Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

#6 Shea Weber 2016-17


habs_93
 Share

Recommended Posts

Named assistant captain of team Canada. wonder if pk makes the team this time.

PK will continue to be ignored as long as there isn't a culture change in the old boys club of the NHL (and the NHL GM's,, including Marc Bergevin, just happen to be running Team Canada). Canada seems to think Subban is inferior to

Doughty

Weber

Keith

Pietrangelo

Burns

Bouwmeester

Vlasic

Muzzin

Hamhuis (who played more than him last Olympics)

Now ask David Poile whether he would trade Subban for any one of the players on that list. Maybe, maybe he takes Doughty, but there's no way he makes a deal for any of those other guys. Ask St. Louis if they'd be willing to give up Bouwmeester for Subban. Ask SJ if they'd be willing to deal Vlasic or LA Muzzin in exchange for PK. Teams know Subban is the more talented player. The problem is that Therrien and Bergevin disliked him as a person and badmouthed him around the league. And Canada, for better or for worse, has enough talent depth to ignore a great player like Subban and still be able to pull off wins on the ice. It's like being a millionaire and spending $10 on a coke at one corner store because you don't like the face of the guy who's selling it for $2 across the street. Sure, you can afford not to make the smart decision, but that doesn't mean it's the right one. The Habs on the other hand, are like a minimum-wage pensioner splurging on the $10 coke when they really can't afford to, simply out of spite and ego. The team and its fans are paying for the arrogance displayed by team leadership with matters like Subban, Eller, Semin, and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PK will continue to be ignored as long as there isn't a culture change in the old boys club of the NHL (and the NHL GM's,, including Marc Bergevin, just happen to be running Team Canada). Canada seems to think Subban is inferior to

Doughty

Weber

Keith

Pietrangelo

Burns

Bouwmeester

Vlasic

Muzzin

Hamhuis (who played more than him last Olympics)

Now ask David Poile whether he would trade Subban for any one of the players on that list. Maybe, maybe he takes Doughty, but there's no way he makes a deal for any of those other guys. Ask St. Louis if they'd be willing to give up Bouwmeester for Subban. Ask SJ if they'd be willing to deal Vlasic or LA Muzzin in exchange for PK. Teams know Subban is the more talented player. The problem is that Therrien and Bergevin disliked him as a person and badmouthed him around the league. And Canada, for better or for worse, has enough talent depth to ignore a great player like Subban and still be able to pull off wins on the ice. It's like being a millionaire and spending $10 on a coke at one corner store because you don't like the face of the guy who's selling it for $2 across the street. Sure, you can afford not to make the smart decision, but that doesn't mean it's the right one. The Habs on the other hand, are like a minimum-wage pensioner splurging on the $10 coke when they really can't afford to, simply out of spite and ego. The team and its fans are paying for the arrogance displayed by team leadership with matters like Subban, Eller, Semin, and others.

Either Poile didn't get the message bad mouthing PK in time because he was too busy pumping Webber to team Canada. I guess we got lucky with Poile because we could have been stuck with Pk if he didn't screw up and not get the memo. Or they saw this:

Giveaways per 60 min 2015 2014

Subban 3.55 3.13

Bouwmeester 1.08 0.66

Keith 1.68 1.85

Doughty 2.53 2.02

Weber 1.18 1.55

Peitrangelo 1.22 1.11

Burns 2.89 3.09

Vlasic 1.12 1.20

Muzzin 2.16 2.37

Hamhuis 2.27

and figured the puck was more likely to end up in the back of their net against other elite teams. In 2014 PK played some and we did not allow goals (easier to get gold when the other team cannot score especially with the goalie and scorers we have on Team Canada) PK was there with limited action, Burns was not. I think we know what the scouts are looking at. Pk was brutal in comparison and they definitely don't need his offense or puck pssession with the line-up on this team. I wonder what will happen if Rinne gets hurt this year? If PK brings his numbers in line with Burns I think Team Canada will take him a littlle more seriously but until then.....May want to ask Poile at the end of this season. He may have some different koolaid for us to drink. Team Canada doesn't need a heor to step up we have 25. We just need guys to take care of the puck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Habberwacky, the problem with the stats you post is that turnovers are not just reflected by how much ice time you have, they're also measured by how many times you have the puck. The number of times a player has the puck is the denominator for how the equation, not the ice time they receive. A player can be on for 20 minutes a game but only touch the puck three times and he probably won't have many turnovers. Similarly, forwards turn the puck over less because they play the puck less and because they're less often in situations where they are forced to turn it over (i.e. a forward can shoot the puck or dump it into the O zone, whereas a D man has to make a play to another player most of the time).

I've posted these stats before, but will give a summary of some of the arguments in favor of Subban here:

- Subban led the league in touches per ice time last year at ES. He played 10 fewer games than Weber and still had over 600 more touches of the puck than Weber did. Sure, Weber had fewer turnovers, but he also had many fewer successful plays because he just didn't play the puck as much.

