5 on 5: When you outshoot the opponents 30-16, you can't be playing that bad. Sure we had a ridiculously long PP in the 3rd, but it's not like a bulk of shots came from that (i'll get to that in a minute). In general, we played the right way all game long, which is to say we fore-checked well, we created opportunities in around the net, and we limited the Caps' scoring chances. Unfortunately nothing went in, and the very few scoring chances the visitors had, they scored on. Washington has a very deep squad with a lot of highly skilled players, and it showed last night. The goals scored by Perreault and Johannson were ones you'd rarely see a Habs player score. The goal scored by Ovechkin was a picture perfect slap shot with an equally perfect screen.
The game overall reminded me a bit of our playoff tilt with the Caps 2 years ago, except with the roles reversed. There, it seemed like the Capitals game plan was shoot as often as possible and hope for the best. The Habs game plan was hit them hard in transition and win with speed and skill. Last night Washington scored exactly that way, taking full advantage on the counter attack on the few chances they had. Did they win? Yes. Did they play much better? Not really.
The PP: What can you say anymore? They literally have no idea what they're doing. Mix that in with not a lot of great PP threats and you have a real problem on your hands.
Solutions? Do some research and change it up. I remember telling a friend in November (or maybe even October) that they should watch tape of other teams and take some notes. Vancouver was an example of a team to check out, but maybe that was mistake because we have nothing that resembles their players on our team. Unfortunately, after a quick look around the league for similar quality players on the blueline and upfront, I came up with the Phoenix Coyotes. Where do the Coyotes sit in PP percentage? 29th, just ahead of us. So scratch that. How about the NY Islanders? They currently sit 6th in the NHL at 19.4%. That's pretty darn good. They have Mark Streit on D who is obviously quite good, but not really anyone that much better than us on D. Our forwards stack up pretty evenly, so then it must just come down to execution. I'm pretty sure that if Cunneyworth watched tape of their PP, one thing would become abundantly clear: They hit the net on a regular basis from the points. I could probably count on two hands the amount of wrist shots PK Subban has successfully hit the net with on the PP. To me, him and Weber are the big reason why they struggle so much. They simply don't have the wherewithal to consistently get the puck on net--it just doesn't come naturally to them.
Before this year, the Canadiens had traded for or signed a PP shooter early on in the season or just before. In succession, they acquired Mathieu Schneider, M.A. Bergeron, and James Wisniewski. All three of these players greatly improved the Habs PP. I remember it being night and day last year with the acquisition of Wisniewski, where we had gone 0 for god knows how many before picking him up. He instantly changed the fortune of the team.
This year? Tomas Kaberle. Since his arrival I think our team and PP has gotten worse. People would have laughed, but I bet this team would have been better off with Brian McCabe right now. As old and horrible as he is defensively, at least he could do the one thing none of the Habs' D seem able to do. Hit the net.
Hit the net. What a concept.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Bourque is a nice pickup
Remember how happy you were when we signed Erik Cole earlier this year? Well, trading for Rene Bourque 6 months later is not a whole lot different. Let me explain.
Rene Bourque and Erik Cole are essentially the same type of player. One is faster (Cole), and the other is more physical (Bourque), but in the end they amount to the same type of player and production. They both like to drive the net with speed, and muck it up in front of the net.
They are exactly what this team needs, and it shows that Pierre Gauthier is finally getting it.
So why do most pundits say Calgary won this trade?
Well, quite simply, it's the year of picking on the Habs organization, so get used to hearing how much of a failure they are. Every year, Canadian sports journalists (save those in Quebec) pick the Habs to miss the playoffs (or just sneak in), and this year they finally got their wish. It's a banner year for talking heads covering hockey, in large part due to the Canadiens' horrible season. Instead of eating their words, they've had chance after chance to gloat about how right they were about the team's failure, from the players right up to the ownership group (see Mike Milbury on CBC).
Last night's game was a good example of what happens when each line shows up to play. You could look at the stats from the game and say that the Desharnais line did everything, but there's so much more to it than that. One line cannot be effective if the other three are useless. Of course that's obvious, but that's the story of the Canadiens season thus far. Most games that I've watched have consisted of one, maybe two lines each game putting pressure on the opposing defense. This, in my opinion, is the major reason why they lose more often than not.
