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

Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-26-2011, 11:49 PM
  #201
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
It's not about that - it's about having a MIX of players. Why is that difficult to understand?
What'd difficult to understand is why mixing players who are good at hockey and players who are bad at hockey is somehow better than a team of players who are uniformly good at hockey. Because when we talk about adding toughness, it invariably involves replacing a player with a player who's worse, even when we're not talking about an exclusive goon.

Nevermind that a player who is good at fighting helps the team about as much as a player who is good at playing the violin.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 12:03 AM
  #202
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
What'd difficult to understand is why mixing players who are good at hockey and players who are bad at hockey is somehow better than a team of players who are uniformly good at hockey. Because when we talk about adding toughness, it invariably involves replacing a player with a player who's worse, even when we're not talking about an exclusive goon.

Nevermind that a player who is good at fighting helps the team about as much as a player who is good at playing the violin.
What? How is Raffi Torres bad at hockey? Or Ryan Malone?

Surely we can afford to have a different type of player on our 3rd or 4th line. Our lineup isn't so stacked with great hockey players that this isn't possible.

gusfring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 12:10 AM
  #203
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
What'd difficult to understand is why mixing players who are good at hockey and players who are bad at hockey is somehow better than a team of players who are uniformly good at hockey. Because when we talk about adding toughness, it invariably involves replacing a player with a player who's worse, even when we're not talking about an exclusive goon.

Nevermind that a player who is good at fighting helps the team about as much as a player who is good at playing the violin.
How much scoring did our 4th line provide last season?

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 12:11 AM
  #204
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
What'd difficult to understand is why mixing players who are good at hockey and players who are bad at hockey is somehow better than a team of players who are uniformly good at hockey. Because when we talk about adding toughness, it invariably involves replacing a player with a player who's worse, even when we're not talking about an exclusive goon.

Nevermind that a player who is good at fighting helps the team about as much as a player who is good at playing the violin.
How's that? Adding toughness automatically means a worst player than what we have? I tell you, you think that we've been winning the Cup for the past 10 years now. We have so many untouchable players on that team, it's incredible. See, Travis Moen play for this team. And from your analysis, he's a good player. Yet, if we would have a guy like him in mind, he'd fit in the bad category? I like Darche but let say he has a spot in your 12th forward lineup....there's no way we'd find a tougher guy better than him? I love Ryan White and he is pretty tough....but there's nobody in the league better at hockey and as tough or tougher than him? There's nobody as good at playing hockey than David Desharnais, who, again, I like very much? Or is it because some talk of toughness, others think that we'd AUTOMATICALLY replace Desharnais by McGrattan or Jean-François Jacques. I'd also have no problem replacing almost any of our top 6 by tougher and as great at hockey as any of those guys.

See, while not a fighter, not a goon and not even a tough guy, I strongly believe that adding a guy like Cole IS ad addition to our overall "toughness". What if we're able to pull a trade that permit us to obtain another type of scorer, who drives the net, isn't afraid of anybody and while not a fighter, will not back down either? He wouldn't be able to push anybody 1 spot down? I mean, we're done now with NO possibility of improving? 'Cause toughness for you is not a way to improve? I really have no idea how we can't count that trait as an important one, just like the rest of the bunch. Strangely, toughness is never important.....but when you think that we're adding Pacioretty this year.....and Cole....that Tinordi looks mean and tough.....that our prospects D are big and strong....then you have comments about how well this team is shaping itself....So is it important or not? When you don't add toughness, it's not important....but when you already have it in the system, it's great to have?

I know, if healthy, that we should battle for the division championship...but that's still doesn't mean we're a Cup contender and status quo is better than trying to improve. 'Cause again, toughness CAN be found on quality players.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 12:46 AM
  #205
Maxpac
Registered User
 
Maxpac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 14,277
vCash: 500
If we we all followed Mathman's theory, every team would be composed of 4 offensive lines

I think it's pretty sad how some Montreal hockey fans see the game now, as most of you started watching the game with people who told you stories about the good old rivalries, and ALL of them included a good fight story at some point, the ability to defend yourself and your teammates is one of the many unique attributes that make hockey what it is. Now that it can't really get bigger here in Montreal you guys want to change the game depending how our GM sees things, nice....

