HFBoards

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2011, 01:09 PM
  #301
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
one of the best D in the league... so, yeah! the guy is tough, but he's also good enough to be on the top pair of ANY team... just like Chara plays a physical game, but again, the guy is good enough to be #1 D on ANY team...

I mean, Lidstrom is a "monster" too, despite NOT playing a physical game at all... wanna guess why ?
We don't have to guess why. Lidstrom is an amazing blueliner and one of the best of all-time. But the Wings have far more grit and skill than we do. They have balance.

Nobody is suggesting that a guy like Gretzky (who had zero grit) is useless. What we are saying though is that if you're going to have Gretz on your club, you should surround him with players that compensate for what he lacks and can protect him. That's what balanced teams do and it's just common sense. We've ignored this for a long time and it's hurt us. Then again, we also haven't had the superstar skilled players either... so we haven't have enough on either side to compete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I know the bruins effectively shut down the Sedins...but how much of that was because of toughness and how much of it was because of Julien's tight defensive game where the Sedin's were clearly targetted especially on the PP?

I mean, look at the San Jose series, that was a much more physical series than the Bruins-Canucks one and the Sedin's didn't have many problems scoring in that series.

The biggest mistake I see people make in this thread is that they look at the roster of a team and then assume that that team won because of the major quality they see in that roster, which is not a right way to make an analysis. Sedin's struggled against Boston because Julien implemented a stingy defensive system and not because of intimidation(Conversely, the San Jose-Vancouver series was a lot more open then the Boston one). Also a lot of their lack of production in the finals also had a lot to do with Thomas standing on his head. It wasn't just the Sedin's that weren't producing, it was the entire team. And the best part is that the chances were there. The Sedins were shut down largely because of defensive play and good goaltending. Interestingly enough, the Sedin's didn't produce much in the Nashville series either, also a team who implemented tight defensive play and relied on good goaltending. I wonder if Nashville also almost came through because the Sedin's were intimidated?

I think attributing the lack of production based on the toughhness of the Bruins is a very very shallow analysis of what actually went down in the finals.
Nobody is basing it solely on the toughness of the Bruins. It was definitely a factor though. And in my opinion, it was a disgrace that the league didn't police things better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem with the playoffs is always the same, small sample size. But, keeping in mind this will be highly anecdotical, look at the Cup finalists since the lockout:

Carolina/Edmonton
Ottawa/Anaheim
Pittsburgh/Detroit
Pittsburgh/Detroit
Philadelphia/Chicago
Boston/Vancouver

Out of twelve teams, only Anaheim, Boston and arguably Philly could be considered teams that play an intimidation game.

Lots of skilled teams in that list though... but then, skill wins Cups.
Absolutely skill wins cups. But none of those clubs were pushovers either. Chicago, Detroit are all very tough teams to play against and Edmonton was led by Mr. Intimidation himself, Chris Pronger.

And as for three of those clubs having intimidation as their best weapon, it is signficant. It does show that having this in your arsenal definitely can be a plus. Some teams lean more one way than another but size and grit can be a powerful weapon. Two of those clubs actually won cups.

Having said that, I've said many times in the past, I don't want us to try to be the Flyers. I'd prefer we lean towards skill over intimidation too. But we can't ignore size and grit the way we have and expect to win. We need more balance.

I'd also like to hear what you have to say about Wellwood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
A cynical mind would rephrase that as "what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated wouldn't have been tolerated of a team that didn't employ Campbell's son".
I'll leave that to the cynical minds...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
As an aside, it's also a sad commentary on the acceptance of the NHL as a bush league that the idea of adapting one's playstyle due to increasingly substandard officiating as the games become more important is being seriously suggested.
I agree. But it is what it is. If that's the way things are going to be in the playoffs, you can't just ignore it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
Keep in mind that I know the following method is pretty flawed because it's so heavily weighted by teams that don't make the playoffs (amongst other issues with trying to assign value to playoff performances)...

But by using a system that rewards 'points' for how deep a team goes in the playoffs as follows:

5 pts - Cup Winner
4 pts - Cup Finalist
3 pts - Conference Finalist
2 pts - Conference Semi-Finalist
1 pt - Conference Quarter-Finalist
0 pts - Out of playoffs

And then calculating the average for each fighting rank over a 10 season span (since 2001 when we first had 30 teams), I came up with the following chart:



Again, the trend is slightly upward for teams that fight less. I think you'll find similar results with more in depth measuring systems, but I think it's another clear indication that fighting is pretty much a non-factor in this day and age.
Very cool and great work. Thanks for this, at least it gives us an idea of where it fits on the spectrum.

Do clubs who fight more often also wind up being clubs that are generally more penalized as a whole? I would guess so but if you know how that shakes out it would be interesting too. Then again, we've had some seasons where we've been heavily penalized and we certainly don't fight that often so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Pronger is one of the best Dman of his time. The man is such a beast because he uses his size to his advantage (in terms of positioning), his skating, passing and shooting skills are great, as well as his hockey vision and understanding. That's why the guy is so good. Chirping and intimidating isn't what makes him good.

