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

Newer, Tougher Habs


kinot-1

Recommended Posts

Ya know what,,,, I, for one, am sick and tired of our Habs being beaten-up. I would prefer not to have any fighting in the game, but it comes with the territory. We all remember the Patches incident, the debacle in Bos., as well as the last PO. game in Montreal against Ott., during last years POs. I also believe that MB has addressed this problem.

For too many years our Habs have taken a beating at the hands of the opposing team. We have been manhandled,,,, beaten-up, and lost far too many games because of this inequity. In the last 10-15 years, the Habs have had only a few middle-weights, to counter the opposing teams heavy-weights (does not include BGL :angry: ).

This year is different. We now have Parros and Murray (heavyweights :D ),,,Prust (middleweight :) ),,,and White, (lightweight :) ) to take care of things.

I don't want to see an opposing player getting a talking to regarding an infraction, I want to see a beatdown.

I, and many of you can remember the Broad St. Bullies of the 70's and how the Habs took them down. We beat them at their own game,,,,, fighting, and ended their 2 Cup parades, and began our 4 cup parades.

This year is going to be different,,, very different from the last 10-15 years. We're not going to be pushed around anymore.


< steps down from soap-box >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murray was a great addition i see the habs finishing top 5 in the East, The team is bigger but still has lots of skill, we've improved from last season on paper and when emelin is back the habs can put a hard hitting defensemen on each pairing which will be great. I wouldn't be surprised if MB made a semi blockbuster trade at the deadline to bring in a player in the age group of 23-26 to compliment our future with a leader who will be 27-30 when guys like Mike Maccaron, de la rose, collberg.. tinordi etc are impact guys. A decent sized right winger would be perfect, a goal scorer would be ideal someone like Dustin Brown is who i'm thinking of.. maybe a trade like this.

to L.A
Pleky
White
Diaz
Collberg
2014 3rd rounder
To Mtl
Brown
Nolan
Voynov
2015 3rd rounder

It's an improvement for us at every position but not a horrible deal for L.A either, they need some speed amongst there forwards, pleky will help that now and Mike Richards and Pleky would be an amazing one two punch on the PK. Collberg is thrown in so the trade is done without the kings feelings burned.. big price butit would help so much, Voynov allows MB to let Markov walk this summer and Nolan is a 25 pound upgrade over white. Brown will do more then fill in what Cole took with him and will also make life difficult for our opponents with his forechcking and aggressiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know what,,,, I, for one, am sick and tired of our Habs being beaten-up. I would prefer not to have any fighting in the game, but it comes with the territory. We all remember the Patches incident, the debacle in Bos., as well as the last PO. game in Montreal against Ott., during last years POs. I also believe that MB has addressed this problem.

For too many years our Habs have taken a beating at the hands of the opposing team. We have been manhandled,,,, beaten-up, and lost far too many games because of this inequity. In the last 10-15 years, the Habs have had only a few middle-weights, to counter the opposing teams heavy-weights (does not include BGL :angry: ).

This year is different. We now have Parros and Murray (heavyweights :D ),,,Prust (middleweight :) ),,,and White, (lightweight :) ) to take care of things.

I don't want to see an opposing player getting a talking to regarding an infraction, I want to see a beatdown.

I, and many of you can remember the Broad St. Bullies of the 70's and how the Habs took them down. We beat them at their own game,,,,, fighting, and ended their 2 Cup parades, and began our 4 cup parades.

This year is going to be different,,, very different from the last 10-15 years. We're not going to be pushed around anymore.


< steps down from soap-box >


Wow. love it, when is the next episode :oB)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I like that size is starting to be spread around our lines. Top 6 is still small if MT plans on putting RB in a checking role (3rd line), but RB can play either a top 6 role or bottom 6 role.