I don't remember people complaining as much when we had Brashear, Odelein and Langdon playing for us.


Last edited by Mike8: 08-27-2011 at 01:44 AM. Reason: merge
Maxpac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 01:07 AM
  #206
WG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
How much scoring did our 4th line provide last season?
None. Same as the 3rd line for most of the year. And that's one reason why the Habs were a bottom seed team. Moreso than this toughness business. The top 6 of Plek-Cam-AK-Gomez-Max-Gionta is OK. But the bottom 6? Pyatt, Pouliot, Eller, Moen, Darche, Laps, White, etc. didn't chip in nearly enough offense.

Now for the upcoming season, the presumptive 3rd line will be Eller/AK/Darche or DD. That's a line with enough oomph to win battles on the boards and keep the puck in tight quarters. And they should score. No, they won't fight, but I really like what that line can vs. other teams 3rd lines.

The 4th line will consist of Moen, White, and Darche/Engqvist. No scoring finish there but there is some jam and at least two of them will drop the mitts.

I still don't see where a clown fits on this team. Go get Cam Janssen, who do you sit? Darche has earned a spot. You toss DD to the AHL, to gain more pugnacity but sacrifice skill? Go get Chris Neil, then fine, I'm on board. I just don't see what we gain by a 4th line of, say, White/Moen/clown, where clown doesn't play the 3rd period unless the game is 3-goal differential.

If there's anything at all we want to copy form the Boston model, is isn't necessarily the toughness or cheap shots or whatever. It's that they had 11 forwards with double digit goals while we trotted out guys who might do the little things but couldn't score goals. You can't have too many guys like Moen,White, Pyatt etc. who don't add any offense. And a goon who might have the odd fight but adds 5 goals if we're lucky doesn't help that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
I think it's pretty sad how some Montreal hockey fans see the game now, as most of you started watching the game with people who told you stories about the good old rivalries, and ALL of them included a good fight story at some point, the ability to defend yourself and your teammates is one of the many unique attributes that make hockey what it is. Now that it can't really get bigger here in Montreal you guys want to change the game depending how our GM sees things, nice....

I don't remember people complaining as much when we had Brashear, Odelein and Langdon playing for us.
I probably complained less when the team had GOOD players. Add a Darren Langdon and subtract one of Darche/DD/AK/ whomever does not assist the team in getting better. It'll maybe make the fans feel better in case that once-a-year back alley brawl comes up.

Everybody cites that gong show in Boston but that vast majority of the other 81 games, a player like Darren *** Langdon probably never sees the ice. What's the use of that?


Last edited by Mike8: 08-27-2011 at 01:47 AM. Reason: merge
WG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 01:21 AM
  #207
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You are correct. Horton and Lucic never went after Subban.
And contrary to what you've been saying all along, the whole team went to his defense. EVERY good player gets targeted. Where have you been?

Quote:
Fallacious argument? You are the one grasping at straws. The last time that the Canadiens won the Cup we had a team with talented forwards AND guys who could and did drop the gloves. Montreal was the team that intimidated the opposition.
Despite you being wrong, that was 18 years ago. The game is completely different now. You've continued to ignore the fact that of all the cup winners since the lockout, only two have been built as bruising teams. You also ignore the fact that those teams also had some incredible talent. There's no guaranteed recipe for success. Adding a couple of tough guys who can't play hockey won't change anything except force better players to take on more ice-time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WG View Post
I probably complained less when the team had GOOD players. Add a Darren Langdon and subtract one of Darche/DD/AK/ whomever does not assist the team in getting better. It'll maybe make the fans feel better in case that once-a-year back alley brawl comes up.

Everybody cites that gong show in Boston but that vast majority of the other 81 , a player like Darren *** Langdon probably never sees the ice. What's the use of that?
People citing that game are only remembering the drubbing that Spacek and Pyatt took. The whole thing started when Moen came to Plekanec defense after Ference tried to slew foot him (which according to some people here, never happens). So much for a team not sticking up for themselves, eh. The team generally held their own for pretty much the whole game. No one backed down from scrums in that game.


