Well, we knew it had to happen sometime. I've always believed everything in hockey balances out. A team that dominates an entire game and should beat Atlanta, loses in a shootout. Months later, that same team plays a lacklustre game in Buffalo and comes back to score two late goals and win in OT. The team that blows a 3-0 lead to the Rangers comes back next game and makes a miracle comeback from a 5-0 deficit against those same Rangers. A lousy penalty call that leads to a goal against is forgiven by a PP goal on an equally questionable call. Karma. So, is anyone really surprised that the Canadiens' lucky star when it comes to injuries has fallen? Deep down, we knew it was coming. Things were too smooth...too cushy. Guy Carbonneau was too defensive about explaining how his team deserved to be healthy because they worked hard to be that way. We knew it couldn't last. So did Carbonneau. So did the players...those most superstitious of athletes.
Now, here we are facing the Senators for the division title without the team's two most punishing defensemen in Mike Komisarek and Francis Bouillon. PP quarterback Mark Streit is limping and probably only playing because the team can't afford to play Mathieu Dandenault on defence while Patrice Brisebois is already in the lineup. The defence in that case would be softer than a flock of fluffy chicks. And, most rattling to team morale, Captain K is gone for the season, and possibly (likely?) for at least part of the playoffs. It's a blow to the confidence at a time when confidence is everything.
If the regular season is a crucible that fires and hardens a bunch of hockey players into a team that can compete for the Stanley Cup, fate has just turned up the heat on the Canadiens. This is the last in a series of tests the team must pass before it knows it has what it takes to win. So far, this group has proven they can survive the loss of important players like Sheldon Souray and still keep their top-ranked PP. They've proven they can score goals...lots of them. They've shown third and fourth-year players can raise their games and become team leaders. They've learned how to take a lead, and how to hold one...and how to come back when they're down. They've solved the inconsistency problem they had last year. Now they have to learn how to deal with adversity, and how to patch holes with players in roles they don't normally fill.
If they can do it...pull off three convincing efforts, even if they don't result in wins...I'll believe they have the mental fibre to go deep into the playoffs. I think Koivu's loss will be keenly felt, not only because he pushes his game higher when it really counts, but because of what he represents to the team and its morale.
But this team has to realize Koivu won't be there forever. In fact, he likely won't be there in three to five years' time, as most of the players Bob Gainey has assembled to fight for future Cups are just coming into their own. Someone else is going to have to do for the team what Koivu does now. Other players will have to step up their games when it really counts. Others will have to be the emotional touchstones for their teammates. If Alex Kovalev, Tomas Plekanec, Chris Higgins and Mike Komisarek are going to be champions in Montreal, they are going to have to earn it. They have three games left to come to terms with what they must do, and decide if they're willing and able to do it. I believe they can. Now we have to see if they believe it.
As they say, hard work pays off. It's karma.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Nothing to fear but fear itself
I don't know how many of you are like me, but I've been afraid of opposing teams for a long time now. For years, we could never look at a schedule and say, "Oh yeah...Habs'll take that one for sure." At least half the teams in the league have been better than the Canadiens, and even the lower teams seemed to raise their games when it came to playing Montreal. A team might be the worst in the league, but oh no! They've got a French goalie who gets fired up to play at the Bell Centre and shuts out the Habs.
Then there are the teams that have owned the Canadiens, those you'd just groan at when you'd see their names on the schedule. The New Jersey Brodeurs? Guaranteed loss. Florida at Christmas? Guaranteed loss.
The hard part for many of us now is getting over the fear. Seriously...it's not easy. We're all sitting here now, with our team first in the east and likely to win the division for the first time in forever, the highest scoring team in the league for the first time since Lafleur still had his own hair, and we're worried to death over who the Habs will get in the first round. Boston would be great, we say, because we KNOW the Habs can beat them. Philly would be beatable too. But we're frightened Washington might squeak into eighth and bring the vengeance of Ovechkin and the spectre of Huet down on the Canadiens' collective heads. Some of us are actually hoping the team doesn't win the conference, but ends up second, because we're afraid of stiff competition in round one of the playoffs.
What we need to realize is, the Habs are a good team. A really good team. Maybe it's because we see all the prospects still in various stages of development, or because the team has so much untapped potential in its youth, that we're afraid to believe that what we're seeing isn't one big, season-long fluke. They can't be this good already, we think. Can they?
I think so. And I think they're going to be even better in the next couple of years. But right now, they have great special teams, strong goaltending, speed, team chemistry, good coaching, decent D and the ability to score many, many goals. The Montreal Canadiens are a good team again. They're good enough to beat any team in a seven-game series, even a good young squad with Alex Ovechkin on board.
For the first time in a very long time, we've learned never to give up on this team. They don't quit and they want to win. It's time for us to stop being afraid and start believing.
Then there are the teams that have owned the Canadiens, those you'd just groan at when you'd see their names on the schedule. The New Jersey Brodeurs? Guaranteed loss. Florida at Christmas? Guaranteed loss.
