|
Post by frozone on Feb 9, 2020 14:23:17 GMT -5
A couple things to keep in mind: - Tkachuk is almost a a full calendar year older than KK. - Tkachuk hasn't exactly progressed this year. He hasn't really regressed like KK, but he hasn't progressed. I still believe in KK's future, and I still think that his play in the first two thirds of last season justified keeping him in the NHL. I don't think anyone could deny that he looked very good. I think the realistic explanation is that he played too much hockey and ran out of gas. I saw at least two youtube videos on the Habs' youtube channel last year where it was mentioned jokingly that KK was always sleeping. I thought it was strange for an 18/19 year old. As for this season, an early groin injury and concussion could derail any player's mojo. As for KK being stuck behind Danault, I don't understand. Danault's not the #1 center, he's a matchup center. His value to this team is as an even strength beast and he's still getting better. I really don't understand why we fail to acknowledge how good he is. He's 13th among centers in even strength points tied with the likes of Pettersson, Barkov and Barzal. He doesn't even average as much PP time as Kotkaniemi. If anyone is holding KK back right now it's Suzuki. Suzuki has straight up passed KK this year and is not showing any sign of slowing down. Bingo. But in my mind, matchup centres should NOT be playing with the first line wingers. Too much time is spent stopping their top line and not enough time is spent in the offensive scoring scoring ... Danault would be the leagues best third line Center. Put Danault with Cousins and Weal and see how much he produces! I'd even go so far to state no HAB produces as much with Armia and Lehkonen as Kotkaniemi ... They took Suzuki off their line after one game. Yes, and that's my point regarding Danault - he does in fact get his wingers into the offensive zone where they can do what they do best: score. Tomas Tatar is in line for back to back personal best seasons. He's nearly a ppg player this year, and that's with only 12 power play points. How many of us truly believed that Tatar was a 1st line winger? His career numbers just don't support that he is. Even BGal is more of a 2nd line winger. But together they're one of the better lines in the league, which has given them the de facto 1st line title, and we want to break them up? If KK had been trending upwards, I'd be cool breaking up the Danault line but he just didn't show progress this year. I wish KK would have been sent down to Laval after he recovered from his injury. Missing Drouin, Armia and Byron for so much of the season really limited the winger options for him.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 9, 2020 14:25:34 GMT -5
A couple things to keep in mind: I still believe in KK's future.... At this point it's less about KK vs Tkachuk and more about KK vs. his ceiling. He's young and has time, but he better be good because to whiff on two top 3 picks in 6 years would be pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 9, 2020 17:45:12 GMT -5
Bingo. But in my mind, matchup centres should NOT be playing with the first line wingers. Too much time is spent stopping their top line and not enough time is spent in the offensive scoring scoring ... Danault would be the leagues best third line Center. Put Danault with Cousins and Weal and see how much he produces! I'd even go so far to state no HAB produces as much with Armia and Lehkonen as Kotkaniemi ... They took Suzuki off their line after one game. Yes, and that's my point regarding Danault - he does in fact get his wingers into the offensive zone where they can do what they do best: score. Tomas Tatar is in line for back to back personal best seasons. He's nearly a ppg player this year, and that's with only 12 power play points. How many of us truly believed that Tatar was a 1st line winger? His career numbers just don't support that he is. Even BGal is more of a 2nd line winger. But together they're one of the better lines in the league, which has given them the de facto 1st line title, and we want to break them up? If KK had been trending upwards, I'd be cool breaking up the Danault line but he just didn't show progress this year. I wish KK would have been sent down to Laval after he recovered from his injury. Missing Drouin, Armia and Byron for so much of the season really limited the winger options for him. And that's where we go back to disagreeing .... Your first line should be players with more than 50 points on the year ... Remember the years we had our best players scoring 40 points? We are marginally better than that. We need players with 70-80 points, and IMO, with our current personel, KKid is the best chance we got ...
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 9, 2020 20:24:09 GMT -5
The high end production just isn't there. It's a scoring league now and the best teams are the ones who can score AND have a few guys that can produce at an 80-100 point pace. We used to think about 1st liners as guys that could maybe put up 60-70 points, but those days are over.
