HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

What do we have to do to contend for the cup next season?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2011, 02:14 PM
  #151
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlgib21 View Post
Living in New Englad,the 4 teams that have won championships this decade,did so a couple of years after changing their management. Forget about a Cup,or even being a top contender until this "bilingual b.s to be GM and coach is changed. Nothing happens until PG,BG and JM are out.Especially PG
Yup, we need an English coach like Vigneault or Julien

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:15 PM
  #152
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlgib21 View Post
Living in New Englad,the 4 teams that have won championships this decade,did so a couple of years after changing their management. Forget about a Cup,or even being a top contender until this "bilingual b.s to be GM and coach is changed. Nothing happens until PG,BG and JM are out.Especially PG
If New England is so awesome, cheer for their championship teams then instead of constantly bashing your supposed favourite team.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:22 PM
  #153
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
If New England is so awesome, cheer for their championship teams then instead of constantly bashing your supposed favourite team.
He's not bashing anyone. Just cuz you don't agree with who's in place, doesn't mean you're bashing them.

I can live with JM, although I don't like some of the things he does. But Gauthier IMO....I don't think he has the first clue in how to build a contending team. Just look at his track record.

Now, to think that Yzerman was ready and willing to take over when Gainey left..and he wasn't even given a phone call for the simple fact that he doesn't speak french...is a travesty. Habs don't go after the best candidates. They go after the best French candidates...you don't see how disadvantageous that is?

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:24 PM
  #154
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Yup, we need an English coach like Vigneault or Julien
Yeah... and who needs a Steve Yzerman or a Dale Tallon when you've got Pierre Gauthier?

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:27 PM
  #155
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
same could have been said of Chara up until this year (minus the Norris nom.)...
Chara already has one Norris, he just captained his team to a cup and he'll win his second Norris this year. There's a world of difference between the all-around player that Chara is and the one dimensional offensively gifted player that Markov is.

Nobody in their right mind would ever take Markov over Chara.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poulet Kostopoulos View Post
Not sure why people keep saying Wiz is horrible defensively. Is it because of his +/- with the Islanders?

Besides, you want grit and toughness? This guy has them.
I agree. I never noticed him being a liability out there. I'll watch more closely next season but I don't remember him being bad in his own end. Did I miss something here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
The real problem with Kostitsyn is that he's European and some people just won't accept him unless he plays at the superstar level.
His being European has nothing to do with anything.

He's uber talented and he's wildly inconsistent. That's what people have a problem with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
If his name was John "Canadian Boy" Johnson people would be raving about how he hits hard, is a bit streaky but has all the tools, and is a relevant part of our top 6.

Instead because he's Andrei "Euro boy" Kostitsyn, people are crying about how he hits but isn't physical (lol), is too streaky to be a top 6 forward (even though the majority of 2nd liners put up the same production as he does and half of them don't score a point every other game, they're streaky) so therefore he's irrelevant to our line-up
If he was Canadian it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Bottom line is that the guy doesn't play up to his talent level. Maybe it's unfair from the standpoint that our expectations are too high but that's not a Nationality issue. On top of that, he was drafted 10th in one of the deepest drafts of all time and ahead of players with far better results. Personally, I think it's unfair to hold this against him but many fans do.

He should be a better player than he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Head over at Olivier's blog at enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.com -- he counts scoring chances for all Hab games, and also lists shots-at-goals which is a fine proxy for puck possession (if you're shooting the puck then you obviously have it).
Who comes up with the Corsi numbers and who determines the scoring chances? Is it done with official stats or is it this Olivier guy who calculates it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Boston's D was very shallow. They had Chara, sure, but then it was a significant drop after him to Seidenberg, and a large drop after him to... well, a bunch of guys who would be bottom-pairing D-men on most teams.
Different kind of talents... I hate Ference and see him as a cheap shot artist. But he's rugged and he's initmidating. He'll never put up the points that a guy like say Wiz will but that doesn't mean that he's not talented.

Those kinds of skills though, don't show up on a spreadsheet.

You may hate Boston and they don't have the kind of offensive talent from the blueline that we do, but they played pretty well as a group over the playoffs and they are a rough and tumble group as a whole. The whole team bought into the system and (with the help of the refs not really calling anything) used it to their advantage.

