HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jacques Martin speaks...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-17-2011, 04:34 PM
  #76
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
So I'm a ball breaker because I think he can do better in the playoffs than not making it past the first round?




Actually, I think Price will have a set back year in terms of the regular season but I expect him to step up in the playoffs and dominate when it matters. I don't think its realistic to expect him to have another year like he did this past year and also expect him to do well in the playoffs.
In rereading this I'd say you're suspended somewhere between the stratosphere and the ionosphere. He did damn well in the playoffs. There were far more cheerers than complainers in PQ. The Bruins could have won against the Flyers, Bolts, and Canucks with Price in goal instead of Thomas.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2011, 05:07 PM
  #77
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
if by accountability you mean taking actions such as benching, scratching, etc... you cant really (has to be very rare exceptions)... cause by doing so you'd have to change what was planned for the youngsters too...

I mean, at 10/15 games, we had Gomez playing like ****, what was JM supposed to do, give Eller 2nd line duties ?? come on, at the time the kid barely looked like a NHLer... or call up DD and have him go straight from AHL to 2nd line C in the NHL ?? be serious for a sec. here...



While you think that (and it looks like the logical move - looks like), JM did the opposite and the kids did a'right... so, maybe that's not the way to go for everybody...
the kids did alright?

pouliot was a complete failure, S.Kost, O'Byrne & D'ago were all moved to teams where they almost immediately played a role we definitely could have used...

Subban, thankfully, has a great attitude and took his completely ridiculous 3-game benching in stride, in this day & and age it's lucky for us that he didn't let his ego or the unfariness of the situation lead to a bigger problem.

MaxPac teetered with negative public comments, but again, has sufficient character to make the best of a bogus situation.

perhaps we have very different understanding of what "doing all right" is, but imo, our young players on the whole have not benefited from Martin's approach.

i also believe that both Eller and Weber (and arguably White as well) could/would have been considerably more effective for us late in the season had they gotten deserved minutes/opportunities to learn + build confidence during the season.

It's not necessarily a black-white question of swapping Eller for Gomez 10 games into the season, it's just as easy to adjust minutes game-by-game/shift-by-shift.

with Gomez struggling so bad all season long, instead of constantly shuffling through wingers (messing with their production every step of the way), while religiously playing him 19-20min/game, he could simply have cut Gomez's minutes to 16-17 and bumped up Eller/DD to the 2nd line for a few shifts/game, or used them in the 2nd pp wave.

given how much and how badly Gomez struggled pretty much all season long, it's actually amazing to me that Martin didn't flat out "demote" him to a bottom six role for at least a few games, but again, he could have been using Eller/DD more without having to go that far.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2011, 07:18 PM
  #78
Edgy
Registered User
 
Edgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Jordan
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
This sounds a lot like the broken record we've heard over and over again when they fail to land big name players. I'd still like to see them add a top 4dman and a big body for the 3rd-4th line.

Edgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2011, 07:38 PM
  #79
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
the kids did alright?

pouliot was a complete failure, S.Kost, O'Byrne & D'ago were all moved to teams where they almost immediately played a role we definitely could have used...

Subban, thankfully, has a great attitude and took his completely ridiculous 3-game benching in stride, in this day & and age it's lucky for us that he didn't let his ego or the unfariness of the situation lead to a bigger problem.

MaxPac teetered with negative public comments, but again, has sufficient character to make the best of a bogus situation.

perhaps we have very different understanding of what "doing all right" is, but imo, our young players on the whole have not benefited from Martin's approach.

i also believe that both Eller and Weber (and arguably White as well) could/would have been considerably more effective for us late in the season had they gotten deserved minutes/opportunities to learn + build confidence during the season.

It's not necessarily a black-white question of swapping Eller for Gomez 10 games into the season, it's just as easy to adjust minutes game-by-game/shift-by-shift.

with Gomez struggling so bad all season long, instead of constantly shuffling through wingers (messing with their production every step of the way), while religiously playing him 19-20min/game, he could simply have cut Gomez's minutes to 16-17 and bumped up Eller/DD to the 2nd line for a few shifts/game, or used them in the 2nd pp wave.

given how much and how badly Gomez struggled pretty much all season long, it's actually amazing to me that Martin didn't flat out "demote" him to a bottom six role for at least a few games, but again, he could have been using Eller/DD more without having to go that far.
So Pouliot, Sergei, D'Ago and O'Byrne (who was no longer a kid, he is older than Gorges) are JM's fault, but Price, Subban, Pacioretty and Desharnais did well in spite of the coach? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgy View Post
This sounds a lot like the broken record we've heard over and over again when they fail to land big name players.
Personally, I'm glad they "failed" to match or top the 9yr, 65M offer for Richards. Not sure what other "big name players" you might mean?

