Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
huzer

Building from the net out. Is that "old" thinking?

Recommended Posts

huzer    53

For years, we've heard GMs and hockey talking heads muse about building a team from the net out. Is that how the league really works now, though? We've got a great goalie, a solid top 4 (ok, we can debate if it's a top 3 or not). Where has that gotten the Habs? Even going back to Theodore, we've had a decent goalie between the pipes. Not goal scoring, that's for sure. I remember meeting with Pierre Lacroix during a preseason meet n greet many years ago, and he mentioned then that he was a proponent of building down the middle (easy to say when you've got Roy). Have the past few GMs for Montreal been so focused on net-out thinking, that they've simply missed the boat?

 

Of course, there are three teams that scored fewer goals than Montreal that qualified for the post season. Two of those three teams are still playing (Ottawa, Anaheim). Go figure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, huzer said:

For years, we've heard GMs and hockey talking heads muse about building a team from the net out. Is that how the league really works now, though? We've got a great goalie, a solid top 4 (ok, we can debate if it's a top 3 or not). Where has that gotten the Habs? Even going back to Theodore, we've had a decent goalie between the pipes. Not goal scoring, that's for sure. I remember meeting with Pierre Lacroix during a preseason meet n greet many years ago, and he mentioned then that he was a proponent of building down the middle (easy to say when you've got Roy). Have the past few GMs for Montreal been so focused on net-out thinking, that they've simply missed the boat?

 

Of course, there are three teams that scored fewer goals than Montreal that qualified for the post season. Two of those three teams are still playing (Ottawa, Anaheim). Go figure.

 

Nashville is built from the net out, so no, I don't think the model is inherently broken.

 

The problem that I do see with it is that experience clearly shows we can't count on Price out-goaltending the other guy for four straight series. This is NOT a knock on Price, more a comment on the fact that lots of goalies can get hot enough over a seven-game series to basically neutralize the 'Price advantage.' In short, no matter what your philosophy, you still have to have a team that is deep enough and has enough talent in all dimensions of the game that it can beat the opposition even when the net-minding is a saw-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ottawa: Anderson/Condon

Anaheim: Gibson/Bernier

Pittsburgh: Murray/Fleury

Nashville: Rinne/Saros

 

What do they have in common? If the starter goes down, the team isn't in panic mode.

 

There was a chance for that to be Montoya then Therrien had to break his confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
4 hours ago, huzer said:

 

Of course, there are three teams that scored fewer goals than Montreal that qualified for the post season. Two of those three teams are still playing (Ottawa, Anaheim). Go figure.

 

Don't let that distract you from the fact Montreal needed to score more in order to go on a deep run. 

 

 

4 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Nashville is built from the net out, so no, I don't think the model is inherently broken.

 

The problem that I do see with it is that experience clearly shows we can't count on Price out-goaltending the other guy for four straight series. This is NOT a knock on Price, more a comment on the fact that lots of goalies can get hot enough over a seven-game series to basically neutralize the 'Price advantage.' In short, no matter what your philosophy, you still have to have a team that is deep enough and has enough talent in all dimensions of the game that it can beat the opposition even when the net-minding is a saw-off.

 

I agree with this all of this. Sometimes a series comes down to who is hot at the right time, and often times that is a goaltender. At this point I think we can lock Price in as being a top level goalie during a series, but if the opposition's goalie gets hot, then it's moot. Another big factor in determining the outcome of a series is the match up. A team built from the goalie out may be better suited against a run and gun team for example, whereas if they match up against a similar opponent they might not. I think in the Rangers series both teams were similar in style but the difference was that Lundqvist played as good as he played all season. Otherwise I believe Montreal would have pulled out the win. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
habs rule    392

You simply should not expect your goalie to win the game every night. He should keep you in the game and give you a chance to get some goals. Carey does that in spades. Can we afford him? We will have to wait and see. I hope so but I am afraid that we can't at 10 mill/yr. 7.5 or 8 Yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to remember that Pittsburgh originally built from the net out. In 2003 they got the first overall pick by trading up with Florida. They could have taken Eric Staal. They took Marc-Andre Fleury. They were awful enough after that pick to take Malkin 2nd overall in 04, Crosby 1st overall (due to lottery) in 05, and flubbed up taking Jordan Staal instead of Jonathan Toews in 06.

