With the foregone conclusions of camp playing out in real time, we have now had a chance to read about line combinations and see them in action. Therrien hasn't changed much, but a couple of additions and action on late season feedback has led to at least three lines that seem set in stone. There are things to like and dislike about each:
Showing posts with label lines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lines. Show all posts
Friday, September 27, 2013
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Benching Pouliot
A Question Of Priority
Benoit Pouliot took a fateful penalty in Game #3. Following 2 games and a period without a point, Ben charged into Johnny Boychuk as the second man and ended up serving 2 minutes. Although the Bruins didn't technically score on the PP, they did score their 3rd (and gamewinning) goal within 10 seconds of its end while the Habs were still scrambling.
Pouliot played 2 more shifts in that game, and with Halpern's return, none since.
While the penalty was extremely ill-advised, and warrants a lesson of the sort being handed out right now. On the cusp of Game #6, however, the banishment of Pouliot turns into something bigger: a decision on organizational priority.
To bench Pouliot now reinforces the message to Ben and to other young players that the playoffs are a special brand of hockey where concentration has to come before whimsy.
The other side of the coin is that Pouliot represents a better player than many of those in the line up. A player who can break defenses on his own, who can control quick passes, who can score goals under tight checking.
The choice for the Habs, therefore: This year or future years?
This year
To go for it this year, the Canadiens need to answer Claude Julien's defensive adaptations. No longer can the Tom Pyatts of the world just carry down the boards. That avenue of attack has been sealed off. To go for it this year, Martin has to look to increase his goalscoring and the threat of goalscoring (to push Bruins defenders to make mistakes again).
Pouliot isn't going to storm the scene and take over the series, but he does offer a known quantity in terms of offensive know how. This season he scored 13 goals while playing on different lines. Never once was he given the full benefit of Gomez or Plekanec, yet he found ways to make it work for certain periods of the season.
Over the season, Benoit scored 0.856 goals per 60 minutes of play and averaged 1.975 points per 60 minutes. As a goalscorer and point getter this places him in the top 6 on the team. Consider also that he was on the ice for a total of 41 goals this season (36 of which were at ES).
This puts him in good stead vs. the current top 6 players and a good distance ahead of the others. Tom Pyatt, who rarely misses a game, was only on the ice for 12 goals all season long. Pouliot also offers promise over Eller (0.49 G/60 and 1.19 Pts/60), Moen (0.35 G/60 and 0.92 Pts/60) and White (0.50 G/60 and 1.24 Pts/60).
I think adding Ben back in would accomplish a few things like adding a third line that can score (much like the Ryder line that has troubled the Habs so much), giving another option for when Moen dries up production on the 2nd line again and just add a little bit of danger to the minds of Boston defenders who mustn't shudder when they see Pyatt and Weber coming.
I think adding Ben back in would be an indication that the choice to win tonight and to win as much as possible this season represents as big a priority as anything else to the organization.
Future seasons
The choice to defer success now for success later wouldn't be a new choice for the Habs. Three years ago, when the team gave Price his baptism by fire, they did the same.
Benching Pouliot is more than a lesson to Pouliot. It is a signal to everyone, rookie and veteran alike, that straying from the core strategy will not be tolerated - the core strategy of course being discipline under fire.
It's a valid stance. Discipline is valuable based on the season the Habs have just had. The Canadiens worst slip ups and defeats came during moments of indiscipline and largesse. To eliminate silly penalties is to eliminate one of the team's main weaknesses.
It's also valid given the make up of the squad. Price, Eller, Pouliot, Subban, Weber, Pyatt, Desharnais, White. These are all players that will be here for a while. These are all players being molded. It's hard to see it when it's taking place, but some trouble seasons, some dead-end playoff runs are valuable learning grounds. Without losing and the pressure of having to win, the precocious talent often misses being tempered into the steel that can battle through 4 rounds. If the goal is a Cup, and it should be, then hardening the competitors for a Cup run is a vital step.
If Pouliot is benched one more time, with the threat of elimination, it will mark for me the organization's priority for the future. A recognition that the team may not be there yet and lessons gathered now may be more helpful than a second round berth.
Mutually exclusive goals?
If you know our blog, then you know our thinking on this. Losing Markov, recent trades, surges of other teams, these are all lessons that show us chances are precious. Planning for the future is nice, but there are no guarantees there will be a future (at least in the playoffs).
