HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Is it better to have balanced team and not top heavy talent? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1356767)

Habs4ever 02-21-2013 07:35 PM

Is it better to have balanced team and not top heavy talent?
 
Hello guys, it seems that habs are performing at a better rate with everybody chipping in rather then few guys carrying the load.

In terms of coaching strategy it is very hard to prepare for balanced team as team can find scoring from different line combination which makes it tough for opponents to focus on particular line.

Lot of people hate that we don't have a heavy talent team but I am loving this; it makes for an exciting game every game, as the effort and goals are very evenly spread out in the team.

Out East 02-21-2013 08:04 PM

A lot of people are infatuated with the flashy players and think you can't win without them but hockey is a team sport and superstars are not necessary for success.

I am loving this too, not only because the team is balanced and has a lot of good players but because there are a lot of character guys. Prust left NYR and Nash came. They miss Prust. People overestimate flashy players and underestimate the importance of guys like Prust.

vokiel 02-21-2013 08:05 PM

It's better to have a good game plan with the personnel you have at your disposal period.

CanadienShark 02-21-2013 08:07 PM

Right now we're well balanced, but once guys like Galchenyuk, Collberg and Gallagher reach their primes, we could have a relatively top heavy team with good depth.

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Out East (Post 60199153)
A lot of people are infatuated with the flashy players and think you can't win without them but hockey is a team sport and superstars are not necessary for success.

I am loving this too, not only because the team is balanced and has a lot of good players but because there are a lot of character guys. Prust left NYR and Nash came. They miss Prust. People overestimate flashy players and underestimate the importance of guys like Prust.

Try finding a cup winning team without a superstar on it. There are very few. Most have multiple superstars.

It's not question of either or... you need both.

D4nY 02-21-2013 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Out East (Post 60199153)
A lot of people are infatuated with the flashy players and think you can't win without them but hockey is a team sport and superstars are not necessary for success.

I am loving this too, not only because the team is balanced and has a lot of good players but because there are a lot of character guys. Prust left NYR and Nash came. They miss Prust. People overestimate flashy players and underestimate the importance of guys like Prust.

i dont remember the last team to won the cup without superstars. i think the last one might be the 93 habs

vokiel 02-21-2013 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D4nY (Post 60201339)
i dont remember the last team to won the cup without superstars. i think the last one might be the 93 habs

The hurricanes in 2006?

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D4nY (Post 60201339)
i dont remember the last team to won the cup without superstars. i think the last one might be the 93 habs

Patrick Roy isn't a superstar?

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vokiel (Post 60201683)
The hurricanes in 2006?

They and the Lightning come the closest.

Staal though was a top ten scorer that year. Not really a superstar.

Tampa had Lecavalier, Richards and St. Louis. Only St. Louis might qualify.

Other than those two possible teams every other club has at least one. Most have more than one.

LeHab 02-21-2013 08:57 PM

Top heavy for me.

Average players can be had via trades or UFA. Stars not so much.

vokiel 02-21-2013 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy (Post 60209399)
They and the Lightning come the closest.

Staal though was a top ten scorer that year. Not really a superstar.

Tampa had Lecavalier, Richards and St. Louis. Only St. Louis might qualify.

Other than those two possible teams every other club has at least one. Most have more than one.

Yes, it depends on who qualify as star player for the person making the observation. Both Damphousse & Muller had close to 100 points when the habs won in 93 also.

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vokiel (Post 60211405)
Yes, it depends on who qualify as star player for the person making the observation. Both Damphousse & Muller had close to 100 points when the habs won in 93 also.

93 had one superstar: Roy.

70s Habs: Lafleur,Robinson,Dryden etc
Islanders: Bossy,Potvin,Trottier
Oilers: Gretz,Mess,Coffey etc
Flames: McIniss,Gilmour
Pens:Lemieux,Jagr
Rangers:Leetch,Mess
Avs:Forsberg,Sakic,Roy
Devs:Niedermayer,Brodeur
Wings: Yzerman,Lidstrom,Fedorov etc
Stars: Modano,Belfour
Pens:Crosby,Malkin
Wings: Datsyuk,Lidstrom
Bruins:Chara,Thomas
Ducks:Selanne,Niedermayer,Pronger
Kings: Doughty,Quick
Hawks:Toews,Kane,Hossa,Kieth

Superstars are important.

vokiel 02-21-2013 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy (Post 60214253)
93 had one superstar: Roy.

Yes well, I think the habs were stacked:

http://i.imgur.com/kDp0GaU.png

That was a pretty good team :nod:

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vokiel (Post 60215241)
Yes well, I think the habs were stacked:

http://i.imgur.com/kDp0GaU.png

That was a pretty good team :nod:

Sure. But it's not a cup calibre team without Roy.

vokiel 02-21-2013 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy (Post 60215463)
Sure. But it's not a cup calibre team without Roy.

Not sure about that, I was too young and a fan of the Pens ;)

Would the Hurricanes have won the cup in 2006 without Staal? Hard question to answer.

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vokiel (Post 60216497)
Not sure about that, I was too young and a fan of the Pens ;)

Trust me, they don't make it past round one vs. Quebec without Roy.
Quote:

Originally Posted by vokiel (Post 60216497)
Would the Hurricanes have won the cup in 2006 without Staal? Hard question to answer.

