It's a rare thing to see a full on media attack on a colleague of the extent that Roland Melanson unleashed today. According to RDS and other sources, Carey Price has done nothing but decline since the goaltending coach was let go. He blames the goaltending coach, and seems to think he is totally familiar with all his methods.
Perhaps he thought his comments to a New Brunswick paper would be contained to the province. He can't sure;y be as naive as the hockey playing population of Belarus, can he?
Showing posts with label Coach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coach. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
A Red Flag Over Bergevin
We were giving Marc Bergevin the benfit of the doubt as a new GM in Montreal. We knew little about him.
His first moves seemed like good moves, yet we know little of the people he was bringing in. I did know the Habs beat Rick Dudley's Sabres about two generations ago, and his Thrashers regularly, and his Panthers, and, well you get the point.
Anyway, we wanted to be positiv, so we were. That is until the hammer fell. Michel Therrien.
There are positive things you can find to say about Therrien, sure. He did go all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals with theAll-Star team Penguins. But for me, there are just so many reasons that Therrien was bottom of the list of all candidates.
1) He was not a good fit in Montreal before
I know it was a different team in a different time, a different team, but there were reasons he should have done better. He coaxed an 87 point last playoff berth season from a team with Jose Theodore doing the vast majority of the work, but otherwise, he got bad results from a below average team. Furthermore, it was an era of getting to know his junior buddies, and I was glad to see the days of Patrick Travese behind me.
2) He wasn't that good in Pittsburgh
Although he was certainly present for the resurgence of the Pittsburgh Penguins, we're not sure how much he had to do with it. Look, it was bound to happen, and like Paul Bissonnette, Therrien was bound to get a goal if he stuck around in the crease (Pitt coaching job) long enough. In 2006-07, Therrien watched Crosby become the last player to crack 120 points. The next season he watched as three of the best forwards in the game waltzed the team into the final.
Now, it's obviously difficult to distill the contributions of a coach on any team. Darryl Sutter was recently a man out of ideas on the unemployment line too. But Therrien was coaching what might have been the best concentration of emerging talent we've seen in decades and he just did OK. I'm not the only one who thinks this, obviously, as Pittsburgh management thought better of leaving another Cup attempt in his hands, instead selecting a coach with all of 54 games of AHL head coaching experience as the preferred option in 2008.
3) He's a retread
So were all the candidates apparently. All "winners" elsewhere. But let's not forget losers too: Hartley coached Atlanta, Crawford coached in LA and Dallas, etc.
A retread is fin, but recognize that although someone has to win the Cup every year, it's unlikely that someone who got fired in another city has the formula we need in Montreal to deal with the ridiculous mess of politics, media and haphazard player development. If we wanted something special, it was going to have to be a new name, because no one to previously coach in the NHL not named Bowman has shown he has his head and shoulders above the rest.
Overall, I have to say this hiring is troubling. Not because I can't see the team squeaking into the playoffs and being eliminated (as usual) with Therrien. I can. But because I thought this rebuild was meant to be a step into a new direction. A sincere effort to recognize that Montreal is a special mix of elements and that if the team is to ever live up to its heritage, it must start by staffing with a very special mix of managers.
As I said, Bergevin was getting the benefit of being a possible rising star, with his buddy Mellanby. But if his judgment and the advice he's taking led him down a road that ended with Therrien being considered, interviewed and hired, the flag I see is red and it tells me that we are very much on the same course as before and any expectations of a great franchise turnaround might have to wait until the next big clean out.
I am sorry for being negative. But I truly feel this move is disappointing.
Let's be a bit positive
If I try to muster something positive from this, I must stretch. It is possible (though unlikely) that Bergevin is more calculating than we give him credit for. He is currently at the helm of a pretty mediocre group of players, and that can't be changed overnight. With the Montreal hounds the way they are, any coach might be burned by the results this team is likely to put up in the short term.
In that case, it would be a shame to burn a really hot up and comer. Instead, you'd want a sacrificial stop gap. Enter Therrien -- a coach that is competent enough to kee things at bay for a while, but one with a two year countdown.
Maybe this hiring gives Bergevin then the time he needs to cultivate his long-term partnership with that cut-above coach (yet to be found) and rebuild the team into something that resembles a contender as well.
I've stretched my imagination on this one, but that's what it's taking me to see beyond.
In all scenarios, I think Therrien will be fired and added for a second time to that long list of one to two year tenures. At least, if Bergevin turns out to be a Machiavellian genius, it won't hurt in 5 years time.
His first moves seemed like good moves, yet we know little of the people he was bringing in. I did know the Habs beat Rick Dudley's Sabres about two generations ago, and his Thrashers regularly, and his Panthers, and, well you get the point.
Anyway, we wanted to be positiv, so we were. That is until the hammer fell. Michel Therrien.
There are positive things you can find to say about Therrien, sure. He did go all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals with the
1) He was not a good fit in Montreal before
I know it was a different team in a different time, a different team, but there were reasons he should have done better. He coaxed an 87 point last playoff berth season from a team with Jose Theodore doing the vast majority of the work, but otherwise, he got bad results from a below average team. Furthermore, it was an era of getting to know his junior buddies, and I was glad to see the days of Patrick Travese behind me.
2) He wasn't that good in Pittsburgh
Although he was certainly present for the resurgence of the Pittsburgh Penguins, we're not sure how much he had to do with it. Look, it was bound to happen, and like Paul Bissonnette, Therrien was bound to get a goal if he stuck around in the crease (Pitt coaching job) long enough. In 2006-07, Therrien watched Crosby become the last player to crack 120 points. The next season he watched as three of the best forwards in the game waltzed the team into the final.
Now, it's obviously difficult to distill the contributions of a coach on any team. Darryl Sutter was recently a man out of ideas on the unemployment line too. But Therrien was coaching what might have been the best concentration of emerging talent we've seen in decades and he just did OK. I'm not the only one who thinks this, obviously, as Pittsburgh management thought better of leaving another Cup attempt in his hands, instead selecting a coach with all of 54 games of AHL head coaching experience as the preferred option in 2008.
3) He's a retread
So were all the candidates apparently. All "winners" elsewhere. But let's not forget losers too: Hartley coached Atlanta, Crawford coached in LA and Dallas, etc.
A retread is fin, but recognize that although someone has to win the Cup every year, it's unlikely that someone who got fired in another city has the formula we need in Montreal to deal with the ridiculous mess of politics, media and haphazard player development. If we wanted something special, it was going to have to be a new name, because no one to previously coach in the NHL not named Bowman has shown he has his head and shoulders above the rest.
Overall, I have to say this hiring is troubling. Not because I can't see the team squeaking into the playoffs and being eliminated (as usual) with Therrien. I can. But because I thought this rebuild was meant to be a step into a new direction. A sincere effort to recognize that Montreal is a special mix of elements and that if the team is to ever live up to its heritage, it must start by staffing with a very special mix of managers.
As I said, Bergevin was getting the benefit of being a possible rising star, with his buddy Mellanby. But if his judgment and the advice he's taking led him down a road that ended with Therrien being considered, interviewed and hired, the flag I see is red and it tells me that we are very much on the same course as before and any expectations of a great franchise turnaround might have to wait until the next big clean out.
I am sorry for being negative. But I truly feel this move is disappointing.
Let's be a bit positive
If I try to muster something positive from this, I must stretch. It is possible (though unlikely) that Bergevin is more calculating than we give him credit for. He is currently at the helm of a pretty mediocre group of players, and that can't be changed overnight. With the Montreal hounds the way they are, any coach might be burned by the results this team is likely to put up in the short term.
In that case, it would be a shame to burn a really hot up and comer. Instead, you'd want a sacrificial stop gap. Enter Therrien -- a coach that is competent enough to kee things at bay for a while, but one with a two year countdown.
Maybe this hiring gives Bergevin then the time he needs to cultivate his long-term partnership with that cut-above coach (yet to be found) and rebuild the team into something that resembles a contender as well.
I've stretched my imagination on this one, but that's what it's taking me to see beyond.
In all scenarios, I think Therrien will be fired and added for a second time to that long list of one to two year tenures. At least, if Bergevin turns out to be a Machiavellian genius, it won't hurt in 5 years time.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Pleased As Punch With Bergevin
The overwhelming feeling I am getting from the Canadiens media these last few days is that they are a happy bunch. And why not?
To understand how pleased they must be, it bears reflecting on where they were just a year ago.
With Gauthier in charge and Jacques Martin installed as coach, the world of soundbytes and stories was getting to be hard work. Gauthier a man who rarely had a press conference, and when he did said nothing of substance, and Martin genuine in his plainness, just honestly taking everything in stride and wondering what the fuss was about.
I sincerely believe that that constituted a moment of panic for the gigantic media machine that has assembled itself to live parasitically off the Canadiens. Without the fruits of preferred access, without privelege of any extra information, what was there to be to continue to define the professional media with the amateur pundit?
With all access pass provided by full broadcast of every game and tightened communication strategies limiting all expression from top to bottom, the distinction was to stay at time and the salary commanded.
If the Gauthier way had time to fully establish itself as the way forward, one would have to guess that higher ups at media outlets would resort with the Canadiens press to many of the same measures they have implemented for the reporting of all other news -- syndication with copy and pastes.
I think we understood just how real this fight was for the media and just how dire they believed their own circumstances to be when the Markov affair unfolded last fall. Not many paid to provide elaborate coverage was able to scoop Gauthier on the status of the best player in town. They reacted as if they had been duped. Really they had been made obsolete for an instant. If the media genuinely knew nothing of Markov, then why would we defer to their opinions instead of the hordes of willing and even fresh-viewed amateurs who go about their coverage with more joy and reckless abandon.
The Gauthier removal was the blessing they craved, and I wonder whether or not they had their say. The Canadiens, you see, are not so far removed from the media machine that they feed, they certainly enjoy the reach and notoriety it can give the team. A paid crew will still write reviews on a season laid dead months before. Publicity that would not be guaranteed from amateurs fatigued with the thought of hockey in bleu, blanc, rouge.
And their relief was further enhanced by the hiring of Marc Bergevin. Never mind that he speaks French for a minute (although that certainly is important). The fact he is a personable character who seems to have no qualm with open policy is much more valuable to the machine. Today I read Bertrand Raymond's opinion on the matter and it reads like a Hallelujah. He even retreads every former GM he has known, praising those who enhanced his life and slagging those who did not. It's telling that Andre Savard comes out with a shinier review than Sam Pollock. The vilification of Gainey and Gauthier is a contrast to the apology he offers for the affable Rejean Houle.
So understand then that the media has more than one agenda here, or so it seems to me. I say understand, to you knowledgeable folks I should say don't forget. Bergevin will ultimately be judged for the hockey he manages to coax from a team he puts together, but that judgment is a way off. Until such time, it seems he will be cast in rays of appreciation just for smiling, talking and letting the media back in. I would think that the media being as pleased as punch with man in a year should not determine how each fan feels about the situation. Just my observations.
On the coach
I guess now Marc is in his chair, the attention of the organization and the speculation moves firmly to the position of head coach.
It's an interesting decision, and I hope to offer more comment in a full reflection on the topic.
I do have some preliminary questions/concerns:
What are the criteria really going to be?
I ask because M. Raymond rambled briefly on how HNIC misunderstands Quebec when they might suggest someone like Quenneville. His line: "Heureusement, le nom de Quenneville vient de s'effacer de lui-même" is a troubling stance for a fan who wants the best candiate available. Especially when it is followed by discussion on the glory years of Savard-Therrien.
I understand the importance of language as a factor in the decision, but funnily I look at the Cunneyworth episode from a different lens than many. Most fans weren't in constant uproar over Cunneyworth (well not until they realised he would lose more than Martin). The fanbase was surprisingly accepting, I thought, actually.
I all factors should be weighed in a balance. With the GM, I feel comfortable this was carried out. Bergevin won out because he was a serious candidate. He happens to be from Montreal, and this definitely weighed in, but it doesn't stand out as his main quality.
A candidate like Michel Therrien for me is a non-starter, and I'mappalled to see his name in the mix. Yes he did pretty well with the Penguins, but he has certainly been outdone by a fair margin by the newcomer Bylsma, and most of the time without the same arsenal. He was not in my estimation part of some golden age with the Habs, but part of a dark age, and I surely recall rejoicing at his departure more than any other. Would he be on a list that did not start with language? Not one you'd be happy to not have to include Quenneville on.
Anyway, enjoy the Flyerless playoffs and catch up soon.
To understand how pleased they must be, it bears reflecting on where they were just a year ago.
With Gauthier in charge and Jacques Martin installed as coach, the world of soundbytes and stories was getting to be hard work. Gauthier a man who rarely had a press conference, and when he did said nothing of substance, and Martin genuine in his plainness, just honestly taking everything in stride and wondering what the fuss was about.
I sincerely believe that that constituted a moment of panic for the gigantic media machine that has assembled itself to live parasitically off the Canadiens. Without the fruits of preferred access, without privelege of any extra information, what was there to be to continue to define the professional media with the amateur pundit?
With all access pass provided by full broadcast of every game and tightened communication strategies limiting all expression from top to bottom, the distinction was to stay at time and the salary commanded.
If the Gauthier way had time to fully establish itself as the way forward, one would have to guess that higher ups at media outlets would resort with the Canadiens press to many of the same measures they have implemented for the reporting of all other news -- syndication with copy and pastes.
I think we understood just how real this fight was for the media and just how dire they believed their own circumstances to be when the Markov affair unfolded last fall. Not many paid to provide elaborate coverage was able to scoop Gauthier on the status of the best player in town. They reacted as if they had been duped. Really they had been made obsolete for an instant. If the media genuinely knew nothing of Markov, then why would we defer to their opinions instead of the hordes of willing and even fresh-viewed amateurs who go about their coverage with more joy and reckless abandon.
The Gauthier removal was the blessing they craved, and I wonder whether or not they had their say. The Canadiens, you see, are not so far removed from the media machine that they feed, they certainly enjoy the reach and notoriety it can give the team. A paid crew will still write reviews on a season laid dead months before. Publicity that would not be guaranteed from amateurs fatigued with the thought of hockey in bleu, blanc, rouge.