I still wouldn't go toe to toe in a full out slug fest against the leafs or b's, but nice to know we can hold our own if need be. And we didn't really sacrifice speed to do so. Granted parros isn't a speed skater, but his 4-6 minutes a game shouldn't change the dynamics of the habs. Same for Murray, back when we had Gill we were considered a speedy team, despite having one of the slowest moving dmen in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murray was a great addition i see the habs finishing top 5 in the East, The team is bigger but still has lots of skill, we've improved from last season on paper

Really? I don't see us as having improved on paper at all unless you're including collective improvement from our younger players (and to be fair you have to assume our older guys will decline too). Briere is a downgrade on Ryder, Parros is an "on paper" (as in at anything besides fighting) downgrade on Armstrong, Murray is a bottom pairing guy at this point and doesn't provide a ton of value any more (which is why we got him for 1.5M in late August).

I see us as having taken a step backward on paper personally. I still think the rest of the team is good enough to be quite good even with some moves that I perceive as downgrades (although I'm really not thrilled about replacing Ryder with Briere), but I do think that the moves we made this summer were on paper downgrades. They aren't anything major, Parros over Armstrong on the 4th line isn't going to change much over a season, and Murray is at worst no worse than Drewiske or whoever else would be in his spot. Ryder to Briere is a noticable downgrade though IMO, especially with Gionta's production being likely to decline and I'm skeptical of Gallagher matching his production from last season.

I'm still excited for the season and I think we'll still be a good team, but the moves we made this summer were IMO largely lateral or downgrades. We may still see improvement from guys like Eller, Gallagher, Tinordi, or Beaulieu that make a difference, but the counterpoint would be that Markov and Gionta are likely to decline. Just don't really see us as any better than last year. Of course, I'm entirely talking about on paper and there's a real possibility that Galchenyuk and Eller both significantly improve and none of the older guys face a steep decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see us as having taken a step backward on paper personally.

On paper, you're probably right. I think this team has the potential to be better and of course "on paper" doesnt necessarily translate into whats a better "fit" for the team. For example, one could easily argue that Crosby and Malkin are the two best centres in the NHL, so on paper they are a better team with them but would they be better on ice if Malkin was flipped for an elite goalie and a top pairing dman to play alongside Letang? I think they might. But I digress...

I personally like the addition of size in a couple of key areas although I hope that doesnt come at the expense of youth (ie if Tinordi was potentially ready for top 4 minutes, will be now be relegated to #7 dman with the acquisition of Murray?) but ultimately a lot of that comes down to the coach. Provided that the right players get the right ice time (ie if we're healthy and players are playing as they should, Frank The Tank should probably spend a lot of nights in the pressbox) then i am fine with all of the moves we've made.

Time will tell but the biggest difference this year will come in the form of Price playing up to his potential and guys like the Gallys, Eller, Tinordi etc improving with experience. I have faith this can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I don't see us as having improved on paper at all unless you're including collective improvement from our younger players (and to be fair you have to assume our older guys will decline too). Briere is a downgrade on Ryder, Parros is an "on paper" (as in at anything besides fighting) downgrade on Armstrong, Murray is a bottom pairing guy at this point and doesn't provide a ton of value any more (which is why we got him for 1.5M in late August).

I see us as having taken a step backward on paper personally. I still think the rest of the team is good enough to be quite good even with some moves that I perceive as downgrades (although I'm really not thrilled about replacing Ryder with Briere), but I do think that the moves we made this summer were on paper downgrades. They aren't anything major, Parros over Armstrong on the 4th line isn't going to change much over a season, and Murray is at worst no worse than Drewiske or whoever else would be in his spot. Ryder to Briere is a noticable downgrade though IMO, especially with Gionta's production being likely to decline and I'm skeptical of Gallagher matching his production from last season.

