2024-25 Montreal Canadiens discussion thread

[alfredoh2009]

27 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I have no respect for Gary Galley's hockey "mind" and don't understand why he even has the job he does. Still, last night he suggested that the Habs are too small and that's why they couldn't get any traction against a "heavy" team like VGK. 

 

Now one of the oldest cliches in the book, especially when it comes to the Habs, is to say "the team loses because it's small." That's one step ahead of the ol' fan fave "they need more goons."

 

Moreover, we have some meaningful size in the lineup: Slaf, Dach, JA, Armia, etc are not small guys.

 

That being said, who are our best players? Suze, CC, Hutson, and Mattheson. 

 

Hence the question. Looking at the org as a whole, DO we need more size in the top-9? More skilled size?

 

OR, do we just need the size that's there to stop playing like floating turds? Slaf and Dach, I'm looking at you.

 

Discuss.

well, I think that Gallagher showed that it is not a “size issue” but a “heart issue” with the team. When he drove to the net and passed it to Strubble 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

6 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

well, I think that Gallagher showed that it is not a “size issue” but a “heart issue” with the team. When he drove to the net and passed it to Strubble 

 

A big heart can make up for a lack of size. Gallagher has consistently brought it this year. Not sure what's wrong with the team. It would be a big concern if Slaf took a step back. Very disappointed in Dach, made a brain dead blind pass to the middle of the ice that directly resulted in a Vegas goal. He should know better by now. 

[DON]

On 7/20/2024 at 7:45 AM, Prime Minister Koivu said:

70 points this season 

 

 

[Prime Minister Koivu]

3 hours ago, DON said:

LOL I certainly deserve all jabs I get!

 

17 points maybe…

 

Both those guys are crapping the bed so far and it sucks

[alfredoh2009]

5 hours ago, DON said:

 

I hadn't realized he had facial hair... That comic book cover version of Slaf is not the one we are seeing on the ice

[Butterface]

11 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Hence the question. Looking at the org as a whole, DO we need more size in the top-9? More skilled size?

 

OR, do we just need the size that's there to stop playing like floating turds? Slaf and Dach, I'm looking at you.

 

Discuss.

Goons ? No.

 

“Skilled size” is what the whole league is looking for… so yes, it would be nice.

 

We need guys who finish checks and make the other team uncomfortable.

 

Anderson has size. He doesn’t use it enough. He should. He needs to get into the heads of the opposing defence. Drive the net. Crash the crease. Cause chaos. Get emotionally involved.
 

Armia, sure he’s big, but no one fears him. He never seems emotionally engaged. He doesn’t play big.

 

Dach has been a lolligagger. Could be confidence or knee or ?

 

Slaf plays big  sometimes and he is effective when he does. When he’s skating hard, being physical, he seems more successful to me. 

 

Do we need more size ? It’s not a disadvantage to be bigger and stronger. But our players have to use that size advantage. Not just their reach advantage to shield pucks, but engage physically and impose their will. Tom Wilson is not fun to play against. We need more Tom Wilson from our bigger players.

 

Did we not see on TSN that Team Canada was considering Tom Wilson ? Right there that should tell you what top GMs think of Wilson’s (decent) skill, size and “edge”. 

 

If our bigger guys played with that same aggression (not blind aggression but on the line with edge) we wouldn’t need to talk about this at all. We have size on the team, but our guys with size don’t use it to every possible advantage.
 

We started seeing emotions bubbling at the end of the Washington game. I was finally seeing physical, emotional engagement. I thought the team was starting to play better after the Washington game. I think the whole season is going to be up and down like this. Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. And I would not expect next season to be too much better….. season after that YES !!

 

We out hit Vegas by a wide margin in the first and I did not see the stats for second and third, but we finished the game with twice the hits. Obviously hitting is not the only part of the recipe. I don’t want to preach physicality is the only thing missing. I just want to preach that balance of size and skill is important. Being hard to play against because of physicality is important.

 

Toronto is a bit more physical this year and I think they’ll find more playoff success. Florida has been hard to play against. Rangers have some edge. These teams have balanced their skill and physicality. I think that’s what we will strive for.

 

Avoid overpaid guys with size that play like tinkerbell. Find some guys with size that use it the right way to compliment Demidov, Hutson, Hage, Caufield and the Draft class of 2025 and 2026. Make Slaf great again. 

 

[tomh009]

2 hours ago, Butterface said:

Being hard to play against because of physicality is important.