What's more (and you can probably tell from the undeveloped argument for the future above), lessons don't have to be contained in packages that run over a year. And there are more lessons to be learned than the one Pouliot is supposed to be soaking up in the pressbox. Think for example of the lessons that a young team could learn from a disciplined couple of games from Pouliot, think of the lessons they could learn from adding passion to discipline, think of what they could learn from winning tonight's game, tomorrow's game.
My position (although I can see the other side) is that Pouliot needs to play. As probably the fourth best pure talent on the team in front of the defenders and an unpredictable proposition, he's too important a piece to leave out of the battle plans. I believe that the Habs dearth of scoring and chance generation is a bigger problem now than discipline - particularly in light of the fact referees are taking care of discipline regardless of play by now.
I hope the team of coaches and managers think this through and graps that what may seem like a black and white choice could be a winning compromise where present and future goals are sought and achieved.
Go Habs Go.
Pouliot played 2 more shifts in that game, and with Halpern's return, none since.
While the penalty was extremely ill-advised, and warrants a lesson of the sort being handed out right now. On the cusp of Game #6, however, the banishment of Pouliot turns into something bigger: a decision on organizational priority.
To bench Pouliot now reinforces the message to Ben and to other young players that the playoffs are a special brand of hockey where concentration has to come before whimsy.
The other side of the coin is that Pouliot represents a better player than many of those in the line up. A player who can break defenses on his own, who can control quick passes, who can score goals under tight checking.
The choice for the Habs, therefore: This year or future years?
This year
To go for it this year, the Canadiens need to answer Claude Julien's defensive adaptations. No longer can the Tom Pyatts of the world just carry down the boards. That avenue of attack has been sealed off. To go for it this year, Martin has to look to increase his goalscoring and the threat of goalscoring (to push Bruins defenders to make mistakes again).
Pouliot isn't going to storm the scene and take over the series, but he does offer a known quantity in terms of offensive know how. This season he scored 13 goals while playing on different lines. Never once was he given the full benefit of Gomez or Plekanec, yet he found ways to make it work for certain periods of the season.
Over the season, Benoit scored 0.856 goals per 60 minutes of play and averaged 1.975 points per 60 minutes. As a goalscorer and point getter this places him in the top 6 on the team. Consider also that he was on the ice for a total of 41 goals this season (36 of which were at ES).
This puts him in good stead vs. the current top 6 players and a good distance ahead of the others. Tom Pyatt, who rarely misses a game, was only on the ice for 12 goals all season long. Pouliot also offers promise over Eller (0.49 G/60 and 1.19 Pts/60), Moen (0.35 G/60 and 0.92 Pts/60) and White (0.50 G/60 and 1.24 Pts/60).
I think adding Ben back in would accomplish a few things like adding a third line that can score (much like the Ryder line that has troubled the Habs so much), giving another option for when Moen dries up production on the 2nd line again and just add a little bit of danger to the minds of Boston defenders who mustn't shudder when they see Pyatt and Weber coming.
I think adding Ben back in would be an indication that the choice to win tonight and to win as much as possible this season represents as big a priority as anything else to the organization.
Future seasons
The choice to defer success now for success later wouldn't be a new choice for the Habs. Three years ago, when the team gave Price his baptism by fire, they did the same.
Benching Pouliot is more than a lesson to Pouliot. It is a signal to everyone, rookie and veteran alike, that straying from the core strategy will not be tolerated - the core strategy of course being discipline under fire.
It's a valid stance. Discipline is valuable based on the season the Habs have just had. The Canadiens worst slip ups and defeats came during moments of indiscipline and largesse. To eliminate silly penalties is to eliminate one of the team's main weaknesses.
It's also valid given the make up of the squad. Price, Eller, Pouliot, Subban, Weber, Pyatt, Desharnais, White. These are all players that will be here for a while. These are all players being molded. It's hard to see it when it's taking place, but some trouble seasons, some dead-end playoff runs are valuable learning grounds. Without losing and the pressure of having to win, the precocious talent often misses being tempered into the steel that can battle through 4 rounds. If the goal is a Cup, and it should be, then hardening the competitors for a Cup run is a vital step.
If Pouliot is benched one more time, with the threat of elimination, it will mark for me the organization's priority for the future. A recognition that the team may not be there yet and lessons gathered now may be more helpful than a second round berth.
Mutually exclusive goals?
