HFBoards Player Discussion: Karl Alzner
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Please do not post or solicit links to illegal game streams.

Karl Alzner

07-17-2017, 08:09 AM
#101
NotProkofievian
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by One Less Louise We needed a better goal differential. Believe it or not some teams have won playoffs series scoring fewer goals than we did against the NYR. Obviously the bigger and easier improvement to make is by boosting offense but if Emelin/Markov/Beaulieu don't make mistakes left and right... perhaps we win against NYR.
Going to go ahead and disagree with you here. We need more goals. First, it's very difficult to give up fewer goals against than we did this season, or than we did in the series against the rangers against playoff opposition with any kind of repeatability. Given that we had so much trouble scoring against quality opposition last year, and that we let in so few goals, from a ''principle of limiting returns'' perspective the move seems obvious: strengthen your weakness.

From a less obvious perspective, let's assume that a team's GF against any other team is going to converge to the average against a representative sample: say, against playoff teams, or teams below a certain GAA. Then a team's GF/GA is going to converge towards GF1/GF2, where GF1 is their own GF against representative teams, and GF2 is that of their opponents. For the same difference between GF1 and GF2, the team with the smaller GF will win a greater percentage of games and series the larger their GF is.

This is because of integer effects: you can't score fractional number of goals. What happens is that you let in/score a certain number of goals a different proportion of the time. Try as you may, your team's GAA will not be too much lower than 2 the longer your sample runs. That directly affects how many times your team lets in a certain number of goals: say 2. If your team lets in 2 goals, that's a huge deal because your team now needs to score 3 to win, which is actually way less likely of an even than scoring 2 is. It doesn't really matter if your GAA is 1.86 or 1.95, you're going to have to face the reality of scoring 3 to win roughly the same amount of the time. Thus, your best bet is to increase the likelihood of that happening. For us, it just wasn't that likely.

07-17-2017, 08:24 AM
#102
No Team Needed
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 7,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by le_sean To be fair, Schlemko does produce at a 25 point per season pace, so he can definitely replace Beaulieu. The issue is Markov. I don't know why people bring up Beaulieu like he was some kind of huge loss. He's in this Eller realm of fans continuously waiting for an offensive break out that's not going to happen. He is what he is. It's because of limited IQ in both cases.
That's fine. But replace him. Schlemko is a journeyman. 18 points in 62 games. That's not an improvement on Beaulieu.

And if they lose Markov that's more offence on the back end to replace. And even if Markov comes back this team needs to think about who his long term replacement will be. Beaulieu doesn't look like he could be that, but he was still a puck moving LD which had 28 points in 74 games. This club is now banking on Jerabek. That's scary.

 07-17-2017, 08:24 AM #103 DAChampion Registered User     Join Date: May 2011 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Country: Posts: 16,126 vCash: 500 Part if the reason the Have defense made so many mistakes in New York is that the latter dominated the games. The Rangers would enter the Have zone effortlessly, and they would keep the Habs out of their own zone effortlessly as well. This exposes the Java defense to more situations, and thus the odds of mistakes increase. If the Habs forwards had had the ability to gain the offensive zone, the Rangers dmen would have been the ones making mistakes.
07-17-2017, 01:50 PM
#104
SouthernHab
Go Habs Go!

