Montreal Canadiens first round report card

[EGarro]

After six hard fought games, here is a look at the Montreal Canadiens performances in the series. Each individual player was graded A through F for their contribution or lack thereof in the first round.

http://alongtheboards.com/2015/04/montreal-canadiens-first-round-report-card/

What are your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Le depisteur]

Galchenyuk B ?

 

[Big Lurk]

Galchenyuk B ?

I'd give him a C+

Parenteau wasnt that bad. But he wasnt that good either. Still better than 51DD

 

[Tyson]

Galchenyuk with a higher grade than Eller? I quit reading whe I saw that.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Eller - A
Plekasex - D
Galchenyuk - C-

 

[MXD]

Other than Emelin getting an A... Pretty good. Thought D was harsh for DD, but there was no + or -, so that makes sense.

 

[Kriss E]

I disagree with most of the grades. You should not limit yourself to just 4 grades. It won't make much sense. You say they were rated from A-F but really it's A-D seeing how you didn't give anybody E or F.
I think a point system of 0-10 including half points would have given you a much more precise grade. If you had to stick to letters, then including + and - would also have made it more precise.

Some of your comments also don't fit the grades. You say Eller has seen better days, the he was quiet after scoring his goal, but had a great work ethic. Not sure how this gets him a B, if that's how you feel about him. Someone who gets a B certainly played pretty well and wasn't quiet. You don't get a B if you didn't play well, but if you look at your comment you would never know that he did play well.
I disagree with your comments, I thought Eller was arguably our best forward.
DLR was a ghost in this series, so I don't see how he gets the same grade, unless you considered he was a rookie. Even then though, I don't think DLR was good.

And they get the same grade as Prust who you say was a great veteran presence who was all over the ice?
It doesn't make any sense.

I think you should also explain your grading system. It's just not fair to be holding each player to the same level. Not everyone has the same role or expectations. You need to explain this and make it clear to your readers. Even if it's something you considered, your readers won't know you did unless you mention it.

My two cents.

 

[Habs]

Along the boards? Saw a porno with that name once.

 

[Natey]

How is this a real thing?

Eller B? Emelin & Galchenyuk A? Pacioretty & Markov B?

 

[CauZuki]

How is this a real thing?

Eller B? Emelin & Galchenyuk A? Pacioretty & Markov B?

You get a gold star! and you get a gold star! and you also get a gold star! gold stars for everyone!!!!

 

[Ezpz]

Emelin was one of our best dman, don't understand your laughing. Had a much better series than our top pairing.

 

[Natey]

Emelin was one of our best dman, don't understand your laughing. Had a much better series than our top pairing.

Ummm no.

Petry, Gilbert, and Pateryn were all better. Dispute Subban's play, Emelin still paled in comparison.

 

[pepperMonkey]

Our top 6 were all but non-existent in the first round. None of them should garner an A. It can also be debated that none of them deserve a B either.

And because of our inept offence, I wouldn't give our coach anything higher than a C. Actually I would probably give him a C as a D might be a little harsh for a coach that took his team into the second round (though that is debatable).

Frankly, Price didn't play well in the first round. He did play amazing in game 6 but that doesn't excuse him for his other mostly average games. I would probably give him a B though without game 6, he would definitely be a C for me.

DLR with a B is fine, so what if he was mostly invisible offensively, he's a bloody rookie. Asking more from him at this stage is probably asking too much. Sure, from a results point of view, it wasn't very good
but again, he's a rookie.

Emelin with an A? Err...Petry and Subban with an A I can understand (though even that is stretching it) but I don't see why Emelin should get an A...

And a D for DSP maybe a little harsh. What was said is correct but it's not as if we should be expecting too much from DSP in the first place else he would be on the top 6.

Otherwise, well, generally okay with the others even if I don't totally agree.

 

[Boud]

That site is just people posting here that we're approched to write there. I was actually asked to write articles for them through here so you can't really take this site seriously. These guys are just your everyday poster here.

 

[Jakomyte]

That site is just people posting here that we're approched to write there. I was actually asked to write articles for them through here so you can't really take this site seriously. These guys are just your everyday poster here.

People that post on this site can and do write on other blogs/sites. The problem with this particular site (or at least article, its the only one from the site that I've read) is that its complete fluff.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when you just stick a letter grade next to each name with a couple of really vague, general statements, it means absolutely nothing. No actual analysis went into it. No metrics were used. Nothing thought-provoking at all, really. Half of the posts in this thread provided more actual analysis. This could have been written by someone who scanned through AP post-game summaries.

I don't get it. Why even have a site like that, or spend any amount of time to post an article that is so meaningless...

 

[Devourers]

Emelin does big hit, crowd obsessed with physicality gives him an A, even though positionally he's a nightmare out there.

Now I'll admit, he wasn't too bad this series, but it's still laughable the type of flack Gilbert gets when Emelin gets carte blanche to be a liability just because he hits now and then.

 

[eFFeRR]

Wow this article was baaaaaaaaaad

Chucky an A?
DSP a D?
Markov a B?
Therrien a B?
Emelin an A?