flames4eva Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I agree...tres bizzare to see Tom on the line with Kovy...but where was Kostitsyn? Either Guy thought Andrei wasn't performing(which he was, I thought he had a great game) OR perhaps Kosty was a little shaken up from the Roberts hit, although I saw Andrei on a shift after he was hit. And with Smokes joining forces with Koivu and Higgins, that was way late into the 3rd, where we had the mentality of not getting anymore more goals and having a complete shutdown of the Pens. I think Kostitsyn got injured when Roberts tried to take his head off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JL Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 As an Xs and Os guy, Carbonneau is great. I still don't think he has really grasped the other elements that make a good head coach. He is getting better, but I still saw weird things tonight, like Chipchura's line up against Crosby with our third defense pairing on the ice. He's got to improve his line matching. In all fairness, the game was in Pittsburgh and we didn't have the last change. Still, it wasn't that bad of a match-up considering that you had two defensive forwards in Begin and Chipchura, and three defensemen! As for the coaching itself, a rookie will make mistakes at every level. It may rub people the wrong way when some decisions are made but let's not forget one thing: it's HIS job that's on the line with every decision he makes... not ours. Some decision may appear to being mistakes in a few fans' eyes, but they may very well be calculated decisions from his or the team's stand point. They do have access to stats that we don't know, they do have access to information (injuries, match-ups, practices) that we don't have a clue about. So a few mistakes, a few overreactions on our part, several good moves (to often forgotten) and a ton of experience gained with each game coached... Let's give him time before repeating the same mistakes as we've done in giving other teams a good coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest halifax_habs Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I agree...tres bizzare to see Tom on the line with Kovy...but where was Kostitsyn? Either Guy thought Andrei wasn't performing(which he was, I thought he had a great game) OR perhaps Kosty was a little shaken up from the Roberts hit, although I saw Andrei on a shift after he was hit. And with Smokes joining forces with Koivu and Higgins, that was way late into the 3rd, where we had the mentality of not getting anymore more goals and having a complete shutdown of the Pens. Smokes, Koivu, Higgins worked pretty well IMO. Spent some time pressuring Pittsburgh and kept the puck out of the net, the things you have to do to hang on to leads. Kostopolous is used in some wierd situations, but he is one of our few physical forwards so that might explain some of the situations he is played in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames4eva Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Carbo does seem somewhat more controlled this season and the players do seem to be on the same page so far. Am I wrong, or did Carbo let the players go on the forecheck more and not sit back when they had a lead last night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greek Hab Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Carbo does seem somewhat more controlled this season and the players do seem to be on the same page so far. Am I wrong, or did Carbo let the players go on the forecheck more and not sit back when they had a lead last night? Agree. And yes, I think they were attacking more often in the 2nd and early into the 3rd. But come 6:00 left into the last segment, it was all 0 on 5 for our Boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourtrax Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 In Carbo's defence, the fourth line (Chipchura's line with Dandenault and Begin) has been playing very well, and the third-line hasn't been overly spectacular (particularily Kostopolous and Latendresse). All three forwards on the fourth line can log big PK minutes and are all defensively-oriented, whereas the third-line isn't exactly an ideal checking line. Just my opinion though. What I did find was weird was how things were mixed in the last 6-8 minutes. Streit and Markov were on the ice together for the second Pittsburgh goal, Smolinski was logging time with Higgins and Koivu, and I saw Kostopolous out there with Kovalev. But that's part of what I'm talking about. Some of his line combos make me scratch my head and his invariable decision to go into 'defensive line' mode when we're protecting a lead does nothing but give momentum back to the other team. We stop being able to generate scoring chances, end up running around in our own end, and usually give up at least one goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigger-1 Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 But that's part of what I'm talking about. Some of his line combos make me scratch my head and his invariable decision to go into 'defensive line' mode when we're protecting a lead does nothing but give momentum back to the other team. We stop being able to generate scoring chances, end up running around in our own end, and usually give up at least one goal. At least last night he didn't get them going into that defensive shell until really late