I wouldn't want to build my team the way they built theirs but we could definitely use some of what they have on their roster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No it's not. Kostitsyn is a strong two-way player, which is something he doesn't get nearly enough credit for. The real problem with Kostitsyn is that people view him as streaky. He's not any more so than any offensive player in his production range.
No. The real problem is that he has the skill level to be much better than he is. His "production range" should be much higher than it is.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:27 PM
  #156
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
U Mad brah?

First of all, scoring chances and shots on goal is NOT all there is to puck possession. There is much more to this.
Shots towards the net are a useful proxy for puck possession. If you're doing all the shooting, clearly the other team doesn't have the puck while you're doing that. And there's only so much time in a game to take shots in. If the other team isn't taking shots, then it's exceedingly unlikely they have the puck, and even if they do, then they aren't doing anything terribly useful with it now are they?

Metrics such as shots towards the net help us find times when people think one team dominates puck possession because they have a reputation and because they think size is a huge component of it, rather than because it actually happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
In overtime, we might have outchanced them, thing is - we collapsed in a pretty pathetic way in game 4 where we were leading 3 to 1.
You need to learn that there is sometimes a disconnect between outscoring and outplaying. Losing a two-goal lead isn't necessarily indicative of a "collapse". The Habs limited the Bruins' chances well with the two-goal lead. The Bruins had, I think it was six chances, and buried two. It happens sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
As for Game 7, we started the game sitting back and watching them play, because it's not there in our own players to engage things and dictate the pace of the game.
The Habs usually DO dictate the pace of the game and control the puck more often than not. However, in game 7, the team was so shorthanded that it became unable to do so even against a relatively pedestrian possession club like the Bruins. It shouldn't be a huge shock that if you strip a good team of some of its talent, the team won't be as good anymore.

Players make a big deal about not using injuries as excuses, but when doing analysis, failing to recognize the impact of injuries is blinding oneself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
The Bruins' d-core was actually very strong, strong enough to completely shutdown Vancouver, Philadelphia, and in some way, our beloved Montreal Canadiens. You underrate this core of defensemen.
I think you really mean "Tim Thomas was actually very strong". They didn't give the guy a Conn Smythe for nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
They had Chara, Kaberle and Seidenberg, a very effective top-3. Even if Kaberle wasn't playing his best hockey, he's still a guy you've got to watch and who, more often than not, will make quick, sharp decisions with the puck in the neutral zone.
Except Kaberle was terrible and played at bottom pairing level, and ended up getting bottom-pairing icetime at even strength. Leaving the Bruins with Chara (great), Seidenberg (a good second-pairing D-man), and a bunch of third-pairing folks. It's a very shallow defensive group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
Boychuk is an efficient #4 d-man, Ference and McQuaid is what I'd call a perfect 3rd pairing.
Boston used Boychuk and Ference as their second pairing. Boychuk is such a great D-man that the Avalanche, the 29th-worst team in the league, would use him as a forward. He was just about the B's worst defenseman in the playoffs at even strength. Ference and McQuaid are strictly third-pairing as well... but two of those third-pairing guys were put together and they were the Bruins' second pairing.

It's really a very mediocre defensive core. The Habs', despite the loss of Markov and Gorges, had a better unit.

You're completely overrating the Bruins. The fact that they didn't allow goals was all goaltending; their defense was weak all year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
Boychuk and Kaberle are NOT 3rd pairing d-men on most teams.
True; on most teams Boychuk is the #7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
And Ference/McQuaid are at least equal to Gorges. Seriously. You severely underestimate how good these guys are if you think Gorges would be second only to Chara in their group.
Ference equal to Gorges? Are you for real?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
To say Kostitsyn is a two-way player is completely ridiculous.
And yet there was a reason Martin kept using it alongside Plekanec and gave that line some of the toughest matchups in the entire NHL. The guy gets absolutely no credit for what he does well.

He's no Brian Gionta, but it's not like he's paid that way either. He's capable of playing against the toughest opposition effectively, and you don't get to do that if you can't play defense.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:37 PM
  #157
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Shots towards the net are a useful proxy for puck possession. If you're doing all the shooting, clearly the other team doesn't have the puck while you're doing that. And there's only so much time in a game to take shots in. If the other team isn't taking shots, then it's exceedingly unlikely they have the puck, and even if they do, then they aren't doing anything terribly useful with it now are they?