If you know our blog, then you know our thinking on this. Losing Markov, recent trades, surges of other teams, these are all lessons that show us chances are precious. Planning for the future is nice, but there are no guarantees there will be a future (at least in the playoffs).
What's more (and you can probably tell from the undeveloped argument for the future above), lessons don't have to be contained in packages that run over a year. And there are more lessons to be learned than the one Pouliot is supposed to be soaking up in the pressbox. Think for example of the lessons that a young team could learn from a disciplined couple of games from Pouliot, think of the lessons they could learn from adding passion to discipline, think of what they could learn from winning tonight's game, tomorrow's game.
My position (although I can see the other side) is that Pouliot needs to play. As probably the fourth best pure talent on the team in front of the defenders and an unpredictable proposition, he's too important a piece to leave out of the battle plans. I believe that the Habs dearth of scoring and chance generation is a bigger problem now than discipline - particularly in light of the fact referees are taking care of discipline regardless of play by now.
I hope the team of coaches and managers think this through and graps that what may seem like a black and white choice could be a winning compromise where present and future goals are sought and achieved.
Go Habs Go.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A Pouliot Move:
Tactical Manoeuvre or Costly Experiment?
Pouliot hasn't been scoring at a goal every two games – just in case you haven't noticed. Even the Gomez line (the best for the past while) has been pretty quiet for about 6, maybe 12, periods of hockey. The solution is nothing new. Player is switched to a) jump start line or b) jump start player.
It's worth talking about simply because Pouliot happens to be (averaged over time) our most productive player. Since coming to the Canadiens 30 odd games ago, he has scored 14 goals, his average over 60 minutes of play is in the elite realm of 1.5 G/60. What's more, with 10 goals created, he's been clipping at just less than Cammalleri offensively.
The question then, why take Pouliot off the very line he jump started in the first place at the first sight of slump?
The answer begins with an objective look at things. Thankfully, the tireless Olivier has been looking into this for us and provided some numbers we can get our teeth into. Olivier's analysis looks at the effect that different centremen have had on the play of three wingers (Darche, Pyatt and Pouliot).
Pyatt, who we're not as interested in for today shows a predictable pattern of scoring chance distribution – putting up a positive balance with Metropolit, mainly fueled by the fact they hardly tried to score while they were on. With Plekanec, Pyatt's been on for more chances, but been caught more as well.
Darche has been better with different partners, probably because he has had to be. A good addition to nearly every line he's been on, he shows the experience he's had at moving teams by adapting quickly to new circumstances.
Pouliot has been an absolute star with Gomez. Olivier points out that he's not been as good with other centres. However, it must be said that because he and Scott have clicked so well, the reason to play with anyone else has been put on the backburner.
Olivier's scoring chance tabulations tell us a lot. They tell us who likes playing with whom and who can adapt/who can't. But they can't reveal everything. For example, they can't tell us what is the best combination for the team on average, and certainly not against a specific opponent. For that all stats leave us to the mercy of a bit of intuition and gut feel.
There are several reasons to mix the lines, stir the soup as they say on RDS:
1) Get the Gomez line back to where it was
If this is the aim, I think it is an unnecessary measure. Gomez and Gionta have been great since the Olympics and before. A few goalless games haven't changed that. It merely seems to be a case of a 30-goal and a 15-goal man playing to the level they play at (i.e., not scoring half the time).
2) Get Pouliot scoring at his previous pace
This is as off kilter as the first reason. Pouliot is essentially a rookie forward, still getting his feet in a new city. He exploded onto the scene, so we forget, but his adjustment is only natural.
3) Get Darche into a contributory role
I like Darche as much as the next guy, but it only takes a game or two in the audience to see the gulf between him and Pouliot in talent terms. The benefit of getting Darche firing at a better rate is probably less than getting Pouliot an extra 25% production.
4) Put Pouliot on alert that he needs to work harder
This is primitive coaching method. Taking an elite player off an elite line to serve a message is silly. It may be acceptable in Game 2 of the 82-game schedule, but not in a playoff race. I would be disappointed if this was all there was to it.
5) Get more out of Sergei Kostitsyn
There are seven substantially talented offensive forwards on this club. Sergei is the latest one to emerge. While he has been excellent with Dominic Moore and others of late, there may be inkling that he could reach loftier heights with a sniper who has one-touch capability. Pouliot may well be the player to unlock Sergei's potential, but I don't think Sergei is even ready for that yet.
