Edited Oct. 27, 2021 at 11:44 a.m.
Quoting: Poehling
100% agree, I mentioned Bergevin only did bad moves since we lost in the SCF. But Ducharme system is atrocious, the PP as well. Hoffman Armia are not bad, but like you said we were stacked enough. Caudield Toffoli Anderson Gallagher are all RW and Ylönen showed great things in Laval, so why keeping Armia ? If you don’t wanna fill the center position, then keep Lehkonen-Evans-Gallagher as a checking line but don’t expect us too make the playoffs with this defense… anyway Bergevin ****ed up big time, Ducharme and Burrows are signed for 3 years and we ****ing lost Joel Bouchard too keep Ducharme. I am so pissed because I have a huge passion for hockey and MB just ****ed up the couple next years
I don't know that Ducharme is the issue. The systems and strategies have been pretty stagnant and atrocious for several years. The only common denominator throughout that time is Bergevin. Whether it be through his personnel decisions, or because he is controlling those elements from beyond the bench, there's no excuse for a team to have the same issues year after year and that responsibility falls upon the GM. Ducharme appears to be following the same blueprint and is a victim of poor roster construction at a time when a number of key players are having issues. It's difficult to judge him based on what has been a difficult tenure so far, between covid complications from last season and Weber and Price being unavailable to him (among others). Our system requires strong defense and goaltending with forward support, and we have none of those elements right now.
Which begs the question, why are we playing in a manner our roster is not suited to succeed with?
Either the strategy needs to change to suit the roster, or the roster needs to change to suit the strategy.
Does Ducharme have the freedom to change the strategy however? Is he a "puppet" coach with Bergevin dictating the gameplan, or is he simply that kind of coach who Bergevin hired for that reason?
Either way, it's Bergevin pulling the strings that are creating these results.
The answer is not in the dressing room. The answer is in the war room with the management. The players are doing what they are being told to do, to the best of their ability. You can see them putting the effort in. In particular last game, you can also see they are getting more desperate. That desperation leads to mistakes. They want to provide offense, but it isn't coming naturally, so they are cheating and throwing pucks wildly in an attempt to get something through. The problem is that the offense SHOULD be coming naturally. We have the offensive talent. They aren't getting those opportunities naturally however, and have to go above and beyond to create chances. That's because the system is not working to give them those chances otherwise.
The book is also out on how to play us. Forecheck hard, cut off the boards, and pinch. Last year we had Petry and Weber who demanded attention and Edmundsson and Chiarot were at least capable with that support. This year, Petry is without a quality partner and Savard is not like Weber who can carry a lesser partner. Nobody else is a threat to move the puck effectively out of the zone, or pose a danger in the offensive zone. All you have to do is focus on Petry. Sure, every now and then Chiarot, Romanov, or Niku will pose a threat, but playing the odds and leaving them open is hardly a danger. They're also easy prey in the defensive zone as they aren't capable of good plays under pressure. Against our power play, the lanes are hilariously easy to cover due to little player movement, and being aggressive in attacking those positions prevents good setups. Of the entire ice surface, 90% of the puck on our sticks is within 5 feet of the boards. If you take the boards away, our defense will just turn over the puck or send it into the neutral zone.
Caufield needs someone to draw attention on his line. Last year he wasn't considered the primary threat. Now that he is, he needs someone that takes the extra attention away from him. That's Anderson or Gallagher. Nobody else requires a defense to split their coverage like those two can. With Petry being the only legitimate threat from the blue line, we also need someone else that prevents teams from cheating on their coverage.
With Caufield - Suzuki - Gallagher and Drouin - Dvorak - Anderson and Toffoli - Evans - Armia, we had enough personnel that Hoffman wasn't necessary.
Then we still have Lehkonen - Perrault - Byron and Paquette, Poehling, Ylonen, etc. You can swap some players between lines as needed and add more depth as required, but what we really needed was better options on defense. You can't replace Weber, so don't even try. Find somebody who fits in with what you have, not someone that covers maybe 50% of what you lost.
You could even make an argument for replacing Lehkonen or Armia with Hoffman still, once the defense is taken care of.
That might help with the roster issues, but it still doesn't address the systematic issues in our play. It simply reduces the (very valid) excuse of not having a good enough defense lineup.
Then there are the other issues which fall under Bergevin's umbrella. Drafting and development of prospects chiefly among them. Another issue which has persisted throughout his tenure.
Only 1 of his 1st round picks (Caufield) is playing for us at the NHL level. He traded Sergachev. He lost Kotkaniemi. That's inexcusable for someone who's philosophy was that you "build through the draft".
I'm not going to hold him solely responsible for the whole Francophone requirement, but at the very least he could have avoided recycling coaches (then there's the whole Therien foxhole problem where he kept him for too long) and therefore recycling strategies and how players, especially younger ones, were brought to the team and sidelined in favor of veterans instead of developing properly.
Long story short, we have many issues to address and none of them are really "new". He's had the better part of a decade and those same issues persist.
It's time for him to take responsibility and either step away or be removed, and for someone more progressive to take the reins and bring the whole organization up to date.