- The Habs had 3 players in the top 19 for turnovers last year (Subban 1, Markov 6, Emelin 19) if you're just looking at absolute numbers. All 5 of their D men who played regularly were in the top 89 in the league, as was Mike Condon! What does that mean? Well people have looked at turnover rates and Montreal has always been a rink where the official scorekeeper counts that stat more liberally. Opposing players tend to have higher rates at the Bell Center and our guys tend to have higher rates at home than on the road. So one issue is that Habs' stats tend to be skewed up when it comes to that measurement. The other issue is that our system is awful. We have an awful awful breakout system, which penalizes all our D men and makes it difficult for them to complete passes up ice (how many times have we seen our guys going for the long bomb with a cherry-picking forward?). That's Therrien's system. It's not designed to help defencemen play well, and it proportionally hurts the guys who play the puck the most in terms of just counting numbers of turnovers. Do the Habs have 5 of the worst D men in the league or is it just that they have a bad coach and a bad system and a scorekeeper who inflates those numbers more?

- Within the Habs, let's look not just at those absolute turnover rates but now reflect on the percentage of touches that results in a turnover. Any guesses as to who are safest defenceman was? If you said PK Subban, you'd be correct! Subban turned the puck over on 29% of his touches, lowest among D men on the team. Compare that to 31% for Beaulieu and Glbert, 31.5% for Emelin, 32.4% for Markov, 32.7% for Petry, and 35% for Barberio. And in the defensive zone only, Subban also had the lowest rate on the team at 25%. He's the least likely to make a bad play with the puck overall and the least likely in the zone that matters most. How does that compare to other elite defencemen? Pretty well. Erik Karlsson, widely regarded as the best D man in the league and a guy who is picked on for his defensive woes far less than Subban, settled in at 31.5%. Most D men are somewhere between 30-34%. Subban is above average in this category and he's above average despite playing in the unfair conditions he had to play in in Montreal.

- As an aside, our worst forward in terms of turnovers last year was deemed to be Tomas Plekanec. I highly doubt he's actually our worst defensive forward. The stat, when used as an absolute number, without including the number of touches (or opportunities the player has to make a turnover) is useless. If you want an analogy, look at the NFL. Say quarterback A throws 20 interceptions in a season and quarterback B throws 10. Say they both played the same number of time and snaps. By your method, quarterback A looks like he's the liability. But let's say we look closer and now find out that quarterback A also threw 40 touchdowns to quarterback B's 12. And let's say quarterback A had a completion rate of 70% to quarterback B's 40%. And let's say quarterback A threw 50 passes a game whereas quarterback B played on a team where they ran the ball most of the time, so he only threw the ball 15 times a game. Now which guy do you want on your team? The pure turnover numbers mean very little, because you need to take into account how many times the guy is throwing the ball. Same thing for what we're talking about here. If you correct those stats for the number of times Subban moved the puck, he's not a liability at all. He was the best on our team, he was better than Weber, and he's actually one of the best defensive players in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Habberwacky, the problem with the stats you post is that turnovers are not just reflected by how much ice time you have, they're also measured by how many times you have the puck. The number of times a player has the puck is the denominator for how the equation, not the ice time they receive. A player can be on for 20 minutes a game but only touch the puck three times and he probably won't have many turnovers. Similarly, forwards turn the puck over less because they play the puck less and because they're less often in situations where they are forced to turn it over (i.e. a forward can shoot the puck or dump it into the O zone, whereas a D man has to make a play to another player most of the time).

I've posted these stats before, but will give a summary of some of the arguments in favor of Subban here:

- Subban led the league in touches per ice time last year at ES. He played 10 fewer games than Weber and still had over 600 more touches of the puck than Weber did. Sure, Weber had fewer turnovers, but he also had many fewer successful plays because he just didn't play the puck as much.

- The Habs had 3 players in the top 19 for turnovers last year (Subban 1, Markov 6, Emelin 19) if you're just looking at absolute numbers. All 5 of their D men who played regularly were in the top 89 in the league, as was Mike Condon! What does that mean? Well people have looked at turnover rates and Montreal has always been a rink where the official scorekeeper counts that stat more liberally. Opposing players tend to have higher rates at the Bell Center and our guys tend to have higher rates at home than on the road. So one issue is that Habs' stats tend to be skewed up when it comes to that measurement. The other issue is that our system is awful. We have an awful awful breakout system, which penalizes all our D men and makes it difficult for them to complete passes up ice (how many times have we seen our guys going for the long bomb with a cherry-picking forward?). That's Therrien's system. It's not designed to help defencemen play well, and it proportionally hurts the guys who play the puck the most in terms of just counting numbers of turnovers. Do the Habs have 5 of the worst D men in the league or is it just that they have a bad coach and a bad system and a scorekeeper who inflates those numbers more?