As for the Sedins, as MM pointed out, they were shutdown by Thomas. If I remember correctly, the same thing happened versus Rinne with them gathering a combined 7pts in 6GP. But the Preds aren't known for their super toughness like the Bruins are, so people won't attribute that shutdown success to that. When it happens versus the Bruins though, toughness is always the first thing that is brought up even when it isn't the main factor.
Thomas definitely did a number on Vancouver but you've got to admit that the Sedins were invisble through much of the series. Most of the time I didn't even know they were on the ice. There's no way that the goons didn't have an effect on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bipolarhabfan View Post
Skill + depth = championships. I think it really is that simple of an equation. Having a fighter who can only fight is useless because it does not allow you to roll four lines. Moreover, this type of player is usually sitting in the press box during the playoffs. They are that useless when it comes to crunch time because they cant do anything else on the ice and can easily get penalties due to their lack of skill.

What I have wanted for ages is team toughness. Give me a team with players that can score, win face-offs, block shots, and hit and take a hit. I think we are slowly getting there. This year we have one of the deepest squads we have ever had and have some decent team toughness: Cole, Pacioretty, Moen, White, Eller, Subban, Yemlin, and Gorges come to mind.
I agree. And it is slowly getting better but we need more size and toughness in the top six in my opinion. I know Cole can assume some of this but I didn't like the signing due to his age and injuries. I also don't think we have enough elite skill or grit to win a cup.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:17 PM
  #302
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Nobody is basing solely on the toughness of the Bruins. It was definitely a factor though. And in my opinion, it was a disgrace that the league didn't police things better.
While no body is basing their success solely on the toughness of the Bruins, it sure does get passed as such. Look, every team's qualities(positive one) play a role in their success. Toughness was a quality of the Bruins, but whether or not that set them apart from most teams and was the deciding factor in their wins or one the biggest factors is up for debate and personally I don't think it was. I named for factors which were much more important...in my opinion of course, in the Bruins success these playoffs.

I think this whole toughness argument is one of style rather than effectiveness. People like to see other people get beaten up, others don't. I think there are many factors more important on a team's success than toughness and as far as the Canadiens go, I'd like them to address other issues first(like finding more reliable depth on defense aka anotehr defensemen who can eat responsible minutes) than going out there and finding a bruiser. Likewise, I also think they need a good 4th line faceoff man(one who can also play responsible hockey) before they need to add a bruiser. Sure you can kill two birds with one stone by acquiring a guy who is both a bruiser and can fill in for the area that is currently unfilled, but not many players that have both qualities were available via UFA and most require overpayment via trade route, which we aren't in a position to be overpaying for anything right now.

I think the only people that "don't get it" are those people who think toughness trumps all these other issues currently missing on our team. Just like those last season who thought that getting tougher was a bigger priority than getting a scoring defensemen and better depth in the top 9. Low and behold, the habs brought up Pacioretty and desharnais and traded for Wisniewski and we had a 17-7-5 record until Pacioretty got hurt. I still remember that Flyers toughness thread last season, where all our problems in november and december were attributed to a lack of toughness rather than the fact that we had an incomplete top 6 and literally zero offense from the back end.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:35 PM
  #303
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Thomas definitely did a number on Vancouver but you've got to admit that the Sedins were invisble through much of the series. Most of the time I didn't even know they were on the ice. There's no way that the goons didn't have an effect on them.
If first line players being invisible is a sure sign of intimidation from goons, then Lucic-Krejci-Horton must have been severely intimidated by Montreal "tough guys" White, Mara, and "Knuckles" Pyatt since the entire Bruins first line did absolutely nothing against Montreal.

Or, perhaps the Sedins were just shut down by strong team defense and good goaltending, and their ineffectiveness had nothing to do with the so-called goonery and agitators in the Bruins lineup?

Again, to give credibility to the whole notion of "intimidation through use of thugs" is to basically call a bunch of NHL players sissies, for not playing up to their maximum abilities and changing their game whenever a tough guy is in the lineup on the other team. I don't buy it.

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:44 PM
  #304
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
Caveat of the perils? You're turning Latin on us now? While you like to extract evey possible (and most of the time useless) stats possible, I like to enjoy the game for what it is and represents. Fights and hits are part off the show, they have been part of every great rivalry and to me tu still hold great value in any game. There's a marketing term that I learned in school " cognitive dissonance", which is mostly trying to justify positively what you own or bought, you guys are doing the EXACT same thing with the have current system, if we had a Jared Boll, a Shawn Thornton or a Paul Bissonnette on the team nobody would be sting a damn thing, but hey, since we're soft as hell, might as well undervalue the physical aspect if the game as much as we can, because we all know if you don't walk all day with your rose colored glasses saying how trest we are you're not a real Habs fan.

