Speed Kills

You know the saying: "Speed Kills"

In hockey it's as true as anywhere else. Essentially hockey is a series of races to find open space so the man with a little black disc can get 2 free seconds to do what he has practiced doing 65,000 times in his parents' basement and score a goal.

Without speed, there will be no space -- even big men need quick turns and quick hands to make something of their barging around. Without space there are no goals (well few) and few wins as well.

All this is making it increasingly frustrating to watch the Canadiens so far this season. The team has speed in certain places (notably up front and in Carey Prices agile lateral sweeps) and is certainly presented to us as a lightning fast team that can kill another with the slightest whiff of open space.

What has been frustrating me as I watch them try to score when they actually need to is that many times the team is actually guilty of using speed to kill its own movements. Let me explain.

The other night against Calgary there were a few rushes I noticed where the forwards would have done better to cool there jets rather than turn again to the after-burners, to use a dangle and a missed stride to confuse the defence rather than to walk into their open arms.

One 3-on-2, I watched Desharnais dart in between the two defenders while the RW carried the puck for a shot. So quick that he was behind the net before the winger had chance to even think shot. DD had created the Canadiens most typical play again, the "make sure you're there to get the puck behind the net" play because odds are that a forward will miss to the short side. It's a very effective way to win the puck for a few more seconds before the other team dumps it after your outfit comes away without a shot.

Other times (and this is common) I see the forwards pouring on the speed as they cross the blueline right until they have closed the gap between themselves and the defenders. Now call me foolish, but isn't that gap a valuable asset to the forward? Isn't that gap what one needs if one wants to cut to the middle where the best shots comes from? It's the defence's job to close the gap, so doing the job for them doesn't seem like a good strategy to me. A little pedal off the metal and the defender would have to choose, and would likely have to either stop or slow down, or even come forwards, creating that change in momentum that could really be exploited by quick feet.

And the Canadiens unfailing confidence in their own speed must surely also be why each forward nearly always opts to try and beat a defender around the boards to execute the play from above.

The Canadiens have speed. But their unsophisticated use of it is becoming very predictable. Speed is a deadly weapon when used right in this game, it's such a shame to be using it to hurt your own cause. Let's hope the Habs recognize how speed can kill before they kill anymore opportunities to take easy points.

Welcome Opponent One: The Boston Bruins

The Bruins hardly need much introduction. After all, we have all seen them 8 times since October, 10 times since September if you're keen. They lost to us in Montreal. they lost to us in Boston. They even lost to us in Halifax.

Strange thing though. Since the Habs beat these opponents 8/8 times (or 10/10 if you prefer) it doesn't feel like we know the Bruins the way we should. At least not the bruins the rest of the league knows.

We've heard ad nauseum (from myself included) that if the Habs had lost to the Bruins just 4 times, the Bruins (45-25-11: 101 points) would be ahead of the Canadiens (43-29-10: 96 points).

We know the world doesn't work this way: eliminating the team you play worst against would make a similarly enchanting story for most of the teams in the league. Even so, the fact that the Bruins cultivated more points against the rest of the league than the Habs is a matter of some intrigue.

For me the first question that cam to mind was: "Well, who did they beat?"

The answer: Everyone at least a little bit.

vs. Southeast (10-9-1: 21 pts)
Wins: Atlanta (3), Carolina (1), Florida, Tampa and Washington (2 each)

vs. Northeast – sans Montreal (13-6-5: 31 points)
Wins: Toronto (5), Buffalo and Ottawa (4 each)

vs. Atlantic (12-4-4: 28 pts)
Wins: Philadelphia, Islanders and Rangers (3 each), Pittsburgh (2), New Jersey (1)

vs. West (6-3-1: 13 pts)
Wins: Chicago, Columbus, Nashville, LA, Phoenix, San Jose


Basically, the Bruins were steady as we thought. They never slipped too far down the standings, even despite a brutal December. They picked up a lovely 12 bonus points for losing to the Canadiens 10. But while the Habs gave up on this habit of slipping in for points somewhere around the illustrious Xmas road trip, the Bruins have used it as a tried and tested method for point collection.

Interestingly for a team that gets to OT so frequently, they have not seemed to learn how to win from it: going 8-12 in 60+ minute games this season.


If you take the wins another way and examine which teams the Bruins like and dislike, you can see certain patterns emerging:

1) The teams they lost to most frequently are faster than they are: Montreal, Carolina, Buffalo, New Jersey and Pittsburgh

2) With the exception of New Jersey, all the teams above like to win by scoring – the Bruins don't seem to enjoy that

3) Many of the teams they were most successful had trouble scoring in general as well: New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Atlanta, Toronto

4) They poached bad goaltending: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Toronto and Ottawa after their crisis mode

NOTE: The Bruins were also involved in 3 (count 'em, 3) scoreless draws, twice with the Rangers alone. These guaranteed point (and fan-pleasing) affairs got them 4 points and a good-looking record against the Rangers.


From all these results you begin to get a picture of how the Bruins win and lose. If a team skates at them, passes around them and generally tries to play normal hockey, the opponents have a good chance of winning. If a team gets into a jousting match with them, the Bruins hold more cards.


As a final enquiry, I contacted someone who knows a heck of a lot more about the Bruins than me – Russ from the Bruins Report (a great Bruins blog) – check it out if you have the time. I asked:

How were the Bruins so good against the rest of the teams in the East?

And, as if to corroborate what all the circumstantial evidence says, he replied:

The Bruins were good against the rest of the East because they have, for the most part, played a solid, simple defensive scheme in their own zone that allowed them to minimize scoring chances down low, and kept the majority of the shots to the perimeter. Tim Thomas was more effective playing behind this style of defense, and allowed him to modify his "crazy flailing everywhere like Hasek only not as good"
style.

He went on to qualify:

The Canadiens, however, have proven that the Bruins have a hard time defending against a team that uses their speed to quickly get into the Bruins' zone, and not allow them to set up in their "Box Plus 1" formation. Montreal was very good all season long at both getting into the offensive zone, as well as forcing the Bruins to take multiple penalties trying to neutralize their speed. As evidence, the Canadiens on the PP had a 30% success rate against the Bruins' 28th ranked penalty kill.

So, combine strong team speed with a solid powerplay, and you see where the Canadiens were able to beat the Bruins this season. It remains to be seen if the Bruins can 1) find a way to clog up the neutral zone enough, and forecheck strong enough, to stop the Canadiens breakout, and 2) stay out of the box. If they *can*, it'll be a decent series.

Hence the Canadiens need to stick to the gameplan. Adjust for Anaheim, maybe. Not for these guys...


By the way, stay tuned to Lions in Winter for a couple more primers on this series. I (Topham) handle the key Bruins players to watch for the series and beyond and Tobalev chimes in with his expert views on the critical players from the Habs.