Being hard to play against because we don't give the opponents the time or space to make a play would be even better.

[Butterface]

4 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Being hard to play against because we don't give the opponents the time or space to make a play would be even better.

Here is a question for you Tom. Which team would you hate playing more….. A team that gave you no time and space and didn’t finish a check or a team that gave you no time and space and did finish a check ? 

[brindavis]

Sorry pulling this over from another thread. 

 

I must admit, if anyone has a right to be really pi55ed with Dach and Slaf and the half ar5ed play, it has to be Caufield. They have moved him away from Suzuki to spread the scoring and try to fire up Dach and Slaf, but its more like a punishment. CC is a constant threat and even makes Evans look dangerous. He was a league leader in goals prior to the move. 

 

The team needs some veteran leadership from the behind the bench, almost a "bad cop" to MSL's good one. I saw someone suggest Larry Robinson, someone like that as an Assistant to fire a bullet up them when they are playing like that 2nd period.

 

There is far to much arm over the shoulder, here's a carrot going on. A bit of stick is more than appropriate, even Slaf is admitting to it. 

[DON]

 

Habs Weekly: Bad Time For a Break – HabsWorld.net

 

"It’d be one thing if Slafkovsky was dealing with a bit of bad puck luck.  But that’s not it at all.  When he’s shooting the puck, it’s not exactly near the net; he has only hit the net with 38.6% of his attempts so far.  For a power forward who is supposed to be shooting from close quarters around the net, that should be a fair bit higher.  By comparison, Nick Suzuki – his frequent linemate until recently – is at 58.4% of his attempts hitting the net.  It’s hard to score when that many of your attempts aren’t on target."

 

Matheson or Hutson, and the management of the Habs' players | Radio-Canada

Since November 4 (we're talking about three weeks of the calendar), everyone has clearly seen that the unit rotated by Hutson has taken over. And the statistics back it up: when Hutson is the quarterback of the power play unit, the Canadiens score 15.4 goals per 60 minutes.

 

During this period, only Morgan Rielly (22.26 goals/60 min) and Dougie Hamilton (17.35 goals/60 min) have outperformed Lane Hutson in the NHL (minimum of 15 minutes played on the power play).

 

The anomaly in this story is that Mike Matheson (4.68 goals/60 min) played nearly 62% of the playing time (25:38) that the Canadiens had on the power play, compared to 15:35 for Hutson

[GHT120]

10 hours ago, Butterface said:

Being hard to play against because of physicality is important.

 

7 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Being hard to play against because we don't give the opponents the time or space to make a play would be even better.

 

2 hours ago, Butterface said:

Here is a question for you Tom. Which team would you hate playing more….. A team that gave you no time and space and didn’t finish a check or a team that gave you no time and space and did finish a check ? 

I think opponents would gladly accept being given time and space to be creative offensively if the cost is taking a few solid hits ... but I don't think it is an either or scenario ... not giving time and space is not only good defence but it creates opportunities for "legal" solid hits.

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, brindavis said:

The team needs some veteran leadership from the behind the bench, almost a "bad cop" to MSL's good one.

In MSL's first summer as HC there was talk that he was after Torts to be an assistant, and Torts would have been interested because of his history with MSL, except that Philadelphia came calling with their HC position ... that would have been perfect, veteran coaching experience to support MSL and a "bad cop" ... I think HuGo and MSL both recognize it would be helpful but it needs to be someone with whom MSL already has a relationship so it isn't a "coach-in-waiting" scenario ... THAT would not I-M-O be a great atmosphere for a team in development.

[Butterface]

24 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

 

I think opponents would gladly accept being given time and space to be creative offensively if the cost is taking a few solid hits ... but I don't think it is an either or scenario ... not giving time and space is not only good defence but it creates opportunities for "legal" solid hits.

I don’t think you read what I wrote correctly. 

[GHT120]

5 minutes ago, Butterface said:

I don’t think you read what I wrote correctly. 

You are correct ... Apologies ... but in fairness I don't think NOTHING (a team that gave you no time and space and didn’t finish a check) versus EVERYTHING (a team that gave you no time and space and did finish a check) was really a logical question. 

[Butterface]

6 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

You are correct ... Apologies ... but in fairness I don't think NOTHING (a team that gave you no time and space and didn’t finish a check) versus EVERYTHING (a team that gave you no time and space and did finish a check) was really a logical question. 

Correct. It wasn’t. Proving physicality is important. No one is going to think not finishing a check is better than finishing a check.