Last edited by Crimson Skorpion: 08-27-2011 at 01:25 AM. Reason: Merged
WeeBey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 01:27 AM
  #208
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
What'd difficult to understand is why mixing players who are good at hockey and players who are bad at hockey is somehow better than a team of players who are uniformly good at hockey. Because when we talk about adding toughness, it invariably involves replacing a player with a player who's worse, even when we're not talking about an exclusive goon.

Nevermind that a player who is good at fighting helps the team about as much as a player who is good at playing the violin.
What are you talking about man? How does having size and grit automatically make the player worse at hockey than the soft guys we've been adding over the years? It doesn't have to be one at the expense of the other, it can be both. And I think the majority of folks who want to see us get tougher aren't talking about goons.

Again, it's about having more balance. We've needed more size and grit in the top six for a long time now and we've kept adding small/soft guys like Tanguay and Gomez. We need to do better in this area. MaxPac helps. Hopefully Cole helps. Overall though, I still think we need more guys like this. Heck, they don't even have to be aggressive just have more size. Bobby Ryan would be nice right about now wouldn't he?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 01:45 AM
  #209
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,388
vCash: 500
Let me preface this by saying that I love 'toughness'. All things being equal, why not choose the player you perceive to be tougher? What I don't get, and as KrissE brought up a while ago, is why people associate fighting with toughness. I love toughness. Fighting? I can take it or leave it.

And no, I don't mean bringing in talentless goons. People have made it clear that's not what they want. But why does fighting as a talent even factor into your decision of who you want on this team?

So to help me out, can somebody show me any concrete evidence that fighting has any effect on team performance, preventing injuries or, Hell, even the outcome of single games?

And I don't mean nostalgia or stories of 'tiger-repelling rocks'. Something concrete. Because everything I've seen tells me it has next to no impact (and saying it has no impact is generous in some cases). Which makes sense, because fighting is essentially a zero-sum game (unless you injure a guy or end up fighting a more talented player, but let's not get into that paradox). It's not a goal, or an assist, or even simple dump out of your own zone. There's a clear advantage to your team in all those scenarios.

But what advantage is gained from fighting? You can't even get proponents of it to agree on that. It seems that mostly they wait for the outcome of the game and then determine what effect the fight had. If the fight winner's team is victorious, then that fight clearly demoralized the other team and was a big part in the victory. If the loser's team wins, his spark plug attitude and willingness to drop the gloves inspired his teammates despite him being on the losing end. It's kinda hard to attach much importance to something that could be construed to mean anything after the fact.

The only measurable value fighting has is for entertainment purposes. And there's nothing wrong with that. Sports are meant to be entertaining. I enjoy a good fight myself once in a while. At least ones borne from real emotion. But I don't attach enough importance to them to think they should be a major part of any team building philosophy.

You want guys who can hurt the other team with big hits? Bring them on.
Somebody who can go into the corner and win puck battles? The more the merrier.
A player who when you knock him down, he gets right back up? That's my favorite kind.

If these players can fight and keep a certain segment of the crowd entertained, even better. But when it comes to deciding between two players you want on your team it shouldn't factor much if at all. I have the same philosophy when it comes to teams wanting to fill their roster with local talent: All things equal, sure, take the guy that brings a bit more of what the crowd wants. But if one of these guys is even a modicum better than the other, choose him. Because if I can get one more second of better hockey per game from a non-fighter, I'll take that minute and a half at the end of the year.

Until I can see any real evidence of the positive effect fighting has on the game, I don't see why it should concern me. Doesn't mean I don't want fighters on my team. Is this guy good enough to have a positive impact on my roster? Good! What? He's a fighter and Quebecois? Even better!

Bill McNeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 01:49 AM
  #210
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
What are you talking about man? How does having size and grit automatically make the player worse at hockey than the soft guys we've been adding over the years? It doesn't have to be one at the expense of the other, it can be both. And I think the majority of folks who want to see us get tougher aren't talking about goons.
The problem is, a lot of the guys being cited in this thread ARE goons. Someone made the argument that Godard and Engellend somehow make the Penguins better. The other problem, is that these kinds of players (players who are tough AND can play hockey) aren't readily available. Who should the Habs have gone after this offseason from the UFA pool? Almost everyone named in the threads OP is terrible as a hockey player. We could have made trades, but we'd have to overpay, then there would be a thread complaining about how we had to sell the farm to get Aaron Asham or something.

