’re confident here. I don’t think I’ve predicted the Bruins to win a series since 2011.

Keefe: Well, I think I am confident to a degree. I always feel like the Ranges will let me down and lose anyway, so the confidence is somewhat of an act and really doesn’t matter. I think because the Bruins have become the class of the Eastern Conference, you have obtained the lack of confidence I get with the Yankees because they are supposed to win. And when your team is supposed to win, you start to envision the ways they will let you down and not win. The Rangers have yet to reach that level, so any postseason success at this point is almost like a bonus, especially since they are playing with house money now after coming back against the Penguins.

As for the Canadiens, I feel like the Bruins series was their Eastern Conference finals the way the 2003 ALCS felt like the Yankees’ World Series and then they didn’t show up against the Marlins in the actual World Series. Like we said, the focus in Montreal is still on what already happened in the conference semis and not what to expect in the conference finals, and it almost feels like the Canadiens and their fans cared only about eliminating the Bruins and maybe they will continue to live in the past as the postseason moves on.

It seems like any non-Canadiens, Islanders, Devils or Flyers will be rooting for the Rangers in this series because everyone (with the exception of the fans of those four teams) loves Henrik Lundqvist and the Rangers don’t really have any scumbags or dirty players on their team that the general public doesn’t like. I know you’re hopping on the Rangers bandwagon since you already ordered your Lundqvist jersey.

Miccoli: At the end of Game 7 in Boston, maybe a few seconds before the handshake line happened and Lucic threatened to kill a guy, a “Let’s go Rangers” chant broke out. Everyone in Boston, literally everyone, is a Rangers fan for the next couple of weeks. I know we talked about the Rangers not having any “love to boo” players on the roster unlike Chara, Marchand, and Lucic for the Bruins. I know it’s repetitive, but it’s another reason why I think that the Canadiens will have a tough time getting up for this series. They’re the better team but I don’t think the passion will be there. Their championship was beating the Bruins in Game 7 in Boston. They won.

Another thing I should mention about the Canadiens is their speed. They made the Bruins look like David Ortiz rounding third on a hot summer’s day at Fenway this series. The Rangers have a lot of skill, power, and speed up and down the lineup, where I wouldn’t say any of those three are necessarily a strength, but they’re pretty evenly distributed. The Bruins had skill and power with very little speed. The Canadiens amplified that.

I’m not sure everyone outside of the teams you mentioned are rooting for the Rangers though. In all honesty, I sincerely think that the majority of casual hockey fans that don’t see a Bruins or Penguins team in the ECF may not even watch. This ECF actually reminds me a lot of the Rangers-Devils one from a few years ago. Yeah, it’s good rivalry but would I watch if I didn’t love hockey? No. I wouldn’t.

Keefe: Well, after hearing everything you had to say, I’m sticking with my prediction f Rangers in 7 since that’s the only way the Rangers know how to win a series. That’s not a joke. Here are the Rangers’ last 11 playoff series:

Pittsburgh – Won in 7
Philadelphia – Win in 7
Boston – Lost in 5
Washington – Won in 7
New Jersey – Lost in 6
Washington – Won in 7
Ottawa – Won in 7
Washington – Lost in 5
Washington – Lost in 7
Pittsburgh – Lost in 5
New Jersey – Won in 5

The Rangers haven’t won a playoff series in less than seven games since 2007-08 when they beat the Devils in five in the first round. I’m not sure what’s worse when it comes to that or the fact that they haven’t won a playoff game when leading in a series since the first round against Washington in 2008-09 (a series in which they blew a 3-1 series lead in).

I want to watch meaningful hockey in June because the last time the Rangers played in June I had just learned how to write cursive and would spend Fridays having my third-grade teacher Mrs. Hunt read us Roald Dahl books and hand out Starbursts.

Welcome aboard the Rangers’ bandwagon. Let’s hope this train has eight more wins on it.

Miccoli: Let’s be clear here, I’m rooting for the Rangers only because I’m a Boston resident and they happen to be playing Montreal after eliminating the Bruins. Also, Henrik. I think they win in 7, too … only because I want to see you and my roommate, also a big Rangers fan, sweat out seven games against Montreal. Once that happens, go Blackhawks! Go Ducks! Go Kings! Go any other team not in the East.