- Within the Habs, let's look not just at those absolute turnover rates but now reflect on the percentage of touches that results in a turnover. Any guesses as to who are safest defenceman was? If you said PK Subban, you'd be correct! Subban turned the puck over on 29% of his touches, lowest among D men on the team. Compare that to 31% for Beaulieu and Glbert, 31.5% for Emelin, 32.4% for Markov, 32.7% for Petry, and 35% for Barberio. And in the defensive zone only, Subban also had the lowest rate on the team at 25%. He's the least likely to make a bad play with the puck overall and the least likely in the zone that matters most. How does that compare to other elite defencemen? Pretty well. Erik Karlsson, widely regarded as the best D man in the league and a guy who is picked on for his defensive woes far less than Subban, settled in at 31.5%. Most D men are somewhere between 30-34%. Subban is above average in this category and he's above average despite playing in the unfair conditions he had to play in in Montreal.

- As an aside, our worst forward in terms of turnovers last year was deemed to be Tomas Plekanec. I highly doubt he's actually our worst defensive forward. The stat, when used as an absolute number, without including the number of touches (or opportunities the player has to make a turnover) is useless. If you want an analogy, look at the NFL. Say quarterback A throws 20 interceptions in a season and quarterback B throws 10. Say they both played the same number of time and snaps. By your method, quarterback A looks like he's the liability. But let's say we look closer and now find out that quarterback A also threw 40 touchdowns to quarterback B's 12. And let's say quarterback A had a completion rate of 70% to quarterback B's 40%. And let's say quarterback A threw 50 passes a game whereas quarterback B played on a team where they ran the ball most of the time, so he only threw the ball 15 times a game. Now which guy do you want on your team? The pure turnover numbers mean very little, because you need to take into account how many times the guy is throwing the ball. Same thing for what we're talking about here. If you correct those stats for the number of times Subban moved the puck, he's not a liability at all. He was the best on our team, he was better than Weber, and he's actually one of the best defensive players in the league.

No problem with the idea of PK touching the puck more but let's assume those watching notice PK takes more risks than the average player and these stats are equally unreliable for all these players. Assume Subban gave it away 280 times over 80 games and 1 in 10 of those goes in your net. causing about 28 goals (Carey may be his great equaliser and probably save more of his mistakes. Using that he would give up 9 or 10 more goals than a Doughty and have 20 more goals scored against his team than a Weber. PK may get to more pucks, but this is a cause for concern if you are looking for a defenceman who are usually taught to protect the puck. PK needs to protect the puck better regardless of how much he has it. I consider his play to be very high risk (although providing more excitement) in comparison to those other selections and Team Canada really will win without it. It may work great for an average team with a superstar goalie, but there is no need for that on a Team Canada. If you play your position and do your job goals against will be negligable. I think his style of play against elite scoring opposition is more likely to hurt a Team Canada. I also think he can adjust if he wants. I would suggest an all star receiver/ runner who sets records for catches or runs but constantly fumbles or turns over the ball in a football game would not be thrown to after a while despite his ability to get open and run with the ball. This is especially true in close games or where a team is trying to protect a lead. PK needs to do a much better job at protecting the puck. Mr. Poile will soon see if this becomes a reality. I am well aware of the stat being derived from possession but he is still giving it away and having watched his play for a number of years, he appeared to be much worse last year. I would not have selected him based on last season. That does not mean I agree with all the other picks as I have a couple players on that list I question for other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with the idea of PK touching the puck more but let's assume those watching notice PK takes more risks than the average player and these stats are equally unreliable for all these players. Assume Subban gave it away 280 times over 80 games and 1 in 10 of those goes in your net. causing about 28 goals (Carey may be his great equaliser and probably save more of his mistakes. Using that he would give up 9 or 10 more goals than a Doughty and have 20 more goals scored against his team than a Weber. PK may get to more pucks, but this is a cause for concern if you are looking for a defenceman who are usually taught to protect the puck. PK needs to protect the puck better regardless of how much he has it. I consider his play to be very high risk (although providing more excitement) in comparison to those other selections and Team Canada really will win without it. It may work great for an average team with a superstar goalie, but there is no need for that on a Team Canada. If you play your position and do your job goals against will be negligable. I think his style of play against elite scoring opposition is more likely to hurt a Team Canada. I also think he can adjust if he wants. I would suggest an all star receiver/ runner who sets records for catches or runs but constantly fumbles or turns over the ball in a football game would not be thrown to after a while despite his ability to get open and run with the ball. This is especially true in close games or where a team is trying to protect a lead. PK needs to do a much better job at protecting the puck. Mr. Poile will soon see if this becomes a reality. I am well aware of the stat being derived from possession but he is still giving it away and having watched his play for a number of years, he appeared to be much worse last year. I would not have selected him based on last season. That does not mean I agree with all the other picks as I have a couple players on that list I question for other reasons.

PK had 106 turnovers last year, nowhere near 280. But he also had the puck way more than anyone else. This is why turnover rate is more important than the absolute numbers. I don't understand how you can discount the denominator in the equation. In your running back fumble analogy, you're pretty much talking about absolute turnovers again... if running back A has 5 fumbles in 100 carries and running back B has 10 fumbles in 500 carries, your conclusion is that running back A is better because he has fewer fumbles. My conclusion is that running back B is better because he has a lower rate. If you cut running back B and then start giving running back A all of his carries, running back A by extrapolation would have 25 fumbles in 500 carries.