Metrics such as shots towards the net help us find times when people think one team dominates puck possession because they have a reputation and because they think size is a huge component of it, rather than because it actually happens.



You need to learn that there is sometimes a disconnect between outscoring and outplaying. Losing a two-goal lead isn't necessarily indicative of a "collapse". The Habs limited the Bruins' chances well with the two-goal lead. The Bruins had, I think it was six chances, and buried two. It happens sometimes.



The Habs usually DO dictate the pace of the game and control the puck more often than not. However, in game 7, the team was so shorthanded that it became unable to do so even against a relatively pedestrian possession club like the Bruins. It shouldn't be a huge shock that if you strip a good team of some of its talent, the team won't be as good anymore.

Players make a big deal about not using injuries as excuses, but when doing analysis, failing to recognize the impact of injuries is blinding oneself.



I think you really mean "Tim Thomas was actually very strong". They didn't give the guy a Conn Smythe for nothing.



Except Kaberle was terrible and played at bottom pairing level, and ended up getting bottom-pairing icetime at even strength. Leaving the Bruins with Chara (great), Seidenberg (a good second-pairing D-man), and a bunch of third-pairing folks. It's a very shallow defensive group.



Boston used Boychuk and Ference as their second pairing. Boychuk is such a great D-man that the Avalanche, the 29th-worst team in the league, would use him as a forward. He was just about the B's worst defenseman in the playoffs at even strength. Ference and McQuaid are strictly third-pairing as well... but two of those third-pairing guys were put together and they were the Bruins' second pairing.

It's really a very mediocre defensive core. The Habs', despite the loss of Markov and Gorges, had a better unit.

You're completely overrating the Bruins. The fact that they didn't allow goals was all goaltending; their defense was weak all year.



True; on most teams Boychuk is the #7.



Ference equal to Gorges? Are you for real?



And yet there was a reason Martin kept using it alongside Plekanec and gave that line some of the toughest matchups in the entire NHL. The guy gets absolutely no credit for what he does well.

He's no Brian Gionta, but it's not like he's paid that way either. He's capable of playing against the toughest opposition effectively, and you don't get to do that if you can't play defense.
Look... I'll just stop there. Boychuk a #7 d-man? Kostitsyn a two-way player? Gorges #2 on the Bruins? Habs controlling pace of games? Come on. There's just nothing I can tell you I guess that'll make you realize how the Bruins winning the cup MAYBE has a tiny bit to do with their superiority as a group over the Montreal Canadiens, who fell 2 years in the previous 3 seasons against a Philly team which got steamrolled by Boston. Yeah, Philly had not Pronger. They didn't have him neither in 2008, and the Bruins didn't have Savard this season.

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:37 PM
  #158
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
U Mad brah?

First of all, scoring chances and shots on goal is NOT all there is to puck possession. There is much more to this. And NO, the Habs definitely were not controlling the pace of the games. The Bruins could cycle in our own zone without any fear, as nobody was willing/capable to engage long puck battles against them along the boards, save for a guy like Subban.

In overtime, we might have outchanced them, thing is - we collapsed in a pretty pathetic way in game 4 where we were leading 3 to 1. As for Game 7, we started the game sitting back and watching them play, because it's not there in our own players to engage things and dictate the pace of the game. All in all, the Bruins got most of the good breaks, in huge part because they kept winning battles - be it along the boards or in the faceoffs cirle -, and because their play around the net was miles ahead of ours.

The Bruins' d-core was actually very strong, strong enough to completely shutdown Vancouver, Philadelphia, and in some way, our beloved Montreal Canadiens. You underrate this core of defensemen. They had Chara, Kaberle and Seidenberg, a very effective top-3. Even if Kaberle wasn't playing his best hockey, he's still a guy you've got to watch and who, more often than not, will make quick, sharp decisions with the puck in the neutral zone. He's a clever player, and you've got to watch games to see that, because he adds a lot of things that are not visible in statistics. Boychuk is an efficient #4 d-man, Ference and McQuaid is what I'd call a perfect 3rd pairing. They're much better in their own end than a guy like Spacek or a tired Hamrlik, and to pass the puck up the ice, they're not liability like Gill. They also pretty much all have a physical game, minus Kaberle. The Bruins actually have pretty much a perfect defense core to play in the playoffs. They have pretty much of everything.