I personally think (thought, now) that reasons 1, 3 and 4 were unworthy and only 2 and 5 made sense at this point in seeking offense (presumably the goal). I had more to say about Martin and the impact of the decision, but on a new day, I rewrote the ending...
Back to normal
After having come through all the scenarios, it seems Martin has reverted (in practice) to the established norm with Pouliot on the Gomez unit. I certainly agree with the move back.
I won't likely ever know why Martin moved the players yesterday, I can certainly guess. It seems he might have done so to accomplish a couple of goals: wake up Pouliot and see where Darche might fit if he is to return. I said above the Pouliot slight was primitive, and I stand by that, but restricted to practice the move carries no risk -- it seems a softer and more sophisticated warning. Furthermore, seeing where Darche might fit is critical as situations to force the hand may yet arise
Martin may get a bad name, and lots of unfair (and knee jerk) criticism, but he does a lot right. Keeping the lines together in this mini scoring slump is not the easiest course of action, and is not what less experienced predecessors would have chosen to do. He earns points from me for that. If Pouliot adds a bit of his original jump back due to a day of press hounding then it will be more points for Martin. As off days go, he may have accomplished a lot.
Thirst for stories
I left this article intact to demonstrate a point. What's a story one day is not a story at all the next. Bloggers after a season of digging for something to write about have jumped on this, many faster than me jumped twice: yesterday and again today. It does leave me chuckling at the end of it all. After all, on what other team do they fret about lines in practice (Martin can still change them by game time, after shift one, or in any situation). Where else would so many respond so fast as to need to retract the story on Day 2?
We Habs fans are a bit crazy. And this time of year, it seems, brings out the true fanaticism in all of us. Scott Gomez said "The city rocks". It certainly does, but it also racks -- racks its nerves unnecessarily over events that shouldn't even be news.
Until the next cause for uproar...
It's worth talking about simply because Pouliot happens to be (averaged over time) our most productive player. Since coming to the Canadiens 30 odd games ago, he has scored 14 goals, his average over 60 minutes of play is in the elite realm of 1.5 G/60. What's more, with 10 goals created, he's been clipping at just less than Cammalleri offensively.
The question then, why take Pouliot off the very line he jump started in the first place at the first sight of slump?
The answer begins with an objective look at things. Thankfully, the tireless Olivier has been looking into this for us and provided some numbers we can get our teeth into. Olivier's analysis looks at the effect that different centremen have had on the play of three wingers (Darche, Pyatt and Pouliot).
Pyatt, who we're not as interested in for today shows a predictable pattern of scoring chance distribution – putting up a positive balance with Metropolit, mainly fueled by the fact they hardly tried to score while they were on. With Plekanec, Pyatt's been on for more chances, but been caught more as well.
Darche has been better with different partners, probably because he has had to be. A good addition to nearly every line he's been on, he shows the experience he's had at moving teams by adapting quickly to new circumstances.
Pouliot has been an absolute star with Gomez. Olivier points out that he's not been as good with other centres. However, it must be said that because he and Scott have clicked so well, the reason to play with anyone else has been put on the backburner.
Olivier's scoring chance tabulations tell us a lot. They tell us who likes playing with whom and who can adapt/who can't. But they can't reveal everything. For example, they can't tell us what is the best combination for the team on average, and certainly not against a specific opponent. For that all stats leave us to the mercy of a bit of intuition and gut feel.
There are several reasons to mix the lines, stir the soup as they say on RDS:
1) Get the Gomez line back to where it was
If this is the aim, I think it is an unnecessary measure. Gomez and Gionta have been great since the Olympics and before. A few goalless games haven't changed that. It merely seems to be a case of a 30-goal and a 15-goal man playing to the level they play at (i.e., not scoring half the time).
2) Get Pouliot scoring at his previous pace
This is as off kilter as the first reason. Pouliot is essentially a rookie forward, still getting his feet in a new city. He exploded onto the scene, so we forget, but his adjustment is only natural.
3) Get Darche into a contributory role
I like Darche as much as the next guy, but it only takes a game or two in the audience to see the gulf between him and Pouliot in talent terms. The benefit of getting Darche firing at a better rate is probably less than getting Pouliot an extra 25% production.
4) Put Pouliot on alert that he needs to work harder
This is primitive coaching method. Taking an elite player off an elite line to serve a message is silly. It may be acceptable in Game 2 of the 82-game schedule, but not in a playoff race. I would be disappointed if this was all there was to it.
