Enigma Or Goalscorer?

Enigma

noun
a person or thing that is mysterious or difficult to understand

origin
mid 16th century: via Latin from Greek ainigma, from ainissesthai 'speak allusively', from ainos 'fable'


Goalscoorer

noun
a player who scores goals (or is credited with goals after the puck deflects in off him/her)

var.
a player whose main talent is scoring goals and who doesn't score so infrequently that Travis Moen replaces him on a scoring line

origin
Joe Malone, 1912


Last night, Benoit Pouliot played what Jacques Martin would allege was his best game of the preseason. I didn't watch thanks to a mountain of work, so I'll have to take the coach's word for it. After all, when has he ever shown bias to Pouliot before?

The follow-up report from Rue Frontenac call him an enigma. Hard to understand, even impossible. How does someone who can skate, shoot and measure 6'3" fail to hit the target in 28 straight games?

I won't say I'm not worried about Pouliot. I won't say that his goalscoring drought is not of concern. But I will stop short of calling him an enigma.

The definition of enigma is pretty unequivocal, pretty clear. Difficult to understand, enigma. Not difficult to understand, not enigma.

For years now the Montreal media has bandied the enigma term around their broadsheets like, well, a bandy ball. We can't go a season without having at least a couple of permanent enigmas on the team, we can hardly go a game without someone being branded enigmatic. It's not that I don't appreciate the use of beautiful language originating from the Greek and Latin poets, but the term is overused. There's hardly a season preview that separates the terms 'enigmatic' and 'Kostitsyn' anymore, and no Ottawa in Montreal game can go by without enigma trending on Google.

The thing that is most difficult to understand in all this is not how 20-30 goalscorers have 60 games without a goal, and even some without a shot, but how reporters that watch and write on every minute of the 8-month season find that a surprise to them each and every time it happens.

Is it not true that while goalscoring is a rare skill that most of us would probably find impossible to master, that the people who score goals are not all that complicated at all? For years we have watched scorers come through (look up "Canadiens" and "enigma" if you've forgotten who they all are) and seen again and again how they position themselves rather than fight for the puck, try to get on the periphery of the play to lose coverage, shoot when good passes are available, etc., etc. And while they score 25, 27, 31 goals, with some multi-goal games, there are many many games sans buts.

With this concept fully grasped, it becomes easier to detach 'enigma' from Kostitsyn, Kovalev, Pouliot. It's also easier when one looks at something other than the final superstats to decide how a player fared in a game. No goal, no assist, not necessarily enigmatic.


For me Benoit Pouliot is not an enigma. He can skate, shoot and has size, but he is also lazy and slow to react at times. It's no mystery why he has bad games when he does. And if he plays well and doesn't score, it's not that difficult to understand either, because average goalies as we know nowadays save at least 91.2% of shots, and posts save 100%.

For me Kostitsyn isn't an enigma either. He doesn't score like Ovechkin because he doesn't shoot like Ovechkin, either in fluidity or frequency. He has 65 games where no one calls his name as a third star because he scores in clumps and so far at most 26 times a year.

Kovalev wasn't one either. Kovalev played a more complete game than people gave him credit for. And though he didn't move his feet like a behind-the-play Begin, he actually moved faster in the glide than 75% of players on skates. His puck possession was consistent, but deemed an asset when he scored and a detriment when he didn't. There was less mystery than his moniker suggested.


Given these three, I'd also like to propose that perhaps if we continue to use the faulty definition of enigma that it should be applied to all goalscorers that score less frequently than Gretzky in the early 1980s. Off games, those without goals, occur to them all.

If we go the other way and look for real mysteries, we might start calling out the real enigmas: those goalscorers who play their hearts out, backcheck, dig out pucks in the corner and still have time to net 30ish goals a season. In the long art of goalscoring, these all-rounders given their rarity are the real fables of the NHL.

First Goal Heroes

Last night exhibited one of the continuing themes of the second round of this year's playoffs:

Game-winning goals by players who had yet to score.

In Boston, it was Blake Wheeler. In Chicago, it was Dustin Byfuglien (who chimed in with a hat trick).

While Recchi and Satan are certainly turning back the clocks, the first goal wonders are also making the deep group of forwards a tough proposition for the Flyers defence.

