Neech Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Here they are, from Brian: http://habsworld.net/article.php?id=3412 A Eller A- Bourque, Galchenyuk B+ Weise B Gallagher, Pacioretty, Briere B- Plekanec, Desharnais C Bournival, Gionta C- Vanek D Prust The ones that jump out at me that I disagree with are Galchenyuk and Bourney. I have a total hard-on for Bourney and I love watching him play, these playoffs no exception. He almost always makes the right play, and plays with speed and intensity. Galchenyuk was a pleasant surprise for me, and made many slick offensive plays (and a few right place at the right time deflections), but he was often physically overmatched and exposed defensively. He was good in a support role in the manner of Briere, which is encouraging, but not quite top of the list material in my view. Gallagher brought his signature heart, tenacity, and never-quit attitude, and should be ranked above Pacioretty and Briere IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Here they are, from Brian: http://habsworld.net/article.php?id=3412 A Eller A- Bourque, Galchenyuk B+ Weise B Gallagher, Pacioretty, Briere B- Plekanec, Desharnais C Bournival, Gionta C- Vanek D Prust The ones that jump out at me that I disagree with are Galchenyuk and Bourney. I have a total hard-on for Bourney and I love watching him play, these playoffs no exception. He almost always makes the right play, and plays with speed and intensity. Galchenyuk was a pleasant surprise for me, and made many slick offensive plays (and a few right place at the right time deflections), but he was often physically overmatched and exposed defensively. He was good in a support role in the manner of Briere, which is encouraging, but not quite top of the list material in my view. Gallagher brought his signature heart, tenacity, and never-quit attitude, and should be ranked above Pacioretty and Briere IMO. One thing I've noticed with bournival is that his shot is absolute garbage. He can skate like the wind yes, but how many times did I watch a half decent scoring chance unfold only for bournival to send a very weak wrister straight into the goalie's crest. IF he could develop his shot I truly think he could be a gem, and I do like him, but until that time I don't think he's much more than a bottom six plugger. A very quick one, but not an overly physical one either. Now, with a shot.. What a difference it would mean to him as a player. Kessel-esqe. I'm looking forward to his development though. Maybe added strength will give him that shot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Brian-- your assessment of forwards looks pretty accurate to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 If there was a F rating I would have put Prust and Vanek there, I think Moen and White would have been better choices than either one of those guys in game 6 vs Rangers, but that wasn't MT's view, Travis wasn't in game shape was why MT didn't play him he says. I think maybe Galchenyuk was so high on Brian's list because like Bourque, he was one of the only ones that looked like he might just create a scoring chance, his role shouldn't be to be the best defensive player, we lost game 6, 1-0... Bournival, I agree with Neech, should have been ranked a bit higher, he was great when in the line up. Fair and accurate assessment ya ask me, enjoyed the read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Prust was pissing off the Rangers players. That's the only reason I saw him to be in the lineup for those games. Game five, Prust hit McDonaugh a few times and it stopped McDonaugh from pulling his usual crap. He was also skating afraid with the puck after. But that's about all he did. I always get the feeling Prust is the most liked guy in the locker and the team loves him. If the captaincy went to a vote, I get the feeling he'd get the nod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Nice piece, Brian. Some random observations: Funny thing about Desharnais...his numbers were mediocre, but I thought his actual play was by and large quite strong. It's odd how sometimes the statistics seem to fly in the face of what you're actually seeing out there. Prust had a bad year, and we have to hope that he is not just plain broken-down, an "old" 30-year-old. In he and Moen we seem to have two accomplished grinders on the downslide. Is Ryan White any part of this team's plans? Should he be? Neech makes a good assessment of Galy, and those plumping for him to be moved to C had better remember his propensity to be physically overmatched and his questionable defensive play. I don't think he's there yet. Weise was awesome and is making Torterella (who didn't like him) look like even more of an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I have zero issue with Prust, he did his and Parros's job and likely fought more than anyone in the league. Moan & White obviously aint in future plan and will be gone in a month I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Here they are, from Brian: http://habsworld.net/article.php?id=3412 A Eller A- Bourque, Galchenyuk B+ Weise B Gallagher, Pacioretty, Briere B- Plekanec, Desharnais C Bournival, Gionta C- Vanek D Prust The ones that jump out at me that I disagree with are Galchenyuk and Bourney. I have a total hard-on for Bourney and I love watching him play, these playoffs no exception. He almost always makes the right play, and plays with speed and intensity. Galchenyuk was a pleasant surprise for me, and made many slick offensive plays (and a few right place at the right time deflections), but he was often physically overmatched and exposed defensively. He was good in a support role in the manner of Briere, which is encouraging, but not quite top of the list material in my view. Gallagher brought his signature heart, tenacity, and never-quit attitude, and should be ranked above Pacioretty and Briere IMO. In a way, he is. The ordering of players with the same grade wasn't random. If I were doing number grades, Gallagher would have been highest of that group so that's why he was slotted at the top. Bournival was one I struggled with. On the one hand, he didn't play poorly. On the other, he didn't generate much offence or make any stand-out plays. I found those more or less cancelled each other out, yielding more of an average rating. Given his performance during the season, average for him is around a C so I stuck with that for the postseason one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Bournival gave me flashbacks of Tom.y Pyatt. I really hope he works on his shot. Is that something that can be improved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted June 4, 2014 Author Share Posted June 4, 2014 Funny thing about Desharnais...his numbers were mediocre, but I thought his actual play was by and large quite strong. It's odd how sometimes the statistics seem to fly in the face of what you're actually seeing out there. I agree. He upped his two-way game and intensity when it mattered most. I still find it a little concerning to have him as our first-line offensive centre when we're down in the third of a playoff game, but if Chucky surpasses him as we hope, he's shown that he's top-six material. One thing I've noticed with bournival is that his shot is absolute garbage. He