Jump to content

San Jose Sharks vs. Montreal Canadiens | December 16th, 2016 | 7:30 EST


Habsfan84

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I think we're having problems here in part because we're arguing about several issues jumbled together.

 

One is whether McCarron can legitimately be expected to become a top-6 FW. Commandant says 'no,' and to my mind the stats back him up; and the track record of fan mooning over prospects that turned out to be duds, or just average players, makes me skeptical of Commandant's critics on this.

 

Another is whether getting less than a top-6 FW is an acceptable return on a late first-round pick. I say, yes it is, especially when that guy is a 6'6 behemoth. Commandant seems to disagree, and so, apparently, does the 'Keith Primeau' crowd. But I don't agree that you can just go and sign a 6'6 hard-hitting 3rd line C at will. If it were that easy, we'd have done it repeatedly by now. So McCarron as a 3rd-line C sounds like a damned valuable asset to me, one not to be sneezed at.

 

A third issue is whether McCarron made sense as a pick in that slot, given what we knew at the time. Commandant is very wedded to his view that it didn't. But CerebusClone's review of the nearest alternatives does tend to suggest that the Habs, rather gutsily considering where Big Mac was ranked, made the right call.

 

And a fourth is whether the team has an unhelpful bias in favour of '200-ft-game' over high-end skill at the draft table. This is a really interesting question and one for which I have no informed answer. But I'm learning a lot from the thoughtful posts above. One thing I will say is that the long-standing dearth of serious talent up front - imagine where we'd be this season without UFA deus ex machina Radulov! - is at least suggestive that Commandant has a point.

 

It's just too bad these discussions always have to degenerate into name-calling.:rolleyes: It's a clear case of arguments being so heated because the stakes are so low.

 

On the third issue... These guys are 21.  Its important to note that none of them are fully in the NHL yet. 

Even Mike McCarron isn't an NHLer today... He's an AHLer who is up with our team because we have an incredible amount of injuries. 

 

We can revisit this, but here is where guys are. 

 

Shea Theodore is a #6 defenceman in Anaheim.  He has real offensive potential, and he still very well could be a top 4 guy.

 

The guy i wanted... JT Compher, was one of the top scorers in junior hockey last year.  This year he has 12 points in 13 AHL games.  Again not a sure thing to make the top 6, but a guy who is progressing that way. 

 

Marko Dano has 40 points in 96 career NHL games.

 

Chris Bigras is looking like a potential top 4 D

 

Pavel Buchnevich never should have fallen to the third round.  Huge talent but people got scared cause he was russian 8 pts in his first 10 NHL games before getting hurt. 

Yes, no one has become a top 6 fwd or top 4 D yet.... but there are a bunch whose stats are trending that way. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Commandant said:

And cause I know you all love advanced stats... Michael McCarron put up a corsi of 25% against Washington on Saturday Night.

 

Thats considerably worse than the 34% that George Parros managed during his one season as a Hab.  

 

Translation.... Thats terrible and below NHL quality. 

Yes, isn't that is the same stat Crosby, Kopitar and other highly paid players are shown to be bad bad players with? Even you admitted corsi by itself is quite a meaningless stat, so why toss it out there...hmmm?

Oh well, maybe you are right and Habs would be better off with Parros's moustache than McCarron as a prospect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DON said:

Yes, isn't that is the same stat Crosby, Kopitar and other highly paid players are shown to be bad bad players with? Even you admitted corsi by itself is quite a meaningless stat, so why toss it out there...hmmm?

Oh well, maybe you are right and Habs would be better off with Parros's moustache than McCarron as a prospect?

 

I didn't say they would be better off with Parros.  I said that he had a bad game in Washington.  People saying he played well in both games this season, i don't know what these people are seeing in the Washington game. He was not good in that one.  He was good against San Jose (weak early, but finished strong and was strong overall).... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WELL, firstly i didnt say he was their highest scorer in the OHL playoffs i said he was there most valuable player and best C. which is so very true! just wanted to correct you there ;) AND If you actually watched those playoffs (specifically erie otter finals), i find it hard for you to not agree about that championship run in particular... but i can understand, considering that you have such a negative bias against this player in particular (as everybody on this forum can see) Also, are you saying you'd rather have cassels or dal Colle in the system?

 

ironically every other prospect you mentioned in his draft has some sort of top 6 upside to them but Mike McCarron. You said yourself he wasnt drafted as a C but a winger and since switching he has excelled. so all that scouting done on the player as a winger is out the door because he's a C 

 

as for the primeau comparison,

i didnt say mccarron was the next primeau, i said but why not? why is his ceiling just a 3rd/4th liner, ala brian boyle. why cant he continue to develop into something more then that, a 2nd line power forward? if you think he's already plateaued as a developing prospect then ok... but absolutley nothing points to his growth and development as a hockey player being stagnant. he hasn't reached his potential and he's only 21!

