Player Discussion Alex Newhook (Part 2) : Book an Appointment with New Look Edition

[Dagistitsyn]

You saying he was turning the puck over constantly and killing drives is just you making up garbage, he was counted for 0 giveaways that whole game so how are you not living in a fantasy world exactly?

I'm resorting to petty comments? You've been throwing out insults because you're super butthurt someone doesn't agree with you. You said you were gonna take your ball and go home in a huff like a child

but you're still here, don't get so worked up over Newhook, he probably didn't know your wife was married at the time.

Oh, so you DO know how to check the box score - but coincidentally ignore the part that disputes your claim that he drew a penalty in the first, but acknowledge the incorrect giveaway stat that I can easily prove is inaccurate because..you know, I actually watched the game and paid attention in the first half. Took me 2 minutes to find just two of the giveaways where plays died on his stick including the one that led to him taking a penalty.

First unnecessary giveaway at 15:48 in the first period, after we were cycling well and dominating o-zone pressure. Newhook gets the puck and messes up a forced pass off a Caps players skate, they take the puck and easily skate out of the zone relieving o-zone pressure we had. As clear of giveaway as you can get, not sure why it wasn't registered as one.

Bad giveaway #2 trying to do too much, just like Laine, in ironically the same spot. Instead of getting it deep, he gives it away again at 10:22 of the first at the line while trying to pass. They MAY have credited the giveaway to Gally there but he never touched the puck. Newhooks pass was easily intercepted . They skate out of the zone. Another unnecessary giveaway that killed the play. He follows them back frustrated and takes a dumb tripping penalty.

Now we can go back and forth on this BS all day long while I keep proving you wrong and you ignoring the facts and resorting to smart ass comments if you want but its only going to make you look dumber.

Did he draw a penalty in the first like you said? No. Proven fact. He first drew a penalty at 11:39 in the second period.
Did he have multiple unforced bad giveaways in the first that killed the play? Yes. Proven fact.
Did he take an unforced dumb penalty out of frustration with his bad play? Yes. Proven fact.
Did he struggle and have a bad first half of the game like I said he did, and then have a good second half of the game which I gave him credit for? Absolutely.
Do I hope he continues to build on that second half and prove to be a useful bottom 6 energy winger where he belongs, because he never had any business being in the top 6 or at C? Of course.

Now which one of us actually paid attention to the whole game and remember it correctly enough to bring the proof?
What irrelevant comment will you come up with now to ignore the actual only topic points I was ever disputing?

Seems you're the one living in the fantasy world, or that marble in your head isn't quite as sharp as you claim.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Yeah but I don't think we should count on Newhook for anything in the top six. I think in a different chair he might be a lot better though.

Glad we gave him the chance. We had to see if he could do it. This was an audition year for a lot of guys. He clearly isn't somebody to count on offensively. He might improve and that's awesome. But we need to build a 2nd line without him. He can fill in as an injury replacement or something like that. But his chair is bottom six.

I’m not advocating for or against newhook, just answering the question

 

[CrashOut]

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘break out’.

This guy failed his audition as a top sixer. That’s okay. Put him in a different chair and he might be a lot better. He’s brutal in terms of finish but great at getting plays into the opposing end. He brings creativity but can’t finish. That’s a third line role. Just put him there and hope he can refine his skills.

I wonder what creativity you see in him.

I see none. Because he doesn't have 1 oz of creativity in his play book.

If he was being creative he wouldn't finish the season with 11 assists in 82 games...

We have to stop gassing up and making shit up.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I wonder what creativity you see in him.

I see none. Because he doesn't have 1 oz of creativity in his play book.

If he was being creative he wouldn't finish the season with 11 assists in 82 games...

We have to stop gassing up and making shit up.

He's creative. He's great at gaining the zone and he sets up some great plays. But he constantly misses the net. He makes dumb passes sometimes... he has no finish.

Again, to be fair to him he was saddled with not one but two guys who were hurt this year. Him not having an assist until December is a testament to how bad his linemates were. Even by accident you should get an assist.

But he's not the useless player that his detractors say he is. He can even be brilliant with some of his moves. Flashes of a great player in there. But there's no finish. He's a bottom six player who I think could be made into a terrific penalty killer.

 

[OneSharpMarble]

Oh, so you DO know how to check the box score - but coincidentally ignore the part that disputes your claim that he drew a penalty in the first, but acknowledge the incorrect giveaway stat that I can easily prove is inaccurate because..you know, I actually watched the game and paid attention in the first half. Took me 2 minutes to find just two of the giveaways where plays died on his stick including the one that led to him taking a penalty.

First unnecessary giveaway at 15:48 in the first period, after we were cycling well and dominating o-zone pressure. Newhook gets the puck and messes up a forced pass off a Caps players skate, they take the puck and easily skate out of the zone relieving o-zone pressure we had. As clear of giveaway as you can get, not sure why it wasn't registered as one.