I'm still excited for the season and I think we'll still be a good team, but the moves we made this summer were IMO largely lateral or downgrades. We may still see improvement from guys like Eller, Gallagher, Tinordi, or Beaulieu that make a difference, but the counterpoint would be that Markov and Gionta are likely to decline. Just don't really see us as any better than last year. Of course, I'm entirely talking about on paper and there's a real possibility that Galchenyuk and Eller both significantly improve and none of the older guys face a steep decline.

i agree that "on paper" we have taken a step back, but the real world isn't so black and white. I don't know if briere is a step back from Ryder, I'd say a step sideways. While Ryder is clearly a better goal scorer, briere is a better hockey player. Ryder is so one dimensional that when he's not scoring, he becomes invisible. This where briere actually has an edge over Ryder (I'm not thrilled about picking him up, but it is what it is...), briere isn't physical, but has a much better defensive game than Ryder and while he'll probably play the wing, he can also slide into the centre position if need be.

As Jed already pointed out, being better "on paper" doesn't necesarily mean better on the ice. You can have 3 of the best snipers on your team and on one line. Let's say you have stamkos at centre (fantasy team) and 2 elite snipers on his wing (Kessel and Ovy), on paper it looks like a killer line, but without a setup man, you won't be getting the best out of these players. Don't get me wrong, they will score, but probably not up to their potential without a set up guy.

MB went out and made us tougher, which has always been an issue when facing bigger, physical teams. Now, the leafs on paper aren't even close to matching the habs on a skill level, yet they embarrassed use several times this past season. How is this possible, on paper we're clearly more skilled, but TO blew us out twice this past season and essentially won the season series?

It's beacuse one of our weak spots has always been size and lack of physical players, which the leafs being bigger and more physical, exploited our small stature and lack of physical play.

I don't care if we're less impressive "on paper" compared to last year, as long as the product on the ice is good.

MB had no choice to bulk up the roster, especially when teams in their division (who we play a lot over the course of a season) are big physical teams, who use their physical edge to win games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is basically what I meant. We can agree or disagree on whether we think that Parros, Briere, and Murray give an "off paper" upgrade over Armstrong, Ryder, and a different miscellaneous D-man/Tinordi. Personally I believe it's at best a marginal upgrade and at worst a slight downgrade, they aren't moves that will make or break a season. I just don't look at any of the moves we've made this summer and think that we've improved because of them. It's not that I'm really unhappy with any of our moves, just that I'm not enthused about any of the moves in particular. It'll come down to coaching I guess, if Parros has his minutes managed and we don't play Murray like it's 2009-10, it won't be a problem.

I can get the toughness angle, and I understand why there's a desire to bulk up in light of the Ottawa series and some of the games vs. Toronto, but the flip side of that is that even in recent years we tend to do well against the Bruins. We won the season series this year against Boston despite a hilariously pronounced size mismatch, and aside from a drubbing in the 2009 playoffs which really had nothing to do with physicality, we've been competitive with them in the playoffs despite being the worse team on paper and significantly less physical/tough. I'm not against adding toughness, and I'm glad that we added it through minor trades and cheap UFA's rather than dealing Plekanec for some third line plug or something.

I guess I just don't see us as having significantly improved going in to this year. Galchenyuk and Gallagher may take a step forward, but Markov and Gionta will assuredly take a step back.

Wow you are really not a Briere fan. i don't see him as a downgrade to ryder who i like, but i think Briere is a much more complete player. is it an upgrade? hard to say but i think we will see over the course of the year that is not a downgrade.

