Detroit vs Montreal 7:30pm

[THE Bobby Orr]

1 minute ago, DON said:

I just don't get why playing wing is seen as a demotion or something? Pacioretty and Radulov don't play centre and everyone is good with that. Why do we have to force a square peg in a round hole?

 

its not a demotion...its a promotion...keeping him at C is a demotion. why? because he's currently a #3 C behind Danault and Plex.  As a winger, he's top 6 forward

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

12 minutes ago, THE Bobby Orr said:

are you saying we win the cup with Chucky as #1 C?????  ok whatever.  let's stop this discussion 

 

All I'm saying is that, at face value, it's more believable that we win a Cup with a guy who is close to being a PPG C than with 40-point and 30-point guys in that role. This seems self-evident.

 

My guess is that Julien has a lot of faith in Plekanec. After all, Plekanec burned his Bruins team over and over, for years. And I'll concede that it's not unheard-of for a washed-up, over-the-hill player to recover their lost game for a temporary span (e.g., Trevor Linden led the Canucks in playoff scoring at the very end of his career when he was running on fumes). So maybe Pleks can get hot for a spell, before reverting to what he really is, which is a broken-down machine. Who knows.

 

I see a declaration that Galy is not a C as tantamount to declaring that this team is nowhere near being a contender. Find me ANY Cup-winner - hell, any Cup finalist - that had top C as pathetic as the Plekanec of 2017 and Danault. And before people jump down my throat, I always loved and defended Pleks's game, before he became a rusty old tractor, and I think Danault is a good hockey player. It's not about slagging them, it's about stating the obvious.

 

Now you guys may well be right, Galy is not a C. But if C is as important as conventional wisdom says it is, then that basically means the MB rebuild is a failure. Apart from the patch-up job at LD, we are two top-6 C shy of a contending team. Good luck fixing that, especially within the approximately 3-year window that this core has left.

 

 

 

 

 

[THE Bobby Orr]

9 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

All I'm saying is that, at face value, it's more believable that we win a Cup with a guy who is close to being a PPG C than with 40-point and 30-point guys in that role. This seems self-evident.

 

My guess is that Julien has a lot of faith in Plekanec. After all, Plekanec burned his Bruins team over and over, for years. And I'll concede that it's not unheard-of for a washed-up, over-the-hill player to recover their lost game for a temporary span (e.g., Trevor Linden led the Canucks in playoff scoring at the very end of his career when he was running on fumes). So maybe Pleks can get hot for a spell, before reverting to what he really is, which is a broken-down machine. Who knows.

 

I see a declaration that Galy is not a C as tantamount to declaring that this team is nowhere near being a contender. Find me ANY Cup-winner - hell, any Cup finalist - that had top C as pathetic as the Plekanec of 2017 and Danault. And before people jump down my throat, I always loved and defended Pleks's game, before he became a rusty old tractor, and I think Danault is a good hockey player. It's not about slagging them, it's about stating the obvious.

 

Now you guys may well be right, Galy is not a C. But if C is as important as conventional wisdom says it is, then that basically means the MB rebuild is a failure. Apart from the patch-up job at LD, we are two top-6 C shy of a contending team. Good luck fixing that.

 

 

 

 

 

well... i don't know if MB's rebuild attempt is a failure (i will let history be the judge)...but his inability to land a #1 C, is arguably, an on-going issue for MB.  

 

I agree with you that Danault is not the answer BUT, as of right now, he is a better option than #27. Hell i would go as far as experimenting with Shaw - and/or "fill in the blank" at C - than have Chucky there...rather, let Chuck loose to score with his wonderful one-timer from the top of the circle...

 

btw, I thought MT was an idiot..but even he saw that Chuck wasn't a C.  CJ is no idiot...i trust this coach, and he is calling it as "he sees it on the ice" (his words) rather than some pretend scenario where #27 will suddenly become a C before the playoffs, much less a #1 C...

 

Reality Bites (a great movie btw)...  

 

 

 

 

[JoeLassister]

15 minutes ago, THE Bobby Orr said:

well... i don't know if MB's rebuild attempt is a failure (i will let history be the judge)...but his inability to land a #1 C, is arguably, an on-going issue for MB.  

