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

2020-21 State Of The Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have games in hand but only three more wins than the Sens. All those 3-on-3 OT/shootout losses won't be a factor in the playoffs, so there's that, but to me it still looks like we're a middling team that has no business competing with the real powerhouses in the league. Scoring depth was supposed to be our strength, but there are just too many passengers right now. We're 30 games into the season and guys like Tatar or Kotkaniemi are still hovering around the 5-goal mark. Then there are guys like Drouin, Danault, Byron, or Lehkonen with 2 goals on the season, which just isn't going to cut it. I'm not saying they're all playing terrible, that's absolutely not the case, but the results just aren't there no matter how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree! There is no consistancy and you never know which team is going to show up on the ice each game? They are good for 20 min each game and then they go back into their old habits. Defence right now is a major issue and the costly mistakes made along with the bad breakout passes are killing us. Too many passengers on the bench right now. At the beginning of the season everyone was talking about the depth on this team and praising MB for the great acquisitions over the summer. This depth requires focus and effort by all on the bench. Tatar, Byron, Danault, Lekonen, Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Evans, Drouin are not producing. They skate miles every game but are not really in the mix. The OT is a disaster. Eight straight losses in OT. Even winning four of those would put us in second right now. Putting Danault on first to win a faceoff is poor coaching. Who the hell cares about winning the faceoff it is the game we are trying to win! Two games in a row the same start and the same finish. I would like to see the stats on winning the intial faceoff vs winning the OT. Also every game the lineups change? How the hell do you create any harmony or confidence? It is not like DD is new to this team. By now he should have a pretty good feel for who should be playing together for the best opportunity to win?

DD will not be the coach next season. He is not a motivator and does not have the perspective of the game needed to make this team a constant threat. His record since taking over is not impressive. The special teams have definitly improved but the overall play on the ice is a roller coaster. Just listening to his interviews tells you that he is unsure of himself and not very confident in his responses. We have been subject to a middle of the pack team now for the last five years and although the talent is there they night after night give us lackluster perfomances on the ice. Allen played another solid performance last night only to lose. Watch the replays of the goals against and stop the action if possible. Take a look at the position of our defence. Look at how the scorring opportunity was developed. Poor clearing pass and bad postioning.

Molson has to drop this French speaking requirement for coaches. The last coach we had that had any success under this requirement was Scotty Bowman. Since then we have had poor choices. We need a Paul Maurice, Jon Cooper or Barry Trotz behind our bench.  Well tonight is another opportunity for this team to show their value to the franchise. Every game in this shortened season is pivotable but with Make me Laughs tumbling and the point spread decreasing, tonight and the three game set against Edmonton this week coming will play a major role in the just where the Habs will end up.  These guys are being paid to do a job for this company and are currently underperfoming. Anywhere else in the workplace there would be consequences. This should be the same. However at this point and the Covid restrictions you have to dance with the person you brought to the party unfortunately. On the positive side it looks like the great (according to the press) Toronto team is on a major slide as well. Playing a hurting goalie every night and the Matthews line every second shift is not paying off. Keefe coached her in the Sault and he coached the Greyhounds the same way. We are not alone in our struggles!

Six pack did not work last night. Heading to beer store for 24 to help get through tonight's game. 

:6351:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know what to say about our D. It's not good. Jeff Petry appears to be the only consistent, meaningful member of the entire D core. He's clearly been one of our best players all season long. It's a shame that no one else back there seems capable of anchoring a second pairing that can drive play in a positive direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every team has issues, this season more than any other, things will be crazy.

Yes we have holes on dee, and yes we are young up the middle, I myself thought they would be better this year in both those areas

We have 3 wingers on pace for 30 plus goals over an 82 game schedule. 50 35 and 30.

We have a deeman, on pace for 30 goals over an 82 game schedule. Possible norris on the horizon.

We have the best one two punch between the pipes, now that Price is finding his game.

Top 7 Goals scored, Top 3 in goals against 5 on 5, Top 8 goals for 5 on 5.

 

What I cannot understand is why you would not put out your best offensive players in OT. 

You don't have to be the fastest, you have to be offensively creative and or a player with a goal scoring mindset.

The first two groups should be Automatic every overtime, to start.. If Petry and Romanov can double shift fill you boots. 

