I recently finished "Searching for Bobby Orr" by Stephen Brunt. This is a book that leaves many varied impressions and is difficult to pin down. The title suggests the story of a search for Orr by the author, but instead it more reflects the author's frustration in writing a biography without access to either Bobby or anyone close to him. In the end his search for Bobby led to interviews, articles, game tapes, and a few people who either knew him long ago or were never on the inside.
In the final analysis this book is a sort of mirrored reflection of Bobby himself. There are moments of beautiful prose when Brunt waxes poetic about Orr on the ice. "... every rush is an improvisation, a jazz solo, a flight of the imagination." But there are also dull chapters about Bobby's years growing up, falling somewhere between a lifeless listing of people and events and a compelling story. The book, like Bobby, is at times mysterious and aloof. There are hints of a dark side to Bobby, but he never comes right out and says it. In the end I was left with many questions unanswered. When I put the book down after finishing it, I was struck by how oddly thought provoking it was for a biography. Brunt lays some pieces of the puzzle that is Bobby's life on the table and it is left up to the reader to make some sense of them. I may have to read the book again to put it all in perspective.
In many ways this book is about the changing times: the expansion of the NHL in the US and the rebirth of the players association, and the establishment of Canada's national identity with Hockey on the international stage -- with the story of Bobby and Alan Eagleson weaved throughout. For Bruins fans there are several chapters about the Big Bad Bruins and how Bobby was the nucleus about which the great Bruins teams of the early 70's was built.
I got the sense that most of the material in the book was gleamed from books and articles, or by watching tapes of Orr playing. I also had the sense that the author was so familiar with other books and articles that had been written about Orr, about the times, about the Bruins, and about the Eagle, that at times he seemed to leave out too much of the back story--as if we too must have already read these other works and they weren't worth repeating. Yet Brunt goes into detail about the Bruins teams and Stanley Cups as if the reader may not be familiar with who Bobby Orr is. In the end I wanted more--much more. Particularly about Bobby's relationship with Eagleson and Orr's life after Hockey. But there was precious little of either. Orr's life after Hockey is left for a few short paragraphs in the epilogue. Despite the warmed-over recollections of great moments on the ice, there is an odd darkness, a sorrow throughout this book, as if the author has come to see Bobby as a tragic figure.
The book builds to a final chapter, titled "Betrayal." Brunt's take on Orr going to Chicago may be of particular interest to Bruins fans. We were once told that Bobby left because Jacobs was too cheap. But Brunt begins by outlining the canonical story we've all heard since: the Bruins in fact offered Bobby 18% of the team and a fat contract to stay, but Eagleson never told him of it. Instead he told Bobby that the Bruins wanted to put him out to pasture because of his bad knee and steered him toward accepting a contract in Chicago where he was wanted and appreciated. But in his understated style Brunt suggests that this story is not true either. Instead, he suggests that the Bruins originally offered a part of the team but that the league would not allow it, so it came off the table. He also points out that this offer was widely reported in the papers and was no secret. After Bobby failed a key physical exam, the Bruins were faced with the prospect of a very expensive long term contract for a player who might not ever play again. So they backed off guaranteeing his salary. We are led to conclude that the Eagle may in fact have done Bobby a huge favor by getting him a lucrative long-term contract, basically after his playing days were over. Yet this money-driven decision came at a huge emotional cost.
But Betrayal goes on. Again, with little editorializing we are given some facts and more or less left to come to our own conclusions. Much of the chapter is about Bobby taking part in the Canada Cup, something that was orchestrated by Eagleson. It is Orr's chance to finally play for his country and his last hurrah. But his knee barely lasts the tournament. The chapter ends with this quote: "That's why I like him so much," Eagleson said, "He gave his career for his country." We are left wondering just who betrayed whom? Did the Eagle betray Bobby or was it the other way around? Perhaps the answer is the one the book presents: Orr and Eagleson betrayed each other after they no longer needed one another. But there is another betrayal only hinted at: Bobby's betrayal of his teammates, Boston, and the Bruins fans. It's the sports business and nobody really blames Bobby for going to Chicago, except, perhaps for one person: Bobby himself. Perhaps this is the true betrayal--a festering, personal betrayal that ultimately led to very hard feelings. But I am only guessing. In the epilogue the book concludes that this search for the real Bobby may never truly end.