View attachment 1023319

Bad giveaway #2 trying to do too much, just like Laine, in ironically the same spot. Instead of getting it deep, he gives it away again at 10:22 of the first at the line while trying to pass. They MAY have credited the giveaway to Gally there but he never touched the puck. Newhooks pass was easily intercepted . They skate out of the zone. Another unnecessary giveaway that killed the play. He follows them back frustrated and takes a dumb tripping penalty.

View attachment 1023320

View attachment 1023327

Now we can go back and forth on this BS all day long while I keep proving you wrong and you ignoring the facts and resorting to smart ass comments if you want but its only going to make you look dumber.

Did he draw a penalty in the first like you said? No. Proven fact. He first drew a penalty at 11:39 in the second period.
Did he have multiple unforced bad giveaways in the first that killed the play? Yes. Proven fact.
Did he take an unforced dumb penalty out of frustration with his bad play? Yes. Proven fact.
Did he struggle and have a bad first half of the game like I said he did, and then have a good second half of the game which I gave him credit for? Absolutely.
Do I hope he continues to build on that second half and prove to be a useful bottom 6 energy winger where he belongs, because he never had any business being in the top 6 or at C? Of course.

Now which one of us actually paid attention to the whole game and remember it correctly enough to bring the proof?
What irrelevant comment will you come up with now to ignore the actual only topic points I was ever disputing?

Seems you're the one living in the fantasy world, or that marble in your head isn't quite as sharp as you claim.

Ahh so you don't understand the meaning of giveaway, thanks for proving that. Those are not unforced errors, those are both where he was heavily covered, I guess you think you know better than people who list this stuff professionally though. Cmon where are the countless giveaway and ruined plays? No one else listed those as such so where are they?

You really are obsessed with my username hey? About as obsessed as you are about whining about Newhook. Just very desperate to take a dump on Newhook you make some shitty wall of text post with your still images. xD

"I'm done bickering with you"...*Proceeds to cry for hours afterwards

 

[Balthazar]

Newhook is the backup center for when one of the other centers is injured.

He shouldn't be, it's clear as day he can't be a center in the NHL. Not even a backup one: poor defensively, doesn't create opportunities for others, can't win faceoffs. So not a center.

He's a speedy winger and his hockey IQ is too low to play in top 6. So in the end he's a 3rd line winger and if they keep him in that chair he'll be fine.

 

[DAChampion]

He shouldn't be, it's clear as day he can't be a center in the NHL. Not even a backup one: poor defensively, doesn't create opportunities for others, can't win faceoffs. So not a center.

He's a speedy winger and his hockey IQ is too low to play in top 6. He's a 3rd line winger and if they keep him in that chair he'll be fine.

We have to be realistic about rosters. The backup center is going to be a flawed center.

 

[Miller Time]

I wonder what creativity you see in him.

I see none. Because he doesn't have 1 oz of creativity in his play book.

If he was being creative he wouldn't finish the season with 11 assists in 82 games...

We have to stop gassing up and making shit up.

watching him play instead of looking at the stat line might help

 

[ChesterNimitz]

How many NHL forwards break out at 24/25 years old?

Guy Lafleur.

 

[26Mats]

He shouldn't be, it's clear as day he can't be a center in the NHL. Not even a backup one: poor defensively, doesn't create opportunities for others, can't win faceoffs. So not a center.

He's a speedy winger and his hockey IQ is too low to play in top 6. So in the end he's a 3rd line winger and if they keep him in that chair he'll be fine.

I've liked him at center this year, as well as last year when he was playing Center between healthy Armia and either Roy or Gallagher.

I will be very interestingt to see what HuGo do with the bottom six next year. Could keep it the same and trade Newhook and Dach. Or could not re-sign Dvo and Armi and have Newhook and Dach replace them:

Anderson - Dvo - Gally
Heineman - Evans - Heathy Armia

or

Anderson - Newhook - Dach/Gally
Heineman - Evans - Gally/Dach

 

[ChesterNimitz]

watching him play instead of looking at the stat line might help

Newhook's speed and the threat of same makes us that much more difficult to play against. Everyone enjoys playing against a slow team.

 

[Naslundforever]

I wonder what creativity you see in him.

I see none. Because he doesn't have 1 oz of creativity in his play book.

If he was being creative he wouldn't finish the season with 11 assists in 82 games...

We have to stop gassing up and making shit up.

Plays like a good forechecking winger, he’s just the 10th guy to try and fail at 2c with the habs. Valuable once everyone is in their chair.

I enjoy watching the effort level and speed as much as the no finish is a thing.

 

[Rob Sense]

Guy Lafleur.

