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

#27 Alex Galchenyuk 2016-17


habs_93

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

But then you leave one of Rad or Patches 'alone'. I still don't think Galchenyuk is 100%. He doesn't seem to be making the moves he was previous to the injury but he is much improved since when he returned.

That's pretty much the long and short of it.  Really what we need is to make a trade for another top-line player, since otherwise we're always going to look a little thin at the top of our lineup.

Regarding Galchenyuk and splitting the talent, maybe the coach sees him as the most likely to be able to carry a line on his own?  I dunno though, and personally I'd still rather see a line with our best three playing together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's looking better. We know he can be better still (much like how he was on fire up until his injury this season). I agree that it's an "all our eggs in 1 basket" issue more than anything else, with a spoonful of "injury recovery / back to form" thrown in on top.

Our top-2 C depth is, well, 1 player deep. That's the bigger problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Woodenhhead said:

Our top-2 C depth is, well, 1 player deep. That's the bigger problem.

I honestly think if you put Galchenyuk back at 1st and put Danault at 2nd we'd be a lot better.   Danault plays a strong two way game and I think would provide enough secondary scoring but this roster needs our #1 guy to be Galchenyuk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if we would be better, Danault plays a pretty good 2 way game I think it lets Patches and Rads be a little more open offensively knowing Danault will get back to cover them. if this line works I am fine leaving it the problem is Chucky needs help on the other line. if we could get a real offensive guy to play left wing and a Gallagher can pick it up a bit it would give us line 1a and line 1b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

I don't know if we would be better, Danault plays a pretty good 2 way game I think it lets Patches and Rads be a little more open offensively knowing Danault will get back to cover them. if this line works I am fine leaving it the problem is Chucky needs help on the other line. if we could get a real offensive guy to play left wing and a Gallagher can pick it up a bit it would give us line 1a and line 1b.

Im assuming this is why Julien has gone back to it.  He is used to having a two way 1st line centre in Bergeron, I just dont know if Danault can ever reach that level. 

I really like Lehkonen but i wonder if there's a better option for that line.  Hudon maybe?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

some of the worst d zone coverage I have ever seen! gives up on his player and can't win faceoffs! I don't think he really wants to be a center! I hope he starts working at it he has all world talent it just may be at wing.

I still think he should be let loose on second line left-wing... if only we had the right center to do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For being 'bad' at face offs he's only a few % off of our other center's (using http://puckbase.com )

Galchenyuk (42.7%)

Danault (50.3%)

Plekanec (50%)

McCarron (43.4%)

Mitchell (54.5%)

And lately there have been several nights where he's been around 75% in the circle.  Not saying he's there yet, but he's not far from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players who have similar or worse faceoff stats than Galchenyuk this season, along with their point totals and even strength corsi for % (Note that Eichel and Galchenyuk missed significant time due to injury, thus the lower point totals): 

Couture: 39.5% (43 points) Corsi: 49.6
Eichel: 40% (40 points) Corsi: 46.8
Malkin: 42.3% (62 points) Corsi: 53.2
Galchenyuk: 42.7% (35 points) Corsi: 51.6
Kuznetsov: 43.3% (51 points) Corsi: 50.95
McDavid: 43.7% (72 points) Corsi: 53.86

The reason these players can have a low faceoff percentage and it not affect their ability to produce or have a significant impact on their possession stats, is because they create more than they concede. They also aren't taking dangerous defensive zone draws on a regular basis, so their lost draws aren't as significant a factor as a 3rd or 4th line center losing faceoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RicochetII said:

Players who have similar or worse faceoff stats than Galchenyuk this season, along with their point totals and even strength corsi for % (Note that Eichel and Galchenyuk missed significant time due to injury, thus the lower point totals): 

Couture: 39.5% (43 points) Corsi: 49.6
Eichel: 40% (40 points) Corsi: 46.8
Malkin: 42.3% (62 points) Corsi: 53.2
Galchenyuk: 42.7% (35 points) Corsi: 51.6
Kuznetsov: 43.3% (51 points) Corsi: 50.95
McDavid: 43.7% (72 points) Corsi: 53.86

The reason these players can have a low faceoff percentage and it not affect their ability to produce or have a significant impact on their possession stats, is because they create more than they concede. They also aren't taking dangerous defensive zone draws on a regular basis, so their lost draws aren't as significant a factor as a 3rd or 4th line center losing faceoffs.

