As things currently stand, the Boston Bruins have clinched a playoff position and the division title, while our Canadiens battle for 8th. With the progress we made last season, one could be forgiven for thinking that the league mixed up the teams. Alas, the Bruins have overtaken us (for now) in their progression and throw another obstacle in the way of Bob Gainey's 5- (going on 8-) year plan.
Why is this? How did it happen?
The answer is fairly straightforward – through a combination of hard work, good decisions and lucky gambles, rookie Peter Chiarelli has outperformed our supposed ace GM. I've subdivided his victories over Gainey below:
Eyes on the play – Blake Wheeler
The Bruins made one of the best signings behind the Hossa deal on July 1st last season. Signing one of the youngest UFAs on the menu did not look like much at the time, but it has provided the Bruins with the +/- leader for the NHL. The Bruins met Wheeler's demands for a big contract by loading him up with bonuses. Of course, they'll probably have to pay those now, but I doubt Chiarelli will be complaining.
The Bruins were on the ball with this move, as it was a low-risk, high-reward maneuver. It has made a massive difference to their team this year, since Wheeler was great to start and has good chemistry with Krejci and Ryder.
When was the last time the Canadiens grabbed such a young player like this for free? I think the answer goes back a long way if you leave out Brock Trotter. The Red Wings picked up Ville Leino for free last season too. When you look at our young forwards coming through, the question about Wheelers and Leinos is certainly a pertinent one.
Don't mind the depths – Phil Kessel
The Bruins were absolutely terrible in 2005-06 following the Joe Thornton trade, losing an astonishing 53 games in all. Their reward, of course, for their futility was a place in the draft lottery. While it didn't pay off with a lucky first overall draw, they still had a top 5 pick in what looks in retrospect like a good crop.
The Bruins don't plumb the depths very often, but every so often they do. Unlike their middling Northeast rivals Montreal and Toronto, Boston has been able to survive as a franchise and get top 5 picks. The last time Montreal picked so highly with a pick of their own was, well, never (Price was a lottery win).
If you're missing the playoffs anyway, a high draft pick is another free way to improve greatly. Push for tenth and you get the 12th pick, a la Montreal/Toronto. It is possible to trade for those top picks, but the days where GMs are total buffoons trading with Sam Pollock are long gone – the price of a first from a bottom team is steep. To say that gunning for the top draft picks is a proven strategy for rebuilding in the NHL would be an understatement – just ask Pittsburgh, Washington and Colorado. Thus it is no surprise that it has paid off for a team like the Bruins once again.
Trade return – Brad Boyes and Paul Mara
When the Bruins scammed Brad Boyes off the Sharks for Jeff Jillson in 2004, the Bruins probably thought they were putting a building block in place for the future. The first season after the lockout, their move looked genius as Boyes was clicking with Patrice Bergeron and becoming one of the best young scorers in the game.
The next year it was sophomore slump time for Brad and the Bruins were playing poorly as a team. Trade deadline 2007 came and had the Bruins looking to trade their young scoring star. In what could have been another steal in a long line of Brad Boyes trades, was made palatable for the Bruins as they picked up their now number two defenceman, Dennis Wideman.
That same trade deadline, the Bruins (anticipating Wideman's role on the team) opted to unload underperforming Paul Mara. Instead of picking up a measly second rounder or something from the Rangers, they instead picked up an upgrade on defence with three time Cup finalist (2-time winner) Aaron Ward coming back the other way. Ward, from my assessment of the team vs. the Habs is a key defensive stalwart for the Bruins.
Think of similar opportunities with the Canadiens and you may come up with Rivet for Gorges. there are many more in the loss or lost opportunity column. Souray could have been traded but wasn't. Huet was traded for less than his value. Ribeiro was traded as a cast-off in what looks like an awful waste. Gainey's trades haven't been bad by any standards, but in being conservative all the time as he is, he misses on the big jump that winning a trade big can bring.
Goaltending – Tuukka Rask and Tim Thomas
Tuukka Rask was the number one rated goalie in the 2005 draft. He was taken 21st overall by the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Boston Bruins were lucky enough to acquire Rask as part of another JFJ special – Rask for Raycroft.