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 12:42 AM
  #80
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
So Pouliot, Sergei, D'Ago and O'Byrne (who was no longer a kid, he is older than Gorges) are JM's fault, but Price, Subban, Pacioretty and Desharnais did well in spite of the coach? You can't have it both ways.
You absolutely can say that a coach is not good with young players "as a whole" even if some young players manage to succeed.

but since you brought up the names:

Price wasn't exactly shinning in 09-10 under Martin, was he?
same for MaxPac...

and Subban, who showed in the 09 playoffs that he was ready for a permanent top-4 role, found his play deteriorating leading to a benching... i seriously wonder if we would have seen him return to form and reach the heights of his stretch-run/playoffs performance, had Martin had not been forced to keep giving him big minutes as a result of our injuries on defense.

but that's irrelevant, because an individual players success/failure is never entirely the coaches "fault", nor is it "thanks" to the coach.


My feeling is that Martin's approach with young players, which he's shown relatively consistently, but mitigated by need (i.e needing Subban to play big minutes, needing to call up MaxPac and play him in the top-6, both b/c of injury AND the player making it absolutely irrefutable that they are a far superior option to the veteran options he has), is NOT the best way to ensure the team gets the most out of them.

that's not the same as saying that EVERY young player is doomed to fail under Martin... you can't think in black/white terms, sport is far too variable.

but I think you can look at patterns, and some coaches have a pattern of not dealing well with young players.

in the past 2 seasons, how many other teams in the league have had 3 young players unable to get consistent minutes only to immediately thrive the minute they arrive in their new team?

where there is smoke, there's usually fire.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 03:20 AM
  #81
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
You absolutely can say that a coach is not good with young players "as a whole" even if some young players manage to succeed.

but since you brought up the names:

Price wasn't exactly shinning in 09-10 under Martin, was he?
same for MaxPac...

and Subban, who showed in the 09 playoffs that he was ready for a permanent top-4 role, found his play deteriorating leading to a benching... i seriously wonder if we would have seen him return to form and reach the heights of his stretch-run/playoffs performance, had Martin had not been forced to keep giving him big minutes as a result of our injuries on defense.

but that's irrelevant, because an individual players success/failure is never entirely the coaches "fault", nor is it "thanks" to the coach.


My feeling is that Martin's approach with young players, which he's shown relatively consistently, but mitigated by need (i.e needing Subban to play big minutes, needing to call up MaxPac and play him in the top-6, both b/c of injury AND the player making it absolutely irrefutable that they are a far superior option to the veteran options he has), is NOT the best way to ensure the team gets the most out of them.

that's not the same as saying that EVERY young player is doomed to fail under Martin... you can't think in black/white terms, sport is far too variable.

but I think you can look at patterns, and some coaches have a pattern of not dealing well with young players.

in the past 2 seasons, how many other teams in the league have had 3 young players unable to get consistent minutes only to immediately thrive the minute they arrive in their new team?

where there is smoke, there's usually fire.

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...

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.

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 ?

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.

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 ?

Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 04:10 AM
  #82
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
the kids did alright?

pouliot was a complete failure, S.Kost, O'Byrne & D'ago were all moved to teams where they almost immediately played a role we definitely could have used...

Subban, thankfully, has a great attitude and took his completely ridiculous 3-game benching in stride, in this day & and age it's lucky for us that he didn't let his ego or the unfariness of the situation lead to a bigger problem.

MaxPac teetered with negative public comments, but again, has sufficient character to make the best of a bogus situation.

perhaps we have very different understanding of what "doing all right" is, but imo, our young players on the whole have not benefited from Martin's approach.

i also believe that both Eller and Weber (and arguably White as well) could/would have been considerably more effective for us late in the season had they gotten deserved minutes/opportunities to learn + build confidence during the season.