I will say this, though–this time of year is fantastic. As someone who has gotten to cover it and enjoy it twice in the last four years now, I can safely say there’s nothing better and that everyone should experience it just once. With that said, yes, I hope you get to experience a Cup Final again.

I just hope the Blackhawks (or Kings or whoever) wins it in six.

Read More

Podcasts • Team USA

Feb 14, 2014

Podcast: Mike Miccoli

Mike Miccoli of The Hockey Writers and New England Hockey Journal joins me to talk about Team USA’s dominant win over Slovakia and rooting for players in the Olympics you don’t usually root for.

It was a little nerve-racking to see Team USA tied 0-0 with Slovakia through the first 14:27 of the game on Thursday and it was even more nerve-racking when Slovakia scored to start the second period and tie the game at 1. But after thinking we might be in for a repeat of the 2006 Turin Olympics, Team USA scored six goals in the second period and started off the 2014 Olympics in the best possible way.

Mike Miccoli of The Hockey Writers and New England Hockey Journal joined me to talk about Team USA’s dominant win over Slovakia, rooting for players in the Olympics you don’t usually root for and if Team USA is good enough to win the gold.

Read More

Blogs • Team USA

Feb 13, 2014

Team USA-Slovakia Thoughts: It’s Not Worth Winning If You Can’t Win Big

Team USA started their quest for the gold medal with a 7-1 win over Slovakia in a game that actually had me nervous past the first period.

I have always wondered what it would be like to live on the West Coast during football season and wake up just in time to watch the 1:00 p.m. games at 10:00 a.m. Instead of waiting for the football day to start by watching one of the dozen pregame shows, tinkering with fantasy teams or putting together improbable parlays in hopes of seven underdogs winning so I can retire to Hawaii, it would be nice to just wake up, turn the TV on and have the game start. I got a taste of that life on Thursday.

When I woke up on Thursday morning, I was greeted by Doc Emrick for Team USA hockey against Slovakia in the first game of the 2014 Olympics at 7:30 a.m.

– The troubling thing about the Olympics is that you don’t know what to expect. Sure, Team USA has one of the best rosters in the tournament, but you don’t know how the players and line combinations are going to work out or what kind of on-ice chemistry there will be once the first game starts. While they are coming off a silver-medal performance, it’s not like they are really coming off of a silver-medal performance since that was four years ago. So entering the game I was worried that the team would have trouble scoring goals like the Rangers and that fear was growing in the first period for the 14:27 of the game before John Carlson blasted one top tit past Jaroslav Halak.

Looking back at the game now, knowing that Team USA won 7-1, it’s funny to think at 0-0, 1-0 USA, 1-1 and 2-1 USA, I was worried about losing this game. After Slovakia tied it up to start the second, I envisioned a 2-1 loss and started to have flashbacks from 2006 in Turin. I’m glad I can now laugh at my unnecessary worrying from the first 22:32 of the game.

– I kept forgetting that the actual game was on Eastern Standard Time and had to remind myself that Doc Emrick couldn’t possibly be this fired up before 8 a.m. since he actually wasn’t. When the puck dropped, it was already 4:30 p.m in Sochi and Emrik wasn’t rattling off Slovakian names with such enthusiasm in the early hours of the morning. But in the words of David Wooderson (Matthew McConaughey) in Dazed and Confused, “It would be a lot cooler if he did.”

For as enjoyable as it is to listen to Emrick, that’s how painful it is listening to Pierre McGuire as one of the first voices you hear to start your day. That also goes for Ed Olczyk in this game as he didn’t have his A-game with him for the U.S. opener. How about Olczyk (I refuse to call him “Edzo”) throwing out the early “active boards” in the game. And then with eight minutes left in the second, there was the casual “Boy, they are using those boards a lot, aren’t they?” on the broadcast.