You can point your finger at the defense all you want, and I guess that's the easy thing to do. After all, they're young, small, and easily pushed around. But the big reason to why they've looked bad this year is because they're overworked due to the offense's ineffectiveness.
Think of an ineffective offense in football as a good analogy. If your offense is bad in football, it usually means that your defense is on the field way too much. When your defense is always on the field, the consequences are obvious. You get tired. You get beat up. You get ineffective.
The same happens in hockey, but in perhaps a less blatant way. All those shifts where the forwards don't fore-check, don't pressure the defense, and basically spend no time in the other team's zone, basically mean that the defense is working overtime. This has been the Habs' season in nutshell.
Last night was an example of the opposite. Why don't we see it more often? Who knows. I will say this though: What Randy Cunneyworth did in last night's game, where he benched Lars Eller for a whole period, showed to me that the coach means business. He's setting the precedent for the consequences of not working every shift. Eventually this should sink in with all the players, and there will probably be a greater chance of seeing games like we saw last night.
One can only hope. The good news is that they we ridded ourselves of a player who clearly had no intention of getting the message.
Will Bourque be as hard-headed? Maybe. But at least he costs 2,700,000$ less.
Rene Bourque and Erik Cole are essentially the same type of player. One is faster (Cole), and the other is more physical (Bourque), but in the end they amount to the same type of player and production. They both like to drive the net with speed, and muck it up in front of the net.
They are exactly what this team needs, and it shows that Pierre Gauthier is finally getting it.
So why do most pundits say Calgary won this trade?
Well, quite simply, it's the year of picking on the Habs organization, so get used to hearing how much of a failure they are. Every year, Canadian sports journalists (save those in Quebec) pick the Habs to miss the playoffs (or just sneak in), and this year they finally got their wish. It's a banner year for talking heads covering hockey, in large part due to the Canadiens' horrible season. Instead of eating their words, they've had chance after chance to gloat about how right they were about the team's failure, from the players right up to the ownership group (see Mike Milbury on CBC).
Last night's game was a good example of what happens when each line shows up to play. You could look at the stats from the game and say that the Desharnais line did everything, but there's so much more to it than that. One line cannot be effective if the other three are useless. Of course that's obvious, but that's the story of the Canadiens season thus far. Most games that I've watched have consisted of one, maybe two lines each game putting pressure on the opposing defense. This, in my opinion, is the major reason why they lose more often than not.
You can point your finger at the defense all you want, and I guess that's the easy thing to do. After all, they're young, small, and easily pushed around. But the big reason to why they've looked bad this year is because they're overworked due to the offense's ineffectiveness.
Think of an ineffective offense in football as a good analogy. If your offense is bad in football, it usually means that your defense is on the field way too much. When your defense is always on the field, the consequences are obvious. You get tired. You get beat up. You get ineffective.
The same happens in hockey, but in perhaps a less blatant way. All those shifts where the forwards don't fore-check, don't pressure the defense, and basically spend no time in the other team's zone, basically mean that the defense is working overtime. This has been the Habs' season in nutshell.
Last night was an example of the opposite. Why don't we see it more often? Who knows. I will say this though: What Randy Cunneyworth did in last night's game, where he benched Lars Eller for a whole period, showed to me that the coach means business. He's setting the precedent for the consequences of not working every shift. Eventually this should sink in with all the players, and there will probably be a greater chance of seeing games like we saw last night.
One can only hope. The good news is that they we ridded ourselves of a player who clearly had no intention of getting the message.
Will Bourque be as hard-headed? Maybe. But at least he costs 2,700,000$ less.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Michael “Untradeable?” Cammalleri… Traded
Okay, so I know I said yesterday that I thought a bunch of players on the Montreal Canadiens were immovable, and that near the top of that list was Michael Cammalleri. I looked at his contract, his play over the last year or so, and really couldn’t see another GM trading for him. It would take a miracle. It would take a GM maybe more desperate than ours to make it happen.