Good post.

I take it down to the next step though. There are people who are unwilling to criticize Habs management for anything. They are blameless and flawless. And Gauthier is living proof. He did almost nothing to change the team dynamics yet he is still held in high regard because he cannot be judged yet because he is still too new.

We have gone without hockey savvy management for so long that some people have come to accept this as normal and acceptable. And Gauthier's dislike of fighting has become the roadmap for the Canadiens moving forward.

Interesting stuff.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:52 PM
  #305
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Thomas definitely did a number on Vancouver but you've got to admit that the Sedins were invisble through much of the series. Most of the time I didn't even know they were on the ice. There's no way that the goons didn't have an effect on them.
It might have had an effect but not nearly big enough to even mention it. People overrate the intimidation aspect of the Bruins. They won because of stellar goaltending, depth and very importantly, luck. Intimidation doesn't hold much of an impact.

If it's teams like Mtl or Nsh that shut down opponents, it's due to good defensive game including goaltending, but when it's the Bruins, people will talk about intimidation or ''toughness'' before bringing up any of the rest.


Last edited by Kriss E: 08-29-2011 at 02:07 PM.
Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:01 PM
  #306
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Actually it's quite the opposite. A tremendous amount of evidence has been posted in this thread to prove the exact opposite, that a fighter isn't needed and that more often than not the team which wins the cup is one of the lowest fighting major teams in the league. It's you and the rest of the people with a hard on for toughness who choose to deflect ignore or disbelief the facts and evidence presented before you countless times in this and other threads.

In fact not a single person in this thread has listed a fighter who was available who wouldn't hurt our team and would be better than any of the players we have on our squad now but of course the toughness crowd ignores that or tries to even say Konopka is a good player when in fact he really isn't.

As per the positive mental side, somebody already listed a bunch of cup winning teams in the last decade and out of them like 1 had a high fighting majors, the rest were in the lower bracket of the league, so I think that just goes to show the mental aspect you keep referring to is hogwash, but hey hold onto your delusions and ignore facts when they're presented to you, because that's basically all the people in this thread know how to do.

Also just like plenty of the toughness crowd don't expect the non-toughness crowd to formulate arguments based entirely on assumptions I expect the same of you. You don't know what's said when the mics are off, there isn't any "we all know what it means". There are people who use their own delusions to backup their arguments and then there are people who use facts. You sir are just ignoring all the evidence which supports our claim that one isn't needed and rambling on about what if's. Go back and re-read the thread, there are plenty of examples that more than prove the whole fighter being important theory has no real backing. This isn't the 70s anymore where there were plenty of not-so talented people on a lot of teams anyways. Now a days you need to compete and be at the same level as your opponents. Adding a fighter in 90% of the cases means adding a worse player.

Where were these fighters who were all available that Gauthier didn't get who actually do know how to play hockey? They were no where to be seen, it's merely people in this thread trying to bs that guys like Konopka do know how to play hockey when clearly that isn't the case. He was signed by the worst team in the NHL because they want to tank.

Now if you want to say you want tougher players who know how to play hockey it's one thing, frankly no players of that caliber who were available have been mentioned in this thread and the players who have been mentioned either can't play hockey for **** (though some fans like to delude themselves into believing they can) or weren't available.
Yep, we had to make sure Tom Pyatt was on the team last year. No way could we have had a real fighter on the Habs roster and sit Pyatt. Pyatt was too awesome of a player.

Oh, and Eller only had 8 more points than Konopka last year. So if Konopka sucks as a hockey player, what does that say about Eller?

Your entire argument suffers and looks very weak when you look at who we actually had on the ice for a majority of the games last season. Replacing Pyatt and Eller last season with a player like Konopka and a player like Rupp would not have hurt the Habs scoring at all. And you know it but are afraid to admit it.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:03 PM
  #307
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Good post.

I take it down to the next step though. There are people who are unwilling to criticize Habs management for anything. They are blameless and flawless. And Gauthier is living proof. He did almost nothing to change the team dynamics yet he is still held in high regard because he cannot be judged yet because he is still too new.

We have gone without hockey savvy management for so long that some people have come to accept this as normal and acceptable. And Gauthier's dislike of fighting has become the roadmap for the Canadiens moving forward.

Interesting stuff.
maybe cause some of us see that he is adding size to the Org.

Guess to get some props he should have have gone after a few scrubs who can fight...



Interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Yep, we had to make sure Tom Pyatt was on the team last year. No way could we have had a real fighter on the Habs roster and sit Pyatt. Pyatt was too awesome of a player.

Oh, and Eller only had 8 more points than Konopka last year. So if Konopka sucks as a hockey player, what does that say about Eller?