1. Anderson, Suzuki, Petry. 

2. Toffoli, KK, Romanov

3. Gallagher, Tatar , Petry again

4. Anderson, Suzuki, Kulak

5. Toffoli, KK, Romanov

6. Gallagher, Tatar, Petry 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I don't even know what to say about our D. It's not good. Jeff Petry appears to be the only consistent, meaningful member of the entire D core. He's clearly been one of our best players all season long. It's a shame that no one else back there seems capable of anchoring a second pairing that can drive play in a positive direction.

This is our D corps:

- Petry is a #1 D man, but he's also on the wrong side of 30 and I don't know that we can lean on him for minutes the way other teams lean on their 25-year old #1's for 23-28 minutes a night. There has to be more behind him so as not to wear him down.

- Kulak is a decent defenceman, ideally a #4 or #5 guy, but a guy who has played well up and down the line-up. He played well with Petry the last two years, with that duo being one of the top 5 pairings in the league in terms of possession stats. He played well with Romanov on the 3rd pairing. And he's playing well with Petry again this year. I don't know what more we can ask of him, he's answered every call we've made... he plays well with a lesser partner on the 3rd pairing against less strong opponents but he's also played well against the opposition's top lines when paired with a better partner. No, he's not the guy driving a pairing to be a top duo, but he's been a really good NHL defenceman.

- Romanov is a rookie, and for a rookie, he's done pretty well. You can see there's skill there. And when he's played with confidence and jumped into the play, he's done it well. He'll be fine in the long run and I think he'll be a good 2nd-pairing D man for a while. He needs some sheltering now and he needs a veteran partner, but he's good enough to stay in the line-up and I can't complain about what he's brought.

But those are the three guys I would keep. Mete is only strong from his own hashmarks out to the offensive blueline, but doesn't have any success at either end near the net. Chiarot and Edmundson lack speed and skill, and Weber has become no more than a big inaccurate shot and a defensive liability. It's a defence that has been terribly built, but it's largely this way because of two Bergevin misconceptions:

1. That you need to have big physical guys to have success.

2. That Weber is still a top-pairing D man.

Neither of these are true.

I have always said that goal should be to build your team so that it has a several-year window to be a top 5 team in the league. It's clear that we won't get there this year or next unless we add another 3-4 important players, and that means we're sacrificing the next 5-6 years of being a contender to make it happen now. You can't just give up most of Guhle, Norlinder, Caufield, Kotkaniemi, Primeau, Harris, etc. just to give yourself one year or two of trying to support Weber and Price. Weber and Price can no longer carry a team, and Bergevin has failed to realize that. So failing an ability to be a contender, I'd much rather dump the veterans like Weber, Tatar, Armia, Chiarot, etc. and bring in players for the future. Why not go with something like

Kulak-Petry

Edmundson-Brook

Romanov-Fleury

Mete

Will we make a playoff run with that this year? Nope. But no sense in playing bad players with no future here. May as well give the youngsters some experience and be able to evaluate them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

This is our D corps:

- Petry is a #1 D man, but he's also on the wrong side of 30 and I don't know that we can lean on him for minutes the way other teams lean on their 25-year old #1's for 23-28 minutes a night. There has to be more behind him so as not to wear him down.

- Kulak is a decent defenceman, ideally a #4 or #5 guy, but a guy who has played well up and down the line-up.  he's been a really good NHL defenceman.

- Romanov is a rookie, and for a rookie, he's done pretty well. You can see there's skill there.  I can't complain about what he's brought. He's one of our most consistent volume hitters and physical presence at this time

But those are the three guys I would keep - IN MY CORE PLANS. Chiarot and Edmundson lack speed and skill, and Weber has become no more than a big inaccurate shot and a defensive liability. It's a defence that has been terribly built,

I have always said that goal should be to build your team so that it has a several-year window to be a top 5 team in the league. It's clear that we won't get there this year or next unless we add another 3-4 important players, and that means we're sacrificing the next 5-6 years of being a contender to make it happen now. You can't just give up most of Guhle, Norlinder, Caufield, Kotkaniemi, Primeau, Harris, etc. just to give yourself one year or two of trying to support Weber and Price. Weber and Price can no longer carry a team, and Bergevin has failed to realize that. So failing an ability to be a contender, I'd much rather dump the veterans like Weber, Tatar, Armia, Chiarot, etc. and bring in players for the future. Why not go with something like

Kulak-Petry

Edmundson-Brook - I want evaluation at the NHL level and to provide experience

Romanov-Fleury - Risk Management unlikely to happen

Mete

Will we make a playoff run with that this year? Nope. But no sense in playing bad players with no future here. May as well give the youngsters some experience and be able to evaluate them.