I'm not a Briere hater, but at this point it's pretty hard to see Briere being better going forward than Ryder. Ryder had more goals last year than Briere had points, of course we can expect better than last season from Briere but I don't think he'll be better than Ryder. Sure he's a more complete player, but we aren't really lacking complete two way forwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On paper, I think we're a very similar team to what we were last year. I think Briere vs. Ryder is basically a wash, with pros and cons to each guy. Murray may help a bit, but I don't expect miracles out of him. And I see very little value in adding Parros. The bottom line for me is that the core of the team hasn't changed very much, and the Habs will only do as well as players like Price, Subban, Markov, Gorges, Plekanec, Galchenyuk, Eller, Desharnais, Pacman, Gallagher, etc. play. At the end of the day, the guys getting the big minutes are the same as they were last year and it's their performance, not that of Parros or Armstrong or Bouillon or Tinordi, that will dictate how our season goes. The progression of players like Eller and the Gally's will be a far more important factor in how we do, and styaing away from key injuries will also be paramount. If we lose Subban or Price for any prolonged period of time, that could be the season right there. We can talk all we want about how the Habs have added size and toughness, but the size we've added is in the form of guys who won't play a very high percentage of minutes allotted, so I don't see our style of play changing all that much from last year. Tinordi's really the one guy who could change that because he's potentially a guy who could be playing top 4 minutes within a year or two if given the chance and who brings immediate size to the back end. With Murray on board, we'll be hard-pressed to see Tinordi get quality ice time with the big club and that may push him back down to Hamilton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is basically what I meant. We can agree or disagree on whether we think that Parros, Briere, and Murray give an "off paper" upgrade over Armstrong, Ryder, and a different miscellaneous D-man/Tinordi. Personally I believe it's at best a marginal upgrade and at worst a slight downgrade, they aren't moves that will make or break a season. I just don't look at any of the moves we've made this summer and think that we've improved because of them. It's not that I'm really unhappy with any of our moves, just that I'm not enthused about any of the moves in particular. It'll come down to coaching I guess, if Parros has his minutes managed and we don't play Murray like it's 2009-10, it won't be a problem.

I can get the toughness angle, and I understand why there's a desire to bulk up in light of the Ottawa series and some of the games vs. Toronto, but the flip side of that is that even in recent years we tend to do well against the Bruins. We won the season series this year against Boston despite a hilariously pronounced size mismatch, and aside from a drubbing in the 2009 playoffs which really had nothing to do with physicality, we've been competitive with them in the playoffs despite being the worse team on paper and significantly less physical/tough. I'm not against adding toughness, and I'm glad that we added it through minor trades and cheap UFA's rather than dealing Plekanec for some third line plug or something.

I guess I just don't see us as having significantly improved going in to this year. Galchenyuk and Gallagher may take a step forward, but Markov and Gionta will assuredly take a step back.

I'm not a Briere hater, but at this point it's pretty hard to see Briere being better going forward than Ryder. Ryder had more goals last year than Briere had points, of course we can expect better than last season from Briere but I don't think he'll be better than Ryder. Sure he's a more complete player, but we aren't really lacking complete two way forwards.

It is interesting to note that despite our lack of size and the b's physical game, we have no problems beating them, but have problems with the less skilled leafs. i think it comes down to speed, b's are a slow, defensive team, when we use our speed, we've proven we can score and we had rask's number last season. Yet the leafs, who are more physical, but do have speed (Kessel, Kadri, etc...), make it tougher on us than the b's. The leafs can beat us (hands down) physically, but unlike the b's, can keep up to us with their speed up front.

Agreed, we don't really need another 2-way player, but it's nice to know that if briere isn't scoring (or setting up), he's at least helping on the forecheck/backcheck, something that Ryder never did (he would find open ice and sit there waiting for a pass). Plus, having Ryder here last season and seeing how he disappeared near the end, reminded me of why we let him go the first time around. Sure he'll at the very least give you 20 goals/season, but if he hits a slump, he brings nothing else(and has always over-valued himself come contract time). We need guys who can contribute in all 3 zones, nice to have a guy who can pull the trigger, but if the play comes back the other way, you want to know he's also contributing in his own end as well and not a liability). That's something we're going to get from briere, that we never got from Ryder. Plus as mentioned before, he can take FO's (decent) and play down the middle if need be.

I'm like you, not thrilled with the briere pick up, but it is what it is and he still has enough in the tank to contribute.

And also, we don't know until the season starts, who'll make the biggest impact. before last season started many people complained about the prust signing, but once the season ended, no one complained about him. He earned every penny and then some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryder took 3.5 mil per year for two years on the open market. I wouldn't call that over-valuing himself. And he did it on the first day, so it's not like he took it because nobody offered more.