In Game 1, Marc Savard scored the gamewinner, his first of the playoffs.
In Game 2, CBC announced Lucic's first goal of the playoffs (a gamewinner) was solid confirmation of why a team would want him in the lineup.
In Game 3, Blake Wheeler scored his first of the playoffs (and what must seem like the season to fans of Bruins 09).


Chicago has also been tapping the depth for goals.

Versteeg scored his first on a gamewinner in Game 2.
In Game 3, the Hawks took the lead on the back of Byfuglien and his first, second and third goals.
Seabrook also broke the duck in Game 2, turning in a 3-point effort after a less visble first round on the stats page.


Finally, even San Jose is tapping the first goalscorer.

In Game 2, Jumbo Joe Thornton (who nobody was surprised to see go a round and a game without a goal) surprised just about everyone by scoring not only a playoff goal, but an important one.


Montreal needs to tap into something for more offense. Anything really.

I don't see any reason to ignore the wave that's sweeping through the entire league. Gamewinners step up:

Benoit Pouliot, 19 shots, 0 goals
Roman Hamrlik, 6 shots, 0 goals
Glen Metropolit, 7 shots, 0 goals
Sergei Kostitsyn, 5 shots, 0 goals
Hal Gill, 8 shots, 0 goals
Josh Gorges, 3 shots, 0 goals
Mathieu Darche, 5 shots, 0 goals
Tom Pyatt, 13 shots, 0 goals
Ben Maxwell, 0 shots, 0 goals
Ryan O'Byrne, 6 shots, 0 goals

and why not?

Jaroslav Halak, 0 shots, 0 goals


There's 57 regular season goals locked in this underground pocket waiting to be tapped. Can't let Boston have all the fun...

Playoff Hockey: The Talent Is Not Enough

Apparently everyone, talent is not enough.

Every time the playoffs come around, the pundits gather round a gaudy table in an overdone studio to explain in certain terms why the better teams lose. Rather than say something insightful or controversial they come up with the same old tripe year after year: talent is not enough.


What I read this morning from an unemployed coach who didn't see much talent beyond 2 or 3 players for a few years now is that, not only is talent not enough, it comes after the other four key ingredients for playoff success:

1. Intensity
2. Team work
3. Character
4. Discipline

To me, this recipe is omelet without egg. Talent is the primary, not a tertiary, ingredient for a successful hockey team. If a playoff round is an omelet-making competition, a team can mix intensity, team work, character and discipline together all they want, but without talent all they'll get is a pan full of fried garnish and spice .

If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Boston, a team that outplayed Montreal in all of Hartley's critical categories for 2 nights in a row, only won once, and needed to survive a real barrage in OT to do so. Ask why we're talking about how effective their PK is (with 4 guys pretty much standing still), but not about how great their winning goal was. Remind yourself about those years between 1999 and 2001.

When you look at an individual player, it amounts to the same thing: an intense player without talent would not be many peoples' choice when a goal is needed; and character is nice, but how many character 5-goalscorers can you possibly carry on a team. After all, isn't saying someone is a character player akin to saying someone is "a really nice person" after being asked what they look like? The 4 ingredients above only start to matter when you have players with talent – where those players can add little extra qualities to set themselves apart from other players of talent (think Koivu vs. Joe Thornton not Shawn Thornton).

While talent can be temporarily quashed with an overwhelming unbalance in all of the categories Hartley identifies above (see Game 3), ultimately talent will win. But you see, for coaches, talent can sometimes take a lower priority. I have coached people in a few different sports, and though I wish it were different, the one thing you cannot tell someone is: just be more talented.

In some ways, I think this is why talent scares people, and why unemployed coaches on TV will harp on about everything but talent. As a coach you are stuck with what you have. But don't try to tell me that Claude Julien is happier to have Shawn Thornton and Jeremy Reich to Patrice Bergeron and Brad Boyes. Or that Bob Hartley wasn't happier coaching talent in Colorado to muckers in Atlanta. Sure they'll work out plans for what they're given, and they'll talk up the value of character, but they'd have more talent if they could get their hands on it.

