Why retooling is the best option for the Habs

MSSLYNX

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
4,009
917
Giroux?

I would of been in on that as long as PHI would have retaind 1-1.5 mill. My thinking was if Radu was worth 6.25, a 1 year younger C in Giroux was worth 7.25.

As far as pieces, picks or whatever, even Max I was fine with.

I don't think PHI moves him now with the season he had and the one they had. They probably try and build on what they did rather than continue to "tank".
Tank? Unless you are referring to the 2006 season when they managed only 56 pts (squeezed between 101 and 95), i dont know what you are talking about.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
Different players will react differently to what the coach does. Some guys like Gallagher will probably play their heart out regardless, others like Eller will struggle without the coach believing in him.

You can blame it on the player not being mentally tough, but the truth is guys who have the kind of mental toughness to go through anything are rare.

As for the list, PK was already a top-pairing D-man, Max had already hit 65 points, Price had already led the league in wins and was considered a top goalie.

The point is though that the coach didn't really hurt them nor help them, so coaching is somewhat overrated.

The group that MT came in with weren't settled in yet, they all had 1 good season. We have seen many players have 1 good season and fade. They all had their best career years under MT.

We don't have to give the guy credit, but his coaching didn't hurt those players either. They played great under him for those 4/5 years.

So if a horrible coach like MT can't even ruin guys with his horrible coaching, I think a coaches role in a players development is a bit overstated.

IMO a coach really only influences those fringe players by playing more to their style or giving them more ice. A guy like DD was helped a lot by MT but thats because he was a fringe NHLer who needed a coach to believe in him.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
Tank? Unless you are referring to the 2006 season when they managed only 56 pts (squeezed between 101 and 95), i dont know what you are talking about.

2015 they drafted 7th and 2017 they drafted 2nd. I thought they could have moved some vets and went for another season outside the playoffs and got a high pick. No Giroux and they probably miss the playoffs.
 

MSSLYNX

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
4,009
917
2015 they drafted 7th and 2017 they drafted 2nd. I thought they could have moved some vets and went for another season outside the playoffs and got a high pick. No Giroux and they probably miss the playoffs.
2017 they drafted 2nd only because they got lucky at the lottery...Should have drafted 12.
They did move Schenn.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
2017 they drafted 2nd only because they got lucky at the lottery...Should have drafted 12.
They did move Schenn.

Didn't realize it. Either way they had missed playoffs twice out of 3 years and I don't remember much hype around them making it this year in the summer time.

I looked at them as a bubble team that might have looked to rebuild and move some vets. Thats why I thought they would be willing to move some salary and open up some cap space while they relied on younger players.

Going forward I don't see them doing that and they will probably sign someone big this UFA season to build on this past season.

Watch Giroux have a 50 point season and THEN MB will trade for him LOL.
 

Runner77

**********************************************
Sponsor
Jun 24, 2012
83,297
148,991
Watch Giroux have a 50 point season and THEN MB will trade for him LOL.

Just the kind of move that we're all cringing about. Adding more veteran players to complement Weber and Shaw and return to the anything-can-happen playoff strategy.
 

Riddum

Registered User
Nov 5, 2008
5,951
2,003
Montreal
-No centers
-No elite players up front
-Best players are past their prime
-Brutal contracts everywhere
-No prospects that will help us
-Appalling drafting and developpment
-Worst philosophy for building a team
-Excuses instead of solutions
-Let go/trade people that we shouldn't
-Fail to maximize our assets every single time

It's pretty ****ing bad.
Pretty much hit the nail in the head. Pathetic team. I'm still going to support them though.
 

Runner77

**********************************************
Sponsor
Jun 24, 2012
83,297
148,991
Pretty much hit the nail in the head. Pathetic team. I'm still going to support them though.

293cm0.jpg


:sarcasm:
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,393
The point is though that the coach didn't really hurt them nor help them, so coaching is somewhat overrated.

The group that MT came in with weren't settled in yet, they all had 1 good season. We have seen many players have 1 good season and fade. They all had their best career years under MT.

We don't have to give the guy credit, but his coaching didn't hurt those players either. They played great under him for those 4/5 years.

So if a horrible coach like MT can't even ruin guys with his horrible coaching, I think a coaches role in a players development is a bit overstated.

IMO a coach really only influences those fringe players by playing more to their style or giving them more ice. A guy like DD was helped a lot by MT but thats because he was a fringe NHLer who needed a coach to believe in him.