Valid points - I bolded three parts of your note - 1) Supplemented your comment on Romanov. He will blossom with experience again, but realistic expectation is a solid complimentary pairing that can play both the Left and right sides with equal ability. 2) CORE PLANS - There is duplicity overlap between Chiarot and Edmundson - You correctly analyzed that when Edmundson was signed but I didn't quite realize his skating was a bit suspect. It will be hard to move both Chiarot and Edmundson within the same year. I doubt that MB will acknowledge his mistakes by doing that, as he has now been wrong on Alzner, Chiarot and Edmundson as significant upgrades. I suspect Edmundson is at least with us for the next year. Man. would I love to sell high on him now with his plus / minus push him into a package for Ekholm just to buy time but that isn't realistic. 3) Brook - He seems to have earned a shot. I would like to see that happen 4) Fleury -  I have stated previously that we have a small risk of losing Fleury in the Expansion draft, if he plays 13 more games. Why take that risk or assume that the Krakken could be astute. Seems to me, we protect Petry by NMC, Kulak and likely Edmundson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, claremont said:

Valid points - I bolded three parts of your note - 1) Supplemented your comment on Romanov. He will blossom with experience again, but realistic expectation is a solid complimentary pairing that can play both the Left and right sides with equal ability. 2) CORE PLANS - There is duplicity overlap between Chiarot and Edmundson - You correctly analyzed that when Edmundson was signed but I didn't quite realize his skating was a bit suspect. It will be hard to move both Chiarot and Edmundson within the same year. I doubt that MB will acknowledge his mistakes by doing that, as he has now been wrong on Alzner, Chiarot and Edmundson as significant upgrades. I suspect Edmundson is at least with us for the next year. Man. would I love to sell high on him now with his plus / minus push him into a package for Ekholm just to buy time but that isn't realistic. 3) Brook - He seems to have earned a shot. I would like to see that happen 4) Fleury -  I have stated previously that we have a small risk of losing Fleury in the Expansion draft, if he plays 13 more games. Why take that risk or assume that the Krakken could be astute. Seems to me, we protect Petry by NMC, Kulak and likely Edmundson.

I concur. We've got some good pieces up front but have a slow D, not a stand out puck moving D and a few passengers up front too. MB has to get over tweaking and think we're going to make a run. Bring in some kids and trade some of these assets soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, claremont said:

Valid points - I bolded three parts of your note - 1) Supplemented your comment on Romanov. He will blossom with experience again, but realistic expectation is a solid complimentary pairing that can play both the Left and right sides with equal ability. 2) CORE PLANS - There is duplicity overlap between Chiarot and Edmundson - You correctly analyzed that when Edmundson was signed but I didn't quite realize his skating was a bit suspect. It will be hard to move both Chiarot and Edmundson within the same year. I doubt that MB will acknowledge his mistakes by doing that, as he has now been wrong on Alzner, Chiarot and Edmundson as significant upgrades. I suspect Edmundson is at least with us for the next year. Man. would I love to sell high on him now with his plus / minus push him into a package for Ekholm just to buy time but that isn't realistic. 3) Brook - He seems to have earned a shot. I would like to see that happen 4) Fleury -  I have stated previously that we have a small risk of losing Fleury in the Expansion draft, if he plays 13 more games. Why take that risk or assume that the Krakken could be astute. Seems to me, we protect Petry by NMC, Kulak and likely Edmundson.

