David Desharnais part XII- The wings of change!:

[ECWHSWI]

I'll even disregard the winger issue and focus on one of your main points:



You mention OZS. You realize Galchenyuk on first line got 72.5% offensive zone starts whereas DD gets significantly less? Wouldn't a Galchenyuk led 1st be worse for Plekanec?

Offensive zone starts:

Max with DD: 63.2%
Max without DD: 48.1%

Max with AG: 72.5%
Max without AG: 52.7%

Wonder if you're still worried about the OZS now...

well, one has to worry why in hell you reply with PATCHES zone starts when i'm talking about DESHARNAIS zone starts ????

 

[LyricalLyricist]

well, one has to worry why in hell you reply with PATCHES zone starts when i'm talking about DESHARNAIS zone starts ????

I'm showing that if not with DD and with someone like Galchenyuk as C the 1st line is sheltered even more.

 

[ECWHSWI]

What context did you want? I'd be happy to provide it.

simple :

you say "bad is like 30%", reality, for the guys who usually get in the 20%, 30% is an improvement, it's the total opposite of bad... for the guys who usually get around 40%, it's a drop so yes it's bad.

context.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

simple :

you say "bad is like 30%", reality, for the guys who usually get in the 20%, 30% is an improvement, it's the total opposite of bad... for the guys who usually get around 40%, it's a drop so yes it's bad.

context.

Even if 30% is an improvement to 20% it's still bad.

It's like a goalie having a .800 then gets a .810 the next year. Both are bad. I don't think a player who gets 20% on faceoffs should be kept long enough to 'improve', especially when 30% is seen as 'good'. Same for the goalie example. No thanks, relative is fine but there are limits.

Even if we go into relative terms, DD getting won 1 less faceoff those nights of 45-47%. That's nothing. It's the smallest deviation possible apart from 0. Isn't that context? 1 less FO win all night.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I'm showing that if not with DD and with someone like Galchenyuk as C the 1st line is sheltered even more.

did you forget the part of my post where it says DESHARNAIS gets more of "whatever" over time ???

Say what you want, but that's the reality, if DD line isnt doing good enough to MT liking, he'll switch players around regardless of how said players are doing on their respective line, he'll also adjust zonestarts and TOI, that's how it works with MT.

THAT is the point you didnt get.

Vanek started on Plekanec line, it didnt work cause they were used as a shutdown line, not because Eller got better linemates, instead of balancing usage MT took Vanek from Plek line and put it on DD line

Plekanec and Gallagher started the PO together on the same line, they were doing fine (6 in 7 for one, 7 in 7 for the other), DD line wasnt doing much... so after those 7 games Gallagher was taken from Plekanec line despite the both of them doing well and given to DD in hope it'll spark them or something. It has nothing to do with Eller getting better wingers, Plekanec was doing just fine with Gallagher, it's MT who decided to switch players around to jumpstart DD...

 

[LyricalLyricist]

did you forget the part of my post where it says DESHARNAIS gets more of "whatever" over time ???

Say what you want, but that's the reality, if DD line isnt doing good enough to MT liking, he'll switch players around regardless of how said players are doing on their respective line, he'll also adjust zonestarts and TOI, that's how it works with MT.

THAT is the point you didnt get.

Vanek started on Plekanec line, it didnt work cause they were used as a shutdown line, not because Eller got better linemates, instead of balancing usage MT took Vanek from Plek line and put it on DD line

Plekanec and Gallagher started the PO together on the same line, they were doing fine (6 in 7 for one, 7 in 7 for the other), DD line wasnt doing much... so after those 7 games Gallagher was taken from Plekanec line despite the both of them doing well and given to DD in hope it'll spark them or something. It has nothing to do with Eller getting better wingers, Plekanec was doing just fine with Gallagher, it's MT who decided to switch players around to jumpstart DD...