"Searching for Bobby Orr" is for the most part an interesting read for those interested in Bobby's story. But it suffers from changes in tone as if it were written by three different people. And although the book doesn't expound conclusions by the author about some of the controversies surrounding Bobby, he leads the reader to some interesting conclusions of their own. But in the end, I am left wary of those conclusions because it is abundantly clear just how much has been left unsaid, particularly by Bobby himself.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Fickle (a rant)
I'll admit it up front: I'm a big fan of Tim Thomas and it would be heartbreaking for me to see him traded before he had a real chance to prove himself with the Bruins. Some might wonder how I could say that, given that he started for nearly all of last season and a big chunk of the one before. But I do not feel that the rest of the team played hard enough, consistently enough, or well enough to give him that chance last year. I saw every game played last season but 2. I watched carefully. I felt the ups and downs; remember both goaltenders struggling as the season began. I recall how the team seemed to be finally moving forward and how Timmy stepped up and stole game after game. I recall the long road trip that ended with a disaster in Nashville. I recall the tailspin that came after. I recall how time and again the defense would let a guy stand right in front of the net and leave Timmy out to dry. I recall the strings of close games where the B's could not score, and game after game lost by a single goal. And just when things started to look up again the trades came. I saw the heart of the squad (Premeau) go elsewhere and I saw a group of players lose any chance to become a team. And of course I watched every ugly game as they fell flat on their faces in their doomed playoff run.
The biggest highlight for the 2006-2007 Boston Bruins was the shootout. Savard loosened things up with his rally caps. Sturm showed that he really had a scoring touch. Kessel shined, becoming the closer. And Tim Thomas, free of his teammates to go one-on-one with the best goal scorers in the league proved that he had the competitiveness to beat them again and again. On a team where the defense was fickle, where the offense was fickle by failing to control the puck, where the coaches failed miserably to install some competitiveness and responsibility, Tim Thomas was not fickle. He showed up every night, night after night, and he made spectacular saves and stole games.
And yet, some fickle fans wanted him gone from the first week of the season. He's not a true No. 1 they said. When Thomas was stealing games and the media touted his big saves and the team seemed to be coming together before Xmas, they all shut up. But they were only biding their time. The first slip up, the first time the team's fortunes changed, and they were at it again. Thomas is not a true No. 1 goaltender, they chanted, as if saying it often enough would make it true. What did these people want? There is just no way you could blame the poor play of last season on the goaltending, unless perhaps you sat in a little room and looked at only the stats, never seeing a real game. What did these people want? I finally concluded that what they wanted was a "name" in goal. It didn't matter how good Timmy was. What mattered was his reputation. And since he'd come out of nowhere and played for a team that sucked Thomas didn't have one. A true No. 1 goaltender, it seems, is a goaltender whose name everyone recognizes, nothing more.
The fickle Boston media was more subtle. They didn't come right out and claim that the two-season winner of the seventh player award wasn't a true No. 1 goaltender. But whenever the subject of improving the team came up the articles all had a certain slant to them. Often it was merely speculated that Chiarelly was looking to improve the goaltending. Or when he said he wanted to improve in that area they assumed he meant Thomas, and not a backup. Regardless, as the summer came it was clear that the media wanted a "name" goaltender too. Giguerre would do, for instance.
And of course, Giguerre would be a great acquisition for the team, as would Kiprusoff and a few other of the top elite. But they were a pipe dream.
When it came time to make a move in the off season the first priority should have been to add a left wing to the top line to make it a true scoring threat, and to add some grit up front so the team could forecheck better, possess the puck, and not play in their own zone all night. But what did the fickle GM do? He made goaltending his No. 1 priority. And did he net Giguerre? Of course not. We get Fernandez, who in my estimation is at best simply on the same par as Thomas, and at worst is a head case who lacks the competitive edge that Thomas brings.
I hope that Chiarelly somehow gets around to doing something to put one decent scoring line on the ice next season. But the same fickle wags who complain that Timmy isn't a No. 1 also calmly talk about trading away Muzz, the teams top scorer. That, instead of simply adding a veteran winger to the already accomplished tandem of Murray and Savard.
I hope that Chiarelly trades Toivanen rather than Thomas. Because mark my words, if he sticks with Thomas and Fernandez, Timmy is going to win the No. 1 spot, and that would be fun to watch. I hope that Chiarelly holds on to Muzz and builds on what we have that already works rather than starting over yet again. If he doesn't, it will be another doomed season, another doomed coach and maybe I'll just tune in during the fall of 2008 and see what the new GM brings to the ice.
