Top 100 Habs By Decade: 5. 1979-1989

In recognition of the Canadiens Centennial next Friday, we at Lions in Winter have been doing what we like best – making lists. As a precursor to publishing the definitive LIW top 100, we will be counting down the decades from least successful to most successful and naming our LIW top 10 players for the ten-year span. You should expect a few each day for the next few days.

Though this celebration has inevitably lost some steam due to relentless marketing and pre-game ceremonies for all of living memory, it would be a shame to let it pass unnoticed just because Mr. Gillett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.

1979-1989

5 decades to go and we start to get pretty interesting. If I know my readers, I'd say there are a few who get pretty romantic about some of the upcoming decades – the 1980s being no exception.

The 1980s were a funny time. At one end, you had the clear wane of stars and a dynasty from the 1970s, with retirements and general slowing of production across the board. However, at the other end of the 1980s you have the 1985-1993 period, which as dynasties go is much more silent and forgotten than that of the 1960s. 3 Cup finals (2 in the 1980s) and the 2nd best overall record by a hair to the Calgary Flames.

The list of ten players reflects these two realities with 70s players who fared better but didn't make the grade for that team and (super)stars who were born in the 1980s.

[Note: Each player only appears in one decade's top 10 – so Patrick Roy fans, don't get too ruffled]


10. Doug Jarvis (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1975-82	560	91	154	245	+105	13
Decade best (Season)	1981-82	80	20	28	48	+34	4
Habs career (Playoffs)	1976-82	72	11	20	31		1	4 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1979-80	10	4	4	8		0

Strong defensive forward and big contributor to 1970s success. He won Selke after leaving Montreal.


9. Pierre Mondou (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1977-85	548	194	262	456	+215	25
Decade best (Season)	1981-82	73	35	33	68	+18	4
Habs career (Playoffs)	1977-85	69	17	28	45	(+11)	2	3 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1983-84	14	6	3	9	+8	1

A solid offensive contributor who lived in the shadows of some true greats.


8. Doug Risebrough (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1974-82	493	117	185	302	+158	19
Decade best (Season)	1981-82	59	15	18	33	+23	2
Habs career (Playoffs)	1975-82	74	11	20	31		2	4 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1981-82	5	2	1	3		0

A valuable contributor to the 1970s dynasty, he was still a very valuable member of the team that tried to showdown the Islanders and Oilers.


7. Rod Langway (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1978-82	268	26	101	127	+160	4	AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1981-82	66	5	34	39	+66	1	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1979-82	26	3	6	9		0	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1979-80	10	3	3	6		0

A prodigal talent with the Montreal Canadiens. One wonders what might have been.


6. Pierre Larouche (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1977-82	236	110	126	236	+81	10
Decade best (Season)	1979-80	73	50	41	91	+36	7
Habs career (Playoffs)	1978-81	22	4	13	17		2	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1979-80	9	1	7	8		0

Exceptional goalscoring talent who made a brief stop in Montreal.


5. Mario Tremblay (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1974-86	852	258	326	584	+184	36
Decade best (Season)	1981-82	80	33	40	73	+24	4
Habs career (Playoffs)	1975-85	101	20	29	49	(+5)	4	4 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1979-80	10	0	11	11		0

A youngster from the dynasty years who came into his own in a leadership role during the 1980s. Only a career-ending injury stopped him from lifting one more Cup.


4. Bobby Smith (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1983-90	505	172	310	482	+34	30	AS
Decade best (Season)	1985-86	79	31	55	86	+10	7
Habs career (Playoffs)	1984-90	107	38	46	84	-1	6	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1988-89	21	11	8	19	+1	1

A big-game player with a talent for passing and scoring. Led the line for the Habs in the late 1980s.


3. Chris Chelios (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1983-90	402	72	237	309	+74	14	N, AS
Decade best (Season)	1988-89	80	15	58	73	+35	6	N, AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1984-90	98	16	52	68	+8	2	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1988-89	21	4	15	19	+2	2

The new anchor of the Habs blueline really came into his own in his last few years in Montreal.


2. Mats Naslund (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1982-90	617	243	369	612	+120	34	LB, AS
Decade best (Season)	1985-86	80	43	67	110	+11	7	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1983-90	97	34	57	91	+5	9	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1986-87	17	7	15	22	-1	3

The Canadiens first European superstar and last 100-point scorer.


1. Guy Carbonneau (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1980-94	912	221	326	547	+158	33	3 FS
Decade best (Season)	1988-89	79	26	30	56	+37	10	FS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1983-94	161	30	43	173	+3	6	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1985-86	20	7	5	12	+9	1	SC

Carbonneau, in retrospect, inherited the torch passed from one great Quebecois star to the next for 50 years. His defensive forward tag often clouds the fact that he was a fine scorer who knew how to show people what clutch play meant more than most. The second face of the forgotten mini dynasty of late 1980s and early 1990s.



* Awards: AS= N = Norris; FS = Frank Selke; LB = Lady Byng; All-star; HOF = Hall of Fame; SC = Stanley Cup.

Carey Price: Thoroughbred In The Gates? Getting This Horse Up And Running

Is Carey a thoroughbred? Has Gainey and the team made mistakes with his development?

If the management group have committed to Carey Price in the way it seems they have, then really these points are moot.

Thanks for letting me air my frustrations on them. But now the time has come now to move onto real-world practical scenarios. This closing segment on Carey and his care treats you to some of my ideas on how things can be done better on the Canadiens, assuming a cornerstone named Price.


