Injuries Responsible For Habs 8th Place Finish In 2008-09
by Robert L on Jun 13, 2009 5:16 PM EDT
23 comments
Concerning the Canadiens so called disastrous 2008-09 season, I get asked quite often - via e-mails, questions in on site comments, through friends, relatives, acquaintances, and rank strangers - what exactly do I feel went wrong in the Habs centennial campaign?
To their query - call it repetitive practice makes perfect - I now offer two very standard questions of my own before my response. They are:
What were your expectations of the team in 2009 and, did you follow the team for 82 games with detailed die hard scrutiny?
The most popular answer, is that many fans felt the Canadiens has a legitimate shot at the Cup, and that they had watched as many games as they could. My response and analysis to that end continues, with a probing question or two. In the year before last - in 2007-08 - did you feel the Canadiens exceeded expectations in finishing first in the Eastern Conference, and to what did you owe such a standing to? The responses usually agree on surprise in regards to the first place finish in 2008. A variety of explanations and reasons - as individual as those asked - are credited for the Habs 2008 ranking. All told, I might have heard maybe two people from a two dozen bring up up the lack of injuries to key players in 2007-08 as the reason the Canadiens finished so strongly. For the most part, the reasons for success were credited to young talent improving, Guy Carbonneau's coaching, Bob Gainey's management, Carey Price's goaltending down the stretch, and a career year by Alex Kovalev. While it cannot be denied that all these aspects played a part in that great breakout year, it is curious to note that one season later, popular opinion has gone a full 360 degrees, and now it is a subpar Kovalev season, Price's distractions, Gainey's horrid drafting, trading, and free agent signing record, the fired Carbonneau's lack of communication skills and handling of the team's younger elements that are all to blame. Keeping in mind that the Habs earned 11 points less and dropped seven spots in standings, the explanations for failure are generally extreme. In Gainey and Carbonneau's assessments, speculation abounds. In regards to the Habs youth corps, speculation abounds. Overall, theories and speculation abound - ridiculously. Rumours, speculation, distractions and a myriad of variables defined the Canadiens 2008-09 season in the eyes of the common fan. Everyone, including myself at times, became caught up in the excitement of the centenary. How could we not, when the team was in second place in the conference as mid season approached? I don't know about yourself, but when I go searching for explanation, I never begin or end with innuendo, rumours, speculations or wild theory. To me, that is an oaf's meanderings. I gather my conclusions from cold hard facts, and if there is solid evidence there, that is where I start and stop. There is a word for that kind of thinking beyond grey areas - it is called "logic". The photo below is from page 132 of the Montreal Canadiens 2008-09 Media Guide. It lists and details all injuries and games missed by Habs players that season. You can see who suffered what, and what they add up to in terms of games missed. Do the math, and you can easily understand why the Canadiens - with healthy elements - were a first place team in 2008.
Now that you have reacquainted yourself with those details, and perhaps reached a conclusion, take a look, with a similar point of view, on games missed by players in 2009. The media guide for 2009-10 is not yet published to offer concise and factual details on games missed, but this isn't far off.
With 184 more man games lost to injury in 2008-09, isn't it only logical that it translate to 6 less wins, 5 more losses, 1 more overtime loss, and 11 points less.
*Georges Laraque - an estimation that he was sidelined by injuries in 35 of the 49 games he did not dress for. **Sergei Kostitsyn - an estimation that he was sidelined by injuries in 6 of the 26 games he did not dress for, 16 of which were played with the AHL Hamilton Bulldogs. ***Mathieu Danderneault - an estimation that he was sidelined by injuries in 30 of the 41 games he did not dress for. **** Games lost due to suspensions.
0 recs |
23 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Injuries
The Habs were very healthy the previous year and also were dominant against the Bruins and less importantly, the Flyers. As a note, opinions generally veer 180 degrees to the opposite direction, but maybe they will come the full circle next year and show Gainey’s player acquisiiton record to be cheered not jeered. A healthy Lang would have been interesting and losing Markov for the playoffs was the dagger that pierced any hope.
Exactly
The Habs went 12-0 against the Flyers and Bruins in 2008. This season they went 4-4-2.
If they had gone 10-0 it would have given them an extra 10 points and they would have finished with 103
points, 1 point off their conference winning total.
They played the league essentially the same as they did the previous season, but with their goaltenders
struggling, regression from their young players and a terrible season from Kovalev.
As far as I am concerned, the season wasn’t a disaster. It was growing pains. Last season came to easy for
many, the NHL is not easy, it is a grind. I imagine that the core will learn a lot from 2009.
To look for them to digress even more would be to expect that Higgins, PLeks, Price, Halak, Lats, Lapierre etc
will not get any better. Is that a reasonable expectation?
