No DD? Chucky!! 4-3 Habs

[LaP]

well, 1.64 in december, 2.27 in January (ONE team with lower, they're out of the PO - even with Schneider in nets), scored more than two for the first time in March...

Team is still 12th in the GF category. Yes the attack has been inconsistent but over the whole season they are scored enough goals to be at the very least close to make the playoffs.

On the other side we are 20th in the GA category while being 7th in the SA category. That's a problem as much as the offense.

 

[Bryson]

Given how the team played through December/January/February (early to mid February)

Yes, I personally think it is....

I also think it's a stretch to think Max would of scored 40 goals, something he's never done

And I think it's a hell of a stretch to think Galchenyuk would of scored 35-40 lol

But that's just me....

Pacioretty has a season of 39 goals in 73 games but 40 goals is a stretch? You're right it's just you.

Also it's would have. Not would of.

 

[417]

You're right and people say Stamkos scored 65 goals once. I don't believe it.

Is this supposed to make sense to me?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It's still very bad comprehension of math or stats to infer they would be in a better spot as a team right now with the Chucky-Pac combination.

Looking at December alone we went 3-9 in games where our opponent scored 3 goals or less. We only scored 3 or more goals three times that month and won all three games.

- Goaltending went from 930 to 900, Chucky on the first line doesn't change that.

Even if it doesn't that shouldn't mean we go 3-11 on the month.

Moreover, I think you're wrong. I think the goalies were under tremendous pressure because they knew their team couldn't score. For all the talk of our offense going south because of goaltending I think you could flip it around as well.

- Secondary scoring fell off a cliff, Chucky on the first line doesn't change that.

First, you're wrong. Chuck and Carr were used as secondary scorers and were the only guys producing.

Secondly, our primary scorers did NOTHING. Hence why we should've done what we could to get a first line that actually worked.

It wasn't secondary scoring that fell off a cliff it was scoring altogether. All the more reason to play your best players. The margin between winning and losing wasn't large. We lost a lot of games but there weren't a lot of blowouts. Most of those games were winnable.

etc.

Losing 5-3 instead of 2-1 is still losing.

We scored more than 3 goals once in the entire month. 11 times we scored 2 goals or less. Offense wasn't the problem? Really?

This is a bad team because a number of players have been badly evaluated for a number of years.

Plekanec is no longer the two-way guy he once was.
DD is AHL guy, plain and simple.
Markov is missing a step and can be exposed out there.

+

"Chucky can't handle this"
"Beaulieu can't handle that"
"X can't do that"

It's not a bad team by any stretch. NO WAY it should garner half the points of bottomfeeders like Buffalo. It's more than just a goaltending problem when that happens.

The problem doesn't start or stop at Chucky. The problem is self-evident, this management group is bad at analysing who is who.

Now they have a chance to restart. Their first reflex is to try Chucky with Max, and it's working. Hopefully, the reaction is simply to bring fresh talent to form a new 2nd line that can compete. Not sure our 3rd and 4th line are problematic, particularly if Eller is the center of the 3rd.

The problem starts with the coach. If that isn't obvious enough for you by now I'm not sure what else you need to see.

 

[417]

Pacioretty has a season of 39 goals in 73 games but 40 goals is a stretch? You're right it's just you.

Also it's would have. Not would of.

Yeah it's a stretch based on how things have gone THIS YEAR.

What part of that obvious answer, did you not understand?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Well it's true...is it not?

No.

I'm sorry, i must of missed this...perhaps you could expand on that? The only thing i've seen is PaulD refer to Galchenyuk's 7 game sample where he's scored 9 goals as the basis of his argument for suggesting that for the Habs 35 game swoon, Galchenyuk would have maintained the same pace as he has now, then.

Which is laughable

He doesn't have to have maintained his ridiculous pace. Again, we're comparing a guy who was easily our best player this December and who has produced with Max to the tune of a point per game in the past to another player who produced TWO ASSISTS in the entire month. We lost several close games where a goal might've made a huge difference. No way he wouldn't have produced much better in the role.

