Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Would you resign Mike Brown?


kinot-1

  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you resign Mike Brown

    • Yes
      0
    • No
      11
    • With conditions
      1


Recommended Posts

Do you want Mike Brown on this team next year?

Mike Brown is only signed for this year and has a cap hit of 1.2 mil.

Does he serve a purpose on this team?


My thoughts are that he does serve a purpose. IMO, he does provide energy to the 4th line. I've been paying particular attention to him when on the ice, and he does have any problem going to the dirty areas, in the corners and in the paint, as well as hit.

Do we really want player like Beau,,, Pateryn, or McCarron, to do all the fighting? IMO, they are much too valuable to be sitting in the box. None of those previously mentioned will take numbers. Brown knows his role and can take numbers (if not on the ice).

Who do we have that is willing to go toe to toe, when another team takes liberties with our players.


Did anyone go to help Pleks when he had a skirmish with Kane? No

Did anyone go to help Chuck when he was being mugged by 4 Sabres? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone go to help Pleks when he had a skirmish with Kane? No
Did anyone go to help Chuck when he was being mugged by 4 Sabres? No.

My question would be,,,,how did Brown change either of those situations?

MT ends up using him on our 1st line, playing right into the Sabres. How many of us were upset about that?

The short answer. NO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest archey

You know how badly I want Toronto in the West since we have soo many rivalries it's ridiculous. Now add Buffalo to the mix.

I can't believe that we need our goalie skating to the center line everrrrr.

The problem is that if we resign him and Toronto doesn't add some age we get placed in the acute angle of being the original six who gets the bulk of the garbage, so it depends on what Babcock has in input, how he goes and we can expect a free walk for them mostly..

MT will need to put it far more on the line for domination rather than process if we keep him and one has to ask oneself is it time.

I'll vote for keep him if unless we can get a Dman who can make up for Emelin's refusal to engage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a huge NO for me. Who would I rather have in the line-up, Brown or someone like Carr, Hudon, Lessio, Matteau, Danault, McCarron, Scherbak, etc? I'll take a young kid who can help in other ways over a 30+ year-old Maple Leafs cast-off any day. Brown doesn't prevent injuries to star players, just like Parros didn't help and Laraque didn't help and Staubitz didn't help.

If you want Brown to be a mentor to younger guys in the minors, then fine. But he also can't go to St. John's and be played on the 1st two lines ahead of skill players, and I don't trust Lefebvre to use him correctly. So keep him away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well last night just proved it to me. Heck, where was Patches and Andrighetto when Chuck was getting mugged? Where was the other 4 Habs players when Pleks was getting pushed around by Kane? Did they actually think that Chuck and Pleks could take care of themselves? If I were Chuck or Pleks, I would have walked into the room at the end of the 2nd period and said to their "teammates" , "Thanks for coming to my aid,,, I'll remember it when you need help".

As far as Brown being on the 1st line instead of Andrighetto goes, I sure noticed that Chuck had more room in the 3rd period. At least I knew that Patches and Chuck weren't about to get pushed around. Sure, Brown doesn't have the skill that Andrighetto does, but at least Patches and Chuck knew that Brown had their backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Brown being on the 1st line instead of Andrighetto goes, I sure noticed that Chuck had more room in the 3rd period.

Space or not, what Galchenyuk didn't have, and what he will never have when playing with Brown, is any hope of controlling the flow of play. Let's look at scoring chance data from War-on-ice. Throughout his NHL career, Mike Brown has an on-ice 5-on-5 scoring chance for percentage of 44%, which is an abysmally low number. That's certainly influenced by the fact that he was playing limited minutes on fourth lines for the majority of his career, but that's been the case because he can't play hockey. Looking at WOWY (With Or Without You) on Hockey Analysis is also illuminating. Brown has played 27:46 with Corey Perry in his career. Their 5-on-5 on-ice Corsi For was 45.2%. Perry without Brown? 52%. 18:18 with Hertl, 48.6%. Hertl without? 54.8%. 16:01 with Joe Thornton, 43.2%. Thornton without? 55.7%. If he can bring Corey Perry, Tomás Hertl, and Joe Thornton down this much, what do you think is going to happen if he's playing significant minutes with Alex Galchenyuk and Max Pacioretty?

Mike Brown has no place on this team going forward. Even though the goal for the rest of the season is to lose as much as possible, and playing him is an excellent way to lose hockey games, he should be waived as soon as possible so Therrien doesn't get any ideas.

I frankly don't care what other teams want, and even if I did I certainly don't want to give it to them. If opponents believe they can gain a strategic advantage by bending or breaking the rules, so be it. Tailoring our lineup to respond to this trash is tacit complicity with it, and it's a not insigificant part of why we keep losing in the playoffs.