And their relief was further enhanced by the hiring of Marc Bergevin. Never mind that he speaks French for a minute (although that certainly is important). The fact he is a personable character who seems to have no qualm with open policy is much more valuable to the machine. Today I read Bertrand Raymond's opinion on the matter and it reads like a Hallelujah. He even retreads every former GM he has known, praising those who enhanced his life and slagging those who did not. It's telling that Andre Savard comes out with a shinier review than Sam Pollock. The vilification of Gainey and Gauthier is a contrast to the apology he offers for the affable Rejean Houle.
So understand then that the media has more than one agenda here, or so it seems to me. I say understand, to you knowledgeable folks I should say don't forget. Bergevin will ultimately be judged for the hockey he manages to coax from a team he puts together, but that judgment is a way off. Until such time, it seems he will be cast in rays of appreciation just for smiling, talking and letting the media back in. I would think that the media being as pleased as punch with man in a year should not determine how each fan feels about the situation. Just my observations.
On the coach
I guess now Marc is in his chair, the attention of the organization and the speculation moves firmly to the position of head coach.
It's an interesting decision, and I hope to offer more comment in a full reflection on the topic.
I do have some preliminary questions/concerns:
What are the criteria really going to be?
I ask because M. Raymond rambled briefly on how HNIC misunderstands Quebec when they might suggest someone like Quenneville. His line: "Heureusement, le nom de Quenneville vient de s'effacer de lui-même" is a troubling stance for a fan who wants the best candiate available. Especially when it is followed by discussion on the glory years of Savard-Therrien.
I understand the importance of language as a factor in the decision, but funnily I look at the Cunneyworth episode from a different lens than many. Most fans weren't in constant uproar over Cunneyworth (well not until they realised he would lose more than Martin). The fanbase was surprisingly accepting, I thought, actually.
I all factors should be weighed in a balance. With the GM, I feel comfortable this was carried out. Bergevin won out because he was a serious candidate. He happens to be from Montreal, and this definitely weighed in, but it doesn't stand out as his main quality.
A candidate like Michel Therrien for me is a non-starter, and I'mappalled to see his name in the mix. Yes he did pretty well with the Penguins, but he has certainly been outdone by a fair margin by the newcomer Bylsma, and most of the time without the same arsenal. He was not in my estimation part of some golden age with the Habs, but part of a dark age, and I surely recall rejoicing at his departure more than any other. Would he be on a list that did not start with language? Not one you'd be happy to not have to include Quenneville on.
Anyway, enjoy the Flyerless playoffs and catch up soon.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Jacques Martin
Gotta Go?
Every few days bloggers like myself receive comments about the team, its players, its management. Since Jacques Martin was hired, it's a pretty good bet that comments about him having to go come along just as frequently.
Just yesterday, a Guest posted this:
It was a comment among many similar comments seen at LIW and HI/O and FHF, and any Canadiens discussion forum. Usually I would respond to this comment in place. but as it seems to be a recurring theme, I thought a more lasting form of response was fitting.
The complaint
As far as I can tell, the common elements of the complaint against Martin are that:
a) He is boring
b) He employs a boring system of hockey (sometimes named "the trap")
c) He is stifling the team's talent
d) He doesn't yell enough behind the bench
e) This is costing the team wins
f) He has never won anything
These are very fair points. He is quite a boring interviewee (Personally, I deal with that by not listening to any of his interviews). He does favour some defensive responsibility, a variation on the trap. And he certainly never yells at the referees. All true.
Where I start to take issue is with the notion that we extrapolate these things into our personal conclusions. That defensive play is stifling the talent, that this is costing the team wins. That not ranting over calls is costing points and wins.
I think some of these stretch the imagination. Don't you?
To those who really believe he is stifling the team. I ask you to consider an honest assessment of the talent on the team. What sets this group apart from the 9 teams ahead of the Canadiens that they should supposedly be putting points over on?
I think an honest look shows that we don't have a Crosby, Zetterberg, Datsyuk or Ovechkin, or even a Gaborik, Backstrom, Richards, Carter, Chara, Thomas, etc. Right now the team is being led by Plekanec, who works at a formidable rate, but still paces well below a point a game (a pace that would be lower if he played defences as good as Philly's game in, game out). An honest assessment would show that the Habs are doing just as they should with the group they have. Probably even better considering their injuries.
Complaints about the system are just as porous. Necessity is the mother of invention and necessity has created this system.
When Jacques Martin was in Ottawa he coached a team that scored more goals than anyone, because he had the goalscorers to carry the strategy. In Florida he didn't. In Montreal he hasn't. Necessity in Montreal is a young (and, until recently, fragile) goaltender starting all games. Necessity is 3 veterans who can't skate all that fast, but who can compete when a system allows them to. Necessity is having two rookies make up the other defensive numbers. necessity is playing to Gomez and Gionta's strengths, which include a grounding in New Jersey hockey. Necessity is the absence of people to pick up any real slack beyond the top 6 forwards.
What other system would we have him employ? Opening up the ice doesn't look great on Hamrlik and Gill. Nor does it seem to suit forwards who despite being named fast, somehow always manage to find their coverage before the blueline. We'd all love to be Detroit, but years of good as well as lucky drafting aren't yet behind this team.
Finally, can we give a rest to the notion that Jacques Martin hasn't won anything?
What we mean is that he hasn't won a Stanley Cup. How many coaches have? A handful. How many have won with a team like these Canadiens? Less. Martin has won well over 600 NHL games. He's won the league, the division, the race to the playoffs more times than not. He's won something. he's won a Memorial Cup (one more than Guy Boucher).
No he's not Scotty Bowman, but Scotty's not coaching anymore.
It's fine to criticise the coach. I 'll do it in the future, I'm sure. In fact, criticise all you want. But if you alternatives enough can't be found to list against the complaints, consider before posting that maybe that's because there might not be very many.
And if your team sits well above the position of the year before and the one before that, consider that maybe the coaches are doing something right in amongst all their wrongs.
Just yesterday, a Guest posted this:
JM has to go ...he is a dinosaur holding back a fast team in the name of the almighty trap....he says nothing when we get jobbed by refs....dump him...etc., etc.
It was a comment among many similar comments seen at LIW and HI/O and FHF, and any Canadiens discussion forum. Usually I would respond to this comment in place. but as it seems to be a recurring theme, I thought a more lasting form of response was fitting.
The complaint
As far as I can tell, the common elements of the complaint against Martin are that:
a) He is boring
b) He employs a boring system of hockey (sometimes named "the trap")
c) He is stifling the team's talent
d) He doesn't yell enough behind the bench
e) This is costing the team wins
f) He has never won anything
These are very fair points. He is quite a boring interviewee (Personally, I deal with that by not listening to any of his interviews). He does favour some defensive responsibility, a variation on the trap. And he certainly never yells at the referees. All true.
Where I start to take issue is with the notion that we extrapolate these things into our personal conclusions. That defensive play is stifling the talent, that this is costing the team wins. That not ranting over calls is costing points and wins.
I think some of these stretch the imagination. Don't you?
To those who really believe he is stifling the team. I ask you to consider an honest assessment of the talent on the team. What sets this group apart from the 9 teams ahead of the Canadiens that they should supposedly be putting points over on?
I think an honest look shows that we don't have a Crosby, Zetterberg, Datsyuk or Ovechkin, or even a Gaborik, Backstrom, Richards, Carter, Chara, Thomas, etc. Right now the team is being led by Plekanec, who works at a formidable rate, but still paces well below a point a game (a pace that would be lower if he played defences as good as Philly's game in, game out). An honest assessment would show that the Habs are doing just as they should with the group they have. Probably even better considering their injuries.
Complaints about the system are just as porous. Necessity is the mother of invention and necessity has created this system.
When Jacques Martin was in Ottawa he coached a team that scored more goals than anyone, because he had the goalscorers to carry the strategy. In Florida he didn't. In Montreal he hasn't. Necessity in Montreal is a young (and, until recently, fragile) goaltender starting all games. Necessity is 3 veterans who can't skate all that fast, but who can compete when a system allows them to. Necessity is having two rookies make up the other defensive numbers. necessity is playing to Gomez and Gionta's strengths, which include a grounding in New Jersey hockey. Necessity is the absence of people to pick up any real slack beyond the top 6 forwards.
What other system would we have him employ? Opening up the ice doesn't look great on Hamrlik and Gill. Nor does it seem to suit forwards who despite being named fast, somehow always manage to find their coverage before the blueline. We'd all love to be Detroit, but years of good as well as lucky drafting aren't yet behind this team.
Finally, can we give a rest to the notion that Jacques Martin hasn't won anything?
What we mean is that he hasn't won a Stanley Cup. How many coaches have? A handful. How many have won with a team like these Canadiens? Less. Martin has won well over 600 NHL games. He's won the league, the division, the race to the playoffs more times than not. He's won something. he's won a Memorial Cup (one more than Guy Boucher).
No he's not Scotty Bowman, but Scotty's not coaching anymore.
It's fine to criticise the coach. I 'll do it in the future, I'm sure. In fact, criticise all you want. But if you alternatives enough can't be found to list against the complaints, consider before posting that maybe that's because there might not be very many.
And if your team sits well above the position of the year before and the one before that, consider that maybe the coaches are doing something right in amongst all their wrongs.
Friday, February 04, 2011
The Three Pillars Of Habs Defence
When you want to build something right, you want to be using pillars. Ancient buildings, even the religions they were built for are more often than not founded on pillars, stone or metaphoric.
The 1970s Canadiens were built on three big important pillars: The Big Three. The current Canadiens too are built on three important and often underappreciated pillars: Hal Gill, Roman Hamrlik and Jaroslav Spacek.
Reasonable fans everywhere set realistic expectation of impending disaster this last summer. A team that had struggled to keep shots down without Markov had lost the reason most of those shots did not pierce the armour. Without Halak, and Markov on extended rehab, the feeling was dour enough, had these fans known that Markov would play but 7 games of the season and be rehabbing a second injury by December, I think the mood would have gone south rather than anywhere else.
But reasonable fans have been wrong before. They were wrong about this. Nearly three months after losing Markov (again), and nearly two month after losing Gorges as well, the Canadiens are still well placed among the defensive standard bearers of the league.
With a 2.42 GAA they sit 6th in the league. 30.0 shots against places them 15th. And their 84.2% on the PK is seventh best. This may not blow your minds, but know that these are both the best numbers and ranks that any Canadiens team since the lockout has posted – in every category. This is the best defensive edition of the Canadiens in some time.
Every time people drool over defences a couple of discussion topics rise to the top: coaching and goaltending. Jacques Martin’s system must deserve some credit, and Carey price has found a way to dominate at times, yet they must not get all the credit. Because for all the simple game plans, the players have to execute and commit to execution, and all the goaltending talent in the world still oozes goals behind a porous defensive line.
Some credit has to go to the Three Pillars: Gill, Hamrlik and Spacek.
In recent game reviews, we have alluded to their importance, but never really drilled to the point. In recognition of their lack of recognition generally, I want to remind everyone why we should still all be thankful that these three pillars prop up the structure in which Weber and Subban can learn, and based on which the Canadiens have been amassing wins.
1) They offer a first piece for building a unit
These three players have the highest minutes played at even strength of all Montreal Canadiens. On this team, without Markov and Gorges, it is clear the Jacques Martin considers the two defenders he will have on the ice and starts by putting one of each of the pillars at all times. Between the three of them, they probably offer coverage for the entire game, save a few powerplay minutes.
This is a great value to Martin, because he can be sure that at all times he’ll have a veteran player who has played in the vast majority of situations before. A system cannot be built on uncertainty, and while they have their occasional slips, Gill Hamrlik and Spacek at least provide some certainty that a system will be understood and applied throughout the games.
2) They do the complementary work, whatever it is
More than anything what impresses me about these three players has been the adaptability and their willingness to concede their previous duties to accept mundane ones, all in aid of the team. In an age where it’s not uncommon to have locker room rifts over ice time, it’s surely a relief to see Spacek taking his reduced minutes in stride, to see Gill happily in and out of first shadow pairs role and Hamrlik to concede lots of offensive opportunities to his new partner.
Rather than making their new partners change to fit with them, the vets are changing to make the best partnership on common strengths. The dividends are being paid by all three of Wisniewski, Subban and Weber, who talented themselves, would still struggle if made to play entirely unfamiliar hockey to accommodate another.
The pride of the Pillars seems to be entirely now in the winning and less in the minutiae of making breakout passes themselves or getting first PP minutes. This, I suggest, is not a pervasive virtue in the NHL these days. Certainly not on teams with lesser defensive records.
3) They offer a good example
All of that which I mentioned is good example. More than that, these three seem to be relishing their roles as mentors and guides to their young partners. Gill can be seen talking with Subban and Weber seems to be learning from Spacek. One can only assume that this would extend at least as far as the locker room, if not further off the ice.
While it is right that we continue to get excited about Subban and what promise he represents to the team, that we mention Weber’s improvement every game and how Wisniewski has been a great addition; it is also good to remember the other half of the equation. Those solid, sometimes boring, Dmen that are allowing this bloom to happen. To Gill, Hamrlik and Spacek, three pillars this team could not do without.
The 1970s Canadiens were built on three big important pillars: The Big Three. The current Canadiens too are built on three important and often underappreciated pillars: Hal Gill, Roman Hamrlik and Jaroslav Spacek.
Reasonable fans everywhere set realistic expectation of impending disaster this last summer. A team that had struggled to keep shots down without Markov had lost the reason most of those shots did not pierce the armour. Without Halak, and Markov on extended rehab, the feeling was dour enough, had these fans known that Markov would play but 7 games of the season and be rehabbing a second injury by December, I think the mood would have gone south rather than anywhere else.
But reasonable fans have been wrong before. They were wrong about this. Nearly three months after losing Markov (again), and nearly two month after losing Gorges as well, the Canadiens are still well placed among the defensive standard bearers of the league.