 

as for primeau's OHL career, sure he got 127 pts in his 3rd season in the league. mike unfortunately didn't play a 3rd season in the ohl like primeau did at a time when points were very much easier to come by compared to now 20 years later. The facts are that primeau played in 3 ohl seasons not 2 and only put up major points (the 127pts your talking about) in his 3rd season.

his first 2 seasons in the OHL primeau scored 67 points in 95 games good for .705 pts/game compared to mikes first 2 ohl seasons of 102 pts in 122 games (34pts in 66 as a RW and 68 pts in 56 as a C) good for .836 pts per game. and yes he was a year older but big freakin deal. you need to play games to develop! regardless of age.

mike played only 19 games in what would of been his first ohl season for the us junior development team hardly the equivalent of what a 50 game OHL season plus playoffs would bring to a prospect in terms of development.

 

obviously hindsight is 20 and 20 and after seeing primeau's whole career its easy to say NO F"N way there the same player but... mike's whole career still needs to be written...

 

primeau

21 yr old- in his 3rd pro season became a regular nhler and had 32 points in 73 games those numbers although decent for a rookie are'nt knock your socks off... especially in that era 

 

20 yr old- his 2nd pro season he split between the ahl and nhl and scored 45pts and another 16pts in 35games in the nhl

 

mike mccarron

 

21 yr old- 2nd pro season has 13 pts in both the nhl and ahl with almost 50 game left in the season

 

20 yr old- 1st pro season had 48 points playing majority in the AHL and 20 in the nhl on the 4th line.

 

Again primeau didnt blossom into a legit top 6 until his 4th season in the NHL!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I think we're having problems here in part because we're arguing about several issues jumbled together.

 

One is whether McCarron can legitimately be expected to become a top-6 FW. Commandant says 'no,' and to my mind the stats back him up; and the track record of fan mooning over prospects that turned out to be duds, or just average players, makes me skeptical of Commandant's critics on this.

 

I would add to this another related issue, what is a Top 6 forward? When some people talk about a top forward, they describe an offensive juggernaut who needs to score at least 60 points per season no matter who they play with... and yet in reality there isn't a single team that even comes close to having 6 such forwards (last year Chicago and Pittsburg only had 2 players with 60+ points, the Blues only one, the Caps did better with 3). All teams have Top 6 forwards who end up with 40+ or 50+ points. 

 

For example there is a player in Montreal that most people love, almost no one has any issue classifying as a top 6 forward, and yet has never scored more than 47 points. This despite first line, all offensive quality minutes with first power play line duties. I'm talking about Brendan Gallagher. 

 

To come back to Micheal McCarron, let's say we give him quality minutes centering a first line with Pacioretty and Radulov. Or a second line with Gallagher and Pacioretty (with Galchenyuk, Radulov, and Lehkonen getting the better PP minutes). Don't you think he would be capable of ending up at least in the 45-55 points range? Assuming that line is responsible (i.e. finishes with a plus rating and not some awful line that gets dominated game after game), that McCarron does pretty well on faceoffs, brings a strong physical presence, and plays in all game situations, wouldn't that make him a pretty decent Top 6 forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

i think any C could get points between radulov and pacioretty. the real question for mike would be could he keep pace with those 2? 

That's what I'm saying, a good top 6 forward doesn't have to be an offensive leader, the guy who generates the offensive opportunities for his teammates, he can also be a Gallagher-type player who needs to be surrounded by players with more skilled players, and brings something unique to transform a good duo into an excellent line. 

 

It remains to be seen whether McCarron can follow the pace on a first or second NHL line for an entire season, and if he does, he does bring some hard-to-find assets that could really help the team. I think this is what TImmins and Bergevin are hoping McCarron can turn into, that he has the hockey sense, the hands, and enough overall skills to become a power-forward in the NHL. And then yes they will settle for a good depth third liner if that's all he's capable of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Michael dal Colle was Oshawa's most valuable player; let's not play revisionist history here.  

 

And I watched the vast, vast majority of their playoff games, including the entire series with Erie.  Here is how i know you either didn't watch the Erie series, or are misremembering it.  I watched it all and Oshawa did NOT match McCarron with McDavid.... The player who was matched against McDavid was Cole Cassels, and the player who was matched with Dylan Strome was McCarron.  He did a good job on Strome, but he was NOT the team's MVP....   How could he have been the MVP when he wasn't scoring the points, and wasn't matched up against the other team's top line?

 

And yes, I would much rather have Michael dal Colle in the Habs system than Mike McCarron.

