|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 30, 2015 0:18:08 GMT -5
But none of those things have happened yet, so I'm not quite ready to label him a mediocre GM just yet. Neither am I. I think he's done well overall. His biggest failing IMO is his judgment in his coaching staffs. The fact he didn't fire Lefebvre is an exclamation point to me. I can't help wondering what our scoring would be like under someone else. If the PP is still pathetic at next Xmas and MB has not made any changes to player personnel or coaching then he is a mediocre gm at best. With our current D on the point and Max we should have an above average PP and with a decent set up man we should be at the top of the league. If we're not there then MB has failed to get the proper players to help us excel or has hired the wrong coaches. BC, i agree that 2012 line up was awful. But that's how we go Chucky and i give MB credit for that pick as he may have been the best of his year. I also agree MB has done a great job improving our bottom 6. But boy, finding a legit top 6 through a trade of FA sure has been elusive for MB and may be his downfall.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 30, 2015 6:30:45 GMT -5
Neither am I. I think he's done well overall. His biggest failing IMO is his judgment in his coaching staffs. The fact he didn't fire Lefebvre is an exclamation point to me. I can't help wondering what our scoring would be like under someone else. If the PP is still pathetic at next Xmas and MB has not made any changes to player personnel or coaching then he is a mediocre gm at best. With our current D on the point and Max we should have an above average PP and with a decent set up man we should be at the top of the league. If we're not there then MB has failed to get the proper players to help us excel or has hired the wrong coaches. BC, i agree that 2012 line up was awful. But that's how we go Chucky and i give MB credit for that pick as he may have been the best of his year. I also agree MB has done a great job improving our bottom 6. But boy, finding a legit top 6 through a trade of FA sure has been elusive for MB and may be his downfall. I really don't know what to make of the power-play, or how much praise or blame the coaches should get for it. One thing is clear though, having offensive players and good coaching doesn't seem to guarantee a good power-play. Chicago, with Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa and so on, Cup winners and all that, finished 20th overall on the power-play last year (we were 23rd). For that matter, Anaheim, with Getlzaf, Perry and company, finished 28th!! Minnesota was 27th, the Rangers 21st. On the flip side, Philadelphia, Columbus, Arizona and New Jersey, all teams that missed the playoffs, were in the top ten. What does that mean? How can some of the best teams in the league, including THE best team, have terrible power-plays? How do some of the worst teams have some of the best power-plays? Then, just to confuse things, what do we make of the fact that Montreal was 6th (!!!) overall on the power-play, at home?? And 30th, dead-last, on the road. Did the power-play coaching suddenly suck once they went on the road? They had 122 opportunities at home, 121 on the road, so the answer doesn't lie there. Why the big difference? I understand the desire to improve the power-play, trust me I do... but is the answer really "coaching?" Because looking deeper at the numbers, and at other teams with supposedly good coaches, that doesn't seem to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Jun 30, 2015 7:57:31 GMT -5
Pretty good interview with Timmons and his overview @grantmccagg: Timmins interview on how the Habs fared at the draft now up on McKeen's site for subscribers/non subscribers to read: t.co/uK9bM9hV72
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 30, 2015 9:11:19 GMT -5
If the PP is still pathetic at next Xmas and MB has not made any changes to player personnel or coaching then he is a mediocre gm at best. With our current D on the point and Max we should have an above average PP and with a decent set up man we should be at the top of the league. If we're not there then MB has failed to get the proper players to help us excel or has hired the wrong coaches. BC, i agree that 2012 line up was awful. But that's how we go Chucky and i give MB credit for that pick as he may have been the best of his year. I also agree MB has done a great job improving our bottom 6. But boy, finding a legit top 6 through a trade of FA sure has been elusive for MB and may be his downfall. I really don't know what to make of the power-play, or how much praise or blame the coaches should get for it. One thing is clear though, having offensive players and good coaching doesn't seem to guarantee a good power-play. Chicago, with Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa and so on, Cup winners and all that, finished 20th overall on the power-play last year (we were 23rd). For that matter, Anaheim, with Getlzaf, Perry and company, finished 28th!! Minnesota was 27th, the Rangers 21st. On the flip side, Philadelphia, Columbus, Arizona and New Jersey, all teams that missed the playoffs, were in the top ten. What does that mean? How can some of the best teams in the league, including THE best team, have terrible power-plays? How do some of the worst teams have some of the best power-plays? Some teams needed the powerplay. The good teams can score while at even strength and didn't rely on the PP. NYR (2nd), Minny (5th), Anaheim (8th) and Chicago (13th) were among the best at even strength scoring. While Columbus (16th), Phil (25th), NJ (28th) and Arizona (30th) struggled to score at even strength. Isn't this proof the PP is in shambles though. There was no consistency. It got worse as the season wore on, so much so that it was putrid in the playoffs and even your home (5.3%) vs road (5.9%) argument was moot. Which was 15th and 15th respectively, only cause the Islanders didn't score on the PP. It's a combination of coaching, skill, systems, and PP ideology. We do not have a PP QB, some will point to Subban, but he is a shooter not a QB. And we have no one willing to go to the net on the PP, or is dominant on the PP ... our 38 goal scorer scored 7 PP goals.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 30, 2015 9:43:51 GMT -5
