GDT April 30, Jets @ Canadiens, 7PM EST

[Commandant]

2 hours ago, hockeyrealist said:

he is definitely not dominant, but did what a small sniper has to do and got lost in converge a few times. Good game, great sign of him adjusting to the league but Jets are porous defensively and until he shows up like that against a better team (was invisible vs Leafs) he has not arrived let alone dominated.  
When you get no points, you did not dominate unless you are a shut down d man or goalie.

good sign yes, dominating.. Far far from it.

he made a terrible forced play to the middle (who was a wrong handed shot for one timer anyways) on early pp and also wasted possession on another pp with a poor shot choice.

so there were glaring mistakes to go along with the zeroes on the stat sheet regardless of how impressive the expected gf stats look. He was used in ideal situations against bottom six on a notoriously poor defending team.

 

All of these "mistakes" led to 0 quality chances for the jets when he was on the ice. 

Meanwhile, he alone had 7 good attempts at the Jets net, and his line had 14 (including a goal by Lehkonen where the defenceman was concerned about caufield and this left Lehkonen open). 

The entire night, his line was in the Jets zone. 

 

Thats a dominant performance by the three of them.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

 

I'm sure this isn't going to go over well but I think this is what it comes down to with Gustafsson and Kulak.

 

Gustafsson is a tire fire in his own zone but at the offensive end, he can make a lot of good things happen.  There's perceived upside in the eyes of the coaching staff.

 

I think the coaches view Kulak like they viewed Mete.  Possession numbers are good and he joins the rush but nothing ever comes of it most of the time in terms of production.  In his own end, he's not that great of a defender (though better than Gustafsson for sure).  So the perceived upside isn't there.  That makes him a filler that can play 15 minutes on the third pairing with no special teams value but if there are options that have a better chance of making something happen (Gustafsson) or better defensively (Merrill), they're going to slot in above Kulak on the depth chart.

 

 

Keep in mind that comment was made before he had that second period where the majority of his shots and chances came from.  He was dominant in that period but that's about the only period he has dominated in so far out of his three games.  And that's fine, no one should be expecting him to come in and taking over games anyway.

 

Excellent thoughts as usual, Brian.

 

It is quite unusual for modern coaches to prioritize a player’s offensive upside over all other aspects of the game. Since Kulak is a more complete player, I would have thought he would almost axiomatically be preferred over Gustafsson. And I see he is slotting in tonight; so perhaps the logic of contemporary coaching is reasserting itself. Or maybe DD is taking a “strategic” approach to these players, making choices predicated on some sort of analysis of what we need versus specific opponents.

 

It’s hard when a coach is replaced by his longstanding assistant coach. Kulak was not trusted by Julien and he is not trusted by Ducharme; he seems not to have gotten the benefit of the doubt that can often happen when a new coach takes over. DD already had his mind made up (and for all we know, his deployment has all along been heavily influenced by DD). It’s too bad for him, because I like the guy and feel he will probably end up outside the NHL in a couple of years despite being capable of more.

[tomh009]

2 hours ago, DON said:

Does he have NHL speed?

 

Sorry, not Staal or Frolik-type speed, but average or better?

Stasl-type speed ... now, tgat could turn into a meme! 😀

[tomh009]

32 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Thats a dominant performance by the three of them.

All three of them played well, Caufield did not dominate single-handedly. Evans and Lehkonen also played excellent games.

 

Although  generally not against the Jets’ top lines.

 

So, it was a strong game by Caufield, and a good choice of linemates. But he’s still a very fresh rookie.

[sbhatt]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

All of these "mistakes" led to 0 quality chances for the jets when he was on the ice. 

Meanwhile, he alone had 7 good attempts at the Jets net, and his line had 14 (including a goal by Lehkonen where the defenceman was concerned about caufield and this left Lehkonen open). 

The entire night, his line was in the Jets zone.

 

I've been impressed with his hustle on the backcheck, his head-on-a-swivel constant reading of the play, and his positioning has been good 90% of the time in both ends considering he's learning a system and has unfamiliar linemates.  Very promising.

[Sir_Boagalott]

  

4 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

I'm sure this isn't going to go over well but I think this is what it comes down to with Gustafsson and Kulak.

 

Gustafsson is a tire fire in his own zone but at the offensive end, he can make a lot of good things happen.  There's perceived upside in the eyes of the coaching staff.

 

I think the coaches view Kulak like they viewed Mete.  Possession numbers are good and he joins the rush but nothing ever comes of it most of the time in terms of production.  In his own end, he's not that great of a defender (though better than Gustafsson for sure).  So the perceived upside isn't there.  That makes him a filler that can play 15 minutes on the third pairing with no special teams value but if there are options that have a better chance of making something happen (Gustafsson) or better defensively (Merrill), they're going to slot in above Kulak on the depth chart.

 

 

Great points, and I fully agree regarding the perceived upside.  That's basically the reason why I prefer Kulak over Chiarot.  There is really no perceived upside with Chiarot either, so I just view him as being big and slow.  Kulak lacks a perceived upside too, but at least he doesn't have that negative of being big and slow.