The hard part for many of us now is getting over the fear. Seriously...it's not easy. We're all sitting here now, with our team first in the east and likely to win the division for the first time in forever, the highest scoring team in the league for the first time since Lafleur still had his own hair, and we're worried to death over who the Habs will get in the first round. Boston would be great, we say, because we KNOW the Habs can beat them. Philly would be beatable too. But we're frightened Washington might squeak into eighth and bring the vengeance of Ovechkin and the spectre of Huet down on the Canadiens' collective heads. Some of us are actually hoping the team doesn't win the conference, but ends up second, because we're afraid of stiff competition in round one of the playoffs.
What we need to realize is, the Habs are a good team. A really good team. Maybe it's because we see all the prospects still in various stages of development, or because the team has so much untapped potential in its youth, that we're afraid to believe that what we're seeing isn't one big, season-long fluke. They can't be this good already, we think. Can they?
I think so. And I think they're going to be even better in the next couple of years. But right now, they have great special teams, strong goaltending, speed, team chemistry, good coaching, decent D and the ability to score many, many goals. The Montreal Canadiens are a good team again. They're good enough to beat any team in a seven-game series, even a good young squad with Alex Ovechkin on board.
For the first time in a very long time, we've learned never to give up on this team. They don't quit and they want to win. It's time for us to stop being afraid and start believing.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
x - Montreal Canadiens*
Now that the Canadiens have earned their "x" for clinching a playoff spot, AND proudly wear the asterik as Northeast Division leaders in the NHL standings, we fans can stop worrying about if there'll be hockey in April. Instead, our attention can now be focussed on important things like potential dance partners and signs and omens.
Because, let's face it, when it comes to portents and Fate, hockey fans are more superstitious than the ancient Druids. Who among us doesn't believe in the hockey gods and their capricious giving and taking of lucky bounces? Who'll say "shutout" before the final whistle without feeling at least a little nervous? Who hasn't had, at some point in our hockey-fan careers, a ritual...wearing a certain jersey, sitting in a certain place, following a certain routine...we believe (really believe!) will influence the outcome of a game? And that's just for the regular season.
The playoffs, of course, have given birth to hockey's greatest legends, for the good (Patrick Roy) and the bad (Steve Smith.) And just as the intensity of the hockey ratchets up several notches, so does the enormity of the superstition. Playoff myths take on legendary status of their own, and the Canadiens this year are in a position to challenge many of them.
Myth number one: No team with a European captain has won a Cup. While true, this has taken on overtones of doom to the point at which people are starting to believe no team with a European captain will ever win the Cup. I think no team with a European captain has won a Cup because until recently, there weren't many European captains at all. And the teams on which they played mostly haven't been good enough. Ottawa and Alfredsson got to the finals last year, but the Sens roll-over in Anaheim wasn't the captain's fault. Some would contend Ottawa wouldn't even have beaten Pittsburgh in the first round if Alfredsson hadn't played an aggressive and dominant series. This year, Detroit, with Lidstrom as captain, will give it a good run. And with any luck, so will Saku Koivu and the Habs. It's only a matter of time before this myth is destroyed...but until then, get ready to listen to other teams' broadcasters cling to it as proof positive their squads will beat Montreal.
Myth number two: An inexperienced and unproven team won't win when it's faced with the intensity of the playoffs. I agree with the idea that a team has to lose before it can win, and I believe that the experience players gain by facing adversity can temper them into winners. But the mistake a lot of critics will make when they look at the Habs' chances this spring is that they haven't already learned that lesson. Guys like Chris Higgins, Tomas Plekanec and Mike Komisarek have been to the playoffs and learned against Carolina two years ago what it feels like to get eliminated in the first round. They learned another hard lesson last year when they missed the playoffs by two points. The core of this team has been through the fire of failure already and will have taken important lessons away from that. They're ready and hungry to win. And just as important a factor: the "inexperienced" rookies on the team, like Carey Price, Ryan O'Byrne and Maxim Lapierre have already learned about becoming champions. No one should underestimate the culture of winning they developed by taking the Calder Cup last year. They know the demands of a four-round, best-of-seven playoff better than most. They understand the mental and physical sacrifices it takes to win a playoff like that. They're ready. So are Alex Kovalev who's won a Cup before and Roman Hamrlik who's been to the finals.
Myth number three: A team can't expect to go far with a 20-year-old rookie in net. The easy counter to that one is to recite the names Ken Dryden, Patrick Roy, Cam Ward. But interestingly, a lot of critics and even fans, think that very argument means it would be even tougher for a rookie to do that again. Sort of like believing lightning doesn't strike twice...or, in this case, multiple times. Especially when you consider how many times a kid has bailed out the Habs in particular. The only way to view that one is to understand that Price is a different person with just as much of a chance to make his mark as anyone else, regardless of who came before him. And, as mentioned, Price is a winner. He knows what he has to do, and he has the tools to do it, irregardless of age or NHL experience. But, once again, be prepared for a lot of pre-playoff hockey coverage to focus on the fact that Price has never played an NHL post-season game. We're going to be really sick of that until the first week of the playoffs has passed.
Myth number four: Every once in a while, the Montreal Canadiens come out of nowhere and rise up in the playoffs to become a team of destiny. Okay...that one's true. And I hope this is one of the years the stars align, the bounces go the right way and the team plays over their collective heads. The magic this franchise can create when it starts rolling in the playoffs is very real although often inexplicable. It's enough to overcome a European captain, a rookie goalie and an inexperienced team. It can rile the crowd into a seventh-man frenzy every night and it can get into the heads of opposing teams worse than any superstition they might have previously held. It's enough to push the team the last mile toward that coveted silver bowl, even when it seems they're overmatched or have nothing left to give.
