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

Claude Julien and staff 2016-17


habs_93
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, PuckPundit said:

How often has the season's Vezina winner won the Cup?

Four times (2010-11, Thomas/Boston, 2002-03 Broduer/New Jersey, 1987-88 Fuhr/Edmonton, 1981-2, Smith/Islanders) since 1980, according to Hockey-Reference.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PuckPundit said:

That's why I've been questioning, does a team superstar necessarily have to be the goalie?  I'd rather have a superstar forward instead. I'm saying this because if the salary to retain Price becomes stupendously prohibitive and weighs down the cap space, I won't mind letting him go.  

If you look back at the Cup winners since 2012, you can hardly say their strongest factor was their goalie.  How often has the season's Vezina winner won the Cup? Sure, their goalie played his part but how often did he have to steal games for them, series after series?  Their strengths were in scoring and tight defence.

Give me Craig Anderson, and I'll use the $$$ savings to invest in 2 superstar centres to fill the first 2 lines. :4322:

Let's say Price's sv% is .02 better than the average goalie in the league. If your starter faces 1600-1800 shots a year, then that means it's saving you about 35 goals against to have Price in as compared to a league-average guy. Now let's say your current #2 center is giving you 20-25 goals and 50 points in a season. That means that to downgrade to a guy like Bishop or Anderson or whatnot, you'd have to find a player who can put up 85 points a year to offset what you're losing in Price. It's tough to find those guys anywhere in the league, nevermind being able to actually get one to sing here to be able to trade for one without giving up any other assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, habs_93 said:

Four times (2010-11, Thomas/Boston, 2002-03 Broduer/New Jersey, 1987-88 Fuhr/Edmonton, 1981-2, Smith/Islanders) since 1980, according to Hockey-Reference.com.

Dryden (72-73),(75-76),(76-77),(78-79)-Brodeur (02-03)-Fuhr (87-88)-Hextall (86-87)-Smith(81-82)-Parent(74-75)(73-74)-Plante(55-60)6cups-Sawchuk(54-55)(52-53)(51-52)-Vachon (67-68)-Thomas(2010-11) all years goalies won the Vezina & cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

Dryden (72-73),(75-76),(76-77),(78-79)-Brodeur (02-03)-Fuhr (87-88)-Hextall (86-87)-Smith(81-82)-Parent(74-75)(73-74)-Plante(55-60)6cups-Sawchuk(54-55)(52-53)(51-52)-Vachon (67-68)-Thomas(2010-11) all years goalies won the Vezina & cup.

Yep. As your list shows, it's exceptionally uncommon and has gotten extremely rare since the change in how the Vezina was awarded in 1981. And it's only happened once in the salary cap era. It's probably a bad idea to plan around something that has historically happened once or twice a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, habs_93 said:

Yep. As your list shows, it's exceptionally uncommon and has gotten extremely rare since the change in how the Vezina was awarded in 1981. And it's only happened once in the salary cap era. It's probably a bad idea to plan around something that has historically happened once or twice a decade.

Well "Historically " would actually include the decades of the 50's, 60's,70's, 80's that all had several. It is true since the cap era it has been different, but a lot of vezina or Jennings winning goalies were on a lot of the Stanley cup winning teams. They may not have won it the exact same year the won the individual award but a lot of award winning goalies were on a lot of the cup teams. That would be to say a forward has less value on years he doesn't actually win the Richard or Hart or scoring title. Or a D-man doesn't win the Norris. A lot of the cup winners have goalies that have won the awards or are still considered in the top 5 at the time they did as forwards or d-man that were at the top but didn't win the award but were still at the top of their game. A rookie like last year or a Dryden or Roy will come along occasionally but most cup winning teams do have solid if not elite goaltending when they win. Roy wasn't winning the Vezina  with Colorado (a lot because of Broduer or Hasek) but he was still a top goaltender and did help make a difference , especially in the Wings / Avs battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habberwacky said:

And some, like Chicago with Crawford have a goalie who may be average in the regular season but when the game is on the line in the playoffs become highly focussed and tough to beat. I am sure Therrien is hoping that is what Price is all about.

