The Havlat and the have-nots

Jean Lefebvre
April 17 2009 09:38PM

iginla_jokinen Let’s start off by heaping a little praise on deserving parties.

Firstly, here’s an attaboy for the oh-so-prescient Kent Wilson for expressing his concern about Martin Havlat the day before the Blackhawks winger scorched the Flames for the tying and winning goals in Game 1. Havlat has had an odd career — his chronic injuries have sometimes made him unpopular with the guys who sign his cheques and his reckless use of the stick has often made him unpopular with opponents. But few have ever doubted his ability and after getting bashed for disappearing in the playoffs early in his Senators career, he now has 15 points in his 11 most recent springtime outings.

Next, a job-well-done to my former colleague Scott Cruickshank for publicly calling for the break-up of the Jarome Iginla-Olli Jokinen tandem. Who says the mainstream guys don’t have a clue? Having spent many a night next to Scott in a press box, I can promise you he’s no dummy when it comes to the subtler points of the game.

Iginla and Jokinen may have had six shots combined in Game 1, but there are a handful of Calgary forwards who turned in much better efforts in the opener, starting with the guy Scott figures should be playing next to No. 12, Daymond Langkow. Shades of earlier in the regular season when everyone was healthy, the best even-strength shifts in Game 1 typically featured the likes of Curtis Glencross, David Moss, Daymond Langkow, Rene Bourque and Craig Conroy, and far less frequently either Iginla or Todd Bertuzzi (and now Jokinen).

It’s still very hard to understand why Iginla, once an even-strength titan, has struggled so much in that situation this season. The inevitable decline of a well-miled 12-year veteran has been mentioned, but Iginla is still only 31 and his supreme conditioning has been well documented, so that’s a tough one to swallow. Whatever the explanation, past performance of the partnership suggests it would be smart to smoosh No. 12 and No. 22 together again in an effort to kick-start the Calgary captain.

A simplistic view of Game 1 is that the Blackhawks supporting cast, most notably Sammy Pahlsson and Andrew Ladd, matched the Flames’ secondary players while the Chicago stars, including Jonathan Toews and the aforementioned Havlat, badly outplayed Calgary’s marquee players. Especially with Robyn Regehr hurt, that obviously can’t happen if the Flames are to have a prayer in the series.

As it is, it looks like the Flaming-C bunch is in tough. One view of Game 1 is that the Flames had everything going their way until the eased off the gas and allowed the Blackhawks back into the game. Another outlook is that Chicago, with quite a few first-timers in the NHL playoffs, needed a period or so to shake off the nerves and that the second half of the game is more indicative of how the series will run the rest of the way. Theory B tends to be more persuasive, especially since none of the advocates for a potential Calgary series victory has made a particularly convincing argument, least of all Pierre McGuire.

Not to pick on the excitable TSN analyst, but when he starts popping veins in his forehead raving about Bertuzzi’s physical play and describing “eyes as big as silver dollars” as the Ol’ Cannoli Truck is lining up a check, it’s a pretty good reminder to take anything he says about teams with which you’re less familiar with a shaker of salt. By the way, the big hit that McGuire was raving about the other night proved to be Bertuzzi’s only collision of the game. No suprise, Bertuzzi averaged less than a hit a game during the regular season, which is why it should be mandatory for anyone using the term “power forward” to describe the brooding winger to make the quotation-mark sign with their fingers.

One last point, and that relates to the question of possible interference by Ladd on Miikka Kiprusoff on the OT winner. What’s amazing is that after seeing umpteen replays of a borderline call on such plays, there’s never a consensus on what the proper ruling should have been. Of course, that’s probably because there’s shocking inconsistency on how crease-crashing plays are called. There are so many rapid judgments that have to be made by the referees — Was the forward pushed? How hard did he try to avoid contact? Was there encroachment in the blue paint? Was there contact between invading forward and goalie? Was it the goalie who initiated the contact by coming out of his crease and into the path of the cruising opponent? Is the goalie embellishing the severity of the contact? — that it’s no wonder that everyone is always so confused. It’s also why the old zero-tolerance, no-toe-in-the-crease rule, no matter how much it was ridiculed, had some appeal — namely, it eliminated so much of the guesswork by the zebras.

Anyhow, as far as Game 2 is concerned, here are two marginally moronic predictions — the Blackhawks will have more than five shots on goal in the first period and Mike Keenan won’t have the temerity to use Anders Eriksson for nearly 23 minutes for a second straight game. Oh, and the Flames will score a power-play goal.

32a247e515fecc03210581093e1a5ee8
Lefebvre is in that awkward stage of hockey following -- old enough to fondly remember the Cleveland Barons and too set in his ways to accept charity points and games where there's a winner but apparently no loser. As a long-time ink-stained wretch, he's also a firm believer in the old Bobby Knight quote about journalists: "All of us learn to write in second grade, but most of us go on to better things."
Avatar
#1 merzer 131
April 17 2009, 11:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Good article Jean. I am so tired of Bertuzzi fans pumping his tire for his poor effort. Maguire on the other hand.....