Not sure how you can't see this.

I am? Because I could of sworn that SEVERAL times, i've said that there were SEVERAL reasons as to why the Habs were so awful for 3 months. I just find it a stretch to think that ONE adjustment (Galchenyuk to #1C) as many here have suggested, would of propelled the Habs into a playoff spot.

It's not just one adjustment, it's poor roster mgmt as a whole.

How can this hypothetical conclusion, be proven? lol

I have no problem with skepticism over hypotheticals. But at some point you have to justify that skepticism. Our first line center had two assists over the month. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Galchenyuk at 1st wouldn't have made a huge difference to our offense. The fact that he's now exploded with Max only reinforces my point.

Before they were put together I argued it should happen. We heard from several posters that there was no way to prove that it would work and that it was all hypothetical that he'd be scoring more etc... Well low and behold he gets paired with Max (and Gallagher isn't even on that line) and they explode.

So you can use "lol" all you want, there's a mountain of evidence here to suggest that we'd have scored MUCH more than we did if we had decent roster mgmt.

I don't disagree with any of this, it was very frustrating for me also...but i'm not ready to make the leap that if Galchenyuk & Carr had gotten more minutes, that it would of saved the Habs season.

We're 7 points out of a spot. It wouldn't have taken much to make the playoffs esp when we lost so many close games where we scored two goals or less.

I don't understand why that's so frustrating for you, do I HAVE to agree with you? I'm not even saying you're wrong, i'm just saying i'm not prepared to make that leap.

I'm not frustrated nor do I care if you make that leap. By dissecting your posts it simply provides me an opportunity to illustrate how badly our coach failed this season. It is plain as day that this was a huge factor in us missing the postseason. Whether you see it or not is up to you.

Agreed....but i'm not nor have I ever disagreed or debated this. So not quite sure why you're bringing this up.

Again...this is a hypothetical scenario. There's no way to know if they would of 'exploded' then and if it would of lead to more wins. It's total guesswork.

Your position of "there's no way to know anything" is not a tenable one. As per above, you have to justify your skeptism when comparing a guy who produced next to nothing in the number one role vs a player who's had great success and has far more skill/size/speed/shooting ability.

It is NOT total ****ing guesswork to say that our offense would've gone up. We're seeing it happen right now for Pete's sake.

Never said it was

You've downplayed the effect that lack of scoring has had on this team. You've said that it woudn't have made a difference to use Chuck as our number one. Personally, I think that's a crazy position.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Given how the team played through December/January/February (early to mid February)

Yes, I personally think it is....

I also think it's a stretch to think Max would of scored 40 goals, something he's never done

And I think it's a hell of a stretch to think Galchenyuk would of scored 35-40 lol

But that's just me....

Yup, it's just you.

 

[BLONG7]

That's the most written comment out there (the room being "lost"), and I would say the most presumptuous at best.

There are absolutly no evidence, at any time even in the worst period, of the team playing like if they had given up because of dissension. Most of the players, even the ones like Galchenyuk who would have had all reasons to not play well, gave the best they had. Of course, they seemed discourage quickly when the other team scored an early goal, but all players continue to play hard, at least not like a team which had given up on their coach.

So maybe some "gangs" in the room didn't "clicked", but it didn't change anything on the ice. Therrien's strategies, the way he allowed ice time, his seemingly poor aptitude at adapting his tactics, etc, had a lot more effect than any supposedly "dissention" inside the room.

That, and of course poor goaltending and overall lack of talent.

The most important part of team sports, is the team...consistantly ignoring the team is what MT did, on a nightly basis to get his love child going...never underestimate this on the rest of the gang...the coach's ineptness to make changes and do the same things over and over, must have had alot of guys shaking their heads...they all were waiting to see him fired, no doubt in my mind.
Getting less than stellar goaltending didn't help, but most our discussions are circle jerk type of discussions, because it always comes back to one thing...Poor Coaching.

