|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 29, 2002 13:55:10 GMT -5
From last night's game:
Total:
Donald Audette: 15:10 Andreas Dackell: 14:56 Jan Bulis: 14:42 Chad Kilger: 12:36 Randy McKay: 9:53 Sylvain Blouin: 2:09, 4 shifts (why did we get this guy again?)
Power Play:
Randy McKay: 3:27 Donald Audette: 2:50 Saku Koivu: 2:27 Richard Zednik: 2:27
And on a more positive note:
Ron Hainsey: 14:27, 20 shifts (+1, the only plus player - still no pp time though) Karl Dykhuis: 10:39, 14 shifts
Discuss amongst yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 29, 2002 14:29:44 GMT -5
same old story Audette is the team thief. In place of something productive we have this thing they call DA (pronounced DUH) stealing ice time. How many games and how few goals does this guy have to play and remain unproductive before something is done. Bite the bullet swallow some pride and realize this guy is cooked like christmas turkey done like christmas dinner. Buy the guy out and send him packing. If Cerkawski who is now on a conditioning stint was given the opportunities this wretch has been given to produce he'd be at the 20 goal mark by now but nope he's in the minors while Audette and his 2 goals steal Valuable ice time.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 29, 2002 16:48:39 GMT -5
Audette is either: a: MT's lovechild b: AS's son c: Has ''pictures'' d: Someone who does some..on MT's d.....nah I won't say it ;D It's a joke. Why does no one in the media bash him? They always pick on Kilger or Rivet...A FREAKIN 3 MILLION DOLLAR SCORER HAS 2 GOALS!!!!!!!!! This is just ridiculous!! The french media would be all over him if his name was Don Odetta.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 29, 2002 19:43:34 GMT -5
From last night's game: Total:Donald Audette: 15:10Andreas Dackell: 14:56 Jan Bulis: 14:42 Chad Kilger: 12:36 Randy McKay: 9:53 Sylvain Blouin: 2:09, 4 shifts (why did we get this guy again?) Power Play:Randy McKay: 3:27 Donald Audette: 2:50Saku Koivu: 2:27 Richard Zednik: 2:27 And on a more positive note:Ron Hainsey: 14:27, 20 shifts (+1, the only plus player - still no pp time though) Karl Dykhuis: 10:39, 14 shifts Discuss amongst yourselves. Well my questions are; Just how is Audette getting all this ice time, when he does nothing to deserve it? Also, what changed Therrien's mind on Hainsey. The other night, he hardly played at all in the 3rd (1 shift or so), then last night he was playing a lot in the 3rd. I know Hainsey played good, but I didn't think he was bad against the Sens, yet he sat. But I will say that I am glad to see they have cut Dykhuis's ice time, and that's a good move on their part, IMO. About the PP, I think that's way too much time for Audette and McKay. They should put Kilger in front of the net, and tell Markov to work on his slap shot. He needs to hit the net a lot more often.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 29, 2002 19:50:09 GMT -5
Simple Montreal
On Friday, Habs were leading by 1 against the best team in the NHL
Saturday, the Habs were down by 2 and needed some offence. I guess MT saw Hainsey was doing decently and gave him tons of ice time in the 3rd and it paid off on one goal.
For once, I must say, MT handled a situation well. Now if they woulf only give Hainsey some PP time.............
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 29, 2002 21:23:59 GMT -5
Perhaps someone should do the reporters' job for them and try & get these stats published in a Montreal paper - maybe a letter to the editor or that sort of thing. The only way they are going to see the situation is by looking at the numbers in black & white.
The press ususally takes the easy way out and dump on Czerwaski rather then taking a good hard look at the real numbers.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 29, 2002 21:37:53 GMT -5
I am going to send them to journalists at LaPresse. I can't wait to see what they will say
I will also use the Audette PP time stat ;D
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 30, 2002 1:43:53 GMT -5
Also, what changed Therrien's mind on Hainsey. The other night, he hardly played at all in the 3rd (1 shift or so), then last night he was playing a lot in the 3rd. I know Hainsey played good, but I didn't think he was bad against the Sens, yet he sat. I think Hainsey sat against Ottawa because the team was getting horribly outplayed. I mean, really, really badly. What were the shots again? 37-12? They didn't want to throw him out into that mess, without any support from his teammates, who were having a hard enough time just holding their own. On the other hand, with the exception of the 2nd period, Montreal played Pittsburgh fairly tight. Not great, and they certainly weren't the better team, but they weren't getting totally outclassed, like they were in Ottawa. Easier to support Hainsey in that situation. Again though, I may be giving the coaching staff too much credit. I would keep using Hainsey the way they have; 10-15 minutes of carefully controlled ice time, depending on the game situation, away, as much as possible, from top lines. Maybe sit him in back-to-back games, or in 3 game in 4 nights situations, so that he doesn't get too fatigued mentally. See how that goes for the next 10-15 games, and then re-assess. Heck, if Therrien is going to insist on using a "spare parts" 4th line, full of speciality players who don't play regular shifts, then why not dress 7 defensemen, and rotate Hainsey and Dykhuis every second shift?