The biggest highlight for the 2006-2007 Boston Bruins was the shootout. Savard loosened things up with his rally caps. Sturm showed that he really had a scoring touch. Kessel shined, becoming the closer. And Tim Thomas, free of his teammates to go one-on-one with the best goal scorers in the league proved that he had the competitiveness to beat them again and again. On a team where the defense was fickle, where the offense was fickle by failing to control the puck, where the coaches failed miserably to install some competitiveness and responsibility, Tim Thomas was not fickle. He showed up every night, night after night, and he made spectacular saves and stole games.
And yet, some fickle fans wanted him gone from the first week of the season. He's not a true No. 1 they said. When Thomas was stealing games and the media touted his big saves and the team seemed to be coming together before Xmas, they all shut up. But they were only biding their time. The first slip up, the first time the team's fortunes changed, and they were at it again. Thomas is not a true No. 1 goaltender, they chanted, as if saying it often enough would make it true. What did these people want? There is just no way you could blame the poor play of last season on the goaltending, unless perhaps you sat in a little room and looked at only the stats, never seeing a real game. What did these people want? I finally concluded that what they wanted was a "name" in goal. It didn't matter how good Timmy was. What mattered was his reputation. And since he'd come out of nowhere and played for a team that sucked Thomas didn't have one. A true No. 1 goaltender, it seems, is a goaltender whose name everyone recognizes, nothing more.
The fickle Boston media was more subtle. They didn't come right out and claim that the two-season winner of the seventh player award wasn't a true No. 1 goaltender. But whenever the subject of improving the team came up the articles all had a certain slant to them. Often it was merely speculated that Chiarelly was looking to improve the goaltending. Or when he said he wanted to improve in that area they assumed he meant Thomas, and not a backup. Regardless, as the summer came it was clear that the media wanted a "name" goaltender too. Giguerre would do, for instance.
And of course, Giguerre would be a great acquisition for the team, as would Kiprusoff and a few other of the top elite. But they were a pipe dream.
When it came time to make a move in the off season the first priority should have been to add a left wing to the top line to make it a true scoring threat, and to add some grit up front so the team could forecheck better, possess the puck, and not play in their own zone all night. But what did the fickle GM do? He made goaltending his No. 1 priority. And did he net Giguerre? Of course not. We get Fernandez, who in my estimation is at best simply on the same par as Thomas, and at worst is a head case who lacks the competitive edge that Thomas brings.
I hope that Chiarelly somehow gets around to doing something to put one decent scoring line on the ice next season. But the same fickle wags who complain that Timmy isn't a No. 1 also calmly talk about trading away Muzz, the teams top scorer. That, instead of simply adding a veteran winger to the already accomplished tandem of Murray and Savard.
I hope that Chiarelly trades Toivanen rather than Thomas. Because mark my words, if he sticks with Thomas and Fernandez, Timmy is going to win the No. 1 spot, and that would be fun to watch. I hope that Chiarelly holds on to Muzz and builds on what we have that already works rather than starting over yet again. If he doesn't, it will be another doomed season, another doomed coach and maybe I'll just tune in during the fall of 2008 and see what the new GM brings to the ice.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Chiarelli's Mistakes
As far as I'm concerned the Chiarelli honeymoon ends today. When he announced that Dave Lewis was fired as head coach Peter Chiarelli said, "I made the assessment that his way wasn’t compatible with our guys." But why did it take a full season to figure that out? Why did he tell Lewis he had a job next year at the end of the season? Why, then, did he hire Lewis in the first place?
Chiarelli and Lewis planned a long-term rebirth for the Bruins last summer, but Chiarelli didn't stick to it. So either way you cut it, it's a mistake. Either Chiarelli made a mistake by hiring Lewis, or he made a mistake by firing him after only one season. But that wasn't his first mistake as Bruins GM, nor was it his first regarding the coaching job. Chiarelli's first mistake as GM came before he even took over officially. It came when he allowed Mike Sullivan to hang on in limbo long after he would have the chance to find another coaching job. In my opinion that was despicable. They say it's "just part of the game" but if you look at the winners around the league and elsewhere a hallmark is that they treat their personnel with respect. The Bruins haven't done that in many years, and I believe this more than anything else has gutted a once great team. I had hoped that the Chiarelli era would be different.
Chiarelli's next mistake? That would be to listen to those who think he should go after J. S. Giguere. The problem with the Bruins isn't goaltending--it isn't even lack of talent in general. I believe that if you put Tim Thomas in a Ducks uniform at the begiining of this season rather than in a spoked-B he'd have lifted the Stanley Cup. He's an excellent goaltender, but more importantly, he's a fierce competitor. Conversely, if you had put J.S. Giguere in a spoked-B the Bruins fans would be whining about how awful he turned out to be. Behind Thomas is Hannu Tiovanen who despite his very poor season has the skill and athletic ability to one-day carry a team deep into the playoffs. Maybe that day will come this season. And waiting in the wings is Rask, who is the highest-touted goaltender prospect out there. Assuming Giguere would even accept an offer to come to Boston (and he'd be an idiot if he did) it would come at a huge price and would be a colossal blunder.