Tim Thomas bears little similarity to Rask in career path, prospect status in his youth, style or size. In fact, whereas Rask was touted, Thomas was written off completely. This season, Tim Thomas will win the Vezina trophy. He leads the league in GAA and Save%, has over 30 wins and 4 shutouts.
In addition to a top prospect and an all-star goalie, the Bruins have also chosen to carry a very expensive, yet effective back-up in Manny Fernandez. Though they probably had more reason to trade Fernandez for a second rounder than the Canadiens did to trade Huet, they chose to hold him – presumably because they want to take this chance while it is here.
The way the Bruins are managing 3 goalies as good or better than the Canadiens 2 goalies is interesting. For one thing, they seem to have learned the Price lesson already after a series of burnout goalie prospects like Raycroft and Toivonen. For another, it seems like they crave insurance at the back, almost knowing that goalies can go cold at times for seemingly little reason at all.
This strategy is certainly working well for them this season. And though the forward-looking among us might prefer to write off a season and develop a super-goalie at the top level through trial by fire; Boston seems to accept that playoff success is a tricky business and throwing away one year in the hope of 5 good ones in the future is not a plan they favour.
Here, Montreal has gambled and gone the other way. The problem is Gainey's planning vis-a-vis goalies does not coincide with his planning for other positions – scorers, for example. What's more, our team chose to fly in the face of a good situation one year by writing the playoffs off for a tutoring session. I don't know which technique will ultimately pay the most dividends (I suppose we'll need to count Cups in 20 years), but this piece does not try to answer that – only why Boston is 20-odd points clear of us now.
So, are the Bruins the better team?
Right now, yes. Going forward, probably.
Are these Montreal Canadiens that much worse than the Bruins?
The answer is probably a "no".
In fact, the whole reality to this answer is very clouded, I think. Sometimes, I feel the standings make you look better than you are (such as Montreal 2008 and Boston 2009), they may also make you look worse.
It is also difficult when you judge a team by results alone. I have watched the Canadiens 72 times this season – they have won games they should have lost, lost games they should have won and had many scores misrepresent their actual play. I have not watched the Bruins except for a handful of occasions, but I wouldn't expect their run to be any different. I don't think that any assessment I offer of the Bruins beyond the basics presented here could stand up to our assessment of the Habs.
If I'm to take a rather more positive stance on the Canadiens situation, I could say that I think the Bruins might have had a bit more luck on their side. Call it what you will, but the Bruins have a 10.9% shooting percentage, and it was even higher during the early months of the season. Their "good" players were those whose shots seemingly never missed (like Krejci). The Canadiens have a 9.6% shot accuracy. Our let-downs are players whose shots have been saved.
I bring this up because the Canadiens were the Bruins of 2008 – they snuck a few wins by everyone with some luck and good timing. However, when their timing ran out (in the playoffs). In the regular season, our shooting was a whopping 10.8%, but in the playoffs scoring dried up as we shot at the goalie nearly 92% of the time. The Canadiens made good teams look bad in the regular season and those same good teams look great a few months later in the playoffs.
The answer (and this text) may be rewritten in a month...
It's all in the complicated game of building a team in this ridiculously long competition. Once the rules are changed to suit the Western style of play in a few weeks, you can throw regular season stars out the window. Michael Ryder's 25 goals will most likely become a footnote on another playoff series in which he struggles to contribute. The Ottawa management hand a clear handle on how to dominate the 6 months of meaningless stuff, but only latterly got a grasp on adjustments to be made to get past Toronto.
That s why they say you need to make the dance (or Laraque did anyway). Players who float in and out in the regular season can be activated by simple utterance of the word playoff (we know of one), whereas Boston knows as well as anyone that regular season phenoms can wilt just the same.
The fact is, the Boston Bruins are where we wanted to be in March/April and that is in the playoffs. But this Canadiens team can still get there too. If that is the case, us Habs fans are exactly where we wanted to be too, if only waiting for Game 3 to express our adulation in person.