With a 2.42 GAA they sit 6th in the league. 30.0 shots against places them 15th. And their 84.2% on the PK is seventh best. This may not blow your minds, but know that these are both the best numbers and ranks that any Canadiens team since the lockout has posted – in every category. This is the best defensive edition of the Canadiens in some time.
Every time people drool over defences a couple of discussion topics rise to the top: coaching and goaltending. Jacques Martin’s system must deserve some credit, and Carey price has found a way to dominate at times, yet they must not get all the credit. Because for all the simple game plans, the players have to execute and commit to execution, and all the goaltending talent in the world still oozes goals behind a porous defensive line.
Some credit has to go to the Three Pillars: Gill, Hamrlik and Spacek.
In recent game reviews, we have alluded to their importance, but never really drilled to the point. In recognition of their lack of recognition generally, I want to remind everyone why we should still all be thankful that these three pillars prop up the structure in which Weber and Subban can learn, and based on which the Canadiens have been amassing wins.
1) They offer a first piece for building a unit
These three players have the highest minutes played at even strength of all Montreal Canadiens. On this team, without Markov and Gorges, it is clear the Jacques Martin considers the two defenders he will have on the ice and starts by putting one of each of the pillars at all times. Between the three of them, they probably offer coverage for the entire game, save a few powerplay minutes.
This is a great value to Martin, because he can be sure that at all times he’ll have a veteran player who has played in the vast majority of situations before. A system cannot be built on uncertainty, and while they have their occasional slips, Gill Hamrlik and Spacek at least provide some certainty that a system will be understood and applied throughout the games.
2) They do the complementary work, whatever it is
More than anything what impresses me about these three players has been the adaptability and their willingness to concede their previous duties to accept mundane ones, all in aid of the team. In an age where it’s not uncommon to have locker room rifts over ice time, it’s surely a relief to see Spacek taking his reduced minutes in stride, to see Gill happily in and out of first shadow pairs role and Hamrlik to concede lots of offensive opportunities to his new partner.
Rather than making their new partners change to fit with them, the vets are changing to make the best partnership on common strengths. The dividends are being paid by all three of Wisniewski, Subban and Weber, who talented themselves, would still struggle if made to play entirely unfamiliar hockey to accommodate another.
The pride of the Pillars seems to be entirely now in the winning and less in the minutiae of making breakout passes themselves or getting first PP minutes. This, I suggest, is not a pervasive virtue in the NHL these days. Certainly not on teams with lesser defensive records.
3) They offer a good example
All of that which I mentioned is good example. More than that, these three seem to be relishing their roles as mentors and guides to their young partners. Gill can be seen talking with Subban and Weber seems to be learning from Spacek. One can only assume that this would extend at least as far as the locker room, if not further off the ice.
While it is right that we continue to get excited about Subban and what promise he represents to the team, that we mention Weber’s improvement every game and how Wisniewski has been a great addition; it is also good to remember the other half of the equation. Those solid, sometimes boring, Dmen that are allowing this bloom to happen. To Gill, Hamrlik and Spacek, three pillars this team could not do without.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Speaking Of 1993 Complexes
Fair's fair. Call out Toronto's fans on their unhealthy obsession with the year of the Kings and we must certainly point the finger to those in our own brethren who haven't latched onto anything else for 16 years.
Serge Savard, our prospective owner, Senator, good-will ambassador and one-time GM revealed yesterday that he has one of the unhealthiest. Second only perhaps to Jacques Demers. This article from RDS gives a little insight into why Bob Gainey might have moved so uncharacteristically in haste to sign Jacques Martin up. Lest he be saddled with the RDS broadcast team as his next-in commands.
Should he have been successful in championing the BCE money in their Canadiens venture, Serge Savard in his capacity as owner's spokesperson would have liked to put forward his coach from 1993, Jacques Demers, for the now filled head coach post.
Demers had no problem revealing the rumour himself (surprise, surprise) and even went so far to comment on his prospective staff for the upcoming year:
Brunet as assistant, no doubt about that (feeling nauseous); Desjardins and Muller; to be supplemented by others from 1993 (of course). Might I suggest Racicot as goaltending coach and Roberge as special consultant?
The good thing about Demers is that he would come equipped with a plan that we've all already read, which I commented on in the now hauntingly apt-again title "Sometimes You Thank Your Stars They Are Just On TV":
His changes are here.
Koivu is out. Kovalev and Tanguay in. He'd resign Plekanec, but be willing to trade him. Latendresse and Lapierre make up two of the others in our formidable 6 remaining forwards according to Jacques. The Ds remain for the most part. He does then boot Halak to let Marc Denis reclaim NHL glory as a backup.
If his grip on the new administration stretched as far as the GM's office, he'd be pursuing loads of free agents to fill the gaps. He'd also trade the Kostitsyns, Plekanec, Gorges and Halak for Lecavalier and St. Louis (I'm surprised Tamps hasn't made this trade already!).
So we play along. We indulge, M. Savard and Demers.
Mesdames et Messieurs, vos Canadiens de 2009-2010:
Dirigeant general/General Manager, Bob Gainey
Entraineur des gardiens/Goaltending coach, Andre Racicot
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Kirk Muller
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Eric Desjardins
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Benoit Brunet
Entraineur chef/Head coach, Jacques Demers
(At this point, to the strained sounds of Queen's We Are The Champions, Demers parades a foil cup around the ice stopping to kiss it 93 times)
Numero 3/Number 3: Ryan O'Byrne
Numero 4/Number 4: Vincent Lecavalier
Numero 8/Number 8: Mike Komisarek
...
You get the point, but here's his depth chart:
Tanguay – Lecavalier – Kovalev
D’Agostini – Antropov – St-Louis
Latendresse – Lapierre - Neil
Laraque – Metropolit – Laperrière
Markov – Komisarek
Hamrlik – Beauchemin
Havelid – Leopold
Substitut : Weber, Stewart, O’Byrne
(Here's the balance sheet: +15 million over the cap)
Anyone think we chose the wrong Jacques now? Are we a bit relieved Rejean Houle never made enough money to buy this team?
Serge Savard, our prospective owner, Senator, good-will ambassador and one-time GM revealed yesterday that he has one of the unhealthiest. Second only perhaps to Jacques Demers. This article from RDS gives a little insight into why Bob Gainey might have moved so uncharacteristically in haste to sign Jacques Martin up. Lest he be saddled with the RDS broadcast team as his next-in commands.
Should he have been successful in championing the BCE money in their Canadiens venture, Serge Savard in his capacity as owner's spokesperson would have liked to put forward his coach from 1993, Jacques Demers, for the now filled head coach post.
Demers had no problem revealing the rumour himself (surprise, surprise) and even went so far to comment on his prospective staff for the upcoming year:
"Je voulais avoir Benoît Brunet, sans aucun doute, et Éric Desjardins, que j’admire et respecte comme défenseur. J’aurais probablement gardé Kirk Muller aussi. Je me serais entouré d’anciens gagnants de la coupe Stanley de 1993", a déclaré Demers, dont la carrière d’entraîneur a été mise sur les blocs après une deuxième saison difficile à la barre du Lightning de Tampa Bay en 1999.
Brunet as assistant, no doubt about that (feeling nauseous); Desjardins and Muller; to be supplemented by others from 1993 (of course). Might I suggest Racicot as goaltending coach and Roberge as special consultant?
The good thing about Demers is that he would come equipped with a plan that we've all already read, which I commented on in the now hauntingly apt-again title "Sometimes You Thank Your Stars They Are Just On TV":
Wow, that was heavy. Jacques Demers, being the Don Cherry of French Canadian TV is prone to saying stupid things off the cuff. But these were some of the worst. I'm just glad he's no longer associated with the decision making for this team and that he is kept at a safe distance from the ice in the RDS press box...
His changes are here.
Koivu is out. Kovalev and Tanguay in. He'd resign Plekanec, but be willing to trade him. Latendresse and Lapierre make up two of the others in our formidable 6 remaining forwards according to Jacques. The Ds remain for the most part. He does then boot Halak to let Marc Denis reclaim NHL glory as a backup.
If his grip on the new administration stretched as far as the GM's office, he'd be pursuing loads of free agents to fill the gaps. He'd also trade the Kostitsyns, Plekanec, Gorges and Halak for Lecavalier and St. Louis (I'm surprised Tamps hasn't made this trade already!).
So we play along. We indulge, M. Savard and Demers.
Mesdames et Messieurs, vos Canadiens de 2009-2010:
Dirigeant general/General Manager, Bob Gainey
Entraineur des gardiens/Goaltending coach, Andre Racicot
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Kirk Muller
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Eric Desjardins
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Benoit Brunet
Entraineur chef/Head coach, Jacques Demers
(At this point, to the strained sounds of Queen's We Are The Champions, Demers parades a foil cup around the ice stopping to kiss it 93 times)
Numero 3/Number 3: Ryan O'Byrne
Numero 4/Number 4: Vincent Lecavalier
Numero 8/Number 8: Mike Komisarek
...
You get the point, but here's his depth chart:
Tanguay – Lecavalier – Kovalev
D’Agostini – Antropov – St-Louis
Latendresse – Lapierre - Neil
Laraque – Metropolit – Laperrière
Markov – Komisarek
Hamrlik – Beauchemin
Havelid – Leopold
Substitut : Weber, Stewart, O’Byrne
(Here's the balance sheet: +15 million over the cap)
Anyone think we chose the wrong Jacques now? Are we a bit relieved Rejean Houle never made enough money to buy this team?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
The Toronto Complex
You can tell we've all been a little bit starved for material these last few weeks. As fun as it is to watch a retread of last year's final after more than a month without the Canadiens, this Jacques Martin story really brought Habs fans back to the table.
But we're not alone. Maple Leafs fans, after a good sojourn of more than 6 weeks are just as starved and depraved as us. Despite having an entertaining, pig-headed, if not slightly demented, quote machine for a GM; the major newspapers and bloggers from Leaf Nation all pounced on the opportunity presented by the Jacques Martin hoopla.
Predictably, the bulk of our rivals came out with negatives for the hiring.
Toronto Sun:
Pension Plan Puppets:
Down Goes Brown:
And here:
ESPN (via Torontonian Burnside):
It's systematic from fans of the Maple Leafs. Whereas Canadiens fans were too unmoved to bother expressing opinions on the Leafs latest playoff-eschewer-to-be last season, there's hardly a Leafs blog worth its weight that passes up Martin bashing. I think it's essentially because Leafs fans, young ones especially especially have built their identities around two fundamental truths:
1) That beating Ottawa in 4 consecutive playoff series was the best thing about their decade
2) That 1993 was their year, cheated only of their latest Cup by foul refereeing
I find it curious that Leafs fans dwell so much on an opposing team and an opponent's coach. In Montreal, we love the Boston wins, but serious fans look past those to ask where the success goes against the 28 other teams in the playoffs. Similarly, the Leafs, powered by the largest budgets in the early 2000s were pretty flat against anyone but Ottawa.
Yes, Ottawa did lose several series in a row when they faced the Leafs, but on 3 of 4 of those occasions, the Leafs held home ice as the favourites. Never mind that Toronto was also trundling through the pre-lockout NHL with handy use of its enormous purse while Ottawa at times was fluttering on the edge of bankruptcy. In retrospect, it seems the two Ontario teams were on similar paths of ascendancy at about the same time – Toronto from 1998-2004 and Ottawa from 1998-2007. The only differences, really, were those head-to-head series. And, of course the fact that Ottawa both won the league and made it all the way to a final.
I suspect that if a psychoanalyst were to probe into Toronto's complex about Jacques Martin, they might find a more profound complex about the falterings of Pat Quinn with sometimes superior and often more playoff-ready contending teams. (I suspect they'd have a lot to say about me writing this article about Toronto's complex too...).
If the Jacques Martin critics are curious, the 1993 playoff pretenders are tedium personified.
This sentiment was cemented further for me recently when I rediscovered that the Kerry Fraser hiccough was a missed call, not a false call (forgive me for not dwelling on that for near two decades). That in itself takes their imaginary Cup much further into the realm of extrapolation. With their imaginary PP, the Leafs would now have had to score to win the game – something they may well have done. But given they had a chance to win in that same game and didn't (rather took a penalty and lost), and then had chance to win in game 7 at home and didn't – imagining 5 more victories for the team backstopped by the illustrious Felix Potvin is a bit of a stretch.
As Habs fans, we now hold two of the items dearest to the Leafs fans' hearts – Jacques Martin (their charmed opponent) and the 1993 Stanley Cup. I hailed the Marting hiring initially as sound and well-considered given the team we have; I take pleasure now in thinking that we might leave Leafs fans eating their words as well.
But we're not alone. Maple Leafs fans, after a good sojourn of more than 6 weeks are just as starved and depraved as us. Despite having an entertaining, pig-headed, if not slightly demented, quote machine for a GM; the major newspapers and bloggers from Leaf Nation all pounced on the opportunity presented by the Jacques Martin hoopla.
Predictably, the bulk of our rivals came out with negatives for the hiring.
Toronto Sun:
Proven how, he didn't say. In Ottawa, he specialized in strangling the creativity of his players and frustrating reporters with his inability to answer the most basic of questions. But this is what Les Glorieux is reduced to now. Martin isn't the worst coach out there but he certainly isn't the best. The Habs won't allow themselves to hire the best anymore. They hire the bilingual. When you search only for bilingual, a short list of qualified candidates gets even shorter.
That's the only way you get to Martin.
Pension Plan Puppets:
The honeymoon is over, and it's now Jacques Martin's time to answer for his crimes against hockey. I for one look forward to this coming Habs season.
Down Goes Brown:
Gainey: OK, so let's skip that part and move on to Ottawa.
Martin: Well, with the Senators I was best known for accomplishing something that virtually no other active NHL coach has managed to do.
Gainey: Which was?
Martin: Losing to the Toronto Maple Leafs in the playoffs.
And here:
If you're going to lose in the first round, you might as well hire a pro.
ESPN (via Torontonian Burnside):
We're not sure exactly what Gainey thinks Martin will bring to a Montreal team that hasn't won a Cup since 1993 and has failed to advance past the second round in that same span. Maybe it's more of the same mediocrity?