Not exactly accurate...Lafleur scored 53 goals and 119 points at 23 and had 29, 28 and 21 goals and 50 plus points in his first 3 seasons prior.

 

[Tyson]

Newhook's speed and the threat of same makes us that much more difficult to play against. Everyone enjoys playing against a slow team.

His speed helps alot if he is in the right chair. I think 3rd line LW is the right chair.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

He produced at a 50 point pace last year but if I recall correctly that was mostly playing with Gally and Anderson down the stretch when DVo was out? That’s probably a lot of ugly goals off the forecheck as there’s not much skill there. He has an underrated shot but is a terrible passer, not quite Armia level cause at least he tries but just throws it to the area of the player and hardly ever on the tape. His speed can draw some penalties. He’s ok as a 3rd line winger and can replace Armia when he floats off into the sunset

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Not exactly accurate...Lafleur scored 53 goals and 119 points at 23 and had 29, 28 and 21 goals and 50 plus points in his first 3 seasons prior.

Well, this is why statistics have to be placed in context.

Having been alive to watch Lafleur's first few years, I can say that the fan base was completely disappointed with Lafleur's performance during his first 3 years. In fact, after the 1973/1974 season, when Lafleur's goal scoring production dropped to 21, there was a significant swath of the fan base that was actively and openly calling for the Canadiens to trade him. Then, for the 1974/1975, Lafleur dropped his helmet and then had his outbreak season where he was almost a certainty to win the Art Ross trophy when Sittler slashed his hand forcing Lafleur to miss the last 10 games of the season. The rest is history.

As I said, one has to be careful in adopting mere statistics to buttress any argument. For whatever reason, Lafleur's game change dramatically (for the good) at the age of 24/25. He went from a major disappointment to an icon. It happens. Will it happen for Newhook? This player is no future immortal. He is, however, a useful player, whose skating ability is a plus for this team which helps make Montreal a much more difficult team to play against.

 

[Rob Sense]

Well, this is why statistics have to be placed in context.

Having been alive to watch Lafleur's first few years, I can say that the fan base was completely disappointed with Lafleur's performance during his first 3 years. In fact, after the 1973/1974 season, when Lafleur's goal scoring production dropped to 21, there was a significant swath of the fan base that was actively and openly calling for the Canadiens to trade him. Then, for the 1974/1975, Lafleur dropped his helmet and then had his outbreak season where he was almost a certainty to win the Art Ross trophy when Sittler slashed his hand forcing Lafleur to miss the last 10 games of the season. The rest is history.

As I said, one has to be careful in adopting mere statistics to buttress any argument. For whatever reason, Lafleur's game change dramatically (for the good) at the age of 24/25. He went from a major disappointment to an icon. It happens. Will it happen for Newhook? This player is no future immortal. He is, however, a useful player, whose skating ability is a plus for this team which helps make Montreal a much more difficult team to play against.

I witnessed it as well. My first Stanley Cup was 1971

 

[ChesterNimitz]

I witnessed it as well. My first Stanley Cup was 1971

My first was 1956. But the most memorable Cup win was indeed 1971. The emotion, turmoil and drama of the three series (Boston, Minnesota and Chicago) that playoffs so many years ago is embedded in the memory of every Montreal fan who watched and dwarfed the excitement of the game last night.

In returning to Newhook’s possible late development, I have followed the delayed development of many players over the decades. I have often opined that the most certain thing in hockey is the uncertainty of the rate of development of young hockey players. To this writer, Lafleur was one the best examples of this axiom.

I was privileged to see Lafleur’s first pre-season game for Montreal. The hype surrounding this phenom was unprecedented. The supposed successor to the recently retired Beliveau. The next in line of great Canadiens: Morenz, Richard, Beliveau. The disappointment I felt was palpable. What I saw was no anointed successor, but a tall, skinny awkward skating forward. My initial skepticism was not lessened over the following seasons. I joined the growing chorus of fans who thought that Lafleur was no messiah but just another in a long line of over hyped, overrated prospects. But seemingly overnight, things changed. In the fall of 1974, Lafleur seemed to develop a new level of confidence and transformed into the most dynamic player of his time.

I’ve learned to never write off any player based on the early returns. Some young players can surprise you. Particularly those that have some excellent base skills.

 

[DAChampion]

I’ve learned to never write off any player based on the early returns. Some young players can surprise you. Particularly those that have some excellent base skills.

Who's exceeded your expectations?

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Who's exceeded your expectations?

Petr Svoboda, who when I first saw him play, I thought he wouldn’t last / play a season. Svoboda ended up playing for 20 years.

