REV-G
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by REV-G
-
-
Throughout the 2014-15 season we stayed at or near the top of our conference for most of the year. We were one of the better teams.
We started out this season as the best team in the entire league. But in the past 6-7 weeks I believe we have the worst record in the entire league. Last night we lost to the worst team in the league. Four days ago we barely beat a Leafs team also near the bottom of the league and we're falling like a rock in the standings. Who knows where the bottom will be. What's going on?? So I've listed some possible reasons as to why we're in this position.
1. Injuries: last year maybe we really did dodge a bullet with having so few injuries. This year we've lost our best player for
much of the season, plus Gallagher, plus Gilbert, plus others players for a few games here and there. Some have said
that once Carey Price is back, his goaltending, key saves, his ability with the puck, the confidence he'll restore to the
team, will all add up to us getting back to where we were.
2. The Coach: we've heard it all. MT's system is wrong, lines are wrong, he's using players incorrectly, Alex Galchenyuk
should be our first line center, using Markov on 3 on 3's and giving him too much ice time, too much mixing of lines. But
the players have not seemed to have quit on him. From what I've heard, they still speak respectfully [highly??] of him.
3. Some players have hit their "expiry" dates at the same time. There have been players such as Plekanec, Desharnais,
Markov, Eller, among others, who have either lost a step, stopped scoring or just not played very well. Has MB held on to
them too long or expected more than what they can give and now we are in need of half of our top 6 to be upgraded
before we can get back to where we were?
4. Marc Bergevin has not supplied the players we need: we struggled to score last year and other than 2 months this
year, the same problem has reoccurred. MB should have traded or moved some players and now we are in this dilemma
with no easy solutions on the horizon. He's worked on upgrading the D [Petry, Beaulieu] and the 3d and fourth lines
[Weise, Byron....], but our most glaring need, scoring, he's not done much to improve. Those are the things I've hard and
read.
Personally, my biggest concern is if #3 and #4 are the real reason for our sudden decline. If #1 is the problem things will start to get better once Price returns and we'll make the playoffs and maybe even return to last year's form. I think we were overachieving at the beginning of this season and maybe it's not realistic to expect to be back again at that level this year. If it's #2 then MB will fix that this off season.
But if it is #1 we now know that our team is not good enough to do well if we don't have a lights out goaltender.
I'm interested to know what you think is the real reason for our rapid and unexpected decline these past 8 weeks or so.
-
I don't know if this has been addressed in another thread, and it is still a bit early in the season but the few times the Habs have been involved in overtime this year I actually feel for the players because it seems like they are being forced to play what seems to be pond or shinny hockey.
I didn't notice it so much with the 4 on 4 overtime format because teams practice that and often during the season they play 4 on 4 during games. So they still looked organized and were playing within a system. But the 3 on 3 looks gimmicky, unprofessional and I think it is hurting hockey more than helping it. If Bettman and others in leadership want to attract US viewers I don't think the 3 on 3 is going to help. I think it's affecting hockey's image in a negative way and I can't imagine the NFL, NBA or baseball even considering doing something so amateurish looking.
When I watched our players chasing opponents after getting caught with 3 on 1's and everything so wide open with seemingly no structure it appears the games are being decided on who gets a lucky break. After watching two teams battle for 60 minutes with skill and structure and then to have the games decided on that format....to me it's a very poor reflection on the entire history and legacy of the NHL and personally I thought our players looked bad having to chase people and trying to catch up when they were caught deep and the other team was breaking out.
I hope they end it quickly and either go back to 4 on 4 or let the games end in a tie when two teams have battled so hard for 60 minutes.
What do you think?
-
Interesting, I was in contact with one of the top english Montreal Newsprint writers and I asked him what he thought about Montreal's interest in Phil Kessel and this was his response, "No chance at all. He's not their type of player".
I remember last year I asked him if he thought Montreal had any interest in Nail Yakupov and he told me then they had no interest whatsoever.
So with that response from an "insider" so to speak, someone very well connected, in my mind there will be no chance Montreal goes knocking on Toronto's door to inquire about Phil.
