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

2021-22 State of the Habs


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

It's only 4 periods into the season, but when you look at the roster MB has built, other than the worrisomely slow D corps, the other thing that stands out is how poorly the French-Quebecer additions have played. Last year, we had Drouin and we had Danault, and both those guys clearly belonged here and were key members of the team. But after that one game where we had no French players and Bergevin got raked by the Francophone media, he clearly went out of his way to add French players this year. Thus far, Paquette looks invisible, Perreault looks like he doesn't belong in the NHL any longer, Savard looks slow and overrated, and Montembeault looks like an AHL player. Would three of these players be on another roster in the league and would Savard be worth this same contract elsewhere? It really looks like MB forced these moves for political reasons rather than as hockey decisions, just as he has with his coaching choices in the past. And here we're seeing the effect of trying to pansy to language critics ahead of the on-ice product.

As I've said previously,  I don't mind a RH Chiarot on D. We need to get rid of or move Chiarot away from Savard. The other 3? There's a reason why they're previous teams didn't want them. They're no good. Maybe,  you can hide one on a good team, but we are no where near a good team. bergebin will always be under pressure to have francophones on the team, but he has to be SMARTER!  & why isn't Brooks in the lineup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, electron58 said:

As I've said previously,  I don't mind a RH Chiarot on D. We need to get rid of or move Chiarot away from Savard. The other 3? There's a reason why they're previous teams didn't want them. They're no good. Maybe,  you can hide one on a good team, but we are no where near a good team. bergebin will always be under pressure to have francophones on the team, but he has to be SMARTER!  & why isn't Brooks in the lineup?

Going into the off-season the Habs literally had Petry and nothing else on the right side. Down the left, they had Edmundson, Chiarot, Kulak, and Romanov. I don't know how you look at what's on the left and think the best complement for that group would be Savard. I also don't know how you look at that group and see any top 3 D men other than Petry. And so seeing that, it seems obvious to me that there was a need for two top 3 D men and a need for D men who can be strong possession players and move the puck well. On top of that, you've had a brutal PP for years, so it would have been nice to find someone who can help there too. Savard addresses none of those things, but he was given a 4 year-deal to match the contracts given to Edmundson and Chiarot, two guys who already fill the same role essentially.

It's very clear that Savard can't be paired with Chiarot and can't be paired with Edmundson. So when you sign him and keep those other two, you've essentially painted yourself into the corner whereby you have 3 shifts of D men and each one features one of these slower poor puck movers. I just don't think this D corps was very well thought-out. MB just loves D men who play the game that way and adds them on top of each other over and over. He hasn't learned anything in that regard in almost a decade of being our GM.

This is why he should have been more willing to overpay Dougie Hamilton or should have gone after Matt Dumba or Zach Werenski when he had the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Going into the off-season the Habs literally had Petry and nothing else on the right side. Down the left, they had Edmundson, Chiarot, Kulak, and Romanov. I don't know how you look at what's on the left and think the best complement for that group would be Savard. I also don't know how you look at that group and see any top 3 D men other than Petry. And so seeing that, it seems obvious to me that there was a need for two top 3 D men and a need for D men who can be strong possession players and move the puck well. On top of that, you've had a brutal PP for years, so it would have been nice to find someone who can help there too. Savard addresses none of those things, but he was given a 4 year-deal to match the contracts given to Edmundson and Chiarot, two guys who already fill the same role essentially.

It's very clear that Savard can't be paired with Chiarot and can't be paired with Edmundson. So when you sign him and keep those other two, you've essentially painted yourself into the corner whereby you have 3 shifts of D men and each one features one of these slower poor puck movers. I just don't think this D corps was very well thought-out. MB just loves D men who play the game that way and adds them on top of each other over and over. He hasn't learned anything in that regard in almost a decade of being our GM.

This is why he should have been more willing to overpay Dougie Hamilton or should have gone after Matt Dumba or Zach Werenski when he had the chance.

I don't disagree.  I would have flipped Chiarot +++ for a top 2 top 3 D. I'm just saying that Savard balances the defense a little better, IF you get rid of Chiarot. Like everybody says, Savard is a RH Chiarot. We need to move Chiarot.  bergebin has to know, that his defense is useless if he doesn't make the playoffs, or does he? We can still go after Dumba. I don't think Hamilton wanted to come here, even if you offered him 20mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chiarot while not a great D man is far from the problem.  Wideman should be sent back to the KHL , makes poor decisions and constantly takes himself out of the play.  While everyone seems to think Kulak is a worthy D man, myself think he is entirely over rated. he is a third pairing D man at best. Romanov will be a solid D man but needs more experience and will not get that playing with sub par partners, should be paired with Petry on a constant bases I think they would play well together.  Our D is way too SLOW!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad I couldn't catch the first 2 road games, trying to watch hour home opener on Saturday though.