They have issues, but this team was never as good as some believed in 2008, and they are nowhere near as
bad as the media would have you believe now.
www.fantasysensehockey.blogspot.com
Not Entirely
I agree that injuries did play a part in their 8th place finish. After all, they were only 9 points behind their previous year’s record (I think). However, I remember that I was feeling very comfotable even when they had a quick start after the first 10 games. I think the goalies won a handful of games for them and Price/Halak was one of the 3 stars in most of their wins. This is not hind sight, I remembered telling my daugther who is also a Habs fan aobut my concern.
Games lost by top 6 forwards
6 games lost in in 07-08 versus 90+ in 08-09
I would say that based on that figure alone the Habs exceeded expectations in both seasons. Yes every team has injuries and some of the best teams overcome those, but this is significant time lost on a mostly young team. How does a team build chemistry throughout the season when half of it’s players are injured for any length of time? The injuries directly affected the most important intangible, team chemistry. And I think we can all agree from the midway point of the season the Habs had very little of it.
Whatever the reason for last season, I see it as the worst case scenario for this Canadiens team. Juxtapose that with past seasons in the late 90s where 8th place was pretty much the best possible scenario and I think this team is on the right track.
Last but not least, the centennial didn’t help things out.
I think the centennial affected the fans hopes in regards to expectations more than it did the team.
Robert – The centennial may also have affected the way Gainey was thinking. That we had to win the Cup now in our 100th year. This led to the trades for Tanguay, Lang, and Schneider. Most of us agreed with those moves (including me) but if Tanguay doesn’t re-sign then we have lost 4 draft picks in a year due to the pressure of the centennial season.
What you say could be true, but I would hope it would be Gainey’s goal to win the Cup no matter the season.
More than any fan, I think Gainey would have been the owner of the most level headed assessment in the entire organization. He may have been the lone thinker to feel it just wasn’t there come February. I still sense that the Carbonneau firing was foisted upon him.
Of those 4 draft picks, two are from the Huet and Grabovsky trades, also adding prospect Greg Pateryn. The Lang and Tanguay deals would have looked better had both played 82 games.
Thank you!
I have been telling this to everybody that would listen. We did not have a disastrous season at all. In fact, considering the talent level we had on the ice during most of the season, we had a pretty good year making the playoffs. Carey Price did not have the bad year that people keep mentioning. Besides the miraculous 02 season, I don’t recall Theo doing much better here. And playing behind a really sketchy defense, a .906 save percentage is acceptable considering the amount of turnover we give up. Carbonneau is not the problem either. I often find coach’s influence on the team arbitrary in team sports. I’ll say that great coaches with good systems that’s implemented throughout the system definitely can work their magic. But your average joe coach in the NHL does not have that big of an impact on the team. Remember how fondly Pens fans talked about Therrien when he first got there? Where is he working now?
Talent wise, we were not the most talented nor deep team in the NHL. Can you name a top 10 player on the Hab roster either this year or last? This is a team without superstars that relies on 3 good lines and some excellent powerplay to win games. And when injury cut down the good lines to 2 and limit our ability in the playoffs, it’s fairly natural that we can’t win games consistently.
Now I’m not saying that a team with no superstars cannot win the Stanley Cup. Hurricanes did it in 06. I’m just asking everyone to curb their enthusiasms. In this salary cap era in the NHL, it is really hard for any one team to be consistently good year in and year out(unless, you are Detroit right now). Key injuries would kill or cripple the best of teams. Remember how bad Pittsburgh was playing without Crosby and Gonchar?
Hopefully a championship will come to Montreal soon, but I’m not holding my breath. For all I know, any team not named the NY Islanders can break out and win the Cup next year.
Mourning Guy Carbonneau...
Royals obscure player to watch in ST: Lenny DiNardo
by playingwithfire on Jun 15, 2009 2:31 AM EDT reply actions
Injuries are part of the game
I hope this does not come across as mean…
Injuries are not an excuse. If you get injured (mostly, Lang would be an exception) it is because you are weak and could not handle the pounding of the game. Freak plays are one thing, but getting the flu, bruises and muscle strains are a result of poor preparation. That’s why teams have (and fire when things go badly) doctors and trainers.
Carey Price will be a very good goalie, but other than that, the Habs have nothing but question marks this summer. They need to re-stock. Martin will make the team solid defensively, whoever is in the line-up. But whatever they do over the summer, the focus should be on conditioning and on getting players who are strong enough to handle the grind of NHL hockey (like Lidstrom: testicular surgery and back after two games!).
by Leaf in Habland on Jun 15, 2009 12:02 PM EDT reply actions
I’ll accept all that if you get that there is a disctinction between an excuse and a reason.
I generally don’t get into excuses as being explanations. As for the conditioning thing – well conditioned players get injured all the time. The Canadiens had the same training staff two years running as well.
As an explanation for the increase in games lost, it could be simply that opponents hit the Canadiens harder or more often once they were a top ranked team. Teams are also better prepared for an opponent once their system is better established.
There’s no real excuses to be made, as things just happen. Flu viruses hit people quite randomly. Folks with healthiest of immune systems can get waylayed by a viscious strand just as likely as someone with poorer health. I drink, smoke and eat like a pig and weight about 150. Luckily my immune system is pretty strong. I’ve had one small cold in four years.