Showing posts with label Wheeler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wheeler. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Beating The Bruins
Remembering What Habs Knew So Well
Last season, thanks to Montreal, the Bruins were a middling regular season club. Last year, thanks to the Canadiens, the Bruins were a first round eliminee. This year, the Bruins have another fate on their minds, and barring a collapse of Ottawaian proportions, they have already surpassed middling. But can the Habs remember a bit of the spellbinding trickery that won them 8 of 8 meetings with their most vicious rivals?
Boston has some astonishing numbers so far this year, so maybe their biggest weakness for the second half will be the law of averages. Take Blake Wheeler and David Krejci's shooting % for example (whose numbers have both started falling since I started researching this): over 20% is unsustainable for even the Ovechkins of the world. Reason says they can't go on shooting at over 20% forever. History tells us scoring streaks like theirs sometimes, but rarely last a whole season – only 2 players topped 20% last season: Mike Ribeiro (who lucked out a whole season at 25%) and Brad Boyes; the next guys were at 18%. Take their goaltenders, both have inordinately high save percentages at the moment. Are they the best tandem of all time, or have they saved their bad goals and sub .900 games for the end of the season?
A real weakness that Boston has is their comeback ability. Someone who wants to impress you will tell you that Boston has only trailed 13 times after the first period and 8 times they have come back from the deficit to win. But I also noticed that the Bruins have not once come back from a deficit at the second intermission. In 7 games (I admit that's impressive), they are 0-6-1.
It's hardly a game plan to say: let's score lots of goals and have a lead at the end of 2 (although it is genius Julien's plan). Yeah, no kidding. However, consider teams top teams like Detroit and San Jose come back after the second nearly 40% of the time. The Habs themselves have rescued 5 wins and an OTL from 14 deficits (0.357). It tells me that if you can get them down, you get get them out of their game, out of their comfort zone.
In a game strategy, I'd make sure that every battle you can win, you win. They are a team that has had things their own way and clearly don't like it when they don't. Score first, score early. Check Chara, expose the others. Take the game to them and don't let them bring it to you.
I saved this article from a week ago about a strategy for beating the Bruins. It was written after a couple of losses about a team that you would have thought from the tone was unbeatable:
It talks sense, even if it does over-exaggerate the risks of playing in Boston.
Lessons should be easy to come by for the Habs when it comes to beating this Bruins team. Each game last year speak to the same kind of stuff at that article and the fact the Bruins don't like to be out of the driver's seat:
Game 1, we pounded them early and they laid down to take the punishment
Game 2, we did it with defence; but also scored 2 before they could show up
Game 3, we gave them a complex by trading goals for 2 periods before burying them under 25 shots and 3 straight killer goals
Games 4, 5, 6 and 7 we scored first and never gave the Bruins a sniff of victory
Game 8 was the first the Bruins made a contest of it. We toyed with them and took it in a shootout
Over these 8 games, the Bruins never led the Habs. Not for a minute. And, with the exception of Game 5 in the playoffs, the Bruins never came back from a deficit to win against us last season – that was 12 victories for us out of 13 where we took a lead.
They are the team that needs a strategy, methinks. Probably something beyond the genius tactics of a man who twice got himself shipped out from a team who would make the playoffs:
And besides, is this year's Bruins team so different anyway?
Not on paper they aren't. Wins and stats-wise they are worlds apart. But really, let's see. Even Chuck Kobasew looked like a scorer once down there. Time and reality will make us better judges of this Boston hockey outfit.
We must acknowledge they have learned and improved somewhat – for they have beaten the Canadiens twice already, and got points in all three meetings. However, their embarrassing displays against us last season were unnatural. What's more, they are still a team with weaknesses (as per this pseudo-Bruins fan), such as unorthodox goaltending:
And average defence:
Add to that injuries to players like Bergeron, Kessel, Sturm and even Lucic, and they will have to be superhuman to repeat their 62 points from the next half season. The quiet Habs can catch this team as it settles back into Bruins 2008. Let's start tonight.
Boston has some astonishing numbers so far this year, so maybe their biggest weakness for the second half will be the law of averages. Take Blake Wheeler and David Krejci's shooting % for example (whose numbers have both started falling since I started researching this): over 20% is unsustainable for even the Ovechkins of the world. Reason says they can't go on shooting at over 20% forever. History tells us scoring streaks like theirs sometimes, but rarely last a whole season – only 2 players topped 20% last season: Mike Ribeiro (who lucked out a whole season at 25%) and Brad Boyes; the next guys were at 18%. Take their goaltenders, both have inordinately high save percentages at the moment. Are they the best tandem of all time, or have they saved their bad goals and sub .900 games for the end of the season?