So forget goaltending. As I see it the Bruins have two main problems: 1. the players don't believe in each other and are not motivated to play hard physically, and 2. the present makeup of the team isn't balanced enough. If we are lucky the new coach will solve problem 1. But it will take some very hard choices and some expert negotiating by the GM to solve problem 2 without giving away the farm. I believe the Bruins need more strength and grit up front. The only way to get that in short order may be to trade away some of the speed and skill. I don't mean trade Murray--he's the kind of player the B's need. I mean trade away Bochenski or even Bergeron. Because the biggest mistake the Bruins have made wasn't Chiarelli's--it was made in the post-lockout when a premium was placed on speed and skill over grit for the "new NHL." But the "new NHL," where speed and skill mattered most, did not last. Anaheim just proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Chiarelli and Lewis planned a long-term rebirth for the Bruins last summer, but Chiarelli didn't stick to it. So either way you cut it, it's a mistake. Either Chiarelli made a mistake by hiring Lewis, or he made a mistake by firing him after only one season. But that wasn't his first mistake as Bruins GM, nor was it his first regarding the coaching job. Chiarelli's first mistake as GM came before he even took over officially. It came when he allowed Mike Sullivan to hang on in limbo long after he would have the chance to find another coaching job. In my opinion that was despicable. They say it's "just part of the game" but if you look at the winners around the league and elsewhere a hallmark is that they treat their personnel with respect. The Bruins haven't done that in many years, and I believe this more than anything else has gutted a once great team. I had hoped that the Chiarelli era would be different.
Chiarelli's next mistake? That would be to listen to those who think he should go after J. S. Giguere. The problem with the Bruins isn't goaltending--it isn't even lack of talent in general. I believe that if you put Tim Thomas in a Ducks uniform at the begiining of this season rather than in a spoked-B he'd have lifted the Stanley Cup. He's an excellent goaltender, but more importantly, he's a fierce competitor. Conversely, if you had put J.S. Giguere in a spoked-B the Bruins fans would be whining about how awful he turned out to be. Behind Thomas is Hannu Tiovanen who despite his very poor season has the skill and athletic ability to one-day carry a team deep into the playoffs. Maybe that day will come this season. And waiting in the wings is Rask, who is the highest-touted goaltender prospect out there. Assuming Giguere would even accept an offer to come to Boston (and he'd be an idiot if he did) it would come at a huge price and would be a colossal blunder.
So forget goaltending. As I see it the Bruins have two main problems: 1. the players don't believe in each other and are not motivated to play hard physically, and 2. the present makeup of the team isn't balanced enough. If we are lucky the new coach will solve problem 1. But it will take some very hard choices and some expert negotiating by the GM to solve problem 2 without giving away the farm. I believe the Bruins need more strength and grit up front. The only way to get that in short order may be to trade away some of the speed and skill. I don't mean trade Murray--he's the kind of player the B's need. I mean trade away Bochenski or even Bergeron. Because the biggest mistake the Bruins have made wasn't Chiarelli's--it was made in the post-lockout when a premium was placed on speed and skill over grit for the "new NHL." But the "new NHL," where speed and skill mattered most, did not last. Anaheim just proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Above the Quiet There's no Buzz
"Years of silence, not enough
Who could blame us giving up?
Above the quiet there's a buzz
That's me trying" -- Nick Hornby
While that might well describe the team effort this season, it brings to mind something else: the Bruins buzz. There isn't any. Not even the tiniest whisper.
There was a time when the Bruins were on every hockey fan's mind, regardless of where they lived or who they rooted for. They were everyone's team. Some hated them, most loved them, and everyone was talking about them. The buzz was deafening.
At the time we all knew it was special. Some may have realized it would one day pass. But few would have predicted that it would one day fade into near silence.
Even the worst team in the league gets people talking, if only about how bad they are. But the Bruins now live in that nether world of obscurity between 8th place and the bottom. As far as the hockey world is concerned, the Bruins are simply forgotten. How else can you explain how one of the top five most talented and exciting players in the world, third in points behind only Crosby and Thornton, didn't make the cut for the all-star game? If you think about it, that's rather extraordinary.
The thing is you can't make the all star game without at least a little buzz.