 

2) The basis for other prospects having top 6 upside and McCarron not having it.  Its simple.... They are SCORING in the AHL.  He is not.  Guys who can't score at lower levels don't suddenly develop into scorers at higher levels.  It just doesn't happen very often.  They are projecting as possible (not guaranteed) top 6 guys.  McCarron is projecting as a third liner/fourth liner right now. 

 

3) Primeau was scoring at 4x the rate of McCarron in the OHL in his draft year... 4x the rate of McCarron scored post draft. 

At 18 he was in the NHL, while McCarron was struggling through that terrible year in London

At 19 he was also in the NHL, while McCarron was still in the OHL.

At 20, he was scoring 32 points in the NHL, while you were celebrating McCarron's 48 AHL points, and 2 points in 20 games at the NHL level. 

 

These are NOT THE SAME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Desharnais scored 60 points playing with Cole and Pacioretty, does that make him a true top 6 forward, or a guy who was carried by two better players.

 

He was a third liner being carried by two 35 goal wingers.

 

Notice where that team finished in the standings.

 

Maybe if you put McCarron with Radulov and Pacioretty he gets 45-55 points... maybe he doesn't... it would be interesting to see how far too elite wingers could drag him, but that would not make us a good hockey team with him on that line, and it doesn't make him a true top 6 talent, just like it didn't for DD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And comparing a rookie OHL season for an 18 year old, with 2 years of playing US NTDP against the best 17-18 year olds in the world, and against NCAA teams is flawed, incredibly flawed.  No one who assesses stats would do this.  You are comparing apples to oranges if you ignore those two years of US NTDP. 

 

His first year in London was his third year of junior hockey.  Just cause he spent two years playing in the States doesn't change that.  The US NTDP plays competition that is on average tougher than the average OHL team, and plays just as many games.  Just because he took a different route, you don't compare his first season in the OHL to what Primeau did at 16. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hold on hold on... firstly and again im not saying he is the next keith primeau. im saying why cant our expectations be higher then that of a 4th liner.

BUT to continue this for entertainment purposes...

 

how you twist your stats... their careers in the nhl are 1 year apart forget your 16 to 18 bologna because frankly at the end of the day the era was different and the leagues were different!

 

so keith Primeau class of 71'

1990 when primeau was 19 and not 18 he played his first 58 games in the nhl and scored only 15 points as a C .259pts/game

1991 he was 20 and split time in both the NHL and AHL and got 16pts in 35 games  .457pts/game

1992 he became a full time NHLer at age 21 and played 73 games scoring 32 points  .438 pts/game

 

in total he played 909 NHL games and scored 619pts for .68 pts/game so lets not paint primeau out to be a scoring machine ala lindros....

 

primeau's best nhl season(pts) came in 1993 with 73 points (8 players had over 100 points that year and another 13 players broke the 90 point mark (just a small example of how points were come by)

 

all players have different paths to the nhl especially in different era's. if you follow hockey like i know you do... coaches at the minor and junior level play HUGE, HUGE rolls in how players develop, how they are exposed to scouts etc...

 

i wasn't diminishing the USNDT not one bit. i said he played in only 19 games in 2012... playing a checking roll cause when your 6'6' and still growing and finding your way thats the roll your put in by your coach (so 19 games of action is hardly the same as 50 games of action in the OHL in the early 90's when for example the USNDT was nothing and the USHL wasnt even comparable.) Also take into consideration eichel (class of 1996) played in 37 games and larkin 35g (class of 1996) that same year and you can see how a year of mcCarrons development was burned (and thats not even mentioning how he was mis-used as a winger then)

 

so AGAIN im not saying he's gonna be boyle, or primeau or lindros or parros... im saying let the kid play and see... youv'e already played out his career in your head and spit out every stat possible to state your case.

 

you know being that big at the minor and junior level and not having developed the skating technique and the speed to keep up with the small fast kids on the top line is no different then a guy like Martin St. Louis being so small and not even getting drafted for the opposite reason! But as you get into your early to mid 20's all that stuff levels off across the board 

 

what i'm saying is he has the tools to be more then just a 4th liner in TODAY"S NHL. HIs size alone  almost guarantee's him a 4th line roll at this point.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No well thought out analysis from this guy:  I like big Mike cause he is huge and can crush people. Doesn't matter to me where he plays in the lineup and maybe the Habs will finally lose the "smurf" title 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

I didn't say they would be better off with Parros.  I said that he had a bad game in Washington.  People saying he played well in both games this season, i don't know what these people are seeing in the Washington game. He was not good in that one.  He was good against San Jose (weak early, but finished strong and was strong overall).... 

 

 

Cant say he was good nor bad in his 2nd game, but was just that, his 2nd game and simply to jump on him by tossing out some goofy stat, which also just happens to fit the story you are spinning is quite a coincidence. And as useless as Parros was your comparison to really drive home the point he sucked, when you are the only one to pick him out as having a bad game at all. Especially when he didn't have any major gaffs and team gave up one goal in a win...