in the game. In fact we out-shot them 14-7 in the 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames4eva Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 At least last night he didn't get them going into that defensive shell until really late in the game. In fact we out-shot them 14-7 in the 3rd.Exactly.... I mentioned that they were allowed to forecheck more earlier... good for Carbo (let's hope it means there is more to come) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Renko Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 As much as I like Guy and as good of a player as he was, Im afraid he gets out-coached quite regularly...Paul Maurice is one example of a coach that seems to have Guy figured out. Guy is a student of the game who constantly improves. I hope it happens sooner than later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames4eva Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 As much as I like Guy and as good of a player as he was, Im afraid he gets out-coached quite regularly...Paul Maurice is one example of a coach that seems to have Guy figured out. Guy is a student of the game who constantly improves. I hope it happens sooner than later...Personally, I think the reason the Leafs out play the Habs has more to do with how the games are officated and what is let go. That team more than any other I've watched needs to get away with too many flagrant physical infractions... plain and simple. A team like the Habs will always struggle in that situation under those circumstances. That said, Carbo still is learning to be sure and his actions at times will raise eyebrows and bring about questions as to his ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JL Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Five points out of a possibility of 6 in our first 3 games of the season, all on the road, where we've outshot the opposition on their own ice all 3 games, when we don't have the final changes... and we're still negative about the coaching? I'm curious to know how different this situation is from seeing someone complaining about Kovalev (for example) when he's having a good start to the season? Food for thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Five points out of a possibility of 6 in our first 3 games of the season, all on the road, where we've outshot the opposition on their own ice all 3 games, when we don't have the final changes... and we're still negative about the coaching? I'm curious to know how different this situation is from seeing someone complaining about Kovalev (for example) when he's having a good start to the season? Food for thoughts... What I like is that most of our team is even or plus even strength (we have a couple problems, the Bouillion-Streit d pairing and Kostopolous and Latendresse specifically) If he can keep this up, I'll gladly have him as our coach, although we'll see after more than 3 games. There are still some bizarre lineup decisions we see, but hopefully we just need some tweaking now (we really need to get a half decent checking line together and stop wasting Smolinski's talent, and please please please keep Plekanek on the second line) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JL Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 What I like is that most of our team is even or plus even strength (we have a couple problems, the Bouillion-Streit d pairing and Kostopolous and Latendresse specifically) If he can keep this up, I'll gladly have him as our coach, although we'll see after more than 3 games. There are still some bizarre lineup decisions we see, but hopefully we just need some tweaking now (we really need to get a half decent checking line together and stop wasting Smolinski's talent, and please please please keep Plekanek on the second line) I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with the concept. But in my example, Kovalev also still turns the puck over from time to time and makes some bonehead decisions. It doesn't change the fact that he's doing pretty well and that the negativity should be kept in check... like in Carbo's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with the concept. But in my example, Kovalev also still turns the puck over from time to time and makes some bonehead decisions. It doesn't change the fact that he's doing pretty well and that the negativity should be kept in check... like in Carbo's case. No doubt, the first 3 games look somewhat promising, but I still think he has some work to do. Probably a better example comparing with players would be a young guy like Kostitsyn, who overall has looked pretty good this season, but there's still work to be done. Kovalev has his problems, except with him most of them aren't going to change, what we're seeing now is probably about the best we'll get from him. Carbonneau still has that potential and I hope he can come through. I have no personal reason to want or not want him as our coach, I just want the job to get done. Even just swapping out Grabvoski for Plekanek, he's already improved at mixing up lines in my mind. Last season it seemed that we either got one of two things: him sticking with the lines he liked out of training camp that clearly weren't working, or lines where he was acting like a madman trying to prove a point or something. So far he's been doing the right thing: sticking with the basic lines, but tweaking to make them