– In the second period, Team USA scored six times. Here are their goals:

1:26 – Ryan Kesler (Patrick Kane)

2:32 – Paul Stastny (Max Pacioretty, T.J. Oshie)

8:16 – David Backes (Phil Kessel)

13:30 – Paul Stastny (Kevin Shattenkirk, T.J. Oshie)

14:20 – Phil Kessel (Ryan Kesler, James van Riemsdyk)

15:17 – Dustin Brown (John Carlson, Patrick Kane)

So Team USA scored at 1:26 then they scored 1:06 after that, 5:44 after that, 5:14 after that, 50 seconds after that and 57 seconds after that. At that point, I thought Dan Bylsma was going to have to tell the team they were to make five passes before shooting in the third period and I think he did. Team USA had 11 shots in the first period and 16 in the second, but just six shots and no goals in the third. Yes, 7-1 was enough that point, and Team USA should have no problem getting one of the four bye seeds in the quarterfinals, but the second tiebreaker for the tournament (after head-to-head matchup) is goal differential. Pierre was right when he said, “It’s international hockey, you’ve got to run it up.”

– Even though I have known it for some time, I still find it intriguing/interesting/odd that Paul Stastny plays for Team USA even though he was born in Quebec, while his dad played Slovakia. Paul has dual citizenship for the United States and Canada and could technically play for either team, but I think he made the right choice since he probably wouldn’t be in Sochi if had chosen to be Canadian over American and Team USA wouldn’t be as good as they are without him. Everybody wins because Paul Stastny wants to be American instead of Canadian.

– I’m not going to make a big deal out of the missed offside call given the outcome of the game. But yes, had Slovakia won the game or won by a goal, I would probably already have a few thousand words about it.

– One of my friends said that he thinks Ryan Miller should get the start on Saturday against Russia to which I asked “Whyyyyyyyyy?” If Quick was the No. 1 goalie entering the Olympics, which he clearly was and is since he started against Slovakia, then why would he not start every game of the tournament until he proves he isn’t the No. 1? Against Slovakia, he let in one goal on 23 shots and deserves to start on Saturday. If Miller were to start, Bylsma and the Team USA front office would be starting Miller because of his MVP performance in the 2010 Olympics. If they were going to reward him for that, they should have made it clear he was the No. 1 goalie before the Olympics and made it clear Quick would be the No. 2. But now they can’t start him based on his performance from four years ago after they left players off this roster because they didn’t want to reward past performances. And if Miller did start on Saturday and Team USA wins, who starts on Sunday against Slovenia?

Coaches want to make less decisions and things as easy as possible for them. Creating an unneeded goalie controversy isn’t something you want to do for a team coming off a dominant win and about to play the best team in their group.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 25, 2013

The Same Old Rangers

It was another game and another loss for the Rangers, so that means another John Tortorella postgame press conference analysis.

When I started the tradition and made the promise to analyze every John Tortorella postgame press conference following a loss, I didn’t think the Rangers would lose every game, but that’s basically what’s happened. Since the first of these after losing to the Devils, the Rangers have lost to the Canadiens and lost to the Senators and lost to the Canadiens again. (They also lost to the Islanders, but that was on Valentine’s Day and I have already given my excuse for missing that game and the postgame press conference.) Starting with that loss to the Devils, the Rangers are 4-3-2, which isn’t even that bad since I was starting to think that maybe the start of these was the problem with the team. And then I remembered that when Rick Nash doesn’t play and Marian Gaborik gets benched, it’s hard for a team without secondary scoring to score and when you don’t score it’s hard to win.

The Rangers aren’t scoring or winning right now and John Tortorella is getting testier with each loss. With three straight losses in five days, Tortorella started his postgame press conference in Montreal by asking the media a question rather than the traditional way a press conference is held.

“How high did Pacioretty jump on his hit? Anybody give me an answer? I’m asking you guys. Over/under? No one can give me an answer? Figures, Zip, you’re wrong. No, I’m just asking.”

Tortorella has a point here that Max Pacioretty did leave his feet on the hit on Ryan McDonagh. The refs thought he left his feet on the hit and gave him two minutes for boarding, which was the correct call. Neither the MSG broadcast nor the Canadian broadcast of the game really took exception to the hit (OK, obviously the Canadian broadcast wasn’t going to) and the NHL Department of Player Safety determined that the hit wasn’t worthy of a suspension. So maybe it wasn’t that bad?

The Rangers got their two-minute power play for the hit, which was viewed by both broadcasts as payback for McDonagh hitting Pacioretty earlier in the game, but the Rangers failed to score a power-play goal (surprise, surprise) and wasted the opportunity and also lost McDonagh for the rest of the game.

On what happened in the second period when the game got away.

