|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 25, 2002 23:30:27 GMT -5
Really. can he still help or does his unger for icetime combined with the fear of MT to shave it from him harm this team more then it helps?
Most will agree that having Gilmour on a 4th line to provide leadership and the occasional inspired play would be great for any team. But to carry him and his 1 goal/8 pts on our second offensive unit is detrimental to the team IMO.
Though Therrien keeps protecting Dougie from criticisms, Killer isn't crazy and he must know darn too well that regardless of what the coach says, his game doesn't justify the icetime. Worst, Dougie probably knows, his teammates see it clearly too...
With a good performance down the stretch last year, Gilmour salvaged a carreer end that was not gonna look good after his Chicago and Buffalo performances... IMO, he should have called it quit then.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Nov 25, 2002 23:42:39 GMT -5
Doc,
If I remember correctly, both you and I aren't fans of prematurely calling for heads...we both stuck up for Audi, even after no points in 8 games...
Dougie in my mind should be treated no differently. Sure, he's not producing at last year's pace, but that pace came pretty much post Xmas...he'll turn it around this year too (but not playing left wing, that's for sure), the question is whether he'll still be in a Habs uniform when he does. I feel he deserves to be, and we should all remember what character he brought to this club during Koivu's absence and the during the late playoff run.
Imagine if we had to count on Perreault for leadership, hustle and determination? That wouldn't be a pretty sight.
I vote we put up with the first half season lull...it'll be a treat come February, I guarantee it.
|
|
|
Post by JacquesInFL on Nov 26, 2002 1:35:20 GMT -5
I agree with Doc.
Gilmour has not been a particularly positive force this season at LW -- 15:42 min/gm, 64:31 PP minutes, while only an empty netter and 7 assists to show for it. And only Audette and Lindsay (Blouin and Ribs have not played enough to call them out here) require more even strength minutes to notch an even strength point than Gilmour has. Would Killer offer more at centre? Maybe he would, but it doesn't really matter since Saku, Perreault and Juneau have done nothing to merit losing their jobs.
And the argument that is based on giving Dougie what he wants now because he may come in handy later seems suspect unless you are are witnessing injuries to one of our three centres in your crystal ball.
Gilmour is a professional and he should expect his coach (that's MThead, no?) to be no less. Michel should have already told Dougie the club needs him play 4th line and chip in on PP. -- Instead, Therrien is shirking his duties and thus tying his own hands. Would it be useful to see Bulis (good defense, speed) on the 2nd line? Would it be useful to see more of Ribeiro? Or maybe Hossa?
For me, the most frustrating aspect of the Gilmour dilemma or the redundant RWs horror show is that the problems should not be intractable. The problems should not eat away a half the season and points for the bank. If Gilmour will not accept the role available for him, then move on. If no one wants Audette or Czerkawski, then persuade the owner that its no worse financially and ultimately better for winning to simply release one of these cream puffs.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 26, 2002 8:26:04 GMT -5
I'd rather see Hossa on that 2nd line with Perreault and whoever on the right side.
And Gilmour on the 4th line.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 26, 2002 12:40:22 GMT -5
Well, like a lot of players in Montreal these days, I don't think Dougie is being used all that properly. Now before we all go jump on Therrien, I think in this case a lot of it is Gilmour's fault - he still wants to be an offensive center.
Personally, I think Gilmour has nothing left to prove, and should fade off into the sunset the same way many, good, good players do - as a defensive specialist. Like Kirk Muller, or Joe Juneau. Seriously, what's wrong with a Juneau - Gilmour - Dackell line? I think that would be a great checking line. Sure, people will say Juneau is the center on that line, but he has played a lot of wing in the past, and I don't think he would complain as much about a shift, or not as much as Gilmour. Throw those three out there for 17-20 minutes against top lines, and I think they would do fine. Have Juneau and Bulis kill penalties on one unit, Gilmour and say Kilger on the second.
