Fire Jacques Martin

[Trizzak]

I'd love McGuire - mostly because that iggling centre issue we've had for a decade would be dealt with so fast it'd make your head spin.

Yep. One problem gone, a couple dozen new ones pop up

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Jim Nill I would love to get.

I like PG, but Nill is a different class.

If he was truly available I'd fire PG right now and bring in Nill.

Better is better... end of story.

This.

[Commandant]

I'd love McGuire - mostly because that iggling centre issue we've had for a decade would be dealt with so fast it'd make your head spin.

Creating how many other holes in the process?

[TurdBurglar]

Gonna update this post as the game progresses. I said I would count the bad shots and post it, gonna also count dump outs where a pass could have been made and resulting icings.

Bad shots: 4

Dump outs when pass could have been easily made: 10

Icings due to these dump outs: 2

1 bad shot not counted was St.Denis' goal, even bad shots can go in sometimes, but it was left out for arguments sake.

Don't quote this until after the game please.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Turd Burglar

[Commandant]

It means nothing if you don't track every team in the league... since every team in the league makes bad shots, dumpouts, and icings.

Its a meaningless number with no context.

But you keep plucking that chicken.

[TurdBurglar]

It means nothing if you don't track every team in the league... since every team in the league makes bad shots, dumpouts, and icings.

Its a meaningless number with no context.

But you keep plucking that chicken.

So track every other team and tell me I'm wrong. I'm throwing stats at you while you offer nothing back other than the speculation that we're not the only ones doing it. So show me some numbers stating we're doing the exact same thing as every other team bacause all your doing now is arguing with no basis what-so-ever.

Here's an interesting fact for you, first period of this game we've dumped the puck out instead of making a pass 8 times, Vancouver has done it twice. Coincidentally we're being outshot 13-7.

[Commandant]

Hey I'm not the one making ridiculous claims.... I have nothing to back up here.

You want your stats to have context, you do the work.

P.S. Forrest vs Trees, we're winning 2-0.

“You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” – Wayne Gretzky

Seems fitting when the lead is based on two long, low percentage wrist shots from the point.

[TurdBurglar]

Saying we're a counter-attack team when we're not making passes to counter attack is a ridicules claim. You made it I'm showing you your wrong once again. I'm doing this because of your ridiculous notions, you have everything to back up here.

So we're winning off of shots goalies normally stop, which causes us to not win over half of our games, and now these shots are acceptable? LOL Shows just how much you really know about hockey.

[Commandant]

We're not a counter attack team?

Yet Erik Cole just stole the puck at the blueline, went in on a rush and scored.

Thats the only stat I need to see.

Again you are missing the forest from the trees.....

Edit: and there gos Gionta and Pleks, getting a two on one... nearly scoring, and drawing a penalty... all off turnover and counterattack.

Ask yourself to think about a typical Habs goal at Even Strength over the past three years; how many are created off in zone possession, an how many are off the counter attack?

[TurdBurglar]

We're not a counter attack team.

Our forwards are perfectly set for a quick strike game.... absolutely.

How do you quick strike? Simple, cause turnovers, and win races to loose pucks in your own zone, and then once you get that turnover or loose puck you quickly transition to offence creating a 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 the other way.

How do you cause turnovers, and get to loose pucks? By playing defence and forcing the other teams to make mistakes, and then capitalizing on those mistakes.

That's the plan in Montreal most nights, thats Martin's system... but it wasn't done last night.

Thats you describing a counter-attack style, saying we're doing it and calling it "quick strike."

Need I say more? You want proof, proof, proof, yet you contradict yourself and demand more proof. Learn a bit more about hockey before arguing about it please.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Turd Burglar

[Commandant]

I was playing and watching this game while the only turds you were burgling were from your own diaper.

Typical punk.... can no longer argue the points in a credible manner so you attack my knowledge of the game with vague generalities.

Can't continue a respectable discussion on hockey without attacking when you have nothing to counter my points? I'm done with you, where is the ignore poster button on this site?