Boychuk and Kaberle are NOT 3rd pairing d-men on most teams. And Ference/McQuaid are at least equal to Gorges. Seriously. You severely underestimate how good these guys are if you think Gorges would be second only to Chara in their group. Gorges is a good #4/#5 d-man on your team ideally. A guy who'll play big PK minutes and in some important situations, but who won't help your team in the puck possession facet of the game. Neither will Gill for that matter.

To say Kostitsyn is a two-way player is completely ridiculous. Kostitsyn is a streaky player, which is fine by me... if he didn't bring the whole line he's on down with his poor decision-making each and every time he loses confidence. His linemates don't know what to expect out of him. Which is something bad when he's being put on a team's top-6. Ideally, you would put this guy with a guy like Eller on a 3rd line, where he can go through his hot and cold streaks without bringing guys like Cammalleri and especially Plekanec down when he's not producing. These two guys need a guy who'll get them the puck and who'll make the opposing d-men's life tougher night in and night out. Kostitsyn can do it, but is unwilling/uncapable of doing in on a nightly basis.

As for me watching hockey games, ask around the NHL whether or not Kostitsyn is considered an efficient two-way player. This is a pretty ludicrous thing to say, considering the guy is one of those who'll give the puck to the opponents more often than not in our team, especially when he forgets what he's all about (sniping pucks) and that he tries to dangle his way in the offensive zone, just to try an impossible pass backwards to one of our d-men.
defiantly not the case. it was the case with Phil last year yes, but not these PO's. Most goals and chances came from odd man rushes not from the habs inability to stop boston's "dominating puck control".

as for the AK, he played an improved and impressive 2 way game this year; also giveaways is not much of a metric to determine if a player plays a 2 way game or not. (Plecks had more Giveaways then AK, per game)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowsingForACup View Post
Look... I'll just stop there. Boychuk a #7 d-man? Kostitsyn a two-way player? Gorges #2 on the Bruins? Habs controlling pace of games? Come on. There's just nothing I can tell you I guess that'll make you realize how the Bruins winning the cup MAYBE has a tiny bit to do with their superiority as a group over the Montreal Canadiens, who fell 2 years in the previous 3 seasons against a Philly team which got steamrolled by Boston. Yeah, Philly had not Pronger. They didn't have him neither in 2008, and the Bruins didn't have Savard this season.
your thinking seems to be influenced by results. IMO result oriented thinking is usually not the best way of analyzing any given situation, properly at least.


Last edited by uiCk: 06-17-2011 at 02:43 PM.
uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:39 PM
  #159
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
defiantly not the case. it was the case with Phil last year yes, but not these PO's. Most goals and chances came from odd man rushes not from the habs inability to stop boston's "dominating puck control".

as for the AK, he played an improved and impressive 2 way game this year; also giveaways is not much of a metric to determine if a player plays a 2 way game or not.
Bruins had the puck most of that series.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:40 PM
  #160
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Nobody in their right mind would ever take Markov over Chara.
I would. But then I think Chara is a little overrated (elite #1 D-man, yes, but perennial Norris?) because of big guy syndrome, and I have a strong belief in the value of puck movers at even strength. Then factor in that Markov is arguably the best PP QB on Earth...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Who comes up with the Corsi numbers and who determines the scoring chances? Is it done with official stats or is it this Olivier guy who calculates it?
Corsi numbers are based on official score sheets. It's a simple calculation: goals + shots + misses + blocked attempts for, and then you subtract the against. It's a fine proxy for puck possession and correlates well with winning in the long term.