There are people here that make it seem like these players are in abundance and can be had for cheap. That's just not the case.

WeeBey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 02:04 AM
  #211
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
The problem is, a lot of the guys being cited in this thread ARE goons. Someone made the argument that Godard and Engellend somehow make the Penguins better.
Pure goons are pretty much useless. I think most folks (not all but most) would agree on that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
The other problem, is that these kinds of players (players who are tough AND can play hockey) aren't readily available. Who should the Habs have gone after this offseason from the UFA pool? Almost everyone named in the threads OP is terrible as a hockey player. We could have made trades, but we'd have to overpay, then there would be a thread complaining about how we had to sell the farm to get Aaron Asham or something.
Yeah... I hear that a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
There are people here that make it seem like these players are in abundance and can be had for cheap. That's just not the case.
All the more reason to do things differently.

Invest in (trade for) younger prospects with that kind of potential and start drafting more of this kind of player. You're right, power forwards aren't readily available. Why? Because nobody wants to let them go.

You have to draft them yourself or trade for them BEFORE they become impact players. But it takes patience to do this and we haven't demonstrated this ability. A lot of us are frustrated that we've been stuck in the neverending cycle of building with small mediocre players and folks here keep defending those moves.

I didn't like the Cole signing either but at least he's got some grit so maybe management is at least waking up to that weakeness... Again though, we're still building with other clubs' leftovers.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 02:39 AM
  #212
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You have to draft them yourself or trade for them BEFORE they become impact players. But it takes patience to do this and we haven't demonstrated this ability. A lot of us are frustrated that we've been stuck in the neverending cycle of building with small mediocre players and folks here keep defending those moves.
What should Gauthier have done this off-season then? I don't get it, are we supposed to get, a bunch of big immediate impact players via the UFA pool, or are we supposed to draft wisely? Or do we trade for young players? I'm confused as to what people want now. One person's complaining that we didn't sign any UFA "tough guy", some are complaining that everyone being drafted is small and soft.

If you acknowledge that they aren't readily available as NHL players, why would potential power forwards be any easier to acquire when they're younger? Likely, the team that drafted them are seeing the same thing as Habs management, so they'll be expecting some kind of overpayment won't they? Then, if PG manages to nab one of these players, one of two things will happen; people will complain that this player won't make an immediate impact, or they'll complain that we overpaid.

I don't understand the complaints about drafting either. Almost everyone drafted by Gauthier has been over 6 foot. It looks like he's at least meeting the demand for size. Whether or not they'll turn out to be the intimidating forces we want is yet to be seen.

Gauthier has only been GM for one full season. Who was the last "soft" player he brought in? I think it's a little too early to claim that Gauthier's just bringing in more of the same.

WeeBey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 04:36 AM
  #213
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You have to draft them yourself or trade for them BEFORE they become impact players. But it takes patience to do this and we haven't demonstrated this ability. A lot of us are frustrated that we've been stuck in the neverending cycle of building with small mediocre players and folks here keep defending those moves.
I dunno wich draft you guys were watching the last 2 or 3 years...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 03:48 PM
  #214
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Again this, I really don't see why you're saying this about Gauthier when it's clear he doesn't hate toughness when he get to the team guys like Mara, White, Blunden, Wisniewski and Cole. Also he drafted prospects like Tinordi, Beaulieu, Ellis, Gallagher, Didier and Dietz. He also traded for Mitera.
Didn't you hear? Some player who never made it who was coached by Gauthier says he didn't want to play him cause his style was too tough

Seriously I'm not kidding you this is one of the excuses these people use to justify their claim. Some kid who is pissed at PG said this on the radio about him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
It's not about that - it's about having a MIX of players. Why is that difficult to understand?
We have that mix, the only thing we don't have is a guy who can only play 5 mins a game and suck at it. Why is that difficult to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
What should Gauthier have done this off-season then? I don't get it, are we supposed to get, a bunch of big immediate impact players via the UFA pool, or are we supposed to draft wisely? Or do we trade for young players? I'm confused as to what people want now. One person's complaining that we didn't sign any UFA "tough guy", some are complaining that everyone being drafted is small and soft.