Well it happened. Jay Feaster, GM of the Calgary Flames needed to shake things up nearly as badly as we did, enough so that he traded for a 6m$ player that has scored 9 goals in 38 games year. The only good news about Cammalleri is that he’s scored near 40 goals playing for the Flames and his partner in crime, Jarome Iginla. To me, though, the good news ends there. It seems strange that most pundits believe it’s more a shoe-in for Cammalleri to succeed post-trade than it is for Rene Bourque. What exactly are they basing this on? Scoring totals from three years ago? Playoff performances two years ago? Is anyone looking at the current versions of these players?
All I’m hearing is the bad things about Bourque, how he doesn’t care, he’s a headcase, etc,. Well just because Kelly Hrudey had nothing bad to say about Cammalleri, doesn’t mean his “care meter” wasn’t also severly broken. Will he do better in Calgary? Probably. But the more important question for Habs fans should be: was he ever going to get better here? I seriously doubt it.
You can say all you want about how badly Gauthier handled the optics of this trade, as well as the dual firings earlier in the year, but as far as this trade is concerned, I like it.
If you read my last blog, I made it pretty clear that Cammalleri was not part of the solution in Montreal. What’s worse, his gigantic contract was going to inhibit management from potentially bringing back, or bringing in certain players. Cammalleri is, and always has been, a player that’s needed the perfect storm to be at his best.
Sure, you can say the same about a lot of players, but maybe no more so than this player. His game is a lot like Brett Hull’s, a player that made a name for himself with his rocket of a shot, and being in the right place at the right time to unleash it. The problem is that Hull scored the bulk of his goals in an era where goalies weren’t as good, nor were their defenses (or more specifically, defensive systems). Like Cammalleri, he scored the bulk of his goals from outside the hashmarks with one-timers.
I don’t have statistical analysis on this, but it seems to me that goalies aren’t giving up nearly as many goals from those spots. And if Cammalleri isn’t scoring from those spots, he’s simply not scoring at all. That is unless he decides to suddenly work harder to get to the dirtier areas (a.k.a. near the net) to score goals. If he does, it will simply be another example of a player who gave up trying in Montreal (see Ryder, Kostitsyn, Ribeiro), and turned it around with another team. Can’t really blame the GM for that, can you?
So out goes Cammalleri and his 6M/a year contract through the 2013/2014 season, a 2012 5th round pick, and the rights to KHL goalie Karri Ramo. In comes Bourque, paid 3.33M a year through 2014-15, a 2nd rounder in 2013 and center Patrick Holland, a 7th rounder in 2010, and currently 9th in WHL scoring with 57 points in 40 games. If someone told me that we traded Cammalleri for Patrick Holland and a 2nd round pick, I probably wouldn’t be thrilled, but at least I would take solace in the fact that we shed salary, and that would be a victory in itself. The fact that we got Bourque as well was just icing on the cake. You can say what you want about the guy, but the facts are these: He can score goals, and score them in places where a lot of our players are scared to go.
Is he inconsistent: yes.
Does he do stupid things once in a while: yes.
But is he better player for the current Montreal Canadiens than Michael Cammalleri?
I believe so. The Canadiens are a team that needs to get bigger, but more importantly, without clear superstar-type players, they need to shed guys that are one-dimensional. Rene Bourque might not be the hardest worker, but he adds more than one dimension to the team, something that is already a step up from Cammalleri. He has size, strength and goal-scoring ability. Both players have been accused of disappearing at times, but at least Bourque can lean on the defence a bit, can be asked to just forecheck if nothing else is working, and he’ll be more effective than Cammalleri. The worst kind of player to have on your team is a one-trick pony, and that’s exactly what Cammalleri is.