The point of bringing up the difference in man games lost wasn’t to excuse an off year insomuch as it intended to show that the Canadiens weren’t quite as horrible as most opinions would have them. They surely aren’t tops in the east. When healthy they are not likely eighth.
Perhaps what this points out more than anything, is that the Habs depth faltered this time around. A “healthy” guy like Plekanec for example, did not fill the void.
Yes, that’s fair: reason not excuse.
by Leaf in Habland on Jun 15, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Broken bones aren’t a sign of weakness. And how did the Habs go from being a great conditioned team in 2007-08 and then suddenly a terribly conditioned one in 2008-09?
Was Sidney Crosby’s high ankle sprain in 2007-08 the result of being “weak and (not) handl(ing) the pounding of the game?” Sliding into the end boards (Latendresse and Dandenault), blocking shots, and hits in dangerous areas of the ice (Markov) lead to injuries. It doesn’t matter who it is. According to your amazing logic, Bobby Orr couldn’t handle the pounding of the game and was weak.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
Bobby Orr
Yes, Bobby Orr had weak knees. He is still one of the greatest to play the game. It’s not mutually exclusive. Yes, Sidney Crosby has weak ankles. Or had. He seemed to have fixed that problem this year.
I’m not sure how the Habs managed to get injured more in 2008-09. There are probably many factors. As Robert pointed out, and I agreed, it’s a reason, not an excuse. But what is the reason the Habs were injured so much? It can’t all but chaulked up to bad luck. Conditioning certainly played a role. Also, the pounding is not limited to one season. Players get older, and they break down. Young players manage to make it through one season, are given a bigger load, and then they break down.
I did also say that freak injuries (Lang is the best example, the sliding into the boards examples are medium, because not everyone gets injured on those plays) could be removed from the equation.
by Leaf in Habland on Jun 17, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Robert – I’m not sure about this issue. We certainly lost a lot of games due to injury and the Markov injury was a major blow. I just don’t want this to be like the year before when we lost in the playoffs because we “were unlucky”. It could lead to a line of thinking that we don’t need to make any big changes as well as ignoring the team needs that seem pretty obvious right now.
do you really think we are one of the top 5 teams in the league now?
I understand we need some changes. But it should be with the understanding that we are slowly improving the team and not sacrificing the future for now.
Mourning Guy Carbonneau...
Royals obscure player to watch in ST: Lenny DiNardo
by playingwithfire on Jun 15, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
PWF – I’m a little lost here. I never stated the Habs were one of the top 5 teams. As well, I have stated many times that Montreal needs to re-tool the team, not re-build it. There’s a difference in my mind. I feel we should be building for a Cup run in three years when Price is ready to take us that far. Until then, all player movements should be geared to that long, term goal. I know this puts me in a minority, but that’s how I feel. It was pretty obvious that we weren’t going to go far this year in the playoffs, which is why I felt we should have had the guts to trade Kovalev at the deadline. Once again, I’m in the minority on this point.
I agree with what you said
WE are the minority that don’t think the Habs are ready to contend yet.
Mourning Guy Carbonneau...
Royals obscure player to watch in ST: Lenny DiNardo
by playingwithfire on Jun 16, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions
While there are more issues that just injuries involved, [lack of ] injuries were the biggest reason for our success in 2007-08, and our biggest problem this season. What made the differences seemingly more evident was that the opposition had just the opposite. The Bruins, Flyers, and Senators had injury-plagued seasons in 2007-08. Last year, they were more healthy.
Were we that much better than the Bruins and Flyers last year? Despite sweeping them both, the answer is not that much.
We’re better than our season this year indicated, but definitely not as good as last season’s standings would have led us to believe.
We will see how things shape up. It depends upon (1) the younger players being able to pick up their games, (2) the veterans staying healthy, and (3) hopefully peaking at the right time. There’s a lot of questions about the organization and players. It’s just up to them to get their shit together.
Wrong!
Come on, we always said we have depth on the farm if we went down with injuries.
Sorry we can blame all the injuries for our demise this past season but we are not that good as Habs fans wish we are. We are just a plain team and it we are back to rebuilding.
Sorry Habs fans, I love my team and when there’s a knock against them, I tell it like it is!
We are overrated by our fans and the Habs media.
We will win the Cup only with Carey Price in the nets
Sorry. proof is in the numbers. Not too many teams have the depth to handle an additional 180 man games lost. When that happens to clubs, it’s totally understandable that they drop ten points in the standings. Depth might have even been a reason why it wasn’t worse.
I’ll tell it like it is. Sounds like you’re a glass half empty kinda guy Mike.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Columbus Blue Jackets
- Fantasy Hockey Philosophy: Matt Romig's goalies on the cheap
- Puck Headlines: Modano gets his Red Wings; Jason Smith arrested
- Jaroslav Halak arrives in St. Louis, greeted by expectations
- In which Canucks' Ryan Kesler annihilates us in NHL 2K11
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