 

I agree with you that Danault is not the answer BUT, as of right now, he is a better option than #27. Hell i would go as far as experimenting with Shaw - and/or "fill in the blank" at C - than have Chucky there...rather, let Chuck loose to score with his wonderful one-timer from the top of the circle...

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this  is that he does it from right circle.  It's much more difficult to get there when you play LW than when you play C.  If you do reach that spot on the ice, you better make sure that, for some reason, the RW is now playing LW during the shift... You won't see that one timer happen with Chucky on LW.

[THE Bobby Orr]

2 minutes ago, JoeLassister said:

The problem with this  is that he does it from right circle.  It's much more difficult to get there when you play LW than when you play C.  If you do reach that spot on the ice, you better make sure that, for some reason, the RW is now playing LW during the shift... You won't see that one timer happen with Chucky on LW.

So true ^. I figure CJ and Captain Kirk must know this by now...(not sure what the solution is...not as easy to solve as one might think).  But i also see Chucky playing winger on the first line PP...the one-timer could be there if the PP is organized with that in mind.  The PP would have 3 top options.  Weber, Max and Chucky...that would certainly create space and unclog the shooting lanes...

[Commandant]

2 hours ago, DON said:

I just don't get why playing wing is seen as a demotion or something? Pacioretty and Radulov don't play centre and everyone is good with that. Why do we have to force a square peg in a round hole?

 

 

Maybe cause he scores more points as a centre and has better possession numbers as a centre than he had on the wing.  Maybe its because putting the square peg into the round hole is actually moving him to wing. 

[Commandant]

1 hour ago, THE Bobby Orr said:

its not a demotion...its a promotion...keeping him at C is a demotion. why? because he's currently a #3 C behind Danault and Plex.  As a winger, he's top 6 forward

 

12 points in the last 15 games at C.

 

Neither Danault or Plekanec is anywhere close to that, so how the hell is he 3rd in that pair?

 

Also plenty of assists there, so how does he have no vision. 15 goals 25 assists on the season. In fact (and this is including junior) he has more assists than goals in every season except 2015-16... so how the hell do you get the conclusion he has no vision?

 

Numbers don't lie, they show your analysis of the guy is way off though. 

[Commandant]

I have a feeling that just like his last move to the wing, this is going to be short lived.  

 

This is Julien teaching him a lesson about defensive responsibility and he'll be back in at centre well before the playoffs start. 

 

That doesn't mean he'll be playing with Radulov and Max though, cause i do think there is merit to not having all three on one line. 

[BCHabnut]

Totally agree Commandant. His production at centre speaks for itself. His numbers are first line C numbers. His production at wing was poor. I think him Radu and Pacioretty compliment each other very well. I really hope that's the way it ends up. How can you be a dangerous first line with danault as your number 1?

[THE Bobby Orr]

you don;t see it as a problem that after 4 years, and now 2 coaches (albeit the first was hardly a coach), he still needs to "learn a lesson."..not to mention many ppl still having very real doubts about this guy.  I won't argue his 'vision' with you. you have numbers... i have eyes.  

 

I sincerely hope you are right about this player...i really do.

 

Just so you know, i kept blaming MT (and still do) for Chucky's lack of development at C.  Unfortunately MT is the cause of many issues not limited to #27...PK is gone because of that wingnut...and we would need an entire thread to list his mistakes...        

[THE Bobby Orr]

11 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

Totally agree Commandant. His production at centre speaks for itself. His numbers are first line C numbers. His production at wing was poor. I think him Radu and Pacioretty compliment each other very well. I really hope that's the way it ends up. How can you be a dangerous first line with danault as your number 1?

 

You're making the point that we need a #1C.  to answer your question - that line is more dangerous with Danault at center than with Galchenyuk...and by a country mile.  That does not mean Danault is a #1C.  

 

You make a very good point re. his numbers as a winger ...but that is because (as a winger) he needs what every goal-scoring wingers need; namely a #1C.   This is a circular argument. Whether you like #27 at C or not...it doesn't change the fact that this team needs a #1C. Period.  