PK turns the puck over more because he always has the puck. He's turning the puck over at a lower rate than Weber and a lower rate than any other D man on the Habs last year. So please explain to me how this shows PK "takes more risks" or "needs to protect the puck better"... that's the fallacy and the narrative that's been created by people who choose to label Subban a defensive liability, when all the evidence suggests the contrary. PK has the puck more because he's a skilled player, because he has a great loose-puck recovery rate, because his teammates dish him the puck a lot, and because he gets a lot of ice time. Other players who are in the top 30 for giveaways in the league? Doughty, Karlsson, Thornton, Burns, Markov, Seabrook, Tavares, Chara, Pavelski, Benn, Getzlaf, Letang, Goligoski, Emelin, Seth Jones, Marleau, Muzzin, McDonagh, Giordano, Rielly, Taylor Hall, and Marchand. Are those the worst defensive players in the league? Are those low-quality defencemen and forwards? No. Many of those players are among the elite players in the NHL. Doughty and Karlsson were lauded as being great D men. You have Norris winners, Hart winners, and Selke winners who are frequently among the top turnover machines in the league. Why? Because those guys play a lot and they touch the puck a lot. Look at turnover rates, and those guys' are nowhere near league-worst. That's why rate is a more important stat.

For some reason, no one gives Weber or Doughty or Karlsson a label of being a liability. Only Subban has that moniker, despite the fact he's just as good or better than his peers. It's a storyline that's been generated by media members and people who want to forward the narrative to bash Subban. I honestly get why there's so much resistance to accepting the fact that Subban is a great player and that he's good at both ends of the ice. I'll give Weber this: he has a better shot than Subban and is better at scoring goals on the PP. And he seems to be more feared by opposition players for how hard he hits. But Subban is a better defensive player, gets on more loose pucks, moves the puck more, has a lower turnover rate, generates more scoring chances from his play, has better possession numbers relative to the team he played for, is younger, is a better skater, and is far and above the better player now and going forward. I don't see any facts or numbers supporting the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PK had 106 turnovers last year, nowhere near 280. But he also had the puck way more than anyone else. This is why turnover rate is more important than the absolute numbers. I don't understand how you can discount the denominator in the equation. In your running back fumble analogy, you're pretty much talking about absolute turnovers again... if running back A has 5 fumbles in 100 carries and running back B has 10 fumbles in 500 carries, your conclusion is that running back A is better because he has fewer fumbles. My conclusion is that running back B is better because he has a lower rate. If you cut running back B and then start giving running back A all of his carries, running back A by extrapolation would have 25 fumbles in 500 carries.

PK turns the puck over more because he always has the puck. He's turning the puck over at a lower rate than Weber and a lower rate than any other D man on the Habs last year. So please explain to me how this shows PK "takes more risks" or "needs to protect the puck better"... that's the fallacy and the narrative that's been created by people who choose to label Subban a defensive liability, when all the evidence suggests the contrary. PK has the puck more because he's a skilled player, because he has a great loose-puck recovery rate, because his teammates dish him the puck a lot, and because he gets a lot of ice time. Other players who are in the top 30 for giveaways in the league? Doughty, Karlsson, Thornton, Burns, Markov, Seabrook, Tavares, Chara, Pavelski, Benn, Getzlaf, Letang, Goligoski, Emelin, Seth Jones, Marleau, Muzzin, McDonagh, Giordano, Rielly, Taylor Hall, and Marchand. Are those the worst defensive players in the league? Are those low-quality defencemen and forwards? No. Many of those players are among the elite players in the NHL. Doughty and Karlsson were lauded as being great D men. You have Norris winners, Hart winners, and Selke winners who are frequently among the top turnover machines in the league. Why? Because those guys play a lot and they touch the puck a lot. Look at turnover rates, and those guys' are nowhere near league-worst. That's why rate is a more important stat.

For some reason, no one gives Weber or Doughty or Karlsson a label of being a liability. Only Subban has that moniker, despite the fact he's just as good or better than his peers. It's a storyline that's been generated by media members and people who want to forward the narrative to bash Subban. I honestly get why there's so much resistance to accepting the fact that Subban is a great player and that he's good at both ends of the ice. I'll give Weber this: he has a better shot than Subban and is better at scoring goals on the PP. And he seems to be more feared by opposition players for how hard he hits. But Subban is a better defensive player, gets on more loose pucks, moves the puck more, has a lower turnover rate, generates more scoring chances from his play, has better possession numbers relative to the team he played for, is younger, is a better skater, and is far and above the better player now and going forward. I don't see any facts or numbers supporting the opposite.

