Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)
View Single Post
08-29-2011, 04:11 PM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Originally Posted by
While no body is basing their success solely on the toughness of the Bruins, it sure does get passed as such. Look, every team's qualities(positive one) play a role in their success. Toughness was a quality of the Bruins, but whether or not that set them apart from most teams and was the deciding factor in their wins or one the biggest factors is up for debate and personally I don't think it was. I named for factors which were much more important...in my opinion of course, in the Bruins success these playoffs.
I think this whole toughness argument is one of style rather than effectiveness. People like to see other people get beaten up, others don't. I think there are many factors more important on a team's success than toughness and as far as the Canadiens go, I'd like them to address other issues first(like finding more reliable depth on defense aka anotehr defensemen who can eat responsible minutes) than going out there and finding a bruiser. Likewise, I also think they need a good 4th line faceoff man(one who can also play responsible hockey) before they need to add a bruiser. Sure you can kill two birds with one stone by acquiring a guy who is both a bruiser and can fill in for the area that is currently unfilled, but not many players that have both qualities were available via UFA and most require overpayment via trade route, which we aren't in a position to be overpaying for anything right now.
I think the only people that "don't get it" are those people who think toughness trumps all these other issues currently missing on our team. Just like those last season who thought that getting tougher was a bigger priority than getting a scoring defensemen and better depth in the top 9. Low and behold, the habs brought up Pacioretty and desharnais and traded for Wisniewski and we had a 17-7-5 record until Pacioretty got hurt. I still remember that Flyers toughness thread last season, where all our problems in november and december were attributed to a lack of toughness rather than the fact that we had an incomplete top 6 and literally zero offense from the back end.
I think the intimidation factor played more heavily than you do. You can't tell me that Sedin's sitting there getting repeatedly punched in the face didn't have an affect.
As for us, I'm not looking for us to add a 'bruiser' or 'goon' either. I'm all for adding elite talent (anyone who's read my posts in that past knows this) but our forwards have traditionally been too small to give us a real shot at winning. MaxPac hopefully will help and Cole may help us in the short-term but we can't just keep going after Giontas, Cammy and Gomez types. I'm a huge fan of Cammy's but it's silly to pair him with other smurfs. Management has got to realize this.
Originally Posted by
It might have had an effect but not nearly big enough to even mention it. People overrate the intimidation aspect of the Bruins. They won because of stellar goaltending, depth and very importantly, luck. Intimidation doesn't hold much of an impact.
If it's teams like Mtl or Nsh that shut down opponents, it's due to good defensive game including goaltending, but when it's the Bruins, people will talk about intimidation or ''toughness'' before bringing up any of the rest.
Of course the Bruins had stellar goaltending. Nobody disputes this. But the Sedins were invisible for much of the series. Yes, you can credit defense for this but having watched those games it seemed pretty clear to me that these guys were shellshocked from having been punched out all the time.
If it's teams like Mtl, then yes it is goaltending or defense that stops the puck from going in. The reason for this is that we don't have the ability to push other clubs around. So we absolutely agree here. Boston though had the added dimension of intimidation to go along with defense and goaltending and that's a big reason why the won the cup.
Originally Posted by
I'm not sure why, but here goes. My understanding is that the softness that led Wellwood to exit the NHL was principally that around his gut: he's a player who would repeatedly show up at camp out of shape. I'm not too keen on evaluating work ethic based on on-ice perception, but this is one thing coaches aren't prone to forgiving, especially out of a third-line type player.
Otherwise, I've not followed him nearly enough to make a determination on his softness that wouldn't be just parroting what someone else said without thinking about it, but he seems to have been a somewhat effective third-line type forward with PP skills, so whether he was soft or gritty would be pretty irrelevant to me in the face of him just not being that good.
Even when he was putting points up on the board he was considered incredibly soft. How would you measure this statistically? Can you measure it statistically? Does it have any bearing to you whatsoever if this guy doesn't go into the corners but gets points per minutes that are decent? Is PPM all that matters to you?
Originally Posted by
might want to try to get more realistic examples... I mean, 99 was good enough to get 150+ pts with a GOON on his side...
just like Lidstrom is an AMAZING blue liner, one of the best of all times...
and then the Pronger example...
Balance is GREAT... but reality is, when your best forward get 57 pts, removing some talent to make room for more toughness helps in NO WAY in the balance department...
Dude, you brought up Lidstrom... I was following your lead. And Gretz is the most extreme example of an uber talent with no grit and everybody knows him so substitute your own players instead if you wish, I'm just trying to make a point.
As for us, we need more talent AND toughness if we want to make a legit run. Price is a great start and Subban will hopefully follow. Those two could be our first legit stars in forever and it's something to build around. But we need to do a better job supporting them than we have in the past with the FA signings and mid round picks. And I don't want to see us continuing to load up on a top six that consists of 5 foot nothing guys.
View Public Profile
Lafleurs Guy's albums
Find More Posts by Lafleurs Guy