 

[LePoche69]

The most important part of team sports, is the team...consistantly ignoring the team is what MT did, on a nightly basis to get his love child going...never underestimate this on the rest of the gang...the coach's ineptness to make changes and do the same things over and over, must have had alot of guys shaking their heads...they all were waiting to see him fired, no doubt in my mind.
Getting less than stellar goaltending didn't help, but most our discussions are circle jerk type of discussions, because it always comes back to one thing...Poor Coaching.

I don't dispute the bold parts. But my point is there was absolutely no evidence of what you're saying on the ice, given the way the guys were playing. There wasn't any lack of effort, and they all followed the game plan, no matter if it was good or bad. That is not "losing the room" at all.

If you want to see a team giving up on their coach and not making the efforts because of a "lost room", look no further than what was going on in Pittsburgh and Minni earlier this season. The players weren't even trying hard. Something that never happened in Montreal.

 

[Burke the Legend]

I got a chuckle form Chucky when he was was asked if the team told him to go set up at the spot from circle that he takes so often and where that came from? He said "no"
Did he say the coaching wanted me there. My 43 different revolving door line mates and i worked on it in practice. Max the captain suggested i try it more? Markov?

None of the above.

He said "I watched Ovechkin". "I started" working on MY offensive game more at the beginning of season and watching ovechin alot"

Never mentioned coach or coaching once.

Not surprising, but interesting none the less.

So? It's incumbent on players to improve their own games with their time. They have quite high incentive to do it also, since it leads to huge contracts. Coaches can help but there's a reason only goalies have their own personal coach. Alex is 21 and still basically of prospect age, of course if he is any good he will be improving his game over the course of the season by himself regardless of if he has the best or worst coach in a league.

 

[Burke the Legend]

I don't dispute the bold parts. But my point is there was absolutely no evidence of what you're saying on the ice, given the way the guys were playing. There wasn't any lack of effort, and they all followed the game plan, no matter if it was good or bad. That is not "losing the room" at all.

If you want to see a team giving up on their coach and not making the efforts because of a "lost room", look no further than what was going on in Pittsburgh and Minni earlier this season. The players weren't even trying hard. Something that never happened in Montreal.

Haha yeah right. Most people here don't watch any hockey besides Montreal so they wouldn't know what a truly awful team plays like.

 

[Burke the Legend]

So that means he would of kept the same pace for those 30-35 games?

So in other words....he'd have about 58 goals right now???

Yeah, seems plausible lol

Why stop there, hey let's just prorate this over his career too. Wow he'd be ahead of Gretz if he played 1000 games. He'd already have over 300 career, if only stoopid Therrien put him at centre!!!1

 

[NotProkofievian]

Team is still 12th in the GF category. Yes the attack has been inconsistent but over the whole season they are scored enough goals to be at the very least close to make the playoffs.

On the other side we are 20th in the GA category while being 7th in the SA category. That's a problem as much as the offense.

TURRRRRRRIBLE.

Lets do a silly thought experiment. Lets say that the habs scored 250 goals in the first game of the season (I said this was silly), and 0 for all the others. Naturally we would lose every single game except the first. But then you'd look at the average and say but we scored enough to otherwise be in the playoffs. We're still 3rd in goals for in the entire league! It must be the goaltender's fault.

Obviously, what happened was not as extreme, but the same principle applies. We were scoring at an absurd level to start the year. Since december? It's basically been in free fall until the last few games. Averages contain information, but not all of it.

 

[LaP]

TURRRRRRRIBLE.

Lets do a silly thought experiment. Lets say that the habs scored 250 goals in the first game of the season (I said this was silly), and 0 for all the others.

okuuuuuuuaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy

I'm done with it anyway. The goalies have been extraordinary this year. We would have won the cup with those goalies if the offense was good. Those goalies are vezina worthy.