Look at Pittsburgh last year. There was enormous buzz, even though they were pretty bad and rumored to be moving. People watched them just to see Sid the Kid. But nobody, and I mean nobody--watches the Bruins unless they bleed black and gold.
I don't usually play wannabe GM unless it's NHL '07, but I'd like to see some buzz. I know PC is working toward a Sabres kind of team that rolls three scoring lines. It seems he dreams of fast forwards swirling into the offensive zone and overwhelming the defense with their speed. And that may yet come in time. But until then, we need some buzz. Until then, we need something to get people talking about the Bruins again.
I think that thing could be a high-scoring first line. We already have two of the pieces. With Savard at center and Murray on right wing, all we need is a big-time, high-scoring power left winger. If we get one line scoring at league-leading levels--and with Savard we can--that would cause some buzz. And that buzz might spark the team. And that spark might bring back some pride. And with pride this team can make the playoffs.
Who could blame us giving up?
Above the quiet there's a buzz
That's me trying" -- Nick Hornby
While that might well describe the team effort this season, it brings to mind something else: the Bruins buzz. There isn't any. Not even the tiniest whisper.
There was a time when the Bruins were on every hockey fan's mind, regardless of where they lived or who they rooted for. They were everyone's team. Some hated them, most loved them, and everyone was talking about them. The buzz was deafening.
At the time we all knew it was special. Some may have realized it would one day pass. But few would have predicted that it would one day fade into near silence.
Even the worst team in the league gets people talking, if only about how bad they are. But the Bruins now live in that nether world of obscurity between 8th place and the bottom. As far as the hockey world is concerned, the Bruins are simply forgotten. How else can you explain how one of the top five most talented and exciting players in the world, third in points behind only Crosby and Thornton, didn't make the cut for the all-star game? If you think about it, that's rather extraordinary.
The thing is you can't make the all star game without at least a little buzz.
Look at Pittsburgh last year. There was enormous buzz, even though they were pretty bad and rumored to be moving. People watched them just to see Sid the Kid. But nobody, and I mean nobody--watches the Bruins unless they bleed black and gold.
I don't usually play wannabe GM unless it's NHL '07, but I'd like to see some buzz. I know PC is working toward a Sabres kind of team that rolls three scoring lines. It seems he dreams of fast forwards swirling into the offensive zone and overwhelming the defense with their speed. And that may yet come in time. But until then, we need some buzz. Until then, we need something to get people talking about the Bruins again.
I think that thing could be a high-scoring first line. We already have two of the pieces. With Savard at center and Murray on right wing, all we need is a big-time, high-scoring power left winger. If we get one line scoring at league-leading levels--and with Savard we can--that would cause some buzz. And that buzz might spark the team. And that spark might bring back some pride. And with pride this team can make the playoffs.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
An Embarrasing Win in Ottawa
With most Bruins fans either getting ready for baseball or talking about next year, I thought I'd write a few words about the Ottawa game. The Bruins are following the classic struggling team form by rebounding from a string of losses in important games to beat a hot team, now that the pressure to succeed is gone. Of course, every win from now on in only hurts their draft position, which is pretty funny. Unless you are a Sens fan! Losing to the Bruins at home must have been rather embarrasing!
A couple of notes:
I miss Muzz and PJ. Sometimes I look at the roster and think, "who are these guys?"
It was nice to see Chara smile again.
I think Wideman has really come along in the last few games. He's been hitting more than I expected and he seems pretty good at it.
MacDonald has been a very pleasant surprise. After how poorly Toivanen and Finley fared when thrown into the Bruins defensive grinder he's been impressive!
Jeremy Reich. Wow. Can we order three more of him, one for each line? Please?
A couple of notes:
I miss Muzz and PJ. Sometimes I look at the roster and think, "who are these guys?"
It was nice to see Chara smile again.
I think Wideman has really come along in the last few games. He's been hitting more than I expected and he seems pretty good at it.
MacDonald has been a very pleasant surprise. After how poorly Toivanen and Finley fared when thrown into the Bruins defensive grinder he's been impressive!
Jeremy Reich. Wow. Can we order three more of him, one for each line? Please?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Post Mortem Part 1 -- The Bad
With the season all but over I've been doing some reflecting. I recently read with interest what Ference had to say to the Herald on March 22. I listened to Kevin Paul Dupont expound. What they both said seemed to gel with what I have been thinking myself.
First to the question I have been struggling with: is there really anything wrong? Many say that's obvious given the fact that they didn't make the playoffs or even mount a halfway decent attempt at a playoff run. But for a team that is new from top to bottom, much like an expansion franchise, it really isn't fair to expect the playoffs in the first year. So again, is there something deeply wrong?