[Butterface]

Now tell me if you’d rather be hit by Theo Fleury or Eric Lindros… they both had roughly the same average points per game. Which would you rather have on your team ?

[GHT120]

32 minutes ago, Butterface said:

Correct. It wasn’t. Proving physicality is important. No one is going to think not finishing a check is better than finishing a check.

Don't think that @tomh009 was suggesting physicality wasn't important but rather, as I suggested, that denying time and space is more important.

[Butterface]

12 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Don't think that @tomh009 was suggesting physicality wasn't important but rather, as I suggested, that denying time and space is more important.

You can’t finish a check unless you are denying time and space otherwise it’s interference. 
 

 

[GHT120]

Just now, Butterface said:

You can finish a check unless you are denying time and space otherwise it’s interference. 

Exactly  ...  not giving time and space...creates opportunities for "legal" solid hits.

[Butterface]

2 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Exactly  ...  not giving time and space...creates opportunities for "legal" solid hits.

 Sorry I typoed (can and can’t) and you replied after I changed it…

[GHT120]

12 minutes ago, Butterface said:

 Sorry I typoed (can and can’t) and you replied after I changed it…

No I read it as intended ... which was basically what I had previously said.

[Butterface]

Getting back to the real point, because I don’t think we are disagreeing on anything…..

 

I’m sure everyone said Lindros. With equal talent to score points, we’d choose Lindros’ size and ability to impose his will with strength and intimidation.

 

Now ask yourself if Lindros produced only 90% of Fleury’s output would you now consider Fleury over Lindros ? At what point would you drop Lindros and pick up Fleury ?

 

Now it’s got people thinking about skill versus size. There isn’t a mathematical formula that I know of to measure one versus the other. It’s in the eye of the beholder. But there is a value to truculence, size, intimidation, angst and anger.

 

Armia and Dach play small. Anderson less so, but wow could he ever be good if he did engage an inner Tom Wilson. I am not asking for something he doesn't have. So yeah, to answer chicoutimi’s original question, we need to bring in (not goons) but a few players with the right balance of size and skill. 
 

The guys with size and skill are unicorns and cost a lot. We need some bangers that can still play the game. A couple of Cal Clutterbucks to replace Armia and Anderson. You know guys that no one wants finishing a check on them.
 

 

[Commandant]

9 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Being hard to play against because we don't give the opponents the time or space to make a play would be even better.

 

Bingo!!!

 

Being hard to play against is ALL about limiting the opponents time and space to make plays. 

 

The NHL is the best 700 or so hockey players in the world.  Get these guys, even those we think of as not skilled like a Michael Pezzetta on a sheet of ice with the best men's league players and they can do things with the puck that you can only dream of.  Its a different level entirely.  When they have time and space the things they can do are incredible.  Taking away that time and space is what makes things hard for them. 

[Commandant]

4 hours ago, brindavis said:

Sorry pulling this over from another thread. 

 

I must admit, if anyone has a right to be really pi55ed with Dach and Slaf and the half ar5ed play, it has to be Caufield. They have moved him away from Suzuki to spread the scoring and try to fire up Dach and Slaf, but its more like a punishment. CC is a constant threat and even makes Evans look dangerous. He was a league leader in goals prior to the move. 

 

The team needs some veteran leadership from the behind the bench, almost a "bad cop" to MSL's good one. I saw someone suggest Larry Robinson, someone like that as an Assistant to fire a bullet up them when they are playing like that 2nd period.

 

There is far to much arm over the shoulder, here's a carrot going on. A bit of stick is more than appropriate, even Slaf is admitting to it. 

 

Robinson doesn't want to coach anymore.  He is at an age where the travel is too much and he just wants to be home with wife, kids, grandkids.  He might take a consultant role where he doesn't travel, but he's not getting behind the bench for us or anyone in the NHL.  That time has passed. 

[Commandant]

Also you need to hit to separate the man from the puck and when you do that also put yourself in position to get the puck and make a play with it after the hit. 

 

If all you are doing is running someone over like a freight train and taking both you and him out of the play, that's not really effective defence, cause all you have created now is a 50/50 battle for the puck between teammates, and yes half the time your teammate will win that but the half the time he doesn't, suddenly the two players involved in the hit are out of the play, the two players involved in the puck battle are out of the play, and if they win the puck, its a 3 on 3 situation and a good scoring chance down low.  

 

So you want to hit, yes... but its to separate the man from the puck, create a turnover, make a play and get your team moving on offence.