So, you see, despite fears of unstoppable momentum and a team that may be big and dirty and bad, Guy Carbonneau and his staff are still in the driver's seat here. The Canadiens roster, if you line it up next to the Bruins by talent, they are superior to a man. All they need to do is find ways to get that talent into play – put the Bruins into situations where talent will decide the winner. Not into situations where one of the other four ingredients will show the victor. It should be less about answering the Bruins and more about making them search for an answer they are incapable of providing.


New Habs strategy

We even spoke about the importance of the Habs setting the tone of this series right at the beginning. Here's the adjustments I think Carbonneau and his crew should be looking to make for Game 4 and to take the Bruins well beyond what they are capable of doing:

1. Hold the puck more (as a team that is) – even Pierre "Bright New Idea" McGuire has come around to this revolutionary idea. Must be time. This, of course, means no dump ins...
2. Be patient – goes hand in hand with holding the puck more.
   
3. Ignore the bodychecking – Komisarek is big enough to take a hit. Oh sure, hit when necessary to win the puck, but not for the sake of hitting.
   
4. Eliminate no-chance shots – that's you Michael Ryder. A shot that never has a chance of going in is a turnover.
5. Don't squander the Kostitsyns – both have been playing well, both should be put in situations where their talent shines
6. Choose the best team available – I think Dandenault should watch number 54 from the catwalk.

By holding true to what got them to this stage (that's talent pundits), the Canadiens have the best chance at regaining the momentum in this series. After all, the Canadiens hold the eggs, if the Bruins want to make an omelet out of this series, they'll need to wait for some more to be dropped. Let's fire up the pan for Game 4...

Meet The Bruins: Key Pillars

Go to Tobalev's Habs Preview.

So important are the playoffs that they warrant a special look at the special players on the other team for once. Of course, we'll still look at the Canadiens in depth, but this post should give people watching some idea of those guys on the ice that we suddenly finding ourselves hating with raging enthusiasm.

No, not the refs...

The Boston Bruins.

To begin, I thought I'd remind everyone of a few key thoughts:

1) The Bruins were better against all other opposition than we were this year

2) How is that possible?

3) Does it matter?


My blogging colleague explained to us why he thought the Bruins managed so many points without any one person that could be marked out. Russ from the Bruins Report (a great Bruins blog) – check it out if you have the time – said:

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.

So, I thought I'd have a peek behind the curtains and introduce everyone to those I see as important to this scheme and the Bruins success:

The last line – Tim Thomas

Drafted by the Quebec Nordiques in 1994, if nothing else, Tim Thomas has outlasted his fellow Quebec goalie draftees Thibault, Fiset and Tugnutt. His career, however, has taken a very different path to those once Quebec starters – taking him to a professional career in Europe and back to North America. Since his reclamation from the Finnish leagues, he has had quite substantial success with the Bruins.

This season has been no exception – Thomas has posted great numbers with the Black and Gold. Following the regular season, he ranked 4th in the entire league in save percentage with a gaudy .921 rate, with a respectable 2.44 GAA and 3 shutouts. In fact, he was having a Vezina trophy season until about the end of November where he underwent a temporary meltdown. When I defined an excellent game as one with a Save% of 0.920 or more, then I was fairly surprised to see that Thomas has 37 excellent games this year (out of 57 GP). In a way this runs contrary to the story on him that he runs hot and cold. For most of this season anyway, he has been running hot.

This statement does of course need to be qualified. He has been anything but hot against the Canadiens. He has been mediocre by his own high standards, and uncharacteristically has cost his team on one or two occasions:


In particular, early goals, which threw his team into their old habits against Montreal were his and Boston's undoing on a couple of occasions.

In any case, though he may not be favoured around the league's pundits, Tim Thomas is a top goaltender, a starter through and through. However, like Carey Price, Tim is an NHL playoff rookie, so won't bring years of NHL experience to the table. He does bring some from other competitions, much like his counterpart.


If a goalie's duel develops, Boston will be in good hands. I think that's the first thing on Boston's wish list and the last thing the Canadiens would want.


The Game Maker – Zdeno Chara

Chara comes advertised as the leader of this Bruins team. He wears that C on his chest and has allegedly been key in a lot of their success this season. In fact, if you asked a Canadiens fan who typified the Bruins we have seen this season, then many I'm sure would also say Chara. He has been sub-par on many occasions against the Habs, and downright comical on others. In any case, the thing to remember here is:

As Chara goes, so do the Bruins.

