Do the Habs go into the season "Goonless"? Part 2

[gunnerdom]

our top 9 ? pretty much all of them. shorties like gallagher and deharnais and softies like the rest.

Hahahaha! so our top 9 are all softies? Gallagher? That's a softie? Dude, I don't even know what to say to this. So you want your team to be all Moen-type players? All hits, no pts? So happy you're not our GM.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yeah, and that the less Parros played, the better we did.

Ditto for Murray.

By season's end he was invisible and forgotten. There was virtually no effect of his presence - not psychologically and certainly not on the ice.

People are still talking like we're a bunch of smurfs out there. We're not. We're replacing Gionta with six foot two Sekac, Briere is out for Malhotra - another six foot two guy. Galchenyuk, Eller, Bourque, Max... there's size in our lineup.

Grittiest team in the world? No. And we still have a big weakness in front of the crease at both ends of the ice. But we're not a bunch of smurfs anymore.

 

[Lshap]

Ditto for Murray.
People are still talking like we're a bunch of smurfs out there. We're not. We're replacing Gionta with six foot two Sekac, Briere is out for Malhotra - another six foot two guy. Galchenyuk, Eller, Bourque, Max... there's size in our lineup.

Grittiest team in the world? No. And we still have a big weakness in front of the crease at both ends of the ice. But we're not a bunch of smurfs anymore.

If we're talkin' weakness, this thread title should be changed to: "Do the Habs go into the season "Goal-less"?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If we're talkin' weakness, this thread title should be changed to: "Do the Habs go into the season "Goal-less"?

If our coach pulls his head out of his ass, that will go a long way towards fixing the offensive problems we had last year. You're right though, we do need another big scorer. We need presence in the crease at both ends and we could use some more grit.

 

[Hoople]

Team toughness is fine.... having Kyle Clifford on the Kings who can fight and play hockey is a great addition. Boston has guys who can fight and play hockey in the McQuaid, Lucic, Chara type. These aren't goons.

Wayne Simmonds on Philly can sure fight. He's not a goon.

Chris Neil can play third line minutes... He's not a goon.

I have no problem acquiring a player who fights (but can also PLAY HOCKEY). I have a big problem with a one-dimensional goon who is a liability every time he steps on the ice.

I don't think anyone here, not me, not Kriss E, not Mathman, not Lafleur's Guy, not any of the people who have argued against a goon is against getting actual good players who can drop the gloves when necessary.

This argument that you need "team toughness" is something we all agree on.

Where we don't agree, is that some cement head who plays less than five minutes a game is going to make Desharnais and Pacioretty tougher on the first line. He's never on the ice with them, and with the way the instigator rule is today, you can't protect from the bench the way you could in the 70s. It doesn't happen if you aren't on the ice at the time of the incident. Instead you just end up punching their goon in a staged fight while the real perpetrator goes unpunished.

One other thing that has made the goon useless is the salaries today. A guy like Matt Cooke makes millions, and part of the reason he makes millions is because he's a piece of **** to play against. He's got some talent and he can get away without playing that style... but lets look at some less talented agitators.

If Patrick Kaleta isn't running around and hitting the other team's best players, he's got no use in the NHL, and teams will get rid of him. The difference between an AHL and NHL salary is so great that there is no deterrence to being punched in the face. So what? You get a black eye or two over the course of a season. Maybe lose a few fights and a few teeth. Small price to pay to be a millionaire when you retire, instead of a guy who never made it to the show. The only thing that effects these guys is suspensions and hitting them in their wallet (which the NHL is unwilling to do in any effective way given our small suspensions and low fines), so we get what we have today.

Goons don't stop it. Not in 2014 cause the instigator protects the Kaleta (and I'm not saying get rid of the instigator, because what happened in the early 90s was a guy like Kaleta would drop the gloves and start a fight with a star player, so you'd be bringing that back)... as well as the high salaries making guys be willing to sacrifice getting beat up.

So what do you do? Simple, you need 1) team toughness, a bunch of players who can drop on occassion (say 2-3 times a year) and can play 15 minutes a night without hurting you. And if you can find top 6 guys all the better. 2) a mentality from every player on the team to stick up for the guy beside him, and not look to the goon to do their fighting for him.

Nice wish list. But, it is a fantasy list of players. Other teams have them, we dont. We are 2-3 years away from that type of lineup.