If you acknowledge that they aren't readily available as NHL players, why would potential power forwards be any easier to acquire when they're younger? Likely, the team that drafted them are seeing the same thing as Habs management, so they'll be expecting some kind of overpayment won't they? Then, if PG manages to nab one of these players, one of two things will happen; people will complain that this player won't make an immediate impact, or they'll complain that we overpaid.

I don't understand the complaints about drafting either. Almost everyone drafted by Gauthier has been over 6 foot. It looks like he's at least meeting the demand for size. Whether or not they'll turn out to be the intimidating forces we want is yet to be seen.

Gauthier has only been GM for one full season. Who was the last "soft" player he brought in? I think it's a little too early to claim that Gauthier's just bringing in more of the same.
Exactly. How can we even measure the impact of the draft having Gauthier as GM if he's been GM one darn season. Since being GM I've seen him add Cole and Emelin. Tinordi and Beaulieu were drafted. I have no doubt Gauthier played a serious role in all 4 of those choices. Why can't people accept 4 guys in 2 seasons? You won't get tougher over night it's better to address it through the draft and we have been. He got Emelin to come over and I think the toughness crowd are really going to like Emelin. *knock on wood*


Last edited by Mike8: 08-27-2011 at 08:34 PM. Reason: merge
neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 03:51 PM
  #215
Aurel Joliat
Registered User
 
Aurel Joliat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Again this, I really don't see why you're saying this about Gauthier when it's clear he doesn't hate toughness when he get to the team guys like Mara, White, Blunden, Wisniewski and Cole. Also he drafted prospects like Tinordi, Beaulieu, Ellis, Gallagher, Didier and Dietz. He also traded for Mitera.
Mara, White, Wisniewski ok (2 of those 3 are gone)
Blunden we'll see
Others are draft dicks who fights 1 or 2 times per year...

This team needs a 10-15 fights per year player

Aurel Joliat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 04:43 PM
  #216
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurel Joliat View Post
Mara, White, Wisniewski ok (2 of those 3 are gone)
Blunden we'll see
Others are draft dicks who fights 1 or 2 times per year...

This team needs a 10-15 fights per year player


White (I predict around 10 fights this season he will be a regular)and Moen(8 times last season for him)

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 05:06 PM
  #217
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
Gauthier has only been GM for one full season. Who was the last "soft" player he brought in? I think it's a little too early to claim that Gauthier's just bringing in more of the same.

And even with Gainey, you'd have to wonder how someone could see Pac and Subban as small and mediocre.

IMO, it's just a simplistic, mediocre and highly generalized way of thinking.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 06:56 PM
  #218
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,618
vCash: 500
A little less extreme than my Matt Cooke pipe dream would be taking a chance on a guy like Chris Simon with an out clause that he can return to the KHL if he is demoted.

He seems to have refound his scoring touch in the KHL. He put up 25 pts in 30 games 2 yrs ago and 28 pts in 43 games last year. I think he'd add a fear element where teams might not take liberties against our players for fear of his retribution. He's one of the rare goons who can play hockey, scoring more than 10 goals 7 times and even scoring 29 goals one year.

He'd be good for the 4th line with the odd shift along side Eler & Kostitsyn. Plus he's old so Martin would automatically trust him.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 07:03 PM
  #219
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
A little less extreme than my Matt Cooke pipe dream would be taking a chance on a guy like Chris Simon with an out clause that he can return to the KHL if he is demoted.

He seems to have refound his scoring touch in the KHL. He put up 25 pts in 30 games 2 yrs ago and 28 pts in 43 games last year. I think he'd add a fear element where teams might not take liberties against our players for fear of his retribution. He's one of the rare goons who can play hockey, scoring more than 10 goals 7 times and even scoring 29 goals one year.

He'd be good for the 4th line with the odd shift along side Eler & Kostitsyn. Plus he's old so Martin would automatically trust him.
Simon is more extreme than Cooke I don't want this psycho cheap shotter on the habs.