To give some idea, recently Chara missed 5 games when the Bruins were sitting pretty for the playoffs. His absence coincided with 4 losses (2 in OT) and one one close win (OT). All were against teams the Bruins had previously handled quite well. He was missed to say the least. had his absence been longer, the Bruins would be done and dusted and we'd be playing the Hurricanes. Phew for that one...

Statistically, he has also had quite a successful season. 17 goals and 34 assists for a defenseman is strong. His 17 goals put him 2nd in the league among Dmen. His 51 points rank 10th in the league. He has had 20 outstanding games (which I defined as games with either 2 points or with a +2 rating). In those games, Boston got points in 18. One was against the Habs, so blame the ghosts (like Sinden), not Chara.

But it's never really been the statistics with Chara has it? When he played with Ottawa (after he learned to skate), he was Montreal's worst nightmare. Whenever we played Ottawa, we could only realistically hope for about 10minutes in their zone – most of it when Chara was off the ice – because the big man and Redden were so effective at smothering the forwards. Something changed though – the rules. Now, Buffalo can exploit him, Carolina can and as we've seen, so can the Habs.

Chara is still an outstanding defenseman with an amazing shot, but he has been disarmed of one of his main weapons since the lockout – holding. Despite this he can still be excellent if teams choose to play a throwback style of hockey where screening and wrestling are preferred to passing and skating. Just another reason the Habs need to set the agenda for this series.


The Game Breaker – Marc Savard

Quite a tag for little Marc Savard from Ottawa. Not so little if you believe Yahoo, who call him 199 lbs or something. Other sites weighed him without his soaking wet equipment on and have him at a stocky 190ish.

He is the Game Breaker on the Bruins because if the Bruins need a goal they don't have too many other places to look. they will certainly look to Marc first (assuming he even plays).

Savard's NHL career has taken many twists and turns following a revelation or two in junior. Drafted and let go by New York, then tried but released in Calgary, finally success but disinterest from Atlanta, he has now landed in Boston with a huge raise.

Strange that his employers always seem to let him go without much of a fight. Even Calgary, who needed a passer of his pedigree and learned the small-man lesson the hard way with Martin St. Louis. The truth behind these occurrences probably lies somewhere between defensive disaster and costly for what you get. If rumours are to be believed, Marc has turned around his defensive game at the behest of Claude Julien, and now provides value for money on the Bruins.

Maybe not so surprising when you consider none of his teams have ever made the playoffs until this one. In fact, should he play, this will be Marc Savard's first ever playoff game at the tender age of 30.

In looking at his game log, I looked for multiple point games. You figure, top scorer, lots of multiple point games. Well, let's say Marc likes to be more consistent. He did have a respectable 19 multiple point games. 14 were Bruins wins, they got points in 16. Strikingly, only 3 were games where he managed more than 2 points. However, when you think about it, this probably says more about the Bruins than it does about the man.

One thing you could never deny about Marc is his ability to pass the puck. It goes back to WJC in 1993 even. People who watch him on a regular basis talk about his passes finding players who still thought they were fighting to get away from coverage. His mind thinks ahead of defenders, his stick can carry out his wishes (though apparently his wishes do not include shooting very often). This what people said about all the great passers. What's more, this season Marc ended up 3rd in the NHL for assists, just behind Joe Thornton and Datsyuk. Last season, third behind Thornton and Crosby. The man keeps good company. certainly a player to keep an eye on. besides, passes like the ones described are a thing of beauty no matter whose shoving the disc.

We have been hearing that Marc Savard will be available to play. However, if he doesn't it will be a gaping hole for the Bruins. To look beyond Marc Savard for a Game Breaker is hard work with Bergeron and Kobasew out. The obvious candidate will be Marco Sturm, whose more beneficiary than benefactor when it comes to making plays.


The Great Hope – Phil Kessel

The final man in the Bruins equation for me is Phil Kessel.