Can't believe some people put all this on the offense (not saying you but the people i was replaying to saying the offense was not that terrible over the whole season). Goalies are as terrible as the offense right now.

So we scored so many goals in the span of what? 20 games? that we keep being top 15 in GF after close to 70 games. Wow how many goals did we score in those 20 games 5 goals average a game? That must be it.

BTW we scored close to 2.9 goals a game in the last 15 games which is not bad at all. We are still playing under 500 in those 15 games which is unacceptable. This is the NHL not "Les Loisirs Saint-Eusèbe". You must be able to win 2-1 here and there or you are not winning the cup. Last year in the scf the Hawks won three games with a score of 2-1 and the other with a score of 2-0 and this against possibly the best offense in the league back then.

 

[SOLR]

Looking at December alone we went 3-9 in games where our opponent scored 3 goals or less. We only scored 3 or more goals three times that month and won all three games.

Even if it doesn't that shouldn't mean we go 3-11 on the month.

Right, this is what I am saying, this is a bad team. Moving Chucky around doesn't change that. It might give him bigger stats, but it doesn't change the end results.

Moreover, I think you're wrong. I think the goalies were under tremendous pressure because they knew their team couldn't score. For all the talk of our offense going south because of goaltending I think you could flip it around as well.

Now you complain about the math? You can't have it both ways, this isn't very mathematical.

First, you're wrong. Chuck and Carr were used as secondary scorers and were the only guys producing.

That's what I'm saying. We agree, so are we both wrong? Where we disagree: I think the rest of team is worse than their evaluation by fans, pundits, and unfortunately, management.

Secondly, our primary scorers did NOTHING. Hence why we should've done what we could to get a first line that actually worked.

It wasn't secondary scoring that fell off a cliff it was scoring altogether. All the more reason to play your best players. The margin between winning and losing wasn't large. We lost a lot of games but there weren't a lot of blowouts. Most of those games were winnable.

Thanks for agreeing with me that secondary scoring is bad or inexistent (ie. this team is bad). Chucky might be our best offensive forward, we've known that. He was never the problem. The problem is those who should've been the secondary scorers were played as primary scorer while not even worthy of being secondary scorers...

We scored more than 3 goals once in the entire month. 11 times we scored 2 goals or less. Offense wasn't the problem? Really?

You can hypothesize in 10000 ways, doesn't make you right and anyone else wrong. Hypotheticals makes for humiliating arguments in real debates. Facts, sticks to facts.

Playing young guys in key roles expose the defense more. Playing old guys in offensive role expose the offense more. It's the same results, because the underlying truth is, this is a bad team, without Price. (With Price we are "average+", and we can sneak in when Price goes from star to phenom).

It's not a bad team by any stretch. NO WAY it should garner half the points of bottomfeeders like Buffalo. It's more than just a goaltending problem when that happens.

Yeah, this is a bad team with a few stars. Everybody need to understand what the NHL team is at this point. Every team is 1-3 players away from being overwhelming for everybody else (it's an exponential curve vs. a linear one). With Price, we are very close to having this, without him we are not. If you add to that rapidly depreciating assets (Pleks, Markov, DD, Emelin etc.), we go from 1 guy missing to 3 guys missing and we are toast. Not divesting the assets that are depreciating and promoting the assets on am upward momentum (Chucky, Beaulieu) is what amplifies the problem further. This is all Bergevin, not Therrien. Bergevin could have buried Desharnais a long time ago. Now do I like Therrien? No I don't! He's just another one of Bergevin's decisions.

The problem starts with the coach. If that isn't obvious enough for you by now I'm not sure what else you need to see.

The coach is one person. I never believe one person is in control of these decisions. Even Babcock ("best coach in the world") and Holland in Detroit have discussed how Holland would influence player utilization. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[NotProkofievian]

okuuuuuuuaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy

I'm done with it anyway. The goalies have been extraordinary this year. We would have won the cup with those goalies if the offense was good. Those goalies are vezina worthy.