No way they win the cup without him.

PricerStopDaPuck 02-21-2013 11:40 PM

Last team to win cup without superstar..... Kings all you need is a hot goalie quick is awesome but I don't know about a superstar kopitar is good aswell but not a super star. Doughty.......no.

DAChampion 02-21-2013 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galchenyuktocollberg (Post 60227913)
Last team to win cup without superstar..... Kings all you need is a hot goalie quick is awesome but I don't know about a superstar kopitar is good aswell but not a super star. Doughty.......no.

Kopitar >>> Desharnais
Brown > Pacioretty
Quick >= Price
Doughty >> Markov
Scuderi ~ Gorges
Richards > Plekanec
Carter > Cole
Vonyov << subban

LA Kings are a bad comparison imo. They were more top heavy.

Lafleurs Guy 02-21-2013 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galchenyuktocollberg (Post 60227913)
Last team to win cup without superstar..... Kings all you need is a hot goalie quick is awesome but I don't know about a superstar kopitar is good aswell but not a super star. Doughty.......no.

Even if you don't accept Kopitar or Doughty (and I think Doughty qualifies) how can you say Quick wasn't a superstar? .929 save percentage and a GAA under 2? That's crazy.

The Kings and Hawks were a lot like the Flames... if you want to be picky you could say no superstars (though I'd disagree) but at the very least all three of these teams were packed with stars... Toews,Kane,Keith,Hossa... maybe not superstars but all very close. Flames had Niewendyke, Suter, Gilmour, McInnis,Fleury,Roberts... stupidly good. Kings had Quick,Kopitar,Doughty...

I'd say all those teams had at least one superstar but they all definitely had at least three or more players who were stars or borderline superstars.

PricerStopDaPuck 02-22-2013 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAChampion (Post 60228777)
Kopitar >>> Desharnais
Brown > Pacioretty
Quick >= Price
Doughty >> Markov
Scuderi ~ Gorges
Richards > Plekanec
Carter > Cole
Vonyov << subban

LA Kings are a bad comparison imo. They were more top heavy.

You think brown is better then patches?granted he was great in the playoffs but I would take patches over brown any day

PricerStopDaPuck 02-22-2013 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAChampion (Post 60228777)
Kopitar >>> Desharnais
Brown > Pacioretty
Quick >= Price
Doughty >> Markov
Scuderi ~ Gorges
Richards > Plekanec
Carter > Cole
Vonyov << subban

LA Kings are a bad comparison imo. They were more top heavy.

I would also call Richards plekanec a =

Lafleurs Guy 02-22-2013 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAChampion (Post 60228777)
Kopitar >>> Desharnais
Brown > Pacioretty
Quick >= Price
Doughty >> Markov
Scuderi ~ Gorges
Richards > Plekanec
Carter > Cole
Vonyov << subban

LA Kings are a bad comparison imo. They were more top heavy.

Way I'd look at it is how good we'll be in the future (say two or three years)

Kopitar vs Galchenyuk - (we can only hope)
Carter vs Pac (I think Pac will be better)
Quick vs Price (Price would have to be perfect to equal him)
Doughty vs Subban (Subban can be as good)
Scuderi vs Gorges (great comparison)
Richards > Plecs
Brown vs Prust (better comparison)
Justin Williams vs Gallagher


Interesting comparison. We've got some good blueline prospects coming up but I'm still worried about the forwards.

Rosso Scuderia 02-22-2013 12:52 AM

A balanced team is a team with talented players and hard working grinders.

NotProkofievian 02-22-2013 02:05 AM

You need the individuals to step up and solve the really tough problems. Like in the 2010 playoffs when we ran into Philly. They cracked our system wide open, and we had no one to stand up and change the flow of the games. We were eliminated in 5 as a result.

Essentially, philly put obstacles in front of our team that no one could solve, and all the scoring by committee, and team play wasn't going to change that. All the team-work was leading them to the same, wrong answer.

That's why it's so important for us to have a player like Galchenyuk. When good plays simply won't do, you need a player who can make brilliant plays.

However, you do need the support for such players. You need to have an entire team playing their part and buying into one coherent strategy. Superstars can be shut-down too. To me, neither are sufficient conditions for a cup winner. Both are necessary conditions, however.

ECWHSWI 02-22-2013 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotProkofievian (Post 60233905)
You need the individuals to step up and solve the really tough problems. Like in the 2010 playoffs when we ran into Philly. They cracked our system wide open, and we had no one to stand up and change the flow of the games. We were eliminated in 5 as a result.

Essentially, philly put obstacles in front of our team that no one could solve, and all the scoring by committee, and team play wasn't going to change that. All the team-work was leading them to the same, wrong answer.

That's why it's so important for us to have a player like Galchenyuk. When good plays simply won't do, you need a player who can make brilliant plays.

However, you do need the support for such players. You need to have an entire team playing their part and buying into one coherent strategy. Superstars can be shut-down too. To me, neither are sufficient conditions for a cup winner. Both are necessary conditions, however.

that's pretty much it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.