But it was interesting to think about the "what if"!
-
Just a straightforward question......can they and will they resign Petry? I really like him and hope they do? What do you think?
-
I'm not sure who coined this phrase, "Sometimes the best trade is the one you don't make" but I think it's a pretty accurate statement.
I'm thinking of players we've traded and ones we haven't. We could spend a lot of time talking about some bad trades. Every time I hear an announcer comment that Ryan McDonnough is the Rangers best d-man I shudder. Imagine him and Subban....
But I'm thinking back to posts that we've read or written and traded this player or that and at the time we thought we had nailed down the obvious thing to do. Specifically I remember a few years ago we were debating what to do with Markov and I wrote that we should trade Markov because with his knee surgeries and value still high he might be one hit away from retirement and why waste value when we could get something back for him.
And I remember debating who should be traded.....Carey Price or Halak. Some said Price should be the one traded. Halak has had a very good career but I don't think anyone would today take him over Price. And where would we be today if they had traded both Markov and Price. Not where we are today that's for sure.
So what's the point? Trading roster players carries with it a highly risky and often unpredictable result. I've noticed that many of MB's trades have been for late picks for players that ended up having real value for us. Smart scouting. Or he's traded more marginal roster players like Diaz and Weber for pretty good returns.
So when we're talking about potentially trading for an Eberle or a player of that stature I wonder if what you have to give up will really be worth it in the long run. More and more I'm thinking that getting your top players through the draft and developing them that way is the safer and better path to travel. I heard that Gallagher was one of the pieces Edmonton required if Eberle was coming this way. Disrupting a room as good as what we have right now wouldn't be worth the price IMHO.
So we have Price and Markov and we don't have McDonnough. Trades that weren't made and trades that were made. Draft and develop well. Trade for late picks, but trades for roster players could come back to bite hard!
-
After reading Dave Stubbs article in the Gazette today about his dinner interview with Max Pacioretty it left me feeling like we have back what we had in the days when we had so much success. But it isn't just about success, we seem to have regained the glory, the honour, the character that we were all so proud of what seems like so long ago.
As I read the article and began to see the character, the commitment and the integrity Max revealed, that is what I think we have been missing for so many years. Certainly we all want to win, but I think we have regained our respect and "likeability" toward our players.
For example, living in Oshawa near Toronto, something that the Toronto media and talk radio people comment on all the time this year is how they feel the Toronto fans don't actually like many of the players on the Leafs. It's a real problem and if not all, the majority of the Toronto media feel that is also why they think many of the core players will be dealt. The fans really don't like them very much. Hence so many jerseys tossed on the ice. The ultimate insult??
Now in fairness, I think we have been there a bit ourselves over the past 10 years. I think fans were not just unhappy with our previous GM and many of the team decisions and ways of doing things, but both the fans and media couldn't wait for him to be fired. And with that we had all kinds of bad decisions regarding the coaches, which resulted in bad press and just general dissatisfaction with our whole organization.
But now you hear Max describe his own thoughts and plans and desires to improve and help the team and what it means to him to be a Montreal Canadien. You hear what he says about his teammates and how much they help younger players now versus when he first came up. And what spoke volumes to me was what he said about his relationship with MT and how he had helped Max improve and how he can't wait to hear what his coach has to say at the end of the year about how and where he can improve. To be honest I thought the players didn't like MT very much. And Max could have just been polite and respectful in what he said and kept it simple. But I thought he painted a picture of genuine respect for and appreciation for MT.
So personally my respect for Pacioretty both as a player and person just climber quite a few notches. And my appreciation for what Geoff Molson and MB and MT are building is so encouraging. I know I have written a few posts lately that have been very complimentary, but I honestly think we need to really appreciate what has returned. Who knows if we can win it all this year, but if we look around I think we are building something we should all be proud of once again. What do you think?
-
1
-
-
So this question I'm posing doesn't have any sources, but more of a "I wonder if this could happen" scenario waiting for the playoffs to begin.