 

(In 2002 they had 5th overall and took Ryan Whitney at defence.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely used to hear a lot more of the build from the net out mentality and even build down the middle mentality.

 

What is MB position? We are decent on the back end but I wouldn't call us strong. We all agree that we are piss poor down the middle. Considering the trades/signings he has made It looks like MB system is to build through general character and not from any particular skill based strength - be it back end or up front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
53 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

You definitely used to hear a lot more of the build from the net out mentality and even build down the middle mentality.

 

What is MB position? We are decent on the back end but I wouldn't call us strong. We all agree that we are piss poor down the middle. Considering the trades/signings he has made It looks like MB system is to build through general character and not from any particular skill based strength - be it back end or up front.

We have a goalie and a lot character 4th liners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134

I know I'm setting myself to get ripped by those who hate our team in every way but I don't feel as though Price has ever really played as well as he is capable of during the playoffs as he did during the regular season 2-3 years ago as well as during both his Olympic journeys. 

 

The reason I say I'm setting myself up is because the obvious reaction is that the Habs aren't as good on paper as team Canada. With that being said, I feel as though there's more to it than that.

 

It's a great argument to state that other goalies can counteract the Price effect in a 7 game series but on the other hand, I feel as though if you truly are the greatest, you should be able to rise above the enemy and play better than them at all costs. That's certainly the mental part of the game rather than the skillful part of the game and while I don't doubt him in any way, I will say as a coach (of a different sport) myself, hopefully Price has that innate mental edge. His skills are there but if other goalies are matching him, it's because of their mental compete level.

 

That's food for thought in and of itself but on topic, I don't think there's a set formula. If anything we could perhaps argue that goaltending in general is getting better and so there's quite a bit of parity in the position. If I were building a team, I'd have very little issue with my goalie being my best player. I'm personally comfortable with that. Is it only an old school way of thought? I don't see why it would be. The only negative I can think of is that your contract is likely to be high when they are a sure thing and so another team can luck out with a decent contract and more offensive power.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott462    54
14 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I know I'm setting myself to get ripped by those who hate our team in every way but I don't feel as though Price has ever really played as well as he is capable of during the playoffs as he did during the regular season 2-3 years ago as well as during both his Olympic journeys. 

 

The reason I say I'm setting myself up is because the obvious reaction is that the Habs aren't as good on paper as team Canada. With that being said, I feel as though there's more to it than that.

 

It's a great argument to state that other goalies can counteract the Price effect in a 7 game series but on the other hand, I feel as though if you truly are the greatest, you should be able to rise above the enemy and play better than them at all costs. That's certainly the mental part of the game rather than the skillful part of the game and while I don't doubt him in any way, I will say as a coach (of a different sport) myself, hopefully Price has that innate mental edge. His skills are there but if other goalies are matching him, it's because of their mental compete level.

 

That's food for thought in and of itself but on topic, I don't think there's a set formula. If anything we could perhaps argue that goaltending in general is getting better and so there's quite a bit of parity in the position. If I were building a team, I'd have very little issue with my goalie being my best player. I'm personally comfortable with that. Is it only an old school way of thought? I don't see why it would be. The only negative I can think of is that you're contract is likely to be high when they are a sure thing and so another team can luck out with a decent contract and more offensive power.

 

Good post dude.

 

I'm a huge Price fan. His series against Thomas was one of my favourite goaltending match ups when he really won me over.

 

I thought he could of been better and did get outgoaltended by Hank. Is the series his fault? Nope but it was a series defined by one goal and he made one less save than Hank. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606

He was a .933 goalie in this year's playoffs. 
 

