|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 12, 2002 12:24:41 GMT -5
Let's start with Brisebois...how many people were complaining about this guy's contract after he was signed? I dunno about you but so far since he's been gone I see that our PP has been going nowhere fast. He's the only guy who knows what to do with the puck on the blue line, he's got an amazing shot which, unlike Markov, actually goes on net and more often than not either goes in or gets rebounded in. That brings me to Souray...Earlier this season there was some talk about Souray being traded. As far as I'm concerned after Brisebois Souray is the only other guy with a decent shot from the point...we need this guy incase Brisebois goes out again, not to mention he adds a little size to an otherwise small team. I wanna mention something that's been really bugging me over the past 2 years, it seems that for some reason Therrien is keeping with the tradition of our previous coach when it comes to the 3rd period. For some inexplicable reason unless we're down going into the 3rd period we lay back and try to keep our lead...guess what coach? our defence isn't good enough to hold a 2 goal lead going into the 3rd period let alone a 1 goal lead...as for the Jersey and Penguins games, it had more to do with great goaltending and weak play on the part of those teams rather than a stellar performace from ours. Not only that, but even when we're down by 2 like last night and actually come back to tie the game, that clown goes back to the same system of 'we just need to hang on now...lay back and defend' This is not a playoff team mentality it's a loser's mentality and it's getting very very annoying...we keep blowing leads in going into the 3rd and end up with ties loses and OT loses (take a look at our post regulation stats, they're pathetic) playing defence when you have the lead means that most of the time the puck is gonna be in your own zone which in most cases results in goals against...the reason we're winning games has more to do with Theodore than either offence or defence. Therrien should tell the guys to attack in the 3rd and try to put it away instead of dumping the puck...at least when we attack the puck is in their zone...sure you might end up giving them the occasional 3 on 2 break which will result in a goal, but hell it's more than obvious that we get scored on anyway even if we lay back and play defence...might as well try it the other way around...Look at Detroit, I don't care what Hasek said about 'we were thinking of laying back and regouping in overtime' That's not what the players had in mind nor the coach they put pressure on us cause they knew they could beat us, they have a winner's mentality and didn't even think twice about it and that's why they're #1 in the NHL...tough loss? yes, heardbreaking? yes. might cost us the playoffs? maybe...but for god sakes, learn something out of it, they're in the #1 spot for a reason and it's not only cause of all the great players they have...we fell for each 1 of their set plays and it was a miracle (or Theodore) that we were even in that game untill 13 seconds before the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 12, 2002 16:25:56 GMT -5
Welcome to the board Raven!
I still think we overpaid for Brisebois.He is good,but not 4 million good.
Souray should be traded once he comes back and shows he is healthy.I have never seen such a huge body totally forget about the physical game.He has great games(like the one against Philly) and then looks terrible.IF we can get something good for him,deal him.
I absolutely agree on Therrien.I hate coaches who defend,defend and defend.Every time the other team's top line is out there,our 3rd line is out.How about,just once,put your top offensive players out there and put pressure on their offensive guys in their zone? make THEM play defence.And it's really sickening the way we just lay back and trap,trap,trap(for the last time,we can't play the trap,only big teams can play it) when we have the lead of we are in a tied game.
Mario Tremblay looks like Scotty Bowman compared to Therrien.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 12, 2002 16:42:17 GMT -5
You're probably right about overpaying for Brisebois, but the thing is, there are other teams out there who would pay him that much and even more (freakin' teams who are rich and have money to throw around, Rangers, Jersey) problem is, if you don't sign him, you're PP looks like it does now all season long and that's unacceptable...we need a man to play the point on the PP...we have Markov but he needs to learn to hit the net, either he's trying to score instead of hitting the net, which would explian why it always goes high, or he just can't shoot...either way we'd have a hole to fill. That hole could somewhat be filled by Souray, but that's hardly a permanent solution. Trading Souray is alright as long we get someone who can either play the point or play physical or both...I don't think Souray could get us that person, maybe if you throw Hackette in there.
