Tomas Plekanec #1 Center!

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

DD is the feed man. He doesn't need to put up big numbers in the goal dept. He wasnt signed for that

Not that we'll complain if he buries a few in OT like last night.

A playmaker needs to be at least a bit of a goal-scoring threat. It means the defense has to cover him, not just his line-mates, which makes him a better playmaker, as his line-mates have more room to skate.

[DON]

A playmaker is called a playmaker and not a sniper/scorer for a reason, sure helps if he shoots enough to keep goalies honest, but does not seem DDs' nature to be a prima donna scorer and I am sure 2 assists to him is similar as 2 goals to Pacioretty.

Some players just refuse to shoot, like Tanquay, Hemsky, DD and others who will consistently pass up open looks for opportunity to set up goal for a linemate.

But DD is just not selfish enough to care about personal 'glory' it seems?

(just my goofy view on his play anyways)

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

Interestingly, Desharnais was our best shootout performer over the last two years, with 7 goals scored in shootouts in 11 attempts. (Lars Eller was second with 4 goals in 6 attempts.) As much as I hate the shootout, it does show a player's ability to put the puck behind the goaltender.

[JCPetit]

DD is not shooter, but he is dangerous when he gets close to the net. A fine season for him would be to score 15 to 20 goals and between 45 to 55 assists. Think he can do that but the real test is the playoffs. I doubt that he has the power and stamina to bring his A game when the goings get really tough. And this apply to Plekanec too. I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I really believe that this year will be a test.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Desharnais's career shooting percentage is 15.5%. That's pretty incredible.

[Habs30/31]

DD is not shooter, but he is dangerous when he gets close to the net. A fine season for him would be to score 15 to 20 goals and between 45 to 55 assists. Think he can do that but the real test is the playoffs. I doubt that he has the power and stamina to bring his A game when the goings get really tough. And this apply to Plekanec too. I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I really believe that this year will be a test.

Accurately put.

[Habs30/31]

Interestingly, Desharnais was our best shootout performer over the last two years, with 7 goals scored in shootouts in 11 attempts. (Lars Eller was second with 4 goals in 6 attempts.) As much as I hate the shootout, it does show a player's ability to put the puck behind the goaltender.

PK was quite good Hamilton on shoot outs. Pleased the crown many times. The move he put on Rask outta the penalty box breakaway in last years play offs, and then again the other night against the aves shows he can score on break aways. MT should give him a shot. Pleks is something like 4 for 29. Subban should go way ahead of him.

[Habs30/31]

Quite frankly, that's bullshit.

Almost all of Pleks shifts were in the defensive zone, and he was the best damn defensive shutdown center in the entire league last year, and he did it while putting up respectable offensive numbers.

You also grossly overrate the importance of the center position. Goaltending? Nothing more important. Defense? Absolutely essential. But forwards are all pretty much interchangeable. Apart from faceoffs, nothing about a center makes them inherently more valuable than a winger. Rolling 3 "number 2" lines is always more effective than a defined 1-2-3.

"Quite frankly that bullshit" ( ;

Plekanic and gionta played powerplay as well as killing penalties.Offensive zone and defensive zone shifts. Were also the go to line on the ice at the end of almost every period and every game.Winning or losing. Also started the game at center ice more than any other line by far. You dont lead every 700 players in shifts and not be be taking shifts in the offensive zone as well as the "defensive zone"

"grossly over rate the importance of the center position". And you underrate it, likely because Habs are weakest there. How about this, Gezlaf, Zetts and Datzuik, Crosby and Malkin, Teows, Bergeron and Kretchi, Kopitar, Carter and Richards, Toews, Kopitar and Carter, Staal and Brindamour, Lecavalier....................................those are the centermen who played for the cup winners going back the last 10 straight years.

MB Will build a contender. But unless Price pulls a Roy of 93 or 86, The habs are not a serious contender this year.....Not with pleks and dd as their one two centermen (way too easily nulified at play off time).......Those two were not even competing by the semi finals last season. Against the rangers they were just terrible. Lars Eller outplayed both of them!!

btw....even the 93 and 86 habs teams, while Roy was spectacular....those teams had far better centermen.

[JCPetit]

PK was quite good Hamilton on shoot outs. Pleased the crown many times. The move he put on Rask outta the penalty box breakaway in last years play offs, and then again the other night against the aves shows he can score on break aways. MT should give him a shot. Pleks is something like 4 for 29. Subban should go way ahead of him.

PK is so talented, I believe that if he was switched to the wing, it would not take long for him to figure how to play the position and become one of the best power forwards in the NHL.