Back-up goaltender

It all sounds very logical – get a veteran back-up goaltender to help Carey Price develop and act as insurance in case he stumbles again. I do have a problem with this approach, however: it is not worth losing Jaroslav Halak over.

Let me elaborate.

I assume (based on lots of experience now) that Gainey and his new coach will press on with the “development by minutes approach” they have been implementing with Carey Price to this point. That said, to keep with the current progress and build his endurance, I think it would be reasonable to predict that a healthy Carey Price will be favoured for the start in ≥2/3 of Canadiens games in 2009-10.

For a back-up that means 20-odd games over the season. For a mentor, that suits. One could imagine many a graying netminder stepping into such a role. However, we also want this back-up to be reliable (and dare I say it, even good/great).

Now last time I checked good/great veteran goaltenders of the free agent variety don’t like to consign themselves to a back-up role before the head-to-head play has been evaluated, no matter what the salary. Sure, someone like Manny Fernandez played the back-up in Boston, and Huet did in Chicago, but they went in looking to be the starter. In Montreal, the starter role is not on offer. In my mind, that rules out a lot of eligible candidates.

So, let’s say then we forego the "capable stopper" part of the description. We sign up Curtis Joseph or other washed up vet and their now sub 0.700 save percentage and have the guy room with Carey for the season while Price takes on 72 games himself.

It’s a possibility, but not one that I like.

First of all, it undermines the original veteran back-up idea. All we've done is replaced inexperienced Halak with more Carey Price. There's no insurance, and no matter how hood the mentor is, I'm not sold on that. If anyone is ready to bet that Carey Price has undergone his last deep slump, it’s not me. I’m not a fan of burning another season, so I like the idea of insurance.

In that case, let’s forget the mentor – just get a veteran who can come in and be reliable and take over from Carey for a few weeks at a time when things get bumpy. Martin Biron, for example.

Not ideal for me either. I mean, we’re back to where we started aren’t we?

Halak already does that job. Why pay Biron to be an older Halak? It would be foolish to pay $2-3 million more for the mere tag veteran. Nevermind, the chance that Gainey will find a goalie as good as Jaro with the same tolerance for back-up duty (yet more experience) is slim indeed. No, if this vet can’t be a mentor and play with the plan for Price, then I don’t think we pay over the odds to make this type of move. This brings me to my next point…


Goaltending coach

I am not the first, and I won’t be the last to bring up this idea. If mentor is what Carey needs, surely the position of goaltending coach is a place we can park this guy.

Next year would be Roland Melanson’s twelfth season as assistant coach of the Montreal Canadiens. And, while I congratulate him on the achievement, it might be time to remind him that “all good things must come to an end”. It may be harsh to criticize him as a coach with so little understanding of what he actually does, but he has now presided over so many goaltending blowouts that one surely must question his tenure.

He has successfully presided over the rise of Jose Theodore, Mathieu Garon, Cristobal Huet and now Price and Halak. But it seems every time one of his pupils begins to ask questions of their game or their confidence, Rollie the goalie doesn’t have the answers. Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t have the answers. Perhaps it’s because they weren’t asking for the type of answers he was giving. Maybe they can't relate to him, who knows.

Carey Price for his part clearly needs to be nurtured. I think we can all agree that the cool, independent image that we were sold two summers ago has been destroyed. He is needy, he is insecure – or in other words, he’s a regular goalie. We all remember Carey’s first season and his first successes. Positioning was the name of the game and rebounds were rare. He once knew how to provide the commodity we were after. In trying to improve, he has lost the above average abilities he had before. I, for one, would take those back and have him stabilize there. Sometimes a mentor is all a young charge needs to find what they once knew. And I don’t think all the calls for a veteran back-up are misguided in that way.

So who can be the man for the job?

Not Rollie.

Francois Allare? Likely the greatest technician available, but probably not the mentor for Carey.

I’d look for someone who’s been through what he has and come out alright. Someone who’s played the mentor before. My target would be Jeff Hackett. Who else could you find that was drafted high, started slow and survived a shocking 0.856 save percentage season to come back and be Canadiens star and teacher to Vezina winner?


Practice culture

Carey was failed this season by his laid-back attitude. He was failed by the laid back attitudes of those around him as well. I remember reading, in the deepest, darkest days of his slump that Carey had been working hard in practice…

“On CKAC this afternoon, Martin McGuire reported Price has been working very hard in practice. He's the first one on the ice with the injured guys and often the last to leave.

Implicit in McGuire's praise is the notion that Price's work habits have not always been exemplary.”

It wasn’t the only article talking about lax habits in training.

He wasn’t great that next game as hoped, he was horrible. But practice doesn’t work that way. Practice takes time. So, presumably still in his bucke-down mode, Carey did get the next start and the next and the next and the next. And fuelled by his hard work on off days, it was probably Carey’s most impressive stretch of the season. He got four straight domes from a fed-up Tobalev (which says a lot). He let in a mere 8 goals, got 5 important points for the Habs and kept them in every game.

The connection between practice and success was unfortunately overlooked or forgotten a month later, though as more optional practices were handed down by Gainey and the one player who should have been as motivated as anyone to correct his gaps sat a few out – including during the playoffs.

It’s a simple thing really – practice makes perfect. In Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, Outliers, he repeated the estimate that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to be great at something. That goes for skating, playing guitar, glove saves, stick-handling (see Kovalev). This recap from the book says it all:

“The Story of Success challenges assumptions about innate genius and natural-born talent. Through a series of detailed examples, Gladwell explains away these gifts by attributing them to practice, timing, circumstance, upbringing, culture, and opportunity. In other words, those really smart, successful people we admire – Mozart, Bill Gates, the Beatles – weren’t born with natural talent. Instead, they had the right upbringing, were in the right place at the right time, and through 10,000 hours of hard work and a few lucky opportunities, landed success.”