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country:
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NotProkofievian Going to go ahead and disagree with you here. We need more goals. First, it's very difficult to give up fewer goals against than we did this season, or than we did in the series against the rangers against playoff opposition with any kind of repeatability. Given that we had so much trouble scoring against quality opposition last year, and that we let in so few goals, from a ''principle of limiting returns'' perspective the move seems obvious: strengthen your weakness. From a less obvious perspective, let's assume that a team's GF against any other team is going to converge to the average against a representative sample: say, against playoff teams, or teams below a certain GAA. Then a team's GF/GA is going to converge towards GF1/GF2, where GF1 is their own GF against representative teams, and GF2 is that of their opponents. For the same difference between GF1 and GF2, the team with the smaller GF will win a greater percentage of games and series the larger their GF is. This is because of integer effects: you can't score fractional number of goals. What happens is that you let in/score a certain number of goals a different proportion of the time. Try as you may, your team's GAA will not be too much lower than 2 the longer your sample runs. That directly affects how many times your team lets in a certain number of goals: say 2. If your team lets in 2 goals, that's a huge deal because your team now needs to score 3 to win, which is actually way less likely of an even than scoring 2 is. It doesn't really matter if your GAA is 1.86 or 1.95, you're going to have to face the reality of scoring 3 to win roughly the same amount of the time. Thus, your best bet is to increase the likelihood of that happening. For us, it just wasn't that likely.
6 of the 8 Habs DMen were a - (minus) during the 6 game playoffs.

On offense, Beaulieu, Emelin and Markov each had 1 point.

So what offense did we lose in trading/losing/not signing those 3 DMen?

The Habs needed better defense from the DMen on last season's team. And Bergevin addressed that issue.

 07-17-2017, 02:14 PM #105 DangerDave Leptit prince et moi     Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: T.O Country: Posts: 3,730 vCash: 500 I'll reserve judgment on this til I see him play. It wasn't long ago that Alzner was regarded as one of the best defensive minded dmen. If we get vintage Alzner, we made a great signing. Hes just entering his prime too so its not like we signed a guy who's career is on the downside
07-17-2017, 02:25 PM
#106
NotProkofievian
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab 6 of the 8 Habs DMen were a - (minus) during the 6 game playoffs. On offense, Beaulieu, Emelin and Markov each had 1 point. So what offense did we lose in trading/losing/not signing those 3 DMen? The Habs needed better defense from the DMen on last season's team. And Bergevin addressed that issue.
Let me boil down that post for you: we need more goals.

And no, Bergevin didn't address that issue.

07-17-2017, 02:37 PM
#107
Captain Wolverine
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country:
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab 6 of the 8 Habs DMen were a - (minus) during the 6 game playoffs. On offense, Beaulieu, Emelin and Markov each had 1 point. So what offense did we lose in trading/losing/not signing those 3 DMen? The Habs needed better defense from the DMen on last season's team. And Bergevin addressed that issue.
Ignoring the fact that making decisions in an offseason on a six game sample size, even the playoffs, is a monumentally stupid way to run a team, defensemen do more than just defend, just as forwards do more than score. Montreal had a definite problem creating scoring chances in the offensive zone and dealing with quick puck movement and speedy forwards in the defensive zone. They addressed neither of those areas in the offseason.

And if we are going to only look at the playoffs, Montreal had GA/G of 2.5 in the playoffs, good for 6th. They scored a paltry 1.83 G/G, good enough for 3rd worst. Considering the law of diminishing returns, improving defense from D-men is the absolutely wrong way to look at this team, because it'll cost more to improve less.

07-17-2017, 02:56 PM
#108
WeThreeKings
DJ Salem

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country:
Posts: 54,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain Wolverine Ignoring the fact that making decisions in an offseason on a six game sample size, even the playoffs, is a monumentally stupid way to run a team, defensemen do more than just defend, just as forwards do more than score. Montreal had a definite problem creating scoring chances in the offensive zone and dealing with quick puck movement and speedy forwards in the defensive zone. They addressed neither of those areas in the offseason. And if we are going to only look at the playoffs, Montreal had GA/G of 2.5 in the playoffs, good for 6th. They scored a paltry 1.83 G/G, good enough for 3rd worst. Considering the law of diminishing returns, improving defense from D-men is the absolutely wrong way to look at this team, because it'll cost more to improve less.
"Alzner is a great defensive defenseman who cuts down shots in the scoring area!"
-stats show otherwise-
"Alzner wasn't the only one on the ice!"
-stats show that everyone playing with Alzner was dragged down-
"We needed to let in less goals in the playoffs!!"
-ignores that we continue to average 1.8 goals per game in the playoffs-
"at least Alzner is in his prime!"
-ignores the articles where he and his wife are quoted directly talking about how he can't open jars at home-

It doesn't matter what you say.