5) Get more out of Sergei Kostitsyn
There are seven substantially talented offensive forwards on this club. Sergei is the latest one to emerge. While he has been excellent with Dominic Moore and others of late, there may be inkling that he could reach loftier heights with a sniper who has one-touch capability. Pouliot may well be the player to unlock Sergei's potential, but I don't think Sergei is even ready for that yet.
I personally think (thought, now) that reasons 1, 3 and 4 were unworthy and only 2 and 5 made sense at this point in seeking offense (presumably the goal). I had more to say about Martin and the impact of the decision, but on a new day, I rewrote the ending...
Back to normal
After having come through all the scenarios, it seems Martin has reverted (in practice) to the established norm with Pouliot on the Gomez unit. I certainly agree with the move back.
I won't likely ever know why Martin moved the players yesterday, I can certainly guess. It seems he might have done so to accomplish a couple of goals: wake up Pouliot and see where Darche might fit if he is to return. I said above the Pouliot slight was primitive, and I stand by that, but restricted to practice the move carries no risk -- it seems a softer and more sophisticated warning. Furthermore, seeing where Darche might fit is critical as situations to force the hand may yet arise
Martin may get a bad name, and lots of unfair (and knee jerk) criticism, but he does a lot right. Keeping the lines together in this mini scoring slump is not the easiest course of action, and is not what less experienced predecessors would have chosen to do. He earns points from me for that. If Pouliot adds a bit of his original jump back due to a day of press hounding then it will be more points for Martin. As off days go, he may have accomplished a lot.
Thirst for stories
I left this article intact to demonstrate a point. What's a story one day is not a story at all the next. Bloggers after a season of digging for something to write about have jumped on this, many faster than me jumped twice: yesterday and again today. It does leave me chuckling at the end of it all. After all, on what other team do they fret about lines in practice (Martin can still change them by game time, after shift one, or in any situation). Where else would so many respond so fast as to need to retract the story on Day 2?
We Habs fans are a bit crazy. And this time of year, it seems, brings out the true fanaticism in all of us. Scott Gomez said "The city rocks". It certainly does, but it also racks -- racks its nerves unnecessarily over events that shouldn't even be news.
Until the next cause for uproar...
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
First Line Set in Stone?
Alex Tanguay may be the most boring interview since Jason Ward, but he's no fool. At the Canadiens golf tournament, he found time to get involved (at least indirectly) for some lobbying for time beside Saku Koivu on the team's "second" line (from RDS):
I for one, would love to see Tanguay with Koivu – he has deserved a winger of this calibre with some NHL experience ever since Recchi was dealt away. But, that doesn't mean I think it has to be.
I think it is a bold claim for anyone (even a reporter from RDS) to claim any line will be set in stone. From what we know of Carbonneau is that he enjoys his freedom and flexibility more than he enjoys knowing what to expect. I don't think it would be highly unusual, if, for instance, Carbonneau shuffled the deck a bit in the early stages of the season.
If I were the coach, I would be happy leaving either Kostitsyn or Kovalev with Plekanec (as they both enjoy his centering) and make it my priority to get Koivu producing like he can (and did in the playoffs). Why not Andrei Kostitsyn, Koivu and Tanguay, for example? Or Kovalev with Tanguay and Koivu? Even Koivu, Higgins and one of the two?
What Tanguay does is bring a credible productive option to the top two lines – which sadly Michael Ryder could not in the end. Where Tanguay and the other wingers fit with Koivu and Plekanec should be based on how both combinations fare, not necessarily just the one.
Incidentally, I also see a few reasons why the Kostitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev line could be broken up, though:
1) None of the combinations Kostitsyn-Plekanec, Kostitsyn-Kovalev, Plekanec-Kovalev is a true one-two punch. What they are is a group of three talented individuals
2) Andrei Kostitsyn grew over the whole year and looked like he was ready for more responsibility by the end of the season. Using him as the third member of a top line may not be the most efficient use of his skills and effort
3) Koivu, if he can bear it is 50% more productive at even-strength with Kovalev, Plekanec does his own thing at even-strength (Kovalev does not affect his rates)
4) In the playoffs, this line was fully containable by a couple of mediocre-at-best sets of forwards. This is worrying, to say the least; and we do not want a repeat. Finding playoff-worthy lines during the season this year might be a help.