I think this could be a year for destroying old myths and building new ones. As long as someone reminds Saku Koivu not to touch the Prince of Wales trophy if the Canadiens win the conference. Because everyone knows that's a jinx.
Because, let's face it, when it comes to portents and Fate, hockey fans are more superstitious than the ancient Druids. Who among us doesn't believe in the hockey gods and their capricious giving and taking of lucky bounces? Who'll say "shutout" before the final whistle without feeling at least a little nervous? Who hasn't had, at some point in our hockey-fan careers, a ritual...wearing a certain jersey, sitting in a certain place, following a certain routine...we believe (really believe!) will influence the outcome of a game? And that's just for the regular season.
The playoffs, of course, have given birth to hockey's greatest legends, for the good (Patrick Roy) and the bad (Steve Smith.) And just as the intensity of the hockey ratchets up several notches, so does the enormity of the superstition. Playoff myths take on legendary status of their own, and the Canadiens this year are in a position to challenge many of them.
Myth number one: No team with a European captain has won a Cup. While true, this has taken on overtones of doom to the point at which people are starting to believe no team with a European captain will ever win the Cup. I think no team with a European captain has won a Cup because until recently, there weren't many European captains at all. And the teams on which they played mostly haven't been good enough. Ottawa and Alfredsson got to the finals last year, but the Sens roll-over in Anaheim wasn't the captain's fault. Some would contend Ottawa wouldn't even have beaten Pittsburgh in the first round if Alfredsson hadn't played an aggressive and dominant series. This year, Detroit, with Lidstrom as captain, will give it a good run. And with any luck, so will Saku Koivu and the Habs. It's only a matter of time before this myth is destroyed...but until then, get ready to listen to other teams' broadcasters cling to it as proof positive their squads will beat Montreal.
Myth number two: An inexperienced and unproven team won't win when it's faced with the intensity of the playoffs. I agree with the idea that a team has to lose before it can win, and I believe that the experience players gain by facing adversity can temper them into winners. But the mistake a lot of critics will make when they look at the Habs' chances this spring is that they haven't already learned that lesson. Guys like Chris Higgins, Tomas Plekanec and Mike Komisarek have been to the playoffs and learned against Carolina two years ago what it feels like to get eliminated in the first round. They learned another hard lesson last year when they missed the playoffs by two points. The core of this team has been through the fire of failure already and will have taken important lessons away from that. They're ready and hungry to win. And just as important a factor: the "inexperienced" rookies on the team, like Carey Price, Ryan O'Byrne and Maxim Lapierre have already learned about becoming champions. No one should underestimate the culture of winning they developed by taking the Calder Cup last year. They know the demands of a four-round, best-of-seven playoff better than most. They understand the mental and physical sacrifices it takes to win a playoff like that. They're ready. So are Alex Kovalev who's won a Cup before and Roman Hamrlik who's been to the finals.
Myth number three: A team can't expect to go far with a 20-year-old rookie in net. The easy counter to that one is to recite the names Ken Dryden, Patrick Roy, Cam Ward. But interestingly, a lot of critics and even fans, think that very argument means it would be even tougher for a rookie to do that again. Sort of like believing lightning doesn't strike twice...or, in this case, multiple times. Especially when you consider how many times a kid has bailed out the Habs in particular. The only way to view that one is to understand that Price is a different person with just as much of a chance to make his mark as anyone else, regardless of who came before him. And, as mentioned, Price is a winner. He knows what he has to do, and he has the tools to do it, irregardless of age or NHL experience. But, once again, be prepared for a lot of pre-playoff hockey coverage to focus on the fact that Price has never played an NHL post-season game. We're going to be really sick of that until the first week of the playoffs has passed.
Myth number four: Every once in a while, the Montreal Canadiens come out of nowhere and rise up in the playoffs to become a team of destiny. Okay...that one's true. And I hope this is one of the years the stars align, the bounces go the right way and the team plays over their collective heads. The magic this franchise can create when it starts rolling in the playoffs is very real although often inexplicable. It's enough to overcome a European captain, a rookie goalie and an inexperienced team. It can rile the crowd into a seventh-man frenzy every night and it can get into the heads of opposing teams worse than any superstition they might have previously held. It's enough to push the team the last mile toward that coveted silver bowl, even when it seems they're overmatched or have nothing left to give.
I think this could be a year for destroying old myths and building new ones. As long as someone reminds Saku Koivu not to touch the Prince of Wales trophy if the Canadiens win the conference. Because everyone knows that's a jinx.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Roy to the rafters?
When the debate about whether Patrick Roy should have his number retired arises, as it has once again since his son Jonathan's attack of another player, I get a picture in my head. It's of a 20-year-old, skinny, sweaty kid...still beardless...holding the Stanley Cup over his head, his cap of floppy hair and his red sweater soaked through as he screams his triumph. The look on his face is almost savage, but his eyes are filled with stars. Shortly after that picture was taken, he accepted the 1986 Conn Smythe trophy as the playoffs' most valuable player.
There are other pictures, but that one is the most dominant, and, as far as I'm concerned, it's the one that decides the debate.