Less production in his draft year, he eventually slipped to 5th overall behind some serious prospects. If anyone remembers the year before that though, Phil Kessel was the American Sydney Crosby. In fact, in 2005, he was putting up more than a goal and 2 points per game in the US National development program. In other words, the boy has pedigree and the boy has skill.


What must not be forgotten is that he is still a young man. 20 to be exact. But for me, in his first NHL playoff series, he will be key to the Bruins chances.

For one thing, as we've mentioned, the Bruins don't have a wealth of scoring options, especially if you factor in the injured players. For a second thing, Phil Kessel is probably the best natural goalscorer among them anyway, any day.

A coach who knew his back was up against it – vs. the team that had defeated his rather unimaginative strategy 8 times in a row – might choose to put a wildcard like Kessel in a key role. Say, with a passer who could thread passes that other people wouldn't have thought of. Claude Julien is not this coach. At least he has not shown a willingness to be him yet – even with his team in dire straits following Chara's injury. In the last meaningful game, Kessel played with Schaefer and Sobotka. He managed to score anyway. in the last game against Montreal, more third line action with Krejci and Lucic, all while Kobasew gets to play with Marc Savard.

We have been lucky to see our young players come through this year in Montreal. it has been a huge factor in our success. If Boston are to succeed, I feel the same will be a requirement for them, with Kessel success leading the way. If he is let off his leash, Montreal should have someone new to concern themselves with.

Go to Tobalev's Habs Preview.

Halfway there: Where do the Habs go from here?

Amazingly, the Canadiens turn around for the home stretch with exactly half the number of points I asked them to get before the season even started.

This guy I used to work with had a favourite shirt which read: "Same same" on the front and "But different" on the back. That's exactly what i feel about the second half for the Habs. I want to see the same number of points (or more), but know that it will have to be done differently.

For one thing, I think 16 OT losses might be stretch, so they might need a few more wins. In addition, they'll have 22 home games and 19 road games to end the season, so they'll have to find a few more points at home than they've been able to so far.

Finally, the teams they play will differ. We've played the majority of our games against Carolina, Toronto, Buffalo, Tampa and Florida; which feels good as a couple of those teams are underachieving and could surge. The teams we have more games against, however, are the Rangers, Devils and Senators, so relief may not be in sight. In terms of Western teams, we play them 7 times and must do better than 1 point evry 3 games. On the bright side, we have cleared Detroit, Dallas and Nashville from the schedule and get to face some teams that may be selling players rather than buying come late February, like LA, Phoenix and Columbus.

In other words, it'll be tough. But, getting 48 points in 41 games will always be tough, as the last 3 months have shown. A few more wins against Ottawa and New Jersey and not only will we get the 48, but we could start to feel pretty good about our chances in the playoffs too...

In terms of individuals, I thought it would be fun to look at statistics to this point and give an opinion on whether I think each player will outpace or underpace his first half.

The Canadiens are currently an improbable 5th in the league in goals scored, so being realistic, I didn't think total goals would rise. Therefore, I figure some players will have to score less in order for others to score more. Unkind as it may seem to players on 4 or 5 goals, I think we'll be looking at some pretty subpar stats for a few of the vets at the end of this year. So, without further ado:


Tomas Plekanec
13 G 23 A 36 Pts
Second half projection: Less goals, same points
I think it will be more of the same in terms of points from Plekanec. I do foresee some his goals going to Kostitsyn in the coming weeks and months, though.

Andrei Kostitsyn
11 G 12 A 23 Pts
Second half projection: More goals, more points
He's coming on strong and asserting himself. I see more of his latest form carrying through to the end thanks to new-found confidence, particularly in his shooting.


Alex Kovalev
18 G 20 A 38 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
Alex doesn't rely as much as others on his linemates for points. His new attitude this year should carry him right through to his best season with the Habs and one of his best ever.

Saku Koivu
7 G 24 A 31 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, more points
Koivu comes alive in important games, and there are bound to be plenty along the way. Never really a goalscorer anyway, I'd expect something in the neighbourhood of 15 goals and 70 points from Saku as he is now a passer, not a shooter on the PP.

Guillaume Latendresse
11 G 3 A 14 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, more points
Assuming he stays with Koivu, he won't be able to help but come in with 22 goals or so. I also foresee more of his errant shots being shovelled in by the better players now surrounding him.