He was also a .933 goalie in the season when he won the Hart, Lindsay, Vezina, and Jennings trophies. 

 

Goaltending was not the issue in the series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Commandant said:

He was a .933 goalie in this year's playoffs. 
 

He was also a .933 goalie in the season when he won the Hart, Lindsay, Vezina, and Jennings trophies. 

 

Goaltending was not the issue in the series. 

 

It was not the issue. I believe someone pointed out that Price would have needed a save % of something like .990 in order for the Habs to win.

 

The series does, I think, illustrate my argument earlier in this thread. No matter how good your goalie is, the odds are that the team will come across an opposition goalie who is playing as well as he is, over four series. Lundqvist was sublime against the Habs. Then he crashed against the Sens. He's not "better" than Price, he just had six great games against a team with a gutter-scraping offence.

 

So the answer is not to have a gutter-scraping offence. We can't proceed on the assumption that Price will pull a Roy and out-goaltend all comers over four series; heck, that may not be possible any more, in this era of 'scientific' goaltending and hyper-refined scouting. What we need is a team - not just a goalie - that is actually good enough to win the Cup. This mean having reliable offence from more than two guys and having a defence corps that is not thrown into chaos when Weber misses five minutes. Look at the injuries other teams are sustaining in this playoffs; does anyone think the Habs could go to the Finals without their #1 d-man (Pens) or win a series with their (ha ha haaa) top two C injured (Nashville)? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134

Where I differ from many is that I think Lundqvist is one of the other elite goalies in the league so New York is definitely another team who's team is built from the net out. Losing to the Rangers therefore doesn't really allow us to

conclude that our team has the wrong model.  We're not talking about Ben Bishop or Steve Mason. Lundqvist is the starting goalie for Sweden and while he had a rough start to the year, I think he deserves more credit than he gets. He had a rough series against the Senators as well but then again Price has never played particularly well against them

either. 

 

Price's .933 this season during the playoffs was great. It doesn't change the fact that his career .914 playoff save percentage is lower than his career .920 during the regular season. I would argue that the best player in the world

is supposed to raise his level in the crunch. It also doesn't compete with Price's .972 with team Canada. Canada's international team is a beast but Price is part of that beast. I think if Price plays up to his potential, we have a cup winner. Similar to Ovechkin, it hasn't happened yet. This year, in my opinion, he faced another team with a goalie who at the very least has the potential to be elite on any given night and came out on the losing end.

 

Put him up against 25 other teams in the league and he is supposed to outgoaltend the opponent's net in a 7 game series. The only reason this model is obsolete is if he is unable to do that.

 

Everyone agrees we need more offense but after all this my point is that I want Price on my team more than any other player in the league. There are plenty of other goalies who are capable of winning a cup but there are also plenty of offensive powerhouses who fail to

win the cup as well. 

 

In sum, I think we have the perfect model but need more offense. With that being said, while goaltending is not the issue, Price himself has not played up to standard during a playoff run to the extent that other teams could even claim that the Habs are only winning because of their goaltender. It's happened in the regular season but not he playoffs. It last happened with Halak.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606

We have to remember that Carey Price hasn't always been.... Carey Price, best goalie in the world. 

 

2008, 2009, he was really young, and struggled. 

2010 he lost the job to halak and when he did play struggled.

2011 he played well. 

2013 he sort of fell apart late in the season and at that point the Habs decided to hire Olivier Waite. 

 

I'd like to know what his playoff save percentage just for 2014, 2015, and 2017.  Those are the years after he was with Waite, after he went to the Olympics, basically after he took his game to the next level. 

 

Edit: He's a .922 over that span. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habsfan1989    4

Nashville is a great example of building from the net out.

 

they drafted a lot of good young dmen over the years that let them make trades for top forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
11 minutes ago, Habsfan1989 said:

Nashville is a great example of building from the net out.

 

they drafted a lot of good young dmen over the years that let them make trades for top forwards.