Your entire argument suffers and looks very weak when you look at who we actually had on the ice for a majority of the games last season. Replacing Pyatt and Eller last season with a player like Konopka and a player like Rupp would not have hurt the Habs scoring at all. And you know it but are afraid to admit it.

huh, that he's a rookie ?


Last edited by Mike8: 08-29-2011 at 02:26 PM. Reason: merge
ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:06 PM
  #308
Aurel Joliat
Registered User
 
Aurel Joliat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
For one minute, forget everything about the ''utility'' of fighting in a hockey game (scoreboard)

A fight is entertaining. That add a flavor to an hockey game. It's spectacular and that helps to create rivalry. Everybody enjoy a good fight during a game.

Aurel Joliat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:08 PM
  #309
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Oh, and Eller only had 8 more points than Konopka last year. So if Konopka sucks as a hockey player, what does that say about Eller?
I can't believe you expect people to take you seriously after spewing crap like this.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:10 PM
  #310
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurel Joliat View Post
For one minute, forget everything about the ''utility'' of fighting in a hockey game (scoreboard)

A fight is entertaining. That add a flavor to an hockey game. It's spectacular and that helps to create rivalry. Everybody enjoy a good fight during a game.

if the others were honest enough to say they sinply enjoy fights instead of spewing some BS about how it is necessary for a team to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I can't believe you expect people to take you seriously after spewing crap like this.
You tell him Konopkas 9 pts were a career high for the 31 years old fighter, k ?


Last edited by Mike8: 08-29-2011 at 02:27 PM. Reason: merge
ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:12 PM
  #311
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,302
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Very cool and great work. Thanks for this, at least it gives us an idea of where it fits on the spectrum.

Do clubs who fight more often also wind up being clubs that are generally more penalized as a whole? I would guess so but if you know how that shakes out it would be interesting too. Then again, we've had some seasons where we've been heavily penalized and we certainly don't fight that often so...
You piqued my curiosity, so I checked into it.

First graph is where teams on average ranked in FM vs where they ranked in non-FM PIMs (because why count the FMs?):



These numbers are since 2001. Evidence shows the lower a team ranked in FMs the lower they tended to rank in non-FM PIMs. It wasn't 1-to-1 though, so I guess there's something to be said about fighting not necessarily hurting your team.

Looking at it another way, this mess of a graph is every team's # of FMs with the number of non-FM PIMs they received since 2001.



Again, numbers show more FMs = more PIMs of other kinds, generally speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurel Joliat
For one minute, forget everything about the ''utility'' of fighting in a hockey game (scoreboard)

A fight is entertaining. That add a flavor to an hockey game. It's spectacular and that helps to create rivalry. Everybody enjoy a good fight during a game.
I agree, and have said as much. Fights entertain people, and a major part of sports is entertainment.

That being said, I usually won't use a player's fighting prowess to determine whether or not he will help the team win hockey games.

Bill McNeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:14 PM
  #312
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'd also like to hear what you have to say about Wellwood.
I'm not sure why, but here goes. My understanding is that the softness that led Wellwood to exit the NHL was principally that around his gut: he's a player who would repeatedly show up at camp out of shape. I'm not too keen on evaluating work ethic based on on-ice perception, but this is one thing coaches aren't prone to forgiving, especially out of a third-line type player.

Otherwise, I've not followed him nearly enough to make a determination on his softness that wouldn't be just parroting what someone else said without thinking about it, but he seems to have been a somewhat effective third-line type forward with PP skills, so whether he was soft or gritty would be pretty irrelevant to me in the face of him just not being that good.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:16 PM
  #313
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We don't have to guess why. Lidstrom is an amazing blueliner and one of the best of all-time. But the Wings have far more grit and skill than we do. They have balance.

Nobody is suggesting that a guy like Gretzky (who had zero grit) is useless. What we are saying though is that if you're going to have Gretz on your club, you should surround him with players that compensate for what he lacks and can protect him. That's what balanced teams do and it's just common sense. We've ignored this for a long time and it's hurt us. Then again, we also haven't had the superstar skilled players either... so we haven't have enough on either side to compete.
might want to try to get more realistic examples... I mean, 99 was good enough to get 150+ pts with a GOON on his side...

just like Lidstrom is an AMAZING blue liner, one of the best of all times...

and then the Pronger example...




Balance is GREAT... but reality is, when your best forward get 57 pts, removing some talent to make room for more toughness helps in NO WAY in the balance department...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:21 PM
  #314
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
He did almost nothing to change the team dynamics yet he is still held in high regard because he cannot be judged yet because he is still too new.
The problem with this assertion is that the team dynamics changed seismically in 2010-2011. The Habs went from a team that got heavily outshot and outchanced 5-on-5, to a team that outshot and outchanced their opponents, particularly with the score tied. This is a huge, huge difference, because it's the mark of the consistently good teams, like Detroit, and something the Habs haven't done in at least a decade (including their PP-driven 2007-2008 season). But it's also one that's unfortunately not getting the attention it deserves, largely because people are too focussed by the number of goals and blinded by the process -- if they keep this up, the goals will come.