We would all love to see Price be at the top of his game in the playoffs. That is probably the only area he hasn't exceeded at yet. He has won Canada Juniors and Olympic & Canada Cups. It can be argued though that with those teams other goalies could have done it also. I'd love to see Carey with the cup. It would be great it he didn't have to be the difference maker, but if he stole a series or enough games in the playoffs it would be great. The Stanley cup is what really counts and he has been good but he hasn't went on an incredible run yet in the playoffs. I know he got injured which isn't his fault but it's the one thing that he hasn't done to make him stand apart at least post season yet. Like in 93 when Roy had 10 overtime wins that's clutch. I want to see Carey carrying the lord Stanley around!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

We're up there. The coaching staff has been doing a great job having us play hockey the right way at ES the past month or so.

Do you think its fair to attribute that, at least in part, to Muller?  I mean normally I wouldnt give so much credit to an assistant (technically, an "associate" which according to MB means he's somewhere between an assistant & the head coach) but Therrien has been running this team for several years now but we've never seen them play like this.

Imho its one of 3 things:

1) Therrien suddenly changed.  Unlikely.
2) The personnel  changes fit our style better.  Again, sort of unlikely. I think some of the roster moves have helped but ultimately we're finally playing a system. 
3) Muller. New coaching component, new system. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, maas_art said:

Do you think its fair to attribute that, at least in part, to Muller?  I mean normally I wouldnt give so much credit to an assistant (technically, an "associate" which according to MB means he's somewhere between an assistant & the head coach) but Therrien has been running this team for several years now but we've never seen them play like this.

Imho its one of 3 things:

1) Therrien suddenly changed.  Unlikely.
2) The personnel  changes fit our style better.  Again, sort of unlikely. I think some of the roster moves have helped but ultimately we're finally playing a system. 

3) Muller. New coaching component, new system. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, maas_art said:

Do you think its fair to attribute that, at least in part, to Muller?  I mean normally I wouldnt give so much credit to an assistant (technically, an "associate" which according to MB means he's somewhere between an assistant & the head coach) but Therrien has been running this team for several years now but we've never seen them play like this.

Imho its one of 3 things:

1) Therrien suddenly changed.  Unlikely.
2) The personnel  changes fit our style better.  Again, sort of unlikely. I think some of the roster moves have helped but ultimately we're finally playing a system. 
3) Muller. New coaching component, new system. 

 

We actually had a decent stretch in the first season Therrien took over as head coach, for whatever reason. Subban was absolutely dominant that year, but we played pretty well as a whole. The past few years have been garbage in terms of our style of play, and like you, I don't have much faith that Therrien has miraculously adjusted his style after decades of being a coach. Personally, I think the change comes down to two things:

1. Muller. He's clearly the best assistant/associate coach we've had since Therrien has been on board, and it's not even close. When I hear the others speak in interviews, I'm left scratching my head as to what they're thinking or seeing (except for Waite of course). But Muller seems to have his head on straight and understand the modern game a little better. The PP is somewhat better than it was under JJ or Lacroix, but it hasn't really made leaps and bounds and has struggled a lot since Galchenyuk went down. We had a good run to start the year with Weber's shot, but that high shooting percentage has cooled off and the advanced stats show our PP really hasn't improved too much. Where we're better is at ES, and maybe Muller has something to do with that in terms of system, because it's hard to pinpoint what else has changed coaching-wise. The breakout is definitely a bit better this year. The puck support is a little bit better. And we're not collapsing as much on D allowing other teams to rush in. And we're certainly not as dependent on Carey as we were in past years. Hard to say how much has to do with coaching changes, but yes, Muller is probably part of the answer to this.

2. What might be a bigger factor is MT having less of a crutch to lean on in terms of weak personnel. By that, I mean that we still have an over-abundance of bottom 6 players, even when healthy, but MB has taken away the likes of Weise and Mike Brown and Parros and DLR and so on. On D, we no longer have the likes of Murray and Bouillon. And by attrition, Desharnais has fallen out of the line-up, and frankly, we've been a much better team as a whole every time DD has gone down for a long stretch. I don't wish injury on any player and I certainly feel bad for DD being hurt, but man is this a better team when he's not weighing down the line-up! This year (Farnham recall aside), we simply have fewer one-dimensional players, both guys whom we had to over-protect with O-zone starts and guys who could play D but couldn't skate or score for the life of them. Now, our supporting cast includes the likes of Byron (great skater, can score goals, can play the PK), Mitchell (good on draws, good on PK, has pretty good hands around the net), Flynn (fast, smart, even if less adept offensively), McCarron (physical force with offensive upside), Carr (good two-way player with smarts), Lehkonen (very skilled, good skater, can play the PK too), Shaw (two-way guy as well), etc. Almost all these guys can fill the bottom 6 and be out in any situation without having to be babied for zone starts and line match-ups, and the majority of them, while they may not be offensive stars, don't weight down the top 6 if they're there for short periods the way a Mike Blunden or Mike Brown or Travis Moen or so on would negatively impact offensive production when they were promoted. On D, same story. Petry has emerged as a #1 defenceman, which has really cut back on how much Markov is exposed. And Beaulieu's development combined with Emelin's emergence, have meant we have pairings that can be thrown out against just about any line. Since Therrien has never been able to match lines (and admits he doesn't even try to do this), it's very helpful to not have weak spots that other teams can exploit (albeit Johnston and Hanley are those holes now). All that to say that I think our current line-up gives us less crutches for MT to fall back on and less he can do wrong with.