Olivier looks over the chances and counts them based on a set of criteria -- a chance is defined as a strong play on net from within the "home plate area", from the goalposts to the faceoff dots and from there to the top of the circles. Missed shots count, blocked shots do not. These criteria are fairly objective ensuring consistency; they are used by a number of observers who collect chances for a number of teams, and the numbers match well when those teams meet each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Different kind of talents... I hate Ference and see him as a cheap shot artist. But he's rugged and he's initmidating.
He's also bad at keeping opponents from taking dangerous shots at his net, which is one of the qualities I look for in a defenseman. "Rugged and intimidating", to me, are nice-to-haves, but if it's all a defenseman has, then what we have is a poor defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Those kinds of skills though, don't show up on a spreadsheet.
Sure they will, if they have value. Presumably this helps the defenseman in question defend the net against opposing scorers, surely? If it doesn't help prevent scoring chances against, then what good is it? "These guys sure are intimidated while they bombard our goalie"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You may hate Boston and they don't have the kind of offensive talent from the blueline that we do, but they played pretty well as a group over the playoffs and they are a rough and tumble group as a whole. The whole team bought into the system and (with the help of the refs not really calling anything) used it to their advantage.
They also had extraordinarily good goaltending and faced unusually bad goaltending. Which had more to do with Boston's Cup than any roughing and tumbing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
No. The real problem is that he has the skill level to be much better than he is. His "production range" should be much higher than it is.
That's largely irrelevant though. He offers X amount of effectiveness offensively and defensively and his salary is in line with that X amount. What we think he should be is pretty much completely irrelevant to what he is, and as a GM Gauthier must primarily be concerned with the latter.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:44 PM
  #161
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
He's not bashing anyone. Just cuz you don't agree with who's in place, doesn't mean you're bashing them.

I can live with JM, although I don't like some of the things he does. But Gauthier IMO....I don't think he has the first clue in how to build a contending team. Just look at his track record.

Now, to think that Yzerman was ready and willing to take over when Gainey left..and he wasn't even given a phone call for the simple fact that he doesn't speak french...is a travesty. Habs don't go after the best candidates. They go after the best French candidates...you don't see how disadvantageous that is?
I wasn't debating the french language issue, did you see me mention that anywhere? My point was that if you read jlb's post, they are all pretty much bashing the habs, whether its management or players.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:53 PM
  #162
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
Bruins had the puck most of that series.
i don't believe i made any indication of who had the puck most of the time. Also having the puck != domination puck possession (in case were, like guy i quoted said, bruins were dancing around us and habs were unable to do anything).

as for puck possession, habs had the lead in games 1,2, most of game 4 and game 6. so, logically bruins would end up "controlling" the puck more 4 games out of 7.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 02:54 PM
  #163
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
...

It's really a very mediocre defensive core. The Habs', despite the loss of Markov and Gorges, had a better unit.

You're completely overrating the Bruins. The fact that they didn't allow goals was all goaltending; their defense was weak all year.

True; on most teams Boychuk is the #7.
...
The more you go on about this, the less credible your arguments become. Boychuck played huge minutes against the top opposition all playoffs. To suggest he wouldn't even crack the starting lineup for most NHL teams is a joke.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 03:01 PM
  #164
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Chara already has one Norris, he just captained his team to a cup and he'll win his second Norris this year. There's a world of difference between the all-around player that Chara is and the one dimensional offensively gifted player that Markov is. .
the least you could do if you want to respond to someone is read their whole post...

it was one f-ing sentence, was it so hard ?

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 03:06 PM
  #165
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
The more you go on about this, the less credible your arguments become. Boychuck played huge minutes against the top opposition all playoffs.
Which is my point: the Bruins' blueline lacks depth to the point that a player like Boychuk ends up being used as a second-pairing D-man. Predictably, he did terribly at it, being outchanced in virtually every game, more so than any other Bruin. Without Thomas's awesome goaltending, he would have been exposed.

But he's big and physical, something which is commonly mistaken for defense. And which makes him the kind of player the CBC commentators like, so he was hyped up in spite of his ineffectiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
To suggest he wouldn't even crack the starting lineup for most NHL teams is a joke.
Well, we are talking about a guy who couldn't crack the top-6 of the 29th-worst club in the league when he played there.

Suppose that the Habs acquire this awesome defenseman from Boston for a pick. (Whether it's for a first or a fourth is irrelevant). Where do you see him fitting in the Montreal depth chart?

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 03:07 PM
  #166
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
i don't believe i made any indication of who had the puck most of the time. Also having the puck != domination puck possession (in case were, like guy i quoted said, bruins were dancing around us and habs were unable to do anything).

as for puck possession, habs had the lead in games 1,2, most of game 4 and game 6. so, logically bruins would end up "controlling" the puck more 4 games out of 7.
do you have proof to support this claim?