It's systematic from fans of the Maple Leafs. Whereas Canadiens fans were too unmoved to bother expressing opinions on the Leafs latest playoff-eschewer-to-be last season, there's hardly a Leafs blog worth its weight that passes up Martin bashing. I think it's essentially because Leafs fans, young ones especially especially have built their identities around two fundamental truths:
1) That beating Ottawa in 4 consecutive playoff series was the best thing about their decade
2) That 1993 was their year, cheated only of their latest Cup by foul refereeing
I find it curious that Leafs fans dwell so much on an opposing team and an opponent's coach. In Montreal, we love the Boston wins, but serious fans look past those to ask where the success goes against the 28 other teams in the playoffs. Similarly, the Leafs, powered by the largest budgets in the early 2000s were pretty flat against anyone but Ottawa.
Yes, Ottawa did lose several series in a row when they faced the Leafs, but on 3 of 4 of those occasions, the Leafs held home ice as the favourites. Never mind that Toronto was also trundling through the pre-lockout NHL with handy use of its enormous purse while Ottawa at times was fluttering on the edge of bankruptcy. In retrospect, it seems the two Ontario teams were on similar paths of ascendancy at about the same time – Toronto from 1998-2004 and Ottawa from 1998-2007. The only differences, really, were those head-to-head series. And, of course the fact that Ottawa both won the league and made it all the way to a final.
I suspect that if a psychoanalyst were to probe into Toronto's complex about Jacques Martin, they might find a more profound complex about the falterings of Pat Quinn with sometimes superior and often more playoff-ready contending teams. (I suspect they'd have a lot to say about me writing this article about Toronto's complex too...).
If the Jacques Martin critics are curious, the 1993 playoff pretenders are tedium personified.
This sentiment was cemented further for me recently when I rediscovered that the Kerry Fraser hiccough was a missed call, not a false call (forgive me for not dwelling on that for near two decades). That in itself takes their imaginary Cup much further into the realm of extrapolation. With their imaginary PP, the Leafs would now have had to score to win the game – something they may well have done. But given they had a chance to win in that same game and didn't (rather took a penalty and lost), and then had chance to win in game 7 at home and didn't – imagining 5 more victories for the team backstopped by the illustrious Felix Potvin is a bit of a stretch.
As Habs fans, we now hold two of the items dearest to the Leafs fans' hearts – Jacques Martin (their charmed opponent) and the 1993 Stanley Cup. I hailed the Marting hiring initially as sound and well-considered given the team we have; I take pleasure now in thinking that we might leave Leafs fans eating their words as well.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Spring Cleaning
Jacques Martin, Melanson, Livingston And The Rest
Big week of change for the Montreal Canadiens – Bob Gainey’s finally got around to doing his spring cleaning. Though player moves can’t be made yet, he has made quite a statement by hiring in a good, experienced head coach, questioning the future of the assistants and dispensing of the outdated and welcome-worn staff members.
All in all, it’s positive stuff. The moves in themselves are not even as stirring as a regular season empty net goal; but taken together can just about drum up the excitement of a November win. The main victory for me is that Gainey’s reflections are in line with our own as fans (and mine, specifically), with accents on fitness, creativity, communication and strategy – all massive deficiencies of the previous administration.
Jacques Martin: a good choice for the Habs
Considering the limitations they set for themselves, the Canadiens have managed to pull the best candidate out of the bag here, I think. While not willing to compromise on language, they thankfully were able to compromise on availability – going for an employed vs. unemployed NHL vet. I'd be happier with a more experimental coach (after all, we're trying to beat the Pens, Caps and Wings, not just make the playoffs); but I didn't think Hartley, Crawford and especially Therrien would give us that at all.
2009-10 will be Jacques’ 15th season at the head of an NHL team to go with 7 years experience as an assistant. Remarkably, it will be his 24th consecutive season in the employ of an NHL club – never once pimping his wares for a cable TV network. With all due respect to colour commentators, the reason the Pierre McGuires of the world take the holding pattern of the TV jobs is because NHL clubs exercise "buyer beware" (ask Barry Melrose), not because they are being unfairly overlooked.
Critics point to playoff losses and his time in Florida as failures. But since much of the cynicism is coming from Toronto, who wouldn't know a good coach if he came doused in Stanley Cup champagne, and for whom Conn Smythe and Jack Adams bring to mind owners not trophies, we mustn't pay too much heed. His time in Florida was a success in my book, considering the roster and Martin's firing in Ottawa came at a time when he was the longest tenured coach in the NHL. It came a year after a 7th game in the conference finals for a promised final against the Calgary Flames. That firing to me was more akin to Serge Savard jettisoning Pat Burns after stumbling for a second time to the Bruins than it was failed experiment.
Key to the deal is experience. Martin's learnings in this league should help on a team that is hoping a 3rd year goalie, a 4th year winger and a defenceman who still plays like a rookie can form its core.
What’s more, there are benefits other than experience and his mastery of the French tongue. For one thing, his record will command respect – which is more than a certain Guy could muster in February. Also, he has a mind for the game. His press conference was enough to show this off. The fact that he already has ideas on specific points of strategy (in June!) will be a welcome change from the man who committed to his game plan on the drive to the arena.
Much of the opinion on this move is positive. RDS is happy, and thank goodness that they’ve been able to relay that both Georges Laraque and Maxim Lapierre approve of the GM’s maneuvering.
Scott Burnside doesn't think it's a good idea, but then he thought Dallas would win the Cup, Turco the Vezina, Brian Campbell the Norris and Carbonneau the Jack Adams trophy among other largesses. Not having his opinion on your side is probably quite a good thing. He can join other Leafs supporters who remember little more (nor would I want to) of the past 45 years than beating the Senators a few times in the playoffs...
I am happy with the move. For me this echoes of the Savard for Quenneville gambit that Chicago went for in October. It echoes the shift to experience for the proper mentoring of a fragile young core. Though there was a delay of 3 months from Carbonneau to Martin – the echo of a cold and calculated decision based on winning and winning alone can be seen:
Sounds like Carbonneau. And looks like Gainey had a Scotty Bowman moment (extended moment) on his coaching needs. For me, anything that echoes of Scotty Bowman is a very very good thing indeed.
Melanson and Livingston: failures to progress, just as their pupils
I think it’s pretty clear now that Scott Livingston has kindly been asked to pursue his career elsewhere, just the same as Melanson. Both of these moves were necessary as a team in search of excellence can ill afford to have coaches who fail to inspire.
While both seemed able enough to the observer; ultimately, Melanson has failed to bridge rough patches with each and every one of his NHL students and Livingston has kept the team as fit as the average, but certainly no better. Both here for long stints, both probably need the jolt of the change as much as the Canadiens need a goaltending coach with ideas and a fitness coach who cares.
This move mirrors the same analytic approach as the Carbonneau replacement. Performance was studied and honestly appraised. Those responsible were asked to face their record. As the team moves forward and strives to keep up with the Crosbys and the Datsyuks, average in any category already puts us a step behind. When you know average is what you're getting and average is all you should expect to get, then it makes sense to look for more.
Next up, the players
None of these coaching moves will matter much, however, unless the players’ attitudes, and indeed many of the players, change.
The encouragement that we can take from clearing the dead wood and hiring the best French-speaking coach realistically available (i.e., Bowman ≠ available) will be put to the test as Gainey moves through the next weeks. First up will be re-signing, drafting and potential trades. After that the UFA jungle.
If we can come out of the next 6 weeks with equal numbers of potential 30-goalscorers, one less Brisebois and one more reason not to play Ryan O’Byrne, then it’ll be steady on for the season.
All in all, it’s positive stuff. The moves in themselves are not even as stirring as a regular season empty net goal; but taken together can just about drum up the excitement of a November win. The main victory for me is that Gainey’s reflections are in line with our own as fans (and mine, specifically), with accents on fitness, creativity, communication and strategy – all massive deficiencies of the previous administration.
Jacques Martin: a good choice for the Habs
Considering the limitations they set for themselves, the Canadiens have managed to pull the best candidate out of the bag here, I think. While not willing to compromise on language, they thankfully were able to compromise on availability – going for an employed vs. unemployed NHL vet. I'd be happier with a more experimental coach (after all, we're trying to beat the Pens, Caps and Wings, not just make the playoffs); but I didn't think Hartley, Crawford and especially Therrien would give us that at all.
2009-10 will be Jacques’ 15th season at the head of an NHL team to go with 7 years experience as an assistant. Remarkably, it will be his 24th consecutive season in the employ of an NHL club – never once pimping his wares for a cable TV network. With all due respect to colour commentators, the reason the Pierre McGuires of the world take the holding pattern of the TV jobs is because NHL clubs exercise "buyer beware" (ask Barry Melrose), not because they are being unfairly overlooked.
Critics point to playoff losses and his time in Florida as failures. But since much of the cynicism is coming from Toronto, who wouldn't know a good coach if he came doused in Stanley Cup champagne, and for whom Conn Smythe and Jack Adams bring to mind owners not trophies, we mustn't pay too much heed. His time in Florida was a success in my book, considering the roster and Martin's firing in Ottawa came at a time when he was the longest tenured coach in the NHL. It came a year after a 7th game in the conference finals for a promised final against the Calgary Flames. That firing to me was more akin to Serge Savard jettisoning Pat Burns after stumbling for a second time to the Bruins than it was failed experiment.
Key to the deal is experience. Martin's learnings in this league should help on a team that is hoping a 3rd year goalie, a 4th year winger and a defenceman who still plays like a rookie can form its core.
What’s more, there are benefits other than experience and his mastery of the French tongue. For one thing, his record will command respect – which is more than a certain Guy could muster in February. Also, he has a mind for the game. His press conference was enough to show this off. The fact that he already has ideas on specific points of strategy (in June!) will be a welcome change from the man who committed to his game plan on the drive to the arena.
Much of the opinion on this move is positive. RDS is happy, and thank goodness that they’ve been able to relay that both Georges Laraque and Maxim Lapierre approve of the GM’s maneuvering.
Scott Burnside doesn't think it's a good idea, but then he thought Dallas would win the Cup, Turco the Vezina, Brian Campbell the Norris and Carbonneau the Jack Adams trophy among other largesses. Not having his opinion on your side is probably quite a good thing. He can join other Leafs supporters who remember little more (nor would I want to) of the past 45 years than beating the Senators a few times in the playoffs...
I am happy with the move. For me this echoes of the Savard for Quenneville gambit that Chicago went for in October. It echoes the shift to experience for the proper mentoring of a fragile young core. Though there was a delay of 3 months from Carbonneau to Martin – the echo of a cold and calculated decision based on winning and winning alone can be seen:
“Daily Herald columnist Barry Rozner, who calls Savard his “favorite player ever,” writes “the truth is he never should have been the head coach of the Hawks. He didn’t earn the job, he didn’t deserve the job, and he couldn’t do the job. …”
Sounds like Carbonneau. And looks like Gainey had a Scotty Bowman moment (extended moment) on his coaching needs. For me, anything that echoes of Scotty Bowman is a very very good thing indeed.
Melanson and Livingston: failures to progress, just as their pupils
I think it’s pretty clear now that Scott Livingston has kindly been asked to pursue his career elsewhere, just the same as Melanson. Both of these moves were necessary as a team in search of excellence can ill afford to have coaches who fail to inspire.
While both seemed able enough to the observer; ultimately, Melanson has failed to bridge rough patches with each and every one of his NHL students and Livingston has kept the team as fit as the average, but certainly no better. Both here for long stints, both probably need the jolt of the change as much as the Canadiens need a goaltending coach with ideas and a fitness coach who cares.
This move mirrors the same analytic approach as the Carbonneau replacement. Performance was studied and honestly appraised. Those responsible were asked to face their record. As the team moves forward and strives to keep up with the Crosbys and the Datsyuks, average in any category already puts us a step behind. When you know average is what you're getting and average is all you should expect to get, then it makes sense to look for more.
Next up, the players
None of these coaching moves will matter much, however, unless the players’ attitudes, and indeed many of the players, change.
The encouragement that we can take from clearing the dead wood and hiring the best French-speaking coach realistically available (i.e., Bowman ≠ available) will be put to the test as Gainey moves through the next weeks. First up will be re-signing, drafting and potential trades. After that the UFA jungle.
If we can come out of the next 6 weeks with equal numbers of potential 30-goalscorers, one less Brisebois and one more reason not to play Ryan O’Byrne, then it’ll be steady on for the season.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Do You Trust Sportsnet?
If you do: the Canadiens seem to have found a coach
If not, welcome to the club.
Let's pretend we are expecting the press conference this afternoon...
There could not be a better candidate for the Canadiens head coaching job, considering the limitations, could there?
French-speaking? Check
Experience at shaping a body-checking brute into defenceman to look forward to watching? Check
Experience at teaching young forwards to take on a system? Check
Advocate of fitness? Check
Not a former failure in Montreal? Check
If it is true, it is a nice change in direction. An admission that this team is not ready to take on the league through firewagon games with two inexperienced goalies to back them up.
Let's see where this story goes...
If not, welcome to the club.
Let's pretend we are expecting the press conference this afternoon...
There could not be a better candidate for the Canadiens head coaching job, considering the limitations, could there?
French-speaking? Check
Experience at shaping a body-checking brute into defenceman to look forward to watching? Check
Experience at teaching young forwards to take on a system? Check
Advocate of fitness? Check
Not a former failure in Montreal? Check
If it is true, it is a nice change in direction. An admission that this team is not ready to take on the league through firewagon games with two inexperienced goalies to back them up.
Let's see where this story goes...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Veering Towards Firewagon
Canadiens Targeting Voltigeurs PP Whiz Guy Boucher
Rumour has it that the Canadiens are studying the option of signing current Drummondville Voltigeurs coach, Guy Boucher, to the post of head coach in Hamilton.
This could present a very interesting follow-on strategy to Don Lever. Don was a forward as a player, but a defensive proponent as a coach. Guy, for his part seems to favour an offensive game plan, as his season in the QMJHL would attest. What makes Guy even more interesting is his education and his non-NHL background (courtesy of McGill):
He could be just the breath of fresh air the Canadiens and, indeed, the NHL need.