A lot of the less patient fans began griping about the Bruins way back in the fall. The goaltending isn't good enough, they said. York and Dempsey sucked, they said. I advised patience, particularly about the goaltending. Since then we've seen a lot of games and we've seen a team that struggled badly early-on improve. Thomas went on to prove he is a very capable No. 1 goaltender who can steal games, although not every night. The power play and penalty kill are two areas where the coaching staff has definitely had a positive impact. The power play in particular has really excelled. This team began the season quite capable of taking 5 penalties per period. That number has come down. So it is tempting to simply say this was a rebuilding year and that next year will be better. But again, is that a reasonable expectation or is there something seriously wrong?
The game that summed up the season for me was the last home game against the Habs. The Bruins came out on fire in the first period, dominating physically and emotionally. Kessell and his line scored the first goal out of pure hustle. It stood in stark contrast to the rest of the season, which looked flaccid in comparison. Chara finally used his size to stand up players at the blue line and didn't hold off on the boards like he was afraid to hurt someone. In fact, their second goal came moments after he made a huge hit in the offensive zone. Finally, the Bruins had awakened! Perhaps in time to make the playoffs (a long shot), but definitely in time to beat the Habs at home, which should always be a moment of pride for any player who dons the spoked B.
But as the second period started the edge slowly came off their play. The hits became less brutal. The hustle faded. The tide turned and by the 3rd the Habs were dominating the play.
As the guys on Mythbusters would say, "Well there's your problem!"
Since before Christmas we've heard Dave Lewis sing the same song. The players have to pay the price. But by and large they never did, or at least when they did, they didn't do it consistently. Looking back, it was like each player only felt he had to prove himself for a period here, and a shift there. But when, I ask, did the team ever prove itself? The answer is they never really did. And that I believe, is two problems: inconsistent play from every player (except Thomas, Savard, Murray and Axelsson). And a lack of pride in, feeling of belonging to, and ultimately a responsibility to--a team.
So back to the question, can we expect these serious problems to be solved by this time next year?
Fans have been complaining about Lewis starting early last fall. I've heard the complaints so many times: he doesn't let the kids have a chance to play, he doesn't keep the lines together consistently, he instructs the team to go into a defensive shell at the wrong moments, he benches players who are playing well in favor of those who aren't, and he doesn't use his time outs properly. Many fans read these things so often they stop questioning them, accepting them as fact. But I think those complaints are all nonsense. If true we'd have to believe Lewis is completely stupid and knows half as much about hockey as the typical fan. I don't think that very likely. In fact, considering that he identified the main problem with this team months ago, I'd say he knows exactly what he's doing. In fact, I think many of these things fans complain about are signs of Lewis struggling for ways to motivate and hold accountable the players. But after a full season the bottom line is: it's not working!
I don't know whether or not Lewis can make the players accountable next season or not. It's up to Chiarelly to decide that. If Lewis sticks around look for the gloves to come off the coaching staff next season. Look for real accountability. Look for stars like Bergeron to sit on the bench. Look for the players to be bitter about the way the coaches treat them. If by Christmas we are still seeing spotty efforts by individual players then in my opinion Lewis will have failed.
As for the team problem, I doubt any coach can fix that--not in a year or even two. Before the beginning of last season when Bruins fans were excited about their new team, I read a comment by a journalist (I forget who) that at the time infuriated me. He said that the, "Bruins have forgotten how to win." I was incensed because how could a team that had been rebuilt from top to bottom be categorized like that before they even had a chance to play? I think I see now what he meant and he was right. What I failed to realize is that winning as an institution isn't something that any random group of people can accomplish out of the starting block. Learning to be a winner takes time and effort and continuity. So of course they have forgotten how to win.
In my opinion, the downfall of this team began with the loss to the Habs in the first round in 2004. It was the culmination of O'Connell's work and it wasn't good enough. Then came the lockout, where the strategy of the owner was to gut much of the team and start over. The final nail in the coffin was the "new NHL" with its promise of players free-wheeling around unhindered, a low contact high-scoring affair like an all-star game. No team bought into the "new NHL" like the Bruins did. A premium was placed on speed and skill. The players themselves, particularly Joe Thornton, bought into it. Much of this "new NHL" was a mirage, even in its first year. And now that the "new NHL" once again looks very much like the old one, where emotion and courage and grit and physical play can still trump skill, the Bruins will have to get bigger and badder again in order to get back their winning ways.
