0.1 @ Philly

[cdanew]

Enjoyed Shapiro's summary of Montgomery's 5 keys from last night's game:

Win 56 percent of faceoffs: Failed. They won 53 percent of the draws.

Zero undisciplined penalties: Failed.

Three or fewer odd-man rushes: Failed. Badly.

Win net-front battle: Failed. Badly.

Win special teams: Failed.

If you go 0-for-5 in the areas your coach harps on most, you deserve to lose.

[slaps]

On top of all of this, though, I still think Monty has the slowest Stars roster in years trying to play in a league that is maybe the fastest it has ever been.

I think this is the biggest factor. The game is young and fast, and Monty has a bunch of guys who can't keep up, so they can't play the possession game he wants.

[SaintAngerBH]

I can't believe I actually miss Garbutt and Roussel...

Never thought that would happen.

[The Frugal Gourmet]

I loved those guys, actually.

[slaps]

Enjoyed Shapiro's summary of Montgomery's 5 keys from last night's game:

Win 56 percent of faceoffs: Failed. They won 53 percent of the draws.

Zero undisciplined penalties: Failed.

Three or fewer odd-man rushes: Failed. Badly.

Win net-front battle: Failed. Badly.

Win special teams: Failed.

If you go 0-for-5 in the areas your coach harps on most, you deserve to lose.

Shapiro's recap of this one was just straight up savage.

[The Frugal Gourmet]

This is what happens to this team and oddly high number of times. They've had a big win and they play a lesser opponent and they *poo poo* the bed. It's just a waste of points.

[SaintAngerBH]

This is what happens to this team and oddly high number of times. They've had a big win and they play a lesser opponent and they *poo poo* the bed. It's just a waste of points.

Which is a character and leadership issue. Maybe the coach is somewhat responsible for that, but I place the blame more on the players who should be leading.

[cdanew]

The leadership question is kind of interesting (and goes back to Nill as well). The only players on the team who have any significant playoff runs are:

1. Seguin - won the Cup, but was a young gun along for the ride, who may or may not have absorbed anything from that team.
2. Spezza - Was with Ottawa in 06-07 when they lost in the Finals to the Ducks - had lots of other playoff appearances with the Sens but nothing past the 2nd round
3. Polak - Was with San Jose in 15-16 when they lost in the Finals to Pittsburgh - had some other playoff experience with St. Louis and Toronto, but nothing of significance

Other than Seguin, there is no one on this team who can say "This is what you have to do to win the Stanley Cup." I know its a different day and age and the style of the game is different, but there is no one in this mix like Keane, Ludwig, Carbonneau or Skrudland (yeah, I know, living in 1999) who have a real history of winning.

[ScubaSteve]

This thing started going downhill when we lost Hemsky's winning pedigree.

[wonko80]

The leadership question is kind of interesting (and goes back to Nill as well). The only players on the team who have any significant playoff runs are:

1. Seguin - won the Cup, but was a young gun along for the ride, who may or may not have absorbed anything from that team.
2. Spezza - Was with Ottawa in 06-07 when they lost in the Finals to the Ducks - had lots of other playoff appearances with the Sens but nothing past the 2nd round
3. Polak - Was with San Jose in 15-16 when they lost in the Finals to Pittsburgh - had some other playoff experience with St. Louis and Toronto, but nothing of significance

Other than Seguin, there is no one on this team who can say "This is what you have to do to win the Stanley Cup." I know its a different day and age and the style of the game is different, but there is no one in this mix like Keane, Ludwig, Carbonneau or Skrudland (yeah, I know, living in 1999) who have a real history of winning.

I was actually thinking of that the other day. Perhaps finding at least one other guy who has won it all would be a good idea. Ideally it would be someone who isn't just a 4th liner who was a part of it but not as important.

[Troy McClure]

When it comes to vets, there's also Comeau, Hanzal, Methot, and both goalies who have in the league for a long time. They've had mixed results when it comes to team success, but they all should be guys who can provide examples of how to prepare for and handle the pro game. Radulov isn't a long-term NHLer, but he's another vet who should be considered a leader.

[ScubaSteve]

The leadership question is kind of interesting (and goes back to Nill as well). The only players on the team who have any significant playoff runs are:

1. Seguin - won the Cup, but was a young gun along for the ride, who may or may not have absorbed anything from that team.
2. Spezza - Was with Ottawa in 06-07 when they lost in the Finals to the Ducks - had lots of other playoff appearances with the Sens but nothing past the 2nd round
3. Polak - Was with San Jose in 15-16 when they lost in the Finals to Pittsburgh - had some other playoff experience with St. Louis and Toronto, but nothing of significance

Other than Seguin, there is no one on this team who can say "This is what you have to do to win the Stanley Cup." I know its a different day and age and the style of the game is different, but there is no one in this mix like Keane, Ludwig, Carbonneau or Skrudland (yeah, I know, living in 1999) who have a real history of winning.

I was actually thinking of that the other day. Perhaps finding at least one other guy who has won it all would be a good idea. Ideally it would be someone who isn't just a 4th liner who was a part of it but not as important.

When we had Eaves and Sharp, the guy that someone decided should be captain of the team was the only Top 6 forward we had who had not played in the Cup finals.

[SaintAngerBH]

This thing started going downhill when we lost Hemsky's winning pedigree.

I think it was Goligoski. We haven't been to the playoffs since that Norris-level defenseman left...

[One_Timer]

They’re just a bad road team, period. This has Benn the case for years now.