Then he's finally starting to learn that teams don't want to pay a one dimensional player the big bucks. But that was one of the reasons for his departure the first time from Montreal. Granted he scored 85 goals his first 3 seasons with us(25 his first and 30 goals/season the following years), but as aforementioned, he doesn't bring anything else. So to pay a guy who sits on his butt and shows up every other game with a goal or 2 is not worth 5 mil/season.

Ryder has been around the league, there must be a reason why teams are so willing to let him go, despite a guaranteed 20 goals on the season(give or take 1 or 2 goals). He sulked his last season here (wasn't happy with his ice time) and only managed 14 goals and 17 assists (31 points), yet he thought he deserved more money.

i don't have anything but speculation to back this up, but get the feeling he isn't the greatest locker room guy. Like a lot of snipers, he tends to be moody, it's one thing if you have a moody 50 goal scorer in the locker room, it's another when he's at best a 20-30 goal scorer and goes from 30 goals one season, to 14 the next because he wasn't happy with his new role.

With age comes wisdom, Ryder is finally realizing he isn't getting any younger and also realizes that some of his previous issues are starting to make the rounds. Every team he's ever played for, has either let him walk or traded him mid-season despite having respectable stats. Other GM's take notes on these things... When happy he'll score goals, but when unhappy, has shown he has a tendency to sulk and may not be the best locker room guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On paper, I think we're a very similar team to what we were last year. I think Briere vs. Ryder is basically a wash, with pros and cons to each guy. Murray may help a bit, but I don't expect miracles out of him. And I see very little value in adding Parros. The bottom line for me is that the core of the team hasn't changed very much, and the Habs will only do as well as players like Price, Subban, Markov, Gorges, Plekanec, Galchenyuk, Eller, Desharnais, Pacman, Gallagher, etc. play. At the end of the day, the guys getting the big minutes are the same as they were last year and it's their performance, not that of Parros or Armstrong or Bouillon or Tinordi, that will dictate how our season goes. The progression of players like Eller and the Gally's will be a far more important factor in how we do, and styaing away from key injuries will also be paramount. If we lose Subban or Price for any prolonged period of time, that could be the season right there. We can talk all we want about how the Habs have added size and toughness, but the size we've added is in the form of guys who won't play a very high percentage of minutes allotted, so I don't see our style of play changing all that much from last year. Tinordi's really the one guy who could change that because he's potentially a guy who could be playing top 4 minutes within a year or two if given the chance and who brings immediate size to the back end. With Murray on board, we'll be hard-pressed to see Tinordi get quality ice time with the big club and that may push him back down to Hamilton.

Yeah, of course. That's mostly what I meant in that I see those guys being largely inconsequential. It's nice to be able to go goon for goon with the best of em, as Parros and Murray are as tough as you'll get anywhere. Just don't see us as much different than last year.

It is interesting to note that despite our lack of size and the b's physical game, we have no problems beating them, but have problems with the less skilled leafs. i think it comes down to speed, b's are a slow, defensive team, when we use our speed, we've proven we can score and we had rask's number last season. Yet the leafs, who are more physical, but do have speed (Kessel, Kadri, etc...), make it tougher on us than the b's. The leafs can beat us (hands down) physically, but unlike the b's, can keep up to us with their speed up front.

Agreed, we don't really need another 2-way player, but it's nice to know that if briere isn't scoring (or setting up), he's at least helping on the forecheck/backcheck, something that Ryder never did (he would find open ice and sit there waiting for a pass). Plus, having Ryder here last season and seeing how he disappeared near the end, reminded me of why we let him go the first time around. Sure he'll at the very least give you 20 goals/season, but if he hits a slump, he brings nothing else(and has always over-valued himself come contract time). We need guys who can contribute in all 3 zones, nice to have a guy who can pull the trigger, but if the play comes back the other way, you want to know he's also contributing in his own end as well and not a liability). That's something we're going to get from briere, that we never got from Ryder. Plus as mentioned before, he can take FO's (decent) and play down the middle if need be.

I'm like you, not thrilled with the briere pick up, but it is what it is and he still has enough in the tank to contribute.