“We don’t generate enough consistently and they score a goal. Again we’re just not consistently having the puck … offensively. They score a power-play goal, ours doesn’t work. I think our game just fell off. I thought we had a really good first period, but it fell off from there.”

Tortorella almost made the right point here except he said “enough consistently.” What he should have said was, “We don’t generate anything.” “Consistently” would indicate that the Rangers score goals at times and at other times they don’t score any goals. But in reality, they don’t ever score goals.

Marian Gaborik has the most goals on the team. Marian Gaborik was benched for the entire third period on Saturday with the Rangers needing to score goals because of a penalty he took in the second period. Brian Boyle doesn’t score goals. Brian Boyle took a penalty that cost the Rangers a win and a second point in Ottawa on Thursday late in the third period. Nothing happened to Brian Boyle. You should always bench your leading goal scorer when trailing in a game in a shortened season. It’s just common sense.

Last week the Rangers played four games. They scored four goals in those four games and came away with just three of a possible eight points. And in the “really good” first period, the Rangers had six shots and no goals. (The Canadiens only had three shots in that period, but they would at least go on to score three goals in the second and third period.) The Rangers finished with 17 shots.

To say the power play doesn’t work is an understatement. The Rangers went 0-for-2 in the game and are 8-for-71 on the year. That’s 11.3 percent. That’s good enough for the 29th-best power play in the league. (Thankfully they aren’t 30th like the Sabres at 11.3 percent. Losers!) The personnel on the power play has to change. It has to. Brad Richards might have a Conn Smythe and a worthy reputation as a “playmaker,” but he has done nothing on the first unit this season. Whether it’s his constant overthinking, making one too many passes or shooting pucks into shin pads, Richards has been detrimental to the power play when he’s supposed to be the leader of it. I think making wholesale changes to a power play that is second worst in the entire league and sitting some of the expensive cap hits for less experienced players is necessary at this point. If the younger and supposedly less offensive guys don’t get the job done, what will have changed? The worst that can happen is the Rangers will regain their spot at the bottom from the Sabres, which they are one more unsuccessful power play from taking back anyway. The best that could happen is that they actually score with a man advantage.

On so many players getting injured.

“Yeah, it’s part of the game though. You have injuries. You gotta keep on playing. I mean what can you do, Sam? Some kids got a chance to play tonight, but again we’re not playing enough minutes, so we gotta figure it out and just try to find ourselves, keep our wits about ourselves and keep on playing here.”

Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Who was that guy standing in front of the Rangers/Chase backdrop in a suit with a goatee talking about not having the full lineup and complaining about injuries after blowing a late lead in Ottawa on Thursday night? Whoever that guy was, he looks strikingly similar to the guy who stood in front of the Rangers/Chase backdrop after the Montreal loss on Saturday night and gave us that quote about injuries not being an excuse. Very, very strange.

If the team isn’t playing “enough minutes,” who’s fault is that? No, John Tortorella doesn’t play in the games, but it’s his job to decide who does and when and it’s his job to get the most out of his players. If his players aren’t “playing” for the entire 60 minutes of the game that falls directly under his job description as head coach.

On Michael Del Zotto not being able to play in the game.

“Well, it hurts. He’s a very good player for us. It hurts. He takes some big minutes.”

Michael Del Zotto missing time does hurt because Del Zotto is basically a somewhat fifth starting pitcher. He’s going to eat minutes and have his good games with his bad games and you just hope he doesn’t screw up too badly and cost your team a game, which he tends to do. The problem is that while Del Zotto hasn’t had a good season, the options below him on the depth chart aren’t as good, which is very scary. So when you’re worried about Del Zotto not being able to play despite him thinking he is Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque and thinking the power play runs through him, it’s never a good thing. Hurry back, Michael Del Zotto? (Yes, a question mark is the correct punctuation there.)

On severity of injuries to Girardi and McDonagh.

“No, I don’t know, and I’m not going to talk about it anyway.”

John Tortorella has the right to not talk about injuries, but choosing not to seems to be making his job harder. I’m not sure what talking about injuries will really do since if Player X has a concussion and Team Y finds out about it, I don’t think Team Y is going to purposely target Player X’s head in the 2012-13 NHL where contact to the head is finally being taken seriously. And I don’t think players are going to willingly put their own jobs and other players’ careers in jeopardy or forfeit their source of income to hit someone in the head.