Of course, the idea of one player winning a Stanley Cup by himself is a myth. Hockey is a team game and a team wins or loses together. But it is certainly a fact that a single player can elevate his game with such passion that he carries the rest of his team to a higher level with him. Roy was that player. When he said he wouldn't allow another goal, everyone from the stick boy to the opposing coach knew it was true. It was because of his passion and confidence that the Canadiens elevated their game to a high enough level to win two Cups in 1986 and 1993.
Those two wins gave new generations of Canadiens' fans a kind of link with the team's great past. Through the tinted looking glass of victory, they could glimpse what their fathers and grandfathers meant when they talked about the glory days and the greatness of the team. Through the play of Patrick Roy, they got a feeling for what it must have been like to cheer for the great French Canadian players of the past, and the ones who became legends even while they played. Those wins kept the team from becoming ordinary in the eyes of young fans...a sad fate for the greatest franchise in hockey history.
To get a clear answer of what Patrick Roy meant to the franchise, one must simply picture the team without him. Maybe Doug Soetaert would have held the fort in overtime of game three against the Rangers in 1986 and the Canadiens would have won that Cup anyway. But if they hadn't, and if Roy hadn't been there for those ten consecutive overtime wins in 1993, the once-proud Canadiens would now be facing their centennial celebrations without a championship in thirty years.
The team owes Patrick Roy for carrying the torch in the darkest of times for the franchise. It owes him for being the French Canadian hero so many fans needed, and which so many local players are still unwilling to be. It owes him for bringing flair and drama to a team that needs flair and drama to lift itself above the ordinary. The team must pay the debt it owes by retiring his number.
To deny him the honour because of the way he left the team is both revisionist and unfair. So is the claim that he "quit on the team." You can say Patrick Roy was controversial. That he was passionate. That he was pigheaded. Even thoughtless and impatient. But one thing you can't say with validity is that he was a quitter.
The night of December 2, 1995 was a long time brewing. Coach Mario Tremblay and Roy didn't see eye to eye. They didn't from the first time Roy was called up to the big team in the winter of 1985 and then-player Tremblay told him to go back to junior with the other animals where he belonged. After Tremblay retired and went into talk radio, he often used the forum to publicly criticize Roy. And when he became coach of the Canadiens, the relationship between the two became a battle of wills. So, when Roy allowed nine goals against the Detroit Red Wings, the battle finally came to a head. For Roy, recognized as the greatest goalie in the game, to have to stand there while shot after shot passed him, was the ultimate humiliation. Tremblay knew that. That's why he kept Roy in there. He wanted to show him up and deflate the mighty ego a bit. Roy's mercurial reaction was more than Tremblay bargained for, however. When the goaltender effectively handed in his resignation to the team president, it was a brash act by a brash, headstrong competitor.
When tempers cooled, Roy came out and apologized two days later. The door was open for the team to smooth thing over and keep their franchise goalie. The fact that management chose to back Tremblay over Roy says that Roy was long meant to be part of Ronald Corey's general "housecleaning." So if history records Roy having quit on the team, the story must be corrected to show the team actually quit on him.
Other criticisms of his off-ice behaviour; of his temper, his hotheadedness, his sometime rudeness, as reasons for why he shouldn't be honoured with a number retirement shouldn't even be considered. The biggest hurdle facing Roy is his proximity to us in historical examination. His warts and blemishes are still as visible as his heroics. But who among the names in the rafters is perfect (with the possible exception of Jean Beliveau?) Should Doug Harvey have been denied the honour because he drank? Or Jacques Plante because he often refused to play games due to hypochondrial illness? Or Guy Lafleur because he sulked into retirement and slammed the team in print afterwards? Of course not. The honour is reserved for those who performed on the ice and who played a special role in creating the legend of the franchise or keeping it alive. Roy fits those criteria. It's unfortunate that enough time hasn't passed to allow his flaws to be softened and blurred by his legend.
But, make no mistake, a legend he is. The numbers are there. The records and the anecdotes are there. The burning determination that lifted an average team to the Stanley Cup twice is certainly there. It's time to welcome the prodigal legend back into the fold, and exorcise the bitterness of the past in the process.
The team's centennial year is a perfect time to both celebrate the past and put it to rest. The Canadiens are known and respected for their class. If they mean to eventually retire Roy's number, there's no better time than during a year of celebrating the last hundred. Roy played a big part in preserving the pride and tradition of the team in the latter twenty of those years. It would be wrong to make him wait until his family can't be there to see the honour, or until he dies on the day the number is finally retired.
No one has worn the number 33 since 1995. No one should wear it again. The team needs to make that official, and it needs to do it before the lack of action becomes an insult against one of the greatest to ever play the game. The Canadiens are bigger and better than that.
There are other pictures, but that one is the most dominant, and, as far as I'm concerned, it's the one that decides the debate.
Of course, the idea of one player winning a Stanley Cup by himself is a myth. Hockey is a team game and a team wins or loses together. But it is certainly a fact that a single player can elevate his game with such passion that he carries the rest of his team to a higher level with him. Roy was that player. When he said he wouldn't allow another goal, everyone from the stick boy to the opposing coach knew it was true. It was because of his passion and confidence that the Canadiens elevated their game to a high enough level to win two Cups in 1986 and 1993.