And also, we don't know until the season starts, who'll make the biggest impact. before last season started many people complained about the prust signing, but once the season ended, no one complained about him. He earned every penny and then some.

I'm overall not too concerned about the Leafs tbh. We lost a couple rough games against them but we also beat them once pretty convincingly and the other game was the very first of the year which is hard to draw conclusions from. I get what you're saying though, the Leafs definitely have more speed and I think that's a part of how we have trouble playing a skill game against them. The other bit is the first game that became a total gong show got out of hand after Price let in some uncharacteristically bad goals that I don't think we can reasonably expect to keep happening going forward.

As for Briere vs. Ryder, I guess I just see that we already do have a good group of responsible two way guys on our team. Plekanec's line does the lion's share of the tough matchups, and a guy like Ryder is going to be missed on the PP as a weapon. Without a big step forward from Galchenyuk we don't have a proper sniper to put on the PP, Pacioretty is a great scorer but he's more of a finesse player than a pure shooter. To lose that weapon on the PP is a bit disappointing. I agree with BigTed though, Parros, Murray, and Briere aren't going to decide the season for us, and our core players are the same going in to this year than last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryder took 3.5 mil per year for two years on the open market. I wouldn't call that over-valuing himself. And he did it on the first day, so it's not like he took it because nobody offered more.

He may have taken it because he knew the chances of him getting more elsewhere weren't going to come

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I agree with BigTed though, Parros, Murray, and Briere aren't going to decide the season for us, and our core players are the same going in to this year than last.

I'm not in total disagreement with either you or Ted, but a diffrent logic may come into play regarding what the core group of the team is with the addition of toughness that both Parros and Murray may represent. If they do perform well they may play more. They may even be there to elevate the game of others with their respective presence beside other players. I have to think that a player like Diaz, for example, will be better served playing with Murray than he may be with Bouillon mainly because of his physical presence. We all think of a player like Parros being nothing more than a 4th line role player with limited minutes... but he may. at times, be of service playing along side of other talented players who need the physical presence to free them up and feel protected.

I'm of the opinion that a player like Prust playing with Plekanec may be more important than Gionta (at this stage in his career) for example. The same may apply with how Murray and Parros are utilized.

For sure long-term they will not be an integral part of the core, but on the short-term it could be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I'd say the difference with Prust and these guys is that Prust isn't a liability in a top 9 role these days. Prust can play on Plekanec's wing and contribute, because he provides more than just toughness and is a good player overall. Parros and Murray at this point pretty well just provide value with their fists and shoulders and shouldn't be taking bigger shifts regularly with our better players. I don't mind the idea of Prust playing with Pleks in the short term or even over a decent length of the season. Parros is another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at best (and for the most part at worst) the offseason moves were lateral. I don't think we made moves that improve the roster, but I was pretty content with standing pat vs. committing big money long term to anyone, so I'm not particulary upset or dissapointed.

Ryder vs Briere aren't direct comparables, but I wouldn't rank one very far ahead of the other. We replaced a one dimensional streaky scorer for a more talented but older scorer with injury issues.

Armstrong is a better hockey player than Parros, but realistically if we have 3 of Prust, Moen, White and Dumont to choose from for the 4th line, I don't really think the line-up is worse without Colby on the roster. I do think we should have brought Halpern back though.

We haven't lost any defensemen, so I don't feel compelled to rank Murray as an upgrade or downgrade vs anyone. He's a clear down grade on Emelin who we're probably hoping he can replace temporarily, but oboviously Emelin's absense isn't the result of a management decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I'd say the difference with Prust and these guys is that Prust isn't a liability in a top 9 role these days. Prust can play on Plekanec's wing and contribute, because he provides more than just toughness and is a good player overall. Parros and Murray at this point pretty well just provide value with their fists and shoulders and shouldn't be taking bigger shifts regularly with our better players. I don't mind the idea of Prust playing with Pleks in the short term or even over a decent length of the season. Parros is another story.