4th line is too low for Gilmour. He hasn't been THAT bad. He just hasn't been offensive. If he would accept it, I think he could do a lot of good on the 3rd line.
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Nov 26, 2002 12:50:37 GMT -5
Richard Zednik-Saku Koivu-Donald Audette Jan Bulis-Yanic Perreault-Czerkawski/Petrov Joe Juneau-Doug Gilmour-Andreas Dackell Blouin/Lindsay-Kilger/Ribeiro-Randy McKay
Looks good to me...i don't see why Gilmour would have any problem moving down to the 3rd line either, especially if it means he gets to play C and his ice time wouldn't really be cut all that much either.
|
|
|
Post by JacquesInFL on Nov 26, 2002 16:43:03 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, BC. But I would worry about two issues -- one is tactical and other is personality.
Remember what happened when Juneau got stuck with Gilmour and McKay in the New Jersey debacle? Yes, Dackell remaining with Juneau would offer more cohesion. However, who is the forechecking speed & energy on a Juneau-Killer-Dackell line? When carrying the puck is easier and passing lanes are left open then our d-pairs will back up in fear and the running around starts, as it often does with Habs other lines.
My other problem with handing Gilmour a centre position is the message it sends to the guys -- thanks for the work you did against Mario and Sundin, etc but Killer plays better at centre. I'm sure Joé would make best effort but I doubt it would help the confusion eating this clubhouse.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Nov 26, 2002 18:00:38 GMT -5
Funny you brought this up Doc. Being on the road all day I have lots of time to stew over the Habs and was think about the Gilmour situation most of the day. After looking at the stats this morning you will notice that even though his points are down Dougie is still a plus player on a team that has been blown out on several occassions. I would like to see Dougie back at centre and put him with some offensive players. Last year along with Zed and Petrov he was quite effective and they were arguably our best line. MT has been tinkering so much why not see what Dougie could do with say Bulis who deserves to be moved up and say Czerkawski on the second line. Saks and Zed have been good togrther so keep them intact . How about Zed Koivu Audi Bulis Gilmour Chow Jun Perr Dacks Kil Ribs Mckay or Petrov Dougie still makes great passes and if your going to keep him why not give him a real chance to play with some offensive players ,otherwise trade or release him. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Nov 26, 2002 18:26:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that Dougie scored his first 2 goals last season on Dec. 12th against Atlanta and I believe he had all of 6 points going into that game. So, Gilmore is already 16 days ahead of last season's pace. ;D I'm not all that worried yet about Gilmore's progress so far, IMO, Dougie will produce when we need him the most, over the second half of this season.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 26, 2002 18:50:27 GMT -5
Thanatos I remember that game well..
Gilmour scored his first goal and we were leading 3-0 after 3. In the 3rd, Heatley scored early against Hackett, Ferraro with 5 minutes to go and Kovalchuk completed the collapse with a goal with 10 seconds left. It was a weird game with the clock going bezer and the game took something like 3h15 minutes
Then, the night after, we played in Philly, Gilmour scored again and we won 3-2 with Theodore standing on his head.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 26, 2002 22:20:48 GMT -5
I don't know, guys, we can single out individual performances, or lack of performances, all we want. But, with several exceptions, I think the team, collectively, seems to be distracted by something else.
I don't know what it is, but they are playing way below what they're capable of, IMHO.
I honestly think Gilmour will be more visual as the season progresses. There's been talk that he's actually the one running the team. I couldn't tell you one way or the other to tell you the truth. But, all I know is that we haven't one other guy on that club with his kind of experience. Yet, I'm willing to admit that his tenure should be up at the end of the current season. I'm sure he knows that.
As far as Therrien making excuses for him, well, I'll have to take your word for it, Doc. But, I'd hope Therrien would be sticking up for all of his players, not just Gilmour. Come to think of it, he's publicly stuck up for his players on more than one occasion.