 

  

[BCHabnut]

I like teams to be balanced and players put in positions they are most likely to succeed. Chucky has not succeeded as a winger but he has as a centre. 7 points in his last 10 games. 12 points in his last 15. He is a first liner. Could argue he could moved to second line centre as well to balance scoring, but over 4 seasons, recent evidence (the last season and a half,  when he was full time centre)  suggests that he performs at a higher level offensively when he is playing centre. As for first line woes, Radulov seems to be slowing down as well. Hopefully he's not conditioned to the khl schedule and is out of gas. 

[Commandant]

No I don't think its a huge problem that a 22-year-old who is basically playing his first full year at centre still has lessons to learn. 

[dlbalr]

8 hours ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

you know who looks better and better each passing game heading towards the playoffs? Andrew Shaw!

 

He's one of the players who has looked a lot better in general since the coaching change.  He's focusing less on being a pest/agitator and more on attacking offensively and the end result is a much better player.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Yes, Shaw has looked like a completely new man - and a man worth every nickel of his contract. He is a dynamo. Great to see.

 

On Galchenyuk, I actually agree that, for all the points he picks up, he tends to look somewhat invisible on a lot of shifts. The thing is, some players are just like that - quiet much of the night, then suddenly they kill you. For much of his career, Vincent Lecavalier was similar in this respect. My guess is that that's the kind of offensive producer Galy is going to be, a guy who makes that one good play (a great pass, a great shot) that results in a goal, while also kinda lurking in the weeds for extended periods. I hate players like that on opposing teams, incidentally; you always feel like they don't deserve the success they're having against you. But I'm happy to have a PPG guy on the Habs, thanks.

[Commandant]

1 hour ago, BCHabnut said:

Totally agree Commandant. His production at centre speaks for itself. His numbers are first line C numbers. His production at wing was poor. I think him Radu and Pacioretty compliment each other very well. I really hope that's the way it ends up. How can you be a dangerous first line with danault as your number 1?

 

Joe brings up a very good point.  Playing him at LW makes it harder for him to get to the right circle for the one-timer.  This is why his production goes way up whend he is in the middle of the ice. 

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I don't have an issue with Galchenyuk separated from Pacioretty or Radulov. He doesn't have to be on a stacked top line. This team kept Koivu and Kovalev separate. Pacioretty recently mentioned that when the three play together there's issues because they all want to have the puck. Reminds me of why Kessel didn't work well with Crosby or Malkin but on his own third line he's fantastic.

 

The problem is that the team doesn't have someone to really play there if Chuck isn't there. Danault really isn't suited for it. Plekanec used to be. Desharnais hasn't been for years and now he's gone. 

 

This has nothing to do with Galchenyuk to be honest. It's okay to have a one way offensive centre who wants the puck. It just seems like an issue when the best two wingers also always want the puck. In that situation you need a 1A/1B situation:

 

Galchenyuk with two wingers who help feed him the puck

Pass first centre with Patches/Radu

 

Or

 

Galchenyuk with Patches or Radulov

Patches or Radulov with another winger and a pass first centre

 

Or (if this team was great)

 

LW/Chuck/RW

Pacioretty/C/RW

LW/C/Radulov

 

People saying he should go back to the wing, you are just overreacting to the clear situation. Again, the Penguins brought in Kessel and he didn't work with either of their best centres. They didn't trade him. They didn't move him to the left wing. They put him on the third line with a centre that worked for him and won a Cup with three dangerous lines.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

28 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

I don't have an issue with Galchenyuk separated from Pacioretty or Radulov. He doesn't have to be on a stacked top line. This team kept Koivu and Kovalev separate. Pacioretty recently mentioned that when the three play together there's issues because they all want to have the puck. Reminds me of why Kessel didn't work well with Crosby or Malkin but on his own third line he's fantastic.

 

The problem is that the team doesn't have someone to really play there if Chuck isn't there. Danault really isn't suited for it. Plekanec used to be. Desharnais hasn't been for years and now he's gone. 

