Jump to content

Is Michel Therrien a real genius like Don says?


habs rule

Recommended Posts

Very good post MOLG as always. I really can't find anything i disagree with in there.

I think we agree totally but who knows what will happen. A key injury (price) and we are screwed in my opinion but can't blame that on the coach.

If Price doesn't get injured last year, I think we take the Kings to 6 or 7 games in the final, if not win the whole thing.

I think those who stated that Therrien is neither great nor bad actually answered the question perfectly, habs rule. It means that our recent success has been a combination of things and together they have all played a role in our achievements. Even if most of our success has indeed been as a result of having a great goalie, a coach still needs to tailor the team to play around their strengths. It's probably true that there are about 10-15 other coaches who could do the job just as well, but that still puts him in the upper echelon of coaches in the best league in the world.

While I personally don't think Therrien necessarily deserves any extreme praise, I don't think there necessarily needs to be a microscope on him either way. Land of believers or not, he's doing a fine job and he's part of the reason, along with Price, along with other reasons, that the Habs have enjoyed some success in the recent past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Price doesn't get injured last year, I think we take the Kings to 6 or 7 games in the final, if not win the whole thing.

I think those who stated that Therrien is neither great nor bad actually answered the question perfectly, habs rule. It means that our recent success has been a combination of things and together they have all played a role in our achievements. Even if most of our success has indeed been as a result of having a great goalie, a coach still needs to tailor the team to play around their strengths. It's probably true that there are about 10-15 other coaches who could do the job just as well, but that still puts him in the upper echelon of coaches in the best league in the world.

While I personally don't think Therrien necessarily deserves any extreme praise, I don't think there necessarily needs to be a microscope on him either way. Land of believers or not, he's doing a fine job and he's part of the reason, along with Price, along with other reasons, that the Habs have enjoyed some success in the recent past.

Well that is a very good post and I don't disagree.

I think everybody knows that I am not an MT fan, I don't think I have to be. I have already said that the results are very good. He has his shiny new contract, and is doing well. I am not saying at this point we should fire him, but at the same time I think he was pretty close to being gone last year. I have to admit that any coach who has the results he has would be deemed a virtual genius. Except for Guy Carbonneau who gets no respect. By the way the "Don said MT is a genius" is just a joke. I just like to bug Don every now and again. I started this because of the article that I read and quoted at the beginning, there is no statistical way you can say Les Canadiens deserved to go as far as they did last year. They are a very strange team that seems to win in spite of themselves. Hey I love the winning but I often wonder how can he do some of the bone headed things that we saw last year and win? Maybe that is the genius part and I am just too dum to figure it out. Besides I wanted to hear something other than who is going to play right wing in a couple of weeks. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the coach, one should remember the coach from our last two Cups: Jacques Demers and Jean Perron. Not exactly cream of the crop. When we had cream of the crop in Pat Burns? We only made it to the Cup finals.

Coaching is tricky like that.

(if we want to go more modern, we've seen Dan Bylsma, Randy Carlyle and Pierre Laviolette hoist the Cup. None of those guys are a plateau better than Therrien like Babcock, Quennville and Sutter are.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the coach, one should remember the coach from our last two Cups: Jacques Demers and Jean Perron. Not exactly cream of the crop. When we had cream of the crop in Pat Burns? We only made it to the Cup finals.

Coaching is tricky like that.

(if we want to go more modern, we've seen Dan Bylsma, Randy Carlyle and Pierre Laviolette hoist the Cup. None of those guys are a plateau better than Therrien like Babcock, Quennville and Sutter are.)