I really don't know what to make of the power-play, or how much praise or blame the coaches should get for it. One thing is clear though, having offensive players and good coaching doesn't seem to guarantee a good power-play. Chicago, with Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa and so on, Cup winners and all that, finished 20th overall on the power-play last year (we were 23rd). For that matter, Anaheim, with Getlzaf, Perry and company, finished 28th!! Minnesota was 27th, the Rangers 21st. On the flip side, Philadelphia, Columbus, Arizona and New Jersey, all teams that missed the playoffs, were in the top ten. What does that mean? How can some of the best teams in the league, including THE best team, have terrible power-plays? How do some of the worst teams have some of the best power-plays? Some teams needed the powerplay. The good teams can score while at even strength and didn't rely on the PP. NYR (2nd), Minny (5th), Anaheim (8th) and Chicago (13th) were among the best at even strength scoring. While Columbus (16th), Phil (25th), NJ (28th) and Arizona (30th) struggled to score at even strength. Well what does THAT mean? Just because they didn't rely on the power-play doesn't mean that they didn't TRY on the power-play. Of course their overall goal totals are higher; they are better offensively overall. But that still doesn't explain why their power-plays all sucked. Again, these teams have great offensive players, better than ours, and good-to-great coaching. Certainly nearly every Hab fan would suggest their coaching is better than ours. It's not like Kane, Hossa, Toews and Keith got out there with the extra man and thought "nah, let's just coast through this two minutes and score a goal later" or Quenneville tapped them on the back and said "take it easy out there boys, we don't want to run up the score." They just couldn't score. Good players, good coaches, bad power-plays... Shrug. So if we don't have a true PP QB, and we don't have anyone who is willing to go to the net, or is dominant on the PP... how is this a coaching problem? Like I said, I don't understand power-plays. Having good players and good coaches doesn't seem to guarantee a good power-play so I think it's too simplistic to say "we have the players, we just need better coaching". I think there is a lot, as you say, that goes into making a good power-play, including luck and maybe some voodoo magic as well.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 30, 2015 10:21:20 GMT -5
So good teams have bad powerplays so why should we fix ours??
I know that's not what you are saying, but I didn't blame it all on coaching either. It's a combination of all things that's holding the Habs back on the PP. I just don't see what other teams woes have to do with ours.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how many PPs each of your "good teams" had with a multiple goal lead, and see what kind of success rate they had vs close games. (a PP with a multiple goal lead was a scenario that was few and far between for the Habs)
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 30, 2015 10:53:01 GMT -5
So good teams have bad powerplays so why should we fix ours?? I know that's not what you are saying, but I didn't blame it all on coaching either. It's a combination of all things that's holding the Habs back on the PP. I just don't see what other teams woes have to do with ours. It would be an interesting exercise to see how many PPs each of your "good teams" had with a multiple goal lead, and see what kind of success rate they had vs close games. (a PP with a multiple goal lead was a scenario that was few and far between for the Habs) Well I was originally replying to a post that suggested we should be much better on the power-play because we have the players to do so. To which I replied "that doesn't seem to matter, because Chicago etcetera, etcetera." Which is why power-play stats, to me anyways, are so darn confusing. Doesn't seem to matter whether the coach is perceived to be "good" or not, or whether you have elite offensive players, or where you finish in the standings. In Montreal's case (last year during the regular season anyways) the principle determining factor as to whether or not their power-play was going to be successful was whether or not they were playing at the Bell Center. Other variables didn't seem to matter. I suppose you could then look deeper into the numbers to see if there was another cause, but even then I wonder... do teams not try on the power-play if they have multi-goal leads? Do teams play more conservatively on the power-play in close games, so they don't give up a shortie? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 30, 2015 12:04:29 GMT -5
I wonder if there's any correlation between a good PP and someone who's good at standing in front of the goalie and blocking their view?
