|
|
Post by Bobs_HABit on Feb 11, 2002 21:14:38 GMT -5
As mentioned earlier I don't understand the fact that Markov is sitting and I am very pissed about it. It makes no sense at all. Here are some more eye opening stats from the last seven games (6 of which we got points from):
Note: I only mention the d-man if he wasn't even at +/-.
Washington: Rivet +2 Markov +1 Dykhuis +1
Ottawa: all were even
San Jose: Markov +1 Rivet +1 Bouillon -1
Boston: Markov +1 Quintal -1 Bouillon -2
New Jersey: Markov +1 Rivet +1
Pittsburgh: Markov +1 Rivet +1
Toronto: Bouillon -1 Markov -1 Dykhuis -1 Robidas -2 Rivet -2
Hard to believe eh. Markov was a plus player in 5 of the 7 games including 4 in a row. Check them yourself.
Man, I hate Therrien. Hard to believe that up until about December I still hadn't formed an opinion one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 11, 2002 23:38:26 GMT -5
Bingo, Bob. For all the criticims about Markovs stick checking, he still manages to remain even or + most of the time because he generates offense. Why the coaches can't realize that if you score more goals than the other guys, you win, even if you give up a couple of dumb ones, I'll never fathom. So often, MT proves he's got pink insulation between his ears, but no one with any power seems to care. So we've gotten better talent wise, but it's being wasted so blatantly that I have to think we're goners for the playoffs. Only supernatural play by Theo can do the trick and even he isn't god.
Next thing, we'll miss the playoffs and MT will get another contract extension. Andre better sort out that problem because drafting all the superstars in the world isn't enough if your coach benches them all and puts his defensive specialists on the PP. Rant, Rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 12, 2002 0:18:53 GMT -5
One thing I like to clear up.
Poke check is when you try to strip the opposing player of the puck with your stick.
Stick checking is when you try to stop a guy with your stick.
Some people are confusing poke chacking with stick checking. When a coach says to a defenseman that he made a wonderful stick check. Well, what the coach is really saying is that the defensman is washing everybodies jockstraps after the game and he should look for another line of work over in CoffeeRus.
"That is my understanding of the world when the pucks hit my face" as the Gumper would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Feb 12, 2002 1:03:21 GMT -5
Just wondering how much say Andre Savard has when it comes to the lineup.Traverse is certainly one of his guys but why?
In the few games he has played he has made brutal errors yet Markov seems to get the short stick for the slightest off game.I'd rather die with Markov at least he has an offensive upside,where Traverse is just plain offensive.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 12, 2002 9:20:46 GMT -5
Just wondering how much say Andre Savard has when it comes to the lineup.Traverse is certainly one of his guys but why? In the few games he has played he has made brutal errors yet Markov seems to get the short stick for the slightest off game.I'd rather die with Markov at least he has an offensive upside,where Traverse is just plain offensive. HFTO I think Andre Savard has a HUGE influence on the lineup: * The Gratton demotion at the beginning of the year, which apparentlt "devastated" Therrien * The Bulis as a winger idea * The non-demotion of Franky Bouillon. While Therrien apparently won this argument, it does show that Savard is very involved in everyday coaching decisions. He didn't want Bouillon to play that 10th game, but Therrien insisted. This at the very least suggests that were discussing pre-game lineups. We might have to start laying some blame at Savard's door. Traverse is a pet project of Savard's, as is Shaun Van Allen. We know Savard has on at least one occassion tried to trade Markov, and he seems to be the whipping boy for everything that goes bad. Maybe they are try to beat some defence into him, but more and more I am starting to think they just don't like the guy. Juneau on the point? That might have come from Savard as well. If Savard does in fact have a heavy hand in everyday coaching decisions, he probably won't be all that inclined to fire Therrien. Therrien is easy to manipulate. A guy like Robinson, or Jacques Martin (Savard's former boss) isn't going to as obedient as perhaps Savard likes. There is no shame in being outcoached by Scotty Bowman - that has happened to much better coaches than Michel Therrien - but even the easy decisions seem complicated. 