Those two wins gave new generations of Canadiens' fans a kind of link with the team's great past. Through the tinted looking glass of victory, they could glimpse what their fathers and grandfathers meant when they talked about the glory days and the greatness of the team. Through the play of Patrick Roy, they got a feeling for what it must have been like to cheer for the great French Canadian players of the past, and the ones who became legends even while they played. Those wins kept the team from becoming ordinary in the eyes of young fans...a sad fate for the greatest franchise in hockey history.
To get a clear answer of what Patrick Roy meant to the franchise, one must simply picture the team without him. Maybe Doug Soetaert would have held the fort in overtime of game three against the Rangers in 1986 and the Canadiens would have won that Cup anyway. But if they hadn't, and if Roy hadn't been there for those ten consecutive overtime wins in 1993, the once-proud Canadiens would now be facing their centennial celebrations without a championship in thirty years.
The team owes Patrick Roy for carrying the torch in the darkest of times for the franchise. It owes him for being the French Canadian hero so many fans needed, and which so many local players are still unwilling to be. It owes him for bringing flair and drama to a team that needs flair and drama to lift itself above the ordinary. The team must pay the debt it owes by retiring his number.
To deny him the honour because of the way he left the team is both revisionist and unfair. So is the claim that he "quit on the team." You can say Patrick Roy was controversial. That he was passionate. That he was pigheaded. Even thoughtless and impatient. But one thing you can't say with validity is that he was a quitter.
The night of December 2, 1995 was a long time brewing. Coach Mario Tremblay and Roy didn't see eye to eye. They didn't from the first time Roy was called up to the big team in the winter of 1985 and then-player Tremblay told him to go back to junior with the other animals where he belonged. After Tremblay retired and went into talk radio, he often used the forum to publicly criticize Roy. And when he became coach of the Canadiens, the relationship between the two became a battle of wills. So, when Roy allowed nine goals against the Detroit Red Wings, the battle finally came to a head. For Roy, recognized as the greatest goalie in the game, to have to stand there while shot after shot passed him, was the ultimate humiliation. Tremblay knew that. That's why he kept Roy in there. He wanted to show him up and deflate the mighty ego a bit. Roy's mercurial reaction was more than Tremblay bargained for, however. When the goaltender effectively handed in his resignation to the team president, it was a brash act by a brash, headstrong competitor.
When tempers cooled, Roy came out and apologized two days later. The door was open for the team to smooth thing over and keep their franchise goalie. The fact that management chose to back Tremblay over Roy says that Roy was long meant to be part of Ronald Corey's general "housecleaning." So if history records Roy having quit on the team, the story must be corrected to show the team actually quit on him.
Other criticisms of his off-ice behaviour; of his temper, his hotheadedness, his sometime rudeness, as reasons for why he shouldn't be honoured with a number retirement shouldn't even be considered. The biggest hurdle facing Roy is his proximity to us in historical examination. His warts and blemishes are still as visible as his heroics. But who among the names in the rafters is perfect (with the possible exception of Jean Beliveau?) Should Doug Harvey have been denied the honour because he drank? Or Jacques Plante because he often refused to play games due to hypochondrial illness? Or Guy Lafleur because he sulked into retirement and slammed the team in print afterwards? Of course not. The honour is reserved for those who performed on the ice and who played a special role in creating the legend of the franchise or keeping it alive. Roy fits those criteria. It's unfortunate that enough time hasn't passed to allow his flaws to be softened and blurred by his legend.
But, make no mistake, a legend he is. The numbers are there. The records and the anecdotes are there. The burning determination that lifted an average team to the Stanley Cup twice is certainly there. It's time to welcome the prodigal legend back into the fold, and exorcise the bitterness of the past in the process.
The team's centennial year is a perfect time to both celebrate the past and put it to rest. The Canadiens are known and respected for their class. If they mean to eventually retire Roy's number, there's no better time than during a year of celebrating the last hundred. Roy played a big part in preserving the pride and tradition of the team in the latter twenty of those years. It would be wrong to make him wait until his family can't be there to see the honour, or until he dies on the day the number is finally retired.
No one has worn the number 33 since 1995. No one should wear it again. The team needs to make that official, and it needs to do it before the lack of action becomes an insult against one of the greatest to ever play the game. The Canadiens are bigger and better than that.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
In defence of pacifism
Back in October, when the Canadiens were supposed to be gearing up for an inauspicious slide to thirteenth place in the conference, fans everywhere were slamming management for not upgrading the team's "muscle" or "toughness." Guy Carbonneau came out at that time and said he didn't want to carry a guy who would play five minutes a game, with his only role being to pummel opposing players then warm the penalty box seat for five. Carbonneau had the laughable notion of rolling four lines of players capable of contributing ten minutes or more to a team game. His idea of "team toughness" is one no one believed could work. Watching Tom Kostopoulos try to fight and get knocked around every time underscored the fans' concerns.
But a couple of funny things have happend in the five months since the Habs were pegged to finish out of the playoffs. The team has been the healthiest in the league...at least partially because the ice time is shared almost evenly among all the skaters. Also, when someone roughs up a Hab, there's no enforcer to defend him, so the whole team has taken responsibility to defend one another. That's built a sense of cameraderie on a young team that's defied all the critics and sits first in their division.