The fact is, Jacob's lockout strategy destroyed our Bruins. They are gone. That link to successful teams of the past is broken and will never come back. They will have to find a way to forge a new culture of winning, and unfortunately that could take many years.
Next time: Part 2 -- The Good
First to the question I have been struggling with: is there really anything wrong? Many say that's obvious given the fact that they didn't make the playoffs or even mount a halfway decent attempt at a playoff run. But for a team that is new from top to bottom, much like an expansion franchise, it really isn't fair to expect the playoffs in the first year. So again, is there something deeply wrong?
A lot of the less patient fans began griping about the Bruins way back in the fall. The goaltending isn't good enough, they said. York and Dempsey sucked, they said. I advised patience, particularly about the goaltending. Since then we've seen a lot of games and we've seen a team that struggled badly early-on improve. Thomas went on to prove he is a very capable No. 1 goaltender who can steal games, although not every night. The power play and penalty kill are two areas where the coaching staff has definitely had a positive impact. The power play in particular has really excelled. This team began the season quite capable of taking 5 penalties per period. That number has come down. So it is tempting to simply say this was a rebuilding year and that next year will be better. But again, is that a reasonable expectation or is there something seriously wrong?
The game that summed up the season for me was the last home game against the Habs. The Bruins came out on fire in the first period, dominating physically and emotionally. Kessell and his line scored the first goal out of pure hustle. It stood in stark contrast to the rest of the season, which looked flaccid in comparison. Chara finally used his size to stand up players at the blue line and didn't hold off on the boards like he was afraid to hurt someone. In fact, their second goal came moments after he made a huge hit in the offensive zone. Finally, the Bruins had awakened! Perhaps in time to make the playoffs (a long shot), but definitely in time to beat the Habs at home, which should always be a moment of pride for any player who dons the spoked B.
But as the second period started the edge slowly came off their play. The hits became less brutal. The hustle faded. The tide turned and by the 3rd the Habs were dominating the play.
As the guys on Mythbusters would say, "Well there's your problem!"
Since before Christmas we've heard Dave Lewis sing the same song. The players have to pay the price. But by and large they never did, or at least when they did, they didn't do it consistently. Looking back, it was like each player only felt he had to prove himself for a period here, and a shift there. But when, I ask, did the team ever prove itself? The answer is they never really did. And that I believe, is two problems: inconsistent play from every player (except Thomas, Savard, Murray and Axelsson). And a lack of pride in, feeling of belonging to, and ultimately a responsibility to--a team.
So back to the question, can we expect these serious problems to be solved by this time next year?
Fans have been complaining about Lewis starting early last fall. I've heard the complaints so many times: he doesn't let the kids have a chance to play, he doesn't keep the lines together consistently, he instructs the team to go into a defensive shell at the wrong moments, he benches players who are playing well in favor of those who aren't, and he doesn't use his time outs properly. Many fans read these things so often they stop questioning them, accepting them as fact. But I think those complaints are all nonsense. If true we'd have to believe Lewis is completely stupid and knows half as much about hockey as the typical fan. I don't think that very likely. In fact, considering that he identified the main problem with this team months ago, I'd say he knows exactly what he's doing. In fact, I think many of these things fans complain about are signs of Lewis struggling for ways to motivate and hold accountable the players. But after a full season the bottom line is: it's not working!
I don't know whether or not Lewis can make the players accountable next season or not. It's up to Chiarelly to decide that. If Lewis sticks around look for the gloves to come off the coaching staff next season. Look for real accountability. Look for stars like Bergeron to sit on the bench. Look for the players to be bitter about the way the coaches treat them. If by Christmas we are still seeing spotty efforts by individual players then in my opinion Lewis will have failed.
As for the team problem, I doubt any coach can fix that--not in a year or even two. Before the beginning of last season when Bruins fans were excited about their new team, I read a comment by a journalist (I forget who) that at the time infuriated me. He said that the, "Bruins have forgotten how to win." I was incensed because how could a team that had been rebuilt from top to bottom be categorized like that before they even had a chance to play? I think I see now what he meant and he was right. What I failed to realize is that winning as an institution isn't something that any random group of people can accomplish out of the starting block. Learning to be a winner takes time and effort and continuity. So of course they have forgotten how to win.
In my opinion, the downfall of this team began with the loss to the Habs in the first round in 2004. It was the culmination of O'Connell's work and it wasn't good enough. Then came the lockout, where the strategy of the owner was to gut much of the team and start over. The final nail in the coffin was the "new NHL" with its promise of players free-wheeling around unhindered, a low contact high-scoring affair like an all-star game. No team bought into the "new NHL" like the Bruins did. A premium was placed on speed and skill. The players themselves, particularly Joe Thornton, bought into it. Much of this "new NHL" was a mirage, even in its first year. And now that the "new NHL" once again looks very much like the old one, where emotion and courage and grit and physical play can still trump skill, the Bruins will have to get bigger and badder again in order to get back their winning ways.