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 03:46 PM
  #167
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
He's also bad at keeping opponents from taking dangerous shots at his net, which is one of the qualities I look for in a defenseman. "Rugged and intimidating", to me, are nice-to-haves, but if it's all a defenseman has, then what we have is a poor defenseman.
I find this hard to believe. If he has no skills and isn't effective defensively, why the heck is he in the NHL and playing for not one but two teams that have made the final?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Sure they will, if they have value. Presumably this helps the defenseman in question defend the net against opposing scorers, surely? If it doesn't help prevent scoring chances against, then what good is it? "These guys sure are intimidated while they bombard our goalie"?
They may take shots from the perimeter, they may not get a second chance at rebounds... The Bruins actually did win the cup dude and while Thomas was great, the Bruins D was stifling. Not sure if it shows up on your spreadsheet but it sure showed up for those who actually watched the games. The Bruins had one of the best GAs in the league... maybe it did show up on your spreadsheet. I forgot though, GA is just a fluke and corsi is the be all and end all.

How many goals are dirty goals that get scored while fighting in front of the net? How many are rebounds in traffic? We don't score that many dirty goals, we tend to make the pretty passes and the goals that we get look terrific. But at the end of the day our shooting percentage sucks right? Do you think maybe it has something to do with the fact that other clubs are able to sink those short putts because they're in front of the net and able to fight off the opposing defense for that 'second chance' shot? If your D is big and the opposing forwards are small, it's going to help prevent goals.

You can count shots and shooting percentage all you wish but at the end of the day if you don't score you don't win. And having a huge defense core that helps clear traffic (or as Chara did actually make a couple of key saves for you) in front is going to help your save percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
They also had extraordinarily good goaltending and faced unusually bad goaltending. Which had more to do with Boston's Cup than any roughing and tumbing.
It was definitely the biggest factor. But to sit there and claim that Boston didn't do a great job against the best offense in the league is to be willfully blind. I don't care what your spreadsheet tells you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That's largely irrelevant though. He offers X amount of effectiveness offensively and defensively and his salary is in line with that X amount. What we think he should be is pretty much completely irrelevant to what he is, and as a GM Gauthier must primarily be concerned with the latter.
It's not irrelevant to this discussion. You're talking about 'the real problem' and again... the answer isn't on a spreadsheet. It isn't his salary either.

We know kind of talent this guy has, we've seen it in flashes. The 'real problem' is that he doesn't do it consistently enough. The reason? I guess we're trying to figure that out but the 'real problem' is that his talent is much greater than the results we've been getting from him. You may say that it's misplaced expectations and I believe that people unfairly throw the 2003 draft in his face but the bottom line is that he should be a lot better than he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
the least you could do if you want to respond to someone is read their whole post...

it was one f-ing sentence, was it so hard ?
I don't know what you're talking about.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 06-17-2011 at 04:13 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 03:57 PM
  #168
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
do you have proof to support this claim?
yea, actually watching PO hockey.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:05 PM
  #169
canadiansbronco
Registered User
 
canadiansbronco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Obviusly get biger we need some muscle on our 3rd and 4th line

A big stay at home Dman that hits hard and often

Move up and draft Couturier that guys is 6`4 200 pouds he would start right away and bring instant help to our team both on offense and he'd bring muscle

canadiansbronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:06 PM
  #170
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Which is my point: the Bruins' blueline lacks depth to the point that a player like Boychuk ends up being used as a second-pairing D-man. Predictably, he did terribly at it, being outchanced in virtually every game, more so than any other Bruin. Without Thomas's awesome goaltending, he would have been exposed.

But he's big and physical, something which is commonly mistaken for defense. And which makes him the kind of player the CBC commentators like, so he was hyped up in spite of his ineffectiveness.



Well, we are talking about a guy who couldn't crack the top-6 of the 29th-worst club in the league when he played there.

Suppose that the Habs acquire this awesome defenseman from Boston for a pick. (Whether it's for a first or a fourth is irrelevant). Where do you see him fitting in the Montreal depth chart?
He played over 20 minutes a game for the cup winner in the playoffs. The year before he played 26 minutes a game. To say the Bruins lack depth is one thing, to say a guy who played solidly in the top four of a cup winner is something else entirely. Boychuck was +12. Your logic is a minus. You don't like Boychuck, fine. The fact that he took time to develop is supposed to prove that Thomas played defence for him? 20 minutes a game, plus twelve, Stanley Cup versus.... "Well he didn't break in with Colorado a few years ago so I have proven he sucks." Based on his play in the past two seasons I think that in Montreal, like almost any team in the NHL, he'd be in the top four. Yes he makes a lot of mistakes, and yet he manages to be a core part of one of the best defenses in hockey. In the playoffs it was the best. But no, I guess you have him behind Hall Gill cause... cause you say so.

