The state of the Habs Rebuild - The Next step

[salbutera]

I could agree Lemaire introduced the trap with the Habs but the 2 SC (86 and 93) wins he was behind the scene, he wasn't the head coach. Hockey fans outside Mtl will remember Lemaire's trap as a coach and that was with the Devils. His trap system was more recognisable with the Devils, with the Habs it looked like an hybrid system.

After Lemaire quit as coach, he was named AGM & head of pro player development - Burns was a Lemaire protège w Les Olympiques. The 89 Cup finalist team sucked the life out of opposing teams but couldn’t keep pace w Cgy scoring abilities who were built to try to challenge their Edm rivals

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

After Lemaire quit as coach, he was named AGM & head of pro player development - Burns was a Lemaire protège w Les Olympiques. The 89 Cup finalist team sucked the life out of opposing teams but couldn’t keep pace w Cgy scoring abilities

I don't say the trap was the best system of the world. It was still possible for offensive teams to have success. In the 90 to beguinning of the 2000 there was two major teams with two different systems : the Devils and the Red Wings. They both won 3 SC. We might call them the beauty and the beast. Wings won with superior top talent and Devils with a mix of top defensive players (that include Jay Pandolfo). I would say only Pat Elias was a top offensive player in that team. And Wings had some good bottom lines defensive players. But the difference between both teams was obvious.

 

[salbutera]

And you're right, a team might have the best trap system of the world, without a top goalie it doesn't go far. Penney had a very short series of wins in PO. When Roy arrived, it changed the whole equation.

Roy as pulled after 1st period in both games vs Oilers in 85-86 season, he also sucked donkey dong in 87, 88, got outplayed by Vernon in 89, sucked in 90-92 losing to Bruins each season despite a strong Burns trap system being employed & Lemaire behind the scenes working with players away from the cameras.

When media & fans had enough of the defensive oriented trap system clamoring for offense, Burns was fired replaced by Demers and Lemaire was allowed to walk away from his contract to join Uncle Lou w NJD in summer 1993

I don't say the trap was the best system of the world. It was still possible for offensive teams to have success. In the 90 to beguinning of the 2000 there was two major teams with two different systems : the Devils and the Red Wings. They both won 3 SC. We might call them the beauty and the beast. Wings won with superior top talent and Devils with a mix of top defensive players (that include Jay Pandolfo). I would say only Pat Elias was a top offensive player in that team. And Wings had some good bottom lines defensive players. But the difference between both teams was obvious.

Mid 90s dead puck era was a convergence of butterfly system having been fine tuned into a science, larger equipment & players bigger than ever while still playing on the same size ice surface.

The 80s still had old equipment and goalie positioning all over the place.

 

[LaP]

Lemaire didn't create the dead puck era

In around 92-93, composite sticks were introduced, significantly raising shot speed, which led to much bigger goalie equipment in the following years in order to protect goalies. The league also modified how refs called games, which Lemaire took full advantage of. Never seen a team hook, hold and cause obstruction and get so few penalties in the end, as the Lemaire Devils did. Lemaire's trap was a consequence of what happened, an added factor, but not the cause, ffs.

There was also a lack of skills at the forward position. I mean Martin St Louis finished 1st scorer in the league with 94 points in 2003-2004. I have a lot of respect for him but he would have no chance to repeat that in the NHL atm too much skills. I think he would struggle to finish top 10 atm.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I mentioned the trap and you write the dead puck era. Ok these are the same for you, I could agree but you do what, misquoting me?

Stop being disingenuous. You literally said Brett Hull couldn't score as much because of Lemaire's trap. Hull started scoring less after 92-93, when Oates was traded, but then it really went down after 93-95, which is when goalie equipment started growing.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Stop being disingenuous. You literally said Brett Hull couldn't score as much because of Lemaire's trap. Hull started scoring less after 92-93, when Oates was traded, but then it really went down after 93-95, which is when goalie equipment started growing.

I didn't wrote that or anything approaching that. Are you allright?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I didn't wrote that or anything approaching that. Are you allright?

Stop being disingenuous:

And then Lemaire introduced the trap with the Devils and there was no room for all this festival of offence.

Arrête ta bullshit. You literally pretended Lemaire's trap is what killed offense around the league.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Stop being disingenuous:



Arrête ta bullshit. You literally pretended Lemaire's trap is what killed offense around the league.

I would take Brett Hull any day if I was a GM. I only wrote he was an offensive player who might have some defensive weakness, and when a player have this level of offensive skills, I wouldn't care about some defensive weakness, especially in his case.