The best part about this trade though is the monetary implications. We just lost a player that was out-scored 67-54 by his trade counterpart. The only thing he beats Bourque on is his pay rate, which is 2.7m$ more a year. Before this trade was completed, I had serious doubts about whether or not Andrei Kostitsyn could be re-signed for next year. With the money saved on the Cammalleri deal, they're now well on their way to bringing him back. Like him or not, Kostitsyn is one of the few Hab players that has improved this year. He has obvious chemistry with Eller, and it would be a shame to ship out a player who’s finally starting to really come in to his own. As Eller improves so too will Kostitsyn, and both their point totals will go up subsequently. Kostitsyn will not cost a king’s ransom to keep (between 3.5-4m a year), simply because he’s not having a great year point-wise. To add to that, I seriously doubt we’ll find a player on the free agent market who’s as good as Kostitsyn at that price. So if it means we traded Cammalleri to keep Kostitsyn, it’s a win for us.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Mid-Season Habs Report: Injuries and bad luck mask the truth
As I write this report, just minutes before what would usually be a much-anticipated battle with the Canadiens’ archrival the Bruins, I find myself queerly detached from tonight’s tilt. In truth, the most interesting Montreal news of the day had to do with another sport entirely, soccer, where the Montreal Impact made their first ever draft selection, Andrew Wenger (1st pick overall).
To be honest, the best thing about the usually Habs-crazed months of March and April will be the Impact this year. Will they be any good? Odds are not in their favor. But at least there will be an abundance of hope and buzz, words that can’t be associated with Nos Glorieux at the moment.
If this sounds like I’m giving up on the team this year, it’s probably because I am. It hasn’t been a good year, and my crystal ball predicts it won’t get much better. For the first time in a few years the team hasn’t overachieved, hasn’t pulled wins out of their butt, hasn’t held the fort against other, equally average teams. It’s been a year of realization for the team (or so we hope): they’re not nearly as good as they thought they were.
On the flip side, it’s been a great year for almost all our prospects. Greg Pateryn (2008 2nd) and Mac Bennett (2009 3rd) are the top D pairing for the always dominant, Michigan Wolverines. Morgan Ellis (2010 4th) is one of the best two–way d-men in the Q, and after a trade to the Shawinigan Cataractes, will get his shot to show his class on the national stage at the Memorial Cup. As will teammate Michael Bournival (2010 3rd), who is fresh off his solid performance at the WJC. Speaking of the WJC, Nathan Beaulieu (2011 1st) and Brendan Gallagher (2010 5th) also made the team, with the latter notably having a monster game in the semifinal tilt against the Russians. Other notables having solid seasons are Danny Kristo (2008 2nd), Steve Qualier (2008 3rd), and Darren Dietz (2011 5th).
If it sounds like my gushing over prospects is a way of deflecting from the actual misery of the big club, it’s probably because I am. Can you blame me? I mean, who wants to talk about a team that relies on Travis Moen to score goals? Who’s best overall d-man is Josh Gorges? Who’s best forward is Erik Cole? In what world does that sound like a recipe for success?
The truth is, we are in the midst of one of our worst seasons in years. And I’m not just talking about the team on the ice: I’m talking about the organization as a whole. It all began with the ill-advised re-signing of Andrei Markov who has yet to play a game this season. To make matters worse, The Canadiens went ahead and traded for another bad contract, Tomas Kaberle, a so-so d-man that they are now stuck with for 2 ½ years. We re-signed Josh Gorges, which is good. However, the contracts signed to Kaberle, Markov and eventually Price and Subban, will probably mean the departures of two our better players this year, Andrei Kostitsyn and Travis Moen.
Michael Cammalleri is having a horrible season. He somehow has nine goals; I have no idea how he scored them because he seems so disinterested in playing hockey this year, he must have scored them through osmosis. Brian Gionta, who now looks to be lost for the year, is having a similarly disappointing year, production wise. The effort is there, but nothing else it seems. The same can be said for Tomas Plekanec. Lots of effort, little results. And that’s just the thing with this team: there’s just only so much you can do when you’re short on talent. From the looks of it, our two most talented forwards (Eller and Kostitsyn) play together on the 3rd line. With Markov out, we probably have the league least talented D corps in the league. P.K. Subban? He’s pretty good but would probably be the 4th best D on almost any other team. Here, he’s treated and utilized like our no.1.