Tortorella has started to get agitated and angry when asked about injuries and it really upsets him that media members want to find out why players are missing time and games so they can report it. As a fan, it would be nice to know why Rick Nash hasn’t played in the last three games since the team has scored three goals combined in the games he has missed. It would help to know if there’s a chance he might play on Tuesday against Winnipeg or on Thursday against Tampa Bay or if he will play again in March or April or at all again this season. (Sure, it’s extreme to wonder if he will be out for months, but how am I supposed to know if I don’t even know why he is out in the first place?) Fans deserve to know why their team’s most important offensive player isn’t playing and when he might play again. You know fans, the people who happen to be the reason that someone like John Tortorella is able to coach professional hockey for a job and afford to be fined $30,000 like he was after the Winter Classic or $20,000 like he was after ripping the Penguins last April.

On how to get more from his team.

“We’ve gotta try to gain some confidence. We’ve gotta try to just stabilize ourselves when we lose a couple. Coming into these last three games here we were playing pretty well. We find a way to get a point in Ottawa. We can’t get into a panic mode. We just need to get more minutes consistently out of our players and I mean it’s a hard question to answer, Sam. It’s just a matter of trying to find yourself and hope some good things happen and you gain some confidence.”

Before the season, Tortorella told Mike Francesa that in a shortened season you can’t afford to get into a jam because you might not be able to get out of it. The Rangers are in a jam sitting in 10th place in the East with the season 35 percent over and injuries mounting. They haven’t looked like a playoff team since their win in Boston seven games and 13 days ago and no one is talking about what the Rangers can do this spring, they’re talking about whether or not they will be playing after Game 48 and if Brad Richards will be amnestied by the team.

The 2012-13 Rangers were a team that was looking to build off a season in which they finished first in the conference and reached the Eastern Conference Finals. Instead they look like the pre-2011-12, post-lockout Rangers, who played by the strategy of “score the first goal and hope Henrik Lundqvist makes it stand.” Those Rangers team either didn’t make the playoffs or lost in the first round and never once made it out of the second round. This team is becoming those teams.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 22, 2013

The Canadiens Own the Recent Rangers

The Rangers’ second meeting this week with the first-place Canadiens called for an email exchange with Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize.

The Rangers lost another game in which they led on Thursday night in Ottawa. Now their two-game road trip north of the border stops in Montreal on Saturday night for their second meeting with the first-place Canadiens this week.

Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize joined me for an email exchange to talk about why no one is giving the Canadiens the credit they deserve, why they are a bad matchup for the Rangers and what it’s like to have Brandon Prust on the Habs.

Keefe: John Tortorella called the Canadiens a “bad team” (which I ripped him for) after their win over the Rangers on Tuesday night. Henrik Lundqvist called the Canadiens “boring” despite their 3-1 win and now first-place spot in the Eastern Conference. No one seems to want to give the Habs credit for their strong start and five-game winning streak before their shootout loss on Thursday, but we are now one-third of the way through this shortened NHL season and while 17 games might not be a strong enough sample size in other years, it certainly is this year.

Why isn’t anyone giving credit to the Canadiens for their 11-4-2 start? They just won five games in seven days and beat the Hurricanes in Montreal and the Rangers in New York in less than 24 hours. They have outscored their opponents 18-9 over the last six games and outside of their loss to the Senators on Jan. 30 and their loss to the Maple Leads on Feb. 9, they have either won every other game or lost by one goal. The Canadiens might not have the type of stars other teams around the league do or an exciting and flashy style of play and maybe they are “boring,” but the Devils proved that “boring” can lead to championships in the NHL.

I’m buying into the Canadiens, but why isn’t everyone else?

Berkshire: As far as Torts goes, he’s always bitter after a loss it seems. His grumpy demeanor is funny from the outside at times, but it also wears thin. The Canadiens team he saw was playing its third game in four nights, all against teams that are fighting to get into the playoff picture. I don’t think the Canadiens were particularly great that night, but calling them a bad team is just Torts blowing hot air.

As for Henrik, I believe he also called them a smart team, which gives it a little context. The Canadiens played a boring brand of hockey against the Rangers on Tuesday, there is no denying that, but they were dog-tired and it ended up working.