You look just the Eastern conference and basically all the top teams (Boston, Tampa, Washington, Pittsburgh) have at least 3 guys that can produce at a PPG pace. Boston is top heavy, but Pastrnak and Marchand are both producing at a 100 point pace.
Our best guy is Tatar at .89 PPG or 73 points over 82 games.
There was a time when you could rely on depth, balance, and great goaltending. The old New Jersey Devils model. That was fine when scoring was down, but now over half the league is averaging 3 goals a game.
That's why the bar is no longer 50-60 points. Domi and Drouin can't just be 60-70 point guys. They need to be 80+ point guys. Same with KK. At this point we need to be patient but that's the bar. It's a high one and if you don't believe these guys have that kind of upside then we're in even more more trouble.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Feb 10, 2020 10:30:25 GMT -5
Yes, and that's my point regarding Danault - he does in fact get his wingers into the offensive zone where they can do what they do best: score. Tomas Tatar is in line for back to back personal best seasons. He's nearly a ppg player this year, and that's with only 12 power play points. How many of us truly believed that Tatar was a 1st line winger? His career numbers just don't support that he is. Even BGal is more of a 2nd line winger. But together they're one of the better lines in the league, which has given them the de facto 1st line title, and we want to break them up? If KK had been trending upwards, I'd be cool breaking up the Danault line but he just didn't show progress this year. I wish KK would have been sent down to Laval after he recovered from his injury. Missing Drouin, Armia and Byron for so much of the season really limited the winger options for him. And that's where we go back to disagreeing .... Your first line should be players with more than 50 points on the year ... Remember the years we had our best players scoring 40 points? We are marginally better than that. We need players with 70-80 points, and IMO, with our current personel, KKid is the best chance we got ... I think Danault is the best chance we got. At least partially. Hear me out: Danault is on pace to finish the season with approx 50 even strength points. Tatar's pace gives 56, while Gallagher's pace would have brought him to 54 if it weren't for injuries. If the target is 70-80 points, they are, what should be, a very achievable 20 power play points away from reaching that goal. Granted, you're not going to play Danault much on the PP so he will likely remain in the 50+ point range. But Tatar and BG? If they are in actual fact legitimate top line wingers, they should be producing 25+ power play points on a yearly basis. That's basically 80 points right there. Looks to me like the trio is delivering the foundation at 5v5 necessary for a 80 point season. So in what way is Danault holding them back?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 10, 2020 10:44:20 GMT -5
And that's where we go back to disagreeing .... Your first line should be players with more than 50 points on the year ... Remember the years we had our best players scoring 40 points? We are marginally better than that. We need players with 70-80 points, and IMO, with our current personel, KKid is the best chance we got ... I think Danault is the best chance we got. At least partially. Hear me out: Danault is on pace to finish the season with approx 50 even strength points. Tatar's pace gives 56, while Gallagher's pace would have brought him to 54 if it weren't for injuries. If the target is 70-80 points, they are, what should be, a very achievable 20 power play points away from reaching that goal. Granted, you're not going to play Danault much on the PP so he will likely remain in the 50+ point range. But Tatar and BG? If they are in actual fact legitimate top line wingers, they should be producing 25+ power play points on a yearly basis. That's basically 80 points right there. Looks to me like the trio is delivering the foundation at 5v5 necessary for a 80 point season. So in what way is Danault holding them back? I think you are over valuing the PP contribution. Granted the PP has been a bone of contention for a few years, but currently, only 5 NHL players have over 25 PP points, and only 17 have 20 or more PP points. If we go back 3 season to when we had a decent PP … we ranked 13th with a 21.1% PP … Glachenyuk was our top PP producer with 24 points Go back another season and Radulov was our top PP propducing forward with 16 points. Our PP was 13th with 19.7% This year we are once again 13th , at 19.9% … and our top PP producing forward is Tatar with 12, (Suzuki is second with 11) … All of this is to say. that the only way they achieve number as you suggest is by being the #1 PP …
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 10, 2020 11:08:33 GMT -5
Further to the above
The last time we had a top 5 PP, was 2012-2013. Although that was the strike shortened season, Tomas Plekanec was our top PP producing forward. He had 15 points. If we prorated his scoring over 82 games he still would have only got 57 points with 26 coming from the PP.