Getting the picture? We simply don’t have that good a team. Certain players are underachieving (Cammalleri, Gionta, Plekanec), but then again, there are those who are overachieving as well (Desharnais, Cole, Eller). What it all amounts to is a team that is still miles away from contending for a cup.
But it’s not necessarily as simple a problem as we need more talent to succeed. If that were the case, we could probably be a contender as early as next year. Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. There’s the small issue of our untradeable players. Let me introduce you to the following players signed for the next 2 ½ years: Michael Cammalleri (6M a year), Scott Gomez (7.3M a year), Tomas Kaberle (4.25M a year) Andrei Markov (5.75M a year) and Brian Gionta (5M a year). That’s 28.3M$. That’s a lot of dough being tied up into players that are pretty useless at the moment.
No other team in the league is suffering from such a problem at the moment. Even Anaheim, who are having a rough season, are getting way more bang for their buck from their stars then we are. What it all means is two things: Not only are we handcuffed financially from improving our club, but we’re also stuck having to play these players for the foreseeable future. Want to see Brendan Gallagher play right wing next year? I know I do. But where? Unless Gionta and Cammalieri get injured or sent to the minors, there’s simply no room for Gallagher on the team. The same goes for almost any other burgeoning prospect in our system. They’re all stuck waiting in queue behind a bunch of overpaid, underachieving players that are currently immovable objects.
Sadly, I have more bad news. Unless the organization pulls a rabbit out of the hat and magically makes a couple of these horrid contracts disappear, I’ll probably be writing an identical mid-season report next year…
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Habs Report: Apathy springs eternal
When the Habs were losing to the Blue Jackets in last night's game, my friend turned to me and said something that I'd been thinking, and something i expect everybody clear across Canada had been thinking as well.
It's the same old story.
And this wasn't just a statement about how the Canadiens always seem to come out flat against bottom dwellers and conversely play our best against better teams. No this was much more than that, it was an all-encompassing declaration: we, the Habs, (and yes, Habs fans are indeed a part of the team) have been perpetually stuck in neutral since 1993.
Bold statement you say?
Not really. When you put aside the many excuses for our failed attempts to regain our early 90's cup glory (bad drafting, bad trades, bad players, bad coaching, bad luck), it all ends up being just that, excuses, and simply put, not good enough. After a loss the other day, Martin alluded to the fact that he's barely ever had Markov in the lineup since his coaching debut. I'm sure some reporters at that particular press conference probably felt for the guy, but my first thought was "did Dan Bylsma ever whine about not having Crosby in the lineup"? I highly doubt it. Habs fans across the country are beginning to get tired of the excuses. Scratch that: they are tired, exhausted even.
Whether it was the Houle administration, where we frittered away star players in ridiculous trades and crippled our future with horrible drafting; the Savard administration, where we had no talent and were saved only by miraculous goaltending; or the Gainey/Gauthier administration, where we've had the most talent in years, but seemingly the wrong coach/system to harness it; it all comes back to the same thing: failure.
The big question then is: why has nothing much changed in almost 20 years? Many will waffle on this particular question, humming and hawing about how there is no clear answer, that there are too many intangibles, yadda, yadda, yaddda. I disagree. The answer is quite simple:
It's the same old story.
Too simple you might ask? Unfortunately no, it really is as simple as that. Since winning the cup in '93, the Montreal Canadiens have made no bold moves, no radical changes in philosophy, no substantial attempt to turn a perpetual also-ran into an annual contender. In 1995, they traded away their best player, Patrick Roy. 10 years later, they drafted their now best player, Carey Price. Basically, they fixed a mistake. in 2011, they acquired free agent Erik Cole. This was the first time in recent memory that the organization made an off-season acquisition that was desperately needed. Yes, you heard me. First time. Since the mid-nineties, fans have been clamoring for a big, top 6 center or a dominating power forward. 15 years later we got one. 15 years...
And it's not like they haven't had their opportunities to turn the ship around. Just 2 1/2 years ago, Bob Gainey had a truckload of cash lying around to spend on free agents, players that now make up the framework of our current team. But instead of addressing those obvious needs, (big center and winger), we ended up with slightly better versions of the players we let go, just a bit smaller. It was the beginning of what supposed to be a promising new era. Instead it was just...