better. He also wasn't satisfied with the lines just because we got 3 of 4 points (a major concern I had during our winning steak last season - he seemed to ignore obvious problems just because we were winning) Another improvement seems to be dealing with players. So far there haven't been any issues between him and Kovalev and overall there hasn't been any of the ridiculous stuff we were used to seeing last season. We'll see when we hit a cold streak, but Carboneau seems much more cool and level headed this time around. But most of the complaints so far have been little things that some tweaking can fix: the checking line, our 3rd defensive pairing (who haven't looked all that bad - just aren't getting good results), and a couple players in slumps. Penalties are also a concern, although it is likely more an indirect responsibility of the coach rather than a direct one. The one big thing though that I think he needs to change his menality on is protecting a lead. We seem to try and protect the lead, play more defensive and put out all our defensive players. That works for some teams, but we just always screw it up. Our best defense is a good offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JL Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Our best defense is a good offense. Awww see? I'm from the other school of thoughts where solid defense generates offensive opportunities as it often creates turnovers, and with a speedy team like we have, we could capitalize on that. Unfortunately, we simply don't have the offensive weapons to constantly capitalize like the Senators, for example, a team that resembles ours in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Awww see? I'm from the other school of thoughts where solid defense generates offensive opportunities as it often creates turnovers, and with a speedy team like we have, we could capitalize on that. Unfortunately, we simply don't have the offensive weapons to constantly capitalize like the Senators, for example, a team that resembles ours in many ways. Our team really seems to struggle when playing purely defensively though. Last season even the team always seemed to look a lot better once we fell behind and were playing catchup, because we started focussing on offense. I think you need to have defense in your game or you won't go far, but Montreal's team is built more towards offense (although we now have quite a few two way players), and that seems to be when we are successful. The team is horrible at holding leads, and I wish that instead of trying to hold that 3-2, we'd just keep playing and even if the other team scores, hopefully we do as well and end with 4-3. And I think Gainey and Carbonneau are realizing we need to play more offensive. This was likely the reason they gave a high risk, high reward offensive defenseman like Brisebois a chance. If they wanted to continue focussing on defense, they would have pushed for a more defensive minded guy. From a defensive perspective, we'd be better off with Cote playing than Brisebois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigger-1 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Our team really seems to struggle when playing purely defensively though. Last season even the team always seemed to look a lot better once we fell behind and were playing catchup, because we started focussing on offense. I think you need to have defense in your game or you won't go far, but Montreal's team is built more towards offense (although we now have quite a few two way players), and that seems to be when we are successful. The team is horrible at holding leads, and I wish that instead of trying to hold that 3-2, we'd just keep playing and even if the other team scores, hopefully we do as well and end with 4-3. And I think Gainey and Carbonneau are realizing we need to play more offensive. This was likely the reason they gave a high risk, high reward offensive defenseman like Brisebois a chance. If they wanted to continue focussing on defense, they would have pushed for a more defensive minded guy. From a defensive perspective, we'd be better off with Cote playing than Brisebois. You said it right there. Two-way game. Teams that succeed in this league have a defensive minded general awareness IMO. I was watching the Canes shut down Ottawa last night (except in the late goings when they almost blew it) and they reminded me of the Habs a bit in the way everyone pitched back and gave it that little extra effort defensively. The perfect example of this on the Canadiens is Plecanek. He is unbelievable at blocking passing lanes, he uses his speed to get back, never or very rarely gets caught up in the offensive zone. I really think that like JL said, when you consider the fact that we don't have the super-offensive powers like the Heatleys, Thorntons, Crosbys and Staals we need to just make sure we never take chances and we never leave odd man rushes open and play strong positional hockey without the puck. The neutral zone game is key as well. If you look at the way we played Pittsburgh the other night, we had them trapped in the neutral zone. I know everyone hates that word, but it's a word that has won many cups for teams like the Devils. The key here is that we need to capitalize on the chances we do have and you have to have a decent powerplay. In order for this to work everybody has to pitch in and sweat a bit more playing