|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 27, 2002 0:59:11 GMT -5
The half comprised of Michel Therrien and Rick Green:
They've been together for over almost two seasons and the team has been outshot in about 75% of its games. There are only two possibilities: either there's never been a well-designed system for moving the puck out of our zone and playing team defence or -- and this may be worse -- there has been one and they've simply been unable to get the players to adhere to it. In either case it's just inexcusable. Oh sorry, there is one other possibility: a combination of both. They've come up with a bad plan and it's being poorly executed.
The fact of the matter is that whatever the shortcomings of Quintal and the rest are, they are NHL players who can be guided towards doing the majority of the little things well the majority of the time. After all, we're not looking for thunderous hits or laser outlook passes. We're not asking for spectacularly efficient play on the breakout to rival the best in the league. But for cryin' out loud can't they be coached and cajoled and pushed into finishing their checks and making safe and simple plays to clear the zone? Is that too goddamned much to ask?
Therrien -- if I can be a little more specific -- is and will continue to be the meathead we feared and which for him is like a badge of honor. The predictable post-game analysis of "not showing up" (on the bad nights) or "competing" (as in: "we competed out there tonight", when we win) is not simply a function of the man's limited facility with the English language. It is, on the contrary, a perfect and chrystal clear expression of how he sees and understands the game. Either you get out there and compete or you don't show up. And of course he seldom gets challenged on anything because sports reporters don't by and large devote any time to understanding or explaining to others the subtleties that may be involved in matchups and defensive zone schemes. So we compete or we don't compete. When we compete we win and when we don't we lose. Sometimes we compete and tie. God only knows what we did tonight.
But the simple approach to the game ("the puck, she don't score by herself") is a thing of the past, and probably not just in the NHL but in the AHL also. Everywhere you see successful programs and organization you see cerebral hockey people, and not table bangers and . Marc Crawford, Paul Maurice, Jacques Martin, Scotty Bowman, Ken Hitchcock, and others like them are respected because of their knowledge of the game and how to prepare a team to play. And the way to prepare a team to play in professional hockey has less to do with motivation and discipline than it does with leadership qualities that are expressed by having a good grasp of what you've got, a good grasp of how to use it and a goddamned plan. Your man Michel has none of these things as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 27, 2002 1:00:00 GMT -5
Part Two:
Therrien couldn't figure out what to do with Jan Bulis. He couldn't figure out what to do with Stephan Robidas. He still hasn't figured out how to use Chad Kilger to shadow the likes of John Leclair (he did, briefly last year against Thornton but then he forgot). He hasn't figured out who to sit and when (Markov, Hainsey, Czerkawski). And he couldn't figure out how to address our steady reliance on goaltending over an 80 game stretch last season and still hasn't done it this season.
The man who pulled the embarrassing throat-slashing routine in game 4 against Boston; the man who then followed it up with the stupid projectile puking of vitriol that earned us a second minor against Carolina in game 4 of that series; the man who followed that up with the inexplicable use of Bill Lindsay to take a defensive zone face-off in overtime. That's Michel Therrien. A guy who would be considered an embarrassment to any other organization in the league. That's our coach.
Luckily or not (it depends on your point of view I suppose) the coaching staff is getting bailed out to some degree by an ignorant sports press and by Jeff Hackett. I say that because if we were going with Theodore or Garon in any of the three games (5 pts) where Hackett played, well then Therrien and his former stay-at-home defenceman Rick Green would be staring down the same November knives that took Alain Vigneault 2 years ago. And there's a name worth mentioning: Alain Vigneault. A guy who did more with less (a good deal less in my opinion) while Reggie Houle was upstairs busily dismantling the organization's base of talent. Above him in the office and below him on the ice, Alain Vigneault did more with less and did it with the dignity and discipline that this organization had been famous for. But Alain didn't get the kind of goaltending in October 2000 that Michel's getting now and so instead of being near .500 we were dead last. And that's what did him in, almost as much as the chaos that Reggie had wrought with his pen and his cell phone. I almost wish that Jeff Hackett had been moved before the start of the season, or that he'd been merely average over the last week or so, both for his sake and for ours. Now he's stuck here, like us, with Michel.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 27, 2002 3:05:10 GMT -5
Great post and I fully agree? *sigh*
Man, I wish I had your energy. I was debating about writing a thread like this but I am sick and tired about writing about Mthead and Green’spam. Oh well, you started one so let the built up 'baby brown" angst hit the fan. Mthead and Green’spam, one is clueless and one is incompetent, or both are both. Actually, JV, there is a bit of a “system”. Just a small one. More about it later.
Do you want to see good coaching with little talent? Look at the Wild. They are coached by one of the best coaches in hockey. Do they have anywhere near the talent the Hab’s have? Do they have two top notch goaltenders? They do all the little things right. If you arte a forward and your defenseman has the puck, depending where he is and where your opponent is, then you do this or that. Under the Lemaire system if you do not execute your plays properly or go to the appropriate position then your are sat on the bench until you GET IT RIGHT. None of this freewheeling “system” that the Hab’s have. Nor the stupid "trough" system.