I think you missed the point. If you eliminate DD and put galchenyuk on 1st line, Plekanec and Eller will be given even more shutdown responsibility. The magnitude of DD's 1st line usage is extremely overblown. In fact, Alex Galchenyuk leads the team in OZS%, not DD.

Generally speaking, while I agree that the first line was given a lot of firepower with guys like Gallagher and Vanek over the last few years it's also because it was...the 1st line.

IF Galchenyuk was #1C today and Plekanec were #2C and we acquired Vanek. His complaints would be even stronger because Plekanec would play even more of a shutdown role.

It's funny because 3 centers played with max this year.

DD
Galchenyuk
Plekanec

Galchenyuk led 1st was ridiculously sheltered resulting in Plekanec playing huge shutdown minutes.
DD led 1st was given favourable offensive minutes resulting in Plekanec playing a shutdown role but less of one.
Plekanec led 1st played a shutdown role.

Given this, where would someone like Vanek ask to play? One of the first two right? Once he does, one will dramatically hamper Plekanec's offensive zone time and one will moderately damage it. What do you suggest?

Now, you say Vanek Gallagher was put on 1st in playoffs and I agree yet you say it was ONLY to jumpstart DD. Did you see Pacioretty last year? Why is this a DD issue exactly? This can be easily seen as a jumpstart max issue as much as a jumpstart DD issue. You just choose to focus on one.

Anyway, right now, DD is getting Dale Weise. Not Gallagher or someone like Vanek.

FWIW, when Galchenyuk went to the 1st line Plekanec lost Gallagher too because they really wanted Galchenyuk to play with Gallagher rather than someone like PAP, Weise, etc...

I never heard you complain about it...

 

[ECWHSWI]

Even if 30% is an improvement to 20% it's still bad.

It's like a goalie having a .800 then gets a .810 the next year. Both are bad. I don't think a player who gets 20% on faceoffs should be kept long enough to 'improve', especially when 30% is seen as 'good'. Same for the goalie example. No thanks, relative is fine but there are limits.

Even if we go into relative terms, DD getting won 1 less faceoff those nights of 45-47%. That's nothing. It's the smallest deviation possible apart from 0. Isn't that context? 1 less FO win all night.

I've seen you post for long enough LL, so I know you have this tendency to go so deep into analyzing details you tend to forget the story behind it, so I'll remind you...

the whole FO thing started with a guy saying he was GOOD on FO during that week. Reality : DD was below his own average in two of those three games, a 7% or 8% drop, his FO didnt stay the same, it didnt improve, it dropped...

sure, you're going to say it's one FO here or there, it's mostly insignificant, and you're right, but that's not the point though (at least not in my case), the point is rather simple, numbers dropping (for whatever reason) is NOT a good thing, it does NOT deserve special appreciation or anything.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I think you missed the point. If you eliminate DD and put galchenyuk on 1st line, Plekanec and Eller will be given even more shutdown responsibility. The magnitude of DD's 1st line usage is extremely overblown. In fact, Alex Galchenyuk leads the team in OZS%, not DD.

Generally speaking, while I agree that the first line was given a lot of firepower with guys like Gallagher and Vanek over the last few years it's also because it was...the 1st line.

IF Galchenyuk was #1C today and Plekanec were #2C and we acquired Vanek. His complaints would be even stronger because Plekanec would play even more of a shutdown role.

It's funny because 3 centers played with max this year.

DD
Galchenyuk
Plekanec

Galchenyuk led 1st was ridiculously sheltered resulting in Plekanec playing huge shutdown minutes.
DD led 1st was given favourable offensive minutes resulting in Plekanec playing a shutdown role but less of one.
Plekanec led 1st played a shutdown role.

Given this, where would someone like Vanek ask to play? One of the first two right? Once he does, one will dramatically hamper Plekanec's offensive zone time and one will moderately damage it. What do you suggest?