That's not really true, PK had two great years, Price had 3. Even Pacioretty had two seasons, though one was more like half a season due to injury. The only player with only one good season was Desharnais, and nobody really blames MT for his lack of future success, though even in his case I think MT handled him poorly.

Saying they had their best years under MT is kind of useless since a lot of it has to do with age. You can't compare the guy at 23 vs 29, it's not a fair comparison. Judging the coach is always going to be subjective because you are judging the results you get vs what you think they could/should be.

So for example, it's easy to believe that locking Desharnais in as Pacioretty's center instead of using Galchenyuk or Plekanec probably cost Pacioretty a career high for points. Maybe he hits 70 points with one of those guys, so you can still believe Therrien held a player back even if his career year was under him. That said there's obviously no way to know for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grate n Colorful Oz

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
That's not really true, PK had two great years, Price had 3. Even Pacioretty had two seasons, though one was more like half a season due to injury. The only player with only one good season was Desharnais, and nobody really blames MT for his lack of future success, though even in his case I think MT handled him poorly.

Saying they had their best years under MT is kind of useless since a lot of it has to do with age. You can't compare the guy at 23 vs 29, it's not a fair comparison. Judging the coach is always going to be subjective because you are judging the results you get vs what you think they could/should be.

So for example, it's easy to believe that locking Desharnais in as Pacioretty's center instead of using Galchenyuk or Plekanec probably cost Pacioretty a career high for points. Maybe he hits 70 points with one of those guys, so you can still believe Therrien held a player back even if his career year was under him. That said there's obviously no way to know for sure.

No way to know for sure, but we did see those guys have great results, and for now the best under MT. PK came close to beating it this year but still hasn't matched his career year under MT.

And I agree there is a difference between 23 and 29, but thats kinda my point. MT coached those guys really in their prime NHL developing years. They were still young when MT came on board. Plenty of time to ruin them, but rather they improved. Max had a break out year with 33 goals before MT came on board. But we saw with AG 30 G isn't always reproduced so you can't say he was finished developing. Under MT 39 and 37 G. I am not sure about Price with 3 good years. He had one good season and a bunch of inconsistent ones, he even lost his job at one point to Halak. Even with PK his 2 years before he was a sub 40 point D man. Yes many could see the potential but he was the same guy he became after MT came on board.

Age has something to do with it and I am not making an argument its on MT at all. My argument is if even a horrible coach doesn't ruin players than I think a coaches impact is minimal on star to superstar players. Fringe guys will benefit from a coach favoring them but the stars will put up their numbers under a genius or an idiot.

Under MT's tenure his best players put up their best numbers. If it was in spite of him well goes to show that a coach really doesn't influence their output that much in the end since they could become stars to spite any coach if they want to.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,393
No way to know for sure, but we did see those guys have great results, and for now the best under MT. PK came close to beating it this year but still hasn't matched his career year under MT.

And I agree there is a difference between 23 and 29, but thats kinda my point. MT coached those guys really in their prime NHL developing years. They were still young when MT came on board. Plenty of time to ruin them, but rather they improved. Max had a break out year with 33 goals before MT came on board. But we saw with AG 30 G isn't always reproduced so you can't say he was finished developing. Under MT 39 and 37 G. I am not sure about Price with 3 good years. He had one good season and a bunch of inconsistent ones, he even lost his job at one point to Halak. Even with PK his 2 years before he was a sub 40 point D man. Yes many could see the potential but he was the same guy he became after MT came on board.

Age has something to do with it and I am not making an argument its on MT at all. My argument is if even a horrible coach doesn't ruin players than I think a coaches impact is minimal on star to superstar players. Fringe guys will benefit from a coach favoring them but the stars will put up their numbers under a genius or an idiot.

Under MT's tenure his best players put up their best numbers. If it was in spite of him well goes to show that a coach really doesn't influence their output that much in the end since they could become stars to spite any coach if they want to.

It's hard for a coach to ruin a player who is already established, since they know how dominant they can be. All those guys were established except the Gallys. Subban and Price had already been to the all stars game.

It's with young guys who aren't established that the coach is going to have a bigger impact. For these guys confidence is key, and if the coach doesn't give you the opportunities, or hurts your confidence through benchings/usage/comments to the media/etc... then that can hurt a player.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
It's hard for a coach to ruin a player who is already established, since they know how dominant they can be. All those guys were established except the Gallys. Subban and Price had already been to the all stars game.

It's with young guys who aren't established that the coach is going to have a bigger impact. For these guys confidence is key, and if the coach doesn't give you the opportunities, or hurts your confidence through benchings/usage/comments to the media/etc... then that can hurt a player.