THere's a difference from building from the net out and relying solely on your goalie like we do.  Rinne has been terrific in the playoffs, but was average the past couple of years.  I also think it is too simplistic to say they have built from the net out.  They have drafted and developed elite men.  With their defence and forwards they can win with second tier goaltending (which is what Rinne has been during the last couple of regular seasons).  Overall, they are a much better managed team than we are and has a gm and coach that realize the type of game you have to play and the type of players needed to win in today's nhl.  We've got a gm who thinks its 1995.

 

 I'd much rather have the nashville model of having a skilled depth on offence and defence, rather than having the  best goalie in the league, two good defensemen, two offensive players and a bunch of grunts - which is what MB has built in the last 5 years.  Nashville turned a top defensive prospect into a young top centre.  We turned a top defensive prospect (McDonough) into a washed out over-paid bum.  Their GM doesn't make stupid excused of how hard it is to make a trade.  He picked up Forsberg for an aging forward.  We hung on to Pleks when we should have been looking for prospects.  They traded their leader and captain for a more dynamic younger Norris winner.  We traded our most dynamic norris winner who has 10 years ahead of him for a declining player that is probably has another 4 good years ahead of him.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

THere's a difference from building from the net out and relying solely on your goalie like we do.  Rinne has been terrific in the playoffs, but was average the past couple of years.  I also think it is too simplistic to say they have built from the net out.  They have drafted and developed elite men.  With their defence and forwards they can win with second tier goaltending (which is what Rinne has been during the last couple of regular seasons).  Overall, they are a much better managed team than we are and has a gm and coach that realize the type of game you have to play and the type of players needed to win in today's nhl.  We've got a gm who thinks its 1995.

 

 I'd much rather have the nashville model of having a skilled depth on offence and defence, rather than having the  best goalie in the league, two good defensemen, two offensive players and a bunch of grunts - which is what MB has built in the last 5 years.  Nashville turned a top defensive prospect into a young top centre.  We turned a top defensive prospect (McDonough) into a washed out over-paid bum.  Their GM doesn't make stupid excused of how hard it is to make a trade.  He picked up Forsberg for an aging forward.  We hung on to Pleks when we should have been looking for prospects.  They traded their leader and captain for a more dynamic younger Norris winner.  We traded our most dynamic norris winner who has 10 years ahead of him for a declining player that is probably has another 4 good years ahead of him.

 

 

Kinda the difference between a forward-looking, proactive GM and a reactionary one. Nashville is the perfect counterpoint to the Habs, a team that had similar strengths and weaknesses and actually addressed the latter. Imagine that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PMAC    81

It might be good for those still bashing Bergevin and now holding up Poile as a model GM to note that he didn't win ( no Cup in 15 years) with Washington and that he has been building Nashville for 19 years. Yes, it was an expansion team, but re-building a depleted system also takes years and unfortunately, for everyone involved, player development is not linear.

 

Again, this doesn't mean I am viewing Bergevin's work through rose-coloured glasses. For example, Poile traded a young, stud Dman (Seth Jones) and got a #1 centre (Johanson). MTL traded a young, stud Dman  (PK) and got an older, stud Dman(Weber). The problem being we had a bigger hole at centre than Nashville. I would have been ecstatic at the PK deal if we had gotten a high end forward or even an outstanding prospect as part of the package.

 

My point is that while Bergevin has his flaws it takes a significant amount of time to build a winner and at this point more change likely = even more years of futility.

 

That said, if we don't have a new #1, and hopefully #2, centre by the start of next season my opinion will change. Bergevin' legacy will not be determined just by the PK trade, but also by what he does-or does not do - this summer.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott462    54

Polie has been the GM of Nashville for almost two decades and hasn't won squat. MB has been GM of the Habs for four years lol...