Sergei Kostitsyn
2 G 4 A 6 Pts
Second half projection: More goals, more points
Sergei, too won't be able to help beating his 2 goals, 4 assists if he stays with Koivu. He'll get a few more, but I wouldn't expect him to have double digits come April. Also, he is still a likely candidate for demotion if injured players return, so his season may be limited to 20 or so games in any case.

Maxim Lapierre
1 G 3 A 4 Pts
Second half projection: More goals, more points
Called up late and put on a scoring line like Sergei, you can only improve. Again, there may not be many more goals here, as he may be back in Hamilton when Begin returns.

Chris Higgins
15 G 15 A 30 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
Always a hard worker, he's not quite a 40-goal man yet – though he should be one day. 30 goals and 30 assists would be a very nice natural progression from the young New Yorker though.

Michael Ryder
6 G 8 A 14 Pts
Second half projection: More goals, more points
Ryder has got a bit of the luck back, and it means his shots are starting to go in. Given his talent and ability to streak, I think he will surpass 15 goals and even tease us with 20. As Tobalev said, that would make him a second-half 15-goal man (just about), giving us scoring momentum into the playoffs.

Kyle Chipchura
4 G 7 A 11 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
If his role were to broaden, you'd see Kyle respond with more, but I don't see that happening this year, so he'll probably chip in (excuse that one) about the same again.

Tom Kostopoulos
3 G 4 A 7 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
As his role has diminished, so have his opportunities. I think 3 more and some random passes are about right for him.

Mathieu Dandenault
4 G 5 A 9 Pts
Second half projection: Less goals, less points
With others scoring more (Kostitsyns), Dandenault shouldn't have to find himself playing much offensive hockey this half. He may even see himself replaced altogether by year's end.

Bryan Smolinski
2 G 9 A 11 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, less points
Unfortunately, the Smolinski signing is bound to look like a bust, statistically anyway. But, like Dandenault, he could do more, but I think he'll find himself employed in roles where he is not necessarily asked to risk much up front. On the bright side, if the Habs continue to go for a 3-pronged attack, he could quite easily pick up the third-line slack if asked to do so.

Steve Begin
3 G 1 A 4 Pts
Second half projection: Less goals, same points
If Lapierre plays, Begin might find himself watching the show. Unfortunate as that is for a nice guy like Begin, it's natural and important for the Habs to improve and with that replace old and underperforming parts. Lapierre can be a young Begin. Begin is usually an ailing Begin these days.

Mikhail Grabovski
1 G 1 A 2 Pts
Second half projection: Less goals, less points
Barring a major change, he won't play in the second half. Sergei Kostitsyn, Corey Locke and possibly some other Bulldogs have overtaken him for the time being. You're looking at his NHL career best stats right now. 1 goal man Kostitsyn showed what commitment and faith in a player can yield, so we may not have seen the back of Grabovski yet.



Andrei Markov
10 G 19 A 29 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
If he wasn't so good, I'd have him dropping off. But, this season has been a long time coming for this talented Habs draft pick.

Mike Komisarek
3 G 9 A 12 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
Offense may not be what he is called upon to do, but he's actually a pretty decent passer and his shot isn't bad. I don't think 24 points are beyond his reach at all.

Roman Hamrlik
3 G 14 A 17 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
If he didn't have so few goals I would say less goals. His shooting percentage is very poor, but his passing is good. 30+ points is a fine addition to the team considering the accompanying mammoth upgrade on defense.

Mark Streit
6 G 19 A 25 Pts
Second half projection: Less goals, less points
Streit's play won't necessarily dip, but I think he'll play less at forward. With other shooting options on the PP, his numbers may go down. Also, all those increased goal totals had to come from somewhere.

Francis Bouillon
0 G 3 A 3 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
I didn't really ponder Bouillon's numbers for long. But he's not playing for numbers anyway.

Josh Gorges
0 G 2 A 2 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
See Bouillon above.

Ryan O'Byrne
0 G 2 A 2 Pts
Second half projection: Same goals, same points
See Bouillon again.

Patrice Brisebois
1 G 6 A 7 Pts
Second half projection: Less goals, less points
End of the line? With any luck we shouldn't have to see much of 71 on the PP anymore, and as such, his points will go the same way.