I think the main reason no one wants to believe that the Canadiens are a good team is that, especially among the mainstream press, narratives are hard to shake. Under Jacques Martin the Canadiens were labeled a bad team, even though they were actually a good team. When they fell apart last year, many people felt like they’d been given justification for their former misgivings. And these are Habs fans! There are a lot of people who would rather be right than see their team win, and I think that was largely the case there.

As far as national media goes, the Canadiens were so bad last year for two thirds of the year that it was hard to believe they could possibly recover so quickly. At Eyes on the Prize, we go over a lot of data every day and we figured that a quick turnaround was more than possible, in fact it was highly likely. You can only be so bad when you have Carey Price, P.K. Subban and Andrei Markov heading up your back end. But it’s hard for a lot of people to move away from their opinions. The Habs were bad last year, so surely they would be bad again.

All this said, the Canadiens have still been one of the luckiest teams in the league, with high shooting percentages for several players that aren’t really sustainable. They’re going to lose more often in the next few weeks than they have so far this year, but they’re a playoff team in my opinion, maybe a Top 4 team in the East.

Keefe: I’m a Yankee fan, so I understand people wanting to be right and have their opinions be validated rather than having their team win.

It seems like there’s something different about the Rangers when they play the Canadiens. Actually I know there is. No matter how well the Rangers have played leading into the game or for how long they have been playing well, they always seem to either give an awful effort against or look like a completely different team when they face the Habs.

The Canadiens have won 11 of the last 17 meetings with the Rangers dating back to the beginning of the 2008-09 season. (I started counting with the 2008-09 season because the 2007-08 season featured the Rangers’ epic embarrassment on Feb. 19, 2008 when they blew a 5-0 lead in Montreal with 34:57 left in the game. I’m sure you remember that game well.) After Saturday’s game, the Rangers and Canadiens will only meet one other time this season (unless they meet in the playoffs) on March 30.

Why do you think the Rangers seem to never have their best game or anything that closely resembles their normal game when they play the Canadiens even though the names on the rosters change?

Berkshire: It’s an interesting question. I believe heading into that 5-0 comeback game the Rangers had dominated the Habs for a couple straight years, but I could be wrong.

I think part of it could be psychological. That game between the Rangers and Habs in 2008 was a turning point in that season for Montreal, and they blitzed through the rest of the season to finish first in the conference. One guy who always seems to be ordinary against the Habs is Lundqvist and we all know that he’s anything but ordinary. It’s possible that he’s still annoyed with that game a few years later. Something I’ve noticed with Lundqvist is that if you put a few past him, he stops fighting to make saves, and gets visibly frustrated.

Other than perhaps some latent mental frustration lasting from that game, I don’t really think there’s a logical explanation. The Rangers are a strong team, especially defensively that they shouldn’t be too far below .500 against the Habs.

It reminds me a little of the Habs and Leafs. The Leafs have been a terrible team by pretty much any measure for the last five or so years, while the Canadiens have been OK to strong over that time, yet they split the games down the middle. Something about the way the two teams match up that isn’t readily apparent causes results that shouldn’t happen.

Keefe: Brian Gionta has been one of my favorite players in the league since he debuted during the 2001-02 season even though his career has been spent with New Jersey and Montreal. I had the chance to watch him in college at Boston College and admired his scoring ability and his style of play despite being 5-foot-7, which he’s listed at, but appears way, way smaller.

Scott Gomez was also a personal favorite of mine after his Calder Trophy campaign in 1999-2000 despite playing for New Jersey and I was ecstatic when the Rangers signed him before the 2007-08 season. I was even more ecstatic when they were able to trade him to the Canadiens before the 2009-10 season.

The two of them formed the EGG line in New Jersey with Patrik Elias before teaming up in Montreal, but now their careers have gone separate ways with Gionta being the captain of the Canadiens and Gomez being told to go home for the year before ending up with the Sharks.

How much do you enjoy getting to watch Gionta play for your Canadiens and how did you feel about Gomez’s time and unusual departure?

Berkshire: I’m one of the few Canadiens fans who doesn’t harbor any ill will against Scott Gomez. It’s not his fault that Glen Sather signed him to an insane contract and it’s not his fault that Bob Gainey gave up Ryan McDonagh and Chris Higgins for him (two players that are younger and better than he is).