The needs to protect the puck better eye test is where and when he is turning it over. I have no problem with the argument about talent and having the puck I have great problems with some of the turnover I saw from a supposedly elite dman. If it was one or two no problem, but be it at the opposition blue line with no one including Carey back or on an unnecessary rush his risk taking was unnecessary and extreme at times. (I got the good fortunne of watching quite a bit of Paul Coffey and his speed might have helped him overcome some of his mistakes) He is not the first skilled player to do this and won't be the last, but I would not think that Team Canada needs to take such a risk now. I am not sure I would qualify any of these players liabilities and understand even these stats can be explained away by some luck good or bad on any given year and the arbitrary decision of what is and isn't a turnover. But given the discussion of whether PK was in some way conspired against in any way by the coaches well.... The Olympic year I thought he deserved a shot and he got it. This year I would have him behind Letang, Giardano, Big Buff and perhaps Gostisbhere. Not here to debate Pk being good, but I don't see him being cheated at all and do prefer Weber's skill set especially in regards to clearing the net for Carey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The needs to protect the puck better eye test is where and when he is turning it over. I have no problem with the argument about talent and having the puck I have great problems with some of the turnover I saw from a supposedly elite dman. If it was one or two no problem, but be it at the opposition blue line with no one including Carey back or on an unnecessary rush his risk taking was unnecessary and extreme at times. (I got the good fortunne of watching quite a bit of Paul Coffey and his speed might have helped him overcome some of his mistakes) He is not the first skilled player to do this and won't be the last, but I would not think that Team Canada needs to take such a risk now. I am not sure I would qualify any of these players liabilities and understand even these stats can be explained away by some luck good or bad on any given year and the arbitrary decision of what is and isn't a turnover. But given the discussion of whether PK was in some way conspired against in any way by the coaches well.... The Olympic year I thought he deserved a shot and he got it. This year I would have him behind Letang, Giardano, Big Buff and perhaps Gostisbhere. Not here to debate Pk being good, but I don't see him being cheated at all and do prefer Weber's skill set especially in regards to clearing the net for Carey

And I can appreciate people liking Weber over Subban (or vice versa). Everyone has their own style of player that they enjoy watching or that they think can help the team more. I understand the attraction to having a player with a hard shot and a guy who can dish out bruising hits. Just as you're not challenging Subban's skill, I'm not debating in the least that Weber isn't a top-tier defenceman. He is. I'd love to have both Subban and Weber on the same team. But having to pick one, I'm personally more a fan of what Subban brings.

The issue for me here isn't necessarily which player will have had the better career when all is said and done. The problem I have is that Weber and Doughty and Karlsson and Pietrangelo and Keith seem to get their dues league-wide. I haven't heard anyone in the media challenging their worth to their teams. I haven't heard anyone question whether they're a defensive liability. Weber has the reputation of being a solid reliable D man and a veteran leader. But the numbers suggest Subban has the lower turnover rate, better loose puck recovery rates, a higher ability to skate the puck out of his own zone, and pretty much the same zone start ratios and ice times as Weber. So why is one guy labeled "a defensive stalwart" and another guy a "loose cannon" and "too risky for Team Canada"? There's a back-story there. You have one player who's seen as a good Canadian boy who plays the game tough and another who has a flashy personality off the ice and who likes to skate the puck. but toughness does not equate to sound defensive ability. And flashy doesn't mean risky. When PK first came up, he would take himself out of position to make a hit every now and then, but he's cut way back on what he takes as risks nowadays. Does he turn the puck over? Absolutely. But your eye test is labeling him a risk because you're remembering those mistakes, in large part because the media tends to focus on them and say "ha, there it is, there he is doing what we said he would do."

But look at the numbers. PK's making more turnovers and you're seeing those. But for every turnover he's making, he's making loads more completed passes and safe plays. A breakout pass that doesn't result in a turnover or chance against might not register to the eye test because it seems so unimportant when it's done well, but it's happening. Again, when you look at turnover rates, Subban is making fewer turnovers then Weber and Karlsson and Markov and Petry and a boatload of other guys. It's the narrative that PK is risky that fuels the argument, not actual evidence.

Now look at Team Canada. You're going to get a team of all-stars with a much better system than we have in Montreal and in many tournaments, on the international rink with a larger ice surface, where skating ability not hitting ability becomes key. If anything, that's an even better situation for a player like Subban or Karlsson than they have with their club teams. Even putting that aside, no matter who your 2nd-pairing right D man is, that guy is getting "x" amount of ice time and a certain number of touches on the puck. In the same number of touches, the numbers suggest Weber will turn the puck over more often than Subban. And that's comparing Nashville Weber to Montreal Subban. We know Montreal's system is awful under Therrien and favors D men turning over the puck in general because all of Subban's teammates had high turnover numbers as well and even higher than Subban's when corrected for plays on the puck. And we know Montreal's scorer tallies up the turnovers here freely. So now remove the system, remove the coaching differences, remove the scorekeeper, and if anything that should make Subban's even better relative to Weber's.