It's not necessarily a black-white question of swapping Eller for Gomez 10 games into the season, it's just as easy to adjust minutes game-by-game/shift-by-shift.

with Gomez struggling so bad all season long, instead of constantly shuffling through wingers (messing with their production every step of the way), while religiously playing him 19-20min/game, he could simply have cut Gomez's minutes to 16-17 and bumped up Eller/DD to the 2nd line for a few shifts/game, or used them in the 2nd pp wave.

given how much and how badly Gomez struggled pretty much all season long, it's actually amazing to me that Martin didn't flat out "demote" him to a bottom six role for at least a few games, but again, he could have been using Eller/DD more without having to go that far.

and yet they all had a better 2nd half... Subban went from struggling defensively to being solid - enough to be our #1D at seasons end, Eller went from looking like a Jr to playing solid all around hockey (although offense prod wasnt there much, he DID play better), DD and Pacc came and contributed, White was called up and did ok, Price had a great season...

but I get it now, Price example says it all
not great in 09-10 : JM fault
great in 10-11 : despite JM

same applies for every youngsters...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 06:17 AM
  #83
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
My belief, and it is what it is, is that Martin has a plan to which everybody has to follow. Other coaches, while they also have a plan, are giving the benefit of the doubt to their players and prefer to work on their strenght before addressing the weaknesses. With Martin, you are an offensive player, well you'd have to improve your offensive numbers WHILE you learn playing MY way.

I'll just go back to the Lats example. Lats was not an hitting machine in Juniors. Geez, he'd avoid hits. Then, in the NHL, he HAD to "finish his checks". Unfortunately for him, he was not suited for a Martin type of game 'cause he had that problem of being trapped in a big body while wanting to play a finesse game. Just like Pouliot had to do when it was not working. To the point of taking bad penalties...I mean, first day in Minny, Lats coach asked him "What are your strenghts". Something Lats was thrilled to hear. Which means that he was never asked that question in here. Which, to me, makes no sense. Add the fact that he was NEVER really tested in an offensive role (despite the great proofs by some people in here who will mention the 3 games in 1 preseason or the stint he had before Higgins came back, mentioning he had only scored 1 goal.....but failing to mention he was almost 1PPG....), and you have the bad recipe of something that was called to fail. Again, Lats as some responsability. Just like SKost and others. But I believe Martin does as well. This Habs team had the strenght of being good and young....to which we went to pretty old on the back end, and not as young as we could have been up front. I know, you need your vets....but you also need a friendly cap. And being young and great will do just that.

I will always believe that Martin works great with youngsters who ALREADY play a Martin type of hockey. But they need to understand that not everybody has that maturity. And while it's not a kindergarden, seems to me that while it shouldn't be a majority of players, having babies around could pay off BIG TIME....
You seem to forget that Lats came up with Carbo and not Martin. And seeing how quickly he was shipped outta here after Martin took over, that tells me that the brass had already a pretty good idea of Lats and had made up their mind. Martin's evaluation of the player was probably the last nail in the coffin for Lats.

I understand not liking Martin's coaching but don't revise history to make a point.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 07:46 AM
  #84
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,855
vCash: 1707
selective memory is at work again. does anybody remember why subban was benched in the first place?

he was playing like ****. he was NOT the same player that played in the 09 playoffs. he was acting very immature on the ice, he was fighting, taking the dumbest penalties, wasn't putting up any points on the board, was acting more and more selfish on the ice, and attracting way too much unwanted attention. i also got the feeling he was drinking way too much of his own koolaid for his own good.

that's why he was benched.

in my mind, there is not doubt whatsoever that the benching, showed subban what he was doing wrong, and he improved on it. when he came back, he was boss.

this team, no longer has any weak players that can't perform, players that don't have good work ethics, or can't be responsible on the ice. why cry about scrubs like dags or o'b or fatendresse? Skost is doing well. ok, good for him, he was **** here. good riddance.

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 08:19 AM
  #85
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
selective memory is at work again. does anybody remember why subban was benched in the first place?

he was playing like ****. he was NOT the same player that played in the 09 playoffs. he was acting very immature on the ice, he was fighting, taking the dumbest penalties, wasn't putting up any points on the board, was acting more and more selfish on the ice, and attracting way too much unwanted attention. i also got the feeling he was drinking way too much of his own koolaid for his own good.

that's why he was benched.

in my mind, there is not doubt whatsoever that the benching, showed subban what he was doing wrong, and he improved on it. when he came back, he was boss.

this team, no longer has any weak players that can't perform, players that don't have good work ethics, or can't be responsible on the ice. why cry about scrubs like dags or o'b or fatendresse? Skost is doing well. ok, good for him, he was **** here. good riddance.
This.

I will take our current kids 10 times out of 10 over any player you named.