Geez, MathMan, yer not living up to your handle on this topic.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:12 PM
  #171
canadiansbronco
Registered User
 
canadiansbronco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
He played over 20 minutes a game for the cup winner in the playoffs. The year before he played 26 minutes a game. To say the Bruins lack depth is one thing, to say a guy who played solidly in the top four of a cup winner is something else entirely. Boychuck was +12. Your logic is a minus. You don't like Boychuck, fine. The fact that he took time to develop is supposed to prove that Thomas played defence for him? 20 minutes a game, plus twelve, Stanley Cup versus.... "Well he didn't break in with Colorado a few years ago so I have proven he sucks." Based on his play in the past two seasons I think that in Montreal, like almost any team in the NHL, he'd be in the top four. Yes he makes a lot of mistakes, and yet he manages to be a core part of one of the best defenses in hockey. In the playoffs it was the best. But no, I guess you have him behind Hall Gill cause... cause you say so.

Geez, MathMan, yer not living up to your handle on this topic.
I agree Boychuck played fine but he also has a point where would he fit in MTL ?

canadiansbronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:23 PM
  #172
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't know what you're talking about.

my post : one single sentence...
Quote:
same could have been said of Chara up until this year
your reply :
Quote:
Chara already has one Norris, he just captained his team to a cup and he'll win his second Norris this year. There's a world of difference between the all-around player that Chara is and the one dimensional offensively gifted player that Markov is.
so yeah, was it so f-ing hard ?

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:34 PM
  #173
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiansbronco View Post
I agree Boychuck played fine but he also has a point where would he fit in MTL ?
If by some unknown chain of events we'd acquired Boychuk I doubt we'd have signed Hall Gill, but looking at last year's team, Boychuk would largely slot into the shifts Hamerlik took, minus PP and offensive time and plus some more PK. But it's not really interesting speculation. He's not leaving Boston and if he were the Habs are the last team who Boston who trade him to. I'm not trying to suggest the guy's a superstar, the comment that I responded too was that "on most teams in the NHL, he'd be a # 7." Yeah, that's a credible proposition. On our team he'd be a top four. To start the season, with Gorges still expected to be out (assuming he's signed) it wouldn't even be a question.


Last edited by Bullsmith: 06-17-2011 at 04:41 PM.
Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:40 PM
  #174
canadiansbronco
Registered User
 
canadiansbronco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
Well right now, under contract we have: Spacek, Subban, Gill, Yemelin, Weber. Boychuck is easily top 4 on that list.

We're counting on Gorges resigning but also expect he won't be ready to start the season and don't know how long it will take him to return to top 4 form. Much as we love and count on Markov, that's a gamble too.

If by some unknown chain of events we'd acquired Boychuk I doubt we'd have signed Hall Gill, but looking at last year's team, Boychuk would largely slot into the shifts Hamerlik took, minus PP and offensive time and plus some more PK. But it's not really interesting speculation. He's not leaving Boston and if he were the Habs are the last team who Boston who trade him to. I'm not trying to suggest the guy's a superstar, the comment that I responded too was that "on most teams in the NHL, he'd be a # 7." Yeah, that's a credible proposition.
I am curious what would you do with Markov ? cuz i have no idea i mean he is awesome and i love him but at the same time i dont know if he will ever be back to his dominating form

canadiansbronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 04:45 PM
  #175
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiansbronco View Post
I am curious what would you do with Markov ? cuz i have no idea i mean he is awesome and i love him but at the same time i dont know if he will ever be back to his dominating form
For myself Markov's a great risk because the odds are high that either he can't play or he's effective, at the very least on the PP. His remarkable talents are his hands and his vision, his decision making and his passing. He's only 32 and even if he loses a step, he may not still be an all star but he'll likely still be an elite player in terms of PP QB and breakout pass from his own zone.

If it's a bad signing, all you lose is money by putting him on LTIR. It's a HUGE risk, but the odds of getting cap relief if it busts are relatively high, given the nature of his injuries. We're a big market, I say gamble the money.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.