22 yr old PK and Max and 24 yr old Price were established. So basically 22 and up players are NHL vets at that point. I really don't see how those guys at that age aren't considered "young guys" either.

Many flash in the pans in the NHL, to say guys at 22 are established is a stretch to me. They could still be ruined by bad coaching IMO.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,393
22 yr old PK and Max and 24 yr old Price were established. So basically 22 and up players are NHL vets at that point. I really don't see how those guys at that age aren't considered "young guys" either.

Many flash in the pans in the NHL, to say guys at 22 are established is a stretch to me. They could still be ruined by bad coaching IMO.

So you think McDavid isn't an established NHL player? Maybe he's just a flash in the pan too?
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
So you think McDavid isn't an established NHL player? Maybe he's just a flash in the pan too?

McDavid is on another level then the habs players, but he can still have room to grow or regress.

I think sub 25 year old players are still young guys and can still grow(positive or negative) during that time.

But it goes to my point, good players will overcome regardless of the coach, as seen by those habs players who all played great hockey under MT. Coach doesn't really have that much of an influence unless they are fringe guys like a DD. McDavid would be McDavid under MT, Kucherov would be Kucherov under MT. PK was PK under MT, Max was Max under MT. Coaching on development is overrated.

A Weise or a DD wouldn't be what they were under different coaches, but they are fringe guys anyways who only give you a few good years and then fall off.
 

WeThreeKings

Habs cup - its in the BAG
Sep 19, 2006
91,123
91,577
Halifax
McDavid is on another level then the habs players, but he can still have room to grow or regress.

I think sub 25 year old players are still young guys and can still grow(positive or negative) during that time.

But it goes to my point, good players will overcome regardless of the coach, as seen by those habs players who all played great hockey under MT. Coach doesn't really have that much of an influence unless they are fringe guys like a DD. McDavid would be McDavid under MT, Kucherov would be Kucherov under MT. PK was PK under MT, Max was Max under MT. Coaching on development is overrated.

A Weise or a DD wouldn't be what they were under different coaches, but they are fringe guys anyways who only give you a few good years and then fall off.

Spoken like someone who has never taken up something that requires teaching/coaching to a serious level.
 

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
22,838
15,040
McDavid is on another level then the habs players, but he can still have room to grow or regress.

I think sub 25 year old players are still young guys and can still grow(positive or negative) during that time.

But it goes to my point, good players will overcome regardless of the coach, as seen by those habs players who all played great hockey under MT. Coach doesn't really have that much of an influence unless they are fringe guys like a DD. McDavid would be McDavid under MT, Kucherov would be Kucherov under MT. PK was PK under MT, Max was Max under MT. Coaching on development is overrated.

A Weise or a DD wouldn't be what they were under different coaches, but they are fringe guys anyways who only give you a few good years and then fall off.

This could not be further from the reality of athlete or performance development.

That some exceptional individuals can thrive despite not getting adequate support is hardly evidence that performance is minimally affected by coaching or mentorship.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,393
McDavid is on another level then the habs players, but he can still have room to grow or regress.

I think sub 25 year old players are still young guys and can still grow(positive or negative) during that time.

But it goes to my point, good players will overcome regardless of the coach, as seen by those habs players who all played great hockey under MT. Coach doesn't really have that much of an influence unless they are fringe guys like a DD. McDavid would be McDavid under MT, Kucherov would be Kucherov under MT. PK was PK under MT, Max was Max under MT. Coaching on development is overrated.

A Weise or a DD wouldn't be what they were under different coaches, but they are fringe guys anyways who only give you a few good years and then fall off.

That's my point, for superstars it doesn't matter, for everyone else it does. So yeah guys at McDavid or even Subban's level will succeed regardless. So will guys who have insane compete levels like Gallagher. But 90% of the league needs competent coaching if they are going to reach their potential.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
Beyond converting him to center, which I don't think was the biggest reason why he struggled...I think not acquiring anyone to insulate him was worse.

I mean, to convert him to center is one thing...but then to use him as your "#1" center with Tomas Plekanec & Philippe Danault as his insulation, is what actually set him up to fail, IMO.

A valid observation, IMO. The lack of talent on the C-line is the biggest problem with Drouin playing C -- or Galchenyuk playing C, for that matter. Already, with Drouin or Galchenyuk paying as 2nd line Cs, instead of a 1st line Cs, even with a top notch 2nd line C as the first line C, they'd have been much better insulated and the learning curve would have been less steep, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 417

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
McDavid is on another level then the habs players, but he can still have room to grow or regress.