Here little ones, lets play “trough” hockey……….
Look at what he Hab’s do when they are trying to get out of their zone. If the defenseman are under pressure, then they pass it up the boards. The opposition knows that too and they are also waiting for them there. If our forward gets the puck, his first play is to push it forward to the next player hovering along the boards and around the center line. If there is even the slightest pressure on the defenseman his first reaction is to bounce it of the glass. These are not accidental plays. These are the simpleton plays that are hammered into their heads by our coaches. They don’t appear like a system because by any intelligent reference point they are not. The closest analogy I can make is to water running in a trough. Think of the boards as troughs and the center ice as a hill. They are coached to avoid pushing water up that “center of the hill” but rather around the trough (boards). Look at the play that Quintal did tonight when he tried to bring the puck through the center. Quintal panicked and passed it behind Koivu. Five seconds later a goal. I can go on and on with examples like these but what’s the point? Who is a lousy defenseman but plays the trough system well? Travesty. That’s why they keep bringing him in instead of Hainsey.
Why is the “up the trough” plays that bad?
Because it is easy for the opposition to defend against. Think of it this way. If you are 10-15 feet away from the board, then you have a choice to go into any direction with your skating and your passing. If you are 2 feet away from the boards you are limited to go in only half the direction. Think of it as a circle around a player. If the player is very close to the board, half his circle is gone. Actually, it is even worse then this. If you are that close to the board, then you best and safest play is forward. Passing backwards is by definition counter productive and your options as an outlet pass is easily covered. That’s why I hate the “up the trough” system.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 27, 2002 3:05:22 GMT -5
Who’s to blame? A chicken and egg argument. Now we come out to the vicious circle of an argument. Is the coaching this simple because the players are that bad? See Quintal. Or are the coaches unable or not intelligent enough to teach them a better way? Here is where I get my shorts up in a knot. They have Hainsey that loves to carry the puck up the ice. He has the hands and the skating ability to do that all night long. Where is he? In the press box, that’s where. He is paired with a hockey moron like Quintal and the kid gets benched. What did he do wrong? He carried the puck up the ice and the coaching idiots think that this is too dangerous for defenseman to do this. So what does the kid do the nest time he plays? He does exactly as the rest of the idiots do and tosses it up the board’troughs. He plays the hockey that is demanded of him by the moron elite and now he is benched again for a Travesty of a player that cannot even wash Hainsey’s jockstrap. Hainsey is a prime example of bad coaching and Quintal is a prime example of bad players. So you see my friends, we are in a bit of a quandary. “Where’s the solution, Addicted one?” the crowd yells…<br> Start with coaching. Change them for coaches who are smart enough to implement better hockey discipline and positional hockey system. Not all the players on the Hab’s team are as hockey dumb as Quintal. I am sure that Dykhuis, Breezy, Rivet, Souray and most defenseman can learn to make better decisions with the puck. Hammer in the forwards little brains to get back and take a short pass away from the boards. Thus giving the defenseman more options then up the trough plays. Any forward that stays high and thinks that they are the next “Pavel Bure” of hockey sits in the press box. Get rid of the defensive morons like Quintal. Who’s out there for coaching? Right now, the best two people, Hitchcock and Lemaire are working for someone else. In fact, even if Savard thought of getting Hitch, the Montreal media and some fans would go nuts over the language issue. Like it or not, politics will get in the way of getting the best coaches for the team. If he isn’t French or at least speaks French then he can not coach for the Hab’s. It’s that simple. Lemaire is the best French-Canadien coach and every other French-Canadien coach is second rate. That includes J. Martin. Hey, I am not be politically correct but that is my opinion of hockey reality. If anyone is interested in knowing how good Hicthcock is, take a look at the Flyers. Gets everyone to play his way or else he kicks them in the head. It works. Period. So, in conclusion, the Hab’s coach’potatoes is made up by simpletons who should be serving life time ban from coaching pond hockey. There are not that many coaches that have the “right” qualifications to replace them. There are a few moron players that need to be released to serve hockey better as ushers or beer salesman. There are better systems then the “trough” system. They should hire me. I am blaming JV for making me lose sleep by bringing up the coaching’potatoes. I was perfectly happy posting one liners dripping with sarcasm, now I lost two hours of sleep. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 27, 2002 7:35:40 GMT -5
What is it with these sunday rants......
Once again you guys have hit the nail on the head and I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 27, 2002 11:56:18 GMT -5
Gotta agree Johnny, gotta agree. There are coaches around the league who get WAY more out of their teams than MT gets out his, way more. Alain Vigneault included. We forget, but Vigneault's teams had 500+ man games lost to injuries, and he was saddled with a Juha Lind - Johan Witehall laced lineup. And he still managed to get them within 2 points of the playoffs. He had a system, and he got his veterans to buy into the system. Everyone else just fell into line.