Can't believe some people put all this on the offense (not saying you but the people i was replaying to saying the offense was not that terrible over the whole season). Goalies are as terrible as the offense right now.

Yeah buddy, that's exactly what everyone's saying. You got it.

So we scored so many goals in the span of what? 20 games? that we keep being top 15 in GF after close to 70 games. Wow how many goals did we score in those 20 games 5 goals average a game? That must be it.

BTW we scored close to 2.9 goals a game in the last 15 games which is not bad at all. We are still playing under 500 in those 15 games which is unacceptable.

I don't even know what you're arguing about? Why don't you look up how many goals we scored from December to January (you know, during the most disasterous 2 month stretch in franchise history). It's not very many.

There's nothing to argue about, this is just what happened. We scored a lot to start the season, then December hit, and we didn't score very much anymore. So, looking at the aggregate is not a good thing to do. Deal with it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

But I know you, he could go scoreless the entire year, and you'd have no problem with it

That's not true. But I'm tired of arguing meaningless hypotheticals with you while you ignore/distort what actually happens in reality.

 

[LaP]

I don't even know what you're arguing about?

I originally replied that our offense was not that bad (which doesn't mean it was good) over the whole season and that the goalies are as much to blame as the offense. Looked to me like the guy was putting all the blame on the offense.

 

[417]

He doesn't have to have maintained his ridiculous pace. Again, we're comparing a guy who was easily our best player this December and who has produced with Max to the tune of a point per game with Max in the past to another player who produced TWO ASSISTS in the entire month. We lost several close games where a goal might've made a huge difference. No way he wouldn't have produced much better in the role.

Not sure how you can't see this.

I see it, i just don't agree with it...there's a whole lot of hypotheticals which i'm not prepared to subscribe to.

It's not just one adjustment, it's poor roster mgmt as a whole.

Among other things, yes

Before they were put together I argued it should happen. We heard from several posters that there was no way to prove that it would work and that it was all hypothetical that he'd be scoring more etc... Well low and behold he gets paired with Max (and Gallagher isn't even on that line) and they explode.

They've 'exploded' sure, but they've been together for 2 games year (and another dozen last year, but that wouldnt/shouldn't apply to this year).

What happens if they go scoreless the next 2 or 3 games, does your hypothetical scenario still hold water?

Again, I don't doubt that on some level, had they made the switch earlier it would of produced more goals for the Habs...but i can't say for sure whether or not it would equal to more wins and that the Habs would be sitting pretty in a playoff spot today.

So you can use "lol" all you want, there's a mountain of evidence here to suggest that we'd have scored MUCH more than we did if we had decent roster mgmt.

I guess we have different definitions of the words "mountain of evidence"...

We're 7 points out of a spot. It wouldn't have taken much to make the playoffs esp when we lost so many close games where we scored two goals or less.

Perhaps, i'm certainly willing to admit that it's a possibility...

I'm not frustrated nor do I care if you make that leap. By dissecting your posts it simply provides me an opportunity to illustrate how badly our coach failed this season. It is plain as day that this was a huge factor in us missing the postseason. Whether you see it or not is up to you.

Well that's where we disagree....i disagree that ONE roster manipulation played a 'huge' factor into the Habs missing postseason.

The biggest factor as to why the Habs missed the postseason is undoubtedly the absence of Carey Price...so i'm sorry, again, I don't agree here at all.

Your position of "there's no way to know anything" is not a tenable one. As per above, you have to justify your skeptism when comparing a guy who produced next to nothing in the number one role vs a player who's had great success and has far more skill/size/speed/shooting ability.

According to you maybe? I think you've confused of 'mod' with 'god'. You presented an argument, that while worth discussing, is entirely hypothetical. So for me to conclude that there's no way to definitively know for sure, i don't think is 'not a tenable' position to take.