50 seconds left in the game, they take a timout which thus negates any coaching advantage Bowman might have had. The plan is simple - get it out, play for the point. And yet, they didn't. And its not like the Wings were crashing the zone, they even admitted they were playing for overtime. And what was up with that "play" with 13 seconds left?? Win the draw back to the blueline, and then fire it the length of the ice?? I know Therrien was hoping to get a shot on net, and to have the puck frozen, but even if the puck did hit Hasek and not get called for icing, Hasek would very quickly have played it behind his net and time would have run out. No Canadien forward could have gotten there quickly enough, because they couldn't cross into Detroits zone without being offside. So even if that shot had of hit Hasek, the closest Hab would have been standing at the blueline. The "correct" play, in my opinion, would have been to win the draw back (done), and then hard pass it up the middle to the center. The center (Perrault) then tips it in towards Hasek or, backhands it in towards Hasek, as the wingers crash the net. You lose an extra couple of seconds because the puck is moving slower, but you have a much better chance of hitting the net on a controlled dump in, and it gives your wingers an opportunity to get to the net, where they force Hasek to freeze the puck. Seems simple to me. Why I am not coach, I will never know.  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Feb 12, 2002 14:17:32 GMT -5
I think Andre Savard has a HUGE influence on the lineup: * The Gratton demotion at the beginning of the year, which apparentlt "devastated" Therrien * The Bulis as a winger idea * The non-demotion of Franky Bouillon. We might have to start laying some blame at Savard's door. Traverse is a pet project of Savard's, as is Shaun Van Allen. We know Savard has on at least one occassion tried to trade Markov, and he seems to be the whipping boy for everything that goes bad. Maybe they are try to beat some defence into him, but more and more I am starting to think they just don't like the guy. Juneau on the point? That might have come from Savard as well. If Savard does in fact have a heavy hand in everyday coaching decisions, he probably won't be all that inclined to fire Therrien. Therrien is easy to manipulate. A guy like Robinson, or Jacques Martin (Savard's former boss) isn't going to as obedient as perhaps Savard likes. Very much agree. I've tried to make this point several times but somehow it doesn't come across properly when I try to spell it out. Therrien is the front-man for the whole hockey operations group, and shouldn't get too much flak when things aren't working out. I agree that getting a higher-profile coach will mean that Savard won't be able to interfere so much in the day to day operations of the team. I think this would be a good thing... Savard can recognize talent, but a back-seat driver is never a good idea. I wonder if Savard really does have it out for Markov... I hope he's not letting personnal annoyance for Markov (not learning English, not being in shape at camp, etc) stop him from seeing the kids potential. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 12, 2002 15:45:05 GMT -5
As mentioned earlier I don't understand the fact that Markov is sitting and I am very pissed about it. It makes no sense at all. Here are some more eye opening stats from the last seven games (6 of which we got points from): Note: I only mention the d-man if he wasn't even at +/-. Washington: Rivet +2 Markov +1 Dykhuis +1 Ottawa: all were even San Jose: Markov +1 Rivet +1 Bouillon -1 Boston: Markov +1 Quintal -1 Bouillon -2 New Jersey: Markov +1 Rivet +1 Pittsburgh: Markov +1 Rivet +1 Toronto: Bouillon -1 Markov -1 Dykhuis -1 Robidas -2 Rivet -2 Hard to believe eh. Markov was a plus player in 5 of the 7 games including 4 in a row. Check them yourself. Man, I hate Therrien. Hard to believe that up until about December I still hadn't formed an opinion one way or another. It's simple:Therrien is a Russian hater.Look at who Zubrus played with last year after coming back from a concussion.The only Russian he likes is Petrov and Petrov is far from your 'normal' Russian NHLer.He has a great attitude,works very hard and he is likeable. Therrien loves mediocre d-man like Bouillon and Robidas for a reason.He saw them in junior,he coached them in the AHL,he has known them for maybe the past decade.The problem is,Therrien needs to understand,they are good in the junior and minor league ranks,but they are #6 or #7 d-man in the NHL! |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 12, 2002 15:48:20 GMT -5