Anybody care to think where this team would be if MT was coaching those teams? Heck, he had 200 games lost to injuries last year, and it was considered devastating. His budget is a good 10-15 million dollars higher. There is no excuse.
Last year, I thought Therrien was improving. And he was. Right up until that Dackell fiasco. Since then, he has completely regressed. Totally. He was learning on the job (the silliness of having a Montreal Canadiens coach do this is best saved for another post) and while he was still way behind others, he was at least learning. Now, it seems he has completely crawled back into his shell, afraid to overstep his boundries or limitations. And he ain't learning anymore.
I disagree though, HA, that the coach has to be French. Marc Crawford didn't speak a word of it when he was hired by the Nordiques, and while it was made to be an issue, Crawford overcame it, took some French classes, impressed the media with his effort, and is generally well liked by them now. The same thing could happen here. The coach obviously has to be able to deal with the media, but that goes without saying in Montreal. Conversely, if a big name is brought on board, like a Hitchcock, the media isn't going to care that way either.
Where the media will care, and where the fans will care, is if a no-name anglo coach is brought in, and who makes zero effort to learn the culture and/or language. That will rub people the wrong way. But I think an English coach would be accepted here, if he makes the effort to bridge the gap.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 27, 2002 12:15:41 GMT -5
just for the record, Johan Witehall was acquired by Savard in early 2001 so AV never had the luxury of working with him Sometimes I wish Theodore would have never had that good of a season last year and the coaching staff would have been replaced after we miss the playoffs for a 4th year in arrow. Like BC said, there are so many coaches around the league that get more out of their teams than MT does. Jacques Lemaire is one, Robbie Ftorek another, Joel Quennevile another one,etc
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 27, 2002 12:24:11 GMT -5
Do you think that I care if the coach is French Canadien? But, I think I am not the best person to comment on this. In another thread, PTH raised it up as a major issue. Let's not underestimate the gum flapping and the ruckus that the media can raise with the average fan. One thing that always pop's in my mind is sitting in a motel room in Bertierville and watching interview after interview with second rate Hab's players on TV. They didn't say much but they sure filled up a lot of air time. Is the media self serving interests going to be served by a "Anglo" coach? I think not. How long after even the smallest slide would the media raise hell about competency? I have customers in Quebec and I spend a minute or ninety talking about my favorite subject. They are saying that Therrien is getting a lot of slack because he is a simple, down home boy. More so then any other coach would. Even Vigneault was considered a bit of an elitist. Hey, this is what they are saying and I know how politically incorrect this sounds. Then again, I’m a gum chewing red neck………. Will it be a problem? Not with me it isn’t. All I want is someone smart enough to read the back of a chewing gum wrapper and derive new Quantum Theories out of it. That’s all. Just like posters on this board…………………. .......
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 27, 2002 13:31:45 GMT -5
I think the parochial, xenophobic stuff still exists, but it's by and large relegated to certain entrenched elites rather than a broad man on the street thing. The Barreau du Quebec, the Commision de Langue Francaise (forgive my spelling), the bureaucracies and faculties of schools (UQUAM, etc) may be guarded by these types and perhaps even the sports page at the Journal de Montreal. But hockey fans will embrace a Finn as captain and an Anglophone goaltender if the boys play good hockey and win. A head coach whose mother tongue is not French would likewise be embraced if he knew what he was doing and he made some effort to learn the language.
Get the best man for the job -- appllying hockey criteria first -- and make sure he wants to be here in Montreal and will work on his French. Nobody'll squawk if he has the authority that comes with being a well-recognized hockey brain and a good administrator. I still like what Savard is doing and it may be that he's always seen MT as a short-term solution who wouldn't have the temerity to complain to him while he was busy building the future. If so, all I can say is that the time is fast approaching where it'll be time for the organization to take the next step forward, and that will entail Michel Therrien stepping aside.
By the way, what was the "Dackell thing"? I'm familiar with the Odjick thing, and the Lindsay thing, and the Markov thing, but the Dackell thing doesn't ring a bell....
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 27, 2002 13:42:44 GMT -5
JV, 2-1 loss against the Panthers last March. MT dresses Dackell but forgets to write his name on the lineup card I was there wondering what the hell is going on when Dackell was leaving the ice pissed off...
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 27, 2002 18:45:50 GMT -5
Do you think that I care if the coach is French Canadien? But, I think I am not the best person to comment on this. In another thread, PTH raised it up as a major issue. Let's not underestimate the gum flapping and the ruckus that the media can raise with the average fan. It's just not hockey, HA. The media is as responsible for influencing the vote in this country as people generally believe what they read. And what they read is usually what the editor of that paper, or news show, wants them to read. It's the same thing with hockey even moreso in Montreal and Toronto. Brutal medias. Mario Tremblay was a "good ol' boy" and the whole province wanted to lynch him. Well, not the whole province; Lac St-Jean still revere him as a saint. BTW you make it sound like being a red neck is a bad thing. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 28, 2002 8:21:48 GMT -5
JV's post was copied in another forum. Here is the response by one of their posters. Obviously he has a bad case of Tolstoy-R-us flu bug. Too bad he doesn't bring it here to be remedied.