Not surprised the boys look flat, lots of new players and we're just a different team without Price, Weber, and Danault. It's still early but my expectations are really low this season, I just don't see us winning a lot of hockey games with that defence and if Carey is out long-term, like Drouin was, we're truly in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiLla said:

Glad I couldn't catch the first 2 road games, trying to watch hour home opener on Saturday though.

Not surprised the boys look flat, lots of new players and we're just a different team without Price, Weber, and Danault. It's still early but my expectations are really low this season, I just don't see us winning a lot of hockey games with that defence and if Carey is out long-term, like Drouin was, we're truly in trouble.

I feel the same way. I've watched 10 minutes of the season so far. I just feel like it's not really worth tuning in for every moment this year. My expectations are quite low. I don't think we are a playoff team (with or without Price). It's also hard to be excited when the D is not what I believe it should be. Petry and Romanov are the only interesting players back there. Maybe the team turns it around and wins the next five. I also wouldn't be surprised to see us go 0-5-0 to begin the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I feel the same way. I've watched 10 minutes of the season so far. I just feel like it's not really worth tuning in for every moment this year. My expectations are quite low. I don't think we are a playoff team (with or without Price). It's also hard to be excited when the D is not what I believe it should be. Petry and Romanov are the only interesting players back there. Maybe the team turns it around and wins the next five. I also wouldn't be surprised to see us go 0-5-0 to begin the season.

Yup, I think it's going to be a long season as well. I get that our D is supposedly built for the playoffs, and the boys have proven that impressively last year, but as we all know the regular season is an entirely different thing and to make some noise in the postseason, we'll have to find a way to get there first. We're in a strong division, a number of key players are out indefinitely (including our Captain for the entire season, if not longer), we had a rather turbulent offseason, and with all the new guys around everybody needs to settle down and find their place. Not sure I like our chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once Edmunson and Niku come back from injuries we wont be forced to be playing Kulak and Wideman it should help our D immensely.  At this point I really regret letting Mete go and Keeping Kulak, Mete was a much better D man at this point in his career.  While Kulak has potential whether or not he ever reaches that potential is a mystery, personally I think he is and always will be highly over rated and is no more than a 3rd pairing D man at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ChiLla said:

Glad I couldn't catch the first 2 road games, trying to watch hour home opener on Saturday though.

Not surprised the boys look flat, lots of new players and we're just a different team without Price, Weber, and Danault. It's still early but my expectations are really low this season, I just don't see us winning a lot of hockey games with that defence and if Carey is out long-term, like Drouin was, we're truly in trouble.

Your expectations are higher than mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, electron58 said:

Montreal Canadiens head coach Dominique Ducharme says that forward  Mike Hoffman, will not play in the team's season-opener on Saturday night but could play on Tuesday or Thursday. 

Hoffman will help (the pp especially) but we've got a lot of problems to fix before he will make that much of a difference.

Early in the Toronto game we looked good & then we've been terrible the next 5 or so periods. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/what-the-puck-canadiens-take-troubling-tumble-out-of-the-gate

What the Puck: Canadiens take troubling tumble out of the gate

Habs are looking downright dismal thus far and are faring worse than even the most pessimistic observers expected.

Author of the article:

Brendan Kelly  •  Montreal Gazette

:(

Even more worrisome is the play of Alexander Romanov, who has looked absolutely awful. Remember the hype surrounding him? It’s looking like just the usual Habs PR department overkill. When will fans finally figure out that it’s goofy for a team to proclaim that every single prospect is the second coming? Remember what the same Habs spinmeisters said about that fellow Ryan Poehling? It turns out that was just overheated advertising copy, once again.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/what-the-puck-canadiens-take-troubling-tumble-out-of-the-gate

What the Puck: Canadiens take troubling tumble out of the gate

Habs are looking downright dismal thus far and are faring worse than even the most pessimistic observers expected.