The Drummondville turnaround
Guy Boucher oversaw this remarkable turnaround with the Voltigeurs. To go from last to first is impressive enough. To go from utterly pathetic to first, as he and his team did, is another.
Some of the credit for the turnaround must go to the GM (who ditched an astounding 33 unproductive pieces in just over a year and also brought in a league leading scorer and a dynamic Russian defender). Some of the credit must also go to the players like Yannick Riendeau (126 pts) and Danny Masse (110 pts, and signed recently by the Habs) who added punch and speed to a team whose second scorer was a 37-point man the year before.
The remaining credit can go to the coach, though. The system he implemented with obvious success is described by Sportsnet:
Adjectives like strong and cohesive are just what one would hope for. If only the Canadiens could be described that way even half of the time.
Special teams make it interesting
It seems that Guy is a pretty creative guy. This is not someone who will drag out a line change every time something goes wrong.
He shocked the hockey world, apparently, with his deployment of PK Subban on the Canadian Junior team this past tournament by placing the big shot in the high slot. He used it again in Drummondville (Their PP was a rampaging 35.7% in the playoffs at the time that article was written). Reviews also rave about his PK – saying that he changes his penalty killing tactics (gasp) on the go to surprise his opponents.
This kind of experimentation is what led to dynasties in the past. Innovation and risk taking will be critical in getting a Cup to Montreal, as prospects don't tend to fall into the laps of teams unprepared to spend 5 years at the bottom.
Can he make the jump?
There is a big difference between winning in junior and at the NHL level, so I am glad this article deals with the possibility of Guy making the jump to the AHL first. The jump from AHL to NHL is still significant, but a coach has the advantage of already having coached some of the younger players before and to play in a league with much better defensive coverage.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that Guy couldn't jump from Q to AHL level. The question about a future in the NHL can be resolved then in Hamilton.
If the Canadiens want to have French Canadian coaches in the NHL, this is a step in the right direction. Developing and testing coaches at the lower echelon is as sensible for coaches as it is for players (and would have been for goalie prospects...).
I hope Guy does sign when the Memorial Cup wraps up. It would be a sign of good things to come.
This could present a very interesting follow-on strategy to Don Lever. Don was a forward as a player, but a defensive proponent as a coach. Guy, for his part seems to favour an offensive game plan, as his season in the QMJHL would attest. What makes Guy even more interesting is his education and his non-NHL background (courtesy of McGill):
Boucher, 37, possesses a master's degree in sports psychology from the Université de Montréal, plus arts and engineering degrees from McGill, where he played four seasons for the Redmen, from 1991 to 1995.
He could be just the breath of fresh air the Canadiens and, indeed, the NHL need.
The Drummondville turnaround
"The Voltigeurs held the league's worst record last season, finishing with just 14 wins and 33 points. Drummondville actually had a longer winning streak this season than 14 wins as they finished with the top record with 112 points, a league record 79-point turnaround."
Guy Boucher oversaw this remarkable turnaround with the Voltigeurs. To go from last to first is impressive enough. To go from utterly pathetic to first, as he and his team did, is another.
Some of the credit for the turnaround must go to the GM (who ditched an astounding 33 unproductive pieces in just over a year and also brought in a league leading scorer and a dynamic Russian defender). Some of the credit must also go to the players like Yannick Riendeau (126 pts) and Danny Masse (110 pts, and signed recently by the Habs) who added punch and speed to a team whose second scorer was a 37-point man the year before.
The remaining credit can go to the coach, though. The system he implemented with obvious success is described by Sportsnet:
"Drummondville plays a very strong puck pursuit game. The Voltigeurs are strong in pressuring the puck-carrier and eliminating his outlet lanes through strong positioning. They make it very hard to enter their zone and don't give up many second-chance opportunities in front of their goal. Their cohesive team play might just be the best in the CHL."
Adjectives like strong and cohesive are just what one would hope for. If only the Canadiens could be described that way even half of the time.
Special teams make it interesting
It seems that Guy is a pretty creative guy. This is not someone who will drag out a line change every time something goes wrong.
He shocked the hockey world, apparently, with his deployment of PK Subban on the Canadian Junior team this past tournament by placing the big shot in the high slot. He used it again in Drummondville (Their PP was a rampaging 35.7% in the playoffs at the time that article was written). Reviews also rave about his PK – saying that he changes his penalty killing tactics (gasp) on the go to surprise his opponents.
This kind of experimentation is what led to dynasties in the past. Innovation and risk taking will be critical in getting a Cup to Montreal, as prospects don't tend to fall into the laps of teams unprepared to spend 5 years at the bottom.
Can he make the jump?
There is a big difference between winning in junior and at the NHL level, so I am glad this article deals with the possibility of Guy making the jump to the AHL first. The jump from AHL to NHL is still significant, but a coach has the advantage of already having coached some of the younger players before and to play in a league with much better defensive coverage.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that Guy couldn't jump from Q to AHL level. The question about a future in the NHL can be resolved then in Hamilton.
If the Canadiens want to have French Canadian coaches in the NHL, this is a step in the right direction. Developing and testing coaches at the lower echelon is as sensible for coaches as it is for players (and would have been for goalie prospects...).
I hope Guy does sign when the Memorial Cup wraps up. It would be a sign of good things to come.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Robinson Leaves Door Ajar
Apparently, Larry Robinson is at least interested in the possibility of coaching the Canadiens. Says so here on RDS (hopes up? – proceed with caution, it’s RDS).
The first encouraging thing about this is that not everyone in the known world is afraid of the Montreal media and the attention from the fans. The second encouraging thing is that Larry knows a thing or two about defence and has made some pretty average players into league-wide exemplars of the back end.
As far as I’m aware, Larry Robinson does not really meet the francophone criterion set forth by team president Pierre Boivin, though he probably gets by in French. But if there’s anyone who can skirt that rule it will be a Canadiens hall-of-famer. We should take advantage of that possibility while we can, because pretty soon the youngest hall-of-famer will be in retirement.
The downside of Larry Robinson is his record as a head coach. Apart from his consecutive Stanley Cup finals with NJ when blessed with Niedermayer and Brodeur in their primes, as well as a then healthy Scott Stevens; Larry hasn’t been that impressive. He also withdrew from coaching the Devils because the pressure was getting to him – you heard right, the Devils. He seems to thrive as an assistant coach, however. And, I think we all hoped he might fit into that role here too.
If you think about that scenario, you could almost have Larry coaching the team and token other guy as the face for the media, but who essentially performs the role of assistant in decision making and coaching capacities. I think something like that could really work.
The fact that it’s even a possibility is very encouraging indeed.
The first encouraging thing about this is that not everyone in the known world is afraid of the Montreal media and the attention from the fans. The second encouraging thing is that Larry knows a thing or two about defence and has made some pretty average players into league-wide exemplars of the back end.
As far as I’m aware, Larry Robinson does not really meet the francophone criterion set forth by team president Pierre Boivin, though he probably gets by in French. But if there’s anyone who can skirt that rule it will be a Canadiens hall-of-famer. We should take advantage of that possibility while we can, because pretty soon the youngest hall-of-famer will be in retirement.
The downside of Larry Robinson is his record as a head coach. Apart from his consecutive Stanley Cup finals with NJ when blessed with Niedermayer and Brodeur in their primes, as well as a then healthy Scott Stevens; Larry hasn’t been that impressive. He also withdrew from coaching the Devils because the pressure was getting to him – you heard right, the Devils. He seems to thrive as an assistant coach, however. And, I think we all hoped he might fit into that role here too.
If you think about that scenario, you could almost have Larry coaching the team and token other guy as the face for the media, but who essentially performs the role of assistant in decision making and coaching capacities. I think something like that could really work.
The fact that it’s even a possibility is very encouraging indeed.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why Carbonneau Was Fired
An Evolving Opinion
In an effort to get something out yesterday, I spoke quickly and from instinct. Upon listening to everything that has been said and re-said, my opinion on matters is beginning to evolve.
Basically, what it is coming down to is that Carbonneau was deficient in many many areas for this job. He was a pro with the media, yes. Good for him. But when it came to judgment and even just being a leader, he was drawing many blanks.
My first question for Carbonneau would be: "Do you know what coaching in the NHL is meant to involve?"; "Do you know what you are being paid way over the odds to do?"
Communication
We all spoke about communication, but yesterday was a revelation to me. Dandenault complained about communication. Begin complained. Carbonneau never spoke to Tanguay? The gist of what the reporters were saying was that almost to a man, every Canadien was dissatisfied with how their coach treated them.
An interesting tidbit that came out in one interview with a talking tete. Apparently some players (or someone) went to Carbonneau very recently and explained that the players felt he needed to relate his decisions to them more personally and more efficiently. His response was something to the order of:
Pardon? No time to do you job? Must be all the time spent on tactics...
Tactics
After the Atlanta game, I was thoroughly upset. I thought the players worked well. I thought they were playing a system dictated to them. But for one reason or another, they were being stifled by a defence that was planned just for them. It was a chance to adapt on the fly. Instead, the coaches held firm and lost.
It's heady days when Bob Gainey agrees with you; apparently, he felt some of the same feelings watching from above. One of the most poignant criticisms form the press conference for me was Gainey's assertion that he had some tactics that he would immediately like to implement.
This is crazy, isn't it? New tactics. I didn't think I'd see the day this season.
Work ethic
Back in November, I was appalled by some of his responses in an interview he gave to Dave Stubbs of The Gazette. I don't think Dave meant that interview to be used as source material today, but he graciously reposted it on Habs Inside/Out last night to make my research a heck of a lot more straightforward.
For me there are two key instances form the very frank and revealing interview that foretold Carbonneau's doom. The first comes first in the interview, somewhere near the beginning. Dave Stubbs pulled this out of Guy, and what an indictment:
He elaborates on his seat-of-the-pants, minimal approach to preparation later in the interview too, in what I would call classic reporting if Dave was trying to get this stuff out of Guy:
So, no work on days without practices (don't get me started on how any coach could fathom so many days without practices in the first place). And on days where there is a game, his generosity of spirit makes it possible for him to have a short discussion upon arriving. Oh, and then there's the 1:20 minutes that he thinks about his job on his own time...
From what you've read of Scotty Bowman, do you think this jives? Heck, from what I read of Mike Babcock in a McGill newsletter, this doesn't add up. Other coaches plan a whole year of practices while Guy works out what he'll do in ten minutes time. Are we still wondering how Boston figured out how to defend Kovalev as he was being deployed? How to exploit our pinching left D teamed with a goalie who can't move his arm properly? No solutions were forthcoming from Guy, thanks to his remarkable capacity to go home and enjoy his life. I thought there might be enough time for that during his 4 month summer vacation, obviously, I was wrong.
It must be said that this interview shows how, as late as November, Guy was slacking intensely at his job – and getting away with it quite nicely. It seems that when the going got tough, he might have needed to adjust. But adjusting is not his thing, is it?
Management
Yesterday, I said it smelled of management. I'm not so sure now. I'm sure management support the decision. And, I'm still certain Gillett's allegiance is to his investment and not his fans' hearts. However, Gainey must have also seen lots of this himself.
Frankly, if Bob Gainey needed a tap on the shoulder to fire this coach, I think we should have some serious questions about our new coach/GM. Sure they were friends, but after multiple players complaining about the same thing, a coach questioning injuries, hampering the development of youngsters and missing opportunities to get the most of his team, Gainey might have clued in himself to a problem. When casual fans like myself and commentators on this and other blogs can see tactical deficiencies being exploited by other teams, the time to get a professional with experience and imagination has come, I'd say.
To me this morning, the move smells less of management, and more of a GM who might finally be getting his own act together...
In any case, Guy is gone. Our new coach will be better or, at worst, equal. There is no guarantee of playoffs, of course, since the teams we play from here (with the exception of the Tavares Maple Leafs) also want to win. We'll probably never know the reason for his departure. RDS will fabricate something that they will claim to be fact (as they do with Julien), but even they won't be privilged to Bob Gainey's thoughts. So, unless the story evolves even more, case closed...
Basically, what it is coming down to is that Carbonneau was deficient in many many areas for this job. He was a pro with the media, yes. Good for him. But when it came to judgment and even just being a leader, he was drawing many blanks.
My first question for Carbonneau would be: "Do you know what coaching in the NHL is meant to involve?"; "Do you know what you are being paid way over the odds to do?"
Communication
We all spoke about communication, but yesterday was a revelation to me. Dandenault complained about communication. Begin complained. Carbonneau never spoke to Tanguay? The gist of what the reporters were saying was that almost to a man, every Canadien was dissatisfied with how their coach treated them.
An interesting tidbit that came out in one interview with a talking tete. Apparently some players (or someone) went to Carbonneau very recently and explained that the players felt he needed to relate his decisions to them more personally and more efficiently. His response was something to the order of:
"J'ai 23 joueurs, j'ai pas le temps de m'occuper de ca."
Pardon? No time to do you job? Must be all the time spent on tactics...
Tactics
After the Atlanta game, I was thoroughly upset. I thought the players worked well. I thought they were playing a system dictated to them. But for one reason or another, they were being stifled by a defence that was planned just for them. It was a chance to adapt on the fly. Instead, the coaches held firm and lost.
It's heady days when Bob Gainey agrees with you; apparently, he felt some of the same feelings watching from above. One of the most poignant criticisms form the press conference for me was Gainey's assertion that he had some tactics that he would immediately like to implement.
This is crazy, isn't it? New tactics. I didn't think I'd see the day this season.
Work ethic
Back in November, I was appalled by some of his responses in an interview he gave to Dave Stubbs of The Gazette. I don't think Dave meant that interview to be used as source material today, but he graciously reposted it on Habs Inside/Out last night to make my research a heck of a lot more straightforward.
