xXx..CK..xXx

I agree. I personally like Galchenyuk at center but everyone always mentions how’s hes a PPG player at the position as though he would actually sustain that level over a longer period of time. I don’t see his production being more than 5 points different as a result of his position. Galchenyuk can be a 60-70 point player who may have one or two seasons in his entire career where he surpasses that.

I agree we’ll take Zadina.

And yet he’s the one focused on keeping the 3rd overall pick.

Is it Swedish based or Scandinavian... or something else? Is he not Norwegian?

I thought the same thing but some places do have him listed as a LW. https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/236471/filip-zadina

I’d have a lot of fun watching Gallagher, Price, Weber and Galchenyuk win one.

It’s a thought that has crossed all of our minds but it’s also dangerous to immediately state that Zadina is a replacement for Pacioretty. In a few years, that line of thinking could be destructive to the franchise if bold moves are made as a result of that thought. I also understand that time can prove me wrong but I don’t agree that the writing is on the wall in terms of Pacioretty being gone. I still think the best course at this point is to keep him until at least the deadline. At that point, it’s true that the organization may find itself with a difficult situation if we ice a competitive team this year but if we’re competitive I also look to get him on an extension.

He has to be a bust for us to clearly state that picking Zadina was a mistake instead of Hughes. It’s not about winger vs defenseman. It’s about the fact you won’t be able to compare their statistics due to a difference in position. If Hughes is a top 4 and Zadina is a top 6, it’s fine. If Hughes is a top pair and Zadina is a top 9, then Hughes should have been picked. You keep stating that lists can be wrong but that completely ignores the fact how often they are accurate and it’s also just because of your personal view on the topic. My point is that I doubt the Habs have Hughes as their 3rd pick, simple as that. I also think Zadina is the right choice at 3. Time will tell who they pick. Time will tell how the players pan out.

I’ve seen Hughes. But I’m basing it more on the fact that Zadina is a consensus 3/4 in over 50 places whereas Hughes has that potential on 2 out of the same 50 opinions. What makes us think the Habs scouting team’s view line up with those 4%? I have a good feeling about Zadina and there’s also nothing really wrong with me agreeing with the “experts”. The only thing I can wrap my head around is that Hughes could potentially end up better than Zadina down the line. But considering one is a defenseman and the other is a forward, Zadina is going to have to turn out to be a complete bust for that to be the case. I think Svechnikov is going to be another Ovechkin or Laine and we have the potential to pick the very next best forward. I see Zadina as being a little slow but I appreciate goal scorers with his release (and vision) just as much as you appreciate mobile defensemen with speed.

As for my opinion that Hughes is only in the discussion because of our need, I mean that Dobson and Boqvist would be rumored to be options for the Habs if we were actually thinking of acquiring a defenseman and they weren’t right handed shots. Hughes is obviously going to be a good player but I don’t take comfort in the combination of him not being as highly touted as Zadina with the fact that he just so happens to be a left handed shot defender. People will likely salivate at that thought because of our issues of mobility on defense, but the Habs have the 3rd pick.

I’m basing it on what I’ve seen from Zadina as well as the fact that Hughes isn’t even the best defenseman on many people’s lists. I haven’t seen Hughes enough but the point is that considering he’s outside the top 6 on almost every guesstimate, as well as outside of the top 10 on some, I don’t see why Montreal’s scouting team’s vision would actually line up with Hughes being the best player available any more than Zadina, Tkachuk or even some others in the bunch as well. The only reason I’ve seen is that you’ve noticed that he may actually be better than Zadina but I think what’s actually happening is that you are under-appreciating Zadina. “He’s only a little better than 4-7.” That’s still better. Zadina is an average skater, agreed, but I think he deserves to be picked 3rd overall.

Hughes is only in the conversation because of our need at left d. That’s not a wonderful reason for starting the conversation about drafting him. I haven’t even seen it as a consensus that he is the best defenseman available, period, let alone the 3rd overall pick. Zadina and Tkachuk are in the conversation because they are generally viewed as the consensus 3rd and 4th picks. It’s like we’re saying “Shucks, Zadina isn’t as good as Svechnikov. Let’s look elsewhere.” I fully accept that if someone else was on our radar, we should try to extract value from that pick and drop down. What I don’t envision is that we will drop down, nor that someone else should be on our radar.