defensively. Right now the Habs are winning because everyone on the team is contributing defensively. I'm actually really impressed with the defensive awareness of guys like Kovy and Kostistyn right now. The style of hockey we are playing not only frustrates the opponent, but tires them out. I personally would inverse your previous statement and say that the best offense is a good defense in the NHL, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourtrax Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 What does us in when we go into 'defensive shell' isn't the simple fact of playing defense. It's that we stop trying to keep the play in the other team's zone. We become content just to chip the puck out to centre ice, and that's where the problems arise. We spend most of our time in our zone just trying to get the puck out, we lose our heads and start to play erratically, and most importantly, we allow the other team to click offensively and start to generate a rhythm that maybe they hadn't had prior to our retreat into the defensive shell. Essentially, we do everything we can to allow the other team to find a scoring groove. What's worse, they don't have to worry about their own defense, because we are not even trying to create scoring chances. So they can become all offense for the last 10 minutes of the third period and pound away until they get a goal. Good defense is fine with me. But the mentality we adopt when protecting a lead is what does us in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigger-1 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 What does us in when we go into 'defensive shell' isn't the simple fact of playing defense. It's that we stop trying to keep the play in the other team's zone. We become content just to chip the puck out to centre ice, and that's where the problems arise. We spend most of our time in our zone just trying to get the puck out, we lose our heads and start to play erratically, and most importantly, we allow the other team to click offensively and start to generate a rhythm that maybe they hadn't had prior to our retreat into the defensive shell. Essentially, we do everything we can to allow the other team to find a scoring groove. What's worse, they don't have to worry about their own defense, because we are not even trying to create scoring chances. So they can become all offense for the last 10 minutes of the third period and pound away until they get a goal. Good defense is fine with me. But the mentality we adopt when protecting a lead is what does us in. I tend to agree here. But how much of this is actual coaching and how much is players psychology is debatable. You'll hear players say it a lot...."we started playing on our heels and it hurt us" or something like that. I think as a hockey player in a league of that high intensity level you can sit on a lead almost instinctively or naturally. It's not necessarily Carbo saying ok guys, get out there and defend the lead. My bet is he says keep playing the same game you played in the first. However, the fatigue is higher late in the game, you can make one mistake and the whole team ends up playing that shell you speak of for fear of making another mistake. I'm not sure how much of that is coaching and how much is just the natural tendency late in a game to protect a lead, especially for a young club. Either way, you're right that playing on your heels late in the game can and has hurt us. One more thing to point out too, what I mean by an overall defensive mentatily isn't sitting back like that and letting the other team control the play and generate scoring chances. Quite the opposite. What I mean is that you always rush the puck carrier and you never leave a man open. This applies to both the defensive AND offensive zones. It's more like "trying to be constantly annoying or in the way" if you will. I agree that the defensive shell late in the game is a problem. THat's not what I'm refering to when I say defensive style hockey at all. The sitting back on a lead you refer to is symptomatic of a young hockey club and IMO (I'm going to get hung here) of a goaltender who struggles at clutch times in the game (Huet). He doesn't get rattled easily, but he does start to panic late in the game more often than not. He almost always makes it a nail biter for us to watch. I think once this club gains another year or two of experience and Price becomes our number 1, you'll see less and less of these late in the game sitting back situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames4eva Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I tend to agree here. But how much of this is actual coaching and how much is players psychology is debatable. You'll hear players say it a lot...."we started playing on our heels and it hurt us" or something like that. I think as a hockey player in a league of that high intensity level you can sit on a lead almost instinctively or naturally. It's not necessarily Carbo saying ok guys, get out there and defend the lead. My bet is he says keep playing the same game you played in the first. However, the fatigue is higher late in the game, you can make one mistake and the whole team ends up playing that shell you speak of for fear of making another mistake. I'm not sure how much of that is coaching and how much is just the natural tendency late in a game to protect a lead, especially for a young club. Either