I said ad nauseum last year, that improving the PP does not mean the 5 on 5 scoring stays the same. I still stand by that. Our PP has gone from 30th (13.2%) to 13th (19.9%) and we seem further away from the playoffs this year, than last year. Out top scorer last year had 72 points and our second scorer had 58 points. This year our top scorer is on pace for 73 points and our second scorer is on pace for 56 points …
In 2010-11, we had the 7th ranked PP in the league … Mike Cammalerri led the team with 21 PP points. He finished second on the team with 47 points on the year.
Don't count on the PP to supplement overall points.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Feb 10, 2020 11:16:57 GMT -5
Montreal continues to be pretty good 5 v 5 team, with a +7 mark after 57 games this season.
However, the Habs are well off the pace from last season at 5 v 5 when they finished with a +25 differential.
In other words, excuses notwithstanding, Montreal is no longer a dominant even strength hockey team.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Feb 10, 2020 12:53:24 GMT -5
I think Danault is the best chance we got. At least partially. Hear me out: Danault is on pace to finish the season with approx 50 even strength points. Tatar's pace gives 56, while Gallagher's pace would have brought him to 54 if it weren't for injuries. If the target is 70-80 points, they are, what should be, a very achievable 20 power play points away from reaching that goal. Granted, you're not going to play Danault much on the PP so he will likely remain in the 50+ point range. But Tatar and BG? If they are in actual fact legitimate top line wingers, they should be producing 25+ power play points on a yearly basis. That's basically 80 points right there. Looks to me like the trio is delivering the foundation at 5v5 necessary for a 80 point season. So in what way is Danault holding them back? I think you are over valuing the PP contribution. Granted the PP has been a bone of contention for a few years, but currently, only 5 NHL players have over 25 PP points, and only 17 have 20 or more PP points. If we go back 3 season to when we had a decent PP … we ranked 13th with a 21.1% PP … Glachenyuk was our top PP producer with 24 points Go back another season and Radulov was our top PP propducing forward with 16 points. Our PP was 13th with 19.7% This year we are once again 13th , at 19.9% … and our top PP producing forward is Tatar with 12, (Suzuki is second with 11) … All of this is to say. that the only way they achieve number as you suggest is by being the #1 PP … We don't need the top ranked PP. Take a look at the PP minutes that top wingers get in the league. You won't find many top line wingers average what Tatar and BG are averaging. Let's use Ovechkin as an extreme example... he averages over twice the PP TOI than Tatar (5:01 vs 2:11). Ovechkin currently has 17 PPP, Tatar has 12. Even if you give Tatar an extra minute of PP time per game on average... at 3:11 he's somewhere in the "top line" world for PP minutes, among the likes of Perron, Marner, Mantha, Guentzel, Bertuzzi, Point, Hornqvist... So let's say this is where he belongs, that extra minute prorates Tatar to 25 PP points on the year. Admittedly, it's hard to plan out PP minutes because you never know how many opportunities you're gonna get. But if the argument is that Tatar and BG are top line wingers, then they should have the PP minutes to go with it. As of right now, they're not getting those minutes, which is hurting their PP production. Yet we're turning around and blaming Danault for the lack of production? Btw, I meant 25 PP points over a full 82 game schedule, not at this juncture.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 10, 2020 13:29:39 GMT -5
I don't get Tatar. He had a career year last year and is exceeding even that this year. Yet, with Detroit, in prime years (not the best teams, but lots of ice time available for him) he averaged .55 ppg. On the Habs, that number is .80 ppg. Is Danault better than Datsyuk, Zetterberg or Larkin, who Tatar might have played alongside in Detroit? Are the drugs in Montreal better? Weird, just weird.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Feb 10, 2020 14:25:02 GMT -5
I don't get Tatar. He had a career year last year and is exceeding even that this year. Yet, with Detroit, in prime years (not the best teams, but lots of ice time available for him) he averaged .55 ppg. On the Habs, that number is .80 ppg. Is Danault better than Datsyuk, Zetterberg or Larkin, who Tatar might have played alongside in Detroit? Are the drugs in Montreal better? Weird, just weird. I think it's the bGal factor, when bGal was out Tatar and Dano's number dropped quite a bit IIRC. Not sure Detroit had a bGal when Tatar was there.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 10, 2020 16:04:34 GMT -5
Partly, but he scored lately when Gallagher was out. I'm sure other GM's are asking that same question. Which is the real Tomas Tatar?