Just wondering how much say Andre Savard has when it comes to the lineup.Traverse is certainly one of his guys but why? In the few games he has played he has made brutal errors yet Markov seems to get the short stick for the slightest off game.I'd rather die with Markov at least he has an offensive upside,where Traverse is just plain offensive. HFTO I still can't believe Markov was the 'scapegoat' of the loss in T.O.Hello??? we lost 4-1.The goal at the end of the period made it 3-1.Do the math,the goal did not cost us the game for godsakes.We would have lost anyway.And it wasn't his fault entirely,a goal mouth scramble like THAT never happens when you are at 5 on 5.It always happens late in a game at 6 on 5,someone screwed up big time aside from Markov. IF Traverse is playing next game,it's absolutely ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 12, 2002 15:52:28 GMT -5
I think Andre Savard has a HUGE influence on the lineup: * The Gratton demotion at the beginning of the year, which apparentlt "devastated" Therrien * The Bulis as a winger idea * The non-demotion of Franky Bouillon. While Therrien apparently won this argument, it does show that Savard is very involved in everyday coaching decisions. He didn't want Bouillon to play that 10th game, but Therrien insisted. This at the very least suggests that were discussing pre-game lineups. We might have to start laying some blame at Savard's door. Traverse is a pet project of Savard's, as is Shaun Van Allen. We know Savard has on at least one occassion tried to trade Markov, and he seems to be the whipping boy for everything that goes bad. Maybe they are try to beat some defence into him, but more and more I am starting to think they just don't like the guy. Juneau on the point? That might have come from Savard as well. If Savard does in fact have a heavy hand in everyday coaching decisions, he probably won't be all that inclined to fire Therrien. Therrien is easy to manipulate. A guy like Robinson, or Jacques Martin (Savard's former boss) isn't going to as obedient as perhaps Savard likes. There is no shame in being outcoached by Scotty Bowman - that has happened to much better coaches than Michel Therrien - but even the easy decisions seem complicated. 50 seconds left in the game, they take a timout which thus negates any coaching advantage Bowman might have had. The plan is simple - get it out, play for the point. And yet, they didn't. And its not like the Wings were crashing the zone, they even admitted they were playing for overtime. And what was up with that "play" with 13 seconds left?? Win the draw back to the blueline, and then fire it the length of the ice?? I know Therrien was hoping to get a shot on net, and to have the puck frozen, but even if the puck did hit Hasek and not get called for icing, Hasek would very quickly have played it behind his net and time would have run out. No Canadien forward could have gotten there quickly enough, because they couldn't cross into Detroits zone without being offside. So even if that shot had of hit Hasek, the closest Hab would have been standing at the blueline. The "correct" play, in my opinion, would have been to win the draw back (done), and then hard pass it up the middle to the center. The center (Perrault) then tips it in towards Hasek or, backhands it in towards Hasek, as the wingers crash the net. You lose an extra couple of seconds because the puck is moving slower, but you have a much better chance of hitting the net on a controlled dump in, and it gives your wingers an opportunity to get to the net, where they force Hasek to freeze the puck. Seems simple to me. Why I am not coach, I will never know. IF Savard is making all those decisions,he should send his resignation to Mr Boivin.Sorry,but an organization is at it's best,when the players PLAY,the coach COACHES and the GM does his own work. As for the strategy with 13 seconds to go.It was ridiculous.I don't know who took that long shot(probably one of Therrien's faves...Bouillon or Robidas) but they showed little hockey sense.At least get to the red line and dump it in....arrrgggh. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Feb 12, 2002 15:57:43 GMT -5
To conclude the Markov argument,if a team like BOSTON had Markov,they would play him 90% of their powerplay and he would flourish.I just have this feeling he will join the 'was drafted by the Habs,but bloomed somewhere else club'.Why are we looking at the defaults in his game and not the positives? why?
Markov IS good enough to play on some of the better teams in this league.Boston would have him playing 20 minutes per game,in Detroit,he would be their #4 d-man,same thing for Colorado,etc.But with us,he barely plays 15 minutes per game and is scratched for no reason and a mediocre,lousy d-man who has done squat in his career plays instead(insert a few names here).
|
|