This should be mandatory reading for Halak, Price and all the Canadiens. People often wonder how to emulate the Red Wings (looking for easy things like signing free agents, or getting a big man for the PP), but nothing can replace the hard work in practice that has kept them on top since the Bowman years and continues with Mike Babcock.


Internal competition

More than a win-you’re-in scheme, I would like to see some serious internal competition. Assuming it’ll be Price/Halak, the seeds are already there.

Here’s an idea of what I might do. From the beginning of the season sit both goalies down. Explain the situation: Carey will play 2/3 of regular season games, Jaro will play 1/3. Here’s where it gets interesting – the goalie who plays best wins the right to the first two playoff games. Stats considered could be saves, wins, giveaways and more. The scoring would be laid out and prorated based on to 2-1 ratio.

The point of the complicated scheme is that these boys have to start caring about being better than each other. That’s the starting point to them caring about exceeding the average level of play across the league. It doesn't have to be this formal (or this complex). Whatever stirs the young men. Hopefully the reward or consequences they can see on a day-to-day basis, with their competition right there will fuel them t work for what they want (one can only hope that's a playoff start...).


Improve communication

On-ice communication, that is.

With a soft-spoken Russian running the D and a couple of shy goalies, it’s no wonder the Canadiens run around following each other all over the defensive zone.

One of the benefits of better practice would be better understanding among players, but also confident leaders will emerge from defensive pairs and goalie teams.

Ultimately one person has to be in charge, otherwise you are just hoping for coverage as a unit...


Upgrade on D

Rather than pouring money into a veteran back-up, it would make more sense to allocate some funds to upgrade the defence at the 1st, 2nd or 3rd D level. That would mean Komisarek could be a comfortable number 4/5 with Gorges and a natural 6th like Bouillon could take his rightful place.

Ultimately, I would like Bouwmeester. He’s young, can skate, can cover the back, has long reach, can shoot and clearly has an understanding of the game. He’s also young and could conceivably still get even better. But Jay may be looking at top top money, and Montreal, handcuffed by the taxes may just not be able to outbid. That’s why I like Johnny Oduya UFA as a target. He’s youngish, from a good system and plays some effective if not spectacular D.

For Price/Halak, the simple addition of a player like Oduya could reduce shots, time in zone and importantly rebounds. It would be a stats enhancer, which in turn could be a big confidence boost to the young goalies.


Defensive coach

Finally, in the same vein, assigning a defencman to coach the defencemen alone could really help overall team defence and by extension the goaltenders.

Nevermind the goalies for a minute. We’ve done nothing but draft defencemen for 4 years – can we really afford to have the brilliant coordinator who came up with the coverage plans we saw this season taking those assets under the wing? I think that answer is clear as day.

–––––––––––––––

If another season is about to get underway with Price pre-selected for important starts, I think it’s high time we start tipping the scales for the boy. Get him a coach who he responds to, get him to practice well and practice hard, light fires under him with competition or whatever fires him up, sort out the defenders and bolster their numbers with people who can defend.

There’s been enough hoping things are going to turn out right. This team mustn’t accept another season launched with hope masqueraded as patience. There are tried and true methods that work.

It’s too late to draft a thoroughbred who comes in and saves the franchise at 19.

It’s too late to develop the most promising prospect the organization has had in a decade in the sensible way.

It’s not too late to install the best coaches possible, sign players that fit the needs and install a work ethic that pays dividends in the spring. It's not too late to take the lessons from the past two seasons on board and apply them to the developing team for the future.

A Trophy Less Likely

The Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy is an annual award under the trusteeship of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association and is given to the National Hockey League player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey. The winner is selected in a poll of all chapters of the PHWA at the end of the regular season.

Today, it was announced that Patrice Brisebois would be the Canadiens nominee. Having not suffered major injuries of last season, and trading last season's nominee (Mark Streit – whose nomination is meant to hark back to a time when dedication meant more than rehabbing), they turned to Patrice.

These days, there is certainly a conception (probably based on the winners from the past 18 odd years) that the trophy is awarded to a player who has come back from career- or even life-threatening illness or injury. This is not strictly true. But it would be hard to imagine a player who had overcome a massive obstacle losing to someone whose nominating quality is that they are old.

Only 10 nominees have been revealed to date. There is a chance a Patrice would win, but it won't be ours:

Just a year and a half ago, Patrice Bergeron was nearly paralyzed and suffered a severe concussion from a hit from behind. His determination to be back by the 2008 playoffs nearly paid off, as he amazingly would have been ready to take the ice had the Bruins reached the second round last spring.

This season, Bergeron suffered yet another concussion, but has since returned to approach the high-caliber level of play for which he was known before the injuries. His credo of respect and "playing the right way" is reflected in his style on the ice -- always hard, always physical, always clean.

Brisebois is a decided outsider even among the ten, behind Beregeron, Numminen, Clemmenson and Mark Eaton. I think if old Patrice has his heart set on a trophy this year he'd better gear up for a run at the Conn Smythe...

Come on, be honest, even if you are a Brisebois supporter, it's hard to see him winning this one. I mean unless the NHL recognises his long career despite having to overcome a total lack of NHL level skill (couldn't resist).


Though the nomination isn't exactly front page news, it sure beats harping on and on about which of the four lines isn't scoring.