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Feb 10, 2020 16:26:53 GMT -5
The first 4 games that Gallagher was out of the lineup...
Tatar: 4 GP, 2 points Danault: 4 GP, 0 points
The second time Gallagher was sidelined...
Tatar: 6 GP, 6 points Danault: 6 GP, 5 points
Gallagher tends to make a line better, but his career high is just 54 points. That's just one point more than Danault's and pales in comparison to Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Larkin's career highs. I think what we have with the Tatar/BGal/Dano line is a trio whose sum is greater than its parts.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 10, 2020 16:35:56 GMT -5
The first 4 games that Gallagher was out of the lineup... Tatar: 4 GP, 2 points Danault: 4 GP, 0 points The second time Gallagher was sidelined... Tatar: 6 GP, 6 points Danault: 6 GP, 5 points Gallagher tends to make a line better, but his career high is just 54 points. That's just one point more than Danault's and pales in comparison to Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Larkin's career highs. I think what we have with the Tatar/BGal/Dano line is a trio whose sum is greater than its parts.Yup. There's some special chemistry between those 3. Similar to the Bergeron line. Split up though....what happens?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 10, 2020 18:28:34 GMT -5
Miller discusses this through blue and white coloured glasses ....there are many things wrong with this, but I'm not going to dissect it all. Just points out the lazy journalism. To be clear this was not journalism: just Miller's opinions on a radio segment, coming from a guy that's been covering the NHL draft and WJC tournament for close to 20 years. I think he makes good points. Comparisons to Thornton, Huberdeau, Barkov ... Neither started their career on the third / fourth line. So "development" at NHL level based on dominance in lower levels is a garbage argument ... You want to make that comparison then give Kotkaniemi the same ice time and quality wingers. I don't understand how early career line deployment of Huberdeau/Barkov/Thornton disproves the argument that it's beneficial for a player to dominate at lower levels in their development post draft year. And for reference, the most common line-mates for Barkov and Huberdeau in their rookie years were Sean Bergenheim/Brad Boyes, and Peter Mueller/Drew Shore respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 10, 2020 20:57:06 GMT -5
Miller discusses this through blue and white coloured glasses ....there are many things wrong with this, but I'm not going to dissect it all. Just points out the lazy journalism. To be clear this was not journalism: just Miller's opinions on a radio segment, coming from a guy that's been covering the NHL draft and WJC tournament for close to 20 years. I think he makes good points. Comparisons to Thornton, Huberdeau, Barkov ... Neither started their career on the third / fourth line. So "development" at NHL level based on dominance in lower levels is a garbage argument ... You want to make that comparison then give Kotkaniemi the same ice time and quality wingers. I don't understand how early career line deployment of Huberdeau/Barkov/Thornton disproves the argument that it's beneficial for a player to dominate at lower levels in their development post draft year. And for reference, the most common line-mates for Barkov and Huberdeau in their rookie years were Sean Bergenheim/Brad Boyes, and Peter Mueller/Drew Shore respectively. For starters, Thirnton and Barkov didn't dominate at a lower level post draft year. They went straight to the NHL. But the arguement Miller seems to be making is that while Thornton , Barkov and Huberdeau struggled early on in their NHL careers, their lower league dominance was a foundation to overcome those struggles and to eventually dominate in the NHL. It took Thornton, 4 seasons to get 70 points in a year. It took Barkov 5 seasons. It took Huberdeau 7 seasons.. It's not like they built off their junior/AHL careers immediately, which is Millers arguement for sending KKid down. Unless people think they should leave him down until he is 20-21 ...ugh. These guys took lots of time to develop. And were developed at the NHL level through patience. FYI, Kotkaniemi out scored all three of those players in their rookie seasons ...Huberdeau does get the asterisk for a shortened season, but he still only got 28 points in his second season.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Mar 4, 2020 21:17:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Mar 4, 2020 21:40:09 GMT -5
Bergevin lacks accountability in every sense. For him (and Julien many times this season) to be publicly calling out the young guys on the team is bad form and reeks of hypocrisy. These guys assembled such an awful product that in September of 2018 they believed in the tooth fairy premise that a skinny just turned 18 year old who had never played in North America and never played professionally as a centre in Finland was prepared to help a mediocre NHL team based on a few irrelevant preseason games (they are all irrelevant since most of the participants are total scrubs or NHL players trying above all not to get injured) is the definition of madness.