Granted, Gauthier didn't necessarily do a whole lot to effect this change (the foundation was laid in the summer of 2009) but after this season, I think it would be remiss of him not to wait and see if the trend continues, and if outscoring, the nigh-inevitable consequence of outchancing, eventually follows.

Radical change at this point is entirely unwarranted.


Last edited by MathMan: 08-29-2011 at 02:26 PM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:36 PM
  #315
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
With Cole, Pacioretty and Kostitsyn all being part of the top 9, as well as Eller and guys like Moen and White on the 4th line potentially I don't know what the OP is crying about. They've got some size and they WILL hit.

I think the habs have a really solid mix of players to be honest. I'd hate to be seeing a roster spot taken up by some goon who plays 8 minutes a night and fights every other game against another fighter on a different team.

I like their defence too, even if only 2 of the guys who I think will be regulars will hit very much at all.

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 03:09 PM
  #316
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
I would be in favour of adding a tough guy or two to the bottom lines, but I think the more pressing need was size and more specifically, size in the top 6. I think we've tried to address it and should be better with Cole and a healthy Patches.

I don't agree with the idea that a few tough guys hurt you as dramatically as many posters are claiming. They are afterall, for the most part, 4th liners. A 4th liner who can fight, I think would be a welcomed addition, not really a necessity, but a nice added bonus.

To me, size has been a valid concern, more so than toughness. I'll always go back to Robert Lang and what he did for our roster before he was hurt. He gave us another dimension and made us tougher to play against without being overly tough himself. Size alone is tough to play against, whether said player is considered tough or not.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 03:33 PM
  #317
Ra
satan is my homie
 
Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurel Joliat View Post
For one minute, forget everything about the ''utility'' of fighting in a hockey game (scoreboard)

A fight is entertaining. That add a flavor to an hockey game. It's spectacular and that helps to create rivalry. Everybody enjoy a good fight during a game.
I don't really... Some are alright but the vast majority are completely boring.

IMO, if you like fighting, why don't you watch boxe or MMA. It's way better in term of quality no?

Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 04:11 PM
  #318
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
While no body is basing their success solely on the toughness of the Bruins, it sure does get passed as such. Look, every team's qualities(positive one) play a role in their success. Toughness was a quality of the Bruins, but whether or not that set them apart from most teams and was the deciding factor in their wins or one the biggest factors is up for debate and personally I don't think it was. I named for factors which were much more important...in my opinion of course, in the Bruins success these playoffs.

I think this whole toughness argument is one of style rather than effectiveness. People like to see other people get beaten up, others don't. I think there are many factors more important on a team's success than toughness and as far as the Canadiens go, I'd like them to address other issues first(like finding more reliable depth on defense aka anotehr defensemen who can eat responsible minutes) than going out there and finding a bruiser. Likewise, I also think they need a good 4th line faceoff man(one who can also play responsible hockey) before they need to add a bruiser. Sure you can kill two birds with one stone by acquiring a guy who is both a bruiser and can fill in for the area that is currently unfilled, but not many players that have both qualities were available via UFA and most require overpayment via trade route, which we aren't in a position to be overpaying for anything right now.

I think the only people that "don't get it" are those people who think toughness trumps all these other issues currently missing on our team. Just like those last season who thought that getting tougher was a bigger priority than getting a scoring defensemen and better depth in the top 9. Low and behold, the habs brought up Pacioretty and desharnais and traded for Wisniewski and we had a 17-7-5 record until Pacioretty got hurt. I still remember that Flyers toughness thread last season, where all our problems in november and december were attributed to a lack of toughness rather than the fact that we had an incomplete top 6 and literally zero offense from the back end.
I think the intimidation factor played more heavily than you do. You can't tell me that Sedin's sitting there getting repeatedly punched in the face didn't have an affect.

As for us, I'm not looking for us to add a 'bruiser' or 'goon' either. I'm all for adding elite talent (anyone who's read my posts in that past knows this) but our forwards have traditionally been too small to give us a real shot at winning. MaxPac hopefully will help and Cole may help us in the short-term but we can't just keep going after Giontas, Cammy and Gomez types. I'm a huge fan of Cammy's but it's silly to pair him with other smurfs. Management has got to realize this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It might have had an effect but not nearly big enough to even mention it. People overrate the intimidation aspect of the Bruins. They won because of stellar goaltending, depth and very importantly, luck. Intimidation doesn't hold much of an impact.

If it's teams like Mtl or Nsh that shut down opponents, it's due to good defensive game including goaltending, but when it's the Bruins, people will talk about intimidation or ''toughness'' before bringing up any of the rest.
Of course the Bruins had stellar goaltending. Nobody disputes this. But the Sedins were invisible for much of the series. Yes, you can credit defense for this but having watched those games it seemed pretty clear to me that these guys were shellshocked from having been punched out all the time.