It’s not as close as people on here are saying. I mean no disrespect to anyone but illWill is basing some of his perception of Zadina on one live match of his, where even though he scored, it was an ugly garbage goal, and while other people are stating that it’s close at the 3 slot, Hughes isn’t close to Zadina on many lists. IF two players are neck and neck, then you go by positional need but Hughes and Zadina are not. I’m fairly confident we are going to pick Zadina so I won’t argue this topic too much anymore because with differences of opinion, we’ll have to wait and see. As for the tanking card, it’s amazing that people were begging for the tank all season and now that we got got one of the coveted top 3 spots, we’re unsure if we want to pick one of the consensus top 3. I’ve never been a tanker but after having witnessed a season that can’t get much worse, I know I never will be with how people are wanting to draft someone projected as low as 9 on some lists in the top 3. Our most important positional need shouldn’t be acquired at the draft because by the time they are in their prime, our positional needs will be different.

While I'm no expert on the topic, I've personally wanted either Zadina or Tkachuk from the get-go. I've constantly seen Tkachuk bashed on here so I've calmed down on him, even though I've actually liked what I've seen from him (and not just his character and leadership). I think he has some nice size and can score some important goals in the future as well. With that being said, players like Hughes have shown up as far down as 6,7,8 or 9 on some lists while Zadina hasn't seen anything more than maybe a 4-6 at worst, but generally it has been 3. I do understand that when it's close, a professional scouting team may have someone unexpected in a slot that generally has a consensus but I do think there is that separation between 3 and 4 right now, even if it is less than the difference between 2 and 3. I also can see someone drafted later ending up being better than Zadina, but I'd still feel comfortable with choosing him and I think he's going to develop into a very solid player on this league.

That's just cherry picking considering Subban and Weber were traded the same day as Hall as well as the fact that the Duchenes of the world have happened. Not to mention that no one from the organization has confirmed that we are trying to trade Pacioretty. Yes, I'm fully aware that they wouldn't likely say it, but that doesn't mean I have to believe the opposite, that they are. I look at it the other way and think that the same reason we should draft Zadina is a similar reason I would want to keep Pacioretty. They are finishers. We keep hearing that Zadina is only slightly better than 4 but that in and of itself is no reason to actually go off the board and pick someone who is "only slightly" worse. Zadina may not turn out to be the 3rd best overall pick in the draft come 5 years down the line, but you only skip over him if that's something you're sure of. I still like the Zadina pick at 3.

I think Zadina is stating the obvious. He’s a young kid who doesn’t understand how the draft system works. Similar to the manner in which some people suggest on here that we should draft a center in the draft, regardless of talent and best player available, Zadina is saying that the Habs are looking for a center or left hand defenseman. He is overlooking that team’s should draft the best player available regardless of position. Anyone who follow the NHL knows the Habs need a centerman and left hand defenseman. That has no connection with who the Habs will actually pick; it’s just stating the obvious.

Other notable players born in Pardubice, Czech Republic include: Dominik Hasek.... Jan Bulis.... Ales Hemsky.... A few of the older generation of Sykoras...: Tomas Nosek... Dominik Hasek deserves another mention.... Let’s draft Zadina

I don’t see Bergevin extending him at all prior to the season but if he does extend him, I’m also not convinced it would be for the sake of trading him. One of those situations where only time will tell.

So there goes the argument that I was assuming Pacioretty would resign with us and that the fact that he probably wouldn’t, should be one of the main reasons we consider trading him. I don’t know how it works with no trade clauses but if I’m Pacioretty and signing an extension with the Habs rather than testing out free agency in a year, I’m adding a pretty heft no trade clause to my contract.

Smith Pelly’s turning out to be quite the clutch playoff goal scorer. Unfortunate that his worst playoff was with us.

The Shaw comparison to Eller should be moot considering Danault was supposed to be the one to fill Eller’s role. As for Ott, Martinsen, King et al., we’re complaining about Bergevin having picked up those players as opposed to having done nothing. That was a terrible trade deadline and yet people still harp on it. As though Stafford, Vrbata or Eaves would have made such a huge difference on our team. As for Martinsen for Andrighetto... I remember being one of the few, if not the only one, sad to see him go. There were basically no comments stating that it was a terrible move. When Alzner was signed, I wasn’t pleased. But I did acknowledge that he was basically the most sought after free agent draft pick. When we signed him, we had people who are now complaining about him, discuss how Weber and Alzner could be one of the elite shut down pairs. I sincerely never bought into that myself, but a lot of this complaining is revisionist, as well as expecting the impossible. I didn’t love Sergachev for Drouin as well, just so peole don’t think I like everything that happens... but then again most people once again did like that move.

