Player Discussion Brandon Montour

[Paul4587]

I think it's because some coaches seem have an irrational love for old over the hill 'stay at home' defensemen. I don't know what anyone sees in Bieksa to justify giving him any sort of ice time.

 

[Dryish]

Honestly I've tried contemplating on the Bieksa playing thing and I think I agree with duckbrave's assessment of the situation.

There are four different explanations for this that I can think of:

1) Bieksa has a deal in place with Murray that he'll waive his NMC (and possibly retires) at the end of the season if he gets as much time on the ice as he wants. Kesler has probably vouched for his pal to get a deal like this too.
2) BM and RC don't really want to play Bieksa, but Kesler is holding them to ransom. Either openly or indirectly by the management being worried about him.
3) Like Paul above suggests, BM (both Boudreau and Carlyle) have some archaic love for the philosophy of Offensive and Defensive D roles, and find Bieksa a spot no matter how bad he is because "that's how the game works".
4) Nobody in the organisation understands just how bad Bieksa is.

Out of these, 2 and 4 don't really make much sense. BM isn't really one to be held hostage by his players (and Kesler has a huge drive to win, so I doubt he'd be that loyal to Juice anyway), nor do I seriously believe that the organisation could be so completely blind as to not understand that Bieksa just downright sucks. They have stats information and a lot of experience watching games. If it's apparent to us that Bieksa sucks, it has to be apparent to the organisation as well.

The role philosophy scenario could potentially explain it, but I have a hard time believing both BB and RC would be on board as easily. And if that was the case, why would they not just get rid of Bieksa in any way possible and get someone even marginally better to replace him. They even have Holzer, they could just utilise him. Unless we have a weird combination of my 3 and 4, there's literally no reason to play him, and that to me suggests that there's more here than the eye sees.

Of course the answer could just be that Bob has Dirk's mentality and really likes Bieksa. Maybe he drew him a funny picture last summer and made him laugh. Go figure.

 

[eternalbedhead]

Honestly I've tried contemplating on the Bieksa playing thing and I think I agree with duckbrave's assessment of the situation.

There are four different explanations for this that I can think of:

1) Bieksa has a deal in place with Murray that he'll waive his NMC (and possibly retires) at the end of the season if he gets as much time on the ice as he wants. Kesler has probably vouched for his pal to get a deal like this too.
2) BM and RC don't really want to play Bieksa, but Kesler is holding them to ransom. Either openly or indirectly by the management being worried about him.
3) Like Paul above suggests, BM (both Boudreau and Carlyle) have some archaic love for the philosophy of Offensive and Defensive D roles, and find Bieksa a spot no matter how bad he is because "that's how the game works".
4) Nobody in the organisation understands just how bad Bieksa is.

Out of these, 2 and 4 don't really make much sense. BM isn't really one to be held hostage by his players (and Kesler has a huge drive to win, so I doubt he'd be that loyal to Juice anyway), nor do I seriously believe that the organisation could be so completely blind as to not understand that Bieksa just downright sucks. They have stats information and a lot of experience watching games. If it's apparent to us that Bieksa sucks, it has to be apparent to the organisation as well.

The role philosophy scenario could potentially explain it, but I have a hard time believing both BB and RC would be on board as easily. And if that was the case, why would they not just get rid of Bieksa in any way possible and get someone even marginally better to replace him. They even have Holzer, they could just utilise him. Unless we have a weird combination of my 3 and 4, there's literally no reason to play him, and that to me suggests that there's more here than the eye sees.

Of course the answer could just be that Bob has Dirk's mentality and really likes Bieksa. Maybe he drew him a funny picture last summer and made him laugh. Go figure.

I honestly think #2 is more realistic than #3, tbh. Randy Carlyle is a tad on the archaic side, but Bob Murray is not and I don't have much in the way of criticism for his talent evaluation. Additionally, we had Bruce Boudreau playing Bieksa a ton and I wouldn't call Boudreau outdated at all.

I do think Kesler played a big hand in bringing Bieksa here and I don't think that him playing a hand in keeping Bieksa in the lineup is totally unrealistic despite his competitive drive.


To be honest, this is just an enigma we might never understand. For all we know, this could just be that the Samuelis want a hard-nosed, old-style defenseman on the team, no matter if he's actually a viable NHLer or not.

 

[EXTRAS]

The other option is that it was written into bieksas contract when he signed the deal that he gets a specific amount of playing time. Or it was a handshake deal when signing it that the duck organization is sticking to.

 

[xxreact9]

The other option is that it was written into bieksas contract when he signed the deal that he gets a specific amount of playing time. Or it was a handshake deal when signing it that the duck organization is sticking to.

I don't know why everyone is on this theory which makes no sense.

If the guy can do less, make his job easier, make his job safer, but still get paid the same amount of money and be apart of the same successes with the team he's obviously going to say yes.