5) Tanguay has had his best success in the past with trigger men. Perhaps Tanguay-Kostitsyn could be a new Tanguay-Hejduk
6) If we get another centre as is being discussed (Sundin at best), there would be little point hoarding the two best scorers/shooters (probably the three, if you think about it) on one shift
Finally, I would note that I do not like the Kostitsyn brothers together on the same line. Too much altruism there – neither seems to want to shoot. Though they did do well in the Boston series (mainly right out of the gate), I thought the two together were a pretty big disaster for the most part. For me, they almost cancelled each other out. Given their potential to make other complementary players better (Koivu, Plekanec, Kovalev, etc.), I don't see why a nostalgic brothers together approach would be pursued. The stats from the regular season also seem to bear this out (check here for A Kostitsyn's success at even-strength with other Habs), as they were less productive together and atrocious defensively.
Tanguay, 29 ans, dit ne pas connaître les intentions de Guy Carbonneau. Il semble toutefois acquis qu'il entreprendra la saison dans le trio de Saku Koivu complété par Chris Higgins ou Sergei Kostitsyn. Celui d'Alex Kovalev, Tomas Plekanec et Andrei Kostitsyn est coulé dans le ciment.
Tanguay's doesn't know Carbonneau's intentions. It seems he was acquired to join Saku Koivu's line with either Chris Higgins or Sergei Kostitsyn. The Alex Kovalev, Tomas Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn line is set in stone.
I for one, would love to see Tanguay with Koivu – he has deserved a winger of this calibre with some NHL experience ever since Recchi was dealt away. But, that doesn't mean I think it has to be.
I think it is a bold claim for anyone (even a reporter from RDS) to claim any line will be set in stone. From what we know of Carbonneau is that he enjoys his freedom and flexibility more than he enjoys knowing what to expect. I don't think it would be highly unusual, if, for instance, Carbonneau shuffled the deck a bit in the early stages of the season.
If I were the coach, I would be happy leaving either Kostitsyn or Kovalev with Plekanec (as they both enjoy his centering) and make it my priority to get Koivu producing like he can (and did in the playoffs). Why not Andrei Kostitsyn, Koivu and Tanguay, for example? Or Kovalev with Tanguay and Koivu? Even Koivu, Higgins and one of the two?
What Tanguay does is bring a credible productive option to the top two lines – which sadly Michael Ryder could not in the end. Where Tanguay and the other wingers fit with Koivu and Plekanec should be based on how both combinations fare, not necessarily just the one.
Incidentally, I also see a few reasons why the Kostitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev line could be broken up, though:
1) None of the combinations Kostitsyn-Plekanec, Kostitsyn-Kovalev, Plekanec-Kovalev is a true one-two punch. What they are is a group of three talented individuals
2) Andrei Kostitsyn grew over the whole year and looked like he was ready for more responsibility by the end of the season. Using him as the third member of a top line may not be the most efficient use of his skills and effort
3) Koivu, if he can bear it is 50% more productive at even-strength with Kovalev, Plekanec does his own thing at even-strength (Kovalev does not affect his rates)
4) In the playoffs, this line was fully containable by a couple of mediocre-at-best sets of forwards. This is worrying, to say the least; and we do not want a repeat. Finding playoff-worthy lines during the season this year might be a help.
5) Tanguay has had his best success in the past with trigger men. Perhaps Tanguay-Kostitsyn could be a new Tanguay-Hejduk
6) If we get another centre as is being discussed (Sundin at best), there would be little point hoarding the two best scorers/shooters (probably the three, if you think about it) on one shift
Finally, I would note that I do not like the Kostitsyn brothers together on the same line. Too much altruism there – neither seems to want to shoot. Though they did do well in the Boston series (mainly right out of the gate), I thought the two together were a pretty big disaster for the most part. For me, they almost cancelled each other out. Given their potential to make other complementary players better (Koivu, Plekanec, Kovalev, etc.), I don't see why a nostalgic brothers together approach would be pursued. The stats from the regular season also seem to bear this out (check here for A Kostitsyn's success at even-strength with other Habs), as they were less productive together and atrocious defensively.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
If nothing else changes...
If, according to Gainey, this is the end of additions through free agency (barring unbelievable opportunities), then I thought it would be worth looking at the line up.