I personally thought that Jacques Demers was a heck of a coach and should not have been fired when he was. Pat Burns was a heck of a coach and never should have left. Now the guy that won some Stanley cups just before these guys was a pretty good coach as I recall. And talk about tricky he was very tricky. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I don't really think that Therrien's a genius, but Habs Rule, you just left me an opening that was too tempting to resist. I do think that MT has proven himself to be a capable coach and a coach that has wrung every possible win out of this team. Also, I agree with you about Demers and Burns both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I don't really think that Therrien's a genius, but Habs Rule, you just left me an opening that was too tempting to resist. I do think that MT has proven himself to be a capable coach and a coach that has wrung every possible win out of this team. Also, I agree with you about Demers and Burns both

I accept that. Hell I thought I was going to get really flamed but everyone is so nice :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1990-91 Laval Titan QMJHL Head 3 2 1 0 0 0.667 Lost in round 2

1993-94 Laval Titan QMJHL Head 58 41 16 1 0 0.716 Lost in Finals

1994-95 Laval Titan College Francais QMJHL Head 72 48 22 2 0 0.681 Lost in Finals

1995-96 Granby Predateurs QMJHL Head 70 56 12 2 0 0.814 Won Championship

1996-97 Granby Predateurs QMJHL Head 70 44 20 6 0 0.671 Lost in round 2

1997-98 Fredericton Canadiens AHL Head 80 33 32 10 5 0.506 Lost in round 1

1998-99 Fredericton Canadiens AHL Head 80 33 36 6 5 0.481 Lost in round 3

1999-00 Quebec Citadelles AHL Head 80 37 34 5 4 0.519 Lost in round 1

2000-01 Quebec Citadelles AHL Head 19 12 6 1 0 0.658

2000-01 Montreal Canadiens NHL Head 62 23 27 6 6 0.468 Out of Playoffs

2001-02 Montreal Canadiens NHL Head 82 36 31 12 3 0.530 Lost in round 2

2002-03 Montreal Canadiens NHL Head 46 18 19 4 5 0.489

2003-04 Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins AHL Head 80 34 28 10 8 0.538 Lost in Finals

2004-05 Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins AHL Head 80 39 27 0 14 0.575 Lost in round 2

2005-06 Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins AHL Head 25 21 1 2 1 0.900

2005-06 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL Head 51 14 29 8 0 0.353 Out of Playoffs

2006-07 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL Head 82 47 24 0 11 0.640 Lost in round 1

2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL Head 82 47 27 0 8 0.622 Lost in Finals

2008-09 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL Head 57 27 25 0 5 0.518

2012-13 Montreal Canadiens NHL Head 48 29 14 0 5 0.656 Lost in round 1

2013-14 Montreal Canadiens NHL Head 82 46 28 0 8 0.610 Lost in round 3

This is his entire coaching record, He did win a championship once, has good numbers during the season usually out early in the playoffs. Unlike what he said about Dustin Tokarski he himself is not a winner at every level.

This is just information for giggles and laughs. One thing I will say is he is pretty consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I had never heard that but yeah apparently he spit on a goaltender from the other team a guy he had coached in junior. Here is the link, its actually a funny read.http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/04/22/montreal-canadiens-coach-michel-therrien-has-grown-a-lot-since-his-days-a-bullying-young-coach-former-player-terry-ryan-says-in-his-new-book/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

Well I had never heard that but yeah apparently he spit on a goaltender from the other team a guy he had coached in junior. Here is the link, its actually a funny read.http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/04/22/montreal-canadiens-coach-michel-therrien-has-grown-a-lot-since-his-days-a-bullying-young-coach-former-player-terry-ryan-says-in-his-new-book/

LOL, oh man, he's a pure hot head. Pretty funny he was a bodyguard at one point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Ralph on Bobcatfan590 today. "In today's game where you cant send a player down, long term security, no movement clauses, systems in place, players groomed to be students of the systems since before junior........the difference between a great coach and a mediocre coach is miniscule. Personality mostly. I do agree with Knuckles Nilan that its poppy cock that the habs were done after an emotional second round win over the Bruins. Nilan states that he thought Therrien was out coached badly in the semis by the Rangers coach. Not adapting or adjusting what so ever in game six when the Rangers quite obviously took away the stretch pass. Montreal just kept trying the same thing all night even though it was not working. Losing 1-0 while generating a grand total of two good scoring chances the entire game. Ouch.