Part of why I'm even thinking this is because of Marc Bergevin's penchant for making moves that have been totally unpredictable and seemingly out of left field, but once made have been applauded by many. One of my questions has been addressed before and was a complete and total failure at the time but I'm wondering if things have changed or could change given the right situation. And I wonder if that could be now.
My question has to do with our coach and his system. I want to say that I was in favour of hiring MT and I thought that with his track record, experience and evolution as a coach that he would do a good job for us. And I think that time has shown that MT's hiring was a good move. Personally I don't know of anyone who could have done better. We have all been generally pleased, even surprised, with the past 2-3 years. I'm also putting this in a thread by itself and not in the "When will Therrien get fired" thread because the focus and discussion point here is more on whether MB could make the largest head coaching philosophical change in the history of the Montreal Canadiens.
So the facts are that the Canadiens allow 30.4 shots per game which is the most of any playoff team this year. Their shots against, and attempts against, are also in the bottom part of the league. Some of the other statistical numbers are not good. The most concerning one is their goals for. Way low. Power play....very low. I have heard that there is come concern the Alex Galchenyuk is not developing as quickly as he should. He's still so young I'm not sure how to even comment on that one. So if you're MB what do you do?
Is it possible that our coach has taken us to the highest level he is able to go? And is it possible that his strong defensive system needs changing if we're going to be the dominant team many think we should be going forward? So if we do not do really well in the playoffs could MB make a coaching change and I wonder if a top level coach like Mike Babcock could be his target?
I wonder if it's something that MB would try to pull off. Babcock still has not signed a contract with Detroit and for the talk of him going to Toronto many sports media people have speculated that with the mess there, it is unlikely Babcok would want to be part of a long rebuilding process.
But we all remember well what happened when Randy Cunneyworth, english and unilingual, was made the interim head coach and all the difficulty that caused. But would a top level coach like Mike Babcock possibly break the mold and allow for an english speaking, unilingual coach for the first time in our history? That's the question.
Is this possible or will we be forever limited with only being able to pick from whatever bilingual coach is available whenever we happen to be looking for a head coach. Would MB surprise us all with a move like bringing in a top level, most decorated and successful modern era coach, but who only speaks english?? What do you think? Is it possible??
-
I guess he's not there yet. They sent him down today.
-
It has always been a thought of mine as to what would of happened if we had not made this trade? While a terrible trade it did lead to some positive things for the Montreal Canadiens. For instance the second that Gainey aquired Gomez it showed managers and players that the Habs were looking to contend. I believe Gomez had a huge influence in convincing Gionta to join ship. Same as Cammalleri who saw that we were trying to build something here. Without those two players we dont go on that magical playoff run to the East finals. I think we can all say that Gionta had a positive impact on the Habs past that playoff run through his great leadership ability. He showed our younger players what a true leader is. I feel the Habs have one of the tightest rooms in the entire league since the players seem to genuinly care about one another. Our captain was a big part of that. Even Cammalleri had a positive impact on our future by being a cancer in the dressing room and forcing a trade. This allowed us to stumble to the bottom of the standings setting up the draft of one Alex Galchenyuk. The return for Cammalleri got us a mediocre talent in Bourque but most importantly a second round pick that was used to draft Zach Fucale who could turn into a nice bargaining chip.
My next question about the trade was would our D of been that much better today? One of Markov, Subban or McDonagh would not be with the team at this point had he of been kept. I just dont think we would have been able to fit it all under the cap. My guess is that the Habs would of traded Subban away. I have always got the sense from management that they have a bit of a problem with Subban. Surely when he went into the hold out as a RFA they would of pulled the trigger on something. Sure the return would of been good, but it wouldnt be as good as the elite talent that Subban is today.
While the trade will always be looked at as a terrible trade (it certainly was), it did have a small affect in shaping our team into something that is pretty great.
What do you think our team would of looked like had the trade never been made? Or were than any other positives of making it?
Very interesting observation. While we will never know for sure I think that if we had of been unable to fit all three defencemen under the cap I think it might have been Markov who would have been traded. The reason? When he was coming off those knee injuries there were a few months when I think a lot of people were seriously wondering if he would be able to recover again after missing a lot of games over two seasons. So I think given the choice as to who to keep, Markov might have been the one to go. Obviously I'm very glad that didn't happen, but if you had those three and had to trade one, it would have been a very tough choice. It would have been one of those decisions that no matter what you did some people would have been very unhappy and given what you might have got back, it could have come back to bite you no matter what you did.
-
I just saw some highlights of DSP and I noticed a few things [from a small sampling]. He seemed to be always in front or beside the net. and when given the chance he seemed to have good hands and be able to put the puck in the net.
I wonder if he will be a larger version of Gallagher, planted in front of the net.
-
Last year I started a thead listing reasons why I think we're going to be successful for years to come. I want to go a bit deeper and explain a few things we're doing, that others haven't, and how that has put us where we are while others are struggling.
Do you remember the words "draft smaft"? I believe it was Cliff Fletcher who was either the Leafs GM or President who said those words when he was asked by the media why he was trading away so many of their draft picks. Then when Brian Burke became their GM he regularly traded away their top draft picks and look at where the Leafs have been and where they are. Over the past 25 years it may be that Wendal Clarke may have been their one and only really successful draft pick. Today they have to dismantle and completely restock because their cupboard is bare.
In today's NHL I believe you are going to live or die with how you draft. In order to be able to either trade older players because you can no longer afford them in a cap world, or to be able to replace older players as they lose some speed or abilities with younger guys, you must have young, drafted, inexpensive players developing and ready to step in at every position. And we have been doing this for a few years now.
I'm not sure if it was Bob Gainey who brought in Trevor Timmons but I remember Gainey saying when he surprised everyone by drafting Carey Price, he simply drafted who his head scout told him to draft. If you look over the past 10 years, maybe not quite that long, but we now are seeing depth in our prospect pool at just about every position. And every year more are added. And it should just keep getting better and better.
But there's another factor. With all the young talent it gives us some pieces to use if we need to pick up some help. And with having young guys make the team it gives us years with guys on entry level contracts which also helps us with the cap, giving us some cash to pick up some bargains.
It also has helped us that Mark Bergevin has so far watched his cap numbers so carefully. When he moved Rene Bourque and Travis Moen it showed that he was looking to next years budget to be sure he had room to do what needed to be done.
I think in today's NHL, to be a contender, you must get players through the draft, through trades and also through free agent pick-ups. All three ways of getting players are very important. But the draft is the key. Mark Bergevin is able to get players all three ways because we have drafted so well and have developed our players. Many others haven't and are paying a big price.
I believe we are positioned for years to come to get stronger and stronger and get #25! We have paid great attention and put a lot of work into the draft, player development, and managing the cap. We should have great years ahead.
What do you think?
-
1
-
-
With all that Bergevin has said about character, I have a hard time thinking he'd be even remotely interested in giving up two top prospects and our first rounder for Kessel. My guess is that Kessel isn't on MB's radar at all.
-
I understand that young defencemen take longer to develop than forwards, and that time in the AHL is especially important for young defence men. But IMO I believe that JT's time in the minors has been completed. I think he has learned what he can and now he needs to be brought along as some of the other young guys have.
Let him play against NHL players, with their speed and hockey IQ, but protect his minutes and who he is out against and when. We did the same for a few years with Galchenyuk and Gallager. So why not do this for JT now?
Someone has already stated that he is [at the worst] close to both Gilbert and Weaver, so with his size and potential why not bring him along slowly and give him a good long look.
If he proves not to be up to it they could include him in a trade this summer. So for me, I think he is deserving to have a good legitimate shot in the NHL. I remember how many times Emelin was beat last year playing on his wrong side. So hopefully they will give him a really good long look and let things work out as they will.
-
For the past few months I have been wondering why Jarod Tinordi has spent so much time in Hamilton. I'm sure the injury from the fight slowed things down a bit but I thought in training camp he and Beaulieu were fairly even. I also thought that all reports pointed to Greg Pateryn having a bit of a down year. Yet Beaulieu has spent most of the year with us [for which I'm glad] and now this week Pateryn is the one called up when Gonchar was injured, ahead of Tinordi.
I thought Tinordi had developed into a strong stay at home defenceman who was a least equal to if not better than both Gilbert and Weaver. Yet he has remained in Hamilton up until now.
So where do you think Tinordi is in his development? Does he stay with us for the rest of the year and into the playoffs or is he here just until Emelin and Gonchar are healthy again? What do you think?
-
Emelin + for Yakupov.
A key Montreal media guy told me that Montreal has no interest in Yak whatsoever.
-
Interesting, I just was just told by a media person who is close and very knowledgeable about the Canadiens that they have no interest in Nail Yakupov at all.
I asked him if there was a possibility of Montreal acquiring Yakupov with maybe reuniting him with Galchenyuk to rediscover the magic from junior. He replied that they have no interest whatsoever. And that's from a very good source.
-
I didn't go back through the postings to look, and likely this has been asked before, but does anyone think, or heard, if we have any interest in Yakupov?
I guess the three key questions are, could NY get his scoring touch back with a different team, like Montreal?
Could reuniting him with Galchenyuk get him back on track?
If we were interested what would it cost us.....for a former first round pick who has been a very big disappointment so far??
What do you think?
-
As we once again see the Maple Leafs packing up another 18 wheeler, ready to send it for it's annual leap off the cliff, I find it funny to listen to and read what the Toronto media says about Phil Kessel. They talk about him being one of the elite players in the NHL and one of the top snipers.
If we compare Max Pacioretty and Phil Kessel I would take Pacioretty any day of the week. Pacioretty doesn't get nearly the coverage and discussion that Kessel does, but when you compare them I think Pacioretty comes out ahead.
Kessel has 19 goals, 24 assists for 43 points and is minus 9.
Pacioretty has 21 goals, 15 assists for 36 points and is plus 21.
Pacioretty is a very good two way player, works hard and always stays in great shape.
Kessel is known as a one dimentional player, who shows up for two weeks and then takes some time off for a few weeks. The nickname for many in Toronto for Kessel is "the fat kid".
A Toronto media person asked Kessel a while back if he was someone who felt he should up and speak to the team and try to get guys going or if he felt he should be an example to the younger guys. His answer was, they pay me to score goals not do that other stuff. He shrugged it off and waked away.
I hear Pacioretty talk of how the culture in Montreal's room is that they help each other and push one another to be better.
To build a team around character guys like Pacioretty is the plan that MB has talked about many times.
To build a team around a guy who seems to just have his own goals as his main priority probably will give you what you see in the Maple Leafs year after year.
We went through some tough years but with the character guys that we have the standard has been set by both management and also our core and younger players. That's the way to build a team for the present and future.
In my humble opinion, the only way for Toronto to make progress and end their 47 year drought is to change their core and get some guys who have character and a work ethic. Guys like Pacioretty. It may take a few years but to continue in the direction they're going is to ask for more 18 wheelers to get ready for another cliff dive.
What do you think about Kessel vs. Pacioretty??
-
All good points. Positive moving forward. However i will say it looks real good when you compare this team to recent "past hab teams" . Still a long way to go when you compare the roster to nhl contenders around the league. But i like the diversity we are beginning to see on the team. Really refreshing to see a GM casting out players rather than settling for mediocre results. (gorges and gionta being examples in the summer, bourque and moen recently) I have a ton of confidence in MB, while recognizing that the team we see now is propelled by players that were here when he arrived. Price, Subban, Pacs, Markov. MB still needs to add to the nucleus/core of the team. Not just the supporting cast. Although he has done very well at that.
In covering all the positives, quite obvious there was no mention of the coaching staff. Intentional?
My thoughts on the coaching is that we are getting what we should be getting. If we had a poor coach then changes would have been made already. I liked MT hiring at the time and I still think he is a good coach. Not a Scotty Bowman and not a Mike Babcock, but certainly IMHO, he is at the level of most of the coaches a level below the two I just mentioned. So not a knock on MT but I don't think he is as key a component as to why we are where we are. I think the 5 points I made are the more important factors.