The fact is, Jacob's lockout strategy destroyed our Bruins. They are gone. That link to successful teams of the past is broken and will never come back. They will have to find a way to forge a new culture of winning, and unfortunately that could take many years.
Next time: Part 2 -- The Good
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Throttle
I've been thinking about the 2006-2007 Bruins and although they have come a long way since the start of the season, overcoming a host of problems, it seems to me that they have consistently been plagued by one major difficulty throughout: throttle control.
No team can play every shift of every game at 100% throttle for 82+ games. There are natural ups and down during the season, and during each game.
I often wonder if individual players don't know, somewhere in the back of their minds, that if they go flat out every shift that they run the risk of sitting out much of the season with injury.
So when do you coast a bit? And when do you turn it on? As a team fighting for a playoff berth, as a team fighting for momentum in a game, and as a player.
Early in the season this was an obvious problem during games. They lacked confidence in everything from the system to each other to their place on the team and it really showed. One of the ways it showed was that they were clueless as a unit when to take it to the other team. Another way it showed was their reaction to another team turning up the heat on them, often utterly collapsing when pressed in their own zone. And another was their reaction to truly getting beat; I don't think it was coincidence that their big slide happened after the Nashville game. After the game the coach seemed perplexed. He said that they had played well. Yet they clearly had their asses handed to them! I think that game led to a team meltdown.
As the season progressed they got better during games, sometimes taking it to another team when behind, and collapsing less and less in their own zone. But I think the problem is still there, it just isn't as obvious.
When the season started they'd come out at 75% throttle for two periods and then try to turn it up in the 3rd. But they soon discovered that it was often too late by then. Then they went through a time when they'd dominate the other team in the first period, only to give up the lead in the other periods. Unable to go 100% all the time, they seem to me to always be searching for that opportune moment to turn up their throttle.
Despite all the talk about momentum and coming out desperate in the first period, the Bruins came out just a bit tentative against both the Caps and the Rangers. They were able to fight back against the Caps, but the Rangers are a much better team. Why didn't they come out at full throttle? Why didn't they stand up on the blue line? Playing defense isn't rocket science! Just be brutal when the other team enters the zone! Poke checks are nice, but you sometimes have to make them pay the price.
From here on out it should be easy. Full throttle all of the time, from start to finish. And when a player enters your zone, for God's sake throttle him!
No team can play every shift of every game at 100% throttle for 82+ games. There are natural ups and down during the season, and during each game.
I often wonder if individual players don't know, somewhere in the back of their minds, that if they go flat out every shift that they run the risk of sitting out much of the season with injury.
So when do you coast a bit? And when do you turn it on? As a team fighting for a playoff berth, as a team fighting for momentum in a game, and as a player.
Early in the season this was an obvious problem during games. They lacked confidence in everything from the system to each other to their place on the team and it really showed. One of the ways it showed was that they were clueless as a unit when to take it to the other team. Another way it showed was their reaction to another team turning up the heat on them, often utterly collapsing when pressed in their own zone. And another was their reaction to truly getting beat; I don't think it was coincidence that their big slide happened after the Nashville game. After the game the coach seemed perplexed. He said that they had played well. Yet they clearly had their asses handed to them! I think that game led to a team meltdown.
As the season progressed they got better during games, sometimes taking it to another team when behind, and collapsing less and less in their own zone. But I think the problem is still there, it just isn't as obvious.
When the season started they'd come out at 75% throttle for two periods and then try to turn it up in the 3rd. But they soon discovered that it was often too late by then. Then they went through a time when they'd dominate the other team in the first period, only to give up the lead in the other periods. Unable to go 100% all the time, they seem to me to always be searching for that opportune moment to turn up their throttle.
Despite all the talk about momentum and coming out desperate in the first period, the Bruins came out just a bit tentative against both the Caps and the Rangers. They were able to fight back against the Caps, but the Rangers are a much better team. Why didn't they come out at full throttle? Why didn't they stand up on the blue line? Playing defense isn't rocket science! Just be brutal when the other team enters the zone! Poke checks are nice, but you sometimes have to make them pay the price.
From here on out it should be easy. Full throttle all of the time, from start to finish. And when a player enters your zone, for God's sake throttle him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