07-17-2017, 03:19 PM
#109
Runner77
******************

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 19,312
vCash: 3740
Quote:
 Originally Posted by WeThreeKings "Alzner is a great defensive defenseman who cuts down shots in the scoring area!" -stats show otherwise- "Alzner wasn't the only one on the ice!" -stats show that everyone playing with Alzner was dragged down- "We needed to let in less goals in the playoffs!!" -ignores that we continue to average 1.8 goals per game in the playoffs- "at least Alzner is in his prime!" -ignores the articles where he and his wife are quoted directly talking about how he can't open jars at home- It doesn't matter what you say.
Reading this thread, the salient theme is that there are two Alzners.

There is the real Alzner. A defensive defenceman who got too much term and money and who only became an option for Bergevin once he caused his whole LHD flank to be gutted.

And then there is that other Alzner to whom people are ascribing abilities and feats of performance that don't quite seem to jive with the type of player he is. Call him, his Alzner Ego.

07-17-2017, 03:30 PM
#110
SouthernHab
Go Habs Go!

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country:
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain Wolverine Ignoring the fact that making decisions in an offseason on a six game sample size, even the playoffs, is a monumentally stupid way to run a team, defensemen do more than just defend, just as forwards do more than score. Montreal had a definite problem creating scoring chances in the offensive zone and dealing with quick puck movement and speedy forwards in the defensive zone. They addressed neither of those areas in the offseason. And if we are going to only look at the playoffs, Montreal had GA/G of 2.5 in the playoffs, good for 6th. They scored a paltry 1.83 G/G, good enough for 3rd worst. Considering the law of diminishing returns, improving defense from D-men is the absolutely wrong way to look at this team, because it'll cost more to improve less.
Ignoring Markov with very little left in the tank for the playoffs is more stupid. Beaulieu's defensive brain farts countered his success? on offense. And Emelin, while I liked his hitting, can be replaced.

I agree. We need more offense. Bringing back Markov doesn't solve that problem because he wants the Habs to pay him \$6 million. Which would totally eliminate any chance for bring in a top 6 C.

07-17-2017, 03:34 PM
#111
SouthernHab
Go Habs Go!

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country:
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by WeThreeKings "Alzner is a great defensive defenseman who cuts down shots in the scoring area!" -stats show otherwise- "Alzner wasn't the only one on the ice!" -stats show that everyone playing with Alzner was dragged down- "We needed to let in less goals in the playoffs!!" -ignores that we continue to average 1.8 goals per game in the playoffs- "at least Alzner is in his prime!" -ignores the articles where he and his wife are quoted directly talking about how he can't open jars at home- It doesn't matter what you say.
You don't think Alzner can be better in Montreal?

Who would have thought PK could transform into the top shutdown D for Nashville. His expectations were with offensive output, not defense.

07-17-2017, 03:44 PM
#112
Captain Wolverine
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country:
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab Ignoring Markov with very little left in the tank for the playoffs is more stupid. Beaulieu's defensive brain farts countered his success? on offense. And Emelin, while I liked his hitting, can be replaced. I agree. We need more offense. Bringing back Markov doesn't solve that problem because he wants the Habs to pay him \$6 million. Which would totally eliminate any chance for bring in a top 6 C.
Markov with very little left in the tank>relying soley on Jerabek being and amazing 1st pair caliber D.
Markov with very little left in the tank>any UFA out there.
Markov with very little left in the tank>likely trade targets.

I think Beaulieu was bad asset management, but Schlemko is a savvy replacement.

Emelin is irrelevant to the more offense situation.