Smail, you know where we are. Are you up to the challange of cutting down acres of cyber trees debating you point of view? Because debate is what this forum is all about. Most of our boys wont leave HabsRus and post elsewhere because they enjoy the respect and civility that is the basis of this forum. So if you want a rebuttle, cross over the puddle and come to the house or keep quite, you mouse. (damn, I'm a rapper now ).
P.S. I edited out some of the vitriol. ----------------------------------------------------- hockey.fanhome.com/forums/newreply.php?action=newreply&threadid=1128477----------------------------------------------------- originally posted by Smail I hate to bring this up, but Johnny Verdun isn't the best reference when it comes down to talking about hockey. Pierre Ladouceur, a true hockey connaisseur, thinks that the best coach issued from Quebec is Therrien, both tactically and as a motivator. He never missed the playoffs ever. He brung teams to the Memorial Cup that were supposed to be eliminated half through the season. I bet I could sum up stuff that would make about any coach in the NHL "garbage", but it would be a loss of time. Therrien is as good of a coach as Burns or Hitchcock are. ---------------------------------------------------- response by Habs Ghost Mighty fine statement there but obviously you can't back it up. Oh, I forgot, you can critisize someone else's post but it would be "a loss of time" to back up your oblivious statement. ------------------------------------------------- challange taken up by Smail Well... both Burns and Hitchcock have their strenghts and weaknesses, just like Therrien. Burns knows how to make his teams work nightly, he has a good trap system, however he's never made it far into the playoffs. If you look at his career as a coach, he always got results from his teams during regular season, but he has never been able to go to the next step. Also, he's the kind of coach that will get the best results during the first year, then it will go downward from there. He's already been burned in Montreal and he had just as many detractors that Therrien does have right now. I don't like Burns for the only reason that his teams are really boring to watch. Otherwise, I think he's an underrated coach in the league. Now, Hitchcock is really someone I dislike. He made a plan that worked for a Stanley Cup in 1999, then he kept it for years and years and years. He has been having problems with most of his best players year after year, and the only reason he hung there so long was that Dallas had such a good team (they still do... without Hitchcock). Of course, he'll probably have a good year with Philly, but we'll have to wait until the playoffs to really place any judgement. Philly had a good regular season last year with Barber that had high tactics like "work hard!"... The only systems that work in the NHL to win games are defensive systems. Tell me of one team that wins because of their offensive system and I will applaud you. The problem with that is that Montreal players have no particular strenght... We aren't good forecheckers, we aren't good defensively, we aren't good offensively. We're average in all departments. We do have too many unidimensional offensive players, which costs us goals. Our dmen corpse is among the weakest in the league.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 28, 2002 8:22:53 GMT -5
Also, since I've been asked to, I'll respond to Mr. Verdun's post. To me, it is just a rehash of fans frustrations.
1- Getting outshot. Before I put any explanations, I will put down our shot record this year.
1st game - Montreal 26 NYR 21 - Win 4-1 2nd game - Buffalo 31 Montreal 20 - Loss 6-1 3rd game - Philly 24 Montreal 28 - Loss 6-2 4th game - Montreal 14 Detroit 32 - Win 3-2 5th game - Toronto 34 Montreal 31 - Tie 2-2 6th game - Pittsburg 30 Montreal 33 - Tie 3-3 7th game - Philly 34 Montreal 27 - Loss 6-2 8th game - Ottawa 48 Montreal 21 - Win 5-3
First, we're not getting outshot that bad. Second, with the kind of team we have, we're going to allow a lot of shots, that's a given. If we had better dmen or didn't have so many offensive-only players, the number of shots we allow would also be lower. Then, surprisingly, the two games where we have been outshot the most are wins. Why? Well, since we don't have many forecheckers and since we're small, when we get a lead we mostly just try to cut down the good scoring chances the opponent might get. We will allow them to shoot, but from the perimeter and we'll cover the rebounds. Since we let them the room to shoot from the perimeter (we have faith that our goalies will stop routine shots), it means the opponent's number of shots rises when we have a lead on the scoreboard. Also, since we're concentrating on cutting down the middle zone (trap) and the slot (in our zone), we don't get to put pressure a lot in the opponent's zone. Another reason is that our dmen do not put pressure in the offensive zone. If they have an opportunity to beat the opposing forward to the puck and keep it in the offensive zone but that they have the slightest doubt about it, they won't force the play: this stops our possesion of the disk in the opposing zone and gives the opponent a shot or two on our net. To conclude on this point, I'll answer to the question "why aren't we getting more shots?": well that's a point where we can improve. Our forwards do not like to shoot from the perimeter or when the opposing goalie has a clean view. They try to control the puck until they can feed it to a player that can take a really good shot. The upside is that we have a good shooting %. The downside is that we get less rebounds. However, since we don't have many players that feel comfortable near the other team's goalie, I'm not sure that we would control many rebounds anyway.