Last week I noticed another phenomenon of interest. When the Habs went to Anaheim, George Parros was noticably absent from the Ducks lineup. In Phoenix, the game before, Daniel Carcillo didn't play either. It looks like the opposition has been sitting out their goons in favour of icing more skill when they play Montreal. It makes sense really. If the Habs don't have a goon, there's no one with whom the other goon can match up. And it would be a rare coach who would send an enforcer out after a guy like Tomas Plekanec. Not only would it be shameful and break every known "code" in hockey, but it would likely end up in a quick suspension for the tough guy in question too.
Speaking of which, Colin Campbell has been busy doing just that. On March 12, he suspended Buffalo's Andrew Peters for confronting the Rangers' Colton Orr on the bench, the Stars' Steve Ott for hitting Colorado's Jordan Leopold in the head, and Chicago's James Wisniewski for a cross-check on Detroit's Mikael Samuelsson. A day later, the Pens' Georges Laraque got three games for elbowing Buffalo's Nathan Paetsch in the head. And two days after that, the now infamous Chris Pronger eight-game suspension for stomping on Ryan Kessler. Of the bunch, Peters, Orr, Ott, Wisniewski and Laraque play the goon role for their respective teams, while Pronger is considered to be more a talented bully. But the league is making a statement in punishing these guys. It's saying it doesn't like the role they play, and it will take action if their aggression goes beyond a clean fight. That statement will hopefully limit the ability of tough guys to intimidate in dirty ways that are meant to damage opponents. A coach can say it doesn't matter if a guy who plays only five minutes is booted from a game or sits in the penalty box. But at least a suspension removes the option of using that kind of weapon in the next game...or three...or eight.
So, looking at the goonless Habs, sitting on top of the Northeast division with a healthy, young, talented team, it seems Carbonneau's made a good case for his crazy "team toughness" theory. Fans will still worry when they see a team like Pittsburgh with their Laraque, or the Rangers with their Hollweg lining up on the other side. But I have faith that the Habs won't be intimidated by guys like that. They've proven they can play their game, even without a goon to protect their speedy, skilled players. And their game turns out to be pretty good.
Now, if only they can find away to counter an aggressive forecheck...THAT'S the kind of toughness they really need.
But a couple of funny things have happend in the five months since the Habs were pegged to finish out of the playoffs. The team has been the healthiest in the league...at least partially because the ice time is shared almost evenly among all the skaters. Also, when someone roughs up a Hab, there's no enforcer to defend him, so the whole team has taken responsibility to defend one another. That's built a sense of cameraderie on a young team that's defied all the critics and sits first in their division.
Last week I noticed another phenomenon of interest. When the Habs went to Anaheim, George Parros was noticably absent from the Ducks lineup. In Phoenix, the game before, Daniel Carcillo didn't play either. It looks like the opposition has been sitting out their goons in favour of icing more skill when they play Montreal. It makes sense really. If the Habs don't have a goon, there's no one with whom the other goon can match up. And it would be a rare coach who would send an enforcer out after a guy like Tomas Plekanec. Not only would it be shameful and break every known "code" in hockey, but it would likely end up in a quick suspension for the tough guy in question too.
Speaking of which, Colin Campbell has been busy doing just that. On March 12, he suspended Buffalo's Andrew Peters for confronting the Rangers' Colton Orr on the bench, the Stars' Steve Ott for hitting Colorado's Jordan Leopold in the head, and Chicago's James Wisniewski for a cross-check on Detroit's Mikael Samuelsson. A day later, the Pens' Georges Laraque got three games for elbowing Buffalo's Nathan Paetsch in the head. And two days after that, the now infamous Chris Pronger eight-game suspension for stomping on Ryan Kessler. Of the bunch, Peters, Orr, Ott, Wisniewski and Laraque play the goon role for their respective teams, while Pronger is considered to be more a talented bully. But the league is making a statement in punishing these guys. It's saying it doesn't like the role they play, and it will take action if their aggression goes beyond a clean fight. That statement will hopefully limit the ability of tough guys to intimidate in dirty ways that are meant to damage opponents. A coach can say it doesn't matter if a guy who plays only five minutes is booted from a game or sits in the penalty box. But at least a suspension removes the option of using that kind of weapon in the next game...or three...or eight.
So, looking at the goonless Habs, sitting on top of the Northeast division with a healthy, young, talented team, it seems Carbonneau's made a good case for his crazy "team toughness" theory. Fans will still worry when they see a team like Pittsburgh with their Laraque, or the Rangers with their Hollweg lining up on the other side. But I have faith that the Habs won't be intimidated by guys like that. They've proven they can play their game, even without a goon to protect their speedy, skilled players. And their game turns out to be pretty good.
Now, if only they can find away to counter an aggressive forecheck...THAT'S the kind of toughness they really need.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Carpe Diem
In most occupations, if a man made millions of dollars by the time he was thirty, he'd be a roaring success. There'd be articles written about him and he'd be the guest speaker at entrepreneurial gatherings all over the place. Not in hockey.
In hockey, a man who's making a million dollars at thirty is little more than a scrub or journeyman, facing the last few years of his productive working life. If he hasn't begun to decline in skill, he soon will. It's a sobering thought. And we, as fans, are conditioned to look at players that way. Twenty? You're an up-and-comer. Twenty-five? Young veteran. Thirty? Wily leader. Thirty-five? Holding on for one final payday...and that's if you're good. In fifteen years or less, the dream you've worked toward since you were a small boy has been fulfilled, lived and... it's over.