There isn't a better option for Montreal to bring in at center than just playing Galchenyuk there. Duchene is a similar player than Montreal doesn't have the pieces for. And Tavares isn't going to be traded in the offseason since the Islanders are basically focusing on trying to make him happy with all their moves. If Montreal is going to improve or even stay stagnant in a a division that mostly got worse, then they need to replace Markov's offense, ice-time and playmaking ability.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab You don't think Alzner can be better in Montreal? Who would have thought PK could transform into the top shutdown D for Nashville. His expectations were with offensive output, not defense.
PK has always been an elite two-way D-man. He was basically the same he was in Nashville as he was in Montreal. His very rare brain farts just didn't get insane media coverage. That, an injury, and less ice-time is the major differences between him in Montreal and Nashville.

07-17-2017, 03:53 PM
#113
SouthernHab
Go Habs Go!

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country:
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain Wolverine Markov with very little left in the tank>relying soley on Jerabek being and amazing 1st pair caliber D. Markov with very little left in the tank>any UFA out there. Markov with very little left in the tank>likely trade targets. I think Beaulieu was bad asset management, but Schlemko is a savvy replacement. Emelin is irrelevant to the more offense situation. There isn't a better option for Montreal to bring in at center than just playing Galchenyuk there. Duchene is a similar player than Montreal doesn't have the pieces for. And Tavares isn't going to be traded in the offseason since the Islanders are basically focusing on trying to make him happy with all their moves. If Montreal is going to improve or even stay stagnant in a a division that mostly got worse, then they need to replace Markov's offense, ice-time and playmaking ability. PK has always been an elite two-way D-man. He was basically the same he was in Nashville as he was in Montreal. His very rare brain farts just didn't get insane media coverage. That, an injury, and less ice-time is the major differences between him in Montreal and Nashville.
The Habs don't need to swing for the fences at C this offseason. Duchene is overrated and Tavares is a pipe dream.

All the Habs need is a Top 6 Center who is better offensively than Pleks.

Last season's playoffs, we had a Chucky still not 100% from injury, a declining Pleks and a rookie Danault.

 07-17-2017, 03:57 PM #114 HabsFanJosh Registered User   Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 255 vCash: 500 Maybe we should consider the switch in systems. MT needed PMDs to play his system a little more effectively, whereas CJ is going to have the team work on 5 man breakouts, in which case we just need dmen who can regain control of the puck and make short accurate passes to help our forwards breakout. This may all end up working really well.
07-17-2017, 04:00 PM
#115
NotProkofievian
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab The Habs don't need to swing for the fences at C this offseason. Duchene is overrated and Tavares is a pipe dream. All the Habs need is a Top 6 Center who is better offensively than Pleks. Last season's playoffs, we had a Chucky still not 100% from injury, a declining Pleks and a rookie Danault.
Where do you imagine a center who supercedes the low bar of ''better offensively than Pleks'' will get us? If you're not prepared to say ''to being a contender'' then why do the habs ''need'' it?

07-17-2017, 04:09 PM
#116
Captain Wolverine
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country:
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HabsFanJosh Maybe we should consider the switch in systems. MT needed PMDs to play his system a little more effectively, whereas CJ is going to have the team work on 5 man breakouts, in which case we just need dmen who can regain control of the puck and make short accurate passes to help our forwards breakout. This may all end up working really well.
CJ isn't going to use his exact system in Boston, since it requires Centers to command the middle of the ice. Montreal doesn't have a Bergeron to control play down the middle. Even if Montreal plays in 5 man units, there going to need more mobility from the backend to allow for effect pressure in the offensive zone and quick, crisp movement in the neutral and offensive zones for entries and the cycle. And as of right now, only Petry can do all that for Montreal reliably.