Author of the article:

Brendan Kelly  •  Montreal Gazette

:(

Even more worrisome is the play of Alexander Romanov, who has looked absolutely awful. Remember the hype surrounding him? It’s looking like just the usual Habs PR department overkill. When will fans finally figure out that it’s goofy for a team to proclaim that every single prospect is the second coming? Remember what the same Habs spinmeisters said about that fellow Ryan Poehling? It turns out that was just overheated advertising copy, once again.B)

Brendan Kelly is absolute tool.   Its like he's some noob fan who thinks the sky is falling. its TWO FREAKING GAMES.  I agree that things have looked bad but we've all seen bad stretches.  Im not willing to write off the team just yet and a guy who gets paid for a living to write about them most definitely should not yet.

The part about Romanov is laughable. The Habs PR department awarded him Best defensman at the WJC?   They awarded him an important role in winning the Gagarin cup? The only people who proclaimed him the second coming were the fans - and the media - It would be interesting to look back & see if Kelly was one of those in question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Going into the off-season the Habs literally had Petry and nothing else on the right side. Down the left, they had Edmundson, Chiarot, Kulak, and Romanov. I don't know how you look at what's on the left and think the best complement for that group would be Savard. I also don't know how you look at that group and see any top 3 D men other than Petry. And so seeing that, it seems obvious to me that there was a need for two top 3 D men and a need for D men who can be strong possession players and move the puck well. On top of that, you've had a brutal PP for years, so it would have been nice to find someone who can help there too. Savard addresses none of those things, but he was given a 4 year-deal to match the contracts given to Edmundson and Chiarot, two guys who already fill the same role essentially.

It's very clear that Savard can't be paired with Chiarot and can't be paired with Edmundson. So when you sign him and keep those other two, you've essentially painted yourself into the corner whereby you have 3 shifts of D men and each one features one of these slower poor puck movers. I just don't think this D corps was very well thought-out. MB just loves D men who play the game that way and adds them on top of each other over and over. He hasn't learned anything in that regard in almost a decade of being our GM.

This is why he should have been more willing to overpay Dougie Hamilton or should have gone after Matt Dumba or Zach Werenski when he had the chance.

On the money.

Individually Edmundson, Chiarot, Savard etc are all NHL quality players. None would have trouble finding work & I think that actually most teams would have 1 of them in their top 4.  The problem is that we have 3 of them in our top 4.  

Weber went down & MB said "I need to get someone big, and strong and good defensively" but for all of his recent shortcomings lately one thing Weber was - when not clearly injured - was positionally elite.  If you're slow you'd better be in the right position 90% of the time, which weber was (until last year during which, we found out later, he was playing on severe injuries)   Savard, Chiarot and Edmundson are all slow.  Edmundson is probably the best, positionally but still no where near as good as weber used to be. 

So why get Savard?  Well he's big. He's french...he's a RHD - so i guess that is good but then you need to dump one of Chiarot or Edmundson. 

 

I still wonder if you paired Chairot with forward, could you get a young PMD?  Or a centre?  We still need both of those. We've been saying for a while we need those. We saw the last 2 nights we need both of those...  & yet the team doesnt seem to see it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, maas_art said:

On the money.

Individually Edmundson, Chiarot, Savard etc are all NHL quality players. None would have trouble finding work & I think that actually most teams would have 1 of them in their top 4.  The problem is that we have 3 of them in our top 4.  

Weber went down & MB said "I need to get someone big, and strong and good defensively" but for all of his recent shortcomings lately one thing Weber was - when not clearly injured - was positionally elite.  If you're slow you'd better be in the right position 90% of the time, which weber was (until last year during which, we found out later, he was playing on severe injuries)   Savard, Chiarot and Edmundson are all slow.  Edmundson is probably the best, positionally but still no where near as good as weber used to be. 

So why get Savard?  Well he's big. He's french...he's a RHD - so i guess that is good but then you need to dump one of Chiarot or Edmundson. 

 

I still wonder if you paired Chairot with forward, could you get a young PMD?  Or a centre?  We still need both of those. We've been saying for a while we need those. We saw the last 2 nights we need both of those...  & yet the team doesnt seem to see it. 

 

I think the fact that he's big, french, and RHD played a role, but who else was really available? I don't know if they tried hard enough for hamilton but I never thought he'd want to come here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I think the fact that he's big, french, and RHD played a role, but who else was really available? I don't know if they tried hard enough for hamilton but I never thought he'd want to come here

From what i understand we met with him (Hamilton) but didnt even tender an offer. 