 

I'm happy for Nashville but this is silly.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KoRP    154
1 hour ago, PMAC said:

It might be good for those still bashing Bergevin and now holding up Poile as a model GM to note that he didn't win ( no Cup in 15 years) with Washington and that he has been building Nashville for 19 years. Yes, it was an expansion team, but re-building a depleted system also takes years and unfortunately, for everyone involved, player development is not linear.

 

Again, this doesn't mean I am viewing Bergevin's work through rose-coloured glasses. For example, Poile traded a young, stud Dman (Seth Jones) and got a #1 centre (Johanson). MTL traded a young, stud Dman  (PK) and got an older, stud Dman(Weber). The problem being we had a bigger hole at centre than Nashville. I would have been ecstatic at the PK deal if we had gotten a high end forward or even an outstanding prospect as part of the package.

 

My point is that while Bergevin has his flaws it takes a significant amount of time to build a winner and at this point more change likely = even more years of futility.

 

That said, if we don't have a new #1, and hopefully #2, centre by the start of next season my opinion will change. Bergevin' legacy will not be determined just by the PK trade, but also by what he does-or does not do - this summer.

 

1 hour ago, Scott462 said:

Polie has been the GM of Nashville for almost two decades and hasn't won squat. MB has been GM of the Habs for four years lol...

 

I'm happy for Nashville but this is silly.

Wow, good, sensible posts guys, kudos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott462 said:

Polie has been the GM of Nashville for almost two decades and hasn't won squat. MB has been GM of the Habs for four years lol...

 

I'm happy for Nashville but this is silly.

I didn't know Montreal was an expansion team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
52 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

I didn't know Montreal was an expansion team.

Or a team that has spent almost entire existence constrained by a budget.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134

I'll say it out loud because I can't wait until they don't win the cup. You guys can then be happy about their final appearance and think about it for years because it will always be a fact that they got further with Subban than Weber. It's true that we'll never be able to take that away from you. That is, until the Habs win the cup with Weber. :habslogo::gohabsgo:

 

If Nashville does win the cup, however, they will have deserved all the credit in the world. Especially if they play Pittsburgh and manage to win. There were a couple of sequences in Round 1 against Chicago where they had incredible spurts of dominance and during those spurts, they looked better than any team I've seen these playoffs. I still am hard pressed to envision them beating Malkin and Crosby though and while I believe they would handle Ottawa in a final, I see Pittsburgh taking Nashville in 6 if that's the matchup that occurs. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stogey24    233
43 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I'll say it out loud because I can't wait until they don't win the cup. You guys can then be happy about their final appearance and think about it for years because it will always be a fact that they got further with Subban than Weber. It's true that we'll never be able to take that away from you. That is, until the Habs win the cup with Weber. :habslogo::gohabsgo:

 

If Nashville does win the cup, however, they will have deserved all the credit in the world. Especially if they play Pittsburgh and manage to win. There were a couple of sequences in Round 1 against Chicago where they had incredible spurts of dominance and during those spurts, they looked better than any team I've seen these playoffs. I still am hard pressed to envision them beating Malkin and Crosby though and while I believe they would handle Ottawa in a final, I see Pittsburgh taking Nashville in 6 if that's the matchup that occurs. 

You can't wait until they don't win a Cup just to spite Subban basically 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134
14 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

You can't wait until they don't win a Cup just to spite Subban basically 

 

You have it backwards. I don't give a damn about Subban, win or lose, but we're on a Habs website and people take joy in seeing another team succeed all the while actually criticizing our player and boasting about our team's misfortunes. I don't hate Subban but I dislike Nashville. I also do not like Ottawa, Pittsburgh or Anaheim and I live right on the border of Orange County and Long Beach in California. I've said nothing about Subban and I don't see why I would. He's been a piece of the puzzle. On the other hand people have been literally mocking Weber's leadership or trying to diminish its importance when that has nothing to do with Nashville's success this year.

 

Those are are the trolls, not me.

 

By the way, I wasn't the one who gave you a down vote the other day when you responded to something I said. I actually agreed with you for the most part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×