For those who are big on the corsi and possession though you must admit it is much better to start with the puck than to be chasing it. A center good at face offs can help with set plays and most off winning faces offs on the pp can be significant to having control and not having to go re group be cause the other team just cleared the zone. There is a reason Crosby takes most of the important draws over Malkin. The point that they aren't taking dangerous defensive zone draws also means your best players aren't on the ice as much because the have to be sheltered. Toews Bergeron good overall first line centers are best when you can count on them in all situations. At different times in key moments in big games you want the guy who you can count on to do it all. It is an area he needs to improve in and it is an important part of the position of being a center. Coaches like CJ know the value of a two way 200' center. I'm not saying he won't get there but it is a major area he needs to work on. For highly skilled players offense comes naturally but defense you have to work at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptWelly said:

For those who are big on the corsi and possession though you must admit it is much better to start with the puck than to be chasing it. A center good at face offs can help with set plays and most off winning faces offs on the pp can be significant to having control and not having to go re group be cause the other team just cleared the zone. There is a reason Crosby takes most of the important draws over Malkin. The point that they aren't taking dangerous defensive zone draws also means your best players aren't on the ice as much because the have to be sheltered. Toews Bergeron good overall first line centers are best when you can count on them in all situations. At different times in key moments in big games you want the guy who you can count on to do it all. It is an area he needs to improve in and it is an important part of the position of being a center. Coaches like CJ know the value of a two way 200' center. I'm not saying he won't get there but it is a major area he needs to work on. For highly skilled players offense comes naturally but defense you have to work at.

I don't mean to imply that faceoffs aren't important or don't have an impact. It doesn't mean he has to be played on the wing however. He was doing fine as our number 1 center prior to his injury, going back to last season. I heard he was also working on draws with Ott, and if that helps, it may vindicate Ott's acquisition (provided he doesn't end up costing us games). As long as he is producing and continues to work on his faceoffs and defensive game, I don't see why he shouldn't still be our number 1 center. It's not like our offense is doing well with the current configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, habs_93 said:

It's also worth noting that faceoff percentage for individuals and teams doesn't correlate with success.

We just need to make sure that line doesn't ice the puck so Galchenyuk can be replaced for a defensive zone faceoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,,,,,, Chucky goes 8 for 11 in the faceoff circle last night.  What was different? Went back to an earlier taped game and the only thing I could see is Chucky chocking up more on his stick. Did this minor adjustment come as a result of some private lessons from Ott? Coincidently, Ott was our worst faceoff guy last night.  Was there some type of voodoo ceremony performed, transferring some of Ott's prowess in the circle to Alex?? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

So,,,,,, Chucky goes 8 for 11 in the faceoff circle last night.  What was different? Went back to an earlier taped game and the only thing I could see is Chucky chocking up more on his stick. Did this minor adjustment come as a result of some private lessons from Ott? Coincidently, Ott was our worst faceoff guy last night.  Was there some type of voodoo ceremony performed, transferring some of Ott's prowess in the circle to Alex?? :lol:

:4224:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

So,,,,,, Chucky goes 8 for 11 in the faceoff circle last night.  What was different? Went back to an earlier taped game and the only thing I could see is Chucky chocking up more on his stick. Did this minor adjustment come as a result of some private lessons from Ott? Coincidently, Ott was our worst faceoff guy last night.  Was there some type of voodoo ceremony performed, transferring some of Ott's prowess in the circle to Alex?? :lol:

Whatever it takes to end the center/wing debate once and for all. Next we can bring Datsyuk in and transfer some of his "Byng-ness" to Shaw. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
21 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Really wish we still had Eller.   EGG line would be nice right about now.

MB's love for Therrien has really handicapped this team. Had Mt been fired last season, and even some interim coach was hired, Pk would still be here, and so would Eller 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, manquant said:

MB's love for Therrien has really handicapped this team. Had Mt been fired last season, and even some interim coach was hired, Pk would still be here, and so would Eller 

Yup.

I know some people will call me crazy but i actually think the loss of Eller hurts us more than losing PK.  Sure, PK was one of the best players on our team but Weber is no slouch. He's nowhere near as creative but he fills other holes too (for now, in a couple of years we're hooped most likely).  I actually think most of our players play better with Weber because they understand what he's doing more. Pk, was so creative he was hard to read by his teammates even.  