For me there are two key instances form the very frank and revealing interview that foretold Carbonneau's doom. The first comes first in the interview, somewhere near the beginning. Dave Stubbs pulled this out of Guy, and what an indictment:
"I don't want to look too far ahead... I don't work, you know, in March, we're going to do this kind of practice. And I know some coaches that are like that. Some coaches, at the start of the season, they have all their practices laid out. I'm not like that, I come to the rink every morning and sit down with the coaches. OK, what do we do today... That's how I was as a player, I concentrated on the game that we had; and, after that, talk about it for a while. Forget about it the next day."
He elaborates on his seat-of-the-pants, minimal approach to preparation later in the interview too, in what I would call classic reporting if Dave was trying to get this stuff out of Guy:
Dave: "When you were playing, was hockey a 13 month a year exercise?"
Guy: "No. It's never been for me. I mean for me it's always been it's game day, it's practice day for a couple of hours that was it."
Dave: "So you can leave it behind? When you finish the office after a practice day, you can leave that?"
Guy: "Yeah. I have no problem."
...
Guy goes on: "I always lived 40 minutes away from the rink... so, for me, that time in the car was really (he explains it's his prep time)"
So, no work on days without practices (don't get me started on how any coach could fathom so many days without practices in the first place). And on days where there is a game, his generosity of spirit makes it possible for him to have a short discussion upon arriving. Oh, and then there's the 1:20 minutes that he thinks about his job on his own time...
From what you've read of Scotty Bowman, do you think this jives? Heck, from what I read of Mike Babcock in a McGill newsletter, this doesn't add up. Other coaches plan a whole year of practices while Guy works out what he'll do in ten minutes time. Are we still wondering how Boston figured out how to defend Kovalev as he was being deployed? How to exploit our pinching left D teamed with a goalie who can't move his arm properly? No solutions were forthcoming from Guy, thanks to his remarkable capacity to go home and enjoy his life. I thought there might be enough time for that during his 4 month summer vacation, obviously, I was wrong.
It must be said that this interview shows how, as late as November, Guy was slacking intensely at his job – and getting away with it quite nicely. It seems that when the going got tough, he might have needed to adjust. But adjusting is not his thing, is it?
Management
Yesterday, I said it smelled of management. I'm not so sure now. I'm sure management support the decision. And, I'm still certain Gillett's allegiance is to his investment and not his fans' hearts. However, Gainey must have also seen lots of this himself.
Frankly, if Bob Gainey needed a tap on the shoulder to fire this coach, I think we should have some serious questions about our new coach/GM. Sure they were friends, but after multiple players complaining about the same thing, a coach questioning injuries, hampering the development of youngsters and missing opportunities to get the most of his team, Gainey might have clued in himself to a problem. When casual fans like myself and commentators on this and other blogs can see tactical deficiencies being exploited by other teams, the time to get a professional with experience and imagination has come, I'd say.
To me this morning, the move smells less of management, and more of a GM who might finally be getting his own act together...
In any case, Guy is gone. Our new coach will be better or, at worst, equal. There is no guarantee of playoffs, of course, since the teams we play from here (with the exception of the Tavares Maple Leafs) also want to win. We'll probably never know the reason for his departure. RDS will fabricate something that they will claim to be fact (as they do with Julien), but even they won't be privilged to Bob Gainey's thoughts. So, unless the story evolves even more, case closed...
Monday, March 09, 2009
Carbo Fired
GM's Late Act Smells Of Management
Guy Carbonneau has been let go from the Canadiens. This according to RDS.
I am stunned by the move really, as I think we all thought Carbonneau had escaped. I will go out on a limb here (with pure wild speculation) and propose that it could have something to do with one of three possible issues:
1) Carey Price and Jaroslav Halak
Carbonneau and Gainey are known to have disagreed about Halak and Price in the first place. Halak was finally playing, and then suddenly (boom) Golden Glove is back in. I don't know if it was the coach's decision (I'm guessing not) or the GM's. I suspect we will find out when the starter for the Edmonton game is announced. Is this enough for dismissal. If the rift has been going on ever since it started, and the GM is tired - then quite possibly, yes.
2) Alexei Kovalev
I say Kovalev because we all know he and Gainey had a heart to heart. It is known that Gainey respects Alex and vice versa. In my imaginary world, it is possible that a player of his stature would be listened to on matters of coaching and even strategy. After all, Alex has well over 1000 games experience as a player just as Carbo did. This could equally be Saku. Or Hamrlik. Or even Gainey's best friend Jarvis for that matter. Anyone or group. If you don't think so, ask Lou Lamoriello or the Devils core players who ousted Claude Julien for his total lack of tactical nous on the eve of the playoffs.
3) His communication in these or other cases
I think we all know this to be a factor. His handling of Kovalev was an embarassment. I can't imagine he's doing better with the goalies. Problems doon't suit him. Nor it seems do problem children. Gainey, on the other hand has tried to build a team and knows (from as recently as a week ago) that you can't overhaul a group of players quickly. Communication in sport is tantamount to success. Communication on the ice, communication off it. Communication outside of the job is a bonus, but one that pays big dividends too. Carbo stunk at communication.
What have we lost?
We've lost (for the second time) a heck of a man. A heck of a Canadien. Probably the best of those not in the rafters.
But, we haven't lost much of a coach. I've been lamenting his lack of imagination, his lack of adaptability, his lack of tactical awareness. He stumbles onto lines, but can't seem to predict or even recognise chemistry.
I say not much of a coach -- that is misleading. Carbonneau is qualified to coach 25 of the teams in the NHL, just like Michel Therrien and Claude Julien, but he has nothing in his coaching that would help put a team over the top, so to speak. No new ideas, just a re-tread of the trap. No new system for a pretty unique group of players assembled.
This was probably the end of Carbonneau. His press conferences lately were laughable, and a worthy precursor to dismissal. How can a serious coach be baffled by what happened on the ice? How can he declare that to a press corps that runs 10 stories on the same soundclip? It's not permissable. The coach must be analysing and planning for the next round. He never seemed to be willing or able to do just that.
If it ain't Price and it ain't Kovalev, I can smell the meddling from above here. Boivin? Possibly. Gillett? Maybe -- he's a known meddler from the Premiership. Management meddling in hockey is something we haven't seen in a while. It would be a promise broken from George. But broken promises are nothing to the man, ask Anfield supporters about that. Missing the playoffs not an option? Of course to us fans, we'd always say that. but then we'd say not winning the Cup is not an option. When a man in position to mandate that order says it, people get fired. Credit crunch, crushing debt, how does loss of $4 million easy money sound?
And Gainey?
Unless Gainey has been hiding something during all his other campaigns, I don't see that he is the tactical genius that will take us over the top either. I like to believe he'll at least try something more.
I suppose on that issue we will see.
Farewell Carbo. Will you be there for Breezer whose 1000th you staked your reputation?
I am stunned by the move really, as I think we all thought Carbonneau had escaped. I will go out on a limb here (with pure wild speculation) and propose that it could have something to do with one of three possible issues:
1) Carey Price and Jaroslav Halak
Carbonneau and Gainey are known to have disagreed about Halak and Price in the first place. Halak was finally playing, and then suddenly (boom) Golden Glove is back in. I don't know if it was the coach's decision (I'm guessing not) or the GM's. I suspect we will find out when the starter for the Edmonton game is announced. Is this enough for dismissal. If the rift has been going on ever since it started, and the GM is tired - then quite possibly, yes.
2) Alexei Kovalev
I say Kovalev because we all know he and Gainey had a heart to heart. It is known that Gainey respects Alex and vice versa. In my imaginary world, it is possible that a player of his stature would be listened to on matters of coaching and even strategy. After all, Alex has well over 1000 games experience as a player just as Carbo did. This could equally be Saku. Or Hamrlik. Or even Gainey's best friend Jarvis for that matter. Anyone or group. If you don't think so, ask Lou Lamoriello or the Devils core players who ousted Claude Julien for his total lack of tactical nous on the eve of the playoffs.
3) His communication in these or other cases
I think we all know this to be a factor. His handling of Kovalev was an embarassment. I can't imagine he's doing better with the goalies. Problems doon't suit him. Nor it seems do problem children. Gainey, on the other hand has tried to build a team and knows (from as recently as a week ago) that you can't overhaul a group of players quickly. Communication in sport is tantamount to success. Communication on the ice, communication off it. Communication outside of the job is a bonus, but one that pays big dividends too. Carbo stunk at communication.
What have we lost?
We've lost (for the second time) a heck of a man. A heck of a Canadien. Probably the best of those not in the rafters.
But, we haven't lost much of a coach. I've been lamenting his lack of imagination, his lack of adaptability, his lack of tactical awareness. He stumbles onto lines, but can't seem to predict or even recognise chemistry.
I say not much of a coach -- that is misleading. Carbonneau is qualified to coach 25 of the teams in the NHL, just like Michel Therrien and Claude Julien, but he has nothing in his coaching that would help put a team over the top, so to speak. No new ideas, just a re-tread of the trap. No new system for a pretty unique group of players assembled.
This was probably the end of Carbonneau. His press conferences lately were laughable, and a worthy precursor to dismissal. How can a serious coach be baffled by what happened on the ice? How can he declare that to a press corps that runs 10 stories on the same soundclip? It's not permissable. The coach must be analysing and planning for the next round. He never seemed to be willing or able to do just that.
If it ain't Price and it ain't Kovalev, I can smell the meddling from above here. Boivin? Possibly. Gillett? Maybe -- he's a known meddler from the Premiership. Management meddling in hockey is something we haven't seen in a while. It would be a promise broken from George. But broken promises are nothing to the man, ask Anfield supporters about that. Missing the playoffs not an option? Of course to us fans, we'd always say that. but then we'd say not winning the Cup is not an option. When a man in position to mandate that order says it, people get fired. Credit crunch, crushing debt, how does loss of $4 million easy money sound?
And Gainey?
Unless Gainey has been hiding something during all his other campaigns, I don't see that he is the tactical genius that will take us over the top either. I like to believe he'll at least try something more.
I suppose on that issue we will see.
Farewell Carbo. Will you be there for Breezer whose 1000th you staked your reputation?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Kovalev's Benching
From The Guys Who Liked Him, Even In 2007
As someone who hasn't had a knife out for Kovalev this season, I think my take on the Bob Gainey move and subsequent press conference may be different to certain others:
Boone:
Robert L:
MA Godin:
The truth will always be that one hears what he wants to hear. Some people went to watch that interview hoping to hear that Kovalev would be traded. They found the quotes they needed to reinforce their stories.
I went in (and we've never apologised for being the steadfast Kovalev support since the outset - pre-bandwagon 07) hoping that the news would be lighter and positive for Alex and the Canadiens' union. I certainly heard some things I thought would suit my story.
I can't tell you what the other guys think, I sent you their links. I can only tell you my read:
Gainey respects Kovalev
The element that came through with the greatest clarity for me in this whole affair is that Gainey benched Kovalev. In doing so, he circumvented the coach (deliberately) to show his respect for the player. He was wise to do so given Carbonneau's history and still terribly abrasive persona.
The other thing I noted was the length that Kovalev was discussed. This was not a: "He's benched, there will be no further comment" situation. Gainey went to great lengths to explain to the media wolves in his second language that this was a special move. He spoke of Kovalev and Carbonneau not being on the same page; but he spoke of how the losses and burden of the centennial was weighing on Alex (not Carbo, I should note).
At the same time, he was firm. He asserted that the current Kovalev is not someone that the team needs now or in the future. What Bob Gainey also knows and expresses is that Alex Kovalev is irreplaceable as an entity. And while he knows Kovalev functioning at his best is irreplaceable, he seems to recognise that Kovalev searching for his desire and methods might not be the best thing for the team right now.
Watching Bob Gainey's interview in French (where he does an admirable job, completely wading through the intricate questions), I have no reason to do anything other than take what he said at face value.
When he says he asked Alex to have a rest. I believe he asked Alex. When he said he will speak to Alex over the next two days, I believe him. When he says he will re-evaluate the situation prior to Saturday's game, i have no reason to doubt that he is being forthright.
If there is one topic to be discussed over the next two days it is not the no-trade clause that some would desperately hope it to be. I think it will be how Kovalev should perhaps submit to Carbonneau's plan from here until some future point when he is consulted about how to get out of a jam - how he needs to work through the channels on the team and not take the plight of everyone into his own private world to come up with a solution.
Kovalev trade
Gainey did address the topic on everyones' minds - the possibility of a trade with Alex's involvement. As any good GM would note, he said that he must be open to all possibilities (marks for that, trading Price - I thought you said all?), but he also hinted that no one was exactly burning up the lines to acquire Kovalev in his "off" year.
In saying that, he alludes to the fact that trading Kovalev to a team at his request would be a position of weakness. I don't read Boone's "addition by subtraction" in the comment, but then I'm biased the other way...
I think Gainey would prefer a useful Kovalev to a draft pick. I think he feels he would not be able to get fair value at this point and he'd rather make the best of this asset he has.
This is man management.
Markov next
In addition to the knives flying for Kovalev and suddenly SK74 after his demotion, I have seen a lot of Andrei Markov is next type comments (no doubt from fans of Mr. 7 Hits Nightly).
If Markov must go in these peoples' minds, I don't want to be a fan of the same team as them. They do not appreciate the hockey I like. They see years of toiling with the dump and chase again in the hope of an Alberta Cup final.
On that note, I sign off. Today has been eventful. In some ways I wonder whether it's not all just a load of propaganda to get the media talking about something other than losing or hopelessness. After a day like today, I feel better about our GM. But one day in 12 months, I hope it's enough...
Boone:
"The GM thinks his coach can get this team into the playoffs minus the Canadiens' most gifted and and popular player. "
Robert L:
"Canadiens GM Bob Gainey caught everyone offguard by announcing that forward Alex Kovalev has been sent home while the team decides what to do with his services."
MA Godin:
«C'est lourd pour lui en ce moment», a déclaré Gainey lors d'un point de presse improvisé durant l'entraînement de l'équipe, cet après-midi.
The truth will always be that one hears what he wants to hear. Some people went to watch that interview hoping to hear that Kovalev would be traded. They found the quotes they needed to reinforce their stories.