Now, you say Vanek Gallagher was put on 1st in playoffs and I agree yet you say it was ONLY to jumpstart DD. Did you see Pacioretty last year? Why is this a DD issue exactly? This can be easily seen as a jumpstart max issue as much as a jumpstart DD issue. You just choose to focus on one.

Anyway, right now, DD is getting Dale Weise. Not Gallagher or someone like Vanek.

FWIW, when Galchenyuk went to the 1st line Plekanec lost Gallagher too because they really wanted Galchenyuk to play with Gallagher rather than someone like PAP, Weise, etc...

I never heard you complain about it...

nope, and it's for the same reason for most : small sacrifice so our #3 overall pick can develop into a 1st liner.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

the whole FO thing started with a guy saying he was GOOD on FO during that week.

This was the original statement:

But this week I saw him doing the little things right like drawing penalties, back checking hard and winning face offs.

Where is it written "Good"?

In fact, DD just kept maintaining his average(actually, went just above it). He got some points without sacrificing the little things like faceoffs. That's all.

Now, of course the story became what is good and what is bad. DD hit his slightly above his average and the worst performance he had at the dot was 1 faceoff win less. That's miniscule.

All in all, a solid weak for him but he needs to keep it up, that simple.

I gotta go ECW so take care. I think I'll avoid the next DD thread I get too caught up in this stuff.

 

[ECWHSWI]

This was the original statement:



Where is it written "Good"?

In fact, DD just kept maintaining his average(actually, went just above it). He got some points without sacrificing the little things like faceoffs. That's all.

Now, of course the story became what is good and what is bad. DD hit his slightly above his average and the worst performance he had at the dot was 1 faceoff win less. That's miniscule.

All in all, a solid weak for him but he needs to keep it up, that simple.

I gotta go ECW so take care. I think I'll avoid the next DD thread I get too caught up in this stuff.

"good" doesnt need to be written, it's implied, it's clear as day it was a positive post, dont think he needed to add he was good at drawing penalties, good at backchecking, good at FO, etc... again, it's right in there, he needed not to add "good" to his post, it was obvious.

(THIS is what I meant by you have this tendency to go so deep into analyzing details you tend to forget the story behind it , it doesnt matter if he used the word or not, we're not 8 yo kids here, we can fill in the blanks for the most part, understand meaning even if a word is missed here and there you know)

I know it's a typo, but damn!!

dont, there's no reason to.

 

[Capitaine Subban*]

"good" doesnt need to be written, it's implied, it's clear as day it was a positive post, dont think he needed to add he was good at drawing penalties, good at backchecking, good at FO, etc... again, it's right in there, he needed not to add "good" to his post, it was obvious.

(THIS is what I meant by you have this tendency to go so deep into analyzing details you tend to forget the story behind it , it doesnt matter if he used the word or not, we're not 8 yo kids here, we can fill in the blanks for the most part, understand meaning even if a word is missed here and there you know)

I know it's a typo, but damn!!

dont, there's no reason to.

U just got owned and u act like u won the debate . Well done sir

 

[ECWHSWI]

U just got owned and u act like u won the debate . Well done sir

so, you too think a drop in numbers is good ?

interesting...

 

[habsfanatics*]

so, you too think a drop in numbers is good ?

interesting...

His numbers didn't drop for the week, which is what was being discussed, interesting.

 

[ECWHSWI]

His numbers didn't drop for the week, which is what was being discussed, interesting.

it dropped in game 1 of that week and it dropped again in game 3 of the same week.



thanks for playing.

 

[Natey]

it dropped in game 1 of that week and it dropped again in game 3 of the same week.



thanks for playing.

Well, fine. It dropped. Still had 6 points. 3rd star of the week, baby!

 

[JLP]

I'd like to see a highlight reel of Desharnais' five assists lol

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

Congrats to DD !

Haters gonna hate !

Hope he keeps this up we need him on top of his game. He seems to connect more and more feeds lately like he did last year down the stretch, might be able to finish between 50 and 60 points.