07-17-2017, 04:19 PM
#117
HabsFanJosh
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain Wolverine CJ isn't going to use his exact system in Boston, since it requires Centers to command the middle of the ice. Montreal doesn't have a Bergeron to control play down the middle. Even if Montreal plays in 5 man units, there going to need more mobility from the backend to allow for effect pressure in the offensive zone and quick, crisp movement in the neutral and offensive zones for entries and the cycle. And as of right now, only Petry can do all that for Montreal reliably.
Good analysis. I guess I'm just not of the opinion that we employ a bunch of pylons who can't pass. Also, if either Jerabek or Morrow end up with Weber, then technically we'll have a "mobile" D on each pairing assuming Alzner - Petry and Schlemko - Benn.

07-17-2017, 04:21 PM
#118
LaP
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2012
Country:
Posts: 9,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by One Less Louise We needed a better goal differential. Believe it or not some teams have won playoffs series scoring fewer goals than we did against the NYR.
A playoff series? Yeah.

A cup? I would like a example of a team winning a cup lately while scoring less than 2 goals a game.

07-17-2017, 04:22 PM
#119
Jaynki
Toe2Toe

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HabsFanJosh Good analysis. I guess I'm just not of the opinion that we employ a bunch of pylons who can't pass. Also, if either Jerabek or Morrow end up with Weber, then technically we'll have a "mobile" D on each pairing assuming Alzner - Petry and Schlemko - Benn.
Weber in himself is a pretty mobile D, he didn't had trouble skating with anybody in this league this past season, despite playing with ****ing Emelin. Just because he don't carry the puck don't mean he don't have good mobility.

He even gave a ****ing rough times to the very quick William Nylander.

07-17-2017, 05:17 PM
#120
Captain Wolverine
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country:
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HabsFanJosh Good analysis. I guess I'm just not of the opinion that we employ a bunch of pylons who can't pass. Also, if either Jerabek or Morrow end up with Weber, then technically we'll have a "mobile" D on each pairing assuming Alzner - Petry and Schlemko - Benn.
God help us if Morrow gets first line minutes. MAYBE Jerabek can do it, but I'd bet against it.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jaynki Weber in himself is a pretty mobile D, he didn't had trouble skating with anybody in this league this past season, despite playing with ****ing Emelin. Just because he don't carry the puck don't mean he don't have good mobility. He even gave a ****ing rough times to the very quick William Nylander.
There's a difference between keeping up with someone in the defensive zone and having the mobility to create space for breakouts and create offense in the offensive zone. Weber wont get peat to often defensively, but he doesn't have the creativity and mobility of a Keith, Letang, Subban, Josi, Karlsson or Doughty. And unless you have a Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Malkin or Tavares, you need a D that can do that on both your top pairs. Maybe not an elite guy if you have Weber, but Jerabek or Alzner wont cut it.

07-17-2017, 05:28 PM
#121
SouthernHab
Go Habs Go!

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country:
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NotProkofievian Where do you imagine a center who supercedes the low bar of ''better offensively than Pleks'' will get us? If you're not prepared to say ''to being a contender'' then why do the habs ''need'' it?
Not sure why you phrased your question as you did.

The Habs need to improve, just like all 29 teams in the NHL (LV excluded) who didn't win need to improve to make a run at the Cup.

07-17-2017, 05:36 PM
#122
NotProkofievian
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab Not sure why you phrased your question as you did. The Habs need to improve, just like all 29 teams in the NHL (LV excluded) who didn't win need to improve to make a run at the Cup.
The habs need top end scoring talent that can produce when the going gets tough. Why? We can't get a lot of scoring chances, and when we do, we're terrible at finishing them. The habs need to solve this problem or they won't go anywhere in the playoffs.

We don't need another humdrum centerman for whom we have to stretch the definition of ''top 6 centerman.'' Why? It just doesn't get us anywhere.

07-17-2017, 07:04 PM
#123
Jaynki
Toe2Toe

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain Wolverine There's a difference between keeping up with someone in the defensive zone and having the mobility to create space for breakouts and create offense in the offensive zone. Weber wont get peat to often defensively, but he doesn't have the creativity and mobility of a Keith, Letang, Subban, Josi, Karlsson or Doughty. And unless you have a Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Malkin or Tavares, you need a D that can do that on both your top pairs. Maybe not an elite guy if you have Weber, but Jerabek or Alzner wont cut it.
Interesting point and analyse.