I went in (and we've never apologised for being the steadfast Kovalev support since the outset - pre-bandwagon 07) hoping that the news would be lighter and positive for Alex and the Canadiens' union. I certainly heard some things I thought would suit my story.
I can't tell you what the other guys think, I sent you their links. I can only tell you my read:
Gainey respects Kovalev
The element that came through with the greatest clarity for me in this whole affair is that Gainey benched Kovalev. In doing so, he circumvented the coach (deliberately) to show his respect for the player. He was wise to do so given Carbonneau's history and still terribly abrasive persona.
The other thing I noted was the length that Kovalev was discussed. This was not a: "He's benched, there will be no further comment" situation. Gainey went to great lengths to explain to the media wolves in his second language that this was a special move. He spoke of Kovalev and Carbonneau not being on the same page; but he spoke of how the losses and burden of the centennial was weighing on Alex (not Carbo, I should note).
At the same time, he was firm. He asserted that the current Kovalev is not someone that the team needs now or in the future. What Bob Gainey also knows and expresses is that Alex Kovalev is irreplaceable as an entity. And while he knows Kovalev functioning at his best is irreplaceable, he seems to recognise that Kovalev searching for his desire and methods might not be the best thing for the team right now.
Watching Bob Gainey's interview in French (where he does an admirable job, completely wading through the intricate questions), I have no reason to do anything other than take what he said at face value.
When he says he asked Alex to have a rest. I believe he asked Alex. When he said he will speak to Alex over the next two days, I believe him. When he says he will re-evaluate the situation prior to Saturday's game, i have no reason to doubt that he is being forthright.
If there is one topic to be discussed over the next two days it is not the no-trade clause that some would desperately hope it to be. I think it will be how Kovalev should perhaps submit to Carbonneau's plan from here until some future point when he is consulted about how to get out of a jam - how he needs to work through the channels on the team and not take the plight of everyone into his own private world to come up with a solution.
Kovalev trade
Gainey did address the topic on everyones' minds - the possibility of a trade with Alex's involvement. As any good GM would note, he said that he must be open to all possibilities (marks for that, trading Price - I thought you said all?), but he also hinted that no one was exactly burning up the lines to acquire Kovalev in his "off" year.
In saying that, he alludes to the fact that trading Kovalev to a team at his request would be a position of weakness. I don't read Boone's "addition by subtraction" in the comment, but then I'm biased the other way...
I think Gainey would prefer a useful Kovalev to a draft pick. I think he feels he would not be able to get fair value at this point and he'd rather make the best of this asset he has.
This is man management.
Markov next
In addition to the knives flying for Kovalev and suddenly SK74 after his demotion, I have seen a lot of Andrei Markov is next type comments (no doubt from fans of Mr. 7 Hits Nightly).
If Markov must go in these peoples' minds, I don't want to be a fan of the same team as them. They do not appreciate the hockey I like. They see years of toiling with the dump and chase again in the hope of an Alberta Cup final.
On that note, I sign off. Today has been eventful. In some ways I wonder whether it's not all just a load of propaganda to get the media talking about something other than losing or hopelessness. After a day like today, I feel better about our GM. But one day in 12 months, I hope it's enough...
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Draw: Effort vs. Return
Following Detroit's impressive Stanley Cup victory, much was written about how and why they were able to pull off the trick. Among Habs fans, the talk turned in some corners to how the Canadiens could emulate their Original Six cousins.
On of my more tireless and eloquent peers put together a nice piece on the matter. As I sometimes do, I disagreed with some of his analysis – namely the importance of faceoffs. See JT's conclusion:
Naturally, I couldn't let this slide and responded with comment of my own to his post, keying in part on the fact that the other Stanley Cup finalist were league worst at faceoffs and still managed to win a lot. I thought our conversation was interesting enough to give a heads up here at LIW. To paraphrase what I said: the result of faceoffs is hugely overrated in this league. I think the fact that it is a recordable stat gives it more air time than say, positioning, because it can be quickly called upon in pre-game, intermissions, those pointless by the numbers screens, etc.
I also suggested that the aftermath of the faceoff may be even more important than the 50:50 drop itself. I truly believe that it is how the players react to the result of a faceoff that is all important.
In my opinion, based on what I hear about NHL practices (which are already too rare for my liking anyway), there is too much emphasis on trying to be slightly better than your opponent at the crap shoot of the faceoff. I would much prefer the coaches be instructing the defencemen to react and adapt quickly to faceoff results (whatever they are), and so the wingers.
In fact, I am not being facetious at all when I say that losing faceoffs is a viable strategy. I think a team could very well lose every faceoff if you have a plan about pressuring the puck man instantly. It would be very much like an American football play from the playbook, where movement following the loss would be choreographed and rehearsed with precision. The fact that most teams still opt for the dump and chase method of crossing the blueline make this strategy even more attractive, as defencemen could get a real head start on puck retrieval 100%. I want to hear about coaches preaching this.
Actually, I think Detroit is all about puck possession and patience (personified by Lidstrom). And, sure it begins with a faceoff, but their 53% faceoff rating doesn't go far enough to explain their dominance. As I mentioned, I hope the Canadiens coaches don't turn too much attention to faceoffs over the summer, but nonetheless study Detroit's strengths (and, hey, why not Pittsburgh's too!). If the coaches here could start getting our defence to show the patience of Detroit's, we'd be on our way – have you ever seen so much backwards passing on a sheet of ice?
As for interesting new tactics, I think losing faceoffs has legs.
Though they lost to Detroit, league faceoff weaklings Pittsburgh had already laid waste to the number two faceoff team, as well as the seventh, only weeks before (NYR and Ottawa). Interestingly, Pittsburgh were not the only team to upset the faceoff pushers' applecart – 7/15 playoff series were taken by the team who lost more faceoffs. If we allow ourselves to make the assumption that Detroit are something special (far beyond faceoff masters) and take them out of the equation, there are 7/11 series.
Add those slight blips from exactly 50:50 proportions to this old tale, and Chipchura's the go-to guy come October:
I know some of you disagree, so convince me that 4 faceoffs in 60 over a game are the key to getting back to Sherbrooke St. parades.
On of my more tireless and eloquent peers put together a nice piece on the matter. As I sometimes do, I disagreed with some of his analysis – namely the importance of faceoffs. See JT's conclusion:
Whatever happens in the next few weeks, I think one thing you can safely count on is the Habs improving in the faceoff department. Bob Gainey thinks it's one of the most important factors on a winning hockey team. After watching the Stanley Cup champ Red Wings own the puck from the faceoff and for most of the game, I have to say I agree.
Naturally, I couldn't let this slide and responded with comment of my own to his post, keying in part on the fact that the other Stanley Cup finalist were league worst at faceoffs and still managed to win a lot. I thought our conversation was interesting enough to give a heads up here at LIW. To paraphrase what I said: the result of faceoffs is hugely overrated in this league. I think the fact that it is a recordable stat gives it more air time than say, positioning, because it can be quickly called upon in pre-game, intermissions, those pointless by the numbers screens, etc.
I also suggested that the aftermath of the faceoff may be even more important than the 50:50 drop itself. I truly believe that it is how the players react to the result of a faceoff that is all important.
In my opinion, based on what I hear about NHL practices (which are already too rare for my liking anyway), there is too much emphasis on trying to be slightly better than your opponent at the crap shoot of the faceoff. I would much prefer the coaches be instructing the defencemen to react and adapt quickly to faceoff results (whatever they are), and so the wingers.
In fact, I am not being facetious at all when I say that losing faceoffs is a viable strategy. I think a team could very well lose every faceoff if you have a plan about pressuring the puck man instantly. It would be very much like an American football play from the playbook, where movement following the loss would be choreographed and rehearsed with precision. The fact that most teams still opt for the dump and chase method of crossing the blueline make this strategy even more attractive, as defencemen could get a real head start on puck retrieval 100%. I want to hear about coaches preaching this.
Actually, I think Detroit is all about puck possession and patience (personified by Lidstrom). And, sure it begins with a faceoff, but their 53% faceoff rating doesn't go far enough to explain their dominance. As I mentioned, I hope the Canadiens coaches don't turn too much attention to faceoffs over the summer, but nonetheless study Detroit's strengths (and, hey, why not Pittsburgh's too!). If the coaches here could start getting our defence to show the patience of Detroit's, we'd be on our way – have you ever seen so much backwards passing on a sheet of ice?
As for interesting new tactics, I think losing faceoffs has legs.
Though they lost to Detroit, league faceoff weaklings Pittsburgh had already laid waste to the number two faceoff team, as well as the seventh, only weeks before (NYR and Ottawa). Interestingly, Pittsburgh were not the only team to upset the faceoff pushers' applecart – 7/15 playoff series were taken by the team who lost more faceoffs. If we allow ourselves to make the assumption that Detroit are something special (far beyond faceoff masters) and take them out of the equation, there are 7/11 series.
Add those slight blips from exactly 50:50 proportions to this old tale, and Chipchura's the go-to guy come October:
There's a old story about Mario Lemieux and taking draws. An ex-teammate once said Mario would intentionally concede neutral zone draws throughout a game to soften his opponent up. Thinking Mario was an easy draw, they would let their guard down or go into the face-off expecting the same old weak-wristed tactic he'd been using all game. But when it counted - like an offensive zone draw on a late powerplay - he would stiffen and switch up his strike at the puck taking his opponent by surprise. Not great for the stat sheet, but good for the two points.
I know some of you disagree, so convince me that 4 faceoffs in 60 over a game are the key to getting back to Sherbrooke St. parades.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Wading Through The Rhetoric
If another person tells me to be happy about the way the season ended because the Habs disproved the "experts", I might lose it.
Sure McGuire and others had the Habs coming 13th. But, the fact is, I dismissed that claim back in September, minutes after it was made. And sure, I didn't predict a first place finish, but we did have 96 points posted on the site the entire season as our reasonable target. I predicted 96-100 before the games began, and so was off by a lop-sided Bruins series.
Of course I was pleased that the Canadiens made the playoffs and had a great finish to the season, but I wouldn't put surprise among the emotions I felt.
With regard to the regular season, I feel the Canadiens put themselves in very good position to take advantage of unfolding developments in the East with a superb January. It was then that they solidified their playoff bid, gained massively on Ottawa and threw their name into the ring for the bout for conference leader. From there on, they played some very impressive games under pressure, and benefited just as much from some key injuries to key players and bad runs from their rivals.
So when I look at the season, I see a good step from last season and a very modest improvement in terms of the 5-year plan (with 6 more wins than 2003-04 and 5 more than 2005-06).
I also look at the 2007-08 season as full of small successes, both in team development and player development. The most pleasant surprises were the blossoming of Andrei Kostitsyn and the solidification of Mike Komisarek. Add to that the emergence of Mark Streit as a true NHL star, Kovalev turning solid play into goals and points, and the continued surge of Tomas Plekanec and you have a raft of bona fide success stories to fill the summer pages.
Disappointments
The reasons for disappointment are few indeed, yet they linger as the sting of the playoff loss is slow to dissipate.
My first disappointment were Carbonneau's first steps into the playoffs. Game 1 of the playoffs saw him alter the successful lineup card to reinsert some mostly ineffective performers. The only reason I can see for him doing so was to add a veteran presence to his team – an altogether even more depressing indictment of his total lack of experience and lateral thinking.
How can anyone look at a slow defensive team like the Bruins and decide to add more defensive options? Maybe he wanted to get the 4 home gates? I really don't know. If his omission of Grabovski throughout was depressing, his choices with Ryder were devastating. Refusing to play Streit at the back when our true depth is at forward was perplexing, all the more so when he deployed Streit as one of his preferred D in the best parts of the Philly series.
In the context of the season, the decision to go with 8 defencemen was very disappointing indeed. Having written at length on the subject of the Canadiens turnaround in December, I was decidedly deflated to see both Dandenault and Brisebois in the lineup for the start of the playoffs. As the Canadiens struggled to produce up front for the first time since December, one might have been forgiven for thinking Carbonneau might see the link in line-up decisions himself – he didn't.
All told, coaching can only take you so far. But negative coaching like this can drag a soaring team down (and it did). Carbonneau will need to be a whole lot braver in the future if he hopes to attain greater heights than Therrien and Julien did (both second round losers themselves). His coaching in the season earned him a deserved nod for the Adams trophy. His reactionary coaching in the playoffs earned him an extra month of summer.
There was also some disappointment with the players in general.
Complacency crept in against the Bruins, and the Canadiens only won in the end thanks to being able to reach for Saku Koivu. Amazingly after that lesson, they let the complacency come back.
Sure they hit posts, but for the most part their shots were rushed, unemphatic and from poor positions. Many people focus on Streit's point play, but I could equally cite Begin and Latendresse's constant shooting from poor position, the Kostitsyns' lack of killer instinct and Kovalev's distraction. Koivu played an exemplary playoffs again, and when the Canadiens followed his lead, they managed to crack Biron. The times where they sulked and hoped for pretty plays and weak shots to go in for them, they fell behind the tempo.
I was also disappointed in Price.
Of course, everyone was a bit disappointed he couldn't muster more big saves, but it's not this that hurt most. After hearing ever so much about this prospect's character, it was most disappointing to see him utterly pack it in on at least 3 occasions. Going for the fatigue excuse was also a let-down, since he is only 20 years old and the Canadiens should be a team that aspires to win more than 1 Stanley Cup in a row.
Finally, I would be committing a sin of omission if I didn't also express my disappointment with Bob Gainey.
I believe Darren put it best in the comments when he doubted whether Gainey would be be able to go beyond the patient builder and take some risks. Was this the year to take a risk? As the playoffs were virtually assured by the deadline, and with a raft of young assets on the farm, it seemed like it could be. The right deal didn't come along you say? That's what happens when you only start looking in February...
The fact that he plays the game as everyone else does (signings only in the summer, trades only at the deadline) is also a disappointment, as I was hoping for something more creative from our GM. The credit he should be given for sticking with Carey Price for the stretch should be balanced with the nothing-but-budgetary trade of Cristobal Huet.