If it's teams like Mtl, then yes it is goaltending or defense that stops the puck from going in. The reason for this is that we don't have the ability to push other clubs around. So we absolutely agree here. Boston though had the added dimension of intimidation to go along with defense and goaltending and that's a big reason why the won the cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm not sure why, but here goes. My understanding is that the softness that led Wellwood to exit the NHL was principally that around his gut: he's a player who would repeatedly show up at camp out of shape. I'm not too keen on evaluating work ethic based on on-ice perception, but this is one thing coaches aren't prone to forgiving, especially out of a third-line type player.

Otherwise, I've not followed him nearly enough to make a determination on his softness that wouldn't be just parroting what someone else said without thinking about it, but he seems to have been a somewhat effective third-line type forward with PP skills, so whether he was soft or gritty would be pretty irrelevant to me in the face of him just not being that good.
Even when he was putting points up on the board he was considered incredibly soft. How would you measure this statistically? Can you measure it statistically? Does it have any bearing to you whatsoever if this guy doesn't go into the corners but gets points per minutes that are decent? Is PPM all that matters to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
might want to try to get more realistic examples... I mean, 99 was good enough to get 150+ pts with a GOON on his side...

just like Lidstrom is an AMAZING blue liner, one of the best of all times...

and then the Pronger example...

Balance is GREAT... but reality is, when your best forward get 57 pts, removing some talent to make room for more toughness helps in NO WAY in the balance department...
Dude, you brought up Lidstrom... I was following your lead. And Gretz is the most extreme example of an uber talent with no grit and everybody knows him so substitute your own players instead if you wish, I'm just trying to make a point.

As for us, we need more talent AND toughness if we want to make a legit run. Price is a great start and Subban will hopefully follow. Those two could be our first legit stars in forever and it's something to build around. But we need to do a better job supporting them than we have in the past with the FA signings and mid round picks. And I don't want to see us continuing to load up on a top six that consists of 5 foot nothing guys.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 05:10 PM
  #319
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Even when he was putting points up on the board he was considered incredibly soft. How would you measure this statistically? Can you measure it statistically? Does it have any bearing to you whatsoever if this guy doesn't go into the corners but gets points per minutes that are decent? Is PPM all that matters to you?
Well, let me turn that around and ask you: why would it matter?

Until they change the rules, the sole objective of the game of hockey is to outscore the opposition. So I define player value in terms of their ability to get their team to outscore the opposition.

If Wellwood helps you do that, how much does the "how" really matter? He could be soft, he could skate on only one leg, he could have a patented one-handed slapshot he uses, the bottom line is that he helps your team outscore, and outscoring is the only thing that wins hockey games. And I evaluate player based on whether, and how much, they quantitatively help your team win (which, granted, can only be measured approximately at this point).

If Wellwood is soft, and if that makes him a less effective player, then that will be reflected in whether he helps outscore, and that will factor in the results-based evaluation. If he's soft and it doesn't make him a less effective, then why should I care? His coach might want him to become more physical, if he believes that will make him more effective, but as an amateur hockey analyst, I'm only concerned about what the player brings to the team... in terms of tangible results, not in terms of game style.

A player being called "soft" is too often pointed at as a fatal flaw that makes a player somehow inadequate for the NHL game, as if it were a defining characteristic and akin to leprosy. If a "soft" player is effective, then he's an effective player, just like Gionta, being a "small effective player", is an effective player. And "soft", unlike size, is inherently a subjective assessment, which doesn't help any.

Also, "outscoring" naturally assumes that goals for exceed goals against, so it is very much about more than scoring -- a common mistake when looking at so-called "advanced" statistics is that their proponents are only interested in scoring. Nothing could be further from the truth, as they almost invariably examine things in terms of differentials, making provisions for leverage situations. While most "classic" statistics one finds in a newspaper are concerned with scoring, a lot of people make the leap that this is what statistical analysis is based on. It's not; on the contrary, it's commonly held that the classic goals-assists-points totals can be very misleading due to lacking both granularity and context. This even when considering them as measures of offensive production (which is only half the equation as it is). I've brought up points-per-minute when discussing Tanguay because his 5-on-5 production was specifically being decried, but overall player value has a lot more variables than that (though Tanguay is also strong in most of those other variables as well).

(BTW, I make no claim that Wellwood is effective beyond the third-line-with-PP-skills role.)

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 05:20 PM
  #320
FF de Mars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 42 rue Fontaine
Country: Martinique
Posts: 5,950
vCash: 500
Plekanec and Cammy is a killer duo. Cole will create space for them. Gomez, Gionta and Pacioretty all have chemistry toghether and form a solid second line. What do you guys want to do, to tank ? By having a competitive team year in year out, we have better chances of landing a high profile UFA. Tanking is not the only way. Everybody wants the big, tough and talented players, but there aren't many.