So do we sit back and wish that we had players like that as those players punish our skill players for the next 3 seasons?

 

[Hoople]

Get ready to be told that we didn't get the "right" enforcer and that the "right" enforcer would have been way more effective.

Is it OK if I call you Captain Obvious?

Laraque was a total ****ing idiot in Montreal after being an effective enforcer and player for the Pens.

Parros was hurt right at the beginning of the season.

Making a stunningly obvious statement and then trying to dismiss any response to it with condescension is a hell of a great tactic on a message board.

No disappoint from me. You are consistent.

 

[K9]

But I know deep down for you having a goon is for revenge and entertainment purposes, not because you think they're essential to a hockey team.

I admit it and have no problem doing it. I like violent sports. I watch boxing, I've been boxing for the past 3-4 years. I like watching people fight.
I want to see a Montreal Canadien knock out a Boston Bruin.

I don't want to get too tied up in some of the endless debates on this thread, but doesn't anyone else find it weird that we seem to be a little bit disjointed as an organization?

If you look at guys "in the system" so to speak(including camp invites), you have tons and tons of size, intimidation, toughness, goons, etc whatever you want to call it. McCarron(hopefully more than that), Crisp, Nevins, Fournier, Imama, Thrower, Lernout, Schmaltz, Hill, Wardley, etc etc etc the list is endless.

Our NHL roster seems very soft by comparison, I'm not really sure I get it. Seems like there are different philosophies for our NHL team vs. our drafting and AHL teams.

 

[Your Boy Troy]

George Parros was not a good pick-up as an enforcer. Many people knew this when Bergevin acquired him. He was washed up when he signed with Florida. He had little interest in actually doing his role. Although I would never considered him a top heavyweight fighter in the league, his fighting ability started to decrease as well. Georges Laraque is another bad example of an enforcer. I loved him when he was on Pittsburgh, but he had little interest in actually doing his role at that point in his career. Some enforcers (not all) reach an age where they have little interest in doing their job. That is when it is time to pull the plug.

Montreal needs to find a younger enforcer in their prime. They do have Jack Nevins. Although he needs some more time in Hamilton. An enforcer like Jamie Devane would be perfect in a Habs uniform. He is ready to take an enforcer role in the NHL. A decent fourth-line player to boot, and he is still young so he has room to improve. Watching Devane on the Marlies, I was more impressed with his game then I ever was with Dale Weise. Both players can skate well. But, Jamie Devane is a hair under 6'6".

Another point that I would like to discuss is that enforcers do not have to dress every single game. You play them against the physical teams in the East. Not every enforcer is going to hurt the team on every shift. Many of them are capable of playing a regular shift in today's game.

Yes, everyone wants a power-forward in the lineup. However, they are very difficult to find and/or acquire. Even if the Habs somehow managed to get a top-six power-forward, many Montreal will be *****ing and moaning whenever they get into a fight. "Why is he fighting that worthless goon?", "What a terrible trade-off!", "He is in the penalty box for five or more minutes because of a dumb goon."

Kyle Clifford isn't anything special. He is a prototypical fourth-line grinding forward. I'd take Prust over him. A player Devane could give you similar production during the regular season, but provide better fighting ability and size.

 

[Kriss E]

I admit it and have no problem doing it. I like violent sports. I watch boxing, I've been boxing for the past 3-4 years. I like watching people fight.
I want to see a Montreal Canadien knock out a Boston Bruin.

That's fine. I would love to see someone KO Chara or Lucic too. I won't pretend that having such player is a necessity and will make a difference in winning or losing though.

I don't want to get too tied up in some of the endless debates on this thread, but doesn't anyone else find it weird that we seem to be a little bit disjointed as an organization?

If you look at guys "in the system" so to speak(including camp invites), you have tons and tons of size, intimidation, toughness, goons, etc whatever you want to call it. McCarron(hopefully more than that), Crisp, Nevins, Fournier, Imama, Thrower, Lernout, Schmaltz, Hill, Wardley, etc etc etc the list is endless.

Our NHL roster seems very soft by comparison, I'm not really sure I get it. Seems like there are different philosophies for our NHL team vs. our drafting and AHL teams.

Our roster isn't soft. That is a myth perpetuated by pro-goons, heck they still believe we have a small team despite us having only 3 players under 5'11 (gallagher-DD-Weaver).