2- Finishing checks and simple plays to clear the zone. We play a zone defense. Players need to be careful about finishing their checks and not getting themselves out of the play. Also, not all our wingers/centers are adequate on defense and can help/handle big opponents that maneuvers near the net, which means that the defencement have to be extra careful when they do a check. Now about making simple plays to clear the zone... We're keeping it simple, the defensemen just tries and slaps the puck along the board (higher using the glass, more precisely). That's simple... however, we lose possession of the puck, and unless we can create a turnover the opponent comes right back in our zone. We have a problem with our wingers not coming back deep enough to get a feed from the defensemen. In other words, we're making simple plays and it contributes to being outshot.
3- Post-game analysis. What does this have to do with the on-ice performance? Therrien is vague on purpose, he doesn't want to put the blame on specific players or specific plays. Therrien thinks that it's a team win or loss, and will comment about the team's overall effort. Does anyone really think that Montreal doesn't have detailed reports on every aspect of the game internally?
4- Leadership / Knowledge of the game / Game plan. I do believe Therrien has leadership, but that's something we can agree/disagree on because we're not in the locker room, we're not a lot around the team and we don't know him specifically. Same goes for knowledge of the game and game plan. I'll take Pierre Ladouceur's and Andre Savard's words when they say that Therrien has a good knowledge of the game and draws out "winning" game plans (even though we might dislike them sometimes!). However, I doubt Mr. Verdun knows Michel Therrien on a personal basis / has spoken to him about hockey strategies or tactics or has read one of his game plans. It's hard to comment when you're on the outside and can only "guess"...
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 28, 2002 8:23:07 GMT -5
5- Handling the players. Well that's something we can agree/disagree about. Verdun brings up some player names: Bulis, Robidas, Kilger, Markov, Hainsey, Czerkawski. A. Ron Wilson couldn't find a spot for Bulis. Therrien tried him on different lines. Even the fans were not sure where he'd fit: on the 2nd line providing offense? on the third line as a checking center? on another team because he didn't show anything good? Most of us are still divided. Therrien finally put him on the left of Juneau and Dackell, where Bulis is doing fine. B. Therrien has coached Robidas in the AHL, he knows him (just like Bouillon). Would you replace Quintal/Rivet/Brisebois with Robidas? I wouldn't. C. Kilger has been on and off, very inconsistent. Using him to shadow an important player like Leclair or Thornton can be either a very good decision or a deadly one, depending on which Kilger shows up. I think Kilger's usage is just right: play him on a 4th line and insert him on a better line or adjust his ice-time depending on his performance that night. We already have a line (Bulis-Juneau-Dackell) to shadow the other team's best line. Sometimes I wouldn't use Kilger the way Therrien uses him (against Philly I would have put him as the center against Primeau), but I don't see any major fault on how Therrien uses Kilger.
D. Markov was brought along slowly, and it seems with hindsight that it was just the thing to do. He improved his play last year and this year he's having his best start as a regular Montreal dman. He's not making the mistakes he was last year in his zone, plays a physical game and is more consistent. E. I don't see anything wrong in the way Hainsey has been handled. Of course, there are some fans out there that would like him to play all the games, whether he makes mistakes or not, whether he costs us games or not. I don't think he matches well with Quintal and since Traverse has been playing well, it's hard to keep him in the line-up. Personally, I'd pair him up with Rivet, but that would mean Markov would get to play with Quintal and I'm not sure how that pair would work. F. I'm glad Czerkawski was benched by Therrien. Of course, on paper, he would look good on our 1st line. However, we need to pick between him and Audette (they play the same style and we only have a spot for one of them on the team), and Audette has been putting more effort. There's a good reason why we got Czerkawski so cheap: it's because no one wanted him.
5- Mistakes. All coaches around the leagues will make a mistake here and there, a misjudgment, a bad decision. A. The man who pulled the embarrassing throat-slashing routine in game 4 against Boston. It was embarrassing, but at the same time maybe it won the series for us. After that "routine", Boston never was the same again. B. the man who then followed it up with the stupid projectile puking of vitriol that earned us a second minor against Carolina in game 4 of that series. According to a referee supervisor, the penalty was undeserved. Therrien didn't get a warning prior, and it's the kind of thing that happens in almost every game without being penalized. Of course it would have been better if he didn't get the penalty, but that's just a small mistake imo. The team was still leading by two goals after that penalty! C. the man who followed that up with the inexplicable use of Bill Lindsay to take a defensive zone face-off in overtime. That was a bad decision, but still a decision that could have been a good one. It was 4th line against 4th line, in an overtime that could have lasted 20-40-60 minutes. You can't use Perreault all the time during a playoff overtime. The other centers then Perreault didn't do well that night on faceoffs, so chances are they would have lost the faceoff too.