Kotkaniemi made the team that fall because Bergevin had almost zero centres ready to play (Drouin was a failure at centre, he did not want Pleks around anymore, he did not know if Domi could actually play centre, he traded De la Rose, it was still months before he acquired Thompson). This organization is a joke in terms of drafting and it is even worse in the development dimension.
In the face of failure, Bergevin and Julien have proven to be very adept in the art of deflecting blame. Everything is always the fault of someone else. And even more shamefully, it is most often the fault of kids forced into duty. These guys, Molson included and in reality he's at the front of the line, are the poster children for everything that is wrong with the culture rotting this organization from the inside out.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 4, 2020 21:50:50 GMT -5
Bbinz is a drooling, butt scratching moron.
Under no circumstance do you strip down a young player in public.
I just wonder if this piece of garbage gets a kick of "bossing" a player just to make himself feel better? Because given his arrogance, this is exactly what a two bit "manager" does.
Just ridiculous that he still has a job. Then again, his boss is just as much of a clown.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Mar 4, 2020 22:04:46 GMT -5
Bergevin lacks accountability in every sense. For him (and Julien many times this season) to be publicly calling out the young guys on the team is bad form and reeks of hypocrisy. These guys assembled such an awful product that in September of 2018 they believed in the tooth fairy premise that a skinny just turned 18 year old who had never played in North America and never played professionally as a centre in Finland was prepared to help a mediocre NHL team based on a few irrelevant preseason games (they are all irrelevant since most of the participants are total scrubs or NHL players trying above all not to get injured) is the definition of madness. Kotkaniemi made the team that fall because Bergevin had almost zero centres ready to play (Drouin was a failure at centre, he did not want Pleks around anymore, he did not know if Domi could actually play centre, he traded De la Rose, it was still months before he acquired Thompson). This organization is a joke in terms of drafting and it is even worse in the development dimension. In the face of failure, Bergevin and Julien have proven to be very adept in the art of deflecting blame. Everything is always the fault of someone else. And even more shamefully, it is most often the fault of kids forced into duty. These guys, Molson included and in reality he's at the front of the line, are the poster children for everything that is wrong with the culture rotting this organization from the inside out. They remind me of the old school, Don Cherry, bullSaperlipopette mentality that has been in the NHL since forever... but other teams have advanced and they are the successful ones... meanwhile were mired in mediocrity that will last years and years.... sigh.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Mar 4, 2020 22:07:57 GMT -5
Cranky, i cannot help but to be reminded of a very old saying in Spanish that loosely translated says that a fish rots from its head downward.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 5, 2020 9:12:38 GMT -5
Like Kotkaniemi said … there is no teaching from Montreal. So I again raise the point … how does Kirk Muller have a bloody job!!! The PP is purely about teaching and positioning …
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 5, 2020 13:35:49 GMT -5
It's not just Muller, Skilly. There are several other coaches on that bench whose job it should be to teach. On any decent NBA team, it's basically the job of assistant coaches to work with players for hours on one thing or another.