Lemaire didn't killed the offensive around the league. His system made the Devils to win 3 SC, not 4, 5 or 8. Many teams won with the offensive system, the Wings, The Bolts, the Penguins, etc. Many teams won with an hybrid of the 2. The old players would say back in the 40's there was some defensive teams playing probably the ancestor of the trap. Lemaire only implyed that as a system well defined. You were right mentioning a large part came from the new equipment like larger goalie pads, etc. But all hockey analists and historians would talk a lot about Lemaire's trap system, it's not something new that comes from me dude. The trap is not the end of the world, it had some success and it have his limitations. It exists, like it or not.

Stop the disingenuous bs, it doesn't help the debate.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I would take Brett Hull any day if I was a GM. I only wrote he was an offensive player who might have some defensive weakness, and when a player have this level of offensive skills, I wouldn't care about some defensive weakness, especially in his case.

Lemaire didn't killed the offensive around the league. His system made the Devils to win 3 SC, not 4, 5 or 8. Many teams won with the offensive system, the Wings, The Bolts, the Penguins, etc. Many teams won with an hybrid of the 2. The old players would say back in the 40's there was some defensive teams playing probably the ancestor of the trap. Lemaire only implyed that as a system well defined. You were right mentioning a large part came from the new equipment like larger goalie pads, etc. But all hockey analists and historians would talk a lot about Lemaire's trap system, it's not something new that comes from me dude. The trap is not the end of the world, it had some success and it have his limitations. It exists, like it or not.

Stop the disingenuous bs, it doesn't help the debate.

A whole lot of blah blah and side stepping to avoid owning up to your ridiculous take. Repeating my line doesn't make it valid for yourself. Grow-up.

You clearly wrote that Lemaire's trap ended the 'offense festival'. No it did not. Bigger goalie equipment and not calling the rule book is what ended the offense festival.

Also, I was simply responding to that line about Lemaire, I don't really care about the rest of your ill-informed drivel.

 

[Miller Time]

There was also a lack of skills at the forward position. I mean Martin St Louis finished 1st scorer in the league with 94 points in 2003-2004. I have a lot of respect for him but he would have no chance to repeat that in the NHL atm too much skills. I think he would struggle to finish top 10 atm.

I can't agree with that...

Sakic, Kovalchuk & Naslund finished right behind him.

These guys would be top forwards in the league in any era.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

A whole lot of blah blah and side stepping to avoid owning up to your ridiculous take. Repeating my line doesn't make it valid for yourself. Grow-up.

You clearly wrote that Lemaire's trap ended the 'offense festival'. No it did not. Bigger goalie equipment and not calling the rule book is what ended the offense festival.

Also, I was simply responding to that line about Lemaire, I don't really care about the rest of your ill-informed drivel.

Here is a link that explains the Lemaire's trap. If you claim only the equipment ended the offensive festival, you don't explain 100% of what happened. The trap have a large part in that. I don't put Lemaire's trap into a pedestral, I am aware it exists and I'm not the one who will write off history because of ... whatever reason. Maybe you don't like Lemaire or maybe you hate defensive teams, you're free to hate him. But facts remains. I kinda see it's a taboo subject for you.

Chill dude, don't take it personal. Everybody have a bad day. Beers and smoke are there to help relax, wink.

The Neutral Zone Trap & the New Jersey Devils

In response to a user question, I explain what the neutral zone trap is, what's required to make it work, and why the New Jersey Devils were so effective with the trap in the mid-1990s.

www.allaboutthejersey.com

 

[Egresch]

Don’t avoid the point.

Hull was a one way player if ever there was one. He was also a Hart winner and HOFer. Why? Because he scored goals. It’s all he did but it didn’t matter.

Cc is better defensive player than Hull ever was already. He’s not going to score 80 goals but he’s got the potential to be a top ten goalscorer.

That doesn’t mean he will. But the potential is there.

There were 17 players who scored 40+ goals last season and I do not consider them all elite- Hyman, Marchessault, Boeser were not elite last season. I wish CC gets to 40, but it does not mean he is elite because he does not bring too many other elements.
Hull had 3 70+ goal seasons, that is literally like two Caufields, the difference is huge. That is like comparing McDavid and Suzuki because Suzuki is better 200ft player.

 

[yianik]

I would take Brett Hull any day if I was a GM. I only wrote he was an offensive player who might have some defensive weakness, and when a player have this level of offensive skills, I wouldn't care about some defensive weakness, especially in his case.

Lemaire didn't killed the offensive around the league. His system made the Devils to win 3 SC, not 4, 5 or 8. Many teams won with the offensive system, the Wings, The Bolts, the Penguins, etc. Many teams won with an hybrid of the 2. The old players would say back in the 40's there was some defensive teams playing probably the ancestor of the trap. Lemaire only implyed that as a system well defined. You were right mentioning a large part came from the new equipment like larger goalie pads, etc. But all hockey analists and historians would talk a lot about Lemaire's trap system, it's not something new that comes from me dude. The trap is not the end of the world, it had some success and it have his limitations. It exists, like it or not.