Why cant you try and seem to say anything nice about him...anything? I hated the pick as well, but is history and I actually hope he now does well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, what we are talking about is McCarron a top 6, a bottom 6 or is he just a f'n terrible hockey player?

 

I don't think e has looked too bad, he seems faster than he was last year, and he sure can use the body, and fight some, not a total loss as a prospect maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KoRP said:

Really, what we are talking about is McCarron a top 6, a bottom 6 or is he just a f'n terrible hockey player?

 

I don't think e has looked too bad, he seems faster than he was last year, and he sure can use the body, and fight some, not a total loss as a prospect maybe?

 

I dont think hes terrible.

 

I think his potential is bottom 6, but that he isnt ready yet and is being rushed a bit due to the circumstances of the teams injury situation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Primeau the guy was a third overall pick who dominated the OHL.  The comparison is just horrible.  I can guarantee, era or not, that is not a comparison any reasonable scout or gm made.  

 

If McCarron was in Primeaus ballpark talent wise... he would have been a top 5 pick, different era or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mccarron did not play 19 games in 2012....  use elite prospects which includes the games played against ncaa clubs and the games played in international tournaments.... not hockeydb which only includes their ushl regular season stats.

 

He played 59 games in all competitions for the usntdp plus 9 games in international competition for team usa... a 68 game season.  (When you use elite note they break it down as follows...

 

The 19 games is the ntdp's ushl schedule

 

The 59 games is the ntdp's ushl schedule plus games against ncaa competition. (The 19 is also included here)

 

The 9 games is international tournaments.

 

 

So.his full season was 59+9; not 19 as hockeydb says.

 

The usntdp plays a robust schedule.

 

 

 

As for big guys developping more slowly.. people have done stats work on this. This is not something that we see when kids are playing junior hockey.  Being big and playing in a league with other kids your own age is an advantage, not a disadvantage to a scorer.  It can cause development to take time once you move up to face men, but you should be dominating your age group where you have a huge size advantage and everyone is learning the game. If you are not doing that, its unlikely the scoring will develop later.  

 

As for eichel and co holding him back.  No.  Thats not how the ntdp works.

 

Remember the entire goal of the ntdp is development of the team to win international tournaments (win the u18 build the core for the u20). During the regular season the coaches roll four lines.  He got plenty of ice time.  In the international tourneys they then start to increase ice time for a top 6 and line match and such... but they dont in the 59 games.  

 

He also played considerable minutes in thebinternational tournies... his ice time was not limited.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I will insist upon is that if McCarron gets a top-6 role, it will be because he earns it. Not because a bunch of fans have declared that he 'would get a lot points' if only bad ol' Therrien put him with Pacioretty and Radulov. I can almost guarantee that if McCarron settles into the bottom-6, we will have years of posts on this site blaming the coach for that. See Eller, Lars.

 

As for what constitutes a legit top-6 FW, how about this: it's a player who can make things happen and generate some offence even when not subsidized by the team's two best players. Until this season, Gallagher has always been a catalyst, not a beneficiary of some bizarre affirmative action program for bottom-6ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DON said:

Cant say he was good nor bad in his 2nd game, but was just that, his 2nd game and simply to jump on him by tossing out some goofy stat, which also just happens to fit the story you are spinning is quite a coincidence. And as useless as Parros was your comparison to really drive home the point he sucked, when you are the only one to pick him out as having a bad game at all. Especially when he didn't have any major gaffs and team gave up one goal in a win...

Why cant you try and seem to say anything nice about him...anything? I hated the pick as well, but is history and I actually hope he now does well.

 

We cant say players had good or bad games?

 

Tell Brian to shut down the board.

 

I also did say good things about him...  i said he played well vs san jose especially late in thr game.  Ill give him credit for his good game

 

 

That said... He played poorly against washington.  You dont have to give up a goal against to have a poor game spending most of your shifts in your own zone.

 

Conditioning has always been an issue for him.  I would wonder if he was so bad in part due to it being a back to back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched a lot of Erie and agree McCarron wasn't the best but he was very good. His play around the boards was better than any other player, which I feel is his top skill. He has a real ability to dig out pucks.

 

I've held the view he's a 2/3 power forward like Bryan Bickell and Ryane Clowe. He's a guy who might not have top six offensive skill in 5 on 5 but he's an important part of your powerplay and can play top six when a team is trying to spread offence around. He also has a good pass that can develop. If he doesn't hit his potential I can still see him in the NHL for years as a valuable bottom six guy. Especially if he learns how to take faceoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

We cant say players had good or bad games

 

NO, "I" cant say whether he had a particularly good-poor game, didn't really notice any poor or good plays by the Big Fellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...