Plus, it gave us an opportunity to get some classic Brisebois quotes only a couple of days after looking as slow as he ever has in his career (think Hamrlik penalty...):

"Some media, some people say, 'He's getting old, he should retire,'" Brisebois said yesterday. "Not that it hurts, but I'm like, 'I'm still doing the job. I'm not slow on the ice. I watch myself on video and I don't look a step behind.'

"Sometimes, I'm going to get caught, for sure. The game is fast and I try things on the ice. If you don't, nothing's going to happen. We have fast forwards who need the puck on the tape. Sometimes, you see the opening and you try."

You can't say the guy isn't good for anything. He still makes me laugh (and cry)...


Incidentally, for those interested here are the previous Canadiens winners of Masterton award, and the wikipedia reasoning as to why:

Claude Provost – "Embodied the definition of perseverance and dedication to hockey" throughout his 15 year career
Henri Richard – This honoured a career with 11 Stanley Cups
Serge Savard – Awarded for "dedication to hockey", after he won his eighth Stanley Cup in eleven seasons
Doug Jarvis (while he was with Hartford) – Awarded after he beat Garry Unger's record for consecutive games played, with 914 games
Saku Koivu – Overcame non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Canadiens World Junior History103 Players And Counting

The World Junior Hockey Championships were held for the first time in 1974. Doug Jarvis, undrafted and representing the Peterborough Petes was the first (future) Canadien to play in the tournament. Though the tournament had humble beginnings, it soon became a barometer for young talent, especially following the Gretzky tournament of 1978. The Canadiens scouts over the years have clearly used the tournament to make their minds up, which is either very efficient or very lazy (I can't quite decide yet). And since Jarvis there have been 102 other World Junior alum to suit up for the big club in Montreal, including a whopping 50 for team Canada.

On the eve of the big climax to the junior tournament, I thought you might all enjoy a look at Habs to participate in this tournament over the years.

Of the current Habs (coaches included), there are only a handful of players who never suited up for their country at this event – 10 in all. The list is headed by Guy Carbonneau, who probably would have made the cut in 1978 were it not for some political in-fighting and no Quebec presence on the Gretzky edition of the team (Ray Bourque and Michel Goulet were also overlooked). Robert Lang also missed out, probably because he was a late bloomer if his patchy stats from Czechoslovakia from that time are to be believed. The others are less surprising with Lapierrs, Kostopoulos, Dandenault, Laraque, D'Agostini, Gorges, Bouillon and O'Byrne all missing out on their opportunities.

Team Canada
Steve Begin, Patrice Brisebois, Andrew Cassels, Kyle Chipchura, Eric Chouinard, Shayne Corson, Alain Cote, Russ Courtnall, JJ Daigneault, Jason Dawe, Marc Denis, Eric Desjardins, Gerald Diduck, Karl Dykhuis, Stephane Fiset, Doug Gilmour, Jeff Hackett, Kevin Haller, Doug Jarvis, Yvan Joly, Mike Keane, Guillaume Latendresse, Gary Leeman, Claude Lemieux, Trevor Linden, Rollie Melanson, Olivier Michaud, Kirk Muller, Garth Murray, Dave Orleski, Patrick Poulin, Carey Price, Yves Racine, Rob Ramage, Mark Recchi, Mike Riberio, Stephane Richer, Michael Ryder, Pierre Sevigny, Richard Sevigny, Bobby Smith, Doug Soetaert, Alex Tanguay, Jose Theodore, Scott Thornton, Darcy Tucker, Pierre Turgeon, Sylvain Turgeon, Ryan Walter, Jason Ward

USSR/CIS/Russia
Sergei Berezin, Valeri Bure, Andrei Kovalenko, Alexei Kovalev, Vladimir Malakhov, Andrei Markov, Alexander Perezhogin, Oleg Petrov, Sergei Samsonov, Sergei Zholtok

Sweden
Patrik Carnback, Kjell Dahlin, Jonas Hoglund, Patrik Kjellberg, Mats Naslund, Niklas Sundstrom

Czechoslovakia/Czech and Slovakia
Jozef Balej, Jaroslav Halak, Roman Hamrlik, Marcel Hossa, Tomas Plekanec, Martin Rucinsky, Petr Svoboda, Tomas Vokoun, Richard Zednik

Finland
Marti Jarventie, Marko Kiprusoff, Saku Koivu, Juha Lind, Jyrki Lumme

USA
Jim Campbell, Chris Chelios, Tom Chorske, Ron Hainsey, Chris Higgins, Sean Hill, Pat Jablonski, Mike Komisarek, Tom Kurvers, Scott Lachance, John Leclair, Craig Ludwig, Max Pacioretty, Matt Schneider, Bryan Smolinski, Alfue Turcotte, Eric Weinrich, David Wilkie

Switzerland
David Aebischer, Mark Streit

Poland
Mariusz Czerkawski

Belarus
Andrei Kostitsyn, Sergei Kostitsyn (Grabovski only ever played in the B-tier competition)


Top player at position honours
Best forward – Niklas Sundstrom
Best goalie – Stephane Fiset, Jose Theodore, Marc Denis, David Aebischer, Carey Price

Tournament All-star team
Forward – Mats Naslund, Shayne Corson, Alexei Kovalev, Martin Rucinsky, Valeri Bure, Niklas Sundstrom, Sergei Samsonov
Defence – Scott Lachance, Andrei Markov, Mark Streit
Goalie – Stephane Fiset, David Aebischer, Carey Price