I think sub 25 year old players are still young guys and can still grow(positive or negative) during that time.

But it goes to my point, good players will overcome regardless of the coach, as seen by those habs players who all played great hockey under MT. Coach doesn't really have that much of an influence unless they are fringe guys like a DD. McDavid would be McDavid under MT, Kucherov would be Kucherov under MT. PK was PK under MT, Max was Max under MT. Coaching on development is overrated.

A Weise or a DD wouldn't be what they were under different coaches, but they are fringe guys anyways who only give you a few good years and then fall off.

Yes, superstars and elite players are going to get there. How they refine their game though, that will be on their coaches. The lesser the player the more influence a coach can have on him.

Nobody ever argued Weise should become Ovechkin under better coaching, or that PK turns into MAB.

From what I read, it seems the people who overrate coaching are the same ones claiming it to be overrated. They have this idea that other posters think a coach is supposed to transform a decent player in to a star one. Nobody ever suggested that, as far as I know.

You expect players to refine their game and have small improvements that when all added make those players better. MT didn't help Subban, the guy seemingly hated how he played and one can argue he was the main reason by the trade. Max became a boring perimeter player, although his two way game did improve under MT, you can give him some credit for that. The others...Gallagher is playing as he did in the juniors and minors, his game hasn't developped into anything different than what it's always been outside the natural filling out of age. Galchenyuk, same thing, not much improvement in his game from his rookie year outside natural progress.
Those are telling signs of what bad coaching is.

Just because he doesn't completely ruin these players rendering them useless doesn't mean coaching doesn't have a big impact or is overrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaperi Spacey

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Yes, superstars and elite players are going to get there. How they refine their game though, that will be on their coaches. The lesser the player the more influence a coach can have on him.

Nobody ever argued Weise should become Ovechkin under better coaching, or that PK turns into MAB.

From what I read, it seems the people who overrate coaching are the same ones claiming it to be overrated. They have this idea that other posters think a coach is supposed to transform a decent player in to a star one. Nobody ever suggested that, as far as I know.

You expect players to refine their game and have small improvements that when all added make those players better. MT didn't help Subban, the guy seemingly hated how he played and one can argue he was the main reason by the trade. Max became a boring perimeter player, although his two way game did improve under MT, you can give him some credit for that. The others...Gallagher is playing as he did in the juniors and minors, his game hasn't developped into anything different than what it's always been outside the natural filling out of age. Galchenyuk, same thing, not much improvement in his game from his rookie year outside natural progress.
Those are telling signs of what bad coaching is.

Just because he doesn't completely ruin these players rendering them useless doesn't mean coaching doesn't have a big impact or is overrated.
Not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate?

Because as you know, i'm definitely one of those who think coaching in the NHL is overrated.
 

LyricalLyricist

Registered User
Aug 21, 2007
37,909
5,814
Montreal
I suppose that depends on who is doing the fixing...

Regardless. A fix starts with Tavares or some equivalent. A 2nd line C is passable with Galchenyuk, Danault or whoever until the deadline and even the lack of an additional top 4 PMD is something you can live with if the team is healthy.

Reality is, a perfect off season is

1) Get Dahlin
2) Get Tavares
3) Round out team via trades/UFA(non-major moves)

1 isn't end of the world but 2 is necessary for us to even pretend we're a contender. I mean, I just don't see it.
 

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,340
39,859
www.youtube.com
Regardless. A fix starts with Tavares or some equivalent. A 2nd line C is passable with Galchenyuk, Danault or whoever until the deadline and even the lack of an additional top 4 PMD is something you can live with if the team is healthy.

Reality is, a perfect off season is

1) Get Dahlin
2) Get Tavares
3) Round out team via trades/UFA(non-major moves)

1 isn't end of the world but 2 is necessary for us to even pretend we're a contender. I mean, I just don't see it.

Even then though they will need to hope that Price gets back to his normal ways and that Weber isn't impacted by the foot injury. If Price is putting up a sub 2 gaa or close to it and Weber puts up 17-20 goals, Lehkonen is a 20 goal scorer, either Pac returns to his 30+ goal ways or they get decent value for him. Then they are certainly a better team. We'll see tomorrow about the lotto at least so that's one down. Getting JT just seems so far fetched to me. I fear they will do something stupid like overpay some older vet that's past his prim to try and patch up the off-season.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->