Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Should Dominique Ducharme remain the coach after this season?


BigTed3
 Share

Should Dominique Ducharme remain the head coach after this season?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Dominique Ducharme remain the head coach after this season?

    • Yes, he deserves more than half a year to prove himself.
    • No, he's shown he isn't a good enough coach to retain.
    • Only if the Habs win a round in the playoffs.
    • Only if the Habs win more than one round in the playoffs (i.e. make it our of the North division)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

The Habs as an organization under Bergevin have always been quick to blame failures on injuries. They give us the "We can't win without Price. We can't win without Weber. We can't win without Gallagher." Up until the Gallagher injury I believe the Habs were first in the league for fewest man-games lost to injury/illness, so it can hardly be an excuse this year for how poorly we've performed.

As far as Ducharme goes, it's not that he's the biggest problem, but has he really done anything to show he deserves to stay and that he's the solution? Not really. The biggest flaws with this team are

1. No left side of the defence

2. An over-reliance on Weber and to a lesser degree Petry on the right side of the defence when we know those two don't hold up well over a season.

3. A lack of elite players at any position.

4. A mish-mash model for building the team whereby part of our roster is aged and past-prime (Price, Weber, Perry, Staal, Byron) and the other half is not yet ready to play big enough roles (Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Romanov, etc.). The nucleus of this team was not built to put it all together at once.

5. And lastly, a misconception that you can win in today's NHL with grit and toughness without a need for skill and speed. Bergevin's entire regime has been based around guys like Murray, Bouillon, Alzner, Schlemko, Drewiske, Benn, Chiarot, Ouellet, and Edmundson being key players while better puck movers like Diaz, Mete, Romanov, Kulak, etc. have to fight to stay in the line-up. There's an error in philosophy there that starts with the GM but trickles down through the coaches he's chosen to hire.

6. Cap and asset mismanagement this year that has left us with older, slower players while our younger ones who could be more helpful don't get a shot.

Now Ducharme isn't responsible for a large part of that. Most of it falls on Bergevin. But at the same time, DD needs to be prioritizing Kulak/Romanov over Chiarot/Edmundson/Ouellet. He needs to stop playing Staal on the PP. He needs to stop playing Weber so much. There are things that are on the coach too here that aren't being rectified.

I don't disagree with any of the points you made or even the one I am about to comment on but I am going to ask a question that relates to the topic and may change the view of some on this thread.

Is it fair to DD to criticize him for roster choices and his strategy given the lineup that MB has assembled? Would you as a coach who is expected to win and make the playoffs with your job on the line change your coaching strategy to one that half the lineup can't play? Do you think Weber, Chiarot, Edmundson, Merrill, Staal, Perry, Danault, Frolik, Toffoli and Ouellet can play with the speed and skill to keep up with guys like Armia, Lehkonen, Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Byron, Romanov, Kulak, Drouin and Anderson? It is much easier for a coach to change his style to match the lineup than it is for the players to adapt to a system that they are not ideal for playing in. DD may want to sit Chiarot, Edmundson, Weber, Byron, Drouin or Gustafsson but how long do you think the owner will put up with sitting 3.5+ Mil in salary? DD would be out of a job quickly if he sat Chiarot in favor of playing Romanov and Molson was paying 3.5 Mil to a guy who just sits in the press box game after game. While I don't agree with DD's pairings or lines he is trying to spread both speed and skill across the entire lineup while also allowing for a more defensive style that half the roster is more suited to. I think even IF (which is a huge IF IMO) MB is fired I think you have to give DD a season with a GM who will help build the lineup that DD wants before deciding on his fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "DD may want to sit Chiarot, Edmundson, Weber, Byron, Drouin or Gustafsson but how long do you think the owner will put up with sitting 3.5+ Mil in salary? DD would be out of a job quickly if he sat Chiarot in favor of playing Romanov and Molson was paying 3.5 Mil to a guy who just sits in the press box game after game"

Not quite sure I agree with that statement? It looks almost like you are saying regardless of how poor he is playing he should still be in the line up because of his salary? Regardless of salary if he is not doing his damn job let him watch from stands! I realise that right now we have a number of prima donnas that are coasting but when it comes to determining if Molson's feelings are hurt because the player he is paying $3.5M to is not dressed then we have a problem! If that big salary guy is underperforming bench him and bring up from the taxi squad the guy that is making $750K to replace him. This guy will take advantage of the opportunity and bust his butt to stay in the line up. MB is the guy signing the contracts however when it comes to coaching it is my opinion that salary should not play a part in the decision as to who dresses each night.