FF de Mars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 05:24 PM
  #321
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
maybe cause some of us see that he is adding size to the Org.

Guess to get some props he should have have gone after a few scrubs who can fight...



Interesting.




huh, that he's a rookie ?
That's my point. People are on here saying that if we add a legitimate tough guy able to fight anyone in the League that we would be "hurting" our team's chances.

Yet we had Eller really not doing much and not getting a lot of ice time. He probably would have been more productive in Hamilton getting top line minutes to hone his game instead of riding the pine.

Pyatt? Well, we know the year that he had.

Gauthier is following the tradition that Habs GM's have been following for the past decade and a half. "We are rebuilding for the future."

I have been hearing that for the last 18 years. "We will have a Cup winning team in 2 or 3 years". And of course, we know how that story went. What ever happened to trying to "win it this year".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I can't believe you expect people to take you seriously after spewing crap like this.
I was simply referring to a poster who in basically called Konopka a worthless NHL player.

17 points vs 8 points. And I would not be surprised if Konopka had a better face-off win percentage than Eller.

Hyperbole, meet hyperbole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem with this assertion is that the team dynamics changed seismically in 2010-2011. The Habs went from a team that got heavily outshot and outchanced 5-on-5, to a team that outshot and outchanced their opponents, particularly with the score tied. This is a huge, huge difference, because it's the mark of the consistently good teams, like Detroit, and something the Habs haven't done in at least a decade (including their PP-driven 2007-2008 season). But it's also one that's unfortunately not getting the attention it deserves, largely because people are too focussed by the number of goals and blinded by the process -- if they keep this up, the goals will come.

Granted, Gauthier didn't necessarily do a whole lot to effect this change (the foundation was laid in the summer of 2009) but after this season, I think it would be remiss of him not to wait and see if the trend continues, and if outscoring, the nigh-inevitable consequence of outchancing, eventually follows.

Radical change at this point is entirely unwarranted.
That is the thing about statistics. They can be manipulated to favor whatever you are looking for.

Yes, we increased our shot totals. However, what the raw stats do not show is where those shots were taken from. Last season we fired a lot of shots from the perimeter. Not a high percentage scoring area. Why? Not sure if this is what Martin wanted or if our small guys were intimidated and did not feel like mixing it up with the opponent's bigger forwards/Dmen in the "dirty areas".

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 05:41 PM
  #322
WG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I agree. And it is slowly getting better but we need more size and toughness in the top six in my opinion. I know Cole can assume some of this but I didn't like the signing due to his age and injuries. I also don't think we have enough elite skill or grit to win a cup.
These two points caught my interest, so I'll ask you to expand on these if you would.

Regarding Cole, I've seen your posts tend toward acquiring elite talent; that signing/acquiring guys like Gionta and Cammy borders on pointless (apologies if this is oversimplifying your stance). IMO Cole was one of the best options available as UFA, albeit best being relative to a very weak crop. What would you have done instead of acquiring Cole? Presuming the one top end UFA (B. Richards) wasn't signing here regardless, would you have

-bettered the offers for Richards/Carter from Philly? IMO such a trade would have hurt more than it helped.
-just gone with Pulashaj or some other farm player?
-Door #3?

As to the second point, 2 years ago the team rode a hot goalie to the semis. This past year, yes, it is ifs and buts, but if the team scores in Game 7 OT, the Habs would get Washington, who lied down like dogs in the 2nd round, then would have had at least a pretty good chance vs TB to get to the finals. Years past have taught us that you get into the POs, there's always a chance. Is this team a clear top of the conference powerhouse? No. But I expect them to make the playoffs and I think the team as currently put together at least has a chance. And if you are playoff team, then you go get players that make you better.

I'm not sure if your opinion is that the team shouldn't really bother with 2nd tier UFA like Cole, but I'm not sure not signing any UFA and running a payroll $10M under the cap. in the hope of, I suppose, missing the playoffs and maybe drafting a guy who might help three years from now is the way to go either.

WG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 06:16 PM
  #323
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dude, you brought up Lidstrom... I was following your lead. And Gretz is the most extreme example of an uber talent with no grit and everybody knows him so substitute your own players instead if you wish, I'm just trying to make a point.
Yeah, sorry, I wont bring up Pronger in this thread anymore, promised.

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:19 PM
  #324
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Yeah, sorry, I wont bring up Pronger in this thread anymore, promised.
Dude, I brought up Pronger with another poster... and you jumped in with Lidstrom.

Please, stop being silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WG View Post
These two points caught my interest, so I'll ask you to expand on these if you would.