The forward lines look similar to last year with a few more young faces. I would line things up this way:
1) Higgins Koivu Ryder
2) Kostitsyn Plekanec Kovalev
3) Lapierre Smolinski Latendresse
4) Begin Chipchura Milroy
Reserves: Locke, Grabovski, Murray
I like the top line, though if there were some way to get Ryder working on line 2, it would be great to have Kovalev with Koivu, in my opinion. Kostitsyn has the most potential of all the young forwards, barring Higgins. He should be up on line 2, and he could do some damage with Plekanec. Latendresse would be on the PP, but being on the third line, as opposed to the fourth might be good for him. Milroy led the Bulldogs in the regular season, and he might translate his success to the NHL like Ryder, Plekanec and Higgins before him. I'd take the chance. I would like to see Locke there somewhere, but he could slot in if there's an injury.
The scoring might be difficult again unless Higgins improves and Kostitsyn really starts to contribute (e.g., more than 20 goals), but I do like the way there are no real laggards on the bottom 2 lines.
The defense also has a similar look, though Hamrlik is in. I would line them up this way:
1) Markov Komisarek
2) Hamrlik O'Byrne
3) Bouillon Streit
Reserves: Gorges, Dandenault
Depending on the opponents, Streit could be used up front. I see Dandenault dressing for a lot of games based on this and other strategical adjustments.
The goalies are easy, presuming Aebischer is gone:
1) Huet
2) Halak
3) Price
I like Price, but he'll have his time. He could benefit from trying to translate playoff success into consistent results over 80 games. I would prefer that he learns this on Hamilton. The advantage will be that he plays a lot, and we continue to get good value out of Huet, who should return to form.
Overall, I think the team is alright. We could still use a defenseman to come in and coach our corps. Gainey must know someone. Our defensive forward tutelage is obviously top-notch, but our defensemen could use some help. I think the team is good enough to make the playoffs, and inexperienced enough to miss. I take comfort in knowing that a team on paper is not a team on the ice – you only have to look at Buffalo 2005/6, panned by critics before the season and lauded after they'd seen them play.
I guess we'll have to be patient and reserve judgement on this group too. (I can hear it though: Plekanec passe la rondelle a Kostitsyn, le feinte, il batte Toskala, le but ouvert... et le but... [insert this year's U2 goal song])
The forward lines look similar to last year with a few more young faces. I would line things up this way:
1) Higgins Koivu Ryder
2) Kostitsyn Plekanec Kovalev
3) Lapierre Smolinski Latendresse
4) Begin Chipchura Milroy
Reserves: Locke, Grabovski, Murray
I like the top line, though if there were some way to get Ryder working on line 2, it would be great to have Kovalev with Koivu, in my opinion. Kostitsyn has the most potential of all the young forwards, barring Higgins. He should be up on line 2, and he could do some damage with Plekanec. Latendresse would be on the PP, but being on the third line, as opposed to the fourth might be good for him. Milroy led the Bulldogs in the regular season, and he might translate his success to the NHL like Ryder, Plekanec and Higgins before him. I'd take the chance. I would like to see Locke there somewhere, but he could slot in if there's an injury.
The scoring might be difficult again unless Higgins improves and Kostitsyn really starts to contribute (e.g., more than 20 goals), but I do like the way there are no real laggards on the bottom 2 lines.
The defense also has a similar look, though Hamrlik is in. I would line them up this way:
1) Markov Komisarek
2) Hamrlik O'Byrne
3) Bouillon Streit
Reserves: Gorges, Dandenault
Depending on the opponents, Streit could be used up front. I see Dandenault dressing for a lot of games based on this and other strategical adjustments.
The goalies are easy, presuming Aebischer is gone:
1) Huet
2) Halak
3) Price
I like Price, but he'll have his time. He could benefit from trying to translate playoff success into consistent results over 80 games. I would prefer that he learns this on Hamilton. The advantage will be that he plays a lot, and we continue to get good value out of Huet, who should return to form.
Overall, I think the team is alright. We could still use a defenseman to come in and coach our corps. Gainey must know someone. Our defensive forward tutelage is obviously top-notch, but our defensemen could use some help. I think the team is good enough to make the playoffs, and inexperienced enough to miss. I take comfort in knowing that a team on paper is not a team on the ice – you only have to look at Buffalo 2005/6, panned by critics before the season and lauded after they'd seen them play.
I guess we'll have to be patient and reserve judgement on this group too. (I can hear it though: Plekanec passe la rondelle a Kostitsyn, le feinte, il batte Toskala, le but ouvert... et le but... [insert this year's U2 goal song])
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)