As for Therrien, the man clearly needs to change, which isn't very likely to happen, or go. This is just unacceptable, it's getting to a point where I get knots in my stomach when the guys on RDS or CJAD say "we'll be back with the final period after this..." and that's even when we have a 2 goal lead. It's like I'm waiting for the other team to score 2 quick goals off the bat and finish us off in the final 2 minutes while we're trying to keep it tied...I shouldn't feel like this going into the 3rd period with a 2 goal lead...Imagine how the boys are feeling knowing this happens time and time again...it's time to go coach, Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Feb 12, 2002 17:26:03 GMT -5
Not that things change but I've heard that Souray had a meeting with Habs brass and will be given every opportunity to stay with the club whatever that means I'd like him to stay healthy to see what we really have.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on Feb 12, 2002 23:17:03 GMT -5
In another thread BC made the point that Markov should be given more time on the point when we have the man advantage. Brisebois has all of three goals or somehting this year, and while I agree that he does a decent if not a good job quarterbacking the powerplay, he hasn't exactly been an offensive force in that role. In any event, during his absence Markov should have seen more ice in that capacity and he didn't: instead, Juneau, Ribeiro or Robidas got the time. That doesn't seem like good use of assets by the staff.
As for Souray, I'm not thrilled with what I've seen from him these past two season, obviously, but I keep trying to remind myself that d-men, and especially big ones, take time to develop and sometimes they take a long time. Guys like Cullimore in Tampa Bay look average or worse for years and then suddenly seem to turn into valuable players. Scott Lachance is another example. I'm not saying I miss him terribly but the fact is that he is contributing in Vancouver on a team at least as good as the habs on the blueline and actually a bit better. Or Dykhuis. Who would have believed three years ago that Karl would be a relative bargain at a million bucks a year, or that he'd develop into a very solid defender who would lead the team in plus minus? Not many folks. I also think Souray should be using his big body to do more damage but the fact is that without excellent foot speed to recover, going for the hits can take a guy way out of position in a hurray and leave him out of the play altogether. I wouldn't be surprised if Green and Co have him on a short leash where the real physical stuff is concerned and are trying to get him to be a smart positional player first. And again, that may take a few years to really start bearing fruit (and especially because he keeps missing big chunks of time with injuries).
I'm of two minds, and unless the return is someone substantially more sure to pan out quite a bit sooner than Souray, then we should hang on to him and get him to be at least a steady performer in the 5th or 6th slot. Because if he does start to really blossom two or three years from now, we'll be looking at a good young core of defencemen with a fair bit of size (Hainsey, Komisarek, Souray and Dyment). If Souray does a Cullimore impersonation and turns into a tough, solid d-man when he's 27 or 28 years old, I want him to do it here.
I expect that Savard is trying to figure out what the real deal is with Souray, and if he thinks it's not a good bet to happen the way I think it might, then he'll trade him. It'll either be that or, even though he thinks he will improve, it won't happen fast enough. But I think Savard is patient and that he sees in Souray a bigger potential contributor on the blueline than he does in Robidas, Bouillon, Jarventie, Descoteaux or Dyment. And if two or three of these guys are little more than waiver wire material, and if Quintal, Traverse and maybe Rivet are gone within a year or so, Souray could be a big piece of the puzzle....
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 13, 2002 9:24:18 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it better myself Johnny.
I keep asking people, "what is your real problem with Souray?" Do you think he sucks as a defenceman? Or do you think he sucks as a physical defenceman? Because there is a world of difference between the two.
Souray has not come as advertised. He has not been the menacing, scary, intimidating presence we were hoping he would be. That much is obvious. But has he been a BAD defenceman? Do we watch Souray and think "Damn, I wish we still had Barry Richter." Is he a total embarrassment out there? Are Patrick Traverse, Stephane Robidas, and Francis Bouillon THAT much better than him? Given the choice between those four, Souray, Traverse, Robidas and Bouillon, knowing you had to dress three of these guys, would Souray be the guy you sit?
