Thread: News Article: Jacques Martin speaks...
View Single Post
Old
07-19-2011, 11:05 AM
  #88
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Price was doing fine, and Halak was doing great. He is also young, by the way.
The development of Subban is more than fine. He had, what a stretch of 15 games where he was not as focused as he should be, but its ok, now, he's ready to play a second-pairing defenseman at the very least. Its because of the circumstances, not because of Martin ? Well, thats too easy...
yet Subban's "15 games" led to a 3-game benching... meanwhile, Gomez, Hamrlik, Cammalleri, Gionta, Spacek all had stretches as long, or longer, where their play dropped considerably, yet they didn't even see a drop in game-by-game TOI...

that kind of inconsistency in approach is a great way to alienate young players. Some guys will accept it and keep quiet (Subban, Eller), others will let it eat away at their confidence (O'Byrne, Pouliot), and others will speak up and/or pout (Lats, S.Kost)...

ultimately, from personal experience, I don't buy the argument that only guys who keep quiet and accept it are the only type of athletes you want, and I think it's a detriment to the organization if you lose players of the 2 & 3rd variety, ESPECIALLY in a cap era where getting strong play from young/cheap players is important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Pacioretty was called up because of the injuries ? D'Agostini was promoted because of them too.

If they are playing nicely now, its mostly, because their respective teams are not as good as Montreal is, and the expectations about them are absolutely not the same.
In Montreal, first, they have to fight against other youngsters. If they fail to do so, its not because of Martin, its just that the number of spots is limited and they are beaten by the competition. They also have to follow the principles of the coaching staff, and its normal.
yeah, I don't buy the argument that they only succeeded b/c they went to weaker teams...

Nashville finished with more pts than us, & a better offense (as amazing and sad as that is)

St-Louis had a much better offense than us, we could have used D'ago's offensive production (20 goals, 46pts in 15min/game) as opposed to platooning Darche/Moen in the top-6

Colorado, while they were bad last year, got 20min/game from O'byrne in a top pairing role, while we had to trade assets for Mara and Sopel.

we could have used all three players last year, and likely this year, all three would have been upgrades, and cheap-in house ones at that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Few questions :

If D'Agostini is still there, what happen with Desharnais ?
If Sergei is still there, what happen with Eller ?
If O'Byrne is still there, when Weber will have a real shot in the NHL ?
last time I checked, having too many quality assets was a good problem to have, especially when it's cheap improving assets as opposed to overpriced diminishing ones... but to humour you, the best case scenario to each of your questions:

- the team doesn't need to put DD on the wing to try to find some offensive depth, keeps him at centre and thus is more inclined to part with Gomez

- Eller is a centre, S.Kost is a winger... keeping S.Kost shouldn't have had any bearing on Eller, and if anything, perhaps "what happens to Eller" is that he has a talented offensive player to play with and convert the many chances he creates, instead of a stone hands grinder, thus bumping up his production and giving us a 3rd line that can actually score.

- keeping O'byrne means no need to trade assets for Mara, and perhaps having a big body physical dman makes Martin comfortable enough to actually play Weber on d, thus saving us from needing to trade even more assets for Sopel. Weber/O'Byrne bring 2 very different skill sets to the table, so keeping one would have no relevance the other, except for a coach who is only comfortable when his veteran quota is met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
You also have to consider the wake-up call behind the fact that you're traded. It means that the organization who drafted you, now, doesnt want to push you anymore. Thats often underrated.
absolutely a factor... but imo, a good/great coach is one who sees the potential in his athletes, and is able to effectively deliver that "wake-up" call... it's called getting your players to play to their potential, and the sad thing about Martin's approach is that, on the whole, he isn't getting that from either his vets or his young players.

while we do have some players playing up to their potential, it seems to me that we have far more, young and old, who have had back-to-back average or worse seasons, both statistically and in overall play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Yashin, Alfredsson, Prospal, Salo, Hossa, Bonk, Redden, Phillips, Havlat, Chara, and even Bouwmeester, Horton or Booth, i'll say he is more than fine about the progress of the young players, and helping them to be as good as they can be on the ice.

Anyway, when we have so many young players in the team while being in the best position we've been since 1993, thats not really honest about the management, but even more towards the coaching staff.

Give a dog a bad name and hang it ?
i don't have time to dig it all up, but many of the players you listed had their best years after Martin, and also, you just listed a group where more than 1/2 of the players are/where all-stars... you would have to be a candidate for "worst coach ever" if you couldn't get quality play out of some of the best athletes in the league.

but what makes a good coach is getting above-average play from middle-of-the-pack and lower players.

the sens and the panthers both had several players who went on to much better things after leaving Martin... not all-stars, but effective NHLers who were stuck in situations like Pouliots while playing for Martin.

and let me make something clear, I think Martin does an excellent job with the way the team plays. I may not be a huge fan of our pop-gun offense, but you can certainly tell that we play a very effective brand of hockey, and he is getting good results from the group as a whole.

I simply believe that he could be getting even more, while playing the exact same way, if he chose to embrace his young players and help build their confidence up instead of creating, what I consider, unecessary barriers by having them on such a short leash.

it's not simply a matter of the veterans being better suited or more effective at playing the way he wants... Gomez, despite the exaggerated attempts to talk up his 2-way play, quite often makes defensive zone coverage mistakes, and Spacek didn't earn the monicker "space goat" b/c he always makes safe/effective decisions with the puck (same could be said for Wiz)... yet Martin doesn't hold them to the same standards/expectations that he holds the young players to. I don't believe that this is the best way to "teach" young players, and I don't think it gives them the best chance to succeed.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote