GDT: Montreal vs New Jersey, Dec. 2

[bar]

What does it have to do with you though? It is unimportant if you don't like the internal dynamic of a dressing room

that you have never or will never be a part of. You are making assessments based on zero information, I don't understand

how you can dislike a decision when you have no access to the pertinent information.

There is a hierarchy, just like there is in an office. If an intern wants to be treated like a guy who has brought in

millions of dollars or won awards, guess what, they will be told to eff off.

The point is Eller, Subban and Pouliot do not have a 10 year resume of trusted performance to fall back on when

they struggle or screw up. So they have a shorter leash. Simple as that.

This is a discussion board Wammy, where people input their opinions without any sort of required information. I can dislike any decision I have without information, the same way YOU can LIKE any decision without any information. I work in an office, if someone worked as bad as Gomez has played so far this year he would be looking at demotion or firing, so I don't think that analogy fits here.

Why do we even have a dicussion board if not to interject their opinions. You seem to like the decision of sitting PK, thats great, I don't, you assume that IF I had all the information I would change my mind, I likely wouldn't. There are people on the board who have been saying ever since JM came to Montreal they do not like the way he treates rookies, criticism shouldn't end just because Montreal is on a hot streak right now. In fact, I would suggest criticizing a winning team is what leads to more consistant teams.

I appreciate all your comments Wammy, but you come off arrogant, that how can I make an opinion without all the facts, rarely do ALL the facts ever come out in sports.

I find it slightly funny that a fan base that, until this season, was in a rage over how Carey Price was handed everything despite failing to earn it, now wants the team to do the same thing with Subban. I agree that Price was given the wrong message. And note that JM was the one to straighten him out.

We're in good hands, folks.

Not benching a player for mistakes is not the same thing as handing Price the keys to the city.

[nikohab]

I do not like the message it sends to a rookie who stood up and took fault for his actions. The benching was just piling on. You make good points about the room politics Wammy, but to me, I hate it. I dislike the unequal treatment of vets vs rookies. PK may be well off after this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. We will see if it was the correct thing to do in the next couple games.

I do not view benching P.K Subban as a punishment rather I view it as an opportunity to learn. Watching a game in slow motion from the press box is most often a great opportunity for self reflection. The thing that annoyed me though was that after the loss against edmonton Jacque Martin didn't single out any player instead he stated that the team failed. 1 day later he benched P.K Subban.

[Wamsley01]

This is a discussion board Wammy, where people input their opinions without any sort of required information. I can dislike any decision I have without information, the same way YOU can LIKE any decision without any information. I work in an office, if someone worked as bad as Gomez has played so far this year he would be looking at demotion or firing, so I don't think that analogy fits here.

Why do we even have a dicussion board if not to interject their opinions. You seem to like the decision of sitting PK, thats great, I don't, you assume that IF I had all the information I would change my mind, I likely wouldn't. There are people on the board who have been saying ever since JM came to Montreal they do not like the way he treates rookies, criticism shouldn't end just because Montreal is on a hot streak right now. In fact, I would suggest criticizing a winning team is what leads to more consistant teams.

I appreciate all your comments Wammy, but you come off arrogant, that how can I make an opinion without all the facts, rarely do ALL the facts ever come out in sports.

Not benching a player for mistakes is not the same thing as handing Price the keys to the city.

You are criticizing Martin with zero information. You are telling me you don't like it, yet providing no

probable solution or concise criticism because you have no idea why it happened outside of your uninformed

opinion that is based on what you see on the ice. The games don't provide the full picture, they provide a partial

look of the whole situation. Look at how the fans created Price as a drunk, a lazy player, a self important player

and then wrote him off based on his play on the ice. It was ultimately wrong because judgements were made

based on incomplete information. Isn't that arrogant in itself?

You are free to act like I am judging you, but I am judging the logic of what you are saying. You are upset with

a decision that PK is taking better than you. You are making assumptions and creating scenarios based on zero facts

outside of what you see on the ice. And ultimately what we see on the ice is likely analyzed a hell of a lot better by

Martin, Muller, Gauthier, Gainey, Timmins etc.

This team is finally moving towards the model of the franchise that I grew up with. They are creating an atmosphere

of accountability and respect and I understand what an internal team hierarchy looks like because I have struggled

with trying to get 20 adults on the same page even though all of them entered the room with selfish agendas.

Outside accounts of where the respect should be appropriated are irrational. The office dynamic is an equatable analogy

because if a guy who provided 10 years of service and was highly paid had 8 weeks of zero production the understanding

of upper management would be that he will eventually return to his previous production level. They wouldn't dress him down

in front of the whole company.

Now the 2 month intern who is costing the team hours and money will be sitting in somebody's office and have the

office protocol read to them to reinforce that if they want to succeed they do it within the team dynamic and follow

the companies rules.

Call it arrogant if you will, we never will have all the facts, but whether the fans have labelled Martin as a guy

who poorly handles rookies is unimportant. I don't base my ideas around ones created by others. I take my own

experience and outlook and gather as much relevant info as possible to create my thoughts.

Looking at the fact that this team is number two (by .04 of a goal behind perennial defensive powerhouse Boston)

in the league in goals against, they are sitting among the top teams in the league while missing their best player,

getting zero production from Gomez and Cammalleri and watching Eller, Pouliot and Subban begin to flourish provides

me with the ability to understand that Martin is doing something right.

He has earned the benefit of the doubt regardless of anyones self serving viewpoint.

I find it slightly funny that a fan base that, until this season, was in a rage over how Carey Price was handed everything despite failing to earn it, now wants the team to do the same thing with Subban. I agree that Price was given the wrong message. And note that JM was the one to straighten him out.

Bingo.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Wamsley01

[dlbalr]

I do not like the message it sends to a rookie who stood up and took fault for his actions. The benching was just piling on. You make good points about the room politics Wammy, but to me, I hate it. I dislike the unequal treatment of vets vs rookies. PK may be well off after this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. We will see if it was the correct thing to do in the next couple games.

Of course he had to take fault for his actions, they were kind of obvious. By that logic, anyone who claims, "Yeah, I screwed up, it's my fault, I know what I did wrong" shouldn't be scratched. (I know I'm stretching it a bit here but that was my first instinct reading that first sentence.) Subban will be fine, it's not the first time he's ever been sat down and it may not be the last. Everyone goes through it; it's nice to see he's saying the right things at the very least. That in itself will score him some points with the coaches.

Look at Brian stealing my discussion point from last night!

I'd say Picard sits though. Split up Spacey and Hammer, put Hammer, PK together, and Spacey Weber.

I thought I saw it somewhere. No one was answering so I'm just echoing your question...yeah, I'll go with that.

[JoeLassister]

Aside of calling JM out with ridiculous big ears waking up after a night of debauchery, I don't really want to pick a side there.

But I must admit that I still don't really think that benching PK was the best solution there.

What about a meeting in JM's office with PK, Muller and Pearn ? What about a speech who begins with "I could easily bench you after that, in fact, I probably should, but I decided to have this meeting with you and the coaching staff..." followed by a personal video session ???

Not that I think benching PK was unnecessary, but I do think that it was not necessary.

Edited December 3, 2010 by JoeLassister

[dlbalr]

We can't say that such a meeting didn't take place before though (part of that "we don't have all the facts" Wamsley has noted). When asked to comment, Martin said the decision was based "on a combination of things." Benching as you noted is a last resort, I would imagine they had a sit down in the days and weeks prior based on some of the other things that happened (including but not limited to the yapping and practice skirmishes) and this was the next step, the timing fit with him making two key mistakes the night before. It was a gutsy call and one that I'm sure got the players' attention. That in itself makes it a decent call, winning only helped the cause.

[Wamsley01]

Aside of calling JM out with ridiculous big ears waking up after a night of debauchery, I don't really want to pick a side there.