Parros, no question. Murray on the other hand...

I didnt see a lot of him last season but caught enough the previous two to say Id be surprised if he was a "liability" playing in our top 4. He is a lot more than just "fists and shoulders" as you said. His biggest weakness is his foot speed (which is getting slower) but he doesnt lack hockey sense and as such is generally quite good, positionally.

As long as he's not overextending himself (ie playing too many minutes with a partner who requires extra defensive help) then he should be fine. I actually think that he and PK would probably gel quite well but we'll see what MT decides. In many ways, Murray is a (bigger) version of Lyle Odelien-type player and I think many of us were pining for that last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parros, no question. Murray on the other hand...

I didnt see a lot of him last season but caught enough the previous two to say Id be surprised if he was a "liability" playing in our top 4. He is a lot more than just "fists and shoulders" as you said. His biggest weakness is his foot speed (which is getting slower) but he doesnt lack hockey sense and as such is generally quite good, positionally.

As long as he's not overextending himself (ie playing too many minutes with a partner who requires extra defensive help) then he should be fine. I actually think that he and PK would probably gel quite well but we'll see what MT decides. In many ways, Murray is a (bigger) version of Lyle Odelien-type player and I think many of us were pining for that last year.

Remember, we had Gill paired with PK for a while too. No way Murray is slower than Gill, and playing with Hal seemed to be exactly what PK needed. Now, I doubt Murray can play the minutes that PK will be playing, but you're right, he may be a better partner for PK than some of us think. I'd at least try it during training camp/ preseason and see how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parros, no question. Murray on the other hand...

I didnt see a lot of him last season but caught enough the previous two to say Id be surprised if he was a "liability" playing in our top 4. He is a lot more than just "fists and shoulders" as you said. His biggest weakness is his foot speed (which is getting slower) but he doesnt lack hockey sense and as such is generally quite good, positionally.

As long as he's not overextending himself (ie playing too many minutes with a partner who requires extra defensive help) then he should be fine. I actually think that he and PK would probably gel quite well but we'll see what MT decides. In many ways, Murray is a (bigger) version of Lyle Odelien-type player and I think many of us were pining for that last year.

By just about any meaningful metric you can find, Murray is not a top four defenseman and not a particular great bottom pairing defenseman. Having said that, I'm actually not necessarily opposed to him playing with Subban until Emelin comes back. Subban has the talent to carry that pairing and hopefully let Murray play within himself and focus on what he does well (use his reach and clear the net). It may be the solution that gives us the greatest overall balance for our defense core (ie: avoiding a pairing we're afraid to play).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i suggested in the "Hab Lines" thread, I'd pair Murray with Subban (the thought of pairing him with marky scares me). Since PK will probably log huge minutes and the fact Murray is not a top4 guy (and slowing with age), I'd rotate Gorges and Murray to counter the huge minutes i expect PK to play this season. Trying to keep up with Subban and also playing on the PK unit, I don't think Murray is equiped to play huge minutes, which is why I'd rotate between him and gorges. It leaves PK with a fresh partner so he can do his majic in the ozone (without worrying about his partner being gassed due to icetime).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i suggested in the "Hab Lines" thread, I'd pair Murray with Subban (the thought of pairing him with marky scares me). Since PK will probably log huge minutes and the fact Murray is not a top4 guy (and slowing with age), I'd rotate Gorges and Murray to counter the huge minutes i expect PK to play this season. Trying to keep up with Subban and also playing on the PK unit, I don't think Murray is equiped to play huge minutes, which is why I'd rotate between him and gorges. It leaves PK with a fresh partner so he can do his majic in the ozone (without worrying about his partner being gassed due to icetime).

Ya know, FS, that when Gorges came over, I figured he would be a bottom 6 guy, but I was wrong. I just have that hunch that Murray, is more than what he has displayed. I just have this feeling that Murray will excel at ES and on the PK., to the extent that he "could" play 16-20 mins., excluding the PP. IMO, he could be the "shut-down" guy that we have missed since Gill left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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