And the "we're not a counter attack team" was a sarcastic response to your post above.... where you claimed we weren't. If you read the entire post you'll see its clear that I'm saying most of montreal's 5 v 5 goals are scored on the rush.

[TurdBurglar]

So your a year older than me, but your speculating nature leads you to believe I'm a teenager, rich.

I've been doing nothing but being credible. I was offering statistics to back what I'm saying, while you offered nothing, not 1 statistic to show your remotely right. Funny how I'm pulling statistics and number from various websites, while your only stats is "show me more because I don't believe you."

You get caught contradicting yourself, then you say it's sarcastic. Funny thing is you edited your post to put in a question mark to make it look like you were being sarcastic. I've met many people like you, if this wasn't a forum where you could look back at what you already said, you would be the first to say your saying what I am and I was saying what your were all along. Your a person to switch stories when wrong, like your doing.

Over 1,000 posts in a hockey forum and you are showing you can't watch a game an properly analyze it. How is that attacking your hockey knowledge? If pointing out a fact is attacking then I guess I am.

You believe Martin isn't a problem on this team and doesn't need to go. You believe our bad record and PP is due to 3 injured defensemen. In all 3 counts you are wrong.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Turd Burglar

[Commandant]

You offer statistics that mean nothing cause there is no context to them.

Unless you analyze the entire league, the number of shots the habs take that are bad shots... MEANS ZERO.

There is nothing to compare it against, there is no control factor.

Its like saying, the habs are losing because they average 8 bad passes in the offensive zone every game. Sure that might be a factor, but unless we know how many bad passes is normal across the league, then you can't harp on the coach for not fixing that issue. If every team has the same issue, its not a factor in the losses. But you want to come up with stats for the Habs, and have no control factors, no opposition factors whatsoever.

Then you go and try to insult me for not liking your meaningless stat that has no meaning or context.

And then when you can no longer argue the point, because your stats don't mean anything, you start personally insulting people.

=================

As far as contradicting myself... read the whole damn post. The line after it is. "Yet Erik Cole just stole the puck at the blueline, went in on a rush and scored." Thats saying WE ARE A COUNTER ATTACK TEAM. You appear to be the only person who does not understand how stealing the puck, going down and scoring is "counter attacking"

I said, we aren't a counter attack team, and then gave the cole example, and the pleks example of the team doing exactly that; and alluded to how the majority of our 5 on 5 goals have been off the rush for 3 years... and you think I'm contradicting myself.

Once again... you've gotten lost looking at trees when there is an entire forrest in front of you,, and missed the context of the entire post by doing so.... Your failure to grasp the "big picture" and context is becoming a repeated problem.

++++++++++++++++++++

Finally unable to argue your point any further you once again attack my knowledge and use post count as if it means anything. And then end with a simple statement that everything I think is wrong... and give no explanation as to why.

Again, ain't nothing but a punk....

Thats what I like about 99% of the users here, we can talk hockey with differences of opinion but without resorting to pulling the "you don't know shit about hockey" card.... but obviously you can't... so like I said before... I'm done. Ignored. Don't bother replying, I won't be reading it.

[Colin]

Wow, with Martin as coach, you don't need fans bringing you down. His presser for this past game made us out to be a struggling team learning our trade this season. Is that really where we're supposed to be? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? How can PG and Señor Molson not be stabbing their ears assuming they misheard?

[TurdBurglar]

So according to you, with context, getting scored on twice a game isn't a problem because the league average is over 2 GA/G.

Since you can't see clearing the puck instead of passing it to go on offense, I'll dumb it down for you. The context is about turnovers, you know when you give the puck to the other team. In this game in the first period there were 7 occasions where a pass could have been made to go on offense, but instead the puck was cleared out of the zone forfeiting possession, you know the thing where you have the puck one requirement to scoring a goal, giving the other team another chance to attack us. Since this turnover thing is a mystery to you, the more times we give the puck away willingly the less chances we get on offense and the more chances they get on offense.