It isn't minor hockey where kids just want the max ice time no matter what. This is the pros, and I'd be shocked to see an aging 35 year old demanding a certain amount of ice time, and a LOT of ice time, a lot of ice time he doesn't deserve.

Just doesn't make a shard of sense whatsoever.

 

[caliamad]

I think bieksa sacking is probably the biggest elephant in the ducks locker room, everyone know he sucks but he contributes to the team in many other ways.

It's clear he is liked everyone and best pals with kesler. Given that kesler nickname is grumpy having a guy that can call him out on that stuff is important.

Bieksa is a vet and steps up for his teamates. I've heard is one of the few guys that goes out his way to talk / help rookies.

I know he is an eyesore but there is more to a player than what you see on the ice.

 

[snarktacular]

I don't know why everyone is on this theory which makes no sense.

If the guy can do less, make his job easier, make his job safer, but still get paid the same amount of money and be apart of the same successes with the team he's obviously going to say yes.

It isn't minor hockey where kids just want the max ice time no matter what. This is the pros, and I'd be shocked to see an aging 35 year old demanding a certain amount of ice time, and a LOT of ice time, a lot of ice time he doesn't deserve.

Just doesn't make a shard of sense whatsoever.

Bieksa's decisions on the ice don't make a shard of sense whatsoever, but here we are.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I think bieksa sacking is probably the biggest elephant in the ducks locker room, everyone know he sucks but he contributes to the team in many other ways.

It's clear he is liked everyone and best pals with kesler. Given that kesler nickname is grumpy having a guy that can call him out on that stuff is important.

Bieksa is a vet and steps up for his teamates. I've heard is one of the few guys that goes out his way to talk / help rookies.

I know he is an eyesore but there is more to a player than what you see on the ice.

Thats great he can do all those things as a 7th dman

 

[Spazkat]

I think bieksa sacking is probably the biggest elephant in the ducks locker room, everyone know he sucks but he contributes to the team in many other ways.

It's clear he is liked everyone and best pals with kesler. Given that kesler nickname is grumpy having a guy that can call him out on that stuff is important.

Bieksa is a vet and steps up for his teamates. I've heard is one of the few guys that goes out his way to talk / help rookies.

I know he is an eyesore but there is more to a player than what you see on the ice.

Lets all just hope he isn't trying to teach the rookies to "do as I do" with regards to on ice decision making.

Also, There is not a single off ice thing he could be doing that makes it worth 4M a year and a NMC that might cost us a guy that can actually play D. Nothing makes up for that. Nothing.

 

[eternalbedhead]

I think bieksa sacking is probably the biggest elephant in the ducks locker room, everyone know he sucks but he contributes to the team in many other ways.

It's clear he is liked everyone and best pals with kesler. Given that kesler nickname is grumpy having a guy that can call him out on that stuff is important.

Bieksa is a vet and steps up for his teamates. I've heard is one of the few guys that goes out his way to talk / help rookies.

I know he is an eyesore but there is more to a player than what you see on the ice.

There's a lot of guys who don't even play hockey that we could find to be good teammates. We wouldn't have to pay them 4M, we wouldn't even have to play them, and they'd be more than happy simply being paid to be benchwarmers.

Point being, Bieksa being a great locker room guy doesn't negate in the slightest his on-ice play. He drags down every defenseman he plays with, and he's a liability in just about every situation.

If he could actually play hockey, I wouldn't have any qualms with him wearing an A. But the sad reality is this: he has no business sniffing the NHL and yet him and his horrible play are dragging down our young defenders as well as dragging the entire team down with how much he's playing. Just because he's amiable off the ice doesn't counter his extremely negative on-ice value at all.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I could care less if it pisses Kesler off, GMs job is to act in best interest of team and if Kesler watched the film and removed his emotion he would see what we all see.

Ducks are not talented enough to over come this. Whats worse is Carlyle is playing him more than Manson which is total ********

 

[Arthuros]

So...back to Montour....

Passes have got too much zip on them right now, and he's been caught out of position a couple of times.

I'm still liking what I see of Monty, though. Hopefully this makes Vatanen pick up his game when he comes back.

I suspect that while he's probably not as agile as Fowler, I'm pretty sure he's actually faster in a straight line.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

So...back to Montour....

Passes have got too much zip on them right now, and he's been caught out of position a couple of times.

I'm still liking what I see of Monty, though. Hopefully this makes Vatanen pick up his game when he comes back.

I suspect that while he's probably not as agile as Fowler, I'm pretty sure he's actually faster in a straight line.

Yeah, he's made 2 plays to break up breakaway chances

 

[mightyquack]

Montour has looked good from what I've seen, the release on his shot is crazy quick. I'm hoping he gets a few more looks this season.

 

[91Fedorov]

I'm getting to the point of nearly becoming a homer for this kid. His speed is looking great so far. It allows him to jump into the play very effectively. I also like how quickly he moves the puck on the PP and his shot release is something pretty fun to watch. If he doesn't slot into the team for many years to come, I will be very disappointed.