A lot of the players you mentioned won't even play a game in the NHL. Nothing wrong with signing or drafting young prospects that have a physical/aggressive/size edge to their game in hope that they'll blossom into solid depth players.
There's nothing wrong in trying to draft the next HW champ of the NHL either.

What people are disagreeing on is the importance of such player.

 

[sandysan]

Hahahaha! so our top 9 are all softies? Gallagher? That's a softie? Dude, I don't even know what to say to this. So you want your team to be all Moen-type players? All hits, no pts? So happy you're not our GM.

Learn to read, gallagher is in the shorty group. He's tiny, and although willing to go to the front of the net, he can't stay there even if he wants to.

Who has a softer top 9 in the league. Because we no longer have more small players than the west, the guys that replace them are the antithesis of grit. Pap might be bigger, but so so soft.

 

[Corncob]

Learn to read, gallagher is in the shorty group.

So Plekanec and Eller are soft, but Desharnais is not soft?

 

[sandysan]

So Plekanec and Eller are soft, but Desharnais is not soft?

Deharnais is a double threat, short and soft.

If yo are OK with an exclusively perimeter top 9 with a gut 5'8 being the only net presence, then you should be fine with the habs.

Turtleneck might be many things, hard to play against ain't one.

 

[Corncob]

Turtleneck might be many things, hard to play against ain't one.

If he isn't hard to play against, why have multiple coaches repeatedly tasked him with shutting down the best players on the opposition at the crunch time of the season?

 

[Rapala]

Deharnais is a double threat, short and soft.

If yo are OK with an exclusively perimeter top 9 with a gut 5'8 being the only net presence, then you should be fine with the habs.

Turtleneck might be many things, hard to play against ain't one.

If we think in terms of shooting we get a good idea of the mix of individuals we want.
You have the hard heavy shot.
You also have the quick release precision type.
Finally that rare individual that has both.

We need more hard heavy forwards who can lean on people.
We need fewer perimiter finess types who look good but accomplish nothing.
The rare egg being the one who is hard but has hands of silk...

 

[sandysan]

If he isn't hard to play against, why have multiple coaches repeatedly tasked him with shutting down the best players on the opposition at the crunch time of the season?

Again he's good defensively but he's not good defensively because of his physicality.

Does he shy away from the physical stuff, sure. But because he can play well defensively doesn't mean he ain't soft, which he is.

 

[CGG]

Deharnais is a double threat, short and soft.

If yo are OK with an exclusively perimeter top 9 with a gut 5'8 being the only net presence, then you should be fine with the habs.

Turtleneck might be many things, hard to play against ain't one.

You sure about that? Two of the Big Bad Bruins (Krejci and Marchand) are both on record saying they absolutely hate playing against Pleks. He doesn't cheapshot guys after every whistle and won't win too many fist fights, but he must not be "easy" to play against if the Bruins freak out over the guy.

Not every enforcer is going to hurt the team on every shift.

So far this is the best pro-goon argument I've seen yet - not every enforcer is going to hurt the team on every shift. But most probably will, on most of their shifts. Parros and Murray certainly did.

 

[Corncob]

Again he's good defensively but he's not good defensively because of his physicality.

Does he shy away from the physical stuff, sure. But because he can play well defensively doesn't mean he ain't soft, which he is.

Problem is, you tell people to 'learn to read' what you wrote, but then change the meaning of words at a whim to suit your own agenda.

Plekanec is hard to play against, as long as you don't redefine it to mean anything other than what it says. Why would it have to have anything to do with physicality?

Plekanec is tough. In the actual meaning of that word. He's not soft by any means, because he wouldn't have had the career he's had in the NHL if he was. He wouldn't keep going into the areas he does and fighting the battles he does.

According to your argument, Plekanec will play differently next season if we sign a new version of Parros than if we don't. So, can you give me any examples from last season when Plekanec played differently in the 77 games where Parros was absent, compared to the 22 games when Parros played. Show me where he was soft.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Anyone who puts "Plekanec" and "tough" in the same sentence probably have never watched the guy play.

 

[Corncob]

Anyone who puts "Plekanec" and "tough" in the same sentence probably have never watched the guy play.

Or knows what the word actually means

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Or knows what the word actually means

Yeah...

 

[sandysan]

Anyone who puts "Plekanec" and "tough" in the same sentence probably have never watched the guy play.

I think people are conflating " good defensively" ( which he is) which means he's tought to play against ( also true but not because of his physicality) which means he's tough. its the last jump that is unwarranted.