HH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 09:12 AM
  #86
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Martin strikes me as a coach who only is interested in the present, i.e. what the players can do for him on the ice right now, and the antithesis of a coach whose style reconciles both today's needs and those of the future. The latter coach does exist, although the best examples that come to mind are in soccer, guys like Arsenal's Arsene Wenger and Man U's Alex Ferguson. The former, in particular, recognizes the importance of mentoring young players.

Meanwhile, the word "mentor" and Martin seem absurd when used in the same sentence (even if Martin has other qualities as a coach: he does manage the "now" okay). So it's not a coincidence that the results with young players are haphazard: some kids are tough enough and self-correcting enough to make it through, others are mishandled and shipped out to other teams at while at their lowest value.

From a strict commodity valuation standpoint, too strict an emphasis on the now simply squanders valuable resources.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 09:12 AM
  #87
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
selective memory is at work again. does anybody remember why subban was benched in the first place?

he was playing like ****. he was NOT the same player that played in the 09 playoffs. he was acting very immature on the ice, he was fighting, taking the dumbest penalties, wasn't putting up any points on the board, was acting more and more selfish on the ice, and attracting way too much unwanted attention. i also got the feeling he was drinking way too much of his own koolaid for his own good.

that's why he was benched.

in my mind, there is not doubt whatsoever that the benching, showed subban what he was doing wrong, and he improved on it. when he came back, he was boss.

this team, no longer has any weak players that can't perform, players that don't have good work ethics, or can't be responsible on the ice. why cry about scrubs like dags or o'b or fatendresse? Skost is doing well. ok, good for him, he was **** here. good riddance.
Yup. Ballsy move by JM to bench him at the time. I remember that dive against Edmonton that cost us the game. He had to be reigned in. I gained a lot of respect for JM after that. And even moreso for PK for how he responded.

Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 11:05 AM
  #88
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,117
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
Old
07-19-2011, 11:19 AM
  #89
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
and yet they all had a better 2nd half... Subban went from struggling defensively to being solid - enough to be our #1D at seasons end, Eller went from looking like a Jr to playing solid all around hockey (although offense prod wasnt there much, he DID play better), DD and Pacc came and contributed, White was called up and did ok, Price had a great season...

but I get it now, Price example says it all
not great in 09-10 : JM fault
great in 10-11 : despite JM

same applies for every youngsters...
not sure if you're serious or just being obtuse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
but that's irrelevant, because an individual players success/failure is never entirely the coaches "fault", nor is it "thanks" to the coach.

young players should be getting better as the season progresses... regardless of the coach. likewise, young players should have up and downs, regardless of the coach.

thing is, that with a coach that holds such a tight leash on young players, especially when it's a double-standard with the veterans, what tends to happen is that the ups/downs spikes are much bigger (and mostly because the lows are much lower than they need/should be... see Subban)

go no further than the comments, from vets/young players alike, we see consistently from the players who have played for Boucher in his short career...

some coaches are better than others at bringing the best out of their athletes, and Martin does not seem to be one of those (even while I'd also argue that he does an excellent job of getting a lot out of the team as a whole, DESPITE wasting even greater heights by treating hte young players as he does)

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 11:57 AM
  #90
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
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.



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.




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.



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.



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.
As far as i know, it seems quite natural to ask more from the young players. They're not established, they're not reliable, usually, and they always should be under pressure.
How many young players believed that their spot was guaranteed and then, stopped to work ?

Its not inconsistency, its just that the status are not the same.
How could you ask the same thing from Gomez and Desharnais ? They dont have at all the same level of experience, the same status within the team, and the same level on the ice, which is the most important !

You could bench Eller, if he's in a bad day, that wont be hard to find somebody to play instead of him.
If you bench Hamrlik, you need to find a top-pairing defenseman. Not the same problem at all !

Im not saying that they should be untouchable, but you cant ask the same things to a guy with 16 years of experience behind him and to the latest rookie in the team.

(Its not a coincidence when the ones who "accept" and understand that kind of things are stronger mentally.)


---
They're not going to purely weaker teams, but accordingly to their level and style, they're a much better fit than us.
Nashville is used to roll three 2nd lines, St.Louis has been destroyed by the injuries, just like Colorado, and the Avalanche wasnt that great in the first place.
Here, they were struggling, and stagnating. Its not because they are thriving somewhere else, that they would have been as successful here, you need a similar set of circumstances.

The only problem i could possibly understand is the relatively poor value we got back from Kostitsyn.