It is NOT total ****ing guesswork to say that our offense would've gone up. We're seeing it happen right now for Pete's sake.

First of all, the sample of 2 games is too small to draw any type of long term conclusions over, so there's that.

Secondly...i don't think it's guesswork to say our goals would've gone up...but I do think its guesswork to say that our win totals would of went up as well.

You've downplayed the effect that lack of scoring has had on this team. You've said that it woudn't have made a difference to use Chuck as our number one. Personally, I think that's a crazy position.

I havent downplayed anything, just not willing to conceed it's the most determining factor.

 

[417]

Yup, it's just you.

and i'm comfortable with that

 

[417]

That's not true. But I'm tired of arguing meaningless hypotheticals with you while you ignore/distort what actually happens in reality.

i'm distorting what happens in reality>?

he went through a stretch of 1ES goal in 35 games
he's currently goaless in 12 straight games
he went through another stretch where he had 1 goal in 21 games

am I also fabricating this? or is it reality?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Moreover, I think you're wrong. I think the goalies were under tremendous pressure because they knew their team couldn't score. For all the talk of our offense going south because of goaltending I think you could flip it around as well.

You certainly can. We're not talking about seasoned veterans or even supremely talent young guys here. We're talking about a noob and a journeyman sieve who have had to learn how to deal with the pressures of a losing skid and low offensive support in one of the most pressure-filled markets while developing their concentration and other hockey skills. An extra half goal of support on average (just for example) has the potential of lessening the pressure in enough games to possibly eliminate a good amount of the bad goals that have turned games out of our favour (and there have been too many).

Maybe enough to be a difference of 8 points overall to this point. Who knows. But I don't think it's debated that pressure adversely affects inexperienced/lesser skilled players in such ways in general, and it would be a tremendous feat for such players to avoid being affected by it at all in a place like Montreal. And I submit that the least experienced AND talented position right now on our team, with Price out, is goaltender.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I originally replied that our offense was not that bad (which doesn't mean it was good) over the whole season and that the goalies are as much to blame as the offense. Looked to me like the guy was putting all the blame on the offense.

What happened to the habs scoring this year is called a ''structural break.'' In such cases, the mean (by which we are ranked 14th) contains very misleading information. Put simply, it matters when the goals were scored, not just the total that were scored. During the time when our playoff hopes were killed, we really couldn't score.

The goalies haven't been fantastic, sure, but it is not okay to blame them for the epic collapse when we were buffalo bad at scoring.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

i'm distorting what happens in reality>?

he went through a stretch of 1ES goal in 35 games
he's currently goaless in 12 straight games
he went through another stretch where he had 1 goal in 21 games

am I also fabricating this? or is it reality?

He currently has 46 points in 67 games, is one of only two regular forwards with a positive +/-, and is the only forward we have who comes close to playing ~2 minutes/night on BOTH sides of special teams. That's reality, no matter how much you want to stare at the segments of the season which are most disappointing to you to exaggerate a point.

 

[417]

He currently has 46 points in 67 games, is one of only two regular forwards with a positive +/-, and is the only forward we have who comes close to playing ~2 minutes/night on BOTH sides of special teams. That's reality, no matter how much you want to stare at the segments of the season which are most disappointing to you to exaggerate a point.

And as I've said continously....production doesn't always measure impact

It's great that he has 46pts in 67 games, if you think that his season based purely on those numbers, was in any way a season worth championing, then I don't know what to say????

Like I said, now that he's playing what he should be playing 14-15 mins per game....we'll see how his production keeps up

Again, no goals in his last 12 and 4 secondary assists in that same span

Might be tough to get to that magical 60pt threshold you keep harping about.

Also, I don't need to exaggerate anything

1 ES goal in 35 games is bad for a guy playing 18-20 mins a night

There's no hiding from that....this Stat wouldn't be acceptable for anyone else on this team BUT Plekanec, he can get away with it