Again, I would have low expectations of the line-up I proposed for this season. My point is that we're not a top 5 team in the league, not even a top 10 team, so our odds of winning a Cup are low. We're barely in a playoff spot in a weak division. The point of moving to young guys like Brook and Fleury is that we have nothing to lose. The veterans we have now are playing poorly. They're not likely to get better over time. They won't be key cogs in a Cup run 3-5 years from now. So let's stop wasting playing time and cap space on them. Move along. I said the same thing 3 years ago and 2 years ago and last year: the Habs are not good enough now to win with Price and Weber as their core. If you want to win now, you would have had to add significantly and sacrifice the future. Otherwise, you should have moved pieces before they lost value. Too late now.

I don't expect Brook and Fleury to lead us through the playoffs. But playing them

1. Gives them experience going forward so they're better next year and the year after that.

2. Allows the team to evaluate where they are. If they're already good, then you know you don't need to address RHD as urgently. If they're not good, you know you need to look at acquiring a guy like Dumba to bridge the gap on your right side. There are no solid RHD prospects behind Brook and Fleury, so it's important to know what you have.

3. Puts in better puck movement on your back end. I've said it a thousand times, but the Habs' forwards score off the rush, they aren't the type of team that sets up in the zone and bulls the front of the net successfully. They don't have snipers who score from anywhere on set plays. This team is built on speed and scoring on the counter-attack. If you want to have this set of forwards, you have to have D men who can move them the puck quickly and accurately. Brook has a better chance of doing that than Weber. Fleury adds some toughness and hitting ability back that you lose by removing Chiarot and Weber, but he's also younger and skates better than the older guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Again, I would have low expectations of the line-up I proposed for this season. My point is that we're not a top 5 team in the league, not even a top 10 team, so our odds of winning a Cup are low. We're barely in a playoff spot in a weak division. The point of moving to young guys like Brook and Fleury is that we have nothing to lose. The veterans we have now are playing poorly. They're not likely to get better over time. They won't be key cogs in a Cup run 3-5 years from now. So let's stop wasting playing time and cap space on them. Move along. I said the same thing 3 years ago and 2 years ago and last year: the Habs are not good enough now to win with Price and Weber as their core. If you want to win now, you would have had to add significantly and sacrifice the future. Otherwise, you should have moved pieces before they lost value. Too late now.

I don't expect Brook and Fleury to lead us through the playoffs. But playing them

1. Gives them experience going forward so they're better next year and the year after that.

2. Allows the team to evaluate where they are. If they're already good, then you know you don't need to address RHD as urgently. If they're not good, you know you need to look at acquiring a guy like Dumba to bridge the gap on your right side. There are no solid RHD prospects behind Brook and Fleury, so it's important to know what you have.

3. Puts in better puck movement on your back end. I've said it a thousand times, but the Habs' forwards score off the rush, they aren't the type of team that sets up in the zone and bulls the front of the net successfully. They don't have snipers who score from anywhere on set plays. This team is built on speed and scoring on the counter-attack. If you want to have this set of forwards, you have to have D men who can move them the puck quickly and accurately. Brook has a better chance of doing that than Weber. Fleury adds some toughness and hitting ability back that you lose by removing Chiarot and Weber, but he's also younger and skates better than the older guys.

100%. Moving forward this would be an excellent philosophy but with MB's hard headedness, it's unlikely to happen. What he's done or hasn't done, for the most part has not worked. However, with a couple of decent acquisitions this year his head has swelled again.The only way to go is to change leadership at the top, let's get these young guys experience and let's start it soon....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Again, I would have low expectations of the line-up I proposed for this season. My point is that we're not a top 5 team in the league, not even a top 10 team, so our odds of winning a Cup are low. We're barely in a playoff spot in a weak division. The point of moving to young guys like Brook and Fleury is that we have nothing to lose. The veterans we have now are playing poorly. They're not likely to get better over time. They won't be key cogs in a Cup run 3-5 years from now. So let's stop wasting playing time and cap space on them. Move along. I said the same thing 3 years ago and 2 years ago and last year: the Habs are not good enough now to win with Price and Weber as their core. If you want to win now, you would have had to add significantly and sacrifice the future. Otherwise, you should have moved pieces before they lost value. Too late now.

I don't expect Brook and Fleury to lead us through the playoffs. But playing them

1. Gives them experience going forward so they're better next year and the year after that.

2. Allows the team to evaluate where they are. If they're already good, then you know you don't need to address RHD as urgently. If they're not good, you know you need to look at acquiring a guy like Dumba to bridge the gap on your right side. There are no solid RHD prospects behind Brook and Fleury, so it's important to know what you have.