I was fine with the interview as well. I’d like to keep our pick at 3rd overall. After all that suffering.

I don’t buy in to the concept that Washington is overtly clutch this year but I have bought into the fact that Ovechkin has been a shadow of Crosby over the years, despite having talent around him and being ridiculously talented himself. People always claim Ovechkin doesn’t have a Malkin and it’s true, but he does have a Backstrom, and has had players of talent on the team. It’s too early to claim that Washington and their leadership is any different than it ever has been. Despite myself having chosen them to win this final series, they still have yet to accomplish the ultimate goal and so it’s too early to claim anything is different within their leadership core. Losing to Vegas would be something. Joe Thornton is also know has a “playoff bust” and he has dominated the playoffs throughout his career outside of one season in Boston where he had 0 points in 7 games. I never said I agree that he is indeed a playoff choker on a personal level himself. The San Jose Sharks have been, as well the Washington Capitals. As you listed, there are many important moments. Some are macro-level and others are micro-level. The entire playoffs are more important than the final game of the season, in most instances. The second round is more important than the first. The difference gets amplified once you reach the semi finals and Stanley cup final, because there are many players who rarely “get there”. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people love having players like Chris Kunitz on their team. It’s also no coincidence that Crosby and Toews/Kane win multiple Cups.. Commandant’s argument that NHL pros “have been there before” is invalid when you take into consideration that some NHL players rarely go on deep runs in the Stanley Cup playoffs. Ever hear the expression “I feel like a kid again”? It’s not hard to imagine the excitement of a player who reaches the Stanley Cup final for the first time in his 10 year career. Lars Eller has had some great success this year in the playoffs and also has some of the most experience on their team after having been to the conference final with the Habs. Why can’t clutch be learned? Marc Andre Fleury has not been a choker for a long time. He used to be and then he had flashes of the opposite. Last year he got replaced by Murray but that’s a situation akin to having Schneider and Luongo on the same team

I've read many of the same articles which strongly suggest that clutch is a myth. Apparently some have adopted it as the ultimate proof that it's actually true regardless of what anyone has to say on the topic. Being the coach of a generally individual sport myself has made it impossible for me to accept that this is true even in team sports. We've seen the argument which essentially states that every player in the NHL should be clutch by now because they have played the sport their entire life and they are professionals. On the other hand, in a sport like golf or tennis, it is in fact the skill level that is there for these professionals because they have played the sport their entire life. The difference between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick is their mental strength during the biggest moments. One can say that Federer is just better than Andy, but place them in a meaningless environment just hitting back and forth to 15 points and Roddick will proceed to beat Federer roughly 50% of the time. The skill level between 1st in the world and 10th in the world is not huge. The difference comes in how one handles their emotions. Trust me when I say that every top 10 tennis player can serve, hit a forehand, hit a backhand etc. just as well as one another. The difference is far from purely skill, and more like 50%/50%. Mental strength, as well as weakness, is a huge attribute in individual sport and cannot be dismissed just because the individual has teammates. If one's mindstate is 50% important in individual sports, let it be 10% important in a team sport. That's fine. But to say clutch is a myth, is wrong. The definition of clutch itself is very vague as well. The assumption is that to be clutch, 1) a player has to raise their level during a big moment.... but it could also be 2) an ability to simply outperform the opponent on a consistent basis during important moments (rather than one's self) In hockey, this can be just as much outperforming the line you are matched up against series after series, on a consistent basis. This won't necessarily show up in the stastistics or even in the outcome of the game.

Skill and intelligence are components of clutch as well, in addition to triumph of will. I believe that someone who can anticipate plays early and think on a higher level will have a better chance of developing into a clutch performer. I also believe that the skill has to be there as well. Clutch is mainly a mental state though and this triumph of will is certainly a component. There are certainly players of the exact same skill level who perform differently under the same environment. One keeps arguing that skill is a synonym for clutch but this overlooks the extremely skilled players who never get it done individually during the most important games (again there is a team element), as well as the less skilled who perform above expectation, over an extended period of time.