 

[eternalbedhead]

Still pretty rough around the edges, but he looks like something special.

 

[Sojourn]

Still pretty rough around the edges, but he looks like something special.

Agreed. He's raw, and that's especially clear in the D zone, but he is very talented.

 

[AngelDuck]

The talent level is very noticeable. And he's got the confidence to go with it too. It's hard to picture him not being a good player for a long time

 

[Duck Off]

Agreed. He's raw, and that's especially clear in the D zone, but he is very talented.

The talent level is very noticeable. And he's got the confidence to go with it too. It's hard to picture him not being a good player for a long time

The best thing about Montour, so far, is what we said about Ritchie last year. It was clear that he already an NHL talent, the question is how good will he be. Any time you've already discovered that a prospect is an NHL player; that's a great thing.

 

[Dryish]

He'll have his sophomore slump too, in all likelihood. It's always these actually good young kids that shine the brightest at the very beginning, beaming with confidence, and then fizzle out a little bit once the reality of 82 games a season without any mistakes allowed sets in and they realise they need to get actually serious with their game.

He looks incredible and I'm glad we have him, but I'd temper expectations at this point.

 

[Sojourn]

He'll have his sophomore slump too, in all likelihood. It's always these actually good young kids that shine the brightest at the very beginning, beaming with confidence, and then fizzle out a little bit once the reality of 82 games a season without any mistakes allowed sets in and they realise they need to get actually serious with their game.

He looks incredible and I'm glad we have him, but I'd temper expectations at this point.

I don't think there are a lot of expectations right now, except that he's talented and he deserves a chance.

 

[91Fedorov]

but I'd temper expectations at this point.

I don't think there are a lot of expectations right now, except that he's talented and he deserves a chance.

I know you guys are obviously right, but I'm on the verge of going full homer on this one. I'm as excited watching him as I have been for any of our prospects.

The "throw in Montour to move Stoner" comments make me want to slap someone now.

 

[HansH]

The talent level is very noticeable. And he's got the confidence to go with it too. It's hard to picture him not being a good player for a long time

This piece, the confidence you describe, is really what stood out to me most in the difference between Montour early last season, and Montour at the beginning of this season, down in the AHL. He's confident enough to be constantly directing traffic defensively, even in chaotic circumstances, without really distracting himself from his own responsibilities. It'll be rough to seem him lose some of that with the jump to the AHL, but I hope he adapts as quickly to the NHL level as he did to the AHL last season -- again, about one season's worth of seasoning.

 

[Sojourn]

I know you guys are obviously right, but I'm on the verge of going full homer on this one. I'm as excited watching him as I have been for any of our prospects.

The "throw in Montour to move Stoner" comments make me want to slap someone now.

I just mean it's hard to really project where he fits long-term, except that he looks like someone who has a future in the NHL. He's pretty much an uncut gem right now. The potential is there, but until you start to refine and polish it, you aren't sure what it looks like.

We haven't even seen 10 NHL games from him yet. We haven't seen how he adjusts, how teams adjust to him, how he settles in defensively, etc... He can be pretty run and gun(and I think it's a testament to his talent that he's pulling it off, and a testament to him as a person that he doesn't seem selfish about it and he isn't hurting the team trying to do it), but that typically isn't a sustainable style of play at this level. He's going to grow and adjust as a player, and I think we need to see how that looks before we start projecting him. Even comparing him to other players, and their path to the NHL doesn't really work, because of the unusual path he's taken. There is just a lot of information we don't have.

What we do know is that he's a talented kid. He seems to be having fun out there, and he comes across, to me at least, as a very coach-able player.

 

[91Fedorov]

I just mean it's hard to really project where he fits long-term, except that he looks like someone who has a future in the NHL. He's pretty much an uncut gem right now. The potential is there, but until you start to refine and polish it, you aren't sure what it looks like.

We haven't even seen 10 NHL games from him yet. We haven't seen how he adjusts, how teams adjust to him, how he settles in defensively, etc... He can be pretty run and gun(and I think it's a testament to his talent that he's pulling it off, and a testament to him as a person that he doesn't seem selfish about it and he isn't hurting the team trying to do it), but that typically isn't a sustainable style of play at this level. He's going to grow and adjust as a player, and I think we need to see how that looks before we start projecting him. Even comparing him to other players, and their path to the NHL doesn't really work, because of the unusual path he's taken. There is just a lot of information we don't have.

What we do know is that he's a talented kid. He seems to be having fun out there, and he comes across, to me at least, as a very coach-able player.

Nope, full homer!

Cross between Nic Lidstrom, Bobby Orr and Chuck Norris. Just better, cooler and a little more bad-ass. He'll be the first player to win the Norris so decisively that they'll just give him the next Norris right there on the spot. Don't try to put your reason and common sense in here, ain't nobody got no time for that!