Of course having young and cheap assets is always interesting, but at the time, they were not really "assets", and their value was slowly declining. They were declining, as players.

If Sergei is still there, for instance, i think that it would have be very difficult for Desharnais to be promoted, as they have a similar style.
D'Agostini is not better than Pacioretty offensively, and he's not reliable enough to be trusted on a consistent basis for a Top-6 position. I dont see him playing on a bottom-6 role either. He only played there on a depleted St.Louis offense, while they were not very good...I cant see him fitting on a role here, honestly.

O'Byrne is not playing the same way Weber does, obviously but with Subban and Weber being ready, plus the other vets under contract, you have to make a decision between the young players.
(I may say something stupid, but does the trade of O'Byrne allowed to dress one more player, which was Desharnais ?)

You are not going to trade Hamrlik or Gill to give a shot to O'Byrne.
And Spacek was not trade-able, otherwise they would have done it.

Being able to put the fire on the young and struggling players, thats difficult. Very very difficult, every team will lose, occasionnally, players like that.
I think that a lot of our vets are playing solid hockey.
Minus Spacek and Hamrlik (but they're over-used), Cammalleri and Gomez, i cant think of a player being not as good as i feel they could be, last year.


Nashville did acquired Sergei ? They've lost Peverley and Santorelli for instance...and i think that we could agree that Trotz is a very good coach. Sometimes, you have to make a choice between young players, which is why you have some losses...

You just cant ask the same thing from each of your players, and its perfectly normal to ask more from the non-established, i just dont see why its a big deal.

Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 12:04 PM
  #91
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,758
vCash: 500
JM has a very simple attitude regarding Veterans/Youngsters. He believes (probably rightly so) that in the playoffs, it's your Veterans that will have the mental resilience to keep on going at all cost, and your youngsters will provide with bonus performance, but might be inconsistent and crack somewhat, become liabilities.

So he wants his group of veterans to produce and be constant at all cost. The veterans are like a fixed income component in an investment portfolio, you have to rely on them for basic production.

With that in mind, he gives them solid TOI every game. He simply hopes that him giving his trust, and somewhat juggling with their lines will eventually make them produce. This is why when Gomez/Gionta were finally producing last year with MaxPac, JM started putting more energy into making the 3rd line work out.

The only moment JM will deviate from this doctrine is if he NEEDS to win. His 1st priority is to have his veterans get on running in time for the playoffs. If this means he will get only 6th seed rather than 3rd seed, well so what?

But he balances this desire with the need to at least make the playoffs. So when he's desperate to win, he'll start moving and send more energetic youngsters on the ice. This is why we'll always scrape for the playoffs, at least. But JM's first priority is to have a sound and confident core that can make it through 4 series in the playoffs.

It's not "win at all cost"

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 12:20 PM
  #92
CareyClutch
Doing the job
 
CareyClutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: North Korea
Posts: 4,942
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CareyClutch
For years, people here were complaining that we don't have an experienced coach, now that we have one, these same people continue to whine.

CareyClutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 01:41 PM
  #93
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
not sure if you're serious or just being obtuse




young players should be getting better as the season progresses... regardless of the coach. likewise, young players should have up and downs, regardless of the coach.

thing is, that with a coach that holds such a tight leash on young players, especially when it's a double-standard with the veterans, what tends to happen is that the ups/downs spikes are much bigger (and mostly because the lows are much lower than they need/should be... see Subban)

go no further than the comments, from vets/young players alike, we see consistently from the players who have played for Boucher in his short career...

some coaches are better than others at bringing the best out of their athletes, and Martin does not seem to be one of those (even while I'd also argue that he does an excellent job of getting a lot out of the team as a whole, DESPITE wasting even greater heights by treating hte young players as he does)
that's a nice theory you got there, thing is in reality it rarely happens that way...





asked you a few posts back to name 3 players (shouldnt be that hard, he coached +/- 15 years in this league) he screwed up with his methods, and I'm still waiting...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 05:40 PM
  #94
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
that's a nice theory you got there, thing is in reality it rarely happens that way...

have you ever competed or coached at the elite level in any sport? my "theory" as you call it comes from over a decade of personal experience, in various countries. Where does your "theory" come from?

and while my experience isn't with the sport of hockey, the same patterns are quite visible across all team sports.