Top 10 Games played
21 – Niklas Sundstrom
15 – Scott Lachance
14 – Shayne Corson, Patrice Brisebois, Chris Higgins, Saku Koivu, Mike Komisarek, Tomas Plekanec, Eric Desjardins, Karl Dykhuis, Gary Leeman, Jason Ward, Jim Campbell, Kjell Dahlin, Ron Hainsey, Marcel Hossa, John Leclair, Eric Weinrich, Sergei Zholtok


Top 10 Points
33 – Niklas Sundsrom
19 – Shayne Corson
18 – Saku Koivu
16 – John Leclair
15 – Mats Naslund
14 – Martin Rucinsky
13 – Jim Campbell, Kjell Dahlin, Sergei Samsonov, Russ Courtnall

Top 10 Points per game
2.00 – Martin Rucinsky
1.86 – Russ Courtnall
1.67 – Bobby Smith
1.57 – Niklas Sundstrom, Andrei Kovalenko, Alfie Turcotte
1.43 – Alexei Kovalev
1.36 – Shayne Corson
1.33 – Ryan Walter
1.29 – Saku Koivu

Top 10 Goals
18 – Niklas Sundstrom
10 – John Leclair, Sergei Samsonov
9 – Shayne Corson, Martin Rucinsky
8 – Kjell Dahlin
7 – Jim Campbell, Russ Courtnall, Chris Higgins
5 – Mats Naslund, Andrei Kovalenko, Alexei Kovalev, Valeri Bure, Ryan Walter, Juha Lind, Richard Zednik, Yvan Joly

Top 10 Goals per game
1.29 – Martin Rucinsky
1.00 – Russ Courtnall
0.86 – Niklas Sundstrom
0.83 – Ryan Walter, Richard Zednik
0.80 – Doug Jarvis
0.77 – Sergei Samsonov
0.71 – John Leclair, Andrei Kovalenko, Alexei Kovalev, Valeri Bure, Juha Lind

Top 10 Points (Defenceman)
11 – Patrice Brisebois
8 – Scott Lachance
7 – Ron Hainsey
6 – Andrei Markov, Tom Kurvers
5 – David Wilkie, Eric Desjardins, Rob Ramage, Alain Cote, Jyrki Lumme
4 – Kevin Haller, Marko Kiprusoff, Petr Svoboda

Top 10 Points per game (Defenceman)
0.86 – Tom Kurvers
0.79 – Patrice Brisebois
0.71 – Alain Cote, Jyrki Lumme
0.57 – Kevin Haller, Marko Kiprusoff, Petr Svoboda
0.53 – Scott Lachance
0.50 – Ron Hainsey
0.46 – Andrei Markov


Finally, for a bit of fun to wrap up the post, I thought a Canadiens all-time WJC participant roster based on WJC performance (including personal stats and medal standings), interesting considering the current Habs featuring:

Forward lines:
Mats Naslund – Saku Koivu – Niklas Sundstrom
Martin Rucinsky – Shayne Corson – Alexei Kovalev
John Leclair – Ryan Walter – Andrei Kovalenko
Sergei Samsonov – Doug Jarvis – Russ Courtnall

Defence pairings
Patrice Brisebois – Andrei Markov
Scott Lachance – Eric Desjardins
Mark Streit – Rob Ramage

Goalies
Carey Price
David Aebischer

Brett Clark RumourHabs Task Is Abundantly Clear

Jaroslav Halak for Brett Clark? You have to be joking...

I say this even as someone who has Brett Clark in his hockey pool, someone who (probably misguidedly) thinks he can reproduce his 30-point form this year. I wouldn't trade for Brett Clark if it were Cedrick Desjardins.

The progress of rumours is an interesting barometer on how the press thinks a team is doing. Clearly the last 2 rumours did not come to fruition, but both had us shipping some combination of Halak and Higgins (or thereabouts) for bona fide scorers Gaborik or Kovalchuk. Times were good back then.

Two bad games on, the rumour-mongers have us shipping Halak out for Brett Clark? I know Halak's stock has tumbled a lot, but we're not that desperate are we. Pressure's up, stormy weather.

It's fun talking about Gaborik and Kovalchuk, but when names like Brett Clark get thrown into the mix (and are getting discussed in a serious way by fans), one thing starts to become very clear to me:

We cannot enter a culture of trading to solve our problems. We cannot abandon our successful course of draft, develop, wait (patiently), succeed to become the 2001 Leafs, the 2003 Flyers or the Rangers. Trading in this way rarely works and is definitely not the way to multiple years of Cup contention. Not anymore, not with a salary cap and vulnerability of restricted free agents.


We must not look to trades to solve all our little problems (like Philly always do). Patience has to become part of our game as fans (and coaches). On top of that, someone needs to start taking an interest in solving the problems we actually do have – coaching the defencemen.


Defence coach
The Canadiens have operated for some time now without a coach for the defencemen. It's a puzzling move considering the team is in profit, can afford the help and has room under the cap for an extra coach. Contrast us to the New Jersey Devils, who operate at a loss, are frequently up against the cap and still find the funds to hoard most of the good defencemen from the past 40 years as coaches – and have generally speaking succeeded with this approach.


Defencemen who need coaching
The Canadiens, in fact, don't have a defenceman to be seen almost throughout the entire organisation (coaches or otherwise).

The odd thing about this is that the Canadiens are actually carrying quite a young defence by their standards. Gorges is young, and O'Byrne is half a year into an NHL career. Plan B we all know, but Plans C, D, E and beyond would all be rookies as well – none of whom are being coached by a defenceman at either AHL or NHL level.