There's a few players I'd bench, or remove, before I would Gilmour. He still contributes, if not scoring goals, then somewhere else.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 26, 2002 22:28:19 GMT -5
Gilmour is starting to wake up follks. Big goal tonight!!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 26, 2002 22:37:20 GMT -5
Seriously, what's wrong with a Juneau - Gilmour - Dackell line? I think that would be a great checking line. Sure, people will say Juneau is the center on that line, but he has played a lot of wing in the past, and I don't think he would complain as much about a shift, or not as much as Gilmour. Throw those three out there for 17-20 minutes against top lines, and I think they would do fine. . Actually, when I learnt that Gilmour Perreault and Saku would all be playing center this year, that's the defensive line I expected to see.
|
|
|
Post by KR on Nov 26, 2002 23:48:31 GMT -5
I'm with Marc in that I see Gilmour holding back Hossa. I wouldn't move him to the 4th line though. I move him right out the door. His "leadership" is not required to the same degree that it was last year with Koivu out. This is a veteran team. If they were bringing along more youngsters, his presence could prove invaluable, but they are not. Ironically, it's veterans like Gilmour and Dykhuis that are hidering the development of these young players. If they can't produce, they shouldn't be playing, IMO. I would much rather see Hossa and Hainsey out there every night than those two.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 27, 2002 8:23:43 GMT -5
But Gilmour is starting to produce...could he be fooling us for the 2nd year in arrow
Now, for Dykhuis blocking Hainsey, I am in total agreement ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 27, 2002 8:39:17 GMT -5
There's a few players I'd bench, or remove, before I would Gilmour. He still contributes, if not scoring goals, then somewhere else. Cheers. Problem is Dis, indeed many players DID get benched because of their lack of production. Veteran players like Audette, Kilger, Petrov and Czerkowsky... If all was fair and logic Gilmour should have gotten benched at some point. When dealing with a group, being coherent is essential IMO. The general consensus seems to be that Gilmour's leadership and experience could still be used, but maybe not on an offensive line. And I would agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 27, 2002 9:39:21 GMT -5
No disrespect to Dougie, but I have no use for him, 4th line or otherwise. But it would be insulting to a 20-year vet to just release him. Savard's mistake was picking up the option for this year. We have too many mouths to feed as it is; it would have been nice to not have to worry about Gilmour.
BTW, the leadership that Gilmour provides is marginal at best, IMO, and nowhere near makes up for his pitiful production and maximum ice time.
|
|
|
Post by habfan4 on Nov 27, 2002 9:51:28 GMT -5
If last nights performance was any indication, Gilmour looks he may have finally turned the corner (at least he had his legs moving). The Habs schedule over the next couple of weeks is brutal (lots of games on the road against very good teams) hopefully that will spur Gilmour into playing with more of an edge (ala penalty king Saku Koivu), which is when he is most effective.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 27, 2002 11:59:33 GMT -5
BTW, the leadership that Gilmour provides is marginal at best, IMO, and nowhere near makes up for his pitiful production and maximum ice time. so if his production is pitiful, what do you call Audette's ?(who has dissapeared after the the little hot streak)
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 27, 2002 18:09:23 GMT -5
No disrespect to Dougie, but I have no use for him, 4th line or otherwise. But it would be insulting to a 20-year vet to just release him. Savard's mistake was picking up the option for this year. We have too many mouths to feed as it is; it would have been nice to not have to worry about Gilmour. BTW, the leadership that Gilmour provides is marginal at best, IMO, and nowhere near makes up for his pitiful production and maximum ice time. Honestly, BH, I could be wrong, but I don't think Savard picked up Gilmour for his scoring prowess. He provided the experience that was missing from le club last year and still provides the same this year. I'm not sure how you're qualifying Gilmour's leadership as marginal. He was THE warrior in last year's playoffs, no ands, ifs, or buts. Théodore's goaltending was the main reason we went as far as we did, but Gilmour was the guy who kept things loose in the dressing room and during practices. Now, if he is the centre of controversy, then I say bench him, or move him. However, there seems to be a new "dressing room controversy of the week," in Montreal nowadays. I honestly don't know what to believe