All in all, satisfaction is the winning feeling as time goes on, but I hope the people who actually have power to make decisions and be creative aren't sitting on their laurels. Being satisfied with progress is mature, but it is not the attitude for an aspiring dynasty.
While I don't think airing disappointments publicly would be in the interest of Gainey, Carbonneau and the management team, I hope they have some.
I hope they use them to fuel the fire for winning.
Sure McGuire and others had the Habs coming 13th. But, the fact is, I dismissed that claim back in September, minutes after it was made. And sure, I didn't predict a first place finish, but we did have 96 points posted on the site the entire season as our reasonable target. I predicted 96-100 before the games began, and so was off by a lop-sided Bruins series.
Of course I was pleased that the Canadiens made the playoffs and had a great finish to the season, but I wouldn't put surprise among the emotions I felt.
With regard to the regular season, I feel the Canadiens put themselves in very good position to take advantage of unfolding developments in the East with a superb January. It was then that they solidified their playoff bid, gained massively on Ottawa and threw their name into the ring for the bout for conference leader. From there on, they played some very impressive games under pressure, and benefited just as much from some key injuries to key players and bad runs from their rivals.
So when I look at the season, I see a good step from last season and a very modest improvement in terms of the 5-year plan (with 6 more wins than 2003-04 and 5 more than 2005-06).
I also look at the 2007-08 season as full of small successes, both in team development and player development. The most pleasant surprises were the blossoming of Andrei Kostitsyn and the solidification of Mike Komisarek. Add to that the emergence of Mark Streit as a true NHL star, Kovalev turning solid play into goals and points, and the continued surge of Tomas Plekanec and you have a raft of bona fide success stories to fill the summer pages.
Disappointments
The reasons for disappointment are few indeed, yet they linger as the sting of the playoff loss is slow to dissipate.
My first disappointment were Carbonneau's first steps into the playoffs. Game 1 of the playoffs saw him alter the successful lineup card to reinsert some mostly ineffective performers. The only reason I can see for him doing so was to add a veteran presence to his team – an altogether even more depressing indictment of his total lack of experience and lateral thinking.
How can anyone look at a slow defensive team like the Bruins and decide to add more defensive options? Maybe he wanted to get the 4 home gates? I really don't know. If his omission of Grabovski throughout was depressing, his choices with Ryder were devastating. Refusing to play Streit at the back when our true depth is at forward was perplexing, all the more so when he deployed Streit as one of his preferred D in the best parts of the Philly series.
In the context of the season, the decision to go with 8 defencemen was very disappointing indeed. Having written at length on the subject of the Canadiens turnaround in December, I was decidedly deflated to see both Dandenault and Brisebois in the lineup for the start of the playoffs. As the Canadiens struggled to produce up front for the first time since December, one might have been forgiven for thinking Carbonneau might see the link in line-up decisions himself – he didn't.
All told, coaching can only take you so far. But negative coaching like this can drag a soaring team down (and it did). Carbonneau will need to be a whole lot braver in the future if he hopes to attain greater heights than Therrien and Julien did (both second round losers themselves). His coaching in the season earned him a deserved nod for the Adams trophy. His reactionary coaching in the playoffs earned him an extra month of summer.
There was also some disappointment with the players in general.
Complacency crept in against the Bruins, and the Canadiens only won in the end thanks to being able to reach for Saku Koivu. Amazingly after that lesson, they let the complacency come back.
Sure they hit posts, but for the most part their shots were rushed, unemphatic and from poor positions. Many people focus on Streit's point play, but I could equally cite Begin and Latendresse's constant shooting from poor position, the Kostitsyns' lack of killer instinct and Kovalev's distraction. Koivu played an exemplary playoffs again, and when the Canadiens followed his lead, they managed to crack Biron. The times where they sulked and hoped for pretty plays and weak shots to go in for them, they fell behind the tempo.
I was also disappointed in Price.
Of course, everyone was a bit disappointed he couldn't muster more big saves, but it's not this that hurt most. After hearing ever so much about this prospect's character, it was most disappointing to see him utterly pack it in on at least 3 occasions. Going for the fatigue excuse was also a let-down, since he is only 20 years old and the Canadiens should be a team that aspires to win more than 1 Stanley Cup in a row.
Finally, I would be committing a sin of omission if I didn't also express my disappointment with Bob Gainey.
I believe Darren put it best in the comments when he doubted whether Gainey would be be able to go beyond the patient builder and take some risks. Was this the year to take a risk? As the playoffs were virtually assured by the deadline, and with a raft of young assets on the farm, it seemed like it could be. The right deal didn't come along you say? That's what happens when you only start looking in February...
The fact that he plays the game as everyone else does (signings only in the summer, trades only at the deadline) is also a disappointment, as I was hoping for something more creative from our GM. The credit he should be given for sticking with Carey Price for the stretch should be balanced with the nothing-but-budgetary trade of Cristobal Huet.
All in all, satisfaction is the winning feeling as time goes on, but I hope the people who actually have power to make decisions and be creative aren't sitting on their laurels. Being satisfied with progress is mature, but it is not the attitude for an aspiring dynasty.
While I don't think airing disappointments publicly would be in the interest of Gainey, Carbonneau and the management team, I hope they have some.
I hope they use them to fuel the fire for winning.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Therrific or Therrible?
A couple of days ago, RDS posted a video about Michel Therrien to "commemorate" his last day with the Canadiens franchise. In typical RDS fashion, the piece was spun out of control to suggest that Therrien may have been treated unfairly in his firing.
If you listen to the commentary in the whole video (from the LNH section on Jan 17, here), you come out feeling that Therrien was Therrific for the Habs at the time. If you look at the stats and remember the facts, though, you may not be so sure. For one thing, the report is full of mistakes and myths:
Montreal 2000 to 2003
The first element of spin showed Therrien amassing a .500 record over parts of three seasons with the Canadiens.
His record was 77-77-22(ties)-14(OTLs). And, in actual fact, he posted losing records in the portions of 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 in which he coached. Of course, every OTL counted as a tie in their assessment. While I accept that OTLs are worthwhile points, we also have to consider that more than half the teams in the league are over .500 by the RDS criteria, thus Therrien was a below average coach during his time in Montreal.
The second claim was that Michel Therrien had to deal with a team that more closely resembled an AHL team than an NHL team.
This is a commonly held belief among Canadiens fans when they look at the teams of the recent past. But, overlooked is the fact that Therrien had Jose Theodore, then a Vezina calibre goalie, who actually won the Hart trophy during his tenure. And, that one of the main reasons for this perception was the ridiculous number of players that played games for the Canadiens during his tenure.
In fact, if you thought Carbonneau could not stick with a line combination, take a look at the indecision of Michel Therrien's tenure, where he managed to use 68 different players over 2 years. In his first season, a remarkable 46 different players fulfilled the dream of playing with the Habs.
This may not have hurt the Habs so much, had it not been for Therrien's ridiculous propensity to opt for QMJHL players he had coached or coached against before - possibly because children used to listen to him, while the adult Canadiens chose to ignore him. Everyone remembers Laflamme and Traverse. But these were also the days where Brisebois was deployed as a number one defenseman and Dykhuis as a top 4. When injuries hit, Therrien subjected us to red hot prospect Descoteaux.
The third myth, was their ludicrous claim that the firing of Michel Therrien set off a period of musical chairs for the Canadiens coaching job.
This outlandish claim is laid to ridicule when you consider Therrien himself barely managed to hold on more than a couple of seasons. In fact, were it not for Jose Theodore, it might have been less.
To say that musical chairs followed Therrien doesn't really accurately report the facts. Though Julien lasted less than 2 full seasons, his replacement Bob Gainey was only ever meant as a temporary one anyway. Gainey's replacement, Carbonneau, has had a shorter tenure than Therrien, but of course we know that his is ongoing and would probably expect it to last longer than the old hydro-man's.
If one wanted to be picky, you could point out that there hasn't been a stable coach since Scotty Bowman in the 1970s, and musical chairs began with Habs coaching long before the unremarkable three year reign of Michel Therrien.
Finally, RDS notes that Therrien is the only coach to actually win a playoff series since Alain Vigneault in 1998.
Apart from being some of the worst reporting since RDS began, this report opted to conveniently omit the famous 7-game series victory over the Boston Bruins. I should also mention, that Michel Therrien's coaching, while it may have had something to do with the victory over the first-place Bruins in 2002, his childish antics almost certainly led to the turning point in a series against the Carolina Hurricanes in the second round. It should be noted, that once he wen into a sulk he was unable to use his "formidable coaching skills" to get his team to play for him after he had let them down.
Pittsburgh 2005 to present
On to Pittsburgh, where Therrien holds the job thanks to the skin of his teeth (or rather Crosby's teeth). In 2005-2006, he somehow managed to coach the Penguins to a more hideous second half than they had in the first, though they would later thank him for Jordan Staal.
And, though blessed with top talent, he continues to favour second-rate players he can relate to over proven talent. If you check the Pittsburgh players used, you'll see the similarity in numbers with Montreal's during his years. What's more, there will be just as many "who the hell is that?" moments. While Mark Recchi was once Pittsburgh here and good friend of Lemieux, stubborn Therrien has managed to alienate him twice in three seasons. Just to show Therrien how wrong he was, Recchi has played well once he left, winning a Stanley Cup with 16 playoff points in 2006 and playing point-per-game hockey this time around.
Therrien probably isn't the worst coach the Canadiens have ever had, but he certainly was the worst in all the years I have been old enough to understand what's been going on.
For tonight's game, you can look at Therrien through RDS-coloured glasses if you want, but personally I look forward to the encounter as a chance to play against inferior strategy for once.
I'll be thinking, the way he's also managed to shatter Marc-Andre Fleury's confidence on numerous occasions. I wouldn't let this guy within 100m of Price, Kostitsyn and Plekanec...
If you listen to the commentary in the whole video (from the LNH section on Jan 17, here), you come out feeling that Therrien was Therrific for the Habs at the time. If you look at the stats and remember the facts, though, you may not be so sure. For one thing, the report is full of mistakes and myths:
Montreal 2000 to 2003
The first element of spin showed Therrien amassing a .500 record over parts of three seasons with the Canadiens.
His record was 77-77-22(ties)-14(OTLs). And, in actual fact, he posted losing records in the portions of 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 in which he coached. Of course, every OTL counted as a tie in their assessment. While I accept that OTLs are worthwhile points, we also have to consider that more than half the teams in the league are over .500 by the RDS criteria, thus Therrien was a below average coach during his time in Montreal.
The second claim was that Michel Therrien had to deal with a team that more closely resembled an AHL team than an NHL team.
This is a commonly held belief among Canadiens fans when they look at the teams of the recent past. But, overlooked is the fact that Therrien had Jose Theodore, then a Vezina calibre goalie, who actually won the Hart trophy during his tenure. And, that one of the main reasons for this perception was the ridiculous number of players that played games for the Canadiens during his tenure.
In fact, if you thought Carbonneau could not stick with a line combination, take a look at the indecision of Michel Therrien's tenure, where he managed to use 68 different players over 2 years. In his first season, a remarkable 46 different players fulfilled the dream of playing with the Habs.
This may not have hurt the Habs so much, had it not been for Therrien's ridiculous propensity to opt for QMJHL players he had coached or coached against before - possibly because children used to listen to him, while the adult Canadiens chose to ignore him. Everyone remembers Laflamme and Traverse. But these were also the days where Brisebois was deployed as a number one defenseman and Dykhuis as a top 4. When injuries hit, Therrien subjected us to red hot prospect Descoteaux.
The third myth, was their ludicrous claim that the firing of Michel Therrien set off a period of musical chairs for the Canadiens coaching job.
This outlandish claim is laid to ridicule when you consider Therrien himself barely managed to hold on more than a couple of seasons. In fact, were it not for Jose Theodore, it might have been less.
To say that musical chairs followed Therrien doesn't really accurately report the facts. Though Julien lasted less than 2 full seasons, his replacement Bob Gainey was only ever meant as a temporary one anyway. Gainey's replacement, Carbonneau, has had a shorter tenure than Therrien, but of course we know that his is ongoing and would probably expect it to last longer than the old hydro-man's.
If one wanted to be picky, you could point out that there hasn't been a stable coach since Scotty Bowman in the 1970s, and musical chairs began with Habs coaching long before the unremarkable three year reign of Michel Therrien.
Finally, RDS notes that Therrien is the only coach to actually win a playoff series since Alain Vigneault in 1998.
Apart from being some of the worst reporting since RDS began, this report opted to conveniently omit the famous 7-game series victory over the Boston Bruins. I should also mention, that Michel Therrien's coaching, while it may have had something to do with the victory over the first-place Bruins in 2002, his childish antics almost certainly led to the turning point in a series against the Carolina Hurricanes in the second round. It should be noted, that once he wen into a sulk he was unable to use his "formidable coaching skills" to get his team to play for him after he had let them down.
Pittsburgh 2005 to present
On to Pittsburgh, where Therrien holds the job thanks to the skin of his teeth (or rather Crosby's teeth). In 2005-2006, he somehow managed to coach the Penguins to a more hideous second half than they had in the first, though they would later thank him for Jordan Staal.
And, though blessed with top talent, he continues to favour second-rate players he can relate to over proven talent. If you check the Pittsburgh players used, you'll see the similarity in numbers with Montreal's during his years. What's more, there will be just as many "who the hell is that?" moments. While Mark Recchi was once Pittsburgh here and good friend of Lemieux, stubborn Therrien has managed to alienate him twice in three seasons. Just to show Therrien how wrong he was, Recchi has played well once he left, winning a Stanley Cup with 16 playoff points in 2006 and playing point-per-game hockey this time around.
Therrien probably isn't the worst coach the Canadiens have ever had, but he certainly was the worst in all the years I have been old enough to understand what's been going on.
For tonight's game, you can look at Therrien through RDS-coloured glasses if you want, but personally I look forward to the encounter as a chance to play against inferior strategy for once.
I'll be thinking, the way he's also managed to shatter Marc-Andre Fleury's confidence on numerous occasions. I wouldn't let this guy within 100m of Price, Kostitsyn and Plekanec...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)