The same old story.
There is no clear solution to our problems, but I think a pretty good place to start is with the management team. After all, it's a lot easier to change that than it is to completely change a team's personnel. And heck, we've already done that. We did change the team around, with basically the same management staff. Maybe its a sign that all the marquee players we've brought in (Cammalieri, Gomez, Gionta, Spacek) have regressed since arriving. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't the problem, just like the previous batch of stars (Kovalev, Koivu, Higgins, Ryder, Ribeiro) may not have been the problem either.
In my opinion, we've witnessed almost 2 decades worth of tinkering, and nothing else. GM's and managers have come and gone, with the same big talk about reclaiming past glories, but those statements were clearly empty promises. In truth, nobody has really ever come in here and taken the bull by the horns. It's sad to say, but the organization simply lacks balls, or a willingness to say "we've failed, time to try something else." Maybe the reason for that is because the team, no matter how much it fails to win trophies or impress it's fanbase in some way, is, and always will be, safely in the black.
So why would you make drastic changes if you're making millions? Because, just like any profitable business, disaster might creep up on you if you remain complacent. If there was one word to describe the Montreal Canadiens it would be just that: complacency. Slowly but surely, fans are beginning to tire of this inactivity, this unwillingness to adapt with the times. Simply put, people are getting apathetic. Will we make the playoffs? Probably. Does anyone really care? Yes, but then also, to a certain extent, not really. Because for the last god-knows-how-many-years we've seen this team be up and down during the season, battle for a playoff spot down the stretch, and then make a quick exit in the playoffs.
So now it's early December, we're struggling but hanging around, and fans are clamoring for a trade or a firing or something.
It's the same old story.
It's the same old story.
And this wasn't just a statement about how the Canadiens always seem to come out flat against bottom dwellers and conversely play our best against better teams. No this was much more than that, it was an all-encompassing declaration: we, the Habs, (and yes, Habs fans are indeed a part of the team) have been perpetually stuck in neutral since 1993.
Bold statement you say?
Not really. When you put aside the many excuses for our failed attempts to regain our early 90's cup glory (bad drafting, bad trades, bad players, bad coaching, bad luck), it all ends up being just that, excuses, and simply put, not good enough. After a loss the other day, Martin alluded to the fact that he's barely ever had Markov in the lineup since his coaching debut. I'm sure some reporters at that particular press conference probably felt for the guy, but my first thought was "did Dan Bylsma ever whine about not having Crosby in the lineup"? I highly doubt it. Habs fans across the country are beginning to get tired of the excuses. Scratch that: they are tired, exhausted even.
Whether it was the Houle administration, where we frittered away star players in ridiculous trades and crippled our future with horrible drafting; the Savard administration, where we had no talent and were saved only by miraculous goaltending; or the Gainey/Gauthier administration, where we've had the most talent in years, but seemingly the wrong coach/system to harness it; it all comes back to the same thing: failure.
The big question then is: why has nothing much changed in almost 20 years? Many will waffle on this particular question, humming and hawing about how there is no clear answer, that there are too many intangibles, yadda, yadda, yaddda. I disagree. The answer is quite simple:
It's the same old story.
Too simple you might ask? Unfortunately no, it really is as simple as that. Since winning the cup in '93, the Montreal Canadiens have made no bold moves, no radical changes in philosophy, no substantial attempt to turn a perpetual also-ran into an annual contender. In 1995, they traded away their best player, Patrick Roy. 10 years later, they drafted their now best player, Carey Price. Basically, they fixed a mistake. in 2011, they acquired free agent Erik Cole. This was the first time in recent memory that the organization made an off-season acquisition that was desperately needed. Yes, you heard me. First time. Since the mid-nineties, fans have been clamoring for a big, top 6 center or a dominating power forward. 15 years later we got one. 15 years...
And it's not like they haven't had their opportunities to turn the ship around. Just 2 1/2 years ago, Bob Gainey had a truckload of cash lying around to spend on free agents, players that now make up the framework of our current team. But instead of addressing those obvious needs, (big center and winger), we ended up with slightly better versions of the players we let go, just a bit smaller. It was the beginning of what supposed to be a promising new era. Instead it was just...