BLECH

Good to have you back!

Avatar
#2 Jonathan Willis
April 18 2009, 02:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Great article Jean.

Avatar
#3 Lefebvre
April 18 2009, 08:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

In the interests of setting the record straight and giving credit where credit is due, it seems the one and only George Johnson posted the Flames Insider blog about breaking up Iginla and Jokinen, even though it was Scott Cruickshank's name on the entry.

In any event, the points still stand -- Scott knows his hockey (as does George, who also has a million firsthand stories about the inimitable Badger Bob Johnson) and it would be a good idea for Mike Keenan to try splitting up No. 12 and No. 21.

Avatar
#4 blade
April 18 2009, 09:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

PeeAir is hilarious

*in the I have no brain and am payed for my opinions and "insights" kinda way*

as this duo has been underperforming for quite some time now, it gives one pause as to what alternatives have been tried that showed some measure of usefulness and that seems to favor....... GlenX. I agree however that langkow or even conroy (who was solid in game one) need something of a look. Im sure all players, coaches and hangers on are aware of the doom that imposes itself on a 2-0 hawk series lead. Maybe thats just what this version of the flames needs, but I am hesitant to see that experiment through.

Ah well.... I have invested many a Saturday night with bated breath and a measure of anxiety....

Avatar
#5 Kent
April 18 2009, 10:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Good stuff Jean. And thanks for the kudos.

Jokinen certainly needs to be moved off the top line. He can't handle the kind of attention Iginla gets from tough checkers and defensemen. Even when he was putting up big numbers inf Florida he was relatively sheltered (it was soft match-ups and big PP minutes for him).

I think if Olli played between Moss and Glencross and against the Hawks third line, he could do some damage. I'd prbably put him on the point on the PP as well, as he excelled in that position as a Panther.

Avatar
#6 Chris
April 18 2009, 10:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Speaking of NHL inconsistancy, re Ladd in the crease: Why wasn't Camalleri suspended? Intent to injure is intent to injure period. Is the NHL saying it's okay to cheap shot opposing players if the game still hang in the balance? There are other ways to get justice though... the Hockey Gods had Havlat's back. (Next game Cammalleri's line mates had better have his.)

Avatar
#7 Lefebvre
April 18 2009, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Chris

Without degenerating into a lot of pro-Flames/anti-Flames rhetoric (especially since there's a pretty good chance Cammalleri and Havlat will both be with new teams next season), let's just say that in the grand scheme of things, NHLers would say that Marty Havlat still has quite a few more cheap shots owed to him based on his own track record.

Avatar
#8 blade
April 18 2009, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Lefebvre:

a "few" would be a nice way to phrase general NHL sentiment towards havlat.

Clearly squid didnt hit him anywhere near hard enough for my personal tastes, suspendable or not.

Avatar
#9 walkinvisible
April 18 2009, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

while i certainly commend keenan et al. for FINALLY conceding that the iggy and olli combo was a failure (and acknowledging that jokinen should be sheltered by two defensively sound wingers), having a 5 million dollar centreman on your third line does not look good on a GM...

in saying that, i sincerely hope that the demotion makes the coach look like a genius...

Avatar
#10 blade
April 18 2009, 03:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ walkinvisible:

Cammy / Langkow / Bertuzzi Glencross / Conroy / Iginla Jokinen / Moss / Bourque Nystrom / Boyd / Roy

Is this the stuff you refer to?

Avatar
#11 walkinvisible
April 18 2009, 04:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ blade:

well.... yeah pretty much. except that bourque and moss are the wingers and jokinen's the centre on that third line (and therefore who i'm clearly referring to...).

[and also ---i'm not sure where you're getting your lineup from but if roy plays tonight over lundmark/peters/dvdg on the fourth line, i'll be pretty effin' upset.]

Avatar
#12 Chris
April 18 2009, 04:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Lefebvre:

This isn't so much an Anti-Flame thing as general disgust with the NHL disciplinary track-record. The League says that they won't tolerate head shots; then they tolerate CERTAIN head shots. Why? All blatant intentional head shots submitted via video to the League should result in a manadatory 1 game minimum suspension. 2nd offence: a two gamer minimum and so on... Automatic, non-discretionary, and fair. Who is tired of watching guys like Jordin Tootoo head hunt with minimum consequence? Who is tired of watching the League hand out wierd descions weighted by the importance of the franchise and the profile of the player? How many times have players taken instegater penalties trying to defend a teammate... and the aggressor gets away clean. We have video; it should be used to clean this crap up. Oh, and I do like a tough brand of Hockey... But if players aren't allowed to police themselves, the League needs to do a better job.

Avatar
#13 blade
April 18 2009, 05:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

yah I guess its boyd, nystrom and lundmark..... no Roy.. thank christ!

Comments are closed for this article.