Loved the powerplay the entire five years Muller was in charge of it. Have not been impressed with it the last two seasons under Therrien and his staff. Capable is the word I would use in describing Therriens work in the last two seasons. Genius? Hardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Ralph on Bobcatfan590 today. "In today's game where you cant send a player down, long term security, no movement clauses, systems in place, players groomed to be students of the systems since before junior........the difference between a great coach and a mediocre coach is miniscule. Personality mostly. I do agree with Knuckles Nilan that its poppy cock that the habs were done after an emotional second round win over the Bruins. Nilan states that he thought Therrien was out coached badly in the semis by the Rangers coach. Not adapting or adjusting what so ever in game six when the Rangers quite obviously took away the stretch pass. Montreal just kept trying the same thing all night even though it was not working. Losing 1-0 while generating a grand total of two good scoring chances the entire game. Ouch.

Loved the powerplay the entire five years Muller was in charge of it. Have not been impressed with it the last two seasons under Therrien and his staff. Capable is the word I would use in describing Therriens work in the last two seasons. Genius? Hardly.

Yeah that is a good comment and right on the nose with Knuckles. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nice posts in this thread, with Habs30's entry the most recent example of this.

Knuckles is underrated as a commentator and analyst IMHO. Give that man an assistant coaching gig!! I'd have to go back and re-watch the Rags series to see whether his critique stands up, but who am I to argue with Chris Nilan? :ph34r: Bottom line is, I share Habs30's conclusion that Therrien is "capable," not awesome. Certainly Quennville, Babcock, Darryl Sutter, Vigneault and Julien rate higher than him, for instance.

Interesting to note that three coaches from the Habs' worst era - Therrien, Vigneault, and Julien - have all gone on to carve out lasting and successful careers for themselves. I guess that's the one thing our organization got right in those dark years. Or maybe the crucible of coaching terrible teams in hockey's most demanding market is the sort of thing that, if you survive it, will result in your being able to handle anything the game throws at you. It's doubly interesting, though, in as much as we have not reproduced this success in producing head coaches in the more successful years that followed: Carbo, Boucher, and Cunneyworth were abject and total failures, and you look at guys like Don Lever or Sylvain Lefevbre, they haven't done much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go that far. They still have Dion Phaneuf as their captain

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The biggest issue with Phaneuf is his salary. That's not Phaneuf's fault. If he were making 5.5 million, he'd be a great 2nd-4th defensman on any team in the league. (he'd be 3rd in Montreal, behind Subban and Markov.) Toronto overpaid him, and now he's an anchor around their collective necks.

I wouldn't go that far. They still have Dion Phaneuf as their captain

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The biggest issue with Phaneuf is his salary. That's not Phaneuf's fault. If he were making 5.5 million, he'd be a great 2nd-4th defensman on any team in the league. (he'd be 3rd in Montreal, behind Subban and Markov.) Toronto overpaid him, and now he's an anchor around their collective necks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The biggest issue with Phaneuf is his salary. That's not Phaneuf's fault. If he were making 5.5 million, he'd be a great 2nd-4th defensman on any team in the league. (he'd be 3rd in Montreal, behind Subban and Markov.) Toronto overpaid him, and now he's an anchor around their collective necks.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The biggest issue with Phaneuf is his salary. That's not Phaneuf's fault. If he were making 5.5 million, he'd be a great 2nd-4th defensman on any team in the league. (he'd be 3rd in Montreal, behind Subban and Markov.) Toronto overpaid him, and now he's an anchor around their collective necks.

The biggest issue might be his salary but no matter what they paid him, he is still and always will be an a$$hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto has close to $27M tied up in five forwards (Kessel, JVR, Lupul, Clarkson, Bozak). For comparison sake, Montreal has $26M wrapped in Pacioretty, Plekanec, Desharnais, Parenteau, Bourque, Prust and Eller. We get an extra two players for the price they pay.

Toronto also has Komarov, Gardiner and Phaneuf on long term deals and will have to start paying Kadri soon enough. They are in for a world of hurt if they don't move a Lupul or Clarkson.

Montreal's cap is well handled save for Bourque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montreal's cap is well handled save for Bourque.