When we have possession of the puck we can then attempt to put it in the other team's net. Without the puck we cannot put it in the other team's net. Therefore having the puck is beneficial. When dumping the puck out of the zone when a pass is available we just gave up a chance to go on offense. Does all chances end up in goal? No, sometimes not even a shot, but as I already pointed out you need to have the puck to shoot it at the net. It doesn't matter what the league average is in turnovers(electing to give up possession by dumping the puck instead of retaining possession by passing to a teammate), we could have the lowest amount BUT every single one is bad.

There are stats that are good and ones that are bad. A good example of a good stats is goals for, they help us win games, a bad stat is goals against, they help us lose games. Turnovers in our favor help achieve goals for, turnovers against us, help us achieve goals against.

Can I make it any clearer? Do you get it now? In the case of what our defense is doing when recovering the puck, league-wide averages mean nothing, it's bad, the more it happens the worse it is.

Now to address the counter-attack issue, a big key to a successful counter-attack strategy is frequently recovering the puck and making passes to the forwards so they can take a shot for a possible goal. Now, if the forwards are breaking out but no pass comes, there is no offense. That being said how can you use a counter-attack strategy when nearly half of your chances to counter attack are given away (see turnovers above). Granted you have a point about how most of our goals are scored on the rush, in CONTEXT, most of the 5-on-5 goals in the league are scored on the rush, therefore by your point of CONTEXT, we are NOT using a counter-attack strategy, we are doing the same as every other team, but failing to produce much when in the zone 5-on-5.

Now on to your "big picture." The big picture is players are saying Martin's system is too restrictive. That means he doesn't want much of anything done outside of his system. Therefore this dumping the puck out instead of passing, by the sheer frequency, is clearly a part of his plan. Bringing me back to my point the whole time, Martin is coaching a broken system (if it's counter-attack giving the puck away on purpose is against the strategy). if the coach is coaching a system thats broken, it does not work, clearly (11-11-7), then the coach has to go. You say he's doing an acceptable job, yet being out of the playoffs is not acceptable. See the problem here, need me to dumb it down for you some more?

You can call me a punk all you want, the truth is your hockey knowledge is truly not as refined as you believe it is. You've yet to make 1 valid point as to how Martin is doing a good job. You defend him blindly, with no reason. You can point out the forwards are underachieving, but why are they underachieving? You can point out the defensive core green, but why is it 2 of the 3 replacement defensemen are making strong cases to stay in the lineup? You point out our injured defensive core is hurting our powerplay, doesn't the power play unit have 5 members on each unit? Isn't 7 of the 10 power play players healthy? So by this information our powerplay should improve by 30% due to 3 of 10 players being changed. Why isn't Subban scoring on the powerplay?

Guess it wouldn't mean anything to you to tell you the power play strategy isn't working. Better players would results in a better powerplay, but not even close to what we are used to. Remember last year we used a rotating umbrella powerplay? This year it's a weird 1-3-1 or 1-2-2 or 2-1-2. It changes and none work. Would you believe me if I tell you Subban's biggest problem is the bulk of his PP goals came from top of the circle? This year he's firing from the blue line. Cammalleri was on fire last year in Kovelev's spot, opposite Subban, this year he's on the boards or in front of the net. These problems are COACHING DECISIONS, not player decisions.

The COACH is making bad decisions in strategy and the team's record is clearly reflecting it. So now you explain to me how bad coaching decisions isn't the coach's fault.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Wow, with Martin as coach, you don't need fans bringing you down. His presser for this past game made us out to be a struggling team learning our trade this season. Is that really where we're supposed to be? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? How can PG and Señor Molson not be stabbing their ears assuming they misheard?

Well, from JM's point of view, he's got a defence corps made up almost entirely of neophytes. Given the importance that he (like most coaches) places upon D, it stands to reason that he would indeed tend to see this team as fundamentally on a learning curve. This rather gets back to the question I asked in the 'Gauthier' thread: is this organization serious about trying to win now? Or is it just happy to be 'pretty good,' barring crazy runs of bad luck?

Turd Burgler and Commandant, it's time to tone it down. There are valid arguments against JM and valid arguments that he is doing a good job. The stridency that demonizes either side is unnecessary.