at time. As a result, I just don't follow that trype. I'm only seeing the Saturday night games as it is, BH, so I don't see all of the supreme, or lackluster performances. But, I do notice that people single out players they just plain don't like. If he has a good game I find that some disbelievers will always find a negative in his play for that night. Very honestly, HB, I still feel Gilmour can effectively contribute. Gilmour has a place on the team. Last year he publicly said right after Christmas that he could be helping the club a lot more. Then he went on a tear that ended after our playoff exit. He seems to have that bounce back in his step, but still some people still choose not to acknowledge it. Now, don't get me wrong, HB, it's not you I'm trying to single out. I'm referring to a lot of posters actually, and sometimes I have to include myself in that category as well. I've been critical of players in the past as well. But, I've also acknowledged when they had a good game, or string of games. Rivet is a prime example. He plays outstandingly one night and coughs up a puck that leads to a goal the next. I'm still happy he's with us to tell you the truth, but I know he sometimes makes a boner of a play. Anyway, I'd be leary about having Killer back next year, but that's not the topic right now. I'm not giving up on him for this season. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 27, 2002 18:22:46 GMT -5
Problem is Dis, indeed many players DID get benched because of their lack of production. Veteran players like Audette, Kilger, Petrov and Czerkowsky... If all was fair and logic Gilmour should have gotten benched at some point. When dealing with a group, being coherent is essential IMO. The general consensus seems to be that Gilmour's leadership and experience could still be used, but maybe not on an offensive line. And I would agree with that. Well put mon ami. I remember Killer reporting to the club a tad out of shape. And, like last year, I wouldn't have a problem with having him on the lower lines. Though I'd move him up as soon as someone started slumping. I think I also posted a while back that no one should be exempt from a benching including Gilmour. But, what we're now talking about is a coaching decision and not a Gilmour-related decision. If he was playing badly and the coach decides to keep him in, who is Gilmour to say, "... take me out coach, I suck tonight..." Goaltenders have done so in past, but it's rare a forward will take himself off for poor play. I'd like to go back to the original post right now. I honestly think that if Gilmour was protected, that alone would create a rift in the team for sure. And whose to say it hasn't created one already? Honestly, one way of finding out just how much Gilmour means to Montreal would be to get him out of the lineup. If they're motivated, then a problem may have been identified. If the morale sinks lower, then the opposite would be true. It's back into Therrien's court now. But, it's only a theory. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 27, 2002 18:29:42 GMT -5
I'm with Marc in that I see Gilmour holding back Hossa. I wouldn't move him to the 4th line though. I move him right out the door. His "leadership" is not required to the same degree that it was last year with Koivu out. This is a veteran team. If they were bringing along more youngsters, his presence could prove invaluable, but they are not. Ironically, it's veterans like Gilmour and Dykhuis that are hidering the development of these young players. If they can't produce, they shouldn't be playing, IMO. I would much rather see Hossa and Hainsey out there every night than those two. I'd say Audette and/or Lindsay are holding back Hossa actually, KR. Gilmour is a centre whereas Bill Lindsay is a winger. Audette I think plays on the opposite side to Hossa, but adjustments have been made before. As for Dykhuis, I haven't seen him play recently, but the games I have seen him in, he's been less that stellar. Brutal on some nights. I'd like to see him regain his form, but like a lot of others here and elsewhere, my patience is running out. I'd also like to see Quintal regain his form as well, but I'd include him in with Dykhuis. (to be fair, I think his play has picked up of late, but I haven't seen any games lately) In short, Dykhuis may be hindering the development of some younger players in the system, but IMHO I feel he isn't alone. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Nov 28, 2002 17:43:22 GMT -5
Why not put Gilmore on a line with Ribiero so he could possibly have a more direct impact on the kid? As for Hainsey, why not let him get his confidence back at the AHL level and develop a littl bit before we rush him back up? He was sent down because his play suggested that he wasn't quite ready. Why rush him back? It could be even more detrimental to his development.
|
|