So, while we fans can talk about five-year rebuilding plans and sitting tight through lockouts, for the players, the clock is ticking. They have a limited number of chances to win in their careers, and every year wasted is one precious chance lost. Today's youth and promise means little if you don't capitalize on it. No one knows this better than the guy whose years in the NHL number in the teens. Look at Alex Kovalev. At thirty-five, he's having one of his best career seasons, playing hard in every game and putting up numbers he didn't as a younger man. For all his talk of playing until he's fifty, he knows he's got only a few years...five or so at the most...left as a pro hockey player. For him, the future is now, the end is in sight, and it's win now or never.
If you look at the roster of the 1979 Canadiens, just coming off their fourth straight Stanley Cup championship, you'll see they're still shockingly young. Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt...26 years old. Bob Gainey and Doug Risebrough, 25. Yvan Cournoyer, the veteran captain, forced out with back problems at 34, and Ken Dryden retired at 31. Many of them won their first Cup when they were 21 and 22 years old.
By the time 1986 rolled around, Larry Robinson was a five-time Cup champ at 34. When he looked at that team of kids in their teens and early twenties, he didn't see a lot of untested youth with little expectation of doing well in the playoffs. He saw an opportunity. That team had talent, and just needed a belief in itself, a little luck and a united drive toward a common goal. Seven years removed from the Habs' last glory years, having lived in the wasteland of early playoff elimination, Robinson recognized the truth...that every year a team makes the playoffs it must do its utmost to win, because those chances don't come often. When they do, they can't be wasted. That's the message he gave that team of rookies in 1986, and it's the message they took to heart on their way to winning that Cup.
When Bob Gainey's sweater was retired on Februrary 23, some of those players from 1986 were sitting there watching #23 rise to the roof of the Bell Centre. For David Maley, Mats Naslund, Ryan Walter and Chris Nilan, 1986 was a dream year...a year of destiny. They grabbed the chance they had and made the most of it. There was no thinking about it being a rebuilding year, or being glad just to be in the playoffs. They made up their minds to go all the way, then went out and gave everything they had to make it happen. They were young and promising, thinking '86 was just the beginning of many successful seasons. As it turned out, that was the only Cup they ever won. It was proof that every playoff year is a chance, and could be the one that defines a career.
I hope the message Gainey and Robinson gave those kids in 1986 is one today's team receives too. They need to understand time is passing for them and even though they're kids, this year...any year...might be their only oppportunity to look back on a fleeting career and say they were winners. This year's team is young and healthy. They can score, the powerplay is special and they've got strong goaltending. They have decent defence and a rare team spirit. Most of all...they have a chance. If they go out and do everything they can to win and can honestly say they couldn't have done any better, they...and we...can live with whatever result they get. But if they lose because they didn't give their best, and think they'll do better next year, they might end up looking back at this season and recognize it as the "one that got away."
There are nine games to go before the team is really put to the test. I hope they seize the day.
In hockey, a man who's making a million dollars at thirty is little more than a scrub or journeyman, facing the last few years of his productive working life. If he hasn't begun to decline in skill, he soon will. It's a sobering thought. And we, as fans, are conditioned to look at players that way. Twenty? You're an up-and-comer. Twenty-five? Young veteran. Thirty? Wily leader. Thirty-five? Holding on for one final payday...and that's if you're good. In fifteen years or less, the dream you've worked toward since you were a small boy has been fulfilled, lived and... it's over.
So, while we fans can talk about five-year rebuilding plans and sitting tight through lockouts, for the players, the clock is ticking. They have a limited number of chances to win in their careers, and every year wasted is one precious chance lost. Today's youth and promise means little if you don't capitalize on it. No one knows this better than the guy whose years in the NHL number in the teens. Look at Alex Kovalev. At thirty-five, he's having one of his best career seasons, playing hard in every game and putting up numbers he didn't as a younger man. For all his talk of playing until he's fifty, he knows he's got only a few years...five or so at the most...left as a pro hockey player. For him, the future is now, the end is in sight, and it's win now or never.
If you look at the roster of the 1979 Canadiens, just coming off their fourth straight Stanley Cup championship, you'll see they're still shockingly young. Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt...26 years old. Bob Gainey and Doug Risebrough, 25. Yvan Cournoyer, the veteran captain, forced out with back problems at 34, and Ken Dryden retired at 31. Many of them won their first Cup when they were 21 and 22 years old.
By the time 1986 rolled around, Larry Robinson was a five-time Cup champ at 34. When he looked at that team of kids in their teens and early twenties, he didn't see a lot of untested youth with little expectation of doing well in the playoffs. He saw an opportunity. That team had talent, and just needed a belief in itself, a little luck and a united drive toward a common goal. Seven years removed from the Habs' last glory years, having lived in the wasteland of early playoff elimination, Robinson recognized the truth...that every year a team makes the playoffs it must do its utmost to win, because those chances don't come often. When they do, they can't be wasted. That's the message he gave that team of rookies in 1986, and it's the message they took to heart on their way to winning that Cup.