Marchand and crosby can say that they dont like playing against him all they want, what they are not saying is that they are ever concerned when he's on the ice.

Saying that turtleneck is soft does not mean he's bad or useless, there are a lot of guys like him who bring a lot of other aspects aside from a physical presence. I like plekanec, I really do. But I can also objectively say that of all the things he does bring to the table, "grit" ( however you want to define it) aint one.

And to the people who keep saying that the top 9 is not soft, who has a softer top 9 in the league ? Getting rid of briere and gionta did address the horrific lack of size, but their replacements, although bigger, dont have much more sandpaper, if any at all.

 

[Corncob]

Are you sure you're actually a Habs fan. This level of trolling seems more suited to an opposition fan.

But, no, toughness has nothing to do with embellishing to try to get a call. Happy to help.

Can find the Lucic/Chara/Thornton embellishment clips for you if really necessary.

 

[Corncob]

But I can also objectively say that of all the things he does bring to the table, "grit" ( however you want to define it) aint one.

How about the actual dictionary definition?

"firmness of character; indomitable spirit; pluck"

 

[Kriss E]

I think people are conflating " good defensively" ( which he is) which means he's tought to play against ( also true but not because of his physicality) which means he's tough. its the last jump that is unwarranted.

Marchand and crosby can say that they dont like playing against him all they want, what they are not saying is that they are ever concerned when he's on the ice.

Saying that turtleneck is soft does not mean he's bad or useless, there are a lot of guys like him who bring a lot of other aspects aside from a physical presence. I like plekanec, I really do. But I can also objectively say that of all the things he does bring to the table, "grit" ( however you want to define it) aint one.

And to the people who keep saying that the top 9 is not soft, who has a softer top 9 in the league ? Getting rid of briere and gionta did address the horrific lack of size, but their replacements, although bigger, dont have much more sandpaper, if any at all.

Dude, you don't even know what being soft is. Marchand didn't say that out of ALL the NHL players, he hates playing against Plekanec the most because he's ''good defensively''.
If you actually paid attention when you watched Plek play, you could easily notice that he plays a pretty chirpy and dirty game. He constantly slashes opponents, he talks trash, he doesn't back down, he's also very effective both defensively and offensively.

You don't know what soft is man.

But your point is crap anyways. Even if everyone in our top 9 was soft as butter (and they're not), adding 3 enforcers wouldn't change a thing genius.
Our soft players would still be on the ice together. Somebody that is soft does not suddenly become tough/aggressive because there's a Parros on the bench. That's the dumbest belief.

 

[sandysan]

Dude, you don't even know what being soft is. Marchand didn't say that out of ALL the NHL players, he hates playing against Plekanec the most because he's ''good defensively''.
If you actually paid attention when you watched Plek play, you could easily notice that he plays a pretty chirpy and dirty game. He constantly slashes opponents, he talks trash, he doesn't back down, he's also very effective both defensively and offensively.

You don't know what soft is man.

But your point is crap anyways. Even if everyone in our top 9 was soft as butter (and they're not), adding 3 enforcers wouldn't change a thing genius.
Our soft players would still be on the ice together. Somebody that is soft does not suddenly become tough/aggressive because there's a Parros on the bench. That's the dumbest belief.

I know you seemingly have a pathological need to distort everything to the relative value of enforcers, but leave me out of it. I never said we need three enforcers. But the top 9 we have is soft, everyone knows it and the people who dont want to admit it keep changing the metrics ( good defensively, slashaholic, a pest).

Everyteam has players that are soft, many of the one dimensional players who excel at other aspects of the game are soft. That doesnt change the fact that in out top 9 we have every single player who will either a) shy away from physicality or b) is to small for whatever physicality they wish to impose to be effective.

If you like perimeter teams with no net presence, THIS is your team. That's not to say that out top 9 is useless, just that in terms of physical play they either chose not to or cant. and in that respect the habs top 9 is likely the softest in the whole nhl.

they might be the speediest, the one with the most pluck, the " smartest", the most opportunistic. Mabey they dont need grit and we can rely on team speed and hope we dont meet a team like la ( remember that last year, yikes). All of that could be true, it still doesnt change the fact that they are almost certainly the softest top 9 in the league and that on the forecheck we are all sticks.

if you disagree, I'd like someone to nominate a softer top 9.