I love that kid. He states he shouldn't comment on it but makes a reasonable statement that there's more teaching that goes on in Laval (which can't be argued or considered disruptive by Management), but leaves open the very real question of what the hell is the coaching staff in Montreal getting paid for? There are a fair number of mild comments like this and other examples that indicate its not a very hard working group overall. Or if it is, it's certainly not focused on the important points. Good for KK. For his sake, I can only wish he gets traded to another team where he can realize his potential.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 5, 2020 13:42:58 GMT -5
Bbinz is a drooling, butt scratching moron. Under no circumstance do you strip down a young player in public. I just wonder if this piece of garbage gets a kick of "bossing" a player just to make himself feel better? Because given his arrogance, this is exactly what a two bit "manager" does. Just ridiculous that he still has a job. Then again, his boss is just as much of a clown. I'm not sure Berg knows how to be positive. The reaction, when things aren't going well, seems to be to blame someone or something else. It's happened with several players and usually ends with them being traded. Berg's comments from that interview suggest that KK just wasn't doing what management wanted him to. If someone asked me to do something stupid, I'd be reluctant to do it too. Because we don't know what KK was asked to do, I can't judge whether it made sense or not. I can only go by past experience and what little I know of KK. I've never heard a single work expressed that he wasn't willing to learn or that he we rebellious in any way, from any coach. And then I remember the chipping off the glass strategy, the poor development of so many prospects, the lies about other players and (yes I'm biased) I would lean toward believing KK rather than Bergevin.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Mar 5, 2020 13:49:46 GMT -5
I have to hand it to JK, how many 19 year olds would call out their CEOs?
The media won't do it because they don't have the guts to really challenge Bergevin. That's why Brunet got the "big" interview, because he's just another media toady trying to pretend he's taking on the team.
Kotkaniemi knows a phony when he sees one.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 5, 2020 16:23:22 GMT -5
Bbinz is a drooling, butt scratching moron. Under no circumstance do you strip down a young player in public. I just wonder if this piece of garbage gets a kick of "bossing" a player just to make himself feel better? Because given his arrogance, this is exactly what a two bit "manager" does. Just ridiculous that he still has a job. Then again, his boss is just as much of a clown. I'm not sure Berg knows how to be positive. The reaction, when things aren't going well, seems to be to blame someone or something else. It's happened with several players and usually ends with them being traded. Berg's comments from that interview suggest that KK just wasn't doing what management wanted him to. If someone asked me to do something stupid, I'd be reluctant to do it too. Because we don't know what KK was asked to do, I can't judge whether it made sense or not. I can only go by past experience and what little I know of KK. I've never heard a single work expressed that he wasn't willing to learn or that he we rebellious in any way, from any coach. And then I remember the chipping off the glass strategy, the poor development of so many prospects, the lies about other players and (yes I'm biased) I would lean toward believing KK rather than Bergevin. I've come across this "morons exercising their mouths" a few times in my career. Primarily working for the hand-me-down-management sons of "retired" owners. The difference here was that I was a late 20's manager and could ignore him with impunity. He actually fired me several times...in the morning and rehired me in the afternoon. Looking back, it's still as funny as when it happened! Drove him insane that I joked about it.....to the point of daring him to make his "firing" stick. Anywho, after 5 years, I left to start my own company and NEVER looked back. But, late 20's is vastly different from a 19 year old. These kids need the right combination of coddling and tough love. Honest tough love when they fail and only in careful moderation, just enough to make the lesson of how to improve stick a little bit better. Of course, everybody is different adn needs to be handled differently. Bombing anyone is never going to work. Most often, people simply raise their defenses and their fear level. in hockey, it makes people hesitant to do something, which given how fast the game is played and how much is almost at the instinctive level, adding a layer of fear and hesitancy serves to destroy them rather then improve them. "Management principles" are universal. Bbinz would face the same challenges if he was in general management as he does running a hockey team. The vast difference is that other then the "hand-me-down-sons", Bbinz wouldn't last past his probation period with his 50's management style. Whats' the use of complaining......Mol$on is not any better then his failed underling.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 5, 2020 17:48:20 GMT -5
I keep comparing Nick Nurse of the Raptors (and Masai Ujiry and Bobby Webster) to the Habs brain trust because they keep coming as as examples of what works and what doesn't. Nick Nurse, this year, has called out Terrence Davis and Chris Boucher and each time the player has responded with a career high game. Each time, though, it was clear the players weren't playing to their capability and as Nurse explains, he has credited them with great games when they've played well, so he can't very well sugar coat it when they aren't playing well. In each case, Nurse gave the guys a lot more court time in the games they were playing well, and not as much when they weren/t. None of this is a surprise to the players. They know their roles, they know what they have to do and they either perform or they don't. Their own performance determines the amount of playing time they get (depending on opponent, match-ups, etc.). Even the criticism is voiced in a particular way...namely that the team needs them to be better. There's nothing like "he didn't do what we asked him to do", or "that play of his cost us the game". The guy is part of a team. He will react best when he feels he's letting the team down, not management. It's his teammates that matter, not Julien or Bergevin or Nurse.