Im not sure if anyone else was available via UFA but that doesnt mean you couldn't trade someone. Im sure there were options out there but I get the sense MB just thought what we had would work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I think the fact that he's big, french, and RHD played a role, but who else was really available? I don't know if they tried hard enough for hamilton but I never thought he'd want to come here

There was very little available on the UFA market, but there were certainly options that MB could have looked to have traded for. Several of the guys I would have targeted were actually dealt or were available in the expansion draft:

 

- Jake Bean (for a 2nd rounder)

- Conor Timmins (along with picks, for Darcy Kuemper)

- Haydn Fleury (left exposed and claimed in ED)

- Vince Dunn (left exposed and claimed in ED)

 

Then you also had guys like Seth Jones, Adam Boqvist, Rasmus Ristolainen, Ryan Ellis, Nick Leddy, and Ethan Bear dealt. So there were names out there, and while I wouldn't necessarily have wanted all of these guys specifically, they definitely fit the hole in the Habs' lineup better than Savard. We could have also traded for or re-claimed Juulsen or Fleury and I think either might have been more interesting on the 3rd pairing than Wideman. Matt Dumba was another guy reportedly available over the past couple of years, and the Wild had been interested in both Domi and Poehling at times, according to rumors. I really like what Josh Anderson brings to the table, but if we had flipped Domi for Dumba, would we be better off now? I think so. We also still have a plethora of wingers while having poor depth at center and at D, so why continue to stack wingers on top of each other when you're not addressing real needs? Personally, I'd have been okay not having Anderson if it mean being able to ice a D corps like

 

Bean-Petry

Romanov-Dumba

Edmundson-Timmins

Kulak

 

Not seeing a need for Savard, not seeing a need for Chiarot. Okay with keeping one of that pack but I'd opt for Edmundson over the other two right now and keep him on the 3rd pairing. I think we could have traded Chiarot for a 2nd or 3rd in the off-season after his playoff performance boosted his value and I think it would have cost the same to acquire Timmins, so let's say that offsets. If you told me I could swap out Chiarot, Anderson, and a 2nd to plug in Bean, Timmins, and Dumba instead, I'd have made those swaps in a heartbeat (not to mention we'd have saved money).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, up front, we substituted out Tatar, Danault, Kotkaniemi, and Perry and replaced them with Hoffman, Dvorak, and Paquette, and Perreault. The only upgrade there that I see is Dvorak in for Danault, and to make that happen, we gave up a 1st and a 2nd rounder. And while we're getting Caufield in for a full year, we've lost Weber and we've spotted Montembeault in for Price for a chunk of the year at least. Not seeing huge upgrades at any particular spot in the line-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

There was very little available on the UFA market, but there were certainly options that MB could have looked to have traded for. Several of the guys I would have targeted were actually dealt or were available in the expansion draft:

 

- Jake Bean (for a 2nd rounder)

- Conor Timmins (along with picks, for Darcy Kuemper)

- Haydn Fleury (left exposed and claimed in ED)

- Vince Dunn (left exposed and claimed in ED)

 

Then you also had guys like Seth Jones, Adam Boqvist, Rasmus Ristolainen, Ryan Ellis, Nick Leddy, and Ethan Bear dealt. So there were names out there, and while I wouldn't necessarily have wanted all of these guys specifically, they definitely fit the hole in the Habs' lineup better than Savard. We could have also traded for or re-claimed Juulsen or Fleury and I think either might have been more interesting on the 3rd pairing than Wideman. Matt Dumba was another guy reportedly available over the past couple of years, and the Wild had been interested in both Domi and Poehling at times, according to rumors. I really like what Josh Anderson brings to the table, but if we had flipped Domi for Dumba, would we be better off now? I think so. We also still have a plethora of wingers while having poor depth at center and at D, so why continue to stack wingers on top of each other when you're not addressing real needs? Personally, I'd have been okay not having Anderson if it mean being able to ice a D corps like

 

Bean-Petry

Romanov-Dumba

Edmundson-Timmins

Kulak

 

Not seeing a need for Savard, not seeing a need for Chiarot. Okay with keeping one of that pack but I'd opt for Edmundson over the other two right now and keep him on the 3rd pairing. I think we could have traded Chiarot for a 2nd or 3rd in the off-season after his playoff performance boosted his value and I think it would have cost the same to acquire Timmins, so let's say that offsets. If you told me I could swap out Chiarot, Anderson, and a 2nd to plug in Bean, Timmins, and Dumba instead, I'd have made those swaps in a heartbeat (not to mention we'd have saved money).

yeah, some good points and options there. Do you speak french? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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