Stop the disingenuous bs, it doesn't help the debate.

Sorry, but I like mentioning this every time I see Brett Hulls name. I had a friend who wrote a story for Sports Illustrated that said Brett would barely be an NHL player at best. Lol. I wondered if Hull has that article somewhere on a wall as inspiration.

I actually remember him telling me he was having that story published in SI and I didn't know Hull so I thought too bad if that's the case, but I also knew my friend wasn't so knowledgeable about hockey so was surprised he tackled that story.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

There were 17 players who scored 40+ goals last season and I do not consider them all elite- Hyman, Marchessault, Boeser were not elite last season. I wish CC gets to 40, but it does not mean he is elite because he does not bring too many other elements.
Hull had 3 70+ goal seasons, that is literally like two Caufields, the difference is huge. That is like comparing McDavid and Suzuki because Suzuki is better 200ft player.

I already acknowledged that CC would never be Hull. You’re avoiding the point.

Goals are the most important thing a player can contribute. You can be a one way player and still be a superstar.

 

[therocket9]

I already acknowledged that CC would never be Hull. You’re avoiding the point.

Goals are the most important thing a player can contribute. You can be a one way player and still be a superstar.

Yes agreed goals are the most important Caufield has way more goals than Marner therefore way better.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes agreed goals are the most important Caufield has way more goals than Marner therefore way better.

Not quite that simple.

Im no fan of Marner’s but that’s mostly because of postseason play.

 

[Egresch]

You can be a one way player and still be a superstar.

Yes, but you need to be McDavid level of one-way or 70 goals Hull or 69 goals Matthews.
For me, there are like 5 superstars in whole league- McDavid, MacKinnon, Kucherov, Makar, Matthews. Then you have like 25 elite players.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes, but you need to be McDavid level of one-way or 70 goals Hull or 69 goals Matthews.
For me, there are like 5 superstars in whole league- McDavid, MacKinnon, Kucherov, Makar, Matthews. Then you have like 25 elite players.

That would be a player who’s AAA.

I think Caufield will pretty solidly be a AA player. Could he turn into a 60 goal guy? It’s possible but probably too much to ask - certainly on this team anyway. But 40+ on the regular is definitely possible for him. That would make him elite. So AA which is where Button put him.

 

[the valiant effort]

The dead puck era ruled.

 

[Demigod]

The thread turn into a discussion of Hull against Caufield.

Come on guys there's not point doing that. It's even disrespectful to put those two names into the same sentence.

Caufield for me is the type of players that complete better all around player. He's not the engine on his line but he can play with those guys and be a spark. His natural goalscoaring ability make him a perfect fit on a top 6 but he will always have his flaws. You cannot expect all your top 6 forward to be big, able to play two way, physical and talented in the Ozone. Its all about balance.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The thread turn into a discussion of Hull against Caufield.

Come on guys there's not point doing that. It's even disrespectful to put those two names into the same sentence.

Only if you ignore the context of the discussion.

Caufield for me is the type of players that complete better all around player. He's not the engine on his line but he can play with those guys and be a spark. His natural goalscoaring ability make him a perfect fit on a top 6 but he will always have his flaws. You cannot expect all your top 6 forward to be big, able to play two way, physical and talented in the Ozone. It’s all about balance.

Sounds a lot like Brett Hull…

Again, CC will always have limitations. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have elite potential. And no he doesn’t have to have Hull totals to reach it.

 

[Demigod]

Ye but why bring Hull into the discussion make any sense? Come on he never scored 30 goals in his career and you compare it to the best or second best goal scorers in NHL history.

Doesnt mean Caufield is not a gifted goalscorer but at this point doing any comparaison is complety desilusional.

 

[Tabarouette]

The dead puck era ruled.

yeah ok Martin Brodeur, nice try we know it's you

 

[HabbyGuy]

I thought Caufield played two of his best games all year in the last couple despite not scoring. He's was battling hard on the 2nd line and has set up a few beauties for apples. Loved seeing him separate the puck from Draisaitl along the boards in the O zone to set up a big goal.

Say what you want about him not being a line driver, but he's the one that's been stirring the drink on that line last couple games.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Ye but why bring Hull into the discussion make any sense? Come on he never scored 30 goals in his career and you compare it to the best or second best goal scorers in NHL history.

Doesnt mean Caufield is not a gifted goalscorer but at this point doing any comparaison is complety desilusional.

Yeah I don't get what's the point