View Single Post
12-03-2013, 06:16 PM
Registered User
PsychoticHab's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,177
vCash: 0
Originally Posted by Winter Eclipse View Post
Could you maybe elaborate on these deep running, fundamental issues that Galchenyuk has had? Then maybe explain how punishing them is more important than:

(1) rewarding him for being tied for 2nd on the team in scoring?
(2) rewarding him for being part of the only functional offensive line the team had for quite a stretch during the early part of the season?
(3) giving him a little leeway for being 19, playing out of position, and having effective wingers taken off his line and assigned to DD?

Once Gallagher was removed from the "Kids Line", that line has been struggling to remove itself from the rut that it is in. Is it strictly on Chucky to do so? Of course not but in these last few games even Chucky has looked defeated. For him to play well he needs to use his finishing instinct which recently has been missing. It will return but he'll have to earn it back.

As for the Toronto game, Chucky failed to show up for the first two periods and spent most of the third watching. That's something Therrien has done many times in the past (Briere, Subban, and Ryder come to mind) with always some degree of success. Chucky is simply expected to move forward and continue developing. This is less of a punishment than a wake-up call from the Big League. The key will be how he answers the challenge.

Chucky is 19, all the more reason to not have extra leeway in his play. If he was a veteran you can give him a chance to play out of a slump with their experience but Chucky simply does not have much experience to fall back on. Sometimes you just have to put the training wheels back on for a little bit for the player to regain his confidence instead of kicking him while he's down and putting him in a position of guaranteed failure.

As for "Being part of the only functioning offensive line", this is becoming more and more apparent that the reason was Gallagher. Not that Eller and Chucky were bad but once he left the spark was gone from the line. Not to mention that Gally restarted the seasons of both DD and Patches.

So, for you, taking one bad penalty and getting immediately benched is just a little harsher than getting scratched for one game after being given the previous 19 games to play with the best players the team has to offer, while getting heavy offensive starts and near guaranteed PP time?

Who exactly is this best player Desharnais had during his slump? Are you referring to Patches? The one who missed a few games to injury by which time DD was on the 4th line half the time. Not to mention he also had Bourque on his line so 3 slumping players together will not like snap their skid. Should the punishment have been more severe on DD? Yeah but eventually the wake-up call got to him.

So Bouillon failing is the coaches fault for playing him incorrectly, but playing a 19 year old Center as a Wing is irrelevant to the punishment Galchenyuk should receive for making the slightest mistake?

So you want a 19 year old to have to take on all the responsibilities of being an NHL center? He's been somewhere around average defensively at a much more straightforward position to play in your own zone but you would rather do trial by fire to our best offensive hope?

As for Bouillon, what I mean is that when he is mishandled it is because he is given too many responsibilities. Therefore, to answer your question, if Chucky had the same problem (being given too many responsibilities too early say at center) that would also be a coaching problem more than the player's problem.

So Subban's Norris was the product of Therrien's coaching?

Subban doesn't get the Norris if his offensive numbers weren't that good. The trophy goes to him because of his talent (on both sides of the ice) and less by coaching but he had a problem with puck responsibility in his own zone that had to be addressed. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Subban on a bad day in my zone than Letang or Karlsson but Subban was capable of so much more and was being too reckless with the puck. The message was sent with little to no PK time and judging by Subban's and Therrien's comments as well as Subban's recent play, the message was well received.

Problem is that the thresholds are worlds apart! Like I said, "1 bad penalty and you're benched" is a pretty galaxy-spanning different threshold than "play 19 games without producing ANYTHING, while you get the best wingers the team can give you, and start in the o-zone as much as you can, while every PP has your name on it, and if you still don't produce, you won't play for 1 game"

There was little positive in Chucky's game from the point Gally was removed from his line. This all culminated to two awful periods against TOR and an eventual benching for a period. The penalty had less to do with the benching than the fact that Chucky was out for both goals against and showed no push in the offensive zone. Let's call that the Michael Ryder Syndrome. If you don't do anything to earn your ice time, why should you be given any when the game is on the line?

If Patches had been healthy the whole time you would have an argument but DD got some of the scraps for wingers during his slump as well so that also played a part in it.

Also, you basically gave Bouillon an exemption, didn't you? He makes mistakes, but that's because of the way he's used by the coach, so that's on the coach. Seems this "rule" has some pretty wide-ranging exceptions and mitigations...

Not at all, when Bouillon returned to 3rd Pairing minutes his play has been as good as any of our other defencemen in our zone. He can play the third pairing and still be a valuable member of the team. However, if he is given more time (top 4 minutes) or PP time he tends to show the weaknesses everyone likes to complain about. However, how would either of these things be Bouillon's fault? It's not like he asks for it, he simply takes what he is given by the coaches. In fairness, with our lack of depth at D-Men at one point the coaches had no choice to but to set Bouillon to fail.

If the coaches were to put Chucky at center like you suggest, his eventual failures in his own zone could be blamed on the coaches for expecting too much out of him. However, as it stands, his defensive responsibilities are being kept to a minimum while he plays 3rd line minutes (fairly easier minutes than on a higher line) and is still struggling to perform. Even this game, he got a goal but apart for that did not exactly have that good of a game.
In conclusion, DD and Bouillon are vets and were given more of a chance to recover than Chucky. Personally I think DD was given a little too long but at the same time it's not like he was given much of a chance to succeed with a slumping or injured Patches and a streaky Bourque to play with. Regardless, DD has now turned it around at least for now and is contributing to the team on both ends of the ice.

Patience is all fans need to have with Chucky. It will come to him eventually and he will then become a star. The key is to take it one step at a time not to trip over his development.

PsychoticHab is offline   Reply With Quote