I'll leave you with this thought: let's say the Habs are pinned in their own zone and there's a loose puck in the corner. Would you rather have Weber not get to the puck first and have the opposition play in our zone for even longer? Or would you rather Subban be first on the puck and 7-8/10 times make a play to get it out? Sure, 2-3 of those times, he might fail at making a successful play, but if he's not using his skill to get on that puck first, we're no better off. With Weber, we might not be counting a turnover against the D man, but we're also not counting a successful zone clearing or breakout. Weber touches the puck very very little for a guy who gets as much ice time and praise as he does. He might punish the opposition with checks, but he's also letting the opposition keep the puck. His Corsi and scoring chance relative totals for Nashville were below average. So no, he's not turning the puck over himself, but he's also helping the team less than Subban would in the same circumstances. That's pretty clear. One can focus on the absolute turnover numbers and the eye test, but it's pretty hard to stare in the face of all the data suggesting Subban is a superior defensive player to Weber. To ignore that and say the eye test tells you Subban is risky and that's why he's off Team Canada doesn't hold much water to me. I'm perfectly okay with fans like you saying that. But an informed GM or coach should know better. The information available to them tells them Subban smokes players like Burns, Muzzin, Pietrangelo, and especially Weber out of the water. So for them to repeatedly pass over Subban and try to sell this "risk" story... I don't buy it. Maybe MB and MT and Babcock don't like Subban's flash or his personality. Maybe they're old-school and choose to ignore the data because of the eye test as well. But that doesn't say much for their talent evaluation skills. As I've said, Canada is lucky that they can pass on the 2nd best D man in the world and still be able to draw from maybe 15 of the next best 30 players. they have so much buffer in talent that mistakes can be overcome. But the story doesn't add up. Subban's being snubbed not for on-ice play but for something else, whatever that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Subban's being snubbed not for on-ice play but for something else, whatever that is.

Off ice

Flashy personality

Happy go lucky

social media savy

etc etc

The old school NHL mentality doesn't like a good hockey player , who is confident , and is player of color ( ooops I said it )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off ice

Flashy personality

Happy go lucky

social media savy

etc etc

The old school NHL mentality doesn't like a good hockey player , who is confident , and is player of color ( ooops I said it )

As some of the black players and former players in the NHL have said, it's the "elephant in the room." To me, it's very clear that race is an issue in how Subban is treated. Does it mean people are intentionally being racist? No. But I definitely think Subban being black plays a role in how people view PK and how they don't know how to manage him. For some reason, it's taboo to bring this up. If someone mentions that race could be an issue, lots of people are quick to brush it off and say they don't know how that could be a thing in today's day and age.

Well we know there are players (Mike Richards, I'm looking at you) who have used derogatory terms to reference Subban's race on the ice. The microphones have picked that up. We know there are other players (Joffrey Lupul, I'm looking at you) who have stated Subban needs to "know his place" despite the fact he's never said that about anyone else. We know Michel Therrien picked on him repeatedly. We know Wayne Simmonds has said racism exists in the league. Subban refuses to make it an issue, but it is one, and it shouldn't be taboo to address that.

Look at Ovechkin. For the first 7-8 years he was in the league, he pretty much refused to play any type of sustainable defence. He partied off the ice. But no one stated he didn't deserve to be on Team Russia. No one said they would refuse to trade for him because he was a risky personality. Sidney Crosby, less so now but still to some degree, spends a lot of time diving and whining to the refs. He likes to yap back to his opponents. No one has told him he needs to know his role or questioned his character. Erik Karlsson turns the puck over more than Subban and skates the puck up the ice more in a "riskier manner." I don't hear anyone saying he should be left off Team Sweden because of how risky he is. I didn't hear anyone putting down Paul Coffey or Ray Bourque or Brian Leetch or Bobby Orr for being too risky or carrying the puck too much. Subban is treated differently. He's held to a higher standard than everyone else. No one has yet come up with a good explanation as to why that should be, and so the obvious elephant in the room remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now ask David Poile whether he would trade Subban for any one of the players on that list. Maybe, maybe he takes Doughty, but there's no way he makes a deal for any of those other guys. Ask St. Louis if they'd be willing to give up Bouwmeester for Subban. Ask SJ if they'd be willing to deal Vlasic or LA Muzzin in exchange for PK. Teams know Subban is the more talented player. The problem is that Therrien and Bergevin disliked him as a person and badmouthed him around the league. And Canada, for better or for worse, has enough talent depth to ignore a great player like Subban and still be able to pull off wins on the ice. It's like being a millionaire and spending $10 on a coke at one corner store because you don't like the face of the guy who's selling it for $2 across the street. Sure, you can afford not to make the smart decision, but that doesn't mean it's the right one. The Habs on the other hand, are like a minimum-wage pensioner splurging on the $10 coke when they really can't afford to, simply out of spite and ego. The team and its fans are paying for the arrogance displayed by team leadership with matters like Subban, Eller, Semin, and others.

Your logic is, as always, sound Ted. I am going to play Devil's advocate for a minute & just say what if Therrien and Bergevin know something we dont. (THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE FLIP SIDE!!) Lets suggest for one minute that PK is a problem in the room. The rest of the team in typical "hockey player form" blow it over/off and say he was fine but what if his attitude and personality rubbed everyone the wrong way. He's not bad like Pronger or Comrie bad but he's still a distraction & upsets team chemistry. Is that cause for concern for a team?