3. Puts in better puck movement on your back end. I've said it a thousand times, but the Habs' forwards score off the rush, they aren't the type of team that sets up in the zone and bulls the front of the net successfully. They don't have snipers who score from anywhere on set plays. This team is built on speed and scoring on the counter-attack. If you want to have this set of forwards, you have to have D men who can move them the puck quickly and accurately. Brook has a better chance of doing that than Weber. Fleury adds some toughness and hitting ability back that you lose by removing Chiarot and Weber, but he's also younger and skates better than the older guys.

Maybe, any other year they do this. But, because of the shortened season, we don't see Brook,  and because of the expansion draft, I don't think that we will see Fleury.

This year more than any other, Bergevin is going for it, and is willing to live and die by this team, as is. Hopefully, he does an upgrade or two. But remember, trades are hard to make, so...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Regis22 said:

A yr old but

https://awinninghabit.com/2019/04/20/montreal-canadiens-marc-bergevin-playoffs-calgary-flames-tampa-bay-lightning/2/

 

Everything that’s happened so far ties strongly to a line Marc Bergevin has stuck with for many years: if you just get into the playoffs, anything can happen.

Especially after the Blues made the playoffs, after being so far out. Recent memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just keep coming back to the  "how can they not see what the fans & media see" idea with the lines - especially the defensive pairings & I have to wonder if the team is "trying to build their playoff roster"  

Like, Ducharme & Richardson & co. have to be able to see Chiarot-Weber or Edmundson-Weber is not ideal right now, but I believe they think these pairings will be "built for the playoffs."

Not sure i agree, but its the only explanation as to how the coaching staff seems unable to see the same problems we have been seeing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

I just keep coming back to the  "how can they not see what the fans & media see" idea with the lines - especially the defensive pairings & I have to wonder if the team is "trying to build their playoff roster"  

Like, Ducharme & Richardson & co. have to be able to see Chiarot-Weber or Edmundson-Weber is not ideal right now, but I believe they think these pairings will be "built for the playoffs."

Not sure i agree, but its the only explanation as to how the coaching staff seems unable to see the same problems we have been seeing. 

Maybe they're just like, "What else are we gonna do?" :lol: There are some other ideas for D pairings. Many have been presented here but different board members. However, I really don't think it's gonna make much difference. Should they try something different? Sure! Wil they? Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Maybe they're just like, "What else are we gonna do?" :lol: There are some other ideas for D pairings. Many have been presented here but different board members. However, I really don't think it's gonna make much difference. Should they try something different? Sure! Wil they? Who knows?

Maybe. I mean I can see them thinking that pushing shea weber back to the 2nd pair isnt ideal because they want "1st pairing Shea Weber" but that guy may already be gone. 

Its like they cant come to terms with reality.  

Just trying to make sense of what the heck they are thinking because while i can look at the forward lines & think "not what I would do but i understand it" I dont comprehend the defensive pairs one bit. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few habs sources (Marinaro, LeBrun) saying the following:

- No game tonight (Tues) for sure

- Tomorrows game (Wed) is probably a go, but we wont get official word till later today.

- Marinaro is admant that only 1 of the two players on the covid list tested positive (the other was a precaution move)

- its still possible the player who tested positive (either JK or Armia) had a false positive. We've seen plenty of those, including Toffoli to start the year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Habs games postponed through March 28th pending further COVID results.

Ooff bad news. Hopefully everyone remains safe & has no complications.  I would assume this means at least one person on or close to the team has Covid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Habs games postponed through March 28th pending further COVID results.

Does that include the 28th?

Going to be interesting to see how the NHL plans to reschedule those 3 Oiler games when we pretty much play every 2nd night as it is. Extend the season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

Does that include the 28th?

Going to be interesting to see how the NHL plans to reschedule those 3 Oiler games when we pretty much play every 2nd night as it is. Extend the season?

didn't they add a week to the end of the season for this purpose? 

nope, i dont know why I thought that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, habsisme said:

didn't they add a week to the end of the season for this purpose? 

Not sure. The only date i see open for us to make up 1 of those games would be May 5th before the season ends. No idea if that date works for the Oilers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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