All that being said, if all of Ryder and Andrei and Sergei Kostitsyn start to score a lot more, then the Canadiens will probably end up with more goals than they did in the first half. Thats would be the draft paying off in a big way, eh?


So, what do you all think?

48 points doable? Will Kovalev get 35+ goals? Will Ryder make amends?

The Habs future and the two Andreis – Part 2: Andrei the Younger

As I said in Part 1: Andrei the First, the Habs bandwagon is chugging along. And while many have a temporary fixation with the Long Island boys and a certain young goaltender, there are two Andreis who I feel will play an enormous part in the future success or failure of this team.


For Part 2, I will examine the mysterious and mysteriously overlooked prospect that is Andrei the Younger, or Kostit the Elder if you like. As Markov will have to be Doug Harvey to Price's Plante; Andrei Kostitsyn will have to play the role of offensive stalwart Dickie Moore.

Born in the USSR – like Markov – in 1985, Andrei Kostitsyn did most of his growing up in the new country of Belarus. Hi formative hockey years were also spent in Belarus, where he played in the Belarusian league, subsequently moving to his hometown club of Novopolotsk in a junior-level Russian league. After putting up excellent stats at both these levels he eventually made the move to CSKA in Moscow, where he played on their teams at various levels of Russian league play. He would eventually stick with the senior team at the CSKA club by the latter portion of the 2002-2003 season, the year he was drafted.

Kostitsyn's story leading up to the 2003 NHL entry draft, however, is not one that can be told by stats alone. Much like Anze Kopitar, he had really emerged from a country that up until the mid-90s had been a real hockey backwater. While he had impressive stats in Belarusian play, there was no benchmark for this. His play at CSKA was too limited and brief to result in bags of goals.

So why so highly touted?


Well, for one thing, his play at WJCs and under-18s for Belarus showed that when he was placed in a dominant role on a team, he responded with production. Besides that, it was the way he scored, shot and skated that made him a hot commodity.

When the Canadiens selected Andrei Kostitsyn 10th overall in the 2003 draft, there was a very mixed response. 2003, afterall, was as deep as drafts get in the first round. Before him: Fleury, Staal, Horton, Zherdev, Vanek, Michalek, Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf. After him: Getzlaf, Perry and Parise. But on the day, general consensus was a great gamble. For Kostitsyn has epilepsy, which made the teams that chose Michalek, Suter, Coburn and Phaneuf stay away. Many scouts, including Timmins had in as a top 5 talent – which obviously says a lot among those players.


What exactly are these talents then? Well, I've noticed his strength, his puck control, his shot and even his passing. But I think Hockey's Future says it best:

What sets him apart from other players is his ability to handle the puck at top speed.

In all my years of watching hockey, this quality has been the most rare. There's many a fast skater who ends up dumping and chasing and many a skilled puckhandler who can't progress quickly enough before the reinforcements come raging back. This is the kind of thing people said about Pavel Bure, which in terms of players we need, is dead on the right type. Being able to stickhandle at top speed cannot be learned at the NHL level, it has to be there from the get go, and that's why he is such an exciting player. The best thing of all is that watching him yourself, you can see the truth in that assessment, that is what makes him different.

Kostitsyn did, what by Habs standards was a short apprenticeship, of two and two thirds seasons in Hamilton. His first year was much like his time at CSKA – he was young and underplayed. His second year, he was upon a top line and second in scoring behind Corey Locke. Last season, before his call-up, he was leading the team and showing his flair and skills. So two years till take off in Hamilton, I would expect the same up in Montreal.

So far with the Habs, Andrei has been a bit quiet – 3 goals and 14 points in 34 games. But as he has shown in the past, put him in a position of responsibility, with more ice time, and he delivers returns. This year, he has been granted a place on the second line and he's already begun to flourish. One goal doesn't tell the whole story for certain. He has been confident and involved. Just last game, he had a third period to rave about – making it into Tobalev's dome for the first time this season.

Where Andrei Markov is almost the finished product, Kostitsyn is all about potential.