 

This has nothing to do with Galchenyuk to be honest. It's okay to have a one way offensive centre who wants the puck. It just seems like an issue when the best two wingers also always want the puck. In that situation you need a 1A/1B situation:

 

Galchenyuk with two wingers who help feed him the puck

Pass first centre with Patches/Radu

 

Or

 

Galchenyuk with Patches or Radulov

Patches or Radulov with another winger and a pass first centre

 

Or (if this team was great)

 

LW/Chuck/RW

Pacioretty/C/RW

LW/C/Radulov

 

People saying he should go back to the wing, you are just overreacting to the clear situation. Again, the Penguins brought in Kessel and he didn't work with either of their best centres. They didn't trade him. They didn't move him to the left wing. They put him on the third line with a centre that worked for him and won a Cup with three dangerous lines.

 

Terrific post!

[DON]

2 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

. As for first line woes, Radulov seems to be slowing down as well. Hopefully he's not conditioned to the khl schedule and is out of gas. 

He likely is conditioned to KHL as Lehkonen is to the SHL. Just got to hope the last couple games of schedule are meaningless and Julien can rotate both d and forwards...and maybe give Markov, Emelin, Radulov, Galchenyuk the last couple games off and send them to the Masters to wander around, have a G&T or two and cheer on Hadwin for couple days. 

[Commandant]

2 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

I like teams to be balanced and players put in positions they are most likely to succeed. Chucky has not succeeded as a winger but he has as a centre. 7 points in his last 10 games. 12 points in his last 15. He is a first liner. Could argue he could moved to second line centre as well to balance scoring, but over 4 seasons, recent evidence (the last season and a half,  when he was full time centre)  suggests that he performs at a higher level offensively when he is playing centre. As for first line woes, Radulov seems to be slowing down as well. Hopefully he's not conditioned to the khl schedule and is out of gas. 

 

I think Radulov is not 100%... remember he's missed time with his LBI. 

[DON]

Say what you want about Ott, he may help in playoffs and I thought this was funny bit from Cowen's piece on Ott:

 "Before Ott played for Team Canada at the world junior championship, he learned to swear in the languages of all the teams he would play against so he could really get under the opposition’s skin."

 

[Guest Stogey24]

21 minutes ago, DON said:

Say what you want about Ott, he may help in playoffs and I thought this was funny bit from Cowen's piece on Ott:

 "Before Ott played for Team Canada at the world junior championship, he learned to swear in the languages of all the teams he would play against so he could really get under the opposition’s skin."

 

Did you see him chirpin Kassain on the bench. I was howling. Half the bench was too. 

 

Julien had a ton of good things to say about him

 

Weber said in an interview he was probably the most annoying player in the league to play against t

[JoeLassister]

14 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Joe brings up a very good point.  Playing him at LW makes it harder for him to get to the right circle for the one-timer.  This is why his production goes way up whend he is in the middle of the ice. 

Now, if they want to try the Ovechkin way with Chucky, I'd not be against that.

 

Pax - Danault - Radu

Lehkonen - Shaw - Chucky

Byron - Plekanec - Gallagher

 

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I'll take it all back if Montreal wins the Cup on, "We are the most annoying team in the playoffs you'll just give up so you don't have to hear is chirp" but until that happens I think this strategy is weak.

 

Talk is cheap when you can't score goals.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

I'll take it all back if Montreal wins the Cup on, "We are the most annoying team in the playoffs you'll just give up so you don't have to hear is chirp" but until that happens I think this strategy is weak.

 

Talk is cheap when you can't score goals.

 

I don't think being agitating hurts us, any more than I think adding size and toughness hurts us. These are perfectly fine tweaks in themselves. But as you and Commandant rightly say, they don't address the structural weaknesses of this team: the lack of a #2 or #1a C, a lack of puck-moving defencemen - two weaknesses which go a long way to explaining our offensive woes - and a general weakness at LD. To win the Cup this team needs every single thing to go right; which is why it's still exactly where it was in 2014, i.e., the outer rather than inner circle of contenders. Looking at the big picture, the Bergevin era has basically been treading water since 2013-14.