Through the whole Bouwmeester, then Clark, and now probably any player with a face as our "fourth" defenceman, it has become clear that trading will not be an adequate response to our problems. It will merely be a stop-gap.

I presumed when we let NHL-experienced defenceman Mark Streit – who for all his faults would look mighty good beside Hamrlik right now – go, Gainey was committing to O'Byrne, McDonagh, Weber, Carle, Subban and whoever else might ignore KHL dollars to wait for an NHL place. I presumed we were committing to a patient approach that paid such high dividends with the forwards – Plekanec, Higgins, Kostitsyn, Lapierre. To be honest, I was happy with the approach, in as much, that it would maximise the chances of the young players fulfilling their potential. It would also leave us financially flexible in the years we ramp up for true contention.

Fast forward to October, Carbonneau benches O'Byrne every time he slips up, favouring a reliably faulty veteran in his place.

What does this teach O'Byrne? Not much. Maybe, the impossible: Be a veteran, then you'll be judged by lower standards..

In my eyes, it's a lot of inconsistent behaviour through the organisation. Gainey drafts and stockpiles young defencemen and lets established defencemen go (2 years running); but Carbonneau is uncomfortable using young defencemen. It certainly speaks to their different goals and the way each will be judged: Gainey's being long-term success and Carbonneau's short-term (i.e., day-to-day).

The last time this happened, it was Claude Julien and it was with the forwards. Julien, so focused on saving his own neck deployed the Bonks and Sundstroms far too frequently, where Higgins and Plekanec were left at the end of the bench. That time Gainey stepped in, relieving the coach and taking player deployment decisions into his own hands.


Medium-term goals
I would not suggest such a drastic approach this time. But Gainey could take matters into his own hands by emphasising the need for patience and care with Komisarek, O'Byrne and Gorges. He could also hire a defensive coach to help with the actual day-to-day of that task.

Where Gainey and Carbonneau can meet is is the medium term. The time has clearly come for this organisation, though to stop scrapping for every 2 points over 6 months and to build a team with a view to winning a few rounds in the playoffs. Look around the league and show me a 4th defenceman you would like to have on our team, and I'll show you O'Byrne after some seasoning.

With ice time, a mentor and even a coach to help him, he will be better than Brett Clark come April – of that, there's no doubt in my mind. He has already shown the kernels of consistency in this league, with his finish last season. A little patience and prodding will help to pry it out of him again. There will be tough times, I'm sure. But I for one see the value in committing to this strategy – especially if the forwards can continue to bail the defence out in more than 50% of games.

Possible coaches
Luckily for the Canadiens, despite their dearth of defensive strategists, they already have some top mentors in the system. Markov is becoming as calm as a defenceman as you will see in this league, and Hamrlik makes his job look routine. Between the two of them, there must be tips to give the youngsters (and I include the suddenly inept Komisarek in that group). My lone suggestion in the mentor game is that it might now be time for them to switch proteges for a while (Markov and O'Byrne, Hamrlik and Komisarek) if things continue to go awry at the back.

Even with that adjustment, it would still be a sensible move to reach out for a consultant coach, I think. Maybe not one to stand behind the bench at game time, necessarily, but one like the Devils clearly have in Laperriere or Robinson. It seems to me, in watching our group of coaches for a while now, that there is a little gap in strategy when it comes to defensive forwards, and it's this gap that's been rearing its ugly head this past week. Getting a new ideas man in couldn't hurt.

Scouring the list of former Habs alone, I came up with some people I thought could offer a hand:

- Eric Desjardins (though it might take a special offer to lure him form Philly)
- Sylvain Lefebvre (currently coaching in Colorado's farm system)
- Craig Ludwig (Gainey teammate, coaching low-level in Texas)
- Lyle Odelein (never coached, but played under Burns/Laperrirere and Lemaire/Robinson)
- Eric Weinrich (smart guy, needs help getting over being out of the NHL)


There would be countless other examples of players from other NHL teams that might be willing to come and consult in Montreal (I'm not holding my breath for Ray Bourque, though).


Madness sets in
Finally, it occurred to me that another crazy idea might work. Why not make Patrice Brisebois a player/coach. We could phase him out of play as O'Byrne gets phased in. Even if Brisebois didn't help O'Byrne improve, the defence as a whole would improve by default as a result of his eventual omission...

Panic Stations?Things On the Habs Worth Fretting Over

Oh, you could see we were all dying for a loss. So many topics we had been raring to blog about, so many things more than lamenting Kovalev's line only scoring 0.6 PPG. A loss is a good tonic. It brings it all out.

But as with all things, the Canadiens are never quite as bad as they appeared in a loss – never quite as good as we rave they are after a win. So, although the defence was bad in Saturday night's game, the fact is that they often play just as poorly and get away with (both on the scoresheet and the broadsheet). And, another fact is that Anaheim's defence (one we would all be envious to have on paper) was pretty piss poor as well.


For me, the underlying lesson from all this is that defence in this league is difficult. Very difficult. Talking about keeping a child fist-sized piece of rubber out of a sumo wrestler-sized net is hard – more so when people actually shoot straight. Blocking 90 mph shots and rooting the puck out of the corner when 230 lb behemoths are barreling down on you is no walk in the park either.

On most occasions, the team gets away with it, usually through a combination of luck, timing and goalkeeper skill. Occasionally, two or more of these things go the wrong way and it all goes pear-shaped.

Saturday night, all three things went in the wrong direction as far as I could see. The Canadiens hit posts and legs, the Ducks (by and large) did not, the Ducks anticipated their breaks well with many players jumping in and Halak and Price were unusually useless allies.