Regarding Cole, I've seen your posts tend toward acquiring elite talent; that signing/acquiring guys like Gionta and Cammy borders on pointless (apologies if this is oversimplifying your stance). IMO Cole was one of the best options available as UFA, albeit best being relative to a very weak crop. What would you have done instead of acquiring Cole? Presuming the one top end UFA (B. Richards) wasn't signing here regardless, would you have

-bettered the offers for Richards/Carter from Philly? IMO such a trade would have hurt more than it helped.
-just gone with Pulashaj or some other farm player?
-Door #3?
I never would've signed Gomez, Gionta or Cammy (who I think is a great player) to begin with. There was no point to doing this, they aren't going to lead us anywhere.

I said years ago that I would've dealt away guys like Koivu, Souray and Markov for strong younger players, picks and prospects who could help us down the road. That's been my philosophy on our team for a long time.

Once you build a team that is at the point that it can actually contend for something, then it makes sense to go the FA market or trade a pick for a vet. If you want the odd vet to work as a mentor for the kids that also makes sense. It doesn't make sense though to continuously build your team with overpriced, underperforming FAs and mid round picks. It makes it a lot harder to build a contending team with. It can be done, sure... but it's harder to do because elite players don't usually hit the FA market and even when they do, it's historically been tough to get them to come to Montreal unless we overpay them.

Some of the deals I've suggested or agreed with in years past

Souray for Bobby Ryan (Before Ryan was in the league)
Koivu for Bobby Ryan (Before Ryan was in the league)
Markov for JVR and a 1st round pick + whatever prospects we could get
Markov for JVR and Claude Giroux + whatever prospects we could get

Now, maybe none of these deals were a possibility. But they were hypothetical 'would you do this' type questions at the time I was blasted for even suggesting these deals. The guys I was talking about where prospects and unproven so it seemed insane. But it certainly would've helped us now and in the future if we'd made them. Hindsight is 20/20 but again, I was suggested the Ryan trades four years ago when the Ducks were a contending team and Ryan was too young to be of immediate use to them.

This year, Washington holds Colorado's 1st round pick for 2012. I think we should try to go after it now before Colorado tanks and winds up in a top 5 position. I'm not sure what the Caps would want for that pick but that's an opportunity where a contending team could very well have a high pick to deal with in next year's draft. Those are the kinds of things we should be looking at. Next year, folks will say that Washington got lucky in getting a top five pick... they didn't get lucky. They were smart. They dealt for a pick that could very well be 1st or 2nd overall if the Avs really tank (which could easily happen.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WG View Post
As to the second point, 2 years ago the team rode a hot goalie to the semis. This past year, yes, it is ifs and buts, but if the team scores in Game 7 OT, the Habs would get Washington, who lied down like dogs in the 2nd round, then would have had at least a pretty good chance vs TB to get to the finals. Years past have taught us that you get into the POs, there's always a chance. Is this team a clear top of the conference powerhouse? No. But I expect them to make the playoffs and I think the team as currently put together at least has a chance. And if you are playoff team, then you go get players that make you better.

I'm not sure if your opinion is that the team shouldn't really bother with 2nd tier UFA like Cole, but I'm not sure not signing any UFA and running a payroll $10M under the cap. in the hope of, I suppose, missing the playoffs and maybe drafting a guy who might help three years from now is the way to go either.
Well, you're right. We could (as Mathman puts it) get lucky and maybe we make it into the finals. A lot would have to go right but it could happen.

It's not likely to happen though right? And even if we did fluke into the finals do you think that we'd be back there next year? No.

We're better off building a team that becomes a real contender that has a real chance at winning year after year. I know you're going to say... 'easier said than done' and you're right. It's hard to do, but it CAN be done. Some of the picks or prospects that we trade for might not work out or may be disappointing but the more you have the better off you are. And I just don't think we're going to get there if we continue to do things the way we always have. We build with mediocre (that's the word I'm going to use, feel free to substitute middle of the pack) FAs and mid round picks and we produce decent but not great teams.

We've had one top five pick in the last 25 years (a lottery fluke) that yielded Price. We amazingly seem to have managed to maybe find another elite guy with a 2nd rounder (Subban.) And that's fantastic. I just think we need to work on getting more elite players as well as stop building with small forwards in our top 6. They don't have to be Gordie Howe type power forwards but we need more size and some more grit up front. We can still get a Cammaleri, we just shouldn't surround him with other shrimps.

I think if we do that, we'll be much better off going forward.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-29-2011 at 07:26 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:23 PM
  #325
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Souray for Bobby Ryan (Before Ryan was in the league)
Koivu for Bobby Ryan (Before Ryan was in the league)
Markov for JVR and a 1st round pick + whatever prospects we could get
Markov for JVR and Claude Giroux + whatever prospects we could get

At the time I was blasted for suggesting these deals. The guys I was talking about where prospects and uproven. But it certainly would've helped us now and in the future if we'd made them.
You were blasted because they are not realistic.

guest1467 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 01:02 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.