That old style of management really doesn't work. It's usually destructive.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Mar 5, 2020 18:44:04 GMT -5
I personally don't see the big deal with what MB said. If you read the french article, MB's main points are that the Habs want KK to improve his skating and body position, ie keeping a low center of gravity on the ice while skating and in board battles. I don't think we can put this one on the coaches. This isn't so much a work ethic issue, more of a need to kick old habits. It'll be easier for KK to work on these things in the AHL. When it comes to public criticism this is about as light as it gets. KK's comments sound more like a kid who can't believe that he was just asked that question. This wouldn't be the first time a story gets blown out of proportion after getting translated and boiled down to a single sentence.
The thing that stood out for me the most about the article is that MB stands behind his decision of bringing KK into the NHL at 18. Geez... MB can just never be wrong, can he? Criticism is ok but only if it applies EVERYONE, top to bottom of the organization.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 5, 2020 20:15:35 GMT -5
I'll be a stick in the mud and say that Jesperi Kotkaniemi is where he should be right now ... he mentioned learning a lot of the little things while in Laval and while I don't know what "little things" he's referring to, the word that jumped out at me when he said he was "learning" ... I couldn't tell you in the least what kind of 'little things' he was learning, but these might skills that he should have but wasn't applying in Montreal ... the organization said they were getting some "resistance" from Kotkaniemi and if that is an attitude issue, then a stint in the AHL might not be a bad motivator ... to that Ryan Poehling openly admitted that he needed an (attitude adjustment) when he first got there, but he seems to be sorting it out now ... apparently, Kotkaniemi had some issues accepting his demotion, too, but his intensity has also picked up recently ... I'll go out on a limb and say, at some point, we'll probably see both of them stick in Montreal next season ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 5, 2020 21:56:28 GMT -5
I'll be a stick in the mud and say that Jesperi Kotkaniemi is where he should be right now ... he mentioned learning a lot of the little things while in Laval and while I don't know what "little things" he's referring to, the word that jumped out at me when he said he was "learning" ... I couldn't tell you in the least what kind of 'little things' he was learning, but these might skills that he should have but wasn't applying in Montreal ... the organization said they were getting some "resistance" from Kotkaniemi and if that is an attitude issue, then a stint in the AHL might not be a bad motivator ... to that Ryan Poehling openly admitted that he needed an (attitude adjustment) when he first got there, but he seems to be sorting it out now ... apparently, Kotkaniemi had some issues accepting his demotion, too, but his intensity has also picked up recently ... I'll go out on a limb and say, at some point, we'll probably see both of them stick in Montreal next season ... Cheers. Gotta chime in. The Habs brain trust have said a lot of things that we later find out were ‘embellished’. Do you recall PK very politely ‘resisting’ Therrien’s video haranguing? Funny how when a player isn’t succeeding it’s because they resist and haven’t drunk the Kool-Aide.
|
|