[DON]

playing wing isn't rocket science and much easier than d (why Beaulieu maybe should be a winger, he just may not be smart enough to play d )

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Habs30/31 is probably oversimplifying, but he has a legitimate point in the following, common-sense way: the Habs are indeed weaker at C than most other teams classified as "contenders." While I wouldn't go so far as to say that we can NEVER win the Cup with this situation in place - it's too much like the argument in the early 1990s that you could NEVER win the Cup without a Lemieux/Jagr-style offensive superstar, a myth the Habs and Devils completely punctured - it is a legitimate competitive disadvantage. We might be able to compensate for that disadvantage by exceptional strengths in other areas (Subban, Price, a more balanced attack than other teams), but it remains a disadvantage.

One key thing that happened in last year's playoffs was that Lars Eller suddenly stepped up and played up to his potential instead of playing like a dummy. While that did not give us an elite C, it WAS like adding a second Plekanec to the roster, and definitely helped to compensate for that competitive disadvantage through depth. The problem is, it's far from clear that you can pencil in Eller for that kind of performance going forward. So, structurally, the issue remains.

The error occurs when people (in effect) attack Pleks for not being Getzlaf, just as they attack DD for the same thing. Getting rid of these guys will not fix the problem, because they are not the problem, as such. They are very fine, very valuable hockey players. But if some other team has a Crosby or Stamkos at C and we don't, by definition we have a disadvantage at C. No getting around it.

[JCPetit]

Habs30/31 is probably oversimplifying, but he has a legitimate point in the following, common-sense way: the Habs are indeed weaker at C than most other teams classified as "contenders." While I wouldn't go so far as to say that we can NEVER win the Cup with this situation in place - it's too much like the argument in the early 1990s that you could NEVER win the Cup without a Lemieux/Jagr-style offensive superstar, a myth the Habs completely punctured - it is a legitimate competitive disadvantage. We might be able to compensate for that disadvantage by exceptional strengths in other areas (Subban, Price, a more balanced attack than other teams), but it remains a disadvantage.

One key thing that happened in last year's playoffs was that Lars Eller suddenly stepped up and played up to his potential instead of playing like a dummy. While that did not give us an elite C, it WAS like adding a second Plekanec to the roster, and definitely helped to compensate for that competitive disadvantage through depth. The problem is, it's far from clear that you can pencil in Eller for that kind of performance going forward. So, structurally, the issue remains.

The error occurs when people (in effect) attack Pleks for not being Getzlaf, just as they attack DD for the same thing. Getting rid of these guys will not fix the problem, because they are not the problem, as such. They are very fine, very valuable hockey players. But if some other team has Crosby and we don't, by definition we have a disadvantage at C. No getting around it.

You have got a point. We can't blame Plekanec for not being Sidney Crosby. The problem with DD and Plekanec is not the quality of their play or commitment. I am sure they are honest, dedicated persons. It's just that they are not playing where they should be, given their talent and potential. With a real contender, they would certainly not playing on the 1st line, not even on the 2nd with a team like the Kings or Penguins (this one has other weak spots and is probably no longer a contender).

I wish MB could make a trade like Serge Savard who was able to add Bobby Smith and a few years later Vincent Damphousse to help the team reach the next level. Don't tell me that we would not be stronger if we had someone like Eric Staal to pivot the 1st line.

[DON]

We arnt paying 2 centres $8m each as Pitt is and thus are deeper than Pitt, even with no All-Star centres. How did Crosby-Getzlaf led teams do in past few playoffs?

Old adage, defense is required to win championships in team sports. (but having only 1 All-Star forward is a weakness for a contender, I agree)

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

A team rolling three equal "second lines" will destroy a team with the best top line in the league, and as a consequence two filler lines that shouldn't be on the ice.

The strategy of "rolling three equal lines" precludes having a Crosby, Tavares, or Getzlaf. It is, however, BETTER than having a Crosby, Tavares, or Getzlaf. Balancing your players is key - eliminating weak points, and having a serious threat to score on every line.

[DON]

agree

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

I am sure they are honest, dedicated persons. It's just that they are not playing where they should be, given their talent and potential. With a real contender, they would certainly not playing on the 1st line, not even on the 2nd with a team like the Kings or Penguins (this one has other weak spots and is probably no longer a contender).

I wish MB could make a trade like Serge Savard who was able to add Bobby Smith and a few years later Vincent Damphousse to help the team reach the next level. Don't tell me that we would not be stronger if we had someone like Eric Staal to pivot the 1st line.

1) They are playing up to their potential. Their potential is a legitimate top 50 forward in the NHL. That's what they're both doing. (Plekanec should actually be rated a top 10 forward in the entire league, because he's much better defensively than any of the guys who score more points than him.)

2) They're both better than anything Pittsburgh or Los Angeles have beyond their first lines.