-
It's still early this season but when you combine last year with our start this year, and you compare where we are today with almost any time over the past 15 years, I think there is lots of evidence pointing to the fact that we should have a very bright future for years to come. Here are the 4 main reasons I think we are in very good shape.
1. Marc Bergevin: This certainly includes Geoff Molson, who choose MB, but the management team that has been put in place is my number 1 reason for being so optimistic for the future. I think MB has surrounded himself with a very good team and seems to have worked at building [ongoing] every department so that we continue to draft extremely well, and now we work and develop the young players with care and caution and have created a winning and positive atmosphere that seemed to be missing for so long.
2. Trevor Timmons: when you look at his drafting record, even going back to his "off the chart" choice of Carey Price and Subban and ...... the list goes on. We have a depth that we haven't had for a long time and if you look at almost every position we have both present depth along with great prospects at different levels, resulting in a very solid farm for years to come.
3. Our present core: When you look at how many players are on our team right now that we drafted and developed and when you see the core that we have of Price, Subban, Patches, both Gally's, the young defencemen and the rest of our talent level, we are very competitive with almost very other team and I think we are close to moving into the elite level. Our size has improved without giving up our speed. Maybe we're not there yet compared to a team like LA but we are getting close.
4. The Room: from what we hear from the players we have an excellent room. I think it was Parenteau who said something like he has never seen an NHL room as close and supportive as what he found when he arrived here. I think that's a huge reflection on MB and the type of players he has brought in.
5. Accountability and decision making: for lack of better words I think the accountability and decision making have been seen by the moves that have been made. MB wasn't afraid to move out popular, solid veterans who were either getting a bit older, lacked sized or were underachieving. So with changes made with Gionta, Georges, Douglas Murray, Parros, White and Borque, we have gotten bigger and I think elevated our talent level. Overall I think we are a better team this year than last.
So with all of this in place, even when we hit some bumps in the road, or even if we underachieve at some point, I think we have the structure and quality in place in ownership, management and players to keep us headed in the right direction so we keep getting better and closer to #25.
-
I saw the Bulldogs at Ricoh playing against the Marlies Friday night and I have to admit I was surprised. Going in I thought they would be struggling because of so many first year players and I expected the Marlies to be the better team. Just the opposite.
They play like the Canadiens. Fast, good puck possession, skilled, very good skaters and from my view they are playing a good system, organized and seem to be playing as a team. The reason I make that point is that I had heard some reports that the coaching was not great and they really didn't have much of a system. From a one game observance, the opposite is true. The Marlies absolutely had trouble keeping up with them.
I was very impressed with Sven Andrighetto. He was dominant, stood out, very good skater and skilled with the puck. Jacob De Larose played well and Joey McDonald shut down the Marlies with key saves on good scoring opportunities.
Overall I was impressed with the Bulldogs. I think we have some very good talent on the farm with a common system in place with the big team.
-
Just curious, does anyone know if George Parros or Douglas Murray are playing this year? Also is Mike Komisarek doing well with Carolina?
-
Just curious. Does Gallagher have a goal, from the shootout, or is he still listed at 0?
-
He'll replace Blunden basically.
Peter Budaj will be the Jets starter by January.
I hope not, for Budaj's sake. He's been a solid backup but no longer good as a starter. Let him play 15-20 games a year but tst should be it. Otherwise he may not have a good ending in Winnipeg.
When does Therrien get fired?
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
In the Montreal Gazette, Wednesday January 27, on the Hockey Inside Out site there is a video of Chris Nilan, Stu Cowan, Jack Todd and a lady I didn't know, they were discussing Michel Therrien and it wasn't pretty. It's a video and for the first 7 or 8 minutes the discussion is all centered on MT.
Nilan says there is no teaching, he watched a practice and said the players seemed to be just going through the motions and together they were all unanimous that a coaching change has to be made.
They said they had defended MT in the past but they feel he's lost control, is doing nothing to correct what happening and that there is no way they can turn things around the way things are going right now.
It kind of surprised me a bit as to how strong they felt. I have always been a MT supporter but I'm beginning to lean towards maybe a coaching change is now the answer.
Has MB painted himself into a corner by saying he will not fire MT??