Of all the Habs prospects, he is the one who could one day score 50 goals. Probably the only one (the one exception possibly being his little brother). Of course, he is coming off a one-goal season, so we'll have to exercise a bit of patience (and hope) to see that day, but the fact remains of the list of players coming up, he is the premier offensive talent – Higgins will score and help us in an infinite number of other ways to win, but I don't think he has 50 goals in him (even he stated his goal is to be a 40-goal man); Latendresse too may score many, but unless we become Philadelphia won't fit well enough with the style to top the half century.

To start winning comfortably and genuinely challenging for the Cup again, I feel we need an elite scorer – one who can score against tough defenses and from out of nothing. Andrei Kostitsyn is our Great White Hope. May his time on the second line help him develop and grow so that one day soon we can put talk of even strength scoring troubles to bed for good.

Chris Higgins: Aspiring 40-goal man

When it comes to Christopher Higgins, I think the words "pleaant surprise" would express my feelings best. He may indeed even be a future captain of the team - a role he would seemingly relish.



He is not, however, the "Dauphin", the Golden Child that some people would pretend that he is. The ridiculous coverage that preceded his return to exhibition play this week was seriously misplaced.
One quote about Higgins from HabsWorld, gives you an idea of what I mean:

Chris Higgins is that unique player that has first line talent but plays like a fourth liner; a player who plays as if every shift is his last. He is in many ways the most versatile forward on the Habs roster, he excels on the power play, he is a threat on the penalty kill, and he can play all three forward positions. But more importantly it is how he plays the game.

I like Chris Higgins. I like the way he plays, I love that his education has made him into a mature leader at such a young age. I greatly enjoy his intelligent and modest comments which stand out so much from his peers hyperbole.

But, let's be clear about what Chris Higgins can do for our team.

In his first two seasons, the greatest thing he has done has been to find chemistry with just about anyone he has played with. He works hard, skates fast and can pass and shoot with quality. At the same time, he has scored 23 then 22 goals and 38 points in each season. In fairness, he did miss 21 games last season, but his prorated totals would only be 29 goals and 52 points.

It is my opinion that he will grow into a better player, and even reach higher totals, but he will never be the focal point of a team. The reason: his game is straightforward and 2-dimensional. I don't mean that in a derorgatory way - many players choose the up and down game, and many with great success. Many goalscorers would be thrilled to be called 2-dimensional, as they're probably used to the 1-dimensional tag (ahem, Michael Ryder). But the fact remains, Higgins needs to play with a center who can take the other team's top checker. He is not a zig-zagger and would be contained if he was playing with lesser lights. It is Koivu who elevates Higgins and not the other way around.

Coming off several years of starvation for a winger that could score and play hard (post-Recchi or the Dackell years as we like to call them), we have to be careful not to burden poor Higgins with the weight of the team's goalscoring.

Exaggerating the worth pf players like Higgins is the symptom of a syndrome that has affected the minds of many hockey fans (including those in Montreal) - grinder-worship (aka floater-loathing). The flaw here is that hard work is not enough. You need talent. Heck, Dackell worked hard, so do the Blue Jackets.

If it's goals we want, it's talent we need. Higgins will give us 30, maybe even 40, but he will never give us 60. But don't be confused, Higgins only provides a small step up in talent from Savage and Rucinsky. The talent we so missed for a near decade is found in our whipping boys, Ryder and Kovalev. If we continue to deride Ryder, who is only one season more experience than Higgins, but is the better goalscorer, as well as Kovalev, who is the only player with the talent to get a sniff of 50 goals on our team; we risk setting the team back a long way. As fans we have to learn that floating is part of goalscoring, and that digging it out of the corner, means you can't be in front of the net.

Higgins is a heroic digger, who can score when he gets the chance, but he's not got the killer goalscorer in him. He doesn't want to be the best goalscorer in the league. He wants to be Mr. everything. He said it himself:

“Chris replied, in a very confident voice, ‘I want to be a 40/40 (goals/assists) man with a big fat (Stanley Cup) ring on my finger.’

Let's celebrate Higgins for what he is. Applaud as he reaches 30 goals and 60 points this year. Let's put away the messianic language when we talk about him.

And, let's also appreciate our talent: Koivu, Kovalev and Ryder - since taking their contributions for granted and, heaven forbid, losing them would show us what a team of hard workers without enough talent can do (again!).