I hope that's good enough of a rebutal...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, BC, JV, PTH, HW and others, any rebutals?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 28, 2002 8:35:07 GMT -5
Therrien is as good of a coach as Burns or Hitchcock are.
Unless he is talking about Alfred Hithcock and some other Burns...LOL
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 28, 2002 9:20:22 GMT -5
Burns knows how to make his teams work nightly, he has a good trap system, however he's never made it far into the playoffs. If you look at his career as a coach, he always got results from his teams during regular season, but he has never been able to go to the next step. Also, he's the kind of coach that will get the best results during the first year, then it will go downward from there. He's already been burned in Montreal and he had just as many detractors that Therrien does have right now. I don't like Burns for the only reason that his teams are really boring to watch. Otherwise, I think he's an underrated coach in the league.
Smail, you are really confusing. You try to male a point that Burns is not a good coach and is only a one year wonder wherever he goes and then you go on to say that he is underrated. It’s hard to debate something when both ends are covered. By the way, I am neutral about Burns. He has learned over time and he is not as fiery as he used to be.
Now, Hitchcock is really someone I dislike. He made a plan that worked for a Stanley Cup in 1999, then he kept it for years and years and years. He has been having problems with most of his best players year after year, and the only reason he hung there so long was that Dallas had such a good team (they still do... without Hitchcock). Of course, he'll probably have a good year with Philly, but we'll have to wait until the playoffs to really place any judgement. Philly had a good regular season last year with Barber that had high tactics like "work hard!"...
Hitchcock is far more complex then a slave driver. More like a Toe Blake. He expects hard work and discipline, plus he knows how to get that from his players. In Dallas ne met up with the NHLPA mentality in Audette, Hull and others and eventually, either the GM gets rid of the problems or changes the coach. Do you think that Bowman didn’t have player problems? Except in Bowmans case, his reputation was so huge that it overshadowed anyone trying to question his tactics.
The only systems that work in the NHL to win games are defensive systems. Tell me of one team that wins because of their offensive system and I will applaud you. The problem with that is that Montreal players have no particular strenght... We aren't good forecheckers, we aren't good defensively, we aren't good offensively. We're average in all departments. We do have too many unidimensional offensive players, which costs us goals. Our dmen corpse is among the weakest in the league.
Early 90’s Oilers where run and gun. Applause please. You say we are not good at anything in Montreal in Montreal besides in goal. Well? Why? JV, myself and most others contribute it to the players AND the coaching. Isn’t this the point of this thread? We do not have any meaningful system other then the pond hockey “trough” system. Our defenseman are scared to do anything other then dump it down the ice. Our forwards don’t backcheck deep enough to relieve the pressure. Our goalies are left hanging in the four winds and have to be superman to help this team win. But other then that, we are fine.
That is all I can debate now. Tonight, I wll debate you on the rest.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 28, 2002 9:33:34 GMT -5
Marc, do you also post under the name of Habs Ghost? Is that the best you can do for a HabsRus type of rebutal? Nope. It's not me. and why respond to a guy who is not even on this board?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 28, 2002 9:51:25 GMT -5
Why is anybody surprised that we have apparently the same problems we had last year ?
Did we add a defense stabilizer (a la Smith)? Did we add some roughness and muscle on a too soft D ? Did we get a big left winger ? Did we add a good degree of desperately needed grit ? (sure we added McKay but we traded away Asham, so the net result isn't all that convincing)
The plan was for Therrien to somehow be able to build something around 6 veteran natural right wingers (4 of whom have problems defensively), 6 natural centers (2 recently converted to the wings) and some spare parts. And he was also suppose to find room for Ribeiro, another center with limited defensive capacity and Hainsey another softish puck moving dmen.
So what do we have? Pretty much the same situation as last year since we didn't address any of our problems, with, as a bonus, vets disgruntled for being played in situation where they can't succeed. Look at what Hitchcock (who everyone here recognize as a great hockey mind) did last year with a poorly built Dallas team.
Add to this the "rat story" where the GM didn't even ship away a veteran that openly criticized his coach last year… and you got... very poor management support.
I am not a fan of Therrien but there is no need to burn another coach trying to steer a poorly built team. Once the right chips appear to be in place and we scratch our heads at how come it ain't working, then we should fall on the coach. Right now, the biggest problem isn't at the coaching level IMO. Sure enough a coach change could create a little 4-6 months momentum, but eventually we'd see the same problem surface.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 28, 2002 11:57:39 GMT -5
well Doc, good points, but you forgot to mention we have our number 1 center back, a backup goalie who is healthy(something we didn't have for most of last year) and a whole lot more expectations. It's only normal we expect more out of this team after what they showed us late last year.