it's actually more of the standard than the exception that coaches stick to outdated and ultimately unproductive approaches... that's why you have "greats" who defy logic and are able to maintain success over and over again, with different teams and different players, while some of their peers flounder and manage to move from job to job despite their lack of success.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
asked you a few posts back to name 3 players (shouldnt be that hard, he coached +/- 15 years in this league) he screwed up with his methods, and I'm still waiting...
again, a coach isn't responsible for "screwing up" a player, it's very simply a matter of some coaches being better than others at getting the best out of their athletes.

i don't know why you are fixated on the blame game, but it's not a black & white world. My point is simply that Martin has not done a good job of getting the most out of his young players, and I see it as being a rather direct result of coaching with a double-standard... something that can work some of the time, but ultimately wastes far too much talent/potential to be considered an effective approach (even while it's a "safer" one for an NHL coach, b/c it makes it easier for him to keep the expensive veterans in his good books, and as they say, it's easier to change the coach than it is to change the players, especially the expensive ones).


but for your pleasure, here's a list of young players who faltered under Martin but had success more or less immediately after going to another team/coach:

S.Kost, O'byrne, Latendresse, D'agostini... (i'll bet you can add Pouliot to the list next year)

hagman, huselius

i can't speak to any others simply because I'd only be relying on stats, and those can be misleading.

but those 7 players all went from being marginally used players to effective top-6 or top-9 players almost as soon as they went to another team/coach

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2011, 05:44 PM
  #95
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
As far as i know, it seems quite natural to ask more from the young players. They're not established, they're not reliable, usually, and they always should be under pressure.
How many young players believed that their spot was guaranteed and then, stopped to work ?

Its not inconsistency, its just that the status are not the same.
How could you ask the same thing from Gomez and Desharnais ? They dont have at all the same level of experience, the same status within the team, and the same level on the ice, which is the most important !

You could bench Eller, if he's in a bad day, that wont be hard to find somebody to play instead of him.
If you bench Hamrlik, you need to find a top-pairing defenseman. Not the same problem at all !

Im not saying that they should be untouchable, but you cant ask the same things to a guy with 16 years of experience behind him and to the latest rookie in the team.

(Its not a coincidence when the ones who "accept" and understand that kind of things are stronger mentally.)


---
They're not going to purely weaker teams, but accordingly to their level and style, they're a much better fit than us.
Nashville is used to roll three 2nd lines, St.Louis has been destroyed by the injuries, just like Colorado, and the Avalanche wasnt that great in the first place.
Here, they were struggling, and stagnating. Its not because they are thriving somewhere else, that they would have been as successful here, you need a similar set of circumstances.

The only problem i could possibly understand is the relatively poor value we got back from Kostitsyn.

Of course having young and cheap assets is always interesting, but at the time, they were not really "assets", and their value was slowly declining. They were declining, as players.

If Sergei is still there, for instance, i think that it would have be very difficult for Desharnais to be promoted, as they have a similar style.
D'Agostini is not better than Pacioretty offensively, and he's not reliable enough to be trusted on a consistent basis for a Top-6 position. I dont see him playing on a bottom-6 role either. He only played there on a depleted St.Louis offense, while they were not very good...I cant see him fitting on a role here, honestly.

O'Byrne is not playing the same way Weber does, obviously but with Subban and Weber being ready, plus the other vets under contract, you have to make a decision between the young players.
(I may say something stupid, but does the trade of O'Byrne allowed to dress one more player, which was Desharnais ?)

You are not going to trade Hamrlik or Gill to give a shot to O'Byrne.
And Spacek was not trade-able, otherwise they would have done it.

Being able to put the fire on the young and struggling players, thats difficult. Very very difficult, every team will lose, occasionnally, players like that.
I think that a lot of our vets are playing solid hockey.
Minus Spacek and Hamrlik (but they're over-used), Cammalleri and Gomez, i cant think of a player being not as good as i feel they could be, last year.


Nashville did acquired Sergei ? They've lost Peverley and Santorelli for instance...and i think that we could agree that Trotz is a very good coach. Sometimes, you have to make a choice between young players, which is why you have some losses...

You just cant ask the same thing from each of your players, and its perfectly normal to ask more from the non-established, i just dont see why its a big deal.
completely disagree...

the best teams in every sport have veterans/leaders who set the example and who hold themselves to the highest standards of both work ethic and performance.

the worst thing a coach can do is cut his veterans slack while demanding more from the rookies/young players.

it's not much different in any effective professional environment. Leaders and effective managers know how important it is to set the right examples/standards from the top-down, not the other way around.

Miller Time 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 09:04 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.