[Commandant]

Well, from JM's point of view, he's got a defence corps made up almost entirely of neophytes. Given the importance that he (like most coaches) places upon D, it stands to reason that he would indeed tend to see this team as fundamentally on a learning curve. This rather gets back to the question I asked in the 'Gauthier' thread: is this organization serious about trying to win now? Or is it just happy to be 'pretty good,' barring crazy runs of bad luck?

Turd Burgler and Commandant, it's time to tone it down. There are valid arguments against JM and valid arguments that he is doing a good job. The stridency that demonizes either side is unnecessary.

Agreed... I'm out on this one... I just want to talk hockey not get into discussions on name calling, so I'll just put him on ignore.

I can deal with valid arguments and differences of opinion... and 99% of the people I've encountered here are able to interact in that give and take discussion. I'm willing to listen to anyone who disagrees with me, just don't go telling me I'm an idiot because I disagree with you. It takes the enjoyment out of the discussion.

[BlueKross]

Commandant: I believe CC's message is for both the of you.

[Willey101]

Gonna update this post as the game progresses. I said I would count the bad shots and post it, gonna also count dump outs where a pass could have been made and resulting icings.

Bad shots: 4

Dump outs when pass could have been easily made: 10

Icings due to these dump outs: 2

1 bad shot not counted was St.Denis' goal, even bad shots can go in sometimes, but it was left out for arguments sake.

Don't quote this until after the game please.

Did you note notice that 2 of our goals were scored that way..simply directing the puck towards the net and then fighting for rebounds is how a good percentage of goals are scored. Last night was a typical habs game. Play well, dominate for good portions of the game but as soon as the opposition scores a goal then panic sets in, mistakes are made, we go into a shell and hope for the best.

This to me is not the coaching, this is the fragility of 4 of your 6 d-men being in their first or second season and unable to cope with the pressure of being an elite NHL d-man, yet learning.

I still want to see martin gone and replaced with a guy like Carlyle but last night was not on the coach. He kept his lines, he matched up Eller vs Sedin all night which worked in our favor, he utilized Leblanc appropriately, played his best players the most often, we simply lost to a better team because of PP is almost a deterrent for us right now because we are giving up quite a bit of short handed goals and the opposition is gaining momentum with big PK's.

[firejack]

Folks, to be frank...this is a team without a bonafide scoring threat up front, a decent defensive core and totally relies on goaltending to win games, if Price is anything less than spectacular, we usually struggle. Without Carey, we are in last place by a long shot. Go ahead and fire Martin, nothing changes.

[Commandant]

Commandant: I believe CC's message is for both the of you.

Which is fine... I'm done dealing with him.

I'm walking away at this point.

[Willey101]

Play nice boys.

[Colin]

Folks, to be frank...this is a team without a bonafide scoring threat up front, a decent defensive core and totally relies on goaltending to win games, if Price is anything less than spectacular, we usually struggle. Without Carey, we are in last place by a long shot. Go ahead and fire Martin, nothing changes.

Hi Frank! Welcome to the boards. I'm not sure I agree with.. much in your post. Cammalleri, Gionta, Cole, Patches, Kosty - all guys who have or will put up 25+ goals in a season. That's a *lot* of scoring threat across a few lines. Defensively, Montreal is one of the best teams 5v5, they just like to play the PP like it's nap time. Price has faced less shots this season than any other (I believe) to this stage. They're playing team defence - to the exclusion of ANY discernible offence.

[gern]

What a collapse yesterday. This coach makes them sit on leads and then they lose them anyway.

[BCHabnut]

Folks, to be frank...this is a team without a bonafide scoring threat up front, a decent defensive core and totally relies on goaltending to win games, if Price is anything less than spectacular, we usually struggle. Without Carey, we are in last place by a long shot. Go ahead and fire Martin, nothing changes.

I've been trying to say this for a while. I like a lot of the young players right now and a few of the vets, but it just isn't a great team. I think fifring Martin does nothing unless changes are made to the team as well.