Currently, Suzuki. I didn’t like his skating when I watched him play for Canada at the WJC. I thought that his skating would always limit his effectiveness at the NHL level. I suspect Vegas held similar doubts and was the reason they were willing to trade him. Nothing I saw in Suzuki’s first year dispelled my doubts. Yet Suzuki was one of those few players who was able to materially improve his skating which improvement allowed him to become the star he is today.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Anderson - Dvo - Gally
Heineman - Evans - Heathy Armia

or

Anderson - Newhook - Dach/Gally
Heineman - Evans - Gally/Dach

Slaf-Suzuki-Caufield
Laine-Dach-Demidov
Anderson - Dvorak- Gally
Heineman - Newhook- Evans

 

[Andrei79]

His speed is burning, he often gets to his own dump in several seconds before the defender to win the puck and start a cycle. That is so invaluable

Habs don't cycle much though or at least they don't really believe in it. They work in 3 layers in the offensive zone with every player trying to be in one of the layers including one up high, trying to do 2-3 quick passes and a shot with at least one defenseman trying to support the offense and at times a low hard shot/low slapshot from the blue line. They try to avoid getting into corners and try to get their opponents to play there.

 

[River Meadow]

Oh, so you DO know how to check the box score - but coincidentally ignore the part that disputes your claim that he drew a penalty in the first, but acknowledge the incorrect giveaway stat that I can easily prove is inaccurate because..you know, I actually watched the game and paid attention in the first half. Took me 2 minutes to find just two of the giveaways where plays died on his stick including the one that led to him taking a penalty.

First unnecessary giveaway at 15:48 in the first period, after we were cycling well and dominating o-zone pressure. Newhook gets the puck and messes up a forced pass off a Caps players skate, they take the puck and easily skate out of the zone relieving o-zone pressure we had. As clear of giveaway as you can get, not sure why it wasn't registered as one.

View attachment 1023319

Bad giveaway #2 trying to do too much, just like Laine, in ironically the same spot. Instead of getting it deep, he gives it away again at 10:22 of the first at the line while trying to pass. They MAY have credited the giveaway to Gally there but he never touched the puck. Newhooks pass was easily intercepted . They skate out of the zone. Another unnecessary giveaway that killed the play. He follows them back frustrated and takes a dumb tripping penalty.

View attachment 1023320

View attachment 1023327

Now we can go back and forth on this BS all day long while I keep proving you wrong and you ignoring the facts and resorting to smart ass comments if you want but its only going to make you look dumber.

Did he draw a penalty in the first like you said? No. Proven fact. He first drew a penalty at 11:39 in the second period.
Did he have multiple unforced bad giveaways in the first that killed the play? Yes. Proven fact.
Did he take an unforced dumb penalty out of frustration with his bad play? Yes. Proven fact.
Did he struggle and have a bad first half of the game like I said he did, and then have a good second half of the game which I gave him credit for? Absolutely.
Do I hope he continues to build on that second half and prove to be a useful bottom 6 energy winger where he belongs, because he never had any business being in the top 6 or at C? Of course.

Now which one of us actually paid attention to the whole game and remember it correctly enough to bring the proof?
What irrelevant comment will you come up with now to ignore the actual only topic points I was ever disputing?

Seems you're the one living in the fantasy world, or that marble in your head isn't quite as sharp as you claim.

Critical evidence based analysis?! Instead of muh feelings?

 

[The Great Weal]

Basically the whole Panthers cup winning roster.

But seriously, he's not progressing at the speed posters want, but he gets better at certain things every year. He's starting to use his speed more and more to get chances. Now he needs to learn to bury them.

I'm counting 3 to 4 forwards in Reinhart/Verhaege/Bennett/Rodrigues. Reinhart was already a good top 6 forward beforehand and is playing with Barkov. Verhaege is glued to Barkov. Rodrigues was a free agent signing who broke out elsewhere. Bennett is probably the most appropriate comparison except Bennett still had elements to his games that Newhook could only dream of.

I'd say posters should have the right to be upset with the most unproductive top 6 player on the Habs who doesn't bring high end defensive game, center qualities, or physicality. But hey he can skate fast. He just needs to learn how to pass, shoot the puck, be defensively competent, more consistent, and more physical without playing with the best players in the NHL. Seems like quite the challenge.

Quite a few
Datsyuk , todd bertuzzi, sedins, nikushkin, hyman, sam reinhart, marchand was almost 30, jt miller same thing

I can probably find a lot more these are all of the top of my head

And how many severely flawed players don't end up breaking out? Better yet, how many aren't playing with the best NHL players in the league like the Mack/Matthews/Barkov/Pasta?

I never said it's absolutely impossible for Newhook to be better, but I'd say it's far more likely that he doesn't break out with us when he won't be playing with the top players unlike some of the guys from your list, will probably be shifted to the 3rd line next year, and isn't going to completely change his game to be a physical and defensive beast like some of the guys on the list too.