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Dec 30, 2002 2:18:29 GMT -5
"why not play 7 d men"
because dykhuis is horrible, and hainsey is a great offensive improvement. their equally a liability defensively. but if for some insane reason dykhuis HAS TO PLAY then yeah 7 d might work. as our 4th line sure doesn't do a lot.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Dec 30, 2002 9:51:26 GMT -5
One thing that I have a hard time understanding is that MT is playing Hainsey with Dykhuis. This guy is the worst D on the Team, yet he plays a rookie with him. Hainsey should be playing with the best defenseman on the team. This way, if he happens to make a mistake, we have the best guy on the team to bail him out. Dykhuis is not the guy, by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 30, 2002 9:59:39 GMT -5
Hainsey-Brisebois Markov-Rivet Dykhuis-Traverse Or Markov-Brisebois Hainsey-Rivet Dykhuis-Traverse Add Q in there I do agree with what BC is saying. Let's not forget Ron has never played 82 games before(the max he played was about 60 last year) so the Habs shouldn't play him every single game. When you face a team like the 'nucks, IMO it's OK to sit him so they don't eat him alive and you ruin his confidence.I just wish they would give him PP time on the 2nd unit. Traverse and Rivet suck bad.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 30, 2002 10:10:31 GMT -5
I think Hainsey sat against Ottawa because the team was getting horribly outplayed. I mean, really, really badly. What were the shots again? 37-12? They didn't want to throw him out into that mess, without any support from his teammates, who were having a hard enough time just holding their own. On the other hand, with the exception of the 2nd period, Montreal played Pittsburgh fairly tight. Not great, and they certainly weren't the better team, but they weren't getting totally outclassed, like they were in Ottawa. Easier to support Hainsey in that situation. Again though, I may be giving the coaching staff too much credit. I would keep using Hainsey the way they have; 10-15 minutes of carefully controlled ice time, depending on the game situation, away, as much as possible, from top lines. Maybe sit him in back-to-back games, or in 3 game in 4 nights situations, so that he doesn't get too fatigued mentally. See how that goes for the next 10-15 games, and then re-assess. Heck, if Therrien is going to insist on using a "spare parts" 4th line, full of speciality players who don't play regular shifts, then why not dress 7 defensemen, and rotate Hainsey and Dykhuis every second shift? These ARE no brainer moves and you ARE giving the coach'potatoes staff too much credit. He clearly has the talent and appears to have gotten the message. The next few games will be interesting for the Hainsey sideshow. 1. Will he play a regular shift in Calgary? 2. Will they sit him against the Nucks? 3. Will they play him on the powerplay and stop this Ribiero foolishness? Things inquiring minds want to know. It will be interesting to see how Komi is broken in. Markov and Hainsey had vision and knew how to play defense but thought they were budding Bobby Orr’s. Komi is coming from a different direction in that he does not have the vision and positional knowledge. I would say it will take him at least until this time next year to be real good, or at least decent on defense. Are they going to let him stay down until he is fully developed or will they rush him? With the declining abilities of some of out defenseman, Savard is either going to trade for some 6th defenseman, sign one in the off season or rush Komi. Something tells me that Savard will try to avoid the last one at all costs. After all, if Komi fails, it will be a direct reflection on Savard.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 30, 2002 10:17:28 GMT -5
HA,
will he even play in CGY is the question. With Q-ball due back, one D will have to sit...will MT have the balls to sit Dykhuis and his limited package?
Now on to Komi....right now, I'd be very surprised if he begins next season with the Habs. I think they will wait until he is really ready before calling him up. If MT is still at the helm, he will probably get the Markov and Hainsey treatment...