People seem so ready to dump Souray for nothing, and I don't get it. He is not a bad defenceman now, capable of playing in our top 6, if not top 4, and he has potential to reach his potential, so to speak. Do we really want to dump that for a chance at catching lightning in a bottle with a 4th round pick or something? Who, realistically, can we expect for Sheldon Souray? Marius Czercawski? Martin Gelinas?
If Souray brings in something good, something tangible, something that IMPROVES the team, then by all means do it. I have never been against that. But trading him for the point of trading him? What's the point in that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 13, 2002 9:39:39 GMT -5
Pointnoise Complaint, As you pointed out, I get the point and your point is valid. It's pointless to trade Souray just to make a point. Other people have also pointed out the pointlessness of making a point like this. So, in conclusion, I get the point. ------- Now that I got that out of my system I feel better. I feel (and sound) like Bob Dylan in singing.... how many times must we trade our man before we learn from mistakes...the answer my freind is blowin' in the wind.....the answer is blowin' in the wind Poetry, humour, song writing.......the ladies just love me.....are ya taking lessons BC? . . Mon Dieu, it must be a Hab's hockey break...... already loosing it......  .........  ..........  ....................... |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 13, 2002 15:41:39 GMT -5
You're probably right about overpaying for Brisebois, but the thing is, there are other teams out there who would pay him that much and even more (freakin' teams who are rich and have money to throw around, Rangers, Jersey) problem is, if you don't sign him, you're PP looks like it does now all season long and that's unacceptable...we need a man to play the point on the PP...we have Markov but he needs to learn to hit the net, either he's trying to score instead of hitting the net, which would explian why it always goes high, or he just can't shoot...either way we'd have a hole to fill. That hole could somewhat be filled by Souray, but that's hardly a permanent solution. Trading Souray is alright as long we get someone who can either play the point or play physical or both...I don't think Souray could get us that person, maybe if you throw Hackette in there. As for Therrien, the man clearly needs to change, which isn't very likely to happen, or go. This is just unacceptable, it's getting to a point where I get knots in my stomach when the guys on RDS or CJAD say "we'll be back with the final period after this..." and that's even when we have a 2 goal lead. It's like I'm waiting for the other team to score 2 quick goals off the bat and finish us off in the final 2 minutes while we're trying to keep it tied...I shouldn't feel like this going into the 3rd period with a 2 goal lead...Imagine how the boys are feeling knowing this happens time and time again...it's time to go coach, Sorry. Sure Souray has a hard shot,but it's flat.Not much movement on it.He gets up there at 95 MPH on a regular basis,but why doesn't he score more? He will never be an offensive d-man. I agree with the lead in the 3rd period thing...thank god we have Theo  |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 13, 2002 15:45:20 GMT -5
In another thread BC made the point that Markov should be given more time on the point when we have the man advantage. Brisebois has all of three goals or somehting this year, and while I agree that he does a decent if not a good job quarterbacking the powerplay, he hasn't exactly been an offensive force in that role. In any event, during his absence Markov should have seen more ice in that capacity and he didn't: instead, Juneau, Ribeiro or Robidas got the time. That doesn't seem like good use of assets by the staff. As for Souray, I'm not thrilled with what I've seen from him these past two season, obviously, but I keep trying to remind myself that d-men, and especially big ones, take time to develop and sometimes they take a long time. Guys like Cullimore in Tampa Bay look average or worse for years and then suddenly seem to turn into valuable players. Scott Lachance is another example. I'm not saying I miss him terribly but the fact is that he is contributing in Vancouver on a team at least as good as the habs on the blueline and actually a bit better. Or Dykhuis. Who would have believed three years ago that Karl would be a relative bargain at a million bucks a year, or that he'd develop into a very solid defender who would lead the team in plus minus? Not many folks. I also think Souray should be using his big body to do more damage but the fact is that without excellent foot speed to recover, going for the hits can take a guy way out of position in a hurray