I am beginning to think maybe CJ should not have been fired even though I was not a big fan. Under him we played 18 games for 22 pts. Under DD we have played 28 games for 27 pts. Not sure but maybe CJ may have been able to turn this around whereas DD cannot. Maybe CJ stood up against Molson & MB and that was the reason he was replaced but I do not see where giving him a year is going to be beneficial. As I said he does not inspire confidence. Would like to know why Mueller was fired? Was it becasue of the special teams? Well I do not see where Burrows has made this a better situation?

Sorry if I misunderstood your post but that is the way I read it.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, richard464 said:

 "DD may want to sit Chiarot, Edmundson, Weber, Byron, Drouin or Gustafsson but how long do you think the owner will put up with sitting 3.5+ Mil in salary? DD would be out of a job quickly if he sat Chiarot in favor of playing Romanov and Molson was paying 3.5 Mil to a guy who just sits in the press box game after game"

Not quite sure I agree with that statement? It looks almost like you are saying regardless of how poor he is playing he should still be in the line up because of his salary? Regardless of salary if he is not doing his damn job let him watch from stands! I realise that right now we have a number of prima donnas that are coasting but when it comes to determining if Molson's feelings are hurt because the player he is paying $3.5M to is not dressed then we have a problem! If that big salary guy is underperforming bench him and bring up from the taxi squad the guy that is making $750K to replace him. This guy will take advantage of the opportunity and bust his butt to stay in the line up. MB is the guy signing the contracts however when it comes to coaching it is my opinion that salary should not play a part in the decision as to who dresses each night.

I am beginning to think maybe CJ should not have been fired even though I was not a big fan. Under him we played 18 games for 22 pts. Under DD we have played 28 games for 27 pts. Not sure but maybe CJ may have been able to turn this around whereas DD cannot. Maybe CJ stood up against Molson & MB and that was the reason he was replaced but I do not see where giving him a year is going to be beneficial. As I said he does not inspire confidence. Would like to know why Mueller was fired? Was it becasue of the special teams? Well I do not see where Burrows has made this a better situation?

Sorry if I misunderstood your post but that is the way I read it.:rolleyes:

I agree with you on the first point, the Habs eventually sat Alzner despite his salary and buried him in the minors. They admitted to screwing up signing Streit and Plekanec. So I don't think it's just that they don't want to pay their D corps, I think it's that Bergevin legitimately feels he has assembled a good defence.

As far as CJ goes, for me, I think it likely has played out that it really didn't matter who the coach was. I don't think we would have been any better/worse with Julien and it was probably worth it to see if a coaching chance had helped. It didn't, but that's primarily because the same problems under Julien exist under Ducharme. Ducharme promised to do things differently and he hasn't. Our biggest line-up flaw is the abundance of slow veteran D men, pairing them together, over-playing them, etc. Weber's still getting 22-23 minutes a night. Weber is still paired with a slow guy (Chiarot or Edmundson) 90% of the time. Petry and Weber are both worn down because they can't play those minutes at their age without better support. Weber is still getting 1st-PP unit time. So hard to see why things would change under a new coach if the new coach isn't going to address the main problem with this team in that it's D can't skate well, can't get on loose pucks, can't move the puck out of the zone quickly and with better puck retention, etc.