I would like a Chris Neil or a Shawn Thornton on the fourth line though.

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 07:31 PM
  #220
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
How much scoring did our 4th line provide last season?
Interesting question. There were 21 goals just between Pouliot and DD, figure Darche's 12 goals would also count. And then 5 between Pyatt-Boyd-White. Eller played a portion of the season on the fourth line, too, and he had 7; Halpern as well and he had 11.

So figure part-time or full-time fourth-liners scored as many as 20% of the Habs' goals, probably around 25% of all goals scored by forwards. Which points to it being a pretty bad year for the Habs' big forwards. Of course some of those guys didn't stay on the fourth line the whole time (Eller) and/or added PP goals (DD), but that only points to the value of the fourth line as a development area for young skill players.

Did you have a point you were trying to make with this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
How's that? Adding toughness automatically means a worst player than what we have?
No, but pretty much every suggestion I've seen on this board to add "toughness" and "grit" does.

I have nothing about players who are "tough". I am against pursuing "toughness" as a goal in and of itself. If you get a "tough" player who's better than the one you have, then you're not so much adding toughness as adding a guy who is a better player. I would wholeheartedly approve of and embrace such a move, but that never seems to be what we're talking about here.

See, toughness and grit have no intrinsic value unless they are used to drive hockey result. My point is that having a "mix of players" does not have some mystic quality that is inherently desirable. The goal here is to get the best set of players you can get, and toughness and grit are tools in that sense -- useful tools, but rather overrated, considering people think a player who provides nothing else has value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
See, Travis Moen play for this team. And from your analysis, he's a good player. Yet, if we would have a guy like him in mind, he'd fit in the bad category?
Moen is a good example of what I mean. He is not on this club for his "toughness" or "grit", he's here for his defensive ability. Do those make him a better defensive player? I'd say 'yes', but they are ultimately not why the Habs pay him, he's paid to be a defensive forward.

Question: if, contracts being equal, you could replace Moen with a guy who was a more effective defensive forward because of speed and superior positioning and hockey sense, and perhaps had a bit more of an offensive touch but who was smaller and less "tough", would you?

Seems obvious? But there are people on this board who certainly give the impression they'd prefer the worse player for the sake of "toughness". Because the Habs really need someone to take five-minute fighting majors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
See, while not a fighter, not a goon and not even a tough guy, I strongly believe that adding a guy like Cole IS ad addition to our overall "toughness".
Again, he might be -- but I bet his ability to put up even-strength points and drive puck possession while playing against first-line opposition was the real reason they got him. Of course, his size and strength are part and parcel of his ability to do that. But if the Habs could have gotten Martin St-Louis instead, they would have.

It's also important to note that he adds his "toughness" where it matters: on a guy who plays 18 minutes a night. Adding "toughness" in the form of a 5-minute fourth-liner is not going to make the team better.

I'm all for improving the team. But becoming "tougher" without adding hockey ability does not actually improve the team. Add players because they're better, not because they're tough.


Last edited by Mike8: 08-27-2011 at 08:36 PM. Reason: merge
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 08:08 PM
  #221
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm all for improving the team. But becoming "tougher" without adding hockey ability does not actually improve the team. Add players because they're better, not because they're tough.
What do you mean by better? More skills? You want Kovalev then? Faster? You want Rico Fata? Hockey sense? You want Corey Locke? Everybody can address "better" in their own way. So on top of trying to address what kind of mix you want in a team, you also have to address what kind of mix you want in each individual. Some might have less skills than Kovy, yet might be more responsible defensively, might be more team oriented and all....But some might say that Kovalev is still "better".

In the end, it comes down to what you, me or everybody wants in the style of team they want to cheer for. In all honesty, most people in here are having the Habs as their #1 team based on where they were born, the years they've been cheering for the Habs, or what is the "right" team to cheer for. But everyboyd who follows the NHL a lot and might have an open mind, could have the following: Have the Habs as #1 in their heart.....but another team as #1 based on the style they're playing and the type of hockey they're playing. It is possible that system hockey defensively oriented doesn't suit well a lot of people still cheering for the Habs.