When Bob Gainey's sweater was retired on Februrary 23, some of those players from 1986 were sitting there watching #23 rise to the roof of the Bell Centre. For David Maley, Mats Naslund, Ryan Walter and Chris Nilan, 1986 was a dream year...a year of destiny. They grabbed the chance they had and made the most of it. There was no thinking about it being a rebuilding year, or being glad just to be in the playoffs. They made up their minds to go all the way, then went out and gave everything they had to make it happen. They were young and promising, thinking '86 was just the beginning of many successful seasons. As it turned out, that was the only Cup they ever won. It was proof that every playoff year is a chance, and could be the one that defines a career.
I hope the message Gainey and Robinson gave those kids in 1986 is one today's team receives too. They need to understand time is passing for them and even though they're kids, this year...any year...might be their only oppportunity to look back on a fleeting career and say they were winners. This year's team is young and healthy. They can score, the powerplay is special and they've got strong goaltending. They have decent defence and a rare team spirit. Most of all...they have a chance. If they go out and do everything they can to win and can honestly say they couldn't have done any better, they...and we...can live with whatever result they get. But if they lose because they didn't give their best, and think they'll do better next year, they might end up looking back at this season and recognize it as the "one that got away."
There are nine games to go before the team is really put to the test. I hope they seize the day.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Rooting for strangers
This is a weird time of year to be a hockey fan. Up until now, we've pretty much been rooting for our team to win. Period. But now, there's so much jockeying for position and other interests going on, it's tough go stop looking...and cheering...for what goes on outside the Canadiens.
Tonight, for example, obviously I was rooting for the Habs to beat the Isles. Normally, that would be it...Halak gets a shutout, I'm thrilled. But tonight I was also rooting for Boston, Colorado, Buffalo, Tampa, St.Louis and Edmonton. Not all of them for typical reasons.
I wanted Boston to win (yeah..I know) because I want Philly to miss the playoffs. After all the excitement about them stealing Timonen and Hartnell from Nashville last year...and then Briere signing with them while saying he did it because he thought the Flyers were a better team than the Habs? Well, it might be small-minded of me, but I want Briere golfing in April because of that. So, that worked out pretty well tonight, except for Philly getting the loser point.
Then, I had to root for Colorado because we need Jersey to lose. Plus, I still have a soft spot for Theodore. That one...not working out so well.
I had to cheer for Buffalo, because they're the team most likely to eliminate Philly...plus, they're playing the leafs. So, a 6-2 Sabres win was good all around there.
And of course, Tampa needed to win to keep the Rangers six back of the Habs, which they nicely did.
Anaheim and Edmonton normally wouldn't be on my radar at all at this time of year, but this year, despite Kevin Lowe's stupidity in the Dustin Penner situation, I can't bear the thought of Brian Burke possibly getting Steven Stamkos with the Oilers first pick. So, I'm rooting for the Ducks to finish low enough to make their pick good for Edmonton, and Edmonton to win so the Ducks don't get a pick in the top five. It's a fine balance because I traditionally hate Edmonton, but it's worth it if it doesn't add to Burke's store of riches.
Tomorrow while the Habs are off, I'll be rooting for Ottawa to lose to Carolina, and the Flyers, whom I cheered so hard against today, I'll be hoping beat the Penguins tomorrow.
So, this is a really weird time of year for hockey fans. Cheering for enemies and rooting against teams we used to like. But if all's fair in love and war...I think it should be fair in hockey too.
Tonight, for example, obviously I was rooting for the Habs to beat the Isles. Normally, that would be it...Halak gets a shutout, I'm thrilled. But tonight I was also rooting for Boston, Colorado, Buffalo, Tampa, St.Louis and Edmonton. Not all of them for typical reasons.
I wanted Boston to win (yeah..I know) because I want Philly to miss the playoffs. After all the excitement about them stealing Timonen and Hartnell from Nashville last year...and then Briere signing with them while saying he did it because he thought the Flyers were a better team than the Habs? Well, it might be small-minded of me, but I want Briere golfing in April because of that. So, that worked out pretty well tonight, except for Philly getting the loser point.
Then, I had to root for Colorado because we need Jersey to lose. Plus, I still have a soft spot for Theodore. That one...not working out so well.
I had to cheer for Buffalo, because they're the team most likely to eliminate Philly...plus, they're playing the leafs. So, a 6-2 Sabres win was good all around there.
And of course, Tampa needed to win to keep the Rangers six back of the Habs, which they nicely did.
Anaheim and Edmonton normally wouldn't be on my radar at all at this time of year, but this year, despite Kevin Lowe's stupidity in the Dustin Penner situation, I can't bear the thought of Brian Burke possibly getting Steven Stamkos with the Oilers first pick. So, I'm rooting for the Ducks to finish low enough to make their pick good for Edmonton, and Edmonton to win so the Ducks don't get a pick in the top five. It's a fine balance because I traditionally hate Edmonton, but it's worth it if it doesn't add to Burke's store of riches.
Tomorrow while the Habs are off, I'll be rooting for Ottawa to lose to Carolina, and the Flyers, whom I cheered so hard against today, I'll be hoping beat the Penguins tomorrow.
So, this is a really weird time of year for hockey fans. Cheering for enemies and rooting against teams we used to like. But if all's fair in love and war...I think it should be fair in hockey too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