A real weakness that Boston has is their comeback ability. Someone who wants to impress you will tell you that Boston has only trailed 13 times after the first period and 8 times they have come back from the deficit to win. But I also noticed that the Bruins have not once come back from a deficit at the second intermission. In 7 games (I admit that's impressive), they are 0-6-1.
It's hardly a game plan to say: let's score lots of goals and have a lead at the end of 2 (although it is genius Julien's plan). Yeah, no kidding. However, consider teams top teams like Detroit and San Jose come back after the second nearly 40% of the time. The Habs themselves have rescued 5 wins and an OTL from 14 deficits (0.357). It tells me that if you can get them down, you get get them out of their game, out of their comfort zone.
In a game strategy, I'd make sure that every battle you can win, you win. They are a team that has had things their own way and clearly don't like it when they don't. Score first, score early. Check Chara, expose the others. Take the game to them and don't let them bring it to you.
I saved this article from a week ago about a strategy for beating the Bruins. It was written after a couple of losses about a team that you would have thought from the tone was unbeatable:
"A dastardly plan that will frustrate and eventually defeat the high-powered Bruins attack, and leave their scoring machine in the shop for repairs. Granted, not every team has the talent or discipline or chutzpah to implement Operation Beat the Bruins but teams with enough scoring skills — or grit – to get a lead and a good enough goaltender could do it."
It talks sense, even if it does over-exaggerate the risks of playing in Boston.
Lessons should be easy to come by for the Habs when it comes to beating this Bruins team. Each game last year speak to the same kind of stuff at that article and the fact the Bruins don't like to be out of the driver's seat:
Game 1, we pounded them early and they laid down to take the punishment
Game 2, we did it with defence; but also scored 2 before they could show up
Game 3, we gave them a complex by trading goals for 2 periods before burying them under 25 shots and 3 straight killer goals
Games 4, 5, 6 and 7 we scored first and never gave the Bruins a sniff of victory
Game 8 was the first the Bruins made a contest of it. We toyed with them and took it in a shootout
Over these 8 games, the Bruins never led the Habs. Not for a minute. And, with the exception of Game 5 in the playoffs, the Bruins never came back from a deficit to win against us last season – that was 12 victories for us out of 13 where we took a lead.
They are the team that needs a strategy, methinks. Probably something beyond the genius tactics of a man who twice got himself shipped out from a team who would make the playoffs:
“I think for every team, every game, we talk about [scoring first] and getting an early lead and taking control of the game.”
– Claude Julien
And besides, is this year's Bruins team so different anyway?
Not on paper they aren't. Wins and stats-wise they are worlds apart. But really, let's see. Even Chuck Kobasew looked like a scorer once down there. Time and reality will make us better judges of this Boston hockey outfit.
We must acknowledge they have learned and improved somewhat – for they have beaten the Canadiens twice already, and got points in all three meetings. However, their embarrassing displays against us last season were unnatural. What's more, they are still a team with weaknesses (as per this pseudo-Bruins fan), such as unorthodox goaltending:
Another puzzling part of the picture is Boston's goaltending. Tim Thomas has a 2.08 GAA and .933 save percentage, which defy explanation. Thomas (and most Boston fans would agree) has atrocious positioning and lacks basic fundamentals. Yet, Like Dominic Hasek, he makes the save, no matter how ugly.
And average defence:
A puzzling aspect is Boston's defense, which has remained largely the same since last year. Zdeno Chara is still woefully incompetent with the puck in his own end, and Andrew Ference, Shane Hnidy, Matt Hunwick, Matt Lashoff, Mark Stuart, Dennis Wideman, and Aaron Ward round out what would otherwise be a group of very average defensemen.
Add to that injuries to players like Bergeron, Kessel, Sturm and even Lucic, and they will have to be superhuman to repeat their 62 points from the next half season. The quiet Habs can catch this team as it settles back into Bruins 2008. Let's start tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)