We've seen what happens when Bergevin facilitates Therrien's obsession with bad hockey players. What could possibly make anyone think it would be different this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Therrien said he would play the youngsters. Yet he has Hudon and Scherbak in the minors, McCarron, DLR, Danaut, and Lessio in the bottom 6, and out of all those guys, he chooses Brown to play the first line. If you want a guy to make space for your star, use a guy like McCarron who has skill. Pacman-Galchenyuk-McCarron makes a lot more sense. But Therrien is infatuated with grinders and the less skilled the better. So his statement about going with youngsters was in fact yet another lie from the kindly ole coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space or not, what Galchenyuk didn't have, and what he will never have when playing with Brown, is any hope of controlling the flow of play. Let's look at scoring chance data from War-on-ice. Throughout his NHL career, Mike Brown has an on-ice 5-on-5 scoring chance for percentage of 44%, which is an abysmally low number. That's certainly influenced by the fact that he was playing limited minutes on fourth lines for the majority of his career, but that's been the case because he can't play hockey. Looking at WOWY (With Or Without You) on Hockey Analysis is also illuminating. Brown has played 27:46 with Corey Perry in his career. Their 5-on-5 on-ice Corsi For was 45.2%. Perry without Brown? 52%. 18:18 with Hertl, 48.6%. Hertl without? 54.8%. 16:01 with Joe Thornton, 43.2%. Thornton without? 55.7%. If he can bring Corey Perry, Tomás Hertl, and Joe Thornton down this much, what do you think is going to happen if he's playing significant minutes with Alex Galchenyuk and Max Pacioretty?

Mike Brown has no place on this team going forward. Even though the goal for the rest of the season is to lose as much as possible, and playing him is an excellent way to lose hockey games, he should be waived as soon as possible so Therrien doesn't get any ideas.

I frankly don't care what other teams want, and even if I did I certainly don't want to give it to them. If opponents believe they can gain a strategic advantage by bending or breaking the rules, so be it. Tailoring our lineup to respond to this trash is tacit complicity with it, and it's a not insigificant part of why we keep losing in the playoffs.

We've seen what happens when Bergevin facilitates Therrien's obsession with bad hockey players. What could possibly make anyone think it would be different this time?

Thanks 93. I don't mind being wrong, but I always like to know exactly why I'm wrong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO....

Brown is not a "fighter" (just a larger guy, with a hard head)... he is like Parros lite (& Parros couldn't fight either)

Not many "fights" happen anymore.. its mostly wwe/dancing now (when was the last good "fight"/ blood included you saw ?)

If we need a 100% body guard for Chucky , we should just train John Scott to play a bit better "hockey"....(Scott CAN "fight"...& WOULD stop the "Kane"klowns" of the NHL just by being on the bench)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best defence against having another team push you around is a good PP.

This. Fix the PP = dont need a goon.

If we absolutely, positively, need an "energy guy" then try to resign Dale Weise - at least he can chip in 20 - 30 points a year (although I think his cost will be too high). Brown has zero upside imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO....

Brown is not a "fighter" (just a larger guy, with a hard head)... he is like Parros lite (& Parros couldn't fight either)

Not many "fights" happen anymore.. its mostly wwe/dancing now (when was the last good "fight"/ blood included you saw ?)

If we need a 100% body guard for Chucky , we should just train John Scott to play a bit better "hockey"....(Scott CAN "fight"...& WOULD stop the "Kane"klowns" of the NHL just by being on the bench)

just by being on the bench will not work as past experience tells us... but the concept of having a protector that can also play a role on the same line could work (think Gretzky-Semenko/McSorley).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just by being on the bench will not work as past experience tells us... but the concept of having a protector that can also play a role on the same line could work (think Gretzky-Semenko/McSorley).

I think it would with Scott....

all the other "fighters" are pretty equal in the "possible damage" they could do (which is usually none) Scott on the other hand ?

not even other teams "enforcers/fighters" want to go with Scott ....(Scott=a beating.... not a hugfest with 2 "maybe" punches)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semenko was thirty years ago. The league is completely different now, and none of that stuff matters anymore. If the first line is assembled with anything except optimal production in mind, it will fail, and we'll have yet another season like this if our goaltending can't steal games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semenko was thirty years ago. The league is completely different now, and none of that stuff matters anymore. If the first line is assembled with anything except optimal production in mind, it will fail, and we'll have yet another season like this if our goaltending can't steal games.

The difference in the league may have nothing to do with whether or not having a protector (that can play the game) playing on the same line as a star forward would indeed result in protection for the star player. Which is what I was trying to indicate could be possible. That said, until it is tried as such how can we know whether or not that line could be successful. I'm not advocating playing a goon that can not really play at the appropriate level (perhaps John Scott would not be the right choice, but another might). As an example... a Lucic type might be preferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, until it is tried as such how can we know whether or not that line could be successful. I'm not advocating playing a goon that can not really play at the appropriate level (perhaps John Scott would not be the right choice, but another might). As an example... a Lucic type might be preferable.

The following hits on Bruins players occured while Milan Lucic was playing for them:

Whatever "intimidation" Lucic provides apparently wasn't enough to protect Loui Eriksson and Marc Savard. What makes you think anyone we can sign is going to work where Lucic failed so obviously miserably? This has been tried, over and over. And it's failed, over and over. If we intentionally worsen our top six to make room for inferior players who exist on those lines purely to "send a message", we'll be sending a message, alright: This is a bad hockey team managed and coached by easily manipulated people who don't understand what year it is, please take advantage of it at every opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at tonight. Mike Brown was, as usual, not a factor in the offensive game nor a go-to guy defensively. He got in a fight with Chris Neil, which he lost and which just seemed to add to Ottawa's momentum. And while Phaneuf banged around Andirghetto and others, Brown was nowhere to be seen to respond to his teammates being pushed about. So what exactly did his presence in the line-up help with and what is it that he did that couldn't be done by Hudon or Carr or Scherbak or McCarron?

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...