While René Bourque certainly has a much more prolonged history of playing like Lars Eller than Lars Eller has had, I should point out, that so far, the two generally play comparably, with that same feeling of "je ne sais quoi ce bordel," and Eller was just signed for more money than Borked makes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While René Bourque certainly has a much more prolonged history of playing like Lars Eller than Lars Eller has had, I should point out, that so far, the two generally play comparably, with that same feeling of "je ne sais quoi ce bordel," and Eller was just signed for more money than Borked makes.

Eller has shown flashes of far more upside than Bourque, and Bourque has had years of lack luster effort, for two teams, so not truly comparable since Eller is a lot younger, C'mon man....

I agree that both these players could be more than they have been though....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, Bourque has had a much more prolonged history of playing like Lars Eller than Lars Eller has had. And it's true, he's 7 years older than Eller, too, so you can assume Eller has a greater chance of "breaking out" and becoming a decent player. On the other hand, I was wrong... Bourque playing like Lars Eller is actually a fairly recent occurrence. Bourque is only two seasons removed from a 4 year stretch where he amassed 93 goals (21-27-27-18). Really, last year was the anomaly in René Bourque's career, not the norm.

I'm not a Bourque fan. But honestly, he's got a better track record of playing well than Lars Eller. I think the amount MB gave Eller was ... really not a good decision. Eller shows flashes of brilliance, sure, but they don't translate into production so far, and they never have over a complete season. Maybe Eller will start to give us Bourque-like numbers this year and we'll be happy. But right now, 3.5 million for Eller is looking like we're overpaying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's some serious mental gymnastics.

Rene Bourque's numbers on the Canadiens (2 1/2 seasons): 128 games, 21 goals, 16 assists, 37 points

Eller's last three seasons in Montreal: 28 points in 11-12, 30 points in 12-13 and 26 points in 13-14.

Lars Eller was just 7 points away from replicating Rene Bourque's total numbers after 128 games with the Canadiens in just 46 games. There's a wide chasm between the player we've had in Montreal and who Rene Bourque was in Calgary. Arguing better track record would be like saying we might as well toss Alex Galchenyuk and go with Dany Heatley. Afterall, look at Heatley's track record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one who said "Track record in Montreal." You're also throwing around the strawman suggesting I want to ditch Eller for Bourque. I don't.

Lars Eller has had 3 full seasons in Montreal. In those three full seasons, he's managed 7 goals/17 points, 16 goals/28 points, and 12 goals/26 points. This seems to be his norm, so far. He's not deviating far from that. He also managed, in the lockout-shortened season 8 goals/30 points. This is far and a way his best year, although we didn't get to see if he could have sustained it year round, His other seasons seem to suggest that his few flashes of brilliance last a few weeks at a time, and then he disappears again for most of the season, so chances are what we saw in the 46 lockout-season games wouldn't be that much less than he'd have put up had he played 78 games that year, but we'll never know.

Even with all this in mind, though:

Eller is averaging 0.36 points per game in 4 seasons in Montreal.

Bourque is averaging 0.29 points per game in 2.5 seasons in Montreal.

Even just factoring in Montreal performance, those actually are comparable. There's a big difference, however...

Bourque was awarded his contract in the middle of his big-production run in Calgary before he ever came to Montreal. 3.33 million/season is what a 27 goal a year guy is was worth in 2010. That's it.

Lars Eller was awarded his contract after displaying no such prowess... we gave him 3.5 million a year in hopes he might someday equal what Rene Bourque already has done - because make no mistake about it: To be worth his new contract, Eller must start putting up numbers this year that make him look like Bourque did in Calgary.

Sure, I have a problem with René Bourque's lack of production since he came to Montréal. I can't explain it. He dropped from being a 0.66 points per game player to a 0.29 points per game player. However, you can't predict the type of effect a trade occasionally seems to have on someone. I have a bigger problem with awarding a 25 year old kid even more money when he's never accomplished anything close to what Bourque was doing when he signed his contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therrien has exceeded my expectations. It's also clear that Bergevin works well with him, and they have a solid long-term approach to personnel decisions. Quenneville is the best eligible (francophone) candidate, but after him I don't see who is better besides Julien (never!) and Vigneault (wouldn't mind some day).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one who said "Track record in Montreal." You're also throwing around the strawman suggesting I want to ditch Eller for Bourque. I don't.