Now at the end of this, I give full credit to Michel Therrien for allowing Muller to step in and be his associate. There are some who have hypothesized Therrien wasn't given this choice and that he was told he would out if he didn't accept help, despite what the Habs might say. But regardless, kudos to MT for allowing a change in philosophy and style of play. This is the longest I can remember us going under MT keeping up the level of play we've seen in the past month. Going forward, it would obviously be nice to get Galchenyuk back and to see the likes of McCarron and Hudon and Scherbak given bigger roles rather than Farnham and Andrighetto and Flynn. And it would be nice for the team to recognize that DD being in the line-up is hurting rather than helping us. When he's healthy, I personally think he should be demoted to the AHL if we can't trade him. But outside of that, the signs have been encouraging that we might finally be able to sustain the pace we're on without our usual epic mid-season collapse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

awesome move to demote bealieu for a mistake that didnt lead to a goal, despite putting up a top pairing performance for a very long stretch since markov went out. thats how you show a young player you appreciate his efforts

shaw though? just playing his game. gotta show him support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

awesome move to demote bealieu for a mistake that didnt lead to a goal, despite putting up a top pairing performance for a very long stretch since markov went out. thats how you show a young player you appreciate his efforts

shaw though? just playing his game. gotta show him support

This.   


At least demoting Beaulieu wont make him tighten up on his stick or play scared of making a mistake or anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jeff33 said:

awesome move to demote bealieu for a mistake that didnt lead to a goal, despite putting up a top pairing performance for a very long stretch since markov went out. thats how you show a young player you appreciate his efforts

shaw though? just playing his game. gotta show him support

Agreed on both counts. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless his approach is totally different behind the scenes, outwardly and on the surface, MT to me is NOT a leader nor a good coach. His laconic look behind the bench and his constant gum chewing hardly represents a leader and a coach that the players can rely on or look up to IMO. His lack of reaction and passiveness at the constant bad officiating being called against us indicates to me that he is either lost or without direction. I am not condoning that he should get us bench minors by going out of control but a bit of spirit on behalf of the players would definitely help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

Unless his approach is totally different behind the scenes, outwardly and on the surface, MT to me is NOT a leader nor a good coach. His laconic look behind the bench and his constant gum chewing hardly represents a leader and a coach that the players can rely on or look up to IMO. His lack of reaction and passiveness at the constant bad officiating being called against us indicates to me that he is either lost or without direction. I am not condoning that he should get us bench minors by going out of control but a bit of spirit on behalf of the players would definitely help.

<This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With the recent coaching shake-ups, thought I would give my personal rankings of NHL coaches (and where available coaches Julien and Hitchcock stand in my view):

1. Quenneville

2. Sutter

3. Babcock

4. Julien

5. Boudreau

6. Ruff

7. Laviolette

8. Trotz

9. Cooper

10. Hitchcock

11. Tippett

12. Vigneault

13. DeBoer

14. McLellan

15. Boucher

Would note that there are two potential top 10 coaches in the league available now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Regis22 said:

Where is MT on your list ?

I only did a top 15. MT, along with Carlyle, figure into the bottom echelon of currently-employed coaches IMO. Muller is probably masking a lot of Michel's problems this year, but they're starting to re-surface now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I only did a top 15. MT, along with Carlyle, figure into the bottom echelon of currently-employed coaches IMO. Muller is probably masking a lot of Michel's problems this year, but they're starting to re-surface now.

Yes, the resurfacing of problems such as insisting on playing DD instead of McCarron is a constant and glaring one for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

Yes, the resurfacing of problems such as insisting on playing DD instead of McCarron is a constant and glaring one for example.

3:22 on the PP for DD.  Because.......?

and danault takes a seat. wonder if eller shot him a text. "dude...i know"

 

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...