The same old story.
There is no clear solution to our problems, but I think a pretty good place to start is with the management team. After all, it's a lot easier to change that than it is to completely change a team's personnel. And heck, we've already done that. We did change the team around, with basically the same management staff. Maybe its a sign that all the marquee players we've brought in (Cammalieri, Gomez, Gionta, Spacek) have regressed since arriving. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't the problem, just like the previous batch of stars (Kovalev, Koivu, Higgins, Ryder, Ribeiro) may not have been the problem either.
In my opinion, we've witnessed almost 2 decades worth of tinkering, and nothing else. GM's and managers have come and gone, with the same big talk about reclaiming past glories, but those statements were clearly empty promises. In truth, nobody has really ever come in here and taken the bull by the horns. It's sad to say, but the organization simply lacks balls, or a willingness to say "we've failed, time to try something else." Maybe the reason for that is because the team, no matter how much it fails to win trophies or impress it's fanbase in some way, is, and always will be, safely in the black.
So why would you make drastic changes if you're making millions? Because, just like any profitable business, disaster might creep up on you if you remain complacent. If there was one word to describe the Montreal Canadiens it would be just that: complacency. Slowly but surely, fans are beginning to tire of this inactivity, this unwillingness to adapt with the times. Simply put, people are getting apathetic. Will we make the playoffs? Probably. Does anyone really care? Yes, but then also, to a certain extent, not really. Because for the last god-knows-how-many-years we've seen this team be up and down during the season, battle for a playoff spot down the stretch, and then make a quick exit in the playoffs.
So now it's early December, we're struggling but hanging around, and fans are clamoring for a trade or a firing or something.
It's the same old story.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Habs notes: making the necessary adjustments
The Habs won last night, and like most Habs faithful, I was pretty happy about it. Still, a couple of clear problems I've noticed since the beginning of the year propped up again, and to me, it's a lack of awareness by the coaching staff.
Hal Gill and Raphael Diaz are what should be the bottom pairing in the D corps. One is slow and not very physical, and the other is small and skilled, but quite inexperienced. Together they've been making plenty of gaffes, many of which have been leading to eventual goals. I single them out because they've made the most obvious mistakes since the beginning of the year, but the defense as a whole has struggled.
One of the biggest problem with this team since the beginning of the year has been defensive zone clearances and breakouts. I'd say 90% of the goals they've given up this year all stem from a simple zone breakout gone wrong. In the second in third period last night they were much better, but sadly it was the exception rather than the norm. A lot of it has to do with forwards coming back to help the D's out. They just don't do it on a consistent basis. When Diaz and Gill are on the ice its the most noticeable, because Diaz, who is young, gives the puck to Gill way too much. I assume it's because he's a rookie, and is probably being told by the coaches to use Gill more than he should be. Subban and Gorges were good with Gill because they knew not to let him handle the puck too much in his own zone.
Two things, thus, should be done about this (besides just changing the pairing).
1. Tell Diaz that it's his primary responsibility to get the puck up ice. Far too often have I seen Gill take it upon himself to chip the puck out or make the first breakout pass. He's good at neither. Diaz on the other hand is pretty good at both. This is why I think it's the coaches fault for not identifying this problem and rectifying it. Diaz probably knows he's better at zone clearances than Gill, but normally a rookie is waiting for a coach to tell him to take more charge of the situation. As of now he's expecting Gill to do as much or more of this task, a task he's simply not up for. How many times have you seen Gill receive a puck in his own zone and immediately look confused about why the puck was given to him, and what he should do next? Waaaayyyyy too often. Gill is good at one thing: playing without the puck. He plays so badly with it that he probably has puck-related nightmares. I'm not even kidding.
2. Force the forwards to recognize when this D pairing is on the ice, and make sure to always come back. Clearly, from how Martin explains it, the forwards are always supposed to come back, to be, as he puts it, five in the frame. Clearly, the forwards either don't listen to Martin, or they don't believe it's that necessary for them to all come back. It's almost as if half our team think that Hamrlik and Wisniewski are still back there, and that they'll have no problem getting the puck up ice. Maybe Martin ought to take baby steps with his team and say: "Try your best to get back on D. But when Diaz and Gill are on the ice, I'll bench your ass if you don't get back." Something like that anyway.