and the least the coaches could do is put a system in place and stick with it for more than a week.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 28, 2002 13:00:06 GMT -5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Okay, BC, JV, PTH, HW and others, any rebutals? Well, your rebuttal pretty much sums up my POV. MT is no great coach, but many of the mistakes or apparent goofs haven't really been his fault, or weren't anything all that bad. Lineup problems could be seen coming a mile away - but that doesn't mean a solution is easy to find. Also, system-wise, look at the players he has to work with. Perreault, Petrov, Audette, Czerkawski are all defensive liabilities - sometimes hardworking, but not disciplined in the defensive zone or in positionnal play. Perreault got dealt for defensive problems, Audette wouldn't conform to Hitch's system, Chow is a renowned slacker, and Petrov is a real turnover machine. Other than Chow, doesn't mean they aren't trying..... but they aren't any good at it either. What's to say the system is at fault, and not them ? As to the D, they can only make passes when some forwards are in position to receive passes, and most of our forwards are finishers, not guys who want the puck in the neutral zone. The one line made up of defensively responsible players has thrived.... of course it's through their own work, but it might also be a sign that MT's system isn't all that bad when executed by the right guys. Essentially, I'm saying AS put MT in a difficult spot, which makes it impossible to really know how the blame should be spread around. Maybe MT has lobbied for some players and not others and caused his own problems.... but we can't know, and AS is responsible for bringing in players, not MT. Which reminds me of the Mike Brown issue - when AS tells MT that if he wants Mike Brown he can grab him, leaving to MT a personnel decision that really is AS's job. Hainsey is getting a bit of the Markov treatment, and while seeing Traverse out there is quite painful, if the end result is good, who cares if we weren't sure it would work. And if it doesn't work and Hainsey is ruined, then we fire MT and AS. And no pity for Hainsey, he'll be earning more this year than I will, over my whole lifetime. As to MT vs Burns vs Hitch.... MT doesn't have and never has had the kind of talent the other two have, but both others have made it to the Cup Final, which I think proves they are pretty darn good. MT isn't there -yet ? As to the language issue.... I think it's been well-said on here - an anglo who shows good will and hard work to learn French and cares, might have a chance. But he'll have to have success as well.... Tremblay and MT have both gotten off relatively lightly (Tremblay should have been lynched after the 97 playoffs) because they were friendly local boys. Bringing in some unknown anglo coach from the WHL just won't cut it. Bringing in a highly qualified candidate who needs to learn French on the job might just do. But he better win, fast. Marc Crawford had a big advantage, having learned some French in high school and I think having married a francophone. BTW: plenty of ontarians have enough of a basis in French to be able to do an interview within just a few months of being hired without making a huge effort. Brian Savage level French is all we need. But it is an issue that can't be just ignored as "politics" - plenty of fans care deeply about this. We aren't in the 1950s anymore, Quebec is now Québec.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 28, 2002 13:18:50 GMT -5
The guy also has Koivu, Zednik, Bulis, Dackell, Kilger, Gilmour, Juneau, Lindsay and Mckay to work with. I don't doubt that if you throw Perreault out there with Czerk on one wing and Audette on the other you are going to have problems, but MT's got eight or nine forwards who have played sound hockey for long enough in this league that they can adhere to a system. And yet all we've got going is the one line and the Koivu/Zednick combination (a no-brainer in which Randy Mckay hasn't played a big role).
Besides, Czerk and Audette have played a total of about 15 regular season games in Habs uniforms in the last year and a half, so they are hardly the reason for Therrien's teams getting outshot consistently over the last 100 or so games. Plus, Petrov's defensive shortcomings are overstated. The guy can skate and he hustles, and is obviously coachable. And this is not to mention that Therrien has one of the elite face-off guys in the league to work with.
As for Rick Green, he's got a crew of pretty mobile and competent defencemen and yet they never seem to have a good idea of what they're doing back there, among themselves or with the forwards.
The whole thing reaks of bad coaching, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 28, 2002 22:11:52 GMT -5
Bingo, JV. A good coach adapts his style to the players he has. He might prefer to have different guys, but it's better to amend the system until he has his preferred types.
I'm also troubled by that Mike Brown story. The possibilties are:
1) Andre gives MT far too much say in player acquisitions. 2) MT feels his team is tough enough (hoots and guffaws). 3) MT thought Mike Brown was Brad Brown. 4) Andre is insecure and wants to leave the decision making to others. 5) MT thought Andre asked, "Do you want me to pass on Brown?" instead of "Do you want me to pick up Brown?
I can't see a positive aspect to any of those scenarios. I have no idea if the story is true, but if so, it's very troubling. It reflects badly on both MT and AS.
Now don't think I expect Mike Brown to be another Fergie. But he's twice as tough as anyone on the Habs and he has a little upside with some work (What am I saying!?...work with who? MT, Soylent Green?)