Some might find players like Iginla a much "better" player than the Sedin Twins. Or Kesler a much better player than Brad Richards. So better, unless you are going to the extreme, is not necessarily who put more points on the boards 'cause there are others tangibles and intangibles to take into consideration.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 08:23 PM
  #222
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
What do you mean by better?
Better means better able to help his team outscore the other teams. As the Habs' special teams are generally so strong that it would be unrealistic to expect them to improve much, I generally favor adding players who are better at driving puck possession and outchancing the opponent 5-on-5.

How they do that (skills, speed, hockey sense, grit, etc.) is not particularly relevant to me, nor is their playing style, nor is how much of the outscoring comes from more GF or less GA. But to me it's about pursuing effectiveness rather than pursuing individual tools (or worse, perceived tools) for their own sake. It's also why I'm utterly unmoved by players who are reputed to be "lazy".

My definition of talent is "anything that makes a guy better able to drive the play" (whereas it seems to be viewed as Kovalev-type technical skill, even though that clearly does not equate directly to overall hockey ability).

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 08:59 PM
  #223
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
What do you mean by better? More skills? You want Kovalev then? Faster? You want Rico Fata? Hockey sense? You want Corey Locke? Everybody can address "better" in their own way. So on top of trying to address what kind of mix you want in a team, you also have to address what kind of mix you want in each individual. Some might have less skills than Kovy, yet might be more responsible defensively, might be more team oriented and all....But some might say that Kovalev is still "better".
thing is, in this particular thread, when it comes to being better by adding a tougher guy or two... the names that usually pops up are ones of players who arent good enough to play on the PK or PP, have no offensive skills and/or cant hold their own defensively unless facing other 4th liners...

so, if the ony thing you're better at is fighting, then you're not a better hockey player...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 09:22 PM
  #224
goalchenyuk
Registered User
 
goalchenyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: montreal
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 8,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Better means better able to help his team outscore the other teams. As the Habs' special teams are generally so strong that it would be unrealistic to expect them to improve much, I generally favor adding players who are better at driving puck possession and outchancing the opponent 5-on-5.

How they do that (skills, speed, hockey sense, grit, etc.) is not particularly relevant to me, nor is their playing style, nor is how much of the outscoring comes from more GF or less GA. But to me it's about pursuing effectiveness rather than pursuing individual tools (or worse, perceived tools) for their own sake. It's also why I'm utterly unmoved by players who are reputed to be "lazy".

My definition of talent is "anything that makes a guy better able to drive the play" (whereas it seems to be viewed as Kovalev-type technical skill, even though that clearly does not equate directly to overall hockey ability).
great post Mathman .

goalchenyuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2011, 09:24 PM
  #225
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WG View Post
No. The last time the Canadiens won the cup we had a team with a good defensive ethic, uncanny timely scoring, and a HOF goalie at the top of his game. The 93 Habs team basically had three legit tough guys (Odelein, Ewen and Roberge). Odelein was the only one of those three to see the ice in the playoffs.

That team had lots of grit and character, though it helped that the grit was accompanied by top flight talent, esp. guys like Muller and Bellows. But whom among this forward group would be your intimidator?

Damphousse, Bellows, D. Savard, Carbo, Keane, Muller, Leclair, Brunet, Dionne, DiPietro, Lebeau, Leeman? After Odelein on D, you had Daignault, Desjardins, Brisebois, Ramage, Haller, Schneider.

I'd like a little more oomph too, though I'm more in the get a guy who can play camp vs. signing a useless goon for the sake of having a goon. But please don't invent 'evidence' for the MOAR GOONS campaign.

And I have yet to see anyone on the "Goons keep the other team honest" parade explain how the villainous Bruins are the team probably worst hit by cheap shots against their better players. In Horton's case it was a goon yapping at the Canucks that may have gotten Horton gonged. I still see no evidence of the goon as deterrent.
The early 90s were a time that is seen as soft to eras before or after. That is why you had teams like Minnesota getting into the final with just good defensive plays and Habs winning the cup with just a couple of guys with good hearts. The 80s for example was a lot rougher to play than it was in 93 but since then hockey has gone the other way, a lot tougher and guys are much bigger. The intimidation has become part of the game now.

Kimota is online now   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 03:58 AM.

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.