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 30, 2002 10:33:30 GMT -5
These ARE no brainer moves and you ARE giving the coach'potatoes staff too much credit. He clearly has the talent and appears to have gotten the message. The next few games will be interesting for the Hainsey sideshow. 1. Will he play a regular shift in Calgary? 2. Will they sit him against the Nucks? 3. Will they play him on the powerplay and stop this Ribiero foolishness? Things inquiring minds want to know. It will be interesting to see how Komi is broken in. Markov and Hainsey had vision and knew how to play defense but thought they were budding Bobby Orr’s. Komi is coming from a different direction in that he does not have the vision and positional knowledge. I would say it will take him at least until this time next year to be real good, or at least decent on defense. Are they going to let him stay down until he is fully developed or will they rush him? With the declining abilities of some of out defenseman, Savard is either going to trade for some 6th defenseman, sign one in the off season or rush Komi. Something tells me that Savard will try to avoid the last one at all costs. After all, if Komi fails, it will be a direct reflection on Savard. While I wouldn't say it is absolutely crucial to the future of the organization that Hainsey starts making an impact this year (or at least, be a regular), I do think it is very, very important, in the grand scheme of things, with regards to Komisarek. Next year, Quintal and Dykhuis (if still around) will be one year older. Lets not speculate on what that means for their play, as I have just eaten breakfast. Brisebois and Markov should be at the same level of play as this year, Rivet too, Souray will undoubtably be hurt, and who knows where Traverse will be. So in all likelihood our defense will decline next year, because of Quintal and Dykhuis, if nothing is done. Ugh. Montreal will not break in two rookie defensemen. They just won't. So if Hainsey can't cut it this year, Komisarek will not be in next year, cause that will once again be Hainsey's "rookie" spot. So that will mean no Komi next year. Personally, I still think he will be ready for NHL duty by next Christmas, max. He will, in my opinion, be almost certainly too good for the AHL by then. For me then, its important that Hainsey be given every opportunity to make it this year. If Hainsey plays 10-15 minutes the next 15 games, and does well, or adequately, they can start moving that up to 17-18 minutes (slowly), meaning that by the end of the year he will be a regular. No question as to whether or not he should be on the team next season, in other words. In my dream world, next year, he starts off like Markov did last year, or even better, this year. By the end of next season, he is a solid standout, like Markov was during the playoffs against the Bruins. Not the best defenseman out there, but clearly improving. What that would do, would allow Montreal to break in Komisarek right around Christmas time (like they are doing with Hainsey this year), giving him the tried-and-true 10-15 minutes per game formula. Dykhuis, Traverse, and Quintal are slowly fazed out. While we all know what they say about the best-laid plans of men, that is what I would be shooting for. Have Hainsey become a regular, say #5-6 defenseman (as opposed to his current #7-8) by the end of this season, #4 by the end of next year. Komisarek becomes Hamilton's best defenseman by the end of this season, and becomes clearly too good for the AHL by next Christmas, at which time he is called up (like Hainsey this year). By the end of next season, he has become the #5-6 defenseman. In 2004-05 ( please no lockout, please no lockout) Markov is our #1, Hainsey (after a Markov-type breakout year) is our #2, Souray or Rivet or UFA/traded-for player is #3, Komisarek is #4, Brisebois #5, and whoever are 6 and 7. But if Hainsey can't make it this year, then Komisarek won't be called up next year, even if he is too good. Or he will be called up, but he will be competing with Hainsey for ice-time. Everybody's developement gets thrown off by a year, or two, or three, or forever. Course, while its all fine and dandy to plan these things out on paper, and even finer and dandier to plan them out on the internet (you reading Andre?), we do tend to forget that players are human beings, and that what worked for Markov, may not work for Hainsey... Still, this is the goal I would like to see them working towards...
|
|
|
Post by Ged on Dec 30, 2002 10:33:42 GMT -5
Just like Markov a few years back, I see a defenceman who is more than ready to be a regular player on this team. Markov was yo-yo'd because his defensive play was questionable, but if you're being honest, he was nowhere as bad as his peers consistently play. It's time for this kid to get a regular shift. I for one, am ready and willing for the lad to learn on the job. Coaching staff is another matter of course. Again, the mistakes Ron will make while taking a regular shift, will pale in comparison to the stooge show we've been saddled with over the last decade +.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Dec 30, 2002 10:41:31 GMT -5
Markov is our #1, Hainsey (after a Markov-type breakout year) is our #2, Souray or Rivet or UFA/traded-for player is #3, Komisarek is #4, Brisebois #5, and whoever are 6 and 7. Gives us something to look forward to, doesn't it. Makes me feel good to see Brisebois where he really belongs, 5th defenseman. Finally, a defense core that makes sense. Here's to the future.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 30, 2002 10:41:36 GMT -5
Good plan BC. It makes sense I have thought about 2004-05 and how this could impact Komi. Basically if there is a lockout that year...we may have to wait for the 2005-06 season(3 more years ) to see him up here. Yikes. I am not saying that because I want to see the guy up, I am saying that because our D will need him sooner rather than later. That's why it's important to get Hainsey some NHL experience this year. 20-30 games at least. So Komisarek can get some experience next year. But I disagree with the defence will be not as good next year statement: Markov=should only improve Rivet= hopefully the wrist gets fixed and he is better Souray= hopefully he plays SOME games Hainsey=should only get better Quintal= will slowly be eased out Brisebois= should stay at the same level Dykhuis= hopefully gone Traverse= should be not as good because he won't get the same ice time Good Hickey article on Hainsey in the paper this morning: www.faceoff.com/nhl/teams/canadiens/news/story.html?f=/news/20021230/310849.html''One indication that the Canadiens have confidence in Hainsey is the way coach Michel Therrien used him in the past two games. The Canadiens were forced to use two left-handed shots - Hainsey and Karl Dykhuis - in the same pairing and it was the rookie Hainsey who was asked to make the adjustment and play the right side. In the Pittsburgh game, he saw nearly four minutes more than Dykhuis and the speculation is that he will replace Dykhuis in the future'' Please let this happen.... BTW, I just read in the paper that Quintal lost a lot of weight with his bout with the flu and he is iffy for tomorrow's game. Looks like Hainsey will get another chance to show his stuff.
|
|