I do believe a lot of the fault lies at the feet of the defencemen for this one. In trying to be philosophical about the loss, I mostly give them the benefit of several players all having bad nights at once.

JT at The H Does Not Stand For Habs does a fine job at calling the issues with players. For my part, I wanted to supplement her views with some views on a couple of issues that go deeper than bad luck and miscues. In my mind these are:

1) The defensive system
2) The Brisebois situation

The system of defence
From the beginning of the season, one thing was very clear to me – we would need a good goalie this year. The Canadiens coaches seem to have gone with old faithful in terms of Habs strategies – hedge your bets on goaltending. From the my first memories of hockey until now, this has been the strategy employed by management.

One can hardly argue with the idea: get a good goalie and let him stop the shots. It is both cost effective and more reliable than trying to get the job done with 6 different guys paid at variable rates. And, in Halak and Price, the Canadiens have two reliable and efficient netminders.

The problem is not with the overall premise for me, but rather with the lack of much planning beyond the initial choice of “goalie or bust”.

Signing Hamrlik was a nice move to try and instill a second tier to the plan. But it kind of stopped short there. With Roman and Markov it means that for large parts of the game we can have 5 dependable players on the ice. The problem (as we saw Saturday) was that when one of them (the lynch-pin piece, no less) goes AWOL, then 4 dependable pieces just isn’t enough.

The system is naïve, as well. Over-reliance on a goaltender hasn’t been in style since Hasek left the Sabres. Even NJ, with the best insurance policy of all, have a system to fall back on.

If the Canadiens are to achieve any kind of meaningful success this year, it will happen through improvement to this, their greatest deficiency. Someone will have to help Komisarek take the next step in development (i.e., playing the puck to the forwards) and oversee the progress of Gorges and O’Byrne.

The question of who this person will be has been raised (again by JT):

Doug Jarvis isn't necessarily doing a bad job with the D, but I can't help thinking it would be better all around to have a guy who's actually played the position offering instruction.

It’s been an issue on my mind for some time. Personally, I’m not sure if a change in personnel is necessary – possibly just a renewed focus. Teach the defencemen to be consistent, how to trust themselves in possession, how to make time and room for themselves by anticipating the play, and teach them some safe rescue manoeuvres that don’t include dumping it up the middle. The system Detroit teaches is simple: it is patience over panic.

This is salvageable. Even with the current group. They are intelligent enough, can skate and have shown they can improve. Hopefully this game will highlight that this needs to be the focus of a season’s work – readying their system for April.


Brisebois
This, unlike the former is no minor indictment. It is major in my mind. This situation keeps on rearing its head and little is done to remedy it. The fact that it took until the Anaheim game to become apparent that Brisebois is still Brisebois is surprising. The fact that he had a game like he did is not.

Now, I can rant with the best of them on how much I dislike the moments where I have to sit through 60 seconds of a Brisebois shift, but this time, that’s kind of beside the point. He is what he is. He’s trying as hard as he ever did, and his skills are diminished now (if that’s even imaginable).


This whole situation is the responsibility of the management who continues to sign this player and the coaching staff that continues to play him. The fixation on Patrice, whatever it is, is and will continue to be the Achilles’ heel of this team.

As one fan in a throng who sees things on this dossier in the same light, I am puzzled. Of course I defer to the judgment of these men on hockey specifics. But in my mind, this is not a matter of expertise, this is basic: Patrice has glaring deficiencies, he is a free agent – don’t sign him…

(The fact that Anaheim, only two days earlier, had signed Bret Hedican (+17 on a team that scored 4 more goals than they allowed) was a reminder that our signing strategy on defence was haphazard to say the least. Far from being an advocate of signing another washed-up defenceman – Hedican while not a real option perhaps just highlights how silly our own signing, so early in the summer was.)

I much prefer the idea of promoting from within because it allows for two important benefits: cheap salary and open mind. In the case of the Canadiens, they actually did have the chance to promote from within. An opportunity missed as it turns out. Shawn Belle is a former Team Canada member, has NHL experience and is good enough to be a 7th defenceman. Opinions may vary, but both Valentenko and Weber could have handled the odd assignment in the NHL too, as far as I’m concerned.

If I accept that Brisebois should have been signed (and I don’t), I still object to him starting every game, playing every game and playing in every situation. I thought he was insurance. I thought he was a fall-back position – at worst.

The problem is, while management talk about Patrice in those terms many times, they use him very differently when it comes to action time. We are not privy to the private conversations between Gainey, Gauthier, Carbonneau, Jarvis and Muller. We can only guess. But it is certain now that one of this braintrust is a Brisebois-believer, and at the very least the other 4 are not adamantly against him. I have a feeling this decision falls to the coaches, and I have an inkling which of the three it might be. In any case, that is irrelevant.

And, to be honest, Saturday represents the least of my concerns here. Although young Ryan O’Byrne, a defenceman with half a year of NHL experience, was probably wrongly benched for poor play vs. Florida, it is the memory of the playoffs that makes me uneasy here.

Last season, after the most successful run the club had had in more than a decade, the coaches decided on the eve of the playoffs to shuffle the deck. In come veterans (because that’s a winning formula in the playoffs). Even when the experiment went awry with 3 losses against a team we had (and should have continued to) dominated all season, the coaches stuck with Brisebois. The lineup was contorted to fit him in. A goalscorer was benched when we needed goals, two defenceman moved up front when we needed goals and Brisebois played and played when we couldn’t really afford to let up more than 3 goals a game.

What troubled me last playoffs is now troubling me again: Is this management or coaching staff capable of learning from the mistakes of their collective past?