 

I often don't mind big slow dman, but they need to do something useful, like be good on special teams etc.  ex:  Weber is big and slow, but he at least has a bomb of a shot and can be useful on the PP.  Similar with Hal Gill, who was also big and slow, but he was a great at PK. 

 

Then theres Edmundson, who is big and isnt fast but he isnt as slow, and although he sucks at doing 1st passes, I believe he at least has some special skills at least more so than Chiarot or Kulak. 

 

edit:  Years ago I was definitely in the minority among Habs fans because I was not  big on Komisarek because he had no perceived upside either.  He wasn't a good on PP or PK, he sometimes made big hits but would take himself right of the play to do it.  He was basically a big teddy bear. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Edmundson, to me, is a second-tier shutdown defender. Very reliable in his own end. He has a clear identity and role and does it well.

[Sir_Boagalott]

3 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Edmundson, to me, is a second-tier shutdown defender. Very reliable in his own end. He has a clear identity and role and does it well.

 

Edmundson isnt great by any means, but I agree he is very reliable in his own end.  Even though he often struggles with 1st passes, especially is he is pressured, I find him to be a more reliable 5-7 dman than Chiarot or Kulak.  Edmundson is also a solid hitter.  I've seen he knock numerous guys right on their back like they had hit a brick wall. 

 

ex:  if the 1 Leaf game he was near the bench going off and the Leaf player had the puck and figured he was hopping over the bench and kept skating up ice towards him.  However, Edmundson totally saw him and stopped heading for the bench and he didnt even lean into him at all and basically just flexed and stood his ground.  The Leaf wasnt looking up ice and skated right into Edmundsons shoulder and knocked himself stupid. 

 

My only complaint with Edmundson is for his size I wish he was a better fighter.  Also, I'd love to see him do his thing more.  i.e. where he steps up at the other teams blue line and hits the puck carrier as they're carrying the puck out of their own end.  Thats a neat skill to have, and knowing when to do that and do it safely.  He needs to do it more. 

 

To be honest, and its not like the Habs had him for very long, but I liked Scandella over Chiarot and Kulak because he seemed to be more like Edmunsdon.

[alfredoh2009]

I like Edmundson, he maybe a 5th on another team but on the Habs lineup he is the perfect complement to Petry. Stay at hope, seldom needing to handle the puck out of the D-zone and comfortable staying back. He also provides more physical play to the duo.

I wish we had a dominant 1st pair D to push Weber or Chiarot down to the 3rd pair. I hope the Habs sign that player this summer, although I doubt it.

UFAs like:

* Brandon Montour (FLA) who will probably be left unprotected for the expansion draft and may be an upgrade on Chiarot for Weber

* Derek Forbort (WPG) who may be a better alternative to resigning Merril or an upgrade on Kulak.

[Commandant]

Brandon Montour is terrible.

 

And Forbort is another immobile defensive defenceman that we already have too many of.  He's fine on his own but with Chiarot and Edmundson here, there is no point to him.

[Trizzak]

4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Brandon Montour is terrible.

 

And Forbort is another immobile defensive defenceman that we already have too many of.  He's fine on his own but with Chiarot and Edmundson here, there is no point to him.

Is Montour terrible or did he play in Buffalo?

[Commandant]

7 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

Is Montour terrible or did he play in Buffalo?

 

He stood out as being terrible, next to the rest of the Sabres defence.

[alfredoh2009]

16 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Brandon Montour is terrible.

 

And Forbort is another immobile defensive defenceman that we already have too many of.  He's fine on his own but with Chiarot and Edmundson here, there is no point to him.

 

Uh?!

"In Brandon Montour, the Panthers get a solid depth defenceman who can consistently shoulder over 20 minutes of ice time. This season has not been Montour’s best, although Sabres’ overarching struggles are likely contributing to his performance. "

https://lastwordonsports.com/hockey/2021/04/10/buffalo-sabres-trade-brandon-montour-to-panthers/

 

Playing with Weer, he should be able to play 2nd pair minutes and contribute more offensively than Chiarot. or a solid 3rd line RD (he shoots right)

 

Forbort can be had and may be a better 3rd pairing LD than what we have. Others coming up for a contract: Pionk, Pelech, Dunn

Edited May 1, 2021 by alfredoh2009
added text about playihng him RD

[Commandant]

I know... my site... but i didnt write that one.  Ben Kerr articles are mine.

 

Thats kinder than i would have been.

[Commandant]

Dunn and Pelech i like a lot. And pionk has been really good for wpg.

[BCHabnut]

Dunn would be great. Dude is fast! 

[alfredoh2009]

14 hours ago, Commandant said:

I know... my site... but i didnt write that one.  Ben Kerr articles are mine.

 

Thats kinder than i would have been.

which is why evaluation on players very so much. I usually check LWOS before posting here because the analysis on players is usually right-on.

[Commandant]

Just now, alfredoh2009 said:

which is why evaluation on players very so much. I usually check LWOS before posting here because the analysis on players is usually right-on.

 

Thanks.

 

We are also kinder in articles.   I mean when i evaluate a kid for the draft, I might say, his skating needs improvement... instead of saying, his skating is slow and shitty... like I'd say on a message board.  I think most of our writers do that too, in an article we are kinder than I might be sitting at the bar having a beer with a friend, or on a message board like this.