It's been two straight games where this pairing has made a careless mistake in their own zone that has cost us the team a goal. Both times it was a situation where one D-man had plenty of time, and simply decided that his only option was to make a lackluster pass back to his D partner. Basically a routine play gone wrong. I think that with a little bit of extra attention addressed to this situation by the coaches, these plays can be avoided altogether. As it stands I just don't see the proper adjustments being made, though.
It's really rather simple: when you consistently get the puck quickly out of your zone, the forwards are still fresh enough to make effective entrances into the other team's zone. This is why we seem to go through so many long stretches of offensive lethargy in a game. Defensive zone breakouts. Fix this problem, and suddenly your star forwards will start to shine. Maybe last night was a sign of things to come. One can only hope.
Hal Gill and Raphael Diaz are what should be the bottom pairing in the D corps. One is slow and not very physical, and the other is small and skilled, but quite inexperienced. Together they've been making plenty of gaffes, many of which have been leading to eventual goals. I single them out because they've made the most obvious mistakes since the beginning of the year, but the defense as a whole has struggled.
One of the biggest problem with this team since the beginning of the year has been defensive zone clearances and breakouts. I'd say 90% of the goals they've given up this year all stem from a simple zone breakout gone wrong. In the second in third period last night they were much better, but sadly it was the exception rather than the norm. A lot of it has to do with forwards coming back to help the D's out. They just don't do it on a consistent basis. When Diaz and Gill are on the ice its the most noticeable, because Diaz, who is young, gives the puck to Gill way too much. I assume it's because he's a rookie, and is probably being told by the coaches to use Gill more than he should be. Subban and Gorges were good with Gill because they knew not to let him handle the puck too much in his own zone.
Two things, thus, should be done about this (besides just changing the pairing).
1. Tell Diaz that it's his primary responsibility to get the puck up ice. Far too often have I seen Gill take it upon himself to chip the puck out or make the first breakout pass. He's good at neither. Diaz on the other hand is pretty good at both. This is why I think it's the coaches fault for not identifying this problem and rectifying it. Diaz probably knows he's better at zone clearances than Gill, but normally a rookie is waiting for a coach to tell him to take more charge of the situation. As of now he's expecting Gill to do as much or more of this task, a task he's simply not up for. How many times have you seen Gill receive a puck in his own zone and immediately look confused about why the puck was given to him, and what he should do next? Waaaayyyyy too often. Gill is good at one thing: playing without the puck. He plays so badly with it that he probably has puck-related nightmares. I'm not even kidding.
2. Force the forwards to recognize when this D pairing is on the ice, and make sure to always come back. Clearly, from how Martin explains it, the forwards are always supposed to come back, to be, as he puts it, five in the frame. Clearly, the forwards either don't listen to Martin, or they don't believe it's that necessary for them to all come back. It's almost as if half our team think that Hamrlik and Wisniewski are still back there, and that they'll have no problem getting the puck up ice. Maybe Martin ought to take baby steps with his team and say: "Try your best to get back on D. But when Diaz and Gill are on the ice, I'll bench your ass if you don't get back." Something like that anyway.
It's been two straight games where this pairing has made a careless mistake in their own zone that has cost us the team a goal. Both times it was a situation where one D-man had plenty of time, and simply decided that his only option was to make a lackluster pass back to his D partner. Basically a routine play gone wrong. I think that with a little bit of extra attention addressed to this situation by the coaches, these plays can be avoided altogether. As it stands I just don't see the proper adjustments being made, though.
It's really rather simple: when you consistently get the puck quickly out of your zone, the forwards are still fresh enough to make effective entrances into the other team's zone. This is why we seem to go through so many long stretches of offensive lethargy in a game. Defensive zone breakouts. Fix this problem, and suddenly your star forwards will start to shine. Maybe last night was a sign of things to come. One can only hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)