Lars Eller has had 3 full seasons in Montreal. In those three full seasons, he's managed 7 goals/17 points, 16 goals/28 points, and 12 goals/26 points. This seems to be his norm, so far. He's not deviating far from that. He also managed, in the lockout-shortened season 8 goals/30 points. This is far and a way his best year, although we didn't get to see if he could have sustained it year round, His other seasons seem to suggest that his few flashes of brilliance last a few weeks at a time, and then he disappears again for most of the season, so chances are what we saw in the 46 lockout-season games wouldn't be that much less than he'd have put up had he played 78 games that year, but we'll never know.

Even with all this in mind, though:

Eller is averaging 0.36 points per game in 4 seasons in Montreal.

Bourque is averaging 0.29 points per game in 2.5 seasons in Montreal.

Even just factoring in Montreal performance, those actually are comparable. There's a big difference, however...

Bourque was awarded his contract in the middle of his big-production run in Calgary before he ever came to Montreal. 3.33 million/season is what a 27 goal a year guy is was worth in 2010. That's it.

Lars Eller was awarded his contract after displaying no such prowess... we gave him 3.5 million a year in hopes he might someday equal what Rene Bourque already has done - because make no mistake about it: To be worth his new contract, Eller must start putting up numbers this year that make him look like Bourque did in Calgary.

Sure, I have a problem with René Bourque's lack of production since he came to Montréal. I can't explain it. He dropped from being a 0.66 points per game player to a 0.29 points per game player. However, you can't predict the type of effect a trade occasionally seems to have on someone. I have a bigger problem with awarding a 25 year old kid even more money when he's never accomplished anything close to what Bourque was doing when he signed his contract.

You absolutely compared the two based on "track record" using Rene Bourque's time on a different team with different linemates and closer to Eller's current age. It's a wacky comparison.

Your averaging is also stretching.

2013-2014

Eller (4th NHL season): .34 PPG

Bourque (9th NHL season): .25 PPG

2012-2013

Eller (3rd NHL season): .65 PPG

Bourque (8th NHL season): .48 PPG

2011-2012

Eller (2nd NHL season): .35 PPG

Bourque (7th NHL season): .21 PPG

The cap percentage of what Bourque cost when he got his contract is different to the cap percentage of what Eller is costing for Montreal today. Bourque took a larger percentage of the cap at $3.3M.

Eller isn't being to become Rene Bourque. He's already better than Bourque. He's better defensively, he's better offensively, he works harder and he's beaten Bourque in PPG every year they've played together. Eller's target is higher than Bourque. We're also comparing a 25 year old with a 32 year old. Different points in their careers with different responsibilities. Bourque's on his way out, Eller is on his way up. One is a winger, the other a center.

Also, Eller doesn't have to put up Bourque's numbers in Calgary because Bourque was a top six player with PP1/PP2 minutes. Eller is a third line center and will likely not see much powerplay time behind Desharnais and Plekanec. 30-40 points is his expected numbers in that place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with the Eller debate. Look, Eller probably has been better than Bourque, all told, although it's a marginal advantage. Eller's "big year" (the half-season of 2012-13) actually coincided with a strong season by Bourque, so they do oddly mirror each other. Contrary to myth, Eller is not good defensively (-15 on a plus team, playing mostly against other teams' secondary lines, does not speak to awesome defensive prowess); he brings marginal offence; he does hit, but not in any particularly impactful way; he's solid, not awesome, on face-offs; and he is not consistent at all. The $3.5 we threw at him is based almost entirely on potential. Unlike Bourque, he does have potential. I am skeptical that he will fulfill it but I don't rule out the possibility. Zoot Suit is less skeptical. We'll see how it turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...