3) Montreal doesn't have a first line. They don't have a third line. They roll three roughly equal offensive lines and a checking line. That's how the best teams are built.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I'm a big believer in the "balanced attack" model too. I do think it overrides a lot of the hand-wringing about the lack of a stud C. But still...do we really have a more balanced attack than LA or Chicago or even San Jose? Or do those teams just have balance like ours *plus* superior C (Kopitar, Toews, etc.)? In the case of LA, they trump us in every key position: their stud C and G are at least as impressive as ours, while their C are better.

I think that if Eller/Bourque play like they did in the playoffs, it may be that we have as deadly an overall forward unit as any team in the league when healthy and may indeed be bona-fide contenders. If they don't, then I doubt that we have the depth to compete with those teams. Since those two players are chronic pieces of crap who can never be relied upon to show up, this remains a valid structural concern.

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

Agreed - guys like Eller and Bourque are the problem -- NOT guys like DD and Pleks. Last year's great playoff run was a result of Eller and Bourque suddenly deciding to show up to play. They're not reliable, though, and you can't count on that. We need to replace the dead weight, not actual reliable performers like DD and Pleks.

Drop them both - for the 7 million we save we could bring in a pretty damn good forward.

Dress Weise and Moen both to fill the hole that's left.

Call up Bournival to sit in the press box.

[JCPetit]

1) They are playing up to their potential. Their potential is a legitimate top 50 forward in the NHL. That's what they're both doing. (Plekanec should actually be rated a top 10 forward in the entire league, because he's much better defensively than any of the guys who score more points than him.)

2) They're both better than anything Pittsburgh or Los Angeles have beyond their first lines.

3) Montreal doesn't have a first line. They don't have a third line. They roll three roughly equal offensive lines and a checking line. That's how the best teams are built.

Sorry, I don't agree with that. IMO, we are too easily outmuscled when it really counts. The best example would be Vancouver. The Sedins are great players in the regular season, but they obviously were too soft for post-season hockey.

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

The Sedins have been to a Stanley Cup final.

Montreal's got a lot more playoff wins on their roster than most teams.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

What "outmuscled?" We defeated the Boston Bruins in one of the most physically punishing playoff series I've ever seen. Sure, we went on to lose to the Rags, but was that because they "outmuscled" us in a way the Bruins couldn't - ? Seems implausible to me.

As for the Sedins, it they got "outmuscled" it was because the Finals series was refereed in a fashion designed to give the Bruins a massive advantage. Last time I checked, repeatedly punching someone in the face ought to be penalized. Also, their PP was ineffective against Boston's PK, which provided a further incentive for Boston to goon it up. And even so they went to 7 games. This notion that they're soft players is complete and abject BS.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Some Habs have PTSD when it comes to the Senators series. We weren't outmuscled though. We were taken off our game, tried to fight the Sens and were beaten by hot goaltending as Price went down injured.

[Neech]

I agree with the assessment that the Habs have a disadvantage at C when stacked up against other top contenders (and also with the counter that we can make up for this deficit with strengths in other areas and overall balance). But nothing needs to be done about that now; our best hope for improvement is not to trade one of our contributors, but to wait and see if our 'great white hope' Galchenyuk can turn into a legitimate top 10-15 C in the league (which would probably mean he's good for 70-80 points year in year out, a feasible goal). At that point, the writing will be on the wall for (at least) one of Plekanec, DD and Eller. For this season, though, we should stand pat with what looks to be a pretty deep and talented forward roster.

[JCPetit]

The last two times we won the Cup Serge Savard did not hesitate to fill a gap with a transformative acquisition (remember Smith and Damphousse). Sam Pollock did the same thing when he acquired Frank Mahovlich from the Wings. Lacroix borrowed the same recipe when he traded for Roy and Bourque. The chances to win the Stanley Cup finals don't come along very often. When a GM sees a window of opportunity, it is his job to open it as wide and for as long as he can.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

The last two times we won the Cup Serge Savard did not hesitate to fill a gap with a transformative acquisition (remember Smith and Damphousse). Sam Pollock did the same thing when he acquired Frank Mahovlich from the Wings. Lacroix borrowed the same recipe when he traded for Roy and Bourque. The chances to win the Stanley Cup finals don't come along very often. When a GM sees a window of opportunity, it is his job to open it as wide and for as long as he can.

True, but if you're looking 2-3 years down the line and believe that your team will actually be stronger then as a result of internal growth, you don't ship out the pieces that you project to be key to that growth. This'd be especially true in a cap system where shipping out youth can have grave consequences.

And, I'd add that MB has already shown himself willing to go for the big score - i.e., the Vanek deal. It all depends on what's out there and what you have to give up.