Thing is, he always has rough patches during a long season and the coaches just rolled with it this year and put Gally and Plek on top line when DD was cold. Credit to the coaching staff. Now that DD is hot he's back on top. Give credit where it is due, or keep the hate flowing.

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

it dropped in game 1 of that week and it dropped again in game 3 of the same week.



thanks for playing.

How far will people go to diminish a guy's contribution.

Ok, so he had okay games in the faceoff department. Let's brandish the pitchforks !

 

[CuJoBin]

 

[Whitesnake]

They didn't removed Galchenyuk from center because he was failing.....DD is the one who was failing at his new position no matter how the medias twisted his performance.

Galchenyuk was better on the wing than DD.....he was also better at center....He's just a better player than DD at almost everything.

The media? We were ALL saying how surprising he looked and that being away from Pacioretty made him look better 'cause he wasn't just waiting for him anymore...Remember?

 

[Whitesnake]

"good" doesnt need to be written, it's implied, it's clear as day it was a positive post, dont think he needed to add he was good at drawing penalties, good at backchecking, good at FO, etc... again, it's right in there, he needed not to add "good" to his post, it was obvious.

(THIS is what I meant by you have this tendency to go so deep into analyzing details you tend to forget the story behind it , it doesnt matter if he used the word or not, we're not 8 yo kids here, we can fill in the blanks for the most part, understand meaning even if a word is missed here and there you know)

I know it's a typo, but damn!!

dont, there's no reason to.

Unless it only meant to say that it wasn't awful. He won faceoffs. The idea is that everything DD does is terrible...so he surely is terrible for faceoffs as well. He wins 1# more faceoff, he goes at 52%. He lost that faceoff, he's going to 47%. So 1 faceoff means he hasn't won faceoffs...while winning that 1 faceoff would have meant he won faceoffs. Makes no sense man. The week prior to that one, he was even better....3 out of 4 ratio, by your way of analysing things, he had more than 50%. The week that ended...well yep, 2 "Below average", 1 really high at 75%. 1 more faceoff won and he does from 47% to 52%. So by your ratio, it would have meant 2 times out of 3 more than 50%. 1 single faceoff changes everything. At least for you....Way too exagerrated. And again, it sucks for you as you might have tons of valid points....yet, when people hate to hate for no reasons, it gets diluted and the valid points might not just seen as valid anymore. Again, don't worry, you will have your time. DD will not put points on the scoreboard every game.

 

[pepperMonkey]

Wow...are we still arguing about DD's faceoff performance? What gives? He's doing just fine. As is Eller (.1% ahead), Pleks and Malhotra. What the heck is everyone bickering about? Talk about DD and faceoffs began like pages upon pages ago...is there REALLY that much to discuss about DD's faceoffs?

Malhotra 60.9%
Eller 54.8%
DD 54.7%
Pleks 51.1%

Looks fine to me.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

I don't see this team as a real contender if their best forward is playing with Desharnais.

I have seen zero evidence to date to make me reconsider this opinion.

 

[JLP]

I don't see this team as a real contender if their best forward is playing with Desharnais.

I have seen zero evidence to date to make me reconsider this opinion.

We can be a contender for the President's Trophy. Playoffs however are a different style of play, and a coddled midget cannot lead his team to the Stanley Cup. In three playoffs Desharnais has yet to score a single ES goal. Still, some are clearly delighted to have him back at #1C and recording secondary assists. I think maybe they put DD > Habs.

 

[pepperMonkey]

I don't see this team as a real contender if their best forward is playing with Desharnais.

I have seen zero evidence to date to make me reconsider this opinion.

Yes, yes, we all know how you feel.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to say the same with Pleks, Eller or at this junction, Galch being our #1 C so...don't see the Habs being a real contender regardless. If MT makes Galch his #1 C and if Galch excels, I'll reconsider...not that MT would ever do that but...