So I'm taking a relatively Zen approach to this Canadiens' season, having decided early on, before training camp, that this was a fundamentally flawed team, without a #1 centre, a #2 centre, and a first pairing left defenceman. Those are crucial elements to a team's success, there's no way to patch this need. It's not like a couple years ago when we were weak on the right wing, and had to shift over a couple of left wingers.
This led me to believe that the Canadiens won't make the playoffs, and that the best-case scenario is that the Canadiens get decent seasons from their trade pieces and make a few good trades prior to the deadline, to stock up on picks before the draft. I don't want the Canadiens in a fight for the playoffs, clinging to Tomas Plekanec and Torrey Mitchell, and even worse, maybe trading for another round of Jordie Benns and Dwight Kings and Steve Otts as the deadline nears.
So I'm going to remain phlegmatic as the storm roils and the hounds bay for more blood and the Canadiens sink to the bottom. I'll keep watching games but won't be expecting wins, I'll be happy with glimmers from Charles Hudon and Jacob de la Rose and Artturi Lehkonen.
Tonight, watching L'Antichambre, I notice that they put up a graphic showing the Canadiens at the very bottom of the League in shooting percentage, which is sad in and of itself. What is surprising is that the Canadiens are last by such a wide margin. The Islanders are 25th at 7.8%, then the Rangers at 7.3%, then the Ducks, Coyotes and Stars clustered around 6.5%, and the Oilers 30th at 5.3%.
The Canadiens are at 3.9%. One and half percent, roughly, from the second worst team. It's not statistically insignificant. It's a healthy margin.
Based on the comments I'd read on social media, Michel Therrien's brand of hockey was boring and defensive, and I disagreed about that specifically, but anyway, the same comments would state that Claude Julien's puck control system would take care of all that. We'd control the puck instead of dumping the puck in, and by controlling the puck, boy howdy, that's how you score goals.
Maybe the Canadiens are caught out this season, with a team built for Michel Therrien's fast-break style and ill-suited for the Claude Julien system. Maybe all it will take is a few more games for his system to become second-nature for the boys, and for it to bear fruit. Maybe next year, when Mike McCarron has moved up, and a couple more moves are made, will the new coach have the team he really wants.
But for now, as an indicator, the shooting percentage, and the gap between us and the rest of the pack is shocking.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm there with you Norm. This year is pretty much toast.
ReplyDeleteBergie got caught expecting to retain Yemmy and Radu (and maybe even Marky...) Having gutted his blueline by offloading N8 (and with Schlemko out), he gambled and lost badly.
My two cents on Julien is that he's a good coach, but his CV was artificially inflated by that solid Bruins' team that was gifted a Stanley Cup by the holy trinity of Uncle Gary/Daddy Campbell/Dark Lord Jacobs. Without that cup, he's an OK coach. For my money, if you're handed a middling lineup of plumbers with an outstanding goalie, you're better off with a simple arse kicker like Michel Therrien. He'll find a way to get them to the show - provided Price is healthy - and he'll be able to motivate muckers to play above their station (see Brandon Prust, Dale Weise, Francis Bouillon, Crankshaft, etc...)
So far, under Julien, Price has been average to bad, Chucky is out to lunch and Patches is choking. Even Weber is playing average. This year is the beginning of a reboot.
Incidentally, I'll be in Vancouver on my bi-annual pilgrimage before Christmas. If you're around, let's organise that overdue beer. :-)
Marc
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs my buddy Dan said, "Tank, tank, tank". This supposedly is a very good draft year. The team is so flawed, it's hard to know exactly where to begin, but I lay the blame at the feet of Marc Bergevin who, six years into his five year plan, has given us a team just as bereft of talent at key positions (let's call one of those positions "centre") as the one which he took over.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Marc Bergevin Five-Year Plan' is a trope that must die. I know it's a favourite of Stu Cowan's, but Marc Bergevin specifically denied that he had a five-year plan, from his initial hire, and stated that he didn't subscribe to even the notion of the five-year plan. When questioned on the matter, he explained that he wanted a competitive team that makes it into the playoffs, and once in the playoffs anything can happen.
ReplyDeleteHe never said "Give me five years and I'll have a contender". Instead, the first year, he signed up Brandon Prust, added Alex Galchenyuk and Brendan Gallagher, and he and Michel Therrien made a run for the playoffs. Same in the second season, no tanking, no waiting since 'it's only Year 2', he put the best team on the ice that he could, added Thomas Vanek at the deadline, and took a shot.
We can disagree with the philosophy, or complain about the results, but can't wrongly attribute a five-year plan approach to his him and his assistants, and then hold them accountable for that.