Gomez had the misfortune of being in Montreal when his career plateaued and he began to decline into old age and he was eviscerated for it. That said, he did have one very good year in 2009-10, and probably could have had a second one in 2010-11 if the Pacioretty-Gomez-Gionta line was a thing from the start of the season to the end.

I enjoyed watching Gomez’s transition game and neutral-zone play, which is still a strong skill set of his, but the rest got to be pretty mind-numbing by last year. I was glad to see him go, although it was still surprising. I think in the end, the buyout is good for both the Canadiens and Scott Gomez, who no longer has to worry about being labeled overpaid.

Gionta on the other hand, has been excellent for the Habs. He’s also at the age where his scoring has taken a slight dip every year, from a near 40-goal pace in his first year, to near 30, to an injury plagued year and now he’s likely a 25-goals-per-82-games kind of player.

He’s still solid defensively and plays a strong possession game against top competition though, and he rarely takes a shift off. Watching Gionta go in on the forecheck against Zdeno Chara and winning the puck battle tells you all you need to know about the Habs captain.

Keefe: Brandon Prust became an important part of the Rangers after being traded to New York in the Olli Jokinen deal three years ago. His grinder style of play and his willingness to fight anyone at anytime made him a blue-collar player and fan favorite in the city. My friend Dave went so far as to buy a Prust jersey last season, which I strongly advised him not to do.

So far this season Prust has already has two goals and five points after having just five goals and 17 points in all 82 games last year. He has a plus-7 rating, leads the league in penalty minutes with 76 (on pace to break his career high even in a shortened season) and is second in the league with six fighting majors. At four years and $10 million it seemed like the Habs overpaid for Prust in the summer, but he is giving them everything he gave the Rangers in two-plus seasons and more. Right now the Rangers could use Prust, but instead he’s helping your team try to achieve the 1-seed this season.

Berkshire: I really like Brandon Prust. I think his contract is a little too much money for a little bit too long, but that’s what happens with unrestricted free agents who have a unique skill set.

He’s already a fan favorite here, which has led to fans and media completely overblowing his value to the point where our local sports radio station asserted that he’s been the second most important player on the team this year. That’s pretty crazy and I wrote about what his real value is to the team on Wednesday.

I think he’s an above average fourth liner who can play on the third line if necessary, something the Canadiens have four of now along with Travis Moen, Colby Armstrong and Ryan White. He’s also been lights-out on the penalty kill, which is a welcome surprise since he was only middling by the numbers on the Rangers.

Is he going to be worth his contract by the last year of it? I don’t know, but for now I really like what he brings to the team.

Keefe: When the two teams met on Tuesday night, it was ugly. It was the second-worst game of the year for the Rangers after their 3-0 home loss to the Penguins on Jan. 31.

On Thursday night the Rangers blew a third-period lead to the Senators, and lost in a shootout, to drop their second straight game in which they led and it was their third loss in a row in which they scored the first goal. The Canadiens also lost on Thursday, but it was the first in six games as they blew a two-goal lead to the Islanders and lost in a shootout.

Saturday night will be the second-to-last meeting of the season between the Rangers and Canadiens (the last one is March 30) and hopefully we see a better all-around game than we saw on Tuesday. But in the bigger picture, what do you see for the Rangers and Canadiens over the remaining two-thirds of the season?

Berkshire: I think what we’ll see on Saturday is a much more entertaining game than what we saw on Tuesday. The Canadiens were extremely disappointed with how the game ended against the Islanders with Max Pacioretty being particularly fired up. The Canadiens are also a much stronger home team than they are on the road and won’t be coming off of three games in four nights.

Similarly, I think the Rangers are going to be a lot better as well. It’s possible that Rick Nash will be back in the lineup and that’s a big boost on its own, but I also think they have something to prove after the last game. I think we’ll see a high tempo game.

As for how the season will go, I think the Habs will be taking a step down sooner or later, because they’re not as good as their record. They should challenge the Bruins for the division title, but I’m not sure that they’re there yet. They’re a playoff team though, and a pretty good one.

The Rangers don’t seem to be the team they were last year. They’re still fantastic defensively, but they lost quite a bit of depth when the traded for Rick Nash, and they seem to miss Brandon Prust on the fourth line. They’re still a playoff team in my mind. I don’t think they’re as good as the Penguins over an 82-game season, but over this 48-game one, they could begin a hot streak that propels them up the standings to a division title.

Read More