I read a while ago (can't recall where) that an assistant coach at a Canadian University had done research into Power Plays and the key point was the ability to make and receive passes in that dangerous area between the face-off circles in front of the goalie. Defending teams have gotten really good with blocking and deflecting those passes, so offensive teams have more trouble getting the penalty killers moving and out of position. You'd think that a team with Patrick Kane would have that ability and therefore have a good PP, but that wasn't the case with the Hawks. Odd. Maybe this was just a weird year.
REgarding the Habs, though, my eye test told me we were far too stagnant when we got set up. We were a perimeter team, even with a man advantage and often the wingers just stood in the corners for a pass and the puck moved around but rarely went to a forward in a dangerous position to shoot. The players defaulted to Markov and PK trying to do something. So, IMO, that lack of creativity and aggressiveness down low made it too easy to defend the points. Other teams did exactly that and our PP got snuffed much of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 30, 2015 13:00:07 GMT -5
I wonder if there's any correlation between a good PP and someone who's good at standing in front of the goalie and blocking their view? I read a while ago (can't recall where) that an assistant coach at a Canadian University had done research into Power Plays and the key point was the ability to make and receive passes in that dangerous area between the face-off circles in front of the goalie. Defending teams have gotten really good with blocking and deflecting those passes, so offensive teams have more trouble getting the penalty killers moving and out of position. You'd think that a team with Patrick Kane would have that ability and therefore have a good PP, but that wasn't the case with the Hawks. Odd. Maybe this was just a weird year. REgarding the Habs, though, my eye test told me we were far too stagnant when we got set up. We were a perimeter team, even with a man advantage and often the wingers just stood in the corners for a pass and the puck moved around but rarely went to a forward in a dangerous position to shoot. The players defaulted to Markov and PK trying to do something. So, IMO, that lack of creativity and aggressiveness down low made it too easy to defend the points. Other teams did exactly that and our PP got snuffed much of the time. Or the winger stood by the post almost behind the net... it drove me crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 30, 2015 13:04:17 GMT -5
Pretty good interview with Timmons and his overview @grantmccagg: Timmins interview on how the Habs fared at the draft now up on McKeen's site for subscribers/non subscribers to read: t.co/uK9bM9hV72Thanks for posting the link JJ. Very good read.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 10, 2015 5:00:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jul 11, 2017 12:49:15 GMT -5
Is everyone on summer vacation already? No thread to celebrate the 26th pick overall who will be hoisting a few Cups in his tenure. To be honest i've never heard of the guy. But that's what you get when you leave it up to me to start the thread. Have to trust MB on this one. But the best news of the day is how Cam Neely has blown up the Bruins. They will not be a playoff contender for some time. And Emeiln doesn't have to worry about his life anymore - unless he's traded to Anaheim I no longer worry about the Bruins because with the exception of Pastrami they haven't drafted any golden boys in recent years, Bergeron and Krejci are in their 30s, and Chara will soon move his 6'9" frame to a retirement colony. The Habs have had the 25th or 26th pick in the first round several times in this decade (that's the price you pay for making the playoffs). Their only top 10 pick (Sergachev) went bye-bye, but at least he was exchanged for a potential star forward. Among the low ranking first rounders were McCarron, Scherbak, and Juulsen--and now Poehlert. Let's see if at least one of them can become a regular. Juulsen looks like a safe bet. McCarron and Scherbak may be on a shuttle bus between Montréal and Laval. Poehling looks good on paper. He's big and is said to skate well. (McCarron should take note.)
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Jul 11, 2017 18:45:46 GMT -5
Pretty good interview with Timmons and his overview @grantmccagg: Timmins interview on how the Habs fared at the draft now up on McKeen's site for subscribers/non subscribers to read: t.co/uK9bM9hV72Super interesting, thanks for the read.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 11, 2017 20:18:31 GMT -5
I no longer worry about the Bruins because with the exception of Pastrami they haven't drafted any golden boys in recent years, You may change your mind after you watch Charlie McAvoy play. Two points in 4 regular season games and 3 points in 6 playoff games last year. He may be better than Sergachev, and was chosen 14th in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 12, 2017 7:29:56 GMT -5
I no longer worry about the Bruins because with the exception of Pastrami they haven't drafted any golden boys in recent years, You may change your mind after you watch Charlie McAvoy play. Two points in 4 regular season games and 3 points in 6 playoff games last year. He may be better than Sergachev, and was chosen 14th in 2016. ya, rumor is they have good d in the pipes. guess we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 12, 2017 12:24:15 GMT -5
It really annoys me since with Chara's regression, I thought they were done with having an elite defenseman. I have no doubt McAvoy will become one. I'd compare him to Letang and I think he'll get to that level.
|
|