The signing showed that Gainey was still prone to a soft spot with Patrice. And, the first seven games of the season show me that Carbonneau and co. are no less immune. Heaven help us…

Outlook
In a way it was fortuitous that Brisebois played spectacularly badly in this case in a loss. And that he did not score on a knuckler to cloud affairs. If we could ever hope for this group to learn and question their ways, it will take a loss like the one we had on Saturday.

I look on now with interest to tomorrow morning for the announcement on who will be playing. I look forward to seeing how the staff reacts in their plans and game-tme decision-making.

How the Habs keep powering their PP

A lot of people round the league wrote the Canadiens off when they lost Sheldon Souray. Even more joined in when the free agency signings were totalled up.

But now many of these "experts" are looking at the Montreal Canadiens and wondering how they got to be third (let's dispense with the actual standings for a minute) in the East. And, critics and fans alike are wondering how their powerplay could possibly be first.


Looking at it logically, you can see where the write-offs came from:

The Canadiens missed the playoffs last year.
Much of their plight was due to a lack of scoring in critical games.
Most of their scoring last year was on the PP.
Souray scored a team leading 19 PPG – NHL record to boot.

So, take away Souray and:

The Canadiens PP will lose at least 19 goals.
The Canadiens PP will be worse than last year.
The Canadiens even strength may or may not improve, but most likely stay the same.
They score even less goals.
They lose more games.


I admire the logical process, I do. But it's like a calculation when you get a bit of the early bit wrong, the end conclusion will be way off. Most of the above thinking is logically sound, but the assumptions about the Canadiens PP and how it worked were clearly not very well founded.

Michael Farber, one time Habs expert, now occasional commentator had this to say on Souray and the Habs:

"This shouldn't compute. When Sheldon Souray signed as a free agent with the Edmonton Oilers last summer, he took his Hammer of Thor slapshot and the 19 power play goals -- a record for NHL defensemen -- with him. Souray's shot, which put as much fear into the forwards who were expected to go to the front of the net for a deflection as it did into goalies, was a freak of nature. Doug Jarvis, the Montreal assistant coach in charge of the power play, put it to excellent use. The Canadiens might work the puck around a little, but everybody in the arena knew it was going to end up back at the point and the maestro would wind up and hammer it. Montreal's power play, among the top ranked in the league until it slipped late in the season, was basically The Anvil Chorus."

Sure, as Farber says, Souray could shoot hard, and sure this probably helped him score a few (let's say 8 to be generous). In my opinion, the shot from the point (or the middle of the ice) probably has the highest likelihood of actually going in the net or being deflected in. It is a great play. However, once other teams know this is the play, they will be able to take away the opportunity more times than not.

Now, even I have conceded that losing Souray cost us 8 goals. So why is the PP better?

In my assessment focusing our efforts into getting a Souray shot actually damaged our PP proficiency. There are several ways I see this being possible:

Souray misses, the goalie saves or defender blocks, and:

a) the puck was recovered by the other team
b) the puck went over the glass
c) the puck came out of the zone
d) the players recovered the puck and went about setting up for the big shot again


As we all know, a powerplay is a lot more complex than the goal that comes at the end of it. A powerplay that relies on a variety of plays, or indeed on that creates new plays on the spur of the moment, will be more successful in the long run because it better exploits the lack of defenders.

I would argue that the key to the Canadiens powerplay last year was the ability to set the stage for the Souray shot, and not the Souray shot itself. My conclusion is that the Canadiens PP this year and last were/are above the league's average because of the quality of the passers they have on the ice rather than the shooters.


So who is the one responsible for all this success?

Well, Michael Farber might have you believe that it's down to a decision to play regular lines rather than PP units. I might give this idea some credence if it weren't so banal. I might also think it benefits the PP, except that the regular lines change so much that the consistency argument goes out the window a bit. Plus, using regular lines is nothing new – PPs good and bad (and terrible) have been doing this for ages.

Farber's article also quotes an NHL scout, who like me opts for the ability to move the puck around, and he claims the key is Koivu:

"They got too dependent on Souray. Now they're throwing the puck around better, moving into spaces, getting some two-on-ones down low. The key is Koivu. I can't remember him starting a season so strong, with so much confidence. His passes are really sharp. Last year his passes were too hard sometimes, and guy's couldn't handle it. He's playing much better now."

Not to take anything away from Koivu, but he has only been on the ice for 11 of the Canadiens 22 PP goals, so he may not be the whole answer. Koivu plays a low position and is critical in puck control when he's on, but he does not orchestrate these affairs.

That job belongs to our PP conductor: Andrei Markov.

His tricks on the PP include breakout passes, gaining the zone, keeping the puck in, simple passing, cross-ice seeing eye passing, shooting from the point, and pinching when appropriate. His biggest trick is how he manages to do all this and garner hardly a mention from the critics who drooled over Souray.


If you watch him on the ice, watch his eyes. What you can see is concentration, poise and vision at the line. He passes and sets himself up for the next play seconds ahead of the opposition. He inherently knows where Koivu and Kovalev will be. When to pass to Streit and when to take on the defenders.

He's been on the ice for 17 of the Habs 22 PPGs. He's tied for 6th in PP scoring among defensemen. And I can't account for the number of times he's been the originator of the play that becomes a goal.

He's all we ever hoped Malakhov might be when we traded the talented Schneider and he's our top tier defenseman since Chelios.

The Russian (Cyrillic) characters PP would translate to RR in English. Luckily for us, in the town where Markov comes from, they seem to have taught their hockey players to translate PP into G.