Bah Humbug.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 28, 2002 22:40:28 GMT -5
I can't see a positive aspect to any of those scenarios. I have no idea if the story is true, but if so, it's very troubling. It reflects badly on both MT and AS. It comes from an article in La Presse, and it was simple, direct quotes from MT, nothing subtle or tricky about it. AS asks MT if he wants Mike Brown, since MT knows little about the guy, he turns him down. It wasn't the focal point of the article or anything, just a little paragraph in the middle of it all. I too dislike this story and all of its implications. I think it's worse for AS than for MT though.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 28, 2002 23:34:59 GMT -5
It doesn't really bother me that much. Brown is the kind of player that MT might want but Savard wouldn't be all that fired up about. I don't see anything wrong with him asking MT whether he felt a need for that kind of a body in the lineup right now. And it's not surprising to me that Therrien declined, because he has his hands full as it is and Brown is the kind of player you'll seldom get into a game for more than three or four shifts a night. The kind of toughness we want is the kind that's hard to get -- the top six forward variety -- and Brown, who doesn't skate as well as McCarthy or Odjik, is not that kind of player.
If there was a 1 in 4 chance that Brown might become a Chris Simon or Scott Thornton kind of player over the next couple of years then AS would move no matter what MT said, but Brown is a short-term muscle solution more than anything and would simply cause more ice-time headaches for a coach who's already suffering from a perpetual migraine.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 29, 2002 8:52:23 GMT -5
It doesn't really bother me that much. Brown is the kind of player that MT might want but Savard wouldn't be all that fired up about. I don't see anything wrong with him asking MT whether he felt a need for that kind of a body in the lineup right now. And it's not surprising to me that Therrien declined, because he has his hands full as it is and Brown is the kind of player you'll seldom get into a game for more than three or four shifts a night. The kind of toughness we want is the kind that's hard to get -- the top six forward variety -- and Brown, who doesn't skate as well as McCarthy or Odjik, is not that kind of player. If there was a 1 in 4 chance that Brown might become a Chris Simon or Scott Thornton kind of player over the next couple of years then AS would move no matter what MT said, but Brown is a short-term muscle solution more than anything and would simply cause more ice-time headaches for a coach who's already suffering from a perpetual migraine. Yeah, I agree. Therrien hasn't shown all that great an ability to manage the assets he does have, and adding to them certainly isn't going to make his life easier. He probably looked at Brown, looked at his roster situation, and wondered where he was going to fit, especially given the hi, ho, silver approach he was supposed to implement. Maybe if Garon didn't need to be kept on the roster, but with room for only one extra forward, where was Brown going to fit? Do you cut Lindsay to make room for Brown? Not one other forward can be sent to the AHL with clearing waivers, and none of them would make it. Lose Bulis for Brown? Audette? Czerkawski? Hardly seems worth it.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 29, 2002 19:55:45 GMT -5
It doesn't really bother me that much. Brown is the kind of player that MT might want but Savard wouldn't be all that fired up about. I don't see anything wrong with him asking MT whether he felt a need for that kind of a body in the lineup right now. And it's not surprising to me that Therrien declined, because he has his hands full as it is and Brown is the kind of player you'll seldom get into a game for more than three or four shifts a night. The kind of toughness we want is the kind that's hard to get -- the top six forward variety -- and Brown, who doesn't skate as well as McCarthy or Odjik, is not that kind of player. If there was a 1 in 4 chance that Brown might become a Chris Simon or Scott Thornton kind of player over the next couple of years then AS would move no matter what MT said, but Brown is a short-term muscle solution more than anything and would simply cause more ice-time headaches for a coach who's already suffering from a perpetual migraine. I may be in the dark here but is it all that unusual for a GM to consult his coach on player moves from time to time. I only read the papers in Montreal & Toronto ( where the GM & coach are the same guy) but this scenario cannot be really out of place. Savard has been criticized for putting together a roster that has his coach in a bind. Let's cut hm a little slack for talking to Therrien on a small move.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 29, 2002 20:32:13 GMT -5
Brown is the kind of player that MT might want but Savard wouldn't be all that fired up about. I don't see anything wrong with him asking MT whether he felt a need for that kind of a body in the lineup right now. And it's not surprising to me that Therrien declined, because he has his hands full as it is and Brown is the kind of player you'll seldom get into a game for more than three or four shifts a night. The kind of toughness we want is the kind that's hard to get -- the top six forward variety -- and Brown, who doesn't skate as well as McCarthy or Odjik, is not that kind of player. If there was a 1 in 4 chance that Brown might become a Chris Simon or Scott Thornton kind of player over the next couple of years then AS would move no matter what MT said, but Brown is a short-term muscle solution more than anything and would simply cause more ice-time headaches for a coach who's already suffering from a perpetual migraine. I wouldn't mind having someone like Brown for 3 or 4 shifts a night. It would at least ensure that when Fedoruk takes Czerkawki's head off, that there are consequences for Fedoruk. And looking for a top 6 tough guy is going to be a long process. The tree that produces them only exists in limited places and Montreal isn't one of them. But, as you pointed out, once again rearing it's ugly head, is Savard's "depth". We'd better get some injuries soon, or Savard won't make any moves at all.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 29, 2002 21:12:06 GMT -5
uh guys this is a moot point when you think of it
Who claimed Brown? Anaheim...they finished lower than us last year.
|
|