Weber was 1st for GA/60 and Alzner was top ten last season. To me, they are interesting as a first pair for the big minute and stability they will bring together, especially with Price behind. They both also have very good stats when it comes to first pass and zone exits. But the concern about creating space with speed for breakout is totally legitimate and we truly don't have the C to compensante. Let's see how they will play and adjust.

Your point is very interesting and i am curious to see if they will truly ''be stuck in their own zone'' honestly but i understand your concern. Winning puck battles and passing it up quick is another way of playing succesful transition D.

To me, Alzner is a presence that will benefit Weber because it will let him free to bring more offense at ES. Weber had to cover Emelin and Markov. He won't have to cover Alzner. I think we will see Weber be a lot more active in the o-zone, going to the net more when there is an opening, positioning for a shot, etc... I don't see him carrying the puck too much tho

07-17-2017, 09:10 PM
#124
WeThreeKings
DJ Salem

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country:
Posts: 54,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SouthernHab You don't think Alzner can be better in Montreal? Who would have thought PK could transform into the top shutdown D for Nashville. His expectations were with offensive output, not defense.
Lol, Subban didn't change in Nashville. That's ridiculous.

And no, I don't think Alzner could be better in Montreal. He was already playing in front of a top 3 goalie in the world, he had a better partner then he will have here and he will be insulated by a farrrr worse offense.

07-17-2017, 10:21 PM
#125
Captain Wolverine
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country:
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jaynki Interesting point and analyse. Weber was 1st for GA/60 and Alzner was top ten last season. To me, they are interesting as a first pair for the big minute and stability they will bring together, especially with Price behind. They both also have very good stats when it comes to first pass and zone exits. But the concern about creating space with speed for breakout is totally legitimate and we truly don't have the C to compensante. Let's see how they will play and adjust. Your point is very interesting and i am curious to see if they will truly ''be stuck in their own zone'' honestly but i understand your concern. Winning puck battles and passing it up quick is another way of playing succesful transition D. To me, Alzner is a presence that will benefit Weber because it will let him free to bring more offense at ES. Weber had to cover Emelin and Markov. He won't have to cover Alzner. I think we will see Weber be a lot more active in the o-zone, going to the net more when there is an opening, positioning for a shot, etc... I don't see him carrying the puck too much tho
Here's the problem with that analysis. We already have ample evidence that:

1) Weber's offensive game doesn't benefit from defensive defensemen. Weber (and the entire team's) offense was putrid when he was stuck with Emelin as a partner. And lest anyone use the excuse that Emelin sucks (assuming Alzner is much better), it was very much the same story the year before in the short amount of time he was separated from Josi. We know Weber. He's at his best when he has PMD partner. Josi, Suter, etc. Alzner isn't going to free Weber fundamentally change the way he has always played the game and take more chances than he usually does in the offensive zone. Especially since...

2) Alzner kills offense from his partners. Whether its been with Carlson or Niskanen or Green, Alzner has always dragged down the offense of his partner and their ability to apply pressure in the offensive zone. He'll be 29 at the beginning of the season and its even more ludicrous to expect him to change his game than it is to expect Weber to change his.

Also, Alzner and Weber have good first pass conversion percentages because they make the safe play. And in Alzner's case in particular its because he rarely makes the 1st pass out of the zone. His 1st pass is to his partner. They're good at exiting the zone, but that doesn't mean that the plays they start are going at gaining the offensive zone. Safe plays out lead to less space for forwards by design. Fewer odd-man rushes, less creating havok in the offensive zone and less zone entries. This has been by Bergevin's design and is a big part of his Canadiens. Safe plays at the expense of offense. Its not an approach I agree with, but its clearly the approach Bergevin wants to take.

Forum Jump