There have been VERY few examples of a player with an ego so big, or a personality so brazen that he was actually detrimental to a team despite his skill but there have been a few (Yashin is a good example Tkachuk, Ribiero & Sanderson too). Again, I am NOT saying this is the case but I am willing to give just a teenie, tiny bit of rope to MT & MB and see how this all plays out.

I dont think we're going to be surprised (Weber will be great for us but PK will be better - and for longer) but I am willing to wait & see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logic is, as always, sound Ted. I am going to play Devil's advocate for a minute & just say what if Therrien and Bergevin know something we dont. (THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE FLIP SIDE!!) Lets suggest for one minute that PK is a problem in the room. The rest of the team in typical "hockey player form" blow it over/off and say he was fine but what if his attitude and personality rubbed everyone the wrong way. He's not bad like Pronger or Comrie bad but he's still a distraction & upsets team chemistry. Is that cause for concern for a team?

There have been VERY few examples of a player with an ego so big, or a personality so brazen that he was actually detrimental to a team despite his skill but there have been a few (Yashin is a good example Tkachuk, Ribiero & Sanderson too). Again, I am NOT saying this is the case but I am willing to give just a teenie, tiny bit of rope to MT & MB and see how this all plays out.

I dont think we're going to be surprised (Weber will be great for us but PK will be better - and for longer) but I am willing to wait & see.

Just going by your "speculation", Jed, and trying very hard to be positive about this whole trade, perhaps MB is looking at the short term. By that I mean, our window for winning, will be closing in the next few years (3-5?) and "if" PK was the problem (it would have had to have been a huge problem), then you have to get rid of the problem, or at least solve it. If you can't do one solution, then you have to do the other solution. The team winning is all that matters.

Now,,,, "if" MT's ego was bigger than PK's, (and I believe it is), then the wrong person was cut loose, and I tend to believe that MB just cut off his nose to spite his face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going by your "speculation", Jed, and trying very hard to be positive about this whole trade, perhaps MB is looking at the short term. By that I mean, our window for winning, will be closing in the next few years (3-5?) and "if" PK was the problem (it would have had to have been a huge problem), then you have to get rid of the problem, or at least solve it. If you can't do one solution, then you have to do the other solution. The team winning is all that matters.

Now,,,, "if" MT's ego was bigger than PK's, (and I believe it is), then the wrong person was cut loose, and I tend to believe that MB just cut off his nose to spite his face.

Yeah and as Ive said many times now, I dont buy it: I dont see how PK could possibly been that problematic to offset his skill but its the only possible scenario where this makes sense.

Because on paper, you can possibly (especially if Radulov works out) say we're a better team right now than we were last year but even right here right now (Ie the last 6 years of Weber's contract be damned) I dont see how anyone can say Weber is a better player than PK. They are both elite but we gave up the better player so there'd better be a darned good reason for it that we're just not aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always room for speculation, Jedi. But given how talented Subban is, how bad would he had to have been to make trading him warranted? Tyler Seguin was deemed to be a problem player and was traded and how did that work out for Boston? The Toronto media blasted Phil Kessel as being a poor team player and a guy with a bad attitude? Well Kessel led his team to a Cup. A good coach and GM should be able to work personalities into the team. That's their job. Yeah, if you have a Sergei Kostitsyn or Mike Ribeiro out partying all night and having that behavior impact their on-ice performance, that's one thing. But Subban has been our best position player for the past few years, so clearly he's doing his job.

As for the theory of MB wanting to win now, I would submit that Subban is already the better player. This is not trading an up-and-coming Nathan Beaulieu for Weber or trading Galchenyuk for Malkin, where you could say we're getting the better guy now and maybe giving up the guy who'll be better in 3-5 years. Subban is better now and will likely be better in 3 years, 6 years, and if they're both still playing, 10 years. It's not impossible Weber has a better season or two, because anything can happen, but the odds are on Subban.

To me, the facts just don't add up. I don't see a big team issue with Subban being apparent. I see a Therrien-Subban personality clash (that commenced with Therrien disliking Subban even before he was the coach) that then gained steam. It's completely possible that some players bought into Therrien's mantra and that Therrien scapegoating Subban and pointing out his flaws did sway some guys to believe Subban wasn't a team guy, but I don't think players hated Subban and I don't see a widespread anti-Subban faction. I think if Therrien had tried harder to make it work, as a coach should have done, then he could have easily supported PK and made the room work with him. Therrien IMO didn't have any interest in seeing that happen. No effort to do so, no end result. That's bad coaching. It's ego ahead of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always room for speculation, Jedi. But given how talented Subban is, how bad would he had to have been to make trading him warranted? Tyler Seguin was deemed to be a problem player and was traded and how did that work out for Boston? The Toronto media blasted Phil Kessel as being a poor team player and a guy with a bad attitude? Well Kessel led his team to a Cup. A good coach and GM should be able to work personalities into the team. That's their job. Yeah, if you have a Sergei Kostitsyn or Mike Ribeiro out partying all night and having that behavior impact their on-ice performance, that's one thing. But Subban has been our best position player for the past few years, so clearly he's doing his job.