can skate like the wind yes, but how many times did I watch a half decent scoring chance unfold only for bournival to send a very weak wrister straight into the goalie's crest. IF he could develop his shot I truly think he could be a gem, and I do like him, but until that time I don't think he's much more than a bottom six plugger. A very quick one, but not an overly physical one either. Now, with a shot.. What a difference it would mean to him as a player. Kessel-esqe. I'm looking forward to his development though. Maybe added strength will give him that shot. I disagree a bit on the physicality; his hits aren't bone-crushing or anything, but they're well-timed and placed. He knows which situation to use his speed, or his body. He has superb hockey sense at 21, and that's something that doesn't grow on trees. I'm looking forward to his physical maturation. I agree that his shot isn't very good, hopefully he can improve it. But he strikes me as a Plekanec type (with less offensive tools at this point). He won't put up too many points unless he's on a line with a scorer, but you can count on him to make the right play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I agree. He upped his two-way game and intensity when it mattered most. I still find it a little concerning to have him as our first-line offensive centre when we're down in the third of a playoff game, but if Chucky surpasses him as we hope, he's shown that he's top-six material. I disagree a bit on the physicality; his hits aren't bone-crushing or anything, but they're well-timed and placed. He knows which situation to use his speed, or his body. He has superb hockey sense at 21, and that's something that doesn't grow on trees. I'm looking forward to his physical maturation. Actually yes, his timing is good for his checks, maybe I should give him more credit there. No doubt his hockey sense has a lot to do with that. And come to think about it, putting on 10-15 pound would help significantly with making his checks more punishing. Physical maturation could go a long way for bournival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs owned the 70's Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) I would rate the forwards in the following order: 1. Eller 2. Bourque 3. Desharnais 4. Weise 5. Gallagher 6. Plekanec 7. Galchenyuk 8. Pacioretty 9. Bournival 10. Briere 11. Gionta 12. Prust 13. Vanek I can't see how Pacioretty & Briere get higher grades than Desharnais. Desharnais was lights out for most of the playoffs and really stepped up at crucial times. Only his size let him down but he has the heart of a lion. Here they are, from Brian: http://habsworld.net/article.php?id=3412 A Eller A- Bourque, Galchenyuk B+ Weise B Gallagher, Pacioretty, Briere B- Plekanec, Desharnais C Bournival, Gionta C- Vanek D Prust The ones that jump out at me that I disagree with are Galchenyuk and Bourney. I have a total hard-on for Bourney and I love watching him play, these playoffs no exception. He almost always makes the right play, and plays with speed and intensity. Galchenyuk was a pleasant surprise for me, and made many slick offensive plays (and a few right place at the right time deflections), but he was often physically overmatched and exposed defensively. He was good in a support role in the manner of Briere, which is encouraging, but not quite top of the list material in my view. Gallagher brought his signature heart, tenacity, and never-quit attitude, and should be ranked above Pacioretty and Briere IMO. Edited June 4, 2014 by Habs owned the 70's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 It's unfortunate that, because of mediocre offensive playoff stats this year (8 points in 17 games), the myth of Desharnais as a playoff putz will live on unabated despite his strong play. Within a couple of months nobody will remember the kinds of things we're saying here (i.e., that he played well and fully deserves a top-6 role) and all the chatter will be that we can't win with a C like that in the playoffs, etc.. Damned numbers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 pleks really wasn't scoring when he came up. When pleks and Higgins came up, what struck me the most was the work ethic and speed. Bournival has both of the qualities as we'll. I agree. He upped his two-way game and intensity when it mattered most. I still find it a little concerning to have him as our first-line offensive centre when we're down in the third of a playoff game, but if Chucky surpasses him as we hope, he's shown that he's top-six material. I disagree a bit on the physicality; his hits aren't bone-crushing or anything, but they're well-timed and placed. He knows which situation to use his speed, or his body. He has superb hockey sense at 21, and that's something that doesn't grow on trees. I'm looking forward to his physical maturation. I agree that his shot isn't very good, hopefully he can improve it. But he strikes me as a Plekanec type (with less offensive tools at this point). He won't put up too many points unless he's on a line with a scorer, but you can count on him to make the right play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bournival's shooting issue is he treats the puck like it's a hand grenade. He doesn't take any time with it. Even when he'd be better to pass it he'll just fire it at the net. That seems to be a coaching thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bournival's shooting issue is he treats the puck like it's a hand grenade. He doesn't take any time with it. Even when he'd be better to pass it he'll just fire it at the net. That seems to be a coaching thing. I always thought it was a confidence thing. He doesn't have any faith in himself to take that extra time to find a better option or lean into the shot, so he sends it to the net as to not pass up a "scoring chance". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bournival's shooting issue is he treats the puck like it's a hand grenade. He doesn't take any time with it. Even when he'd be better to pass it he'll just fire it at the net. That seems to be a coaching thing. That's from Hamilton's system. Get in the zone, shoot, and hope for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It can't be coaching - we have a coaching genius behind the bench! Bournival's shooting issue is he treats the puck like it's a hand grenade. He doesn't take any time with it. Even when he'd be better to pass it he'll just fire it at the net. That seems to be a coaching thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 It can't be coaching - we have a coaching genius behind the bench! Sounds more like it's due to that other genius: That's from Hamilton's system. Get in the zone, shoot, and hope for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Holy moly! Genius's are everywhere Batman. Although, I think Therrien is a different kind of Genius than Lefebvre, but who knows if in 10 years he actually becomes a better coach?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronthab Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Good reviews and comments from le gang. I'd like to tout a bit for Pleks who played himself into exhaustion and still don't get Vanek. Playoff hockey is weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.