Eller, on the other hand, filled a hole that we have no replacement for. Sure Danault is playing well but Pleks has been bad, DD is traded and now Galchenyuk is apparently a winger.   This is not good.  Shaw is fine (when he isnt going mental) but really filled a hole we didnt have.  Eller would be a very useful player to have on this roster right now.

My hope is that next year we see Galchenyuk back at #1 centre (or maybe before) but for right now we need him out of his funk for sure. 

The best part of the article though is that it starts  "after a long conversation" -  meaning the coach continues to have open lines of communication with his players.  What a concept!!



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Yup.

I know some people will call me crazy but i actually think the loss of Eller hurts us more than losing PK.  Sure, PK was one of the best players on our team but Weber is no slouch. He's nowhere near as creative but he fills other holes too (for now, in a couple of years we're hooped most likely).  I actually think most of our players play better with Weber because they understand what he's doing more. Pk, was so creative he was hard to read by his teammates even.  

Eller, on the other hand, filled a hole that we have no replacement for. Sure Danault is playing well but Pleks has been bad, DD is traded and now Galchenyuk is apparently a winger.   This is not good.  Shaw is fine (when he isnt going mental) but really filled a hole we didnt have.  Eller would be a very useful player to have on this roster right now.

My hope is that next year we see Galchenyuk back at #1 centre (or maybe before) but for right now we need him out of his funk for sure. 

The best part of the article though is that it starts  "after a long conversation" -  meaning the coach continues to have open lines of communication with his players.  What a concept!!

I'll disagree with you on the first point. Subban is by far the bigger loss. He's a top 3 D man in the league IMO, and Weber is a significant drop-off in level of play. Even though Weber himself has been fine, we've had a lot of issues trying to find a partner who can complement him and move the puck. Eller was very underrated by this organization, but he's the more replaceable player. In fact, Danault's progression has really surprised me, and he's more than capable of being an effective 3rd line center. He doesn't have Eller's ability to use his size and shield the puck, but he skates a little bit better. I'm good with either guy being the 3C and stepping up onto the 2nd line for short periods.

The problem wasn't necessarily losing Eller for Danault, it's that the top 2 center spots remain unfilled. DD was never a solution. Plekanec has gone from being a reliable 2C to being an average 3C. So we've been left with almost no options. Even if we talk about Shaw or Mitchell or McCarron as centers, none of them are filling the void in the top 6. And therein lies the conundrum with Galchenyuk. Personally, I think he should stay at center. I don't care if he's only winning 45-48% of draws, because advanced statistics we're getting now are showing that winning draws doesn't play into a player's success all that much. Top players are scoring and putting up good possession numbers despite losing draws, and I think someone posted yesterday that about half the top centers in the NHL are actually sub-50% on draws. So honestly, it doesn't matter that much. Galchenyuk might get better with experience, but even if he doesn't, then he's still so much better then every other option we have at center that it doesn't matter much. The guy has been remarkably productive in his past 100 games or so, a large number of which were played at center.

So what's not working? Well Galchenyuk has had success with Pacioretty and he's had success with Gallagher and he's had success with Radulov, but things aren't working out that well with all three of our top forwards put together. I'd say that suggests less that it's the actual players and moreso that the opposition has been able to focus its defensive efforts on countering that line, primarily because we have inadequate offence from the rest of the line-up. Plekanec has struggled. Gallagher is only just finding himself. Lehkonen is a rookie. Danault has played well but doesn't put up big offensive numbers. Byron is a 20-goal man, but he's not thought of as a big offensive threat. So teams can really throw their top D pairing and top shutdown forwards out against Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Radulov and put a big dent in our offence. I'd say it's akin to teams putting perma-coverage on Subban while we were on the PP the past couple of years. The PP stopped working but it wasn't really because Subban was at fault, it was because the rest of the team couldn't make up for other teams focusing coverage on him. Same thing now. That top trio is being given tough match-ups and it's up to the other trios to do more and pull coverage away from them.

So I'm okay with CJ splitting up those three guys and spreading out the offence. I'm not so enthusiastic about Galchenyuk ending up back on the wing. I think it would have sufficed to do something like Pacioretty-Plekanec-Gallagher and Byron-Galchenyuk-Radulov, for example. I don't like the idea of going Danault-Plekanec-Shaw down the middle, and I don't like the idea of blaming Galchenyuk for the above issues and giving up on him as a center while other teams put up with their young centers being on a learning curve and benefit from it.

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...