way, you're right that playing on your heels late in the game can and has hurt us. One more thing to point out too, what I mean by an overall defensive mentatily isn't sitting back like that and letting the other team control the play and generate scoring chances. Quite the opposite. What I mean is that you always rush the puck carrier and you never leave a man open. This applies to both the defensive AND offensive zones. It's more like "trying to be constantly annoying or in the way" if you will. I agree that the defensive shell late in the game is a problem. THat's not what I'm refering to when I say defensive style hockey at all. The sitting back on a lead you refer to is symptomatic of a young hockey club and IMO (I'm going to get hung here) of a goaltender who struggles at clutch times in the game (Huet). He doesn't get rattled easily, but he does start to panic late in the game more often than not. He almost always makes it a nail biter for us to watch. I think once this club gains another year or two of experience and Price becomes our number 1, you'll see less and less of these late in the game sitting back situations. I think you're way off-base in this if I read what you're saying... this happens to more than just young teams I'm afraid and most time the other team has a lot to do with it... because they're given the oportunity to attack too easily... and I think it is the caoch who makes this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigger-1 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I think you're way off-base in this if I read what you're saying... this happens to more than just young teams I'm afraid and most time the other team has a lot to do with it... because they're given the oportunity to attack too easily... and I think it is the caoch who makes this decision. It happens to all teams yes. But especially young ones. More experienced teams know when to pounce. I think it's trying not to make a mistake in the late goings when carrying a lead. You'd have a tough time trying to convince me that coaches don't see what we see as mere fans of the game when pointing this out. If they do preach a defensive shell late in the game when carrying a lead, I'm fairly certain they don't want their team sitting back and letting the opponents control the puck in their zone. What they might say though, is late in the game, if you don't have a play, make sure you cross that red line and dump it in along the boards, rather than try and risk a neutral zone turnover, and whatever you do don't get caught up high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourtrax Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I'm not altogether sure youth is solely to blame. There are plenty of young teams that don't have nearly as much trouble protecting a lead as we do. And it's doubly strange considering who our head coach is. Guy Carbonneau was arguably the best defensive forward of his generation and yet our team can't protect a lead? Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigger-1 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I'm not altogether sure youth is solely to blame. There are plenty of young teams that don't have nearly as much trouble protecting a lead as we do. And it's doubly strange considering who our head coach is. Guy Carbonneau was arguably the best defensive forward of his generation and yet our team can't protect a lead? Weird. It doesn't only happen to young teams. It happened last night to the Hurricanes. They were leading 4-1 late in the third and they got scored on twice with something like 2 minutes left. They have about 8 guys on their roster with 10 years NHL experience or more. I think it's psychological. And I tend to think that a younger team is more succeptible to falling prey to this. I guess my point is I doubt a coach wants passive defense (as in letting the other team control the puck and watching them) at any time, let alone late in the game. They might say to not take chances, but that doesn't mean not rushing the puck carrier and making him hurry his play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigger-1 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Don't forget also that the other team in that situation is thinking the exact opposite. Take chances, put three forecheckers in deep and cycle the puck down-low. You have to counter-attack that by at least adjusting your strategy somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames4eva Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Don't forget also that the other team in that situation is thinking the exact opposite. Take chances, put three forecheckers in deep and cycle the puck down-low. You have to counter-attack that by at least adjusting your strategy somewhat.Maybe I misunderstood something... but to me playing a -4 would be like siting back IMO. That said, I think I mentioned somwhere that itr seems Carbo is letting players go on the attack more throughout the game. The mindset of the player in the last few minutes mat be one of thinking they do not want to make a mistake and get caught up ice... so dump in and retreat becomes evident. I still think that this is the coach, though, telling the players to avoid being caught out of position and in the attacking zone other than one player which IMO is a waste unless the other team has a brain-fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.