and leave him out of the play altogether. I wouldn't be surprised if Green and Co have him on a short leash where the real physical stuff is concerned and are trying to get him to be a smart positional player first. And again, that may take a few years to really start bearing fruit (and especially because he keeps missing big chunks of time with injuries). I'm of two minds, and unless the return is someone substantially more sure to pan out quite a bit sooner than Souray, then we should hang on to him and get him to be at least a steady performer in the 5th or 6th slot. Because if he does start to really blossom two or three years from now, we'll be looking at a good young core of defencemen with a fair bit of size (Hainsey, Komisarek, Souray and Dyment). If Souray does a Cullimore impersonation and turns into a tough, solid d-man when he's 27 or 28 years old, I want him to do it here. <br> I expect that Savard is trying to figure out what the real deal is with Souray, and if he thinks it's not a good bet to happen the way I think it might, then he'll trade him. It'll either be that or, even though he thinks he will improve, it won't happen fast enough. But I think Savard is patient and that he sees in Souray a bigger potential contributor on the blueline than he does in Robidas, Bouillon, Jarventie, Descoteaux or Dyment. And if two or three of these guys are little more than waiver wire material, and if Quintal, Traverse and maybe Rivet are gone within a year or so, Souray could be a big piece of the puzzle.... Great post Johnny.One thing though,isn't Souray already 26-27 years old? He already has 4-5 years of NHL experience.I am fedding up of seeing not use his body.He should PUNISH people along the boards,he doesn't do it.It seems he doesn't want to get a scratch on his pretty face  |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 13, 2002 15:47:49 GMT -5
Speaking of Souray,when is he gonna come back? seems to me he has been injured since mid-december.Which would now make it 2 months.Any news?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on Feb 13, 2002 18:44:03 GMT -5
Sheldon is 25 years old. He'll turn 26 in July. He's young by d-man standards (even for superstar d-men). He's got at least 6 and probably 8 good years ahead of him. They may be very good years if he can improve. And if there weren't many, many examples of d-men who've played better and better as they got to and then past 30 years old, I'd be all for trading him.
He should be ready to go when they come back from the break. He's been skating hard and is supposed to be in great shape. Not game shape, but great shape all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by legaspesien on Feb 13, 2002 20:09:17 GMT -5
Why not starting a deep chart on D from the left side
Here is mine
Dykhuis(L) 6.3 #210 30 y
Souray(L) 6.4 #223 25 y
Markov(L) 6.0 #208 23 y
Traverse(L) 6.4 #207 28 y
Bouillon(L) 5.8 #194 26 y
And why not: Deal Markov to Edm for Poti...at least we adress size...and it could be a start on a 2 for 2 trade
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 14, 2002 9:08:15 GMT -5
Why not starting a deep chart on D from the left side Here is mine Dykhuis(L) 6.3 #210 30 y Souray(L) 6.4 #223 25 y Markov(L) 6.0 #208 23 y Traverse(L) 6.4 #207 28 y Bouillon(L) 5.8 #194 26 y And why not: Deal Markov to Edm for Poti...at least we adress size...and it could be a start on a 2 for 2 trade My defence depth chart would look like this: Left Right Dykhuis Brisebois Souray Rivet Markov Quintal Hainsey Robidas Traverse Bouillon Note, this is NOT necessarily what I think the lineups should be, only what I think the depth chart is. Notice we are somewhat shallow on the right side, as even our top AHL defencemen, Jarventie and Descoteaux are lefties. That might be a factor to consider when we talk about dealing guys like Rivet and Robidas. Interestingly, Mike Komisarek is a righty... I would do Markov for Poti in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Uther_Pendragon on Feb 14, 2002 19:55:07 GMT -5
Poti have tremendous offensive potential... But he have MAJOR trouble in defensive...
Wonder why Edmonton want to deal him ?
Markov have very good offensive potential... and start to play strong defense... the only point where Markov is lacking, is in size..
I really like Poti... but he's not a solution to our average defense... The single little error on the blueline cost us goal...
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 14, 2002 20:51:31 GMT -5
Just to help clarify the right/left thing again. The AHL all-star game is on and Hainsey is playing for Planet USA....on the right side. If I recall he also played on the right at least part of the time on the US World Juniour team. So Mr Hainsey is ambidexterous.
|
|
......... 
.......... 
.......................