As for the theory of MB wanting to win now, I would submit that Subban is already the better player. This is not trading an up-and-coming Nathan Beaulieu for Weber or trading Galchenyuk for Malkin, where you could say we're getting the better guy now and maybe giving up the guy who'll be better in 3-5 years. Subban is better now and will likely be better in 3 years, 6 years, and if they're both still playing, 10 years. It's not impossible Weber has a better season or two, because anything can happen, but the odds are on Subban.

To me, the facts just don't add up. I don't see a big team issue with Subban being apparent. I see a Therrien-Subban personality clash (that commenced with Therrien disliking Subban even before he was the coach) that then gained steam. It's completely possible that some players bought into Therrien's mantra and that Therrien scapegoating Subban and pointing out his flaws did sway some guys to believe Subban wasn't a team guy, but I don't think players hated Subban and I don't see a widespread anti-Subban faction. I think if Therrien had tried harder to make it work, as a coach should have done, then he could have easily supported PK and made the room work with him. Therrien IMO didn't have any interest in seeing that happen. No effort to do so, no end result. That's bad coaching. It's ego ahead of the team.

Only time will tell, but if there's anything more to it, the truth will come out eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always room for speculation, Jedi. But given how talented Subban is, how bad would he had to have been to make trading him warranted? Tyler Seguin was deemed to be a problem player and was traded and how did that work out for Boston? The Toronto media blasted Phil Kessel as being a poor team player and a guy with a bad attitude? Well Kessel led his team to a Cup. A good coach and GM should be able to work personalities into the team. That's their job. Yeah, if you have a Sergei Kostitsyn or Mike Ribeiro out partying all night and having that behavior impact their on-ice performance, that's one thing. But Subban has been our best position player for the past few years, so clearly he's doing his job.

As for the theory of MB wanting to win now, I would submit that Subban is already the better player. This is not trading an up-and-coming Nathan Beaulieu for Weber or trading Galchenyuk for Malkin, where you could say we're getting the better guy now and maybe giving up the guy who'll be better in 3-5 years. Subban is better now and will likely be better in 3 years, 6 years, and if they're both still playing, 10 years. It's not impossible Weber has a better season or two, because anything can happen, but the odds are on Subban.

To me, the facts just don't add up. I don't see a big team issue with Subban being apparent. I see a Therrien-Subban personality clash (that commenced with Therrien disliking Subban even before he was the coach) that then gained steam. It's completely possible that some players bought into Therrien's mantra and that Therrien scapegoating Subban and pointing out his flaws did sway some guys to believe Subban wasn't a team guy, but I don't think players hated Subban and I don't see a widespread anti-Subban faction. I think if Therrien had tried harder to make it work, as a coach should have done, then he could have easily supported PK and made the room work with him. Therrien IMO didn't have any interest in seeing that happen. No effort to do so, no end result. That's bad coaching. It's ego ahead of the team.

I totally agree with everything you said here, Im simply (still) trying to make any sense out of this trade. I cant.

It really sucks because I would otherwise have been absolutely thrilled to have Weber on this team (ive been wanting to trade for him for like 6+ years) but only if it mean not trading one of our 3 or 4 top players. Now he comes to our team & instead of being happy, im still upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from article by Gregory Katz from Thehockeywriters:

Another factor that should be taken into consideration with Weber, is the spark that he will bring to the Habs. There has been a huge change in the team culture since Subban’s departure, and this, along with Weber’s sheer presence should spark the team to step up in the coming season. Such a major shift in team identity will help turn the page from a very underwhelming 2015-16 season.

Sure, you probably still curse the Habs’ management team, but at least we’ll get to see a few of those this year.

The Habs lost an all-star but got a heck of a defenceman in return. The trade may have been extremely questionable, but rather than cry over spilt milk, let’s move forward with what we’ve got. The Montreal Canadiens are now equipped with a player that is sure to help when it comes to team leadership and direction.

Weber’s presence will be felt both on and off the ice, as he will step up and help educate and protect the young up and comers within the Habs’ organization. His contract is very long-term, but the Habs should look to capitalize in the coming years while he’s still in his prime.

Is Shea Weber better than P.K. Subban? In the long-run, probably not. Despite that, the Habs will have to work with what they’ve got in an effort to make Habs fans proud to be fans again.

http://thehockeywriters.com/so-who-is-shea-weber/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from article by Gregory Katz from Thehockeywriters:

The Habs lost an all-star but got a heck of a defenceman in return... The Montreal Canadiens are now equipped with a player that is sure to help when it comes to team leadership and direction.

Weber’s presence...

So basically, we traded tangible results for magic beans.

It's not just the mainstream hockey media that can be completely useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from article by Gregory Katz from Thehockeywriters:

Another factor that should be taken into consideration with Weber, is the spark that he will bring to the Habs. There has been a huge change in the team culture since Subban’s departure, and this, along with Weber’s sheer presence should spark the team to step up in the coming season. Such a major shift in team identity will help turn the page from a very underwhelming 2015-16 season.

Yup.....blame last season on PK. May as well blame PK for Hilary and the Donald while your at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...