But I must admit that I still don't really think that benching PK was the best solution there.

What about a meeting in JM's office with PK, Muller and Pearn ? What about a speech who begins with "I could easily bench you after that, in fact, I probably should, but I decided to have this meeting with you and the coaching staff..." followed by a personal video session ???

Not that I think benching PK was unnecessary, but I do think that it was not necessary.

Simple in theory, but I have sat down with my children and explained why I didn't like their behaviour,

I presented examples of why it is not acceptable and they assured me it wouldn't happen again.

10 minutes later I am witnessing the exact same thing.

Then you punish them through grounding or removal of privileges and the behaviour stops.

One is jarring, one is not.

P.K. just got grounded.

[JoeLassister]

We can't say that such a meeting didn't take place before though (part of that "we don't have all the facts" Wamsley has noted). When asked to comment, Martin said the decision was based "on a combination of things." Benching as you noted is a last resort, I would imagine they had a sit down in the days and weeks prior based on some of the other things that happened (including but not limited to the yapping and practice skirmishes) and this was the next step, the timing fit with him making two key mistakes the night before. It was a gutsy call and one that I'm sure got the players' attention. That in itself makes it a decent call, winning only helped the cause.

Yeah, maybe they sat down previously, but I doubt it was related with hockey mistakes and video as it could have been after Edmonton's game.

My problem with this move is that they benched the player they used the most against Edmonton. Martin overused Subban ( more than 25 minutes, this is 4 more minutes than Hamrlik who is 2nd in IT) and then punished him for late game mistakes. This is what bugs me with this whole situation.

He could have benched him in OT and rest him and the message would have passed IMO.

Edited December 3, 2010 by JoeLassister

[saskhab]

Aside of calling JM out with ridiculous big ears waking up after a night of debauchery, I don't really want to pick a side there.

But I must admit that I still don't really think that benching PK was the best solution there.

What about a meeting in JM's office with PK, Muller and Pearn ? What about a speech who begins with "I could easily bench you after that, in fact, I probably should, but I decided to have this meeting with you and the coaching staff..." followed by a personal video session ???

Not that I think benching PK was unnecessary, but I do think that it was not necessary.

Well, there wasn't a break between games. Maybe if there was a couple of days, there would've been time for that. Instead he sent his message by playing the other rookie who's been working hard in practice ahead of him.

I don't know how exactly he made his choice, but I don't think it was detrimental and I think we all know it's a one off thing... P.K. played over 20 minutes against the Oilers, so it's not like Martin doesn't see good things in him. He chose this method this time. When he had 3 days earlier in the year, he scared Spacek but ultimately met with him and gave him another shot. Here he had 21 hours turnover and no practice before the next game.

[bar]

We really will not know if its detrimental til Subban plays the next 5 games, but I'd gladly admit if I'm wrong, and Wammy you're right PK is taking it better than I am...haha, point made.

[brobin]

All we can go on is what was said in public, and I didn't like what was said in public. JM basically said that PK doesn't listen and has been told repeatedly to change his play, then suggested his points were down because of it. So now we are publicly calling out a rookie defensemen for his points being down from the first 10 games...??? Really?

So... what part of his play does he need to change? What part doesn't he listen to? If you want to talk about the mistakes in the Edmonton game, I can show you repeated examples from every other D doing the same or worse. Just because Price bailed them out (or in past games, PK himself bailing out a partner with a great play defending after his partner pinched, including when we had one goal leads late in games), doesn't excuse them.

Yes, rookies are always on a shorter leash and I have no issue with PK getting benched. All I am worried about (as opposed to accusing JM of), is PK being told to be too conservative.

I would have preferred JM to just say.. he made some mistakes, he has played a lot of hockey, I want him to watch from upstairs tonight to get a better view of the system we are using. Nice, positive explanation.

Besides, as much as PK is on a short leash as a rookie, I have JM on a short leash with prospects given his own history.