As we've said, one problem comes down to how Bergevin assembled this D corps. That didn't change. The other is player utilization. Very few tools for Ducharme to work with, but if you're an outsider looking at this, you have to wonder why we don't at least try a few things to make the D work better:

1. We have to address Weber before anything. He needs his minutes cut and he needs to play with a partner who can skate and drive puck control better. By far the best option on the team is Kulak, who has had success up and down the line-up. That has to be your #2 pairing.

2. Petry also needs better support right now than what Edmundson is giving him. Once again, the options are terrible, but the best of the rest is Romanov. He's the only guy left who has the legs to skate and if he learns by fire, so be it. We need a guy there who can carry bigger minutes without being fatigued and without being slow.

3. We can't sit on a 3rd pairing that can't move the puck as leftovers either. So it can't be two of Chiarot, Edmundson, or Merrill thrown together. I think they've all been bad and I couldn't honestly care which one of them stays in the line-up, and I don't think any of them can make up for playing with Gustafsson, who looks like a liability defensively even though he can move the puck better. Best option is to waive someone, save the 1.075M and bring up Brook, who can at least skate, hit, and pass.

So I'd go

Romanov-Petry

Kulak-Weber

Chiarot-Brook

... maybe it still sucks. But what we're using now sucks worse and we're not going anywhere with what we're doing. May as well try something different. I think that part is on Ducharme to have not done something like this yet. If this fails too, then the rest is on Bergevin, but if you're Ducharme, it's on you too as long as you continue to have all of Weber, Edmundson, and Chiarot in your top 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual "BigTed" good post! But it still boils down to DD. If you are learning to dance and your partner keeps stepping on your toes why not change the partner? This is what puzzles me about DD? We all know there is a problem on defence so maybe altering partners will eliminate the toe damage! Even I would try it what the hell have we got to lose?  This is frustrating as hell.:5155:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So maybe it wasn't a coaching issue after all .  Maybe it's a GM issue , Under the current GM< they have missed the playoffs  4 of the last 5 years ( last yr was really a miss ) and if this year was a normal season they would probably miss again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 9:29 AM, BigTed3 said:

5. And lastly, a misconception that you can win in today's NHL with grit and toughness without a need for skill and speed. Bergevin's entire regime has been based around guys like Murray, Bouillon, Alzner, Schlemko, Drewiske, Benn, Chiarot, Ouellet, and Edmundson being key players while better puck movers like Diaz, Mete, Romanov, Kulak, etc. have to fight to stay in the line-up. There's an error in philosophy there that starts with the GM but trickles down through the coaches he's chosen to hire.

I agree with this ... however, Mete and Diaz were never NHL players.  After Habs traded him to Canucks,  Diaz was traded that same season to Rangers.   He was then dealt to Flames, to wind up back with Rangers (who buried him in AHL).     A better name to pull out would be Yannick Weber who's put up 350-400 games since Habs dealt him.   He was mobile.    Nathan Beaulieu, same status.   Now those two wouldn't be top pairing, but they were mobile and decent puck handlers compared to say Chiarot/Edmundson/Murray/Schlemko/Bouiion/etc.

Now to be fair, the 2010-2016 drafts ... we never had a lot of picks, and there's a few 2nd/3rd round guys that never made it to the NHL from those years.    Starting in 2017 MB started loading up on picks, probably finally realizing in the modern cap era you need a good pipeline of young talent (on the cheap) to supplement the guys you sign/trade for who make the big money.   Hopefully the 2017-2020 drafts produce a few extra bodies for the big club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
3 hours ago, caperns61 said:

No matter what happens now. I think he remains coach next season. Just because of what the hab's have accomplished already in the playoffs. 

I suspect that is the truth. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bergevin extended and Ducharme remain as head coach. Despite the regular season struggles the team had under Ducharme they have exceeded expectations in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, caperns61 said:

No matter what happens now. I think he remains coach next season. Just because of what the hab's have accomplished already in the playoffs. 

 

48 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I suspect that is the truth. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bergevin extended and Ducharme remain as head coach. Despite the regular season struggles the team had under Ducharme they have exceeded expectations in the playoffs.

Haha, yeah. I dont see ANY way DD isnt back behind the bench next year. 

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...